A friend made the following comment “I think the small boats issue is a problem and I don’t think Lineker’s inflammatory language help other than create even more polarisation. Arguably this is exactly what the policy was designed to do. Rather, we need an informed conversation which is so rare these days. I have to say, I don’t see that safe routes does solve the problem. Clearly it is part of the solution and is direly needed for parts of the Middle East and Afghanistan. However a significant part of the problem is illegal criminal gangs who are exploiting economic migrants who are desperate to come here for a better life. Often that exploitation continues when they get here. This group would never be accepted in the first place through safe routes so sure they would continue to get on boats??”
“Personally I don’t see why all the money is not pumped into the processing capability. The main problem seems to be that it takes years to process claims. If they could be turned around in hours then it would solve much. Lineker clearly referred to Germany in the 1930’s. The inference is obvious. Screaming cruel, racist etc is all good and well but this problem would already be solved if anyone had a clear and easy answer because it is not in anyone’s interest for it to be as it currently is”. and then
Use of the words in bold shows the writers bias. Gary was not screaming and the policy is obviously racist. A clear and simple answer is available at little cost. Process the applications at, or near source, then provide easy access. The reason this is not done is political. The government see promoting a cruel and racist system as a potential vote winner for those who drag their knuckles on the ground. Surely a safe way for gaining assylyum would seperate the genuine from the people traffickers. Few would complain about thesepeople being returned to source countries? Regarding polarisation – Is this government so cynical as to do this? And if so was Gary wrong to call it out? Should we ignore such provocation?
The government policy also appears to break international agreements and laws. It is also worthpointing out that 60% of applicants are accepted as genuine – so the quoting of the 45000 or the 160000 awaiting processing is inflammatory. The fact it takes so long to proess the claims is also largely political – it creates a problem that can be exploited for electoral purposes.
A further point is related to source contries – much was made of the Albanian situation a few months ago – the largest proportion are now from Afghanistan. There does seem to be some moral responsibility here? (I will. not go into the Raab situation now). The foreign aid budget has been cut and it is likely that we will see the impact of environmental disasters creating refugee crises on an. increassing level. Would the $billions spent fighting the wars have been better spent developing their economy and social structures?
Personnally I believe we have high population density, various governments have fed rather than regulated rents and mortgages thus causing much poverty, and therefore we needto control migration. However there are ways to do this, and the EU had a. correct policy. I think I am correct in stating that on Spain’s acceptanvce into the EU there was a large number of migrants from there to here? By supporting the growth of the Spanish economy I think there are now more UK nationals going in the opposite direction. The same appears to be happening with Poland (I remember being astounded in Tesco’s to find a whole isle dedicated to polish!!). So better foreign aid would be a way to control migration.
The end of the Cold War was not a military event? I need to. know more! Which brings me on to military spending. Obviously we need a string and capable defence force. But 2 aircraft carriers seems a bit over the top in the days of drones. Does the Ministry of Defence have too many Generals, Admirals and whatever? Cyber attack is a much bigger threat.
Finally – whilst I love him Gary Lineker is just a football commentator and pundit. Just as Clarkson was just a TV presenter (But his vile comments were actually published by the DM and not commented on by Government). But both are entitled to their views. Whilst I despise Clarkson for them and he may lose his job, I would not ban him for stating them – it is good that he tells peole what a **** he is. Others may thing similarly about Gary Lineker, but surely he should be allowed to state his opinion. Last word – BBC impartiality – question time has Nigel Farage as an almost permanent member of the panel (or other RW’s). In this respect Gary Lineker should be supported, does everyone have to obey the Government line on all issues?