Helping refugee and migrant children

Nothing pulls the heartstrings as much as seeing a young child in danger. We see powerful images of children being put on boats and struggling on the long journey from Africa and the Middle East to northern Europe. So what is the UK doing about this tragedy of our age?

Young children need an adult  to look after them and guide them. Where the child is with a parent or parents we expect the parents to take care of them as best they can, and to make judgements about the risks of travel. We all rightly blame the people traffickers, as they organise unsafe boats or car rides across the desert, and seek to profit out of the misery. The UK along with other western countries is seeking to stop any illegal and unsafe  trade and prosecute the offenders.  We need the help of travelling adults to identify the unsafe and illegal  traffickers and intercept the trade before it kills more people. We need to remember that most unaccompanied  children who undertake such a journey have usually been advised to do it by an adult in the first place, and have been paid for by an adult who did so  wanting to act in the best interests of the child.   All these unsafe travel modes are organised by people who profit from it and should have a duty of care towards their passengers. They clearly often do not meet health and safety standards set out by the EU and many national governments. Shouldn’t all governments along the routes set standards of safety and seek to enforce these standards?

The UK’s policy towards helping young refugees and migrants is based on three central propositions. The first is ask them to apply for asylum or entry into the UK from somewhere near their original home to avoid the dangers of the long and irregular journey using illegal carriers. The UK is providing  substantial aid to assist the refugee settlements in the Middle East, and will consider applications to come to the UK from there. The second is to try to bring families together, not to split them up. It is usually better for a child to be looked after by his or her own parents, or where they are dead by grandparents or other close relatives. If an unaccompanied child in a camp has the closest  relative willing to take responsibility for him or her living in the UK the UK usually wishes to assist by giving the child legal entry. Where a child is an orphan with no close family willing to look after him or her, the UK gives such a person priority in assessing asylum and settlement needs from the refugee camps.

There may well  be fewer children with no adult willing to help than at first sight. Most families do love their children and wish to help bring them up. As every child may have  grandparents as well as  parents and may have  aunts and uncles the UK wish to reconnect children to  adults in their own family can be successful. UK personnel are helping in the camps to trace missing relatives who may themselves be in places of  safety. Where the family has suffered a disaster from war and the parents and grandparents are all dead or unable to take responsibility, the UK is willing to help.

The government’s website invites people to assist in various ways. Those wishing to help can offer clothes, toys and books to charities helping provide. You can volunteer to offer your time to assist refugees on arrival in the UK. You can provide a room or an empty property if you own such space. You can provide a foster home for a child. The government sets out the general approach. Seeing it through to a happy conclusion for each refugee who comes requires a response from the wider community to offer accommodation, jobs, school places and the rest that refugees will need.


  1. Iain gill
    March 30, 2016

    Plenty of British children in care being let down massively.

    1. Hope
      March 30, 2016

      Your sentiments ar very charitable. However, with vast amounts of our taxes wasted by Cameron and Osborne on overseas aid where billions go to consultants and dictators, anothe £2/3billion chunk to the EU to spend on whatever it chooses with out a say from any British politician on hints such aso mating endangered fish in the Caribbean and dance classes in exotic places we need to get riff of Dfid and limit overseas aid strictly to help people in need and humanitarian crisis. There will be little sympThy when Cameron has caused a lot of this misery himself then decide to spend ft sums of our taxes without basic scrutiny where the money will be spent. Osborne continues to borrow more than we can afford and literally giving it away. In his hope to catch up the vast deficit, which he was going to clear last year, all his failed targets and caps, increases tax such as the hidden NI increase this budget that he planned three yeas ago.
      One solution to help these poor children would be for people like Cameron not to invade Middle East countries for regime change, instead create safe heavens in their own countries protected by UN forces instead of using the navy as a ferry service to promote dingy death traps. Turn the boats back and direct people to safe heavens in their own land. Prudence and common sense does not apply to the two clueless posh boys who entered politics because they have nothing better to do with their time. With their expensive education and silver spoon in their mouths they have not learned to be nice to people irrespective of their backgrounds. Did Cameron forget to take his daughter home and leave her in the pub!

      1. Lifelogic
        March 30, 2016

        Cameron and Osborne are certainly seem to be rather out of touch with reality. Osborne is a truly dreadful chancellor, even non introducing absurdly half baked taxes on “some” sugary drinks. A tax that will cost far more to run than they will raise, thus making us all poorer and achieving nothing at all.

        Further attacks on buy to let mortgages now I see. What on earth has Osborne got against poor tenants, why is he so keep to diminish the supply of rental properties and push rents up?

        Anna Soubrey was all over the place this morning on the threatened steel plants. The more ones sees of her the more one wonders why she has the job of Minister of State for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise – does she know the first thing about industry?

        Getting out of the EU would help steel hugely as we would be free to have sensible cheap energy policies and free to take appropriate actions to protect them (when sensible) without having to ask the EU’s permission at every step. She made no mention of these advantages of Brexit needless to say.

        1. Lifelogic
          March 30, 2016

          Nicky Morgan seems now to be claiming inter-railing is at risk from Brexit.

          Just how pathetic and desperate will these remain people get! Can they not find a singe real argument for remaining in this economic & anti-democratic disaster area?

          We certainly could protect our steel industry rather better outside the EU – if we wanted to – that is certain.

          Let us hope we do not end up with the sort of people who picked up British Leyland of BMW (under Labour) and then buried it a while later while making themselves a hansom profit.

        2. Lifelogic
          March 30, 2016

          I see that Sir Jeremy Heywood will not say what meeting he may or may not have had with remain campaigners, perhaps until after the referendum.

          Because it may not be in the public interest they claim!

          What about Carney too?

        3. Hope
          March 30, 2016

          Guido has a good headline, EU taxes and regulation killed British steel. Where is Amber Ruud after she made ridiculous claims about energy. Try telling the truth about the EU energy policy impact to the workers at Port Talbot.

          Soubry, Osborne, Javid, Rudd and Cameron need to resign and hang their heads in shame. Betrayed the country, betrayed the workers.

          1. Lifelogic
            March 30, 2016

            Indeed they do need to go. Osborne has a dreadfully damaging agenda with his pension and tenant mugging, IHT ratting and his new fizzy drink tax absurdities.

            They are essentially all pro EU, greencrap believers, open door immigration fans, over tax borrow and waste, Libdems at heart.

            We saw just how unpopular LibDem policies were at the last election.

            Why are the real Tories not in charge?

      2. Timaction
        March 30, 2016

        …………..and in Rotherham and many Cities and Towns throughout Britain. Still no National enquiry though! Political correctness is an evil of our age!

        1. alan jutson
          March 30, 2016


          I see we are still awaiting the Chilcott report to appear as well.

          The whole Government empire seems to be falling to bits, with total incompetents in positions of power.

          Seems like all Departments are totally unfit for purpose.

          Just look at the juvenile comments from some Ministers (Ms Morgan most recently) about the EU, and she is in charge of the Education of a generation.

          Makes me so angry.

          1. Lifelogic
            March 30, 2016

            The more on sees of Ms Morgan and (finger up the bottom and rather likes it – lets have a serious debate) Ms Soubry the more I wonder why one earth Cameron ever selected them.

            I assume because they were women – there does not seem to be any other reasons.

  2. Mark B
    March 30, 2016

    Good morning.

    An excellent article.

    I think it also important that other countries in the MENA, and not just Jordan, share a far greater responsibility for people fleeing war and persecution, as well as those seeking a better life who do not qualify for automatic right of entry.

    Trade and the ability to use your own money to good effect and not have the State take so much from you is the key to prosperity, growth and a more balanced society. Socialism has long been practiced in one form or another in the MENA and has failed as it always fails.

    Europe’s economic success is envied by many and naturally they, quite wrongly in my view, wish to have a share in it. The problem is, there is only so much pie to go around and, if all wanted a piece there would be very little to go around and all would suffer. Better to encourage them to make their own pie in their own lands.

    We need to look and address both the push and the pull factors in all this. And one factor is trade barrier like the EU Customs Union which places tariffs on good and services outside the EU.

    Why cannot Mercedes Benz, Seimens, and others export their business abroad and build factories in MENA countries ? They would find cheap labour there and by paying people a decent wage they would create wealth as those people with money would spend it locally. I believe I may have mentioned this before here.

    Address the problems as source and stop patronizing these people.

    1. hefner
      March 30, 2016

      Is there really anything preventing car makers from setting up factories out of the EU. See Renault factory in Morocco (FT, 23 March 2016).

      1. graham1946
        March 30, 2016

        I would doubt any sensible industrialist would want to invest in these unstable lands. Bad enough that our government keeps chopping and changing every year or more often with their latest whim. The thing business of any kind needs is stability and decent staff. Those constantly at war with each other over superstitions don’t in my book qualify.

    2. Bazman
      March 30, 2016

      Could always open chipy. Sell loads of chips, gravey, and black pudding.

    3. Hope
      March 30, 2016

      Absolutely. Teach them to fish to feed themselves not hand them a fish to eat. Overseas aid limited and specifically directed to humanitarian purposes. Stop wasting our taxes on PR stunts which does not help people in need. Get rid of DFiD.

  3. Anonymous
    March 30, 2016

    I want to know how many refugee children are going to be taken in by the Redwood or Cameron families.

    How many refugees are we talking about ? The fact is that the problem is accelarating and could be limitless. That the government is already hiding the truth on migration and official figures tell us that 1.6 million people have come to Britain in the past ten years (yet over 600,000 NI numbers were issued only last year. )

    It is reported today that Britons under 40 are giving up hope of having children and putting finding a home as a priority.

    Our own people are in crisis.

    Your generation are asking theirs to put up with things yours would never do. And they will be the ones facing the consequences long after you have gone.

    I believe that the truth of it is more like this:

    Britain is close to economic and social collapse. It is happening under the party that put Britain up for sale. Far better to make it look like it was the fault of global events and far better to make it look like the people did it to themselves through their own sacrifice.

    When are you all going to be honest, John ?

    When are you going to tell us of the great, deliberate, levelling that we are undergoing at this moment ? To assuage the guilt of our elites but at our expense !

    Reply I am saying we need to control numbers and have a fair system. I am pointing out that most children have relatives who can look after them, and so they should be located to reduce the pressures of children separated from their families.

    1. bigneil
      March 30, 2016

      When immigrants know they can send their children here, who will NOT be deported, then suddenly and “miraculously”, get back in contact with their child, with the knowledge that for getting one child here, the whole extended family of 20/30 or more suddenly have the “Human Right” to also arrive here with no problems – -then we have what is basically “people-trafficking” by their own families. Once here, and for no financial input whatsoever, their standard of living effectively goes up through the roof.
      Do they want to work? – why should they? – they can sit back and do nothing as Cameron hands our taxes over in the form of benefits, housing, schooling and healthcare. Upon arriving here they instantly become “entitled” to all what we have to pay taxes for. Is there any wonder they all head for here?
      They know they can breed here as a form of income, more kids, more benefits. Our s0-called leaders are importing this tsunami of people deliberately. Everyone knows it is unsustainable.

      When foreign children’s parents are “miraculously” found in another country – -send the child back to the parents – – NOT the other way round. A lot of it is a massive con – but the govt is too scared to say it.

      English couples have to both work, and therefore can’t afford kids of their own, as they are paying taxes so foreign arrivals can sit down in a taxpayer funded house, send their ( ever increasing number ) kids to a taxpayer funded school, collect their taxpayer funded benefits and go to their taxpayer funded NHS. With ever increasing numbers, when is “critical point” going to arrive. Etc ed

    2. Anonymous
      March 30, 2016

      Reply to reply: The Government’s website is clear. It invites members of the public, unrelated to the children, to help and give up rooms.

      Why aren’t we seeing politicians giving up their spare rooms, in their main residences ?

      Those with more than one home can afford to be even more generous. And for them to be able to lecture ordinary folk they must be prepared to sacrifice to the level that it makes them suffer the same as ordinary folk.

      Offering a room isn’t enough. For refugees to be invited here the doners must be prepared to foot their costs too – their healthcare, their schooling – for life.

      I’m sorry to sound harsh, but I have children and I am seriously worried for their futures. The suffering of children in far away places was ever thus. We have seen it for decades on our TVs in Africa. Why not themL etc ed
      Once news gets out then where does it stop ? And then the parents emerge and have a right to come here because it’s only fair. This is a recipe for a new ruse to get into Britain.

      Until we reach the point that our country ends up as bad as the places from which they’ve fled ? So that our own children suffer too ?

      The millennial generation are already suffering a dramatic reversal in living standards. They will never enjoy the levels of home ownership and pensions that yours did. They are paying rents often at 50% of their income and this can only get worse.

      Both this and the green tax agenda are ways of the ruling elite to disguise the fact that they’ve destroyed our society and our economy by making it look like it was caused by globalism and through worldwide humanitarian crises.

      “We must be compassionate and take limitless refugees. It will destroy your standard of living but is the virtuous thing to do.”

      Thus it makes it sound like it was our own idea when it goes belly up and gets the government off the hook.

      Well my compassion has long been exhausted by the abuses of our asylum system and the deliberate uncontrolled immigration brought by the last three governments, and which are at record levels under this one.

      If politicians want us to take refugees in then it would be a great start to see politicians taking them in – and to a level which is truly sacrificial to their lives.

      1. Anonymous
        March 30, 2016

        I understand that you said in your reply ‘limited’ numbers of refugees but that won’t happen.

        We have unlimited immigration so it follows that this will become unlimited too.

        If not then tell us what the limit is.

        Any limit is heartless – so it will never stop.

        It is your breach of trust that has made me and countless others think this way.

        1. APL
          April 2, 2016

          Anonymous: “Any limit is heartless – so it will never stop.”

          Immigration without limits is treason.

  4. The Active Citizen
    March 30, 2016

    There’s an uncomfortable truth which needs to be spoken about if we’re going to discuss migrant children. I don’t know how much of this you’ll want to edit out – none of it I hope. It’s wholly compliant with UK legislation, it isn’t racist, and nor does it incite or name anyone. I’m only making rational, dispassionate, and generic points to inform the debate.

    I’ve led a fairly international life, lived in other countries and continents, experienced other cultures, etc. The simple fact is that the peoples of the World don’t always have the same values or ethics, whether that be in family matters, business, religion, or their approach on life generally.

    When it comes to children, I’ve heard well-meaning Brits say “they must be desperate to put their children on a boat like that”, or “think how desperate they must be to throw their child over that razor-wire fence”, or some such. No-one ever says “why would they do that to a child, when they’re already in a safe country?”

    Many people assume the same when they hear that a child has been sent unaccompanied by its natural parents on a long voyage to Germany or wherever. We hear the same assumption of ‘desperation’.

    Values across the world differ. We’re not all the same, no matter what the UN and the trendy-lefty celebrities would want us to believe. I don’t condemn those with different values, (unless they contravene international law), and on an individual level I have good friends from other cultures. However it would be wrong for us to pretend that differences don’t exist.

    Sadly, this also applies to how children are thought of.

    The average fertility rate in the UK is currently 1.9 – below the level needed to self-populate the country which is 2.1. Recent immigration in the last 50 years has helped this because the fertility rate amongst many of our immigrant communities is far higher. In other countries the rate can be as high as 7.6. For example Somalia has a fertility rate of 6.6. [Source: World Bank data 2015]

    So parents having an average of 6 children per family, say, might have a different perspective to most of us.

    Can children be used as pawns in this terrible migrant crisis? Regrettably I fear the answer is yes. And we should be able to speak about this.

    Please let’s not forget that even by the EU’s own figures for last year, 73% of EU asylum-seekers were male. [Sources: EU Frontex report 22 Feb 2016. Eurostat Asylum Statistics 2015, published 02-04 March 2016.]

    It’s a sad indictment of our trend of ‘political correctness culture’ that I won’t say more, as I don’t want JR to have to think about editing this post because he has enough to do.

    1. Bazman
      March 30, 2016

      The men are often first to set up things like accomadation and find work. Single men do what all single men do. Large famlies are common in countries without any state welfare. Would it be any different for any country? What is your point? Turkey is not a safe country and others mean limbo for decades.

      1. alan jutson
        March 30, 2016


        Whilst I take some of your point about Turkey, clearly the Politicians (The great thinking ones of our time) must think they are wonderful, otherwise why for goodness sake would they want them in the EU.

        1. eeyore
          March 30, 2016

          Alan Jutson – I don’t know the answer to your question but here’s a guess: as a result of Western weakness and Russian resolve, Russia now has a good naval base in Syria with access through the Dardanelles. International treaty governs those straits but only Turkey finally decides who and what passes through.

          For Europe and Nato, keeping Turkey onside is a necessity. The way the cards have fallen that country now has a strong hand. With a paper tiger in the White House, it also has the will to play it.

          Like so much that governments do for raisons d’état, such a motive is adequate in itself but unacknowledgeable in practice. A smokescreen must therefore be thrown up. The refugee crisis will do.

          As I say, just a guess.

      2. ian wragg
        March 30, 2016

        I find it difficult to accept that a man would leave his wife and children in a war zone, skip through half a dozen safe countries to chance his arm at coming to England and then claim asylum.
        It could be years before his family join him so if it’s unsafe how do they cope.
        NO. These people are economic migrants who want to join the welfare gravy train.
        etc ed
        There’s no wonder we are going bust. Our local council is cutting services wholesale whilst we send £16 billion in foreign aid etc.

        1. Lifelogic
          March 30, 2016

          Local councils seems to think their first duty is to keep paying the high wages and pensions of their employees. Services to the public are so often very likely to be little more that issuing them with parking tickets, box junction and bus lane fines – this so as to comply with their first duty.

          Providing so much as a public loo, public library or water fountain is now just a distant memory.

        2. Anonymous
          March 30, 2016

          Ian – Bazman is just a lefty sucker. He’ll believe anything so long as it’s anti blazer/blue-rinse.

        3. Jerry
          March 30, 2016

          Ian Wragg; Oh do stop bleating all the time!

          “I find it difficult to accept that a man would leave his wife and children in a war zone”

          Except that men (and teenage boys) are far more likely to be in danger in the average civil war zone, you only need to remember the atrocities carried out in the Balkans during the 1990s. Only in recent times since the spread of “IS”, and then only in those countries and regions likely to come under the control of “IS”, are men, women and their children at equal risk.

          “These people are economic migrants who want to join the welfare gravy train.”

          No, most want and get jobs, as soon as they are allowed to that is… The fact that these ‘asylum seekers’ are stuck on welfare is not of their choice, it is the law, asylum seekers are not usually allowed to find (paid) work but if they were then they would not sit around watching daytime TV [1] like so many unemployable Brits do – funny how those who have come a thousand miles or more to the UK find work, once allowed to, that unemployed Brits can’t find even though much work is within 10 miles of their homes but even when at the other end of the country it’s only 400 miles or so and with no language barriers to gaining a job either.

          [1] even if they do watch daytime TV, at least they often have a valid excuse, using TV to learn or improve their English language skills

      3. Bob
        March 30, 2016


        “Turkey is not a safe country”

        Then why are British holidaymakers paying thousands of pounds to go there for a fortnights holiday?

        1. Bazman
          March 31, 2016

          Safe enough for tourist, but I doubt Syrians go for their hols there, so to stop millions from leaving Turkey we are going to let Turkey join the EU and let millions of Turks in instead.
          we just cannot afford anymore of these blue communists and their handouts to private companies and the rich Anonymous. You are right about socalist nonsense.

  5. Antisthenes
    March 30, 2016

    Tata to sell it’s UK steel plants. I see the the major cause for this the UK being in the EU. It has meant greater costs for Tata to produce steel because of EU’s policies on energy and such and the heavy hand of EU regulation. Coupled with the UK being hampered by the EU from giving unfettered assistance to Tata to help it reduce costs enough to be able to compete with China.

    1. Colin Hart
      March 30, 2016

      Plus the fact that we cannot impose anti-dumping duties against Chinese steel. Only the EU can and has – but pathetically, as compared with Obama, that ignoramus who tells us we should remain in.

      1. Timaction
        March 30, 2016

        I also read that the Tory Government supported the reduction of EU tariffs to only 24% as part of a larger deal to sweeten the Chinese. The Americans charge over 250% on dumped steel as a sovereign independent Nation that supports its own businesses and it’s people. I also read that French and German heavy industry producers also have energy reduction deals with their own Governments that do not comply with EU competition rules but it is overlooked by the EU.
        The legacy parties have supported the export of Britain’s heavy industry on the alter of it’s climate change obsession for decades. (Aluminium, Cement, steel etc) Out energy prices have increased by over 55% in a decade to support the climate change religion.
        Am I alone in thinking our Government doesn’t look after Britain’s and British interests?
        Why don’t the remainers move to Germany/France or wherever, in fact anywhere, and leave the Britain to the English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish?

      2. Bazman
        March 30, 2016

        The UK was a ‘ringleader’ in stopping EU trade tariffs. Get it right.

      3. Narrow Shoulders
        March 30, 2016

        I am afraid it was the UK that blocked this through refusing to remove the lesser duty rule for fear that those industries taking advantage of cheap Chinese steel would be disadvantaged.

        By all means blame the EU where it is relevant but don’t offer up open goals for the oppo.

        Mr Redwood how were we as a single nation which is usually overruled able to block the lesser duty rule being removed?

    2. bigneil
      March 30, 2016

      Many thousand will lose their jobs. No doubt many will lose their homes after losing their incomes. They will receive no help despite years of paying taxes. But Cameron will ensure plenty of foreigners will have new houses to move into as soon as they arrive. He clearly has priorities – and we are not on the list.

      1. Antisthenes
        March 30, 2016

        Those who suffer the least by putting into practice their policies forget or do not care the hardship it brings for the rest of us. Being righteous and high minded usually means that a lot of people are going to suffer but by their measure that is a worth the price as it is the moral and socially just thing to do. To their mind that is. They wont put their money where their mouth is though they just use ours instead.

      2. Timaction
        March 30, 2016

        I’m afraid there will be a factor of 4x job losses as a consequence of support to that industry.
        What a pathetic bunch we have in charge. Perhaps Ms Soubry can go to her leaders in Brussels and get a deal or renegotiation on EU rules that CMD couldn’t! Perhaps she could even take her train that she was on about yesterday.
        I’m glad I didn’t vote for any of these quisling losers!

        1. graham1946
          March 30, 2016

          It is said Tata is losing 1 million a day on steel and that this is a cyclical thing and prices will recover, just like oil. We could keep the plants going until better times for the cost of 1 week’s contributions to the EU. Why don’t we do it? Why doesn’t CMD have the cojones to just do it? To close the plants will cost billions as well as the loss of the assets and skills. It’s not like coal – this industry will be needed again. We’ve already lost one steel plant and town through their gutlessness. Where is there a patriot in politics who will put country ahead of dogma? Certainly not in Downing Street it seems.
          Heard Mark Littlewood in the wireless today spouting his ‘free markets’ rubbish. There is no free market – its all rigged and mainly against us with the connivance of our useless leaders.

        2. stred
          March 30, 2016

          Today’s Euan Mearns blog features a comparison of renewable energy costs by Ed Hoskins. It is well researched and has staggering figures on the cost of offshore wind in comparison with gas and coal. The graphs also show that we have already installed far more offshore and there is a lot more in production, way out at sea. The life of the intallation is estimated at 15 years before replacement- far less than other generators with far higher production/capacity.

          We also have as much solar capacity as Spain, minus the sun and around the same as France but at twice the cost. Germany has more renewables and least effectiveness. Germany, UK and France have done almost all the work to reduce CO2 since the 70s and we plan to do more. No wonder steel is up the creek.

          In a following article smart meters are mentioned. Germany decided they were not worth it. We chose the most expensive type, will spend over £9bn and it is really to control use not save money as the cost will be added to bills.

          1. stred
            March 31, 2016

            There is some argument over solar costs in the blog. However, the figure of 40 or 50 times the cost of gas for offshore wind takes into account renewal after a 20 year life and an output around 25%. None of the experts is arguing with this.

            The final graph show how UK emissions fell from the mid 70s to below Chinas now in Tons/person. If the we were to build a new CCGT station for every coal, as it closed the same would continue. We would then have time to develop sensible and economic nuclear. As it is the fools at DECC are committing us to extremely expensive and unreliable electricity.

            The article below by Euan Mearns about a possible blackout in Scotland and its effect should be read by every SNP MP.

      3. A different Simon
        March 30, 2016

        Bigneil ,

        Succinctly and elegantly put .

        To put it into Newspeak , the Briton’s are being discriminated against for having contributed to the system and saved or purchased a house .

        They are literally being denied assistance until they are broke .

        Dave has his priorities alright .

    3. stred
      March 30, 2016

      The EU Commission figures put on here on 27.3 were interesting. They show the UK as the second highest CO2 emitter- c800 after Germany- 1200-then France, Italy and Poland-c500 kT. As DECC have been told that their dash for wood is not actually reducing any and will probably be adding to it for 70 years, It would be surprising if they do not welcome the closing one of our intensive energy industries.

      Also, Baz made a coherent post (for a change) in which HMG was accused of actually blocking attempts to put tariffs on Chinese steel at US levels. This was not refuted. Surely, the charlatans are not actually conspiring to close the steel industry?

      I see a majority of those polled think Eural should go if he loses the referendum. If, despite the Irish, Cypriots and Gibraltarians and Maltesers being able to vote, Leave wins it will be necessary to get rid of the other disgraced members of the Stay team too. If Owen Patterson could be put back into DECC and sack most of them, then we may be able to save some important industries.

    4. Know-dice
      March 30, 2016

      On BBC Radio 2 this afternoon, one of their listeners phoned in to suggest that the UK Government do as the Belgium Government do with one? of their steel companies.
      Apparently the company operates for 3 weeks in every month and on the forth week the government picks up the wage bill – not sure of every detail, but seems to get around EU rules 🙂

    5. Denis Cooper
      March 30, 2016

      It seems that it’s nothing whatsoever to do with the EU.

      I’m pretty sure of that because Anna Soubry says so.

      1. Know-dice
        March 30, 2016

        DC – Seems like you are in to “irony” for your last few posts 🙂

      2. acorn
        March 30, 2016

        Actually Denis you are correct! The UK energy problem has nothing to do with the EU, it is all home grown. DECC, since 2010 has created a “market” solution for UK electricity capacity, that has been a total rip-off / failure, for UK electricity consumers.

        It will get worse. DECC is now desperately trying to contract MWs for the next two winters. The big coal plant owners, are declaring closure of their generating units and waiting for National Grid to offer them bundles of cash, to keep them available to generate. Nothing to do with the EU LCPD directive, which has a lot of get out clauses for “tight” systems anyway. Everything to do with privatisation of the UK electricity supply industry.

        Unchecked link deleted

    6. ian wragg
      March 30, 2016

      We are ruled by quislings and it is about time the stables were cleared.
      No other country in or out of the EU would behave as our government does.

    March 30, 2016

    Unfortunately the British government has a disgraceful 100 year history and more on caring for children. I speak of hundreds and maybe thousands of British children during and after World War Two. Some were without any family, some definitely had family, but were nevertheless bunched together, sent to Canada, America and subsequently sent to Australia, South Africa and Rhodesia ( Zimbabwe ). Perhaps other countries too. Some records have vanished.Many. Canadian First Nations are still looking.

    I personally discovered one place myself in Zimbabwe where they were sent at a time when that country was called Rhodesia and part of the British Empire. For the most part these individual children were lost to their relatives for ever, even given new names. Some abused, much, if not forced emigration was not abuse enough.

    It has been the official policy and procedure in the UK for so many years that it likely is in terms of centuries rather than decades,- to thoroughly investigate the particular home setting of each child apparently without parents so correct judgement can be made. British authorities have not and most certainly are not doing their duty in this regard.

    Despite primarily women journalists from the BBC, and other western networks regularly setting foot in Damascus, and freely allowed to do so by the Syrian authorities, going virtually anywhere they wish where they would not get their heads shot off immediately, or chopped off, British authorities have made no published effort whatsoever to determine and gather information which actually is available. in Syria.

    The greater part of Syria in reality has never seen war or military activity at all. There are, according to the BBC, who photographed them, well over a million “refugees”, actually living in Damascus, fed, clothed and housed by the Syrian government.

    The British government and certainly so-called “Charities” have little expertise, knowledge, nor even a half decent track record in dealing with anyone’s child. My word, even the children in Rotherham could not be cared for in the slightest degree. The opposite!

    One must investigate each child to determine too what manner of person would send a child, not in immediate danger, ( which are the vast majority ), to a land of unknown name, unknown culture, unknown language, unknown religion. To take whatever legal means may be required to prosecute such a person under national and international law for gross child abuse. Has there been even one case? Even one case?
    My, my, are not poor Syrian people unique in this world in having 100% perfect adults looking after them.

    1. Bazman
      March 30, 2016

      Syria was in the main secular with the average person living a western style life. Imagine the nightmare of Russian civil war.
      Moscow is not named so because of the number of Mosques. They are western in outlook and part of Europe. What would you use to blame then?

  7. Narrow Shoulders
    March 30, 2016

    Mr Redwood,

    Could you address the Gus O’donnell claim that hard negotiation could not conclude an exit deal in two years?

    Is the response simply that it is not in the EU’S interests to revert to WTO rules as they export more to us than we to them? Or is there a more nuanced case involving our prior unwillingness to be wholly self interested in the outcomes of negotiation. Ie the recent reformed EU debacle.

    1. oldtimer
      March 30, 2016

      Apparently GoD finds the prospect of negotiating under Article 50 to be “scary”. The EU’s difficulties arise from the fact it must seek to get all the others on board. No doubt that is why it is so slow to conclude trade deals with anyone. The default position on tariffs is, I believe, the WTO rates. These are most significant for cars at 10%. This will exercise the minds of German negotiators because the prospect of a devalued £ plus a 10% tariff would put huge pressure on German car exports to the UK. No doubt, GoD’s counterparts in Germany would also find the prospect of Brexit ” scary”. Indeed finance minister Schauble is on record as saying that Brexit would be a “catastrophe” for Germany. There are two sides to any negotiation. In this case the interests of neither side would be served by procrastination and delay. Nor does the UK hold the weaker hand.

    2. getahead
      March 30, 2016

      Let trade negotiations take as long as they like Shoulders.
      Getting free of the Coudenhove Kalergis is what is most important.

    3. Denis Cooper
      March 30, 2016

      Tosh, in my view.

      Even I could draft an outline interim agreement on trade this afternoon.

      We don’t have to settle every little detail before leaving the EU, a lot of things could stay the same for the present and be changed gradually over following years.

      1. ChrisS
        March 30, 2016

        And that’s only if they need changing. Most trade rules can remain exactly as they are a present.

        The exception being, of course, the common fishing policy which I’m sure our new PM will unilaterally cancel the day after we win the referendum.

        1. Know-dice
          March 30, 2016

          And don’t forget, we get to keep all those billions to spend here (or save) 🙂

      2. alan jutson
        March 30, 2016



        Problem is we need a commercially minded group to lead the negotiations.

        Cameron and Osbourne should be totally excluded, as should any other Eurosceptic politician who from past experience would freely give away any advantage we may hold.

      3. The Active Citizen
        March 31, 2016

        Goodness Denis, whatever you’ve started taking can I have some please? 🙂

        I completely agree with you of course, but I’m pleasantly surprised to see you being so direct. Normally I worry that I have to pass the ‘Denis Cooper test’ when quoting facts and figures. (That’s actually been a good discipline!) And of course there are many other readers who like the rigour of your analyses and comments on JR’s articles, and who also provide their own interesting information here.

        Anyway, three weeks ago I offered my thoughts on negotiations here:

        1. Denis Cooper
          March 31, 2016

          I’ve been taking “impatience” in higher doses than usual.

          The essential point is, as you say:

          “We’re not starting from scratch.”


          ” The UK already has deals in place with the EU and with other countries. Some of these just need amendment to take into account our new circumstances.”

  8. Antisthenes
    March 30, 2016

    There is no incentive for migrants to seek asylum before they cross deserts and seas. The chances of them receiving it from afar is very uncertain. So they will take the perilous journey in the knowledge that once here sending them back again is difficult. They know they can use our legal system to their advantage and if that fails they can just disappear into the crowd.

    If you wish a system to work then you have to create an environment that motivates migrants to use it. In this case the only way to do that is anyone who arrives without prior permission is sent immediately back again. Although a practical thing to do it would be extremely costly initially and of course the usual suspects would go wild if it was tried.

    As for Middle Eastern countries assisting migrants they are not going to they do not want the migrants any more than we do and the migrants themselves prefer to come to Europe anyway.

  9. Margaret
    March 30, 2016

    I believe that there would be a home somewhere in EUROPE for all those children as in previous war years , It is just a case of organisation and breaking down red tape where appropriate. The children are not cared for by most at all. On C4 last night a young women told of deliberate killing of children and raping of young girls . This is what the immigrants are running from; like wild animals and this will be their experience of life, They will not have a GB experience of loving family ways.
    We can also see very young children living and sleeping on pavements in other countries. The truth is they don’t care. They will grow up with the perception that it is right to kill rape, steal ,fight etc if we don’t make it easy for these children to be placed in gentle hands.

    1. bigneil
      March 30, 2016

      They don’t want our ways or our culture. They want our money, and everything that it pays for. Look at what “gratitude” the immigrant million have shown to the German people for their safety. Thieving, shoplifting, sexual assaults on women and kids. Demands on what THEY will accept from their tax paying hosts.
      The German women are told to cover up so as not to offend those who have arrived. Trains now have women only carriages. Swimming pools have now had to have separate sessions. All because of (some migrant bad behaviour). It will only get worse as the numbers increase.

  10. Mike Stallard
    March 30, 2016

    Before we get all righteous and wonderful and smug, allow me to point out that less than half the children born in the UK are born to married (i.e. permanent?) parents. The number of abortions is running at just under the fifth of a million mark (2011 stat= 189,931). The population is plummeting for white people too.
    Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne have played a blinder on this problem of immigration (which is caused by the demographic decline of the white race as a whole) and ought to be congratulated.

  11. agricola
    March 30, 2016

    Yes and don’t the big charities exploit it. Little Freddie walking ten miles to get dirty water. Sympathy for Freddie yes, but utter contempt for the countries in Africa, run by tin pot despots, in denial of their people. A well is cheaper than a pair of Kalashnikovs.

    While understanding why economic migrants wish to better themselves, it’s a human driver, and that people traffickers are an evil akin to slavery, when are we going to see them captured and put on trial in Den Haag.

    Incidentally Health and safety is an EU/UK religion, like the curates egg, good in parts. It is a totally unknown concept in Africa and the Asian Sub Continent.

    The real answer is to make Africa a better place to live. The end of the CAP and the encouragement of agricultural exports and trade on a large scale from Africa could kick start economies. However I do not see the EU having such wisdom. Perhaps it is something we could encourage on leaving the yoke of the EU. In the meantime we have to keep wringing our hands and guiltily subscribing to the well being of charity directors.

    1. getahead
      March 30, 2016

      “The real answer is to make Africa a better place to live”.

      It was a good place to live for a while. Then the Mugabis took it back.

    2. graham1946
      March 30, 2016

      I agree, Agricola. We’ve been pouring aid into Africa for decades and still things don’t change except where the Chinese have been. They build roads, railroads and other infrastructure with their own labour and materials rather than just giving money to depots to tart up palaces. I’ve lived in West Africa and have seen first hand the poverty, whilst the gilded run around on LandCruisers, dripping with gold and expensive clothes. . It will be ever thus if we go on as we do. We do more harm than good. Opening up our markets would be a start – the proper way is by trade, not aid.

  12. Anonymous
    March 30, 2016

    Of topic, please.

    The answer to the threat of steel closures is not management buyouts but tariffs – which we cannot set because of being members of the EU.

    The Chinese are flooding the market with government subsidised steel. Therefore government intervention is justified in the UK but we can’t do it. Finding a buyer (using the market) can’t work in this instance.

    1. Chris S
      March 30, 2016

      While I sympathise with your view it is impractical. We alone could not apply tariffs on imported steel because all that it would do is make our cars and other products more expensive in other world markets, including Europe. I feel for TATA because if they paid the high prices their UK steel currently costs, their Jaguars and Land Rovers would become too expensive in export markets where they are up against vehicles produced using far cheaper Chinese Steel. They are, presumably, therefore selling their own UK produced steel to JLR at a loss.

      Europhiles please note that the answer in this case is not “More Europe”

      We need action at World Trade level to stop China dumping steel because it is harming the steel industry in every continent. Only much more insulated markets like the USA can impose tariffs on their own because most of their production of goods made from steel is for domestic consumption.

    2. Narrow Shoulders
      March 30, 2016

      See above post. UK refused to remove the lesser duty rule that allows USA to impose 236% tariffs on dumped goods.

      This is Javid’s work at BIS not the EU on this occasion.

  13. Ian Wragg
    March 30, 2016

    Many of these children are Trojan Horses. Once ensconced in Europe there will be their families demanding and getting over here with the help of the hand whingers

    It seems to me that the political class wish to displace us with all and sundry.
    It should be made clear that unaccompanied minors will not be able to reunite with their families and will not be granted citizenship of the host country. We cannot continue to accept 600,000 aliens every year.
    The infrastructure is groaning.

  14. agricola
    March 30, 2016

    Here is an off piste idea for you to chew over. In Engineering we have people with degrees and thanks to the foresight of your government an ever increasing number of apprentices who can go on to get degrees should they choose. They end up with hands on experience and theory.

    In the NHS we have nurses, 660,000 of them I believe, of whom 87,000 come from overseas. By all accounts this is not enough. Why not institute apprenticeships in nursing. Nursing entrants start with 2-3 A levels at level 3 plus three GCSEs in preferably English, Maths, and a Science. Let apprentices start with three GCSEs as above. They could enjoy practical training from the ground floor and academic training for one day per week or night school. They could go on to get a degree and their SRN should they choose. There is a constant complaint that degree trained nurses are so busy that they have little time to really communicate with patients. This could be an answer, discuss.

    1. Know-dice
      March 30, 2016

      You mean go back to the old SRN/SEN “hands on” training of old 🙂

      Sounds like a good idea to me…

      1. alan jutson
        March 30, 2016


        ” Back to the training of old…”


        Funnily enough was at a Joint Services Dinner (Lions, Rotary, and other voluntary organisations) last night.

        Guest speaker was CEO of Royal Berks Hospital (a fully qualified Nurse herself)

        She also thought there was some merit in training some Nurses the old way (as well as using the present system) indeed she also commented that many of the old nursing traditional working tasks/methods were gradually being bought back within the NHS in General, because they actually work and help patients recover.

    2. Qubus
      March 30, 2016

      One could be a superb nurse without ANY “A”-levels.

      1. Lifelogic
        March 30, 2016

        Indeed there is little need for a degree, they just need to know how to do the job in whatever area the are working in.

        In most cases a sensible, motivated & bright person could probably be taught all they need to know in under a month, other than in a few very specialist areas perhaps.

        1. graham1946
          March 30, 2016

          I really wish you wouldn’t denigrate the NHS, like you do, LL, with obviously absolutely no knowledge of the subject.

          A nurse, even the old ones cannot be trained in a month – it’s not like learning how to screw two bits of metal together in a factory. If you ever need to go into hospital I hope you will be treated by someone who understands all the equipment and drugs, not just by some ‘bedpan Lil’ as you seem to think the job is. Having said that, I do believe the insistence on degree level education has been a disaster and we need some of the old school and some of the new – rather fewer of the new. I wonder how many overseas nurses we take in have studied at degree level. I’d like to hear Margaret on this – someone with knowledge, not just ill informed opinion.

        2. JoeSoap
          March 30, 2016

          You will be accused of denying them the opportunity to fulfill their potential by going to Uni, or some such hogwash.
          Reality check is needed by do gooders from Cameron down

    3. agricola
      March 30, 2016

      Here is another wild idea. How about encouraging Suitable SRNs to become full blown doctors. The best friend of my niece was an SRN running an intensive care unit, got a bit tired of newly qualified doctors giving her less than good direction and decided to become one. By all accounts she found it a natural process particularly as her medical experience far exceeded that of the trainee doctors around her. She is now a GP. Such a natural career progression should be encouraged for those who wish it.

    4. Margaret
      March 30, 2016

      However when I trained as an SRN it was daily academic input . We had to pass exams all the way through and were constantly examined on the theoretical aspects of each practical thing. For example as a student we had to remember on a ward each patient , the diagnosis , the treatment , what the disease entailed and how we were going to treat it and take the assistant matrons round at each change over. If we did not know enough we were retested the next day . Then we had to go into school for lectures for a large period each year and pass exams to continue. On the ward there were teach ins and studying cases and problems at least twice a week. It was full on daily theory which was not separated from the practicalities at all. Apart from the hand overs where we had to demonstrate our knowledge clinical tutors questioned us as we were working.
      The state exams were based on diseases , drugs and ways of diagnosing problems.

      I went out with a student tonight .A bright young thing who deserves a good future . They need to know more about medicine , which they will be not taught at university. The students are always greatful for chat during the district nurse rounds and teaching by the qualified nurses and many say that they wish the old style of training was available.

  15. Ian Wragg
    March 30, 2016

    O/Thursday Last night on East Midlands Today BBC the presenter on a discussion of the EU stated that we pay £350 million to the EU annually not weekly.
    I rang and asked for a correction. The editor gave me a mealy mouthed excuse about editorial procedure and it would be noted.
    These are not casual mistakes but a steady stream of misinformation .
    It really is time this organisation was neutered.

  16. Bazman
    March 30, 2016

    Ohhh! You! (words left out ed) Stop throwing babies onto moving trains!
    lts like asking drug dealers to sell safe drugs or dodgey companies and landlords to do the right thing. Do nothing nonsense in short

    1. Know-dice
      March 30, 2016

      And Bazman, your considered solution to this problem?

      1. Lifelogic
        March 30, 2016

        A thought through & considered solution from Bazman is rather unlikely I suspect.

        1. Bazman
          March 30, 2016

          What is the point of doing anything they will still come much cheaper and more sensible to deal with the results via less regulation, less bloated state sector regulation such as passports and checks and more incentives such as tax cuts and removal of red tape like immigration control. Once the country is so full of immigrants the natural balance of the free market will prevail.
          Obviously housing benefits and subsidy for the private rental market will be needed, but this is sensible and could be paid for by less wasteful infrastructure, wasteful taxation and spend nonsense along with green crap.

          1. Anonymous
            March 30, 2016

            We’re having it your way, Bazman. We’ll see how it turns out. My guess is that you’ll become the most vociferours religious convert out there when our society finally tips.

            Either way. Religious or political conservatism is coming back and Englishness is going out. And if you have any complaints afterwards then argue it out with your mirror.

    March 30, 2016

    “We need to remember that most unaccompanied children who undertake such a journey have usually been advised to do it by an adult in the first place, and have been paid for BY AN ADULT WHO DID SO WANTING TO ACT IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD.”

    If you have evidence of this JR then you should present this to the Social Services who thus far have none whatsoever.

  18. The prangwizard
    March 30, 2016

    Bleeding heart alert!

  19. Graham
    March 30, 2016

    I think it is better all round if Middle East peoples stay closer to their roots.

    Obviously in what you describe the UK taxpayer has at least two financial hits as we pay at both ends of the human chain. Sorry but apart from the cost our own culture, and way of living, is being eroded by the ill thought through immigration programme.

  20. ChrisS
    March 30, 2016

    Are we really more secure by being within the EU ? Part 2

    Following on from my post of yesterday about our security :

    I reported that following recent events in Brussels and Paris, I was very surprised on Bank Holiday Monday to find that there was no police, army or border force presence at the borders between Germany and Luxembourg and Luxembourg and Belgium. Not even a single official car in sight.

    Yesterday we travelled on from Namur to Dunkirque and then on to Dover. On the main E42 Autoroute, which carries a large proportion of the traffic across the border between Brussels and France, again there was no security presence at all. That seemed ridiculous.

    When we arrived at Dunkirque we saw no sign of any illegal migrants but there was a new double security fence going up. After ticket checks at which we were asked to produce our passports for ID purposes. Then there was French passport control who glanced at our documents followed separately by two members of French Customs who actually looked in our car for once.

    After that we approached the UK controls : first came UK border force personnel who scanned our passports and waited for the information top appear so that they could check it on screen. ( Something they have not always waited for in the past).
    Then every vehicle, including trucks, went through a new building which I assume has the detectors built in for checking for human presence inside trucks.

    However, while waiting for only a few minutes to go through that building, cars had to have their interior and boots inspected by private security people that must be employed by either DFDS Ferries or the UK government. This was not particularly thorough however it was at least more pragmatic than airport security because a British couple in their early 60s are unlikely to be converts to any kind of extreme Islamic tendency.

    So from our experience are we actually safer because we are in the EU as Project Fear maintains ? The answer has to be No.

    Overall, good marks for British and French security at the port of Dunkirque but the total lack of any kind of surveillance of traffic between Belgium and its neighbours proves just how necessary it is for us to rely on our own security arrangements at the channel ports.

    As a large proportion of the ships on the channel routes are French and the Chunnel is a joint operation, it remains very much in France’s interest to maintain that security. I see no reason why that should be adversely effected by Brexit.

  21. DaveM
    March 30, 2016

    I’ll be honest, and I don’t really care if you publish this or not, I couldn’t give a monkey’s.

    I’d like to consider what the reaction would be in this country if there was a bit of trouble somewhere and all the fighting age males ran away leaving their families in their wake. I also wonder how many Englishmen would be sat on a dockside crying for their families that drowned because they didn’t bother to try and save them.

    Why’s it our problem? We keep getting told how rich China is – why aren’t they helping? Oh that’s right, they’re too busy overproducing (products ed)and dumping it on the world markets.

    When is the govt going to wake up?

  22. Bert Young
    March 30, 2016

    Those who decide to help children migrate do so knowing that there is a soft-bellied social care system in operation on the reception end . This system has a shocking record of tracking and supervision of those in their care – witness many cases of child abuse that has taken many years to be exposed . These facts ought to influence the decision of helping children in the first place ; I question whether they really bother .

    Sadly I fear that the best approach is to stop the “welcoming” altogether . This condition might drive a different decision in the first place and create another solution where the problem began . Russia has come under much negative scrutiny following its intervention in Syria ; the fact is it has given some hope that children and migrants may now soon be able to return there and re-commence a family life .

  23. Ken Moore
    March 30, 2016

    Noted John Redwood is having a left wing day to presumably prove to swing voters in his Wokingham constituency he isn’t ‘nasty’ or a ‘heartless’ tory. It’s all a bit patronising really…there isn’t anything nasty about putting your own people first. Only the chattering classes and the Conservative front bench believe this.

    I have drawn up a list here for John Redwood to add the names of the those,less wealthy than himself , on council house waiting list, waiting for an NHS dentist or a place in a good school who should make space so that he can feel better about himself.
    This is only fair that he should acknowledge the cost of his proposals – is he aware there is a growing army of people already here that have to sleep on the streets ?

    List of those who shall be denied service to make space for Liberal virtue signalling

    Name: Service Required Decision Y/N
    NHS/Social Housing/ (Based on need alone)
    1st choice School place

    I trust normal service will be resumed tomorrow.

    Reply Try reading what I wrote. I am not proposing we take all children arriving in Calais.

    1. Ken Moore
      March 30, 2016

      Thanks for your reply.

      I read and have re-read your article in it’s entirety and still have the same view that it is a well meaning piece but foolish and naïve. I don’t remember saying anything about taking all children from Calais

      Nobody is suggesting the Uk could take all children arriving in Calais…but what proportion would placate those that say we should do more?…would 1/2%..2%..10% do it?. It’s just a nonsense these unfortunate people need to be helped close to home.

      Nowhere in your article do you acknowledge that many children are sent unaccompanied as the parents know they will be allowed entry at a later date.

      This is the trouble with accepting a politically correct view of the world it blinds us to how the world really is.
      It’s simply not fair on the British people or the refugees themselves who are forced to attempt to assimilate into an alien culture after already undergoing great hardship in many cases.
      There are vast and sparsely populated areas in the world, that could be made into ‘safe zones’ until their country is fit to be re-inhabited.

      What level of impoverishment of people at the bottom of our society should we tolerate so that wealthy middle class people (that don’t suffer the consequences) can pat themselves on the back ?. England is full! the infrastructure was only designed to cope with a population of around 60 million at most. You wouldn’t overload an aeroplane or bus and expect it to be safe ?.

      My view is the vast majority of the British people did not ask for their government to stir up trouble and intervene in the middle East . The same majority are saying loud and clear they do not want a fixed 0.7% of GDp spent on aid. I’m sick and tired of the age of political lying, the top down government knows best approach and the British Ponzi scheme that continuously promises money we do not have.

      It’s a bit rich for the politicians to come back and say ‘sorry we made a complete mess with our politically correct foreign policy agenda but if you have a spare house or money to spare ……..John Redwood should be on the people’s side on this…

      Reply I support a policy of seeking to end the people trafficking and to make clear we do not reward those who seek to bust the legal system for migration and asylum. The UK does not wish to help split up families or to encourage unaccompanied minors to travel to the UK without permits.

  24. Barbara1
    March 30, 2016

    I have to disagree here. We cannot take every disadvantaged child from every disaster zone or economically backward country in the world, and this ‘crisis’, involving huge populations of many countries in Africa and the ME, could go on forever: Blair said it could take generations (unlike WW2, which was over in five years, and only involved a relatively small number of European children being resettled).

    Also, having worked with foreign students for fifteen years, I agree with other posters that these peoples’ attitude to basics like honesty, altruism, conscientiousness, neighbourliness, trust, fairness etc do not fit with ours.

    Our country is overcrowded, bankrupt and in debt. It is not a solution to their problems for us to ruin ourselves even further in trying to offer endless help to impossible situations. Sorry.

    1. Cheshire Girl
      March 30, 2016

      I do wish they would define the term ‘children’. Many are claiming to be children, before it is discovered they are 18 or over.

      Back in the day, many years ago, when I left school at 15 to go into a full time job, people of my age were not considered to be ‘children’ but ‘young adults’ . It irritates me no end when I read that young men are trying to get under the radar by pretending they are younger than they actually are. We do not need any more of them in the UK. They are playing us for fools!

      1. Ken Moore
        March 30, 2016

        Indeed many claim to be children and are taken as such as there is no way of checking (being 6ft tall, with facial hair makes you still a potential child in the eyes of the Home office) .
        I don’t think those offers of toys would be appropriate here. Perhaps Mr Redwood needs to define more clearly what he means by children before highlighting the generosity of the Uk to those seeking a new life….older children were known as ‘youths’ or ‘young adults’ in my day.

        There are also those that are coached with a ‘sob story’ to gain asylum… then the rest of the family can claim entry as they have family ties. They know that there is nothing like a lone child to ‘pull on the heartstrings’ …

  25. Dennis
    March 30, 2016

    “Could you address the Gus O’donnell claim that hard negotiation could not conclude an exit deal in two years?”

    Yes Mr Redwood, please do so.

    Reply I just think he is wrong! Why honour this nonsense with more circulation?

    1. ChrisS
      March 30, 2016

      Because we need to challenge every statement from Project Fear !
      If we say nothing, voters will automatically assume we have no answer and that Remain are telling the truth.

      Every person that accepts these daft statements as fact is another vote lost.

      1. graham1946
        March 30, 2016

        It probably would take years if people like Gus O’Donnell had anything to do with it. It’s the way the Civil Service operates. We need to keep his like well out of it and use some hard nosed people.

        1. ChrisS
          March 31, 2016

          Our new PM, one B. Johnson should appoint as our negotiating group :

          John Redwood ( Chairman )
          Dan Hannan ( Spokesman )
          And in no particular order :
          Bill Cash
          Bernard Jenkins

          Gisela Stuart
          Kate Hoey

          All policy areas should be headed up by one of these or other proven
          Eurosceptic MPs with knowledge of the subjects.

          Civil Servants supporting them need to be those who are genuinely Eurosceptic otherwise the negotiations will be nobbled from the start.

          At least this group can be guaranteed to never “Go Native” whatever the Civil Servants try to do. Anyone else charged with the renegotiations would be too readily influenced and end up like Hammond and Hague.

      2. stred
        March 30, 2016

        I wonder how far this useless twat would have got in private industry. Has he not heard of a veiled threat- like ‘ok, stuff your cars and cheese Etc ed

  26. Fairweather
    March 30, 2016

    Dear Mr Redwood
    Off message but important
    PLEASE could you make your colleagues in the HOC aware of the new treaty of the EU to come into effect in the next few years:
    A Fundamental Law of the European Union by the Splnelli group
    This is the COMPLETION of the United States of Europe from which there is no return if we vote to stay a member
    Can easily be read from the Internet and the book is available on Amazon at £28
    This is a must read for the people who want to remain a member. Do they know what they are voting/campaigning for? The status quo is not an option. Do we want to live in a dictatorship?
    Hope to get a reply from you
    Best wishes,

    Reply I have done so, telling Parliament and others about the 5 Presidents Report and the plans for political union.

    1. Fairweather
      March 30, 2016

      Thank you Mr Redwood
      I suppose the “remain” MPs don’t think it important
      Perhaps you could keep emphasising it and bring it up at PMQs when the house is full
      Thank you for all you are doing
      I am sure some MPs are ignorant

  27. ChrisS
    March 30, 2016

    This might be stretching the topic somewhat but housing is a crucial issue given the current very high levels of inward migration :

    The Chancellor seems to be determined to put Buy To Let landlords out of business yet he has no plan to replace the housing stock in the rented sector, even though his proposals so far offer no way in which young people can possibly meet the very tight criteria he has himself imposed on lenders for obtaining a residential mortgage.

    Why not throw Buy To Let landlords a lifeline to get out of the business, if that’s what he, the Governor of the Bank of England and they want to happen ?

    Why not allow Housing Associations to buy up suitable Buy To Let properties from Landlords that want to exit the sector ? There is pent up demand among Landlords who would like to exit but are put off by the penal rates of CGT which he rather nastily insisted on maintaining for the BTL sector alone in the budget.

    It is not generally understood that many small Landlords cannot possibly exit the sector, even though they would like too. This is because they would be in negative equity if one adds the amount of CGT under current rates to the mortgage debt on their property.

    Even worse, a large number of BTL borrowers are not going to be able to remortgage when their present deals end because of Osbourne’s proposed new tightening of the criteria for BTL mortgages. This is bound to create a new raft of repossessions and probably more bankruptcies and homelessness because some small-time landlords will be forced to realise the equity from their own home to repay off both their BTL mortgage and the CGT on the sale.

    As a recently retired IFA I know that this is a very real problem and the outcome will do the housing sector no good at all.

    If Osbourne granted a concession to highly indebted landlords by, say, halving the CGT take for properties sold to Housing Associations or Councils, he could offer some hard pressed Landlords a way out and at the same time reduce the size of the private BTL housing sector and enlarge the public one. The cash generated by the CGT he does collect on these sales could be used to help fund the purchases.

    No Chancellor can continually keep hitting a single sector without there being consequences. In this case, the very people he is targeting are mainly Conservative voters and many are not wealthy landlords – they are people with only one or two properties that they bought as an alternative to a pension, an investment vehicle for retirement which Gordon Brown did his very best to destroy.

    We know that Osbourne would have continued further down this daft path by withdrawing higher rate tax relief on pension contributions, if only he didn’t have a referendum to win.

    This Government, the Coalition and the Labour one before it, have all relentlessly increased the state retirement age and at the same time each has done their level best to damage every method we have of making adequate private provision for our old age !

    This is just plain crazy : sooner or later the penny will drop and a future Government, and it could be one of any political persuasion, is going to have to deal with the fact that, alongside a burgeoning NHS, a universal, unfunded State Pension is not affordable .
    In the long term it will have to become means tested.

    At that point the Government will need those that are better off to have made adequate provision for themselves. A lifetime cash ISA is not a solution !

    Cameron simply cannot square this circle if he allows Osbourne to continue down the current path. CMD and every other politician needs to look at the longer term : Does a future, maybe, another Conservative Prime Minister, really want to is impoverish a large number of retiring Conservative supporters ?

    1. stred
      April 1, 2016

      If councils and housing associations knew the landlord had to sell to them in order to have tax concessions, they would make a lower offer- a bit like lower interest rates on ISAs from the banks. Just reinstating an inflation allowance would allow many to sell. As it is they are taxing unreal gains.

  28. acorn
    March 30, 2016

    The Sun – Leave
    Daily Mail – Leave
    Metro – neutral
    Mirror – Remain
    Guardian – Remain
    Daily Telegraph – Leave
    The Times – neutral
    The Independent – Remain
    Express – Leave
    Star – Leave

    This being the UK, the voting will be decided by the print media, not the television media, as it would be in the USA. Americans find it difficult to concentrate on written material. You might want to think about who owns the above organs and what their motives are.

    1. graham1946
      March 30, 2016

      Let’s hope ‘Its the Sun wot won it’

  29. Bob
    March 30, 2016

    These problems stem from Cameron and Obama pulling the troops out from Iraq prematurely and then destabilising Libya.

    Now, together with Tony Blair, Lord Mandelson, Dennis MacShane and George Osborne they’re asking us to vote to remain in the crumbling EU.

    Why on Earth would anyone take them seriously?

  30. BOF
    March 30, 2016

    I think that GoD can be taken with a pinch of salt as I am sure that CMD has requested ‘a little help from a friend’. I am sure that,if left to civil servants, negotiations could last for many years, given their supreme incompetence.

  31. ian
    March 30, 2016

    Shame about steel, two year of negotiation with the EU did not bare much fruit, no point in coming back from auss or spain unless wet & mad going to buy it, I hear something about a workers buy out but I cannot see that at million a day loses and rising, of cos the union can always take it on with workers union pension fund but the coal miners union did not help to keep coal mines open and there isn’t any coal miners left now but the union is still going with hundred of millions in it, what happens to that money at the end of the day.

  32. Lindsay McDougall
    March 31, 2016

    Little refugee children grow up, don’t they? Will they
    – (a) return home?
    – (b) remain in the UK and integrate? OR
    – (c) remain in the UK and not integrate?

    To me, integration implies the disburstment of population away from their traditional immigrant communities and inter-marriage with the indigenous population. If those two things don’t happen, they aren’t integrating. Needless to say, integration doesn’t happen unless the numbers in immigrant communities are not too large. Judged by that yardstick, we already have too many immigrants.

Comments are closed.