Crosswords3 mins ago
For How Much Longer Is This Mass Invasion Of Europe, Going To Be Allowed To Go On?
17 Answers
Answers
1 to 17 of 17
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I suggested, probably more than a year ago, that Europe was suffering an invasion. Many respondents howled me down and castigated me for using “alarmist” language.
I still maintain my view. Europe is undergoing an invasion the effects of which will be just as profound, if not more so, as they would be if the continent was invaded by armed forces. The nature, behaviour and make up of the population will be (and in many parts already has been) changed beyond recognition and irredeemably so. This is not controlled and managed migration which Europe has undergone since the year dot. This is an invasion, pure and simple.
It will not end because the authorities in charge of the EU (with whose rules the effected individual nations must comply) simply refuse to accept that an invasion is under way. They constantly talk about how the invaders must be accommodated instead of devising ways to keep them out. They sit on their hands and squeal that nothing can be done. Well I’ve news for them: for every migrant they accommodate ten more will be in the queue to cross the Mediterranean at some point; and for every one of that ten, ten more will follow. Europe needs to devise ways of keeping this invasion at bay. It won’t be easy. But it’s being made all the more difficult as every day passes without an acknowledgement of the seriousness of the situation.
Those people who suggest that Europe must help these people need to understand that Europe's resources are finite. It cannot continue to absorb people at the current rate without a serious deterioration in the quality of life of those already here. If the Euromaniacs want to preside over that deterioration they may find that their electorates think differently.
I still maintain my view. Europe is undergoing an invasion the effects of which will be just as profound, if not more so, as they would be if the continent was invaded by armed forces. The nature, behaviour and make up of the population will be (and in many parts already has been) changed beyond recognition and irredeemably so. This is not controlled and managed migration which Europe has undergone since the year dot. This is an invasion, pure and simple.
It will not end because the authorities in charge of the EU (with whose rules the effected individual nations must comply) simply refuse to accept that an invasion is under way. They constantly talk about how the invaders must be accommodated instead of devising ways to keep them out. They sit on their hands and squeal that nothing can be done. Well I’ve news for them: for every migrant they accommodate ten more will be in the queue to cross the Mediterranean at some point; and for every one of that ten, ten more will follow. Europe needs to devise ways of keeping this invasion at bay. It won’t be easy. But it’s being made all the more difficult as every day passes without an acknowledgement of the seriousness of the situation.
Those people who suggest that Europe must help these people need to understand that Europe's resources are finite. It cannot continue to absorb people at the current rate without a serious deterioration in the quality of life of those already here. If the Euromaniacs want to preside over that deterioration they may find that their electorates think differently.
It is a heart versus head situation. Morally we should help those in need, but at the same time not at the cost of destroying or severely weakening any gains we have already made as a nation. It helps no one to find all economies are dragged down to the same low level. It is why we should manage our economy sufficiently well such that we can find the funding for overseas aid, and deal with issues near where they occur, rather than import problems here.
Fellow humans should be able to receive help where needed but not freedom to be granted their wish to be wherever they choose.
I'm sure the Head of French Immigration and Integration is convinced asylum seekers were just passing through France, on their way to the UK if he had his way I suspect. The issue is that he and the rest of the EU ought not be allowing them to pass through, nor congregate on the border, in the first place.
Fellow humans should be able to receive help where needed but not freedom to be granted their wish to be wherever they choose.
I'm sure the Head of French Immigration and Integration is convinced asylum seekers were just passing through France, on their way to the UK if he had his way I suspect. The issue is that he and the rest of the EU ought not be allowing them to pass through, nor congregate on the border, in the first place.
That is a matter of opinion. They come en masse like an army, and their arrival not only hits the country's ability to resource the population some do not even obey simple obvious rules/laws of the country they arrive at, as an enemy wouldn't.
Anyway I don't accept the definition given. One can have one's house invaded by ants, but they aren't described as an enemy army.
Anyway I don't accept the definition given. One can have one's house invaded by ants, but they aren't described as an enemy army.
-- answer removed --
“Invasion definition, an act or instance of invading or entering as an enemy, especially by an army.”
Your definition of “invasion” is too narrow, Islay. As has been adequately demonstrated, an invasion is not restricted to those arriving as enemies (and even your own narrow definition does not provide solely for invasions by armies, only “especially” so). It is quite clear that the mass movement of people across borders for questionable reasons and without leave to enter is an invasion. However, it doesn’t really matter what you call it. It is unsustainable, undesirable, and unnecessary.
“Once we are out of the EU that will be a matter for them”
Alas our leaving the EU will not put a stop to the problems presented to the UK by this phenomenon, f-f. The masses will still invade mainland Europe, they will still move northwards and westwards, and many of them will still try to enter the UK from France. We are unlikely in the extreme to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights and repeal our own Human Rights Act meaning that those who do reach here illegally are almost certain to remain. The source of the problem for the EU is that the nations with external borders are unwilling to properly police those borders as far as their resources allow. They see their function as assisting the migrants into Europe and “resettling” them once they have arrived. Instead they should concentrate their efforts on keeping them out.
On a brighter note I was pleased to learn that one of the “fears” expounded by “Project Fear” - the removal of juxtapositioned border controls in France and the UK, facilitated by the “Le Touquet” agreement - has been firmly scotched by President Hollande. A number of regular contributors suggested that this was certain to be discontinued should we vote to leave; I suggested it was almost a certainty that the facility would remain.
Your definition of “invasion” is too narrow, Islay. As has been adequately demonstrated, an invasion is not restricted to those arriving as enemies (and even your own narrow definition does not provide solely for invasions by armies, only “especially” so). It is quite clear that the mass movement of people across borders for questionable reasons and without leave to enter is an invasion. However, it doesn’t really matter what you call it. It is unsustainable, undesirable, and unnecessary.
“Once we are out of the EU that will be a matter for them”
Alas our leaving the EU will not put a stop to the problems presented to the UK by this phenomenon, f-f. The masses will still invade mainland Europe, they will still move northwards and westwards, and many of them will still try to enter the UK from France. We are unlikely in the extreme to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights and repeal our own Human Rights Act meaning that those who do reach here illegally are almost certain to remain. The source of the problem for the EU is that the nations with external borders are unwilling to properly police those borders as far as their resources allow. They see their function as assisting the migrants into Europe and “resettling” them once they have arrived. Instead they should concentrate their efforts on keeping them out.
On a brighter note I was pleased to learn that one of the “fears” expounded by “Project Fear” - the removal of juxtapositioned border controls in France and the UK, facilitated by the “Le Touquet” agreement - has been firmly scotched by President Hollande. A number of regular contributors suggested that this was certain to be discontinued should we vote to leave; I suggested it was almost a certainty that the facility would remain.
NO PP, they are far from ' a nice bunch of harmless young men '
They are in fact cowards, running away from their country, which they should be fighting for.
The Syrian Army are running out of men, because these 'yellow bellies' are deserting, and most of them have LEFT their wives and children there.
I might ask, what would we have done in 1942, if our young men had run away ?
They are in fact cowards, running away from their country, which they should be fighting for.
The Syrian Army are running out of men, because these 'yellow bellies' are deserting, and most of them have LEFT their wives and children there.
I might ask, what would we have done in 1942, if our young men had run away ?
-- answer removed --
May I refer you to this website which I read a little while ago because I was asking myself the same question. Make of it what you will, but perhaps a grain of truth may be in there somewhere, though I wouldn't expect everyone to agree.
https:/
https:/
France seems to have started the process to stop illegal entry already without saying as such. Leaving the UK on Wednesday, we arrived at a distance of 4 miles from Dover in good time, to find solid traffic all the way into the port. H.G.V. Lorries in the nearside lane barely moving at all, we were able to crawl finally in, too late for the booking, and after a further 2 hours got through French customs. Every passport was carefully scrutinised, we were able to get a ferry to Dunkirk, not Calais as booked.
We entered Belgium to see a long motorway queue waiting to get into France and further on, illuminated signs to say there were long delays on other roads into France.
I have not been able so far to find any reference to this in the media.
We entered Belgium to see a long motorway queue waiting to get into France and further on, illuminated signs to say there were long delays on other roads into France.
I have not been able so far to find any reference to this in the media.
-- answer removed --
1 to 17 of 17
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.