Merkel fears a mega-migration from Africa of up to 100m

[Little John]

Most of the "aid" is about opening markets to exploit and has little to do with helping those countries to be self sustainable.

Additionally, many of those same countries are already well into population overshoot, which is one of the underlying reasons, if not the underlying reason, behind the growing migrations.

In which case, one has to ask the question, what exactly is much of that that aid for? To help those countries continue on the path of unsustainable economic and population growth? All that will do is make their ecological rebalancing all the harder. And it is already proving to be a horror show as it is.

[johnhemming2]

Most of the "aid" is about opening markets to exploit and has little to do with helping those countries to be self sustainable.

Another statement which is not evidence based.

[Little John]

Most of the "aid" is about opening markets to exploit and has little to do with helping those countries to be self sustainable.

Another statement which is not evidence based.

Talking out of your arse, as usual

https://www.opendemocracy.net/transform ... oreign-aid

https://files.stlouisfed.org/files/htdo ... adhyay.pdf

[johnhemming2]

Most of the "aid" is about opening markets to exploit and has little to do with helping those countries to be self sustainable.

Another statement which is not evidence based.

Talking out of your arse, as usual

https://www.opendemocracy.net/transform ... oreign-aid

https://files.stlouisfed.org/files/htdo ... adhyay.pdf

I have looked at those. I would not deny that some aid has trade benefits, but I would state again that you don't have evidence to justify your statement.

Your statement is that "Most" (ie the majority) of the aid is "about opening markets to exploit".

It is easy to substantiate this if you have the evidence. Those articles don't substantiate.

I accept that some of the aid is wasted and there is a rush to spend money to hit the target which is silly. I also accept that we should not be funding India with their space programme. Incidentally that is a valid criticism of the EU as it is our funding that goes via the EU to India that is wrong.

However, your basic statement does not have quantitative evidence.

[kenneal - lagger]

I heard someone suggest on TV, Question Time I think, that we should provide a school for every village in Africa as part of our aid. That would certainly reduce the population growth and would probably be the best use for our aid funds.

[johnhemming2]

I heard someone suggest on TV, Question Time I think, that we should provide a school for every village in Africa as part of our aid. That would certainly reduce the population growth and would probably be the best use for our aid funds.

It the sort of silly statement that looks simplistically at Africa assumes it is all undeveloped and there is no education system or anything.

If aid is to be of any use, and I accept there are many valid criticisms of the aid system, then it has to be provided subtly to achieve objectives.

I am actually quite sceptical about much of the way in which DFiD works.

[Lord Beria3]

Surely dishing out condoms and contraception would be cheaper then building village schools across Africa.

[vtsnowedin]

Surely dishing out condoms and contraception would be cheaper then building village schools across Africa.

Perhaps cheaper but not as cost effective on a long term basis. Once educated people stay educated and use the knowledge to their advantage throughout their lives.

[UndercoverElephant]

100 million.

And the rest. Why would it stop at 100 million? It will stop when one of two things happens.

(1) Europe ceases to look more appealing than Africa.
(2) Europe forcibly halts migration from Africa.

Except (1) isn't going to happen.

[vtsnowedin]

You can dance around it all you want but it still comes down to the sharks in the Mediterranean eating very well at some time in the not too distant future.
The only question is , how much disruption to your local societies and economies will you tolerate before turning the guns on the refugee boats?
And perhaps more interesting , How will you treat those that you have already let in once you close the doors?

[UndercoverElephant]

You can dance around it all you want but it still comes down to the sharks in the Mediterranean eating very well at some time in the not too distant future.
The only question is , how much disruption to your local societies and economies will you tolerate before turning the guns on the refugee boats?
And perhaps more interesting , How will you treat those that you have already let in once you close the doors?

There is no clear idea what "you" means in the above post.

See: brexit.

[vtsnowedin]

You can dance around it all you want but it still comes down to the sharks in the Mediterranean eating very well at some time in the not too distant future.
The only question is , how much disruption to your local societies and economies will you tolerate before turning the guns on the refugee boats?
And perhaps more interesting , How will you treat those that you have already let in once you close the doors?

There is no clear idea what "you" means in the above post.

See: brexit.

"You" would be the citizens of the UK and their government.

[emordnilap]

...... dealing with dictatorships and corruption, ending military adventures etc. ........
Sow>reap.

Are not those phrases and actions mutually exclusive?

Dictatorships and corruption can be tackled without resort to violence.

[Little John]

I'm trying to think of an example that did/does not include violence or the very real threat of it - be it internal or external E. And I am having some difficulty.

I'm sure there will be one, but it would help if you could point one out to me.

[emordnilap]

I'm trying to think of an example that did/does not include violence or the very real threat of it - be it internal or external E. And I am having some difficulty.

Not surprised. I never said there were any but we (particularly America) resort to violence before all possible diplomatic and sanction options are fully explored.

Violence should always be the final resort. Was Vietnam a threat to the US? Who gave the right to the US and the UK to remove their former friend Hussein?

Anyway, the only ones that might qualify are some of the eastern bloc dictatorships following the end of the cold war (and even they don't really fall within your very strict definition, LJ).