M344 - Support for International Refugees and the Stateless Motion

Watch
This discussion is closed.
Birchington
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#1
M344 - Support for International Refugees and the Stateless Motion, TSR Conservative and Unionist Party
Support for International Refugees and the Stateless Motion

This House believes that the government should seek a solution to the global refugee and statelessness and encourage our colleagues in the EU and around the globe to do so also, rather than focusing solely on individual, relatively small crises.

The news this year has been dominated by the migrant crises in the Mediterranean and Calais, however this is just a small fraction of the global refugee population, currently estimated to be in excess of sixty million; furthermore, the UNHCR estimate there could be as many as 10 million stateless peoples around the globe.

We should stop focusing on this refugee issue here, or that refugee issue there; we should stop ignoring the millions of refugees that have fled the Islamic State extremists, or other middle eastern wars, or those fleeing from Bangladesh, or any of the countless war-zones in Africa, instead we should be striving for an overarching solution to the global refugee crisis and proliferation of statelessness.

One such solution that could solve the global issue rather than just localised ones has been proposed by the Refugee Nation project, which has been featured in several major publications and organisations, including but not limited to BBC World News, Forbes, The Washington Post, TIME, The Telegraph, and the University of Oxford. The project intends to set up a new, democratic nation for the refugees and stateless of the world. A nation with a common language, most likely English due to its prevalence and a democratically elected government.

Notes
0
Tahret
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#2
Report 5 years ago
#2
I'm not sure this could be implemented...
0
username1524603
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#3
Report 5 years ago
#3
Aye. An Egyptian billionaire has offered to buy an island for refugees but a new country is one of the only sustainable solutions to solve the crisis of refugees. If 0.05% of the GDP of the wealthiest countries in the world was contributed to building a new country for refugees the budget would be $300bn a year. This annual budget for five years would be enough to build or bolster basic infrastructure in the country, and provide the people of the country with the basics needed to survive until the country develops to become a modern, third way-economy state.
0
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#4
Report 5 years ago
#4
I read the motion title: "I'm going to like this."
I read that its a Tory motion: "I'm going to hate this."
I read the motion: "I'm pleasantly surprised."
1
Actaeon
Badges: 11
#5
Report 5 years ago
#5
It's a nice idea, but it seems more idealistic than realistic. The biggest stumbling block is where to found it, given how any nation is unlikely to be so altruistic to give up vast swathes of arable land. Even if they were paid hundreds of billions, I doubt many governments are going to seek election on the mandate of giving away a large part of their country and creating a massive refugee camp right next to them. Then you have all the problems of setting up infrastructure, agriculture, industry, education, and an economy for seventy million people all from scratch. As well as providing safe transportation for everyone wanting to go there. |And assuming there are going to be no social problems or tensions. It's likely that the world would be funding it for generations to come.

It's certainly possible, but would require massive committment, investment, and political will. Call me a cynic, but I can't see those things ever happening from most nations of the world consistently over hundreds of years to create a stable country from nothing.
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#6
Report 5 years ago
#6
Where is this country going to be? Who is going to give up some land to found a new country?
0
PetrosAC
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7
Report 5 years ago
#7
(Original post by Actaeon)
It's a nice idea, but it seems more idealistic than realistic. The biggest stumbling block is where to found it, given how any nation is unlikely to be so altruistic to give up vast swathes of arable land. Even if they were paid hundreds of billions, I doubt many governments are going to seek election on the mandate of giving away a large part of their country and creating a massive refugee camp right next to them. Then you have all the problems of setting up infrastructure, agriculture, industry, education, and an economy for seventy million people all from scratch. As well as providing safe transportation for everyone wanting to go there. |And assuming there are going to be no social problems or tensions. It's likely that the world would be funding it for generations to come.

It's certainly possible, but would require massive committment, investment, and political will. Call me a cynic, but I can't see those things ever happening from most nations of the world consistently over hundreds of years to create a stable country from nothing.
I completely agree with this.
0
Jammy Duel
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#8
Report 5 years ago
#8
I think what people are doing is saying "I like the idea of paragraph one, but then I read an example of a highly criticised solution so it's silly". The point is the first half, the dealing with the causes rather than the outcome of the problems, something that all the proposals before hand have failed to do.
0
JoeL1994
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#9
Report 5 years ago
#9
Find an area of land big enough, find a way of preventing corruption throughout the Government and find a way of stopping religion influencing the course of the country's social development and you have an aye. There's no point creating a new country for it to be overrun with Islamic extremists in the guise of refugees.

Excuse my current cynicism.
0
Actaeon
Badges: 11
#10
Report 5 years ago
#10
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
I think what people are doing is saying "I like the idea of paragraph one, but then I read an example of a highly criticised solution so it's silly". The point is the first half, the dealing with the causes rather than the outcome of the problems, something that all the proposals before hand have failed to do.
I don't think anyone would seriously object to the first three paragraphs, which essentially state that we have a problem and need a solution. That isn't really a matter for debate.

The suggested solution is the meat of the motion though, and that's what I would take issue with.
0
Jammy Duel
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#11
Report 5 years ago
#11
(Original post by Actaeon)
I don't think anyone would seriously object to the first three paragraphs, which essentially state that we have a problem and need a solution. That isn't really a matter for debate.

The suggested solution is the meat of the motion though, and that's what I would take issue with.
I forgot how long it was, wrote it weeks ago, and the meat of the motion is the first 3, the fourth is there as an example. It was originally going to be the meat of the proposal but then when doing some further research I decided that it was far too flawed and changed the wording to make it merely an example rather than the intention of the motion.

As I said, the intention is to divert the debate away from "how do we deal with the migrants in Calais" to "how to we deal with them in Africa and the Middle East while they are still refugees?"
0
Actaeon
Badges: 11
#12
Report 5 years ago
#12
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
I forgot how long it was, wrote it weeks ago, and the meat of the motion is the first 3, the fourth is there as an example. It was originally going to be the meat of the proposal but then when doing some further research I decided that it was far too flawed and changed the wording to make it merely an example rather than the intention of the motion.

As I said, the intention is to divert the debate away from "how do we deal with the migrants in Calais" to "how to we deal with them in Africa and the Middle East while they are still refugees?"
Fair enough, I do appreciate that it's worded as an example, and I like the idea of refocusing the debate. As I say, I don't see how the first three paragraphs could incite anything but agreement!
0
cranbrook_aspie
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#13
Report 5 years ago
#13
Nice as this idea is I really don't think it will work. Where are you going to find a big enough piece of land that is habitable, uninhabited and available?
0
Jammy Duel
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#14
Report 5 years ago
#14
(Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
Nice as this idea is I really don't think it will work. Where are you going to find a big enough piece of land that is habitable, uninhabited and available?
Again, example, not the definite intention.

And most of the planet?
0
cranbrook_aspie
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#15
Report 5 years ago
#15
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Again, example, not the definite intention.

And most of the planet?
You think most of the planet is habitable, uninhabited and available? What universe do you live in?
0
Jammy Duel
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#16
Report 5 years ago
#16
(Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
You think most of the planet is habitable, uninhabited and available? What universe do you live in?
The vast majority is uninhabited, or barely inhabited, the vast ,majority is habitable, availability is the only one where questions need asking.
0
cranbrook_aspie
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#17
Report 5 years ago
#17
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
The vast majority is uninhabited, or barely inhabited, the vast ,majority is habitable, availability is the only one where questions need asking.
The vast majority is uninhabited, I'll grant you that. And the vast majority is uninhabited mostly because it's a barren desert or impenetrable rainforest, or because it's a valuable natural ecosystem, or because it's the only speck of green left in an urban area, or because it's close enough to existing rural communities to be immediately useful to their inhabitants. And I can't think of a single large enough country that would allow its territory to be excised to create a state to
0
localblackguy
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#18
Report 5 years ago
#18
(Original post by Actaeon)
It's a nice idea, but it seems more idealistic than realistic. The biggest stumbling block is where to found it, given how any nation is unlikely to be so altruistic to give up vast swathes of arable land. Even if they were paid hundreds of billions, I doubt many governments are going to seek election on the mandate of giving away a large part of their country and creating a massive refugee camp right next to them. Then you have all the problems of setting up infrastructure, agriculture, industry, education, and an economy for seventy million people all from scratch. As well as providing safe transportation for everyone wanting to go there. |And assuming there are going to be no social problems or tensions. It's likely that the world would be funding it for generations to come.

It's certainly possible, but would require massive committment, investment, and political will. Call me a cynic, but I can't see those things ever happening from most nations of the world consistently over hundreds of years to create a stable country from nothing.
(Original post by JoeL1994)
Find an area of land big enough, find a way of preventing corruption throughout the Government and find a way of stopping religion influencing the course of the country's social development and you have an aye. There's no point creating a new country for it to be overrun with Islamic extremists in the guise of refugees.

Excuse my current cynicism.
Can't say much more than they have really.
0
DaveSmith99
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#19
Report 5 years ago
#19
Nice idea but hopelessly naive and unworkable.
0
Krollo
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#20
Report 5 years ago
#20
Aye. It's a left-field idea but one that might well work.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Current uni students - are you thinking of dropping out of university?

Yes, I'm seriously considering dropping out (192)
14.29%
I'm not sure (59)
4.39%
No, I'm going to stick it out for now (393)
29.24%
I have already dropped out (37)
2.75%
I'm not a current university student (663)
49.33%

Watched Threads

View All