Ireland to assist in migrant crisis in the Med.

Outkast_IRE · 13-05-2015 5:08pm

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

Most are not. They are economic migrants from Eritrea etc rather than asylum seekers from Syria and Libya and the Middle East

Hasnt the instability in libya given these people smugglers free reign to operate there ?

If Gadaffi was still in power do you think this could happen as easily ?

Also according to this Syrians and Afghans are making up a good amount of the numbers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_2015_Mediterranean_Sea_migrant_shipwrecks

Outkast_IRE · 13-05-2015 5:11pm

wakka12 wrote: »

Most war refugees go to neighbouring countries who aren't at war, syrians go to turkey etc. Why do war refugees need to travel thousands of miles to western europe?

Most, not all . It is still resulting in an influx into europe.

wallywhittle · 13-05-2015 5:11pm

Maybe we should relocate them to some god forsaken island off the west coast.

IrishTrajan · 13-05-2015 5:18pm

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

Their presence and meddling in the middle east over the past 20 years has caused what were once stable enough nations to descend into anarchy. A lot of these migrants are from war torn areas that used to be stable enough.

Can we stop with this myth? The Middle East was never "stable". It is and was an unstable region based on tribal politics and sectarian violence. If you call Saddam's rule "stable" you're making a mockery of the million and a half or so who died during his rule and removal.

If these people were asylum seekers, they'd have stopped in southern Italy or southern France once their lives were no longer in danger. Instead they travelled to Germany and Calais (in northern France, to get into Britain) for hopes of better prospects. In this instance, they're economic migrants and not asylum seekers fleeing for their lives.

Outkast_IRE · 13-05-2015 5:21pm

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Can we stop with this myth? The Middle East was never "stable". It is and was an unstable region based on tribal politics and sectarian violence. If you call Saddam's rule "stable" you're making a mockery of the million and a half or so who died during his rule and removal.

I would call it far more stable than what is there now. How many have died or been forced to flee since the USA intervened ?

IrishTrajan · 13-05-2015 5:26pm

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

I would call it far more stable than what is there now. How many have died or been forced to flee since the USA intervened ?

Died? About 165,000 in total in the Iraq war. Around 12,000 in Libya from 2011 to present. The US didn't invade Syria, so the blame for the rise of ISIL and other such groups falls much more squarely on the shoulders of Turkey, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. Israel providing indirect support (there's reports of them striking Assad military positions, I believe) as well.

Even if you include those in the Syrian war (220,000) that's a total of around 400,000... Still significantly less than the destruction Saddam caused in his "stable" reign.

Del.Monte · 13-05-2015 5:29pm

I just heard the Migrants Rights spokesman interviewed on Today FM stumped when she was asked how many of these migrants we should take. That's the elephant in the room isn't it. There's millions on the African continent who would like to move to Europe but do we (excluding the loony left, pc brigade and big business tycoons) want them. I'm sure Ireland could accommodate at least 20 million souls from Africa, but where does that leave the existing population - in a reservation on the Blasket islands?

stevedublin · 13-05-2015 5:33pm

Lots of modern Oliver Cromwells in this thread

IrishTrajan · 13-05-2015 5:35pm

stevedublin wrote: »

Lots of modern Oliver Cromwells in this thread

Yes, that's exactly what we're advocating. We want to land an army in the Middle East, massacre hundreds of thousands, deport half a million to be slaves, and send the rest into a confined area. That is exactly the same as saying "we don't want so many people coming in".

Thank you, for your appraisal of the situation.

Gatling · 13-05-2015 5:40pm

Rather than rescue boats,send in helicopter gunships and and blockade the ports .
Use the gunships to destroy anything capable of carrying more than a handful of people before they are used by the traffickers .
And a proper navel blockade to prevent anything from getting out of shallow water .

We certainly can't take in 20,000 or 20,000 pa we already have a rental and housing crisis along with shortages in school places

Pumpkinseeds · 13-05-2015 5:42pm

I think these economic migrants need to be put on boats and sent back to where they came from. Forcing countries to take quotas of economic migrants will just make it more appealing to those thinking of trying to get to Europe and increase business for the people smugglers thus making the problem worse. The numbers are already too high. When we can accommodate all of our own citizens who require social housing, and eradicate the problem of homelessness then we can rethink the situation.

IrishTrajan · 13-05-2015 5:43pm

Gatling wrote: »

Rather than rescue boats,send in helicopter gunships and and blockade the ports .
Use the gunships to destroy anything capable of carrying more than a handful of people before they are used by the traffickers .
And a proper navel blockade to prevent anything from getting out of shallow water .

We certainly can't take in 20,000 or 20,000 pa we already have a rental and housing crisis along with shortages in school places

How Cromwellian of you.

BoJack Horseman · 13-05-2015 5:45pm

Ireland committing to taking in 7,000+ per annum (at current rates, which will rise now) is pretty short sighted.

Gatling · 13-05-2015 5:46pm

IrishTrajan wrote: »

How Cromwellian of you.

It's the best and cheapest way to do it ,
The EU should not be demanding States take in thousands and in some cases hundreds of thousands of migrants .

Del.Monte · 13-05-2015 5:47pm

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Ireland committing to taking in 7,000+ per annum (at current rates, which will rise now) is pretty short sighted.

Where did you get that figure? I heard the figure of 272 being mentioned. Be that as it may, once they are in the EU at all they can move to Ireland so we could end up with the lot.

IrishTrajan · 13-05-2015 5:48pm

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Ireland committing to taking in 7,000+ per annum (at current rates, which will rise now) is pretty short sighted.

I believe Britain has rejected such ideas, and Finland has said the EU can't force anything and they might reject it also.

If people really want us to contribute more to humanitarianism, they should pay the water charges, let the Government get its books balanced so it can increase spending on Foreign Aid.

My name is URL · 13-05-2015 5:48pm

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Ireland committing to taking in 7,000+ per annum (at current rates, which will rise now) is pretty short sighted.

Nothing has been committed to yet

Though we shouldn't shirk away from the responsibility either. It's not right to just say 'let the others deal with it'.

Ireland was and is happy enough to take all it can from the EU. We should share the burdens as well.

IrishTrajan · 13-05-2015 5:48pm

Del.Monte wrote: »

Where did you get that figure? I heard the figure of 272 being mentioned. Be that as it may, once they are in the EU at all they can move to Ireland so we could end up with the lot.

272 per 20,000, not 272 in total.

Infini · 13-05-2015 5:49pm

Realistically the only way this is gonna be stopped is at the source and while people may or may not agree the only way to do it would be to occupy Libya itself since the whole place is falling apart until such a time as things are sorted out and stabilised. Last thing anyone needs is another Somalia/Afghanistan/Derkaderkastan on Europe's doorstep. Even arguing about the whole its the UKs fault etc is pointless now since the problem is there and it needs to be sorted preferrably with a UN peacekeeping force.

BoJack Horseman · 13-05-2015 5:51pm

Del.Monte wrote: »

Where did you get that figure? I heard the figure of 272 being mentioned. Be that as it may, once they are in the EU at all they can move to Ireland so we could end up with the lot.

272 per 20,000 with 10,000 (and rising) arriving each into Italy each week.

IrishTrajan · 13-05-2015 5:51pm

My name is URL wrote: »

Nothing has been committed to yet

Though we shouldn't shirk away from the responsibility either. It's not right to just say 'let the others deal with it'.

Ireland was and is happy enough to take all it can from the EU. We should share the burdens as well.

We just went through seven years of crushing austerity and our books still aren't balanced, all so that the British, Germans, and French wouldn't have had to take the entire wollop from the banking crisis. I don't think we should have to compromise our own immigration policy just because the Germans took in more migrants than they could deal with and now want to spread it around.

Alexis Sanchez · 13-05-2015 5:54pm

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

Hasnt the instability in libya given these people smugglers free reign to operate there ?

If Gadaffi was still in power do you think this could happen as easily ?

Also according to this Syrians and Afghans are making up a good amount of the numbers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_2015_Mediterranean_Sea_migrant_shipwrecks

It was Nicolas Sarkozy who pressed for military intervention in Libya, not America. David Cameron joined him afterwards.

NATO as a whole got involved in Libya, so you can't blame America for this.

IrishTrajan · 13-05-2015 5:54pm

Infini2 wrote: »

Realistically the only way this is gonna be stopped is at the source and while people may or may not agree the only way to do it would be to occupy Libya itself since the whole place is falling apart until such a time as things are sorted out and stabilised. Last thing anyone needs is another Somalia/Afghanistan/Derkaderkastan on Europe's doorstep. Even arguing about the whole its the UKs fault etc is pointless now since the problem is there and it needs to be sorted preferrably with a UN peacekeeping force.

Heavily, heavily disagree. European troops should not be deployed to occupy the country, that'd just make us a target and boost support for Islamist factions.

I believe we should remove the restrictions on trade with the Libyan (Tobruk) Government, and supply them with equipment (lethal and non-lethal). We should also allow the Egyptians to operate more effectively. If they send men, material and air support to the Libyans, we should give them 5 to 10 years of access to European markets tariff free. This should invigorate Egypt's economy, provide a significant shift in favour of the Libyan Government, and keep Europe from having to fight to death.

Europe's power lies in its economic size, not its military adventurism.

Del.Monte · 13-05-2015 5:54pm

My name is URL wrote: »

Nothing has been committed to yet

Though we shouldn't shirk away from the responsibility either. It's not right to just say 'let the others deal with it'.

Ireland was and is happy enough to take all it can from the EU. We should share the burdens as well.

Well, how many do you think Ireland should take?

My name is URL · 13-05-2015 5:56pm

Del.Monte wrote: »

Well, how many do you think Ireland should take?

Whatever amount is fair. I don't know enough about the situation to say what that number is, but I know it's not zero.

MathDebater · 13-05-2015 5:56pm

My name is URL wrote: »

Nothing has been committed to yet

Though we shouldn't shirk away from the responsibility either. It's not right to just say 'let the others deal with it'.

Ireland was and is happy enough to take all it can from the EU. We should share the burdens as well.

The UK, Ireland and Denmark can opt out of such a quota scheme - http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opt-outs_in_the_European_Union#Table

Only the UK, Ireland and Sweden completely opened up their borders to the accession state nationals in May 2004. The rest of the EU 15 kept transitional restrictions in place, some of them, up until the 1st of May 2011.

But eaten bread is soon forgotten. Now our 'EU partners' want to share the burden!

BoJack Horseman · 13-05-2015 5:57pm

Alexis Sanchez wrote: »

It was Nicolas Sarkozy who pressed for military intervention in Libya, not America. David Cameron was joined him afterwards.

NATO as a whole got involved in Libya, so you can't blame America for this.

True.

It was UK/French led, with considerable assistance from Spain/Italy.

The US assisted logistically & with some armaments as a favour.

Europe is militarily so hopelessly degraded, knocking out a 3rd worlds air force was beyond the combined might of Europe alone.

Del.Monte · 13-05-2015 5:58pm

IrishTrajan wrote: »

We just went through seven years of crushing austerity and our books still aren't balanced, all so that the British, Germans, and French wouldn't have had to take the entire wollop from the banking crisis. I don't think we should have to compromise our own immigration policy just because the Germans took in more migrants than they could deal with and now want to spread it around.

This is problem - there's no policy but to muddle on and pretend that Ireland has no problem assimilating immigrants.

wakka12 · 13-05-2015 5:59pm

Gatling wrote: »

Rather than rescue boats,send in helicopter gunships and and blockade the ports .
Use the gunships to destroy anything capable of carrying more than a handful of people before they are used by the traffickers .
And a proper navel blockade to prevent anything from getting out of shallow water .

We certainly can't take in 20,000 or 20,000 pa we already have a rental and housing crisis along with shortages in school places

I agree with your sentiments but bombing the ports seems a bit OTT

Del.Monte · 13-05-2015 5:59pm

My name is URL wrote: »

Whatever amount is fair. I don't know enough about the situation to say what that number is, but I know it's not zero.

A typical, woolly answer from somebody who wants to be seen to do the right thing but without realising the consequences.

Ireland to assist in migrant crisis in the Med.

Comments