UK Politics Mega-thread - Page 243

On November 02 2016 23:50 Dan HH wrote:

Arrivals via the Mediterranean this year have been 1/3 of last year. Thousands drowning happened in 2015 and 2014 as well. The reason it didn't happen in 2013 being evidently that it was over a year before the migrant crisis started. Blaming the rescuing operations for the drownings and suggesting that rescuing increased migration via the Mediterranean lacks the chronology to make sense

As a side note, since you have complained about receiving replies that are not charitable to your positions in the past dozen pages, not spamming buzzwords from alt-retard blogs such as 'virtue signalling' would definitely help with that.

On November 02 2016 23:52 bardtown wrote:


Uh, you're saying that the migrant crisis hadn't started before the migrant crisis started. Great insight. Perhaps you mean the war in Syria hadn't started? But it had, so I doubt you mean that. Essentially you're saying nothing.

As for the language policing: nope.

On November 03 2016 00:09 Dan HH wrote:

There is no correlation whatsoever between an increase rescuing operations and an increase in arrivals via the Mediterranean, there isn't an increase in the latter. I'm sure you understood that despite trying to dissect one of 3 sentences which is indeed meaningless without the previous two sentences in making that point.

On November 03 2016 00:12 bardtown wrote:


I didn't understand it. So your contention is that the massive increase in people attempting that route of migration had nothing to do with the early successes of people taking that route of migration?

On November 03 2016 00:29 Gorsameth wrote:

Pretty much yes.

People have drowned trying to cross rapid rivers to get from Greece further into the EU. If most would drown trying to cross the Mediterranean they would still try it.
It's what desperation does to you.

And its not like there are wars or something going on that is driving the increase in refugees. /s

On November 03 2016 00:12 bardtown wrote:


I didn't understand it. So your contention is that the massive increase in people attempting that route of migration had nothing to do with the early successes of people taking that route of migration?

On November 03 2016 00:40 Dan HH wrote:

The early success of that route has not been contingent on "the EU actively collecting them and bringing them to Europe". They were making it to Europe on their own with a low enough death rate to sustain the increase as the conditions in the area deteriorated. That the EU didn't want to let as many as possible drown is not a main factor in this, as we can see from the fact that we now have a massive decrease in arrivals despite the rescue operations covering more ground than ever and truly collecting people off the coasts they depart from as had not been the case 2 years ago.

On November 02 2016 23:28 bardtown wrote:
Case in point. You're so busy virtue signalling you haven't bothered to engage your brains. They are risking their lives en masse because the EU keeps collecting them. People smuggling to Europe was a much smaller outfit a few years ago, as it is in Australia now. If the EU had reacted as Australia has reacted - immediately taking all illegal migrants away from Europe - then we would never have arrived at this situation with thousands of people drowning.

Give yourselves a pat on the back.

On November 03 2016 00:39 bardtown wrote:


We've had that point already and it would be valid if the majority of the migrants were coming from say Syria or Yemen, but they aren't.

I'm sorry but I think it is exceedingly clear that the EU's (in particular Germany's) open door stance lead to the increase in numbers. If the first waves of refugees who had attempted the route had been taken directly to a refugee camp, the situation would likely be completely different now. And then money could have been spent effectively on doing good for the people who needed it most, not on providing housing in expensive countries exclusively for those rich and healthy enough to make the journey.

Likewise, the decrease you see now is not due to a decrease in violence but rather to the fact that the EU is now making much less positive noises and attempting to block migrants' access to the EU.

On November 03 2016 00:49 MyLovelyLurker wrote:


Since we're talking about going back to facts, signalling the influx of accepted, non-Schengen immigrants in the UK is circa 1,200 per month for the last 10 years, ie peanuts. You dismiss 10% of GDP as 'costs' and 'long term investment', why and how exactly is 0.003% of the population so important, all of a sudden ?

On November 03 2016 00:55 MyLovelyLurker wrote:



You're missing the point. If you quantify 'that money', it's zilch. Exiting the Eurozone for a few migrants is like chopping your own head off because of a zit.

On November 03 2016 00:57 bardtown wrote:


It isn't. Got sidetracked into an EU-wide issue. Note however that the refugees we are taking in the UK are coming directly from camps in/around Syria. This, in my eyes, is the right approach.

On November 03 2016 01:00 bardtown wrote:


Actually, you're missing the point. That money is not zilch to the people in Syria who need it. It is an extremely significant amount. I'm talking about spending the money we set aside for aid as efficiently as possible, not complaining that we spend money on aid.

Edit: Sorry for all the double posting. I am asleep today, apparently.

On November 03 2016 01:02 MyLovelyLurker wrote:


Thanks for the candor, I think we got what we need here. If we are at a point where we agree that 1. the refugees issue is moot and noise, and 2. the putative upcoming cost impact of Brexit on the UK compares with the GFC ( and certainly nothing debated within these pages would have one rethink ) - then this begs the question : what are the offsetting huge rewards Brexit will bring, and what is the degree of confidence associated ?

On November 03 2016 01:41 bardtown wrote:
I think I've probably been through the arguments in favour of Brexit enough times, now. Only time will tell whether the benefits of sovereign control of our borders/trade/laws will be sufficient compensation for what is lost in leaving the EU.

On November 02 2016 22:49 bardtown wrote:


Almost all of the migrants are coming via the Mediterranean, and the EU is actively collecting them and bringing them to Europe.

The High Court has ruled against the Government over its failure to tackle illegal air pollution.

Environmental legal group ClientEarth described the decision as a "damning indictment of ministers’ inaction on killer air pollution".

Mr Justice Garnham decided the Environment Secretary had failed to take steps to bring the UK into compliance with the law "as soon as possible".

In an echo of the Volkswagen vehicle emissions scandal, the judge said ministers knew an overly optimistic model of pollution was being used, ClientEarth said in a statement.

ClientEarth's chief executive James Thornton said: "I am pleased the judge agrees with us that the Government could and should be doing more to deal with air pollution and protecting people’s health. That’s why we went to court.

"The time for legal action is over. This is an urgent public health crisis and the Prime Minister must take personal control.

"I challenge Theresa May to take immediate action now to deal with illegal levels of pollution and prevent tens of thousands of additional early deaths in the UK. The High Court has ruled that more urgent action must be taken. Britain is watching and waiting, Prime Minister.”

According to Government estimates, some 40,000 people die prematurely in the UK as a result of air pollution.

However, in his judgment, Mr Justice Garnham said the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs appeared content to delay action.

"It is apparent that Defra recognised that they were adopting an optimistic forecast as the foundation for their modelling," he wrote, saying this was used to justify putting off the creation of several low-emission zones in urban areas until 2020 or 2025.

But the judge pointed to a Cabinet briefing note from last year which said "emerging findings from real-world testing by independent experts ... suggest emissions for Euro 6 [a group of vehicles] are significantly higher than previously thought".

This, he said, was "remarkable". "It means that the Government is acknowledging that its plan is built around a forecast based on figures which 'emerging data' is underminin g and that if higher, more realistic, assumptions for emissions are made the number of zones which will not meet the [air pollution] limit value in 2020 increases substantially," Mr Justice Garnham said.

"It seems to me plain that by the time the plan was introduced the assumption underlying the Secretary of State's assessment of the extent of likely future non-compliance [with legal pollution limits] had already been shown to be markedly optimistic."

At a hearing last month, ClientEarth presented evidence which it said showed that George Osborne had illegally blocked stricter controls of air pollution when he was Chancellor on the grounds it would cost too much.

However the judge said this criticism was "misplaced" as it was "wholly unsurprising" that the Treasury should seek to "manage and limit the extent of public expenditure. That is what the Treasury is there for".

Mr Justice Garnham ruled the Environment Secretary "fell into error by adopting too optimistic a model for future emissions" and also by deciding to comply with the law only by 2020 – and 2025 in London.