• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

UK government allowing refugees to drown in order to curb immigration

Status
Not open for further replies.
This is really depressing (Opinion piece which tells the story and is entirely relevant anyway).

Telegraph said:
Finally. After years of debate and vacillation and inaction, the nations of Europe have at last come up with a solution to the refugee crisis that is blighting our continent.

Every year, hundreds of thousands of men, women and children seeking sanctuary from the chaos and carnage of places like Syria and Libya wash up in their ramshackle craft on the Mediterranean coastline. The countries that constitute their destination – Italy, Greece, Spain – have found themselves on the front line a mini-humanitarian crisis.

But our politicians have now found the answer. And it’s a bold one. We’re going to take those refugees, and we’re going to drown them.

Today the Guardian reports that Britain – along with its EU partners – is backing the withdrawal of search and rescue support from the Mediterranean. According to a statement from Foreign Office minister Lady Anelay: "We do not support planned search and rescue operations in the Mediterranean". She added that the government believes there is “an unintended ‘pull factor’, encouraging more migrants to attempt the dangerous sea crossing and thereby leading to more tragic and unnecessary deaths”.

The announcement was made as the Italian government confirmed that it would be ending operation “Mare Nostrum”, its own dedicated search and rescue effort, which it says has become unsustainable. Over the last 12 months Mare Nostrum is estimated to have assisted in the rescue of 150,000 refugees. Despite their efforts, thousands of other refugees have perished since the turn of the year.

Let’s spend a moment interrogating the government’s position on this issue. And this is the British Government’s position, remember. This is our Government’s position.

Our Government’s argument is – and this is literally the logic of Lady Anelay’s statement – “We understand that by withdrawing this rescue cover we will be leaving innocent children, women and men to drown who we would otherwise have saved. But eventually word will get around the war-torn communities of Syria and Libya and the other unstable nations of the region that we are indeed leaving innocent children, women and men to drown. And when it does, they will think twice about making the journey. And so eventually, over time, more lives will be saved.”

As I say, there is some logic to that statement. In the same way that, I suppose, there would be some logic in claiming that if the Government announced that it was abolishing the fire service we may all become a bit more careful when we’re using our chip pans. Or that if manufacturers removed seat belts and airbags from our cars some of us may drive a bit more slowly.

But if you step back, you’ll soon see the flaws in the Government’s “let’s drown some refugees to save some refugees” policy. There may well be a “pull” factor motivating some of these refugees. But I would guess there is also possibly a “push factor” at play here as well.

I’m not sure about you, but if I were planning to load my children, my parents and my grandparents onto some rickety raft with a view to sailing it 1,500 miles across the shark-infested waters of the Mediterranean, I’d have to have a pretty good reason. And it would have to be better than a forlorn hope a random Italian coastguard cutter might spot me and haul me aboard.

Isil would be a good reason. Those murdering, raping, torturing, butchering, psychos who are currently running amok across the Middle East. I’d get on a boat to get away from them, regardless of who I thought might or might be waiting to pick me up. And over the coming months – as the bodies of the “Drown A Refugee To Save A Refugee” program continue to wash up on the coastal resorts of Europe – we’ll have ample evidence that plenty of other people will take any risk to escape them as well.

But let’s set aside this warped apology for logic. The sickening, disgusting, inhumane attempt of our government to insert some sort of moral hazard into the refugee train.

These people are seeking sanctuary. They are refugees. Genuine refugees. Yes, there will be some economic migrants among their number. But these people are running from places where you would need to have your head examined if you didn’t have a well-founded fear of persecution.

And we have a golden rule. It is inviolate. If you are a genuine refugee, and you come to us seeking sanctuary, you will be granted it. No ifs. No buts. In Britain. In Europe. Wherever you are in the world.

A couple of years ago the former BNP leader Nick Griffin infamously said he would solve the Mediterranean refugee problem by sinking their boats. The British government has now adopted the same policy. It’s simply decided to save on the ammunition.

This is what happens. This is where the death spiral into a political bidding war on immigration leads us. To a position where in 2014 the British Government – our Government – is saying that we should stand aside and watch asylum seekers drown.

Bring us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. So we can sit back and watch as they vanish for a final time beneath the cold dark waters of the Mediterranean.

While it isn't necessarily the responsibility of the UK, the reasoning is ridiculously cold-hearted.
 

liquidtmd

Banned
I appreciate the sentiment is difficult but the UK Government is in a bit of bind here.

If they say "We will proactively support and rescue these non-national people illegally entering the country before they reach the shores", it leads to hypothetical arguments about where their duties begin and end.

The results can and are leading to tragic consequences but the title of the headline is putting an onus on the Government that I'm not sure is theirs to bear. Their are genuine refugees. There is a process to follow to get them to these shores. The boats getting genuine refugees here are monitored and I think those cases would still qualify / be covered by search and rescue support. The article calls out 'planned' searches. I.e Routine sweeps of the waters that would cover illegally run boating operations with hundreds of refugess crammed in like sardines who a proportion (and I'm careful here with the wording) have no intention of seeking refugee status for valid / agreed criteria.
 
I think this is mainly the responsibility of mediterranean countries, unless boats are sinking trying to get across the English channel.
Nobody mention Gibraltar.

And

Bring us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.

I don't think this has ever been the popular sentiment in the UK, nor the govt's policy. This isn't America.
 
Yeah, it's largely necessary. But holy fuck is it ridiculously callous for a so-called rich country, and I seriously doubt that it flying under the radar would help anyone at all. It's certainly a tragedy, but I'm at a loss as to whether or not it's an atrocity.
 

PJV3

Member
Nice, interesting beachcombing holidays for the children. Identify the nationality of corpses and species of crabs.
 

Slightly Live

Dirty tag dodger
This changes the Tory slogan just a little.

From "Fuck the poor"

To "Fuck the poor and drown the foreigners!"

Sounds about right for the Toffs.
 

maxcriden

Member
Yeah, it's largely necessary. But holy fuck is it ridiculously callous for a so-called rich country, and I seriously doubt that it flying under the radar would help anyone at all. It's certainly a tragedy, but I'm at a loss as to whether or not it's an atrocity.

Are you, Masque? I dunno. It seems like a clear human rights atrocity to me. It's a first world country allowing the less fortunate to knowingly suffer.
 
Are you, Masque? I dunno. It seems like a clear human rights atrocity to me. It's a first world country allowing the less fortunate to knowingly suffer.

Well, it's not THAT surprising. We're absolutely one of the most elitist countries in the world, and we're steadily increasing in discrimination and racism (it's a 1 step forward, 2 steps back thing). It's horrible that this has become a far more tolerable than it would have been 10 years ago, or even 5 years ago. Just... I dunno. It's fucking awful.
 
I don't know why the UK is the focus of the thread (besides the story coming from the Telegraph); it seems like this is an EU wide decision. For places like Italy the ramifications are certainly more in-your-face so to speak.
 
I don't know why the UK is the focus of the thread (besides the story coming from the Telegraph); it seems like this is an EU wide decision. For places like Italy the ramifications are certainly more in-your-face so to speak.

'Cause I live in the UK, and thought that it was awful. Is there something wrong with that?

I don't think this has ever been the popular sentiment in the UK, nor the govt's policy. This isn't America.

Uh, Land of Hope and Glory? Mother of the Free? No?
 

Nikodemos

Member
I don't know why the UK is the focus of the thread (besides the story coming from the Telegraph); it seems like this is an EU wide decision. For places like Italy the ramifications are certainly more in-your-face so to speak.
Yeah, it seems the entire EU active search programme is being scrapped. Only regular anti-poaching/drugrunner patrols will be kept active. If any of them come across refugees, they will be picked up, but no specific resources will be allocated exclusively to searching for them.

It is pretty callous, though.

Uh, Land of Hope and Glory? Mother of the Free? No?
And then, Maggie Thatcher happened.
 

liquidtmd

Banned
I don't know why the UK is the focus of the thread (besides the story coming from the Telegraph); it seems like this is an EU wide decision. For places like Italy the ramifications are certainly more in-your-face so to speak.

.

There are sensible discussions to be had about this. The UK and the EU jointly made this decision. There are serious ramifications that need to be calml....ahh nevermind, lets just bash the UK Government and make 'Bubtuebubu Tories"

I am not a Conservative supporter. I'm all for bashing my Government when needed. If the EU hadn't jointly assessed and accepted this decision, they would have told us. UK / EU political relations aren't exactly great at the moment.
 

tfur

Member
But our politicians have now found the answer. And it’s a bold one. We’re going to take those refugees, and we’re going to drown them.

Seems a bit sensationalist. I was expecting a program of rounding people up and physically drowning them.

Don't expect people to have an honest conversation if the argument if filled with manipulative drama.
 
.

There are sensible discussions to be had about this. The UK and the EU jointly made this decision. There are serious ramifications that need to be calml....ahh nevermind, lets just bash the UK Government and make 'Bubtuebubu Tories"

I am not a Conservative supporter. I'm all for bashing my Government when needed. If the EU hadn't jointly assessed and accepted this decision, they would have told us. UK / EU political relations aren't exactly great at the moment.

Well, why didn't Cameron try to rescue them and say 'the EU would have let them drown'? Surely that would have been better for absolutely everyone concerned, including him (seeing as the Conservatives want out of the EU)?
 

Zaph

Member
Started reading the article thinking how callous the premise is, then I got to this part:

Over the last 12 months Mare Nostrum is estimated to have assisted in the rescue of 150,000 refugees

I still think it sounds callous, but that insanely high number definitely makes you stop and think. The Italians certainly have an arguement for it being unsustainable.
 
Are you, Masque? I dunno. It seems like a clear human rights atrocity to me. It's a first world country allowing the less fortunate to knowingly suffer.

By that logic, we're all comitting atrocities by not sending all of our money to fight epidemics and famine all around the world. So, welcome to the mass murderer's club. Membership, around 2 billions.


When a country led by a dictator see all those who want to run flee, all that remain in that country are those who support the dictator, and those who are too cowed to do anything about it. It's no wonder then that you need military intervention from the outside to put down the madman. With all the issues it end up causing (see Irak).

What would I do with the refugees? I'd give the adults rifles, then I'd send them back to their country. You may call it callous, but the responsability for one's fate and his nation's is, first and foremost, in one's own two hands. I'd only offer shelter to the kids.
 
I can see their point though.

It encourages ppl to take huge risks on dangerous craft if they think UK will be there to help them out if the worst possible happens.

At least that's what I think she is saying.
 

liquidtmd

Banned
Well, why didn't Cameron try to rescue them and say 'the EU would have let them drown'? Surely that would have been better for absolutely everyone concerned, including him (seeing as the Conservatives want out of the EU)?

With the best will in the world, if he had of done that - then where does it end the next time a routine costly presence operation is required hundreds if not 1000+ miles away from UK shores and the EU collectively says 'do what you want, we're not touching it'.

We cannot police the whole of EU waters where required as a solo outfit. These decisions need to be taken jointly.
 
Erm...no. The very next line:



What does this jingoistic song have to do with refugees?

Well, it's only 7.5 million people living in the UK that aren't from the UK. If the song's false, why is it still used as a point of reference when people talk about the UK?

I can see their point though.

It encourages ppl to take huge risks on dangerous craft if they think UK will be there to help them out if the worst possible happens.

At least that's what I think she is saying.

Yeah, long term, it's better. But what alternatives do you propose?

With the best will in the world, if he had of done that - then where does it end the next time a routine costly presence operation is required hundreds if not 1000+ miles away from UK shores and the EU collectively says 'do what you want, we're not touching it'.

We cannot police the whole of EU waters where required as a solo outfit. These decisions need to be taken jointly.

Then the UK should steadily withdraw from EU waters. But for God's sake, they shouldn't try to justify it. Because it can't be justified, really. BTW, I see no reason to not hate the Conservatives. None of them are losing any sleep over this matter at all.

I just find it odd that when one girl from the UK is found in a canal, the media rants and raves about it for a month. But when hundreds upon hundreds drown because of the UK, they try and justify it. I'm not talking about politics here, I'm talking about morality, and how it takes a back seat to politics.
 

liquidtmd

Banned
I just find it odd that when one girl from the UK is found in a canal, the media rants and raves about it for a month. But when hundreds upon hundreds drown because of the UK, they try and justify it. I'm not talking about politics here, I'm talking about morality, and how it takes a back seat to politics.

That is a travesty. The UK media features some of the most antagonistic and vain players in the industry. But as you absolutely say, thats morality. And often that just reflects the somewhat shallow but deeply easily cultural image of a single girl that lives a similar lifestyle to their readers (and more tangibly their parents) being more identifiable to relate to and empathise with then faceless strangers (and thats all it often is - nothing to do with race or nationality).
 

Cragvis

Member
So the UK is batman now? I dont have to kill you, but I dont have to save you either.

ibyf5lhcUCivSe.gif
 
Why are people even surprised at this ? We have a government in the UK that is quite content to allow it's own people to starve and be made homeless because they have been labelled "scroungers and skivers".

I am sure any cost savings made from allowing illegal immigrants to drown will be ploughed back into the UK to offset austeri............ oh who am I kidding it will probably go to fund the 11% pay rise for MP's.
 

Jackpot

Banned
Does anyone genuinely think we'll get less migrants from people being discouraged, or just less from more drowning?
 
As a Briton I am deeply ashamed and angered by this Government and some of the deeply suspicious beliefs held by some of this nation. They can all go fuck themselves with a very sharp object in the hope that they'll all bleed to death, as painfully as possible.
 

Brakke

Banned
This isn't the solution. I didn't realize there was such a problem though:

"the Italian government confirmed that it would be ending operation “Mare Nostrum”, its own dedicated search and rescue effort, which it says has become unsustainable. Over the last 12 months Mare Nostrum is estimated to have assisted in the rescue of 150,000 refugees. Despite their efforts, thousands of other refugees have perished since the turn of the year."

The Italians alone are pulling 150,000 people out of the drink every year? That's so many humans! Giving up on them is some half-baked "trickle down economics" kind of policy. Did they read Baby's First Moral Hazard and get inspired to make this decision?
 

daviyoung

Banned
Bring us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. So we can sit back and watch as they vanish for a final time beneath the cold dark waters of the Mediterranean.

lol, what a load of shite
 
As stated, the UK didn't unilaterally decide to let people drown as the title seemed to suggest at first, and more of a multilateral decision made by the EU member states. Ultimately, this country's responsibilities only go so far, as uncomfortable I am with this. I wish there is a solution for this, but if that many refugees are being pulled out of the water annually by the Italians and it's still not enough, I don't know what it is.

Still a shitty thing for a member of the government to say out loud though, especially when the justification for it lies on some shaky foundations at best. It certainly reeks of an opportunity for a "see? Look how tough on them foreigners I am. Do you see this, people of Rochester and Strood?"
 
As stated, the UK didn't unilaterally decide to let people drown as the title seemed to suggest at first, and more of a multilateral decision made by the EU member states. Ultimately, this country's responsibilities only go so far, as uncomfortable I am with this. I wish there is a solution for this, but if that many refugees are being pulled out of the water annually by the Italians and it's still not enough, I don't know what it is.
A Europe-wide joint search, rescue AND relocate program could do it? But of course there is no political willingness from the non-Mediterranean countries to embark into anything like that, so people are gonna drown I guess.
 
This isn't the solution. I didn't realize there was such a problem though:

"the Italian government confirmed that it would be ending operation “Mare Nostrum”, its own dedicated search and rescue effort, which it says has become unsustainable. Over the last 12 months Mare Nostrum is estimated to have assisted in the rescue of 150,000 refugees. Despite their efforts, thousands of other refugees have perished since the turn of the year."

The Italians alone are pulling 150,000 people out of the drink every year? That's so many humans! Giving up on them is some half-baked "trickle down economics" kind of policy. Did they read Baby's First Moral Hazard and get inspired to make this decision?

Now imagine 150.000 bodies washing out on Sicily and sardinian shores.
Fuck the UK gov and whoever support this. This is not a move to curb immigration, but rather an attempt to save money.
They basically want Italy to shoulder all of the costs of saving people. History will see this as a genocide through inaction.
 

Zornica

Banned
A Europe-wide joint search, rescue AND relocate program could do it? But of course there is no political willingness from the non-Mediterranean countries to embark into anything like that, so people are gonna drown I guess.

yeah, the "not-my-problem" attitude between eu member states is probably our biggest problem right now (and has been for years). I wish people could get over it.
 
The obvious solution is to:

1) rescue the refugees
2) place them in life boats
3) tow them out of your waters and in to someone elses
4) leave them with just enough fuel so they cant make the journey to your shores

If they somehow still succeed in getting to your shores options include
- placing them in to mandatory detention facilities
- sending them back to the country they are escaping from
- denying them the ability to ever settle in your country and instead transferring them to countries like Cambodia or PNG.

You should also deny them the right to appeal a decision to send them away.

I mean common guys Australia is way ahead of you in methods to stop the boats! After all, the above methods are the humanitarian way of dealing with refugees and stopping deaths at sea. Are you not concerned about the deaths at sea?
 

MrChom

Member
Speaking as a British person...

We are slowly becoming more and more of a mean spirited nation. We don't want your immigrants, the poor are poor because they won't work, the disabled don't "deserve" a full wage.

Sections of both Labour and the Tories are wholeheartedly failing to get across messages like "Government studies have proven immigration has provided a huge net benefit to the UK"...because they actively surpressed the figures. We also fail to mention that 3.5% of our own population lives abroad. What are we saying as a nation when we let refugees drown, and where a new "populist" party wants to revert us to levels of isolation that help no one. I mean, if you're saying an unskilled worker from elsewhere who's just moved here and legally cannot work for less than you is the reason you're losing your job then what does that say about you as an employee?.
 
^ And who or what organisation is going to accomplish that? Very dreamy solution

I know, I know... It seems absurd doesn't it!

And Yet:

Boat turnbacks:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-07/video-emerges-of-lifeboat-towback-operation/5245280

Mandatory Detention
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-...alia-to-release-refugees-held-in-inde/4906218

Sending them back to the country they are fleeing
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-04/tamil-asylum-seekers-flee-sri-lankan-after-torture/5573180

Sending them to other countries (like Cambodia)
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-...eker-deal-shameful-human-rights-group/5767810

You don't have to do it for too long mind you. There just needs to be enough time for them to lose hope so they stop trying. It's fully justified though as you're protecting them from drowning at sea!
 
Slightly off topic - but the reports of people who gang up on lorry driver over in Calais as they prepare to cross over to the UK was pretty scary. Was reported a couple of weeks back I think.

This is a big problem with no clear solution. Of course measures like this are shocking, that goes without saying. At the same time the UK's population is far too bloated and we have no way of controlling it. Real tough spot.

Just a shame that it turns into the demonization of anybody who speaks differently.

Edit - Also think the thread title is very misleading.
 

Dryk

Member
not our problem.
Yeah, I mean what do the civil wars and ethnic squabbles of the Middle East and Northern Africa have to do with Europe. The EU didn't draw those shitty borders.

Best to just leave them in those countries to die so we don't have to get our freshly polished shoes dirty.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom