Not if you can use it as a stick with which to beat the EU.
Libya is a failed state, the fact that people feel the need to give their life savings (or more) to people traffickers, for a place on a boat that's completely unsuitable for the voyage tells you everything you need to know. Or should do, anyway.
Not if you can use it as a stick with which to beat the EU.
Libya is a failed state, the fact that people feel the need to give their life savings (or more) to people traffickers, for a place on a boat that's completely unsuitable for the voyage tells you everything you need to know. Or should do, anyway.
I am inclined now to adopt the Seth Plum approach and keep asking the same question. If people are encouraged to think they will be rescued, why would they stop getting into unseaworthy boats?
Not if you can use it as a stick with which to beat the EU.
Libya is a failed state, the fact that people feel the need to give their life savings (or more) to people traffickers, for a place on a boat that's completely unsuitable for the voyage tells you everything you need to know. Or should do, anyway.
I am inclined now to adopt the Seth Plum approach and keep asking the same question. If people are encouraged to think they will be rescued, why would they stop getting into unseaworthy boats?
Maybe you'll be more lucky and get an answer...
Theoretically, yes - if the migrants think they will be rescued then common sense dictates they would be more likely to get on a boat, but as I say, this is just common sense.
Now, perhaps you'll provide a direct answer. Do you honestly think that the prospect of being picked up by the EU task force is the main reason these people get on the boats in the first place?
I believe that international bodies have a moral obligation to step in and mitigate the crimes of people smuggling, do you not? Or should it just fall on the nearest country?
As you have an answer, maybe @seth plum deserves one too? How about it?
Not if you can use it as a stick with which to beat the EU.
Libya is a failed state, the fact that people feel the need to give their life savings (or more) to people traffickers, for a place on a boat that's completely unsuitable for the voyage tells you everything you need to know. Or should do, anyway.
I am inclined now to adopt the Seth Plum approach and keep asking the same question. If people are encouraged to think they will be rescued, why would they stop getting into unseaworthy boats?
Maybe you'll be more lucky and get an answer...
Theoretically, yes - if the migrants think they will be rescued then common sense dictates they would be more likely to get on a boat, but as I say, this is just common sense.
Now, perhaps you'll provide a direct answer. Do you honestly think that the prospect of being picked up by the EU task force is the main reason these people get on the boats in the first place?
I believe that international bodies have a moral obligation to step in and mitigate the crimes of people smuggling, do you not? Or should it just fall on the nearest country?
As you have an answer, maybe @seth plum deserves one too? How about it?
I think if you get in what is often little better than a lilo you are doing it because you expect/hope to get picked up.
I also think that the logical outcome of the 'pick them up' approach is effectively an open door policy on immigration-which I disagree with as do most people, however sorry they may feel for the migrants. If it is not that then it is hypocritical, as it encourages migrants to think there is an open door policy when there is not-and therefore more of them will get in the sinking boats.
The only approach which would make sense would be to rescue them and take them straight back to Africa-but that is not legal because of asylum policy amongst other things.
I answered Seth's question a while back but he does not agree with my answer, so there you go.
Not if you can use it as a stick with which to beat the EU.
Libya is a failed state, the fact that people feel the need to give their life savings (or more) to people traffickers, for a place on a boat that's completely unsuitable for the voyage tells you everything you need to know. Or should do, anyway.
I am inclined now to adopt the Seth Plum approach and keep asking the same question. If people are encouraged to think they will be rescued, why would they stop getting into unseaworthy boats?
Maybe you'll be more lucky and get an answer...
Theoretically, yes - if the migrants think they will be rescued then common sense dictates they would be more likely to get on a boat, but as I say, this is just common sense.
Now, perhaps you'll provide a direct answer. Do you honestly think that the prospect of being picked up by the EU task force is the main reason these people get on the boats in the first place?
I believe that international bodies have a moral obligation to step in and mitigate the crimes of people smuggling, do you not? Or should it just fall on the nearest country?
As you have an answer, maybe @seth plum deserves one too? How about it?
I think if you get in what is often little better than a lilo you are doing it because you expect/hope to get picked up.
I also think that the logical outcome of the 'pick them up' approach is effectively an open door policy on immigration-which I disagree with as do most people, however sorry they may feel for the migrants. If it is not that then it is hypocritical, as it encourages migrants to think there is an open door policy when there is not-and therefore more of them will get in the sinking boats.
The only approach which would make sense would be to rescue them and take them straight back to Africa-but that is not legal because of asylum policy amongst other things.
I answered Seth's question a while back but he does not agree with my answer, so there you go.
Can you be more specific? was it the link to the paper on the Irish border?
Not if you can use it as a stick with which to beat the EU.
Libya is a failed state, the fact that people feel the need to give their life savings (or more) to people traffickers, for a place on a boat that's completely unsuitable for the voyage tells you everything you need to know. Or should do, anyway.
I am inclined now to adopt the Seth Plum approach and keep asking the same question. If people are encouraged to think they will be rescued, why would they stop getting into unseaworthy boats?
Maybe you'll be more lucky and get an answer...
Theoretically, yes - if the migrants think they will be rescued then common sense dictates they would be more likely to get on a boat, but as I say, this is just common sense.
Now, perhaps you'll provide a direct answer. Do you honestly think that the prospect of being picked up by the EU task force is the main reason these people get on the boats in the first place?
I believe that international bodies have a moral obligation to step in and mitigate the crimes of people smuggling, do you not? Or should it just fall on the nearest country?
As you have an answer, maybe @seth plum deserves one too? How about it?
I think if you get in what is often little better than a lilo you are doing it because you expect/hope to get picked up.
I also think that the logical outcome of the 'pick them up' approach is effectively an open door policy on immigration-which I disagree with as do most people, however sorry they may feel for the migrants. If it is not that then it is hypocritical, as it encourages migrants to think there is an open door policy when there is not-and therefore more of them will get in the sinking boats.
The only approach which would make sense would be to rescue them and take them straight back to Africa-but that is not legal because of asylum policy amongst other things.
I answered Seth's question a while back but he does not agree with my answer, so there you go.
I think you've deflected on the answer a bit there, then done some huge leaps. So, i'll ask again you do think then, that the main reason people are getting in boats to be trafficked by criminal gangs is because they hope they'll be picked up (they don't even hope they'll reach land?)? What about before the deployment of the EU task force? What was their reason then?
Also, asylum applications in the EU have dropped in the last 2 years, if this 'effective open door policy' is really in existence, this number would be going up, not down, year on year.
Straight back to Africa?? Where? It's a big old continent...
What I am finding fascinating about the current situation in Spain with immigration is that there is a serious and sensible discussion happening with strong views on both sides but without the hysterical anti-immigration rhetoric that seems to pervade the conversation in the UK. Could be due to the lack of a tabloid press or a far-right figure like Farage but it has meant that there has been an interesting debate happening that hasn't turned toxic.
Not if you can use it as a stick with which to beat the EU.
Libya is a failed state, the fact that people feel the need to give their life savings (or more) to people traffickers, for a place on a boat that's completely unsuitable for the voyage tells you everything you need to know. Or should do, anyway.
I am inclined now to adopt the Seth Plum approach and keep asking the same question. If people are encouraged to think they will be rescued, why would they stop getting into unseaworthy boats?
Maybe you'll be more lucky and get an answer...
Theoretically, yes - if the migrants think they will be rescued then common sense dictates they would be more likely to get on a boat, but as I say, this is just common sense.
Now, perhaps you'll provide a direct answer. Do you honestly think that the prospect of being picked up by the EU task force is the main reason these people get on the boats in the first place?
I believe that international bodies have a moral obligation to step in and mitigate the crimes of people smuggling, do you not? Or should it just fall on the nearest country?
As you have an answer, maybe @seth plum deserves one too? How about it?
I think if you get in what is often little better than a lilo you are doing it because you expect/hope to get picked up.
I also think that the logical outcome of the 'pick them up' approach is effectively an open door policy on immigration-which I disagree with as do most people, however sorry they may feel for the migrants. If it is not that then it is hypocritical, as it encourages migrants to think there is an open door policy when there is not-and therefore more of them will get in the sinking boats.
The only approach which would make sense would be to rescue them and take them straight back to Africa-but that is not legal because of asylum policy amongst other things.
I answered Seth's question a while back but he does not agree with my answer, so there you go.
I think you've deflected on the answer a bit there, then done some huge leaps. So, i'll ask again you do think then, that the main reason people are getting in boats to be trafficked by criminal gangs is because they hope they'll be picked up (they don't even hope they'll reach land?)? What about before the deployment of the EU task force? What was their reason then?
Also, asylum applications in the EU have dropped in the last 2 years, if this 'effective open door policy' is really in existence, this number would be going up, not down, year on year.
Straight back to Africa?? Where? It's a big old continent...
Many of the migrants are no doubt desperate to get to Europe and will take incredible risks. That does not mean we should encourage them, quite the opposite in fact. I did not say there was an open door, but picking migrants up and bringing them to Europe encourages migrants to think there is. Asylum applications have gone down from a very high number after the Germans stopped accepting asylum seekers in the same quantities they did before.
If I were a migrant it would look to me as if Europe is saying-we don't really want you but if you take a huge risk with your life we might take you in- that is irresponsible surely.
If I were a migrant it would look to me as if Europe is saying-we don't really want you but if you take a huge risk with your life we might take you in- that is irresponsible surely.
If I were a migrant it would look to me as if Europe is saying-we don't really want you but if you take a huge risk with your life we might take you in- that is irresponsible surely.
Let's cut to the chase.
Your argument is that it is irresponsible to try to save lives in the Mediterranean (notwithstanding that attempts to cross from North Africa predate the EU mission and would continue regardless).
A cynic, and I confess that I am one, might query what is the acceptable "collateral damage" (to use that term beloved of neocons and military types when explaining how surgical strikes are surgical in the same sense that Roy Hattersley was a super model) of a responsible approach?
How many drownings would be acceptable in the brave new world of a responsible policy on policing the external borders of Europe? Is there a ceiling to the numbers that must die before we should intervene to rescue those who we can?
I don't necessarily believe that the EU approach has been perfect, but it has been an awful lot closer to perfection than that espoused by those populist politicians seeking to stir up anti-migrant feeling - which is, essentially, to say "f**k them" and look the other way.
The causes of the current migrations towards Europe are complex and multifaceted - they cannot be solved by knee jerk reactions and pandering to and inflaming isolationist instincts. It will take time, greater engagement and significant investment (both in terms of skills and money) if the wealthy West is to reduce the pressures sending migrants to our shores.
Southbank, are you seriously suggesting that the people getting on boats in Libya are studying EU immigration policy and then making a considered decision to get on the boats?
The traffickers will happily take all their money, assure then they will get to a nice sandy beach in Italy on the boat they are boarding and wave them on their way. The traffickers will say whatever needs to be said to part desperate people from their money.
Whether the EU has boats out or not makes no difference, especially as, as mentioned above, numbers have dropped in the last 2 years.
If I were a migrant it would look to me as if Europe is saying-we don't really want you but if you take a huge risk with your life we might take you in- that is irresponsible surely.
Let's cut to the chase.
Your argument is that it is irresponsible to try to save lives in the Mediterranean (notwithstanding that attempts to cross from North Africa predate the EU mission and would continue regardless).
A cynic, and I confess that I am one, might query what is the acceptable "collateral damage" (to use that term beloved of neocons and military types when explaining how surgical strikes are surgical in the same sense that Roy Hattersley was a super model) of a responsible approach?
How many drownings would be acceptable in the brave new world of a responsible policy on policing the external borders of Europe? Is there a ceiling to the numbers that must die before we should intervene to rescue those who we can?
I don't necessarily believe that the EU approach has been perfect, but it has been an awful lot closer to perfection than that espoused by those populist politicians seeking to stir up anti-migrant feeling - which is, essentially, to say "f**k them" and look the other way.
The causes of the current migrations towards Europe are complex and multifaceted - they cannot be solved by knee jerk reactions and pandering to and inflaming isolationist instincts. It will take time, greater engagement and significant investment (both in terms of skills and money) if the wealthy West is to reduce the pressures sending migrants to our shores.
It isn't as simple as that!
People were drowning a couple of years back and NGOs went in with a humanitarian mission. "Taxi to Europe/Italy" and we now have 640,000 migrants arriving in Italy from (mostly) Libya over the last few years.
@Southbank and I might differ on where we might want to go but we are united in our analysis that migration across the med combined with globalisation has led to a ratcheting up of the Alt-right agenda. 15% in many countries - not Spain. Rampant in visegrad and the UK.
And let us take stock of the polls for Salvini and the League (Putin aligned operators) in a week or two now that he's turned one boat away. They secured 15% last March and are part of the Italian coalition government. Wouldn't be a surprise if they are up to 25-30% soon!
Macron, Merkel and the new Spaish leader have a real challenge on their hands. To deliver policy and keep the mainstream narrative talking to facts and solutions.
As for the causes of the migration from Middle East and Africa, I give you interventions in Syria, Iraq and Libya taking out entire government structures. Add to that 36% global penetration of smartphones compared to 11% back in 2011 and we are in a very differrnt place.
Really this needs a thread of its own for this issue is far, far bigger than poxy Brexit!
Southbank, are you seriously suggesting that the people getting on boats in Libya are studying EU immigration policy and then making a considered decision to get on the boats?
The traffickers will happily take all their money, assure then they will get to a nice sandy beach in Italy on the boat they are boarding and wave them on their way. The traffickers will say whatever needs to be said to part desperate people from their money.
Whether the EU has boats out or not makes no difference, especially as, as mentioned above, numbers have dropped in the last 2 years.
This. Much more eloquently put than I could.
Also important to note, yes Germany went down by the most but almost everyone else did too. So nothing to do with the German stance.
If I were a migrant it would look to me as if Europe is saying-we don't really want you but if you take a huge risk with your life we might take you in- that is irresponsible surely.
Let's cut to the chase.
Your argument is that it is irresponsible to try to save lives in the Mediterranean (notwithstanding that attempts to cross from North Africa predate the EU mission and would continue regardless).
A cynic, and I confess that I am one, might query what is the acceptable "collateral damage" (to use that term beloved of neocons and military types when explaining how surgical strikes are surgical in the same sense that Roy Hattersley was a super model) of a responsible approach?
How many drownings would be acceptable in the brave new world of a responsible policy on policing the external borders of Europe? Is there a ceiling to the numbers that must die before we should intervene to rescue those who we can?
I don't necessarily believe that the EU approach has been perfect, but it has been an awful lot closer to perfection than that espoused by those populist politicians seeking to stir up anti-migrant feeling - which is, essentially, to say "f**k them" and look the other way.
The causes of the current migrations towards Europe are complex and multifaceted - they cannot be solved by knee jerk reactions and pandering to and inflaming isolationist instincts. It will take time, greater engagement and significant investment (both in terms of skills and money) if the wealthy West is to reduce the pressures sending migrants to our shores.
It isn't as simple as that!
People were drowning a couple of years back and NGOs went in with a humanitarian mission. "Taxi to Europe/Italy" and we now have 640,000 migrants arriving in Italy from (mostly) Libya over the last few years.
@Southbank and I might differ on where we might want to go but we are united in our analysis that migration across the med combined with globalisation has led to a ratcheting up of the Alt-right agenda. 15% in many countries - not Spain. Rampant in visegrad and the UK.
And let us take stock of the polls for Salvini and the League (Putin aligned operators) in a week or two now that he's turned one boat away. They secured 15% last March and are part of the Italian coalition government. Wouldn't be a surprise if they are up to 25-30% soon!
Macron, Merkel and the new Spaish leader have a real challenge on their hands. To deliver policy and keep the mainstream narrative talking to facts and solutions.
As for the causes of the migration from Middle East and Africa, I give you interventions in Syria, Iraq and Libya taking out entire government structures. Add to that 36% global penetration of smartphones compared to 11% back in 2011 and we are in a very differrnt place.
Really this needs a thread of its own for this issue is far, far bigger than poxy Brexit!
Whilst I accept that the whole question of current migration patterns, and our reaction to them, is not simple or easy to address, I do think that, with regard to the EU rescue mission in the Mediterranean, it is really as simple as that.
Desperate people are attempting the crossing from Libya to Italy and Malta on a daily basis, whether or not the EU mission is in place. They will continue to attempt the crossing, whatever the circumstances.
If we abandon the rescue mission (knowing this), we might as well be sinking their vessels ourselves. I have a dim and distant memory of it being said that, for evil to triumph, all that is needed is for good men to do nothing. Retreating from any attempt to mitigate an ongoing humanitarian crisis is rather more than just doing nothing.
Yes, the Alt-Right are capitalising on the current situation in an effort to increase their political power, attempting to scare people across Europe, with a bogeyman that would not be out of place in political literature of the early 20th Century.
I'm not a terribly moral person, but what compass I have I will not allow people like the Lega, AfD, Vlaams Blok, the Peoples' Party, or the artist formerly known as the Front Nationale, determine in which direction it would point.
I had an acquaintance who during a debate on asylum seekers said that she would happily stand on one of their heads and drown them. At least she was honest.
Southbank, are you seriously suggesting that the people getting on boats in Libya are studying EU immigration policy and then making a considered decision to get on the boats?
The traffickers will happily take all their money, assure then they will get to a nice sandy beach in Italy on the boat they are boarding and wave them on their way. The traffickers will say whatever needs to be said to part desperate people from their money.
Whether the EU has boats out or not makes no difference, especially as, as mentioned above, numbers have dropped in the last 2 years.
Ove the years I have spoken to migrants and illegal immigrants in various places in the world. In general I would say they have a very clear idea of the obstacles in their way. Especially as they are usually the most ambitious and enterprising people (I am talking of economic migrants, which make up most of those coming from Africa). My view by the way is that we should be taking in more of those people as legal immigrants to work here as part of a controlled immigration plan once/if we leave the EU as their ambitions would be valuable to our country.
The story of the ship that the Spanish took in was headline news around the world-the message will be if you get in the boats we will rescue you.
And by the way, more people have drowned already this year than in the whole of last year.
I had an acquaintance who during a debate on asylum seekers said that she would happily stand on one of their heads and drown them. At least she was honest.
I have never spoken to her since, naturally.
Oh - and her ancestors were Hungarian immigrants.
That's nice. Did she live in Portugal as well by any chance?
Are there really people who are content to let boats sink with all lives lost because of some nonsensical view that it’s encouraging others not to follow. Apart from the obvious that that it won’t I am truly shocked and saddened that people value life so cheaply. I keep coming back to the word scum to describe them.
Are there really people who are content to let boats sink with all lives lost because of some nonsensical view that it’s encouraging others not to follow. Apart from the obvious that that it won’t I am truly shocked and saddened that people value life so cheaply. I keep coming back to the word scum to describe them.
I bet they were also the first to be upset when they little boy was found on the beach. It's the dehumanising of the immigrants that upsets me
I had an acquaintance who during a debate on asylum seekers said that she would happily stand on one of their heads and drown them. At least she was honest.
I have never spoken to her since, naturally.
Oh - and her ancestors were Hungarian immigrants.
That's nice. Did she live in Portugal as well by any chance?
No - but you may not be shocked to learn that she has a holiday home here. Someone must have torn the word hypocrite out of her dictionary.
I had an acquaintance who during a debate on asylum seekers said that she would happily stand on one of their heads and drown them. At least she was honest.
I have never spoken to her since, naturally.
Oh - and her ancestors were Hungarian immigrants.
That's nice. Did she live in Portugal as well by any chance?
No - but you may not be shocked to learn that she has a holiday home here. Someone must have torn the word hypocrite out of her dictionary.
More than just hypocrite - I think her dictionary is also missing callous, racist and bigot to name but three.
Are there really people who are content to let boats sink with all lives lost because of some nonsensical view that it’s encouraging others not to follow. Apart from the obvious that that it won’t I am truly shocked and saddened that people value life so cheaply. I keep coming back to the word scum to describe them.
It is because I value human life that I think the policy of encouraging people to set out in leaky boats is so irresponsible. Some of those who support it are doing so to demonstrate their moral superiority to others at the expense of human life. You can think up your own word to describe that if you wish. .
If I were a migrant it would look to me as if Europe is saying-we don't really want you but if you take a huge risk with your life we might take you in- that is irresponsible surely.
Let's cut to the chase.
Your argument is that it is irresponsible to try to save lives in the Mediterranean (notwithstanding that attempts to cross from North Africa predate the EU mission and would continue regardless).
A cynic, and I confess that I am one, might query what is the acceptable "collateral damage" (to use that term beloved of neocons and military types when explaining how surgical strikes are surgical in the same sense that Roy Hattersley was a super model) of a responsible approach?
How many drownings would be acceptable in the brave new world of a responsible policy on policing the external borders of Europe? Is there a ceiling to the numbers that must die before we should intervene to rescue those who we can?
I don't necessarily believe that the EU approach has been perfect, but it has been an awful lot closer to perfection than that espoused by those populist politicians seeking to stir up anti-migrant feeling - which is, essentially, to say "f**k them" and look the other way.
The causes of the current migrations towards Europe are complex and multifaceted - they cannot be solved by knee jerk reactions and pandering to and inflaming isolationist instincts. It will take time, greater engagement and significant investment (both in terms of skills and money) if the wealthy West is to reduce the pressures sending migrants to our shores.
It isn't as simple as that!
People were drowning a couple of years back and NGOs went in with a humanitarian mission. "Taxi to Europe/Italy" and we now have 640,000 migrants arriving in Italy from (mostly) Libya over the last few years.
@Southbank and I might differ on where we might want to go but we are united in our analysis that migration across the med combined with globalisation has led to a ratcheting up of the Alt-right agenda. 15% in many countries - not Spain. Rampant in visegrad and the UK.
And let us take stock of the polls for Salvini and the League (Putin aligned operators) in a week or two now that he's turned one boat away. They secured 15% last March and are part of the Italian coalition government. Wouldn't be a surprise if they are up to 25-30% soon!
Macron, Merkel and the new Spaish leader have a real challenge on their hands. To deliver policy and keep the mainstream narrative talking to facts and solutions.
As for the causes of the migration from Middle East and Africa, I give you interventions in Syria, Iraq and Libya taking out entire government structures. Add to that 36% global penetration of smartphones compared to 11% back in 2011 and we are in a very differrnt place.
Really this needs a thread of its own for this issue is far, far bigger than poxy Brexit!
Whilst I accept that the whole question of current migration patterns, and our reaction to them, is not simple or easy to address, I do think that, with regard to the EU rescue mission in the Mediterranean, it is really as simple as that.
Desperate people are attempting the crossing from Libya to Italy and Malta on a daily basis, whether or not the EU mission is in place. They will continue to attempt the crossing, whatever the circumstances.
If we abandon the rescue mission (knowing this), we might as well be sinking their vessels ourselves. I have a dim and distant memory of it being said that, for evil to triumph, all that is needed is for good men to do nothing. Retreating from any attempt to mitigate an ongoing humanitarian crisis is rather more than just doing nothing.
Yes, the Alt-Right are capitalising on the current situation in an effort to increase their political power, attempting to scare people across Europe, with a bogeyman that would not be out of place in political literature of the early 20th Century.
I'm not a terribly moral person, but what compass I have I will not allow people like the Lega, AfD, Vlaams Blok, the Peoples' Party, or the artist formerly known as the Front Nationale, determine in which direction it would point.
Ok, so we won't allow the Alt-right to determine our views on the issue but what we have is a ferry taxi service across the Med! Smugglers tip their "clients" into unsafe boats which start sinking the minute they hit international waters.
Some 4,000 refugees drown each year. A quick search shows total landing safely in Europe at between 300,000 and one million depending upon the year. That isnt a big percentage of the 500 million EU population but Italy has taken over 600,000 since this started.
Nobody wants to hear of people drowning so what's the alternative? Drop them back in North Africa after rescue or some form of neo-colonial intervention in failing states such as Libya? Today it emerges that there is a European consensus to establish processing centres in Africa.
But what happens to those rejected by Europe AND who cannot return from whence they came?
Not mocking any humanitarian views - far from it. Just saying that this is an enormous challenge. And it will fuel the Alt-right arguments until the centre right and/or centre left stems the tide.
As @Southbank states, those who reach the coast of North Africa must be extremely enterprising. They will have no schooling costs and health issues will be a long time in advance. From a utilitarian perspective they are a resource. In fact the same as Windrush all those years ago!!!
Perhaps the EU should run the ferries?! And only to countries who wish to add to their populations.
Are there really people who are content to let boats sink with all lives lost because of some nonsensical view that it’s encouraging others not to follow. Apart from the obvious that that it won’t I am truly shocked and saddened that people value life so cheaply. I keep coming back to the word scum to describe them.
It is because I value human life that I think the policy of encouraging people to set out in leaky boats is so irresponsible. Some of those who support it are doing so to demonstrate their moral superiority to others at the expense of human life. You can think up your own word to describe that if you wish. .
There is no policy, on the part of the EU or the various NGO groups, of encouraging anyone to set out across the Mediterranean in any boats - what there is, is a realisation that people are attempting to cross from Libya, and a recognition of a moral duty to do what they can to prevent loss of life.
Most importantly, in the short to medium term, there is really no other way of preventing thousands from dying.
There is no partner in Libya that can both be trusted to not abuse (and even sell into slavery) migrants and provide strong enough security guarantees that could allow for a coherent policy to be implemented that would prevent some from taking to the boats.
It was only under Gadaffi that there was sufficient state organisation to prevent Libya being used to cross to Europe.
If there was an effective government in Libya, things would be different, but there isn't, which is why the EU is seeking to encourage development across Africa to reduce the push factors behind the migration - but, in all honesty, even with good government in place, this is not an overnight solution.
Where the push factors in Africa (poverty, sectarianism, oppression, lack of opportunity, etc.) and the pull factors of Europe remain strong, virtually nothing, and no policy announcements, will cause the flow of migrants to diminish.
Removing the EU rescue mission will serve only to increase the numbers dying, and, because the capacity exists within the contributing nations, a deliberate refusal to help would, in my opinion, be tantamount to manslaughter.
I would prefer to be represented by a government, and a supranational body in the EU, that does not set out to treat those coming from Africa, in distress and extreme danger, in anything other than much the same way as would be expected of its own citizens.
To do anything that falls short of this, when we know that the Libyan coast is a main route for trafficked migrants, is, in my opinion, to decide that the value of their lives amount to less than ours.
I believe in equality, that everyone should treated equally, that each life should be valued just as highly as any other, and that, in this interconnected World, we should do what we can, when we can (and we cannot in every case), to help those who need our help.
I don't believe I'm expressing anything more than basic decency, certainly not some form of moral superiority. I'm an atheist, but I fear that I have been imbued with Christian values, as far as I understand them - I know that the Bible includes the story of the Apostles fearing drowning and the whole walking on water thing, but I don't imagine that it is the Christian thing (for Christian Europe) to implement it as policy for migrants in the Mediterranean.
Are there really people who are content to let boats sink with all lives lost because of some nonsensical view that it’s encouraging others not to follow. Apart from the obvious that that it won’t I am truly shocked and saddened that people value life so cheaply. I keep coming back to the word scum to describe them.
It is because I value human life that I think the policy of encouraging people to set out in leaky boats is so irresponsible. Some of those who support it are doing so to demonstrate their moral superiority to others at the expense of human life. You can think up your own word to describe that if you wish. .
There is no policy, on the part of the EU or the various NGO groups, of encouraging anyone to set out across the Mediterranean in any boats - what there is, is a realisation that people are attempting to cross from Libya, and a recognition of a moral duty to do what they can to prevent loss of life.
Most importantly, in the short to medium term, there is really no other way of preventing thousands from dying.
There is no partner in Libya that can both be trusted to not abuse (and even sell into slavery) migrants and provide strong enough security guarantees that could allow for a coherent policy to be implemented that would prevent some from taking to the boats.
It was only under Gadaffi that there was sufficient state organisation to prevent Libya being used to cross to Europe.
If there was an effective government in Libya, things would be different, but there isn't, which is why the EU is seeking to encourage development across Africa to reduce the push factors behind the migration - but, in all honesty, even with good government in place, this is not an overnight solution.
Where the push factors in Africa (poverty, sectarianism, oppression, lack of opportunity, etc.) and the pull factors of Europe remain strong, virtually nothing, and no policy announcements, will cause the flow of migrants to diminish.
Removing the EU rescue mission will serve only to increase the numbers dying, and, because the capacity exists within the contributing nations, a deliberate refusal to help would, in my opinion, be tantamount to manslaughter.
I would prefer to be represented by a government, and a supranational body in the EU, that does not set out to treat those coming from Africa, in distress and extreme danger, in much the same way as would be expected of its own citizens.
To do anything that falls short of this, when we know that the Libyan coast is a main route for trafficked migrants, is, in my opinion, to decide that the value of their lives amount to less than ours.
I believe in equality, that everyone should treated equally, that each life should be valued just as highly as any other, and that, in this interconnected World, we should do what we can, when we can (and we cannot in every case), to help those who need our help.
I don't believe I'm expressing anything more than basic decency, certainly not some form of moral superiority. I'm an atheist, but I fear that I have been imbued with Christian values, as far as I understand them - I know that the Bible includes the story of the Apostles fearing drowning and the whole walking on water thing, but I don't imagine that it is the Christian thing (for Christian Europe) to implement it as policy for migrants in the Mediterranean.
I understand your concern and share it. But you are ducking the central problem. If the push factors are so great, then having a rescue system close to the coast of Africa means it becomes a ferry to Europe for the millions who wish to come here. Are you then proposing an effective open border between Africa and Europe? If you are, that is a position you need to argue for and also for far more resources to be put into the rescue mission, because otherwise even more people will drown as is happening this year. Having an inadequate rescue mission is the worst of all worlds-it encourages migrants to come but does not guarantee their rescue.
Comments
Libya is a failed state, the fact that people feel the need to give their life savings (or more) to people traffickers, for a place on a boat that's completely unsuitable for the voyage tells you everything you need to know. Or should do, anyway.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/18/liam-fox-enterprise-brexit-mission-failure?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
Theoretically, yes - if the migrants think they will be rescued then common sense dictates they would be more likely to get on a boat, but as I say, this is just common sense.
Now, perhaps you'll provide a direct answer. Do you honestly think that the prospect of being picked up by the EU task force is the main reason these people get on the boats in the first place?
I believe that international bodies have a moral obligation to step in and mitigate the crimes of people smuggling, do you not? Or should it just fall on the nearest country?
As you have an answer, maybe @seth plum deserves one too? How about it?
I also think that the logical outcome of the 'pick them up' approach is effectively an open door policy on immigration-which I disagree with as do most people, however sorry they may feel for the migrants. If it is not that then it is hypocritical, as it encourages migrants to think there is an open door policy when there is not-and therefore more of them will get in the sinking boats.
The only approach which would make sense would be to rescue them and take them straight back to Africa-but that is not legal because of asylum policy amongst other things.
I answered Seth's question a while back but he does not agree with my answer, so there you go.
Also, asylum applications in the EU have dropped in the last 2 years, if this 'effective open door policy' is really in existence, this number would be going up, not down, year on year.
Straight back to Africa?? Where? It's a big old continent...
Asylum applications have gone down from a very high number after the Germans stopped accepting asylum seekers in the same quantities they did before.
Your argument is that it is irresponsible to try to save lives in the Mediterranean (notwithstanding that attempts to cross from North Africa predate the EU mission and would continue regardless).
A cynic, and I confess that I am one, might query what is the acceptable "collateral damage" (to use that term beloved of neocons and military types when explaining how surgical strikes are surgical in the same sense that Roy Hattersley was a super model) of a responsible approach?
How many drownings would be acceptable in the brave new world of a responsible policy on policing the external borders of Europe? Is there a ceiling to the numbers that must die before we should intervene to rescue those who we can?
I don't necessarily believe that the EU approach has been perfect, but it has been an awful lot closer to perfection than that espoused by those populist politicians seeking to stir up anti-migrant feeling - which is, essentially, to say "f**k them" and look the other way.
The causes of the current migrations towards Europe are complex and multifaceted - they cannot be solved by knee jerk reactions and pandering to and inflaming isolationist instincts. It will take time, greater engagement and significant investment (both in terms of skills and money) if the wealthy West is to reduce the pressures sending migrants to our shores.
The traffickers will happily take all their money, assure then they will get to a nice sandy beach in Italy on the boat they are boarding and wave them on their way. The traffickers will say whatever needs to be said to part desperate people from their money.
Whether the EU has boats out or not makes no difference, especially as, as mentioned above, numbers have dropped in the last 2 years.
People were drowning a couple of years back and NGOs went in with a humanitarian mission. "Taxi to Europe/Italy" and we now have 640,000 migrants arriving in Italy from (mostly) Libya over the last few years.
@Southbank and I might differ on where we might want to go but we are united in our analysis that migration across the med combined with globalisation has led to a ratcheting up of the Alt-right agenda. 15% in many countries - not Spain. Rampant in visegrad and the UK.
And let us take stock of the polls for Salvini and the League (Putin aligned operators) in a week or two now that he's turned one boat away. They secured 15% last March and are part of the Italian coalition government. Wouldn't be a surprise if they are up to 25-30% soon!
Macron, Merkel and the new Spaish leader have a real challenge on their hands. To deliver policy and keep the mainstream narrative talking to facts and solutions.
As for the causes of the migration from Middle East and Africa, I give you interventions in Syria, Iraq and Libya taking out entire government structures. Add to that 36% global penetration of smartphones compared to 11% back in 2011 and we are in a very differrnt place.
Really this needs a thread of its own for this issue is far, far bigger than poxy Brexit!
Also important to note, yes Germany went down by the most but almost everyone else did too. So nothing to do with the German stance.
Desperate people are attempting the crossing from Libya to Italy and Malta on a daily basis, whether or not the EU mission is in place. They will continue to attempt the crossing, whatever the circumstances.
If we abandon the rescue mission (knowing this), we might as well be sinking their vessels ourselves. I have a dim and distant memory of it being said that, for evil to triumph, all that is needed is for good men to do nothing. Retreating from any attempt to mitigate an ongoing humanitarian crisis is rather more than just doing nothing.
Yes, the Alt-Right are capitalising on the current situation in an effort to increase their political power, attempting to scare people across Europe, with a bogeyman that would not be out of place in political literature of the early 20th Century.
I'm not a terribly moral person, but what compass I have I will not allow people like the Lega, AfD, Vlaams Blok, the Peoples' Party, or the artist formerly known as the Front Nationale, determine in which direction it would point.
I have never spoken to her since, naturally.
Oh - and her ancestors were Hungarian immigrants.
The story of the ship that the Spanish took in was headline news around the world-the message will be if you get in the boats we will rescue you.
And by the way, more people have drowned already this year than in the whole of last year.
.
Some 4,000 refugees drown each year. A quick search shows total landing safely in Europe at between 300,000 and one million depending upon the year. That isnt a big percentage of the 500 million EU population but Italy has taken over 600,000 since this started.
Nobody wants to hear of people drowning so what's the alternative? Drop them back in North Africa after rescue or some form of neo-colonial intervention in failing states such as Libya? Today it emerges that there is a European consensus to establish processing centres in Africa.
But what happens to those rejected by Europe AND who cannot return from whence they came?
Not mocking any humanitarian views - far from it. Just saying that this is an enormous challenge. And it will fuel the Alt-right arguments until the centre right and/or centre left stems the tide.
As @Southbank states, those who reach the coast of North Africa must be extremely enterprising. They will have no schooling costs and health issues will be a long time in advance. From a utilitarian perspective they are a resource. In fact the same as Windrush all those years ago!!!
Perhaps the EU should run the ferries?! And only to countries who wish to add to their populations.
Most importantly, in the short to medium term, there is really no other way of preventing thousands from dying.
There is no partner in Libya that can both be trusted to not abuse (and even sell into slavery) migrants and provide strong enough security guarantees that could allow for a coherent policy to be implemented that would prevent some from taking to the boats.
It was only under Gadaffi that there was sufficient state organisation to prevent Libya being used to cross to Europe.
If there was an effective government in Libya, things would be different, but there isn't, which is why the EU is seeking to encourage development across Africa to reduce the push factors behind the migration - but, in all honesty, even with good government in place, this is not an overnight solution.
Where the push factors in Africa (poverty, sectarianism, oppression, lack of opportunity, etc.) and the pull factors of Europe remain strong, virtually nothing, and no policy announcements, will cause the flow of migrants to diminish.
Removing the EU rescue mission will serve only to increase the numbers dying, and, because the capacity exists within the contributing nations, a deliberate refusal to help would, in my opinion, be tantamount to manslaughter.
I would prefer to be represented by a government, and a supranational body in the EU, that does not set out to treat those coming from Africa, in distress and extreme danger, in anything other than much the same way as would be expected of its own citizens.
To do anything that falls short of this, when we know that the Libyan coast is a main route for trafficked migrants, is, in my opinion, to decide that the value of their lives amount to less than ours.
I believe in equality, that everyone should treated equally, that each life should be valued just as highly as any other, and that, in this interconnected World, we should do what we can, when we can (and we cannot in every case), to help those who need our help.
I don't believe I'm expressing anything more than basic decency, certainly not some form of moral superiority. I'm an atheist, but I fear that I have been imbued with Christian values, as far as I understand them - I know that the Bible includes the story of the Apostles fearing drowning and the whole walking on water thing, but I don't imagine that it is the Christian thing (for Christian Europe) to implement it as policy for migrants in the Mediterranean.