Osmosis

And by the way, they already have tried to sue the EU over the ban.

"I am not so naive as to believe that our government wouldn't continue to work with corporations" - did you mean to write "for corporations"? If not then I would say that you must indeed be naive. Yes we have the option to boot them out at election time. I think about 65% of the electorate turned out in 2015, of that percentage, only a small proportion will have even heard of TTIP, still fewer understand the nuances of investor/state dispute resolution. Most people couldn't give a toss (I'm basing this on unscientific personal experience of pavement pounding trying to gather signatures on a petition). The majority of people vote according to how much income tax they think each party is likely to set, and a good number also care disproportionately about immigration. Our government is going to carry on serving the interests of corporations and a narrow financial elite. You are certainly naive if you think that neonicotinoids would have been banned unilaterally by the UK. It was the UK, and the then Environment Secretary, Owen Paterson, who tried to prevent it happening in the EU. In correspondence with Syngenta he said that the UK government was ‘extremely disappointed’ in the decision to proceed with the proposed ban. They'll have them cleared for use after Brexit in two shakes of a lamb's tail.

You're right, most people won't bother looking into it at all and making informed decisions. It will come down to issues around immigration.

You make some very valid and important points. I absolutely agree with you about the common agricultural policy and TTIP, for a start. However, are these arguments for leaving the EU, or are they arguments for scrapping TTIP and CAP? I have certainly done what I can to bring about the latter. That £41bn a year should be trousered by farmers, with the biggest, richest landowners receiving the largest payments is a scandal that should be a source of disillusionment to all supporters of the EU. We are yet to see what happens with TTIP. I accept the principle of sharing sovereignty over issues of common concern but not the idea of the rich nations combining to crush the democratic will of the poorer nations, as they are seeking to do, and successfully, to Greece. The EU has done much to the benefit of everybody on environmental matters, but the disastrous abandonment of the soil framework directive, at the behest of agricultural lobbyists and the British government, is outrageous. Now the same industries (Big Farmer & construction mainly) are attempting to demolish the other environmental directives which are the only things protecting wildlife in the UK. But here's the thing. Do you really think that our government is going to stop representing corporate interests, to the benefit of the populace, after Brexit? You only need to look at the latest example of covert lobbying by the British government to try to weaken European air pollution rules on behalf of the coal industry.The only winners of a break up of the EU would be Putin, Farage, neo-liberals, the extreme right, bankers, hedge funds, fossil fuel companies, human traffickers, environmental vandals, and global corporations. Do you really think there would be any ban on, say, neonicotinoids, if there wasn't an EU? Do you really think a Conservative government would do anything whatsoever to protect the UK's environment if we weren't part of the European Union? Faced with the growing reality of climate change and the pressures that it is already bringing the whole world, we all have two choices: to work together to protect the common good, or to retreat into nationalism and blaming others.

I'll vote to stay in, for many reasons. Just looking at trade, the EU in 2014 accounted for almost half of UK exports of goods and services, and over half of UK imports of goods and services. Whilst I realise that non-EU economies are growing in importance to the UK, and the proportion of our trade with the EU is therefore declining, the value of that EU trade is increasing, as I understand it.

I agree with you Paul about Italy's ridiculous statue-covering; nothing whatever to do with 20 billion euros of business deals that Iran has signed with Italy I'm sure. Your views about Iran's human rights accord with my own - perhaps you and anyone else on here who finds human rights abuses in Iran to be unacceptable will consider contacting: Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran Ayatollah Sayed ‘Ali Khamenei The Office of the Supreme Leader Islamic Republic Street - End of Shahid Keshvar Doust Street Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran Email: (via website) http://www.leader.ir/langs/en/index.p hp?p=letter Twitter: @khamenei_ir (English), @Khamenei_ar (Arabic), @Khamenei_es (Spanish). Salutation: Your Excellency about painter Atena Farghadani, imprisoned for drawing a cartoon in Iran. You can find out more about her case here: https://www.amnesty.org.uk/iran-atena-farghadani-prison-cartoon-womens-rights-activist

Agreed Cambo, the Ugandan refugees were welcomed here and the UK faced up to its responsibilities - can't really say the same this time round though in my opinion!

Fair enough. But importantly, we don't have an open door policy in the UK, nor are we subject to the quotas that are being proposed for the distribution of refugees across Europe, because of our opt-out. The systems for asylum application are there, they are just very difficult to access in some countries (e.g.France), and slow. Let's not forget, the UK justified military action in some of these counties (Libya, Iraq, Syria) on 'humanitarian' grounds. Now we must face up to the consequences in a humanitarian way.

I read it in the Torygraph so it must be true! The UN High Commissioner for Refugees' representative in France, Philippe Leclerc, says that MOST of the migrants in Calais were fleeing violence in countries such as Syria, Eritrea, Somalia and Afghanistan. That makes them refugees in my book, and according to the 1951 Refugee Convention which describes a refugee as someone "owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country." Please do show me where Justice McCloskey described the Calais camp people as 'fraudsters' though.

You made a point about resources. I responded to it. If you think I need to justify my opinions to you by explaining what I personally have contributed, you are mistaken.

Amnesty International have a set of proposals which I think should be adopted - you can find them here https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2015/10/eight-solutions-world-refugee-crisis/ If you don't agree with them, perhaps you would like to offer your own suggestions? You are right Roger, I live in a house with furniture and heating, nothing like the conditions of the camps. But unlike you, I think everybody should be able to live like that. Poor Denise, still fretting over my identity. I'm a citizen of the world Denise, just like you, but with different politics. As for resources, it's a matter of prioritising, as I said above. I think things are far from perfect in the UK for many people, but I don't think we should turn our backs on the biggest humanitarian disaster in Europe since WWII. Do you? And your problem with an equal distribution of wealth is...?

And yet, we have £40 billion to fritter away on space exploration and the ludicrous Tim Peake, and untold billions for Trident. Yes, the UK and Europe are very wealthy. Look at the standard of living compared to many other regions of the world.

You might read that 'jist' but I don't. The article states that they will prepare the cases of around 200 people. Good start. Any comment to make on my other points? By the way, right-wing Finnish bloggers with a racist agenda who get most of their material straight from the Gatestone Institute don't really qualify as authoritative and unbiased sources.

I read your Torygraph link but couldn't see it stated anywhere that there were 200 people with a 'paper' case linking them to the UK. Can you cite an authoritative reference for that? Regarding your disparaging comment about 'do-gooders' - what is your problem with people trying to help out? Do you think it's ok to have people living in these camps in one of the wealthiest regions of the world, in the 21st century? Yes, people do want to come to the UK, and there are good economic reasons for that, as well as other reasons which might be to do with family or language. As your article points out, there's worse unemployment in France than there is here, and they are not welcome. As I've stated before, incredibly, there is more racism in France than there is here, and less integration. Many of these people are from Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Eritrea, Libya as well as Syria - conflict-affected places where very often we have meddled and destroyed functioning economies and infrastructures and then buggered off - wouldn't you be inclined to come to the UK to try and start again? What is there left for them in their own countries? War, terrorism, starvation, no schools, hospitals...I could go on.

I've already posted on here reasons why people don't want to stay in France but might want to come here, and it's not because they'll be getting generous benefits. It is the legal right of refugees to be reunited with family members already in the UK, under the European asylum rule known as the Dublin III regulation, referred to above.

In fact it doesn't work like that. The families must already be settled here, and not in the process of applying for asylum themselves. I personally have no problem in anybody getting legal representation and going to court to ensure that the law is applied fairly, I just think that in this case it's pretty shameful that it's been necessary to resort to that.

Because ignoring the people at Calais has really stemmed the tide of refugees into Europe so far hasn't it.

Yes it's great news isn't it Roger, at last we should see some movement on the appalling and shameful situation in Calais. Not for the first time the home office is using bureaucracy to flout the law. Regarding the numbers, even if everybody at the Calais camp were to come to the uk, we could easily accommodate those numbers. We are a wealthy country.

Great news I agree Dippy. Some way off the 1800 refugees that were 'rumoured' to be arriving! Incidentally, there's an interesting article in the Guardian tonight about the conflicting press releases regarding the unaccompanied refugee children, and whether Cameron has agreed to host 3000 of them - read it here http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/28/a-tale-of-two-press-releases-whats-behind-the-guardian-and-mails-contrasting-refugee-stories

Germany has effectively cherry-picked the most able, professional, skilled and affluent of the Syrian exodus. They (the Germans) have a declining birth rate which was a genuine concern. All these people, mostly young and of working age as has already been mentioned, will contribute towards a new economy for Germany. This type of refugee/migrant whatever you want to call them, requires less support from the host nation after a very short time, if they are allowed to work and contribute. They will set up businesses and thrive. The people in the camps in Jordan etc that Cameron is keen to have (or rather, not keen) are more likely to require support during their time here, after which they will go home when they can, and help to rebuild their country, having been unable to contribute economically whilst here. Of course they require our help, and we will and must give it, but that is the case nevertheless. As for heads not hearts: we must accept the consequences of interfering and bombing all over the place, it's no good complaining that other countries must pull their weight - we caused this mess, directly and indirectly, and this is the result.

I absolutely agree with you that the whole thing has been badly handled by the EU. It's a shocking mess. On the whole I'm in favour of the EU but this is a shameful part of its history. You are also right I think about far right groups exploiting the situation - this already happening in Germany and Denmark, and elsewhere. I don't agree with you that Cameron is right to offer sanctuary only to refugees from the camps, and not those already in Europe. He bewails the shortage of skilled workers and medical staff, yet refuses entry to Syria’s most youthful, enterprising and relatively rich expatriates -these are the ones who are affluent and educated, hence being able to pay people traffickers. Germany is ready to welcome 500,000 mostly able and qualified Syrians a year. Watch the next German renaissance. Britain’s 4,000 refugees a year are to come from Lebanese and Jordanian camps – dependants, likely to return home when the horror passes. All of this to the detriment of Syria ultimately, of course.

Steve, according to the United Nations refugee agency, about 62% of the refugees who have reached Europe are male. Almost all are a vanguard for families waiting to follow them. You don’t send a mother or a grandfather to scout a route to a new home. You send the hardiest and least vulnerable—males in their late teens to middle age.

To be honest, I don't believe it anyway. I haven't seen this story reported anywhere except the Daily Mail, whose agenda is well known. Apparently, dozens of nine-year-olds and preteenagers have effectively taken control of a major transportation hub and transformed it into their own personal crime den where security guards are assaulted on site, women are "groped", and girls are "slapped in the face" for trying to protect themselves. Yeah right. Please do give me the verified facts.

I agree Dippy, it's not a fair comparison. Club 18-30 tourists are adults who should know better behaving outrageously, not traumatised children who have come from a conflict zone and in all likelihood lost their families.