Off Topic UK / EU Future

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Status
Not open for further replies.
Leo said:
Puzzled? You meant Cologne where?
I give my views honestly and try to back them up with argument when I can - if anyone is rude to me I tend to think it reflects more on the name caller than the named so do not fear being called anything :)
Click to expand...

I think I've inadvertently got involved in the wrong discussion, silly boy. This morning's coffee was rather strong!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leo and Deleted.......
Leo said:
OK - I have now gone back over your previous posts but am not sure what you think I need to re-read.
I am not talking about how the UK, the EU or anyone else actually does deal with migrants but about the principle.
For me it is that if a person wants a better life - economic migrant - then they are welcome if it suits both them and the country they wish to go to. Each country - or area - or district will be able to make its own choices.
If a person claims asylum due to political, religious, sexual or other discrimination their case should be considered - and as you say Cologne - swiftly - what is the adage "justice delayed is justice denied"
Environmental problems are an entirely different matter as they do not affect individuals so much as whole populations. Solutions needed here are ones that improve living conditions - not which result in mass movement of people. War is really in this category too - people should not be driven from their homelands by war - it may be that a temporary solution to keep them safe must be found but to deny them their homeland is just wrong.
Click to expand...
The catagory of environmental refugee is not yet recognized as an official catagory Leo, which just shows how ridiculous these catagories are. I drew attention to it because the scale of potential environmental migration is possibly much higher than anything we have experienced so far. It does not take too much imagination to suggest that Africa will suffer from global warming - some areas will dry up completely, others will be flooded, others will become so diseased or contaminated they will be classified as uninhabitable. Already the scale of desertification in the World is alarming. The threat is different in other places with islands disappearing under the waves. The main victims of these catastrophes are not the countries which have contributed the most to global warming and so are victims of our lifestyle. If I live somewhere like Somalia I can leave because of war, because of poverty, because i want to better my lifestyle, or I can wait until my land has dried up. Often those reasons all blend into one and cannot fit into our neat catagories. You say that if it suits them and the country they wish to go to then ok. What I am saying is that there are millions of cases where your second condition is misplaced - I do not ask myself whether it suits my interest before helping someone.

You say close to the end 'To deny them their homeland is wrong'. How many people go back to war torn areas ? History tells us that very few do this. How many of the millions who fled from Europe during World War 2 ended up going back ? People do not often go back to places where civil war has taken place - to live next to their former enemies or persecutors. Did any Jews go back to Germany in 1946 when everything was over ? These emigrations tend to be permanent.
 
colognehornet said:
The catagory of environmental refugee is not yet recognized as an official catagory Leo, which just shows how ridiculous these catagories are. I drew attention to it because the scale of potential environmental migration is possibly much higher than anything we have experienced so far. It does not take too much imagination to suggest that Africa will suffer from global warming - some areas will dry up completely, others will be flooded, others will become so diseased or contaminated they will be classified as uninhabitable. Already the scale of desertification in the World is alarming. The threat is different in other places with islands disappearing under the waves. The main victims of these catastrophes are not the countries which have contributed the most to global warming and so are victims of our lifestyle. If I live somewhere like Somalia I can leave because of war, because of poverty, because i want to better my lifestyle, or I can wait until my land has dried up. Often those reasons all blend into one and cannot fit into our neat catagories. You say that if it suits them and the country they wish to go to then ok. What I am saying is that there are millions of cases where your second condition is misplaced - I do not ask myself whether it suits my interest before helping someone.

You say close to the end 'To deny them their homeland is wrong'. How many people go back to war torn areas ? History tells us that very few do this. How many of the millions who fled from Europe during World War 2 ended up going back ? People do not often go back to places where civil war has taken place - to live next to their former enemies or persecutors. Did any Jews go back to Germany in 1946 when everything was over ? These emigrations tend to be permanent.
Click to expand...
Last bit first - when a war is over I expect most people prefer to return to their homeland. Can't say I blame the Jews for not wanting to return to Germany - but Israel was set up so changes the dynamics a bit. The principle though is clear - why should a person and their family be permanently excluded from their birth place?
I think you over complicate the refugee definition bit. There are two categories - desired migration and forced. Economic where you want a better life is in the former and war, environment perhaps, and political, religious and sexual migration is the latter.
People are not goods to be moved around the world to suit. If there is a war or an environmental issue the task is to find a solution not to just pick people up and say oh, it's alright you can move there. I think a lot of very well meaning people mistake that. Forced migration is horrible and it is important to deal with the causes not the effects.
You confuse the two categories when you quote me on "if it suits them and the country". That is for people who want economic improvement. For example my son has emigrated to Australia. He thinks he can have a better life. Australia value what he has to offer. Suits them both so fair enough. That is economic migration. People who are fed up with being poor in their own countries and illegally go elsewhere simply for "wealth" gains must accept that unless the country they want to join wants them then they have no right to go there. It is nothing to do with "helping someone". There are 6 billion people in the world who could move to improve their economic situation - do you propse all should be allowed to wander elsewhere at their choice?
 
Leo said:
Last bit first - when a war is over I expect most people prefer to return to their homeland. Can't say I blame the Jews for not wanting to return to Germany - but Israel was set up so changes the dynamics a bit. The principle though is clear - why should a person and their family be permanently excluded from their birth place?
I think you over complicate the refugee definition bit. There are two categories - desired migration and forced. Economic where you want a better life is in the former and war, environment perhaps, and political, religious and sexual migration is the latter.
People are not goods to be moved around the world to suit. If there is a war or an environmental issue the task is to find a solution not to just pick people up and say oh, it's alright you can move there. I think a lot of very well meaning people mistake that. Forced migration is horrible and it is important to deal with the causes not the effects.
You confuse the two categories when you quote me on "if it suits them and the country". That is for people who want economic improvement. For example my son has emigrated to Australia. He thinks he can have a better life. Australia value what he has to offer. Suits them both so fair enough. That is economic migration. People who are fed up with being poor in their own countries and illegally go elsewhere simply for "wealth" gains must accept that unless the country they want to join wants them then they have no right to go there. It is nothing to do with "helping someone". There are 6 billion people in the world who could move to improve their economic situation - do you propse all should be allowed to wander elsewhere at their choice?
Click to expand...
Your last sentence first Leo, if I may. The actual percentage of people Worldwide who live outside of the country of their birth is only 2%, which, for a World which we say is in the grip of globalization, is comparatively few. Goods and capital have proved to be far more mobile than people. So we are not looking at the principle of migration as an epidemic - the majority of people will stay at home given the chance. Your son moving to Australia (along with about 1.7 million other Britons) is unusual - comparatively easy because he didn't have to learn a language to do it, and his qualifications were , therefore, immediately useable for Australia. Most migrants have to go to another country, work well below their status and qualifications, learn the language and then hope to eventually work in a manner suited to their qualifications. This is a long process in some cases, and you are not really 'usefull' to the host country in the meantime - but could be in future. I am not implying that I agree with completely free movement - this leads to strains on resources in some places, depopulation in others, and, initially, a brain drain in countries like the UK. and Germany - which have both in and outflow of population. As for 'cause' and 'effect' - there you are wrong. You tackle both together if you can, and, if you cannot really influence the 'cause', then you have no alternative but to address the latter.
 
I don't think numbers affect principles. Whether 2% or 20% or 90%. A company does not have to hire a worker because the person wants to work there. It is mutually agreed. If I want to move to another country to work it has to suit both parties. How easy or difficult it is to learn languages etc is not the issue. Thousands of people have come to the UK to work - and also to the EU. They bring skills such as doctors or perhaps just labour for fruit pickers - but again the principle will be the same - beneficial to both parties. That is economic migration and when acceptable to the migrant and the country is great.
Non economic migration does not follow the same rules. In that case the person is "fleeing" and the country accepting them is being "kind" (let's not go into international law as those are just rules made by man that can be broken by man). A person may have no useful skills, may be sick or healthy but that is not the test in that case. The test then is about humanity. Returning them to their own country represents a danger to them. In years to come they may learn and develop skills that make them a marvellous contributor to the country they fled to. A win-win.
You challenge cause and effect but my point is that wars and environmental disasters are a cause and fleeing is the effect. Simply taking in numbers of refugees may help those taken but does not solve the underlying problem. For a stable situation it is the cause that needs to be addressed. Dealing with refugees is dealing with the symptoms - it helps only those who find refuge - but leaves the problem unsolved. In the short term you may as you say tackle both together - but only tackling the cause will solve the problem.
 
Leo said:
I don't think numbers affect principles. Whether 2% or 20% or 90%. A company does not have to hire a worker because the person wants to work there. It is mutually agreed. If I want to move to another country to work it has to suit both parties. How easy or difficult it is to learn languages etc is not the issue. Thousands of people have come to the UK to work - and also to the EU. They bring skills such as doctors or perhaps just labour for fruit pickers - but again the principle will be the same - beneficial to both parties. That is economic migration and when acceptable to the migrant and the country is great.
Non economic migration does not follow the same rules. In that case the person is "fleeing" and the country accepting them is being "kind" (let's not go into international law as those are just rules made by man that can be broken by man). A person may have no useful skills, may be sick or healthy but that is not the test in that case. The test then is about humanity. Returning them to their own country represents a danger to them. In years to come they may learn and develop skills that make them a marvellous contributor to the country they fled to. A win-win.
You challenge cause and effect but my point is that wars and environmental disasters are a cause and fleeing is the effect. Simply taking in numbers of refugees may help those taken but does not solve the underlying problem. For a stable situation it is the cause that needs to be addressed. Dealing with refugees is dealing with the symptoms - it helps only those who find refuge - but leaves the problem unsolved. In the short term you may as you say tackle both together - but only tackling the cause will solve the problem.
Click to expand...
In principle I agree Leo concerning cause and effect. However it depends on your abilities to tackle the 'cause', and your willingness to do so. In many cases war zones are being fuelled with weapons which came from the west - do we stop those exports as part of our tackling of the 'cause' - I doubt it. Are we prepared to take the necessary steps to change our lifestyle/consumption in order to reduce the environmental impact in third World countries - again I doubt it. So there remains only help for the victims. We cannot deal with people in the same way we deal with goods Leo. Once a person has left a war zone for a safe refuge then he is probably gone for good - this is for various reasons. Firstly can he go back and live peacefully with the same people who may have killed or tortured his family as if nothing had happened - could you do that ? When a society has riven itself apart as much as eg. Syria it could take generations before the wounds are healed. The second reason is that where families are involved children then will go to schools, will learn languages, and will begin to feel more 'British' or 'German', do there parents disrupt all that by taking them back to a place which is filled with nightmares. Most economic migrants actually only plan to go away for a few years at the most, but it seldom happens that way......they put down roots, learn languages, have kids etc. etc. and the 'few years' becomes a lifetime. After a certain number of years it is just as hard to go back as the emigration was in the first place. The same thing is true of refugees from a war with the addition that anything which they may have possessed in their homeland may now be rubble and ashes. One day they can go back to visit having the security of a British or German passport.
 
Macron is now pushing to return asylum seekers to the EU country where they first arrived, notable Italy & Greece. This will comply with Schengen Area rules.

To assist this process will he now accept back any illegal immigrants that arrived in the UK through French ports?
 
superhorns said:
Macron is now pushing to return asylum seekers to the EU country where they first arrived, notable Italy & Greece. This will comply with Schengen Area rules.

To assist this process will he now accept back any illegal immigrants that arrived in the UK through French ports?
Click to expand...
The entire policy needs a ground up rethink. The problem is that migration has crept up on us, increasing year by year and nobody has put their hand up to say let's think out a properly formed credible policy. It is always knee jerk.
As for illegal immigrants is the UK not free to deport them as it sees fit? Do we need Macron or anyone else to give us their permission?
 
Leo said:
The entire policy needs a ground up rethink. The problem is that migration has crept up on us, increasing year by year and nobody has put their hand up to say let's think out a properly formed credible policy. It is always knee jerk.
As for illegal immigrants is the UK not free to deport them as it sees fit? Do we need Macron or anyone else to give us their permission?
Click to expand...

The policy which they seem to have come up with is 'staging posts' in areas where the migrants are attempting to leave by assessing their suitability for acceptance. I'm not sure it will stop the majority of young men, mostly economic migrants looking for a better life, from taking huge risks with the smuggling gangs.

The UK border force does have a lousy record of returning illegal migrants, anything that makes it easier to enforce UK law is welcome.
 
superhorns said:
The policy which they seem to have come up with is 'staging posts' in areas where the migrants are attempting to leave by assessing their suitability for acceptance. I'm not sure it will stop the majority of young men, mostly economic migrants looking for a better life, from taking huge risks with the smuggling gangs.

The UK border force does have a lousy record of returning illegal migrants, anything that makes it easier to enforce UK law is welcome.
Click to expand...
I am not sure what your first paragraph really means.Economic migrants will clearly attempt to get a better life and traffickers will make money from them.
The UK border force is not covered in any glory.
 
Leo said:
I am not sure what your first paragraph really means.Economic migrants will clearly attempt to get a better life and traffickers will make money from them.
The UK border force is not covered in any glory.
Click to expand...

Much of the UK border force is made up of sub-contractors. I have spoken to them at Newhaven a number of times and their commitment to the job is minimal. It is just a way to earn some money.
 
oldfrenchhorn said:
Much of the UK border force is made up of sub-contractors. I have spoken to them at Newhaven a number of times and their commitment to the job is minimal. It is just a way to earn some money.
Click to expand...
In a sense there is nothing very unusual about that. However they have an important job to do and it is up to those in charge to make sure it is done properly.
 
Leo said:
In a sense there is nothing very unusual about that. However they have an important job to do and it is up to those in charge to make sure it is done properly.
Click to expand...

We have seen too much out-sourcing in my opinion. Prisons, building regulations, social care, the list is endless. My old county council were very proud of the fact that they had out-sourced everything, and look where it has got them. They have gone bust. You can let all your functions out to private companies, which on the face of it saves some money, but then you need a new tier of administrators to ensure the function is being carried out as required. The common result is that a council or government does little to keep things under review, instead saying that if a private company fails they will have their contract removed. By the time it has failed the cost of putting it right exceeds the savings. Immigration controls in Dieppe are a lot stronger than they used to be, but all the checks are carried out by their border force which is quite certainly government employees with a controlled structure.
 
oldfrenchhorn said:
We have seen too much out-sourcing in my opinion. Prisons, building regulations, social care, the list is endless. My old county council were very proud of the fact that they had out-sourced everything, and look where it has got them. They have gone bust. You can let all your functions out to private companies, which on the face of it saves some money, but then you need a new tier of administrators to ensure the function is being carried out as required. The common result is that a council or government does little to keep things under review, instead saying that if a private company fails they will have their contract removed. By the time it has failed the cost of putting it right exceeds the savings. Immigration controls in Dieppe are a lot stronger than they used to be, but all the checks are carried out by their border force which is quite certainly government employees with a controlled structure.
Click to expand...
I agree with that. I am not a great supporter of things run by civil servants but certain things - like prisons etc are not suitable for private firms.
 
Yesterday we heard that the most likely deal is one similar to that currently enjoyed by the Ukraine, a limited association for trade purposes, excluding services. David Davis has indicated that he would not be against an association, so maybe that is the route that will followed. This type of arrangement is normally agreed with countries that wish to join the EU, but their economies are not ready.
 
oldfrenchhorn said:
Yesterday we heard that the most likely deal is one similar to that currently enjoyed by the Ukraine, a limited association for trade purposes, excluding services. David Davis has indicated that he would not be against an association, so maybe that is the route that will followed. This type of arrangement is normally agreed with countries that wish to join the EU, but their economies are not ready.
Click to expand...
Sounds pretty rubbish to me - services are the key part of our economy
 
French air traffic controllers on strike again this weekend with hundreds of flights cancelled. When is the French government going to sort these cowboys out. France is clearly the sick man of Europe now for days lost through strikes. Macron needs to spend more time solving his own problems than creating more powers for Brussels.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back