"Ultra Wave Heater: 2024/25 Updates...
Jobs & Education3 mins ago
Is Rescuing Boat People From The Mediterranean Counter-Productive?
The Royal Navy rescues them and transports them to safety in Europe, they make their way to Calais, and we then make all efforts to keep them out of the UK. Somewhat confusing....
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Until very recently the UK tried its best to maintain the attitude that (phew) any problem in this matter was a foreign issue which the UK need not concern itself with. Then as hundreds of people were drowning pretty much on a weekly basis, Greece, Italy and Spain had an influx of hundreds of thousands (who made it across) annually, the "World Power" (as in participant in recent adventures abroad) was embarrassed into a gesture. As part of international FRONTEX border monitoring, for months even lowly Iceland (population 330,000 and no military) had been monitoring chunks of the Mediterranean and saving thousands of lives. The UK actually assigned a vessel to the problem, albeit in a minimalist way. The juxtaposition of "democratising" and "peacemaking" in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya with inaction regarding mass drowning became too difficult to maintain.
Now it seems the UK is to blame France, France will then blame Italy and so on. People have been unofficially and even covertly crossing both land and sea borders for ages, including during both World Wars. Modern transportation equipment and routes have changed the character of the exercise and modern surveillance and media have made it more obvious. The numbers trying to cross unofficially/illegally from France to the UK is tiny compared to the numbers ignoring the UK altogether.
Several European countries have agreed to annually take in at least a certain minimum number of refugees as a proportion of the population of each country in question. Sweden and Germany already far exceed this criterion. So far as I know, the agreed quota formula would mean the UK should take in at least 5000 per year but apparently there is no sign of that being considered by the UK authorities - again, noticed by others and quite possibly resented.
The UK clearly wants to be taken seriously as a "world class leader and power" and also as a noble, sensible and balanced nation. I admire an aim toward the latter and understand the pull of the former. However, to outside observers the UK (not the only ones, it has to be said) looks like it feels it deserves to maintain a privileged pick-and-choose approach when it comes to pulling/imposing their weight/will among the world community.
Personally, I don't understand how the initiative of the military adventures were justifiable interventions while taking part, including leading, in finding a solution to a major non-military crisis is everyone else's problem not the UK's. Yes, the trauma of switching from running colonies to losing them all is a game changer, but surely one day the mental adjustment from dictating to co-operating needs to be made - and, when it seems to suit, constantly blaming others for everything is not the way to prove superiority.
Now it seems the UK is to blame France, France will then blame Italy and so on. People have been unofficially and even covertly crossing both land and sea borders for ages, including during both World Wars. Modern transportation equipment and routes have changed the character of the exercise and modern surveillance and media have made it more obvious. The numbers trying to cross unofficially/illegally from France to the UK is tiny compared to the numbers ignoring the UK altogether.
Several European countries have agreed to annually take in at least a certain minimum number of refugees as a proportion of the population of each country in question. Sweden and Germany already far exceed this criterion. So far as I know, the agreed quota formula would mean the UK should take in at least 5000 per year but apparently there is no sign of that being considered by the UK authorities - again, noticed by others and quite possibly resented.
The UK clearly wants to be taken seriously as a "world class leader and power" and also as a noble, sensible and balanced nation. I admire an aim toward the latter and understand the pull of the former. However, to outside observers the UK (not the only ones, it has to be said) looks like it feels it deserves to maintain a privileged pick-and-choose approach when it comes to pulling/imposing their weight/will among the world community.
Personally, I don't understand how the initiative of the military adventures were justifiable interventions while taking part, including leading, in finding a solution to a major non-military crisis is everyone else's problem not the UK's. Yes, the trauma of switching from running colonies to losing them all is a game changer, but surely one day the mental adjustment from dictating to co-operating needs to be made - and, when it seems to suit, constantly blaming others for everything is not the way to prove superiority.
anotheoldgit, //Just dump them on their North African shores from whence they came, after all isn't that what the African countries are doing to us?//
That is a little bit unrealistic, I hope the UK, never resorts to "dumping" people anywhere! Also, I dont suppose that the North African countries are doing that to us! These are individuals doing it for themselves, I don't imagine the North African Governments have much say in it.
That is a little bit unrealistic, I hope the UK, never resorts to "dumping" people anywhere! Also, I dont suppose that the North African countries are doing that to us! These are individuals doing it for themselves, I don't imagine the North African Governments have much say in it.
AOG; //And did they ever implement it Noooooooooooo!!!!!!// [safe havens]
The stumbling block in 2003 was UNHCR who wanted the safe havens to be within the EU. The latest proposal again is by David Davis and others, for them to be set up in Africa somewhere (as yet unspecified) The boat people would be collected and taken directly there for processing and maybe returned from whence they came.
The stumbling block in 2003 was UNHCR who wanted the safe havens to be within the EU. The latest proposal again is by David Davis and others, for them to be set up in Africa somewhere (as yet unspecified) The boat people would be collected and taken directly there for processing and maybe returned from whence they came.
KARL
/// Yes, the trauma of switching from running colonies to losing them all is a game changer, but surely one day the mental adjustment from dictating to co-operating needs to be made - and, when it seems to suit, constantly blaming others for everything is not the way to prove superiority. ///
Yes but the problem here, is the fact that all these ex colonials are now swarming into our country and changing our long historic heritage and culture almost out of all recognition, whereas our ex colonies have now chucked us out and are free once more to enjoy their long historical heritage and culture.
So can we at some time, then look forward to also chucking them out, so as to then revert back to our long historical heritage and culture.
Dream on, we will never be able to enjoy an independence day.
/// Yes, the trauma of switching from running colonies to losing them all is a game changer, but surely one day the mental adjustment from dictating to co-operating needs to be made - and, when it seems to suit, constantly blaming others for everything is not the way to prove superiority. ///
Yes but the problem here, is the fact that all these ex colonials are now swarming into our country and changing our long historic heritage and culture almost out of all recognition, whereas our ex colonies have now chucked us out and are free once more to enjoy their long historical heritage and culture.
So can we at some time, then look forward to also chucking them out, so as to then revert back to our long historical heritage and culture.
Dream on, we will never be able to enjoy an independence day.
-- answer removed --
//AOG; //And did they ever implement it Noooooooooooo!!!!!!// [safe havens]
The stumbling block in 2003 was UNHCR who wanted the safe havens to be within the EU. The latest proposal again is by David Davis and others, for them to be set up in Africa somewhere (as yet unspecified) The boat people would be collected and taken directly there for processing and maybe returned from whence they came. //
plus in 2003, the labour government were too busy rubbing the right's nose in diversity to have any serious intent.
The stumbling block in 2003 was UNHCR who wanted the safe havens to be within the EU. The latest proposal again is by David Davis and others, for them to be set up in Africa somewhere (as yet unspecified) The boat people would be collected and taken directly there for processing and maybe returned from whence they came. //
plus in 2003, the labour government were too busy rubbing the right's nose in diversity to have any serious intent.
fender; They would not be holiday camps, the original proposal was for 6 months maximum, by which time (a) The troubles from which they had fled would be sorted (b) It would have been established (pdq) that they were econ. migrants or (c) They were genuine asylum seekers, in which case they would be allocated a place in an EU country.
All countries deserves to maintain a non-privileged perfectly normal control of who they allow in, subject to multinational agreements. Many nations seem to have picked and chose already to allow many to just wander in and not maintain their border, and hope they those who arrive go annoy someone else. Other countries who have politicians with a bare minimum of common sense or more, chose not to lose control of national borders and expect other countries to take up their responsibilities re folk passing over their borders to another nation. But of course if you have no intention of fulfilling those obligations any nonsensible claim to pretend the nation you are failing is at fault, seems to be a good idea to claim in a fultile attempt to pass blame for one's inaction onto another. But if fools no-one, probably not even those who make these claims.
@naomi
On the whole, I do think it is counter productive but with the following caveats.
i) We cannot let them drown at sea. They will not be the first persons to set sail unadvisably, or overloaded and get into a pickle.
ii) We cannot return them to the Libyan shore if they decline a foreign naval vessel permission to dock and disembark passengers lacking ID paperwork/entry visas.
iii) If they allow us to dock, there will be fees to pay and, under the likely "rinse and repeat" conditions we will undoubtedly face, they can set the fees as high as they like and milk us (not that the benefits bill of taking the people would be cheaper).
iv) Relations with Libya must be good, currently, for us to be able to operate inside their 200-mile territorial waters. Dumping migrants back on them might imperil those good relations.
v) "Light sweet crude" comes from Libya. After the disruption of regime change and that refinery raid, it is back on stream. Mucking things up again at this time would not be a sensible thing to do.
On the whole, I do think it is counter productive but with the following caveats.
i) We cannot let them drown at sea. They will not be the first persons to set sail unadvisably, or overloaded and get into a pickle.
ii) We cannot return them to the Libyan shore if they decline a foreign naval vessel permission to dock and disembark passengers lacking ID paperwork/entry visas.
iii) If they allow us to dock, there will be fees to pay and, under the likely "rinse and repeat" conditions we will undoubtedly face, they can set the fees as high as they like and milk us (not that the benefits bill of taking the people would be cheaper).
iv) Relations with Libya must be good, currently, for us to be able to operate inside their 200-mile territorial waters. Dumping migrants back on them might imperil those good relations.
v) "Light sweet crude" comes from Libya. After the disruption of regime change and that refinery raid, it is back on stream. Mucking things up again at this time would not be a sensible thing to do.
@Old_Geezer
// Page 2
//
fiction-factory
But if we are just rescuing them from the sea, O_G, then surely we should do it closer to the African coast and then safely transfer them back to dry land
08:51 Tue 04th Aug 2015
------
Old_Geezer
Fair comment.
But one should be sure they are economic refugees and not genuine asylum seekers you are dumping back to their abusers.
//
Easier said than done. How does anyone tell them apart?
Any economic migrant can just make up a story on the spot and it will be unchallengeable, like most well thought-out lies. One Italian official, in a piece about Lampedusa, told the BBC that one migrant even said to her "look, help me out here, can you make up a (good enough to qualify) story for me?", if that is any indication of how brazen they can be. Too lazy to even make up their own sob story!
//
Which may be why they are brought to the European country first. And apparently not processed properly there.
//
I'm guessing the Italians can't process them without interpreter services or maybe conduct interviews in English. What's in it for them to process asylum cases properly?
Asylum rules need to be looked at. Normally, proximity to the troubled country determines that you receive the brunt of the influx BUT the trouble is supposed to be temporary (I can't belive Syria's troubles have clocked up 4 years already) and asylum refugees are supposed to go home when it is all over and not aim to settle because the rescue country just so happens to be a cushier number than where they fled from.
So, using asylum to get your foot in the door is silly anyway: it ensures that you should leave at some unspecified time in the future. Don't make too many plans!
// Page 2
//
fiction-factory
But if we are just rescuing them from the sea, O_G, then surely we should do it closer to the African coast and then safely transfer them back to dry land
08:51 Tue 04th Aug 2015
------
Old_Geezer
Fair comment.
But one should be sure they are economic refugees and not genuine asylum seekers you are dumping back to their abusers.
//
Easier said than done. How does anyone tell them apart?
Any economic migrant can just make up a story on the spot and it will be unchallengeable, like most well thought-out lies. One Italian official, in a piece about Lampedusa, told the BBC that one migrant even said to her "look, help me out here, can you make up a (good enough to qualify) story for me?", if that is any indication of how brazen they can be. Too lazy to even make up their own sob story!
//
Which may be why they are brought to the European country first. And apparently not processed properly there.
//
I'm guessing the Italians can't process them without interpreter services or maybe conduct interviews in English. What's in it for them to process asylum cases properly?
Asylum rules need to be looked at. Normally, proximity to the troubled country determines that you receive the brunt of the influx BUT the trouble is supposed to be temporary (I can't belive Syria's troubles have clocked up 4 years already) and asylum refugees are supposed to go home when it is all over and not aim to settle because the rescue country just so happens to be a cushier number than where they fled from.
So, using asylum to get your foot in the door is silly anyway: it ensures that you should leave at some unspecified time in the future. Don't make too many plans!
Now even cabinet ministers are finally starting to speak sense;
http://
The French want it, the British public want it; for heavens sake, send in the Ghurkhas!
http://
The French want it, the British public want it; for heavens sake, send in the Ghurkhas!
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.