Support NeoGAF

[1.21Gigawatts]

Really? This is news to me, genuinely. Do you have a link?

Do you speak german? Merkel talked about her plans in an hour long interview the other day:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfM0LohK5LQ

Correct. But the plan is sound. The taking pathetic amounts of people aspect is not sound.

I agree. But I think the UK is proposing this plan because they think that way they can avoid taking in bigger amounts of people.
It also takes a long time to have a controlled process like that. Time many people don't have.


When I see people like Victor Orban holding a referendum whether or not to take in 1200 people, I can't help to see this as a way to avoid real responsibility.

 

[pswii60]

The migrants make a net contribution to the income of the UK, British natives actually make a net loss. Whether the funds are properly re-introduced or distributed to develop social institutions such as the one's you've described, is a governmental decision and priority.

Firstly, accurate source? Secondly, all migrants? I'm not arguing against all immigration, just that it needs to be better controlled. Hundreds and thousands a year in net migration is ridiculously high for a country the size and of the U.K. And why are you excluding natives of Northern Ireland from the mix?

I should add - I'm voting to stay in the EU in June. I think the net migration is a piss take, but on balance we - and the rest of the EU - are still better in together than out.

 

[nib95]

Firstly, accurate source? Secondly, all migrants? I'm not arguing against all immigration, just that it needs to be better controlled. Hundreds and thousands a year in net migration is ridiculously high for a country the size and of the U.K. And why are you excluding natives of Northern Ireland from the mix?

Obviously not all migrants lol. What sort of a silly question is that. This isn't pick and choose, just like with anything there's going to be some people that are less adept, worse off or less successful than others. And Northern Ireland is actually included in the stats I was referencing.

Lol, most European migrants are adding net contributions to the income in countries such as the UK, more so than British natives who are actually presenting a loss. The economic struggles and financial crisis/collapse which we were or are still recovering from was nothing to do with the migrant situation, and everything to do with global financial markets, namely in banking, and that's not going to change going forward.

New EU migrants add £5bn to UK, report says

The massive portion of additional funding governments are having to invest to accommodate for the influx of migrants, in things like education, NHS expansion, more housing etc, are only going to be of long term benefit to all citizens in the long run, so it's not even like it's such a bad thing.

 

[Charles Brandon]

Do you speak german? Merkel talked about her plans in an hour long interview the other day:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfM0LohK5LQ


Correct. But the plan is sound. The taking pathetic amounts of people aspect is not sound.

I agree. But I think the UK is proposing this plan because they think that way they can avoid taking in bigger amounts of people.
It also takes a long to have a controlled process like that. Time many people don't have.


When I see people like Victor Orban holding a referendum whether or not to take in 1200 people, I can't help to see this as a way to avoid real responsibility.[/QUOTE]

Nope I don't speak German, but thanks for looking anyway. To be honest, if that is what she is suggesting then I think we are moving towards a consensus about what to do. The only hurdle then will be actually doing it.

I don't agree that the UK is proposing this plan because they think they can get out of taking bigger amounts of people. They can get out of that anyway. the UK is a long way from Greece. I think Cameron genuinely believes that it is the best way and I agree. At the same time he is clearly not wanting to take many people, which I don't agree with but I don;t think the two are connected.

 

[pswii60]

Obviously not all migrants lol. What sort of a silly question is that. This isn't pick and choose, just like with anything, there's going to be some people that are less adept, worse off or less successful than others.

The 'silly question' was referring to whether you meant those migrants that come to the UK as a result of EU open borders, or those that we would indeed have the right to pick and choose entry to with our own immigration policy like most countries of the world operate. 'lol'.

And you said 'British natives' so I assumed you were excluding Northern Ireland.

 

[linsivvi]

I didn't suggest anything, I said those efforts were where they failed. I don't have the solution either and I never claimed I did.

The solution is to not topple countries because it would always fail, especially so after the Bush administration played a big part in inciting sectarian hatred on his unholy quest of destabilizing Middle East countries.

You were saying it's ultimately a good thing even though it's a given that those efforts would always fail and just caused unnecessary suffering until a new dictator appears.

 

[nib95]

The 'silly question' was referring to whether you meant those migrants that come to the UK as a result of EU open borders, or those that we would indeed have the right to pick and choose entry to with our own immigration policy like most countries of the world operate. 'lol'.

My point was that obviously not all migrants are going to be economically contributory, but at the moment on average they are. EU migrants much more so. With UK natives actually providing major revenue loss. Naturally with refugee's it's going to be different, as that is more of a humanitarian endeavour.

 

[Charles Brandon]

My point was that obviously not all migrants are going to be economically contributory, but at the moment on average they are. EU migrants much more so. With UK natives actually providing major revenue loss. Naturally with refugee's it's going to be completely different, as that is more of a humanitarian endeavour.

If the question is: "are refugees/non-EU migrants a drain on the state?", then your own stats suggest that they are.

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

The solution is to not topple countries because it would always fail, especially so after the Bush administration played a big part in inciting sectarian hatred on his unholy quest of destabilizing Middle East countries.

You were saying it's ultimately a good thing even though it's a given that those efforts would always fail and just caused unnecessary suffering until a new dictator appears.

Profiting of countries committing systematic murder isn't a solution either.

 

[nib95]

If the question is: "are refugees/non-EU migrants a drain on the state?", then your own stats suggest that they are.

Not from 2001 onwards according to those stats. Obviously that doesn't account for overall spending to accommodate the numbers, but that's why I said the following.

The massive portion of additional funding governments are having to invest to accommodate for the influx of migrants, in things like education, NHS expansion, more housing etc, are only going to be of long term benefit to all citizens in the long run, so it's not even like it's such a bad thing.

With non EU migrants, lest we forget a lot of them that we are allowing are of specific skill sets or labour that are useful to us, and were we not to have any of the immigration, we'd be far worse off, as the stats suggest. Basically, lots of people like to hate on immigrants, especially from certain parts of the EU, but the fact of the matter is they are balancing our revenue out, and without them we'd be far worse off from that standpoint.

 

[maniac-kun]

I wouldnt be supprised if 100.000 people are stranded in Greece by the end of the month.

 

[Charles Brandon]

Not from 2001 onwards according to those stats. Obviously that doesn't account for overall spending to accommodate the numbers, but that's why I said the following.

Actually I misread the bottom graph so fair enough. How does that tally with the top one though?

 

[linsivvi]

Profiting of countries committing systematic murder isn't a solution either.

"I don't have the solution either and I never claimed I did."

I was merely pointing out your suggestion of getting rid of a dictator is ultimately a good thing, when the end result is millions of lives lost until a new dictator rises to the top. Going back to square one.

Diplomacy, international sanctions and trade deals with conditions would probably be a much more sensible path.

 

[1.21Gigawatts]

Nope I don't speak German, but thanks for looking anyway. To be honest, if that is what she is suggesting then I think we are moving towards a consensus about what to do. The only hurdle then will be actually doing it.

Merkel said in the interview when asked who is on her side that the EU commission and the netherlands are her only allies atm.
She has been working on the plan with Turkey for months now. Thats also the reason why nobody is allowed to criticise Turkey for anything anymore, because the EU wants to ask them a big favor.
I don't like that, but thats how diplomacy works.

I found a few english articles about the interview. But there really was a lot in it so they don't get it all.

Merkel stuck to her well-rehearsed plan: European nations should work together with Turkey to secure their collective external borders, allowing them to uphold the Schengen free-movement area despite some nations' fears of migrants.

Meanwhile, by improving conditions in refugee camps outside Syria's borders and deploying all the West's diplomatic strength to bring about a ceasefire in the war-torn country, the Chancellor hopes to reduce the numbers of people starting on the long trail towards Europe.

But she had little new to say to Will when the journalist confronted her with Austria and the western Balkan nations' decision last week to close their borders – in apparent contradiction of what was agreed at the last European summit on February 18th.

That's left thousands of migrants stranded in Greece - the first point where most refugees fleeing through Turkey set foot on European soil - which is already struggling under the numbers arriving.

"This is exactly what I'm afraid of," Merkel said. "If one person sets his border, the other has to suffer. That is not my Europe."

"We can't leave [Greece] in the lurch," she added, especially after so much effort had been expended to keep the Hellenic Republic in the Euro single currency last year.

http://www.thelocal.de/20160229/i-will-do-my-damn-duty-on-refugees-says-merkel

During the interview, Ms. Merkel said closing national borders and setting limits on the number of migrants allowed to enter a country is the wrong approach, insisting that a pan-European policy to help resolve the migration crisis is the only reasonable solution.

http://www.nasdaq.com/article/merkel-says-dont-leave-greece-alone-in-migration-crisis-20160228-00035

I don't agree that the UK is proposing this plan because they think they can get out of taking bigger amounts of people. They can get out of that anyway.

Sure, but they don't want to straight up say that they don't want to help. And this is a way to avoid having to say that.

I think Cameron genuinely believes that it is the best way and I agree. At the same time he is clearly not wanting to take many people, which I don't agree with but I don;t think the two are connected.

Well, I don't know much about Cameron and how he thinks so I won't argue with that.
Its just the feeling I get when I see how so many countries tried to ignore the problem as long as possible and then they come with arbitrary reasons why they can't help and also don't want to come together to discuss solutions.

 

[nib95]

Actually I misread the bottom graph so fair enough. How does that tally with the top one though?

Probably still worse off, but then again we don't have numbers from 2011 onwards, which could be even more efficient and economically beneficial for all we know. What we can learn from those graphs is that from 2001 onwards, things became more efficient, and migrants started being more contributory overall in terms of revenue. Given Cameron took office in 2010, I'd be interested to see if the positive trend continued under his tenure.

 

[Charles Brandon]

....

Well, I'll take your word for it re: sending them back to Turkey.

Cameron is on a slightly sticky wicket. He doesn't want to tell the EU to fuck off with their immigrants but he also knows that agreeing to take lots of refugees would be very risky, politically speaking, in the UK, particularly with the referendum approaching.

So he takes some so that he can say he is acting but not enough that anyone in the UK can get too pissed off and he emphasises the money he is sending to Turkey, which is a lot tbf, but which doesn't really solve anything.

 

[ScHlAuChi]

The middle east is a complete mess not only thanks to the US/UK´s miltiary interventions in that region. That makes them extra responsible for the refugee crisis!
And how many refugees does the US/UK take? Yes you guessed that right, pretty much none!

But of course its much easier to blame Merkel for "causing" this!
Let Germany/Sweden/Greece handle the fallout their actions caused!

 

[1.21Gigawatts]

Well, I'll take your word for it re: sending them back to Turkey.

Yeah, but thats a temporary solution and it only makes sense when Europe than comes together and decides who many refugees every country takes in, because we can't have 2-4 million people staying in camps in turkey.
Thats the plan Merkel has been working on since september: Improving camps to keep pressure off of europes border and working together with Turkey so refugees end up in turkey where they can stay under relatively good conditions until they can move on to european countries in a controlled way.

Everybody is shitting on her plan, nobody is proposing something else.

Cameron is on a slightly sticky wicket. He doesn't want to tell the EU to fuck off with their immigrants but he also knows that agreeing to take lots of refugees would be very risky, politically speaking, in the UK, particularly with the referendum approaching.

So he takes some so that he can say he is acting but not enough that anyone in the UK can get too pissed off and he emphasises the money he is sending to Turkey, which is a lot tbf, but which doesn't really solve anything.

Yeah, I get that. Same situation in the US. If one of the candidates there would propose to take in refugees that would be politically suicide atm.

 

[Cuyejo]

It should be remembered that the Syrian conflict had nothing to do with the US, it was a country left untouched by the insurgency in neighbouring Iraq so the usual "let's hate America" mob can't shit on the US for the war in Syria. In fact the war looked like it was approaching a conclusion as rebels were making serious gains across the country prior to September of last year. Then Assad begged Putin to send his air force which was when we saw the massive refugee flows out of Syria into Turkey and beyond, along with sweeping gains by the Axis Forces.

Russia bares a lot of responsibility for this entire crisis and, if I were in anyway conspiracy minded I might say this was intentional on Russia's part, destabilise the EU with millions of migrants and refugees landing on its shores. One things for sure Putin is laughing his ass off at all this.

lmao wut