The EU debate - Part III

Nope, it's about NOT changing the rules.

I don't have a problem with asylum seekers. After they reach a place of safety, they're no longer refugees, and there are systems in place that allow them to then seek asylum further afield.

I don't have a problem with migrants.

I do have a problem with people adding to the suffering of others by trying to short circuit the system.

 

Do you think that they consider Turkey a safe haven, considering it's co-operation with Russia in bombing the very place they are fleeing. I am sure that I and many people like would certainly not?

 

That doesn't go anywhere close to answering any of the questions I've asked you but you've managed to mug a like off of a failure who had to borrow money off his Polish girlfriend to keep the baliffs at bay.

Rule Britannia

 

Plenty seem okay to stay there, and others seem comfortable enough visiting there on the way back to the region.

Your argument is also a tad flawed, given this discussion started with the allegation that we were to blame, presumably because we're involved in the conflict too.

 

Brexit: May says Tusk letter justifies expat stance
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38156891

 

Your second paragraph seems to contradict your first. The second paragraph in particular is exactly what I was addressing in my initial post about the jews escaping Nazi Germany. Nobody said that to them.

 

I didn't think for a minute you'd answer, as you'd shoot your foot off if you tried.

 

Anyway... it could be carnage on here after the League Cup semi-final. I look forward to that. Mickey Phelan has already thrown down the gauntlet. We'll see you Hull boys later

 

Dull gets excited about the prospect of a three hour "debate"

 

I think you're mistake is comparing the plight of the jews with the people fleeing Syria.

A nearer example would be Europeans trying to escape the mainland or these Islands due to the conflict. Other than the jews, who were a specifically different issue, not many people left France or the UK for the US for example.

 

Why is my argument flawed? I am arguing that your definition of safe haven is almost certainly different to somebody who has been living in a war zone. It is impossible to deny that our historical and recent involvement in the wider Middle East conflict is a contributory factor.

 

It's flawed because the jews were in a very different situation than those currently heading for Europe.

I offered the better example, of the French, who were occupied and being bombed, and caught in the middle of a conflict. Did the men of fighting age leave their women and children flee to America, or did they either stay, perhaps in the underground, or got to the UK to join the free French fighters?

It seem to have focussed on Syria, which misses the large numbers from other areas of the world turning up at the borders.

 

I haven't mentioned the Jews fleeing Germany. You must be confused. Do you not realise that many of the people fleeing Syria had fled there already from other ME countries with war zones?

 

you really are off your tits!

 

It can't be that bad, Stan says him and his dad pop there regularly for holidays.

 

Standard.

 

We'd better hope Ireland doesn't have another potato famine or people won't be able to hide behind the notion that people must stop in the nearest 'safe' country. Convenient when we live on an island.

 

So Stan, how many war torn countries have you to had to flee from?

 

Seems to me most of this misses the point. Safety is a refugee camp where you are sheltered, fed, clothed and watered by the UN and charities. It is not a life for those who are used to working and supporting themselves. Trying to travel further with a family in harsh conditions with no means of support is impractical. The countries around Syria have either closed their borders (Jordan) because they are unable to cope with the numbers or they are in the midst of upheaval themselves (Iraq and Turkey).
Most stay and make a life in the neighbouring countries but there is too many so they are attracted to places that have low unemployment and plenty of work (Northern Europe).
I find it interesting that if a UK citizen sits at home and lives off the state then they are a scrounger, but our perception is refugees should stay put and be supported rather than look for work and a life.
I've been to the Tibetan refugee camps in Nepal and seen people like you and me who just want a future, they make and sell what they can whilst waiting until India, US or some other far flung country accepts them because Nepal decided it could take no more in 1989 due to the large influx.

 

Turkey is fine.
Lots of the people coming to Europe are from Pakistan and Iran and should be sent back.
You are getting plenty of "refugees" moaning about money and accommodation when they are sent to eastern European counties, so that goes to show what they really are.

Also Who would leave there family in a war zone so you can go look for safety, sounds like a coward would do that (Sad Stan), I would take my family with me we all go together.

By all means help genuine "refugees" but send the rest back home.