UKC

http://news.sky.com/story/donald-trump-hangs-up-on-worst-call-by-far-with-australian-pm-10752827

On Twitter, the US President said he would "study this dumb deal".

So presidential , so very presidential

"Mr Trump is reported to have cut the one-hour conversation short after just 25 minutes"

Poor thing , poor Donald . He probably wanted to watch his favourite TV shows, and tweet about it.

Disaster in chief

In reply to Chive Talkin\':

To be fair, it was probably unwise to schedule the call for a whole hour. I think 25 minutes is about as long as The Donald can concentrate on anything.

Having a call with him must be like putting in a call with the managing director of a serious company to discuss commercial strategy and ending up having an argument with one of their grumpier warehouse supervisors.

In reply to Chive Talkin\':

He's starting to come up against some people who won't bow down to him and he can't fire.

This is starting to get interesting now.

In reply to Chive Talkin\':

Whilst I totally agree with your sentiment, I suspect some phone calls on the 11th September 2001 were are far-sight worse and sadder.

In reply to Chive Talkin\':

The whole stability of the western world, and the good relations between long-term allies, is all unravelling so fast thanks to Trump that it's scarcely believable. Unfortunately, it's really happening before our very eyes. It isn't just a bad dream, it's a very scary reality.

In reply to Hugh J:


Your taking the thread title slightly to literally .
I was mocking Dumps tone of speech and twittering more than anything.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


I agree. It's really scary, almost nightmarish. The first time in my lifetime someone really bad and possibly mentally unstable is in charge of the world's biggest superpower. It's no exaggeration to say that the USA is in the first throes of facsism. Putin seems a reassuring presence on the world stage at the moment, and that's saying something.

In reply to Chive Talkin\':




Yes, I know you were, but it was just the first thought that came into my head.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


... coupled with the nearly as scary fact that we've chosen to stumble off into the unknown ('following a rabbit down a hole to emerge in Wonderland,' as Ken Clarke put it yesterday.) I am reminded of some very famous words spoken in the House of Commons 79 years ago:

'I have watched this famous island descending incontinently, fecklessly, the stairway which leads to a dark gulf. It is a fine broad stairway at the beginning, but after a bit the carpet ends. A little farther on there are only flagstones, and a little farther on still these break beneath your feet.'

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Well that makes at least two wise Tories then,

In reply to Hugh J:


I see
Its hard to tell online

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Conservatives. Don't like change do they? Makes you wonder where they got their name from.

In reply to Chive Talkin\':

The treatment by Australia of refugees on Nauru is a disgrace. So the 'deal' being talked about in this phone call between Trump and Turnbull really stinks anyway.

In reply to Chive Talkin\':

and Australia is going to pay for that phone call.
it's long distance and very very expensive.

In reply to Rob Parsons:


The deal struck with Obama you mean?

In reply to Big Ger:

Yes.

The existence of Nauru as a 'holding camp' is itself a disgrace. I haven't studied the 'deal' in detail - I guess I should - but it involves the US taking certain refugees from Nauru which the Australian government itself doesn't want to take.

A more human approach from Australia would have avoided the need for any such 'deal' in the first place.

(Note that I am not suggesting Trump would be in any way correct to renege on the arrangement: a deal's a deal in my book.)

In reply to DancingOnRock:


Well, even though I'm not a Conservative, I can see that there are some things worth preserving, like peace. And some blinkered policies that should be abandoned (Churchill was talking about appeasement).

In reply to Rob Parsons:


That would have opened the floodgates.

In reply to Big Ger:


That turn of phrase gives the game away; no doubt nothing I write here will change your mind.

However, for the record, the Australian government's most recent documentation (http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliament... ) states that "As at 31 October 2016, of the 1,195 people who have had their claims for asylum assessed by the Nauruan Government, 941 (79 per cent) had been found to be refugees."

The people involved therefore aren't bogus tricksters; they're refugees who are legally owed protection, and whose treatment requires a human and humane response.

Australia has been found wanting here.

In reply to Rob Parsons:


So does this document that people will only arrive in the same required refugee/economic migrant proportion?


Australia has been found dealing with the situation.

In reply to Big Ger:


That statement doesn't seem to make sense.

In reply to Big Ger:

The effect of your statement is to say we can't help anyone in genuine need as that would encourage others to take advantage of that kindness.

That is a horrible, sceptical view of the world, I'm sad to think anyone can use that kind of reasoning.

In reply to Chive Talkin\':

Pick a fight with Australia at your peril Trump!

In reply to andyfallsoff:

Your sentiment presumes that the only way we help anyone in genuine need is to allow them into first world countries.

Seeing as the main groups of refugees into Australia come from Afghanistan, Iraq, Myanmar, and Syria should we allow in all of the 139,000,000 people of these countries alongside the 24,000,000 Australia population?

Or may that cause some local difficulties?

Maybe we should only allow those able of making the 10,000 kilometer journey, and who can pass through 10 other nations on their way here to get in?

In reply to Chive Talkin\':

Some more comment on the 'deal' which is the subject of this topic, should anybody be interested: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-03/grattan-on-friday-malcolm-turnbull-wa...

For my part, I agree with the opinion in that article. As I said above, 'a deal's a deal' - so one should expect in this case that the current agreement should be implemented with no quibbles. However, if the other side wants to welch on the deal, then just walk away - and remember that you should never trust them again in future.

In reply to Big Ger:


Perhaps not the only way but, as a first world country, it is probably the best thing you can do for them. People seeking asylum are typically in a long-term situation. It's not like they can camp out for a few months and then head home when all this blows over.

The altrernative - providing money for them to stay in refugee camps - is just hiding the problem. By far and away the vast majority of refugees are in developing countries and there is a real risk that the number of refugees will create destabilise those countries and create more problems down the road. Now you may argue that why should first world countries risk their own destabilisation - and the answer is that we are very, very far from that point today. To give a sense of scale, Lebanon, with a population of 4.5 million has approximately 1 million Syrian refugees;


That's not the best argument in favour of Australia's refugee policy. Australia accepts about 13,000 refugees a year and has just agreed to accept a further 12,000 Syrian refugees on top of that. At its high point the number of asylum seekers reaching Australia by boat was about 6,500 in a single year.

So it is not so much that Australia has a problem with refugees per se, more that it has a problem with people arriving by boat. Here even a limp-wristed lefty like me can have a certain sympathy with their approach, which has demonstrably reduced the number of people risking the journey by sea to Australia.

The problem is the detention centres. Maybe there is no good way to resolve this but the detention centres in PNG and Nauru are unsustainable - not least because the PNG government has been ordered by its supreme court to close it leaving Australia with the problem of what to do with the people in it.

In reply to Bob Hughes:


How many of them? See my figures above


So how many should Australia (pop 24 million,) be prepared to take?


Again, how many should Australia take?

In reply to Big Ger:


A somewhat pointless question in a climbing Forum.

However, you're our man on the ground: can you tell us whether, under the terms of the Obama-Turnbull deal, the number of central American refugees planned to be accepted by Australia is more or less than the number of refugees currently in Nauru and PNG planned to be accepted by the US.

That is: is it the actual *number* of people which is the point at issue here? Or is it their nationality?

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Maybe in your lifetime, but it's not unheard of :-
Here are five prominent world leaders who are believed to have had mental health problems.
Winston Churchill (Bipolar disorder)
Adolf Hitler (Bipolar disorder)
Abraham Lincoln (Depression)
Mahatma Gandhi (Depression)
John F. Kennedy (Depression and manic episodes)

Some have suggested Thatcher, and H Clinton.

Then there are the alcoholics ....

Calm down and carry on .

In reply to Jim C:

Don't forget that Winston wanted to invade Russia at the time!

In reply to Big Ger:




It's a very difficult question to answer because it is largely about the politics of a country. As I said above 25 per cent of lebanons population are Syrian refugees - something which is certainly causing problems in Lebanon but it shows that if a practical limit exists, it hasn't been reached yet.

But, not wanting to completely cop out, here's an attempt at an answer.

The first thing to say is that I personally think that it is not the total amount that matters but the rate of change. This is partly because we saw in Brexit voting patterns that areas with highest number of foreign-born people voted to remain; it was areas with the highest rate of change in immigration which voted to leave. It is also because there is no country that I know of that limits total refugees / immigrants. Immigration controls tend to limit the number of people allowed entry in a given year.

So what should that limit be? Well Sweden (population 9 million) reached its limit when 160,000 asylum seekers arrived in a single year. Let's say half that figure (80,000 ) would be politically acceptable. For a country with a population of 24 million that would get you to 213,000.

If Australia were to announce that they would increase their intake by a factor of twenty overnight there would be chaos, but they could slowly increase it year over year.

In reply to Bob Hughes:



Nice one Bob, that's the first time I think anyone has tried to answer that question, and your figures are reasonable.


Agreed. As of 2014-2015, Australia accepted 13,750 refugees in total, this could be increased at a controlled rate.