|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2015 9:54:51 GMT
So much for Cameron's promise then.
|
|
|
Post by stokeharry on Aug 28, 2015 10:31:24 GMT
More I reckon mate. Despite what fake made up pro immigration propaganda floats around online This ^^^ As my old dad used to say ......believe half what you hear and all of what you see 97% of statistics are made up on the spot mate . Half of the "statistics" don't take other things into consideration and only tell half the story and the other half are blatant lies to suit the agenda of the person posting the comment. I read in the paper today that something like 14% of people in this country were foreign born and something like 27% were born to a foreign mother or father . I would imagine the reality is much more distributing as that obviously doesn't take into consideration the illegals that we don't know about . The white native Brits are on their way out which suits some on here because that's how they roll but to pretend like immigration isn't a problem is to kidd one's self but they won't kidd me . One only needs to open their eyes to see what's going on all around us but that's fine , those people that support them can rot here with them in the cold whilst people like bisp and carps move abroad and enjoy living in sunnier climates in a more laid back and chilled out society . Bottom line is regardless of what the right wingers say and regardless of what the left wingers say , the country is firmly in the corrupt control of the sly politians and we have no power to change it or alter a thing . Regardless of who we vote for the government always gets it . Won't stop me voting UKIP though as a big "fuck you" to the PC brigade types. Best thing do is look after number one like the majority of society does nowadays
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2015 11:03:07 GMT
Here's the full breakdown, by country, of the number of Syrian refugees offered resettlement or admission (courtesy of UNHCR); www.unhcr.org/52b2febafc5.pdfHow many has Thailand taken ? No seen any so far.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2015 11:07:48 GMT
I can see the events of Right Wing Europe from the 30's happening all over again. From a personal point of view I hope I'm wrong. My Great Uncle on my mothers side was sent to a Nazi Concentration Camp in 1943. I have just read his diary. Monday 14th sept 1943...Bit tired after long train journey, going to take a shower before breakfast... Then nothing...
|
|
|
Post by desman2 on Aug 28, 2015 12:21:30 GMT
Now Junker is saying that its not the EUs problem but nation states. What a fucking hypocrite that twat is.
|
|
|
Post by derrida1437 on Aug 28, 2015 15:34:31 GMT
Now Junker is saying that its not the EUs problem but nation states. What a fucking hypocrite that twat is. Not really. The problem is a global one. It would affect states like the UK whether they were inside the EU or not. The problem of asylum and refugees or (they aren't the same thing) illegal immigration can only be answered on a multilateral level wth coordination and cooperation between governements. The idea that a single state can control illegal immigration or the problems of asylum and refugees independent from the rest of the world (who it also has an impact on) is nonsense. Therefore the problem is global and the answer is multilateral.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2015 23:42:11 GMT
The reason these people are fleeing their homelands is because Uk, US and allies bombed and invaded Iraq under the guise of "liberation" from Mr Hussain. Those same allies forgot to think about what to do after the conflict - assuming that western-style law and order would evolve. Then ISIS rose up on the back of the disorder and rising local resentments and internal religious tensions, spread through and across the Syria-Iraq border, created a new state (IS) across that border and now it's utter mayhem in the entire region. The region is unstable for a reason. I thought they invaded under the guise of WMD. No the invasion took place because they had our oil under their desert.
|
|
|
Post by boothenboy75 on Aug 30, 2015 7:10:17 GMT
|
|
|
Post by derrida1437 on Aug 30, 2015 8:09:37 GMT
It's refreshing to see a UKIPper back the idea of further European integration by quoting an article written by a Labour MP explaining how necessary further European integration is. Well done BB. " There...needs to be a combined European response to the housing of genuine refugees. Britain must insist that the international obligations to refugees are fulfilled and that refugees must register their status as soon as they land on safe European ground. The Prime Minister will not be able to carry that vital policy in the country unless he’s shown to be up to the challenge of curbing economic migration. And it is mega economic migration which is the third crisis to be faced. The ad hoc EU border force must have the resources and the courage physically to send back economic migrants to their country of origin. We mustn’t get queasy over this policy. Implementing this strategy will be very unpleasant as many of the economic migrants put up a fight to stay. But the British public will have a stomach for whatever it takes to distinguish the economic migrants providing it knows that refugees will find a safe haven. The fourth issue facing us is the threat of terrorist inflitration posed by the mass movement of people. Tackling it will entail combining the intelligence forces of Europe with the work of the ad hoc border force."
|
|
|
Post by boothenboy75 on Aug 30, 2015 8:43:04 GMT
It's refreshing to see a UKIPper back the idea of further European integration by quoting an article written by a Labour MP explaining how necessary further European integration is. Well done BB. " There...needs to be a combined European response to the housing of genuine refugees. Britain must insist that the international obligations to refugees are fulfilled and that refugees must register their status as soon as they land on safe European ground. The Prime Minister will not be able to carry that vital policy in the country unless he’s shown to be up to the challenge of curbing economic migration. And it is mega economic migration which is the third crisis to be faced. The ad hoc EU border force must have the resources and the courage physically to send back economic migrants to their country of origin. We mustn’t get queasy over this policy. Implementing this strategy will be very unpleasant as many of the economic migrants put up a fight to stay. But the British public will have a stomach for whatever it takes to distinguish the economic migrants providing it knows that refugees will find a safe haven. The fourth issue facing us is the threat of terrorist inflitration posed by the mass movement of people. Tackling it will entail combining the intelligence forces of Europe with the work of the ad hoc border force." I prefer to look at it this way. It's quite refreshing to see a labour politician look at why the majority of the British population are now so anti Britain doing it's bit for genuine refugees. Perhaps if Blair hadn't thrown open our borders in a deliberate attempt at securing Labour votes more people would be sympathetic to their plight? Interesting that Burnham says we should throw open our doors despite having no answer to our immigration problems. He thinks that the way to negotiate is to give away the very thing that you are trying to deal with. He seems more like a typical Labour leader, I wonder if he agrees that we should not get queasy about sending back economic migrants? www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/andy-burnham/11832643/Andy-Burnham-tells-David-Cameron-to-accept-quotas-of-Calais-migrants-to-help-with-his-EU-renegotiation.htmlI do disagree with Field on it being an EU issue. I believe it should be a UN issue with countries around the world doing their bit. Oh, and thanks for the praise it means the world to me. ::)
|
|
|
Post by derrida1437 on Aug 30, 2015 8:55:09 GMT
It's refreshing to see a UKIPper back the idea of further European integration by quoting an article written by a Labour MP explaining how necessary further European integration is. Well done BB. " There...needs to be a combined European response to the housing of genuine refugees. Britain must insist that the international obligations to refugees are fulfilled and that refugees must register their status as soon as they land on safe European ground. The Prime Minister will not be able to carry that vital policy in the country unless he’s shown to be up to the challenge of curbing economic migration. And it is mega economic migration which is the third crisis to be faced. The ad hoc EU border force must have the resources and the courage physically to send back economic migrants to their country of origin. We mustn’t get queasy over this policy. Implementing this strategy will be very unpleasant as many of the economic migrants put up a fight to stay. But the British public will have a stomach for whatever it takes to distinguish the economic migrants providing it knows that refugees will find a safe haven. The fourth issue facing us is the threat of terrorist inflitration posed by the mass movement of people. Tackling it will entail combining the intelligence forces of Europe with the work of the ad hoc border force." I prefer to look at it this way. It's quite refreshing to see a labour politician look at why the majority of the British population are now so anti Britain doing it's bit for genuine refugees. Perhaps if Blair hadn't thrown open our borders in a deliberate attempt at securing Labour votes more people would be sympathetic to their plight? Interesting that Burnham says we should throw open our doors despite having no answer to our immigration problems. He thinks that the way to negotiate is to give away the very thing that you are trying to deal with. He seems more like a typical Labour leader, I wonder if he agrees that we should not get queasy about sending back economic migrants? www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/andy-burnham/11832643/Andy-Burnham-tells-David-Cameron-to-accept-quotas-of-Calais-migrants-to-help-with-his-EU-renegotiation.htmlI do disagree with Field on it being an EU issue. I believe it should be a UN issue with countries around the world doing their bit. Oh, and thanks for the praise it means the world to me. What, so now out of nowhere, you're suddenly disagreeing with an article you originally deemed to be Frank Field "telling it like it is"? You're wrong and Frank Field is right, as you originally said. The refugee cries IS an EU issue and needs an EU wide solution. Immigration means you need closer cooperation between states and that includes the EU and UN. How you don't understand that having just quoted that article is mind boggling.
|
|
|
Post by boothenboy75 on Aug 30, 2015 9:14:19 GMT
I prefer to look at it this way. It's quite refreshing to see a labour politician look at why the majority of the British population are now so anti Britain doing it's bit for genuine refugees. Perhaps if Blair hadn't thrown open our borders in a deliberate attempt at securing Labour votes more people would be sympathetic to their plight? Interesting that Burnham says we should throw open our doors despite having no answer to our immigration problems. He thinks that the way to negotiate is to give away the very thing that you are trying to deal with. He seems more like a typical Labour leader, I wonder if he agrees that we should not get queasy about sending back economic migrants? www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/andy-burnham/11832643/Andy-Burnham-tells-David-Cameron-to-accept-quotas-of-Calais-migrants-to-help-with-his-EU-renegotiation.htmlI do disagree with Field on it being an EU issue. I believe it should be a UN issue with countries around the world doing their bit. Oh, and thanks for the praise it means the world to me. ::) What, so now out of nowhere, you're suddenly disagreeing with an article you originally deemed to be Frank Field "telling it like it is"? You're wrong and Frank Field is right, as you originally said. The refugee cries IS an EU issue and needs an EU wide solution. Immigration means you need closer cooperation between states and that includes the EU and UN. How you don't understand that having just quoted that article is mind boggling. So I think it's a UN issue. Field thinks it's am EU issue and ************** you think it's an EU and UN issue. I can see we all disagree hugely there. I think we all agree though (including Field), in that the amount of immigration, especially from Europe, into the UK is far too high. I'm pleased that you've seen the light.
|
|
|
Post by derrida1437 on Aug 30, 2015 9:31:18 GMT
What, so now out of nowhere, you're suddenly disagreeing with an article you originally deemed to be Frank Field "telling it like it is"? You're wrong and Frank Field is right, as you originally said. The refugee cries IS an EU issue and needs an EU wide solution. Immigration means you need closer cooperation between states and that includes the EU and UN. How you don't understand that having just quoted that article is mind boggling. So I think it's a UN issue. Field thinks it's am EU issue and ************** you think it's an EU and UN issue. I can see we all disagree hugely there. I think we all agree though (including Field), in that the amount of immigration, especially from Europe, into the UK is far too high. I'm pleased that you've seen the light. No, we disagree. The EU member states are all in the UN anyway. An entertaining expression of self-contradiction from you though. Each to their own I guess. Not like it changes anything.
|
|
|
Post by boothenboy75 on Aug 30, 2015 9:49:46 GMT
So I think it's a UN issue. Field thinks it's am EU issue and ************** you think it's an EU and UN issue. I can see we all disagree hugely there. I think we all agree though (including Field), in that the amount of immigration, especially from Europe, into the UK is far too high. I'm pleased that you've seen the light. (rofl) No, we disagree. The EU member states are all in the UN anyway. An entertaining expression of self-contradiction from you though. Each to their own I guess. Not like it changes anything. So first you say you agree with Field. Then you say it should be a UN & EU issue. Now you say you disagree. A rather unentertaining expression of self-contradiction from you though. 2/10 **************, must try harder.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2015 10:06:23 GMT
There's a very fine line between genius and nutter .......
|
|
|
Post by derrida1437 on Aug 30, 2015 10:19:25 GMT
No, we disagree. The EU member states are all in the UN anyway. An entertaining expression of self-contradiction from you though. Each to their own I guess. Not like it changes anything. So first you say you agree with Field. Then you say it should be a UN & EU issue. Now you say you disagree. Not quite. Let's play international relations seek and spell with you: Internal EU Immigration, emigration, asylum and illegal immigration are EU-wide issues which obviously require initial cooperation and coordination at the EU level. This is because of the Schengen Agreement and so that each EU member state can know who's coming in and out. For clarity each member state of the EU is also a member of the UN. The only way European countries (including the UK) can control external immigration (that's people from outside the EU coming in to it) is by the EU operating collectively to coordinate controls with countries outside the EU. You implied the EU doesn't need to get involved if the UN does. That's not how multilateralism works. Even if the UK left the EU (it won't - the numbers don't stack up) the UK would still need to coordinate European-wide immigration controls with the EU. The issues of illegal immigration, asylum, and refugees will get much worse if the UK abandoned internal EU immigration coordination. You're not on your own though. Most UKIPpers don't understand that. That's why they vote UKIP.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Aug 30, 2015 10:52:30 GMT
|
|
|
Post by derrida1437 on Aug 30, 2015 18:28:57 GMT
|
|
|
Post by derrida1437 on Aug 30, 2015 18:32:59 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Aug 30, 2015 20:08:05 GMT
|
|
|
Post by derrida1437 on Aug 30, 2015 20:40:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Aug 30, 2015 20:42:51 GMT
Opinions eh? Some "comments" on the article; What dangers are the people of Calais in? They are in one of the safest countries in the world. I was a life long Labour voter but now they are my last choice on any voting list. We cannot to continue to build a new city every year to accomodate the number of people that want to live here. Having read this article, posted on the Yahoo news page this morning, I am happy that so many people objected to this disgusting article by Dunt. How dare he criticise Cameron for his stance? I gave up counting how many had the thumbs down on the views of this Leftist blogger. It ran into the thousands against about 20 who supported your Politically Correct views. Do you not know what the majority of the voting public want, Mr. Dunt? Also, go back to school-the Oxford Dictionary plainly states that the word 'swarm' means a large group of people coming together, as in their example: a swarm of journalists. You really are clutching at straws for bringing this up again 2 weeks after it was news. Your time would be better spent investigating the massive number of rapes which occurred in Rotherham and other UK cities and making sure justice is done. How much does Yahoo pay you to spread this propoganda? Dunt is entitled to his opinion. But it`s one that isn`t shared by many here. I note he fails to recognise the UK contribution to refugees in Lebanon etc. The new UN chief has said this is the best way to avoid mass movement of people/smuggling etc. This article completely fails to recognise we are the most over-populated country in the EU , bar Holland. And why should this be Europe`s burden? The vast majority of refugees are Moslem and would be far better offered refuge in one of the many Moslem countries. As many people have suggested there is a big danger of ISIS infiltration - and even without that I guarantee they will import their prejudices, hatreds and feuds to spill out onto Europe`s streets. Check out the video of the migrants refusing Red Cross parcels in Macedonia www.liveleak.com/view?i=06a_1440530504#yPuypVm3ZiSZ8Jfd.01It is politicians, and a minority of noisy people like Dunt, who have `signed up` to `obligations` to some of these people. Well, Europeans are getting sick of it! If Germany wants to take in millions, good luck to them. That`s not a reason for us to follow suit. And I bet most Germans disagree with what is being foisted on them.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2015 21:17:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Aug 30, 2015 21:34:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by derrida1437 on Aug 30, 2015 22:27:57 GMT
|
|
|
Post by derrida1437 on Aug 30, 2015 22:33:16 GMT
|
|
|
Post by derrida1437 on Aug 30, 2015 23:30:33 GMT
Not quite. The issue of immigration and how you control it is intrinsically about 1. what political parties perceive to be the problem and 2. how they think it should be solved. For immigration, illegal immigration, refugees and asylum seekers virtually all UK political parties see the EU's strategic partnership with the UN as a key relationship but also underline the importance of regional partners; notably the Arab League, the OSCE, the African Union, regional interlocutors in Latin America, in the Caribbean, and in Asia. Most Conservatives understand this. UKIP reject the EU and moreover it fatally rejects the multilateral approach to immigration simply because they do not understand multilateralism. As a result UKIP espouse UK isolationism. Which is why some people vote for them. Each to their own. Attachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Aug 31, 2015 6:04:04 GMT
Not quite. The issue of immigration and how you control it is intrinsically about 1. what political parties perceive to be the problem and 2. how they think it should be solved. For immigration, illegal immigration, refugees and asylum seekers virtually all UK political parties see the EU's strategic partnership with the UN as a key relationship but also underline the importance of regional partners; notably the Arab League, the OSCE, the African Union, regional interlocutors in Latin America, in the Caribbean, and in Asia. Most Conservatives understand this. UKIP reject the EU and moreover it fatally rejects the multilateral approach to immigration simply because they do not understand multilateralism. As a result UKIP espouse UK isolationism. Which is why some people vote for them. Each to their own. View Attachment************** You are obsessed with UKIP youth.
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Aug 31, 2015 10:17:20 GMT
Not quite. The issue of immigration and how you control it is intrinsically about 1. what political parties perceive to be the problem and 2. how they think it should be solved. For immigration, illegal immigration, refugees and asylum seekers virtually all UK political parties see the EU's strategic partnership with the UN as a key relationship but also underline the importance of regional partners; notably the Arab League, the OSCE, the African Union, regional interlocutors in Latin America, in the Caribbean, and in Asia. Most Conservatives understand this. UKIP reject the EU and moreover it fatally rejects the multilateral approach to immigration simply because they do not understand multilateralism. As a result UKIP espouse UK isolationism. Which is why some people vote for them. Each to their own. View Attachment**************, why do you think you - living abroad - should be telling people living in the UK why they should accept more asylum seekers/immigrants? Don't you think that the other Muslim countries - many sparsely populated and very wealthy - should be doing far more than Europe in terms of taking many of these poor souls?
|
|
|
Post by lastoftheldk on Aug 31, 2015 10:30:56 GMT
get the oil companies to pay
|
|