The Coalition of Expensive Chaos

[Aber gas]

Tbf you did describe those voting against as "scum".

Which they are.

 

[Alty]

Which they are.

Look, the Immigration Bill is in Ping Pong. What'll eventually be agreed is likely to be a commitment to help unaccompanied children without slapping on the arbitrary figure of 3,000. I know you're an ex-fascist desperate to disavow your political past, but if you keep playing the man instead of the ball on issues like this very few people are going to take you seriously.

To give you a hypothetical to try to illustrate my point...would you support the UK taking in all unaccompanied asylum seeking children worldwide? A grand gesture to show we care and improve the lives of these unfortunate children? Would you call anyone voting against such a course of action "scum"?

 

[Aber gas]

Look, the Immigration Bill is in Ping Pong. What'll eventually be agreed is likely to be a commitment to help unaccompanied children without slapping on the arbitrary figure of 3,000. I know you're an ex-fascist desperate to disavow your political past, but if you keep playing the man instead of the ball on issues like this very few people are going to take you seriously.

To give you a hypothetical to try to illustrate my point...would you support the UK taking in all unaccompanied asylum seeking children worldwide? A grand gesture to show we care and improve the lives of these unfortunate children? Would you call anyone voting against such a course of action "scum"?

I've told you before, I couldn't care less what you think about me or whether you take me seriously. I'm not sure why you think I would care tbh.
To vote against the amendment is a admission that these people don't matter and it's OK to use them as a deterrent against other people escaping a catastrophe. In my view the vote has nothing to with pragmatism and everything to do ideology.
It's difficult to answer your hypothetical question because it's so preposterous but in general I believe we should be doing everything in our power as a influential and prosperous country to alleviate the suffering of the most vulnerable and stateless.

 

[Womble98]

I've told you before, I couldn't care less what you think about me or whether you take me seriously. I'm not sure why you think I would care tbh.
To vote against the amendment is a admission that these people don't matter and it's OK to use them as a deterrent against other people escaping a catastrophe. In my view the vote has nothing to with pragmatism and everything to do ideology.
It's difficult to answer your hypothetical question because it's so preposterous but in general I believe we should be doing everything in our power as a influential and prosperous country to alleviate the suffering of the most vulnerable and stateless.

No, it is an admission that we can't help these people in this way without endangering the lives of others, and instead we should be helping them in their own countries and doing our best there.

 

[Aber gas]

No, it is an admission that we can't help these people in this way without endangering the lives of others, and instead we should be helping them in their own countries and doing our best there.

We should be doing that I agree. We should also be doing everything we can to help refugees fleeing catastrophe which includes asylum especially for the most at risk.

 

[Alty]

I've told you before, I couldn't care less what you think about me or whether you take me seriously. I'm not sure why you think I would care tbh.
To vote against the amendment is a admission that these people don't matter and it's OK to use them as a deterrent against other people escaping a catastrophe. In my view the vote has nothing to with pragmatism and everything to do ideology.
It's difficult to answer your hypothetical question because it's so preposterous but in general I believe we should be doing everything in our power as a influential and prosperous country to alleviate the suffering of the most vulnerable and stateless.

Surely you want people to take your views seriously and even, on occasion, have those views sway their opinion on a topic? I certainly do (admittedly often with limited success!). Otherwise what's the point? You might as well talk to yourself or write in a diary.

You can't just make a baseless assertion like that. It's not an admission these people don't matter at all. The amendment (which again, I have to stress, uses a totally arbitrary figure) seeks to write into law that we take in a set number of kids. What if what's best for these kids is to renuite them with their families outside Britain? What if by trying to help a set number without consideration of individual circumstances we actually encourage child trafficking? All this stuff has to be considered. I'm curious to know what the ideological driver behind all this is in your opinion? Genuine racism?

It's likely that for a small handful of MPs (your Philip Davies or David Nuttall types) the idea of legislating for more immigration of any sort is a no-no. But it's just not true for the majority of MPs. These are the same people who've already signed up to resettling 20,000 vulnerable Syrians.

 

[Aber gas]

Surely you want people to take your views seriously and even, on occasion, have those views sway their opinion on a topic? I certainly do (admittedly often with limited success!). Otherwise what's the point? You might as well talk to yourself or write in a diary.

You can't just make a baseless assertion like that. It's not an admission these people don't matter at all. The amendment (which again, I have to stress, uses a totally arbitrary figure) seeks to write into law that we take in a set number of kids. What if what's best for these kids is to renuite them with their families outside Britain? What if by trying to help a set number without consideration of individual circumstances we actually encourage child trafficking? All this stuff has to be considered. I'm curious to know what the ideological driver behind all this is in your opinion? Genuine racism?

It's likely that for a small handful of MPs (your Philip Davies or David Nuttall types) the idea of legislating for more immigration of any sort is a no-no. But it's just not true for the majority of MPs. These are the same people who've already signed up to resettling 20,000 vulnerable Syrians.

You're not everybody and nor do you speak for everyone so you taking my views or me seriously is not really a issue. We are so ideologically opposed and such different people that I'm sure we are never going to agree with each other but I think it's important for all opinions to be expressed.

I'm sure there is a fair bit of racism involved as well as a general feeling that these children aren't worth worrying about. They certainly haven't voted against the admendment for reasons of compassion. The sad thing is (for me anyway) that it's such a small thing to do but they couldn't even bring themselves to do it.

 

[Alty]

You're not everybody and nor do you speak for everyone so you taking my views or me seriously is not really a issue. We are so ideologically opposed and such different people that I'm sure we are never going to agree with each other but I think it's important for all opinions to be expressed.

I'm sure there is a fair bit of racism involved as well as a general feeling that these children aren't worth worrying about. They certainly haven't voted against the admendment for reasons of compassion. The sad thing is (for me anyway) that it's such a small thing to do but they couldn't even bring themselves to do it.

I genuinely don't think any rational person could take some of the statements you've made in this thread seriously. That's not me trying to be rude or score points. It's just my observation of someone who appears to have dug in on their position so hard that they're totally unable or unwilling to acknowledge counter arguments.

Despite our disagreements I'm not sure we are actually that far apart ideologically. I'm basically a Eurosceptic Labour voter which I think is somewhere close to your view too. It just seems that on issues of immigration, asylum, nationalism and identity we have different perspectives. Might be nice to try to come to an understanding rather than deciding it's impossible.

They've voted against the amendment because the party whips have stipulated they must do so. Why do you think the same Government agreed to take in 20,000 Syrians? Do you not think the fact those Syrians are based in UN recognised refugee camps rather than wandering round Europe having been trafficked has had any bearing on the government's decisions?

 

[Aber gas]

I genuinely don't think any rational person could take some of the statements you've made in this thread seriously. That's not me trying to be rude or score points. It's just my observation of someone who appears to have dug in on their position so hard that they're totally unable or unwilling to acknowledge counter arguments.

Despite our disagreements I'm not sure we are actually that far apart ideologically. I'm basically a Eurosceptic Labour voter which I think is somewhere close to your view too. It just seems that on issues of immigration, asylum, nationalism and identity we have different perspectives. Might be nice to try to come to an understanding rather than deciding it's impossible.

They've voted against the amendment because the party whips have stipulated they must do so. Why do you think the same Government agreed to take in 20,000 Syrians? Do you not think the fact those Syrians are based in UN recognised refugee camps rather than wandering round Europe having been trafficked has had any bearing on the government's decisions?

I don't really see the point in going over why I think the government made the decision they did. I've explained it twice.
Your idea of a rational person differs wildly from mine, so I won't take it to heart.
We are massively apart in terms of our views and values politically and morally. We might share some views on Europe but a understanding is probably unrealistic.

 

[Aber gas]

https://theconversation.com/britain...e-children-by-2020-generous-think-again-58352

 

[Pyeman]

What support is put in place for Syrian children who come to the UK unaccompanied?

 

[blade1889]

Do you...

1) not take in unaccompanied children hoping to stop people making the dangerous crossings (and continue taking refugees from camps pre-crossing)

Or

2) take in unaccompanied children and run the risk of encouraging more people taking the dangerous crossings and subsequently dying


Regardless of what ideas we have on whether the politicians made it out of wanting to prevent more deaths or because they're scum (either way we cant prove it) there isn't an easy answer here

 

[Aber gas]

What support is put in place for Syrian children who come to the UK unaccompanied?

Local authorities look after unaccompanied children ( children's act) but in reality it will be a mix of teachers, foster parents and charitable agencies that ensure the child's needs are being met.http://www.naldic.org.uk/eal-teaching-and-learning/outline-guidance/ealrefugee/refuasc/
http://www.homeforgood.org.uk/get-involved/responding-refugee-crisis


http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/ho..._colin_firth?gclid=CNiosa2Br8wCFeUy0wodhEkBMw

 

[Pyeman]

Thanks for the info.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but some of the justifications as to why MPs vetoed the additional children seem to suggest that bringing them to the UK might not be their best option? Surely it's a better option than leaving them in refugee camps?

 

[Aber gas]

Do you...

1) not take in unaccompanied children hoping to stop people making the dangerous crossings (and continue taking refugees from camps pre-crossing)

Or

2) take in unaccompanied children and run the risk of encouraging more people taking the dangerous crossings and subsequently dying


Regardless of what ideas we have on whether the politicians made it out of wanting to prevent more deaths or because they're scum (either way we cant prove it) there isn't an easy answer here

It's not an easy situation but In my opinion using these children as an example to discourage other refugees is morally reprehensible. If we want to deal with people trafficking then fine, we deal with it at source. I'm not at all comfortable with the U.K. sitting and watching people suffer and then claim it's for their own good.

 

[Aber gas]

Thanks for the info.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but some of the justifications as to why MPs vetoed the additional children seem to suggest that bringing them to the UK might not be their best option? Surely it's a better option than leaving them in refugee camps?

Some of them probably believe that too. There is an argument that taking children away from their families wouldn't be in their best interests but I don't see it as relevant to the children already lost.

 

[blade1889]

It's not an easy situation but In my opinion using these children as an example to discourage other refugees is morally reprehensible. If we want to deal with people trafficking then fine, we deal with it at source. I'm not at all comfortable with the U.K. sitting and watching people suffer and then claim it's for their own good.

Except cutting it off at source and effectively sending in an army ain't gonna be favourable either. Besides which I dare say even then people will find a way around it unless we patrol all the shore-line.

Amongst those refugees encouraged to attempt the crossing will be more children, some of which will die. The only way to stop the crossings is to not make it worth their while and make it worth their while to stop in refugee camps pre-crossing. So long as we're taking people from the pre-crossing camps (arguably not enough) we are not sitting doing nothing...and nor would we argue its for the individuals good, but the 'greater good' at discouraging more crossings and deaths

 

[Aber gas]

Except cutting it off at source and effectively sending in an army ain't gonna be favourable either. Besides which I dare say even then people will find a way around it unless we patrol all the shore-line.

Amongst those refugees encouraged to attempt the crossing will be more children, some of which will die. The only way to stop the crossings is to not make it worth their while and make it worth their while to stop in refugee camps pre-crossing. So long as we're taking people from the pre-crossing camps (arguably not enough) we are not sitting doing nothing...and nor would we argue its for the individuals good, but the 'greater good' at discouraging more crossings and deaths

But the two things don't have to be exclusive. We can do more to alleviate the suffering of those in camps pre crossing and take the most vulnerable refugees from there, lend our efforts to tackling the traffickers and still help the poorest in Europe.
Look I'm not stupid, I know that this has been a complete shambles organisationally but this is now the situation we find ourselves in. Doing nothing to help refugees in Europe is just not an option for me.

 

[blade1889]

But the two things don't have to be exclusive. We can do more to alleviate the suffering of those in camps pre crossing and take the most vulnerable refugees from there, lend our efforts to tackling the traffickers and still help the poorest in Europe.
Look I'm not stupid, I know that this has been a complete shambles organisationally but this is now the situation we find ourselves in. Doing nothing to help refugees in Europe is just not an option for me.

I know you aint stupid, itd alright to disagree on something and not think the other person is stupid!

Put it this way...

I think you're suggestions work out at something like 33% budget on helping those crossed, 33% in those pre-crossing and 33% on tackling traffickers. I would argue that splitting your funds wont be enough to solve any of the 3 problems, or get close, short or long term.

I would say put 100% of our efforts in helping pre-crossing. You encourage people to not cross by giving them a greater benefit of staying (100% v 33%). Also, yes its awful for those who have already crossed but discourages any more crossing and 'in theory' eliminates that issue in the long term (0% v 33%). And after that the issue of traffickers takes care of itself.


There was a study recently about if you're standing on a bridge next to a man and 5 people are below you. A trolley is coming towards them that will kill all 5, but you could push the man off the bridge and stop the trolley. You kill him but save those 5. What do you do?

Most will say you cant kill that one person, its morally wrong to do that and they also found that people choosing to save the man are seen as far more trustworthy. I'd argue though that you save the 5, not the 1. The proverbial 'sacrifice on the alter of freedom'.

 

[AFCB_Mark]

It's not an easy situation but In my opinion using these children as an example to discourage other refugees is morally reprehensible. If we want to deal with people trafficking then fine, we deal with it at source. I'm not at all comfortable with the U.K. sitting and watching people suffer and then claim it's for their own good.

You're right, it's really not an easy situation. It's a complete clusterfuck.

So why blindly label everyone voting that way as "scum" when there's clearly a lot more to it. That just makes your other perfectly valid complex and subtle arguments look daft.

If it was as simple a case of taking in these 3000 kids in isolation, they'd be no problem. Surely? Or maybe I'm also being naive there.

The issue obviously is what happens the next time there's 3000 desperate unaccompanied kids in need of a home? And what if next time there's triple that number? And the next time. And the next. For the next decade that's it's going to take to put Syria back together. Do we just say at some point "we've taken the first/second/third/twentieth lot, no more"?

I take it we can at least agree that improving the conditions for refugees before they get desperate to the point of packing their kids off unaccomplished into the arms of people traffickers, and all the risk that entails, is a practical and helpful solution for the maximum amount of people?

And (to my mind) if whilst doing that, we can take some kids into our care in the short term then great. And if we can do that in conjunction with the rest of Europe and spread the ability to care for all these kids among us nations able to do so, then even better. But that is a very tricky balance to strike without winding up pushing a deluge of vulnerable unaccompanied kids into the hands of people traffickers.

 

[Aber gas]

I know you aint stupid, itd alright to disagree on something and not think the other person is stupid!

Put it this way...

I think you're suggestions work out at something like 33% budget on helping those crossed, 33% in those pre-crossing and 33% on tackling traffickers. I would argue that splitting your funds wont be enough to solve any of the 3 problems, or get close, short or long term.

I would say put 100% of our efforts in helping pre-crossing. You encourage people to not cross by giving them a greater benefit of staying (100% v 33%). Also, yes its awful for those who have already crossed but discourages any more crossing and 'in theory' eliminates that issue in the long term (0% v 33%). And after that the issue of traffickers takes care of itself.


There was a study recently about if you're standing on a bridge next to a man and 5 people are below you. A trolley is coming towards them that will kill all 5, but you could push the man off the bridge and stop the trolley. You kill him but save those 5. What do you do?

Most will say you cant kill that one person, its morally wrong to do that and they also found that people choosing to save the man are seen as far more trustworthy. I'd argue though that you save the 5, not the 1. The proverbial 'sacrifice on the alter of freedom'.

My comment was more in the context of me thinking everything is fine about the refugee crisis which it clearly isn't. I know you don't think I'm stupid

If we haven't got enough budget to help effectively then we increase the budget. We as a country also need to spend our money more effectively and start using the agencies already dealing with the crisis more effectively. I'm also yet to be convinced that people trafficking will stop because we are perceived as being "tough" on refugees in Europe.

 

[Aber gas]

You're right, it's really not an easy situation. It's a complete clusterfuck.

So why blindly label everyone voting that way as "scum" when there's clearly a lot more to it. That just makes your other perfectly valid complex and subtle arguments look daft.

If it was as simple a case of taking in these 3000 kids in isolation, they'd be no problem. Surely? Or maybe I'm also being naive there.

The issue obviously is what happens the next time there's 3000 desperate unaccompanied kids in need of a home? And what if next time there's triple that number? And the next time. And the next. For the next decade that's it's going to take to put Syria back together. Do we just say at some point "we've taken the first/second/third/twentieth lot, no more"?

I take it we can at least agree that improving the conditions for refugees before they get desperate to the point of packing their kids off unaccomplished into the arms of people traffickers, and all the risk that entails, is a practical and helpful solution for the maximum amount of people?

And (to my mind) if whilst doing that, we can take some kids into our care in the short term then great. And if we can do that in conjunction with the rest of Europe and spread the ability to care for all these kids among us nations able to do so, then even better. But that is a very tricky balance to strike without winding up pushing a deluge of vulnerable unaccompanied kids into the hands of people traffickers.

I label them scum because for me that is exactly what they are. I refuse to believe that compassion or wanting a better life for refugees entered the majority of their heads when they voted against the acmendment.
I agree with the majority of your post and obviously there needs to be a massive effort to improve the lives and conditions of those people in the refugee camps but that doesn't have to come with the abandonment of refugees in Europe.

 

[blade1889]

My comment was more in the context of me thinking everything is fine about the refugee crisis which it clearly isn't. I know you don't think I'm stupid

If we haven't got enough budget to help effectively then we increase the budget. We as a country also need to spend our money more effectively and start using the agencies already dealing with the crisis more effectively. I'm also yet to be convinced that people trafficking will stop because we are perceived as being "tough" on refugees in Europe.

We cant indefinitely increase the budget though, there is so much we could argue that about at the moment, infinite cash ain't available. I'm not saying we don't waste money in some places though, I imagine we do. Aid to India who are developing a space programme sticks out to me.

You essentially stop the benefit of people wanting to be trafficked, without the trade you stop the traffickers.

 

[Alty]

It's not an easy situation but In my opinion using these children as an example to discourage other refugees is morally reprehensible. If we want to deal with people trafficking then fine, we deal with it at source. I'm not at all comfortable with the U.K. sitting and watching people suffer and then claim it's for their own good.

Using this logic it's morally reprehensible that the UK refuses to pay ransoms to kidnappers.

We've got to be pragmatic here. Wafting our social conscience around and trying to shame others is actually extremely unhelpful.

 

[Pyeman]

Is refusing to help the children currently in Europe actually an effective deterrent? It seems to me that that is the main argument as to why we shouldn't accept refugees already in Europe, but as far as I can see it's not really deterring traffickers at the moment.

It seems to me we are willing to abandon 30,000 real unaccompanied children [depending on your source] for a hypothetical benefit in future. Surely we can take the majority of our refugees from camps in places such as Lebanon and Turkey whilst still helping those already here? Therefore still making it more worthwhile for refugees to remain in the camps yet not abandoning vulnerable children in Europe?

I suppose the issue there is that my solution would require an overall increase in the number of refugees we take, probably a fairly significant one. Depending on your personal view you might see that as a positive or negative thing. It might well be easy for me to say because my life isn't directly affected by high levels of immigration, but I think we could, and should, be doing far more to help vulnerable people feeling from places like Syria.

 

[Max]

I wrote to my (Tory) MP asking her to explain what possible justification she had for voting against the Dubs amendment.

Interestingly, the Daily Mail have an article tomorrow urging the government to accept the 3,000 kids. It comes to something when the Daily Mail are outflanking the government from the left. I imagine a U-Turn from the government is not far away...

 

[blade1889]

Is refusing to help the children currently in Europe actually an effective deterrent? It seems to me that that is the main argument as to why we shouldn't accept refugees already in Europe, but as far as I can see it's not really deterring traffickers at the moment.

It seems to me we are willing to abandon 30,000 real unaccompanied children [depending on your source] for a hypothetical benefit in future. Surely we can take the majority of our refugees from camps in places such as Lebanon and Turkey whilst still helping those already here? Therefore still making it more worthwhile for refugees to remain in the camps yet not abandoning vulnerable children in Europe?

I suppose the issue there is that my solution would require an overall increase in the number of refugees we take, probably a fairly significant one. Depending on your personal view you might see that as a positive or negative thing. It might well be easy for me to say because my life isn't directly affected by high levels of immigration, but I think we could, and should, be doing far more to help vulnerable people feeling from places like Syria.

It wont ever work as a deterrent whilst ever others in Europe are encouraging people to make the crossings (Merkel...).

You also have the argument that we will never have taken enough. As soon as we let 10,000 in there'll be 10,000 more wanting to come in...there is no simple solution to this but I don't see the current EU approach of letting whoever makes the crossing in as at all helpful or the right way to go about it.

 

[Pyeman]

It wont ever work as a deterrent whilst ever others in Europe are encouraging people to make the crossings (Merkel...).

You also have the argument that we will never have taken enough. As soon as we let 10,000 in there'll be 10,000 more wanting to come in...there is no simple solution to this but I don't see the current EU approach of letting whoever makes the crossing in as at all helpful or the right way to go about it.

I agree that there needs to be a major rethink around how we (and by we I mean the whole of Europe) attempt to solve this problem. But I'm not sure I agree with your logic around how many people we should help.

It sounds like you're suggesting that because there's too many people to help, we should help none of them. I'd suggest we simply help as many people as we can.

 

[blade1889]

I agree that there needs to be a major rethink around how we (and by we I mean the whole of Europe) attempt to solve this problem. But I'm not sure I agree with your logic around how many people we should help.

It sounds like you're suggesting that because there's too many people to help, we should help none of them. I'd suggest we simply help as many people as we can.

Nooo that was not the intention of my point...merely that as soon as 10,000 people/children are helped there'll be 10,000 more....mainly in reference to Calais tbf where I see lots of people(mainly fb) suggesting we let the Calais refugees in, without the appreciation that as soon as we do that there will be 10,000 more (or however many are there now). Similarly with helping the unaccompanied children, as soon as we help the first 10,000 unaccompanied children there will be another 10,000 make the crossing, help them...etc. etc.

Of course we should help as many as we are able

 

[silkyman]

A good day to bury bad news it seems, as the government quietly ditch their plan to force every school to become an academy.

Another poorly thought through policy that they splurted out without doing their sums and had to quickly drop when everyone told them it was bollocks.

Fuck off now Gideon. There's a good chap.