Brexit What Happens Next Thread ---multiple merged threads.

[canbuywontbuy]

Well, if i were in charge, there would be national quotas agreed by the UN. Take the projected number of refugees per year (say 500k) and divide by the number of "safe countries".

Each refugee would be required to seek refuge in the nearest "safe" country in their path subject to that country's quota. Once that quota is reached, the next nearest safe country has to host them.

If a situation develops where the number of refugees is less than the projected total for the year, the countries which have hosted the most, get a "credit" (reduced quota) for the following year.

Fair play - sounds reasonable.

I guess you're basing your quota on restraining factors for host nations, right? (economics, infrastructure reasons?). Or could you elaborate on why each host nation requires a quota in your ideal world?

Edited September 16, 2016 by canbuywontbuy

[billybong]

Any schemes/national quotas proposed by say the UN should be agreed with each nation involved and then put to the vote - direct democracy. A strict definition of the term refugee should be agreed as well - the current definitions seem a bit too open these days.

Edited September 16, 2016 by billybong

[canbuywontbuy]

So it's OK to have a fixed quota on people who desperately need a safe haven, but we're happy to offer unlimited numbers of people who come into a country for economic reasons? Seems absurd.....particularly when you throw generous benefits into the mix.

[Royw6]

So it's OK to have a fixed quota on people who desperately need a safe haven, but we're happy to offer unlimited numbers of people who come into a country for economic reasons? Seems absurd.....particularly when you throw generous benefits into the mix.

This game sounds fun! Can I play? So the rules are, as I seem to understand them, make up a fantasy number of people who want to come to the uk, discriminate against some of them - dividing them in to the worthy and not worthy, complain that they "took our jobs", suggest they only came to be on job seekers allowance and build a big concentration camp for anyone who is unfortunate enough to be a refugee! What's not to like!!!!!!!

I want to be the racist northern builder character, no the grumpy old man who hates foreign speak, I wanna be him - well as long as the counter isn't black or polish. It's the fantasy board game that just keeps giving.

Canbuywontbuy, I have tried to like you, I really have, but what the ****** have you got against migrants who aren't from Australia? What is it that makes you so mad?

Any schemes/national quotas proposed by say the UN should be agreed with each nation involved and then put to the vote - direct democracy. A strict definition of the term refugee should be agreed as well - the current definitions seem a bit too open these days.

Yeah, bloody refugees in fear of their lives, being all needy. Ok define a refugee, and why your definition is more appropriate than that exists currently. Edited September 16, 2016 by Royw6

[Royw6]

I would still send them back. I wouldn't actually allow them to hold jobs. They would live in the camps on the condition that they are here only as a last resort to prevent them from being bombed etc.

They wouldn't be allowed out of the camps at all.

It would be a take it or leave it offer. If they don't like the safety of the camp I'm offering they are welcome to stay and be bombed where they are.

But I would explicitly not be offering them anything else. The only offer is survival on my terms.

What would you feed them? I know that refugees only eat finest steaks at present.

[XswampyX]

Why are facts racist.... ?

[Royw6]

Why are facts racist.... ?

I think he is talking about America, between you and me, that is a different county. Edited September 16, 2016 by Royw6

[EssKay]

Fair play - sounds reasonable.

I guess you're basing your quota on restraining factors for host nations, right? (economics, infrastructure reasons?). Or could you elaborate on why each host nation requires a quota in your ideal world?

The quota is there simply to achieve a fair distribution of refugees (so we don't see a situation like Syria where neighbouring countries like Lebanon have to shoulder an unfair proportion of the burden). Of course, if any countries want to voluntarily host more than their quota they should, but they shouldn't be forced to do it

I wouldn't be keen on too many "restraining" / adjustment factors, although the size of each country would probably need to be factored in (no point lumbering a very small nation with the same quota as much larger nations). Equally, very poor countries should have their quotas adjusted too

@billybong - yes, btw. The agreement of quotas would have to be democratic. In theory, you should only need to do that once though (when the system is first setup). After that, you just operate within the rules with the UN administering it

[XswampyX]

I think he is talking about America, between you an me, that is a different county.

A bigger country i think?

[spyguy]

Ok,whats the hurdle for determining refugee?

In danger of your life ill accept.

But the bulk of thdEU refugeeswere nowhere close to that. Syrians yes. Morroccans no.

Then what about the issue thst most refugees are comimg from countriesthst have had massive population booms.

[EssKay]

Ok,whats the hurdle for determining refugee?

In danger of your life ill accept.

But the bulk of thdEU refugeeswere nowhere close to that. Syrians yes. Morroccans no.

Then what about the issue thst most refugees are comimg from countriesthst have had massive population booms.

UN HCR definition: A refugee is someone who has been forced to flee his or her country because of persecution, war, or violence. A refugee has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group

Moroccan migrants are currently classed as economic migrants afaik

[knock out johnny]

UN HCR definition: A refugee is someone who has been forced to flee his or her country because of persecution, war, or violence. A refugee has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group

Moroccan migrants are currently classed as economic migrants afaik

Particular social group - isn't that a nice vague catch all that can be abused.

What are the chances of men claiming they are gay and in fear of their life in these backwards sh!tholes and being allowed in - that's the line I'd use

[Confusion of VIs]

Without a zeroth order model of the economy (at the very least) it's impossible to determine the true ERoEI of competing energy sources. Historically this was unimportant since the existing sources of energy - oil, coal and gas - had such high net energy return that ERoEI could be ignored. Vast amounts of energy were available to anyone with the technological facility to build a power station. This is no longer true. The highest ERoEI resources have been consumed. As ever, economists have nothing sensible to contribute to the debate (the Keynesian-Monetarists simply assume the question away through Cornucopian substitution). It is thus far from clear that the world has entered a post fossil fuel era, or that it ever will.

Re your chart

I would quibble with Nuclear being anywhere near that high, the high price of the generated electricity would suggest it is way down the list

Likewise PV solar given the fact that the panels once created have an almost indefinite life should be much higher - assuming you place them in sensible locations

Re the bigger point have we entered the post fossil world - I think so all the technology required to replace it exists today, now it just needs refining which will happen over the next 10-20 years.

[Confusion of VIs]

Just quoted that so you know what post I'm replying to.

I'm mostly picking up on this "Not sure why you think it needs to go negative, again the evidence is now pointing to the world easily being able to support projected populations."

To which I answer "So"? There's rather more to life than being able to support everyone (and I've not seen much evidence at all to suggest that it will be able to). Like I've said numerous times life in Britain would be rather more pleasant for a lot of people if there were rather fewer people. That it can support the current level, or more (assuming for the sake of argument that it can indefintely, which it can't), doesn't mean that it wouldn't be rather more desirable to have fewer.

Also, and this applies in general to your post, it's really relying on "." That's a course of action that'll explode in your face sooner or later. Better to not need high tech to simply survive, then you can use it for quality of life instead.

There are two aspects to this,

1. how well do things work - I would suggest this is largely down to investment in infrastructure. For example the fact that driving anywhere in the UK is a pain is more down to the fact that we have ridiculously few motorways compared to other developed countries than the population density.

2. The other bit is what do you personally prefer, I prefer city life to rural living so population density is not really an issue for me providing things work well.

Re "something will turn up to make it all work in the future" I think that everything we need has already turned up, we now just need to refine and implement the technology. Overall I am pretty optimistic that the challenges we face today will be solved; and in 50 years I think this might be viewed as a golden age when world poverty was more or less eliminated and the population stabilised at a sustainable level. Apart of course from Brexit which will be recognised as a bit of a balls up

[Sheeple Splinter]

In the long term, at a global level, the only sustainable rate of population growth is zero. I'd guess that sans fossil fules we're already at a global population that's past the carrying capacity of the planet. It's when the oil runs out that the shit is really going to hit the fan.

Thanks for the link.

Al Bartlett mentioned Asimov's quotes about overpopulation which eventually led me to this quote by Neill Blomkamp discussing, 'District 9' :

AVC: And you say that’s the future of the world? Why?

NB: Well, in my opinion, you have out-of-control population growth, and you have fewer and fewer—we are heading for the biggest train wreck our civilization has ever come across ever. Ever. And I think that within 40 or 50 years, we’ll be there. If your population curve is on an exponential growth, and the resources are on an exponential decline, what happens first is you get increases in wealth discrepancy, which means that you get rich pockets of gated communities with security guards outside them, and you get more and more poverty outside that area. And the resources go down, and people start having resource wars over water and food and agriculture and arable land, and then you have Joburg in 2050. And you can see signs of it everywhere. It’s just overpopulation and lack of resources. We just aren’t in control of our destiny.

​

My bold

[Confusion of VIs]

Yes, I do

It's a bit of a long-winded ONS report that pretty much states the obvious:-

When they describe an "immigrant", it's someone who's been in the UK more than a year uninterrupted. Everyone else is .... well, visiting!

You are confirming the point I was making. I.e. the seasonal workers picking veg didn't figure in the immigration figures prior to FoM for EE states but did afterwards. So when we go back to some sort of control over FoM and reinstate SAWS the migration figures will show a sharp drop - I suspect this will be a key part of the governments plan to demonstrate we now have control over migration (but of course we will know that only the stats have changed).

Re the NI figures themselves, they are so full of holes as to be almost meaningless, I know this because during my time in the civil service I worked in the Home Office (IND). The big giveaway was after Romania's and Bulgaria's accession when 100ks of people already working in country applied for NI numbers.

[Sheeple Splinter]

There are two aspects to this,

1. how well do things work - I would suggest this is largely down to investment in infrastructure. For example the fact that driving anywhere in the UK is a pain is more down to the fact that we have ridiculously few motorways compared to other developed countries than the population density.

2. The other bit is what do you personally prefer, I prefer city life to rural living so population density is not really an issue for me providing things work well.

Re "something will turn up to make it all work in the future" I think that everything we need has already turned up, we now just need to refine and implement the technology. Overall I am pretty optimistic that the challenges we face today will be solved; and in 50 years I think this might be viewed as a golden age when world poverty was more or less eliminated and the population stabilised at a sustainable level. Apart of course from Brexit which will be recognised as a bit of a balls up

Hi Bob,

Loved that song:

https://youtu.be/cIxj7Ew_99w​

[ccc]

Bob ffs !!

[Sheeple Splinter]

You are confirming the point I was making. I.e. the seasonal workers picking veg didn't figure in the immigration figures prior to FoM for EE states but did afterwards. So when we go back to some sort of control over FoM and reinstate SAWS the migration figures will show a sharp drop - I suspect this will be a key part of the governments plan to demonstrate we now have control over migration (but of course we will know that only the stats have changed).

Re the NI figures themselves, they are so full of holes as to be almost meaningless, I know this because during my time in the civil service I worked in the Home Office (IND). The big giveaway was after Romania's and Bulgaria's accession when 100ks of people already working in country applied for NI numbers.

Did you mean the immigration figures were full of holes, subsequently highlighted by NI numbers?

[Confusion of VIs]

Why are facts racist.... ?

Crikey that was an improvement on the last video you posted.

Helping people where they are makes perfect sense but we need to do it, so no whining about the pathetically small 0.7% of GDP spent on foreign aid. If the developed countries got it up to say 10% we could massively reduce the factors that are driving immigration.

Problem is it's the same people moaning about immigration that are moaning about spending a trivial 0.7% of GDP on foreign aid.

[Confusion of VIs]

Hi Bob,

Loved that song:

https://youtu.be/cIxj7Ew_99w​

Cheer up.

The fact is poverty is declining at the fastest rate in human history and the rate of decline is still increasing.

[spyguy]

Crikey that was an improvement on the last video you posted.

Helping people where they are makes perfect sense but we need to do it, so no whining about the pathetically small 0.7% of GDP spent on foreign aid. If the developed countries got it up to say 10% we could massively reduce the factors that are driving immigration.

Problem is it's the same people moaning about immigration that are moaning about spending a trivial 0.7% of GDP on foreign aid.

The biggest driver of migration is massive population booms in Affica, ME and Asia.

90% of migrants are coming from countries whose population has increased 200%+.

[EssKay]

Particular social group - isn't that a nice vague catch all that can be abused.

Yep - but I guess that's where "well-founded fear" comes into play - i.e. there needs to be something to back it up (evidence of genocide, torture, imprisonment, persecution by the state)

[Riedquat]

There are two aspects to this,

1. how well do things work - I would suggest this is largely down to investment in infrastructure. For example the fact that driving anywhere in the UK is a pain is more down to the fact that we have ridiculously few motorways compared to other developed countries than the population density.

Yet we've still got rather a lot of motorways (and even more if you count near-motorway standard dual carriageways). That we'd need even more just to get about without traffic being too much of a pain is about as good a sign as I can imagine that we're in a mess. Motorways become a necessary evil, and they're a pretty bad one. Long journeys along non-busy non-motorways are generally quite pleasant things, motorway journeys never are (just loved by people who never seem to want to be wherever they are and view most of the country as an inconvenience).

2. The other bit is what do you personally prefer, I prefer city life to rural living so population density is not really an issue for me providing things work well.

Fine (really can't grasp why anyone would, but fine), but surely a country that can offer everyone their preference is best.

Re "something will turn up to make it all work in the future" I think that everything we need has already turned up, we now just need to refine and implement the technology. Overall I am pretty optimistic that the challenges we face today will be solved; and in 50 years I think this might be viewed as a golden age when world poverty was more or less eliminated and the population stabilised at a sustainable level. Apart of course from Brexit which will be recognised as a bit of a balls up

I agree that everything we need has turned up, and probably did several decades ago (albeit with some sustainability issues, and with some exceptions such as medical advances always being welcome), hence my scorn for a lot of claims of meaningful improvements. But the population hasn't stabilised, it's not sustainable with current technology or standards of living (it's not as if it can provide those for more than a small fraction of the world's population as it is), hence the "assuming something will turn up" argument, and even if it is sustainable at this level you need to accept that that level is rather too high for a lot of people, even if it isn't for you.

[spyguy]

Cheer up.

The fact is poverty is declining at the fastest rate in human history and the rate of decline is still increasing.

Well thats China and dome ex commie asian countries.