Menu
Hastings & St. Leonards on-line community newspaper
Refugees cross the Mediterranean on their way to Europe (Photo: Wikimedia Commons/Vito Manzari).

Refugees cross the Mediterranean on their way to Europe (Photo: Wikimedia Commons/Vito Manzari).

Local Greens call on Rudd to act over refugees

As the refugee crisis in Europe mounts, local Greens have called on MP Amber Rudd to support action for the widespread resettlement of refugees in Europe. Nick Terdre reports.

In a statement Hastings and Rye Green Party calls on local MP Amber Rudd “…to support the creation of safe, swift and legal means of resettling millions of refugees in Europe as part of a Europe-wide initiative to tackle the current global refugee crisis.” A response is awaited to the email sent directly to Ms Rudd.

Over 2,600 people are known to have died attempting to cross the Mediterranean this year, while the UN refugee agency UNHCR has identified around 960,000 refugees in need of resettlement worldwide, they say.

The call was issued yesterday as EU interior ministers were agreeing by majority vote and in the face of fierce opposition from four member governments quotas for the number of refugees to be taken in by individual countries. The relocation plan is due to be discussed at an emergency summit of EU leaders tonight, Wednesday.

The UK government has exercised an opt-out on the plan while two other countries with opt-out rights, Denmark and Ireland, have agreed to participate in view of the seriousness of the situation. Prime minister David Cameron recently announced that the UK would resettle up to 20,000 Syrian refugees over the lifetime of the current parliament, while Hastings Borough Council leader Peter Chowney said last week “…we are offering to take 100 refugees, 20 per year over the next five years.”

In the view of local Greens much larger numbers need to be catered for. “The Government’s current policy – which amounts to letting in just 12 Syrian refugees per day until May 2020 – is clearly a pitifully inadequate response to the current global refugee crisis, and will not stop the mounting death toll as desperate people continue to risk their lives in attempts to find safety in Europe,” a local party spokesperson said.

“The only way to stop these deaths is to create safe, swift and legal means for resettling large numbers of people in Europe, and to share the responsibility for this fairly between the various European states. This is not only the right thing to do, but a practical response with historical precedents. We urge Amber Rudd to support such an initiative which, as long as it is properly managed, could also create significant economic benefits for the UK.”

In support of their argument the Greens say that large-scale resettlement is a practical response – given that the population of the EU is some 500 million, the addition of two million refugees would only increase it by 0.4%. They also cite historical precedent – following the Vietnam war western countries resettled some 1.3 million people from south-east Asia.

With respect to the significant economic benefits to the UK, they refer to researchers at University College London who concluded that in the period 2001-11, recently arrived non European immigrants made a net positive fiscal contribution to the UK of £5 billion, compared with a net negative fiscal contribution of £617 billion from UK natives. Letting in 260,000 immigrants a year could halve the UK’s public debt 50 years from now, according to a report by the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford.

The Greens also contest the Government’s “repeated assertion” that making it easier for refugees to reach Europe will boost the number of people attempting to come. Alexander Betts, head of the Refugee Studies Centre at the University of Oxford, recently said that, “No existing sound research substantiates the political claim that giving people asylum in Europe stimulates more flow. Nearly all refugees want to go home. They don’t sit in refugee camps calculating where they can get the best benefits.”

 

Hastings and Rye Green Party

 

 

 

If you’re enjoying HOT and would like us to continue providing fair and balanced reporting on local matters please consider making a donation. Click here to open our PayPal donation link. Thank you for your continued support!

Posted 16:57 Wednesday, Sep 23, 2015 In: Campaigns

4 Comments

  1. Deletism

    LOL – much of that 98% of the UK is undeveloped by choice… whereas 98% of Saudi Arabia is uninhabitable desert. Population density is meaningless if you disregard uninhabitable land. The habitable parts of Saudi Arabia are far more densely populated than the UK.

    Comment by Deletism — Sunday, Oct 11, 2015 @ 17:32

  2. DAR

    Well, “Deletism” – I’ve already said that this is not just about economics, and your comment about only 2% of UK land is built on is completely facile when lots of the 98% that isn’t built on (according to your claim) is unsuitable for development -like mountains, flood plains etc.- or undesirable for reasons of food security and recreational amenity (as I pointed out). Oh, and ENGLAND (where most migrants end up rather than “the UK”) is one of the most densely populated countries on the planet.

    Comment by DAR — Thursday, Oct 8, 2015 @ 13:58

  3. Deletism

    And while we’re complaining about being “full” let’s not forget that we are the 5th richest country in the world (with an economy 4 times bigger than Saudi Arabia) and that a bare 2% of the UK is actually built on.

    Comment by Deletism — Monday, Oct 5, 2015 @ 13:52

  4. DAR

    I would support action for widespread resettlement of Syrian refugees in….Saudi Arabia (geographically large) or the Gulf states – very rich countries with a similar cultural outlook, and in the same geographical region. I think that’s where the moral finger-pointing should be directed, not at our government which, I think in this case, has got it about right. Sure, we should offer humanitarian aid, as we are doing, but it makes sense all round to do this “at source” rather than make rash political gestures about welcoming unlimited numbers of these refugees and then doing an about-turn when the practicalities start turning highly problematic. Merkel has a lot to answer for.

    Also, let’s not forget that last year’s UK net migration figures were 300,000 plus and have been at such high levels for years. And let’s not forget that in our geographically small country our population is already at 65 million and we need what undeveloped land we have for food security and recreational amenity.

    I cannot understand why Greens cannot “join up the dots” when it comes to immigration/asylum/population issues. It’s not all about so-called “fiscal positives”. They complain (quite rightly) about destruction of ancient woodlands and green spaces in general, air pollution, traffic congestion, pressures on vital resources and services and so on, then at the same time adopt an “open door” policy on immigration etc. Self-contradiction or what?

    Comment by DAR — Thursday, Sep 24, 2015 @ 11:25

Also in: Campaigns

«
»
More HOT Stuff
  • SUPPORT HOT

    HOT is run by volunteers but has overheads for hosting and web development. Support HOT!

    ADVERTISING

    Advertise your business or your event on HOT for as little as £20 per month
    Find out more…

    DONATING

    If you like HOT and want to keep it sustainable, please Donate via PayPal, it’s easy!

    VOLUNTEERING

    Do you want to write, proofread, edit listings or help sell advertising? then contact us

    SUBSCRIBE

    Get our regular digest emails

  • Subscribe to HOT