Planet Rugby Forum

Rubbish. There are complex cultural and lifestyle reasons for movement between Australia, New Zealand, UK and Canada. There was a little economic stuff eg lower class nzers moving for the mining boom in Australia but the countries all have roughly equivalent income levels. What they do have is contrasting lifestyles, and that is mostly the driver.

bimboman wrote:

Rubbish. There are complex cultural and lifestyle reasons for movement between Australia, New Zealand, UK and Canada. There was a little economic stuff eg lower class nzers moving for the mining boom in Australia but the countries all have roughly equivalent income levels. What they do have is contrasting lifestyles, and that is mostly the driver.

Well that and the city had thousands of jobs for barely employed accountants from Invercargil and Newcastle nsw, Be honest they came for the Dosh especially as sterling was strong.

bimboman wrote:

Rubbish. There are complex cultural and lifestyle reasons for movement between Australia, New Zealand, UK and Canada. There was a little economic stuff eg lower class nzers moving for the mining boom in Australia but the countries all have roughly equivalent income levels. What they do have is contrasting lifestyles, and that is mostly the driver.

Well that and the city had thousands of jobs for barely employed accountants from Invercargil and Newcastle nsw, Be honest they came for the Dosh especially as sterling was strong.

Seneca of the Night wrote:

bimboman wrote:

Rubbish. There are complex cultural and lifestyle reasons for movement between Australia, New Zealand, UK and Canada. There was a little economic stuff eg lower class nzers moving for the mining boom in Australia but the countries all have roughly equivalent income levels. What they do have is contrasting lifestyles, and that is mostly the driver.

Well that and the city had thousands of jobs for barely employed accountants from Invercargil and Newcastle nsw, Be honest they came for the Dosh especially as sterling was strong.

They came when all they could get was bar work too. You are focusing too hard on one data point.

Seneca of the Night wrote:

Pat the Ex Mat wrote:

Seneca of the Night wrote: You are dead wrong. The only solution that will cut it is the most simple. They cannot move to Europe.

"Economic Migrant pulls ladder up behind him shock"

Funny type of migrant who has several thousand years of dna evidence residing in the location he is living.....

hermes-trismegistus wrote:A few things people raised.

Assfly: If I read you right over the last page or two your broad point seems to be that potential migrants need to be incentivised to stay put. Police borders of origin countries better, work with relevant governments, put money in at the point of departure pre-departure, get local government to inform people of the hazards of travelling; at the same time, if people make it as far as the European coast, don't be so inhumane as to reject their efforts to enter; better to let them in than not. Hopefully I'm not misrepresenting you there.

Tightening the borders of origin countries is all well and good on paper. In real life, if you'll forgive me, not so much. Even a faint semblance of control of the borders of, for example, two of the three countries mentioned a page back (Nigeria and Guinea) is never going to happen without massive resources that no one is realistically going to supply. Just look at the terrain, the topography. The Yanks with all their resources struggle to halt gang movement through southern Texas. A lot of European nations similarly fall down on border control. You're suggesting much, much poorer countries attempt something vastly more ambitious in a far more challenging environment. It's utterly unrealistic. And it'll all have to be conducted with organisations like Boko Haram - which hold actual territory - opposing every step. Nigeria is relatively well equipped with boots and arms these days, and they still fall to bits when they have to contend with those guys outside of the large population centres. Forget it. Even if the monies required for border security and the other home based measures you mentioned were injected in the necessary quantities by western nations and criminal/terrorist networks weren't a factor, both countries are riven with the sort of naked corruption and volatile ethnic politics that are made worse not better by the arrival of outsiders waving bottomless cheque books at government officials. The money would achieve next to nothing unless the corruption and factional rivalries were already dealt with internally. In other words, the tribalism that defines most African politics would first have to end. Chances of that are zero. And, if we're honest, we all know it. The Southern Zim example you picked out as a signpost of how it could be done is in a completely different league. I think you're comparing apples with harpsichords there.

Having said all that, I do think you're spot on to identify the point of origin as a critical factor in the equation. I've said before that I see David Cameron as a dyed in the wool careerist politician. But he was one of the very few who called this right way back at the beginning of the Syria crisis when he proposed we pump resources into camps as close as possible to the borders of fractured countries where migrant flows are originating. Process and assess them there. Not thousands of miles away when they're knocking on the door. And if there isn't a pressing reason for their migration, send them back home. If they skip past the camps and make their way into Europe, the moment they're picked up it's back to the camp and the back of the camp queue.

Guy: Thank you for picking up on the point I'm making about the role played by organised crime in people smuggling. You're right: this could be much more manageable if the crime networks weren't so entrenched. However, it's also the case that getting rid of them is not something that is going to happen in the next few years, or even longer. It's a project that's been going on fruitlessly for decades. Easy to say it needs addressing. Another thing entirely to actually address it. Don't forget that in Italy members of the judiciary need to familiarise themselves with the very real possibility of being blown up and murdered for taking on organised crime. Granted, the game is slightly different these days from the bombings of the 90s and 00s. But if anything the Ndrangheta and others who've slowly overtaken the mafia of a generation ago are even less scrupulous. They're left alone for good reason. They have resources that may as well be infinite since Open Doors, and if you're a judge on a mission they're likely to slowly kill your children with acid and lump hammers before they kill you. That gives most people genuine pause for thought. They're here to stay for the foreseeable future. Whole chunks of southern Italy are effectively their fiefdoms. What I'm saying is that short of turning Italy - southern Italy in particular - into a militarised police state there is no feasible way of getting rid of these guys in the short to medium term. The nation lacks the wherewithal to do it. But it is in a position to turn back those boats. Unpleasant as it may be, it's the only realistic option.

Farva: When you say we need to address the root causes that propel people out of their home nation to another, what we're looking at is the same thing we're always looking at when the phrase 'root causes' enters the conversation. Colossal and speculative interventions that may or may not work in the long term but have no chance in the short unless backed up by military might. Addressing root causes such that migratory flows out of African countries become inconsequential would entail the wholesale taking over of nation state competences such as policing, border control and their judiciaries. That's not going to happen. It's mark II revamped imperialism. It's pie in the sky. You can't buy that kind of influence. You have to win it with firepower. And even then . . . . You're ignoring the one blistering lesson we can all agree Iraq taught us.

Throwing skip loads of money at it isn't going to help either unless very tightly administered. Your proposal that we issue aid without conditions is, with respect, lunacy. Offering free and unconditional money to corrupt governments in broken places nearly always makes things worse, not better. Report after report has come out over the last ten years highlighting how easily aid funds get misappropriated, abused, and embezzled in Africa. Even with conditions attached. The UN, UK, US, pretty much everyone has been royally suckered by various self interested parties governing from Sierra Leone to Mozambique. Who in West Africa, in Guinea, Nigeria, Liberia, Mali, Sierra Leone would you be content to hand a billion to no questions asked? I can't think of anyone. Conditions are a must. And then some. And once conditions are attached with all the checks and balances they require, the wheels start to grind much, much more slowly. In short, even well administered aid isn't going to fix what's going on in the Med for the foreseeable future.

On the climate change issue: I hear what you guys are saying. Once again, however, I don't see how pursuing this goal is going to make a difference worth talking about in respect of migration in the medium term. How long will it take to halt/reverse the damage you're talking about in sub Saharan Africa? Is it less than five years? It better be. I think we're in a race at the moment. As Sewa and others have noted, the longer the migration flows continue the better the hard right is doing in elections across Europe. I reckon another 6/7 years of this issue in the headlines and we'll almost certainly see a major EU country's electorate toss in the towel and say 'to hell with it' and vote for something entirely avoidable because they're fed up to the back teeth. I don't see how showering European electorates with solar panels and wind farms in the meantime will avert this. On the other hand, I can see how stopping the boats would puncture that balloon pretty quickly.

All of the above is centred on African migration. Middle-Eastern is a whole other kettle of fish and even more intractable when it comes to stopping at source. IMO, there are no pleasant answers here. If we turn the boats around, some people are going to die. No question of that. On the other hand, if we continue to signal we're open to arrivals, others will drown in their efforts to cross. And a little down the line we run the very real risk we'll also get an updated version of the sort of unpredictable hard right no one wants. I know which option I'm less uncomfortable choosing.

Merkel's well intentioned throw of the dice has worked out terribly. She has a lot to answer for. The most damaging political decision made in Europe for a generation.

Bed.

think that's harsh on Merkel. agree it was well intentioned and poorly thought out but largely down to none of the other major EU states stepping up. It's a human catastrophe not seen in Europe since WWII and much like the economic crisis ignoring it/kicking can down the road was adding to the clusterfcuk - more so given the actual human cost.

Mass migration is here to stay (whether it be due to war, climate change or economic reasons) or at least the desire to and consequences of trying to stop it. For the West figuring out the role we've played in driving it and solving the route causes is going to be the challenge for the populist governments being installed, careful what you ask for.

Seneca of the Night wrote:

bimboman wrote:

think that's harsh on Merkel. agree it was well intentioned and poorly thought out but largely down to none of the other major EU states stepping up. It's a human catastrophe not seen in Europe since WWII and much like the economic crisis ignoring it/kicking can down the road was adding to the clusterfcuk - more so given the actual human cost.

Mass migration is here to stay (whether it be due to war, climate change or economic reasons) or at least the desire to and consequences of trying to stop it. For the West figuring out the role we've played in driving it and solving the route causes is going to be the challenge for the populist governments being installed, careful what you ask for.

"Well intentioned" , what making potential arrivals make a very dangerous journey before considering them for asylum? That's f ucking cruel.

Mass migration is as much a result of increasing wealth as much as anything else.

Internet, Skype, EPL.

bimboman wrote: The sad thing is we are taking their best often enough.

bimboman wrote:

think that's harsh on Merkel. agree it was well intentioned and poorly thought out but largely down to none of the other major EU states stepping up. It's a human catastrophe not seen in Europe since WWII and much like the economic crisis ignoring it/kicking can down the road was adding to the clusterfcuk - more so given the actual human cost.

Mass migration is here to stay (whether it be due to war, climate change or economic reasons) or at least the desire to and consequences of trying to stop it. For the West figuring out the role we've played in driving it and solving the route causes is going to be the challenge for the populist governments being installed, careful what you ask for.

"Well intentioned" , what making potential arrivals make a very dangerous journey before considering them for asylum? That's f ucking cruel.

Mass migration is as much a result of increasing wealth as much as anything else.

ticketlessinseattle wrote:

bimboman wrote:

think that's harsh on Merkel. agree it was well intentioned and poorly thought out but largely down to none of the other major EU states stepping up. It's a human catastrophe not seen in Europe since WWII and much like the economic crisis ignoring it/kicking can down the road was adding to the clusterfcuk - more so given the actual human cost.

Mass migration is here to stay (whether it be due to war, climate change or economic reasons) or at least the desire to and consequences of trying to stop it. For the West figuring out the role we've played in driving it and solving the route causes is going to be the challenge for the populist governments being installed, careful what you ask for.

"Well intentioned" , what making potential arrivals make a very dangerous journey before considering them for asylum? That's f ucking cruel.

Mass migration is as much a result of increasing wealth as much as anything else.

ehhhh, obviously they've decided the odds of a dangerous journey are better than staying put. I know some of them, as one 20 year student from Damascus explained to me he was approached by the army and told....kill or be killed, he decided the boat was the better option. He's now studying in Lithuania, speaks the language and is marrying a local - seems to have worked out well for him.

Seneca of the Night wrote:

British

But I fully admit I'm an economic migrant. Just like you and these migrants - according to your alt-right friends.

I'm not an economic migrant. You have no idea of my motivations. And I'm not going to tell you. The tendency on here to simplify this issue and project and reduce it to money is unhelpful in these discussion.

Trying to pick a silly hole between my personal circumstances and my ideology is frutliless. If I am an alt-right loon I will have some broader idea of north western European identity that fully encapsulates my thinking anyway (call it good old fashioned racism if you wish).

assfly wrote:Thanks for taking the time to post that HT.

hermes-trismegistus wrote:
Assfly: If I read you right over the last page or two your broad point seems to be that potential migrants need to be incentivised to stay put. Police borders of origin countries better, work with relevant governments, put money in at the point of departure pre-departure, get local government to inform people of the hazards of travelling; at the same time, if people make it as far as the European coast, don't be so inhumane as to reject their efforts to enter; better to let them in than not. Hopefully I'm not misrepresenting you there.

Tightening the borders of origin countries is all well and good on paper. In real life, if you'll forgive me, not so much. Even a faint semblance of control of the borders of, for example, two of the three countries mentioned a page back (Nigeria and Guinea) is never going to happen without massive resources that no one is realistically going to supply. Just look at the terrain, the topography. The Yanks with all their resources struggle to halt gang movement through southern Texas. A lot of European nations similarly fall down on border control. You're suggesting much, much poorer countries attempt something vastly more ambitious in a far more challenging environment. It's utterly unrealistic. And it'll all have to be conducted with organisations like Boko Haram - which hold actual territory - opposing every step. Nigeria is relatively well equipped with boots and arms these days, and they still fall to bits when they have to contend with those guys outside of the large population centres. Forget it. Even if the monies required for border security and the other home based measures you mentioned were injected in the necessary quantities by western nations and criminal/terrorist networks weren't a factor, both countries are riven with the sort of naked corruption and volatile ethnic politics that are made worse not better by the arrival of outsiders waving bottomless cheque books at government officials. The money would achieve next to nothing unless the corruption and factional rivalries were already dealt with internally. In other words, the tribalism that defines most African politics would first have to end. Chances of that are zero. And, if we're honest, we all know it. The Southern Zim example you picked out as a signpost of how it could be done is in a completely different league. I think you're comparing apples with harpsichords there.

Having said all that, I do think you're spot on to identify the point of origin as a critical factor in the equation. I've said before that I see David Cameron as a dyed in the wool careerist politician. But he was one of the very few who called this right way back at the beginning of the Syria crisis when he proposed we pump resources into camps as close as possible to the borders of fractured countries where migrant flows are originating. Process and assess them there. Not thousands of miles away when they're knocking on the door. And if there isn't a pressing reason for their migration, send them back home. If they skip past the camps and make their way into Europe, the moment they're picked up it's back to the camp and the back of the camp queue.

I think you've pretty much captured the points I was putting across, but a couple of things:

Border control is definitely a challenge, especially with countries as large as those in West Africa. You're correct about the restraints. For me though, it is only a part of a solution. There is no way a fence can be put up and controlled, there is a better chance of Trump's wall with Mexico going up. But this would have to work hand in hand with the other incentives that have been raised. What's also critical about border control is it would have to involve local governments wanting to keep their local population at home - this intent would be a major step in the right direction.

Your point about Boko Haram is also important. Some form of counter-terrorism assistance from other countries would most likely be needed, which has now become problematic as the US appears to have almost lost all interest in Africa under Trump.

I do, however, have a problem with this:

tribalism that defines most African politics

It's a gross generalisation and oversimplification and very unhelpful to the debate.

guy smiley wrote:As always Hermes, you provide a fascinating insight, cheers.

Your comment about Cameron's regional processing idea struck a chord... Julia Gillard proposed a similar idea partnering Australia with Malaysia and other parties including the UN to process refugees on shore in Malaysia and avoiding the whole people smuggling business that way.

The idea was shot down by the Tony Abbott led conservative govt and Abbott now trots around the world trumpeting the success of his alternative. Internment at huge cost on off shore camps.

The Hard Right will win through on this if some serious bargaining power isn't brought to the table and if they do, we'll have war. Simple.

bimboman wrote:Africa needs trade and stability from debt. The IMF does a terrible job in this regards.

Great post Hermes as alway, question ; would mitigation by engineering in areas affected by climate change bring both jobs and an answer ? Particularly as coastal infrastructure could included port s ?

ticketlessinseattle wrote:

hermes-trismegistus wrote:A few things people raised.

Assfly: If I read you right over the last page or two your broad point seems to be that potential migrants need to be incentivised to stay put. Police borders of origin countries better, work with relevant governments, put money in at the point of departure pre-departure, get local government to inform people of the hazards of travelling; at the same time, if people make it as far as the European coast, don't be so inhumane as to reject their efforts to enter; better to let them in than not. Hopefully I'm not misrepresenting you there.

Tightening the borders of origin countries is all well and good on paper. In real life, if you'll forgive me, not so much. Even a faint semblance of control of the borders of, for example, two of the three countries mentioned a page back (Nigeria and Guinea) is never going to happen without massive resources that no one is realistically going to supply. Just look at the terrain, the topography. The Yanks with all their resources struggle to halt gang movement through southern Texas. A lot of European nations similarly fall down on border control. You're suggesting much, much poorer countries attempt something vastly more ambitious in a far more challenging environment. It's utterly unrealistic. And it'll all have to be conducted with organisations like Boko Haram - which hold actual territory - opposing every step. Nigeria is relatively well equipped with boots and arms these days, and they still fall to bits when they have to contend with those guys outside of the large population centres. Forget it. Even if the monies required for border security and the other home based measures you mentioned were injected in the necessary quantities by western nations and criminal/terrorist networks weren't a factor, both countries are riven with the sort of naked corruption and volatile ethnic politics that are made worse not better by the arrival of outsiders waving bottomless cheque books at government officials. The money would achieve next to nothing unless the corruption and factional rivalries were already dealt with internally. In other words, the tribalism that defines most African politics would first have to end. Chances of that are zero. And, if we're honest, we all know it. The Southern Zim example you picked out as a signpost of how it could be done is in a completely different league. I think you're comparing apples with harpsichords there.

Having said all that, I do think you're spot on to identify the point of origin as a critical factor in the equation. I've said before that I see David Cameron as a dyed in the wool careerist politician. But he was one of the very few who called this right way back at the beginning of the Syria crisis when he proposed we pump resources into camps as close as possible to the borders of fractured countries where migrant flows are originating. Process and assess them there. Not thousands of miles away when they're knocking on the door. And if there isn't a pressing reason for their migration, send them back home. If they skip past the camps and make their way into Europe, the moment they're picked up it's back to the camp and the back of the camp queue.

Guy: Thank you for picking up on the point I'm making about the role played by organised crime in people smuggling. You're right: this could be much more manageable if the crime networks weren't so entrenched. However, it's also the case that getting rid of them is not something that is going to happen in the next few years, or even longer. It's a project that's been going on fruitlessly for decades. Easy to say it needs addressing. Another thing entirely to actually address it. Don't forget that in Italy members of the judiciary need to familiarise themselves with the very real possibility of being blown up and murdered for taking on organised crime. Granted, the game is slightly different these days from the bombings of the 90s and 00s. But if anything the Ndrangheta and others who've slowly overtaken the mafia of a generation ago are even less scrupulous. They're left alone for good reason. They have resources that may as well be infinite since Open Doors, and if you're a judge on a mission they're likely to slowly kill your children with acid and lump hammers before they kill you. That gives most people genuine pause for thought. They're here to stay for the foreseeable future. Whole chunks of southern Italy are effectively their fiefdoms. What I'm saying is that short of turning Italy - southern Italy in particular - into a militarised police state there is no feasible way of getting rid of these guys in the short to medium term. The nation lacks the wherewithal to do it. But it is in a position to turn back those boats. Unpleasant as it may be, it's the only realistic option.

Farva: When you say we need to address the root causes that propel people out of their home nation to another, what we're looking at is the same thing we're always looking at when the phrase 'root causes' enters the conversation. Colossal and speculative interventions that may or may not work in the long term but have no chance in the short unless backed up by military might. Addressing root causes such that migratory flows out of African countries become inconsequential would entail the wholesale taking over of nation state competences such as policing, border control and their judiciaries. That's not going to happen. It's mark II revamped imperialism. It's pie in the sky. You can't buy that kind of influence. You have to win it with firepower. And even then . . . . You're ignoring the one blistering lesson we can all agree Iraq taught us.

Throwing skip loads of money at it isn't going to help either unless very tightly administered. Your proposal that we issue aid without conditions is, with respect, lunacy. Offering free and unconditional money to corrupt governments in broken places nearly always makes things worse, not better. Report after report has come out over the last ten years highlighting how easily aid funds get misappropriated, abused, and embezzled in Africa. Even with conditions attached. The UN, UK, US, pretty much everyone has been royally suckered by various self interested parties governing from Sierra Leone to Mozambique. Who in West Africa, in Guinea, Nigeria, Liberia, Mali, Sierra Leone would you be content to hand a billion to no questions asked? I can't think of anyone. Conditions are a must. And then some. And once conditions are attached with all the checks and balances they require, the wheels start to grind much, much more slowly. In short, even well administered aid isn't going to fix what's going on in the Med for the foreseeable future.

On the climate change issue: I hear what you guys are saying. Once again, however, I don't see how pursuing this goal is going to make a difference worth talking about in respect of migration in the medium term. How long will it take to halt/reverse the damage you're talking about in sub Saharan Africa? Is it less than five years? It better be. I think we're in a race at the moment. As Sewa and others have noted, the longer the migration flows continue the better the hard right is doing in elections across Europe. I reckon another 6/7 years of this issue in the headlines and we'll almost certainly see a major EU country's electorate toss in the towel and say 'to hell with it' and vote for something entirely avoidable because they're fed up to the back teeth. I don't see how showering European electorates with solar panels and wind farms in the meantime will avert this. On the other hand, I can see how stopping the boats would puncture that balloon pretty quickly.

All of the above is centred on African migration. Middle-Eastern is a whole other kettle of fish and even more intractable when it comes to stopping at source. IMO, there are no pleasant answers here. If we turn the boats around, some people are going to die. No question of that. On the other hand, if we continue to signal we're open to arrivals, others will drown in their efforts to cross. And a little down the line we run the very real risk we'll also get an updated version of the sort of unpredictable hard right no one wants. I know which option I'm less uncomfortable choosing.

Merkel's well intentioned throw of the dice has worked out terribly. She has a lot to answer for. The most damaging political decision made in Europe for a generation.

Bed.

think that's harsh on Merkel. agree it was well intentioned and poorly thought out but largely down to none of the other major EU states stepping up. It's a human catastrophe not seen in Europe since WWII and much like the economic crisis ignoring it/kicking can down the road was adding to the clusterfcuk - more so given the actual human cost.

Its also probably the most principled political decisions i can ever remember being made, she knew she'd pay a huge political price for it but went ahead anyway because she thought it was the right thing to do.

Mass migration is here to stay (whether it be due to war, climate change or economic reasons) or at least the desire to and consequences of trying to stop it. For the West figuring out the role we've played in driving it and solving the route causes is going to be the challenge for the populist governments being installed, careful what you ask for.

hermes-trismegistus wrote: I disagree, Ticketless. I think she was bested by emotional demons after she was completely stitched up on a talk show where she had to explain to a weeping young Palestinian girl why Germany couldn't accept every asylum application. It was PR disaster. The liberal press in Germany rode Merkel up and down shit-alley afterwards. There were snide insinuations that she could only be so callous because she had no children herself. It was appalling. Shortly afterwards she opened the doors.

The big problem with her move, the one that has benighted us all since, was that the decision was entirely unilateral and ran completely contrary to the much ballyhooed and previously agreed upon Dublin Convention. She consulted no one, broke the rules about as flagrantly as possible and presented her policy as a fait accompli for the rest of the EU. It was never going to wash. And people like me who are always interested in how the EU is a stickler for the correct procedures, have yet to hear what legal mechanism it was that enabled her to override the convention in the first place. The Visegrad countries had every right to stick a finger up. They weren't the ones tearing up the rule book at a moment's notice. She effectively drove a wedge between much of eastern Europe and the rest. And the upshot of the policy has been a rise in the fortunes of the hard right.

ticketlessinseattle wrote:

hermes-trismegistus wrote: I disagree, Ticketless. I think she was bested by emotional demons after she was completely stitched up on a talk show where she had to explain to a weeping young Palestinian girl why Germany couldn't accept every asylum application. It was PR disaster. The liberal press in Germany rode Merkel up and down shit-alley afterwards. There were snide insinuations that she could only be so callous because she had no children herself. It was appalling. Shortly afterwards she opened the doors.

The big problem with her move, the one that has benighted us all since, was that the decision was entirely unilateral and ran completely contrary to the much ballyhooed and previously agreed upon Dublin Convention. She consulted no one, broke the rules about as flagrantly as possible and presented her policy as a fait accompli for the rest of the EU. It was never going to wash. And people like me who are always interested in how the EU is a stickler for the correct procedures, have yet to hear what legal mechanism it was that enabled her to override the convention in the first place. The Visegrad countries had every right to stick a finger up. They weren't the ones tearing up the rule book at a moment's notice. She effectively drove a wedge between much of eastern Europe and the rest. And the upshot of the policy has been a rise in the fortunes of the hard right.

so it was well intentioned but poorly thought out ? how about being a stickler for the geneva convention ?

bimboman wrote:

ticketlessinseattle wrote:

hermes-trismegistus wrote: I disagree, Ticketless. I think she was bested by emotional demons after she was completely stitched up on a talk show where she had to explain to a weeping young Palestinian girl why Germany couldn't accept every asylum application. It was PR disaster. The liberal press in Germany rode Merkel up and down shit-alley afterwards. There were snide insinuations that she could only be so callous because she had no children herself. It was appalling. Shortly afterwards she opened the doors.

The big problem with her move, the one that has benighted us all since, was that the decision was entirely unilateral and ran completely contrary to the much ballyhooed and previously agreed upon Dublin Convention. She consulted no one, broke the rules about as flagrantly as possible and presented her policy as a fait accompli for the rest of the EU. It was never going to wash. And people like me who are always interested in how the EU is a stickler for the correct procedures, have yet to hear what legal mechanism it was that enabled her to override the convention in the first place. The Visegrad countries had every right to stick a finger up. They weren't the ones tearing up the rule book at a moment's notice. She effectively drove a wedge between much of eastern Europe and the rest. And the upshot of the policy has been a rise in the fortunes of the hard right.

so it was well intentioned but poorly thought out ? how about being a stickler for the geneva convention ?

Making people cross an open sea in flimsy vessels to win a golden ticket isn't well intentioned though, she caused many deaths. What the f uck has the Geneva convention got to do with it ?

ticketlessinseattle wrote:

bimboman wrote:

ticketlessinseattle wrote:

hermes-trismegistus wrote: I disagree, Ticketless. I think she was bested by emotional demons after she was completely stitched up on a talk show where she had to explain to a weeping young Palestinian girl why Germany couldn't accept every asylum application. It was PR disaster. The liberal press in Germany rode Merkel up and down shit-alley afterwards. There were snide insinuations that she could only be so callous because she had no children herself. It was appalling. Shortly afterwards she opened the doors.

The big problem with her move, the one that has benighted us all since, was that the decision was entirely unilateral and ran completely contrary to the much ballyhooed and previously agreed upon Dublin Convention. She consulted no one, broke the rules about as flagrantly as possible and presented her policy as a fait accompli for the rest of the EU. It was never going to wash. And people like me who are always interested in how the EU is a stickler for the correct procedures, have yet to hear what legal mechanism it was that enabled her to override the convention in the first place. The Visegrad countries had every right to stick a finger up. They weren't the ones tearing up the rule book at a moment's notice. She effectively drove a wedge between much of eastern Europe and the rest. And the upshot of the policy has been a rise in the fortunes of the hard right.

so it was well intentioned but poorly thought out ? how about being a stickler for the geneva convention ?

Making people cross an open sea in flimsy vessels to win a golden ticket isn't well intentioned though, she caused many deaths. What the f uck has the Geneva convention got to do with it ?

really ?....and really ?

bimboman wrote:

ticketlessinseattle wrote:

bimboman wrote:

ticketlessinseattle wrote:

hermes-trismegistus wrote: I disagree, Ticketless. I think she was bested by emotional demons after she was completely stitched up on a talk show where she had to explain to a weeping young Palestinian girl why Germany couldn't accept every asylum application. It was PR disaster. The liberal press in Germany rode Merkel up and down shit-alley afterwards. There were snide insinuations that she could only be so callous because she had no children herself. It was appalling. Shortly afterwards she opened the doors.

The big problem with her move, the one that has benighted us all since, was that the decision was entirely unilateral and ran completely contrary to the much ballyhooed and previously agreed upon Dublin Convention. She consulted no one, broke the rules about as flagrantly as possible and presented her policy as a fait accompli for the rest of the EU. It was never going to wash. And people like me who are always interested in how the EU is a stickler for the correct procedures, have yet to hear what legal mechanism it was that enabled her to override the convention in the first place. The Visegrad countries had every right to stick a finger up. They weren't the ones tearing up the rule book at a moment's notice. She effectively drove a wedge between much of eastern Europe and the rest. And the upshot of the policy has been a rise in the fortunes of the hard right.

so it was well intentioned but poorly thought out ? how about being a stickler for the geneva convention ?

Making people cross an open sea in flimsy vessels to win a golden ticket isn't well intentioned though, she caused many deaths. What the f uck has the Geneva convention got to do with it ?

really ?....and really ?

The wonderful compassionate Merkel didn't arrange to pick them up in Turkey. So yes really , look at what happened not what you believed happened. She dangled an invitation for those that could claw there way close enough.

Flyin Ryan wrote:Always wonder how many people that cite the Geneva Convention actually read the damn things (plural, because there's multiple ones).

ticketlessinseattle wrote:

Flyin Ryan wrote:Always wonder how many people that cite the Geneva Convention actually read the damn things (plural, because there's multiple ones).

googled the relevant sections you'd like to cite yet ?

i'm not following your logic, she's not compassionate because she didn't arrange to pick them up - she should have done more ? i applaud your humanity.

Seneca of the Night wrote:

guy smiley wrote:

Seneca of the Night wrote:
Is this one of those threads where you completely fail to understand what is being discussed so declare a succession of victories over an opponent merely expressing an opinion, over which a debate cannot by definition be won?

That's hilarious... considering you spend more than half your time in here berating other posters for not following your special set of rules regarding how, what and where they should post.

Like an old bloke claiming ownership of the bar stool right in front of the taps... sort of amusing but in the way as well.

Nothing more annoying that having to listen to a couple of young twats (let's call them, say, Chuckles and Bulletyme) talking nonsense over your shoulder while they order their Heineken shandys.

Plato'sCave wrote:Aging English immigrants putting a massive strain on the Welsh NHS.

Close the borders to those who are a drain.

ticketlessinseattle wrote:

hermes-trismegistus wrote: I disagree, Ticketless. I think she was bested by emotional demons after she was completely stitched up on a talk show where she had to explain to a weeping young Palestinian girl why Germany couldn't accept every asylum application. It was PR disaster. The liberal press in Germany rode Merkel up and down shit-alley afterwards. There were snide insinuations that she could only be so callous because she had no children herself. It was appalling. Shortly afterwards she opened the doors.

The big problem with her move, the one that has benighted us all since, was that the decision was entirely unilateral and ran completely contrary to the much ballyhooed and previously agreed upon Dublin Convention. She consulted no one, broke the rules about as flagrantly as possible and presented her policy as a fait accompli for the rest of the EU. It was never going to wash. And people like me who are always interested in how the EU is a stickler for the correct procedures, have yet to hear what legal mechanism it was that enabled her to override the convention in the first place. The Visegrad countries had every right to stick a finger up. They weren't the ones tearing up the rule book at a moment's notice. She effectively drove a wedge between much of eastern Europe and the rest. And the upshot of the policy has been a rise in the fortunes of the hard right.

so it was well intentioned but poorly thought out ? how about being a stickler for the geneva convention ?

hermes-trismegistus wrote:

ticketlessinseattle wrote:

hermes-trismegistus wrote: I disagree, Ticketless. I think she was bested by emotional demons after she was completely stitched up on a talk show where she had to explain to a weeping young Palestinian girl why Germany couldn't accept every asylum application. It was PR disaster. The liberal press in Germany rode Merkel up and down shit-alley afterwards. There were snide insinuations that she could only be so callous because she had no children herself. It was appalling. Shortly afterwards she opened the doors.

The big problem with her move, the one that has benighted us all since, was that the decision was entirely unilateral and ran completely contrary to the much ballyhooed and previously agreed upon Dublin Convention. She consulted no one, broke the rules about as flagrantly as possible and presented her policy as a fait accompli for the rest of the EU. It was never going to wash. And people like me who are always interested in how the EU is a stickler for the correct procedures, have yet to hear what legal mechanism it was that enabled her to override the convention in the first place. The Visegrad countries had every right to stick a finger up. They weren't the ones tearing up the rule book at a moment's notice. She effectively drove a wedge between much of eastern Europe and the rest. And the upshot of the policy has been a rise in the fortunes of the hard right.

so it was well intentioned but poorly thought out ? how about being a stickler for the geneva convention ?

I'm not familiar with the ins and outs of the Geneva Conventions. Am I right in thinking that what you're saying is that had Merkel adhered to the Dublin Convention she would have been in breach of articles of the Geneva Conventions? How so? Which articles? I don't recall her flagging this issue at the time. Happy to be shown I'm wrong though.

Santa wrote:

hermes-trismegistus wrote:

ticketlessinseattle wrote:

hermes-trismegistus wrote: I disagree, Ticketless. I think she was bested by emotional demons after she was completely stitched up on a talk show where she had to explain to a weeping young Palestinian girl why Germany couldn't accept every asylum application. It was PR disaster. The liberal press in Germany rode Merkel up and down shit-alley afterwards. There were snide insinuations that she could only be so callous because she had no children herself. It was appalling. Shortly afterwards she opened the doors.

The big problem with her move, the one that has benighted us all since, was that the decision was entirely unilateral and ran completely contrary to the much ballyhooed and previously agreed upon Dublin Convention. She consulted no one, broke the rules about as flagrantly as possible and presented her policy as a fait accompli for the rest of the EU. It was never going to wash. And people like me who are always interested in how the EU is a stickler for the correct procedures, have yet to hear what legal mechanism it was that enabled her to override the convention in the first place. The Visegrad countries had every right to stick a finger up. They weren't the ones tearing up the rule book at a moment's notice. She effectively drove a wedge between much of eastern Europe and the rest. And the upshot of the policy has been a rise in the fortunes of the hard right.

so it was well intentioned but poorly thought out ? how about being a stickler for the geneva convention ?

I'm not familiar with the ins and outs of the Geneva Conventions. Am I right in thinking that what you're saying is that had Merkel adhered to the Dublin Convention she would have been in breach of articles of the Geneva Conventions? How so? Which articles? I don't recall her flagging this issue at the time. Happy to be shown I'm wrong though.

I spent about 5 minutes looking into this and in that time I could not find an answer. According to wikipedia the Conventions seem to apply in times of war so don't appear to be relevant in this instance. Maybe he's referring to the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which is not one of the four treaties and three protocols that comprise the Geneva Conventions.

Seneca of the Night wrote:And in the meantime, the fate of the Aquarius is not known:

Italy has summoned the French ambassador after Emmanuel Macron criticised what he called Italy’s “cynicism and irresponsibility” in turning away a migrant rescue ship with more than 600 people on board.

Matteo Salvini, Italy’s new anti-migrant interior minister, blocked the Aquarius rescue ship carrying 629 people from docking in its ports at the weekend, prompting international outcry.

In a speech to parliament on Wednesday he demanded an apology from the French president and challenged France to take in the migrants it had promised to take under an EU agreement, accusing it of turning back 10,000 migrants at Italy’s northern border.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/ ... p-aquarius

Seneca of the Night wrote:

hermes-trismegistus wrote:I blame Hadrian. Wait. The Ming Dynasty. Or is it the Berliners?

What I'm learning from this thread is that a sort of new Berlin Wall around Nigeria is desirable. Heck, I know I'm mad, but even I'm not advocating the return of walls to keep people in places. I'm old school and I prefer to use them to keep people out.

hermes-trismegistus wrote:

Santa wrote:

hermes-trismegistus wrote:

ticketlessinseattle wrote:

hermes-trismegistus wrote: I disagree, Ticketless. I think she was bested by emotional demons after she was completely stitched up on a talk show where she had to explain to a weeping young Palestinian girl why Germany couldn't accept every asylum application. It was PR disaster. The liberal press in Germany rode Merkel up and down shit-alley afterwards. There were snide insinuations that she could only be so callous because she had no children herself. It was appalling. Shortly afterwards she opened the doors.

The big problem with her move, the one that has benighted us all since, was that the decision was entirely unilateral and ran completely contrary to the much ballyhooed and previously agreed upon Dublin Convention. She consulted no one, broke the rules about as flagrantly as possible and presented her policy as a fait accompli for the rest of the EU. It was never going to wash. And people like me who are always interested in how the EU is a stickler for the correct procedures, have yet to hear what legal mechanism it was that enabled her to override the convention in the first place. The Visegrad countries had every right to stick a finger up. They weren't the ones tearing up the rule book at a moment's notice. She effectively drove a wedge between much of eastern Europe and the rest. And the upshot of the policy has been a rise in the fortunes of the hard right.

so it was well intentioned but poorly thought out ? how about being a stickler for the geneva convention ?

I'm not familiar with the ins and outs of the Geneva Conventions. Am I right in thinking that what you're saying is that had Merkel adhered to the Dublin Convention she would have been in breach of articles of the Geneva Conventions? How so? Which articles? I don't recall her flagging this issue at the time. Happy to be shown I'm wrong though.

I spent about 5 minutes looking into this and in that time I could not find an answer. According to wikipedia the Conventions seem to apply in times of war so don't appear to be relevant in this instance. Maybe he's referring to the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which is not one of the four treaties and three protocols that comprise the Geneva Conventions.

I can't be sure, which is why I asked, but I suspect his post was intended less literally and more as a call for what Ticketless views as basic humanitarianism. If that's so, I get where he's coming from. I think it's a black and white view and nowhere near nuanced enough to comfortably accommodate the far-reaching and difficult downsides of Open Doors. But I can at least understand why he thinks that way.

Seneca of the Night wrote:

hermes-trismegistus wrote:I blame Hadrian. Wait. The Ming Dynasty. Or is it the Berliners?

What I'm learning from this thread is that a sort of new Berlin Wall around Nigeria is desirable. Heck, I know I'm mad, but even I'm not advocating the return of walls to keep people in places. I'm old school and I prefer to use them to keep people out.

Farva wrote:Hermes, my point was nit just throw money at it.
We, as the OECD, have pledged a certain level of support in the form of foreign aid. I think it is around 0.5% of GDP. Most nations are nowhere near that and are cutting it even more. In Australia for instance, the Liberal govt stated that they wanted to get their house in order first before looking at foreign aid. But there was no indicarion of what an in order house was. It was merely a ploy to cut budget further. The unconditional cimment was aimes at the fact that govt offer aid not where it can do the most benefit but where it can offer political benefit. For example Australia counts its spend in offshore detention as foreign aid.
If we cant meet these pledges then the OECD is sgowing it doesnt want to assist. And I believe that assistance is vital. First because we were born into countries that have the environmental and geographical conditions to become developed (not becuase we plundered poorer countries before it gets suggested). Second because reacting is on our best interest. Foreign aid seems to be left to private groups now (MSF, Red Cross, Bill and Melinda Gates, the Global Fund). Groups like the UNHCR are toothless as they have terrible governance and no real support from the constituent nations.

The next point is that you asked about medium term. I dont think bloxking off the med is a medium term solution. It just wont work. People are fleeing because they are desperate. You might stem the tide for a couple of years but ultimately it isnt a medium term solution. It will just be overwhelmed. I think you need to address the push factors to have a chance. And I think its possible. In the last 40 years, Asia (particularly SEA) has gone from on par with sub Sahara Africa to a relatively wealthy region. You dont see legions of undocumented Indonesians, Malays, Vietnamese any more. And to Bimbos point, this part if the world is far far more densley populated than Sub Sahara Africa (generally). I know there are plenty of reasons why Asia has succeeded but sub Sahara Africa (generally) has not. But the keg for me is infrastructure, education and health. That can be priovided through donors. Why cant the success in SEA be replicated?