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, however, as long as we have the option to boot them out at election time, I have more faith in our future outside of the EU than within it. The EU Commission is unelected and we have no power to remove its members. That alone is reason enough to not want to be part of it. Totalitarian regimes always fall in the end; why wait?

 

Yes, there would be a ban on the likes of neonicotinoids without an EU. People power works well within individuals countries - sorry, member states - but is easier to ignore when viewed as fragmented idealism in a totalitarian superstate. How long do you think it will be before the EU is sued, post-TTIP, of course, to force all member countries to use these poisons? TTIP will be forced through in some form, whether we like it or not, because we have no means to stop it - democracy for sale to the highest bidder.

 

I am disinclined to agree with you in your anticipation of potential "winners" post break up of the EU. The bankers have the most to gain by crashing the Euro at some point. Think of all those wonderful gains from FX fees, differing interest rates in different countries, bail-outs galore and much more. Cynical, yes; realistic? Remember how they manipulated the ERM? As for your panic mongering - if I may call it that - part of the list you included in your above post is only relevant if we were to remain within the EU. Cross border co-operation on environmental and humanitarian issues does not need to cease merely because an unelected bureaucratic megalith has ceased to exist.

 

Yes, I take your point that co-operation can achieve great things, but when that co-operation comes at the cost of democracy and basic freedoms, the price is too high.

 

All major empires collapse under their own weight sooner or later, as history proves repeatedly. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat its mistakes.

"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.

Very balanced arguments for both sides however for the many the economics doesn't come into it!

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.

Let's simplify the question for those who believe that the UK will descend into third world poverty without EU membership:

 

Do you believe in democracy? – The EU is, in effect, a dictatorship. MEPs have no power to initiate, revise or veto legislation. If you don't like the EU "government" there's not a damned thing you can do about it.

 

Do you believe in free trade? – We can and will arrange to trade with the EU without full membership. They sell us lots more than we sell them. They need access to the UK market. We will then also be free to access markets the EU denies to us.

 

Do you believe that corporations should be prevented from running the world? – The EU is about to hand over power to corporations by means of TTIP. Any law a corporation dislikes it can overturn by means of secret settlements in which we have no say, no influence and won't learn about until it's too late.

 

Do you want cheaper food?  – The EU keeps food prices artificially inflated by means of, among other things, the Common Agricultural Policy. Prices are kept high to protect the farmers in certain member countries from the reality of market forces.

 

Do you want more industry in the UK? – The EU wants to move manufacturing industries to the new, poorer, member countries in order to level out differences between respective economies.

 

Do you believe in flood prevention? – The EU pays farmers, courtesy of the CAP, to remove "unproductive vegetation", i.e. trees and hedges, in order to provide grazing for sheep etc.. As a result, headwaters are deprived of proper drainage, floodplains are inundated, hence much of the recent flooding.

 

Do you want the UK to have an effective voice in the world? – the EU has taken the UK's place on many international bodies, reducing our voice to 1/28th of what it once was.

 

Do you believe that the UK should make UK law for UK people? – The vast majority of the legislation passed by the EU is merely "nodded through" by our legislators. EU law overrides UK law.

 

Do you want you and your children to be citizens of the UK rather than of the United States of Europe? – The EU, as set out in the Treaty of Lisbon, is committed to ever closer union, economically, fiscally and politically. England, Scotland and Wales will merely be versions of Michigan, Oregon and Kentucky in a USE.

 

Do you want the UK to decide on its own defence, in co-operation with others only when required? – The EU wants an EU army and air force, to be deployed where and when they decree, without reference to the member state.

 

Do you prefer to retain the £ rather than join the Euro? – The EU has stated a commitment to the Euro as the universal currency of the EU by 2020.

 

If you have answered "Yes" to more than half of the above questions, then you must vote to Leave the EU. There are more reasons to leave than the above and I have deliberately not included emotive reasons in order to avoid the usual hysteria associated with them.

 

I am open to logical arguments, backed by facts, as to why I might be wrong. Please, do tell me what I have missed if you are one of those who believe that it is imperative the UK remain in the EU.

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.

During the president of Iran state visit to Italy recently famous nude statues were covered up! What gives? He is visiting Italy, well I am sorry Mr Rouhani, covering women in black head to toe, public executions and stoning I find offensive! 

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/28/no-nudes-is-bad-news-for-italian-official-ridiculed-in-rouhani-statue-row

 

iranphotos.jpg

 

EU has gone PC mad!

 

WHY would Italy want to even consider hiding her heritage? 

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

No we don't have one so the status quo should remain as it is in my opinion

 

No the politicians justified military action to themselves…the UK is giving humanitarian aid too plus we have been giving refugees sanctuary not just since Iraq but before the war there…Uganda for example President Ide Amin after he expelled all the Asian community there the UK did step in to give them refuge here, so you cannot accuse the UK of not facing up to its humanitarian responsibilities now or then!

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!

Osmosis with respect I think if you'd been reading my post you'd of seen I'm in agreement with some of amnesty's ideas however I do not agree with open door policy which we have in Europe. I do think once refugees reach a safe country then there should be a process for them to apply to a country for asylum of there choosing & then for those countries to provide safe passage…I also think counties which create a humanitarian crises especially through conflict should have all international funding halted including the sale of arms with heavy penalties for companies breaking this rule in particular & prison sentence for arms dealers who broker them.

 

Also UN food agencies how much corruption is there in these organisations? Because they receive a lot of money!

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.

Many of Jungle occupants not refugees, says top UK immigration judge

 

 

Mr Justice McCloskey said there was “no real basis†for many of the estimated 6,000 people in the makeshift camp to remain there.

 

 

 

 

 

Telegraph

 

 

Top Judge in the UK has denounced most of the 'Jungle' dwellers' as fraudsters ... As any rational person thought anyway ...

 

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.

Funny Osmosis how by attempting to belittle my comment you ignore the point I was making.  

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. 

Yes I agree this country waste a lot of money on things I couldn't care less about either but we too have high unemployment depredation food banks child poverty lack of integration failing healthy services cutbacks to social care a government who want to privatise everything where only a few of the wealthy will benefit it's not quite the utopia you seem to paint?

 

Those countries you state we have been involved in military action in some of them but not all…they have also received billions in aid unfortunately very little of it goes to where it is supposed to but rather into private bank accounts of corrupt individuals within those governments in fact we live in a very corrupt world.

 

I understand where your coming from but you are not coming up with any logical solution to the problems of this worldwide crises only that of to let them all in? Which I do not think is going to work as it's a rather cavalier approach & will end up creating more problems than it solves further down the line!

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?

I don't know Osmosis either but the poster, I would guess, lives in far more comfortable domestic circumstances than at least one family living in a squalid tent in the Calais 'Jungle'. 

 

I would suggest that Osmosis, as a demonstration of good will, goes and buys a tent from J Mart and pitches it on the Bishops Meadow and lives in it. That will free up some accommodation for a group far more deserving. 

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.

So many things are being cut back in this country including police numbers and there is a danger that this country is leaving itself wide open to problems that it has not go the capability of sorting out.

 

Yes it would be lovely to welcome thousands of people into this country to give them a better life but have we really got the resources to cover all eventualities? 

 

In my experience people are very quick to preach about what should be done but when it comes down to it do very little themselves to alleviate the situation.  Without identifying yourself Osmosis have you got first hand experience of the refugee camps and what are you personally and financially prepared to do to help?

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?

No. Not really. Frans Timmermans who is Vice President of the European Commission says the majority of these 'refugees' floating about are 'economic migrants' and shouldn't even be here. 

 

Independent

 

 

 

A point well made. These migrants want to share in the Wealth. An economic reason for coming if ever I saw one ...

And your problem with an equal distribution of wealth is...?

 

Wealthiest regions??? 

 

UK National Debt Surpassed £1 Trillion

 

Mainstream media headlines today are focused on Britain's record national debt, which just surpassed £1 trillion, a figure that can only exponentially increase unless the entire mechanism of Government finance is overhauled. The truth however is much worse, factoring in all liabilities including state and public sector pensions, the real national debt is closer to £4.8 trillion, some £78,000 for every person in the UK.

 

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. 

It wasn't the 'torygraph' ...

 

Independent

 

 

The word 'paper' may not have been used but the jist was there ... The article was quoting Citizens UK as a source for that 200 figure ... 

 

Citizens UK

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.

There are thousands in that squalid Calais 'Jungle' and if you read my link above then you'll see up to 200 might have some sort of 'paper' case linking them to someone already in the UK. That is probably a generous over estimation by do gooders' anyway. So why are the other 98% hovering there? Yup ... Economic reasons. So your argument is trash Osmosis. To put it bluntly.

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.

No it's not stop the tide entering Europe because of merkle but it has stopped the tide waiting on the other side of the channel to come to the UK…like I've said before I think it makes sense to take them direct from the refugee camps from outside of Europe for two reasons…one it stops the people traffickers two they do not have to risk perilous sea crossings where there's a real chance they could ended up drowning!

 

Instead of waiting in Calais they could settle in France…perhaps there could be a system in the EU where they settle in a safe country to start & then apply to other EU states to which they'd like to go for asylum?

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.

I disagree. We had 18 Iraq/Iranian illegals pile out of a lorry at a local fruit farm last week. [link ]They will 'settle' here whilst their asylum claims are processed. They will obviously never get sent back. Any sibling/wife/son/daughter they have at Calais (or they can get to Calais) will then be entitled to come here because of that Court ruling. They know the system and they have access to lawyers. Aid workers are already trawling the 'Jungle' to identify people who might be related to people already here. It's just going to snowball.

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.

I agree with the PM that we should ONLY take genuine refugees from legitimate camps. Taking migrants from Calais will only encourage more trafficking and send out the wrong signal. 

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.

I've just watched a really positive and informative report on Central News.

 

Herefordshire Council are reported as stating that we are welcoming 60 refugees. This is terrific news... and a great start. Hopefully we will be able to welcome many more.

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

But do they possess the skill shortages we are in need of?

 

Medically you'd say yes but are they not needed in Syria to treat wound from the conflict or helping the sick & wounded in the camps?

 

I'm against the EU personally for a whole host of reasons but that's another thread!

 

German renaissance? Economically is the world let alone the EU out of recession?…Just last week the markets had a big crash with china constantly suspending trading on its share markets.

 

One of the reasons for the rise of the National German Workers Party was the depression in the late 1920's early 30's when the world stock markets crash, happened…the USA recalled its debt from Germany causing hyperinflation resulting in mass unemployment…step forward herr Hitler who breeding,playing on the peoples fears, blaming,demonising & installing distrust on the Jews (also the treaty of Versailles was used by them too because they believed it to be grossly unfair) took advantage of the situation raising his party to power.

 

I'm not saying this is going to happen but if we are not careful it could!

 

Sometimes we need to think with our heads & not our hearts we need to be able to help but we need to be logical because from what you posted earlier about funding for refugees the government don't think the Syria war is going to end anytime soon? possibly in the next 5 years?

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.

To be honest I think this whole refugee crisis is a debacle & has been badly handle by the EU & UN in particularly Germany it's not been though through on how best to deal with it they should of remained in the camps food clothing & medical supplies should have been provide in abundance,agency should of worked to get the most vulnerable out into host nations instead of them making perilous sea journeys the Arab nations should of done more than they have done.....instead what has happened is the refugees have got frustrated & moved on mass into Europe this in itself has created a sense of fear from people living within the EU as they see it as a invasion because of so many young men arriving which is not helpful.

 

WE SHOULD HELP REFUGEES that is not in question but we need to halt the influx now because it will destabilise the region if we are not careful we need to take a more sensible approach because quite simply this could get out of hand & it's exactly the sort of breeding ground for far right groups to manipulate?

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.

How do you know this? You are assuming a lot of this without all of the facts.

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.

Good evening,Adrian Pitt. Sorry for the delay in response....Post number 175.

 

So... it's fine for us to go to a foreign country, abuse the hospitality, break their laws, disrespect their culture.... because we've paid for the privilege, and it's part of the holiday???

 

This is a ridiculous statement.

 

You're right. In as much as it is not a fair comparison. (I alluded to this in my post.) But not for the reasons you state. These children have endured more in their short lives, then you will hopefully ever have to see.

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.