Would it be morally incorrect .... for the

[tippexx]

EU to deploy a flotilla of smaller warships in the Mediterranean. Use their Radar capabilities and intercept as many people carrier boats as possible. And then, without hurting anyone, tie on a line and simply take them back to where they came from.

After a month or two these people might start to get the idea that risking their lives unnecessarily isn't going to get them into Europe, and the people smugglers will give up because there's no more money in it?

It's tough, but sometimes the tough decision is the only proper way.

[Krist]

Only issue is doing it in a safe manner, the towing of a vessel is reasonably safe if the vessel is compliant, however if people are risking their lives in such a manner to escape from presumably worse conditions then they are unlikely to be completely compliant. if a vessel tries to sail freely while under tow there could very easily be a major incident and I don't think the EU would risk it.

Nipping it in the bud would be the way forward, stopping the money going to the smugglers, unfortunately the smugglers can have more power than some governments as is the case with the drug barons in central and southern america.

Ethically, I don't think it is unethical, however taking people under your control as the EU may require a 'duty' of care to those who are affected and that would be another major issue that would prevent the EU taking a stand I think.

[tippexx]

Only issue is doing it in a safe manner, the towing of a vessel is reasonably safe if the vessel is compliant, however if people are risking their lives in such a manner to escape from presumably worse conditions then they are unlikely to be completely compliant. if a vessel tries to sail freely while under tow there could very easily be a major incident and I don't think the EU would risk it.

Nipping it in the bud would be the way forward, stopping the money going to the smugglers, unfortunately the smugglers can have more power than some governments as is the case with the drug barons in central and southern america.

Ethically, I don't think it is unethical, however taking people under your control as the EU may require a 'duty' of care to those who are affected and that would be another major issue that would prevent the EU taking a stand I think.

Because it is so lucrative I rather suspect the people smugglers are a bit more than just common criminals, and are in fact the various terrorist organisations filling their coffers.

Obviously there is a risk should one of these smuggling vessels resist a tow, but as these boat are seemingly unseaworthy anyway, allowing them to attempt the crossing and then possibly having to rescue people from drowning is every bit as risky.

But towing, other than an initial demonstration intent, shouldn't be necessary, just the knowledge that EU navel vessels patrol just outside Libyan or wherever waters ready to intercept ought to be deterrent enough.
It isn't a new idea, it something Australia has had to do.

[PeeJay]

I read an article yesterday that pointed out that it didn't happen when Gaddafi was in power, the same way as IS didn't exist whilst Saddam Hussein was in power and Assad wasn't having to fight a civil war. Are we reaping what we've sowed?

[tippexx]

By 'we've' I think you mean Bushbungler and his arse-licking sidekick Blairyboy .... the vast majority wanted nothing to do with it.

[PeeJay]

By 'we've' I think you mean Bushbungler and his arse-licking sidekick Blairyboy .... the vast majority wanted nothing to do with it.

By 'we' I mean the Western World who always think they know better.

[Niela]

I doubt north Africa is happy with our warships dumping people on their shores so it is an impossible scenario. As for PJs comment, I completely agree. And apart from oil profits, a destabilization of the region was imo part of the plan.

[tippexx]

I doubt north Africa is happy with our warships dumping people on their shores so it is an impossible scenario. As for PJs comment, I completely agree. And apart from oil profits, a destabilization of the region was imo part of the plan.

Destabilisation is a good word. The EU is already feeling discomfort and disharmony on how to deal with the problem. If you looked at the issue from an opposite direction, does it not become a brilliantly orchestrated example of asymmetric warfare?

Or a very basic question. How do poor young Africans from poor countries (where the average 'family' income is less than a $1000 [€940] per year) lay hands on €2000 for the boat crossing?

[wolfie]

Put them on a safe vessel and take them back home

It needs to be made perfectly clear before even more people lose their lives that they WONT be able to stay , they WILL be returned home , and their is NO point in risking their lives .

As long as their is a glimmer of hope they will keep trying and dying .

So in reply to the original question ....i personally do not think that it is immoral....

[PeeJay]

We need a convenient offshore island to put them on whilst they're processed like the Aussies do, Sardinia perhaps.

[sheppsea]

Or a very basic question. How do poor young Africans from poor countries (where the average 'family' income is less than a $1000 [?940] per year) lay hands on ?2000 for the boat crossing?

Do we know where this ?2,000 figure came from? I've read it a few times recently

Is it possible that the Gangmasters 'loan' them the money, and they pay it back (probably many times over) when they get to the destination?

[Niela]

Destabilisation is a good word. The EU is already feeling discomfort and disharmony on how to deal with the problem. If you looked at the issue from an opposite direction, does it not become a brilliantly orchestrated example of asymmetric warfare?

Or a very basic question. How do poor young Africans from poor countries (where the average 'family' income is less than a $1000 [?940] per year) lay hands on ?2000 for the boat crossing?

The EU is feeling discomfort from the economic downturn that the financial crisis brought. People don't give a *%*^ about anything as long as they are doing well themselves. As soon as they are themselves the 'victim' all of the sudden they become political. And because they never cared about politics before they have little knowledge and follow the parties on the extreme that offer them

A) easy solutions
B) a culprit (immigrants, the EU, Jews, Muslims... Take your pick)

The fact that the money these people pay equals yearly incomes means that whole families safe up and are driven to risk it all in one desperate move. The money should make it clear what desperation is behind these people to take this risk and sacrifice.

You could start shooting them at sea and they would still come. What would help is to help them improve their lives and prospects by opening our markets to their agricultural products instead of subsidising our farmers. (in Moderation at first of course) international aid helps as well of course and is cheaper than sending the navy as well.

Even if some of them just come for the money, I can't blame them. We are talking about inequality in this country. Well, on a global stage our working class is like a city banker with million ? to the average person in the developing world.

And in a globalised world, from which we profit most, we simply cannot ignore how the rest of the world is doing.

[tippexx]

Do we know where this €2,000 figure came from? I've read it a few times recently

Is it possible that the Gangmasters 'loan' them the money, and they pay it back (probably many times over) when they get to the destination?

Possibly Sean. But it's a bit of a precarious loan plan.

a) The boat might not make the crossing
b) Navigation seems to be any beach will do
c) Those that arrive might be sent anywhere, Prague, Glasgow, Dusseldorf. The Gangmasters would have no
control on 'destination'.
d) Pre-civil war Syria was neither very poor or very backward. I can't imagine an agreement to enter self-slavery would appeal to Syrians.

[Niela]

Heard on the radio this morning an interview with a kid that survived the trip. He worked in Lybia to pay for the trip. Sometimes he got paid, sometimes not. Sounds like those countries are happy to exploit a vulnerable workforce for cheap.

[Niela]

... And then, without hurting anyone, tie on a line and simply take them back to where they came from.

I think the moral question depends on where they came from. If they came from a fairly safe environment and just came for a chance for wealth then I think it's necessary to send them back. If they came from a war ridden zone in Africa or were threatened for their lives in another way, I think it's hard to justify to send them back to their 'fate'. I always found it highly immoral as well that Switzerland wouldn't take up Jews from Germany back in the days. The same principle applies here as well.