Immigration: "No proper debate for many, many years"

It's simply another example of well-meaning (but flawed) plutocrats taking what was a 'good' idea and 'improving' it from a 'trading bloc' into a 'political bloc' with the view that a 'political bloc' would have much more pulling power against other large 'political blocs' and hence more profits and say in international circles. It was a nonsense then and remains such. It's one thing to meld a continent - quite another to meld disparate states with different traditions, cultures and outlooks. It won't work as long as those massive differences exist. We here, in these islands, don't have a 'continental' outlook and there are many others like us across Europe who see their individuality being trashed and eroded by people and races they don't even know.Monetary union wasn't the answer. Only Hitler and Stalin had the real answer and that too was and still is unacceptable to the majorities. Evolution natural - that's going to be the answer - if there is one.

There has been some criticism of Saudi Arabia not doing enough for Syrian refugees, but now Saudi Arabia is making a surprise offer to finance the building of hundreds of Mosques in Germany, which must be encouraging news for the refugees arriving there.

Statistics are always open to interpretation, and vary according to who. Putting together reports, my guess is that a million migrants a month are now arriving in europe. Anyone got a better calculation?

Saudi Arabia are having a laugh. It behoves I comment further on that shower of s****.
It's not always good practice to 'look' at stats. The figures are something in the order of many less. For example - there are 6 million registered refugees world wide - UN. These are already in camps and under transit as the situations allow. Syria has a population of 18 million. Half approx are under distribution - thus 9 million - of these 1 million in Lebanon 1 million in Jordan and approx 1 million in surrounding countries - leaves 6 million dispossessed. 4 million of these are still in Syria under IS and Syrian Freedom fighter land areas - equals 2 million on the move somewhere. Therefore given that the numbers are probably enhanced by 20% (others from other countries - economic migrants) it figures that some 2.200,000 are heading our way over the last few months and into the next year. Equals approx - 100,000 per month at best. Such an exercise in stats however doesn't detract from the fact that Europe is in no position to absorb such numbers without it having an effect upon all the citizens of Europe. If we haven't the wherewithal to attend to our own people properly - how can we accommodate more?

It is difficult to arrive at a count, to get a sense of proportion. Numbers arriving in various different countries are reported in tens of thousands per day. It must soon add up to millions altogether.

From a european perspective, it may look that Saudi Arabia are "having a laugh", but they seem pretty serious, refusing asylum seekers, so as to avoid social and political instability, and, with their mosque building programme, recognising migrants in Germany will settle permanently.

European attitudes are generally more accepting of diversity of all kinds, perhaps less aware of the permanence of migrant communities. There seems to be an underlying, unrealistic expectation that migrants will return to countries of origin.

With the pressure of world population escalating and europe absorbing so many migrants, looks like a crowded future, and quite a worrying one. Whatever european leaders may agree, the flow of people from many countries and as far away as Afghanistan is established and ongoing.

Given that the 'influx' becomes a 'norm' and given that each country can absorb them and given that some of those countries do 'need' an injection of 'new' blood what happens when later they decide to return home or worse still insist that their cultures and traditions usurp those of their 'foster' country? Is it going to be a case of all come and we will look after you and educate you so that you can then go back home (at our expense) -??? Not a scenario I'm in favour of. I'm already at logger heads with free education that allows the graduate to do a runner as soon as the qualify - I certainly don't want yet more. It's a non-starter without some rules - and those rules are not in place as yet.

The eastern european countries where streams of migrants are arriving say they cannot cope with the numbers, cannot process or fingerprint them, and pass migrants on, northwards towards Austria Germany Sweden.

It's apparently not practical to apply rules or filters, to definitely know who migrants are or where from, an apparently unstoppable flow of only vaguely identifiable people.

Will this be the new 'normal'? Looks like it. International people smuggling operations are established. Germany has registration process, but returning appreciable numbers of failed asylum claims would be problematic.

The argument that foreign aid prevents people from wanting or needing to migrate to europe looks a bit thin. That money could usefully be diverted to dealing with the situation in europe. It could be that foreign aid money going to governments abroad ends up being paid to people smugglers. Certainly the world is increasingly complex and much needs re-thinking.

And I will repeat my previous yet again -. Take them back home as humanely as possible. Allow only those refugees from transit camps to apply and come if qualify. But - given that Europe doesn't want to be seen as inhuman (realistic) then the borders will have to go back up and be harshly policed. This isn't going to stop until it is made unprofitable to try it. Some body somewhere is going to start using bullets if it carries on. It's not the most needy or the poorest that are flooding in - not real refugees at all. Just main-chancers or those that have the money to begin with. My sympathies lie with the youngest (under 18s) who would get most consideration from me as they are the ones that will become radicalised the easiest if something isn't done to prevent it. We need the young, on our side,with the wherewithal to succeed. If the Assad or the ISIS causes had been worthwhile most of these single men wouldn't be leaving Syria and going elsewhere. But 'both' are predators of the lowest form.And so they leave for greener pastures - which happen to be ours. It's our own fault. No sanction. No Law.

The european response is disjointed and disorganised. Each country sees it differently. With Isis pushing the migrants and Germany pulling them.

Germany says it will refuse to co-operate with UK re-negotiatons about membership before our in-out referendum unless we take a quota of migrants. Other countries going along with Germany will probably follow suit.

Hungary so far has been the only country to apply existing E.U. law to migrants, other E.U. countries may face fines for not doing so. Eastern European countries don't want migrant quotas, and may go to law.

With Russia stepping up presence in Syria and the disagreements in europe, it looks volatile. I hope the UK can remain out of it all as much as possible, apart from sending aid. Anything else just seems to add complexity to an already over complicated situation.

It becomes apparent in time of crisis that Germany calls the tune in the E.U. We aren't really keen on obeying German commands. Europe generally seems to be slowly moving towards the Hungarian way, with calls for stronger external borders on land and sea.

European leaders are meeting today for an argument, so let's see what they come up with.

After Wednesday's summit, European Council President Donald Tusk warned that "greatest tide of refugees and migrants is yet to come".

"We should be talking about millions of potential refugees," he said, adding: "We need to correct the policy of open doors and windows."

Yes, it seems realistic to expect many more will follow, it will be a very different europe in a few years time. For those of us that like the quiet life, it's a bit daunting.

This whole scenario was foreseeable - and indeed was seen by a few of the most far-seeing amongst us - my own brother being one of them - some twenty five years ago. With the easing of sanction and the laws governing public order since the 1970's those amongst us that have the wherewithal and the energy were bound to seek a better life - especially if their own countries sink into strife and economic disorder. It will never be the 'meek' who inherit but the strata above. The meek will be left to rot in camps and hovels. The hungry have only one thing on their minds and that is ' the next meal' - there's no time left for insurrections and the like whereas those with that bit more can make the moves.
So we have what we now have and it will only get worse unless a 'stop' is put to it and it is made unprofitable to go 'walk-about'.
Like I said before - the answer was the UN and the transit camps and the money to do the job properly. In addition now we have to get tough otherwise Europe's future is dangerously in jeopardy. If we (unimportant minions) could see it why oh why couldn't the governing cliques? One really has to despair - - - .

There are so many varied opinions and understandings about the migrant crisis. For some it's sudden and unexpected, others could see it coming a long way off. For the moment it's a crisis for mainland europe.

It looks like the E.U. has made europe as a whole, weaker, more chaotic and vulnerable, which is ok if that's the way you want it, but some might have thought the idea was a europe that was stronger, more ordered and stable.

The UK is accepting Syrian refugees from refugee camps near Syria, the question is, should the UK accept refugees from europe, as Germany etc wants us to?

The purpose of the EU was to ensure the residents of Europe could never again clump together and fight interminable wars (or wars by other means). In that respect it has succeeded beyond wildest dreams - extending Europe and its stabilizing influence beyond the Balkans and around the Baltic.

Britain attempted similar in Victorian times by marrying off princelings and princesses to the less developed areas.

I have to say the EU succeeded better.

I have no argument with an integrated Europe. I have no argument for political union for those who want it. But as has been proven these last few months, Europe is a continent with vastly differing populations (both economically and culturally) with traditions that outstrip and are often at variance with each other. Some things will take many decades to become integrated. Therefore I saw nothing wrong with a 'trading' partnership and a removal of 'closed' borders. I do however (like many millions) take umbrage with political masters totally outside my (Populations) influence. The strongest countries will always prevail - as we have seen in Greece and Hungry and others in the past. - The only saving grace is the tie (politically and economically) that makes one talk to one another as opposed to shooting at one another. I would argue that this can be done without the political ties and thus I would prefer we reverted to our 60's position of an 'interested' onlooker - and let those that want the hassle get on with it.

Theresa May doesn't want the hassle of too much immigration, which contibutes zero to the economy, puts thousands of people out of work and makes it impossible to have a cohesive society.

Andy Burnham accused her of being a vegetable.

Labour's shadow home secretary Andy Burnham said Mrs May's speech was "misleading and marrow-minded"



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34450887

The greatest sin is that both these people haven't had the time (or taken the trouble) to inform themselves regarding the effects of mass migrations on indigenous populations. I suspect the same applies to our EU politicians (other than those who take 'migration' on board as a priority). The price the final destination country pays is as usual double-edged. The end result is usually beneficial in pure economic terms but the reverse in life quality for the indigenous (majority) population who have had to make way for the changes.
In short - it's a quicker way towards a good economic future for that country but not so in the longer run because of the hidden costs.
There have been a number of historical events of the same nature on which anyone who cares could research and draw parallels. BUT THAT IS NOT THE BUSINESS OF POLITICIANS WHO ONLY EXPECT TO HAVE THE SHORT TERM RUN. I.E. THE FUTURE IS EXPENDABLE.

EU plans to give billions of pounds to Turkey, and make it easier for Turks to enter Europe, in return for Turkish co-operation in managing the flow of migrants from Syria have been described by Mr. Farage as "bordering on insanity."

Whether you think it's a good/bad short/long term plan or not, it's a memorable phrase, "bordering on insanity". Could become a Farage catchphrase?

Farage like many of us has lived through episodes of immigration over the past decades and has seen the results. It's no coincidence that we have so much crass PC going on these days. It results from efforts by well intentioned people to keep things running smoothly and not rock any boats. All well and good in the short term but very dangerous when taken beyond sanity. So we have today 'cultural deprivation' of our own indigenous population as an expense of 'pandering' to keep the lid on things. Instead of proving beneficial towards society as a whole it, as should have been known, has resulted in the expected back-lash of negativity towards the present immigrant population and an absolute barrier being thrown up against any more. Farage is using that situation to gain power for himself and his party (and why not - quite legitimate) and is tremendously thankful to the main stream parties for promoting it all.
Turkey will now use its position to gain access to the EU. Slowly and succinctly - unless it implodes from political unrest itself ( a real scenario if one looks at the present situation there), first with the removal of visa's and then free flow into the Balkan's and Greece etc etc.
It's not rocket science - just crystal ball gazing - .

The debate has moved offshore to europe, where there are millions of new immigrants. Perhaps due to our long term disinterest in europe, our main english language news media don't report much on what goes on there. There is disruption going on in a whole string of european countries, but, news from europe is too fragmented for us to make much sense of it. By the time we get to an in/out referendum, europe might be a rather different place, but will we understand it?

Turkey does seem to be nudging towards joining the E.U. They are building a border fence against Syria and absorbing a lot of euro-cash.

Any rational country (apart from those already proving successful in their own right) would leap at the chance of 'joining' the EU as it would provide a better standard and security, not to mention -trade, for its inhabitants. Turkey would rather be with us than with a Middle East with all the trauma that is going to ensue in that area for the foreseeable future. However - Turkey is very Muslim and has large internal problems with 'tribal' factions - all of which will come with them should they join the EU. I for one would rather we 'do a runner' before that happens or refuse their application for membership on the basis of 'trouble ahead and human rights'.
We don't get an overall picture of Europe because strangely enough we are not that interested other than when it affects our own laws and freedoms. We are still an island race, regardless of the internet and all that brings, and we still possess an islanders mentality. Empires we may have built but they were only for plunder and riches. It didn't change our indigenous mentalities for the most part. Hey ho - there you go -

It's understand ble we aren't interested in count  es like Germany and France, but the Nordic countries, Sw den, Norway etc are more interesting, pity they have such unknown languages.

There are some extre e and lurid news stories coming from Sweden, but it's difficult to put them in context as you could from the British ta loid press.

Sweden will rue the day they adopted such a free-for-all mentality with immigration. They test the public to the hilt, the public will eventually react. Sweden is no different from everywhere else in Scandinavia. You wait. The shit will hit the fan come the reckoning. Sad -

I hear we shall be the most populace EU country come 2050 - apparently due to immigration and based upon the present immigration figure. Stands to reason that if we acquiesce to the EU's demands that we take our 'fair share' then we shall be at that place some 20 years earlier.
Which is all very well 'if' such numbers are sustainable. The present situation whereby we don't seem to be able (or perhaps want) to feed and house all our existing population doesn't bode well for such anticipated events. Makes me wonder if it's just me? Am I the only one who has been able to see at the time the future pitfalls such as 'power', 'housing',and ageing issues???? Does nobody, in positions of influence, ever set their minds to such obvious outcomes???? I well remember twenty odd years ago discussing with my older brother the then ramifications of over population and migrating populations in search of resources -. If we could see it - why can't the rest??? This tide of humanity was inevitable - whether through wars or natural disasters. The next ones (catastrophes) will be over water - but is anyone listening -?????

Throughout history, and in nature, populations expand and crash.

For a glimpse of a possible future, Shanghai is probably the most populated place on earth, and full of amazing facts. There are 7,000 billionares in Shanghai. Perhaps our politicians associate high population with wealth?

Therefore does it matter if we are highly populated? There will always be a percentage of that population who will fall by the wayside or to put it another way - an expendable few -. The answer to that will be to 'ignore' the 'expendables' as a matter of course, keep them down when they rise up in protest and utilise society's better-off elements to keep the pot boiling. In that event - why are we bothered?
It's surely only the 'Utopian' elements with the altruistic outlooks that demand that society 'cares' for all. If given there has to be an element of 'natural wastage' in order that the majority survives, why are we bothering???

Perhaps the connection between overpopulation and wealth is a bit simplistic? They don't always go together.

Why are we bothering? In the light of events, those who went to the bother of working and fighting to set up and defend the various cultures and countries of Europe might as well not have bothered in the long run. It was ok while it lasted, but nothing does. We see it starting to melt away into history now.

The problem with over-population, apart from problems for many of those who have to live in it, is the loss of the natural world. Still, there are many examples thoughout history of cultures and populations that over stretched themselves, destroyed their environments and disappeared, so always room for optimism.