Refugee or migrant? Line on the left, one cross each..

Of course we should help genuine refugees. People fleeing from war-zones and conflict. And let's face it we have done much to create these situations and we are culpable in many ways thanks to the utter fuckwittery of Bush and Blair and the ravenous political influence of arms manufacturers in whose interests peace is not.

Feel free to re-arrange the words in that last sentence to your liking. Up with that I will put.

But you get my meaning.

And what are you young man? 'I'm a migrant'.

Sorry but we're only taking refugees this week.

'In that case I'm a refugee'.

Ah, in that case you will have to remain here in France/Italy/Spain/Croatia/Albania/Greece, since these are 'safe countries': they will protect you and your family and they are not war zones (yet anyway).

By the way, where is your family? Where are your wife and kids?

'Oh, they're at home in Nigeria waiting for me to send some money back to them'.

Not in a war zone then?

'No but we're very poor we can hardly afford a state of the art mobile phone or these Nike trainers.'

I feel for you. I'm sure it is difficult for everyone in poorer countries than the UK. But you're not exactly refugees then are you?

'No but we're really poor. Just ask the guy I gave £2,000 to in Calais to get me over here. He'll tell you.'

Why would you give someone £2,000 if you're so poor, so desperate?

'Because I can get £26,000 and a house for doing nothing in the UK. It's a no-brainer. And then my family can come over here and live off you forever'.

Now I don't think for one minute that this is the motivation for all of the would-be migrants trying to get to the UK. But think about it, calmly for a moment. If they can come here and secure money for no work - more money than they'd have to work their bollocks off for in their own country - it must be something of a pulling factor surely?

Asylum seekers are in a completely different category. They (the genuine ones) are fleeing persecution. fleeing from threats to their lives in their countries of origin. Because of wars or believing in the wrong God or whatever. And in those cases we have a duty to try to protect them and to provide them with a safe place to live.

International law states that this should be offered in the first safe country they reach having left their own country. Now you may disagree with that law, but it is the law as it now stands. And that means France, or Italy or Greece or Albania (God help them) or Spain etc. And it means that they must genuinely be fleeing from threat.

What we are seeing in Calais are not refugees - or if they're there they are massively outnumbered by economic migrants - or 'illegal migrants' which is the correct term for what they are. Illegal meaning that they do not have the right, under long-established international law, to reside in Europe or the UK. Again, you may not agree with that law, but it is the law.

And yet France builds a major 'refugee' holding station in Calais and ships these people through their country to queue up to enter the UK. And then we help to pay for it and pay for the added security needed to stop them actually getting over to the UK? Erm why?

And why isn't the main French refugee holding station in Clermont Ferrand, or Lyon?

We are supposed to be partners on the international stage with France after all. So why are they trying to 'dump' (and that is clearly not too strong a term for what is happening) this 'problem' on the UK?

You see we have laws in place to address this issue. That they are being ignored by economic migrants is not a surprise - since the law is designed specifically to stop this problem from arising. But the law is being ignored by France, Italy, Greece etc - and not just ignored but flouted in the way that these people are being shipped across Europe to the UK.

Why do we always have to clear up Europe's shit?

There are three main reasons why these people are coming: One is because they know about the benefits they can receive if they get to the UK because of the information age - and traffickers probably exaggerate these benefits as well in order to fuel their hideous business. Two is that the trading policies of the EU are effectively facilitating the continued rape of Africa, with protectionist agricultural policies that make it impossible for Africa to trade its way into the first world.

And three - the most pressing at the moment - is because they can. Because the international community is refusing to enforce the laws that have been designed to stop this problem arising in the first place. And at the same time as ignoring the law, they are also taking no responsibility for solving the problem but facilitating it's deliverance, across Europe to the UK.

You have to steel yourself to look at the bigger picture here. Yes some - but by no means all - of these people are poor and destitute, but we simply cannot afford as a nation to tackle the inequalities of the world. We already pay, as a country, more in foreign aid than anyone else in the world by head of population (strictly speaking Denmark Sweden & Holland give more % but a fraction of the actual money we pay) and we pay a similar amount (£12 billion a year in both cases - total £24 billion) to the EU. For what? To be shat upon like this?

We always help where we can - help more than anyone else including Germany, France and the US - so why are we now supposed to pick up the tab for Africa's EU-propagated failure?

And yet at home we're cutting our police forces to the bone and reducing our spending on the MoD to ridiculously low levels?

And the £12 billion we pay to the EU is to help them to go not towards the trading partnership of nation states which we favour but towards a federal Europe with which we disagree?

It's time we stopped clearing up Europe's shit; time we stopped funding its federalist folly and time we gave priority to helping genuine refugees and using UK taxes to serve the UK population who pay them.

Thanks for reading.