We were also reading about thousands of refugees dying in the sea months ago. There's no indication that number has risen.
We were also reading about thousands of refugees dying in the sea months ago. There's no indication that number has risen.
You said there's no evidence the numbers crossing the sea hasn't risen, I've pointed to the numbers rising from tens of thousands to possible millions. They weren't crossing the sea to go to other destinations. Can you point to any evidence that the numbers crossing haven't increased dramatically since Merkel implemented her Darwin policy?
As far as I could tell, most of the current wave was already in Europe.
And almost all refugees from Syria were already allowed to stay in the EU, so that incentive hasn't changed much.
Where in Europe where they already? Maps I've seen in the news show them travelling from Turkey (Asia side) across the Med into Greece and then on from there?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
There is a massive difference in incentive between saying we're dealing with issues case by case but refugees should stay in their first safe nation ... and a nation ~10 nations away from Syria publicly implementing a Darwin policy of if you make it you can stay.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
You seem to forget that one actually needs money to get from the Middle East to anywhere in Europe. And since the Turks are not making it easy to leave Turkey towards the west you need a lot of money.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
As for the closure of the border with Austria; that is a decision the Visegrad nations are going to love. Because you can bet your last money on the stream diverting towards the north, the Czech Republic, Slovakia etc will soon learn whether they can really recluse themselves from being part of the solution. Just look at how close Nickelsdorf (where people enter Austria at the moment is to Slovakia) I think what we have seen is not Germany throwing in the towel, but Germany throwing down the gauntlet. We'll see how the tough comments in their national newspapers translate into rejection of cooperation with a Germany that's obviously willing to let non-cooperation come at a cost. My bet is that at this emergency summit that is in the making as we speak will result in bloody heads and resignation to a quota-system, a list of safe nations, and a rapid procedure to send back anybody who's not a refugee.
I'm not forgetting that, that is why this Darwin policy is leading to dividends for the people traffickers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
You are constitutionally incapable of admitting that Merkel made a mistake aren't you? Even though until recently you and I were both saying we need to deal with the people traffickers, her actively encouraging them changes things.Quote:
As for the closure of the border with Austria; that is a decision the Visegrad nations are going to love. Because you can bet your last money on the stream diverting towards the north, the Czech Republic, Slovakia etc will soon learn whether they can really recluse themselves from being part of the solution. Just look at how close Nickelsdorf (where people enter Austria at the moment is to Slovakia) I think what we have seen is not Germany throwing in the towel, but Germany throwing down the gauntlet. We'll see how the tough comments in their national newspapers translate into rejection of cooperation with a Germany that's obviously willing to let non-cooperation come at a cost. My bet is that at this emergency summit that is in the making as we speak will result in bloody heads and resignation to a quota-system, a list of safe nations, and a rapid procedure to send back anybody who's not a refugee.
She has all the nous in this instance of the Grand Old Duke of York. She marched up to the top of the hill and proclaimed everyone is welcome, then was horrified to see people took that to mean they should come. So then she said to her neighbours, you should also make everyone welcome and they've said no this is your mess we're not agreeing to that. So now she's marching down the hill again.
Yet she's a genius and kind and not at all cold-hearted and Darwinian in all this. People who were being sensible should all bow down and repeat her mistakes because 28 wrongs make a right.
Yes, she made mistakes. But it's not the mistake you think she made. Her first mistake was to under-estimate the stupidity of Orban, who by resisting the quota system saddles Hungary with many more refugees than it can support. Her second mistake was to under-estimate the lack of basic decency in the Visegrad nations. Now Germany is effectively punishing them for their actions.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Before Merkel unilaterally gave a blank cheque inviting millions of people to come illegally* through Hungary to get to Germany or die trying, did she bother to check with Orban first? It seems not, in which case she can hardly be upset at Orban being upset. :rolleyes:
* She's not giving either legal or safe passage.
You're essentially saying a pyromaniac is upset as after she threw oil on a fire that others weren't so happy to join her in that.
As for the Visegard, they're showing a lot of human decency. Unlike Merkel who is doing f//k all to help those who aren't willing to pay people smugglers to reach Europe. Once Merkel starts a policy that doesn't rely on the people smugglers as method of transportation you might have a point.
The most you can really say is that she sped up the process. There is some evidence that her actions have increased the number of migrants from Afghanistan though.
No that is not the most I can say which is why it got so much publicity when she said what was said, and why so many more people are crossing and drowning and crossing borders since the Dublin Regulation was replaced with the Darwin Policy.
Now instead of calming things and leading to a smoother process the Schengen Area is collapsing. Following on from Germany reinstating border controls, now Austria is sending the army to enforce its border with Hungary. Slovakia and Hazir's own Netherlands too.
But now we've gone from Merkel's Darwin Policy being described by its supporters from "generous" to "meaningless". That's the height of success.
Great to see David Cameron finally come out say that other European nations should step up to the plate and follow our lead on this crisis. I know you might be constitutionally incapable of saying that the UK is doing the right thing Hazir buts its about time to end this nonsense that Germany's futile unilateral Darwin people traffickers policy and failure to provide funding was generous. We've given a billion pounds in aid to those in need and are taking refugees directly and safely from the camps.
Its about time that nations shirking their responsibilities like Germany and France and follow our lead.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34242346
Actually, it seems that Merkel has gotten exactly what she wanted; a quota system has been agreed upon. Despite all the talk of vetoes only hours ago.
This mistake isn't working, why don't we get everyone to do it and then it will work. Will quotas deal with the people traffickers?
Didn't you once have a signature along the lines of "we've got to the bottom; let's keep digging"? Seems apt here.
And how well is the UK approach working? Have you set up points yet where people can apply for entry to the UK in Turkey, Jordan or Lebanon? How many people have you processed and how many people are on their way to the UK in government paid seats on a plane? Or for that matter, how many people have you kept from making a perilous journey by giving them a decent home, food and a chance of education or work in the neighbouring countries? What exactly has the UK done besides bleating theoretical solutions so far? Or how much safer have you made Syria with your inability to stop Jihadi's from joining ISIS and Al Qaida or with your limited air strikes?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
And you seriously wonder why nobody would give a damn no matter what you say?
Yeah Rand, is anyone meant to take the 5k a year number seriously?
Absolutely Loki. It's more than we have been taking and considering we're spending more on aid for those who need it than anyone else why would it not be taken seriously? How many are the USA taking or spending? How much is Germany spending?
What exactly the UK has done Hazir is spend a billion pounds on providing shelter etc for the over 90% left behind who need it. Far more than anyone else in Europe. Only the USA has spent more than the UK and considering the relative sizes not that much at all, in fact proportionately its about half. Frankly Hazir it's embarrassing that nobody else than us will do the right thing and I couldn't give a damn at all if a bunch of incompetent cheapskates who won't do the right thing and are running around like headless chickens give a damn about what we're actually doing while they do sweet f*** all. Except for b***h at each other and reinstate border controls of course, apparently that now classes as doing something - anything I suppose other than spending money where it matters.
While continental Europe squabbles with each other making it up as they go along but refusing to spend anything all; all I see the US doing is taking less than relatively half as many refugees as us (10k is the latest figure I can see) and is spending about relatively half of what we are.
Considering we're not just doing the right thing but have both the moral and practical high grounds here I can't see anyone else having any right to condemn it.
Are you Saudi Arabia now? Going to clear your conscience with cash?
No one said the US is doing a great job here. You're the one claiming that taking in 5k immigrants is somehow a benefit to humanity.
Taking 5k of those who are most desperate while providing billions for those who need it who can stay behind (as is standard operating procedure)? Absolutely that's the best thing we can do.
Who is doing what practically or ethically that is better?
Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, and Turkey, by taking in millions.
True so if they want to ask for more help that would be understandable - though we're helping them out more than anyone else is.
Taking in millions despite the fact that they can't afford it and the social burden is tearing at the seams of society. There are 4 million people in those countries that need housing, food and a perspective. Germany and other countries in the EU are spending billions on the people they take in. Countries that can't hide behind a strip of sea water and don't have the luxury of acting like hundreds of thousands of people are a theoretical problem that 'shouldn't be there'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
And all those countries should stand in awe of the immensive efforts the UK makes.
Do we still do the 'NOT' thing nowadays ?
FYI : Holland already spends a billion euros on refugees a year and that's not taking into account that we already committed to taking in more than 7000 people extra this year alone. With Rand being so puffed up about the effort of the UK, I suppose that means my head should be splattered over the ceiling now.
How many people did Dapper Dave take home to the UK today? Or couldn't he find anybody destitute enough amongst the 1,5 Syrans in Lebanon?
You think those countries actually want to continue housing all those refugees? You think the money Britain gives makes a dent on the expenses? Or does anything to help the massive social problems caused by this refugee crisis?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I'm sure those nations are very grateful for the billion pounds they have received from the UK, yes absolutely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Sure beats the £70 million that France has contributed so far.
Yes I gave credit earlier to the Netherlands as being a nation that is only just not meeting its obligations. Did you miss that?Quote:
FYI : Holland already spends a billion euros on refugees a year and that's not taking into account that we already committed to taking in more than 7000 people extra this year alone. With Rand being so puffed up about the effort of the UK, I suppose that means my head should be splattered over the ceiling now.
No, yes, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Whether it is 5k (UK), 7k (Netherlands) or 10k (USA) does not make that much of a difference at all.
Whether it is £1 billion (UK) or £70 million (France) makes a world of difference.
Turkey alone is spending $5 billion a year (not counting UNHCR expenses), and that money isn't exactly providing an ideal life for the refugees.
Puts the £70 million from the French into context doesn't it? Shocking.
The French aren't pretending to be God's gift to mankind on this issue. The Germans are budgeting $7 billion for refugees this year by the way.
I don't see anyone pretending to be god's gift, just trying to do the right thing and frustrated with those who are pretending to be great reneging on what they've already agreed to.
I'd like to see the Germans actually spend $7 billion in Turkey etc but I'll believe it when I see it. As of August Germany had spent just £633bn which is far better than the French £70mn I agree but not great at all. Especially when they're failing to meet even their basic aid amounts already. Germany claimed they'd spend 0.7% of GNI on aid and are at about half of that, so lets not fall for what they'll claim they'll do until they actually do it. They have a track record here.
Actually you are doing next to nothing given the task at hand, and given that you didn't agree to anything at all it's fairly rich that you accuse others of not sticking to their promise. If everybody thinks you/your country/your prime minister is acting like you're God's gift, then maybe you should look in the mirror and try fo figure out as to why that happens to you all the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
As for your money fetish; no amount of money is going to fix Syria or the fact that refuge in the region is a concept that loses its validity once millions start running away from war and don't want to stop untill they feel they are safe again. And being safe envelopes more than being out of range of the nearest gun.
"Didn't agree to anything at all" - what on earth are you blathering on about? What we agreed was to spend 0.7% of GNI on aid and guess what? We are actually doing so! We didn't just agree to a promise, we have fulfilled our promise.
Unlike the Netherlands (who are only just reneging on their agreement), Germany (who aren't even coming close though they agreed to it) or France (who are pathetic and agreed to it). What other discussion is going on that's relevant?
There's no money fetish here, in case you've forgotten I'm against the government spending money if its not need. Money is desperately needed here and maybe if people honoured their existing commitments we'd make progress. Until people start meeting their existing commitments lets not have any BS talk of new agreements. Lets have people honour their existing promises rather than making commitment after commitment they have zero intention of following through on. Actions speak louder than words.
Looks like Hungary are attempting to enforce their border fully now, not impressed with some of the language used or way its being done but regrettably a far better solution (and one that may actually work) than Merkel's Duke of York Darwin Policy.
Not that anyone will thank Orban if he can regain some control over the border.
If Merkel wants to invite people into Germany then lets see her do it properly - offering transport to Germany and not just telling people to swim the Med and walk across Hungary first without discussing it with any of the nations on the way.
Ok, you asked for it; the coupling of the refugee crisis to the developement aid budget is the morally deepest you have sunk so far.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
As for you making progress; you are not, you are not even making an effort.
What Merkel wants is to honour the obligation to give people refuge from war. Unlike lowlives like your PM and Orban.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
No welching on your commitments is worse than pointing out that people are welching on their commitments. While we are by an order of magnitude making more effort than anyone else as I've already shown.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
I didn't couple them, they are coupled inextricably and don't try and break that coupling like you break your commitments. If you think that pointing out that people are wrong is wrong then you have your head implanted so far up somebodies arse you must be about ready to pop up the other side. How's this for a bizarre idea - honour your commitments and then we nobody will point out that you're not doing so? :rolleyes:
Bullfuckingshit. Don't tell lies how many have Merkel given safe transport to get to Germany so far? Give me a number Germany have transported from near Syria to Germany.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Our so-called low-life PM is doing the right thing honouring our commitments AND transporting refugees safely from camps is the right thing to do. Unlike low-lives who can't spend a dime to help those who need it despite already pledging to and then make promises they can't make like come here (but pay people smugglers first then march illegally through other people's nation first as we won't give you a visa). Orban has already said that if Germany gives these people a visa then they can travel to Germany - but Germany doesn't want to do that so don't pretend they are doing that.
I am looking forward to the day you vote your pathetic country out of the EU.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
This is very puzzling. While it's embarrassing that Germany has yet to reveal its plan for meeting the 0.7% target by the end of this year, as it has pledged to do, that target shouldn't be viewed as having very much to do with the current crisis which goes beyond the basic problems that were intended to be addressed by the Official Development Aid target. Moreover, the UK only recently enshrined that target into law. It should also be noted that the costs associated with receiving and caring for refugees (at least for the first 12 months of their stay) count towards the 0.7% target, although I reckon it shouldn't. In any case regular old development assistance is only vaguely and indirectly relevant to a massive emergency such as the current refugee crisis. It's commendable, but let's stay on point, 'kay? If you find a dying homeless man on the street you don't just leave him to die after explaining to him that some of your income tax goes towards funding the NHS and that you give a small amount to charity every month and you organise regular workshops on exercise and healthy eating and even take on the occasional intern or apprentice from a working-class background. Sharing your wealth is nice, but it's kinda irrelevant in that particular situation. Of course, you can't just go and find and save every dying person out there, but if one should find himself at your feet, you kinda have to do something then and there. Even you should get that and the only reason you're being obstinate about this is because it stings to be insulted as well as to give Germany/the EU/Hazir any credit.
Hazir is hardly alone in his analysis of Merkel's moves btw. For example:
http://www.economist.com/news/europe...licies-germanyQuote:
What may appear as a capitulation by Mrs Merkel, however, is at least in part also a tactical manoeuvre to press the rest of the EU to accept a quota system for asylum seekers—which they might do later today at a gathering of the EU’s interior ministers. Germany, Sweden and Austria, the countries that have been most welcoming toward refugees so far, have long demanded that all member states share the burden in the refugee crisis. Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Comission, last week put forth just such a plan. France has indicated support. But other countries, especially in eastern Europe, are balking.
In a press conference with Mrs Merkel on September 7th, Sigmar Gabriel, the vice chancellor and boss of the centre-left Social Democrats who are the junior partners in the governing coalition, had already—albeit subtly—nodded at the leverage Germany holds in the policy debate. Germany borders on more countries than any other state in the EU: nine in total, all in the Schengen area of document-free travel. “We Germans have a great interest in keeping these borders open,” Mr Gabriel said. But if Germany’s neighbours don’t help by accepting more refugees, he added, “the debate can very quickly change completely. That would be a politically dramatic reverse for Europe, and I think a mental one too. But it would also be heavy economic blow...especially for those states that are now saying: ‘We won’t participate.’”
The implication is that, barring an EU compromise, Germany may in future reimpose controls on other borders in addition to the Austrian one. Along with more border checks by other countries—the Czechs have also suggested they would begin policing their border with Austria—this could spell the end of the Schengen area and thus reverse one of the most visible achievements of European integration. The immediate consequence of Germany’s border controls will probably be new bottlenecks downstream in the refugee trails—in Austria, above all—and thus even more border closings. The second and intended consequence, however, might be that the EU finally gets its act together and adopts a new asylum regime.
Being a cynic, I suspect Merkel was not only keen to welcome Syrian refugees for humanitarian reasons but also because a large number of young middle-class Syrians may prove to be a valuable boost to the German economy in the decades to come. I'm a little curious about what she'll say the next time she meets a Palestinian asylum seeker threatened with deportation :o
Re. quota system and another proposal that would require states to either accept refugees or pay those who do, I'm a little conflicted. Feels unfair to condemn some poor sods to some under-developed racist hellhole in Eastern Europe and almost as unfair to force the same hellhole to pay developed countries that are likely to benefit from the influx of new citizens in the long term.
Syria is a war zone, Palestine is not. Are you really going to compare a situation where a few dozen people get killed every year (barring the occasional war) with one where nearly 300k have died in the last few years?
Syria is a warzone, yes. However we're not only talking about Syrians who're rescued from a warzone but also about a large number of Syrians who make the journey from places that are not currently warzones, only hellholes. The incident I was referring to involved a Palestinian girl whose family had sought asylum in Germany after living in a refugee camp in Lebanon. And, incidentally, the family got to stay, because people are watching and the comparison is inevitable :o
Except the reason the Syrians are given preference is because their home country is a war zone. There are millions and millions of people living in refugee camps worldwide. It's also a misnomer to call the Palestinian camps refugee camps. They are fully developed cities. Economic conditions are crap, but people aren't exactly dying from starvation.