Right. So it still looks as if there is no practical and workable solution to the Irish border. In not suggesting a border, brexiteers themselves seem to be cancelling brexit without any remain supporters having to do anything.
I voted to leave the EU. For all of my adult life I have had to accept the consequent actions from how the British people have voted when I didn't necessarily agree with the party chosen and their politics. First past the post and all that!! I didn't whinge I accepted this was our form of democracy. It has its weaknesses but many countries and peoples look to us for our sense of law and order and civility.
Now we have the EU referendum and the rules are rewritten.
We have Seth banging on incessantly about the Irish border and the solution us individual leave voters must have to solve this delicate situation.
Why is this the case? I haven't said in every general election since 1979 right you guys sort out every aspect of my life to my satisfaction as I didn't vote for you. Utter bollocks.
So Seth you have banged on about this and have several loyal followers but what's your solution to satisfy and respect the majority legitimate vote cast.
Many people voted Brexit for immigration reasons without appreciáting that our (non-EU) laws were more lenient than the rest of Europe. Some voted against the Brussels/Strasborg gravy train. Others voted on the Leave campaign premise that we weren't leaving the Customs Union. Some the £350m NHS boost. That the 37% Brexiters voted for No Deal is laughable.
so you are a mind reader now are you ?? you know excatly how & why 18.2 million people voted.
wow. sheer arrogance.
Their all mind readers and fortune tellers here golfie. ..ask them for the lottery results tonight...preferably before the draw.
Right. So it still looks as if there is no practical and workable solution to the Irish border. In not suggesting a border, brexiteers themselves seem to be cancelling brexit without any remain supporters having to do anything.
I voted to leave the EU. For all of my adult life I have had to accept the consequent actions from how the British people have voted when I didn't necessarily agree with the party chosen and their politics. First past the post and all that!! I didn't whinge I accepted this was our form of democracy. It has its weaknesses but many countries and peoples look to us for our sense of law and order and civility.
Now we have the EU referendum and the rules are rewritten.
We have Seth banging on incessantly about the Irish border and the solution us individual leave voters must have to solve this delicate situation.
Why is this the case? I haven't said in every general election since 1979 right you guys sort out every aspect of my life to my satisfaction as I didn't vote for you. Utter bollocks.
So Seth you have banged on about this and have several loyal followers but what's your solution to satisfy and respect the majority legitimate vote cast.
Many people voted Brexit for immigration reasons without appreciáting that our (non-EU) laws were more lenient than the rest of Europe. Some voted against the Brussels/Strasborg gravy train. Others voted on the Leave campaign premise that we weren't leaving the Customs Union. Some the £350m NHS boost. That the 37% Brexiters voted for No Deal is laughable.
so you are a mind reader now are you ?? you know excatly how & why 18.2 million people voted.
wow. sheer arrogance.
Their all mind readers and fortune tellers here golfie. ..ask them for the lottery results tonight...preferably before the draw.
May now tells us we have a Brexit Dividend which is now available to pay for an increase in NHS funding. Fantastic! She is now seeking to continue the conflation of EU bills with Tory cuts. One wonders what the opposition response will be?
No need to worry as there is no Brexit dividend. Either we stay in the SM/CU and pay the bills or we take a cut in GDP and taxes. But that's a rational view looking at the numbers. How many are convinced by this latest soundbite? And how many are aware that NHS expenditure increases were cut from 3% down to 1% back in 2010 by Cameron, Osborne and Clegg.
Thats eight years of restricted increases - but it appears that membership of the EU was the problem!
May now tells us we have a Brexit Dividend which is now available to pay for an increase in NHS funding. Fantastic! She is now seeking to continue the conflation of EU bills with Tory cuts. One wonders what the opposition response will be?
No need to worry as there is no Brexit dividend. Either we stay in the SM/CU and pay the bills or we take a cut in GDP and taxes. But that's a rational view looking at the numbers. How many are convinced by this latest soundbite? And how many are aware that NHS expenditure increases were cut from 3% down to 1% back in 2010 by Cameron, Osborne and Clegg.
Thats eight years of restricted increases - but it appears that membership of the EU was the problem!
Loads. It's laughable really they are trying to mug the public off with this bullshit given their own assessment is the UK will be much poorer after leaving and it doesn't even take into account the financial settlement agreed.
People will still fall for it though because it's what they want to hear.
May now tells us we have a Brexit Dividend which is now available to pay for an increase in NHS funding. Fantastic! She is now seeking to continue the conflation of EU bills with Tory cuts. One wonders what the opposition response will be?
No need to worry as there is no Brexit dividend. Either we stay in the SM/CU and pay the bills or we take a cut in GDP and taxes. But that's a rational view looking at the numbers. How many are convinced by this latest soundbite? And how many are aware that NHS expenditure increases were cut from 3% down to 1% back in 2010 by Cameron, Osborne and Clegg.
Thats eight years of restricted increases - but it appears that membership of the EU was the problem!
Loads. It's laughable really they are trying to mug the public off with this bullshit given their own assessment is the UK will be much poorer after leaving and it doesn't even take into account the financial settlement agreed.
People will still fall for it though because it's what they want to hear.
Cognitive dissonance! Voters want to maintain their beliefs formed during the referendum even though evidence of the economy slowing down is emerging.
Fooled by the Boris bus then shame on Boris... But if the majority of voters cannot be convinced of the facts by the opposition then shame on Labour.
Owen Jones wrote a powerful piece in the Guardian about how Labour needs to unite their remain and leave supporters. Meanwhile the Lib Dems who put Cameron in power keep bleating and splitting the vote against this hard right shift.
May now tells us we have a Brexit Dividend which is now available to pay for an increase in NHS funding. Fantastic! She is now seeking to continue the conflation of EU bills with Tory cuts. One wonders what the opposition response will be?
No need to worry as there is no Brexit dividend. Either we stay in the SM/CU and pay the bills or we take a cut in GDP and taxes. But that's a rational view looking at the numbers. How many are convinced by this latest soundbite? And how many are aware that NHS expenditure increases were cut from 3% down to 1% back in 2010 by Cameron, Osborne and Clegg.
Thats eight years of restricted increases - but it appears that membership of the EU was the problem!
Loads. It's laughable really they are trying to mug the public off with this bullshit given their own assessment is the UK will be much poorer after leaving and it doesn't even take into account the financial settlement agreed.
People will still fall for it though because it's what they want to hear.
Cognitive dissonance! Voters want to maintain their beliefs formed during the referendum even though evidence of the economy slowing down is emerging.
Fooled by the Boris bus then shame on Boris... But if the majority of voters cannot be convinced of the facts by the opposition then shame on Labour.
Owen Jones wrote a powerful piece in the Guardian about how Labour needs to unite their remain and leave supporters. Meanwhile the Lib Dems who put Cameron in power keep bleating and splitting the vote against this hard right shift.
Let's see where the Q2 GDP numbers take us.
Owen Jones is nearly as much of an irritant as Oakchite. How on earth he thinks remainers and Lexiters can be reconciled is beyond me. The reality in my view is that Labour are almost as crap on Brexit as the Tories. The difference is the Tories are the ones in power. The significant difference overall in the parties is that Tory policy is generally about looking after number one, and Labour it is generally about looking after everyone.
The current migration crisis is certainly causing an existential crisis within the EU, with Spain accepting the Aquarius boat on humanitarian grounds that had been turned away from Italy. France have also joined the criticism of Italy and said they will accept some of the migrants if they are refugees.
Spain's position is likely to be part of the new socialist government's plan to present itself as an open and humane alternative to their predecessors and their acceptance of the boat has been received well along with their plan to remove razor topped fences in the enclave of Ceuta which separates Spanish land from Morocco. There is concern in many quarters about too many migrants arriving by boat and the encouraging of people smuggling, but the main conversation seems to be around the EU needing to work together to get to the root of the migration issue.
Spain's new President Pedro Sanchez looks like he could be a key part of the EU reforming itself but the divisions between the different countries' ideologies at present mean it will definitely be a complicated process.
The current migration crisis is certainly causing an existential crisis within the EU, with Spain accepting the Aquarius boat on humanitarian grounds that had been turned away from Italy. France have also joined the criticism of Italy and said they will accept some of the migrants if they are refugees.
Spain's position is likely to be part of the new socialist government's plan to present itself as an open and humane alternative to their predecessors and their acceptance of the boat has been received well along with their plan to remove razor topped fences in the enclave of Ceuta which separates Spanish land from Morocco. There is concern in many quarters about too many migrants arriving by boat and the encouraging of people smuggling, but the main conversation seems to be around the EU needing to work together to get to the root of the migration issue.
Spain's new President Pedro Sanchez looks like he could be a key part of the EU reforming itself but the divisions between the different countries' ideologies at present mean it will definitely be a complicated process.
Spain''s new unelected President with his minority government is not going to turn the European tide which is running against the crazy EU asylum policy.
The current migration crisis is certainly causing an existential crisis within the EU, with Spain accepting the Aquarius boat on humanitarian grounds that had been turned away from Italy. France have also joined the criticism of Italy and said they will accept some of the migrants if they are refugees.
Spain's position is likely to be part of the new socialist government's plan to present itself as an open and humane alternative to their predecessors and their acceptance of the boat has been received well along with their plan to remove razor topped fences in the enclave of Ceuta which separates Spanish land from Morocco. There is concern in many quarters about too many migrants arriving by boat and the encouraging of people smuggling, but the main conversation seems to be around the EU needing to work together to get to the root of the migration issue.
Spain's new President Pedro Sanchez looks like he could be a key part of the EU reforming itself but the divisions between the different countries' ideologies at present mean it will definitely be a complicated process.
Spain''s new unelected President with his minority government is not going to turn the European tide which is running against the crazy EU asylum policy.
The current migration crisis is certainly causing an existential crisis within the EU, with Spain accepting the Aquarius boat on humanitarian grounds that had been turned away from Italy. France have also joined the criticism of Italy and said they will accept some of the migrants if they are refugees.
Spain's position is likely to be part of the new socialist government's plan to present itself as an open and humane alternative to their predecessors and their acceptance of the boat has been received well along with their plan to remove razor topped fences in the enclave of Ceuta which separates Spanish land from Morocco. There is concern in many quarters about too many migrants arriving by boat and the encouraging of people smuggling, but the main conversation seems to be around the EU needing to work together to get to the root of the migration issue.
Spain's new President Pedro Sanchez looks like he could be a key part of the EU reforming itself but the divisions between the different countries' ideologies at present mean it will definitely be a complicated process.
Spain''s new unelected President with his minority government is not going to turn the European tide which is running against the crazy EU asylum policy.
The current schism in Europe is as much about whether or not we should rescue people drowning at sea on humanitarian grounds rather than giving asylum to anyone landing. Not everyone who lands in Spain is given asylum but there is a general feeling here that countries shouldn't turn away ships like the Aquarius, and in the case of Italy celebrate this as a victory for political purposes.
The clear difference in countries' policies also serves another purpose: to put paid again to the tired idea wheeled out by Brexiters that Europe is made up of faceless states which cannot make their own decisions.
The current migration crisis is certainly causing an existential crisis within the EU, with Spain accepting the Aquarius boat on humanitarian grounds that had been turned away from Italy. France have also joined the criticism of Italy and said they will accept some of the migrants if they are refugees.
Spain's position is likely to be part of the new socialist government's plan to present itself as an open and humane alternative to their predecessors and their acceptance of the boat has been received well along with their plan to remove razor topped fences in the enclave of Ceuta which separates Spanish land from Morocco. There is concern in many quarters about too many migrants arriving by boat and the encouraging of people smuggling, but the main conversation seems to be around the EU needing to work together to get to the root of the migration issue.
Spain's new President Pedro Sanchez looks like he could be a key part of the EU reforming itself but the divisions between the different countries' ideologies at present mean it will definitely be a complicated process.
Spain''s new unelected President with his minority government is not going to turn the European tide which is running against the crazy EU asylum policy.
What is crazy about the EU asylum policy?
Ask the Italians-
It was just that you brought it up and I am just curious as to what it is that you find crazy about the EU asylum policy
The current schism in Europe is as much about whether or not we should rescue people drowning at sea on humanitarian grounds rather than giving asylum to anyone landing. Not everyone who lands in Spain is given asylum but there is a general feeling here that countries shouldn't turn away ships like the Aquarius, and in the case of Italy celebrate this as a victory for political purposes.
The clear difference in countries' policies also serves another purpose: to put paid again to the tired idea wheeled out by Brexiters that Europe is made up of faceless states which cannot make their own decisions.
The problem as is well understood, is that the rescue mission has led to more people drowning-as it encourages more people to try and not everybody can be rescued. It is tragic-a humanitarian impulse leading to more deaths.
The EU has put a lot of money into funding for the training of the Libyan coastguard service to prevent crossings but this itself has come under criticism due to the mistreatment of migrants by former militia now in the coastguard.
It's an incredibly complex situation and one that needs a proper united response by Europe to get to the root of the issue. It's a shame that it all gets oversimplified to try to suggest a 'crazy EU asylum policy'. Migration presents the biggest challenge for Europe and it is clear after years of this now that letting people drown at sea is not a deterrent. What the countries like Spain and Italy disagree on now is whether it is moral to just let it happen.
The EU has put a lot of money into funding for the training of the Libyan coastguard service to prevent crossings but this itself has come under criticism due to the mistreatment of migrants by former militia now in the coastguard.
It's an incredibly complex situation and one that needs a proper united response by Europe to get to the root of the issue. It's a shame that it all gets oversimplified to try to suggest a 'crazy EU asylum policy'. Migration presents the biggest challenge for Europe and it is clear after years of this now that letting people drown at sea is not a deterrent. What the countries like Spain and Italy disagree on now is whether it is moral to just let it happen.
More people have drowned this year already than the whole of last year. The policy of picking them up has led to more dying. It is truly tragic but encouraging more to come can only lead to even more deaths. The Spanish policy of accepting them and then checking their asylum status( before presumably trying to send them back) will not prevent more deaths.
The EU has put a lot of money into funding for the training of the Libyan coastguard service to prevent crossings but this itself has come under criticism due to the mistreatment of migrants by former militia now in the coastguard.
It's an incredibly complex situation and one that needs a proper united response by Europe to get to the root of the issue. It's a shame that it all gets oversimplified to try to suggest a 'crazy EU asylum policy'. Migration presents the biggest challenge for Europe and it is clear after years of this now that letting people drown at sea is not a deterrent. What the countries like Spain and Italy disagree on now is whether it is moral to just let it happen.
More people have drowned this year already than the whole of last year. The policy of picking them up has led to more dying. It is truly tragic but encouraging more to come can only lead to even more deaths. The Spanish policy of accepting them and then checking their asylum status( before presumably trying to send them back) will not prevent more deaths.
I might suggest that your perspective is a tad off kilter.
It is true that people traffickers will continue to send desperate migrants to sea in unsafe vessels, but this will happen whether or not there is the EU rescue mission or not.
The traffickers have no real concern about whether or not the trafficked survive.
The EU mission has been in place for a number of years, including last year (so the argument that it, in itself, is responsible for an increased number of deaths in 2018 is tenuous).
For most of those who make it as far as Libya from sub-Saharan Africa, or further afield, Libya is appalling, with many sold into slavery and, even if they wanted to, no real chance of going back. In comparison to staying in Libya, even a sinking fishing boat is a more hopeful choice.
Black Libyans were associated with support for Gaddafi, and the militias that benefitted from UK, French, American and Gulf Arab support have been engaged in a programme of ethnic cleansing - look up Tawergha sometime. The position for any black African in Libya is desperate and dangerous, putting to sea is just about the only way of escape.
Fundamentally, more does need to be done to address the causes of people taking this dangerous path to a new life in Europe, and the EU is seeking to do something.
But, Libya has not been a functioning state since the death of Gadaffi, there is no way to secure its coast and ports (and militias will, undoubtedly, take their percentage even in areas of supposed government "control").
There is no-one with whom to work to stop overcrowded and unseaworthy vessels putting to sea.
There are two options available, do nothing, and accept the deaths of hundreds or thousands of men, women and children as an inevitable consequence of the purity of the political philosophy that interdiction is not in our interest, or do what you can, accepting that none of us can prevent every death, but believing that each death that we can prevent is one too many.
Those attempting to cross the sea from Libya are, like us, human beings (with all the hopes, fears, potential and failings that that means), to knowingly let fellow human beings die in pursuit of a border policy is not just to treat them as mere numbers and statistical collateral damage, it is to deny their humanity and diminish ours.
The policy is crazy because it is not popular. Not because the policy is necessarily wrong, but it gives people something to blame and anybody who studies history will know that is never a good idea.
The policy is crazy because it is not popular. Not because the policy is necessarily wrong, but it gives people something to blame and anybody who studies history will know that is never a good idea.
Surely politicians should be articulating why the policy is right then?
Yes, but it won't work. If you are becoming more and more prosperous it isn't a problem. But if you feel life is getting harder and you see more and more foreigners around you, it is understandable you blame them. And you also have politicians who will use this as well as the press. It is an easy target to blame one group of people, and always has been.
The EU has put a lot of money into funding for the training of the Libyan coastguard service to prevent crossings but this itself has come under criticism due to the mistreatment of migrants by former militia now in the coastguard.
It's an incredibly complex situation and one that needs a proper united response by Europe to get to the root of the issue. It's a shame that it all gets oversimplified to try to suggest a 'crazy EU asylum policy'. Migration presents the biggest challenge for Europe and it is clear after years of this now that letting people drown at sea is not a deterrent. What the countries like Spain and Italy disagree on now is whether it is moral to just let it happen.
More people have drowned this year already than the whole of last year. The policy of picking them up has led to more dying. It is truly tragic but encouraging more to come can only lead to even more deaths. The Spanish policy of accepting them and then checking their asylum status( before presumably trying to send them back) will not prevent more deaths.
I might suggest that your perspective is a tad off kilter.
It is true that people traffickers will continue to send desperate migrants to sea in unsafe vessels, but this will happen whether or not there is the EU rescue mission or not.
The traffickers have no real concern about whether or not the trafficked survive.
The EU mission has been in place for a number of years, including last year (so the argument that it, in itself, is responsible for an increased number of deaths in 2018 is tenuous).
For most of those who make it as far as Libya from sub-Saharan Africa, or further afield, Libya is appalling, with many sold into slavery and, even if they wanted to, no real chance of going back. In comparison to staying in Libya, even a sinking fishing boat is a more hopeful choice.
Black Libyans were associated with support for Gaddafi, and the militias that benefitted from UK, French, American and Gulf Arab support have been engaged in a programme of ethnic cleansing - look up Tawergha sometime. The position for any black African in Libya is desperate and dangerous, putting to sea is just about the only way of escape.
Fundamentally, more does need to be done to address the causes of people taking this dangerous path to a new life in Europe, and the EU is seeking to do something.
But, Libya has not been a functioning state since the death of Gadaffi, there is no way to secure its coast and ports (and militias will, undoubtedly, take their percentage even in areas of supposed government "control").
There is no-one with whom to work to stop overcrowded and unseaworthy vessels putting to sea.
There are two options available, do nothing, and accept the deaths of hundreds or thousands of men, women and children as an inevitable consequence of the purity of the political philosophy that interdiction is not in our interest, or do what you can, accepting that none of us can prevent every death, but believing that each death that we can prevent is one too many.
Those attempting to cross the sea from Libya are, like us, human beings (with all the hopes, fears, potential and failings that that means), to knowingly let fellow human beings die in pursuit of a border policy is not just to treat them as mere numbers and statistical collateral damage, it is to deny their humanity and diminish ours.
You have turned cause into effect in order to make a political point about border policy (presumably you must be in favour of open borders in that case?). People are setting out in unseaworthy vessels hoping to be picked up before they sink. If they did not think they would be picked up they would be less likely to set out. What apperars to be a humanitarian policy is leading to more deaths than otherwise would be the case.
The EU has put a lot of money into funding for the training of the Libyan coastguard service to prevent crossings but this itself has come under criticism due to the mistreatment of migrants by former militia now in the coastguard.
It's an incredibly complex situation and one that needs a proper united response by Europe to get to the root of the issue. It's a shame that it all gets oversimplified to try to suggest a 'crazy EU asylum policy'. Migration presents the biggest challenge for Europe and it is clear after years of this now that letting people drown at sea is not a deterrent. What the countries like Spain and Italy disagree on now is whether it is moral to just let it happen.
More people have drowned this year already than the whole of last year. The policy of picking them up has led to more dying. It is truly tragic but encouraging more to come can only lead to even more deaths. The Spanish policy of accepting them and then checking their asylum status( before presumably trying to send them back) will not prevent more deaths.
I might suggest that your perspective is a tad off kilter.
It is true that people traffickers will continue to send desperate migrants to sea in unsafe vessels, but this will happen whether or not there is the EU rescue mission or not.
The traffickers have no real concern about whether or not the trafficked survive.
The EU mission has been in place for a number of years, including last year (so the argument that it, in itself, is responsible for an increased number of deaths in 2018 is tenuous).
For most of those who make it as far as Libya from sub-Saharan Africa, or further afield, Libya is appalling, with many sold into slavery and, even if they wanted to, no real chance of going back. In comparison to staying in Libya, even a sinking fishing boat is a more hopeful choice.
Black Libyans were associated with support for Gaddafi, and the militias that benefitted from UK, French, American and Gulf Arab support have been engaged in a programme of ethnic cleansing - look up Tawergha sometime. The position for any black African in Libya is desperate and dangerous, putting to sea is just about the only way of escape.
Fundamentally, more does need to be done to address the causes of people taking this dangerous path to a new life in Europe, and the EU is seeking to do something.
But, Libya has not been a functioning state since the death of Gadaffi, there is no way to secure its coast and ports (and militias will, undoubtedly, take their percentage even in areas of supposed government "control").
There is no-one with whom to work to stop overcrowded and unseaworthy vessels putting to sea.
There are two options available, do nothing, and accept the deaths of hundreds or thousands of men, women and children as an inevitable consequence of the purity of the political philosophy that interdiction is not in our interest, or do what you can, accepting that none of us can prevent every death, but believing that each death that we can prevent is one too many.
Those attempting to cross the sea from Libya are, like us, human beings (with all the hopes, fears, potential and failings that that means), to knowingly let fellow human beings die in pursuit of a border policy is not just to treat them as mere numbers and statistical collateral damage, it is to deny their humanity and diminish ours.
You have turned cause into effect in order to make a political point about border policy (presumably you must be in favour of open borders in that case?). People are setting out in unseaworthy vessels hoping to be picked up before they sink. If they did not think they would be picked up they would be less likely to set out. What apperars to be a humanitarian policy is leading to more deaths than otherwise would be the case.
No, I really haven't.
What I am stating is that the vast majority of those who are paying the traffickers are in desperate straights, and see themselves as having no choice but to take the opportunity available to them. My argument is that it is the traffickers, fundamentally, who do not care whether they live or die; and they are the ones who make the decision to load up the unseaworthy vessels.
Removing the EU mission will not stop the boats setting off. What it will do is place all shipping in an invidious position of having to attempt to deal with vessels in distress without being equipped to do so (there are maritime conventions regarding such things). The EU mission was a response to an existing problem - the traffickers were taking advantage of the chaos in Libya before a single EU flagged naval vessel intercepted a migrant boat.
I'm relatively agnostic on the issue of whether borders should be open or not, but it's a facile question for those of us from the wealthy Western democracies, because we (effectively) benefit from international freedom of movement, borders are open to us as a matter of course (and, historically, much of our migration has been in the years before border controls, occasionally, even, at the point of a gun). I have to admit that I despise hypocrisy (in others) and, for me, the current European and American obsession with migrants smacks of judging others by standards that we would not accept for ourselves.
I don't believe that there is an acceptable number of people that we should be willing to let die, because that would be the result, if we determine that we should not seek to intercept the people traffickers. I may be alone in this view, but I hope not.
It may be an Irish reaction, a folk memory from the Famine, but there is, in my mind, something terribly wrong with the notion that we should be so callous to desperate people seeking a (much) better life for themselves and their families. The people dying, and who will die, attempting to cross the Mediterranean are the modern day version of those in the coffin ships in the 1840s-1850s - if our reaction to their fate is to withdraw ourselves and repudiate any sense of responsibility, we will show ourselves to be less humane than our supposedly laissez faire ancestors.
The EU has put a lot of money into funding for the training of the Libyan coastguard service to prevent crossings but this itself has come under criticism due to the mistreatment of migrants by former militia now in the coastguard.
It's an incredibly complex situation and one that needs a proper united response by Europe to get to the root of the issue. It's a shame that it all gets oversimplified to try to suggest a 'crazy EU asylum policy'. Migration presents the biggest challenge for Europe and it is clear after years of this now that letting people drown at sea is not a deterrent. What the countries like Spain and Italy disagree on now is whether it is moral to just let it happen.
More people have drowned this year already than the whole of last year. The policy of picking them up has led to more dying. It is truly tragic but encouraging more to come can only lead to even more deaths. The Spanish policy of accepting them and then checking their asylum status( before presumably trying to send them back) will not prevent more deaths.
I might suggest that your perspective is a tad off kilter.
It is true that people traffickers will continue to send desperate migrants to sea in unsafe vessels, but this will happen whether or not there is the EU rescue mission or not.
The traffickers have no real concern about whether or not the trafficked survive.
The EU mission has been in place for a number of years, including last year (so the argument that it, in itself, is responsible for an increased number of deaths in 2018 is tenuous).
For most of those who make it as far as Libya from sub-Saharan Africa, or further afield, Libya is appalling, with many sold into slavery and, even if they wanted to, no real chance of going back. In comparison to staying in Libya, even a sinking fishing boat is a more hopeful choice.
Black Libyans were associated with support for Gaddafi, and the militias that benefitted from UK, French, American and Gulf Arab support have been engaged in a programme of ethnic cleansing - look up Tawergha sometime. The position for any black African in Libya is desperate and dangerous, putting to sea is just about the only way of escape.
Fundamentally, more does need to be done to address the causes of people taking this dangerous path to a new life in Europe, and the EU is seeking to do something.
But, Libya has not been a functioning state since the death of Gadaffi, there is no way to secure its coast and ports (and militias will, undoubtedly, take their percentage even in areas of supposed government "control").
There is no-one with whom to work to stop overcrowded and unseaworthy vessels putting to sea.
There are two options available, do nothing, and accept the deaths of hundreds or thousands of men, women and children as an inevitable consequence of the purity of the political philosophy that interdiction is not in our interest, or do what you can, accepting that none of us can prevent every death, but believing that each death that we can prevent is one too many.
Those attempting to cross the sea from Libya are, like us, human beings (with all the hopes, fears, potential and failings that that means), to knowingly let fellow human beings die in pursuit of a border policy is not just to treat them as mere numbers and statistical collateral damage, it is to deny their humanity and diminish ours.
You have turned cause into effect in order to make a political point about border policy (presumably you must be in favour of open borders in that case?). People are setting out in unseaworthy vessels hoping to be picked up before they sink. If they did not think they would be picked up they would be less likely to set out. What apperars to be a humanitarian policy is leading to more deaths than otherwise would be the case.
No, I really haven't.
What I am stating is that the vast majority of those who are paying the traffickers are in desperate straights, and see themselves as having no choice but to take the opportunity available to them. My argument is that it is the traffickers, fundamentally, who do not care whether they live or die; and they are the ones who make the decision to load up the unseaworthy vessels.
Removing the EU mission will not stop the boats setting off. What it will do is place all shipping in an invidious position of having to attempt to deal with vessels in distress without being equipped to do so (there are maritime conventions regarding such things). The EU mission was a response to an existing problem - the traffickers were taking advantage of the chaos in Libya before a single EU flagged naval vessel intercepted a migrant boat.
I'm relatively agnostic on the issue of whether borders should be open or not, but it's a facile question for those of us from the wealthy Western democracies, because we (effectively) benefit from international freedom of movement, borders are open to us as a matter of course (and, historically, much of our migration has been in the years before border controls, occasionally, even, at the point of a gun). I have to admit that I despise hypocrisy (in others) and, for me, the current European and American obsession with migrants smacks of judging others by standards that we would not accept for ourselves.
I don't believe that there is an acceptable number of people that we should be willing to let die, because that would be the result, if we determine that we should not seek to intercept the people traffickers. I may be alone in this view, but I hope not.
It may be an Irish reaction, a folk memory from the Famine, but there is, in my mind, something terribly wrong with the notion that we should be so callous to desperate people seeking a (much) better life for themselves and their families. The people dying, and who will die, attempting to cross the Mediterranean are the modern day version of those in the coffin ships in the 1840s-1850s - if our reaction to their fate is to withdraw ourselves and repudiate any sense of responsibility, we will show ourselves to be less humane than our supposedly laissez faire ancestors.
Comments
Possibly.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-44495598
No need to worry as there is no Brexit dividend. Either we stay in the SM/CU and pay the bills or we take a cut in GDP and taxes. But that's a rational view looking at the numbers. How many are convinced by this latest soundbite? And how many are aware that NHS expenditure increases were cut from 3% down to 1% back in 2010 by Cameron, Osborne and Clegg.
Thats eight years of restricted increases - but it appears that membership of the EU was the problem!
People will still fall for it though because it's what they want to hear.
Fooled by the Boris bus then shame on Boris... But if the majority of voters cannot be convinced of the facts by the opposition then shame on Labour.
Owen Jones wrote a powerful piece in the Guardian about how Labour needs to unite their remain and leave supporters. Meanwhile the Lib Dems who put Cameron in power keep bleating and splitting the vote against this hard right shift.
Let's see where the Q2 GDP numbers take us.
The reality in my view is that Labour are almost as crap on Brexit as the Tories. The difference is the Tories are the ones in power.
The significant difference overall in the parties is that Tory policy is generally about looking after number one, and Labour it is generally about looking after everyone.
Spain's position is likely to be part of the new socialist government's plan to present itself as an open and humane alternative to their predecessors and their acceptance of the boat has been received well along with their plan to remove razor topped fences in the enclave of Ceuta which separates Spanish land from Morocco. There is concern in many quarters about too many migrants arriving by boat and the encouraging of people smuggling, but the main conversation seems to be around the EU needing to work together to get to the root of the migration issue.
Spain's new President Pedro Sanchez looks like he could be a key part of the EU reforming itself but the divisions between the different countries' ideologies at present mean it will definitely be a complicated process.
What is crazy about the EU asylum policy?
The clear difference in countries' policies also serves another purpose: to put paid again to the tired idea wheeled out by Brexiters that Europe is made up of faceless states which cannot make their own decisions.
It was just that you brought it up and I am just curious as to what it is that you find crazy about the EU asylum policy
It's an incredibly complex situation and one that needs a proper united response by Europe to get to the root of the issue. It's a shame that it all gets oversimplified to try to suggest a 'crazy EU asylum policy'. Migration presents the biggest challenge for Europe and it is clear after years of this now that letting people drown at sea is not a deterrent. What the countries like Spain and Italy disagree on now is whether it is moral to just let it happen.
It is true that people traffickers will continue to send desperate migrants to sea in unsafe vessels, but this will happen whether or not there is the EU rescue mission or not.
The traffickers have no real concern about whether or not the trafficked survive.
The EU mission has been in place for a number of years, including last year (so the argument that it, in itself, is responsible for an increased number of deaths in 2018 is tenuous).
For most of those who make it as far as Libya from sub-Saharan Africa, or further afield, Libya is appalling, with many sold into slavery and, even if they wanted to, no real chance of going back. In comparison to staying in Libya, even a sinking fishing boat is a more hopeful choice.
Black Libyans were associated with support for Gaddafi, and the militias that benefitted from UK, French, American and Gulf Arab support have been engaged in a programme of ethnic cleansing - look up Tawergha sometime. The position for any black African in Libya is desperate and dangerous, putting to sea is just about the only way of escape.
Fundamentally, more does need to be done to address the causes of people taking this dangerous path to a new life in Europe, and the EU is seeking to do something.
But, Libya has not been a functioning state since the death of Gadaffi, there is no way to secure its coast and ports (and militias will, undoubtedly, take their percentage even in areas of supposed government "control").
There is no-one with whom to work to stop overcrowded and unseaworthy vessels putting to sea.
There are two options available, do nothing, and accept the deaths of hundreds or thousands of men, women and children as an inevitable consequence of the purity of the political philosophy that interdiction is not in our interest, or do what you can, accepting that none of us can prevent every death, but believing that each death that we can prevent is one too many.
Those attempting to cross the sea from Libya are, like us, human beings (with all the hopes, fears, potential and failings that that means), to knowingly let fellow human beings die in pursuit of a border policy is not just to treat them as mere numbers and statistical collateral damage, it is to deny their humanity and diminish ours.
What I am stating is that the vast majority of those who are paying the traffickers are in desperate straights, and see themselves as having no choice but to take the opportunity available to them. My argument is that it is the traffickers, fundamentally, who do not care whether they live or die; and they are the ones who make the decision to load up the unseaworthy vessels.
Removing the EU mission will not stop the boats setting off. What it will do is place all shipping in an invidious position of having to attempt to deal with vessels in distress without being equipped to do so (there are maritime conventions regarding such things). The EU mission was a response to an existing problem - the traffickers were taking advantage of the chaos in Libya before a single EU flagged naval vessel intercepted a migrant boat.
I'm relatively agnostic on the issue of whether borders should be open or not, but it's a facile question for those of us from the wealthy Western democracies, because we (effectively) benefit from international freedom of movement, borders are open to us as a matter of course (and, historically, much of our migration has been in the years before border controls, occasionally, even, at the point of a gun). I have to admit that I despise hypocrisy (in others) and, for me, the current European and American obsession with migrants smacks of judging others by standards that we would not accept for ourselves.
I don't believe that there is an acceptable number of people that we should be willing to let die, because that would be the result, if we determine that we should not seek to intercept the people traffickers. I may be alone in this view, but I hope not.
It may be an Irish reaction, a folk memory from the Famine, but there is, in my mind, something terribly wrong with the notion that we should be so callous to desperate people seeking a (much) better life for themselves and their families. The people dying, and who will die, attempting to cross the Mediterranean are the modern day version of those in the coffin ships in the 1840s-1850s - if our reaction to their fate is to withdraw ourselves and repudiate any sense of responsibility, we will show ourselves to be less humane than our supposedly laissez faire ancestors.