Cameron Shaming the Country

Do you really mean to open the border at Calais to anyone DJ? Come one, come all? There may only be a couple of thousand there at the moment, but there wouldn't be if you let them through - and then where do they go?

In 1938 people were fleeing the Nazis. UK pulled up the drawbridge with the exception of the kinder-transport children.
Presumably those of you who would turn their backs on these poor families from Syria (Muslims and Christians!) would say that was the right decision at the time.
OOhh - on the radio now - Cameron has modified his line a bit. He's twigged that he's been appearing more and more callous and nasty as the days have gone by.

What would you all do about all the arms flowing into these war torn countries from Russia, China, Iran and who knows where else?! I can't see that appealing to their consciousness would cut much ice or the threat of the court of human rights or anything else come to that!!! Also I can't understand why other Arab countries appear unwilling to take in any of these poor people. As I understand it, the total for refugees in neighbouring states is nil!!!

Where on earth did you get that idea?
Other Arab nations have. Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey between them have about 4 million in total!!!
data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/regional.php
Other facts that might be of interest to some on this thread:
Many Syrians are Christians
Many refugees of them have families and friends who would look after them if they are allowed to travel to the countries where they live.

Not true, niggly. There are over a million refugees in the Lebanon, over 600,000 in Jordan, more in Iraq than there are here.
Do you mean their conscience?
I'd quite like to see someone who supplies arms to IS to be in the UN court. A few examples should bring Russia to heel. Most of the arms come from US rather than China. It is known where they come from; they check the bullets,etc.
Just because it hasn't happened does not mean it should not, does it?
If Iran gives arms to IS, why have we just reopened the embassy in Iran?

www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/08/a-farewell-to-arms-that-fuel-atrocities-is-within-our-grasp/

I was talking about Saudi Arabia and the gulf states. As for Russia or any country outside the EU being cowed by the COHR! Well, forgive me , but if Crimea or Ukraine or Tibet come to that are anything to go by, I really can't see that happening, in fact Putin despises the West for it's perceived weakness.

If they are members of the United Nations and a law is brought in that they should not sell arms to IS, or any country that might be involved in IS, they will be brought before that court.
I was asked what I would do if I ruled the world, do not forget.
I would not take notice of naysayers.
I'm a Corbynite, do not forget. No nuclear arms, no wars, no need to fight. It's men that cause wars, often over arms, or oil, etc.

The charity I support helps Syrian refugees in Turkey and in Lebanon.

A Corbynite? Is that the official term for Corbyn-worshippers?

The one ingredient you have forgotten in this vision of utopia and that is human nature. If we could change that then maybe, but until that can be achieved, I can't see any improvement on the arms front any time soon.

Everybody would be nice to everybody else if I ruled the world.

Your time's up, dj. I didn't say you could rule the world forever!

would the awful drownings get worse if Europe accepted more refugees?
You see the terrible footage, and people say, take more refugees in, because in the face of so much human misery, we want things like small children being washed up on beaches to just stop... but would it in fact be counter productive?If the traffickers and people knew there was more of an open door policy, wouldn't even more be tempted to take to the sea in unseaworthy boats?I was thinking of this dilemma earlier, what do you think?

whatever we as a nation did to help, the scenario of people lost at sea would not abate, would it?

There would certainly be even more who were willing to take the risk if they knew they were guaranteed entry to the country of their choice.

That's probably part of the reason for the reluctance to offer to take more refugees (not just by the UK),the chaos would be even worse than it is at present.

Unfortunately, I suspect the answer to your question is yes, there would be more drownings at sea, Rosesarered. An open door policy into Europe would only encourage more attempts, don't you think?

Does anyone else think the refugee problem might be the end of David Cameron? He's already said he'll go within the life of this parliament and he's in a helluva difficult position now.

Sorry folks I posted and ran to look after my own little refugee - although in her case she need refuge from life around her that can be so confusing.

I intended to use the word refugee rather than migrant as the "need" time span for caring for these refugees is much shorter than it is for economic migrants. From the news broadcasts, etc., that I have managed to hear today it sounds as if the answer will come from the people rather than our so called leaders although I have to commend Yvette Cooper for bringing it down to understandable amounts by suggesting if each town took 10 refugee families we could take as many as 10,000 in one month.

It's an awful situation but what would we hope for if it was in reverse and we were being bombed, shot at and driven from our homes?

Can't think who'd take over though - GO certainly doesn't seem popular with either the left or right.

Dumpling, they do not all want to come here, despite what Cameron and co would have you believe.
Roses, last year there was a system to patrol the Mediterranean and rescue people, organised by Italy. Cameron decided he did not want anything to do with it. The British boats in the Med are now tiny compared with last year.
If we and Spain patrolled the African coast and took them off boats there, and Greece and Italy did the same near Turkey, we could stop them drowning.
We just need the will.

No, I really don't think that the refugee problem will be the end for a PM who has only just been re-elected. This would be a huge problem for whoever was the PM at the time.The Government have been attacked for not getting immigrant figures down already,other countries like Greece and Spain are in economic trouble so there is a limit for them, Germany is doing well on this issue, but they are doing well financially and are a large country.The other factor is that a lot of the Syrian refugees only want to go to Germany.

I believe that the reason the ship patrols stopped was that the traffickers were often capsizing their own craft within sight of the rescuers, and the thinking was, that it encouraged even more to go to sea.Which of course, it very likely would.

You rotten thing, NotTooOld. I was enjoying that, spreading happiness and comradeship.
Unfortunately it hasn't reached Cameron yet.

If he does not take a greater part in resolving the crisis, it will be the end of his hopes for negotiating new terms with Europe. Merkel will fall out with him.

Cameron is a despicable hypocrite. "As a father..." he says, not giving a tuppenny damn how many children drown or suffocate trying to escape war, just so long as they don't reach our shores.

Germany is willing to take 800,000 refugees this year, but what about next year and subsequent years? How many years can they keep this up before Germany too becomes over crowded, and unable to cope. How long before indigenous Germans start to say, enough is enough. I do agree that the idea of patrolling the relevant Mediterranean coasts to try and stop people embarking on these desperately dangerous journeys.