Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Refugee crisis. Something on the scale of the Marshall plan required?

In the shorter term, what would be a fair way of allocating incoming migrants to respective EU countries?

realistically?

those that can afford to look after them. some will be able to slot right in, some will have very complex and lifelong needs.

the problem is that the number who currently get to Europe is informed by the fact that that the trip will be dangerous, expensive (£9000 was a figure i heard from a Syrian chap on radio 4 today), and if they get here they won't be welcome. if you remove the danger, end the need for expensive/dangerous people traffickers, and say to all-comers 'come to the EU and build a new life', then the number who come will - obviously - make the current number look tiny. thats the real issue - the 3000 at Calais could be accomodated in the UK at the click of a PM's fingers and no one would bat an eyelid, but the next lot, and the one after that, ad infinitum?
 
Interesting article. But the OP marshall plan idea seems to suggest we or Europe can do something about it, which suggests interventions, and the UKs interventions to date in the regions involved have only increased the flow of migrants and refugees. The question remains, what intervention in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Eritrea could stabilise those countries and stem the flow of people?
No I was not suggesting interventions in the countries of origin though it may have appeared that way, if so I apologise I should have been clearer. Far too much 'intervention' has already gone on and all usually for the wrong reasons. What I am suggesting is some sort of proper co-ordinated effort to ensure that the refugees that are already here and the ones that are arriving pretty much on a continuous basis are properly cared for and integrated into the societies that they find themselves in.
 
The UK is relatively well insulated from the crisis so I doubt we'll see any constructive solutions forthcoming from downing Street. Meanwhile the countries without any choice in the matter, (mainly italy and greece) will have to continue doing what they can to shelter new arrivals. And it's about time the Dublin convention was ripped up, as it puts all the pressure on the southern European (ie the poorest) countries to administer the situation.
 
history question...

why did the southern/eastern EU countries agree to the Dublin Convention proposal?

it seems so blindingly obvious that future refugees would arrive in Europe from the south and east that for the poorest countries in the EU to agree that they should be ones holding the baby seems somewhat bizaare...
 
history question...

why did the southern/eastern EU countries agree to the Dublin Convention proposal?

it seems so blindingly obvious that future refugees would arrive in Europe from the south and east that for the poorest countries in the EU to agree that they should be ones holding the baby seems somewhat bizaare...
Financial incentives from the northern countries maybe?
 
Did Cameron say the UK had taken 5,000 Syrians?
It pales into insignificance compared to the 800,000 odd that Germany will take this year.
Germany is what, perhaps around double the size of the UK?
 
He's looking like the grade A cunt that he is. He'll get fuck all concessions from other member states now.
That could be a problem, I want meaningful concessions because I want the campaign to stay in to do well, but you are right, Cameron's current stance will not do him any favours in the negotiations.
 
Mind you, one has to wonder how Germany is going to house 800,000 new people this year?
A lot of the old GDR is underpopulated and is crying out for people of working and childbearing/childraising age to work in areas where a scary proportion of the locals are either too old or too ill to work. Plenty of empty or near empty housing in those areas too, the problem will be finding the money for integration (mostly language and conversion of qualifications).
 
Last edited:
That could be a problem, I want meaningful concessions because I want the campaign to stay in to do well, but you are right, Cameron's current stance will not do him any favours in the negotiations.
Looks tonight like the UK state has already left.
 
A lot of the old GDR is underpopulated and is crying out for people of working and childbearing/childraising age to work in areas where a scary proportion of the locals are either too old or too ill to work. Plenty of empty or near empty housing in those areas too, the problem will be finding the money for integration (mostly language and conversion of qualifications).
though they have, as I understand it, pretty good structures in place for support, too. Friend who lives in Hamburg was talking about the local centres - refugees are housed in centres with social workers, translators, lawyers etc. she was beating herself up that germany wasn't doing enough and about the (few) far right attacks.
 
Andrew Michell MP has just said on newsnight that Britain is doing more to help refugee's than any other country, by helping in Syria.
He said it three times.
 
A lot of the old GDR is underpopulated and is crying out for people of working and childbearing/childraising age to work in areas where a scary proportion of the locals are either too old or too ill to work. Plenty of empty or near empty housing in those areas too, the problem will be finding the money for integration (mostly language and conversion of qualifications).
Good point, I hadn't thought of that.
 
Andrew Michell MP has just said on newsnight that Britain is doing more to help refugee's than any other country, by helping in Syria.
He said it three times.
He did, the lying cunt. Tells us everything we need to know about the Government's 'response' to this tragedy that Mitchell is regarded as a suitable spokesman for their position.
 
We've had ten years or more of the dominant discourse around refugees and immigration expressed via the tropes of "we're all full up/they're dangerous scroungers/we cant take anymore/undermining our culture/terror threat/over stretched public services etc" - thus providing politically acceptable cover for racism and xenphobia.
This discourse is now challenged by the reality of the humanitiarian crises that is unfolding accross europe in the shape of desperate people being beaten back by clubs and the corpses of kids washing up on Mediterranean beaches. The result has been large and growing numbers of people reacting with basic decent humanity - wanting to help, offering their homes and demanding that something is done.
This has thrown into sharp relief the previously dominant voices of the "keep em out!" brigade who now sound like the misanthropic heartless fucks they are as they desperately twist their arguments - complaining of being "blackmailed" by photos of dead kids, offering pass-the-buck non-solutions and trying to dehumanise and delegitamise the victims
I hope that this massive human tragedy - and the basic decency with which so many have responded - helps to shame these cunts into silence - for too long they have dominated the debate.
Its telling that Camerons has elected to stand alongside the likes of Katie Price on this issue - he hides it pretty well most of the time, but shit like this exposes just what a nasty piece of work he is.
 
history question...

why did the southern/eastern EU countries agree to the Dublin Convention proposal?

it seems so blindingly obvious that future refugees would arrive in Europe from the south and east that for the poorest countries in the EU to agree that they should be ones holding the baby seems somewhat bizaare...

Their leaders thought only in the short term.
 
As I think I mentioned on another thread, I recently had an argument with someone over exactly this. I said that people were sending aid to Calais and that I thought this was laudable and good to see that people saw the humanitarian side of the crisis. This was met with the accusation that I was a bloody liberal and that 1) if you help them more will come and 2) they should all be sent back to where they came from assuming it can be determined because none of them have any papers, and 3) they are only coming here for benefits or to take our jobs and anyhow if they come here I will have to pay for them with my taxes!

I then explained that I thought Britain was in part responsible for those emanating from Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya and that Syria was an awful situation and you couldn't blame people for fleeing, to be met with yes I, in their shoes would do exactly the same but, and I didn't agree with British interventions there in any case, we should stop messing with other countries and just look after our own people!

It was interesting and slightly exasperating to hear these views from a person with whom I had never before discussed anything remotely political, I do know though that a lot of people think like that. It has however been refreshing to see how many others are seeing the humanitarian angle of the crisis and helping as and how they can. I think it is fair to say that the individual I had that argument with will not be lending his weight to any assistance to the migrants though.
 
0c4ccbff-16cd-4a7c-91b0-7d03295977bc-2060x1453.jpeg
 
Anyone else finding the sudden conversion of the right-wing gutter press to humanitarianism weird and more than a bit suspicious? It wasn't long ago that the Sun printed articles calling refugees vermin and calling for them to be shot.

I think they realise the 'silent majority' isn't in fact right wing as they like to suggest...it's going to be a hijacking...think 'big society' rhetoric, deserving and undeserving refugee vs migrant...they can fuck off.
 
Back
Top Bottom