The EU debate - Part III

That'd liven up the Eurocrats

 

... this thread is getting way too personal .... please quite the references to Pete ... I'm almost starting to feel sorry for him ..

 

This is why everybody feels sorry for Newcastle
Hardly any Hull fans there because of protests about the owners, Hull striker has been sent off, Newcastle have just scored to be 1-0 up
What can possibly go wrong?
http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/spor...ws/brilliant-video-kcom-stadium-sums-12249958

 

You are doing it deliberately now......

 

No I'm not

 

Troll says something controversial. That's what she does, Pete.
You should hardly be surprised that The Mail are saying nice things about a dictator, anyway. They love them.

 

I'm going to guess that he had spam. Spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam and spam.

 

How can any of you ****s watch the news every evening, see what is happening in Syria and then say that it's not our problem, immigrants not welcome?

Another question that probably won't be answered.

 

Who says it's not our problem? Above that, it's humanities problem.

The issue tends to be the best way of helping those most in need as a consequence.

The most in need tend to be the poor, women and children, as they don't have the resources to travel across the world.

That means that the young military age males that can afford the smugglers fees and are clogging up the borders, are actually taking resources away from the vulnerable, and limiting the availability of people capable of actually defending the disadvantaged.

Surely it's better to assist people to avoid the risks associated with travelling long distances and being abused along the route by smugglers and other crooks, and to provide care and resources as close to their homeland as possible.

They cease to be in danger a long time before they reach EU, never mind our borders, they should then cease to qualify for asylum and are then subject to the same migrant rules as everyone else on the planet, except they're circumventing that.

 

At what point should they stop then?

 

Boris seems to be doing a good job http://news.sky.com/story/boris-johnson-supports-freedom-of-movement-in-brexit-10678355

 

The stupid, attention seeking twat was never pro Brexit.

 

I knew you'd be the first of the ****s to reply.

 

Depends which direction they head. Saudi, Qatar etc seem to have a similar culture and slack in the system, but above that, what happened to women and children first?

If I was in fear for my families safety, I wouldn't leave with all the rest that were capable of defending them.

Short answer to your question, which I believe is too narrow, but to save you banging on, they should stop when they're safe. That point tends to coincide with places where the west has sent a lot of finance and resources to create places where they can stay in safety.

 

Out of interest, how much time have you spent in the Middle East?

I'd ask the same question of Pete, but he's scared of Stan, and Kustard but he's admitted that he doesn't leave Kiddy.

 

All the refugees will end up in a very few countries then. That will be OK just as long as none of them get to the UK.

 

Do you mean refugees, or migrants, or asylum seekers?

Would you leave your wife, children and other vulnerable people in a place of danger?

 

In keeping with current trends, refugees means refugees

 

What are you implying about these men who risk their lives to get to a safe country that may allow them to arrange safe passage for their families?

If you don't want to answer the question then that's fine but don't bother going off on one of your time filling bore fests.

 

Then by your definition, you must agree that they stop once the find refuge. Once they travel on from their, they're no longer in a position of being forced to seek safety.