Like you Johnny, the issues which leave us in a situation where we willingly allow asylum seekers to drown is a massively complex issue, and I of course couldn't definitely say what short-term policies would improve the situation.

You're suggestion is one I would support, even if it compromises Western society. A bloke who used to work for Shell came out and said that democracy won't exist while we depend on oil so greatly. One of the costs of, for example, withdrawing support for the Saudis (who financed IS, behead people etc) would be oil prices would rocket. Hence why it's easy to say 'let's stop supporting dictators' but much harder to actually do so as a politician who wants to win elections and keep people happy.

It would be easy to sit here and just say 'nothing will change until we reconfigure global capitalism', put my feet up and look smug while the Middle East's basket case status continues. I acknowledge that practical solutions are necessary for the short term, so humanitarian aid in Syria has to be upped, we need to make it easier to assist the Kurdish fightback in Northern Syria against IS, and obviously, we need to fund search and rescue missions in the Med, and take in a much higher share of refugees and asylum seekers. Sadly, the rhetoric surrounding foreign policy is so warped that even these things are now pie in the sky, and will only result in thousands more innocent deaths in the next decade.

As you say, it's awful, and the lack of human empathy shown by most as the world's poorest die in unspeakable conditions is staggering.

If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4

I think that its inevitable that any civil war will result in a humanitarian disaster (or any war for that matter), the problem is when you pick a side you aquire a responsibility in the outcome, especially when you tip the balance.

In Libya or Syria, arguably the best solution would be to invest in creating and supporting half decent refugee camps on the borders of those countries, which could function as communities until such time as an outcome can be achieved. Then we should progress towards creating a new stablised nation for those individuals to return to, and engaging with that new national politically.

The sovereignty of other nations isn't for us to determine, its for the people in those nations to determine. By intervening in the Libyan civil war we essentially ensured a loose collective of dispirit factions, notably many opposed sectarian ones, would replace the state authority, and that almost always results in a civil war.

Throw in an air bombing campaign against the core regime and the infrastructure of state authority is almost certainly going to be destroyed (meaning the incoming state authority will have no power to implement authority, resulting in criminality and regionalized power).

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Save the people from drowning should be number 1 priority.
Then I just don't know... A very complex situation.

I'm not sure that people fleeing civil war will generally see the boat as a risk, where as staying put is generally an almost certainty of death (remember most of those who board those boats don't drown).

Civil wars tend to be very brutal, somewhat genocidal affairs, with the end goal generally being the virtual extermination of opposition (even those not murdered or killed typically face long imprisonment, exile or oppressive restrictions).

Indeed the stance of the UK parties is rather absurd given that the boats will set off regardless of the risk, and that reducing patrols and efforts, will only result in greater chances of those vessels not being intercepted.

Also calling them migrants is absurd, as they're refugees, few of whom will actually end up in the UK anyhow (Britain has accepted 300 or so Libyan and Syrian Asylum claims).

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

A large part of the UK's intelligence on trafficking and smuggling comes from international European co-operation.

Indeed, the UK has generally found Turkish, Dutch and Italian intelligence essential in the control of Heroin smuggling into the UK.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

What do you think are the chances of Malta, Italy or Cyprus deciding to bomb Ireland back to the stoneage?