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

In essence you are correct. Civilisations have a tendency to obliterate themselves for one reason or another. Quite often it is a lack of resources. Water being the prime example. Rarely do their cultures disappear completely - Maya - Etruscan - and so on. Therefore the striving to 'encompass all' regardless of how that affects the majority seems to me to be self-defeating and tends to erode the whole. That's Darwinism of course. I have to admit to being one.
Given that stance I wouldn't probably be here. A mother whom I loved but never liked insisted at the time that I linger longer - and QED - I exist. However -.
We should instantly legalise self euthanasia, decriminalise suicide, decriminalise drugs and prostitution - and tax them all. That revenue could then go towards keeping alive those that medical science sustain when natural cause would have done otherwise and proper facilities for those who are not quite right in the head. I rest my case.

About a hundred migrants from Calais broke through fences, got aboard an empty cross-channel ferry and were aboard for several hours. Surprising they didn't manage to hot-wire it and get it going.

In my day it was called 'piracy' or at least 'stowaway'. Both are criminal offences and should of course be subject to the law - which they won't be because some dim-witted German female opened her big mouth and screwed us all over and now all immigrants seem to be of the opinion they have a right to be wherever they want to be without sanction and are thus starting to get rough and beat everything up they see and generally becoming 'vandals' and 'thuggies'.
I told you to 'send them all back' months ago as it would become untenable but you didn't listen. Now look at it. Sink all the boats and return them whence they came. Same with land crossing -. Send them back no matter where they land or where they are found. DO IT NOW BEFORE IT REALLY BECOMES UNTENABLE. - Hello! ANYBODY LISTENING. -?????? Only government controlled quota's from the refugee camps should be considered. NO OTHERS. How many times for God's sake.

Germany is the strongest power in the E.U. They seem to suffer from strong, and sometimes over-enthusiastic leaders, who lead the nation to disaster, dragging europe with them.

We can see it coming, and the only way to avoid the worst of it apppears to be voting out of europe in the upcoming referendum, but, that may prove too little too late, we still have politicans 'unable' to control borders.

It's difficult to get a view of what's happening in Europe from the news, with police forces etc. witholding information, but yes, there is a general sense of impending trouble on a large scale.

Germany has the most cash on hand that's all. Due mainly to not having an offensive army or MWD's and having been given a 'new' country through Marshall Aid some decades ago. It's all relative to past crimes and subsequent commissions. Is she efficient - yes. Does she have Europe's best wishes to hand - no. Never has had and never will in the end result. Not in the German nature. All this 'come one come all' is nothing short of a guilty conscience. Will the real Germany stand up please? Not on your nelly. It's all crap and politics. Beware the ides of March.

Much of europe was determined to forget the trauma of world war two. Post-war populations grew up sheltered, the realities not presented to them.

When I learned the game of chess I was puzzled by the role of bishops. These figures of 'peace' seeming out of place in a war strategy game of knights, castles, pawn soldiers, king and queen.

As events go on, what these diagonally moving chesspieces represent becomes more clear.

Eureka! I do believe she has it! Religions as well! Well I will go to the bottom of ower stairs.

Yes mon ami. Doesn't paint a pretty picture does it?

Europe is beginning to fragment as we speak. The first test of unity is 'learning' to work as a team.
Europe's nations are so diverse throughout that 'team work' is never going to be on the cards.

Anybody who has studied for even a short time the nations of the Continent would already know it couldn't work together politically. Trade was the 'glue' that could hold the warring factions apart. Trade was what we voted for. I leave the rest to history.

The most blunt interpetation of the bishop in chess is of course, the role of religion in warfare, but it can be any belief system that holds people in thrall.

There is quite a lot about the disintegration of europe in the news today, even on the BBC. It's a complicated problem, but it seems the only practical answer is a simple one, border control.

You have a house. It has entrances and exits. Because you don't want your house to be 'trashed' or 'occupied' or 'stolen' by anyone else - you secure those entrances and exits and ensure you 'control' their functions. Not rocket science. It stands to reason you will 'lose' your house if you allow no controls over the entrances and exits. Not rocket science. Even with visitors to your house it must be 'cleaned' up after their visit to return it to that which keeps you comfortable. Not rocket science is it. - - -- So why are we having these discussions? It's not rocket science but it does seem like it to some politicians who want to be friends with everyone and not suffer the consequences. Now that is Rocket Science!!!!!

Sweden says it will deport many thousands. Maybe they will do some of that, over years in the future. All we can do in the UK really is only accept genuine cases, and not people who will need deporting, all that becomes far too difficult.

The debate about immigration is vague. For years the public were racist if they mentioned it, so no discussion. Now, opinions are emotional rather than rational.

On child migrants, those one one side talk of 'kindertransport' and humanely want the state to look after children.

On the other side, what real age are those with no papers. Families in economic hardship will send a child to europe, hoping that once here, they will be able to send for their families. If a child migrant comes from europe into the UK, what rights will they then have to bring in their families?

Such clarity and information is missing, but then, however well informed the public might be, would it make much difference?

The main reasons for immigration are socio-economic. Germany 'needed' the immigration due to drop-off of birthrates to maintain it's economic structure and keep ahead of the game. In Germany's case they are also guilty of 'conscience groping'. put the two together and you have the answer to that situation. What they haven't looked at properly are the 'hidden' consequences which are 1) the unsuitability of vastly mixed races vying for the same spaces and - 2) the 10% that will ultimately prove to become criminals. -But that's the price one pays.
Sweden - same reasoning but didn't do the sums properly and now realise that they have 'overdone' it.
Britain and the children. Same reasons but a better chance of keeping the criminal element out of them if the integration is properly done. But as we haven't had a proper integration policy since the 1950's I doubt we have the expertise to pull that off either and as a consequence we will come to regret it in due course.

BBC quote: "You have the right to family reunification. So you can bring all of your family to Sweden, if you are underage." A few dabs on the calculator show an infinite number of people could arrive in Sweden. The Swedes are suddenly edgey about Russian intentions. Has Mr. Putin recently reviewed defences north-west of Moscow?

The idea of large refugee camps in Greece has had a poor reception, with talk of prison camps etc. The idea needs looking at again though. Syrians could be allowed though Turkey to Greece via land route if politicans agreed.

If europe put money into Greece to make good standard accomodation and services for refugees in huge numbers, it would be a good investment for europe, be ok for genuine refugees, and provide jobs for the Greeks.

That's how it looks from here, but who knows what the full story is.

Do you want the truth? Here's the truth. The civil war in Syria will go on for at least another two to three years during which time 6 million Syrians will want out. Add a further 6 million Iraqis, Ethiopian, Sudanese, Lybian etc etc etc economic immigrants and add together the totals then divide into 3 and you will have the number of immigrants arriving in Europe as a minimum - 4 million every year for the next three years. The present crisis has been caused by 1 million plus over twelve months. What on earth makes you think there is an answer???? Any answer is nothing short of a joke. The only 'real' answer is to say NO. Oh - but I forgot - that word isn't P.C. these days is it.
Ever heard the saying - Cruel to be Kind? I wonder where that came from - and why?

Much of this is down to european gormlessness. More intelligent decisions could have and perhaps will be, made. The visible threat to europe now is from Libya. Terrain there lends itself to the use of battle robots. As you outline, Atlas, the situation is on a massive scale and needs european minds to 'think big'.

Gormless. That's one word I doubt any European will understand, let alone act upon.
If we decide to stay in the EU the forthcoming years will cost us very dearly. As the second biggest contributor to that 'club' there will be ever increasing demands on us to bail out every crisis that comes along - the immigrants and the tottering economies to name but the first two.
We have a choice to make now -.
Stay in and fight alongside the rest to keep our individuality and culture at whatever cost. Or - get the hell out, bring down the shutters against continental interference and look towards the new world for the future thereby keeping our sovereignty and culture reasonably intact.
I know where I'm going. (However it's not my future that's at risk - it's my children's and grand-children's. Some of which don't get to vote.) So - should I go or should I stay? Hmmmm -?

Think I will GO. OUT that is.

What do people mean, by "immigration gridlock"?  

We are dammed if we do and dammed if we don't -. The world is moving into a very dangerous phase for suitable cohabitational areas. As war and climate change and the following Four Horsemen follow the peoples of the world with move towards areas that can sustain life. The first areas being the West as in Mexico to USA and The Middle East and Far East to Europe. My brother (from whose funeral I just returned from Rochdale) told me 30 years ago that we would soon start to see the mass movements and that it was only a matter of time. How right he was. Cantankerous bastard he might have been. Stupid he never was.

It seems the term 'immigration gridlock' comes from USA poitics, something to do with their political system getting jammed up and made dysfunctional by disagreements about the border with Mexico. Seems to be one of those phrases that takes on several meanings in different places and situations.

My sympathy and condolences on the loss of your brother, Atlas.

Thank you for your condolences. You are very kind. As you can see from my books we had our differences but he was my only brother which leaves me the last of our immediate family. A sobering thought. Then there was one -!

However - enough of the regrets. I've had a few. But then again too few to mention - . The song by Sinatra which we played as the curtain came down on another life -amongst the other million last week.

Immigration gridlock - As I said above. It's the new century. One of great movement, strife and terror. The 21st century will become known for its terror wars which will spring from want and technology giving the dispossessed the weapons and the will to make the sacrifices necessary to rebalance the world's populations into a more cosmopolitan structure of consensus politics and societies. It is inevitable and unstoppable. All we can hope to do is 'control' the pressure and draw out the process with a degree of rationality. That would be my advice. Those that say it's not going to happen are deluding themselves and causing greater pains in trying to put the clock back. It ticks remorselessly and takes cognisance of no man.

Time and tide. With migrants arriving in small boats on the beaches now, we can depend on Captain Mainwaring and his men to defend the coastline at Walmington-on-sea between the amusement arcade and the novelty rock emporium, but the rest of the coastline is largely undefended.

Indeed. Quite a pathetic state of affairs. We could buy a dozen or more coast patrol boats from the Yanks tomorrow if we wanted. They have a mothball fleet of some 200 wallowing around near San Fransisco. We also have the crews to manage them in the Naval Reserve. It's total bollocks to say we haven't the resources if we wanted them. Makes one puke. In fact gives on sea-sickness -

General but unofficial opinion is that there is a steady trickle of migrants coming across the channel mostly at night. The ones that make the news are those that have to be rescued. The UK has a lot of coastline, perhaps to make it secure against small boats would be impractical?
http://rnli.org/NewsCentre/Pages/Dungeness-and-Dover-lifeboats-rescue-two-men-from-dinghy-in-the-English-Channel.aspx

The trickle will turn into a flood if you don't make it almost impossible for the trickle to be stopped. Success breeds success and the word travels like a wild fire. It is possible to counter - adequately displayed by the watch on the coastlines during the last war when almost nothing got through without it being discovered during or shortly afterwards. But you have to make the effort, provide the resources and instil in the population the need for vigilance as well as the efforts by the coastal defences. Nothing is totally impossible only marginally.

There doesn't seem to be much interest in guarding the coastline against illegal migrants. Probably for several reasons. There is a sympathy for those genuinely fleeing war. Being in the E.U., we've lost the sense of the sea surrounding us 'belonging' to Britain. Complacency. Numbers arriving are probably few at the moment. The emphasis for security seems to be on air travel. Any interest by the authorities would probably be aimed at people smugglers rather than migrants themselves. The UK, especially London has become very internationalised, open for business, the down side of that: disease, crime, slavery, drugs, weapons, dubious money and people coming and going is seen as part and parcel of that internationalisation, to be coped with rather than stopped.

King Canute on the beach trying to turn the tide.