GE17 - And we're off!

Britain’s Prime Minister has fired the gun on a General Election.  The vote will occur on June 8^th and presents the electorate with a stark choice – competence and clarity or chaos and calamity.

Let’s see if we can analyse some of the issues facing the UK, at this juncture.

The ‘elephant in the room’ of course is Brexit.  It speaks volumes that Labour want to make the election about taxing and taxing the ‘rich’ and borrowing and borrowing so that they can spend and spend money we don’t have, however, intelligent people know that Brexit is key.

And that key is all about trust.  Does Britain trust Theresa May to deliver a Brexit that is good for the UK or do they trust a makeshift coalition of Labour, the Lib-Dems, the SNP, Plaid Cymru and the Greens? 

Going into these critical Brexit negotiations, Britain needs a strong government with a clear mandate and Brexit policy.  Only the Conservatives offer this.

Consider, Labour doesn’t really know what its policy on Europe or Brexit is.  Prior to starting this article I tried to find out, where they stood.  I am still looking.  They are the party of mass immigration and failed multi-culturalism policies and so one can assume that they support ‘freedom of movement’ (FOM) and yet their position isn’t clearly stated but, simply supporting FOM without also accepting the other three ‘freedoms’, would not be acceptable to the EU. 

The Lib-Dems are rabidly pro-EU.  The media have continually allowed them to lie and lie, since the referendum.  They have repeatedly claimed that the British people weren’t told that voting Leave meant leaving the Single Market.  That’s simply not true.  We were told repeatedly – Cameron, Osborne et al – spoke on all media channels and made this crystal clear.  We knew and we voted the way we did, even though we knew.  Simply put, the UK doesn’t need the Single Market.  We will flourish outside of it.

The SNP are probably the most conflicted.  They are obsessed with Scottish independence.  Even to the extent that they want independence from the UK so that they can be subsumed into the EU super-state.  They have never explained how that equates in any way with a sane person’s concept of independence.  For the SNP, Brexit like Holyrood politics is all part of a game. They are serial mis-managers of the devolved powers for Scotland and now are very worried that Brexit will put a million watt spotlight on their ineptitude.

The Greens?  Well they look at countries like Germany where, through proportional representation (PR), Greens have differing degrees of parliamentary representation and sense that the EU offers them the best hope of the same in the UK.   Of course PR was rejected by the UK electorate, in a referendum but we all know that the Greens, and indeed the Lib-Dems are no respecters of referendum results.

Theresa May has laid out her twelve key Brexit issues in January’s Lancaster House speech. 

The first of these was Certainty and in some way, underpins her going to the country in spite of repeated assurances that she would not call a snap election.  I am often cynical about politicians – age and experience will do that to you – but I do believe that she has to go to the country and gain a mandate rather than be constantly sniped at and sabotaged by ‘Remainers’ and political opportunists from all sides.  I sincerely hope she is re-elected in June and has a sizable parliamentary majority with which to govern. 

To return for a moment to political gamers.  Theresa May has had to contend, on a constant basis with opposition politicians saying she had no ‘mandate’ with which to run the country or Britain’s Brexit negotiations.  They say that she ‘wasn’t elected’.  In part that’s true but then no Prime Minister is ‘elected’.  They are selected to lead the party with the largest parliamentary presence and then invited, by HM The Queen, to form a government.  All of them, exactly the same way.  Now though, that she is seeking such a clear mandate, she is castigated by these very same politicians, as being ‘opportunistic’.  See why I am sometimes cynical?

Inextricably linked with Brexit is the subject of immigration.  May, in her Lancaster House speech was clear on the need to control immigration.  And that is the nub – control of immigration.  Post-Brexit control of immigration will rest with the UK.  We will not be instructed, as some other EU partners have been, that there is a quota which we must take in.  The UK will allow immigration to meet our needs not to fulfil some lunacy that comes from the mind of a deranged German Chancellor or the fools in the EU headquarters.  The UK will control immigration.

Labour have always portrayed themselves as the protectors of the NHS and as being very pro-education.  Yet it is precisely Labour’s policy of uncontrolled immigration which has put such strains on the NHS. Leave aside for a moment, so called health tourism.  The numbers of immigrants that came in during Labour’s reign cannot be absorbed into a strained NHS – there simply are not enough hospitals, nurses and doctors.  Nor could we afford to have sufficient.  The same applies to schools – we cannot afford to build enough nor to train and employ sufficient teachers.  It is typically appropriate of Labour that their policies are never thought through.  They import millions of immigrants but fail to provide services like housing, health and schooling for them. 

And who suffers most?  Not the well-off or ‘middle-class’.  They don’t live in inner-cities.  They can send their children to private schools rather than over-crowded State ones. They can avail of private medicine rather than wait weeks or months for a GP or hospital appointment. No it is the traditional Labour voter that suffers – the White working class.  These voters see access to medical services as just about impossible, see their children crammed into classrooms alongside immigrant children who cannot even speak English and see their educational opportunities suffer as resources are diverted and they see scarce housing resources given to and funded for, immigrants rather than for native born people.  That’s Labour for you!

Another ‘elephant in the room’ seems to be whether or not Theresa May should/will participate in TV debates.  Firstly, these are an unwelcome American import that serve little to advance democracy or understanding of a political party’s policies.  The smaller parties, who have zero chance of gaining power, can simply make wild promises and score cheap shots off of the major ones.  Secondly, since the Scottish Nationalists and Plaid Cymru and Sinn Fein and the Ulster Unionists are not national parties why on earth would they participate? 

If I were Theresa May, I would recognise that with such a commanding opinion poll lead, I would have nothing to gain from participation and perhaps something to lose.  Just as importantly, I would continue to go over the heads of the overly self-important political correspondents and talk directly to the people.  Remember, my vote is as important as any of these jumped-up wanna-bes!

So I will jump the gun and offer some ideas, other than being strong on Brexit, for inclusion in the Conservative manifesto.

I will start with International Aid.  The 0.7% of GDP commitment should be scrapped.  I do believe that we should aspire to give this or even more but we must look after our own, first.  It sickens me (there’s that cynicism again) when I hear politicians talking about child poverty or fuel poverty in the UK and being somehow disgusted by food banks and yet the very same politicians are happy to send huge quantities of UK taxpayer money to oftentimes, corrupt regimes, elsewhere.  A saying that hasn’t gone out of date is ‘Charity begins at Home’.  Oh, and I view food banks as very positive.  These are set-up by British people, funded and supplied by British people and for the benefit of British people.  I know that this cuts out the busy-body charities with their over-paid executives but these food banks speak of the true and decent Britons that we all know.

Next, scrap H2S.  Britain simply doesn’t need this high speed rail system.  What we have is sufficient.  Instead, the government should spend a fraction of the money on dramatically improving broadband connectivity across the UK.  I am not especially ‘green’ but can certainly agree that we don’t need to be expending energy moving people around – we need people to stay put, when possible and to use technology not precious and finite fuels.

While I am in a ‘scrapping’ frame of mind.  Scrap the triple lock on pensions.  Instead, guarantee that State pensions will increase in line with an appropriate measure of inflation.

Controlling immigration will present challenges to certain industries.  These industries have benefited from cheap low waged immigrants.  These businesses have also been subsidised by the UK taxpayer who has provided Working Tax Credits and other Gordon Brown type wheezes which disguised the societal impact of a low wage economy.  Such benefits must be scrapped – not absorbed into the Universal Credit or anything like that, scrapped and the unemployed should have benefits withdrawn if they fail to take up available work.  Yes some will say that is harsh but why should some work to keep others who can work but choose not to?  People who say ‘I don’t want to pick potatoes’ or ‘I don’t want to serve coffees’ or ‘I don’t want to sweep the streets’.

Finally, EVEL!  English votes for English laws.  With the devolved assemblies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, it is simply undemocratic that MPs from those countries can vote on matters that only affect the English.  In such cases, only MPs representing English constituencies should vote. 

EU and Elephants

Don't worry, this isn't about circuses or zoos.  Though, before I move on, and given just as something that 'tickled' me. I came across a lovely Polish saying, on Twitter.  Not my circus, not my monkeys - so not my problem.

Anyway, back to the European Union and Elephants.  Or rather, the Brexit vote and Immigration.

There. I said it.  I used the immigration word.  Naughty me!

Immigration though is a key, maybe the key factor affecting Britain's relationship with the EU.   Ronald Reagan is famously quoted as saying 'a nation that cannot control its borders is not a nation'. Within the European Union, that is the position in which the UK finds itself.

I have posted on this blog before about all of the fallacious and specious economic arguments put forward by those that want Britain to remain in the EU.  Simply put, they are wrong, they are based on unfounded fears that the EU will, as a result of a vote to Brexit, punish its largest single export market. Isn't going to happen, so let's move on.  

We can also discount the somewhat deranged comments from David Cameron, who seeks to suggest that a vote for Brexit could lead to World War 3.  Suppose for just a second that this was true.  Why then would he risk such a situation by holding a referendum that might produce a Brexit vote?   Oh I know he only offered the vote to scupper UKIP but still, if he actually believes what he said, then it is madness to continue with a vote.  Truth is, just as Cameron said earlier, as recently as February 2016, the UK can survive outside of the EU.

So let's look at immigration.

The numbers of people that are immigrating to the UK, from within the EU seem to be incredibly difficult to obtain.  Then when they are published they don't add up - more on that in a moment.  

According to the most recent numbers of immigrants, in the year to September 2015, the numbers were

55,000 from the EU 2 - Bulgaria and Romania, up from just 5,000 in 2007.

69,000 from the EU 8 - Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia. This is up from 53,000 in 2004.

130,000 from the rest of the EU countries , up from 53,000 in 1991.

These total to 257,000 when rounding is taken account of.

One issue with these numbers, is that the number of new National Insurance (Social Security) numbers that were issued in the same period was 630,000.  The UK government has so far failed to explain who received the 'missing' National Insurance numbers.

We need to consider, why these people are coming to the UK.  I doubt it is the weather.

The strong suspicion is that people are coming to the UK because of the strength of the UK economy and the economic benefits that are available.  Add to this the disparity in the UK minimum wage and that prevailing in the 'sending' countries as well as 'in work benefits' and we have a cocktail mix that guarantees the attractiveness of the UK as an immigration destination and, most importantly, one that will continue.  

But I am getting ahead of myself.

Based on recent data, from 2015, the minimum monthly wage in the UK is Euro €1,378.

In countries that are suffering IMF/EU and World Bank restrictions, countries like Greece, Spain and Portugal, the rates are €684, €757 and €589 respectively.

In Bulgaria and Romania the rates are €194 and €235 respectively.

In the so called EU 8, Czech Republic €335,, Estonia €390, Hungary €345, Latvia €360, Lithuania ¢325, Poland €410, Slovakia €380 and Slovenia €791

The minimum wage in the UK acts as a magnet for economic migrants from EU countries.  For some of these people, they can come to the UK, take-up a low-paid job and be far, far better-off than they would be in their home country.

Then add to this 'in work benefits'.  These are things like Working Tax Credits.  This is an invention of the fiscally incontinent former Chancellor, Gordon Brown.  These effectively subsidise companies by providing workers with taxpayer-funded handouts which supplement the low wage they are receiving.   For those migrants from low minimum wage countries, this just makes the UK look like a better and better choice.   Add in child benefit - another taxpayer-funded handout and a migrant would be crazy to go anywhere else.

Note I am clear, in my mind and media comment supports this, that migrants do not typically come to the UK to be 'benefits scroungers' who will 'sponge' off of the welfare state.  Rather they come to the UK to work.  Many of them end-up doing the work that work-shy, benefit dependent simply won't do.
David Cameron's much vaunted 'victory' at the EU summit, on the UK having the ability to apply some kind of 'emergency brake' on benefits to EU immigrants is essentially worthless.  These people do not come here for the benefits, they come here for jobs.

The problem for the UK though is more about available resources.

The NHS is straining under its current load.  In reality, it cannot cope, today.  On any reasonable metric, the NHS is failing.  It isn't even a question of money - the NHS gets flooded with taxpayer money.  The problem is human and infrastructure resources.  Not enough doctors, nurses and hospitals. The requirement for these resources cannot keep up with ever increasing demand.  The existing population is living longer and that is a challenge so you can imagine what kind of a burden an extra 257,000 people  places on the system.

The problems facing the NHS are replicated in schooling and housing.  It has been estimated that more than 50% of all new homes that are being built (and there's nowhere near enough of them, for 'locals') will be needed for immigrants.  It has been estimated that a new house would need to be built, every 6 minutes, just to keep pace with the housing of EU migrants.  That's 240 a day, every day.
.
Classroom sizes in certain areas are approaching 3rd World levels.  Oh and not all of the children , or their parents, speak English, which places a further burden on an already over-loaded system.

So immigration on this scale is simply not sustainable.  London is said to have an immigrant population of greater than 50% and there are parts elsewhere in the UK, where the indigenous population are feeling swamped.

Oh, and on top of the 257,000 people from the EU, there was a further 273,000 immigrants from outside the EU.

And then, just around the corner is Turkey.  Germany, suffering under Merkel's madness has agreed to 'energise' the ascension of Turkey, with its 79 million population, into the EU.  Consider that Turkey has a monthly minimum wage of €425.  How many of them might want to upscale their earning capacity and move to the UK?  Turkey being a predominantly Muslim nation then layers religious and cultural differences on top of the immigration problem.

The only realistic solution for the UK is for the country to take control of its borders and to restrict the number of people that can come to the UK.  In reality this would mean very dramatically reduce the number coming in.  It would mean ending working tax credits for immigrants and child benefit, unless the child accompanied the immigrant - many currently don't but stay in their home country.

Saying the above, it is therefore crystal clear that the UK must vote leave - Brexit - on June 23rd.  Not doing so, will simply lead to further and ever increasing deterioration in public services as well as a sense of alienation and non-belonging for the native population.

So, consider, then do your duty and vote Brexit.

Banning Trump

I hesitate to put a number to it, since it is increasing so rapidly, but more than 400,000 people, in the UK, have petitioned the UK government to ban GOP hopeful Donald Trump, from visiting the UK.

The cause is said to be his statements that America should ban all Muslims from entering the country. It seems that many people find Trump's views as undemocratic, and unworthy of the American ideals of free speech etc.

So the solution is, to show the value that the British put on free speech by banning Donald Trump's right to free speech.  Funny old world!

I don't particularly like Donald Trump and find his brand of politics is just 'Mr Angry with a loud voice' but he has undoubtedly struck a chord with many Americans.  So far, with Trump, all we have really heard are sound bites, particularly around immigration and latterly concerning Daesh and Muslims.

You might think his views are obnoxious but he has the right to say them.

If British people want to petition the UK Government, why not do so in opposition to the UK Government allowing Islamic terrorists, who have fought for Daesh, in Syria and Iraq, back into the UK?  Why not petition the UK Government to ban the hate preacher Anjem Choudary?  Why not shut-down Finsbury Park mosque and some of the other radical mosques?  Why not ban the wearing of the burka?  These are subjects worthy of a petition.  Donald Trump's right to free speech, isn't.

My major concern with Trump is with his egotism and over-confidence in his own self-belief.  Trump is running as a candidate for the Republican nomination.  It is well known that he is very wealthy but I have a fear that he is anti-democratic.  The Donald, as he styles himself, doesn't do humble and doesn't think he has to listen to the people who he professes to want to serve.  If the Republican voters, in the various primary elections decide to reject Trump and plump for another candidate, it is my strong expectation that Trump will cry foul and then decide to run as an independent.  This would then make, the Democrat front-runner, the highly ethically-dodgy Hillary Clinton, a shoo-in for the Presidency.

The questions that I believe should be asked of Donald Trump are these:

If, following the Primary Elections, you do not have sufficient delegates to secure the Republican nomination, will you accept the result of the National Convention and publicly and privately endorse the chosen candidate?

Will you now state, that there are no circumstances, none (as in zero, nada, nil) under which you would run as an independent third party candidate and thus split the Republican vote.

If you get the chance, ask Mr Trump these questions, and keep asking them.

Part of Mr Trump's appeal is his supposed straight talking and his not being part of the Washington insider gang.  He is not one of 'them'.  Reading around the subject of Donald Trump, we do find though that he has, himself, flip-flopped on policy and political allegiance, in the past.  One would hope, that if he did answer on the record, the above questions, he would do so honestly and would then honour his responses.  That he wouldn't, like we usually find with Washington politicians, say one thing and do something different and then justify it with mealy-mouthed excuses.  Is Mr Trump up to the challenge?

As said earlier, there is far too little policy meat on the carcass to allow one to back Trump.  I am not an American voter, so couldn't vote for him nor would I if I had the chance.  Making America Great again, is a catchy slogan but how?  That is the question.  How will Trump tackle the ever ballooning deficit and debt that has been run-up by the Obama administration and the Congress?  The American National Debt has doubled, under Obama, to $17 trillion!  I was going to write that out with 17 followed by a series of 000s but I am not entirely sure I know how many or if they would all fit on one line!

America's biggest problems are on the domestic scene.

America's economy is, in my view, stuttering.  The jobless figures are flattered by people leaving the jobs market, altogether - people taking early retirement, because they see no prospect of getting a job, young women taking the career break now, to have children because they see no prospect of a job, etc., etc..  It is going to take much more than building a wall across the southern frontier to get America's economy moving.  It has been bloated by fake money - Quantitative Easing, to you and I - for far too long.  Interest rates are far too low, though if now raised, would likely lead to other pain for ordinary Americans.  These ordinary Americans have taken their cue from the US government (successive ones of both hues) and keep on kicking the debt can, down the road.  If Americans want to understand why they are losing jobs overseas  and power and prestige on the World's stage it is because the once mighty US Dollar has become and continues to become devalued and weak.  That weakness is currently hidden within an overall weak global picture, but it is there!

The Obama administration has been obsessed with changing America.  Pushing ever more changes to the definition of marriage, to the education of future generations and a whole other raft of politically liberal, minority issues, which pull apart the weave in the tapestry that made America what it is.

Making America great again - on the international front - wouldn't be too difficult.  It would require just about a 180 degree shift in policy but that shouldn't be above an incoming President.  It would require recognition that international terrorism is the greatest threat to America (and the World).  It would require that radical Islam is identified as the founding father of international terrorism.  No radical Islam would largely mean an end to international terrorism.  It would require that the new administration recognise it has sorely tested the patience and allegiance of its allies.  In the Middle East, America should be backing Israel, should be actively against Iran and Saudi Arabia, should rein in and make clear its opposition to the potentially genocidal Erdogan of Turkey.

Militarily, America should be prepared to intervene, and that has to mean 'boots on the ground'.  Failed states like Libya and Syria need a global policeman to come in and 'bang a few heads together'  and to restore a semblance of order.  Maybe such countries aren't ready or right for democracy, maybe a strong man, who is not anti-West is what is needed, rather than a focus on women's issues and climate change, when it comes to nation building.

We're just not hearing, from Donald Trump, what he would do!

So long as Texas Senator, Ted Cruz, has the funding to stay the course, he will be up against Donald Trump.  Cruz also isn't an 'establishment' candidate but he is consistent and consistently right on the issues that face America.  I suppose it is too much to ask that the also rans - Rubio, Bush, etc., depart the stage before Iowa and New Hampshire but they should do so, as soon as possible.  Republicans need to be united behind a candidate.  That candidate should be Ted Cruz!

 



     

Europe's refugee crisis

This blog is principally addressed to most politicians and those in the West who have been emotionally moved by the TV pictures of the so called ‘refugees’ now invading Europe. 

I must declare an interest.  I too was moved by the pictures of the dead child, lying in the gently lapping surf.   I did though have a slightly different take on this.  Like many people, I was angry.  Such a waste of a young life and what a way to die!  However, my anger was directed towards the child’s father.  Why would this father take his child from the safety of Turkey and risk himself and his family’s lives by taking them on board a flimsy boat, heading in the direction of Greece?  I fully understand why the father took his family out of Syria, though since he apparently came from Kobane, which is now controlled by Syrian Kurds, one has to wonder a little.  

However, this father and his family were in Turkey.  So why did the father take the risk?  Why are all of those politicians who emote so on TV, wringing tears and their hands on rolling news programmes, not asking what caused this man to act, as he did? 

If he was genuinely at risk in Turkey then why is this not being addressed?  He is a Kurd and Turkey has a long-standing and very active antipathy towards Kurds.  Was that his reasoning?  I can’t think of any other.  If Twitter is to be believed though, this family had remained in Turkey, for some considerable time, between fleeing Kobane and then moving on, which raises other questions about the level of fear and its immanency. 

So why then don’t Angela Merkel, Francois Hollande, David Cameron and others punish Turkey for this climate of fear that causes people to flee from a supposedly safe country?    Where are the politicians that are condemning Turkey?   Leave aside for a moment, Turkey using the guise of attacks against Daesh to launch brutal attacks on PKK Kurds and Iraqi Kurds  who themselves are fighting Daesh.  Where is President Obama taking Turkey to task?  Search the internet and see if you can find speeches railing against Turkey’s actions, from any Western leader.

So I come back to why the father took the known risk of moving his family out of Turkey and, let’s assume he thought it best, given the ‘persecution’ in Turkey.  Why then not head towards Armenia or Georgia, or take an overland route to Greece?  Why not throw themselves on the mercy of Saudi Arabia or the UAE or Qatar – why not invade their embassies in Ankara?  These countries share religion and other cultural ties, which would help the family to better assimilate.  Of course, there are far less ‘bleeding hearts’ in those countries, which may have coloured his judgement, but surely the safety of his family would come first?

Moving on from this particular family and the tragic outcome of this man’s decision, we then come to the farce that is the European Union.  I use the word farce, though in truth, there is nothing remotely funny about what is going on – please excuse my use but I cannot think of another that captures the idiocy and hypocrisy that is now on display.

The unelected President of the European Commission – Jean-Claude Juncker thinks that all EU members should take a share of up to 160,000 refugees, this year.  The quotas would be based on GDP  and other criteria.  Britain, Ireland and Denmark would be exempt from these ‘compulsory’ quotas because they have opt-outs under EU treaties.   It is not clear how this number marries up with Angela Merkel’s seeming acceptance of Germany taking in 800,000 refugees, this year. 

Mrs Merkel ‘s decision has been likened on Twitter, to those naïve teenagers who put a note on social media saying ‘party at my house’ and then are shocked to see that in addition to those they want to attend, they find their parent’s house being overrun by ‘gate crashers’ and being trashed by these people.  What seemed at first like a good idea, shows, in the cold light of morning a harsh reality. 

This though is a reality that has far and deep consequences for the whole of Europe. 

These ‘refugees’ are not some kind of homogenous group, fleeing war in Syria.  As others have said, included under this umbrella are economic migrants.  Also, we can clearly expect that Daesh will use this opportunity to infiltrate murderers into our midst.

Worryingly, these ‘refugees’ all seem to seek residency.  That is, they want to become permanent residents.  The assumption must be that were peace to suddenly descend upon Syria, they would not return.  Once they get into Europe, they stay in Europe.  And why wouldn’t they?  It isn’t as if, like with prior migrations, they are obliged to assimilate.  They can maintain, indeed, they are very actively and positively encouraged to maintain, their own separate cultural identity.  So they have many of the ‘benefits’ of their homeland, none of the drawbacks and they enjoy the fruits of a much better economic position.   Why would they ever return? 

Make no mistake, this migration is an invasion.  An alien culture is being foisted upon Europe’s peoples.   And this does affect all of the EU countries.  Once these ‘refugees’ become citizens of Germany, they have completely free movement and can go and work and live in any member state.  They can also claim welfare benefits just as if they were a local national resident.

Europeans, including countries like the UK, should not be relaxed about this.  Just because they are not opening their flood gates to a new wave of immigrants (some would say they are already wide open, anyway!), does not mean they will not be affected.  They will.  Denmark can close it’s rail links with Germany, in an effort to stop the tide but like that old Viking, King Cnut, they are wasting their time. 

Europe’s people need to stop and think.  It is no good depending upon politicians to solve this.  Do that and you get fools like Merkel and Juncker making their statements and other politicians sucking up to the liberal left and luvvies in the media.  People that never have to live with or be exposed to the consequences of their actions, on a day to day basis. 

I have a proposal for any of those media people or fools who say that they will take in a refugee family.  Will you do so, on the basis that you personally accept full economic responsibility for these people and all of their offspring, in perpetuity?   You will continue to house them, feed them, pay for schooling for them, pay for medical care for them and so on and on?  Not just today or tomorrow but for ever?  If not, why should any tax payer accept such responsibility so that you can salve your conscience and feel good at the next meeting of friends.  Can you look your children in the eye and convince them that their economic future will not be threatened by you taking on the economic burden of another family?

Of course, the reality is that caring for these refugees is about more than just passing over last season’s coats or putting a temporary roof over the head of a refugee family.  This is a long term undertaking.  Individual people doing this are grossly irresponsible.  They know that their involvement will always be short term.  They know that the burden, the true burden will be borne by the tax payer and society at large. 

What is there to suggest that these refugees have the economic resources to house and feed  themselves in the host country?  What is there to suggest that these people, many coming from an agricultural background, will find work?  Indeed, in a Europe that has very poor or non-existent economic growth,  where are the jobs to come from?  Juncker’s afore-mentioned plan calls for Spain to take a large part of the 160,000 compulsory quota.  Spain with youth unemployment at almost 50%! What is there to suggest that these people can pay for healthcare for themselves and their family? Or for education?

Consdider Britain (though most other countries would be equally applicable).  Does anyone believe that Britain has spare social housing?  Has, even with a growing economy, many spare jobs (particularly in the agricultural sector).  That the NHS isn’t already stretched and that schools have lots of free places? 

The reality is that any housing for these refugees will come from the private sector and will be funded by the tax payer.  The reality is that these refugees will not be able to find work or, if they do, will displace local nationals and so welfare payments will increase.  The reality is that the NHS will become more and more of a failure because it simply can’t cope.  The reality is that school class sizes will be increased and education outcomes will suffer.  And all of this with a further erosion of cultural traditions.  Trust me, it is not in the British tradition, to execute a serving British soldier on the streets of the country’s capital, by seeking to cut off his head.  Nor is it to mutilate young women or to blow-up fellow citizens (the murderous IRA, notwithstanding).

So I ask my readers, when you see the heart-string tugging pictures on TV or hear people prattling on about ‘we need to do something’ ask them  how much they are prepared to pay and how much they are prepared to give-up – not just money or material goods but also long-held freedoms and traditions. 

There was a very successful campaign against people giving a dog as a Christmas present.  The tag line was ‘A dog is for life not just for Christmas’  The way we now act, the phrase could be changed to ‘A refugee is for life not just for Christmas!’