Obama era dawning
Who will the European leaders be dealing with when they travel to Washington ?
Of course, George W will be the man across the table, but they will want to know how much Team Obama is running the show behind the scenes. It may be pretty important for how their ideas go down.
There's going to be some trading places this end too. The French are promising that Spain, the world's eighth largest economy, will be at the top table, perhaps taking one of the French seats: they have two, both as a country and as the EU president.
Don't be surprised if the Czechs are seen wandering around saying "Zut alors!" They too have been promised that they can get a seat at the table as part of the French delegation.
The French are calling for today's summit to propose "concrete responses" to be discussed at the big world summit on 15 November in Washington. They want to make sure that "no financial institution.. escapes regulation" and many of their ideas are aimed at removing the rewards for short termism and too much risk-taking.
They say by the end of the Washington meeting there should be general agreement on these principles, including a new code on risk-taking. And they want these ideas to be turned into hard and fast rules within 100 days of the Washington summit.
I’m Mark Mardell, the BBC's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~59~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
This summit is the first real opportunity for the World to look at anything than panic reactions to emergency liquidity problems.
The 'noises off' prior to the European summit are encouraging, as one might hope. Global regulation of financial markets and market participants seems to be aim.
Nice idea but how can anything be enforced and without enforcement, has it much hope of working? The big danger facing the World is competitive protectionism, if you believe in the Free market free trade model of the World. (The failed model!) Currencies are still freely exchangeable perhaps this can remain but without some from of regulation how are regulations to be enforced - that is my concern.
I fear this will not be another Bretton Woods, but just another talking shop. I fear this as many nations are still in denial - as evidenced by the joint reduction in interest rates of yesterday. How can it be right to stoke up another bubble in an attempt to mitigate the effects of a crunch caused by a previous bubble?
Complain about this comment
The root cause of the Credit Crunch is lending NINJA loans.
Is that the risk-taking that the French want to regulate and prevent? If so I would whole-heartedly agree as it is that risk acceptance that got us and Oliver into another fine mess thank you Stanley!
On the other hand, Venture Capital which entails a high degree of risk taking is absolutely essential to the promotion of new ideas, accelerating the concepts of a new venture from drawing board to fullscale production and the provision of funding for start-up businesses. Curtail or regulate Venture Capital and the whole idea of Capitalism and the profit motive becomes unworthwhile.
This needs to be clarified! We certainly do not want a socialist, liberal-minded Europe taking anti-Capitalist ideas to a socialist, liberal minded Barack Obama and have America stop be adventurous.
We just want to stop people who should not borrow loans or have credit cards from (a) having to borrow and (b) being given loans or credit card allowances they cannot afford to repay.
Complain about this comment
France cedes one of her two seats to Spain: good! This is a gesture of the Latin brotherhood.
Complain about this comment
There is no prospect that the roots of this financial turmoil (too much mortgage lending) will be repeated for years to come. The appropriate thing now is to really analyse these complex issues in depth such that the appropriate regulation is in place before the next property boom. I cannot think of anyone worse than Sarkozy to be doing this. He has no competence in financial matters. He is in a permanent rush to display leadership even on topics where is obviously clueless. The impact of misconceived regulation will mainly be felt in the financial centres of New York, London and Tokyo where there are no voters who can penalise Sarkozy for the negative consequences of his ill-thought out proposals.
Brown and Obama should work this out between their teams. If the EU26 want to put their faith in a stream of consciousness from Sarkozy then London will only benefit from the business he will drive out of Frankfurt.
Complain about this comment
I was listening to news hour w/ Julian Marshall. I know this topic isn't really on point but he/another reporter were asking some vets in the US what they thought about the Obama victory (they were in NC). I can't believe the ignorance, close-mindedness of a few of these responders! My God, we just had 8 yrs of GWB and DickCheney--two guys who couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag and these vets are worried about the US security w/ Obama? Give me a break! Obama is an athlete; a basketball player--doesnt like to lose. He is 5 times smarter than either one of those guys; he has an understanding of Africa of all places! This guy's competence is going to blow all these rednecks away. And by the way--these peanut brains from NC and elsewhere are free to start there own country in Texas. They are the obvious "unamericans" that the right wing is always talking about.
Complain about this comment
#3, betuli,
Now why do I smell a rat here somewhere, the other day it was announced that the HQ of the new Mediterranean union was to be in Barcelona Spain and here we have France giving a previously promised seat to Spain.
All that remains to be seen is what's the catch as the French never do anything for nothing and Latin brotherhood is a non starter. Therefore could it be because the Spanish are the fifth largest voting block in the EU and the French want their votes on-board for something coming up.
Complain about this comment
Buzet,
Two French favors for the Spanish votes?It's a good deal, my friend. Spain follows anyway the French foreign policy from long time ago.
It may be sad or humiliating for you, for me it is just natural in a crowded EU and a global world.
But you must agree that Britain does the same in respect of USA.
Complain about this comment
poppypeaceandlove @ #5
I hear what you say!
Robin Lustig has a Blog where his latest article is The victory of Barack Obama.
It is worth a read and a dialogue has started as it only began today!
The other blog where you may find something of interest (or annoying!) is Justin Webb's America. Justin's latest Blog entry An end to "victimhood"? has attracted 232 comments as I write.
I think your comments are certainly worth throwing into the ring!
Complain about this comment
#7, betuli,
It's certainly sad that the so called power house countries of the EU stoop to such tricks, but humiliating no. What worries me more is why they felt the need to do this, is there some sort of critical (to the French) vote coming up. Maybe it's the upcoming meeting to discuss what next to do about Lisbon.
As for the UK and USA I'm not quite sure what the UK have got out of the USA for supporting them in the various escapades. I think in the UK's case we were just cozened because our politicians are too thick.
Complain about this comment
Maybe Italy should give up her seat to Spain. This way Berlusconi can take a break and go work on his suntan.
Complain about this comment
Since the PSOE lead by Zapatero won the election over the Popular Party Spain has turned more towards South America and the North African Mediterranean countries especially to Marroco as well as towards France. After all we share a land border with France and are nearer to Marroco than England is to France. France looks more towards the Eastern Mediterranean and Africa.
Within the European Community various alliances form as in any other form of partnership. France and Spain together more or less balance Germany, which looks more towards Eastern Europe and the Middle East. All three countries have long had close relations, both for good and for ill with Russia and the Russian Federation. What is more and most important in the present context Europe as a whole out ways the U.S.A. in population, wealth, trade and territory. It is no longer acceptable for the U.S.A. to order the world financial system for its own advantage.
This meeting is just the first skirmish. It is going to a get a lot rougher and tougher before we get anywhere near agreement.
Complain about this comment
Obama's election was exelent in many ways, much more positive then negative,and thats why it should get thumbs up,as it well did from the majority of the people.Positives are to many to mention,starting from the black community's realisation that from now on they can be full participants in the American democracy without hard feelings anymore,to the uplifting mood that the world found itself in after realising that the man actually did WIN, and the hope that his big win brought all over the world for change,for a better future.
But i will try to be a little realistic and make a few points on how i have seen this elections.
Clinton was given no chance by the media,she was tretaed very unfairly.
The media's love for Obama continued and serious questions that needed answers were bypassed by the media and surprisingly by his oponents aswell.
The European media sensing the Obama win,was shouting all around the love of Europe for Obama .
(were this kind of general opinion that Europe somehow loves Obama came from only the media knows and it does not seem to like to inform us about it aswell)
The same Europe that is passing laws for Ilegal immigrants to be prosecuted and imprisoned for being IMMIGRANTS LOOKING FOR A BETTER LIFE IN EUROPE,SUCH AS BLACK IMMIGRANTS,AND SOUTH AMERICANS.
The same Europe were racism is depply rooted in its institutions.
Obama is an American story and can only happen in America.Europe is very far away from that,so lets not be kidding ourselves.
Berlusconi,which by the way is the primeminister of a Government that has brought back the SEGREGATION,after passing a law were Italian children not be tought in the same class as immigrant children,thinks is a joke to call Obama TANNED,and does not understand that a joke based on somebody's race is a racist joke.When the primeminister of a European country thinks this is ok for him to say ,then I can only think what is ok for a normal person on the street to say and not be considered racist.
Many people on the media have declared their support for Obama for various reasons,some of them were suporting Obama because they hated consumerism,some of them because they hated Capitalism,some of them simply because they hated BUSH,even though they dont understand the reasons why,some of them because they hate America,even Iranian madman Ahmadinejad send his congrats to Obama.
WELL i can say with confidence that a big portion of this lot are going to be disapoited by Obama,because Obama does not rapresent anti-consumerism,anti-capitalism,Bush-Hatism (which for some reasons seems to be cool nowday's),or Anti-Americanism.
Who was it that did not want Husein president of Iraq?Well take Husein president of America,at least with this one we can be sure beyond reasonable doubt that he does posses weapons of mass distractions.
Complain about this comment
Obama's speach was great,and he is an orator,but the speach in my opinion was superficial,with thigs like WE WILL GET THERE,without actually knowing or telling were.
In my opinion it was a positive development the election of Obama,but i am not convinced of him,because he is unclear and unsure.Obama achived alot with his WIN and managed to turn a page in history,and i think that will be his greatest achivement.As president of America i dont think he will achive more then what Clinton would or even Maccain.
Complain about this comment
There could be a much simpler and less sinister reason why the French and Spanish are close on this. Spanish banks are more tightly regulated than many other countries. France has traditional viewed banks as social institutions and not almost literally licence holders to print money. Neither government will have any problem selling tight regulation to their electorate and the banks are pretty used to it.
In Britain, on the other hand, we have already seen Barclays running off to Doha for its recapitalisation at great expense in preference to accepting government interference. One suspects that others would have followed had they not been quite so desperate to bite the Chancellor's hand off for a slice of the Queen's shilling.
The public mood in Britain may well be anti-bank at the moment but, with promised LIBOR rate cuts of 0.75% on the back of the Bank Rate cut, liquidity may begin to loosen a bit and that will then change. Brown, like Obama, is all too well aware of the political dangers of being seen to be too socialist. Neither of them is going to go for something they cannot sell back home.
In this case, I think they simply find themselves in comparable situations.
Complain about this comment
Berlusconi is old. He may not look it but he is old.
Complain about this comment
To threnodio (14):
My initial thought on France giving Spain a seat in the meeting was due to Spanish banks having a large scale influence and operations in South-America, thus Spain can via their banks connections to be said to represent large interests in South-America thus they deserve a seat.
Now, it has been long since I updated my info about banking in South-America, so if somebody has better information, please feel free to correct me on this.
Complain about this comment
Sarkozy is the Johny Rotten of international relations; "I don't know what I want, but I know how to get it".
Complain about this comment
Gheryando @ #15
But he has a lovely tan though!
Complain about this comment
Please let us not preclude the possibility that President Sarkozy (and it really pains me to say this! Yuck! Spit!!) could be doing the gentlemanly thing and France actually behaving in the most impeccable of diplomatic ways?
Now there would be France being exceedingly brilliant and doing a great thing for Europe as a whole!
Complain about this comment
Named-Erion @ #12
I was intrigued by the following part of your comment: "The same Europe that is passing laws for Ilegal immigrants to be prosecuted and imprisoned for being IMMIGRANTS LOOKING FOR A BETTER LIFE IN EUROPE,SUCH AS BLACK IMMIGRANTS,AND SOUTH AMERICANS."
You see this as racism but let us perhaps look at some of the facts:
You suggest that this is peculiar to Europe but does not the USA have a very big thing for trying to stop hispanics from entering the USA as immigrants across the Mexico-USA border?
If Europe was to allow unfettered immigration then the numbers of Africans and South Americans would be come a deluge. Is that fair upon the indiginous population - some of whom are unemployed, as ill-educated and as hungry for work as the would-be immigrants who are "LOOKING FOR A BETTER LIFE IN EUROPE" as you put it.
Life is not fair and those born in Europe have that luck and that privilege to seek to protect their way of life. The fact of the matter is that no man owes another man anything other than respect and neighbourly friendliness.
I own my house and it does not mean that homeless people can come into my three-bedded home because they like the warmth, the decoration, the colour of my carpets and the central heating - just because it is better to be in my house than out on the street!
My house is mine and I have a right to say who can come in as a guest. That same privilege pertains to Europe and it ill behoves you to criticise that right.
If your criticism was related to discrimination of who can illegally enter Europe than that would be a different matter but I believe that illegal immigration in all its forms and from all external-to-Europe countries is (a) illegal, (b) should be prevented as once here, illegal immigrants are almost impossible to evict and (c) is not a given right for people to do.
If I chose to move to the USA, I do so entirely at the permission of the USA. If I move to Nigeria then I would expect Nigeria to have the right to approve my immigration. If I emigrated and moved secretly and arrived in the USA or Nigeria without permission, overstayed any permission to stay or breached any laws in those countires, I would and should expect to be dealt with as a criminal and evicted.
Why should "BLACK IMMIGRANTS,AND SOUTH AMERICANS." be treated differently?
Complain about this comment
Named-Erion @ #12
I was intrigued by the following part of your comment: "The same Europe that is passing laws for Ilegal immigrants to be prosecuted and imprisoned for being IMMIGRANTS LOOKING FOR A BETTER LIFE IN EUROPE,SUCH AS BLACK IMMIGRANTS,AND SOUTH AMERICANS."
You see this as racism but let us perhaps look at some of the facts . . .
You suggest that this is peculiar to Europe but does not the USA have a very big thing for trying to stop hispanics from entering the USA as immigrants across the Mexico-USA border?
If Europe was to allow unfettered immigration then the numbers of Africans and South Americans would be come a deluge. Is that fair upon the indiginous population - some of whom are unemployed, as ill-educated and as hungry for work as the would-be immigrants who are "LOOKING FOR A BETTER LIFE IN EUROPE" as you put it.
Life is not fair and those born in Europe have that luck and that privilege to seek to protect their way of life. The fact of the matter is that no man owes another man anything other than respect and neighbourly friendliness.
I own my house and it does not mean that homeless people can come into my three-bedded home because they like the warmth, the decoration, the colour of my carpets and the central heating - just because it is better to be in my house than out on the street!
My house is mine and I have a right to say who can come in as a guest. That same privilege pertains to Europe and it ill behoves you to criticise that right.
If your criticism was related to discrimination of who can illegally enter Europe than that would be a different matter but I believe that illegal immigration in all its forms and from all external-to-Europe countries is (a) illegal, (b) should be prevented as once here, illegal immigrants are almost impossible to evict and (c) is not a given right for people to do.
If I chose to move to the USA, I do so entirely at the permission of the USA. If I move to Nigeria then I would expect Nigeria to have the right to approve my immigration. If I emigrated and moved secretly and arrived in the USA or Nigeria without permission, overstayed any permission to stay or breached any laws in those countires, I would and should expect to be dealt with as a criminal and evicted.
Why should "BLACK IMMIGRANTS,AND SOUTH AMERICANS." be treated differently?
Complain about this comment
Menedemus
Of course that every government shoul act against illegal immigration,and by working with other governments in north AfrikA,Russia,Turkey etc illegal immigration into Europe can be halted almost completely.There are other messures to be put in place,in Border controls etc.
But this is not the point.
Illegaal immigration,or even legal immigration in huge numbers is negative,but the Immigrant Himself is not a crimminal.
It is absolutely disgusting to imprison someone just because as i said and you repeated HE IS LOOKING FOR A BETTER LIFE IN EUROPE.
Thats the big difference,governments should combat the Ilegal Immigration and the big international crime organisations that profit from it,not the unfortunate people temselves.
And by the way Europe does not get such a big share of Immigrats as you might think,nowhere as near as Countries such as USA or Pakistan or others.
While in America they do put in place messures to combat ilegal Immigration,those immigrants children there can even make it to the White House.
The governments in South America condemned the European Union as RACIST.All of them,not just a crazy Chavez.
Complain about this comment
#22, Names-Erion,
Sorry but when you said "Illegaal immigration,or even legal immigration in huge numbers is negative,but the Immigrant Himself is not a crimminal." you contradicted yourself. If the immigrant entered illegally then the immigrant IS a criminal in that country since they entered illegally, end of discussion that is the law. What happens to them is another discussion entirely, and one that annoys me intensely since I came from an immigrant area of London. The use of human rights legislation to block repatriation has meant that there is often little that can be done by the country they've ended up in, that is the scandal that needs sorting out as at the moment the lawyers are getting rich out of these stupid HR laws. Another sore point is that all too often Europe ends up protecting people who are in effect terrorists but who can't be deported since they might end up being killed or tortured by their similarly nasty opponents.
As for your last comment all I can say is it doesn't impress me, playing the race card to criticise people may make the woolly headed centre left jump but it's been used for so long now as to become a joke. Alleging institutional racism wherever is a blind to the fact that often the accuser is the true racist and that's been very apparent in the UK over the years. For instance I saw more racism in Brixton years ago between the Afro-Caribbean peoples and towards Caucasian peoples that I ever saw from Caucasian towards Afro-Caribbean, true it existed but both ways. The fact that governments in South America don't like EU immigration policies is nothing to do with racism, that's just a convenient throwaway comment for the masses, and eventually they start to believe it no matter what the truth is. What you should remember is that every member of their population that leaves is one less for them to support.
On a similar track one can also look within the EU at what happens when you exercise social mobility and work in another EU country. If you are made unemployed and try to return to your own country you will find it's not so easy to retain benefits, pension rights etc. The EU encourages mobility and the governments support it since it's less to support in adverse times.
In case you think this is incorrect a friend of mine is currently going through this saga and discovering legislative holes everywhere.
Complain about this comment
Named-Erion @ #22
Let me be clear, I do not object to legal immigration whatsoever.
The fact that the South American nations call Europe Racist is naive at best and downright cynical at worst given the treatment of indigenous natives of those countries by those nations in the past 400 years whilst those nations developed with European immigration - much of it without so much as a by-the-leave of the indigenous natives!
However, I disagree with you fundamentally regarding how countries should deal with illegal immigration.
If it is is illegal to enter a country illegally then that is a crime committed by the illegal immigrant. I suggest that what you are trying to propose is that the mitigation of "trying to better their lives" should lessen the harshness of how illegal immigrants are treated - I would not disagree and so illegal immigrants should not be detained in Remand Prison but should be detained in Detention Centers as they are not charged with the crime but they certainly should be detained whilst they are subject to judicial process and should continue to be detained until evicted or given leave to remain.
In days gone by, an illegal immigrant would simply be detected and returned to their country of origin without further ado. No detention beyond what was necessary to avoid the immigrant absconding and no detention longer than it took to evict the illegal entrant through due legal process.
Now, illegal immigrants burn their passports so that it is impossible to identify a country to return them to. The country of origin may even refuse to take them back.
Human Right have allowed illegal immigrants to remain in the host country using the host nations legal processes to the ultimate conclusion that they should be evicted and then because of their "human rights" they are allowed to stay indefinitely for a host of reasons including the fact that some have been convicted in their own countries of crimes and may face detention if returned. How absurd is that!
In my view, illegal immigration is a crime and should be dealt with as a crime.
Detention whilst the immigrants status is reviewed by judicial and legal process is entirely correct and to treat them as if they were legal citizens with access to funds available to legitimate immigrants is a travesty of common sense. Illegal immigrants should be detained and treated with dignity until their status is decided. Treated with dignity means they are fed, watered and given their human rights but not civil rights entitled to the indigenous population or of legal immigrants who through tax and contribution earn their rights.
Illegal immigrants choose to use nefarious means to reach their destination and I agree that the smugglers and the other nefarious mens of illegal immigrant traffcking should also be dealt with but ultimately the choice of an illegal immigrant to enter a destination country illegally, regardless of whether they are seeking a better life, is a crime.
To justify illegal immigration as not being a crime becaue the illegal seeks to achieve a better life remains analogous with a homeless person entering my house because it is warm and me having to accept that as it is only right that a homeless person should be entitled to do so because they are only looking to better themselves!
Life is tough and the wealthy nations do not have any obligations to take in illegal economic migrants or people simply seeking to "better their lives" unless those nations wish to do so. Political asylum seekers and refugess from global catastrophes, war and famine maybe considered as ideally allowed to enter a host nation but on the proviso that if circumstances change their status can be revoked by the host nation.
Complain about this comment
If you strip away the legalize, the rules of immigration are broadly the same wherever you go. If you are of independent means, have private medical insurance, pension provision and income or capital to invest and you do not pose a threat to national security there are very few places you cannot go. Super rich Russians and not a few Americans have located to Britain on this principal, not least for the tax advantages.
If you do not have these advantages, I think it is legitimate for countries to ask 'what is in it for us?' Many countries are willing to take the risk providing the immigrant fills a skills gap. In the case of some economic migrants, exceptions will also be made for people who are willing to take low paid menial work that locals do not want. One thinks of Latino immigrants picking fruit in the States, large numbers of Palestinians working in domestic service in the Emirates and so on.
Where the problem really sets in is if people are perceived to be migrating simply because there is a fall back position of social care if they cannot find employment. Some of these will undoubtedly be genuinely fleeing from persecution or terror but one has to ask where this ends. We observe with horror food shortages which force many into misery but also ask whether lack of food is persecution. It is far more logical to take food to where it is needed than take people to the food.
Part of this problem seems to me to be related to responsibility arising from former colonial empires. European countries are quick enough to respond when there are security issues in former areas of interest - UK in Sierra Leone, France in Chad or Rwanda but much less willing to do so if the issues are economic or social. The unfolding tragedy of the Congo is in two countries which were at one time the personal property of the Belgian monarchy (not state colonies). Realistically, that is too great a distance for mass illegal immigration but people located within striking distance of the Atlantic or Mediterranean coasts are flooding into Spain and Italy. Why do they have to take the pain for the failure of a British or French colonial model 100 years ago and 1,000 miles away?
The answer to this may have been found in a major liberalisation of global trading regulation but the collapse of the Doha round put paid to that. The world economic crisis has since effectively postponed the project. The problem will be that the crisis will simply exacerbate the flow of migrants at a time when widespread job losses in the west mean a significant fall in vacancies. The result could well be an increase of racism as people start to believe that jobs they would not have touched with a barge pole 18 months ago are being filled by immigrants.
The only intelligent way of dealing with this is not in a legalistic way but by economic and social measures. If there is to be a new economic world order, the opportunity should be seized to embrace rather than exclude the third world and address the problem at its root. This would have a further benefit that relatively stable and propeperous regional countries would come under the pressure of an influx of immigrants and force them to address the political problems of their neighbours. South African concerns over Zimbabwe is a good example of how mass migration can give impetus to diplomatic impasse resolution.
Complain about this comment
#25, threnodio,
You may have a point that is very good in principle but when it concerns Africa we need to remember that it is hard to find any country there that is not equally despotic and corruptly run. There is little real will power for any of the leaders to redress the problems of a neighbour since it is in effect a self criticism as they are probably doing similar themselves. It is also clear that Africa suffers from extreme racism or in other words what's called tribalism, and how anybody can lessen that I don't know.
Supplying food is very laudable and Doha may well have helped but how to ensure it and it's production does not end up in the hands of the local war lords is almost impossible.
It also seems that in the case of the Congo it is once again the racist rivalry between the two main tribes of the whole zone. I've known a few people from there as there are quite a lot of Congolese in Belgium and the Belgians were invited to leave mainly so that Congo could find it's destiny, or rather it seems the leaders of the tribes could fight to profit from the rich resources the country have. Whilst the Belgians were there they seem to have kept the various sides apart (management), albeit they were sometimes pretty brutal, but that stabilising influence has gone now and what we see is the result, it's sad but mostly true and not really a bad reflection on the Belgian colonial past which like most colonial pasts does contain some reprehensible events. Whether the two main tribes the Tutsi and Hutu can ever live peacefully I doubt and that makes giving social and economic aid to Africa almost an impossibility. Likewise I think letting refugees into Europe from these areas is merely exporting the inter tribe hatred over here and it does exist and it will cause problems within the EU.
Complain about this comment
threnodio @ #25
Named-Erion has thrown up a very interesting topic as it is a problem that Europe has to deal with now and do so effectively and as humanely as possible as soon as possible.
What you suggest is eminently sensible as it would ensure that Named-Erion's illegal immigrants would not have need to move to the wealthier destination countries as"their need to better themselves" criteria will be met by improved conditions within their home countries.
The fundamental flaw in your proposal is the fact that Europe is experiencing illegal immigration now and has to deal with it in a humane way whereas improving the home nations to a point that will deter emigration will take centuries (or given the history of Aid to Africa to date!) millennia or maybe even some time never.
The short term solution is needed now, despite it being unpopular with illegal immigrants, whilst the long term solution takes time to permeate through the corruption and natural obstructions to improving the plight of the immigrant countries.
The thrust of my perspective in my discussion with Named-Erion is that life is tough but some people are lucky and born into countries with wealth and democracy and others are not so lucky. But the lucky ones do not have to sacrifice the rules and laws that they abide by to accomodate and give other less fortunate than themselves any additonal rights that the lucky ones are not subject to.
If I choose to be an illegal immigrant then I expect to be detained and expatriated unless the country I seek to enter lets me stay. I expect the same acceptance, treatment and responsibilites for others who choose to be illegal immigrants when they illegally enter or over-stay their welcome in a destination country. That is fair and the right way to view this issue.
Complain about this comment
Why is that Obama came power and both USA and EU OSCE started throwing mud at Saakashvili. Here is what we can do for you: we can go back to Russia, make Russia stronger than ever, create huge market and leave everyone out. Is this what you want? Georgia will be better off in this case beleive me. USA-EU you cannot fool Georgia anymore, your democracy is a makebelieve. Emanuel turns up to be in charge of Freddy mac that caused all that financial troubles and now chief of Obama's staff....LOL....Come on!
Complain about this comment
The sooner all illegal immigrants are deported, the better it is. Make sure they get the message: you are not welcome unless we say beforehand that you are.
And the EU's unelected and unaccountable politburo kommissars (Barroso ea) and their friends can learn a thing or 2 from the USA about elections.
In the EU, there is no democracy except on paper, powers are held by kommissars who are neither elected nor accountable to anyone. Referendums are always ignored if they don't produced the 'desired' result.
Everyone except politicians would be better off without the EU if we just stuck to economic cooperation.
Complain about this comment
To Names-Erion (22):
You say that South American countries claim EU is racist, but in the same time you fail to mention that South American countries themselves are extreme nationalistic.
Let me make one thing clear. South American countries have always blamed other countries for their own demise. USA has been blamed, and now when EU is strengthening it is getting blamed. What South American countries never have done is to ask hard questions about themselves and their actions and inactions.
Let me tell you about my own home country, Finland. In the beginning of 20th century, it was one the poorest countries in the world, an agrarian third world state, in the same time Argentina was one the richest countries in the world. Now, 100 years later, the first is one of the richest countries despite a civil war and despite world war 2. The second is failed state.
The problem in South America is that every time an international investor invests there it doesn't take long before locals are protesting and government nationalizes the investment. South Americans suffer from their own extreme nationalism and when they get failed states as an result of this they blame foreign countries.
I'm sorry, but the way South American countries have done in the past and are currently doing is just simply wrong way on doing things. When I look at my country, its industrial history and its historical figures in economics and politics, guess what I can find.. Yes, they are all foreigners. They came here, they invested here and they stayed in here and assimilated to local population as there was no persecution of foreigners or ill will against their property and investments.
If South American countries want to blame EU for being racist, then they better start to clean up their own act before. I don't have to remind you that just few years ago Argentina raised an huge fuss when Botnia invested a new pulp mill in Uruguay and not in Argentina. They preached about the possible destruction of nature when their own pulp mills and industries were ancient without no environmental protections and they didn't believe or want to hear anything about the new pulp mill which was build by the same standards that are used in Europe. No my friend, South Americas problems are caused by South Americans themselves.
Complain about this comment
You have not got the point.
I said that illegal immigration into the E.U can be halted if the right messures are put in place,such as proper border controls,cooperation with countries bordering the E.U ,North Africa,Turkey etc and by fighting the organised crime networks.
I am not against this.
But Is ridicolous to say that a person who comes from Africa into Europe expects to be imprisoned,or to even sugest that he should be detained in prison or detention camps for the only reason of having moved from one place of the world to another.The legal,burocratic barriers that this people will experince once in Europe are an alien concept to them.
Which world population is not an immigrant population after all?
The thing is that there is nothing to stop Europe from actually making it a capital punishment for people crossing borders without the right documentation,and legaly right to kill them right at the border as long as the law justifies it.But there are consequences for this messures,apropriate consequences,political.legal.social etc etc.
And south American governments condemned as racist the particular law that punish the visa overstayers.And i agree that is an stupid law,inhumane,rasict and made by people to full of themselves.
As i said before Europe gets proportionaly not a very big number of the worlds immigrants,yet it has legal discrimination and racist laws.
Institutional racism in Europe is deeply rooted.
In America is a completely different story,while racism there exist among the population,probably even more so then in Europe,Institutional racism there is close to 0,as shown by the very latest elction to the presidents office by the son of an BLACK African man.
While they do fight Ilegal Immigration,they dont detain and imprison Ilegal Immigrants that actually live in America,which are thought to be around 10 milion of them.
While in America Black man can be a sucsesfull sportsman,Governor,Senator,General,Secretary of State or President, Black man in Europe is only good at playing futball or as lately has been seen a sucses as driving a car.
While in Europe mediocer Politicians or Political parties can win big number of votes simply by demostrating hate for the most vulnerable parts of the society,is different in America.
Europe has a long way to go before European media starts claiming that Europe loves Obama.
The truth is that Europe probably loves Obama only as a fairytale.In Reality,is very different.
Complain about this comment
To Named-Erion (31):
Oh my god now I get it. Oh dude! Oh! Oh! How have we been so wrong! Oh the injustice! Oh the humanity! Here we were thinking that a society and government based on rule of law was a good thing. Now I see it. Oh my god! How wrong we were!
You know what, NO! Every successful and prosperous country is based on rule of law. The rules say that if you want to visit this and that place you have to get permit for that, if you want to stay in a place you have to get a permit too. That's the way the system works and guess what, the way it works makes Europe on the best and advanced places on Earth. If you throw away rule of law and ordered control of government what you get is another Africa or South America.
You know what also, you don't seem to have very good knowledge on Europe. In Europe punishment by death is outlawed and is not allowed even in times of war. The laws and fundamental principles behind those laws are sound and workings of generations. So, NO, European countries are not just going to start executing illegal immigrants. What European countries are doing is sending illegal immigrants back where they come from. How is that inhumane or racist?
And hey, if Europe is so racist place, then why do European countries take in huge amounts of refugees? Like in example Sweden, Sweden has taken more Iraq refugees than any other developed country. So excuse me, but if we Europeans are so racist then why are we taking these people in and why after a certain time we will let to continue live here? Why do we let them to become our citizens? Because we are racists, I'm sorry your logic is just false.
And you know what, why should Europe or European media love Obama? Obama is just one Harvard educated American elite steering a country engaged in imperialistic policies. There were some good candidates in US presidential elections, but they didn't make it. In my opinion the best candidate was Ron Paul, I didn't like all his opinions especially about monetary systems, but lets face it he was the best candidate.
The truth is that in America Obama is black man, when in Europe Obama is an Harvard educated man. That is the difference.
Complain about this comment
ingag11 @28
as I posted earler, I mean, wow!
Russia is always there for you in the same place; eager to embrace the prodigal daughter ...after Georgia's attempt at swapping continents! with triple pleasure - no doubt.
(and anyway we have got ourselves 1 mln Georgians in Russia, which is not bad, for the beginning, before all this began.)
i have a wild idea Inga, that if you get yourself a tough-liner, Nino Burdzhanadze, she might find common language with our boys. then the club might speak in a combined interesting "assertiveness".
but no, Nino has US roots? like Saakashvili's.
oh well.
mad idea of yours to desert this continent anyway, i would rather seek for furtunes at home, some place btw Russia and EU.
____________
funny Russia's attitude to immigration is different, but then we badly need people.
and, unlike the EU - have nothing to lose!
_____________
Named-Erion, Russia was for Clinton, for understandable reasons (good memoirs of relations with the USA during Clinton epoch),
then for McCain. now we are all disappointed and in tears, but somehow collected last moral resources together and congratulated Obama still.
Complain about this comment
I think there is a language problem here. The word 'illegal' is not helpful in this context. Irregular would be a far better description. These are people who have avoided or evaded a paper trail because their perception is that the regular procedure is not open to them or is too long winded and bureaucratic to solve the situation within the available time frame. To use the same terminology we apply to people who rob banks at gunpoint is plainly nonsense.
If it resembles anything in law, it is contempt of court. To start with, one can put it right which is very rare in legal matters. One can walk into a government office, put your hands up and admit you are there unlawfully and apply for permits. One can simply go somewhere else or return to the place of origin. Secondly, these matters generally do not go to court unless there are extraordinary circumstances of appeal. More often than not, a civil servant decides whether someone should be deported.
This is not just nip picking. It is not uncommon for 'illegals' to become involved in other criminal activities and I want to be absolutely clear that, when that happens, any hope of a sympathetic hearing should fly out of the window. Illegals who commit imprisonable offences should, in my view, be taken straight from prison on completion of sentence and frogmarched onto the first available transport.
The vast majority do not fall into this category and criminalising them does not really help. Far too many of these people fall back to the position that they are going into decent humane societies which will look after them even if they are illegal and give them a sympathetic hearing. Better consular services could be part of the answer. It would be far better if someone does not have a snowball's hope in hell of being allowed to stay that they learn this before risking life and limb on a open boat in the ocean.
I will also return to the question of humanitarian assistance. Menedemus has broadly agreed with my position but suggests that there is a short term problem to be resolved. He is right but there is no quick fix. Taking steps to ensure that fewer people start the journey in the first place is as close as you are going to get and feeding them will help. I take on board all the points that have been made about getting the aid to the right people, bypassing warlords, preventing corruption. No one thinks this is going to be easy but it is a lot more efficient than dealing with endless queues of people seeking admission when they have no hope or simply disappearing into the community only to reappear with a new identity and a benefits claim form. The point I am making is that the most effective solutions lie not in the destination countries but in the countries of origin.
To people who say that the task is simply too big, I suggest that you look at south east Asia and in particular Vietnam. At the end of that war, one might have expected that economy to collapse under the weight of years of war and no infrastructure to speak of. Instead, the last 30 odd years has seen tremendous strides made. This has stemmed mainly from the self-confidence of the people and a determination to succeed. How many Vietnamese boat people are there these days? Can this be translated to Africa? How many illegals are trying to come from Botswana or Malawi? Virtually none. These are not countries like Nigeria sitting on oceans of oil, they are simply countries where civil order and a workable bureaucracy has given the people security and a future. It can be done and, what is more, it is not disruptive and it is cost efficient.
On South America, to take up Jukka's point, the numbers of economic migrants is small. The cause for complaint has been mainly about new visa restrictions on business travel. I have some sympathy with the South Americans except to say that thee has been widespread abuse of the lax visa regime and South American countries were given an opportunity to address this before new restrictions were put into place. Fewer visitors swallowing half a dozen condoms full of cocaine to pay for the trip would help as well. Actually, I think the European approach to South America was a coded message to the States, which had been very slow to implement reforms of visa regulations for the EU accession nations. We could do this to you guys too! If so, they seem to have taken the point.
Complain about this comment
Illegal immigration refers to immigration across national borders in a way that violates the immigration laws of the destination country.
To break a law is to commit an illegal act.
The term illegal may be unhelpful but, as I prefixed my comment at #24, let me be clear, I do not object to legal immigration whatsoever. By this I absolutely mean that I do not object to the immigration of people who do so in accordance with the immigration laws of their chosen destination.
I wholeheartedly agree that more may be done to prevent the migration of people who seek to violate the immigration laws of an EU member States but I cannot agree with Named-Erion's comment at #31 and in particular his suggestion, to quote, But Is ridicolous to say that a person who comes from Africa into Europe expects to be imprisoned,or to even sugest that he should be detained in prison or detention camps for the only reason of having moved from one place of the world to another.
If a person who enters the EU from Africa with permission to do so I have no problem but if that person enters any EU country and violates the immigration laws of the destination country they should expect to be detained and detained with accordance with their Human Rights but no more. Any suggestion that they should be treated as ordinary citizens of the EU with the capability of of being released into society to take up work, housing, benefits of citizneship and thus allowing, for example, them travelling onwards from the entry country to another further destination country within the EU as if they were citizens of the EU should be firmly prevented. Detention is the only reasonable means of preventing the assimilation of irregurla or illegal immigrants who hve no rights to simply migrate without controls.
This may seem harsh but in a way it is also a deterrent whilst the EU seeks to improve life in the source countries to reduce the desire to emigrate into the EU without permission or in such a way as to violate the immigration laws of the EU member states.
Named-Erion's comments are almost tantamount to promoting, if not irrationally demanding, that the EU should allow unfettered immigration simply because all immigrants are entitled to seek a better life in the EU.
That is illogical as the EU can only sustain a population of given numbers of people and liberal immigration laws are already causing resentment and can be identified as giving rise to more popular support of Right-wing Political organistations throughout the EU.
Condoning the entry and legitimising the stay of people who have violated immigration laws is to condon an illegal act and cause further resentment and a more bleak future of those who do immigrate in accordance with the immigration laws but can yet be defined by the greater number of indigenous and settled inhabitants as strangers in a strange land.
The problems ultimately to be faced by immigrants is non-acceptance and the rise of nationalist right-wing parties. If that happens detention may become the least of immigrants worries.
All Europeans are only two generations away from people who could commit mass murder in the name of ethnic cleansing and our continent, even today see isolated instances of exactly that bestial behaviour. Immigration, especially by those who seek to by-pass immigration laws, feeds the innate beast that, potentially, lies within us all and ethnic hostility is not purged from all societies as much as we would like and wish it to be.
Complain about this comment
Julka_Rohila
Let me quote what you said earlier and give you some straight answers since i think you missunderstand me to much.
What you said is:
To Named-Erion (31):
You know what, NO! Every successful and prosperous country is based on rule of law. The rules say that if you want to visit this and that place you have to get permit for that, if you want to stay in a place you have to get a permit too.
-----------------------------------------------------
I dont understand why you throw this at me cause i dont disagree with any of that.
-----------------------------------------------------
You know what also, you don't seem to have very good knowledge on Europe. In Europe punishment by death is outlawed and is not allowed even in times of war. The laws and fundamental principles behind those laws are sound and workings of generations. So, NO, European countries are not just going to start executing illegal immigrants.
-------------------------------------------------------
I am from a European country,so i do have some knowledge on Europe.Read my post again and you will fnd out that i did not say that European countries are going to start executing ilegal immigrants,but there is nothing to stop them from doing it,if they allow it by law,but that there would be consequences,just as there are consequences belive it or not for other racist laws,the globalised world today is interconected and others will treat you the way you treat them.
--------------------------------------------------------
What European countries are doing is sending illegal immigrants back where they come from. How is that inhumane or racist?
--------------------------------------------------------
I did not say thats inhumane or racist,i said is inhumane and racist to imprison them for overstaying their visa or entering the E.U without permit.
--------------------------------------------------------
And you know what, why should Europe or European media love Obama?
--------------------------------------------------------
I did not say that they love or that they should love Obama,it is the European media itself who has been saing for the last few months that Europe loves Obama,and i just like to know how they figured that out.
And if you read my posts more carefully we would be saving ourselves timeand debate and move on to more interesting topics.
All the best.
-------------------------------------------------------
Complain about this comment
Menedemus and threnodio, what an interesting discussion. On our side, I saw a poster in the consulate years ago, and read carefully, while filling in visa application forms.
It stated that on 3 conditions a Russian can have British citizenship a./ if any one of four grandparents was a British passport holder b./ if income a year is BP 25,000 happening by itself, that is you do not work or move a finger, only receive percentage from investments yearly of this amount, and I think it was also there that you are retired on tops c./if you invest BP 250,000 into British economy.
I will not guarantee this is the same this year, it was long time ago that I glanced, may be 10 yrs ago.
I was interested because of my Engish grandma, but as she definitely was not a British passport holder, as min. before the revolution too young for any passports,
I proceeded to read further to b./ - money.
But as I was not very retired either :o) what to do I read the c./ one, and mentally converted it into roubles and relaxed that such an amount is not in my immediate danger so nothing to worry about.
But mind it I never looked again and it was long time ago. I'd think prices are up now.
These days with the money apartments in Moscow are priced - you could have had half the Moscow in London already legally.
But then may be you have.
Complain about this comment
Menedemus.
Immigration is very complex issue.
Let me tell you that most of the Ilegal Immigrants in the European Union ,or Britain since that is your primal concern,have come to Britain legaly,and have not comited an immigration ofence while crossing borders,but have later overstayed the visa and found job in the black market.
While most of what are legal Migrants are infact the very ones who have entered the country illegaly and commited an immigration ofence.I know this is confusing,so i will give you an simple example.
X person illegaly enters Britain and then goes to the first police station and claims political asylym,or asylym for fear of prosecution,persecution in his country of origin etc,and after he meets a legal rapresentative afte lets say a few hours in the police station he is then an Legal Immigrant ,or Asylym seeker A.K.A.
Many of them are genuinly escaping from persecution,but there is a number who hve come to the country after having paid money to organised crime,and is extremely hard or imposible to find out who is who.
And there is another category of immigrants,the ones that enter the country via mariages with a British citesin,and later are able to bring in the country many people by the same procedure,after they get divorce.
So as you see this is not as simple.
Yet there are some very efective messures to take in order to cut if not halt the number of ilegal immigrants in a country.
The most efective in my opinion is to punish everyone that emloyes people that dont have the right to work in the country.
Something the British government has not being doing ever since labour took over,mainly because the economy needed immigrants.
It will start happening now that the economy wont need as many immigrants and the government will take the credit for cuting the number.
Also as i said by working with governments bordering the E.U and fighting organised crime that deals in people trafikng.
Also by working with the countries of origin and presuring them into taking back the immigrants that are sent back by the authorities or the ones that volountire to go back.There are governments who refuse to take into the coutry people deported from another country for many reasons.
So I hope now you understand better where I stand on the issue.
As for the particular law of imprisoning people simply for being visa overstayers is an issue that one ither suports or dont.And I dont,I think it has nothing to do with Immigration,it is made for other reasons,and it is racist,and if it ever comes to be applied then those who made it will regret it.
Complain about this comment
And, pre-revolutionary grandmothers and 25k or 250k or 2500k whatever it is now - it is pea-nuts,
compared to the major problem, in Russian legal immigration to UK.
For example after I studied in England, and became bankrupt, having financed UK economy and educational system, by a certain lavish amount (now I wish I rather bought a house in Cyprus or two), basically to the last rouble I earned before, and huge debts ahead - I had a couple of job offers.
And?
You don't take Russian cats in!
Now, I spoke to all in the knowing in London. They explained the cat will sit in the airport in a cage behind bars, for 6 months, and wait until it developes a hidden rabies or some undesiphered before viruses. Since the cat is old, she may die there for nothing behind the bars as well with us re-uniting never. Or will anyway die, from grief and separation, and because Heathrow airport prizon is not the owner's normal best Icelandic jumper for the nest.
I will pay just below 5 thousand pounds for this pleasure, and will be allowed to visit the prisoners on Thursdays for an hour and a half, stretching a treat through the bars and pouring the cement floor around with tears. Many do, and it it exactly like that.
"O, how did my heart not break
Into a thousand bleeding pieces!"
Now, there is Option 2. Some unknown yet but theoretically existing smugglers, smuggle American cats into Britain by boats, for Americans working in England, if one delivers the puss, say, to over there across the channel. For a hefty amount, but this is not the thing. The thing is when such a boat full of precious cargo, cats and dogs, meets a British patrol boat - all the evidence flies over board. In about 40% of the cases. 60:40 success rate.
I vividly imagined how my "Grusha" (a pear) and Sher-Khan, precious stripies...
damn all England, who needs it at such a price!
Complain about this comment
To Named-Erion (36):
Lets start with here...
"I did not say thats inhumane or racist,i said is inhumane and racist to imprison them for overstaying their visa or entering the E.U without permit."
Its not inhumane or racist to do that. Why? Because people have broken rules and as the state can't for certainty be sure that these people will not brake rules again, they must be imprisoned and sent back home immediately.
The problem that you don't seem to understand is that if the state doesn't do this then more and more people will just stay here. If they intentionally wanted to stay here, intentionally broke the rules then they for sure will intentionally continue their stay in here.
Rule of law, that is what this is. You have rules and when you brake the rules you face the consequences. How is this inhuman or racist?
Then the other thing...
"I am from a European country,so i do have some knowledge on Europe.Read my post again and you will fnd out that i did not say that European countries are going to start executing ilegal immigrants,but there is nothing to stop them from doing it,if they allow it by law,but that there would be consequences,just as there are consequences belive it or not for other racist laws,the globalised world today is interconected and others will treat you the way you treat them."
Well yeah sure, nothing actually stops countries to legislate that the nation must make an suicide by blowing all their cities with nuclear weapons. Do you know why this hasn't happened? Common sense and principles. As I said before, there is no death penalty in any EU country, it's unconstitutional and against the basic EU treaties. Now care to mention any other place in earth where there is same level of ban against death penalty?
So please, now could you show me and the others how European countries are bad, how they are racist and how they are inhumane? How about comparing them to other countries and continents? You accuse Europe on being racist and inhumane against illegal immigrants, but you haven't made any case for your opinion. Please, go to some other country, maybe to South America or Africa and you will very soon find out how you don't have any human rights at all.
Complain about this comment
Named-Erion,
I can see that you are sympathetic towards immigrants but the fact of the matter is the laws of the EU States are complex but in essence are the same.
No one is entitled to outstay their welcome.
No one is entitled to be smuggled into the EU.
No one is entitled to claim bogus asylum.
No one is entitled to enter into a false marriage for the express purpose of obtaining nationality.
In essence, there is far too much of all of the above illegal behaviours being reported and as far as I am concerned, the UK, of all the EU Nations is probably the easiest target country to reach and remain as a "legalised" immigrant despite having broken immigration laws in order to gain admittance. This concern may be valid or not but the concern is shared by many British people now.
Enoch Powell was pilloried for his political views of the 1960s that criticised unlimited immigration but there are people now wondering if his views were misunderstood and that he was speaking a degree of what now appears to be common sense and with a good grasp of the consequence of unfettered immigration.
The problem is such that now in places such as Bradford, West Yorkshire, the indigenous and 4th (or even 5th) generation immigrant families are calling for a clampdown on immigration into the UK.
The BNP (British National Party) an extreme right-wing nationalist/white supremacist political party has gained local seats and this indicates to me that there is a groundswell of public opinion directed against immigrants whether of good credentials (i.e. those that have legally asked for entry prior to admission and granted permission to stay) or poor credentials (i.e. those who are granted leave to stay even if undesirable, those who are allowed to stay despite having entered into bogus amrriages and those who enter the country without permission and immediatly seek political asylum even when the nature of the country from where they come is probably no more dangerous than some parts of the UK inner cities!).
This groundswell of ill will towards ALL immigrants is fed and fostered by the obvious signs of the Labour Governmet spreading new immigrants throughout the country and images of would be political asylum seeker/economic migrant queuing across the English Channel to gain illicit entry into the UK and swell the population does not help the poisonous view being adopted.
The current economic climate will not help either and, as the indigenous population lose their jobs during the forthcoming recession, I fear the groundswell of anti-immigration ill-will is likely grow.
The need for detaining illegal immigrants is necessary as their presence is not conducive to maintaining the peace and tranquiltiy of the nation and can act as a deterrent for those who seek to take advantage fo the UK being a soft target for those who wish to enter illegal and use whatever means to stay. If the public of the UK see illegal entry dealt with firmly and illegal entry deterred then the fear of immigration may subside. Just letting people come legitimately and stay or illegitimately and stay is not good in the eys of the general public whose opinion will amtter when it comes to political persuasion and redressing the massive overload of public services and tax-paid-for benefits and social security system that operates within the UK by unlimited immigration.
The argument for being more harsh with political asylum seekers is that many of them travel through perfectly safe EU Nations to get to the UK and everyone in the UK has to wonder why that it is only when these people reach the UK is when they ask for asylum?
It is also arguable that someone who migrates to the EU who seeks a better life (which was your original thesis for not detaining illegal immigrants) is that economic migrants should not be deemed eligable for asylum.
My fear is that genuine immigrants who have all followed legal process to seek and obtain legitimate entry and leave to stay in the UK are being slowly but surely tarred with the same brush as those who violate the immigartion laws of the UK in order to gain entry and leave to stay that way.
Ultimately any indigenous or well established immigrants who fear for their jobs, welfare and security will aim their anger at ALL recent immigrants and that is not fair on those who have done their best to obey the immigration rules right from the outset.
Complain about this comment
To WebAliceinwonderland (39):
Alice, you can bring your cat with you to Britain without quarantine if you follow certain rules.
http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/quarantine/factsheet/factsheet.htm
In your case, its factsheet 4. In short, you have to microchip your cat and after that have it given vaccination against rabies and then wait for 6 months and then you can bring it in.
You would have saved yourself from lots of trouble if you would have done your 5 year plan and thus had prepared for this, but no... The one thing that Soviet Union got right, 5 year plans, and after the collapse you forsake it! Duh! ;-)
Complain about this comment
Befoe dealing with what I see as the central issue here, I would just like to make a point. There are a couple of posters here who favour firm action in connection with illegal immigration who, eleswhere have opposed identity cards. I trust you realise that you making an almost unassailable case in favour of ID cards.
Jukka has mentioned very properly the importance of the rule of law. There are laws against incitement to racial hatred and against discrimination against legally present individuals. Concerns about a possible resurgence of the far right is not a valid reason for taking a tougher stance on immigration, it is an excuse and a pretty poor one at that.
My central point is that identifying, tracking and detaining illegal immigrants is painfully slow, very labour intensive and expensive and hopelessly inefficient. The best prospect of limiting illegal immigration is to stop them coming here in the first place. Providing you have in place safeguards to cover situations relating to asylum, emergency humanitarian disasters and special circumstances, there is no reason why illegal immigrants should not simply be turned around at the port of entry and sent back from whence they came. Extended periods od detention are, for the most part, unhelpful. I still maintain that better consular services overseas would help in this.
On the question of asylum seekers, it would be fairly simple to operate a warranty system. Under my plan, it would be necessary for someone of standing in the community to stand guarantor for asylum seekers entering the UK. This guarantor could be an approved corporate body such as a registered charity. It should then be possible, subject to conditions, to sfely release them into the community while applications are considered on their merits.
Economic migration is more complex because there are certainly disciplines in which there are skills deficits and immigration is an appropriate source of labour. In times of economic downturn when there will be a larger than normal pool of unemployment, there is a strong case for retraining and the skills gap may therefore be filled by temporary guest workers on time limited visas while this takes place. What I think has to be avoided are situations in which people become established in communities with kids at school, doing proper jobs and paying tax when it is suddenly discovered that there is something improper about their original entry arrangements or worse still, their circumstance change and with it their legal status. I think in particular of the case about a year ago in Swindon when a male nurse was legal present because his wife was a permanent resident. When she died as a result of what the local health admitted was negligence on the part of the Trust concerned, he ceased to have the right to stay notwithstanding that they had a British child born in the UK. Deportation in such cases is not only inhumane but a public relations nightmare for the Home Office.
There are simply so many illegal immigrants in the UK - even the government admits they have no idea how many - that I think there is now a very strong case for an amnesty. Parallels with drug abuse are useful here. You will never understand the scale of the problem unless you facilitate an advantageous situation for people to come forward of their own accord. Once you have identified the scale of the problem, you can legislate appropriately. If this period of grace is given, there is a case for the new legislation to be more draconian if need be but only if you have first given people a fair chance to resolve their issues.
Complain about this comment
#42 - Jukka_Rohila
#39 - WebAlice
Now that is a solution I had not thought of. People wishing to enter the UK should apply to Finland for permission:-)
Alice - adopt a British cat. There are plenty available. As a nation of animal lovers, the British might well chuck you out if your granny did not have a British passport but they would never separate you from your furry friend.
Complain about this comment
Jukka @42,
thank you very much, was studying the factsheet 4 and other factsheets for 2 hrs.
you are an invaluable source of info, now I see the point in having detailed by nature companions.
overall, I know, but this is now, and that was before.
when I graduated there was no light at the end of the tunnel.
Then UK let the bridles go a bit for the US, then followed a list of European countries, then - EU, then - Russia.
while only European countries were relieved of cat quarantine, I was seriously considering Solution No 3....
That I go from Russia with the cat to the EU
(this was always possible) (only couldn't figure out a good reason why a tourist for a week carries a cat with), anyway pretend it's a cat exhibition or something, then, say, in Brussels I lose my cat. "ran away in Brussels." (looking after mussles).
The next step in my ingenious plan was a friend, say, in Brussels, finds my cat in the street by sheer luck! adopts it, carries to the local vet, and has it chipped, and it becomes a naturalised Brussels cat with the Belgium passport.
Then my strategic planning was somewhat vague, either I buy another tourist trip to Belgium and travel from Brussels to London - what - with a Belgium cat on hands? Like, hired for the cat delivery, as an authorised courier?
or that poor friend appointed by me suddenly desires to visit the UK with her/his "Belgium" cat...
then must be the cat has to be lost again, this time in England, and this time re-adopted and suddenly discovered in the street by me! (and re-named after James Bond)
And all this I do only 3 times because back then I had 3 of them!
__________
Of practical things in the spread sheet 3 learned that pets are to enter the UK from Russia or the EU by authorised routes only, to be met and registered in on the English side.
From Russia only 2 routes authorised - BA World Cargo fr Moscow and BA from St. Pete. CARGO COMPARTMENT.
with this I will have to wait until humans are allowed to travel in the cargo compartment for a special additional fee among suitcases as well. to explain all this roar is not the reason to get scared silly.
From the EU - one rail option only authorised, Calais-Folkestone Eurotunnel shuttle.
From the EU by sea, pets can disembark to the UK from 4 countries only: Spain, Netherlands, France, Belgium.
So Jukka, if you are travelling with a cat fr Finland, and it's not by air, you'd have to get to Belgium first. Calais-Dover, Zeebrugge-Hull, Rotterdam-Hull.
@44 thank you threnodio, you display creative thinking as usual.
overall this rabies is kind of silly, as min when applied to St. Petersburg cats.
who ever heard of rabies, I don't know.
well, in Moscow they have heard, and in the South.
but in St. Pete when somebody bites you and doc sends you to rabies immediate something shots - nobody goes. last case of rabies was recorded in St. Petersburg in 1978, all vets know.
Complain about this comment
re our sub, with the accident, expected home by 10am. trial trip in the Japanese sea, after re-works done, and something went wrong. many shipbuilders from the ship-yards, on board dead. "Nerpa", class"pike", but reactor safe.
Complain about this comment
So I am not misunderstood and my position upon the immigration of those who choose to migrate surreptitiously into the EU or enter the EU on bogus credentials, false entry status, or fake marriages or who deliberately overstay their permission to remain in the EU versus those people who choose to migrate and do so through legitimate means and legitimate process.
I am in favour of Identity Cards.
I am in favour of strong prevention of illegal entry into the EU.
I am in favour of detention of people whose status is illegal within EU countries.
I do not favour an amnesty as that was done in the USA and further economic migration into the USA has continued unabated. All an amnesty does is regularise the status of people who should not be in the country and actually legal prevents the country from removing those people if they are guilty of crimes back in their countries of origin or have committed crimes whilst within the adoptive country whilst holding illegal or hidden immigrant status.
I am in favour of maintaining the basic rights of detained immigrants so that their detention is not inhumane or degrading. The bottom line is that detained immigrants may leave the EU at any time and their detention would cease forthwith.
I am against the arbitrary assignment of political asylum simply on the basis that the potentially adoptive country has a high self-esteem and has a psyche that believe it is the only country on the planet where (a) political asylum is a guaranteed privilege to be granted on request and (b) even other countries within the EU are considered unsafe havens for political asylum seekers.
I am against immigrants entering one country, having their status legalised and being granted the EU right to free travel allowing them to onward travel to another EU country where the social benefits are better and easier to obtain than the entry country.
I am against other EU nations allowing illegal immigrants to be allowed to gather in one EU Nation without constraint and those immigrants then entering their preferred destination EU nation to gain the benefits of citizenship through fraud, deception and/or dishonesty.
I am in favour of the voluntary repatriation of illegal immigrants.
I am in favour for the detention of illegal immigrants whilst their status is adjudicated and their right to stay determined one way or another.
I am in favour of using EU economic support for those nations whose people seek to migrate illegally to the EU so that the desire to migrate is mollified.
I am in favour of strong EU boundaries that prevent or at least greatly reduce the opportunities for illegal immigration.
I am in favour of legal migrants being offered the opportunity to enter and become citizens of the EU but the request and processing must be mad and completed from the the start and the legal process being in the country of origin not on arrival or disembarkation.
I am not in favour of nationalist/supremacist single issue political parties being given a foothold within any EU on the basis of immigration having reached such volumes that both established immigrants and the indigenous populations have their fears only recognised and serviced by these nationalist/supremacist political parties.
Therein lies a greater risk to us all, and all for supporting unfettered migration by people who choose to avoid legal immigration process in order to achieve their aims regardless of the consequences to others.
Throwing our hands up and suggesting there are too many immigrants already within the EU nations and the problem or repatriating them is too [callous][unfair][unjust][inhumane] is a crock of the proverbial. Illegal or irregular (if that is the preferred word) immigrants have the basic human right to stay in detention when they are designated illegal or irregular immigrants and then further detention once they have exhausted all apeals against deportation or, and this is their fundamental human right, they are free to choose to leave to return to their countries of origin.
No nation should be forced, through guilt, to accept immigrants that that country prefers not to let in or allow to remain in that country.
Complain about this comment
Alice,
I am really sorry to read the tragic news of the souls lost at sea in this tragedy.
Complain about this comment
Menedemus: How do you view identity cards operating in practice ? Would every lawful resident of the UK be required to bear one at all times ? Would there be any penalties involved for not bearing one, or for refusing to present an identity card upon demand by police or other authorities ?
My guess is that the key adjective applying to the problem of repatriation of 'unauthorised' immigrants is neither callous, unfair, unjust, nor inhumane, but expensive (for detection, detention, and adjudication, as well as the repatriation itself).
Complain about this comment
Jan_Keesop
I would view their use exactly as ID cards were used in the UK as recently as 1956. Unfortaunately since they were repealed the nation state has become a less safe and less secure place. I believe the repeal of the issue of ID cards was a big mistake.
An identity cards is a useful means of identifying oneself to someone who has the lawful right to check your identity. That someone should be given that lawful right through Parliament. It does not have to be the Police as I will explain in a moment.
First of all ID cards in the United Kingdom are not a new thing.
Secondly, if one travels abroad one has to take with them an Identity Card called a Passport and no one bats an eyelid at that imposition. It should also be noted that the British Passport Office is already now called the British Identity and Passport Services so identity confirmation is already here.
If one drives one has to possess a Driver's Licence and, unless you happen to be as lazy as me and still have the old paper licence, the old paper licences are being phased out and replaced with a plastic licence with photograph on request, on replacement or on change of details. No one bats an eyelid at that imposition.
I am not against the idea of combining one's passport with internal use as a form of identity confirmation or alternatively combining the ID cards with the new plastic Driver's Licence in use within the UK. For the latter the Driver's Licence can clearly be marked Provisional for the purpose of identifying holders who have not passed their driving competency test.
For many everyday uses, members of the public ask for confirrmation of identity of other members of the public. For example, during certain UK personal bank transaction activities or collecting parcels from postal sorting offices or when informing a store of a name and address when ordering goods against deposit or goods not in stock - no one cares a jot that their identity is asked to be confirmed in those circumstances thus I have often wondered at the fallacy of the view taken "that the British public would resent the return of identity cards."
My name and address is available to anyone who cares to visit the local library or go online and check my voter's registration. I actually have more control over my email addresses than my name and address and personal details which are required for online transactions and everyday I visit DIY or other stores and buy something or if, heaven fobid, I were to buy something on store credit - I am very likley to be asked who I am.
The bottom line is that if someone wants something like their giro check, wants to transfer money abroad or pick up a parcel or package from the postal sorting office and someone asks for for their identity card then you will make sure you have the card with you.
Many of the EU Nations have identity card use in place and in practice. They think nbothing of the practice. The UK is going to have to get used to the idea of having and using identity cards sooner or later because it willundoubedly become an EU requirement. The practice of use of ID cards is already not that uncommon, hardly an inconvenience and who on earth should be concerned that their identity is confirmed when entering restricted areas, collecting state benefits or collecting parcels from the postal sorting office - merely as examples of when an ID card would be useful?
As to the right of Police to demand confirmation of identity. They already have the right to do so and, in the UK, where a Ploice Officer suspect someone of having committed a non-arrestable offences, if the police officer is unsatisfied that your provided details are incorrect or false is automatically allowed to arrest you and detain you until your true identity is confirmed. So I have never actiually seen the value of Identity Cards for Police. If I did not think you were who you said you were, I would simply nick you, quite lawfully, until you coughed up your real home address or true name. Possessing an identity card may prevent someone, who chooses to provide a false name and address with the means to avoid the indignity of getting arrested but to be honest, ask any Policeman and I am sure they would rather have the option to arrest people and detain them whilst they go "make enquiries" personally.
Believe me there are may road traffic and non-arrestable offences we all commit without even thinking that, if a Policeman decided to issue you with notice of intended prosecution and felt you were not who you said you were - your feet would not touch the ground between there and the police station. The good thing is that the Police are far too busy to be bothered with checking everyone's identity so they do practice selective stop and confirm, using police powers that are already available to them plus the use of a police technique called "policeman's intuition."
Personally speaking, if a policeman asks me who I am and where I live, I have no problem whatsoever with providing those details. Why should I feel otherwise? Am I an illegal immigrant who does not want to be unmasked, am I a criminal who does not wish to be detected, am I leading a false life with many wifes in many ports - in those circumstances the re-introduction of the use ID cards might just be a very worthwhile exercise.
Complain about this comment
Jan_Keesop @ 49
Re the detection, detention, adjudication and repatriation process. What is new?
The UK is already doing that. We even forcefully repatriate people adjudicated to be unacceptable and why not!
Ideally illegal immigration should not be allowed to occur with firm EU borders, etc.
But the reality is that people, such as Named-Erion enter the UK every day by surreptitious means and then either obtain false details allowing thme to work illegally (and it is balderdash that they pay tax and contribute to the economy!) or use the UK's lax attitude to allowing false marriages, easy acceptance of claims for political asylum or the exisiting immigration rules to prevaricate and try to preven their repatriation.
We already detain illegal immigrants and it is only Named-Erion suggesting that the EU should cease the practice of detention as these illegal immigrants "are only seekign to better their lives" and is being racist by condoning this practice that I find illogical!
Complain about this comment
To WebAliceinwonderland (46):
Sorry too. Its always tragic that people are lost in accidents. I read about the accident in Helsingin Sanomat and it seems that it has been caused by fire extinguisher going off accidentally. The fire extinguisher system basically works by replacing air with a substance that suffocates the fire, unfortunately it also suffocates people. It seems that the freon was used in the submarine. Just sad.
Complain about this comment
Alice
Sympathy to the relatives of the dead and sadness for their loos.
Menedemus
ID Cards.
I would not be opposed to ID cards subject to the following (I assuming they a smart cards):-
All cards to positively identify the holder with residential address and next of kin information, social security number linked to NHS records.
Data to be compulsorily amended to include details of non-custodial sentences currently being served, ASBOs, requirement to sign the sex offenders' register and orders of the court barring overseas travel.
Driving records.
Additional Voluntary Information:
Blood group, organ doner status, essential information regarding ongoing medical conditions.
Information which could not be included:
Expired criminal records, anything that can link to your financial affairs, bank accounts, tax affairs, etc.
Any reference to ethnicity, religion, sexual preference etc. (Not that I care but the last thing you need is a row with the PC mob).
_____________________
Finally and most importantly, if they are compulsory, they should be free. The idea that you 'must' have a card and that is going to cost you 100 pounds is an outrage.
I would envisage that they could be used as multipurpose cards including as a travel document within the EU, a driving licence and a donor card.
_____________________
I do not disagree with most of your points. I do believe that there are many cases where immediate arbitrary repatriation is preferable to extended periods of detention. There are too many people inside already.
Complain about this comment
I made a dreadful error in my prose at #51.
The paragraph that begins: But the reality is that people, such as Named-Erion enter the UK... is very wrong.
To be clear the paragraph should read: But the reality is that people, such as Named-Erion seeks to defend, enter the UK ....
Please accept my apologies for the error and, if Named-Erion feels the need, I would not be offended if he complained about the comment. It is entirely my fault and I really do hope that no offense is taken.
Complain about this comment
Like the Chinese I believe that Obama's election is a land-mark in the USA's regression. Enough people believed that a media creation, like Michael Jackson, could change the downward trend of the US relative to the new multi-polar world. What a forlorn hope!
We are all aware that the global recession was caused by the USA and basically by Clinton's assistant secretary for "Equality in Housing" Roberta Achtenberg who can rightly boast as being the mother of America's global recession. She forced the banks to give mortgages to 2 million African-Americans a large proportion of whom never even knew about deposits and regular monthly payments. At the same time the big institutions Mac and Mae became immense centres of largesse of Democratic Party nominees, some of whom were do-gooders and some mere crooks, and quite a few are great friends of Obama. The sub-prime or toxic assets were mixed with real assets by American financial institutions, and some were sold to European banks and elsewhere. What followed is the current situation.
Obama, besides mouthing loudly grandiose empty rhetoric about change, has also indicated what he wants to do on some fronts. Firstly he wants to save the jobs of Detroit's auto workers (Detroit is 85% African-American). But Americans do not want to buy Detroit cars. Secondly he wants the declining number of Roberta's no-hope mortgagees to retain their homes. Thirdly he wants to set up the American equivalent of Britain's National Health system mainly through forcing American companies to pay for it. (America can hardly compete with China, India and even Europe as it is,...). Fourthly he wants to create alternative energy resources so that "we do not have to rely on Venezuela and the Middle East" (Beautiful idea , but do you expect anything to work efficiently from the US government? Another dot.com /housing market bubble in the making. Already investment advisers are recommending investment in unknown small companies and to be on the alert for the signal to get out)
All this should strike terror in the heart of every European. Because all this is highly inflationary. And we are financially-linked to the States. A "cyclical recession", followed by a dot.com bubble, followed by a housing bubble and a financial bubble and more to come. We've already had taxpayer's money used to buy useless assets caused by both American greed and American political correctness. Obama promises to throw more good money after bad. His first appointment, of his Chief of Staff is hardly awe-inspiring, a do-gooder who never fought for his country but actually fought for Israel. People are thinking. "It's probably a good thing for the government to guarantee bank deposits, but who is to guarantee the government's guarantees?"
(I remember being in Kiev railway station , 14 years ago watching two lines of well-dressed obviously educated women, trying to sell, silently, things like 2 carrier bags, 3 tins of shoe polish, etc. Are we heading that way? Are our pensions safe? Memo to Obama : Kiev is the capital city of a country called Ukraine, in Europe. It has 45 million European - Europeans. They are not good at hip-hopping and teenage-knifing and mugging, but are highly-educated, more so, in my opinion than your average British or American media-person)
Far from glorying in Obama's election which at best is of no significance at all to Europe, and at worst a disaster, I think Europe should integrate, naturally and more fully within itself, and align itself with our fellow-Europeans, the Russians, with their huge market and their immense natural resources.
Complain about this comment
To threnodio (53):
Excuse, but why does the national ID card be so complicated? It doesn't have to be an all-in-solution to everything. Let me explain...
In Finland every person has a unique social security number which serves as an unique ID. When a child is born, he/she is given an social security number and that number is passed to Finnish person registrar. That number is then given to other government databases and systems and its used to access and locate personal records.
Now an ID card is a government certified form of identification that can be in example drivers license, social security card with picture, passport etc.. When you are an adult you will need one of these to identify yourself in all places from public services to private enterprises.
Basically databases and information are decentralized, but they are always accessed with the same key: social security number. In practise this works reasonable well. If police needs to locate somebody's tax records, phone records, bank records, medical records etc.. they make a request and give an ID with it from which they want information. In a sense, all people are registered, all people can be identified and their information searched and located if needed and of course all information requests are recorded to prevent abuses.
To me having an national ID card that is an smart card containing all data is just an overkill. Having an national ID system doesn't mean centralized system, it just means standardization of access.
Of course the next question is how well does it work. Well, as living in here is quite impossible without an ID, the government estimates that in Helsinki, a city of 1 million, there are approx 200 person living unlawfully, as in they haven't registered and gotten their ID number. You may regard it an high number, personally I think its reasonable number, no system in a free country and in EU can't 100% proof.
Complain about this comment
#56, Jukka_Rohila and #53 threnodio,
I also tend to think the UK plans for an ID card are very much an overkill and smell somewhat of a 1984 big brother approach. The identity card in Belgium is a smart card with very little information on it and it costs somewhere around 15 euro. When you change address you simply take the card to the commune and they enter the new address. As Jukka said it is a pretty safe system and not too obtrusive, the control mechanism on people who are 'without papers' is simply that if the police control you for whatever reason you have to show the card and if you don't have one (or a passport) you can be investigated. How many illegals there are here I've no idea although there was a fair take up from an amnesty some years back.
One slight aside to the UK discussion is that an Id card should help reduce voting fraud as we are obliged to hand the card over in order to vote. How that would work with the abused UK postal voting system I don't know.
Complain about this comment
Thank you Menedemus, Jukka and threnodio for the kind words. As I wrote earlier, all the Russian heroic and the most peaceful navy fleet in the world does is it heroically drowns by itself. Since 1943.
The only difference is before they did it under red flag, now under St. Andrew's. White field with two diagonal lines, like a large vertical blue cross. (In case you meet them in seas.) (offer immediate assistance!)
Well at least this one is at home, returned at 10:30.
I thought were fighting a fire on board as usual, you are not allowed to surface swim away or board a nearby help ship, have to fight fires until you are the last one on board, to keep it away from nuclear reactor at all costs there were. But no, looks like the opposite trouble this time, anti-fire system working now way too well !!! un-asked for.
Overall it's all your fault. Why did you collapse us in Perestroyka. The sub is one of those sufferers put on the staples in 1991. I think the next salary that shipyard workers received in 1999. and then remembered they have a business unfinished.
And now the attempt to put it back to life. How hard it was I make an ungrounded personal estimation by the amount of shipyards folk on board - 120. in this trial.
It is a navy tradition here indeed, for shipbuilders and designers to actually go and test what the hell have you designed. and not in a festive symbolical one week expidition, but something more close to a 1 year (in well-financed Soviet times of course). not an obligation, more like a custom, matter of personal honour and credibility. which fleet will take a ship from a design bureau who chickens to be on board the first year. but metal workers would not go, and the amount 120 signals a high amount of re-work that had to be done to the old ship.
An echo, of the (cold) war, it seems.
Anyway. funny you call these Russian subs "Akula" (shark class), and we modestly call these "pike". Maybe it likes fresh water better! :o)
Complain about this comment
Menedemus @51 said.
:
We already detain illegal immigrants and it is only Named-Erion suggesting that the EU should cease the practice of detention as these illegal immigrants "are only seekign to better their lives" and is being racist by condoning this practice that I find illogical!:
--- I am sorry that you are misrapresenting my position.I did not say is racist to detain people that are found by the authorities to be in the country Illegaly.To detain them temporarily until it is posible to repatriate them is unavoidable.I said is racist and it has nothing to do with immigration when you make it a PENAL offense and imprison anyone found to be living illegaly in the country.(and imprisoning I dont mean detaining but sending them to PRISON for having overstayed their legal right to stay in the country.)
This is not amatter of having sympathy or being suportive to Ilegal Immigrants ,I am sure they dont need my simpathy or yours for that matter,it is about being realistic.
And you seam to have a problem with understanding the very nature of the issue.
I told you already,that people that enter E.U or your country Britain Ilegally are LEGAL immigrants within a few hours of entering the country.What are ILEGAL IMMIGRANTS are only the ones who OVERSTAY THEIR LEGAL TIME IN THE COUNTRY,WETHER THEY BE VISA-OVERSTAYERS OR PEOPLE WHOSE IMMIGRANT STATUS HAS BEEN REFUSED.
To fight Ilegal entry in the E.U I have already explained what are the best options,and messures to be taken,that are working with Governments of states bordering the E.U,and more efficent border controls.
To fight ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION which is a totaly different thing from Ilegal entrance in the country,the best and most efficent messure to be taken is to punish all those that employ people who have no right to work in the country.Only this by itself would achive to reduce Ilegal Immigration almost completely.Other areas to work on are pressuring governments of countries of origin to allow Deported Immigrants back home.
Complain about this comment
And please understand that Immigration law from Penal law (I am sorry if Penal does not make sense in English,we call it Penal in my language and i know is PENAL in most countries,i would apreciate if anybody corrects me on this) are two different things.
You break the law,you go to the court and then to prison,but you break Immigration law,you dont go to prison,you get deported or detained.
Trying to make an Immigration ofence part of the Penal law is a big mistake.
Complain about this comment
may be penal means criminal offence?
to have a criminal record in your past
I guess is much worse than violating immigration laws, and being deported for that.
Complain about this comment
Named-Erion,
Yes, I do understand the difference between Penal Judicial Process and the Non-Penal Judicial Process for dealing with violations of Immigration Laws.
In the UK we do not arrest, charge and subject illegal or irregular immigrants to detention in Remand Prisons where people who are awaiting trial but refused bail are detained. However if an illegal or irregular immigrant commits a crime they are subject to the Penal Judicial Process and risk imprisonment for the crime before they can be dealt with by judicial process for violation of immigration laws.
We keep people who are illegal immigrants and determined as unsuitable to be released into society in Immigration Detention Centers. I have one very near to where I live in the next-door County of Bedfordshire. The only occupants are families and single people who are subject to the Judicial Process dealing with their claims for residence and nationality.
Much of what else you wrote I would not disagree with. I may also wish to see further measures taken to prevent those people who arrive in the UK, smuggled or by choice evading the UK Border Controls and not seeking permission to stay but simply disappearing into the UK Black Economy and only claiming refugee status on discovery - personally I would advocate the constraint of such claims by time limit and to avoid bogus claims for Political Asylum, I would suggest that, because the UK, as of this year has now become the most densely populated country in the EU should now limit the number of people to whom the UK will grant political or refugee status.
There are plenty of other safe harbours nations in the world despite the typical British arrogant liberal opinion that the UK is the only nation in the world with the best political system, best social benefits system, best medical services and the only place where genuine political asylum seekers can truly get their safety guaranteed. The arrogance of these British do-gooders astonishes me but I would suspect also offend many of the other EU Nationalities and other nations with very reasonable behaviours and attitudes that I would recommend as safe havens for political asylum seekers - the only problem for the would-be sanctuary seekers is that social benefits payments, free medical care and free housing may not be so easy to obtain in those countries!
Complain about this comment
#56 - Jukka_Rohila
I did not say I favoured ID cards, I simply said they would be acceptable subject to safeguards.
I just happen to think that , if you must have them, they might as well be useful.
Complain about this comment
Europe will face a new administration that is strongly protectionist and opposed to free trade.
This has been ignored in Europe, where there is a surge of hysterical support for Obama. There is a temporary easing of anti-Americanism, but that will return very quickly.
As for Obama - protectionism is always very damaging to economic growth. All of our trading partner - Europeans, Asians and especially, Canadians and Mexicans - should be very concerned.
Complain about this comment
Without the support of Unions, Mr. Obama could not have won this election. They were key to the victory in Ohio and Pennsylvania. This will of course be paid for with tariffs and tighting trade agreements. If he is going to increase the number of US jobs they will have to come from somewhere, probably Europe, China and India. Additionaly, Europe will have to bear more of it's own defence burdens. I do not believe he would shed American blood to defend Europe. Russia will get an easy victory, because they are demanding the removal of the US missile shield right as America elects a pacafist intent on removing them.
Complain about this comment
#64 - TimothyR444
I cannot imagine that Europe's leaders are unaware of the protectionist tendencies of the Democrats or the references to these policies to these policies Obama might have to make to protect or create jobs. Given the kind of trouble the big three motor manufacturers are in, one can foresee either a strategic partnership with a European manufacturer or possibly an outright takeover and the prospect of European cars being built in Detroit for US consumption. There is also the possibility of a trade off on defence with European NATO countries carrying more of the burden providing they do not also have to confront excessive protectionism on the economic front. Obama does not need a trade war any more than Europe does at a time when everyone is seeking a new economic world order. I would be far more worried if I were Canadian or Mexican than as a European.
#65 - politejomsviking
You may be right in terms of the defence burden. In fact, Obama has already as good as said this. What may be more interesting is the future of the missile defence system in Europe. If Obama is going to engage with Tehran and given that Ahmadeijad has an upcoming election which might see him out of office and a more amenable regime in place, it may be that the threat will recede. In this case, the States would have to either cancel the project or put their hands up and admit that Russia is considered the principal threat. Before anyone starts throwing large amounts of money at NATO, we need a clearer understanding of what it is for and who it perceives as the potential enemy in a post-Bush era.
Complain about this comment
The distinction between legal and illegal immigration is a very artificial one. There is no high principle by which you can say that the migration of people from one country to another is in the class of activities which should be prohibited by the criminal law. Migrants harm no-one, nor cause severe offense and are generally felt to be economically beneficial to their new country. However, given the state of the world and its uneven economic development, the consequences of an open door immigration policy would just not be acceptable to a majority of voters. I regret this deeply, and look forward to the day when we have EU-style free movement of people everywhere on Earth, but that day is not here yet.
There are probably several hundred million in South Asia who would migrate to the UK at the drop of a hat, and perhaps upwards of 500 million from all countries combined. The UK could not handle such numbers, but equally I don't think we should just accept the inequality that lies behind such migration pressures. We should be trying to even out economic development in the world and that means British and other Western businesses should be investing in less developed countries such that the people there have a real alternative to emigration.
The best response to the economic downturn would be to complete the WTO trade round and negotiate bilateral freedom of movement treaties between the UK and US, and indeed other English-speaking countries in the developed world where migration pressures would be balanced. I think Obama was the best man for the job, but if his presidency leads to protectionism in the US and calls for similar from the usual suspects on the Continent then it would be a setback to the progress of mankind.
Regarding rabies, I think this is a disease that has been on the retreat on the Continent and the UK was too slow and cautious in changing the regulations to adapt to the changed reality. We need policies on pet and animal movement (and indeed in all things) that reflect today's concerns and not those of the 1970s.
Complain about this comment
Threnodio (66): The reality is that NATO has a dual purpose. Its original role was clearly to deter the Soviets. No other body could do that, not even the UNSC where Moscow can veto action. NATO however serves another de-facto role of great importance, as the forum within which wider issues of Western security can be discussed. This 2nd role would remain essential even if we could conclude that Russia is no longer a threat (which I think would be premature).
Complain about this comment
Saw your Remembrance day, ceremonies on TV. My sympathies, I understand today was a quiet day, remembering the fallen, glorious dead, as I read. Your Queen, with the wreath, at the monument, ? Cenotaf Cenotaph, various troops marching, and the last survivor of the first "Germanskaya".
All are in poppies, curious, I thought it is a Russian thing, they grow like hell in one place though here only, in the hills around Sebastopol, and are associated exactly with the battles for Sebastopol, all wars combined. But no it is your flower of remembrance. Why is it 11 by Big Ben, on the 11th of the 11th?
I see you mark those who died for homeland, not the end of the war(s).
And do it in your quiet English way.
"First Germanskaya" we don't mark at all, though could, looking at your ceremonies, I'd say. Maybe because we lost, nothing good to remember. Most likely because the loss there was over-shadowed by the revolution and civil war, you won't know where is the end of disasters, one goes into another smooth. The "second Germanskaya" you know, V-Day with all.
"This victory day! - smelling by gun-powder.
This happiness! - with tears in the eyes."
Will go look more, may be my TV will show me more.
Complain about this comment
Alice -
Because the armistice - that is the document which brought all the fighting to an end - was signed at the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month in 1918 (11.00 hours in November 11, 1918).
Complain about this comment
Alice,
The significance of 11am on the 11th of the Eleventh month is that is the day and the time that the guns fell silent at the end of the First World War.
The significance of the popy is two-fold:
One, it is a symbol of the poppy fields of Flanders in Belgium where the major battles of the First World War (what we, British, sometimes call "The Great War") took place, and it was on those fields that so many British men simply went into battle and died in a hail of gunfire.
Secondly, the poopy is supposed to be made by ex-servicemen and women who, because of injuries cannot do normal work, and the proceeds go to the British Legion which is a charity/club to which all ex-servicemen can belong and the British Legion looks after them in many different ways.
The proceeds to which I refer are the cash donations made each year to buy a poppy and wear it with pride and sadness at the tragic loss of lives in tThe Great War and all wars subsequently.
Many, many Britons donate and wear the poppy as a mark of respect as I imagine every family has someone who was either dreadfully maimed or killed during the World Wars or subsequent wars so it is something that affects us all.
Complain about this comment
Aha.
Menedemus and threnodio, don't kill me, but is it that you won the 1st WW? That's why it is the Great war? I mean, if Germany lost, somebody won it. And definitely it was not us.
Complain about this comment
I think Europe is in denial. There isn't much the US "needs" from Europe if the Rusians aren't a threat. The Dems will re-allocate Military forces from Europe to the Afgan battlefield, because he has promised to go into Pakistan if it is necessary to get Bin Laden. I expect a much more Afro-centric foreign policy. If you read what the Dems have to say about Africa, Europe is a colnial exploiter and the reason for all the chaos and turmoil in Africa. Sounds like an excuse to me to. By the way Mercedes and BMW recently built Auto factories in Alabama. Nissan built one in Mississippi and Toyota is building one there too. Keep in mind that what aoil Europe doesn't get from Russia is defended by US troops in the middle east and south-east asia. This could be an economic perfect storm for old Europe. I would hate to think that my defence and acess to raw supplies was guarateed by a military who thinks that Europe is the problem and Africa is qually important.
Complain about this comment
Freeborn-John @68 "which I think would be premature".
Not only premature, outward un-fair.
If we view NATO as an enemy, it'll be simply un-elegant of you to jump ship.
Complain about this comment
Menedemus, I am impressed by your post @47, "I am in favour, I am against", and I've got a solution for this :o)
This sounds to me similar to what drivers of buses here sometimes loud-speak, when too many people try to squeeze into the full already bus.
The standard phrase is: Passengers! Get out! "Autobus ne rezinovy!" - the bus is not made of rubber!
The next time you get someone into the EU, don't do it FOC but strike a deal. That that other new country promises to use English as the main language. Immigrants are attracted to the UK not only because of social benefits or whatever, but because it is the only place in the EU where they can speak the only other possible language to them (on top the local).
I suggest Ukraine, or what will be left of it.
Anyway what they attempt to speak is a joke.
I'd even go further and agree that all the new-comers to the EU are automatically re-exportable to Ukraine. It is warm there, and Southernes would feel more at home. It is much emptier than Britain as well.
I think you'd get support for the idea in the EU from France and Holland, and the rest 24... you know my Russian thinking... I'd suggest to bribe. Will be cheaper for you anyway in the long run. Will give a return on investment within 2 yrs I think.
Complain about this comment
It is ironic that the Obama era is dawning on Memorial day. America didn't want to enter the Second World War, because many felt that we had been tricked into the First World War. We called it the "War to End all Wars" and we nievly thought that at the end of it President Wilson's 14 points would be adopted and we would all sit down as equals "including Germany, Austro-Hungary and Turkey" and set up a new world order for guaranteing the peace. Instead the old powers of Europe humiliated Germany at Versaille and President Wilson collapsed. My relatives fought on both sides. The ones who stayed in Germany fought for the Father-land and the ones that immigrated fought in the US Army, for Liberty. The postcards my Cousin (Emmanuel Koenig) wrote home from the US Army were in German, because he knew that all the family did not speak English. Our leader was General Pershing (good English Name), whose real family nane was Pfirsing (a German.) We sell poppies in this country too help our dis-abled veterans.
Complain about this comment
Alice,
I am not sure why it is called The Great War maybe because, at the time, there had been no war on a similar scale and no war previously had been worldwide with conflicts all around the Globe.
I imagine when the Second World War broke out it became more commonplace to call The Great War the First World War.
At the time The Great War was supposed to be the war to end all wars as the number of casualties on both sides was then the greatest in history with huge percentages of the male populations of France and Germany and Great Britain lost, killed or seriously wounded. The term Great may simply refer to the scale of the battles and the huge losses. Great Britain and France lost over 9 million men killed or maimed for life between them with France suffering the greater loss - but with both our relatively small gross populations that was an extraordinary number of casualties that drained both countries of a whole generation of young men.
The First World War ended with an armistice but the loser was Germany as she was forced, mainly at French insistence, into ceding territories (The Saar), creating demilitarised zones (The Ruhr) and paying huge reparations mainly to France.
The British celebrated the end of war in 1918 but since then we don't celebrate the date and time so much as solemnly commemorate the loss of life each year at this time. The victory is fleeting but the huge loss of men in that war changed British society for ever more.
Women became emancipated and got to vote, the right to drive and the option to work as more than simply being mothers, servant-girls, seamstresses and cooks - women started to go to university and learn there was more to life than just being "her indoors". That was probably something that was worth celebrating more than anything else as a result of that war.
Complain about this comment
Alice (re #71)
I love your humour. It makes my ranting seem that of an imbecile!
Actually I am riling against immigration into the United Kingdom from further afield than just outside of Europe but it is already too late.
We have schools now here the pupils are from such different nations that as many as 97 different languages are spoken in the playgrounds. English is now the minority language.
Walk down any high street in the United Kingdom now and you will find it hard to hear only English spoken and, to be honest, I feel a stranger in my own land.
Unfortunately, I think that the dilution of the population with permanent immigration has been on such a huge scale now that it is irreversible and has undermined the fabric of British society beyond repair.
What I may do is learn Russian, start to think and behave Russian and then ask to become Russian . . . . . I like vodka if that helps!
Do you think Mr Medvedev or Mr Putin might let me come to Russia and stay!
Complain about this comment
Alice (74): Russia is not a country I know well, so perhaps my perception of it is wrong. I hope there will be good relations between a democratic Russia and Western countries in the future such that the concept of a Western military alliance aimed mainly at deterring Russia becomes obsolete. During the 1990s I believed Russia was on the right path, but under Putin it seems to be heading backwards to me, with many disappointing signs, e.g. Kremlin reasserting control of the media, becoming very sensitive about these anti-missile systems in Poland/Czech republic, etc. I really hope I am wrong or that Putin is just a temporary setback, because the world would be a much better place with a democratic and open Russia at ease with its neighbours.
Complain about this comment
Alice, re the 11th November,
One slight difference is that in the UK it's held on the Sunday nearest the 11th whereas in continental countries like Belgium it is the actual 11th, so tomorrow will be a bank holiday here and there will be ceremonies in the various communes. I think in my own commune there is a coach that visits all the memorials in turn that carries the main participants i.e. old soldiers.
Another thing I've always noticed is that poppies grow everywhere here and not just in Flanders where the battles were. Most roadsides have the red flowers of poppies from time to time.
#79, Freeborn-John,
I agree totally with your words and likewise about Putin, there is something about him that worries me as I don't think he's good for either peace or integration which is a great shame.
Complain about this comment
Menedemus, If illegal migrants are efficiently identified and ejected from the EU, where will an adequate supply of prostitutes to service EU bureaucrats and businessmen come from? Do you think there are enough home grown women to satisfy this market for that category of labor?
Complain about this comment
MAII why do you think the Eastern Block ciountries were allow into the E.U supply is now very high
Complain about this comment
On the subject of Russia, there has been a tendency in the west to rush to judgment and not a serious enough attempt to judge the situation. Putin especially has come under special scrutiny, paradoxically when he ceased to be president. The concern is apparently about how much influence he is having behind the scenes and the extent to which Medvedev is functioning as his puppet.
We need to distinguish between what is happening internationally and domestically. It should be remembered that Putin served two full terms - 8 years - as president. During much of this period, relations with the West were for a long time civilised if not warm. The West has chosen to consult selectively with Russia having them fully engaged as a member of the Quartet in the Palestinian Israeli negotiations, partially engaged in the Iranian nuclear stand off and totally disengaged from Afghanistan as a NATO project. We have studiously ignored their approach to the Balkans but confronted them head on over Georgia amidst growing evidence that, on the ground anyway, they had a point. We place a missile defence shield in Poland and the Czech Republic then try to tell them the target is Iran. We even seem to chose quite arbitrarily between whether we are a G7 or a G8 group depending on the circumstances. The messages that are being sent are so mixed as to be almost indecipherable and yet we are surprised when they play us at our own game. In Britain in particular, there has been a persistent trickle of allegations concerning alleged wrongdoing including murder within the security services while at the same time giving sanctuary to some of the exiled rich, some of whom are wanted for criminal matters. The West could stand accused of hypocrisy.
We need to remember that Putin came to power on the back of enormous majority following the Yeltisin years during which a handful of oligarchs became almost obscenely rich on the back of mismanaged privatisations and following a disastrous and terrible campaign in Chechnya. Rumblings about electoral irregularities notwithstanding, one has to acknowledge that he is hugely popular, Medvedev now commands a large majority and that their party does appear, at least for now, to be the natural party of office. Given the recent spate of allegations concerning postal votes in the UK and the discovery of more uncounted votes from 2004 in Florida, it seems we are the last ones to be throwing around allegations which are essentially internal matters for the Russian Federation.
While I am inclined to agree with Freeborn-John that it might be premature to express total confidence Russia's intentions are entirely honourable, the constant ebb and flow of unpleasantness over what are essentially trivial matters makes it very difficult to communicate constructively when issues of substance do arise. As a source of energy and other natural resources and as a market place, Russia is as important to Europe as China is to the States. The time really has come to talk in a straightforward and honest way, resolve where possible outstanding differences and move forward. A second Cold War is not in anyone's best interests.
Complain about this comment
22. Named-Erion wrote:
"Illegaal immigration,or even legal immigration in huge numbers is negative,but the Immigrant Himself is not a crimminal"
Duh, actually if an immigrant enters a country illegaly, thereby becoming an illegal immigrant OF COURSE he is a criminal!!
No one is forced across a border to become an illegal immigrant.
Complain about this comment
This article is an example of what I think is wrong with immigration from outside of the EU.
Tax-payer Funded Housing
Other people who have to earn a living to pay for such accomodation probably could not afford to live in such a house in Edgeware Village which is an exclusive village of very expensive homes.
Here we have a Nigerian woman who came to the UK to seek a better life for herself leaving her husband behind in Nigeria and she does not have to work for a living as the State will provide her with the better living she seeks. Tell me I am wrong to object to this immigrant's easy life paid for by the tax-payer!
Complain about this comment
Freeborn-John, @79 "the world would be a much better place with a democratic and open Russia at ease with its neighbours"
these words sound as balm - and a kind of an unrealistic dream to me - as well.
that you worry about Putin. he is not a teddy bear. better fits the description "armed and very dangerous". rightly gives Buzet23 creepers and all.
but we find him fit, with all the qualities above, to what Russia, say, can make some use of.
you simply don't see yourselves "armed and very dangerous".
therefore, standing on another ground, it seems to you all these Russia's "security measures", in the shape of Putin, are odd, excessive, un-needed and simply hostile to you without any reason given by the West whatsoever.
Like, why do they arm so much in Russia against us, while we are full of best intentions towards them?
this is No 1. may be a result of mis-interpretation of each other's external policies and certain steps taken. but it's a fact.
you view yourselves as white and fluffy teddy bears that can be offended by hostile Russia; and Russians view themselves as brown and fluffy teddy bears that can be offended by the hostile West.
How to say, "the best way to get rid of a dragon... is to get equipped with your own one!"
some education and enlightment and comms work is badly needed to fix No 1 mis-conceptions probably. but overall it is not an un-rersolvable thing, I mean, this issue can be resolved.
then may be Russians would want for themselves a more peaceful-looks projecting leader, like, there will be a natural drive for softer sounds.
so far - threnodio is right - look at Russian elections under a magnifying glass - (all was violated by the way, don't even doubt) - both Putin and Medvedev were elected by the overwhelming majority.
when you throw away all votes obtained with violations, still a head ahead nothing to dispute. Putin 1st time because Yeltsin said we want him, and Russians trust their tsars.
Putin 2nd time because all simply wanted more of him, we knew, without any electronic system calculations (was an excess spend.)
Medvedev because Putin said so. Putin gained such momentum that whoever he'd say we need - that one will be really voted for.
Until we sort our common mis-conceptions - and this will be a very painful process for the West, if you'd ever dare to go for it. I will list key issues later may be, in another post.
for the Russians' part I don't think unpleasant discoveries await us in this process of adjusting clocks.
we are placing high demands to ourselves, and constantly compare ourselves to the West. the difference always found is drastic, hair raising on head.
so morally we are always ready to unpleasant discoveries about ourselves.
besides, there is a deep inferiority complex in each Russian about "foreigners". that they are by definition better people, can't be compared to us, another caste. (feel awful about predating the main Russia's secret :o)
and by "foreigners" we don't mean "West".
we mean "foreigners". A Pole is better than a Russian, because he is "a foreigner". Looked upon like a weak, delicate creature, who will die tomorrow having made to live our corrupted ways.
we feel still guilty we made half of Europe to live our ways. one of the key mis-concepts, by the way, that you don't recognise - is we treated that half-Europe not like colonies, a set-expression in the West when speaking about this. but they lived like us - all that we had and we are sorry we haven't had more - was theirs.
And - more on top, they lived better than their "masters". We looked up to them.
Back to what I was writing about. Until mis-comms stay mis-comms, the only consolation re Putin I can offer to you - is that by tradition own Russians are the rightful prey of the Russian tsars. Not you.
We will suffer, own populatio, and like hell, no doubt. The aliens are at a minimum risk.
you'll have to throw away half of the modern authors' libraries, don't even doubt.
Complain about this comment
threnodio @ #83
With hindsight, I now know that I was overly critical of Russia in regard to Georgia.
I was very quick (and I now know definitely too quick given that the OSCE is just about to lay the blame upon Georgia entirely for firing indiscriminately upon SOuth Ossetia without provocation!) to balme Russia for being the aggressor.
Perhaps my opinion is flawed due to selective reporting by the BBC and other media outlets within the UK as I have yet to see this article repeated in any other UK Media outlet:
OSCE Report to blame Georgia
Is Britain being subjected to selective propaganda. Heaven forbid that this is the case, but, given the date of this article, I am surprised that no other paper or the BBC has followed this newspaper article up?
Clearly, such information would give the British and the world a wholly different perspective upon Russia for the British to consider.
I am not one for big conspiracy theories but, as you know very well from discussions in Mark Urban's blog, there is a great deal of disinformation deliberately being emitted to keep the relationship between Russia and the West (and in particular the UK!) distinctly cold. This has got to be stopped.
Complain about this comment
87#
Well that's the thing isn't it?
We're all here, giving our opinions, based on the media's opinions, based on selective reporting, which - let's face it - is very human.
If we're honest, we know probably very little of the various subjects discussed on this blog.
Fun though isn't it? ;D
Complain about this comment
G-in-Belgium #88
Yes, it is fun to offer an opinion and I do like the discussions on the BBC websites BUT my opinion is formed by what I read, what I see and what I hear.
If the BBC is becoming selectively in what it reports then that is a shame as the BBC does, or at least did, have a reputation for honest, fair and unbiased reporting.
Unfortunately, I am coming to the conclusion that the BCC reputation is becoming somewhat tarnished - that I think is a tragedy!
To blame the loss of BBC reputation for unbiased reporting upon it being human is to miss the point I suggest. Perhaps the apolitical BBC News Editors of yesteryear have been replaced by politically naive or biased News Editors who can be unknowingly manipulated or who have a personal agenda they wish to see achieved?
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII @81 asks:
"....If illegal migrants are efficiently identified and ejected from the EU, where will an adequate supply of prostitutes to service EU bureaucrats and businessmen come from?"
I was told that all the EU bureaucrats were all impotent, so that just leaves the businessmen - and as times are tough their expanse accounts have been cut....
Complain about this comment
If you are talking about me, I am not an illegal immigrant I am absolutely legal in the US with my democrat irish American hubby. But he regrets now that he married a republican and wants us to move somewhere where people does no know him... LOL
Complain about this comment
#81 - MarcusAureliusII
Just get everyone who is giving it away to start charging.
Complain about this comment
Do not worry Menedemous the same thing is happening in New York Times and the comments of Americans are exact same, but this is what policy makers need. They need to prepare public opinion and go for some new policy because things have changed in the world. I just took a class in media and international affairs and this is exactly how media plays its role. Let's say they want to frame someone: major players who agree with this, need new news articles and new investigation outcomes.
Let's say media wants its audience to hate Saakashvili:They go find pictures where he looks bad or use computer graphics to make him look bad and come up with a compatible title. That is it. Most of the people do not even read the rest.
Media tries to amke things more dramatic, like recently in (I do not remember which country) missle defence case and double the amount of missles on the photo. I will ask my classmates where they got it, but I think in was in NYT. And I need to double check this, I think they used the same photo in Georgia case, just to make it look bad now.
Now there is new tendency, every time a regimes or governments change in major countries, they need the small countries to be compatible so that they could work together or to denounce their own ex-government by denouncing the governments of other countries who were loyal to the previous governments.
Everyhing is a big dirty political game brought by globalization.
In Muslim countries people slaughter lambs to please the new government and in the US-West media takes that role. :)
Complain about this comment
We get the media we deserve. All the time people believe the Quartet is the Spice Girls and not a group of nations trying to sort out Palestine, every time we give column inches and air time for people who are famous for being famous and not doing something of worth, all the time 10 times as many people buy the Sun than the Times, we are going to be fed rubbish.
This is reverse mushroom theory at work. People complain bitterly if they are kept in the dark and fed b**ls**t but take it away and most of them are like alcoholics without booze. The media are simply pandering to a market and all the time the people are content with rubbish, that is exactly what they will be given.
Complain about this comment
Sarah Palin has a degree in journalism for heavens sake. What better proof do you need?
Complain about this comment
Threnodio (83): I am certainly not hoping for a 2nd Cold War, nor even anticipating this is likely. Probably there will be gradual easing of tensions with Russia but I think time has been lost with Putin in the Kremin.
Alice (86): I would agree that miscommunication is a problem in relations between Russia and the Western. I accept Putin is popular in Russia but I find this disturbing too! I wonder if his popularity is due to his control of the media and denial of airtime to other politicians.
I think there was goodwill in the West to Russia in the 1990s but too much complacency that Russia would simply develop into a country like any other in the West. We also had some Western politicians who found it difficult to stop thinking of Russia in old Cold War terms. This manifested itself in for example a kind of semi-automatic support for Georgia even though she cast the first stone in the recent conflict and too rapid expansion of NATO to eastern countries that do not really represent a vital interest of the West. So mistakes have been made in the West, but it could still be that Russia loses more from these mistakes than anyone else. Russia should (in my humble opinion) be trying to become part of the global economy, a WTO member, and to cultivate a reputation as a good place for Western companies to do business. But it seems to me that this is not happening under Putin. NATO ‘should’ be less of a security concern to Russia than the rising Chinese giant or the radicalised Islamic states along your southern border but obviously there are concerns in Russia (unfounded in my opinion) that there are bad intentions towards Russia in the West. I feel some confidence building measures would be appropriate, perhaps including Russia joining the WTO. If the Iranian problem can be resolved then we could get rid of these anti-missile systems in Eastern Europe, etc..
Complain about this comment
#96 - Freeborn-John
You have hit the nail absolutely on the head with Russia's Islamic fundamentalist problem. It is desperate to ensure that this does not penetrate deep into the Federation itself. She has had her fair share of terrorism and it is the principal reason for her excessive reaction in Chechenya. Her problem in central Asia si that she has an extended border with Islamic nations which are cozying up to the West. Uzbekistan has given the Americans facilities both in the Iraq conflict and Afghanistan, Turkmenistan has been open to western approaches, Azerbaijan seems to be firmly onside too. Kazakhstan is steering a more central course but has been very open to western investment in her has industry.
Given that not only Chechenya but also Ingushetia and Dagestan are predominantly Muslim, the Russians are extremely nervous about the south Caucauses generally. Whatever your reservations - wholly understandable - about Putin, we have to accept that he will be a presence for a long time to come and we have to do business with him. I agree absolutely that they should be fast tracked into the WTO and we should also stop messing around being the G7 one minute and the G8 the next. My personal view is that these issues are probably too urgent to wait for the political demise of Putin which is a long way off.
Complain about this comment
From East to West:
China.
"Soft under-belly" (muslim countries).
West.
Where is my crystal ball?
May be the West is that dog that barks the most of the three, but wouldn't bite us?
(joking of course. don't be angry with me. but it is bitter jokes)
oh how the hell can we know.
You would agree you are the most talkative.
From China we hear nil. Not a word since 2ndWW. Nothing hostile, never. No critics. No praise. Rather, an inpenetrable silence.
Sounds good?
Muslim worlds materialised here from time to time, in the shape of women in belts. Loss we carry counted in hundredths, though. I mean - only. We haven't noticed them so far sporting nuclear guns at us. Amateur, rather.
That the West is all equipped, and threatening in voice, no doubt. Great memoirs of Cold war that de-blooded the country as well.
But no loss to the West. You were not in the habit to kill us, lately.
I am sorry I sound too much on the defencive. (tired today)
To lighten up the spirits, here are 2 to you:
Year 2058. London. A butler is knocking at the door of the study of a lord.
- Salam aleykam! - says the butler.
- Aleykam salam, - replies the lord.
Year 2058. St. Petersburg. Two Chinese are looking at the Bronze Horseman (statue of Peter the 1st).
- What's that, do you know?
- Ah, I heard it's aboriginals had some political leader here before.
Complain about this comment
@ 84 Schwerpunkt
You wrote.
:22. Named-Erion wrote:
"Illegaal immigration,or even legal immigration in huge numbers is negative,but the Immigrant Himself is not a crimminal"
Duh, actually if an immigrant enters a country illegaly, thereby becoming an illegal immigrant OF COURSE he is a criminal!!
--------------------------------------------------------
Again with the same mentality.Man damn it,whats wrong with you people???
Are you doing selective reading??
Why is it that you like to have such strong opinions on things you obvously know close to nothing about ?
Read all my posts and you will see and learn since you obviously dont know,that most people who enter the country Ilegaly become Legal Immigrants within few hours.How difficult is that to understand??
Ilegal Immigrant is ONLY SOMEONE WHO OVERSTAYES HIS LEGAL TIME LIMIT IN ONE COUNTRY.Is this hard for you to understad?
Or Someone who comes into a country without proper documentation and does not declare himself to the authorities.The second category in Britain and the E.U for example is extremely small in numbers.Only in the U.S.A is this the case when Mexican immigrants enter the country wthout documentation and disapear on the black economy.In Europe thats not the case,almost all immigrants do present themselves to the authorities and have legal papers that make their stay temporarily legal untill their cases are decided.
As for an Ilegal Immigrant being a criminal you are wrong again,because he commits an Immgration offence not a criminal offence.
A person wether he is an ilegal immigrant,or an legal one,or a person whatsoever,is only a Criminal when he commits a CRIMINAL OFFENCE.Thats when he breaks the law of the Penal code for criminality.Immigration law is a totaly different matter.You cant call a criminal a person who overstayes a visa or goes into another country without a visa.
He commits a immigration offence,he does not commit a crime.
And frankly I am fed up with trying to explain this to everyone who knows nothing about this matter yet seams to feel strongly about it.
IF YOU FEEL SO STRONGLY ABOUT IMMIGRATION MATTERS THEN INFORM YOURSELF.
And please to everyone read my posts well before taking a sentence out of the context.
As i have said before there are better topics that we can have and save ourselves time and effort.
I am done with the immigration issue and I am not answering anybody anymore on this issue.
All the best.
Complain about this comment
Named-Erion
If I may remind you. It was you who raised this issue in this thread at Comment #12.
You chose to raise the subject.
Put up or shut up is your choice but it ill behoves you to raise the subject then shoot down anyone who objects to your illogical beliefs.
Illegal immigration refers to immigration across national borders in a way that violates the immigration laws of the destination country. That is it in a nutshell.
Anyone who overstays becomes illegal but so to is anyone who enters through being smuggled or illicitly enters the country through lorries, boats or whatever. They are illegal immigrants. They may claim asylum as soon as they are seen by a Border Controller but that does not make them legal until the adjudication process assessing their right to stay has been completed. During that time they remain classified as illegal immigrants.
Limited permission to stay whilst adjudication is progressing is one option but the alternative option of detention is just as valid and a logical deterrent to would-be absconders or future illegal immigrants.
You may find the subject exhausted but I find it fascinating that the EU is such a honeypot for immigrants yet we have sufficient population and some of our indigenous population is unemployed and supposedly unable to find employment. letting more people into the EU seems to my mind illogical as we have unemployed people already living within our midst.
Complain about this comment
#99, Named-Erion,
It is you who are blind to what is happening and when you say"The second category in Britain and the E.U for example is extremely small in numbers." referring to those who enter without papers, you are being very naive. You should try going to the UK and actually seeing at first hand the scams that get used by illegals. The numbers published by the government are pure guesswork since how can they know how many are illegal. An NHS number can be bought very easily, and some estimates use NHS sources for illegal numbers. If you watch the BBC TV police programs you will see that mostly all they can do is tell the illegals to visit an immigration centre, which of course they don't, some do go to Croydon or the other centres but an awful lot do not.
Menedemus, I quite agree with what you've said and it's a pity that the existence of accurate figures of illegal immigrants is by its own nature almost impossible to collate. If the true figures were known then I think it could end up by being political dynamite. Just as an aside the last time there was an amnesty in Belgium it was the proposal of the Socialist party, partly because they believed that they would be the beneficiary of the new voting block. I think they may have made a miscalculation in that as it's noticeable that radicalism in Islam will start to effect voting patterns.
Finally, Named-Erion, I don't think your comments will be missed if you don't reply since it's you that needs to be better informed.
Complain about this comment
No,menedemus,they are not Ilegal immigrants but Ilegal entrants.And they are not Immigrants since their objective is not Immigration but Sanctuary.
But You say it was me who raised this issue,may i remind you in fact that i did not raise the issue of Imigration whatsoever,but simply wrote a small part in a big post about a particular law of the E.U which would in the future allow authorities to imprison an Ilegal Immigrant as if he/she has commited an criminal offence.And this was an example to make a point about a totaly different topic,the Obama topic.
It was you and others here,who are it seams obsesed with the immigration issue that decided to make it an topic by continuesly refering to my posts about the immigration issue to give ground to an debate about immigration.
AS for the E.U being a honey pot for immigrants,then we can talk about that for the rest of our lives if you wish,cause is such a long debate.
Let me just tell you that immigration is inevitable.E.U is a very welthy and industrialised area surounded by extreme poverty.
The E.U needed and continues to need immigrants and will need immigrants in the future.
The bigest number of immigrants entering countries such as the U.K are from former colonies,or from the British comonwelth.
You think that immigration is something that the E.U should or can allow only when the indegineous population as you call it has unemplyement 0 ?
I like to tell you once more not to waste so much of your valuable time on the issue of immigration because is so complex and is not an black and white issue where you can draw opinions so easily.
I have explained in my previous posts what can be done to cut the numbers of Ilegal Immigration,but even this messures have their negative point,in that that they close the door for the people who genuinly flee persecution and war,and a negative point that it turns the countries into prison states,where everything has to be controlled and observed by the authorities.
A good example of how to use Immigrants to increase state controll is the decisssion of the Home Office in Britain to give I.D cards to Immgrants first to see how that works out,and then come out with the idea that the I.D cards actually do work so they have to make them compulsory for all citessins to carry.
But this is only one aspect of it.
Immgration really is the most complex issue i can think of.
Complain about this comment
Menedemus @87, 89
welcome to the club.
honest, fair and unbiased reporting.
Tragedy of course.
Shakespeare's drama, his 24th, time is writing by unshaking hand.
O God what can we, by the leaden river,
ourselves - participants of the threatening feast -
do
except read Macbeth, Hamlet, Lear
(this is the beg. of To the Londoners, under bombardment. from Leningrad, 1940. of all places.)
In consolation can also quote Karl Marx, had extensive training:
"To live in a society and be free from the society - one can't !"
(mostly applied here when family members pester you too much)
_____________
But. "if there is something to lose (left) -
(it means) not everything is lost!"
BBC is very user-friendly, million services, and displays tolerance (bordering with generous hospitality) to me.
While even my nanny, as parents remember, has been demanding an increase within a week: "The child is small but very intensive."
So a slight turn of the wheel, degrees ab 90, (overkeel we won't consider at present) - and you are still equipped, menedemus, with what you can still safely consider the best media in the world.
Complain about this comment
Buzet23
There is a very big number of Immigrants in Britain who live HERE (cause I spend a good part of the year in Britain and I am currently here) and I did not say anything to the contrary,so really i dont understand you.
What you have quoted me refers to people who actually enter the U.K without documents and disapear into the black economy.And this peoplel are very small in Number in the U.K belive it or not,since almost all of them present themselves to the authorities.
The ones you are talking about,are the ones who have overstayed their legal time limit in the country,wether their immigration status has been refused or they overstayed their visa.
And I did not say they are not bg in number.
But if the Government wants to,this is not as big a problem as they try to make it seam.
All it takes is to rigorously enforce the law that punish anyone who employes people without work permit and eventually all those people will have no option but to go back to their countries,or to hand themselves to the authorities.
This has already started to happen in Britain,and with the economic crisis expect this to happen much more,and expect not to hear this problems in the future,for there will probably be only an insignificant number of people (ilegal immigrants) working in U.K without work permit.
And as is already the case the number of people who want to immigrate to Britain is down considerably for various factors.
And expect goverment to take credit for this.heheheh
Complain about this comment
When i say expect not to hear I dont mean you are not going to hear about Immigration issue in the future.Of course you are,as a matter of fact expect Immigration to be the issue of the day in Britain very son,with the government claiming to have launched a sucsesfull campaign against Immigration that is having results.
And at a time when economy is not good and elections are aproching,and there is a favorable climate for Immigration Issues,that will suit Labour just well.
Remember when Economy was good,and Conservatives where shouting against Immigration, (something that labour promoted and at the same time could not halt even if it wanted to)
and Labour was sain Economy is good,nothing else matters.
Today Conservatives are going to shout that the economy is bad, (They cant shout against Immigration now because it will go down in numbers even if they would like to promote it ,and then Economy is the best issue to apeal to voters)
while labour is going to say that is fighting ilegal immigration.
heheheh
Complain about this comment
Freeborn-John "Russia should..cultivate a reputation.. as a good place for Western companies to do business. But it seems to me this is not happening under Putin."
Yes, I think they could do with a better climate. But business is not so nervous about the politics stragely. Simply make money whoever Russian tsar.
(BTW on the 5th it was as good as announced Putin is here till 2024.)
Meanwhile, my St. Petersburg, for example, is turning into total Detroit. Huge Ford factory, 2 smaller assembly plants forgot who, Toyota huge, the day before yest. General Motors cut the ribbon. Though one might think - isn't it enough car factories, for the North-West Russia? Apparently not, different sectors, and all have their share of the market. Especially compared to what happens elsewhere with car makers - nobody complains here. You won't scare-crow them with Putin, what Putin, market is here.
re his popularity as a likely result of media control, denial of media time to other politicians; yes and no. Control you bet.
But no applicants to his position. Zero.
Our politicians have died out, honestly - huge country - don't have 1 person in mind. Really pathetic condition of the political stage, barren field.
on the freedom of media, freedom of speech...
one sub-type I think we have though better than you do, that is - "freedom to be informed" ?
Georgian war I know you won't believe we knew better, let's simply skip it, but? that sub accident, for example. even if you check my posts here (46,58) - and there was BBC reporting on the same. News Front Page, we are listed under "Europe".
I was happy to see BBC informed you of the same I was informed at home; at that you got your news a day later.
This may be simply BBC didn't consider it urgent to put all at once, of course. But my home data, ordinary channels, nothing extraordinary, still told me the factory where the sub was made, when, where, how, its name, class, who are the people on board, deaths, those evacuated to the two other ships - quite detailed - and most of it while the damaged boat still at sea, before it returned home. This is an improvement compared to Kursk reporting.
Complain about this comment
#104, Named-Erion,
Lets get one thing really straight, no one has the right to enter anywhere unless they are invited by the owner(s), whether it be a nation or a house or anything else. Whether that is against civil, immigration or penal law is an irrelevance, the key fact is that they have no RIGHT to enter without permission. Those that have entered a country legally by obtaining the necessary invitation prior to arriving have been both correct and lawful and I applaud them for being honest and lawful as they have shown the basis of good citizanship.
Those that have presented themselves at Croydon or one of the other sites in the UK have not been correct or lawful, and it does not matter if they are illegal entrants or over stayers as they are both effectively the same, illegal residents. As for those that have disappeared into the black economy well they are most certainly not legal, but it is impossible to establish their numbers so your claim that they are small in number is impossible to verify, but there have been some estimates that it could be in the millions due to the time it has been going on.
What is a disgrace is that those who have not been unlawful and then try to regularise their position gain certain rights, and it is unacceptable that by committing an illegal act you can be in effect rewarded. Whether that be a penal crime such as theft or an immigration crime such as over staying you should not be rewarded as you have not earned the right, in fact I think an over stayer should be repatriated immediately, as unless there are very extreme reasons for their not renewing their visas they have shown that they cannot follow the law of the land. Likewise an illegal entrant should not earn rights by trying to regularise their position within the UK, that is merely an encouragement to abuse the lawful system.
In conclusion if they did not have the RIGHT to enter the EU and/or the UK then they have shown themselves unwilling to follow the due processes of the law of the land and to me that means they are not suitable for citizenship and should be returned immediately. Note, I say that as an immigrant to Belgium who has been invited due to EU mobility laws and who now has been graciously granted Belgian nationality since I followed the laws of the land.
Complain about this comment
Menedemus,
well done on #21 and #87. You're like a beacon of light onto an ESL class (English as a Second Language). I have no doubt that some of these bloggers are here to practice their English writing skills, and I totally encourage that. But, I must admit that back home in USA not too many native-born Americans know English too well either.
Complain about this comment
Alice (106): It is encouraging that Russia has improved in certain respects (which I certainly consider important), such as more accurate and timely reporting of 'bad news' and that Western car manufacturers feel it a safe place to invest. The West can afford to be generous with Russia; to stretch out the hand and try to establish a cycle of improving relations to break the cycle of deteriorating relations we had in recent years with the Litvinenko affair, BP business, closure of British Council, Georgia conflict, etc. However there is also a limit to how good relations can get so long as the main problem you speak about remains, i.e. the barren stage of Russian politicians.
Last week I heard on the radio that Medvedev is changing the Russian constitution to allow Putin to return as president. To me it is depressing news. You made quite a few comments before now (e.g. tendency of Russia to seek security through ‘separation’ etc.) which I thought were bad signs too. The West is a cultural term applying to those countries that share certain values which originated in Europe. Although Russia has not been part of the West for a while, but there has been an assumption that because Russia is partly on the European continent that she deep-down shares Western values that were only suppressed during Soviet times. And that these values will be able to flower now that the yoke of communism has been thrown off. However, despite some positive signs that you mention, the actual experience seems to be that Russia is going of in a different direction than we expected. Garry Kasparov seemed (at least to an outsider like me) to be a presidential candidate who might take Russia in a good direction, but for whatever reason he did not win much support in Russia.
Complain about this comment
Freeborn-John, @109
I sympathise to Garry Kasparov (I mean not "pity him", but have a sympathy, friendly feelings, for). But we are alas not morally advanced as the USA to elect Obama. Garry Kasparov is an Azerbajanee Jewish. Rich, at that. And we all shudder at the mention of any of our Jewish oligarchs, Abramovich, Berezovsky, all of them.
Now Garry Kasparov's money is the result of his own brain, not stealing away assets in perestroyka. However the combination "rich and Jewish" is a deterrent in Russia.
He hasn't stood chance for a sec. but showed ambitions for the position.
which spoiled his further stand as simply a normal politician.
Though people listen to what he says; I mean, if you don't listen to the world chess champion, who do you think is clever? yourself?!
That political life froze doesn't mean intellectual did. but it is that only, alas.
Vladimir Putin by Rus. constitution can be the next, it specifies "2 terms, twice 4 years." Many viewed Medvedev as the in-between originally. What is president Medvedev going to do to the constitution, is increase 4 years to 6. The very idea to touch onstitution is vewed here badly, as it is our sacred cow that should never be touched.
This makes next possible terms of Putin 2012-2017, 2018-2023.
That's why many concluded "oh, it's for Putin, he will be in Russia till 2024."
However I have more trust in our tsars.
This scheme sounds too boring and straightforward.
Un-Russian.
"the main force of Russia is its unexpectedness".
I think there will be surprises.
Which are they - even Garry Kasparov won't tell you now, or the computer "Deep blue."
With regards to the Western generosity, that began to be seen already.
the way Poland and Latvia were told off several days ago "stop standing against the general EU route; the mood is currently to be friends with Russia; you're blocking the way, while we ought to behave as a team." and Obama's vague statements that he is not may be for the US stuff in Poland, may be for, and may be against...
I would like to think this is all a natural move of the heart, from West to Russia, and, like, handing over an olive branch, an open credit line of trust.
but you understand the EU friendliness may be crisis-based; US one - "call for change to be justified". and crisis. and even the simple fact that Medvedev promised to hush down the signal and create electronic troubles at max., to the US equipment; which may indeed make the very idea of placing some of it void.
Complain about this comment
Sorry for the poor grammar-spelling and in my comments guys, I should read my comments before I post them:) As for the immigration, I know what was the context , I was just joking.
threnodio, Palin was a journalist just for a short period of time. As for the elections, she was not ready that's all. She just had a baby; she had so many responsibilities. I am surprised she endured so much stress. I think she would handle the domestic problems well as for the international affairs, I agree, she needed some help.
Complain about this comment
And. The English-Russian bug has nothing to do with communism that was and was gone. It's a deeper historical thing.
That you simply disovered now as new for you, wondering why things don't go well now between us, since communism threat and USSR combined are gone.
Nobody in his right mind in Russia would tell that "Britain is our friend". Throughout 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th centuries.
You were simply a glorious empire back then, and were busy with larger-scale projects, and haven't noticed or paid any attention to "oh what do the Russians think of me?" Our backwoods were not the mainstream of Britain's intellectual effort, how to say.
Meanwhile, every Russian tsar, on getting a report of worsening climate in the European arena, would confidently exclaim the first thing "Anglichanka! again!".
It's similar to how some of the Englishmen in these blogs first thing suspect France in mean intentions. Oh that's the French, them, again intrigueing in the EU. In every case "cherche la femme".
It is how Russia supported USA when they ran away from you, and your Boeren war hated here, and never, never-ending blocking our way out to the oceans, and British intervention post revolution. still interpreted here "they wanted to get a chunk of us, when we were weak in the Civil war, vampiers". long lists. Much more interesting that Litvinenko. One Sebastopol is worth a million emotions on any given modern day.
It lookes you have forgiven yourself these minor weaknesses and pardonable escapada-s. But the new Russian tsars in Kremlin inherit the whole history of diplomatic relations.
Incl. of course that we stood together in two world wars.
Looks like beyond world wars we technically can't!
It's a bug, a long bug.
And somehow we have it with the Anglo-Saxon world. With France and Germany we don't, if you have noticed. Neither with most others in the EU. What's the traditional EU anti-Russia alliance? You can always count on Britain, Poland and the Baltics. That's it, full stop.
There is something "idiosynkrosia"-otic, sorry difficult world, allergic, btw Russia's and British policies. Whatever they will be.
And Britain is still playing the first violin in the EU political choir.
If you simply looked how the Georgian war was reported in Germany, you'd think media speaks about 2 different wars.
I mean, of course we have objective factors, standing in the way, all the dear Russia's practical steps, some nice ones likewise towards us taken by you.
But there behind is a background against which, like shadows on the wall, we view the events. Don't cross it out, I think it's the key thing.
To who countries consider to be their friends - they are much more mutually pardon-able, and generous, in their evaluations. Ready to not to notice many things, give discounts, neglect, help, play down bad things, play up good things.
We don't have that btw Britain and Russia.
Nothing close, for miles.
Complain about this comment
Forget it. I checked the last comment, but I do not know how I miss these mistakes.
For intellectuals, here is a very interesting NYT Op-ed piece by Kristof on Obama and the war on brains:
nytimes.com /2008 /11/09/opinion 09kristof.html
So, maybe it is better to be just a good person rather than a deep unpredictable one.
Complain about this comment
and, after you practically made me to criticise my own tsar Putin so much - a return compliment to you :o) I also think are ruled by wrong people.
on the ground never found much allergy btw ordinary Russians and English. esp. in the pubs.
our politics crosses ways of each other, indeed. must be because our interests differ? or are the same, and we compete?
we have to get equipped with non-contradictory interests. then the politics would allign up to them.
Complain about this comment
Alice (110): There are some articles in this week's Economist magazine about Russia. One is about called "Perfidy from Albion" and discusses 'Project Russia'; a review of British foreign policy towards Russia. The conclusion is secret but seems to favour a tougher British policy towards Russia. However Gordon Brown is very focussed on the financial crisis (next UK election probably depends on it) and he wants the support of the French president at the upcoming talks in the USA. So he is prepared to ignore 'Project Russia' and support Sarkozy on Russia, at least for the time being.
The second article is called "Russian lessons" and is about the EU and Russia. The initial EU response to the conflict in Georgia was to suspend the "partnership and co-operation agreement" (PAC) talks with Russia until she complied with the EU (Sarkozy) demands in Georgia. It is not clear that Russia attaches significant value to these PAC talks and Russia has not met the EU demands. However they really like to talk in Brussels and now regret suspending the PAC talks. Therefore we are likely to see the EU back down from its earlier demands and resume the talks with Russia anyway. The Economist has a nice summary saying that Brussels believes that 'unity is strength' so much that they even want to back down in unison.
So I think you are correct that the current EU friendliness towards Russia is related to the crisis, but perhaps the financial crisis is now at least as significant as the Georgian crisis. They must be laughing in the Kremlin.
http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12545044
http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12562305
I think Russians would be right to worry about small changes to the 'sacred cow' of the Russian constitution. The constitution of Zimbabwe is almost identical to that of the USA, but the successive small changes introduced by Mugabe mean that it is no longer worth anything.
Complain about this comment
Freeborn-John, @115
Thank you, read the articles. (funny picture of the bear with the bone in the teeth). (a Georgian bone, one must expect).
the EU-man on the ladder to reach the bear's cool nose looks as a fly indeed.
but if the artist had a sense of proportion, with your 400mln or whatever people, the bear ought to have been decreased from XXL to M. or don't you live reacher than we do? why then all run to you?
may be our 30% of territory in permafrost is considered a climate and a fertile land to be jealous about?
curious inferiority complex.
And don't get self-diminishing, "oh they are laughing in Kremlin".
It's you are playing games with yourself, and with us - can allow yourself, apparently. Can't make any other conclusions.
Indeed it matters not much, say, all the give and take game, cooperation agreement with the EU, WTO, G7-8. It's of purely symbolic value, like it is pleasant to be pleasant with pleasant people.
So what is decided-re-decided, just to keep the EU busy.
Rightly Khodorkovsky I think said several days ago that the history stopped to be being made in Europe for decades, all Europe went to pension.
That even in Russia the history is still being made (though of questionable happiness, the sort we produce). But we are live.
And that the EU got the first impulse now from Russia, to get alive and back to the int'l scene, we've pulled you back to life by the ears, dragged into the Georgian war. The first time you remembered about "the common voice" or some sensible voices other.
So not all is gloomy, you can't deny we've influenced you positively.
And of course nobody "laughs" at Kremlin at the EU.
Not the kindergarten, I rather hope, more calling issues on the table.
The oil price, for one.
The way new USA tries to undercut our arms' sale. And we are the 2nd biggest one in the world, stepping on the US heels.
Which reminds me. The BBC article on the Russian sub tragedy two days ago was finished off by hearty concerns about our future position as reliable armament provider. oh dear.
(on top of being unreliable oil & gas provider for the past 45 yrs to Europe, of course.) (we supplied you the same in the USSR times. only you didn't notice. why didn't ever turn off the handle to the capitalists in NATO? :o) beyond comprehension)
So, on the quality of the "pikes". Some years ago North-Atlantic alliance held navy trainings in the Atlantic. large operations, high fleets' density. all the subs you ever could wish for.
one of our modest pikes enjoyed this immensely, sneaking in the middle. the fun though ended when a crew member had appendicite bursted. nothing to do. Russian embassy in London asked British Admiralty for immediate help and SOS, and told where we are, to pick up the sailor when we surface.
and all ended fine and wonderful excepting the faces in the British Admiralty when they got the Russian spike exact whereabouts.
As min. we had fun when surfacing in the middle of your fleet. That's when we laugh.
Not now.
Complain about this comment
"pike" that is, not "spike". but then fitting, and anyway I think I made my point.
we do have accidents.
we also try things.
even that "Komsomolets" drowned in 1989.
they got fire at the cruising depth of 1120m.
soon will be 20 years, I don't think one other sub in the world can dive that deep even for minutes.
Complain about this comment
Alice (116/7): The BBC article mentioned the 'Nerpa' sub was due to go to the Indian Navy, so maybe the impact on Russian arms sales to India is what the BBC was talking to? I was in India earlier this year and read numerous articles in their English-language press about Russian armaments. It seemed to be a hot political issue in India at that time (January). The constant theme was that India used to get highly reliable and cost-effective systems during the USSR times but now felt they were 'beta-testers' for new Russian systems that had not yet been used by Russian forces. As I remember they were having problems with a new missile system, and also a boat, but i don't remember the details. So the BBC may be correct to say that this Nerpa incident could have sales consequences.
"The Times" has another article today on British foreign policy towards Russia similar to that in The Economist. Basic theme is that Russia is behaving badly, but not nearly so bad as during the Cold War, and that diplomacy is the answer. The confusing thing for me is the question raised in The Economist, i.e. "what motivates the Russian authorities: are they nationalists salving their country's wounded pride, aggressive mercantilists, a conspiracy of ex-spooks, etc?" We find it difficult to know why Russia behaves worse to us now than a few years back.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article5133736.ece
Complain about this comment
Freeborn-John, @118
sorry have comp. problems, won't be able to keep fluent conversation next week, i think. re your question put - depends on who is "we" and what is "worse" in exact terms. to me seems we "behave worse" not to the whole "west" combined, more on a one-to-one basis. overall on your question -would not like to extrapolate, so far wrote to the best of my knowledge; don't know the answer - therefore don't want to invent.
but can think of more options for motivation than these three. with the sub and India, yes, they thought ab it, having 3 likes in production now, thought ab leasing it for 10yrs and calling it "Chakra-2"; to start training crews on our one, and having it in case overall. but they take only after it's in fleet operation for yrs, well tried, and this one hasn't started service yet. the prev. "chakra-1" they borrowed for 3 yrs, after it was in our fleet service for 13, so was welll tried. and wanted more but we declined. not a toy. as we all see.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS