Off Topic The Politics Thread

[GoldhawkRoad]

Wasn't looking to bring the 'where are they going to' element into the equation. I was simply interested in your statement that people are choosing to leave, and (presumably) not being forced out due to the danger of living in a war zone. You didn't seem to make any distinction between those two very different cases, and seem to be suggesting that the only time we need to bother about helping refugees from a war zone is if the war happens right next door in France.

It's a big old world, mate, and personally I can't just choose to switch off compassion simply because they are further than the nearest border.

There's usually a choice about leaving, except in cases of ethnic cleansing such as we are seeing with the Rohingya Muslims in Burma. Londoners didn't vacate the city during the Blitz, or Germans Berlin. Where there is a more pressing need to find safety, refugees seeking asylum must do so in the first country they reach, except in exceptional circumstances. That's the ECJ ruling. That's why I applied the proximity test.

 

[West London Willy]

There's usually a choice about leaving, except in cases of ethnic cleansing such as we are seeing with the Rohingya Muslims in Burma. Londoners didn't vacate the city during the Blitz, or Germans Berlin. Where there is a more pressing need to find safety, refugees seeking asylum must do so in the first country they reach, except in exceptional circumstances. That's the ECJ ruling. That's why I applied the proximity test.

OK, so they get to Turkey, who refuses to take them in. What then? Should they shrug their shoulders and go back? Or press on to a country that WILL take them? and how many countries do they have to try before they turn back? Many of these people have no home to go back to, thanks to the combined efforts of Russia, the West, and ISIS. where do they go back to?

I agree that migrants who reach a safe country willing to take them in should take the offer. and that those who refuse the offer because they want to get to a particular place - and a place where they do not have family ties - should be treated as economic migrants from that point. and we ought to be able to distinguish between these and true refugees. But I don't think you can state the ECJ ruling as a blanket 'one border and no further' policy.

 

[Star of David Bardsley]

I don't mean to apply this to any individual but the whole 'stay in the first safe country' mantra is convenient when we live on an island.

 

[GoldhawkRoad]

OK, so they get to Turkey, who refuses to take them in. What then? Should they shrug their shoulders and go back? Or press on to a country that WILL take them? and how many countries do they have to try before they turn back? Many of these people have no home to go back to, thanks to the combined efforts of Russia, the West, and ISIS. where do they go back to?

I agree that migrants who reach a safe country willing to take them in should take the offer. and that those who refuse the offer because they want to get to a particular place - and a place where they do not have family ties - should be treated as economic migrants from that point. and we ought to be able to distinguish between these and true refugees. But I don't think you can state the ECJ ruling as a blanket 'one border and no further' policy.

You blame "the West" but make no mention of Assad's tyrannical regime in Syria?

The "first country of refuge" is EU law, plain and simple. Those who don't like it can lobby the ECJ or the Commission.

We've had children deliberately blown up at a pop concert by a Libyan. We've had Middle Eastern jihadis trying to stab as many people (mostly tourists) as they can on London Bridge. Last week, there was a real attempt at mass murder, the bomb potentially bigger than those home-grown jihadists on 7/7. That's why I say those limited number of refugees coming in from now on, need to be carefully vetted and monitored. Most will cause no problem, but you only need one or two, often easily influenced young men, to lead to the loss of many innocent lives. Far better to use our much misused Overseas Aid budget to fund safe camps close to where the problem is. Help Jordan for example, so that it does not struggle with numbers. Lobby and embarrass neighbouring countries like Saudi Arabia that will not help.

 

[West London Willy]

You blame "the West" but make no mention of Assad's tyrannical regime in Syria?

Sorry - were we talking about the refugees or the perpetrators? I wasn't just talking about Syria, nor - I suspect - were you, seeing as you then go on to mention Lybians, random 'middle east' people, etc. I can tell you want to say 'muslims' but that wouldn't sit right, would it? Whoever the cause is, these people have no homes to go back to, and if they stay where they are, it's likely they and their family will die.

The "first country of refuge" is EU law, plain and simple. Those who don't like it can lobby the ECJ or the Commission.

But Turkey isn't - and despite the doom-mongering of the Brexiters, never will be - in the EU. Therefore not subject to EU law. And neither are anyone else, effectively, because despite the 'law' stating 'first safe country' people don't stay there, and people are not accepted into those countries, EU or not. It's all pretty meaningless, but hold it up as a standard if that fits the worldview.

We've had children deliberately blown up at a pop concert by a Libyan. We've had Middle Eastern jihadis trying to stab as many people (mostly tourists) as they can on London Bridge. Last week, there was a real attempt at mass murder, the bomb potentially bigger than those home-grown jihadists on 7/7. That's why I say those limited number of refugees coming in from now on, need to be carefully vetted and monitored. Most will cause no problem, but you only need one or two, often easily influenced young men, to lead to the loss of many innocent lives. Far better to use our much misused Overseas Aid budget to fund safe camps close to where the problem is. Help Jordan for example, so that it does not struggle with numbers. Lobby and embarrass neighbouring countries like Saudi Arabia that will not help.

Three of the 7/7 terrorists were UK born, the other in Jamaica. The Manchester bomber was born in the city. How are you going to prevent attacks by British people in Britain by stopping people bombed out of their country from crossing borders to seek safety?

Lobbying will help the future, but we also need to help today, something I don't read in your posts.

 

[Lawrence Jacoby]

If there was a another revolution in France, I could see that French citizens might feel the need to flee to the UK.

But Syrians do not flee to the UK. There are neighbouring countries where refuge could be taken. UK is chosen for economic reasons, and a few young refugees feel resentment more than gratitude after coming here

I doubt if there would be many French wanting to flee to the UK
The gulf between lifestyle and culture would be too much of an ask for the French. Not comparable imo and a blinkered comment from within the mess which is very sad

 

[Lawrence Jacoby]

I agree with WLW
It's a big world and absolutely no right to think we have any rights just because we born at one particular location

Imagine if the UK totally closed its borders in an out Everyone happy to live inside the UK as is?
Everything from a certain date can only be English ...
interesting dark dream

 

[GoldhawkRoad]

Sorry - were we talking about the refugees or the perpetrators? I wasn't just talking about Syria, nor - I suspect - were you, seeing as you then go on to mention Lybians, random 'middle east' people, etc. I can tell you want to say 'muslims' but that wouldn't sit right, would it? Whoever the cause is, these people have no homes to go back to, and if they stay where they are, it's likely they and their family will die.



But Turkey isn't - and despite the doom-mongering of the Brexiters, never will be - in the EU. Therefore not subject to EU law. And neither are anyone else, effectively, because despite the 'law' stating 'first safe country' people don't stay there, and people are not accepted into those countries, EU or not. It's all pretty meaningless, but hold it up as a standard if that fits the worldview.



Three of the 7/7 terrorists were UK born, the other in Jamaica. The Manchester bomber was born in the city. How are you going to prevent attacks by British people in Britain by stopping people bombed out of their country from crossing borders to seek safety?

Lobbying will help the future, but we also need to help today, something I don't read in your posts.

You were talking about perpetrators. Read your own post. Russia, the West and ISIS - but no mention of Assad's regime.

Do not attribute to me words I haven't used or try to set up a straw man. If I mean all Muslims, I'll say all Muslims.

If a refugee claims asylum in e.g. Spain, it will have restrictions on movement unless and until that refugee's claim is substantiated.

We have a problem with second generation Islamic immigrants. It compounds matters to let in large numbers of unvetted refugees in that may have links to ISIS. Whether a Tory or Labour government, its primary duty for safety is to its own citizens.

 

[GoldhawkRoad]

I doubt if there would be many French wanting to flee to the UK
The gulf between lifestyle and culture would be too much of an ask for the French. Not comparable imo and a blinkered comment from within the mess which is very sad

Didn't London become France's fifth biggest city after Hollande bought in tax laws to soak the rich?

 

[West London Willy]

You were talking about perpetrators. Read your own post. Russia, the West and ISIS - but no mention of Assad's regime.

Do not attribute to me words I haven't used or try to set up a straw man. If I mean all Muslims, I'll say all Muslims.

If a refugee claims asylum in e.g. Spain, it will have restrictions on movement unless and until that refugee's claim is substantiated.

We have a problem with second generation Islamic immigrants. It compounds matters to let in large numbers of unvetted refugees in that may have links to ISIS. Whether a Tory or Labour government, its primary duty for safety is to its own citizens.

Would you throw second generation islamic immigrants out then, if you feel we have a problem with them? Leaving aside your 'nightmare scenario' of there being large numbers of unvetted refugees' being let in - unless you have a source for that, of course, together with a source that details how many have links to Isis. Otherwise these are simply soundbites that paint a dark picture that may not be based on any actual evidence.

 

[GoldhawkRoad]

I agree with WLW
It's a big world and absolutely no right to think we have any rights just because we born at one particular location

Imagine if the UK totally closed its borders in an out Everyone happy to live inside the UK as is?
Everything from a certain date can only be English ...
interesting dark dream

There's a happy medium between closing all borders and abolishing all borders. It's controlling all borders, and we'll have powers returned in March 2019. The government, whatever colour it is, has to use them

 

[GoldhawkRoad]

Would you throw second generation islamic immigrants out then, if you feel we have a problem with them? Leaving aside your 'nightmare scenario' of there being large numbers of unvetted refugees' being let in - unless you have a source for that, of course, together with a source that details how many have links to Isis. Otherwise these are simply soundbites that paint a dark picture that may not be based on any actual evidence.

No, sadly we can't throw radicalised second generation immigrants out. We simply have to use resources available to prevent them murdering innocent people.

Again you are looking to put words in my mouth. There's no nightmare, current refugee UK policy is about right, but if we get more attacks like last week, it may have to be reviewed.

 

[kiwiqpr]

You must log in or register to see images

 

[sb_73]

You blame "the West" but make no mention of Assad's tyrannical regime in Syria?

The "first country of refuge" is EU law, plain and simple. Those who don't like it can lobby the ECJ or the Commission.

We've had children deliberately blown up at a pop concert by a Libyan. We've had Middle Eastern jihadis trying to stab as many people (mostly tourists) as they can on London Bridge. Last week, there was a real attempt at mass murder, the bomb potentially bigger than those home-grown jihadists on 7/7. That's why I say those limited number of refugees coming in from now on, need to be carefully vetted and monitored. Most will cause no problem, but you only need one or two, often easily influenced young men, to lead to the loss of many innocent lives. Far better to use our much misused Overseas Aid budget to fund safe camps close to where the problem is. Help Jordan for example, so that it does not struggle with numbers. Lobby and embarrass neighbouring countries like Saudi Arabia that will not help.

How would you help Jordan, seeing as you mention it? More than 3 million of its population of 9.5 million are refugees. Many, the Palestinians, have been there for decades. Now there is a new wave of Syrians, approaching a million of them. All because they are the ‘country of proximity’. A ‘safe zone’ is not a permanent solution. I don’t think ‘embarrassing’ the Saudi’s will help, we can’t ‘embarrass’ them out of bombing the buggery out of Yemen, using the **** that we have sold them. Besides, they are not the country of ‘first proximity’, so in your mantra why should they give any more of a toss than we do?

To ‘solve’ Jordan’s problems we either have to get rid of the nightmares that caused them - set up a viable Palestinian state and get rid of ISIS, Assad, etc in Syria, or resettle the refugees. We’ll see similar stuff with the Rohinga, a million of them in Bangladesh, probably one of the countries least able to cope with such an influx.

 

[West London Willy]

With today's major earthquake in Mexico following on from an even larger one off the coast a few weeks back, and the Caribbean suffering their third hurricane in a really short time, with massive devastation wrought by Harvey, Irma and now Maria - is Trump being forced by nature to reevaluate his climate change denial stance? we all know he's too stubborn and childish to actually back down, but seriously, can he be sent a clearer message?

 

[kiwiqpr]

Does he deny global change or deny its all man made

 

[West London Willy]

Does he deny global change or deny its all man made

Your guess is as good as his...

I honestly don't know. He certainly doesn't think that anything man does affects the climate, else he wouldn't have withdrawn from Paris. And given his scorn of science and scientists, I can't but think that he rejects the notion of change as well. Which is why you'd hope someone is giving him a slap and showing him the evidence.

 

[sb_73]

With today's major earthquake in Mexico following on from an even larger one off the coast a few weeks back, and the Caribbean suffering their third hurricane in a really short time, with massive devastation wrought by Harvey, Irma and now Maria - is Trump being forced by nature to reevaluate his climate change denial stance? we all know he's too stubborn and childish to actually back down, but seriously, can he be sent a clearer message?

I am far from being a climate change denier, quite the reverse, but I don't think either earthquakes or hurricanes can be blamed on climate change. Earthquakes, tsunami, volcanoes have nothing to do with climate. The severity of hurricanes may be increasing, and their impact may be worse because of the rise in sea levels due to climate change, but there are no more of them than in the past.

 

[durbar2003]

With today's major earthquake in Mexico following on from an even larger one off the coast a few weeks back, and the Caribbean suffering their third hurricane in a really short time, with massive devastation wrought by Harvey, Irma and now Maria - is Trump being forced by nature to reevaluate his climate change denial stance? we all know he's too stubborn and childish to actually back down, but seriously, can he be sent a clearer message?

Trump is having second thoughts on withdrawing from the climate change agreement, been in the news for the last week or so.

 

[rangercol]

Scientists have now admitted that they got their global warming predictions hopelessly wrong. The computer models that their predictions have been based on have proved to be totally inaccurate.
Many people like Lord Lawson have been terribly abused over the years for stating doubts over these predictions and they have now been proved to be right. They are owed a huge apology.

Man made global warming is very much up for debate imo. However, I don't think there is any doubt that we are witnessing a certain amount of climate change at this present time. Man made? Not so sure.