Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    24 Jun '14 19:06
    http://travel.aol.co.uk/2014/06/24/ireland-is-the-best-country-in-the-world-good-country-index/?ncid=webmail13

    Ireland has been crowned the best country in the world in a new survey which ranks nations according to their contribution to humanity and the planet.

    It may struggle economically and politically, and its sporting achievements may be modest, but the Republic of Ireland is as good as it gets, according to the findings: it scored top in the category relating to equality and prosperity, and within the top ten for culture and health and wellbeing.

    The UK came seventh overall in the poll, while the US limped in at 21st place, thanks to low scores on international peace and security.

    War-torn Iraq, Libya and Vietnam came joint bottom of the pioneering new survey, which has compiled its results for the first time this year.

    The Good Country Index is the brainchild of respected policy adviser Simon Anholt, and combines 35 separate indicators from the United Nations, the World Bank and other international institutions, and ranks countries accordingly.

    Mr Anholt said he hopes it will transform the way countries do business by encouraging them to think about the global impact of their actions, rather than cut throat self interest.

    He said: "The idea of the Good Country Index is pretty simple: to measure what each country on earth contributes to the common good of humanity, and what it takes away.

    "Using a wide range of data from the UN and other international organisations, we've given each country a balance-sheet to show at a glance whether it's a net creditor to mankind, a burden on the planet, or something in between."

    Mr Anholt insisted the survey was not designed to name and shame and make moral judgements about countries, but to recognise the importance of contributing to the greater good in a globalised society.

    He hopes it will spark debate about what the purpose of a country is, adding: "Do they exist purely to serve the interests of their own politicians, businesses and citizens, or are they actively working for all of humanity and the whole planet?

    "The debate is a critical one, because if the first answer is the correct one, we're all in deep trouble."

    Mr Anholt called for countries to stop behaving "as if they are islands". He said: "The whole world is connected as never before, yet we still treat countries as if each one was located on its own private planet.

    "It's time countries started thinking much harder about the international consequences of their actions; if they don't, the global challenges like climate change, poverty, economic crises, terrorism, drugs and pandemics will only get worse."

    The list looks at the size of a country's economy, and then assesses its global contributions to science and technology, culture, international peace and security, world order, the planet and climate, prosperity and equality, and the health and well-being of humanity.

    While Ireland topped the poll, the Nordic region makes a collective contribution to humanity and the planet which far outstrips any other part of the world.

    Outside of western Europe and the English-speaking world, the highest ranked country is Costa Rica, which comes in at 22nd place, while Chile was ranked in 24th place.

    The African nation which contributes most to the planet is Kenya, which, at 26th place, is the only country on the continent to break into the top 30.

    Researchers said Kenya was an "inspiring example" which showed that making a meaningful contribution to society is "by no means the exclusive province of rich 'first-world' nations".

    Nevertheless, nine of the top 10 countries are in Western Europe, making it by far the "goodest" part of the world.
    You see the US should stop behaving like it's an island and be more like Ireland - which is an island but we don't have to behave that way.
  2. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    24 Jun '14 19:21
    Chicks dig bad boys
  3. 24 Jun '14 19:29
    "We don't want the Irish"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boO4RowROiw
  4. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    24 Jun '14 19:35
    Originally posted by Krod Mandoon
    "We don't want the Irish"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boO4RowROiw
    Haha
  5. 24 Jun '14 20:09
    Originally posted by finnegan
    The UK came seventh overall in the poll,
    It probably lost some points because of Northern Ireland.
    If they gave Northern Ireland back to Ireland, would their positions reverse?
  6. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    24 Jun '14 20:14 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    It probably lost some points because of Northern Ireland.
    If they gave Northern Ireland back to Ireland, would their positions reverse?
    The UK cannot unilaterally "give" Ulster to Ireland because there are a lot of British citizens living there who don't want to be "given" to the Roman Catholic Republic of Ireland.

    EDIT - That's basically the Falklands/Malvinas situation too.
  7. 24 Jun '14 20:29
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Chicks dig bad boys
    Chicks dig Kilts
  8. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    24 Jun '14 20:35 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    Chicks dig Kilts
    Scots are pretty bad boys. Who killed Frank McPhee? Plus bayonet charges, greatswords, slashing duelling broadswords, William Wallace, British Empire, Vikings...

    If it weren't a bad boy in that kilt it would just be a transvestite.

    EDIT - Heroin, Glasgow knife fights, conquest of Picts
  9. Standard member DeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    24 Jun '14 21:11 / 1 edit
    The complete list can be found here: http://www.goodcountry.org

    There's a bunch of categories, for which the UK came first on Science. Belgium are best for Culture. Egypt came top on International Peace and Security (they contribute a lot of peacekeeping troops). Germany are top for World Order. Iceland for Planet and Climate. Ireland were top for Prosperity and Equality. Spain were first in the list for Health and Wellbeing.

    Most of the top ten were Northern European countries, with New Zealand the exception.
  10. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    24 Jun '14 21:46
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    The UK cannot unilaterally "give" Ulster to Ireland because there are a lot of British citizens living there who don't want to be "given" to the Roman Catholic Republic of Ireland.

    EDIT - That's basically the Falklands/Malvinas situation too.
    That didn't stop them from "giving" (restoring would be a better term in both cases) Hong Kong to China.
  11. Standard member DeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    24 Jun '14 21:56
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    It probably lost some points because of Northern Ireland.
    If they gave Northern Ireland back to Ireland, would their positions reverse?
    No, otherwise Egypt wouldn't have come top on International security. It's participation in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, and having a large Arms export industry that did it. This is about contributions to the rest of the world and doesn't include internal stuff. This is copy and pasted from the goodcountry,org's FAQ:
    Q: I’m surprised to see countries like Egypt and Nigeria among the best performers in the peace and security category. Why is this?

    A: On the whole, the countries that score well in this category do not export arms; they are not directly involved in international violent conflicts (except in some cases as peacekeepers); they tend to have tight cyber-security, and may contribute significantly to UN peacekeeping missions with troops and/or funds. Of course, several of them have a great deal to worry about at home, including violent conflicts within their own borders, and their contribution to international peace and security is often a largely passive one: they do very little harm overseas, rather than doing a lot of good. Still, the net effect is positive and this is what earns them their high ranking in this particular category – even if, in many cases, their overall contribution to the common good is let down by lower scores in other categories.

    It’s important to emphasize again that the Good Country Index only measures the international impacts of countries; what they do at home is well documented in many other studies and surveys. The fact that domestic behaviour isn’t included in the Good Country Index of course doesn’t mean we excuse, condone, minimise or overlook it in any way: it’s simply not the thing that we’re measuring.
  12. Standard member DeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    24 Jun '14 21:59
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    That didn't stop them from "giving" (restoring would be a better term in both cases) Hong Kong to China.
    That was on a 99 year lease which had come to an end. That does not apply to either the six counties or to the Falkland Islands. The argument about wishes of the population is, however, somewhat undermined by the shocking treatment of the population of BIOT.
  13. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    24 Jun '14 22:01
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    No, otherwise Egypt wouldn't have come top on International security. It's participation in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, and having a large Arms export industry that did it. This is about contributions to the rest of the world and doesn't include internal stuff. This is copy and pasted from the goodcountry,org's FAQ:
    Q: I’m surprised to see co ...[text shortened]... one, minimise or overlook it in any way: it’s simply not the thing that we’re measuring.
    Surely the UK restoring a colonial possession back to its rightful owners would earn it some brownie points for doing "some good" in international matters.
  14. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    24 Jun '14 22:02 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    That was on a 99 year lease which had come to an end. That does not apply to either the six counties or to the Falkland Islands. The argument about wishes of the population is, however, somewhat undermined by the shocking treatment of the population of BIOT.
    Wrong, wrong, wrong. Hong Kong and Kowloon were leased "in perpetuity" while the so-called "New Territories" were the subject of a 99 year lease:

    When the British were first granted the island of Hong Kong in perpetuity, the British parliament was incensed and felt that they had been given a "worthless piece of rock." However, the colony grew rapidly as factories (the term for warehouses), banks, stores, ship repair facilities, etc sprang up. The problems of lack of space and water on Hong Kong island limited the expansion of the British colony. Most of the island consists of rocky mountains. Thus, a chief aim of the British in the second Anglo -Chinese War (1858-1860) was the expansion of its colony. This was achieved with the treaty in 1862 with the signing of the convention of Beijing which ceded a mainland area across the harbor from Hong Kong island, known as Kowloon, meaning 9 dragons, a very auspicious name. Again, this area was ceded to the British in perpetuity and, with its acquisition, the colony greatly expanded.

    The British colony prospered and expanded and soon became famous as the most innovative and reliable center in Asia for banking, shipping and insurance. However, Kowloon also suffered from lack of water and arable land and in 1898, the British jumped on the bandwagon of nations demanding territory from China and demanded to be given a large area adjoining Kowloon, which became known as the New Territories. Larger than both Hong Kong Island and Kowloon, this acquisition, unlike the previous two, was not given to Britain in perpetuity, instead, the British were given a 99 year lease on the area, a lease which expired in 1997. The area continued to prosper and to grow as a central distribution point for East West trade.

    http://www.fsb.muohio.edu/mis399/student/HongKongHistoryBrief.htm
  15. Standard member DeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    24 Jun '14 23:05
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Wrong, wrong, wrong. Hong Kong and Kowloon were leased "in perpetuity" while the so-called "New Territories" were the subject of a 99 year lease:

    When the British were first granted the island of Hong Kong in perpetuity, the British parliament was incensed and felt that they had been given a "worthless piece of rock." However, the colony grew rapidly ...[text shortened]... point for East West trade.

    http://www.fsb.muohio.edu/mis399/student/HongKongHistoryBrief.htm
    Well yes, but the resultant rump wouldn't have been viable for the reasons you gave in your post. The Chinese weren't going to accept British Sovereignty of the remainder and Britain could almost certainly not defend Hong Kong from the Chinese if they intended to use force. The remaining Overseas Territories are viable, with the possible exception of Pitcairn because the population is so small.