bear66
Well-known member
Looks like they had no response to counter Ben & Jerry's statement.
You Gov Poll on migrants
- Thread starter Lefty
- Start date
Sorry Denzel we won't even elect governments that want to sort out our own problems.
Way_Out_West
Well-known member
Maybe if our own government didn't massively cut the overseas aid budget...
WeeGord
Well-known member
Or didn't bomb the hell out of those countires in the first place or supply arms to dodgy regimes.
Way_Out_West
Well-known member
Even more reason to at least maintain the level of overseas aid
Wow, I didn’t realise things had gotten that bad in France.
Or Italy
Or Greece
Or Hungary
Or the countless other countries they cross through.
Lefty
Well-known member
'Claim : Under the Geneva Convention refugees should seek refuge in the first safe country they come to.'
'The UN Refugee Convention does not make this requirement of refugees, and UK case law supports this interpretation. Refugees can legitimately make a claim for asylum in the UK after passing through other “safe” countries.'
'Refugees who arrive in the UK after passing through another EU country can, under certain circumstances, be returned to the first EU country they entered, under an EU law known as the Dublin Regulation.'
Oops, brexiters.
https://fullfact.org/immigration/refugees-first-safe-country/
Last edited:
Lefty
Well-known member
Yes, but it is interesting the two differing paths minds choose* to go down.
* Might not be a deliberate, conscious choice. Which is even more interesting. And relevant to all sorts of research on our decision making as a species.
Lefty
Well-known member
The poll only reveals that a large majority have no sympathy for the migrants crossing the channel, not that they don't care about anyone but themselves.
JM14
Well-known member
If you look at whats going on and feel no sympathy, you clearly dont care about any one else. And likely have some serious issues along with that too
Corco65
Well-known member
Lefty
Well-known member
You are extrapolating too much from that poll.
It's not great thinking to decide 'I don't have sympathy for migrants crossing the channel' also means 'I don't care about anyone'. It's another straw man and it's these type of arguments that polarise us. It's a good principle to try and interpret an opposing position in the most charitable way possible, don't you think?
Lefty
Well-known member
I do realise I don't either, quite a lot of the time, by the way.
r00fie1
Well-known member
Refugees are not spent shells to pile up on any beach.
We have a duty to any refugees,
just like Canada, USA, New Zealand, etc to provide refuge and then [if they apply] to consider any applications on their merits.
We also have to consider, if they already have families and friends in the United Kingdom who can provide support during the process.
We helped to create the problem.
Because there is a stretch of water between the European mainland and the east coast does not mean we can be allowed to abrogate our responsibility to people fleeing wars and persecution.
r00fie1
Well-known member
https://www.stopwar.org.uk/index.ph...or-legacies-of-britain-s-recent-interventions
Destabilisation, Terrorism and Refugees:
The 3 Major Legacies of Britain’s Recent Interventions
The refugees now embarking on dangerous journeys to cross the English Channel have crossed half a world to try to reach safety. They come in large part from the Middle East and from Afghanistan, in their majority victims of the wars waged in those countries, wars in which Britain has played a central part.
Instead of reporting the disastrous situations in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya - all of them countries where regime change was effected by Britain, along with its allies - instead we are presented with a news story which suggests that these refugees have nothing to do with Britain. These countries are the main starting points for the bulk of those seeking asylum, along with Syria, where Britain has also intervened.
Those same politicians who voted to send troops and weapons to fight foreign wars are the same ones blaming the victims - supporting the use of gunboats and military aircraft to greet them across the channel!
There are three major legacies of Britain’s 21st century interventions:
or pay the price.
Destabilisation, Terrorism and Refugees:
The 3 Major Legacies of Britain’s Recent Interventions
The refugees now embarking on dangerous journeys to cross the English Channel have crossed half a world to try to reach safety. They come in large part from the Middle East and from Afghanistan, in their majority victims of the wars waged in those countries, wars in which Britain has played a central part.
Instead of reporting the disastrous situations in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya - all of them countries where regime change was effected by Britain, along with its allies - instead we are presented with a news story which suggests that these refugees have nothing to do with Britain. These countries are the main starting points for the bulk of those seeking asylum, along with Syria, where Britain has also intervened.
Those same politicians who voted to send troops and weapons to fight foreign wars are the same ones blaming the victims - supporting the use of gunboats and military aircraft to greet them across the channel!
There are three major legacies of Britain’s 21st century interventions:
- The terrible destabilisation of a whole range of countries which, whatever their failings before, are in a worse state since western powers invaded or bombed them.
- The growth of terrorism, and especially the rise of ISIS – formed in an Iraqi prison in the British-controlled south, and which now exists in a number of countries across the world.
- The creation of millions of refugees, who have lost homes and livelihoods through war, resulting environmental destruction and widespread instability. Most refugees do not get very far – they are in Pakistan, Jordan, and other countries neighbouring the war zones. Only a minority get to Europe.
or pay the price.