U.K. 'Quietly' announced it won't be taking anymore unaccompanied child refugees

[Motherofhowmany]

Absolutely appalling, we've only resettled 350 of the promised 3000.

I work with some of these children. The things they have seen are horrendous.

www.independent.co.uk/news/only-350-syrian-refugee-children-will-be-allowed-to-settle-in-britain-thousands-less-than-promised-a7569691.html

Ok, well how about we accept refugees because it's the decent thing to do?

I have only read half the thread. Has it yet been mentioned that it is extremely cost-ineffective to resettle refugees in countries with a very high cost of living?

If you want a given amount of £ sterling to help as many people as possible, bringing them to the UK is actually a daft plan. Funding a safe country with a lower cost of living to take them would be more effective.

There are articles online discussing this, don't have time to find them now.

Most of the countries housing refugees have less money than us. What would happen if they all took the attitude that they put their own first?

Those refugees have arrived by themselves in those countries. We too house refugees who have arrived here by their own means at least whilst their asylum Application is processed. What we are talking about is the UK actively going and bringing more refugees here which is different. We are not part of the Schengen Agreement so there is no free movement between Europe and the rest of the U.K. I'm not sure that greece would be going to Syria to actively find refugees to bring to Greece but they are hosting Jose that arrive at Greek shores.

grace isn't it more ethical and decent to give more children a chance of education which like pale says is more cost effective in low cost countries.

Some countries with lower living costs already take a huge number of refugees UK.

UNHCR figures: www.unhcr.org/uk/figures-at-a-glance.html
"We are now witnessing the highest levels of displacement on record. An unprecedented 65.3 million people around the world have been forced from home. Among them are nearly 21.3 million refugees, over half of whom are under the age of 18. There are also 10 million stateless people who have been denied a nationality and access to basic rights such as education, healthcare, employment and freedom of movement."

Europe takes 6 % of displaced people
Americas take 12 % of displaced people
Middle East and North Africa take 39% of displaced people

Top hosting countries (doesn't specify whether DPs or refugees)
Jordan 664,100
Ethiopia 736,100
Iran 979,400
Lebanon 1,100,000
Pakistan 1,600,000
Turkey 2,500,000

Jordan is a small country, so in 2015 the number already represented over 20% of the population of Jordan.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/jordan/11869777/In-Jordan-we-understand-a-refugee-crisis.html

Where countries with lower living costs are willing to take more refugees, it's great if we support that.

But I don't think it buys our way out of our own responsibilities to wave a neo-colonial hand (because that's how will be seen if we try to force this) over other sovereign countries while saying, "Not here, ta very much."

(People may not realise if they haven't been exposed to this, but "neo-colonialist" is a potent slur which acts as a powerful rallying cry against UK interests in parts of the world.)

Europe takes 6 % of displaced people
Americas take 12 % of displaced people
Middle East and North Africa take 39% of displaced people

Well Europe's land mass is considerably smaller than that of the middle East and Africa. But it's not really about how many refugees each country takes. The UK is contributing 1billion per annum in foreign aid, more than any other developed country bar America. So whilst the likes of Jordan are housing more refugees, we are funding them.

Although not fully funding them.

The huge increase in people leaving camps and refugee settlements is because food rations were cut to levels where people decided to risk a journey to Europe (in the hope of success or quick death) rather than stay and starve slowly.

As that Telegraph article about Jordan, in 2015, states: "But the international community has delivered only 34 per cent of the money pledged to fund our Syrian Refugee Response Plan, a document co-authored with the UN"

In Jan 2017 food rations in Iraq were halved: www.independent.co.uk/news/world/un-halves-food-rations-million-iraqis-refugees-camp-mosul-donors-united-states-donald-trump-a7550706.html

Basically, this is where whining about overseas aid gets us: people leave the camps and try to travel. Some die on the way, some reach Europe.

PausingFlatly

The days when people gave a toss about being called 'neo-colonialist' are long gone - it's like overusing antibiotics, we've developed an immunity to politically-correct gobbledygook.

GraceGrape

Ok, well how about we accept refugees because it's the decent thing to do?

How about those people who think "it's the right thing to do" pay for it themselves and leave the rest of us out of it?

UncontrolledImmigrant

We could take money from the defence budget. Trident, for instance.

Tell you what, why don't you stand for Parliament on the platform of removing Britain's nuclear defences so that we can use the money to take refugees instead. 'Cos that would be a really amusing election night.

Doesn't matter whether you or I care about being called neo-colonialist, morecambeandpies.

It does matter whether we're handing ammunition to people who DO use that narrative and are getting good mileage out of it among their audience. Who aren't you and me.

They tend to be a bit less amnesiac about Britain's recent overseas adventures.

Conspicuously failing to take responsibility for some of the consequences of those adventures is bad both for the victims thereof, and for the UK.

Our fucking shameful treatment of that Afghan interpreter is awful for him and his family, but also awful for the UK.

It's not just cruel and unworthy of us, it's stupid.

The problem is we don't have much control over what the government does with its foreign policy. Tony Blair totally ignored many people's wishes about not going into Iraq and Libya has been destabilised, granted we got rid of 2 dictators but it is complicated .

This thread is the most profoundly depressing thing I have read in a long time. Refugees are human beings whose lives are in danger or whose homes have been destroyed. The attitude of some on here is unbelievable. To the poster who said it was fine for other countries to take refugees but as far as she were concerned, we were full, may I ask what solution you would propose if everyone thought that? Should refugees just stay in their war zone or in their town that has been flattened by an earthquake?

I can't believe some people have equated to arms trade to selling chocolate or peanuts!! Arms (sold by the UK) are used in conflicts that destroy peoples homes, therefore creating refugees. Peanuts are not.

And yes, Morecambe, I would happily pay an increase on taxes to support humanitarian causes. I contribute already through charity. There is a family of Syrian refugees living in my town whose housing is provided through the church. I also donate to support them.

Syria has been flattened by this war. In all likelihood, even when the conflict ends, it will take years and years to rebuild. We cannot expect an entire generation to grow up in refugee camps. It would be impossible for Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon to resettle all refugees, even if every penny of foreign aid pledged were received. The 3000 refugees that the UK promised to take equates to less than one person in every ten towns.

However, I'm sure this reasoning will fall on deaf ears here. If people really believe that the UK, the sixth-largest economy on Earth, has no money, they should thank their lucky stars they don't have to live somewhere that is genuinely poor. For those who simply don't give a fuck, just be thankful that through an accident of birth you were born in a rich country during a time of peace.

Agreed, Woodhill. And while the UK runs away from its responsibilities, we have no way to recover from the damage done.

Honestly, the UK's best defence against being attacked by Daesh and other extremists - whether inside the UK or on a Tunisian beach - is there NOT being lots of people who want to attack us. And enough people who, when they encounter someone planning an attack will dob them in. Because they think "British values," and "the British way of life" are worth protecting and defending (despite the nebulousness of those terms).

That's a harder sell if "British values" appear to be rob and run.

GraceGrape

"And yes, Morecambe, I would happily pay an increase on taxes to support humanitarian causes. I contribute already through charity. There is a family of Syrian refugees living in my town whose housing is provided through the church. I also donate to support them."

Excellent - your beliefs, supported by your money, exactly as it should be. Just as those of us who don't want to pay any more taxes should be free not to participate. Unless you're a fan of involuntary charity?

"If people really believe that the UK, the sixth-largest economy on Earth, has no money, they should thank their lucky stars they don't have to live somewhere that is genuinely poor."

If we flung our borders open to the limitless number of people who would gladly move here tomorrow if we let them, how long so you think we'd remain the 6th-richest country on Earth? Not very long at all.

Tony Blair totally ignored many people's wishes about not going into Iraq and Libya has been destabilised, granted we got rid of 2 dictators but it is complicated

That's one of the most mental comments I have ever seen on mumsnet and I do lurk a lot on the EU Ref board, mind.
So how do you feel after you got rid of those two particularly itchy dictators woodhill? Your fever came down? You blood pressure is better? You managed to generate the biggest refugee crisis of he last fifty years in Europe? Good on you then. At least you are in a happier place now that those two warts are out of the government in your beloved country. Oh hang on......

Before you swoop down on me, let me explain my issue with your statement that I highlighted above woodhill: it's an very simplistic at best and very stupid at worst to try and equate active military attacks with removal of two dictators in lands that weren't a direct threat to this country.
This is how those people talk who have never been on the receiving end of an actual bullet or a bomb blast. There are hundreds of dead soldiers in this country only. Try telling their parents that you are able to put these two things in one long sentence.

This thread is the most profoundly depressing thing I have read in a long time.
Agree to an extent grace, at least with regards to attitude of some posters. on the other hand it is also encouraging to read your posts and those of others like you which illustrate clearly that however loud the current anti-everything brigade can seem on social media that there are plenty who are equally appalled by the callous, bigotted and downright ignorant tones which pepper this thread and many like it. It's good to be reminded that not everyone thinks a race to the bottom is the direction the U.K. should be going in.

Bananagio
I see what you mean. It's so hard to try and fight the slave like mentality of posters like beehive and woodhill.
Slaves of what's fed to them.

No Valentine I wasn't saying that, I didn't think we should have gone to war in Iraq.

Why is my comment mental, it's what the politicians were spouting on question time.

The point I was making is that was how the politicians were justifying thieu actions. What is complicated is that you could argue that getting rid of Saddam was better for some in Iraq but ooh it destabilised the ME and life was awful for some. For instance Saddam tolerated Christianity, so many grey areas.

woodhill
It's complicated for you because you have no idea about the kind of wreckage that has been wrought there now. Not even one person who has been to these areas affected by wars effectively initiated and subsidised by us (money and weapons) would argue that there is any grey area round there (mind you I have been. For work. It's a trauma of a life time that won't go away I think). It's all RED mainly.
You have the luxury (and the indifference) to sit in your cosy lovely living room in UK and ponder over Saddam, eh? Please take some time off from doing that and actually GO there and see what is happening. There is not even one newspaper here who I could recommend for you to focus on to get a better idea about the ground realities.
Until you do that, I hope you keep your grey areas to yourself. The only decent thing left for us to do as a nation is that we pay back some of it by at least facilitating the refugee children. We can't bring back what these areas have lost and are going to keep loosing for ages.

If something is wrong in principle, it's wrong everywhere. I would love to see someone dismantle Tories before they dismantle NHS. Let it be someone hideous, right? After all, it's all about the jolly good old results in the end?
This is life. Of hundreds of thousands of innocent humans on the other side and hundreds of our own young lads who vowed to defend us from our foes and ended up dying for a Fuckwit like Tony Blair . It's not a game. In real life you don't fight fire with Fire. You fight it with bloody water.