The wonderful EU and Migration thread!

[Hoboh]

What have the UN ever really done or been successful in, apart from losing some ill trained peace keeping force occasionally?

In my view the UN has contributed to avoiding global conflict in the last seventy years (although we came close in 1960). I could point to a number of successes but I will concentrate on human rights. I know some of you sneer at the concept. Before the UN there was no concept of the individual in international law. This meant nations were sovereign over their own population and could do what they wanted to them. Hitler murdered six million Jews not to mention other millions of lesser people like Slavs and gypsies. Stalin got rid of more through his purges and agricultural collectivization policies. The UN introduced the concept of the individual into international law. There was a declaration and a number of conventions (treaties) on civil/political rights, social/economic rights, rights of the child, against slavery, against torture, etc. Finally the UN introduced means of implementation for those who violated their treaty obligations, including a World Court, where evil leaders can be held to account for their crimes against humanity. I don't want to return to an era when governments can do what they want to their citizens with impunity.

You really think that even now, Stalin, Mao, or any of these would appear in a 'world court'?
When Bush and Blair are not even issued with summons, Putin to appear next year over Ukraine? Mugabe wanders all over the world a free man and some of these buggers even have the cheek to turn up at UN headquarters?
Give your head a shake Monty, it only works in terms of justice for the chosen few, those deemed expendable to front the façade.

[Montreal Wanderer]

What have the UN ever really done or been successful in, apart from losing some ill trained peace keeping force occasionally?

In my view the UN has contributed to avoiding global conflict in the last seventy years (although we came close in 1960). I could point to a number of successes but I will concentrate on human rights. I know some of you sneer at the concept. Before the UN there was no concept of the individual in international law. This meant nations were sovereign over their own population and could do what they wanted to them. Hitler murdered six million Jews not to mention other millions of lesser people like Slavs and gypsies. Stalin got rid of more through his purges and agricultural collectivization policies. The UN introduced the concept of the individual into international law. There was a declaration and a number of conventions (treaties) on civil/political rights, social/economic rights, rights of the child, against slavery, against torture, etc. Finally the UN introduced means of implementation for those who violated their treaty obligations, including a World Court, where evil leaders can be held to account for their crimes against humanity. I don't want to return to an era when governments can do what they want to their citizens with impunity.

You really think that even now, Stalin, Mao, or any of these would appear in a 'world court'?
When Bush and Blair are not even issued with summons, Putin to appear next year over Ukraine? Mugabe wanders all over the world a free man and some of these buggers even have the cheek to turn up at UN headquarters?
Give your head a shake Monty, it only works in terms of justice for the chosen few, those deemed expendable to front the façade.

I cannot answer your question since the International Criminal Court was created in 2002, 25 years after Mao's death and 50 years since Josef passed on. However, since its inception a number of heads of state have been indicted. The difficulty in appearing is getting hold of the person. Many are indicted but far fewer are brought to the bar. But some, whom most of us would consider war criminals, have been charged and found guilty. That's a start. People who commit genocide, even if it those Sarajevo Muslims, should be called to account. However, the ICC is only a small aspect of the implementation of human rights instruments. I feel protection of human rights is important and that the UN has played a significant part over the last 70 years.

[Worthy4England]

After the EU, Hobes will have us out of the UN if possible. WTO. NATO. You pick 'em they do nowt for us. Then we can reinvent caves as habitable spaces. We will be able to draw whatever we wish on the walls.

[Hoboh]

After the EU, Hobes will have us out of the UN if possible. WTO. NATO. You pick 'em they do nowt for us. Then we can reinvent caves as habitable spaces. We will be able to draw whatever we wish on the walls.

If something is 'fit for purpose' I'm all for it, agree with or not.

NATO membership is, the WTO is along with a fair few others, the UN is merely a tool of five or six countries who pick and choose
when to follow the rules or at best play lip service to them, the rest don't matter.
Anyway who the hell thinks a UN works with the Saudi's holding the position they currently hold?

The EU ceased to matter when it went on a crash course of enlargement and let countries in that should never have got past the gatehouse.

[Prufrock]

What have the UN ever really done or been successful in, apart from losing some ill trained peace keeping force occasionally?

In my view the UN has contributed to avoiding global conflict in the last seventy years (although we came close in 1960). I could point to a number of successes but I will concentrate on human rights. I know some of you sneer at the concept. Before the UN there was no concept of the individual in international law. This meant nations were sovereign over their own population and could do what they wanted to them. Hitler murdered six million Jews not to mention other millions of lesser people like Slavs and gypsies. Stalin got rid of more through his purges and agricultural collectivization policies. The UN introduced the concept of the individual into international law. There was a declaration and a number of conventions (treaties) on civil/political rights, social/economic rights, rights of the child, against slavery, against torture, etc. Finally the UN introduced means of implementation for those who violated their treaty obligations, including a World Court, where evil leaders can be held to account for their crimes against humanity. I don't want to return to an era when governments can do what they want to their citizens with impunity.

Whilst I'm certainly not with Hoboh, I think you oversell the case. The fundamental principle underlying the UN remains state sovereignty. It's worth remembering that the only reason we ever heard the phrase "dodgy dossier" is because Saddam Hussein's treatment of (who were supposedly) his own people was not sufficient justification for an invasion, instead a threat against the US or U.K., and therefore state sovereignty, was needed.

There are somewhat understandable reasons for this: the protection argument it's the same justification Hitler gave (pre U.N.) for annexing the Sudetenland, and Putin (post U.N.) for annexing the Crimea. For all the good it has achieved in some areas, the security council for example remains a sick joke, and let's not forget Saudi f*cking Arabia currently chairs the human rights council.

As for the international criminal court, it's a fearsome body. As long as you are black or Serbian.

[Montreal Wanderer]

What have the UN ever really done or been successful in, apart from losing some ill trained peace keeping force occasionally?

In my view the UN has contributed to avoiding global conflict in the last seventy years (although we came close in 1960). I could point to a number of successes but I will concentrate on human rights. I know some of you sneer at the concept. Before the UN there was no concept of the individual in international law. This meant nations were sovereign over their own population and could do what they wanted to them. Hitler murdered six million Jews not to mention other millions of lesser people like Slavs and gypsies. Stalin got rid of more through his purges and agricultural collectivization policies. The UN introduced the concept of the individual into international law. There was a declaration and a number of conventions (treaties) on civil/political rights, social/economic rights, rights of the child, against slavery, against torture, etc. Finally the UN introduced means of implementation for those who violated their treaty obligations, including a World Court, where evil leaders can be held to account for their crimes against humanity. I don't want to return to an era when governments can do what they want to their citizens with impunity.

Whilst I'm certainly not with Hoboh, I think you oversell the case. The fundamental principle underlying the UN remains state sovereignty. It's worth remembering that the only reason we ever heard the phrase "dodgy dossier" is because Saddam Hussein's treatment of (who were supposedly) his own people was not sufficient justification for an invasion, instead a threat against the US or U.K., and therefore state sovereignty, was needed.

I grant you there is a long way to go. One point of fact, the UN sanctioned a war against Saddam for invading Kuwait (Desert Storm). It did not sanction the Iraq War (2003) which is why Canada did not join the Coalition of the Willing. The dodgy dossier of Blair belonged to the second conflict so don't blame the UN for that.

[Hoboh]

What have the UN ever really done or been successful in, apart from losing some ill trained peace keeping force occasionally?

In my view the UN has contributed to avoiding global conflict in the last seventy years (although we came close in 1960). I could point to a number of successes but I will concentrate on human rights. I know some of you sneer at the concept. Before the UN there was no concept of the individual in international law. This meant nations were sovereign over their own population and could do what they wanted to them. Hitler murdered six million Jews not to mention other millions of lesser people like Slavs and gypsies. Stalin got rid of more through his purges and agricultural collectivization policies. The UN introduced the concept of the individual into international law. There was a declaration and a number of conventions (treaties) on civil/political rights, social/economic rights, rights of the child, against slavery, against torture, etc. Finally the UN introduced means of implementation for those who violated their treaty obligations, including a World Court, where evil leaders can be held to account for their crimes against humanity. I don't want to return to an era when governments can do what they want to their citizens with impunity.

Whilst I'm certainly not with Hoboh, I think you oversell the case. The fundamental principle underlying the UN remains state sovereignty. It's worth remembering that the only reason we ever heard the phrase "dodgy dossier" is because Saddam Hussein's treatment of (who were supposedly) his own people was not sufficient justification for an invasion, instead a threat against the US or U.K., and therefore state sovereignty, was needed.

There are somewhat understandable reasons for this: the protection argument it's the same justification Hitler gave (pre U.N.) for annexing the Sudetenland, and Putin (post U.N.) for annexing the Crimea. For all the good it has achieved in some areas, the security council for example remains a sick joke, and let's not forget Saudi f*cking Arabia currently chairs the human rights council.

As for the international criminal court, it's a fearsome body. As long as you are black or Serbian.

Cheeky bloody whipper snapper!
You more or less agree the UN is not fit for purpose.

[Prufrock]

What have the UN ever really done or been successful in, apart from losing some ill trained peace keeping force occasionally?

In my view the UN has contributed to avoiding global conflict in the last seventy years (although we came close in 1960). I could point to a number of successes but I will concentrate on human rights. I know some of you sneer at the concept. Before the UN there was no concept of the individual in international law. This meant nations were sovereign over their own population and could do what they wanted to them. Hitler murdered six million Jews not to mention other millions of lesser people like Slavs and gypsies. Stalin got rid of more through his purges and agricultural collectivization policies. The UN introduced the concept of the individual into international law. There was a declaration and a number of conventions (treaties) on civil/political rights, social/economic rights, rights of the child, against slavery, against torture, etc. Finally the UN introduced means of implementation for those who violated their treaty obligations, including a World Court, where evil leaders can be held to account for their crimes against humanity. I don't want to return to an era when governments can do what they want to their citizens with impunity.

Whilst I'm certainly not with Hoboh, I think you oversell the case. The fundamental principle underlying the UN remains state sovereignty. It's worth remembering that the only reason we ever heard the phrase "dodgy dossier" is because Saddam Hussein's treatment of (who were supposedly) his own people was not sufficient justification for an invasion, instead a threat against the US or U.K., and therefore state sovereignty, was needed.

I grant you there is a long way to go. One point of fact, the UN sanctioned a war against Saddam for invading Kuwait (Desert Storm). It did not sanction the Iraq War (2003) which is why Canada did not join the Coalition of the Willing. The dodgy dossier of Blair belonged to the second conflict so don't blame the UN for that.

I do blame the UN for that. It's the UN's preoccupation with state sovereignty as opposed to the rights of the individual that meant Bush and Blair needed the damned thing. I think there is a lot left to be desired when there is no justification to invade Iraq on the basis that Saddam Hussein had created a totalitarian police terror state with show trials, midnight disappearances and arbitrary executions. Not to mention the weapons of mass destruction that he clearly did have in 1988 when he used them to commit ethnic cleansing on his own people. But there wasn't. Because state sovereignty. So we needed evidence he posed a threat to another state. Hence the infamous dossier that was either naively fallen for or cynically manipulated depending on your bent. They didn't get the resolution but the imminent threat argument that gave us dossier was designed to get one, or at least provide cover if we couldn't.

Thanks UN.

[Prufrock]

What have the UN ever really done or been successful in, apart from losing some ill trained peace keeping force occasionally?

In my view the UN has contributed to avoiding global conflict in the last seventy years (although we came close in 1960). I could point to a number of successes but I will concentrate on human rights. I know some of you sneer at the concept. Before the UN there was no concept of the individual in international law. This meant nations were sovereign over their own population and could do what they wanted to them. Hitler murdered six million Jews not to mention other millions of lesser people like Slavs and gypsies. Stalin got rid of more through his purges and agricultural collectivization policies. The UN introduced the concept of the individual into international law. There was a declaration and a number of conventions (treaties) on civil/political rights, social/economic rights, rights of the child, against slavery, against torture, etc. Finally the UN introduced means of implementation for those who violated their treaty obligations, including a World Court, where evil leaders can be held to account for their crimes against humanity. I don't want to return to an era when governments can do what they want to their citizens with impunity.

Whilst I'm certainly not with Hoboh, I think you oversell the case. The fundamental principle underlying the UN remains state sovereignty. It's worth remembering that the only reason we ever heard the phrase "dodgy dossier" is because Saddam Hussein's treatment of (who were supposedly) his own people was not sufficient justification for an invasion, instead a threat against the US or U.K., and therefore state sovereignty, was needed.

There are somewhat understandable reasons for this: the protection argument it's the same justification Hitler gave (pre U.N.) for annexing the Sudetenland, and Putin (post U.N.) for annexing the Crimea. For all the good it has achieved in some areas, the security council for example remains a sick joke, and let's not forget Saudi f*cking Arabia currently chairs the human rights council.

As for the international criminal court, it's a fearsome body. As long as you are black or Serbian.

Cheeky bloody whipper snapper!
You more or less agree the UN is not fit for purpose.

No I don't. Much like the EU (but more so), I think the UN needs significant reform at the same time as being glad it exists and glad that we are in it.

[Montreal Wanderer]

In my view the UN has contributed to avoiding global conflict in the last seventy years (although we came close in 1960). I could point to a number of successes but I will concentrate on human rights. I know some of you sneer at the concept. Before the UN there was no concept of the individual in international law. This meant nations were sovereign over their own population and could do what they wanted to them. Hitler murdered six million Jews not to mention other millions of lesser people like Slavs and gypsies. Stalin got rid of more through his purges and agricultural collectivization policies. The UN introduced the concept of the individual into international law. There was a declaration and a number of conventions (treaties) on civil/political rights, social/economic rights, rights of the child, against slavery, against torture, etc. Finally the UN introduced means of implementation for those who violated their treaty obligations, including a World Court, where evil leaders can be held to account for their crimes against humanity. I don't want to return to an era when governments can do what they want to their citizens with impunity.

Whilst I'm certainly not with Hoboh, I think you oversell the case. The fundamental principle underlying the UN remains state sovereignty. It's worth remembering that the only reason we ever heard the phrase "dodgy dossier" is because Saddam Hussein's treatment of (who were supposedly) his own people was not sufficient justification for an invasion, instead a threat against the US or U.K., and therefore state sovereignty, was needed.

I grant you there is a long way to go. One point of fact, the UN sanctioned a war against Saddam for invading Kuwait (Desert Storm). It did not sanction the Iraq War (2003) which is why Canada did not join the Coalition of the Willing. The dodgy dossier of Blair belonged to the second conflict so don't blame the UN for that.

I do blame the UN for that. It's the UN's preoccupation with state sovereignty as opposed to the rights of the individual that meant Bush and Blair needed the damned thing. I think there is a lot left to be desired when there is no justification to invade Iraq on the basis that Saddam Hussein had created a totalitarian police terror state with show trials, midnight disappearances and arbitrary executions. Not to mention the weapons of mass destruction that he clearly did have in 1988 when he used them to commit ethnic cleansing on his own people. But there wasn't. Because state sovereignty. So we needed evidence he posed a threat to another state. Hence the infamous dossier that was either naively fallen for or cynically manipulated depending on your bent. They didn't get the resolution but the imminent threat argument that gave us dossier was designed to get one, or at least provide cover if we couldn't.

Thanks UN.

Well, it is imperfect but it beats the alternative in my view. It has been more effective than the League of Nations - the only other similar attempt. It may eventually lead to some form of supranational world government. The human rights conventions are important even if the means of implementation need much improvement. So we should work for improvement rather than condemn. We do need a more effective Security Council and to stop tin-pot dictatorships taking over important committees. I still feel Hoboh's original contention - that the UN has never done any good - to be wrong.

[Bijou Bob]

I arrived back from a week in Portugal this weekend, where the government have offered to take 4500 Syrian refugees. Officials sent to Syria could only convince 44 people to leave the camps for the Algarve and now all but 12 have disappeared to Germany, with the rest looking to follow.

[malcd1]

I arrived back from a week in Portugal this weekend, where the government have offered to take 4500 Syrian refugees. Officials sent to Syria could only convince 44 people to leave the camps for the Algarve and now all but 12 have disappeared to Germany, with the rest looking to follow.

What??? Are you serious???

[Bijou Bob]

Yes, I am. The article was in a local paper with no political axe to grind and was around the frustrations felt by the local refugee committee who were very disappointed that no one wanted to come to Portugal. It quoted a named refugee from Syria who stated that there was little work available and that opportunities were more easily found in Germany and Sweden, hence the exodus north. He and the other 11 were leaving in the next few weeks. So far, Portugal has not been able to attract any other migrants.

In some ways it's understandable. Portugal still has a very rural, agrarian economy and the average wage is only 950 euros per month - it's a fairly poor country by European standards.

[thebish]

Yes, I am. The article was in a local paper with no political axe to grind and was around the frustrations felt by the local refugee committee who were very disappointed that no one wanted to come to Portugal. It quoted a named refugee from Syria who stated that there was little work available and that opportunities were more easily found in Germany and Sweden, hence the exodus north. He and the other 11 were leaving in the next few weeks. So far, Portugal has not been able to attract any other migrants.

In some ways it's understandable. Portugal still has a very rural, agrarian economy and the average wage is only 950 euros per month - it's a fairly poor country by European standards.

seems sensible to me... if you were fleeing syria and wanted to work - then you'd want to go to a place where there was work available... no?

[Harry Genshaw]

Yes, I am. The article was in a local paper with no political axe to grind and was around the frustrations felt by the local refugee committee who were very disappointed that no one wanted to come to Portugal. It quoted a named refugee from Syria who stated that there was little work available and that opportunities were more easily found in Germany and Sweden, hence the exodus north. He and the other 11 were leaving in the next few weeks. So far, Portugal has not been able to attract any other migrants.

In some ways it's understandable. Portugal still has a very rural, agrarian economy and the average wage is only 950 euros per month - it's a fairly poor country by European standards.

seems sensible to me... if you were fleeing syria and wanted to work - then you'd want to go to a place where there was work available... no?

Not picking a fight here but they've fled Syria for theirs and their families safety. An initial offer of free housing in a friendly European country should be more than enough and if refused, Germany should be able to say - Why do we have to have them?

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

Yes, I am. The article was in a local paper with no political axe to grind and was around the frustrations felt by the local refugee committee who were very disappointed that no one wanted to come to Portugal. It quoted a named refugee from Syria who stated that there was little work available and that opportunities were more easily found in Germany and Sweden, hence the exodus north. He and the other 11 were leaving in the next few weeks. So far, Portugal has not been able to attract any other migrants.

In some ways it's understandable. Portugal still has a very rural, agrarian economy and the average wage is only 950 euros per month - it's a fairly poor country by European standards.

seems sensible to me... if you were fleeing syria and wanted to work - then you'd want to go to a place where there was work available... no?

Not picking a fight here but they've fled Syria for theirs and their families safety. An initial offer of free housing in a friendly European country should be more than enough and if refused, Germany should be able to say - Why do we have to have them?

They're probably fairly safe already in the camps, but with no hope of an income or a future in Lebanon et al they want to get somewhere they have a chance. Rightly or wrongly they believe Germany gives them that chance and presumably not Portugal.

Not saying it's right that they turn down the offer of help, but I can see where they are coming from (no pun intended) if they genuinely believe that.

[Hoboh]

Yes, I am. The article was in a local paper with no political axe to grind and was around the frustrations felt by the local refugee committee who were very disappointed that no one wanted to come to Portugal. It quoted a named refugee from Syria who stated that there was little work available and that opportunities were more easily found in Germany and Sweden, hence the exodus north. He and the other 11 were leaving in the next few weeks. So far, Portugal has not been able to attract any other migrants.

In some ways it's understandable. Portugal still has a very rural, agrarian economy and the average wage is only 950 euros per month - it's a fairly poor country by European standards.

seems sensible to me... if you were fleeing syria and wanted to work - then you'd want to go to a place where there was work available... no?

No, refugee status is not to allow you to cherry pick your destination, well not yet anyway the lefties are trying dammed hard to change that interpretation in peoples minds.
They should be deported back to whatever country they left to enter the EU, clearly illegal chancers with leftie rights stuck up their ass.

[bobo the clown]

^^^ that'll be because, once these guys reach Turkey they are IN a safe place. By the time they're sticking pins in a map to decide WHICH safe place they'd prefer they're then ECONOMIC migrants not migrants seeking safety.

They're chosen Germany and Sweden because of a combination of job availability, good benefits on top of those and a (previously) good welcome.

Portugal has enough difficulties of its own. Let alone funding and offering work to migrants ... especially ones who would prefer to be elsewhere.


You've touched on an important point also ... how, once settled in the EU, does anyone prevent these guys from saying " thanks, but I'll be off to Germany now." ??

[Hoboh]

^^^ that'll be because, once these guys reach Turkey they are IN a safe place. By the time they're sticking pins in a map to decide WHICH safe place they'd prefer they're then ECONOMIC migrants not migrants seeking safety.

They're chosen Germany and Sweden because of a combination of job availability, good benefits on top of those and a (previously) good welcome.

Portugal has enough difficulties of its own. Let alone funding and offering work to migrants ... especially ones who would prefer to be elsewhere.


You've touched on an important point also ... how, once settled in the EU, does anyone prevent these guys from saying " thanks, but I'll be off to Germany now." ??

Or the UK for that matter, under freedom of movement once accepted as EU citizens there is nothing the UK can do to stop them.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Canada took quite a few Syrian refugees this year. The Prime Minister and Ontario premier met the first wave at Toronto airport, we showed them snow and gave them warm clothes to wear. Everyone felt good about it. These refugees go through a screening process before being accepted, the standards of which are not generally known. However, it appears priority is given to 'persecuted' religious and ethnic minorities. Therefore our 25,000 Syrian refugees contain Christians and ethnic minorities way out of proportion to their national average. Our church leaders decry this as religious and racial discrimination. However, it makes some sense to me for a number of reasons.