UKC

Italy's interior minister on Sunday called on European countries to open their ports to migrant rescue ships as he met for crisis talks with his French and German counterparts.

Italy has threatened to close its ports to charity ships that rescue migrants in the Mediterranean if other EU states do not agree to take some of the growing number of refugees onto their shores.

"We are under enormous pressure," Marco Minniti said in Paris before the talks, which are taking place ahead of an EU summit in Tallinn this week.

Italian media reports said Rome was likely to call for a European code of conduct to be drawn up for the privately-run aid boats, with the Corriere della Sera saying vessels that did not comply could be "seized".

Over the past week alone, around 10,000 migrants have been ferried to Italy after being rescued from overcrowded, rickety boats travelling from Libya.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/02/italy-calls-european-countries-t...

In reply to Big Ger:

Perhaps they should ferry them back to Libya instead of Italy?

In reply to Toerag:

Send them back to Libya so they can be beaten tortured and raped. Great idea. Ffs.

Still why should you care. Through a happy accident of birth you're all right Jack.

In reply to marsbar:

Surely you are in the same position as "Jack", so, if you do not like his answer, what is yours?

In reply to Big Ger:


I wouldn't expect many people to be able to come up with a workable and humane suggestion as to how to solve an issue so complex as to be seriously taxing political and humanitarian experts across Europe. I would, however, expect the heartlessness of some potential courses of action to be evident to all.

In reply to marsbar:


I thought the majority were economic migrants, or is everybody tortured and raped in Libya?


The alternative? Take over their corrupt governments with our wonderfully uncorrupt and incompetent one and run their country for them? We tried that, what did Gandhi say? Better a country run badly by Indians than a country run well by an alien nation, or some such? Seems that some people don't agree.

In reply to jonnie3430:
Have a look at the amnesty website and see what is happening to economic migrants in Libya.

Fwiw if 'we' hadn't been buggering about with other people's governments in the past we probably wouldn't be reaping the consequences now.

In reply to marsbar:

It obviously a horrible situation but I don't think "take them all" attitude is really better than a "send them all back" attitude.

In reply to marsbar:



Weird how some people always frame us in the West as the bad guys. Not the regimes the migrants are fleeing from and not the people torturing, raping and robbing them in the transit countries.
Stinks of the racism of low expectation.

In reply to Stichtplate:



Maybe, just maybe, the earth is not simply divided between "bad guys" and "good guys" and it's a bit more complicated than that ?

In reply to marsbar:

There's an argument for not messing with another country's leadership.
It's hard to imagine Colonel Gadaffi allowing the present situation to develop.

In reply to marsbar:


Send back the working age makes to fight their own war, and rebuild their country. Europe can baby sit the women and children in the mean time, and send them back once some sort of normality resumes.

In reply to marsbar:

I think it's rather more complicated than that. To begin with, bad as the situation in Libya may be, it can hardly be the case that every citizen is faced with the stark choice of:

a) Flee to Europe (not Turkey, not the Middle East, not other African nations - just Europe)

or

b) be beaten, tortured and raped

Secondly, these migrants are not just Libyan citizens fleeing Libya, they are from all over Africa:

http://www.msnbc.com/specials/migrant-crisis/libya

Looking at the Telegraph and MSNBC articles, two questions occur to me:

1) Why are the migrants overwhelmingly young and overwhelmingly male? This is a very common demographic with migrants.

2) How much more mass migration can Europe take before its economies start to collapse?

In reply to RomTheBear:


Couldn't agree more.

I've just discovered that MSNBC has a reputation for being somewhat biased to the political right in its news coverage. In the interests of balance, here's the (allegedly) left-wing biased BBC with a similar map:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24521614

In reply to marsbar:


Will do.


Not sure how you figure the that one out? If we hadn't buggered about with any government they would still have an elite who go off for education and those that can't afford to, they would still have all the natural resources of the country that the rest of the world will approach them for, and they will still siphon of the money for those natural resources to look after their family, friends and future. The ones that don't get the cut backs are the ones wanting better, that aren't getting it in their own country, so are looking elsewhere.

I really don't see how stuff that happend 60 plus years ago affects that? It is a now problem, not a then.

In reply to marsbar:

https://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-releases/libya-new-testimonies-reveal-horr...

Thanks for the link to the article, it suggests the problem is in Libya, what do you suggest happens to fix the kidnapping, extortion, rape and slavery that is taking place there? Or should EU embassies in Africa provide free flights to Europe to stop people having to travel through Libya?

In reply to Thrudge:


Europe needs MORE mass migration that it currently has to avoid its economies to collapse.

In reply to RomTheBear:


That's like arguing that the Earth's population needs to keep increasing to stave off a fall in global GDP.
And yes I know we have an aging population, but bringing in more people to maintain the tax paying footprint is just kicking the same demographic can further down the road.

In reply to Stichtplate:

No, absolutely not. This is simply about dampening the increase in old age dependency ratio in Europe.


No, it's absolutely not the case either. Smoothing out the bump in the age pyramid that was created by the baby boom does not, in itself, re-create the same problem down the road.

In reply to RomTheBear:

What proportion of migrants from Africa and the Middle East have skills that are in need in Europe? What proportion speak the language of the country they settle in? Without those two things, they're going to find it very difficult to find employment of any description. Would they not be a net drain on the economy?

In reply to RomTheBear:


As you are well aware , judging from your other posts, automation is on the cusp of wiping out huge swathes of first world jobs. We are currently strip mining the young ,educated and motivated from the third world where they are desperately needed and importing them to the first world to become tomorrow's unemployed, disenfranchised and dispossessed.


With current year on year immigration figures we're not smoothing out a bump, we're burying it. With youth unemployment running at 20% to 40% across Southern Europe and countries like France already showing huge disparities in immigrant unemployment I fear the possible political situation in Europe ten or fifteen years hence.

In reply to Thrudge:


There is plenty of unskilled work available in europe & at least in Africa, French and English are very widely spoken. German less so but judging by the taxi drivers in Europe's capitals - including Helsinki! - learning the local language seems not to be too much of an obstacle.


So long as you let them find jobs, migrants typically aren't a net drain on the economy. If there's no work, to some extent, migrants will move to find work.

In reply to Thrudge:


In Sweden it's estimate that a migrant family won't be financially supporting itself for 1 generation. The first generation kids who learn the lingo, the culture and want to have a life like their class mates etc..

A large proportion of adults have no pressure from the state to learn Swedish, gain a skill and a job, there is some but not enough. If asylum / refugee women from overseas have children under 8 (school age) then there is zero pressure to even attend Swedish lessons... so large families develop.

It is only the humanitarian principle that drives Sweden's policy, the whole financial element or balancing demographics(Germany's favourite) argument is nonsense.

There are exceptions of course, I know one or two personally who have studied, grafted etc.., but they are the exception not the norm.

In reply to Bob Hughes:


In many countries there is little incentive to work. The state provides everything. I've spoken to several who are just holding out in Sweden for 5 years to get a passport, then move to the UK. I think that plan is blown now.

In reply to Stichtplate:


Are you talking about the UK or the EU? Latest data for the EU is 2.7 million immigrants from a non-member state to an EU member state in 2015. That is 0.36% of the population (473 million)

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Migration_and_m...

In reply to summo:

If that is systematically a problem then countries should look at reducing the benefits available to immigrants at the same time as increasing their access to work.

EDIT: but it seems perverse to argue "we can't let in any more immigrants because they are a drain on society" while continuing to provide a social security system that encourages immigrants to depend on state benefits.

In reply to Bob Hughes:


What if the benefits are actually already low, but they'd rather sit around and just chat together? And if there are so many all the low paid, unskilled work is taken?


The challenge is vetting those who deserve asylum status etc. Which is near impossible.

In reply to Bob Hughes:



The baby boom period ended in France and the UK 42 years ago, much earlier in other European countries. By most markers mass immigration from North Africa and the Middle East seems to be accelerating and certainly shows no sign of stopping. To say that this is just compensating for the European population decline is a false argument.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Or an economic model that doesn't demand endless exponential growth and exploitation of the population…

In reply to Stichtplate:


Actually even if the current rate of net migration to the eu were to double, this would not be enough to plug the doubling of the old age dependency ratios.

In reply to wintertree:


Completely unrelated. Whatever economic model you have, if the ratio of inactive/active on your population doubles, you have a problem.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Society needs to change, now that people live much longer things needed to change anyway. Healthcare costs more, pensions are paid out much longer etc... the answer isn't just double the number of youths, how would that help southern Europe's employment problem?

In reply to RomTheBear:


Not unrelated as long as there are tends in life expectancy and health etc.

You only have a problem if you don't adapt in some other way(s).

In reply to Stichtplate:


What a rigid view of the labour market. Old jobs disappear bit it doesn't mean they won't be replaced by new jobs. There is no shortage of human needs to address so far as I can tell.


Maybe. And maybe it's a bit more nuanced, with remittances and skills going back having a huge positive effect of the poorest countries.

Regardless, I am not really making the argument in favour or against mass immigration. I'm simply saying that the reasons you used to reject it are shaky at best.


No, we are not, the current levels of immigration are not even remotely enough to smooth out the bump. They would need to be much higher in fact.

In reply to wintertree:


If we want our older generations to keep the same quality of life as current, without immigration, then the productivity of the working age generation would need to increase by a lot more than what we've seen historically, which doesn't seem very realistic.
We need in fact to do both, increase the productivity of our own population, faster than we've done so far, AND increase our working age population, faster than we've done so far, to close the gap. And even then, even if you have quite optimistic projections, this is unlikely to be enough.

In reply to summo:

Yes, so what are the magical changes you are going to make ? Yes we can decide to not look after our elderlies as well as we used to that's for sure. And tbh we are already not doing a great job.
Personally I'd rather have more immigration and not have to work until I'm 75. Some people may prefer otherwise, fine, but the important thing is that people need to know the reality of their choices, you if keep voting for reducing working age immigration then don't go complaining later that your pension is too small, healthcare poor, and your kids are paying very high taxes.


You're mixing two different problems. Rigidity and mismatch in the labour markets in some European countries and old age dependency ratios.
Southern European countries will need to fix both.

In reply to RomTheBear:
You say-


And then-


You seem a little confused?
With the onset of automation how do you see the labour market in 10 to 20 years time? Professional drivers, shelf stackers, street cleaners, refuse collectors, till attendants, vast swathes of the financial and legal sectors along with a huge percentage of manufacturing and agricultural workers already present themselves as relatively low hanging fruit for automation. Using the argument of needing the workers to justify mass immigration makes as much sense as when we imported thousands of people to support the Lancashire cotton industry in the 1970's.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Promotion and perhaps even tax incentives for 3 generation households? Greater promotion of family values etc..


Or standards of living decline? But most people are selfish and will kick the can down the road for the next generation?

> , you if keep voting for reducing working age immigration then don't go complaining later that your pension is too small, healthcare poor, and your kids are paying very high taxes.

I moved to where to some degree you get what you pay for. I don't intend to rely on the state for pension provision euther, I'd prefer to live a little less materialistic etc drive an older car, 1 small tv, no expensive phone or sky contract.. and not kill myself working.


Trying to fix one with immigration might well make the other impossible to solve for 20 to 30years.

In reply to summo:


But the mass movement of Nordic and Dutch Somalis to the UK over the last 10 years has been because they could find better employment here, more dynamic diaspora communities, and particularly a far more business friendly environment if you want to set up your own company. Lots of European Somali families are quite trans-European, living between various EU countries and, indeed, increasingly Somalia/Somaliland also.

In reply to marsbar:


The majority of them aren't actually Libyan, they are only there because they think it will get them to Europe. Once they know that even if they get on a boat out of Libya they still won't get to Europe they won't go to Libya in the first place.

Picking up the boats and taking them all straight to Italy simply encourages more to come and in the process get beaten, tortured and raped. Our policy is actually complict in this abuse.

In reply to TobyA:

It is incredibly easy to start a business in Sweden, as you might well know. So I don't think that can be the only motivator. Because people tend to pay online more, invoice or swish it's much harder to work black/ cash, under the radar from the tax office. The personal number makes it hard for people to hide too.

In reply to pec:



There is a pretty obvious problem with this kind of cruel-to-be-kind reasoning ...



which is that it's cruel. And not kind.

In fact it's inhumanly cruel and not even the slightest bit kind. Is that the nature of the world we want to live in?

In reply to john


Nobody wants to be the inhuman asshole that bolts the door but the alternative is to open the borders and let everyone pour in, and pour in they will until the population of Western Europe becomes as overcrowded, underemployed and functionally ungovernable as many of the countries they are fleeing.
Even the liberal utopia of Glastonbury, where ever the cry is heard 'if only the rest of the world could be like this' ,has a bloody big wall around it and an army of security.
Might be inhuman, but isn't Europe better as a kind of 'shining city on the hill' representing to the failed states and kleptocracies what can be achieved in countries at peace and with a firm rule of law for all?

In reply to summo:


Well, further up you said in many countries there is no incentive to work because the state pays for everything.


They'll go somewhere else and / or the rate of arrival will slow down


Agreed - I think a more honest system would just accept this is the case rather than maintaining the fantasy that you can distinguish between "deserving" and "undeserving"

In reply to Stichtplate:


I don't understand the logical link between your last statement and the first two.

In reply to Stichtplate:



You've been listening to Farage et al. The real alternative is to provide immediate care for all, repatriate where appropriate and provide sanctuary where necessary. The details are complex and it's certain that many assessment mistakes will surely be made, but as long as they're effectively unavoidable that's surely a price worth paying.

In reply to summo:

Yes, taxes are higher which mean making a living from a small business is harder, at least that's what I've been told by Finns and some Swedes. Like I say, the UK has a more business friendly environment particularly for smaller businesses. And I noted there are various other reasons too - education is another.

In reply to TobyA:


Not the Dutch Somalis, they moved because the Dutch began insisting on a Dutch language requirement, estimates are 50% moved to the UK.

20,000 moved to Leicester alone, there's an interesting article in the Leicester Mercury with one mother who says this is precisely the reason they moved to the UK.

Of course it does show people who think the UK is unwelcoming that we are better than the supposedly laid back Dutch.

In reply to john arran:


Some bits of it are much more simple than others and this argument is why you should never trust someone who starts from the position that if you don't agree with them you are lacking essential humanity or have 'heartlessness' or that you obviously don't 'care' as much as some others.

The Merkel Plan, as a reaction the the death of the two year old Alan Kurdi, was obviously flawed, even to the casual observer, little expertise required.

Amnesty International and other human rights groups said straight away that it would lead to more deaths, not fewer.

And that was exactly what happened.

What stopped the deaths was persuading (!) Turkey to police it's border properly.

It was a classic example of an over emotional response causing more damage than it solved.

And yet you're still berating people for not being emotional enough!

In reply to Bob Hughes:


Sorry, you came into the thread while I was still addressing Rom's point on the baby boom at 16:17.

In reply to john arran:


I wouldn't piss on Farage et al if they were on fire. I simply hold the position that Europe doesn't have the capacity or resources to accommodate all the worlds people who would live here if they could.

In reply to winhill:

And the point where I berated people was where?

We don't live in a binary world, tempting as it may be to see it that way.

In reply to Stichtplate:

If I'd suggested that as a possible solution you'd be right to disagree.

In reply to john arran:


You'd fall at the first hurdle where you said 'provide immediate care for all', let alone 'repatriate where necessary' , which we are currently finding impossible without resorting to behaviour far more inhumane than closing the borders.

In reply to john arran:




Sadly there is much cruelty in the world and we are powerless to stop most of it, whatever we do people will die or suffer. However, we can do some things which will result in less suffering and death. The kneejerk reaction to leap in and save people has caused far more death and suffering than the apparently more 'cruel' response of turning them back.

It will also go on causing more problems (if not actually cruelty) both here in Europe as we struggle to integrate millions of migrants and to deal with unsustainable population growth and in their countries of origin as all the brightest and most able upon whom any hope for future prosperity depends have deserted their homelands.

I could just as easily characterise your approach as kind to be cruel as thousands are encouraged to follow with many dying en-route, falling into the hands of barbaric criminals or drowning at sea.

In reply to pec:


Although it doesn't really count unless you self righteously proclaim the moral high ground whilst doing so.

The real question is why do countries fail time and again? The answer to my mind is that the UN is weak and ineffective due in part to the incompatible vested interests of differing UNSC permenant members.

A weak and ineffective UN is bad for us all.

In reply to wintertree:


I've little faith in the UN. We in the UK could do far more good in the world if we simply stopped providing off shore tax havens, anonymous shell companies and allowing non resident foreign nationals to spend billions on unoccupied London properties.

In reply to marsbar:


Why send them back to Libya?

According to UNHCR, the top ten nationalities of Mediterranean Sea arrivals in 2015 were Syria (49%), Afghanistan (21%), Iraq (8%), Eritrea (4%), Pakistan (2%), Nigeria (2%), Somalia (2%), Sudan (1%), the Gambia (1%) and Mali (1%)

In reply to pec:


Do you have any evidence to support this? It could be true, but equally it may well be unfounded but convenient wishful thinking to justify an I'm Alright Jack attitude.

In reply to TobyA:


I'll give you that on taxes if all you value is money. It's a big leap tax wise from a one man band to being an employer. I think it depends on what business and where you are. Land is cheaper, planning easier, internet connection everywhere is better than the UK... I think they move to the UK because there is a UK obsession, that it's some how better than other places, almost for status.

In reply to Big Ger:
It continues and it's probably here to stay... The current situation of wealth inequality (both between nations and within nations) is probably unsustainable. The internet shows an increasing number of less fortunate people what they "could have" somewhere else...

Add to that the pressure on food resources that is likely to arise from climate change and global population growth and it's easy to see how the desire will likely remain in many people to move to a place where they think they will have more/better opportunities.

And that's not even mentioning the useless class that could be created by artificial intelligence/automation. It is likely that, even in developed countries, that the wealth gap will grow. As more and more people have access to internet, advertising etc, they see how much more comfortable life appears to be elsewhere. We already have a huge number of people globally who, purely because of the piece of land on which they are born, will likely struggle to escape poverty and/or be persecuted for whatever reason. At the same time, there could be an increasing number of people in the UK and similar countries who can't find employment and struggle to make ends meet. Politicians and the media will likely stoke up further feelings of fear (they're taking our jobs and our school places, healthcare services etc etc) to make sure a majority don't think it's in their interests to help economic migrants or refugees...

What's probably required is more international collaboration at this stage on trying to find workable solutions and compromises, whatever they may be. Sadly, though, we are at a stage where the average American doesn't want to pay a few more cents in tax to ensure access to healthcare for less fortunate fellow citizens...what's the chance of them giving a damn about poor foreigners? And in some European countries we like to feel we are more powerful than we are, so when others come up with a solution that involves us helping out a little, we spit the dummy because it wasn't our suggestion.

And war...another factor that clearly has impact on making people leave their home countries unwillingly, in search of a safer place.

I think it's a crisis that is going to grow and cause further tensions, unless countries can begin collaborating a little more with the goal of finding innovative solutions.

In reply to john arran:


Australia started turning back migrant boats and the flow was dramatically reduced and with it deaths at sea.

Scroll down to the graphs here: http://www.asyluminsight.com/statistics/#.WVtD2VGQyic

As the number of boat arrivals peaks so does the deaths and vice versa.
There's also the deaths to consider that happen as migrants travel to the coast which wouldn't happen if they didn't leave their homes.

In reply to Big Ger:


Syria, Afghanistan, great safe places at the moment.. you should go there for a short holiday, let's see how you fare. Ho and don't try to come back by boat.

In reply to Big Ger:

We can be grateful that there's a big hot desert and a couple of bits of sea between Europe and the most populated parts of Africa, otherwise most of Africa would have walked in by now. France has 5 million from the Maghreb and we could have had considerably more from Anglophone Africa. As it is, the difficulty of reaching Europe means that only the most determined, fit and resourceful are making it to the borders and these are exactly the people we need to help work our businesses and industries.

In reply to Rigid Raider:

Or alternatively those least inclined to work hard to improve their home and most inclined to criminality to get a relatively easy life (i.e. Paying smugglers to help them illegally cross borders).

In reply to pec:



Yes, they really should all just stay put and take their chances with bombs, persecution and famine. You're making a good case for a very one-sided viewpoint. I appreciate that there will be some migrants that are not in great immediate danger at home - the right-wing press would have us believe they're nearly all like that - but that doesn't excuse turning our backs on everyone, including the many that very likely will die if we do.

In reply to Rigid Raider:


Alternatively; only the fittest, most callous and violent young men are making it to Europe. The sort of chaps who are doing the raping and killing in Libya as they prey on the weaker refugees. Since I doubt they're all achitects, computer programmers and surgeons, precisely what do they have to offer a modern economy?

A few million angry young men from countries mired in decades of violence. What could possibly go wrong?

In reply to Rigid Raider:


No, these are the very people their home countries need to build a better future for themselves otherwise these places will remain impoverished, war torn and corrupt forever, haemorraging migrants to an already overcrowded Europe.

In reply to Ridge:

Determined, Fit and Resourceful are qualities that most would associate with being successful in making such arduous and perilous journeys. Callous and Violent aren't. It could be argued that many are fleeing simply because the callous and violent people in their homeland have made it too dangerous to stay. Sounds like you're assuming negative traits in migrants and then using that assumption to argue against helping them. Yes, I'm sure there are callous and violent people among the millions of migrants - it would be unbelievable otherwise - but I see nothing to suggest that those qualities are more common in migrants than in the population in general. Quite possibly the reverse.

In reply to Ridge:
Nah, you don't get it. Europe has an infinite amount of schools and hospitals and houses, an infinite amount of money to spend on welfare and healthcare, an infinite amount of space, and nobody at all capable of unskilled labour. We should just build a 500-mile wide bridge between Libya and Italy and put free buses on it. It'll be fine, don't worry about it. Only selfish evil racists think there's a problem.

In reply to marsbar:

Ok marsbar they can all live at your house mate. All very well being so caring but relations are already getting strained. At a guess the majority of EU governments are strapped for cash so how is it going to be financed eh.

Spend the time and effort making their home countries more desirable to stay.

In reply to Big Ger:
"Much of the fuss about migration has focused on its short-term economic impact: it is variously alleged to be crowding the low-skilled out of jobs (Ukip) or to be essential for growth or short-term fiscal receipts (the left and big business). In fact, the evidence is that these effects are minimal. A careful new study across Europe by Frédéric Doquier of the University of Louvain finds that the cumulative impact of a decade of immigration has changed wages by between 0% and 0.5%, depending on the country.

The important effects of immigration are social and long term, not economic and short term. The key long-term social effects are probably on the overall size of the population and its diversity. As to population size, Britain is already one of the most crowded countries in Europe, and there is a sound environmental argument for protecting quality of life by discouraging further substantial increases. As to diversity, it involves a trade-off: as it increases, variety is enhanced but cohesion reduced. Variety is good but, unfortunately, as cohesion erodes voters become less willing to support generous welfare programmes.

There is a universal psychological tendency for inconvenient truths to be denigrated, and this is certainly inconvenient for the left. But it is not speculation: I describe some of the supporting research in my book Exodus, and rigorous new experimental research by the Oxford political scientists Sergi Pardos and Jordi Muñoz finds that immigration has just this effect, especially on benefits that are targeted at the poor."

Professor Paul Collier (author of "Exodus")

One of his many interesting and well evidenced arguments is that the breakdown in cohesion of societies resulting from immigration undermines the belief in collectivism and the welfare state. Those of the left who favour more open borders may be undermining the very values and institutions that they treasure.

They will also, of course, be undermining the prospects of the countries of origin of these immigrants.

In reply to Postmanpat:

thanks - looks like a very interesting book. Just bought it on amazon.

In reply to Bob Hughes:

Interesting book as an opinion piece and some interesting insight, especially on brain drain. However widely acknowledged to be littered with innacuracies and conclusions unsupported or even contradicted by most of the peer-reviewed literature.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Hard to see you you can claim this as an "of course". In some of the poorest countries, expat funds wired to remaining families provide a substantial chunk of funding, which otherwise would make life unsustainable for many. They are indeed a lifeline which can prevent starvation. Neither is it reasonable to expect destitute populations with no democratic voice, to be able to fight for societal change at home. I'm not convinced prospects in such countries would likely be improved if you were to take that lifeline away.

In reply to john arran:

There have been reports of Christians being thrown overboard, and I'd associate the ability to trample over people to get into a boat as being a very useful quality to making a sucessful journey.


Alternatively the callous and violent people are getting out as the various regimes and the Caliphate crumble.


I assume negative traits in humanity. In Western Europe the population are unusually docile by world standards, in the Middle East and Sub-Saharan Africa less so. That's nothing to do with race, if we had been brought up in similar failed states we'd be exactly the same. You can't expect someone from a country where you need the ability to be violent to survive to suddenly take a breath of the pure air of Europe and transform into western liberal.


There's nothing to substantiate your assertion that the reverse is true. Hopefully you're right.

In reply to Big Ger:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40492396

The eu debate on the migrant crisis was very popular. Now they are finished for 7 weeks holiday, as Austria rolls out the army to block migrants on its Italian border. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40491497

In reply to john arran:


Refugees can only work once their case in successfully completed. At which point they won't be wiring funds abroad, they will be bringing their entire family over to join them. (Human rights act etc.. and the right to a family life ). Most of Sweden now accepts it's sitting on a time bomb, for every case of a 30 something being accepted; they'll have also absorb several more family members. The wear needs to be shared around Europe but the eu isn't capable of doing anything meaningful.

It's very different to say the Indian or Bangladeshi who works as a near slave in say saudi wiring their money home.

In reply to john arran:

Yes. I'll rephrase it to "of course there are many negative impacts on the prospects for the countries of origin". As Collier points out, there are also many positives, not least the transfers of funds that you mention, but also the increased motivation to be educated (in order to be able to leave.)

Collier doesn't claim to have all the answers. He is more interested in trying to address honestly the right questions. If he has a conclusion it would be that migration is a good thing, but that if it is too fast and too large it can be a bad thing.

David Goodhart's "The British Dream" is also inciteful, coming as it does from a self identifying liberal lefty.

This is a taste of it:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/mar/27/why-left-wrong-mass-immigrati...

In reply to summo:


I know, isn't it frustrating when the UK repeatedly offers sanctuary to large numbers of helpless people, only to be blocked from doing so by the evil EU. Pretty obvious where the blame lies, eh?

In reply to john arran:


Not sure how the UK compares to Poland, hungary, Romania,Macedonia, Austria.. ..

I agree the UK has taken very very few proportionally too.

In reply to john arran:


But that's what virtually every free and democratic country has had to do at some point in it's history.

In reply to Stichtplate:


Yes, but then when most democratic countries went through that process , their governments were not armed with attack helicopters, fighter jets and tanks…

This is why we now need a UN that is strong enough to fix countries where needed.

In reply to wintertree:


It's very easy to forget that service personnel are people too , not just faceless government drones in the mode of Star Wars storm troopers.

In reply to Stichtplate:





Firm rule of law for all isn't exactly the only attribute that allowed Europe to become so successful though, is it? Large scale migration and foreign resource aquisition also played an important part. It's funny how that part always gets left out when encouraging others to follow our shining example.

In reply to Ciro:
Given that human civilisation began in Africa a long time before Europe was inhabited one might have thought that Africans would have had the advantage when it comes to becoming developed.

In reply to baron:

Yes, hunter gatherer tribes spreading out across the globe and colonialisation by organised civilisations are pretty much one and the same, huh?

In reply to Ciro:
Obviously not, which was my point.

In reply to Ciro:

Not at all, judging by the last few centuries the organised civilisations generally turn up , strip largely untapped resources, behave deplorably, build an entire infrastructure and then bugger off again.
The hunter gatherers just wander about a bit .


Edit: of course they did stay in some places. Hell holes like Canada, New Zealand, Australia and the USA.

In reply to Stichtplate:


I'm not sure what relevance this point has to my comment, the gist of which is it's much harder for people to free themselves of despotic government in the era of modern weapons.

There never seems to be a shortage of people willing to serve in the military of despotic governments.

In reply to wintertree:


The relevance to your comment being that it is often a countries own military that overthrow despots. Not always with great results admittedly.

In reply to Stichtplate:


Okay, that really wasn't obvious to me. Just as often those militaries are used to bomb/gas/shoot/rape/torture the civilians. Your earlier comment that I was replying to seemed to suggest it not unreasonable that a nations people overthrow their despotic government. My view is that this is effectively impossible now compared to the pre-industrial past.

I'm not normally a fan of blaming the west for the ills of the world but where do these governments get their military toys from? Small consolation but where Western Europe and the USA don't sell them, the Russians are only to happy, so it's not obvious that if the west stopped all arms exports it would get any better at all.

In reply to wintertree:



My real point is that a countries military are as much a legitimate part of the population as nurses or whoever, they don't make up a separate bloc and their families aren't spared the predations of despotic regimes. A sizeable portion of the free Syrian army is made up of ex regulars.

Surely recent events across the Middle East show that popular uprisings can still succeed?

In reply to Stichtplate:



Which was kinda my point, if we're going to hold ourselves up as a model to follow, we can't really complain about economic migration...

In reply to Stichtplate:


Depends on your definition of success. It seems everywhere we've agitated for uprising recently has ended up as disfunctional as the places we've invaded...

In reply to Ciro:


Legal economic migrants, fine. Illegal economic migrants posing as refugees, more problematic.
.... bit like saying 'if you build yourself a nice house you can't really complain if you attract squatters'.

In reply to Ciro:


Agreed. Overthrow of regime successful , aftermath a nightmare.

In reply to Stichtplate:


We never let the rest of the world decide on the rules by which we visited...


Not really, more like saying if your success is based on squatting on other people's land, it's a bit rich to complain when others want to come and squat on yours.

In reply to Ciro:
How successful, compared to any country in Africa, would European countries be if they hadn't exploited the world's resources?

In reply to baron:


Do you believe it's possible to answer that question? All we can say with confidence is to observe that it's been pretty central to our economic model for rather a long time.

In reply to baron:
And our own! Don't forget all the British coal and steel that was used to trade around the globe! We should ask for it back, migrants need to bring a tonne of coal and a tonne of steel to get entrance! Good point.

In reply to Ciro:


By 'we' who exactly do you mean? Are you talking about events 70, 100, 300 years ago , about which we as a nation are notably contrite. Remember those abuses of other nations were historical, our relation with them today is more characterised by the billions we send every year in overseas aid.


Our success is not based on squatting on other people's land though is it, no more than Italy's success is based on the Roman Empire or South Africa's success is based on the conquests of Shaka Zulu.

In reply to jonnie3430:
Exactly!
But they need to bring tons, non of that metric tonne rubbish!

In reply to Stichtplate:



We as in europe, the shining city on the hill, who's example the african nations are supposed to be following. You can't really tell me you believe European success is not based on the british, french, spanish, portugues, etc. building empires around the world? Rome wasn't built in a day, and neither was european success. We might not be taking slaves any more, but we continue to control resources through both economic means and military might, deposing leaders who threaten our access by bloody invasion regardless of the cost to human life, point nuclear weapons at our competitors for that resource control and threaten to obliterate them should they attempt to build their own.

The billions we give back in aid are peanuts compared to what we're making by keeping our place at the top of the global order.

In reply to Ciro:


Yes we conquered and exploited other nations , but what do you think those other nations were doing? Living peacefully with their neighbours? No , they were engaged in wars of conquest just as deplorable as our own, then we turned up with firearms and it was game over.
As for European success being based on colonial conquest... utter tripe. There are plenty of successful European country's from Sweden to Switzerland that never had colonies.
If you want to know why Europe succeeded look up the agricultural and industrial revolutions , or even better read the excellent 'guns, germs and steel'.

Edit: if past colonial success is the main reason for current wealth and power why isn't Spain a global superpower and America an economic backwater?

In reply to Ciro:
And Africa seems unable or unwilling , in many ways to help itself.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.newsweek.com/nigeria-billionaires-inequali...

In reply to Stichtplate:




Not having been directly involved in colonialisation doesn't mean these countries didn't benefit from the flow of resources into europe. Of course the agricultural and industrial revolutions were major reasons for our growth. That doesn't mean our migration didn't play a part.

Edit: I didn't say it was the main reason, I said it was the one we tend to overlook when encouraging others to follow our path

In reply to baron:




True, I'd say it's a bit of both. We do seem to have a habit of destabilising things when it looks like they might be getting their act together in a way that suits their economic interests and not ours.

In reply to john arran:


So, are you are suggesting that the populations of Libya, Syria , Afghanistan, Iraq, Eritrea, Pakistan, Nigeria , Somalia , Sudan , the Gambia and Mali (roughly 564,000,000 people,) shoudl all make their way to Europe for safety, food, shelter, education, healthcare, housing and all the benefits of living here?

In reply to Big Ger:


If that's what I was suggesting, that's what I would have written.

Good of you to check though. Anything else I haven't said that you want me to confirm or deny while I'm here?

In reply to john arran:

Well it would be nice if, instead of just criticising others for offering their thoughts, you were to offer some sort of ideas of your own.

In reply to Ciro:


That is what you said isn't it?

In reply to Stichtplate:



Perhaps my wording in that statement was a little ambiguous, but you know as well as I do that like most things in life there are a large number of factors that european success has been based on. If the debate is going to come down to semantics I'll bid you a good evening.

In reply to Ciro:


Fair enough , but from the whole thrust of your argument I honestly thought that was your belief.

In reply to Stichtplate:

Your might like to read up how many of the now global oil companies started, many in the middle East with western expertise; where we charged the nation 60 or 70% of their profits for assisting them extract oil.

In reply to summo:


Fair point, but they were getting a lot more for their money than what was written down on the contracts. That oil extraction expertise also came with overt and covert military power,backing the regimes that we had put in place. Dirty dealings all round, leaving Britain with a bad rep all over the Middle East. It's still a fairly widespread belief in Iran that it's actually the UK pulling the US's strings.

In reply to Stichtplate:

Did it occur to you that what they have done after colonisation may have erased a lot of the gains and losses ?


Spain is a rich country, and anybody who has looked at the numbers will find that slavery was absolutely critical in the building of the US economy.

However the larger picture is that most colonies were actually not profitable, many colonial ventures turned out to be economic disasters. Colonies were more about prestige, cultural and geographic dominance that they were about money.
The exception is India which was an extremely profitable one for Britain.

In reply to summo:
Perhaps we should have let the Germans have them in the 1940's.
Then they'd have had something tomcomplain about.

In reply to RomTheBear:

I think the 'gains and losses' part of your post is very pertinent. The UK may have done very well out of India, but two World Wars since then meant that wealth was converted into ships, aircraft, tanks and munitions. The UK was bankrupt at the end of WW2, as were many of the European nations. It could be argued that aid from the Marshall plan came originally from slavery, although it's beginning to get a bit tenuous.

Colonialism seems to be the new original sin, for which the UK in particular will be blamed for in perpetuity.

In reply to Ridge:


Will it? What other countries care?

Or is it some Brits describing it as a sin and blaming Britain in particular. The Spanish record in south America is appalling, the Belgian in Africa terrible and the Italian in North Africa not great.

In reply to Ridge:

It's not new, even through the prism of our highly chauvinistic and selective recollection of history, it's difficult to argue against the fact that colonialism was an abomination of epic proportions, it's nothing less than the brutal domination and exploitation of entire populations, and we can't really be proud of it.
The fact that we have seemed to made have made mostly a mess of it and squander most of what we gained from it by our own stupidity does not absolve us in any way.

However, the grand-grandchildren of the victims are not necessarily victims, and the grand-grandchildren of the perpetrators are not the perpetrators, as long as we are prepared to take a realistic look at history. If we chose to ignore or embellish the past, then we become indeed accomplices.

So no, colonialism is not our fault, we weren't born, but we can't choose to ignore it or embellish what our past generations did.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Idiot.

In reply to jonnie3430:

Beautiful argumentation there. Don't flatter yourself.

In reply to baron:


Does fighting an evil dictator(who everyone wanted rid of) justify taking 50, 60 70% of a nations oil revenue? Even the dragons don't expect that percentage share of a business!

In reply to summo:
And now you're saying that the middle East doesn't have enough oil money!

I think education and work visas would be best. Train and give people experience who then go back home to apply the training and experience there.

In reply to summo:

No, there was no excuse for exploitation of another countries natural resources.

In reply to jonnie3430:


I'm talking about how most big western oil companies started by exploiting middle eastern countries, 40 50 60 years ago. That is very different to the current situation of course.

In reply to Big Ger:

France is still at a loss as to what to do, it would seem.

More than 2,000 refugees and migrants who had been sleeping rough on the streets in Paris for weeks in squalid and insanitary conditions have been evicted and bussed to temporary shelters in school gymnasiums as riot police stood by.

Hundreds of refugees and migrants arrived in the Porte de La Chapelle area of northern Paris, sleeping under road bridges and on the side of the road with almost no access to water, sanitation and food, outside Paris’s new aid centre for asylum-seekers that was opened in November.

The eviction began at dawn on Friday and took place calmly as riot police watched over groups of men and women from countries including Afghanistan and Eritrea – some only with small rucksacks or plastic bags of belongings – being moved and placed on buses and driven out of of Paris.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/07/french-police-evict-2000-refu...

Perhaps Frau Merkel will take them in.

In reply to Big Ger:


I find these sorts of statements a little disingenuous. It seems intended to invoke an image of desperation, of someone who lost everything, who is suffering torments we could never imagine, and ergo we must provide utmost and preferential support to.

Owning only enough personal belongings to fit in a plastic shopping bag is the norm in communities I currently work in, and not unusual in the wealthier 20% or so of the population who live above the official poverty line. They number over a million out of the 8 million in this country alone. Globally they figure in the billions.

Global poverty, desperation, and border-line existence, is on a scale that cannot be resolved by opening borders. And those who fall in to this category live at a level, with no attempt to migrate, that makes many economic migrants and refugees look reasonably well off. Those that do manage to flee to the West appear to be some of the best resourced of this vast swathe of humanity.

Therefore it strikes me as somewhat unfair that states are castigated for their failure to provide sufficient services to these individuals while those who remain in their countries of origin would be grateful, if not have their lives changed, if receiving a tiny fraction of the levels of support that are provided to those who arrive in the EU.

Some of those complaining the most bitterly about migrant/refugee treatment, ironically, appear to have little or no awareness of the reality of life for much of the planet's population.