This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
'Refugees' Can not be trusted
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Stiff Little Fingers
Edit: for the record, Lebanon has a nominal gdp of 50bn, a tiny fraction of ours, its population density is more than double ours even before the refugee crisis - it quite literally cannot afford to host the refugees, not does it have the space, and yet it's taken in 880k to go with the 280k it already took from Iraq when we decided to go world police on the place. So this "no space, no money" argument won't fly.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Edit: for the record, Lebanon has a nominal gdp of 50bn, a tiny fraction of ours, its population density is more than double ours even before the refugee crisis - it quite literally cannot afford to host the refugees, not does it have the space, and yet it's taken in 880k to go with the 280k it already took from Iraq when we decided to go world police on the place. So this "no space, no money" argument won't fly.
Posted from TSR Mobile
You talk about the "no money" argument not "flying" as though we had billions to spend, like the Germans, and weren't bankrupt.
How much will you take from the Education or Defence or NHS budgets to fund this campaign of yours to feed and house rich (comparatively) Syrians?
Or do you plan to borrow even more from China to increase still further what is already almost the biggest International Aid budget in the whole world?
Original post by chocolate hottie
You talk about the "no money" argument not "flying" as though we had billions to spend, like the Germans, and weren't bankrupt.
How much will you take from the Education or Defence or NHS budgets to fund this campaign of yours to feed and house rich (comparatively) Syrians?
Or do you plan to borrow even more from China to increase still further what is already almost the biggest International Aid budget in the whole world?
How much will you take from the Education or Defence or NHS budgets to fund this campaign of yours to feed and house rich (comparatively) Syrians?
Or do you plan to borrow even more from China to increase still further what is already almost the biggest International Aid budget in the whole world?
Don't take from existing programs, just increase tax rates. We earn a lot more than Syrians on average and we should increases taxes until we can afford all of them.
Original post by Good bloke
Whatever you claim, there is neither an appetite for it nor houses to put them in.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-34209027
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-34209027
That focuses on affordable housing which is a serious problem, but there's still a fairly sizable rental market.
Original post by chocolate hottie
You talk about the "no money" argument not "flying" as though we had billions to spend, like the Germans, and weren't bankrupt.
How much will you take from the Education or Defence or NHS budgets to fund this campaign of yours to feed and house rich (comparatively) Syrians?
Or do you plan to borrow even more from China to increase still further what is already almost the biggest International Aid budget in the whole world?
How much will you take from the Education or Defence or NHS budgets to fund this campaign of yours to feed and house rich (comparatively) Syrians?
Or do you plan to borrow even more from China to increase still further what is already almost the biggest International Aid budget in the whole world?
We're not bankrupt and cuts aren't necessary - austerity is an ideological choice and nothing more; although the answer would be utilise the international aid budget differently - don't just throw money out there and expect it to mean that Lebanon, Jordan etc have more room and ISIS disappear.
And I don't know why you're going on about the Syrians being not dirt poor - the problem for them isn't a lack of wealth, it's that a brutal dictator and a crazy murder-cult hell bent on the ethno-religious cleansing of the area are fighting and they're caught in the middle.
Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Stiff Little Fingers
That focuses on affordable housing which is a serious problem, but there's still a fairly sizable rental market.
A lack of houses to buy applies to both landlords and potential home owners, and has a direct effect on the availability and cost of rental homes. I'd expect recent migrants to be especially badly affected.
Original post by Doctor_Einstein
Don't take from existing programs, just increase tax rates. We earn a lot more than Syrians on average and we should increases taxes until we can afford all of them.
Great idea. Well done!
You might find it a little difficult to persuade the taxpayers whose votes you need to get into government to carry out your little wheeze, but since when did the hard left ever let reality intrude into its crazed loonyness?
Original post by littlenorthernlass
Any so-called 'refugees' in Europe are not refugees. They ceased to be called that name when they passed plenty of safe countries on their way here.
I always thought you were a progressive Liberal. I thought wrong it would seem.
Agreed with several posts here.
They aren't refugees they are economic migrants going to Germany , if they was true refugees they'd of stayed in Hungary etc , some of them have declined to settle in Denmark because it doesn't give enough benefits!
These people are coming to Europe for economic reasons.
They aren't refugees they are economic migrants going to Germany , if they was true refugees they'd of stayed in Hungary etc , some of them have declined to settle in Denmark because it doesn't give enough benefits!
These people are coming to Europe for economic reasons.
Original post by stoltguyboo
Agreed with several posts here.
They aren't refugees they are economic migrants going to Germany , if they was true refugees they'd of stayed in Hungary etc , some of them have declined to settle in Denmark because it doesn't give enough benefits!
These people are coming to Europe for economic reasons.
They aren't refugees they are economic migrants going to Germany , if they was true refugees they'd of stayed in Hungary etc , some of them have declined to settle in Denmark because it doesn't give enough benefits!
These people are coming to Europe for economic reasons.
What, Hungary? Where they're not wanted?
The Hungarian PM said himself that it's a German problem, not a European one, and also said that the Muslims entering the continent posed a threat to the European 'Christian identity'...
Original post by Stiff Little Fingers
We're not bankrupt and cuts aren't necessary - austerity is an ideological choice and nothing more;
And I don't know why you're going on about the Syrians being not dirt poor - the problem for them isn't a lack of wealth, it's that a brutal dictator and a crazy murder-cult hell bent on the ethno-religious cleansing of the area are fighting and they're caught in the middle.
Posted from TSR Mobile
We're not bankrupt and cuts aren't necessary - austerity is an ideological choice and nothing more;
And I don't know why you're going on about the Syrians being not dirt poor - the problem for them isn't a lack of wealth, it's that a brutal dictator and a crazy murder-cult hell bent on the ethno-religious cleansing of the area are fighting and they're caught in the middle.
Posted from TSR Mobile
We have a budget deficit approaching £100 billion this year. And we owe one and a half trillion and counting. How do YOU define bankrupt?
Is this how you organise your own finances? When you run a huge overdraft and your expenditure is greater than your income, is it "ideological" to cut back on spending and try to lower the interest you are paying by reducing your debt to the bank?
As for the Syrians, we are helping to destroy their country, and letting down the millions of their more unfortunate compatriots in refugee camps elsewhere in the region. The rich middle classes are leaving, and it is warming to see a lefty so concerned for their welfare over the poor and needy. But how will granting a few hundred thousand of the elite the dream ticket of EU citizenship help Syria get back on its feet?
"it's that a brutal dictator"
Assad really isn't that bad when you look at an actual history of the conflict and events leading upto it. People paint him to be worse than Hussein but he's Syria's only hope currently.....
There were talks about Assad stepping down at the start of the conflict, Russia offerred it up as an option with a plan, but the rest of the relevant world basically just said no becuase they thought the war would be over soon and Assad would be forced out.
Its also come out on wikileaks that the US also planned for Syrian destabalization through various means, and this isn't some conspiracy.
=========================
The Guardian posted a story about how there is an epidemic of Syrian rape gangs in the refugee camps before the crisis reached Europe, now they are posting stories about how there is an epidemic of 'right-wing' people accusing the refugee groups of containing ISIS members and rape gangs. Pretty much says all you need to know on how the media is handling the crisis..
Assad really isn't that bad when you look at an actual history of the conflict and events leading upto it. People paint him to be worse than Hussein but he's Syria's only hope currently.....
There were talks about Assad stepping down at the start of the conflict, Russia offerred it up as an option with a plan, but the rest of the relevant world basically just said no becuase they thought the war would be over soon and Assad would be forced out.
Its also come out on wikileaks that the US also planned for Syrian destabalization through various means, and this isn't some conspiracy.
=========================
The Guardian posted a story about how there is an epidemic of Syrian rape gangs in the refugee camps before the crisis reached Europe, now they are posting stories about how there is an epidemic of 'right-wing' people accusing the refugee groups of containing ISIS members and rape gangs. Pretty much says all you need to know on how the media is handling the crisis..
Original post by Stiff Little Fingers
The immediate safe countries around Syria have already taken in as many as they can handle, turkeys taken in well over a million, Lebanon and Jordan nearly as many - Going beyond these countries doesn't mean they aren't refugees anymore, it means they're being moved on because those countries simply can't take anymore. Also, that's not anything remotely approaching a definition of a refugee - the Dublin treaty recommends asylum be taken in the first safe country, but its simply not plausible for that number anyway.
A refugee is someone who has been forced to escape from war or a disaster. Imo, they lose that claim as soon as they pass through a safe country. They then become economic migrants. Not that I'm saying that they're bad people for doing that (we all would want the best life possible, if we were put in their situation), but we shouldn't be obliged to allow them into the country.
Original post by Stiff Little Fingers
Edit: for the record, Lebanon has a nominal gdp of 50bn, a tiny fraction of ours, its population density is more than double ours even before the refugee crisis - it quite literally cannot afford to host the refugees, not does it have the space, and yet it's taken in 880k to go with the 280k it already took from Iraq when we decided to go world police on the place. So this "no space, no money" argument won't fly.
Edit: for the record, Lebanon has a nominal gdp of 50bn, a tiny fraction of ours, its population density is more than double ours even before the refugee crisis - it quite literally cannot afford to host the refugees, not does it have the space, and yet it's taken in 880k to go with the 280k it already took from Iraq when we decided to go world police on the place. So this "no space, no money" argument won't fly.
So a poorer country is being bankrupted by the refugee crisis, therefore as a richer country, we won't be bankrupted. Because, yanno, it isn't a possibility that it would bankrupt us as well. Am I right?
Of Course not. We should carry on what we're doing. Not let the refugees into the UK, and instead use the money to help neighbouring countries(like Lebanon) house the refugees.
Original post by chocolate hottie
We have a budget deficit approaching £100 billion this year. And we owe one and a half trillion and counting. How do YOU define bankrupt?
Is this how you organise your own finances? When you run a huge overdraft and your expenditure is greater than your income, is it "ideological" to cut back on spending and try to lower the interest you are paying by reducing your debt to the bank?
As for the Syrians, we are helping to destroy their country, and letting down the millions of their more unfortunate compatriots in refugee camps elsewhere in the region. The rich middle classes are leaving, and it is warming to see a lefty so concerned for their welfare over the poor and needy. But how will granting a few hundred thousand of the elite the dream ticket of EU citizenship help Syria get back on its feet?
Is this how you organise your own finances? When you run a huge overdraft and your expenditure is greater than your income, is it "ideological" to cut back on spending and try to lower the interest you are paying by reducing your debt to the bank?
As for the Syrians, we are helping to destroy their country, and letting down the millions of their more unfortunate compatriots in refugee camps elsewhere in the region. The rich middle classes are leaving, and it is warming to see a lefty so concerned for their welfare over the poor and needy. But how will granting a few hundred thousand of the elite the dream ticket of EU citizenship help Syria get back on its feet?
I define bankrupt as actually being bankrupt. Funny definition granted, but I've always been under the impression that bankrupt means bankrupt
Well no, I don't run my personal finances at a deficit, but then again I'm not a country and running at a deficit doesn't help me, where as a countries economy needs to be running at a small deficit really. But, austerity is ideological because it is unnecessary - it's a knee-jerk reaction to a financial crash which actually slows recovery because it stops money from circulating.
Original post by york_wbu
A refugee is someone who has been forced to escape from war or a disaster. Imo, they lose that claim as soon as they pass through a safe country. They then become economic migrants. Not that I'm saying that they're bad people for doing that (we all would want the best life possible, if we were put in their situation), but we shouldn't be obliged to allow them into the country.
Well no, they are going to the first safe country, then finding the first safe country can't take any more (going back to the example of Lebanon - 20% of its population now is refugees as a result of this) and being moved on to the next few countries. 50% of the Syrian population has so far been displaced, it was never going to be possible to contain it to neighbouring countries, particularly when one of those neighbouring countries (Iraq) is facing the exact same problem.
So a poorer country is being bankrupted by the refugee crisis, therefore as a richer country, we won't be bankrupted. Because, yanno, it isn't a possibility that it would bankrupt us as well. Am I right?
Of Course not. We should carry on what we're doing. Not let the refugees into the UK, and instead use the money to help neighbouring countries(like Lebanon) house the refugees.
The point is quite clear - when a country running at a much smaller budget than us can afford to take some, the idea that we just can't afford it is ridiculous.
"Well no, I don't run my personal finances at a deficit, but then again I'm not a country and running at a deficit doesn't help me, where as a countries economy needs to be running at a small deficit really. But, austerity is ideological because it is unnecessary - it's a knee-jerk reaction to a financial crash which actually slows recovery because it stops money from circulating."
Are you for real?
1. Do you actually know how much we paid last year in debt interest? If so could you tell me and everyone else on this thread?
2. What on earth does "austerity" mean? Pubic spending is increasing, for all the BS Osborne spouts. You are aware of this, right?
Are you for real?
1. Do you actually know how much we paid last year in debt interest? If so could you tell me and everyone else on this thread?
2. What on earth does "austerity" mean? Pubic spending is increasing, for all the BS Osborne spouts. You are aware of this, right?
Original post by Stiff Little Fingers
Well no, they are going to the first safe country, then finding the first safe country can't take any more (going back to the example of Lebanon - 20% of its population now is refugees as a result of this) and being moved on to the next few countries. 50% of the Syrian population has so far been displaced, it was never going to be possible to contain it to neighbouring countries, particularly when one of those neighbouring countries (Iraq) is facing the exact same problem.
Well no, they are going to the first safe country, then finding the first safe country can't take any more (going back to the example of Lebanon - 20% of its population now is refugees as a result of this) and being moved on to the next few countries. 50% of the Syrian population has so far been displaced, it was never going to be possible to contain it to neighbouring countries, particularly when one of those neighbouring countries (Iraq) is facing the exact same problem.
Well no, they are going to the first safe country, they are safe and they are no longer running away from a war/disaster. If they decide to carry on and go to another country, it's not to escape war.
Original post by Stiff Little Fingers
The point is quite clear - when a country running at a much smaller budget than us can afford to take some, the idea that we just can't afford it is ridiculous.
I think it's pretty clear that they can't afford it. I honestly don't get your logic.
You're just being naive. What claim do they have to the UK? They are no longer unsafe, it's by no means a neighbouring country and we're not culturally similar. They're only coming to the UK for economic reasons.
We are not obliged to let them into the country, there is no reason for us to. We are, however, obliged to help them. So why don't we give aid and fund neighbouring countries?
Original post by Alweedi
European countries should play a part in the refugee crisis - after WW2 they gave the Jewish refugees an entire new homeland in the Middle East - why should these refugees be treated any different.
1. We didn't give a country to the Jews, they took it.
2. Current Syrians could go in other rich Muslim countries, such as Saudi Arabia.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by chocolate hottie
"Well no, I don't run my personal finances at a deficit, but then again I'm not a country and running at a deficit doesn't help me, where as a countries economy needs to be running at a small deficit really. But, austerity is ideological because it is unnecessary - it's a knee-jerk reaction to a financial crash which actually slows recovery because it stops money from circulating."
Are you for real?
Are you for real?
Yep, very simple explanation of why a slight deficit is actually good here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2012/07/18/why-you-should-love-government-deficits/
1. Do you actually know how much we paid last year in debt interest? If so could you tell me and everyone else on this thread?
2. What on earth does "austerity" mean? Pubic spending is increasing, for all the BS Osborne spouts. You are aware of this, right?
Austerity is massive cuts to public spending - which have occurred; we're seeing the nhs budget being slashed, likewise the bbc, local fire services having to downgrade trucks to what amount to transit vans with pressure washers attached, police forces having to release staff and replace them with volunteers - public spending is being slashed.
Original post by york_wbu
Well no, they are going to the first safe country, they are safe and they are no longer running away from a war/disaster. If they decide to carry on and go to another country, it's not to escape war.
They're not carrying on, they're being sent on because there's not the capacity for them all to stay there... :
Original post by Stiff Little Fingers
Obviously not, but we do have plenty of room to take some, contrary to everyone claiming there's no space or no money - it's utter tosh.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
I see four very wealthy countries, one of them being enormous and empty, that could accommodate every Syrian refugee.
Original post by Stiff Little Fingers
local fire services having to downgrade trucks to what amount to transit vans with pressure washers attached,
That makes no sense. I presume you have evidence to support your assertion.
Original post by Stiff Little Fingers
They're not carrying on, they're being sent on because there's not the capacity for them all to stay there...
You know that isn't true. They are refusing to register in safe countries until they reach the country that best fulfils their dreams of Utopia, generally Germany or Austria.
Original post by Stiff Little Fingers
Yep, very simple explanation of why a slight deficit is actually good here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2012/07/18/why-you-should-love-government-deficits/
I didn't know that £87.7bn of deficit was slight.
Original post by Stiff Little Fingers
They're not carrying on, they're being sent on because there's not the capacity for them all to stay there... :
They're not carrying on, they're being sent on because there's not the capacity for them all to stay there... :
Jesus christ are you an idiot? You seem to be ignoring my argument and just focussing on the irrelevant stuff. Answer my argument directly.
"What claim do they have to the UK? They are no longer unsafe, it's by no means a neighbouring country and we're not culturally similar. They're only coming to the UK for economic reasons.
We are not obliged to let them into the country, there is no reason for us to. We are, however, obliged to help them. So why don't we give aid and fund neighbouring countries?"
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
