|
Post by ukcstokie on Sept 4, 2015 18:19:25 GMT
It seems Farage predicted this... www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/20/nigel-farage-opposes-eu-action-to-tackle-migrant-deaths-in-mediterranean"Nigel Farage has warned against “waves of millions” of people from Africa coming to Europe if the EU agrees a common policy for tackling migrant deaths in the Mediterranean." "But waves of millions of people coming from north Africa seeking a better life in Europe, if that links in on Thursday to a new common migration policy" So it looks as though Europe has basically said that we'll welcome all refugees - an open invitation to come to Europe. Then we seem surprised that millions take us up on the offer. There will be many people who do need our hospitality and our protection, but many will be wanting to take the offer of a better life in Europe. As inevitable as night following day somehow UKIP have become the arbiters of natural justice. You only have to look at who UKIP's core vote base is to understand that they know very little about the issue itself. Ultimately because the people who vote for them don't need to know either. It doesn't taken a lot of digging to establish what the U.S. is doing on a humanitarian level. It's been mentioned in a previous thread for staters. Still trying to tell people over here what they should put up with when you're far away? Where have I said UKIP are the "arbiters of natural justice"? Nobody has suggested that. UKIP know nothing about this but were able to predict what was going to happen? What Farage was saying has been shown to be correct though. It's a crisis that has been engineered by the EU. Why they decided to make this happened and the blood on their hands - well we can only really guess at their reasons at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by derrida1437 on Sept 4, 2015 19:38:14 GMT
As inevitable as night following day somehow UKIP have become the arbiters of natural justice. You only have to look at who UKIP's core vote base is to understand that they know very little about the issue itself. Ultimately because the people who vote for them don't need to know either. It doesn't taken a lot of digging to establish what the U.S. is doing on a humanitarian level. It's been mentioned in a previous thread for staters. Still trying to tell people over here what they should put up with when you're far away? Where have I said UKIP are the "arbiters of natural justice"? Nobody has suggested that. UKIP know nothing about this but were able to predict what was going to happen? What Farage was saying has been shown to be correct though. It's a crisis that has been engineered by the EU. Why they decided to make this happened and the blood on their hands - well we can only really guess at their reasons at the moment. Manchester?? The EU have engineered the Syrian refugee crisis have they?? Everyone's entitled to their view but go on, explain this one, then....... Popcorn ready.
|
|
|
Germany.
Sept 4, 2015 19:41:53 GMT
via mobile
Post by stokeharry on Sept 4, 2015 19:41:53 GMT
As inevitable as night following day somehow UKIP have become the arbiters of natural justice. You only have to look at who UKIP's core vote base is to understand that they know very little about the issue itself. Ultimately because the people who vote for them don't need to know either. It doesn't taken a lot of digging to establish what the U.S. is doing on a humanitarian level. It's been mentioned in a previous thread for staters. Still trying to tell people over here what they should put up with when you're far away? Where have I said UKIP are the "arbiters of natural justice"? Nobody has suggested that. UKIP know nothing about this but were able to predict what was going to happen? What Farage was saying has been shown to be correct though. It's a crisis that has been engineered by the EU. Why they decided to make this happened and the blood on their hands - well we can only really guess at their reasons at the moment. I'd rather farage and UKIP than Corbyn and that treacherous Labour lot
|
|
|
Germany.
Sept 4, 2015 19:48:01 GMT
via mobile
Post by wizzardofdribble on Sept 4, 2015 19:48:01 GMT
But surely thousands of refugees could be employed on the Railways if Corbyn was Prime Minister? Reintroducing track that Beeching destroyed and renovating and repairing the old steam trains.
Building aqueducts and tunnels and thousands of miles of new track would take huge amounts of labour. And all these people would pay taxes plus the 'multiplier-effect' would create thousands of jobs in supply and support services.
Plus thousands of new apprenticeships for young people to learn engineering skills instead of worthless degrees that land them in debt.
Many a true word spoken in jest..
And some outstanding steam trains with superb catering facilities.
All that on a Living Wage.
|
|
|
Post by derrida1437 on Sept 4, 2015 20:10:32 GMT
Still trying to tell people over here what they should put up with when you're far away? Where have I said UKIP are the "arbiters of natural justice"? Nobody has suggested that. UKIP know nothing about this but were able to predict what was going to happen? What Farage was saying has been shown to be correct though. It's a crisis that has been engineered by the EU. Why they decided to make this happened and the blood on their hands - well we can only really guess at their reasons at the moment. I'd rather farage and UKIP than Corbyn and that treacherous Labour lot That's Xenophobically Demented vs Unelectabe defined.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2015 20:13:21 GMT
The only way that nationalisation of the railways would work,is if you sacked the current crop of blue collar workers on £55,000 a year and replaced them with Poles on £25,000 a year .
Abolish HS2 and reinvest in existing routes with more new trains .
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Sept 4, 2015 20:18:00 GMT
Still trying to tell people over here what they should put up with when you're far away? Where have I said UKIP are the "arbiters of natural justice"? Nobody has suggested that. UKIP know nothing about this but were able to predict what was going to happen? What Farage was saying has been shown to be correct though. It's a crisis that has been engineered by the EU. Why they decided to make this happened and the blood on their hands - well we can only really guess at their reasons at the moment. Manchester?? The EU have engineered the Syrian refugee crisis have they?? Everyone's entitled to their view but go on, explain this one, then....... Popcorn ready. EU tells the world refugees welcome and we'll look after them -> Millions of people decide to come to seek refugee status -> Migration crisis ensures. EU leaders scratch their head wondering how the crisis has happened.
|
|
|
Germany.
Sept 4, 2015 20:20:24 GMT
via mobile
Post by wizzardofdribble on Sept 4, 2015 20:20:24 GMT
The only way that nationalisation of the railways would work,is if you sacked the current crop of blue collar workers on £55,000 a year and replaced them with Poles on £25,000 a year . Abolish HS2 and reinvest in existing routes with more new trains . Re-open some old routes..and reintoduce some old STEAM TRAINS :-D
|
|
|
Germany.
Sept 4, 2015 20:30:48 GMT
via mobile
Post by stokeharry on Sept 4, 2015 20:30:48 GMT
I'd rather farage and UKIP than Corbyn and that treacherous Labour lot That's Xenophobically Demented vs Unelectabe defined. In your head I'm sure it is
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2015 20:43:30 GMT
That's Xenophobically Demented vs Unelectabe defined. In your head I'm sure it is But which head ? Dick or Thick ?
|
|
|
Post by derrida1437 on Sept 4, 2015 21:15:29 GMT
Manchester?? The EU have engineered the Syrian refugee crisis have they?? Everyone's entitled to their view but go on, explain this one, then....... Popcorn ready. EU tells the world refugees welcome and we'll look after them -> Millions of people decide to come to seek refugee status -> Migration crisis ensures. EU leaders scratch their head wondering how the crisis has happened. Ah okay. Fair enough. I just think a humanitarian crisis is just that no matter where it is and we should do all we can to help. I thought you were suggesting the EU directly caused ISIS/ISIL ... which is probably for another day. Each to their own though.
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Sept 4, 2015 21:27:28 GMT
EU tells the world refugees welcome and we'll look after them -> Millions of people decide to come to seek refugee status -> Migration crisis ensures. EU leaders scratch their head wondering how the crisis has happened. Ah okay. Fair enough. I just think a humanitarian crisis is just that no matter where it is and we should do all we can to help. I thought you were suggesting the EU directly caused ISIS/ISIL ... which is probably for another day. Each to their own though. No the EU caused this. They were warned. Farage - for example - predicted it - though you hardly needed a crystal ball to do so. I just wonder what their motives truly are? They could hardly be that stupid not to realise that this was going to happened. Sad that so many people will die as pawns in their little game.
|
|
|
Post by derrida1437 on Sept 4, 2015 21:34:20 GMT
Ah okay. Fair enough. I just think a humanitarian crisis is just that no matter where it is and we should do all we can to help. I thought you were suggesting the EU directly caused ISIS/ISIL ... which is probably for another day. Each to their own though. No the EU caused this. They were warned. Farage - for example - predicted it - though you hardly needed a crystal ball to do so. I just wonder what their motives truly are? They could hardly be that stupid not to realise that this was going to happened. Sad that so many people will die as pawns in their little game. I feel we're going to have to agree to disagree here then. To say that the EU directly caused ISIS/ISIL is to suggest that the EU as an entity deliberately caused unrest, revolution and armed conflict in The Middle East. The EU didn't. If you mean the EU invited refugees out of Syria, Iraq and Northern Africa then you'd also need to blame the UNHCR for classifying these people as refugees. It's (normally) never as clear cut as UKIP and Farage want to suggest. It's far more nuanced. Lest we forget that these people are in dire need. But as I said each to their own.
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Sept 4, 2015 23:28:59 GMT
No the EU caused this. They were warned. Farage - for example - predicted it - though you hardly needed a crystal ball to do so. I just wonder what their motives truly are? They could hardly be that stupid not to realise that this was going to happened. Sad that so many people will die as pawns in their little game. I feel we're going to have to agree to disagree here then. To say that the EU directly caused ISIS/ISIL is to suggest that the EU as an entity deliberately caused unrest, revolution and armed conflict in The Middle East. The EU didn't. If you mean the EU invited refugees out of Syria, Iraq and Northern Africa then you'd also need to blame the UNHCR for classifying these people as refugees. It's (normally) never as clear cut as UKIP and Farage want to suggest. It's far more nuanced. Lest we forget that these people are in dire need. But as I said each to their own. Obviously the EU didn't cause ISIS (and nowhere have I suggested that, or even hinted at it). It's nothing to do with the UNHCR either. It's down to the EU approach to refugees - to communicate that they will be allowed to stay once in the EU. That's just a red rag to a bull - encouraging millions to think that once in Europe they can stay. Some of the people are desperate. Very desperate. Many are coming here for economic reasons. There are people all over the world in terrible conditions though. If our approach is purely driven on humanitarian grounds then why should a family, who left the safety of a refugee camp outside of Syria (albeit in not particularly good conditions) to come to Europe, receive preferential treatment over say a family starving in say Bangladesh, or people in the way of the conflict in Nigeria? Why should the former be offered pretty much unconditional sanctuary, while the others are ignored? Our hearts should all go out to them all - but should we encourage and allow the tens, maybe hundreds of millions to come to Europe?
|
|
|
Post by derrida1437 on Sept 5, 2015 0:37:50 GMT
I feel we're going to have to agree to disagree here then. To say that the EU directly caused ISIS/ISIL is to suggest that the EU as an entity deliberately caused unrest, revolution and armed conflict in The Middle East. The EU didn't. If you mean the EU invited refugees out of Syria, Iraq and Northern Africa then you'd also need to blame the UNHCR for classifying these people as refugees. It's (normally) never as clear cut as UKIP and Farage want to suggest. It's far more nuanced. Lest we forget that these people are in dire need. But as I said each to their own. Obviously the EU didn't cause ISIS (and nowhere have I suggested that, or even hinted at it). It's nothing to do with the UNHCR either. It's down to the EU approach to refugees - to communicate that they will be allowed to stay once in the EU. That's just a red rag to a bull - encouraging millions to think that once in Europe they can stay. Some of the people are desperate. Very desperate. Many are coming here for economic reasons. I understand what you've said. However that last sentence of yours is precisely what is wrong in what you've said. NONE of the refugees are coming here for economic reasons. If they were they'd be economic migrants and not refugees. The reason I mentioned the UNHCR is that you cannot blame the EU for what is a global humanitarian crisis. That's like blaming the "Naughty Forty" for the Franco-Prussian War. It isn't just EU countries which are taking in refugees and, moreover, the EU approach and response is through consultation with the UN. In all honesty that's what makes Farage and UKIP look like idiots. Nobody mentions Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt. The stats are all here - data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/download.php?id=7908Officially, there are 2.1 million Syrians registered by UNHCR in Egypt, Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon, 1.9 million Syrians registered by the Government of Turkey, as well as more than 24,000 Syrian refugees registered in North Africa. That's before you even hit Europe and the rest of the world. The EU has given EUR 2 million (US$ 2.2 million) to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) to support the Agency’s emergency response for Palestine refugees from Syria (PRS) living in Jordan as well. The full EU response is this - ec.europa.eu/echo/where/middle-east-north-africa/syria_enThe full UNHCR assessment of Syria - www.unhcr.org/pages/49e486a76.htmlThe full UN response to Syria - www.nmun.org/ny_archives/ny15_downloads/BGGs/NY15_BGG_UNHCR_Update.pdfYou mentioned Bangladesh and Nigeria so it's only fair to highlight the following: Bangladesh www.unhcr.org/pages/49e487546.htmlOnly three South East Asian States are parties to the 1951 Refugee Convention and only one State has signed the 1954 Statelessness Convention. The lack of asylum laws and diversity of national legal frameworks, as well as government practices and protection environments in the region's countries, make achieving regional harmonization challenging. In early 2014, the Government of Bangladesh announced its national strategy for Myanmar refugees and undocumented Myanmar nationals, acknowledging their need for basic humanitarian relief. UNHCR hopes that this will enable unregistered refugees to access international protection. Meanwhile, UNHCR provides protection and life-sustaining assistance to refugees residing in the two official camps, pending the identification of durable solutions. The organization advocates for the prevention of statelessness, more self-reliance opportunities for urban refugees and durable solutions. Nigeria www.unhcr.org/pages/49e484f76.htmlThe UNHCR Office in Nigeria will be responding to the protection needs of some 1,700 recognized refugees. UNHCR will in addition pursue the repatriation of Cameroonian refugees. It will strengthen its presence and capacity in the country and will monitor protection needs, in collaboration with the National Human Rights Commission, national NGOs and civil society. UNHCR will also build the capacity of state agencies by promoting training on basic principles of protection and camp coordination and camp management. The organization, together with partners, will support the authorities in the implementation of the Kampala Convention, strengthening their capacity in protection monitoring and response. These are the facts from the UN as they are available. You can see how multilateralism helps to solve situations like those you specifically mentioned through international cooperation. This is is why you need multilateral institutions.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2015 5:23:49 GMT
Berlusconi snubbing the lard arse.
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Sept 5, 2015 9:35:13 GMT
Obviously the EU didn't cause ISIS (and nowhere have I suggested that, or even hinted at it). It's nothing to do with the UNHCR either. It's down to the EU approach to refugees - to communicate that they will be allowed to stay once in the EU. That's just a red rag to a bull - encouraging millions to think that once in Europe they can stay. Some of the people are desperate. Very desperate. Many are coming here for economic reasons. I understand what you've said. However that last sentence of yours is precisely what is wrong in what you've said. NONE of the refugees are coming here for economic reasons. If they were they'd be economic migrants and not refugees. The reason I mentioned the UNHCR is that you cannot blame the EU for what is a global humanitarian crisis. That's like blaming the "Naughty Forty" for the Franco-Prussian War. It isn't just EU countries which are taking in refugees and, moreover, the EU approach and response is through consultation with the UN. In all honesty that's what makes Farage and UKIP look like idiots. Nobody mentions Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt. The stats are all here - data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/download.php?id=7908Officially, there are 2.1 million Syrians registered by UNHCR in Egypt, Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon, 1.9 million Syrians registered by the Government of Turkey, as well as more than 24,000 Syrian refugees registered in North Africa. That's before you even hit Europe and the rest of the world. The EU has given EUR 2 million (US$ 2.2 million) to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) to support the Agency’s emergency response for Palestine refugees from Syria (PRS) living in Jordan as well. The full EU response is this - ec.europa.eu/echo/where/middle-east-north-africa/syria_enThe full UNHCR assessment of Syria - www.unhcr.org/pages/49e486a76.htmlThe full UN response to Syria - www.nmun.org/ny_archives/ny15_downloads/BGGs/NY15_BGG_UNHCR_Update.pdfYou mentioned Bangladesh and Nigeria so it's only fair to highlight the following: Bangladesh www.unhcr.org/pages/49e487546.htmlOnly three South East Asian States are parties to the 1951 Refugee Convention and only one State has signed the 1954 Statelessness Convention. The lack of asylum laws and diversity of national legal frameworks, as well as government practices and protection environments in the region's countries, make achieving regional harmonization challenging. In early 2014, the Government of Bangladesh announced its national strategy for Myanmar refugees and undocumented Myanmar nationals, acknowledging their need for basic humanitarian relief. UNHCR hopes that this will enable unregistered refugees to access international protection. Meanwhile, UNHCR provides protection and life-sustaining assistance to refugees residing in the two official camps, pending the identification of durable solutions. The organization advocates for the prevention of statelessness, more self-reliance opportunities for urban refugees and durable solutions. Nigeria www.unhcr.org/pages/49e484f76.htmlThe UNHCR Office in Nigeria will be responding to the protection needs of some 1,700 recognized refugees. UNHCR will in addition pursue the repatriation of Cameroonian refugees. It will strengthen its presence and capacity in the country and will monitor protection needs, in collaboration with the National Human Rights Commission, national NGOs and civil society. UNHCR will also build the capacity of state agencies by promoting training on basic principles of protection and camp coordination and camp management. The organization, together with partners, will support the authorities in the implementation of the Kampala Convention, strengthening their capacity in protection monitoring and response. These are the facts from the UN as they are available. You can see how multilateralism helps to solve situations like those you specifically mentioned through international cooperation. This is is why you need multilateral institutions. Of course many, if not most of them are economic migrants. They've left Syria. They've had the opportunity of the safety of the refugee camps. The safety of Turkey, Greece, Italy, Hungary, ...
|
|
|
Post by derrida1437 on Sept 5, 2015 11:54:54 GMT
I understand what you've said. However that last sentence of yours is precisely what is wrong in what you've said. NONE of the refugees are coming here for economic reasons. If they were they'd be economic migrants and not refugees. The reason I mentioned the UNHCR is that you cannot blame the EU for what is a global humanitarian crisis. That's like blaming the "Naughty Forty" for the Franco-Prussian War. It isn't just EU countries which are taking in refugees and, moreover, the EU approach and response is through consultation with the UN. In all honesty that's what makes Farage and UKIP look like idiots. Nobody mentions Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt. The stats are all here - data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/download.php?id=7908Officially, there are 2.1 million Syrians registered by UNHCR in Egypt, Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon, 1.9 million Syrians registered by the Government of Turkey, as well as more than 24,000 Syrian refugees registered in North Africa. That's before you even hit Europe and the rest of the world. The EU has given EUR 2 million (US$ 2.2 million) to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) to support the Agency’s emergency response for Palestine refugees from Syria (PRS) living in Jordan as well. The full EU response is this - ec.europa.eu/echo/where/middle-east-north-africa/syria_enThe full UNHCR assessment of Syria - www.unhcr.org/pages/49e486a76.htmlThe full UN response to Syria - www.nmun.org/ny_archives/ny15_downloads/BGGs/NY15_BGG_UNHCR_Update.pdfYou mentioned Bangladesh and Nigeria so it's only fair to highlight the following: Bangladesh www.unhcr.org/pages/49e487546.htmlOnly three South East Asian States are parties to the 1951 Refugee Convention and only one State has signed the 1954 Statelessness Convention. The lack of asylum laws and diversity of national legal frameworks, as well as government practices and protection environments in the region's countries, make achieving regional harmonization challenging. In early 2014, the Government of Bangladesh announced its national strategy for Myanmar refugees and undocumented Myanmar nationals, acknowledging their need for basic humanitarian relief. UNHCR hopes that this will enable unregistered refugees to access international protection. Meanwhile, UNHCR provides protection and life-sustaining assistance to refugees residing in the two official camps, pending the identification of durable solutions. The organization advocates for the prevention of statelessness, more self-reliance opportunities for urban refugees and durable solutions. Nigeria www.unhcr.org/pages/49e484f76.htmlThe UNHCR Office in Nigeria will be responding to the protection needs of some 1,700 recognized refugees. UNHCR will in addition pursue the repatriation of Cameroonian refugees. It will strengthen its presence and capacity in the country and will monitor protection needs, in collaboration with the National Human Rights Commission, national NGOs and civil society. UNHCR will also build the capacity of state agencies by promoting training on basic principles of protection and camp coordination and camp management. The organization, together with partners, will support the authorities in the implementation of the Kampala Convention, strengthening their capacity in protection monitoring and response. These are the facts from the UN as they are available. You can see how multilateralism helps to solve situations like those you specifically mentioned through international cooperation. This is is why you need multilateral institutions. Of course many, if not most of them are economic migrants. They've left Syria. They've had the opportunity of the safety of the refugee camps. The safety of Turkey, Greece, Italy, Hungary, ... Unfortunately all you're doing there is evidencing that you've either (a) not read any of the UNHCR information or (b) do not to understand it. You've also deliberately misunderstood precisely what you're referencing to suit your agenda which is disingenuous. If these people were economic migrants they'd be classed as such and would be seeking solely economic benefit from moving. The UNHCR call these people refugees because they are people seeking refuge from civil war and repression. If you're saying, by your own admission, that every global multilateral institution (including UN and EU) dealing with this issue is wrong in categorising this as a humanitarian crisis and therefore people affected as refugees then you're in the wrong. To put no fine a point on it. You say that the refugees have left Syria and found themselves in refugee camps. There's obviously a finite amount of space in these camps which is why the UNHCR (see above post) have come up with a carefully considered and managed plan. If you read the UNHCR information above you'll be able to understand why what you're saying is a little....well, it's factually wrong, to be honest.
|
|
|
Post by desman2 on Sept 5, 2015 12:15:35 GMT
Its not the EU thats to blame. Alot of the blame for this is quite simply the voter who voted red blue or yellow, who put those in power who deemed it appropriate to rain tommahawk missiles and other weaponry down on the countries these people lived in without thinking about the consequences. Not only that, but they continued to vote for those who would go and cause destruction and mayhem again. Im only talking about this country of course, but the bottom line is what started as cross on a piece of paper has turned into drownings at sea, people trafficking, a serious crisis for the innocent but a free ticket for the terrorist and crminal. These same voters are now the ones who criticise anyone who questions the actions of the authorities in their totally laid back attitude to dealing with this. Dont blame the daily mail, ukip, or any other organisation for something you have created yourself.
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Sept 5, 2015 14:21:07 GMT
So everyone who voted Labour ( Iraq) or Conservative (Libya) is to blame then?
Well I'm OK then because I didn't vote Tory at the last election and I went on the Stop The War demo in London before we bombed Iraq.
But werent a lot of UKIP members (when they were in the Conservative Party) ignore what was going on in Rwanda..Burundi..Sierra Leone..Darfur?
To blame British voters for what is happening is both absurd and insulting and dangerous.
Just imagine if Cameron started blaming British voters and told us it was all our fault. There would be uproar.
|
|
|
Post by desman2 on Sept 5, 2015 14:25:52 GMT
So everyone who voted Labour ( Iraq) or Conservative (Libya) is to blame then? Well I'm OK then because I didn't vote Tory at the last election and I went on the Stop The War demo in London before we bombed Iraq. But werent a lot of UKIP members (when they were in the Conservative Party) ignore what was going on in Rwanda..Burundi..Sierra Leone..Darfur? To blame British voters for what is happening is both absurd and extremely insulting and very dangerous. Of course they are. The vote gives them the mandate to do it. Simply blaming politicians isnt enough.
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Sept 5, 2015 14:31:11 GMT
So everyone who voted Labour ( Iraq) or Conservative (Libya) is to blame then? Well I'm OK then because I didn't vote Tory at the last election and I went on the Stop The War demo in London before we bombed Iraq. But werent a lot of UKIP members (when they were in the Conservative Party) ignore what was going on in Rwanda..Burundi..Sierra Leone..Darfur? To blame British voters for what is happening is both absurd and extremely insulting and very dangerous. Of course they are. The vote gives them the mandate to do it. Simply blaming politicians isnt enough. And here was me thinking that ISIL had destabilised the area..aided and abetted by Assad(secretly) and the Turks were more interested in gassing Kurds than taking on Islamic State for their domestic purposes. But no..its all down to the British Electorate. Bastards !!!
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Sept 5, 2015 15:07:25 GMT
Of course many, if not most of them are economic migrants. They've left Syria. They've had the opportunity of the safety of the refugee camps. The safety of Turkey, Greece, Italy, Hungary, ... Unfortunately all you're doing there is evidencing that you've either (a) not read any of the UNHCR information or (b) do not to understand it. You've also deliberately misunderstood precisely what you're referencing to suit your agenda which is disingenuous. If these people were economic migrants they'd be classed as such and would be seeking solely economic benefit from moving. The UNHCR call these people refugees because they are people seeking refuge from civil war and repression. If you're saying, by your own admission, that every global multilateral institution (including UN and EU) dealing with this issue is wrong in categorising this as a humanitarian crisis and therefore people affected as refugees then you're in the wrong. To put no fine a point on it. You say that the refugees have left Syria and found themselves in refugee camps. There's obviously a finite amount of space in these camps which is why the UNHCR (see above post) have come up with a carefully considered and managed plan. If you read the UNHCR information above you'll be able to understand why what you're saying is a little....well, it's factually wrong, to be honest. No, I've read the NHCR stuff - doesn't really tell me anything new. They started off as refugees, fleeing conflict. But they are now migrating due to economic factors - i.e. to get a better life. It really doesn't matter what the UNHCR class them as (or more accurately, what they did class them as), it's they are now making decisions on where they want to be in terms of their economic well being rather than their safety. The UNHCR classed them as refugees. It doesn't mean that they're refugees for the rest of eternity does it?
|
|
|
Post by derrida1437 on Sept 5, 2015 15:38:15 GMT
Unfortunately all you're doing there is evidencing that you've either (a) not read any of the UNHCR information or (b) do not to understand it. You've also deliberately misunderstood precisely what you're referencing to suit your agenda which is disingenuous. If these people were economic migrants they'd be classed as such and would be seeking solely economic benefit from moving. The UNHCR call these people refugees because they are people seeking refuge from civil war and repression. If you're saying, by your own admission, that every global multilateral institution (including UN and EU) dealing with this issue is wrong in categorising this as a humanitarian crisis and therefore people affected as refugees then you're in the wrong. To put no fine a point on it. You say that the refugees have left Syria and found themselves in refugee camps. There's obviously a finite amount of space in these camps which is why the UNHCR (see above post) have come up with a carefully considered and managed plan. If you read the UNHCR information above you'll be able to understand why what you're saying is a little....well, it's factually wrong, to be honest. No, I've read the NHCR stuff - doesn't really tell me anything new. They started off as refugees, fleeing conflict. But they are now migrating due to economic factors - i.e. to get a better life. It really doesn't matter what the UNHCR class them as (or more accurately, what they did class them as), it's they are now making decisions on where they want to be in terms of their economic well being rather than their safety. The UNHCR classed them as refugees. It doesn't mean that they're refugees for the rest of eternity does it? As I intimated previously you've either deliberately conflated and/or misunderstood (I'll give you the benefit of doubt) what's going on in an attempt to put forward what is the established UKIP position; the "there's no such thing as a refugee" stance. That's fine - each to their own. I've highlighted what you've said to point out the nonsense of it. Without malice it is funny to read what you've said. One minute the EU have got it wrong. That's disproven so then the goalposts are moved and it's the UN who have it wrong. Which is humorous I'll grant you. You're argument appears to be that the entire multilateral international community is wrong in defining this as a humanitarian refugee crisis and that, moreover, you are right in defining it as a case of economic migration. You appear to be basing your thesis on the idea that the refugees are economic migrants because they are looking to get more than they have in their current homeland. This is a position which is ridiculously funny given that they have nothing but bullets in their homeland and is the whole point of them fleeing Syria for safety. That is what a refugee is but you repeatedly conflate and/or (again, benefit of doubt) misunderstand it. To clarify, an individual is an economic migrant when the only reason for migration is to seek economic advantage for themselves, and/or their family. That's not happening here. It's about finding a safe haven by fleeing a war zone created in part by The West. It's about survival. The information is all in that UNHCR document that you said you had read, understood, and had furthermore already been informed about. Which is funny given what you went on to say. But hey ho. It's good that you've got a sense of humour about it at least. People being treated like people; with compassion. What a novel uncontroversial idea.
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Sept 5, 2015 15:59:10 GMT
No, I've read the NHCR stuff - doesn't really tell me anything new. They started off as refugees, fleeing conflict. But they are now migrating due to economic factors - i.e. to get a better life. It really doesn't matter what the UNHCR class them as (or more accurately, what they did class them as), it's they are now making decisions on where they want to be in terms of their economic well being rather than their safety. The UNHCR classed them as refugees. It doesn't mean that they're refugees for the rest of eternity does it? As I intimated previously you've either deliberately conflated and/or misunderstood (I'll give you the benefit of doubt) what's going on in an attempt to put forward what is the established UKIP position; the "there's no such thing as a refugee" stance. That's fine - each to their own. I've highlighted what you've said to point out the nonsense of it. Without malice it is funny to read what you've said. One minute the EU have got it wrong. That's disproven so then the goalposts are moved and it's the UN who have it wrong. Which is humorous I'll grant you. You're argument appears to be that the entire multilateral international community is wrong in defining this as a humanitarian refugee crisis and that, moreover, you are right in defining it as a case of economic migration. You appear to be basing your thesis on the idea that the refugees are economic migrants because they are looking to get more than they have in their current homeland. This is a position which is ridiculously funny given that they have nothing but bullets in their homeland and is the whole point of them fleeing Syria for safety. That is what a refugee is but you repeatedly conflate and/or (again, benefit of doubt) misunderstand it. To clarify, an individual is an economic migrant when the only reason for migration is to seek economic advantage for themselves, and/or their family. That's not happening here. It's about finding a safe haven by fleeing a war zone created in part by The West. They aren't looking for a work visa. It's about survival. The information is all in that UNHCR document that you said you had read, understood, and had furthermore already been informed about. Which is funny given what you went on to say. But hey ho. It's good that you've got a sense of humour about it at least. I don't care what UKIP's position is. Haven't bothered researching it. If it coincides with my views fine. If it doesn't fine. I have not said there is "no such thing as a refugee". Not even close. In fact, quite the opposite. I've said they were refugees, but when they decide to move for economic reasons, they are economic migrants. Just where have you shown, let alone proved, that the EU haven't got it wrong? Where? The UN were correct to classify the people as refugees. It's just the ones who are now moving for economic reasons are now economic migrants. Funnily you start by saying "without malice" and then you just make things up. You've done that numerous times on these threads. Make things up or just deliberately misinterpret what's been said.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2015 16:10:20 GMT
As I intimated previously you've either deliberately conflated and/or misunderstood (I'll give you the benefit of doubt) what's going on in an attempt to put forward what is the established UKIP position; the "there's no such thing as a refugee" stance. That's fine - each to their own. I've highlighted what you've said to point out the nonsense of it. Without malice it is funny to read what you've said. One minute the EU have got it wrong. That's disproven so then the goalposts are moved and it's the UN who have it wrong. Which is humorous I'll grant you. You're argument appears to be that the entire multilateral international community is wrong in defining this as a humanitarian refugee crisis and that, moreover, you are right in defining it as a case of economic migration. You appear to be basing your thesis on the idea that the refugees are economic migrants because they are looking to get more than they have in their current homeland. This is a position which is ridiculously funny given that they have nothing but bullets in their homeland and is the whole point of them fleeing Syria for safety. That is what a refugee is but you repeatedly conflate and/or (again, benefit of doubt) misunderstand it. To clarify, an individual is an economic migrant when the only reason for migration is to seek economic advantage for themselves, and/or their family. That's not happening here. It's about finding a safe haven by fleeing a war zone created in part by The West. They aren't looking for a work visa. It's about survival. The information is all in that UNHCR document that you said you had read, understood, and had furthermore already been informed about. Which is funny given what you went on to say. But hey ho. It's good that you've got a sense of humour about it at least. I don't care what UKIP's position is. Haven't bothered researching it. If it coincides with my views fine. If it doesn't fine. I have not said there is "no such thing as a refugee". Not even close. In fact, quite the opposite. I've said they were refugees, but when they decide to move for economic reasons, they are economic migrants. Just where have you shown, let alone proved, that the EU haven't got it wrong? Where? The UN were correct to classify the people as refugees. It's just the ones who are now moving for economic reasons are now economic migrants. Funnily you start by saying "without malice" and then you just make things up. You've done that numerous times on these threads. Make things up or just deliberately misinterpret what's been said.Spot on It wasn't long ago Derrida was agreeing with Farage mate
|
|
|
Post by boothenboy75 on Sept 5, 2015 16:49:59 GMT
Germany telling anyone else how to behave regarding protecting minorities is a bit like Jimmy Saville advising us on bringing up children.
The UK's position on taking genuine refugees has been pretty poor though. This is mainly due to the publics reluctance to take any more immigrants due to the millions of economic and European immigrants waved through by successive governments. If they hadn't created this problem we'd, as we always have done, been taking our fair share.
One thing that has confused me though, is that the father of the tragic young boys who died has taken them "home" to Syria for burial. A perfectly understandable thing to do and I can't imagine the pain he must be in. But, how can he return to Syria when he felt the need to flee as it was unsafe and declare himself a refugee? Either he was forced from Syria and is unable to return and is a refugee or he is an economic migrant trying to get a better life.
|
|
|
Post by derrida1437 on Sept 5, 2015 18:15:49 GMT
As I intimated previously you've either deliberately conflated and/or misunderstood (I'll give you the benefit of doubt) what's going on in an attempt to put forward what is the established UKIP position; the "there's no such thing as a refugee" stance. That's fine - each to their own. I've highlighted what you've said to point out the nonsense of it. Without malice it is funny to read what you've said. One minute the EU have got it wrong. That's disproven so then the goalposts are moved and it's the UN who have it wrong. Which is humorous I'll grant you. You're argument appears to be that the entire multilateral international community is wrong in defining this as a humanitarian refugee crisis and that, moreover, you are right in defining it as a case of economic migration. You appear to be basing your thesis on the idea that the refugees are economic migrants because they are looking to get more than they have in their current homeland. This is a position which is ridiculously funny given that they have nothing but bullets in their homeland and is the whole point of them fleeing Syria for safety. That is what a refugee is but you repeatedly conflate and/or (again, benefit of doubt) misunderstand it. To clarify, an individual is an economic migrant when the only reason for migration is to seek economic advantage for themselves, and/or their family. That's not happening here. It's about finding a safe haven by fleeing a war zone created in part by The West. They aren't looking for a work visa. It's about survival. The information is all in that UNHCR document that you said you had read, understood, and had furthermore already been informed about. Which is funny given what you went on to say. But hey ho. It's good that you've got a sense of humour about it at least. I don't care what UKIP's position is. Haven't bothered researching it. If it coincides with my views fine. If it doesn't fine. I have not said there is "no such thing as a refugee". Not even close. In fact, quite the opposite. I've said they were refugees, but when they decide to move for economic reasons, they are economic reasons. Funnily you start by saying "without malice" and then you just make things up. You've done that numerous times on these threads. Make things up or just deliberately misinterpret what's been said. I'm glad you've still not understood the difference between a "refugee" and an "economic migrant". Refugees do not move for economic reasons. Economic migrants move for economic reasons. Your view does "coincide" (completely unintentionally no doubt) with UKIP's. It's each to their own. It looks like I've unintentionally "outed" you without consent. There is no malice. It was a ridiculously funny thing to say that's all. It can be frustrating to some when people go around "making things up" with factual evidence from the UN and stuff.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Sept 5, 2015 19:44:58 GMT
Damn Germans being all humane and that!
|
|
|
Germany.
Sept 5, 2015 20:38:43 GMT
via mobile
Post by wizzardofdribble on Sept 5, 2015 20:38:43 GMT
The thing is though, when I voted at the last General Election I didn't see Angela Merkels name on the ballot paper.
I must have missed it.
What Party was she in?
Angela's photo is now being held up by all those hundreds of thousands (soon to be) entering Germany as though she is some kind of Saint.
And then she will be telling all EU countries how many migrants they will be taking in and that includes the UK.
And the British Government will go along with it.
The media in the UK is already starting to fill with stories of people and councils desperate to take all these people in..and what we can all do to help.
A complete sea change in the last 48 hours.
And all down to The Germans.
Will pay more attention to the ballot paper at the next election.
|
|