The EU and irregular migration

Senegal’s fishermen are losing to international fishing vessels that go to fish in Senegalese waters. So, these people have no choice but to look for a better future by trying to go to Europe.

Some of the fishing vessels compounding the problem are from the EU. So, the EU itself is forcing people to become refugees.

The EU has also been accused of giving €217 million in 2017 to Sudan to stop the flow of migrants from the Horn of Africa. And part of it went to RSF, which is fighting the Sudanese army. RSF grew out of the Janjaweed, accused of crimes against humanity in Darfur.

The EU also made a €1 billion deal with Kais Saied, the quasi-dictator of Tunis, to stem irregular migration.

In Libya, refugees and migrants are subjected to widespread and systematic human rights violations and abuses at the hands of State officials, militias and armed groups and the EU is only throwing money at the problem (€700 million these last few years).

The EU is turning a blind eye to the abuse of human rights when it should be its guarantor. The golden rule should also apply here. The EU loudly proclaims itself in favour of human rights but it is example which convinces, not words.

Human rights should be for all not only for EU citizens. Should we also not care for these people? Does Malta have a policy of ignoring pleas for help of people in distress at sea and is it helping in pushbacks back to Libya? It seems that both the PN and the PL are in silent agreement to have a hard stance against refugees.

Should not the EU check and make sure that human rights are being upheld first?

Should it not provide legal pathways for refugees to be resettled in Europe?

EU policy on migration is paradoxically increasing the number of people trying to come to Europe. Building of walls, patrolling of borders and paying people to do the dirty work will not stop them because humans all have a spark inside them to follow their dreams for a better life.

JOE PORTELLI – Nadur

Internet for the aged

An elderly person stays in touch with family and friends through use of the internet. Photo: Shutterstock.com

There are many subsidies both for children and the aged. I would, therefore, suggest another subsidy for those aged 75 years and over.

Such a subsidy on the internet should increase with age.

I suggest that those who reach the age of 75 should pay only 90 per cent, which will be improved at the age of 80 years, when I recommend it should be of 85 per cent.

Those who reach the age of 85 years should pay only 80 per cent while the few who attain the age of 90 and over should pay the subsidised rate of 75 per cent.

I don’t think such a discount will affect greatly the providers but will be a godsend for the aged.

FRANS H. SAID – St Paul’s Bay