captain red dog wrote:Don't conflate border controls with closed borders.
I didn't mention closed borders.
Yes people can slip through borders but it is a heck of a lot easier when there are absolutely no controls at all.
I think you are wedded to completely open borders in the same way 2nd amendmenters are to open gun ownership. I'm not talking about closing your borders in the same way Hillary didn't want to take away guns. You can have free movement and border controls.
You are comparing two vastly different arguments, attributing points to me that I haven’t made and then saying I am completely wedded to the ideas that you have just made up.
I am in favour of open borders in Europe for a very simple reason, it is beneficial to Europe. Sure some bad people might move from Germany to France but we don’t need to inconvenience millions just because we are scared of a few people. Tighter border controls on Europe’s borders with other states would be far more beneficial than checking passports between Belgium and Luxembourg.
Having a 'border' in the UK isn't exactly a massive detriment to anyone who has the right to free movement.
I’d be pretty pissed off if I had to show a passport when crossing the Severn Bridge just because some people are cowering in fear that a nasty man might travel from Cardiff to Swindon.
The situation on the continent must be a security nightmare, how on earth they can track suspects is beyond me given some nations, particularly Germany, don't have much in the way of surveillance.
Your argument there is less to do with freedom of movement and more of a pro-CCTV one. Public CCTV doesn’t really bother me so I have nothing to argue with there.
And yes Merkel does bare responsibility for migrant deaths. I didn't see her calling for a managed crossing of migrants over the med. It was just a plain call to come on over with nothing in place to manage it safely or responsibly.
I saw a photoshop earlier of Merkel where somebody had put blood all over her hands and face. Lovely.
The responsibility for the crimes that were carried out at the German market rest solely on the perpetrator and (if any) those that radicalised him. Merkel did nothing to encourage this man.
If we are talking about indirect responsibility for the act, then people like Assad and ISIS bare far more responsibility than Merkel for causing the crisis. Blair and Bush have more responsibility for causing the rise of ISIS. The Soviet Union is to blame for invading Afghanistan and radicalising a generation of Muslims. King Richard should never have fought Saladin in the crusades.
Merkel’s “crime” seems to be compassion. It is disgusting that people want to attack her or blame her for people’s deaths when those same people do not seem to want to blame the actual banana split that carried out the murders. One way I look at it is who would be the biggest beneficiary of closing Europe down to outsiders? I’d argue that the people that would love that the most are the extremist right wing and the extremist Muslims. And I would not want to give either group a victory.