Brexit: Boris' Big Belgian Bangers - The Bear and Badger

IanHamlett

Is she allowed to dip her balls into this whipped bean curd?

Funkstain

IanHamlett wrote:

Which bit isn't true? Refugees, predominantly Syrians but with a fair few Afghans, are fleeing conflict zones which we've apparently done our best to enworsen.

Last time I saw figures, Syrians were a minority. The largest minority but still a minority. You might see an attempt to enworsen Syria, but there's nothing in that for the EU. I see an attempt to stabilise the country so that Syrians can live there safely.

Other countries, notably rich ones like ours, are doing everything they can to avoid taking any responsibility for those suffering. I find this embarrassing. This all, at first glance, appears true to me.

I would like the UK to take more refugees, and I would like Germany to take refugees directly from Syria, but the UK is spending more on Syrian aid than any other EU country and trying to stabilise the country militarily. Maybe not the best strategy, but Syrians aren't fleeing British bombs. So that's probably about half true, but the bit I was saying wasn't true was that the migrant crisis would be solved if more countries took more people.

I see. It's possible you missed the context in which I was speaking: I'm in Turkey, and my comments referred to the current deal-making between the EU and Turkey with regards to the refugee crisis here, which in my view would be solved if more countries, indeed, did take on more refugees and looked after them properly.

I'm not sure if you're joking about stabilising the country? I mean a cease-fire that has tentatively lasted a few days is good, sure, but I really hope you're not suggesting the UK has done anything like as much as it could have to resolve the situation in Syria (admittedly it doesn't have much influence with Putin and Obama anyway). My comment about making things worse refers to what has been happening in Syria due to outside forces for the last few years, not the more recent attempts to resolve the issue, which frankly is far too little far far far too late.

Again I'm not sure what you mean when you say the Syrians are but a minority of the EU migrant crisis? These figures seem quite clear, with regards to asylum seekers, which is the only thing I'm talking about:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34131911.

IanHamlett

Funkstain wrote:

Again I'm not sure what you mean when you say the Syrians are but a minority of the EU migrant crisis? These figures seem quite clear, with regards to asylum seekers, which is the only thing I'm talking about: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34131911.

Using migrants and asylum seeker interchangeably can lead to confusion but the main mistake you've made is to take this chart...

_88578063_chart_top10_origins_of_asylum_seekers_2015.jpg

_88578063_chart_top10_origins_of_asylum_seekers_2015.jpg

... and interpret it as the total of all asylum seekers.

The information you need to reach the right figures is actually on the page but very poorly presented.

If you look at this pic you can see the total number of claims for 2015 is 1,321,560. The number of Syrian applicants from the other chart is somewhere around 360,000. That puts Syrian refugees at 27% of the total number of refugees. There are also economic migrants that are not covered here.

If you take out the number of Syrian, Afghan, and Iraqi asylum seekers from 2015, there are still around 660,000 (about half of the original number) non-EU asylum seekers arriving in EU in 2015. That's still way higher than the 280,000 the IOM estimates arrived in EU in 2014. That's why I don't think the Syrian war is the main driving force in the migrant crisis and why I don't think more countries taking more people would solve it.

beano

Has mainstream news acknowledged the Yemen crisis, yet?

beano

I mean, it's absent from that histogram

acemuzzy

The Sun have confirmed they're confident in their headline "there's been a claim that QUEEN WANTS OUT OF EUROPE"

GooberTheHat

Does it count if it's them making the claim?

bad_hair_day

She's quoted to have said 'It's the final countdown'.

GooberTheHat

Dada daa duuuh, Dada da da duuuh!

Diluted Dante

Listening to the Scum editor defending the story is painful. Apparantly it's semantics when asked when the second claim occurred. Except as the interviewer pointed out, 5 years ago and after a referendum has been called makes a huge difference in someone's views.

Funkstain

IanHamlett wrote:

Again I'm not sure what you mean when you say the Syrians are but a minority of the EU migrant crisis? These figures seem quite clear, with regards to asylum seekers, which is the only thing I'm talking about: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34131911.

Using migrants and asylum seeker interchangeably can lead to confusion but the main mistake you've made is to take this chart... ... and interpret it as the total of all asylum seekers. The information you need to reach the right figures is actually on the page but very poorly presented. If you look at this pic you can see the total number of claims for 2015 is 1,321,560. The number of Syrian applicants from the other chart is somewhere around 360,000. That puts Syrian refugees at 27% of the total number of refugees. There are also economic migrants that are not covered here. If you take out the number of Syrian, Afghan, and Iraqi asylum seekers from 2015, there are still around 660,000 (about half of the original number) non-EU asylum seekers arriving in EU in 2015. That's still way higher than the 280,000 the IOM estimates arrived in EU in 2014. That's why I don't think the Syrian war is the main driving force in the migrant crisis and why I don't think more countries taking more people would solve it.

I can see that the two sets of figures appear to contradict each other, but they are both clear in their use of EU Asylum Seekers in 2015. The only difference I can see is "first time applicants" in the first chart. I would definitely like that explained and regret the use of that link. I should stick to UN numbers.

In any case, a few challenges for you.

1) Where are the "missing" 660,000 asylum seekers coming from? Surely there would, for a number that large, be a big to-do about all those blighters coming from wherever they are coming from. The first chart covers Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq and indeed any potential conflict or unsettled bastard hole you can think of except Yemen. Perhaps they are all Yemenis?

2) Are you aware of the vast number of potential asylum seekers from Syria? Did you know that there is an estimated 1.9M Syrian refugees in Turkey waiting to cross over to the EU? OK not all of them will actually come (or indeed make it alive) but many of them probably have that plan, don't you believe?

http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/regional.php

3) How many of these asylum seekers are undocumented, anywhere, leading to serious underestimations? Who knows, right? But doesn't it possibly contribute to a migration / refugee crisis?

4) Do you really firmly believe that the migrant crisis in the EU is not predominantly caused by the Syrian crisis (and to a lesser extent, the Afghan and Iraqi wars)? If so, what possible alternative can you offer?

Funkstain

I forgot one. How does "more countries taking more people" not solve a refugee crisis?

mistercrayon

bbc wrote:

Mr Cameron criticised opponents who he claims are willing to sacrifice economic prosperity for wider political goals.

The self awareness of a scarecrow complaining about all the straw in his field.

IanHamlett

Funkstain wrote:

IanHamlett wrote:

Again I'm not sure what you mean when you say the Syrians are but a minority of the EU migrant crisis? These figures seem quite clear, with regards to asylum seekers, which is the only thing I'm talking about: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34131911.

Using migrants and asylum seeker interchangeably can lead to confusion but the main mistake you've made is to take this chart... ... and interpret it as the total of all asylum seekers. The information you need to reach the right figures is actually on the page but very poorly presented. If you look at this pic you can see the total number of claims for 2015 is 1,321,560. The number of Syrian applicants from the other chart is somewhere around 360,000. That puts Syrian refugees at 27% of the total number of refugees. There are also economic migrants that are not covered here. If you take out the number of Syrian, Afghan, and Iraqi asylum seekers from 2015, there are still around 660,000 (about half of the original number) non-EU asylum seekers arriving in EU in 2015. That's still way higher than the 280,000 the IOM estimates arrived in EU in 2014. That's why I don't think the Syrian war is the main driving force in the migrant crisis and why I don't think more countries taking more people would solve it.

I can see that the two sets of figures appear to contradict each other, but they are both clear in their use of EU Asylum Seekers in 2015. The only difference I can see is "first time applicants" in the first chart. I would definitely like that explained and regret the use of that link. I should stick to UN numbers. In any case, a few challenges for you. 1) Where are the "missing" 660,000 asylum seekers coming from? Surely there would, for a number that large, be a big to-do about all those blighters coming from wherever they are coming from. The first chart covers Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq and indeed any potential conflict or unsettled bastard hole you can think of except Yemen. Perhaps they are all Yemenis? 2) Are you aware of the vast number of potential asylum seekers from Syria? Did you know that there is an estimated 1.9M Syrian refugees in Turkey waiting to cross over to the EU? OK not all of them will actually come (or indeed make it alive) but many of them probably have that plan, don't you believe? http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/regional.php 3) How many of these asylum seekers are undocumented, anywhere, leading to serious underestimations? Who knows, right? But doesn't it possibly contribute to a migration / refugee crisis? 4) Do you really firmly believe that the migrant crisis in the EU is not predominantly caused by the Syrian crisis (and to a lesser extent, the Afghan and Iraqi wars)? If so, what possible alternative can you offer?

The two sets of figures do not contradict each other.

1) There are more Syrians coming than from any other single country, but not more than are coming from all other countries. There are not 660,000 "missing" refugees, just 660,000 that aren't coming from Syria, Afghanistan or Iraq. By eyeballing that graph I can see around 910k refugees are coming from the top 10 countries, that leaves a shortfall of 410k coming from some of the other 158 non-EU countries that are not on that list. They must be coming in numbers lower than 25k per country or their country would appear in the top 10.

2) Even counting potential Syrian refugees,they're still the largest minority compared to the number of people that could potentially claim asylum from the rest of the world combined.

3) There are lots of undocumented migrants. But there is no way of seeking asylum without being documented.

4) I don't know the cause of the migrant crisis, but from the figures you can see that the numbers arriving in 2015, from countries excluding Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq, dwarf the 2014 figures. Even if you remove the 910k from the top 10 countries, the remainder is still much larger than the total from 2014. I'd say the invitation from Germany accounts for at least some of this increase and that's why I don't think taking more people would solve it.

IanHamlett

I have heard conspiracy theories that Soros caused the migrant crisis because reasons. It's true that he does want to do away with borders and it's also true that a charity funded by him, w2eu or Welcome to EU, is distributing booklets with information about useful agencies to contact when you get there, but I don't think that could account for very many people. There are also other booklets distributed by other charities giving advice on crossing the water, I haven't seen any evidence that they're funded by him.

He's the main villain in a lot of right-wing conspiracy theories. He's like the left wing version of the Koch brothers.

http://news.sky.com/story/1551853/sky-finds-handbook-for-eu-bound-migrants

Funkstain

Right I think I get it now, thanks for staying with me.

What I think you're saying is: there are so many asylum seekers now, with good guidance from interested parties etc, with the potential number to increase; that it is not possible to solve until everyone has moved where they want to. i.e.: by actively opening borders and encouraging re-settlement we just attract more refugees which is not manageable. Is that it?

So given that concept, we should do what? In the short term I mean, as children die daily of exposure, hunger, and drowning (for clarity, making Syria and other warzones suitable for habitation will take years).

My opinion: we should put serious money into helping them survive which will include settling them in this country and many other countries. Yours?

IanHamlett

I think the EU and especially the UK can and should take more people that need help. I don't think it's a goo idea to invite people to make the journey. It's dangerous, poorer countries in the path get overwhelmed, people too poor to make the journey get left out.

But that can't solve the problem. There are 2bn people in the world that live on less than $3.10 a day. IMO that alone is enough for them to want to move and for me to want to help, but there are more than the EU (503m population) could take in. It would be like me trying to solve homelessness by opening my flat to everyone.

Improving the conditiions in those countries is the only viable path. Military intervention if they're all on fire then international development funding and free trade is the quickest way to improve quality of life.

Funkstain

I think the problem with what you're saying is that most people, maybe, don't really want to move. This is just an opinion, but I think that most Syrians on the move are desperate, so much so that they would risk their family drowning in an attempt to escape their plight.

If we help the refugees who are there, or here (EU/Turkey), now, I don't expect 2bn people to suddenly show up at Calais.

I believe that the current crisis is a direct result of the massive problems in Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq, which have been hugely exacerbated by the very countries refusing to help starving children on their doorstep. Again, we help them, I don't think that the remaining Chinese rural population, the Indonesians, the Nigerians are suddenly all going to go fuck me let's uproot our entire lives, however shitty, and trek across dangerous terrain to live in Luton. Because that has never happened, and the drive to walk over dangerous terrain and spend 48 hours in a lorry fuel box watching your child suffocate takes the sort of desperation created by a fucking bomb landing on your house and killing the rest of your family.

Do I also think that improving the conditions in people's home countries is the best and, long-term, only, viable path? Of course. Meanwhile I'd like to avoid a shameful mass deaths of people situation.

Yossarian

According to a study that was referenced as part of a reading text for my IELTS classes (solid sourcing there), the very poor can't afford to migrate anywhere, it's only when they start getting a bit richer that they can afford the trip, so improving conditions in people's home countries may well exacerbate migration issues in the short term.

IanHamlett

@Funk, I know not every poor person is aiming to move to EU but I was putting the numbers up of the amount where the poorness alone would be a good enough reason to justify moving.

The war in Syria is the largest single contributing factor but all Syrian refugees don't account for even a third of the increase between 2014 and 2015 so I can't see a how it could be a direct cause.

I agree I don't want mass deaths. I agree with yoss that more money will lead to more movement.

bad_hair_day

The EU is missing an opportunity here. Instead of asylum seekers or economic migrants risking their lives on expensive perilous journeys across the med they only need to reach local designated depots and ports, pick a preferred destination and the U.N. safely deliver them on chartered planes, trains and cruise ships.

[Deleted User]

Saying 2 billion people live on less than $3.10 dollars a day is not a meaningful statistic and makes the inclusion of the ten cents even more annoying

IanHamlett

That's the stats are presented from the World Bank.

It calls less than $1.90 "extreme poverty", of which there are 896 million people.
Below $3.10 is referred to as "higher poverty" on their site. There are 2.1 billion of those.

I included it because I (IMO) anyone below that line is justified in heading for EU purely because they're below that line.

I'm sorry if you were triggered by the extra 10c, take it up with the World Bank.

http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/poverty/overview

Brooks

I am entirely convinced borderlessness is the best thing. Do it now, everyone.

Brooks

Here's a Freakonomics episode to listen to while you do your nails or whatever.

IanHamlett

A borderless world is the way to go, but don't do it right now.

[Deleted User]

It is something that would have to be eased in for sure.

mistercrayon

Im unconvinced. It's a perfect recipe for tyrrany.

IanHamlett

I'm assuming everyone here just means borderless as in the free movement of people. There would still be political boundaries. We should try it with open border for Israel first, kinda like dipping our toe in, see how it all turns out.

Escape

I wouldn't be a tiny bit surprised if Boris doesn't believe a word of his own, but he's canny enough to recognise his best weapon in his leadership run.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories