So tell me, how does the EU magically drum up money for all of this?
Then the possible remainning part of the funding, well, at the moment quite a few European countries are borrowing money with negative interest rates. So I assume they can borrow quite a pile of money before the interedt rates become unbearable. And to be clear, this is in my mind one of the most important if not the most important thing EU should be investing money for its own sake. And EU does not need to give the money to charter cities, mo ey can be loaned as well.
If European taxpayers don't want their taxes going to other EU countries then that should tell you something about their desire to aid people outside the EU.
Charity starts at home.
If you want to pay taxes to house, feed, educate and care for 3 million extra people, fine by me, just don't make me pay for your charity. In fact, why don't you already take some on your house?
I work hard and burn myself out to pay for my children, and mine alone, not for others'.
Something like up to 80% are on welfare and public housing etc.
You don't work or go to school, you go back.
Shifting discussion from the cost of refugees to talking about only the food cost, or whatever it is that £37.75 a week amounts to, seems like a deliberate dodge. I'd be pretty insulted if I was from the UK. Obviously that's not a lot of money because obviously its not the whole picture.
What they are paid, or that they are paid at all, is never ever a relevant £ figure in these discussions unless its introduced to make it sound artificially small. When discussing cost, nothing but the total £ cost per refugee matters.
The stipend is for food and all other living expenses - clothes, heating etc.
> EU guarantees funding for basic infrastructure like education, legal system, security, health cate and tax authorities.
That doesn't even happen for actual EU citizens, why on earth would an EU taxpayer allow for this?
> allowed and expected to work in the society
or what? are you throwing them back?
> Charter city citizenship does not mean access to EU.
I could use an expert to figure out the difference between this plan and living in any city in Hungary, for example.
I am no expert in all of the EU countries, can you give example of an EU country where basic education, basic health care, relatively functioning judicial and police system are not guaranteed by governments?
And why would the taxpayer want to guarantee (different than actual payment) this? Maybe because the other option is literally millions of people crashing one day in to EU uninvited?
What I don’t understand is why we don’t treat these mass exodus of people from one country to another country like we do datacenter failovers and failbacks. Give people refuge, let them carry on productively with their life and the condition is that they failback once the situation has stabilized in the country they fled from.
To allow a select few to stay, you can create a merit based program based on contribution to adopted society and assimilation to provide an incentive to become part of the adopted host country and be allowed to stay instead of failed back.
Without failbacks, we absorb good people willing to work for a better life and deprive that country of those people long term. That never allows those countries to get better because most of the good people leave and never go back. Failbacks would be the healthiest form of nation building since it would be done by citizens of the country in need of being built up.
Furthermore, refugees should not change the country that graciously hosted them in a way that many of the citizens of that country dislike. That’s being a bad houseguest.
Of course, citizenship in a charter city would not give citizenship/voting rights in the host country.
This seems to be problematic IMHO. Who would want to go there instead of already build, well run city. Would you?
How do you stop them? We're talking about extremely motivated people here.
> Everyone moving in is allowed and expected to work in the society.
How do you make them? What do you do if they refuse?
> EU guarantees funding for basic infrastructure like education, legal system, security, health care and tax authorities.
Like another poster said - who pays for it, and what funding gets cut in Europe to pay for it? Education budgets or maybe R&D?
Fences. Walls. Snakes and Alligators. Guns. I think there are lots of ways to keep people in one side of the border. In addition to these (to be sure that my sarcasm gets passed, not just in addition, but much more importantly) Clear incentives. In the charter city you can work and study and live officially a good life. You go past the snake pit, you are not able to do any of that but are immediately brought back to charter city when caught.
And there are tons of space for this: Sahara, Gobi, Siberia, Northern Canada, the central part of Australia, Antarctica, quite a few places in South America, etc. etc.
Economic prosperity is about institutions and their "source code". For a world afflicted with so many problems, it's just insane that we have got no way to try out blank-slate constitutions.
"By 2010 there were about 4 million people of Turkish descent in Germany. The generation born in Germany attended German schools, but some had a poor command of either German or Turkish, and thus had either low-skilled jobs or were unemployed. Most are Muslims and are presently reluctant to become German citizens."
The rules of charter cities would be roughly as follows:
- Anyone (literally anyone) would be welcome to move to charter city if they just want so.
- EU guarantees funding for basic infrastructure like education, legal system, security, health care and tax authorities.
- Everyone moving in is allowed and expected to work in the society.
- All refugees coming to EU are directed to these charter cities.
- Charter city citizenship does not mean access to EU.
I am not saying that this would be a problem-free solution. I am saying that it is extremely important that we start to solve the problems that arise here. Because they are the problems we need to solve to take pressure away from the refugees to flood Europe. They are the problems we need to solve when suddenly there is an environmental catastrophe and there are suddenly a lot of people looking for a new place to live. They are the problems we need to solve to make the coungries still living under bad governments to improve their governance.
And no, most people in the world would absolutely not move immediately to these cities. Most people actually want to live in their homes.
Edit, small changes in looks.