A Prime Minister with balls!!!

[seivad]

Good to see you back Styx .

Styx posted it back in 2016. I've not seen him on the forum for ages, hope everything's OK with him.

[seivad]

A) It's a whole lot more humane than leaving them out in the cold. Why choose the EU anyway, if you're a refugee? We've got enough here already! There are plenty other places around the world to apply to their embassies for asylum.

Yes, would be asylum seekers in war zones and camps have such easy access to other country's embassies

Their usual route is through the UN in the camps. I know that's the way Syrian refugees have applied to come to Canada.

B) No, that's a retrograde step. You don't see the USA or China closing internal borders between all their States. If it was such a good idea, they'd have done it already. Doing that would cause far more problems than it would solve.

The only land borders the US has are with Canada and Mexico... and how you could possibly have failed to notice the brouhaha over the Mexican border is beyond me.

China... that bastion of human rights, yeah right!

The EU should strengthen its external security sufficiently to stop the hordes, particularly of economic refugees from getting in...

You have to process refugees to ascertain whether or not they are genuinely in need of asylum. That can't be done in a split second at the border. There is no choice other than to let them in, and then process them.

There are 145 signatories to the UNHCR. The UK, and Canada also, are signatories. The agency has nothing to do with the EU. Your obligations will not change if you leave.

[local]

Whats the problems with more coming here ?

Idiot!

Well tell the idiot whats the problem.

[local]

A) It's a whole lot more humane than leaving them out in the cold. Why choose the EU anyway, if you're a refugee? We've got enough here already! There are plenty other places around the world to apply to their embassies for asylum.

B) No, that's a retrograde step. You don't see the USA or China closing internal borders between all their States. If it was such a good idea, they'd have done it already. Doing that would cause far more problems than it would solve.

The EU should strengthen its external security sufficiently to stop the hordes, particularly of economic refugees from getting in...Genuine refugees can apply to an EU embassy whilst still in an external Country, e.g. Turkey.

C) Sounds like a fair way to farm out the ones we've already let in. But with individual States refusing to participate, it's not going to happen. When you let too many in, there is inevitably a backlash from the public.

This is quite amusing for me that you now see a problem with people from outside the EU (even down to suggesting increased security) plus recognising the likely backlash from the public

but not from the *112.8 million living in poverty within who can trundle in when they like.


Might this be a bit of an epiphany moment for you ?



https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statis...cial_exclusion

[The PNP]

A) Yes, would be asylum seekers in war zones and camps have such easy access to other country's embassies ....Their usual route is through the UN in the camps. I know that's the way Syrian refugees have applied to come to Canada.

B) The only land borders the US has are with Canada and Mexico... and how you could possibly have failed to notice the brouhaha over the Mexican border is beyond me. China... that bastion of human rights, yeah right!

C) You have to process refugees to ascertain whether or not they are genuinely in need of asylum. That can't be done in a split second at the border. There is no choice other than to let them in, and then process them.

A) Well, let them apply for entry into the EU via the UN office over there. Having said that, plenty seem quite able to find their way further afield, ending up sailing from Turkey and Africa. So could find an EU embassy/consulate if they wanted.

B) I know the USA has external hard borders - but not internal ones as proposed by Hamble.
If China was divided with internal borders, I doubt it would help their human rights situation much.

C) No it can't be done 'on the hoof' when you've just picked a bunch up from a raft, or found them climbing over a border fence. But you can keep hold of them and escort to a holding camp, where their country of origin can be ascertained with interpreters. Those trying to pull the wool can then be ejected.

[said]

That is not practical or humane.

The simple answer is to end free movement in the EU and abolish Schengen system.

Refugees and Asylum Seekers could be shared amongst all EU countries
under a fairer system.

Refugees from what? Asylum Seekers - why? Where in the world is it so bad that everyone has left their country?

[seivad]

A) Well, let them apply for entry into the EU via the UN office over there. Having said that, plenty seem quite able to find their way further afield, ending up sailing from Turkey and Africa. So could find an EU embassy/consulate if they wanted.

You seem to be under the delusion that applicants can breeze into any city with a UN office/embassy and apply for entry, they can't. The UNHCR has representatives in refugee camps.

B) I know the USA has external hard borders - but not internal ones as proposed by Hamble.

I haven't read Hamble's post. Internal borders? The 48 contiguous US states are federal states, i.e. they are one country, the USA... the clue is in the name. How could they close state borders, and, more to the point, why would they? What would it achieve?

C) No it can't be done 'on the hoof' when you've just picked a bunch up from a raft, or found them climbing over a border fence. But you can keep hold of them and escort to a holding camp, where their country of origin can be ascertained with interpreters. Those trying to pull the wool can then be ejected.

Whether they hold them in a camp, or house them elsewhere, they are all processed.

You seem to think that European countries take in more refugees than anywhere else. Take a look at this and surprise yourself.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-d...ics-and-facts/

[seivad]

Quote from link.

During a scathing speech, often interrupted by applause, he compared Brussels bureaucrats to the captain of a ship heading towards rocks who spends time "designating the non-smoking lifeboats instead of trying to avoid the collision". ............"Europe's future is endangered primarily not by those who want to come here, but by those political, economic and intellectual leaders who are trying to transform Europe in opposition to the European people.

That's true.

So is this: In Hungary, rising anti-Semitism, growing facism - and a Jewish renewal

[said]

That is not practical or humane.

The simple answer is to end free movement in the EU and abolish Schengen system.

Refugees and Asylum Seekers could be shared amongst all EU countries
under a fairer system.

Why are there refugees? The UK was submitted to massive bombing in the last WORLD War - where did the British people run to? So called refugees to the UK are escaping from CIVIL war which are spasmodic and regional - there is no need to leave the countries that they are said to be fleeing from. Why are there Asylum seekers? The only people under threat were those in Syria who chose to oppose the Syrian government - they knew what their government policies were, they were familiar with their own country's laws - so if they choose to act against them, what do they expect? What would happen in the UK if we started attacking parliament with guns and bombs? The other asylum seekers were the young men in the Gulf States, who are required by their own laws to sign up for conscription and they did not want to - obviously, they will receive punishment when they return.
Part of the EU trade talks with other countries includes an agreement for European countries to accept a number of people from those countries, to give them the opportunity of training and work. People are on no consequence to the EU.

[said]

So is this: In Hungary, rising anti-Semitism, growing facism - and a Jewish renewal

You will obviously read much published against Hungary as Oban has often refused to do what all other member countries are told to do by the EU, and in fact he has also denied the USA in a similar way. The powers that be both respect and fear him. But if you ever visit Hungary - it is a lovely place. The people are friendly, there is much to see, the streets are safe, and it attracts thousands of tourists. As opposed to other European countries where there appears to be a general mistrust of strangers and people are less welcoming and lifestyles are so uniform. Outside of the EU countries, there is a marked difference in that people are more laid back, very friendly and live in their own traditional ways - very refreshing.

As for being antisemitic, I think the BBC report published may give a clue:
"Financier George Soros has accused the Hungarian government of using "anti-<wbr style="color: rgb(84, 84, 84); font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Semitic imagery" in its poster campaign against him."

[Hamble]

Why are there refugees? The UK was submitted to massive bombing in the last WORLD War - where did the British people run to? So called refugees to the UK are escaping from CIVIL war which are spasmodic and regional - there is no need to leave the countries that they are said to be fleeing from. Why are there Asylum seekers? The only people under threat were those in Syria who chose to oppose the Syrian government - they knew what their government policies were, they were familiar with their own country's laws - so if they choose to act against them, what do they expect? What would happen in the UK if we started attacking parliament with guns and bombs? The other asylum seekers were the young men in the Gulf States, who are required by their own laws to sign up for conscription and they did not want to - obviously, they will receive punishment when they return.
Part of the EU trade talks with other countries includes an agreement for European countries to accept a number of people from those countries, to give them the opportunity of training and work. People are on no consequence to the EU.

I support the EU's ethics on accepting asylum seekers it is the distribution and the system which is a failure and it encourages people trafficking and economic migrants.

Germany needed and wanted economic migrants for cheap labour and increase birthrate.
The UK's needs are different.

In WW2 there was no Schengen and millions of displaced refugees basically organisation and resettlement was military run.

[said]

You seem to be under the delusion that applicants can breeze into any city with a UN office/embassy and apply for entry, they can't. The UNHCR has representatives in refugee camps.


I haven't read Hamble's post. Internal borders? The 48 contiguous US states are federal states, i.e. they are one country, the USA... the clue is in the name. How could they close state borders, and, more to the point, why would they? What would it achieve?



Whether they hold them in a camp, or house them elsewhere, they are all processed.

You seem to think that European countries take in more refugees than anywhere else. Take a look at this and surprise yourself.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-d...ics-and-facts/

Your first statement appears to be incorrect - Asylum seekers can enter any country and request asylum from Border control. No country can refuse this.

Your link points to South Sudan' conflict which involves Arab immigration and Muslim conflict. Under correct management there would be no reason for conflict in this region -and with so many people fleeing the area, it actually exacerbates the crisis. While two main tribes fight for money and power - the rest of the population is left to starve and survive under non co-ordinated militia bullying. For the last few years the country has had large investments made to it to initialise rebuilding the whole area. South Sudan has oil, but due to corruption the money is not being distributed sufficiently. In previous years there would not have been mass migration, Aid would have been sent to the country and countries like Russia would have insisted on Peace talks.

The reason why so many of these people approach poorer countries for asylum is linked to the reason for the conflict in the first place with many blaming Western interference. It is not because of the goodness of the countries accepting them, they simply go to countries they feel they can trust.

[local]

Simon Reeves excellent documentary on Turkey shows the huge effort they are making to absorb refugees.

Without them Europe would be flooded.

Apparently 4 million plus, the problem is Turkey has an Islamic agenda.

Syrias war started out as a peaceful protest, with public demonstrations calling for democratic reforms. But the peaceful demonstrations were met by swift government opposition, eventually giving way to a brutal war.

Shelterbox.

It is not our meddling but Assads actions.

There is this short sighted thinking that all wars can be blamed on us in the west and often the Americans.

The anti -Iraq war Saddam apologists conveniently forget his actions.

[Toodles McGinty]

You will obviously read much published against Hungary as Oban has often refused to do what all other member countries are told to do by the EU, and in fact he has also denied the USA in a similar way. The powers that be both respect and fear him. But if you ever visit Hungary - it is a lovely place. The people are friendly, there is much to see, the streets are safe, and it attracts thousands of tourists....

...As for being antisemitic, I think the BBC report published may give a clue:
"Financier George Soros has accused the Hungarian government of using "anti-<wbr style="color: rgb(84, 84, 84); font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Semitic imagery" in its poster campaign against him."

Orban is antisemitic. Source: The JC: According to the latest published global survey by the Anti Defamation League around 40% of Hungarians hold antisemitic views. This compares to 12% in the UK, 16% in Germany and 17% in France.

I'm surprised that, given the avatar of the original poster, he'd choose to describe such a fascist as having 'balls'.

He's yet another of the far right's demagogues.

Typically, you take the majority. Make them anxious about something (immigrants, Jews, the EU etc) then associate that anxiety with a loss. Loss of freedom. Loss of control over their country. Loss of housing, schools, government. A once great society / country overrun with Jews, immigrants, Liberals, Marxists, feminists. EU bureaucrats. You name it, there's always a group to blame.

Make the majority angry about their loss of power, their loss of perceived status. Then promise them a way out. A strong leader. 'A Prime Minister with balls!!!'. Free yourselves from the liberal elite. Free yourselves from the Jews controlling the money. Free yourselves from the vassalage of the EU. Free yourselves from the feminists, the gays, the SJWs, from the liberal elite.

Hey presto! Here's Trump. Here's Farage. Here's Mussolini. Here's Duterte. Here's Bolsanaro. Here's Orban. Here's Johnson. And yes, here's the shortarse German.

You're being played by the far right like an old piano. But freedom, right?

[seivad]

Your first statement appears to be incorrect - Asylum seekers can enter any country and request asylum from Border control. No country can refuse this.

My first statement was in regard to the PNP's statement that asylum seekers can go to any UN office or any country's embassy to apply for asylum. I pointed out that they can't, and mentioned the UNHCR reps. in refugee camps as they also help resettle people in countries they're partnered with. If you read my earlier posts you'll see I explain to the PNP what the correct procedure at the border is.

Your link points to South Sudan' conflict

No, it doesn't. The situation in South Sudan doubled the number of refugees in 2017 from that country compared to 2016, but if you read Amnesty's report you'll see it covers all of the world's refugees, and the countries that have taken them. Read it properly, and look at the charts.