The politics of this issue is that a vast majority of Australians will vote for a party that believes boats can be stopped and has a policy to achieve it. That excludes the Greens.

The Greens position is the boats can't be stopped and even if they could they'd oppose it and Australia should accept the consequences.

the Greens have made the boats issue pivotal because Labor can not gain a ruling majority and the LNP can. Only a vote for the LNP will stop the boats.

Instead of opposing, why don't the greens enunciate a policy to open the border to all-comers (so they can arrive safely by air) and pour huge money into processing while removing any cap on humanitarian immigration. Answer, because they'd get more smashed than they're already going to be in the next election.

All the Greens ever wanted was to oppose, not to take a mature role in government. There'll be few left after the next election and fewer after the next Senate election to enjoy the luxury. It will be interesting to see where their voters go with their preferences, but to donkey vote would seem appropriate

Great point, Ojnab.

<<Will people who advocate that we should take refugees please get in touch with the Dubai Sheiks in the Emirates running the place, there are thousands of empty flats there, no one to take them, just empty, why on earth are these refugees wanting to come here when accommodation is available there, same religion>>

And even more reasonable when the following is added:

"We believe that the Arab world is one human body...it prospers if all of its parts are prosperous" [Shiek Hamad Bin Khalifa-Al-Thani--recently retired ruler of Qatar] As quote in Time July 8 -July 15 2013

[Yes, I know that Sri Lankans & Iranians aren't Arab's --but the left is biting at the bit to sign us up for a Syrian intake --and the Syrians are most certainly Arab]

Here's two more links that are worth a read:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/abbotts-copycat-towback-plan-wont-stop-the-boats-2013070714-2pxyg.html

And:

http://newmatilda.com/2013/07/23/png-solution-wont-stop-deaths-sea

What is needed as both links indicate is not to make this issue
a political discussion of a Left/Right dog fight. It would be great if politics was put aside on this complex issue. But in an election
year I realise this won't happen.

Lexi,

Considering that the Houston panel pretty much recommended the pacific solution, it was accepted by the coalition with the exception of the Malaysian solution. Similarly, Labor rejected part of the Houston review that recommended TPVs.

Why should Aus accept 40 000 refugees a year at 10s of $bn when the rest of the OECD is clamping down. This will also not stop the 1000s drowning.

Lexi, the point of my last post is that it's not just left/right politics. The Greens are playing politics by failing to fully enunciate to the electorate what they stand for. Instead, all they do is oppose what the positions of the other parties. This is so as not to expose themselves to a bigger drubbing than they're already heading for.

Please explain how Labor and LNP can join over stopping boats, given that's what they agree on, or are you one of the let them come brigade?

There are something like 46 million refugees and displaced persons in the world at the moment.

Some basic questions,

1. If Australia's annual quota of refugees in the queue was 100,000, would this stop the boats ?

obviously not.

2. If Australia's annual quota of refugees in the queue was 200,000 was 200,000, would this stop the boats ?

Obviously not.

3. If Australia's annual quota was 500,000, would the boats stop coming ?

Obviously not. There would still be 45.5 million desperate to come to some place like Australia.

In fact, the more Australia takes each year, the more will come, by hook or by crook, to Indonesia, in order to get on boats on the assumption that they will be accepted as part of the ever growing cap.

So how many can we take ? What should be the anual cap, unmoveable and implacable ? Lexi ? 100,000 ? Poirot ? 200,000 ?

What's your limit ? Don't say you don't have one, And don't try to divert the discussion, please. And don't go all huffy and accuse people of viciously attacking you.

What's your limit ? And what's your 'solution' to what to do with all those above this level who still try to come to Australia ? Because sure as eggs, there will be.

Joe