UKH

Say you want to live in an at least moderately affluent, well governed, liberal democracy for the next 40 years.  Given the current global political situation, which country would you choose to have the best chance of this?

Switzerland. 

40 years living in Switzerland? There are good reasons Dignitas was founded there you know.

Scotland...

I am of course somewhat biased but Ireland?

Scotland. Iceland. New Zealand.

Slovenia. 

Beautiful, mountainous, Liberal, low crime rate, good schooling, cheap housing, affluent, quiet roads good climbing the list goes on, and on, and on........ 

I have a mate who was, until a couple of years ago, the chef de cabinet for the President of a moderately affluent, well governed, liberal democracy. He is now a professor of international relations. He recently was a visiting fellow at Oxford, at their centre for apocalypse studies (I paraphrase, but not much - "centre for existential security" I think might be it's proper name). He is of the opinion from both inside government and now outside studying them that the moderately affluent, well governed, liberal democracies are pretty much as f***** as everyone else. We had this chat sitting in his garden under a warm summer sun surrounded by apple trees covered in blossom and sipping a cool, good quality craft IPA, and it was still one of the most depressing experiences of my life. He has always been a heavy- and death-metal fan though, so that's my one desperate grasp at life belt of hope drifting past.

You must have missed the bit where he said 'well governed'.

I'm currently standing at a bus stop in Grenoble and I can see more climbable limestone from where I'm standing than there is in the whole of Yorkshire. France is a beautiful country with nice food and wine, shame about their taste in music but you can't have everything.

NZ and Canada wouldn't be bad choices depending upon where you settled. South island of NZ is beautiful away from the Canterbury plain but they are a bit racist, don't respect the environment as much as they should and it lacks a bit culturally.

I think the key is to find somewhere that allows you to indulge your passions, the politics and all that are factors that should filter your choices.

There's never been a shortage of people telling us that the end is nigh, probably more of a reflection  that as individuals our end most certainly is fairly nigh and psychologically speaking, a great many find comfort in believing that the whole world is ending with them.

As for the ideal place to live, affluence and good governance are hard to guarantee where ever you shift yourself. Personally speaking, it'd have to be some sort of Utopian paradise to give up the family, friends, community and lifestyle I already enjoy in the UK.

Reassuring then, in a funny sort of way, that an alternative decision to move to somewhere like say Colombia and just have fun isn’t necessarily a bad one.

An independent Scotland.

Iceland, (if you can handle the cost of living, the darkness during the autumn and winter, and get through their stringent immigration).

  Interesting, on what grounds?

Climate change and social and political changes coming from that in the main. Mass migration of what will increasingly be climate refugees for example - there's going to be flows of people on a significant scale predominantly northwards as certain areas of the world can't support agriculture and don't have water sources enough.

Liberal democracy is an idea that has risen in parallel with the nation state. We are already seeing welfare state nationalism (chauvanism) developing in northern Europe. If states decide to exclude migrants they begin to lose their liberalism. If they incorporate vast numbers of migrants they start to loose the cohesiveness of nationhood. There are states that have dealt with mass migration flows on a scale not seen by European countries in modern times; Jordan, Lebanon, Pakistan, Kenya - but they were fractured polities before not nation-states, and often deal with refugees by isolating them in non-citizenship limbo. See the fate of the Palestinians outside of the Occupied Territories and (ironically) Israel.

Its why smaller European democracies tend to see the EU as an existential guarantor in a way the UK thinks its big enough alone to not need. 

    Not sure that climate changehas to  the necessary catalyst for migration. It could just as well be the that as people get richer they have the wherewithal to migrate, or that other things eg.war. force them to migrate.

  Why does excluding (or controlling) migration "reduce liberalism". Arguably it enables it to be maintained.

Ireland, Switzerland and NZ seem to be the options then. 

I had half an opportunity to move to Switzerland 20 years ago.  I could almost be a citizen by now had I taken it.

No but given the recent article giving estimates of city temperatures in 2050 as one example it will cause mass movements away from equatorial zones. How will nations handle that? Fortress UK? But we will need to import food so can't pull the drawbridge completely up.

We are planning on moving house soon and more than likely northwards, jump before you are pushed.

Problem with Ireland is that if the situation gets bad Ireland can't hold its borders. Hope it won't ever come to that but who knows.

When water sources dry up and desertification begins to occur due to changes in rain fall (Africa), and as water levels rise (Bangladesh and Asia), migration is inevitable (currently in Bangladesh it's only the richer people who can afford to build on higher ground to avoid their homes being flooded) . Toby A knows exactly what he's talking about, whatever else may be a factor, if water becomes scarce and it's too difficult to grow food, people are going to migrate somewhere else simply to be able to survive. The snows in the Andes provide water to (IIRC) 7 million people, and the Tibetan plateau provides water to a couple of billion (plus) people too, the potential for migration and conflict is absolutely huge. China is gradually damming the river which is the source of the rivers which flow through Asia and into China, too.

Edit: It's why I can't allow myself to fly on holiday, going to Iceland would be ace, but 'fuck me' at the potential for serious things to unfold.

Quite. Its remarkable people still think climate change is just "a bit more sunny". 

Maybe as technology advances I'll get to fly to different places, but we really need to seize this window of opportunity before it passes. I dare say life will become harder permanently if we don't act, which will outweigh not flying, to do with food prices and availability, and resources available which would affect our lifestyles and the cost of living. It seems logical if we import food from countries which have the potential to be affected, and use resources from countries which people may migrate from.

On a lighter note, it's sunny today and I can hear wood pigeons outside, reminds me of my childhood...

You've missed the bit where he said moderately affluent

Wales.

Sorry...."affluent, with a diverse economy, rich in natural assets and possessed of a welfare ideology that ensures wealth and opportunity are shared".....fixed that for you.

California? 

I spend my working week with people mainly from Sudan, Eritrea, Iraq, Iran and they would all say the UK.  And I must admit that my work does help put things into context, hence I agree with them (and many of them have spent time in other parts of Europe).

If It wasn’t for China, New Zealand.

Otherwise I’m out of ideas.

That's an interesting (and true) observation on human nature, the worrying thing with climate change, is that it's backed up by science too, with things (seeming to be) happening faster than predicted in the weather changes.

The cold war was political, while this is scientific...

Are you mad?  The North is a terrible, awful place.  Don’t go starting any rumours otherwise...

Wintertree is right. The North is a terrible place. I know. I live there.

The sunnier the climate, the more spendthrift people become according to New Scientist, which speaks volumes about the weather in Yorkshire given the reputation of Yorkshire people for being careful with money.

On the OP’s timeframe of the next 40 years, I’m not expecting the UK to become uninhabitable through climate change. Quite the reverse, I’d expect the UK to become ever more attractive.

  I didn't suggest that climate change wouldn't be a catalyst for migration. I suggested that migration would probably happen anyway as a result of other catalysts.

Yes, I'm thinking of buying a holiday cottage in Southern Siberia. I'd look on it as a good long term investment.

Or maybe even Paisley.

Ah I know, awful place, having spent a few years there before moving south. 

A few years ago a friend (a builder by trade) came across a valley, in Spain, with a whole village (in various stages of decay) for sale for a silly (low) price. You could create your own country within a country (I suppose in the 60's and 70's it would be called a commune). I have come across a few areas in Spain that seem to be minimally influenced by central government, the locals just don't seem to take any notice. With global warming, Norway becomes an attractive place (if it isn't attractive enough already). There are also areas of France that don't seem to be significantly affected by national politics, as they plough their own furrow, such as the Perigord.

And of course currently they are right.

After a few years of a self-serving Trump sycophant PM, hard Brexit, and brexiteers breaking institutions its looking doubtful that will continue. 

Probably not uninhabitable but it will be a very different climate. I'm guessing the upper end of these forecasts. 

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/collaboration/ukcp

Me too. It's a desolate wilderness, people should keep away.

I guess I had in mind (but didn't express) that it's possibly a moot point that other factors could trigger migration, if we don't take the opportunity to stop too great a rise in global temperatures. 

See Hungary for how you can become more illiberal and autocratic by weaponising anti-migrant sentiment, even when it wasn't even really particularly big numbers. I haven't read it but I think John Lanchester's most recent novel plays with the idea of what the UK would become if it really tried to close itself off from big migrant flows. Of course that's just fiction, but look at Syrians in Jordan, or Afghans in the 80s into Pakistan - neither of those countries were liberal democracies before, but really big numbers of refugees destabilised the political systems that they did have.

The out of season foods we import from around the equator will go up in price or stop being grown there, too, potentially no more more green beans from Egypt (for example).

Canada? A mate of mine moved to Nova Scotia after marrying a Canadian and loves it. 

  The argument of Putnam, Goodhart, Alesino et al is pretty much the opposite: that diversity, at least too much too fast, undermines trust and thus threatens liberal democracy.

  You can weaponise anti-migrant sentiment to promote illiberalism but cf.the Netherlands, Sweden, you can weaponise it just as or more easily in countries experiencing rapid large scale immigration. Japan manages to remain a liberal democracy with minimal immigration. Two of the favourite destinations on the is thread, Canada and New Zealand have very carefully controlled immigration.

  Anyway, mustn't hijack the thread. I'd vote for Western Canada-if they'd let me in......

I think Ireland could go either way, depending on the UK, unification or otherwise, and whether the EU prospers.

That's what I'm suggesting... A bit confused now as to what you think I mean.

But anyway, I know that the scenarios that forward planning groups within governments and militaries are considering as existential issues are migration flows considerably bigger than say Germany experienced in 2015.

Sweden is an interesting case - there is huge amounts to admire there. most people outside don't understand how diverse Sweden now is, Finns in the 50s, Yugoslavs in the 60s, Chileans in 70s and so on - long before current flows. One town, Södertälje, took more Iraqi refugees during the war that the UK and US managed together - the war we started. But obviously there are the same pressures there: we have seen the electoral rise of a far right party that directly originated in the neo-Nazi movement, unlike the, say, the Finnish and IIRC Norwegian populist right parties that aren't neo-Nazi in origin, even if now they are not dissimilar from the Sweden Democrats.

  You wrote, "If states decide to exclude migrants they begin to lose their liberalism."

I take that to mean that strictly controlling  migration is in some way "illiberal" in itself or leads to the undermining of liberal principles. Hence your example of Hungary where Oban combines an anti migrant staff with a illiberal views on other issues (I am not clear that one is necessarily the result of another)

Putnam et al's view is almost the opposite: that if states allow in too many migrants too quickly they lose their liberalism.

There is certainly a thought process in my mind that goes:

1. No deal Brexit

2. Scotland secedes and rejoins EU

3. Scotland engineers a "brain drain" of skilled Remainers by offering citizenship to those who move there

4. I move to Scotland and take citizenship.

The prevailing politics in Scotland certainly suit me well, and it's nicer than the South East of England anyway.

I just mean that, for example, by separating children from their parents and keeping them in cages with at times abusive treatment from guards - the US is less "liberal" (for the want of a better word) than it was before it did that.

Australia putting refugees in camps on tiny islands with no obvious way of getting out of them is less liberal that it was before that policy. Israeli border guards shooting Eritreans trying to get over the fence from the Sinai means its less liberal than it was before. And so on.

I'm really hoping points 1 & 2 happen, I was born in Scotland so I'm hoping this will be a route into me becoming European again!

Its certainly coming.  It’s a day closer than it was when you posted your message.

Not unrelated - here’s a Wikipedia article on the subject which I think only shows why we shouldn’t get to carried away with statistics...  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_argument

Big support by the Canadian government for the fascist putsch in Ukraine in 2014 and they still do. Much to do with the fact that 34,000 fascists and collaborators were taken in there after WW2 and with many in that new diaspora encouraged to go into politics but also the fact that there was big support in Canada for fascism before and during WW2 especially in Quebec and in the views of PM MacKenzie. 

So Trudeau is part of a Quebecois fascist sleeper cell? Tell us more!

Yorkshire

My other half is from Cork. Lots of tech, bio-tech and pharma jobs down there, plus beautiful countryside, coastline, and Cork City is a very good night out. Now that the country has basically collectively told the church to f*ck off, the only way is up.

I think a few UKC members might be a bit wary about a place known to have occasionally flown the Irish Traveller flag above its city hall.

He is in the pocket of Paul Grod of the UCC who got Harper to send weapons to the fascists in 2014 and 2015.They pushed the question which forced the Canadian government to list the DPR and LPR as terrorist organisations and recently Trudeau exclaimed the fascist salute of SlavaUkraini and he made a woman called Chrystia Freeland,Canadian minister for external affairs whose grandfather was a Ukrainian nazi collaborator as well as supporting more sanctions against Russia and spreading the lie about a holodomor with a 1.4 million dollar grant. 

The Canadian government has been a major part in attacking the Venezuelan government to. 

https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/canada-us-coup-venezuela

But liberals have always been good friends of fascism. 

Good.

My grandfather was a chemist for the footwear industry, but I've never been tempted personally.

No she has lied about his past saying he was a victim when it has been shown as untrue.

Edit : she is a rabid Russophobe. 

So’s my retirement, yet both seem to be fixed  unfeasibly far in the future.

A theory proposed by an astrophysicist, based on nowt and championed by a philosopher? I think I’m with you on that one (see also ‘why economists should only be awarded BA’s’).

Like given for your punctuation of BA's, might have preferred a full stop between the B and the A though. 

On second thoughts, maybe the "argument" thread would have been better......

In my defence....

No, absolutely no defence. My punctuation is atrocious. I dole out commas like I’m playing Pin the tail on the donkey and colons and semi-colons are distributed purely for aesthetic effect.

I wonder, does a semi colon eventually lead to a semi poo?

I'm sure people who have been forced to undergo bowel resections will be able to answer your question. 

Canada’s a fine place to live. The provinces have their own political flavours and far more devolved powers than, say, Scotland. BC currently has a green / NDP government for example and is also excellent for outdoor fun. Having said that there’s been a bit of a right wave across the other provinces. 

An independent Scotland would work. I would like to live in Edinburgh most.

Otherwise, Australia without a shadow of a doubt. Specifically Melbourne. We lived there as a family in 1979-1982 and my Mum still regrets going back to Ireland. My wife and I went there on a 2 and a half week holiday last July and it was the most enjoyable holiday of my whole life.

No country is perfect; I am aware of that, but most aspects of life are better there. 

Personally, I would find the lack of winter climbing a hassle, but NZ has loads of that and flights are relatively cheap.

I hate the way practically all governments have let property prices rocket out of control, but this does explain why it is so expensive to buy a house in Edinburgh or indeed Melbourne.

Great post, but surely the Andes snows provide water to more than 7 million people - maybe 70 million?

Just what would governments do ?   Allocate them to loyal Party members ?

The UK

https://glacierhub.org/2019/01/17/a-survey-of-the-unesco-andean-glacier-wat...

Jeez, you're right. 75 million people, and 20 million people further downstream.

They could try what they used to do in the post war period - rent controls and building council houses, lots of council houses. And stop flogging them off cheap.

The overall best option is stay where you are and persuade as many people as possible to get on-board for the sort of liberal-social-democratic model that has made Europe, and NW Europe in particular, the all-round safest, happiest and most prosperous place on earth. 

Going somewhere else doesn't fix things. For instance, people are getting upset in Sweden about immigration. The immigration that upsets them is happening because countries like the USA and China, the new imperialist, care as much about Africa and the Middle East as their predecessors the European colonial powers did 100 years ago. 

If you take the approach that you have to support and aid Africa and the Middle East instead of subverting and exploiting them then we are moving toward a world where everyone is safer, happier and more prosperous, instead of one where dozens of wars are in progress at any time and most of the world lives in poverty and fear. 

Provide social housing (either council or housing association).

Shouldn't it be BAs? 

I agree, and probably will. However I am lucky to have options. As is evident generally and on UKC there is increasing number who clearly don't value liberalism, democracy or even peaceful existence. At some point spitting in the wind becomes pointless 

So they say.

I don’t think their number is rising.  It’s just that vested interests have really got the hang of weaponising them...

Free up all the land that was nicked by nobles and Lords and give it back to the people by nationalising the lot. Then giving out parcels of land to people for free and helping them a little with materials to build their own house on it.

Or is that too civilised, democratic and egalitarian? 

Sounds like a wonderful way to transform much of the existing greenbelt into shanty towns, untroubled by planning permission, building regulation, water, power, sanitation, transport links, schools or local amenities.

Is your world completely untroubled by actual reality?

Ah so you would prefer to live in a hut made of corrugated metal and tarpaulins with no amenities or electricity? Each to his/her own I suppose.

And no the green belt is sacred and we need much more. There is plenty of other land we can use. 

  I think that in addition we should kill all the nobles, lords and anyone who disagrees with us. The big question is "guillotine or gun?" That's the normal process isn't it?

No. Me, the wife and the two kids are quite happy with the one bog standard semi to live in.

To demand more stinks of greedy, bourgeois capitalism. Wouldn’t you agree?

Fascism hasn't generally been liberal though. Spain during the 70's, or Pinochet, or 30's Italy all seem to have been pretty illiberal.

Ooo....can we add second home owners to the list? Did you know some countries are experiencing eye watering property price rises,  12% in Czech Republic last year, and yet greedy western capitalists continue to swoop in and buy holiday homes, excluding the poor young Czech proletaria. 😂

Kill the rich !!

I couldn't say, what would you prefer? 😉

I'm proposing a democratic reform of the land in our country to bring it out of the middle ages, so there's no need to get all protective of your Lords and masters and smarm and grovel in knee jerk reaction. Calm down. 

See Chigago boys. 

Who would that be? I don't own two homes so as usual you are talking " more balls I'm afraid ".

Oh and nothing wrong with a flat or semi or a bigger house. 

To be fair, you gave the impression that you did; you said that you had a home in the Czech Republic and so people are obviously assuming you also have one over here. It's a natural assumption to make, unless you are quibbling about "owning" two homes.

People can presume I have two heads but it doesn't make it so. And it doesn't give them the right to presume, I don't go presuming about them so why the rudeness toward me? Or perhaps it is just what some folks want to believe. 

Reducing one’s freedom to move maintains liberalism. Of course, completely logical....

No, PP, making it harder for people to move where they want to does not maintain liberalism, it reduces individual freedom.

You did say that you lived over here but had a home in the Czech Republic that you visit four times a year. If you’d told us you had your normal, everyday head and another growing out of your left shoulder that you only use on holiday, it’d be fair to assume you had two heads, no? 😁

One head, but they might have multiple screen names / log ins? Does that count? 

An argument easily demolished by the simple fact that many of most diverses places are also the most liberal. London is extraordinarily diverse, but it doesn’t strike me as an illiberal place, I’d say, probably the contrary.

🙂

Costa Rica seems to be the place to live, according to http://happyplanetindex.org/

UK comes in at 34 

34th you say?

So some way behind Venezuela, where people are struggling to find basic necessities, experiencing frequent power cuts, have just narrowly avoided a coup, inflation at 1,300,000%, a collapsing economy, millions fleeing the country and increasing rates of poverty and disease.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-46999668

Perhaps Brexit is going to make us all happier after all.

(or perhaps happyplanetindex is full of shit).

The US attack on Venezuela has been brutal. 

You really do believe your stuff, don’t you ? Good for you.

Are you saying the USA has not been waging an economic war with its Venezuelan oligarchs and others against the PSUV and Maduro? 

Ho you mean, the « economic war » they waged against them by buying of hundreds of billions of dollars or their oil that their « socialist » dictator still managed to steal and squander whilst impoverishing their people to dismal levels ?

Oo work now but laters. 

I always liked the wealth of the ruling class comparison:

In the Netherlands the prime minister has a salary of approx 200.000 per year. After being PM, they tend to work in industry for 10 years for approx 1.000.000 per year. So total earnings at retirement: 15.000.000 million. Terrible, this capitalism.

Now the socialist Venezuela: The daughter of Hugo Chavez is the richest woman in the country with a wealth at the age of 40 of 4.000.000.000. So much for redistributing assets....

Are you saying the US bought oil before to help Venezuela?

Extreme poverty has gone down by 35% since the PSUV took power so that is getting rid of poverty for the first time since the USA and its Venezuelan oligarchs had complete control over it and let the people live with no health care, illiterate and in extreme poverty for 70 years. 

Really his daughter has 4 billion can you show me the proof please? 

The PSUV is getting rid of extreme poverty.... we heard all sorts of counterfactuals on these forums  but that one has to be in the top 10.

What is that statistic from ? Ho wait, the Venezuelan government stopped publishing poverty statistics in 2015...

Amazing. Just Amazing. 

And what had the Venezuelan oligarchs and the US government done for the Venezuelan people for 60 years other than have them live in extreme poverty for 60 years whist they kept all the oil wealth?

It certainly wasn't  'Amazing, Just amazing' 

Let's get on topic.

Would you move there tomorrow?

Or is this just another country or regime you rave about as being better than the evil capitalist nation you live in, but seem strangely unwilling to give up? 

When I said “Amazing”, it was simply in wonder of your amazing ability to completely blank out empirical evidence. You’re a true believer. Enjoy.

Yes I am a true believer, a believer in all the facts going back further than 4 years. 

Give up? 

Have you been taking lessons from Trump on how to deal with people who present uncomfortable truths about their country? 

And how can a "nation" be evil? It's nonsense and presenting facts that you don't like isn't raving,but I see what you are trying to do. 

Yes, I guess it’s rather convenient to ignore the spectacular failure of the last 4.

just because somebody posts something online, you read It and like It, doesn't automatically make it a fact. 

I have British and American passports and cannot think of two better passports to have. Sure, both places are in a bit of a mess and both have big issues to address, but they are much nicer places to live than almost every other country I have visited (which is over 30). 

Still enjoying living in the UK with the plan to retire in the US. 

Must say an Irish passport is pretty handy, welcome in the EU, UK, US etc with few negative undertones in other places.