It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UK to accept 'thousands' more refugees

page: 3
17
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 11:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: TonyS
And the UK problems are compounded by the fact the Pound isn't a world reserve currency so they can't just "print" funny money endlessly like the US.


I think you will find that Sterling is a reserve currency.


originally posted by: ScepticScot
Pretty much every country on your list has taken more asylum seekers than the UK.


But not, unlike the UK, donated hundreds of millions to help the refugees in situ. Perhaps if Germany, France and others in Europe had been a bit more generous we would not be in this situation.
edit on 4/9/2015 by paraphi because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 11:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: ThePeaceMaker
Pretty much every country on your list has taken more asylum seekers than the UK.



Fair play ... Now I feel like a idiot lol

Thanks for the correction



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 11:51 AM
link   
i wonder how many will be sent to chipping norton (the pm's lovely little wealthy hometown) ? my guess - zero.



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 11:55 AM
link   
a reply to: ThePeaceMaker



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 12:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: MrCrow
a reply to: muse7

I concur. Trouble is, he's here, now, and will be for a while. Until we vote him out. Or even if...





posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: paraphi
Maybe if the UK (along with the US) hadn't spend decades destabilizing the region we wouldn't be in this mess.
Yes the UK has spent more on direct aid (which I totally agree with) but right now aid isn't the issue. What to do with millions displaced by violence that we are at least partly responsible is.
I am also going to guess that the cost to the countries looking after the refugees is going to massively outweigh the aid the UK has provided.



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 12:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: RoScoLaz4
i wonder how many will be sent to chipping norton (the pm's lovely little wealthy hometown) ? my guess - zero.


Hahahha yes exactly
They'll all be sent to the poor north. I just read hoe many Japan gave asylum to last year. Eleven! Japan twice our population and incredibly wealthy gave eleven (11) people asylum in 2014! Wow!



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 12:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: MrCrow


14:53
Prime Minister David Cameron says in a news conference in Madrid that the UK will spend an additional £100m on aid for Syrians in the Middle East.

UK to accept 'thousands' more refugees

Firstly, I realise that the title of this is different to what I want to post but ATS wants the actual title so that's what I've provided.

Secondly, the crisis is a hot topic, hotly debated and I'm not going to touch on that at all.

What I am wondering is, if Mr. C can cough up £100m for this, can he not cough up £100m for the NHS?


Seeing as the government's have already coughed up 8 billion extra for the NHS how much is enough?

No matter how much is poured into it, you people want more!

Throwing money money at a problem is not a magic fix! Not when the fundemental foundations have come unstuck.

Now I bet I can guess the cliche knee jerk to this post will be 3...2...1



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 12:05 PM
link   
a reply to: woodwardjnr

Can you provide a source to your chart, as other sources contradict quite significantly. The UK has taken many more than 187!

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 12:11 PM
link   
Yeah just checked my source and it seems the figures quoted in your source are way more accurate. Not sure Where my source was getting their info
edit on 4-9-2015 by woodwardjnr because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: paraphi

Hmm, yea..its listed as a "Reserve Currency", but percentage held is only about 3.2%

From wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org...

A reserve currency (or anchor currency) is a currency that is held in significant quantities by governments and institutions as part of their foreign exchange reserves. The reserve currency is commonly used in international transactions and often considered a hard currency or safe-haven currency. People who live in a country that issues a reserve currency can purchase imports and borrow across borders more cheaply than people in other nations because they don't need to exchange their currency to do so.

By the end of the 20th century, the United States dollar was considered the world's most dominant reserve currency,[1] and the world's need for dollars has allowed the United States government as well as Americans to borrow at lower costs, granting them an advantage in excess of $100 billion per year.[2] However, the U.S. dollar's status as a reserve currency, by increasing in value, hurts U.S. exporters.[3]



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: paraphi
Maybe if the UK (along with the US) hadn't spend decades destabilizing the region we wouldn't be in this mess.
Yes the UK has spent more on direct aid (which I totally agree with) but right now aid isn't the issue. What to do with millions displaced by violence that we are at least partly responsible is.



I think there are many reasons why the Middle East and Arab world is all over the place. Dictators and repression, coupled with internecine conflict between different denominations of Islam. Sure, the West has had a role, as has Russia. It's simple and easy to blame the UK and the US. At the moment, the problem is conflict in Syria and poverty and repression elsewhere.

Aid is the issue. Aid to the millions in situ who are living in refugees camps and being exploited by people traffickers.



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 12:19 PM
link   
the UK/US, and most of Europe are responsible for these refugees, after all they created them, in my opinion Syrians are the most deserving of asylum, the west simply supported the wrong groups in Syria, these refugees are not fleeing from Assad, they are fleeing from ISIS, and the rebel cannibals, the west destabilized Syria and most of the middle east through illegal war, funding terror groups, you only have to look at the hate preachers in the UK/US to see that our countries are in bed with these terror groups, to me the people fleeing are just like us, victims of a system hell-bent on domination regardless of the costs, my only issue is most likely out of 100 refugees there are 50 scumbags looking to exploit the soft touch UK, some of these people have seen things we have only seen in horror movies, things will get interesting in the coming years that's for sure, the elite go to war and gain more power, the people pay the price, always been that way, and I think it's time for a change



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: MrCrow
a reply to: elephantstone

Yes, it's obscene isn't it?


Lets hear your ideas? Practical first



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 12:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
a reply to: ThePeaceMaker



Of course many will say that's 187 too many.

The E.U and U.N has allowed this mad rush, it would have been far more easier to set up camps in Turkey and Greece, send aid and representatives from all E.U countries to process the Asylum applications.

Cameron is acting now, but it was only a couple of days ago he was suggesting that taking in these refugees wasn't the answer. At least he's not afraid to do a U-Turn I suppose.

Edit- with regards to the O.P, they can find as much money as they want, it just needs to be printed. Quantitative Easing for the people, instead of the banks.


edit on 4/9/15 by Cobaltic1978 because: (no reason given)

edit on 4/9/15 by Cobaltic1978 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 01:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
a reply to: ThePeaceMaker



Of course many will say that's 187 too many.

The E.U and U.N has allowed this mad rush, it would have been far more easier to set up camps in Turkey and Greece, send aid and representatives from all E.U countries to process the Asylum applications.

Cameron is acting now, but it was only a couple of days ago he was suggesting that taking in these refugees wasn't the answer. At least he's not afraid to do a U-Turn I suppose.


As previously mentioned, the problem is two fold and the majority of people believe the MSM. There is a difference between refugee's and illegal economic imigrants, the IEM are currently in Calais, the refugee's are in Hungary and Turkey. In the UK we have had it pushed down our throats for the last 3 weeks about the problems in Calais, how we are building more fences, how they, by entering the channel tunnel are causing widespread chaos in the, certainly south of the UK, huge disruptions etc etc

Now we have a refugee situation on top where people are dying in droves in the Med and deservedly need to be looked after.

What i don't see on MSM is explaining to the general populous, the difference between the two and why measures need to be kept in place in Calais. The wife still doesn't get the difference ffs. THEY are two totally different things

Cheers

CbG



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 01:30 PM
link   
If you do a sh*t you have to wipe your arse afterwards.

The most disturbing part of this is how Cameron switched from weeks of demonising immigrants to welcoming them with openning arms 12 hours later after the picture of a drowned kid was published and it was clear his position was no longer tennable - the man is a complete #wit without any kind of plan apart from following what the media dictate which while I'm pro immigration, especially refugees and asylum seekers, exposes how weak, innefectual and completely rudderless the government is. They just make up policies based on Daily Mail headlines (know for a fact advisers work on a 'what would the Mail think of this?' stance when designing policy - it just leaves disjointed, poorly planned and executed government policy.

Before: Sept 2nd
' Britain should not take more Middle East refugees, says David Cameron

Prime minister maintains hardline position despite pressure for UK to do more to help amid outcry over pictures of drowned refugee child in Turkey'
www.theguardian.com...

After: Sept 4th

David Cameron: UK to accept 'thousands' more Syrian refugees

The UK is to provide resettlement to "thousands" more Syrian refugees in response to the worsening humanitarian crisis, David Cameron has announced.
www.bbc.co.uk...

Give it two weeks and he'll be back to demonising them again, I bet my house on it. Complete turncoat who should never be trusted and should never have been elected.
edit on 4-9-2015 by bastion because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 01:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: bastion
If you do a sh*t you have to wipe your arse afterwards.

The most disturbing part of this is how Cameron switched from weeks of demonising immigrants to welcoming them with openning arms after the picture of a drowned kid was published and it was clear his position was no longer tennable - the man is a complete #wit without any kind of plan apart from following what the media dictate which while I'm pro immigration, especially refugees and asylum seekers, exposes how weak, innefectual and completely rudderless the government is. They just make up policies based on Daily Mail headlines (know for a fact advisers work on a 'what would the Mail think of this?' stance when designing policy - it just leaves disjointed, poorly planned and executed government policy.

Give it two weeks and he'll be back to demonising them again, I bet my house on it.


Wrong, see above, the two are different. You must pay attention to the BBC



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: woodwardjnr

fullfact.org...


I can assure you "fact" 5 is incorrect. In many areas where I live you can't even apply for a job unless you speak Polish, so yeah bullshiiit. I'm not against immigration in the slightest, unlike a lot of people I know. Many are fleeing persecution so I don't blame them. But I don't like spurious data given to others :p



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Sharted

Yeah, just finished watching a report (documentary) on the BBC about all of this. The BBC are still calling them "Migrants" not Refugee's ..... slight difference



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join