Should UK accept thousands of refugees because 423,000 people signed a Petition?

Yes, because we are all human, we all have a duty to help any fellow human being if we can. I would GLADLY pay a bit more in taxes if meant that familys were having a better life.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs
you are one of the good ones to debate on any subject. stay well my friend

a reply to: XTexan

When comparing the two petitions there is only one minority, and that's the nay sayers.

Many may have turned away the petitioners, but many like myself who would have signed it with an emphatic yes, have never heard of it.


The majority is clearly the 423k.


I agree it will likely go to a parliamentary vote...
Given the current make up of MPs... It'll be tight, if I predict correctly.

I am one of the 89k who say no. This is the Islamification of Europe that is why the Gulf states aren't taking them in. Already about 1 in 80 people in Germany are Syrian, that's a pretty easy invasion.

a reply to: crazyewok

I could move it about so It wouldn't be permanent.


Heck I have had a thought maybe David Cameron and our Government actually have hearts and think it is the right moral thing to do?.......



Lol no.

But what else can he do? say no they will not help? doing nothing would damage our reputation on the world stage.
I really hope every country fights to be seen as the saviors of these poor folk.
(I hope so anyhow because that would mean they get the help they need).

originally posted by: biggilo
I am one of the 89k who say no. This is the Islamification of Europe that is why the Gulf states aren't taking them in. Already about 1 in 80 people in Germany are Syrian, that's a pretty easy invasion.

So, the gulf states (which are Islamic) are not takign them in because its Islamification? Right...that makes sense.

Your delusional fear of Islam is making you say silly things my friend

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: biggilo
I am one of the 89k who say no. This is the Islamification of Europe that is why the Gulf states aren't taking them in. Already about 1 in 80 people in Germany are Syrian, that's a pretty easy invasion.

So, the gulf states (which are Islamic) are not takign them in because its Islamification? Right...that makes sense.

Your delusional fear of Islam is making you say silly things my friend

Maybe, I used to think the term was only used by racists. But it does fit, the Middle East has been trying to do this to Europe for a thousand years. Think in decades and centuries not years. Close to a million 'refugees' on the move, that make a very big difference to the demographic. (Fleeing Turkey???)

a reply to: 3danimator2014

As far as I understood the islamic states in the ME, the problem is sunnites vs. shiites. One side doesn't bode well with the other.


Source

a reply to: biggilo

They haven't even taken over the Middle East yet, what would be he point of trying to take over Europe with only 4.5% of the population.


I think in the decades to come these people would hope they can go back home.

a reply to: biggilo

I agree, the trend of the mass movement of Islamic followers into western nations where Islam was no even part of the culture keeps growing and more so in the last 20 years, this will create a big shift in the make over of the countries that are taking refuges and immigrants.

While many things is just because of humanitarian purposes is also the reality that this will forever change the make over of the countries affected.

While diversification is a good thing, it becomes a big problem when the established laws of the countries have to be change to accommodate for foreign believes, when the migrating groups should be taking the countries they are migrating to believes.

After all isn't persecution and death what they are escaping from mostly fueled by the believes they were born into ?, so why after these people establish themselves in foreign countries they want to perpetuate that same oppression? and believes

originally posted by: Robert Reynolds
a reply to: CharlieSpeirsWater's the problem - not space.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

According to source, an average of only 10% of our fresh water is used.

Given our first world technology in the use of water purification systems and sanitation, I believe we would be alright with a further 5% urban development.

Thanks for pushing me to look into that, Robert.

It's paramount to the discussion and has gone under appreciated.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

The Saudis don't control Saudi Arabia? Where did you get that one from?

originally posted by: biggilo
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

The Saudis don't control Saudi Arabia? Where did you get that one from?

Who are these Saudi refugees trying to Islamify (?) Europe?

I thought we were discussing ISIS sending people over with Syrian refugees, not Saudi Arabia.


For what it's worth, the The House of Saud control Saudi Arabia, not the people fleeing the Middle East.

I do not live in the UK. But I would like to voice my opinion. In a word NO. There are already to many refugee's in the UK and to many of them are doing bad things. At least that is what I have read. The UK needs to close its borders. Why allow more trouble to get a foot hold in a country, that is already over crowded.

a reply to: seeker1963

We're number 53 on this list of 241 countries by population density. That's 660 people per square mile.

USA is 179 on the list. 85 people per square mile.

simple.wikipedia.org...

It's debatable who owns it. Some say all registered property in the UK belongs to The Crown and we just get to play at owning it.

originally posted by: biggilo

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: biggilo
I am one of the 89k who say no. This is the Islamification of Europe that is why the Gulf states aren't taking them in. Already about 1 in 80 people in Germany are Syrian, that's a pretty easy invasion.

So, the gulf states (which are Islamic) are not takign them in because its Islamification? Right...that makes sense.

Your delusional fear of Islam is making you say silly things my friend

Maybe, I used to think the term was only used by racists. But it does fit, the Middle East has been trying to do this to Europe for a thousand years. Think in decades and centuries not years. Close to a million 'refugees' on the move, that make a very big difference to the demographic. (Fleeing Turkey???)

Whilst i have no time for Islam, the fact is these people have no other agenda than getting out of they war torn countries for a better life.

Now, are some muslims intent on turning Europe Islamic..of course. But its not these refugees.

We cannot not help people who are desperate. What does that make us if we turn back the ones that really need it?

a reply to: anxiouswens

No as a Brit I dont think we should take anymore immigrants. You might wonder why and for the simple fact is because the media has played everybody into being fools and believing a certain line of logic. Is it horrible what's happening? Of course. Did that poor kid lose his life and should be mourned? Without a doubt but going down this route is a major mistake, you dont make intelligent decisions with the heart (trust me on that one) people are reacting to the death of the kid and the other kids that are dying and not to the problem at hand, if...we will no doubt take a lot more in the comings years but that isn't going to solve the problem it's just going to make it worse.

This is how you solve the current problem -

1 - Create safe zones in their countries under the protection of an alliance of countries like US/UK/GERMANY etc. and protect those people who are racing out for fear of their lives, with the threat of allied countries and their military protecting these people most of the dictators wont attack - Yes more boots on the ground but it's just part one.

2 - We begin to remove or should that be "remove" the dictators from power, we should begin by squeezing their financial power, their trading power etc. putting pressure on their country and freezing their assets etc like we are meant to do and this would be done by almost all the countries that are in the EU and the UN.

3 - Begin what I like to call "Operation Opal" which is basically we begin to change the way we offer and give aid across the middle east and firstly we stop and that's STOP sending money over, we start sending over things that wont be taken up by the dictators or by the crooks in the country, start sending food packages, we start sending over building material etc. stuff that we buy and send over (do they even do food drives in schools anymore?) this will get the aid straight to the people, we also offer political backing for what is being called Democracy although I wouldn't call the worlds current systems democratic but that's for another post, we start offering help to parties that are really looking to help and most of all, the important part of this operation is to stop with the blanket drone strikes (I would also show military funerals, the coffins coming home etc to show the western world the cost of the war which has been banned by the US and British armies) we can still keep drones in their air a few maybe but we would start to get rid of the threat of bombs falling from the sky.

After this we can start to build a better Middle east into a real partner in the modern world. I mean imagine if we started showing the western solider helping people out, helping the middle eastern children to learn, building houses and schools bringing food etc. we should show that across the middle east and the rest of the world to try and fight back against the notion that the west just blows everything up and I promise you the number of new IS members would fall very quickly. This is just an idea though so feel free to add or poke holes in it, I'm up for the debate.


I missed out - The problem with taking more is that we're just adding to the problem. a few people tried to see what would happen if they sent immigrants across the water in boats to try and see if they'd get in but when they saw they were taken in and helped it sent their business model booming and for every one hundred we take in, another hundred thousand will want to come over and it just increases the problem.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Sewage is another issue often mentioned by practical people. It has to go somewhere.

edit to add. Just noticed you did mention sanitation.

Any nation that has had military involvement in the ME should take in refugees and pay the costs out of the military budget (not soldiers pay).

The US has so far only committed to taking up 8K in 2016. Europe should be furious at us for that.

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: biggilo

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: biggilo
I am one of the 89k who say no. This is the Islamification of Europe that is why the Gulf states aren't taking them in. Already about 1 in 80 people in Germany are Syrian, that's a pretty easy invasion.

So, the gulf states (which are Islamic) are not takign them in because its Islamification? Right...that makes sense.

Your delusional fear of Islam is making you say silly things my friend

Maybe, I used to think the term was only used by racists. But it does fit, the Middle East has been trying to do this to Europe for a thousand years. Think in decades and centuries not years. Close to a million 'refugees' on the move, that make a very big difference to the demographic. (Fleeing Turkey???)

Whilst i have no time for Islam, the fact is these people have no other agenda than getting out of they war torn countries for a better life.

Now, are some muslims intent on turning Europe Islamic..of course. But its not these refugees.

We cannot not help people who are desperate. What does that make us if we turn back the ones that really need it?

Sometimes you have to stay, fight, work against all odds to create that better life. It's in a lot of cases how the western countries they are fleeing to were established and in many cases the reason those countries offer a better life in the first place. Just something to think about. Is the help people want the help for the long term?