Off Topic UK / EU Future

Heads of state are employed to make snap decisions without always consulting first. She did this for humanitarian reasons to prevent a human catastrophe which had built up in the Balkans. Lives were at stake, and when that is the case I would not waste time in consultations before stepping in. Her current political problems are that she has more support in other parties than in her own partnership with the CSU. I am well aware that there are some economic migrants amongst those arriving - but do you refuse the helping hand to a hundred people because there may be a few criminals amongst them ? I do not know what the solution is - it is profoundly unfair to expect countries on the edge of Europe to bear the cost, simply because these are the countries refugees landed in. Similarly the idea of quotas is a misplaced one. But the idea of turning genuine refugees back is not an option which is on the table, and I presume they are genuine until proven otherwise. In fact the tide has turned because Germany allocated accomodation for double the number who actually came. What is a problem is that we have thousands of young men together who have no occupation and no money - which would be a problem for local communities regardless of the nationality of those coming.

 

All of the Tory leaders have inflicted defeat on the hapless Corbyn, his popularity even amongst the young is on the wane. The recent flop of a music concert was nothing short of an embarrassment. The Labour Party should be streets ahead in the polls, the UK obviously dislike the LP's lurch to the left.

Merkel is apparently safe for another two weeks after a hasty meeting, she seems to be pushing her own can down the road!!

 

Nobody should be contemplating returning genuine refugees, surely that will never be on the table. I suspect most migrants, are understandably, in Europe for a better life. This does not, and should not, form an immigration policy for European countries. The Schengen countries chose to sign up to a system which dictated refugees were processed at the point of entry. All of those member countries should jointly finance this procedure.

 

Good post. Yes - sometimes snap decisions are needed. In fact so long as politicians are then big enough to review properly and adjust accordingly the end result may be for the better. But what your post does emphasise is that nobody has yet given enough attention to migration as a long term problem. It is one that will only get harder to solve.

 

I'm sure her legacy, despite her years of good service, will be to be blamed for the rise in the far right throughout Europe. She may have done more to threaten the survival of the EU than anybody else, time will tell.

 

Not sure Corbyn is quite so hapless. Last year's election result was a combination of excellent electioneering (of an almost old fashioned kind) by JC together with the opposite from an over confident TM.
As JC has only had one election I am not sure any other Tory leader inflicted defeat on him.
I am as much not impressed by the weekend pop as I was by last years festival that went well.
Agree regarding Labour ought to be well ahead in the polls but as I constantly say there is no record of the UK public ever voting in a Labour party that was not "middle ground"..Perhaps Momentum think they can break that mould.
Lucky you did not put money on M&M then - but I think we both know you were only joking.

 

Actually I am not sure I agree. Long term most people need to be able to return to their homeland. Except in case of danger refugees should not have to lose their birth place.
Refugees - hardship or economic ought to be processed at point of entry. " Economic" should then be returned home and "hardship" should be spread around with agreement of all countries involved - perhaps with some quotas but preferably without "force"

 

Strongly doubt that. Migration will not always remain a key issue if some common sense can be applied.

 

I think it makes sense to break this down to a local basis Leo. The town of Engelskirchen, where I live, has a population of just under 20,000. Obviously arriving refugees are allotted to certain towns, for the period during which their case is looked into - this has become something of a trade for some municipalities because they get a €5,000 grant for each one. In Engelskirchen we currently have 400, and are expecting 200 more, which represents income for a town such as ours. The countries of origins of these 400 throws up a few surprises (I've seen the lists because I'm on the town council) with such countries as China on the list. The majority come from Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Eritrea though about 90 come from Balkan states such as Kosovo, Albania and Macedonia. Many are what you would call economic migrants but, every case has to be judged on it's own merits. There appears to be a grey area here - some say that only those from war zones qualify, but that is not the case. Anyone who arrives in your land asking for political asylum has to be processed, and that takes around 6 months in some cases. If a Russian homosexual arrived he would have to be admitted - and that is international law, not that of the EU. Anyone who could face persecution for something which is not a crime in the guest country has to be processed in the same way, whether or not their lives are at risk. There are Basque separatists currently enjoying political exile in Belgium on this basis - and, American citizens who have exile in Canada ! The goal we should be aiming at is getting these things processed as quickly as possible. Unfortunately 400 young men of any nationality who are bored, homesick and poor equals a problem in any small community. This has nothing to do with their origins - 400 young bored Mancunians would also be a problem ! So we need to get them processed as quickly as possible, get the economic migrants sent back and then make sure that those genuine cases can be joined by their families. The reason for the last point is that families can be integrated better than single men.

 

Leo, most political careers end in rejection and disappointment, I did not think that would apply to Merkel but I do now. Hopefully we can look back in a couple of years and discuss.

 

The trouble is the first point of entry is, geographically, always the same ie. Greece, Italy or Spain. The rest cannot 'hide' behind these countries and so genuine cases must be spead around - but who takes them until you have decided the genuine case from the economic ones because, as stated earlier, all claims must be processed by international law. Are you asking that countries like Greece house all claimants until that point ? Another problem arrises because there are different guidelines within the EU. as to who is accepted and who isn't. It's possible to be accepted as a genuine refugee in some countries but not in others. In the end there must be a quota system with all EU. countries taking their fair share. I understand that countries like Poland and Hungary do not have the history of immigration that the west does but if someone like Urban wants to say that he will take only Christian refugees then his country will miss out on EU. grants as a result.

 

Leo the problem is likely to grow dramatically in the years ahead. Up to now we have only talked about economic migrants and those fleeing war torn areas, or otherwise fleeing from persecution. But these are the tip of the iceberg compared to the climate refugees or environmental migrants to come. Due to droughts, desertification, sea level rise and disruption of seasonal weather patterns. This number could already be 6 times as numerous as political refugees, and has been estimated as rising to 200 million be 2050. I would think that in all honesty those countries with the highest Co2 emissions per head will contribute the most to relieving this problem but I am not holding my breath. At the moment we are not classifying migrants accurately - not in our interests to do so. If a Somali migrant arrives and says that he has no environment left because our container ships have discharged so much poison into his sea space that his livelihood is not possible - in this case how do we classify him ?

 

Again I am not sure of what percentage do end in "failure". Most probably just fizzle out. Merkel will go down in history well for the good times she had but obviuosly the migration issue will taint her with some

 

Most if not all UK prime ministers careers since Churchill have ended with their reputations tarnished or faced rejection. The only exception I can think of is James Callaghan, a an underrated PM. Most MP's still want to climb up that greasy poll though.

 

Cologne - stop posting so much - you are doing my head in trying to read it all - I will try to read it later

I agree that their careers often ended when defeated at an election - but that is just party politics. If you look back many are judged differently by history than they were as they left office. I happen to disagree on Callaghan - he was inept, won no elections and fell in abysmal failure at the winter of discontent - no positive legacy at all that I know about. Now Blair will be the hardest - three election wins and handed over to Brown - but Iraq will probably always be his legacy.

 

I'm the son of economic migrants so naturally have to disagree - I understand the arguments but it would be hypocritical to take any other position. That said governments of all persuasions haven't helped as they haven't upscale infrastructure to absorb it.

 

OK - let me explain more. I am fine with economic migrants if they benefit the country they are going to. But it should be a decision the country chooses. I would welcome all sorts of skilled people from around the world - as well as some unskilled to fill positions we need. I only believe they should not be able to "force" their way into a country. I am guessing your parents gave this country more than full value for money.

 

What is the definition of an economic migrant Leo ? If people are leaving countries which are poor as a result of our own lifestyle, or if they are poor because of environmental polution in their countries which was largely caused by us ? You will see that I referred to environmental refugees earlier - are they a kind of economic migrant - if so, there are lots of them on the horizon.

 

My definition of an economic migrant is just someone who wants to go to another country for better economic life for themselves or their families.
I have no problem with anyone wanting to do that but believe any country has the right to decide whether they want that person.
A "humanitarian" migrant has different questions to be answered.
An environmental migrant is not a category I would recognise - they would need to be split one way or the other - depending on the severity or otherwise of their environmental problem. Usually though I would not accept environmental issues as ones causing a need for migration - Chernobyl would be an exception.

 

I think you need to read my previous post on this Leo.