Responding to the Government’s “consultation” on “earned citizenship”; simultaneously, banging head against rock

Saturday 22nd August, 2009 at 15:10:55 · Filed under Governmental stupidity, Politics

After the recent passing of the Borders, Immigration and Citizenship Bill — already the eighth or so immigration law passed since 1997, and during its passage a lovely example of Bismarck’s attributed quotation concerning laws and sausages — the Government is now, in its usual kind concern for the well-being of everyone, canvassing opinions on what to do next. You see, even eight or so immigration laws isn’t enough, because they promised earlier on to have a Super-Duper Immigration Simplification Bill! And the BICB certainly didn’t simplify much, including as it does provisions such as:

(8) In paragraph (d) of that sub-paragraph—

(a) for “1(2)(d)” substitute “1(2)(f)”, and

(b) for “period there mentioned” substitute “qualifying period”.

At least the citizenship part of the Act version of the Bill (Part 2, if you’re counting) is so complicated that it prompted the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association to say of it,

This Part is also testimony to how, without consolidation, clauses are so unintelligible on their face that any scrutiny requires an advanced degree in immigration and nationality law.

So good going all round there on the simplification front. And so now more time has to be spent on writing and passing another law. Hence the need for “consultation”. Maybe I’m getting cynical at my young age, but I’m pretty sure the Government would skip this consultation step if there wasn’t a law somewhere that they had to have it. I’ll explain why I think this in a moment / a few paragraphs (please delete as appropriate, but don’t damage your computer screen).

The consultation documents are available at the Home Office website. It’s as full of guff as you might expect. One prime idea they’re “consulting” on is (from the Executive Summary):

28. A further means to promote integration might be for local authorities to run orientation days for migrants, to provide information about local services and resources to help them integrate more quickly. This would also deliver benefits for the local authority by providing data about newcomers to the area. Orientation days could be either voluntary or compulsory, and could be linked to a points test for citizenship. We would expect local authorities to recover their costs by charging for attending orientation events.

We would welcome views on whether orientation days should be introduced and how they should be organised – including whether they should be compulsory and whether they should attract points.

My view is that it’s an idiotic idea and a waste of everyone’s time, and that a compulsory orientation day that must be paid for by the immigrant is ripe for abuse, as well as being immoral. But why should my view matter? What are the criteria by which submissions are judged worthy or otherwise? Except to the extent they agree with the Government’s position already, of course.

But you are all fired up either way and want to tell them exactly what you think about their proposals, and being tech-savvy, you opt to “Respond to the consultation online”, only to be confronted with this. “This” is an online questionnaire run by… surveymonkey.com! They are the refuge of every social sciences graduate student who needs some data, and fast. They are free up to 100 responses, beyond which they can cost up to $200 a year. This is the kind of efficient government I like to see, except… surveymonkey is based in the US. No, I’m not protectionist at all, but I am worried about data privacy. Data protection are utterly different in America than in the UK (or indeed the EU in general), and yet here our political opinions are being sent across the Atlantic without so much as warning as to the consequences.

And now for the justification of my earlier cynicism regarding why this “consultation” is only so much a waste of everyone’s time and that the Government will only draw conclusions that it would have anyway. Consider the very first question of the survey — I mean, “consultation” — and the possible responses:

1. Do you agree that we should operate a flexible system that allows us to control the number of migrants progressing to probationary citizenship?
* Yes
* No
* Don’t know
If no, why not?

First, the question is put in terms of an agreement with the Government’s position, rather than just asking straight about the consultee’s opinion. Secondly, the biased language: who would be against a “flexible system”? Only crazy ideologues.

But lastly and most crazily: They only ask “why” you answered a particular way if you answered that you don’t agree with them. Just, wow.

Suffice to say I didn’t send my pointless response to HMG and the CIA. Instead I just pointlessly wrote about it here. But ceteris parabus, Le Roi Est Mort, Vive Le Roi!

Leave a Comment

Update on realhelpnow.gov.uk

Friday 17th July, 2009 at 21:38:17 · Filed under Correspondence, FOI, Governmental stupidity, Politics ·Tagged , , ,

The Freedom of Information request I sent concerning http://www.realhelpnow.gov.uk — the stupendously pointless Government website I first noticed back in February — was responded to back in April. I was quite bamboozled by it, but seeing and chatting to the inesteemable Heather Brooke — the FoI-exploiting journalist who did much to bring about the delightful MPs’ expenses scandal — at OpenTech has encouraged me to look at it again full on.

In response to my request, the Cabinet Office, the unfunny jokers behind the site [and I'm not sure what else the point of the Cabinet Office is; a naive person might conclude, going purely by their name, that they're supposed to support the Cabinet, but I can't see how realhelpnow fits into that], told me the following:

1. Emails discussing the reasons for setting the site up and what content to include;
minutes of meetings discussing the same issues

The Cabinet Office does hold information within the scope of this part of your
request. This information is however exempt under Section 35 (Formulation of
Government Policy) of the Act. Consideration has been given to whether it would
be in the public interest to release the information we hold relating to this part of
your request. We have decided that the public interest in maintaining the
exclusion outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

Now when I first saw this, I was utterly confused. They can tell me this information exists, and it does… but they’re not going to give it to me. None of it. First off, I can’t see how deciding this site should exist and what to put there when it does is “formulating Government policy”. Secondly, I also can’t see how what is in the “public interest” can be decided by them. It is the public that funded this stupid site! Aren’t members of the civil service also members of the public? Were they blinded and corrupted by the process of discussing this site to the extent that they now wish more than anything else to protect us from it? Lastly, even if they could decide on our behalf whether it’d be good for us to know just what they said to each other behind the scenes… how did they do it?! They just say they thought about it a bit and then, nah, they really don’t think it’s in our interests. Is that it? An internal review is on its way just for that, because apparently that’s what the next step is.

2. Stakeholders’ comments regarding the setting up of the site and/or its content

No such information is held by the Cabinet Office.

So no-one outside the Government was consulted. Great idea! It’s not like anyone else would have ideas for how you can provide “real help now”.

3. The budget relating to the setting up and maintenance of the site, and how this
was agreed upon

The Cabinet Office holds some information within the scope of this part of your
request. However under Section 21 of the Freedom of Information Act we are not
required to provide information in response to a request if that information is
freely available to the applicant. The information was requested in a
Parliamentary Question to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster from Grant Shapps MP on 26 February 2009 and is available at www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/pahansard.htm under question number
259523.

The Cabinet Office also holds information within the scope of this part of your
request which is exempt under Section 35 (Formulation of Government Policy) of
the Act. Consideration has been given to whether it would be in the public interest
to release the information we hold relating to this part of your request. We have
decided that the public interest in maintaining the exclusion outweighs the public
interest in disclosing the information.

So an MP decided to ask about the site’s budget in Parliament, got a response — which apparently was not detrimental enough to the Government, the Queen, the country, and God to publish it — and the rest, well, is harmful to all that is good and great around here. Argh.

The MP, Grant Shapps, for what it’s worth, asked more than just one question about this site. I wonder why. Here are better links to his all of his questions, and the slightly evasive answers:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm090420/text/90420w0083.htm#qn_729

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm090316/text/90316w0030.htm#qn_306

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm090320/text/90320w0004.htm#qn_37

The first question:

Grant Shapps: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what budget has been assigned to his Department’s Real Help Now website for each of the next three years; and whether other Government Departments have provided funding. [259523]

Mr. Byrne: The Real Help Now website brings together information about the range of support available during the economic downturn and makes it easier for people and businesses to access that support.

The development budget for the site in this financial year (2008-09) was less than £10,000 and falls within the existing Cabinet Office communications budget. Ongoing maintenance costs for the site will form part within the Cabinet Office communications budget which is yet to be agreed for the next three years. No other Departments have provided funding.

Less than £10,000. Does that mean they got a bargain for £9,999.99 at half the price?

The second question:

Grant Shapps: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what private sector support has been provided to his Department’s Real Help Now website. [259457]

Mr. Byrne: The Real Help Now website brings together information about the range of support available during the economic downturn and makes it easier for people and businesses to access that support.

No private-sector support has been provided to the website. A private-sector contractor was engaged under standard Cabinet Office procurement arrangements to assist in the technical development of the website.

Thanks for repeating the information in the first paragraph about the site, Mr. Byrne. That’s really useful.

The second paragraph confirms that they decided not to ask anyone outside Whitehall whether they actually want this site to exist and, if so, what they’d like to see there. The “private-sector contractor”, I found out by exercising some hard-core googleskillz, is some funky cool company called Puffbox, who admit their involvement for all to see here. The information they give about the project is revealing: It was set up by creating an account at delicious.com, the online bookmarking service owned by Yahoo!, and pulling sites added there onto the site, with positioning depending on tags. Videos are are pulled from youtube. And, er, that’s it. This took two weeks and £10,000? No wonder Government IT programmes are such a disaster zone. As the boxpuffer-in-chief admits:

We aren’t making any great claims for this site: it is what it is, a pretty front end, courtesy of regular collaborator Jonathan Harris, pointing to other people’s material, plus a (first person) message from the Prime Minister. But if it can establish itself, there’s naturally plenty of scope to extend and expand into something more communicative and interactive.

From what I can see, that doesn’t seem to have happened. Since the last time I checked three months ago there are now testimonials from Real People about how the Government has helped them with soft loans; PDF scans of leaflets for women, over 60s and, erm, communities (what’s the opposite of one of those, and am I one?); and oodles of links to DirectGov and BusinessLink, two of the larger Government portals. And that’s it. Hmm. Depressing.

The third question from the MP was

Grant Shapps: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many members of staff (a) employed by the Cabinet Office and (b) seconded from other departments have responsibility for the Real Help Now website. [259747]

Mr. Byrne: The Real Help Now website brings together information about the range of support available during the economic downturn and makes it easier for people and businesses to access that support.

The development work on the website took less than two weeks and was overseen by the existing Cabinet Office website team, supported by one member of staff on part-time secondment from another government department. One member of the Cabinet Office web team has ongoing responsibility for updates to the website as part of their existing duties.

So more of the same. Literally so in the case of the first paragraph.

The last part of the response from the Cabinet Office to me was the most revealing of all:

4. The content and conclusions of any discussions concerning whether the site is a
cost-effective use of civil servants’ time and/or taxpayers’ money, and whether or
not it breaches rules concerning political neutrality

No such information is held by the Cabinet Office.

You couldn’t make it up.

A request for an internal review is on its way right now…

Comments (3)

The Ainu of Japan believe that the world is supported by a Giant Trout and that sin is caused by otters.

Monday 25th May, 2009 at 17:48:21 · Filed under Facty facts, Miraculous discoveries, Otter, Random fun stuff

It started with a twit, as it can tend to these days. This twitticism was from the QI Elves, the small people behind Quite Interesting, which is most prominently a television show on the BBC. It went as follows:

The Ainu of Japan believe that the world is supported by a Giant Trout and that sin is caused by otters.

That sentence contains a remarkable otter fact which I didn’t recall having come across before! Certainly none of my otter colleagues had mentioned it to me, unless I misinterpreted their high-pitched squealing for hunger. So, was it a true fact?

I hereby maintain that it is, after some hardy lutran sniffing. At the least, I have traced the fact to someone who wrote a book about the Ainu after living amongst them.

The Ainu are a group indigenous to the northern parts of Japan, though these days they have almost completely assimilated into the general population for various reasons, including discrimination and lack of official recognition until relatively recently. Alas and alack.

In 1901 a book was published by the Religious Tract Society of London entitled “The Ainu and their folk-lore”, written by a missionary called John Batchelor. Some crazedly-written details of his life can be had here. I found a scanned copy of his tome at the mighty archive.org which weighs in at a similarly mighty 33MB in PDF form. [These sort of sentences are always amusing a few years after being written, because of advances in technology. Go ahead, laugh at me, Generation A! Or Generation 笑, whatever we get to]. The American broadcaster PBS quotes the relevant section (though no kudos to them for quoting the last word of the title of the book as “Folklore” rather than “folk-lore”, as that made it harder for me to find references to it elsewhere):

“When God was in the act of making the first man and had nearly finished His task, it happened to be necessary for Him to unexpectedly return to heaven on important business. Before setting out for the return journey, He called an otter, which happened to be near at the time, and told him that He was going away, but would quickly send another deity to finish the work He Himself had already begun, and he (the otter) was to deliver a message to him, explaining what to do.

“Now, although this animal said he would deliver the message without fail, he grew careless and did nothing but amuse himself by swimming up and down the rivers, catching and eating fish; he fixed his whole attention on this, and thought of nothing else. So intent was he on his fishing that he entirely forgot the message God gave him to deliver; yea, the otter forgot all about it. This is the reason why the first man was made so imperfect, and why all human beings are not quite in the fashion God originally intended. As a punishment for this deliquency and astonishing forgetfulness, God punished the otter with a bad memory; yea, he took his memory completely away. This is why no otter can now remember anything”….

“The otter’s head must not lightly be used as an article of food, for unless people are very careful they will, if they eat it, become as forgetful as that creature. And hence it happens that when an otter has been killed the people do not usually eat the head.

“But if they are seized with a very strong desire for a feast of otter’s head, they may partake thereof, providing proper precautions are taken. When eating it the people must take their swords, knives, axes, bows and arrows, tobacco boxes and pipes, trays, cups, garden tools, and everything they possess, tie them up in bundles with carrying slings, and sit with them attached to their heads while in the act of eating … If this method be carefully adhered to, there will be no danger of forgetting where a thing has been placed, otherwise loss of memory will be the result.”

So otters are more the cause of original sin, in a way, than sin per se. But it is still a fascinatingly weird theology to have.

I miss the animists, I really do.

(The trout fact was also given by Batchelor. It’s worth checking out all the quotes on the dedicated PBS website from his book.)

A similar story is recorded by Basil Hall Chamberlain in “Aino Folk-Tales”, published by the Folk-lore Society in 1888:

At the beginning of the world it had been the Creator’s intention to place both men’s and women’s genitals on their foreheads so that they might be able to procreate children easily. But the otter made a mistake in conveying the message to that effect; and that is how the genitals come to be in the inconvenient place they are now in. —(Written down from memory. Told by Ishanashte, 11th July, 1886.)

Lovely.

Comments (1)

Collection Folio No. 1 — what is the first Folio book?

Thursday 7th May, 2009 at 22:02:45 · Filed under Facty facts, French, Language-matters, Miraculous discoveries, Random fun stuff, Uncategorized

This one really had me stumped, and I’m surprised at how hard it was to solve.

One of France’s largest publishers, Gallimard, releases many books under the “Folio” imprint. For me, these books are the quintessence of French book publishing. They invariably have a white background, a simple cover, and a very serious, classic text inside. They look like this.

On the spine there is a number, which I suppose represents how many books have previously been published under the Folio imprint, but I couldn’t confirm this. They are up to four digits now… They are truly ubiquitous in any French bookshop.

An obvious question arises if one is as easily distracted by pointless questions as I am: which book has the number 1 on its spine? Purely by chance (helped no doubt by its fame), I found that Albert Camus’ “L’étranger” is number 2. It couldn’t be much harder to find its predecessor, surely? A quick google search or three should suffice…

But of course it wasn’t sufficient, otherwise I wouldn’t have written about it. [Oh, selection and publication bias, how I adore thee!] Incredibly, I could not find a simple list of all the Folio books every published along with their associated number. Yes, of course the Folio collection has its own site. But it didn’t burp up the simple list I required.

Anywho, after much speculative clicking, I managed to order all Folio books in order of publication date. And thus it was that I found that the “first ever” Folio book — albeit published on the same day as “L’étranger”, on the 7th of January 1972 — is…

André Malraux’s

“La condition humaine”

Never heard of it either, but it looks serious and classic.

Now I can sleep safely.

Leave a Comment

The case that led to the historic Gurkha vote yesterday in Parliament, along with other neglected details of the affair

Thursday 30th April, 2009 at 15:36:14 · Filed under Governmental stupidity, Gurkhas, Justice, Media, Politics

I am extremely pleased that Parliament has found some of its long-missing dignity and voted — with still too small a margin — in favour of the motion to get rid of the idiotic rules that prevent Gurkhas who were discharged before the arbitrary date of the first of July 1997 from applying to settle here, and more generally to re-acclaim the obvious principle that those who fight for this country should be allowed to live in this country if they so wish. (A video and transcript of the debate can be found at theyworkforyou.com [watch out for the poignant comment left on the site by an ex-Gurkha]; the roll call of votes is available at publicwhip.org.uk. I note that my MP, James Plaskitt of the Warwick and Leamington Constituency, voted with the Government. Does he not wonder why every single member of the opposition parties, and many Labour MPs, voted differently?).

The news coverage of the event was welcome but flawed in two important ways. Firstly, it did not clearly explain the context of the vote and why it was happening; secondly, the reporters quickly became engrossed in what the defeat of the Government means for Gordon Brown’s political career and if the vote is “embarrassing” for him. This is a real shame, as otherwise the layperson who only just tuned in to the story (like me) would not understand what exactly was being achieved, or indeed just how disgraceful the Government’s actions were.

I am still reading about the background to the case using whatever primary materials are available online. I know now, for example, that the reason for the debate was that the Government had promulgated new rules for dealing with Gurkhas’ settlement claims that were somehow abysmal. But why had the Government gone to the trouble in the first place? I’m not sure of the reason for the timing, but the trigger seems to be a High Court ruling [given, if you want to be precise, in the Administrative Court of the England and Wales High Court] in September 2008. It took me a long time to find the actual judgment, because news articles of the court case neglected to link to it and because those news articles are what dominate search engine listings related to the case, but now, for the record, here it is:

Limbu & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors [2008] EWHC 2261 (Admin) (30 September 2008), http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2008/2261.html

It is well worth a read to understand just why the Gurkhas are so deserving of our support in this case and in general, and to seriously bring into question how anyone can support this current Government, which is shown in a court of law to be entirely without scruples or honour.

If I have time I would like to write more about the Gurkhas. But I can’t promise anything, sadly…

Leave a Comment

Not really too good to be true, as it’s true and not that good

Wednesday 22nd April, 2009 at 09:32:12 · Filed under Correspondence, Media

I received a letter yesterday from some obscure organisation called Reader’s Digest. It began as follows:

Dear Mr Freeman [I don't think they know my first name, but I won't hold that against them],

Please take a deep breath before you read this letter, Mr Freeman, because great news like this doesn’t come along every day.

The reason I am writing to you is because you could soon be confirmed as the sole winner of our £5,000 Immediate Payout Draw. Further, this prize will be awarded shortly. Therefore, the action you prepare to take now could easily translate into a big cash windfall for the Freeman household [sic all over].

Many large cash prize winners have told us that suddenly coming into so much money often brings with it a few days, sometimes weeks, of utter exhilaration. In fact, this could end up being among the most exciting and memorable moments of your life.

That’s why we’ve enclosed a Frequently Asked Questions report [on which more shortly]. It includes some helpful hints [for what? Is there some sort of game involved?] and observations, and could certainly start you thinking about some of the things you’ll be asked should we confirm you as our very lucky cash prize winner.

**For instance: We stand ready to present our winner, upon confirmation, with a cashable cheque for the total sum of £5,000. Given that you may in fact become our qualified winner, and you would have had some time to think about winning, we could offer you the chance to claim the prize as an immediate wire transfer of funds to the financial institution of your choice near your home.

Mr Freeman, please take a few minutes to think about what it would feel like to be the confirmed winner of our £5,000 Immediate Payout Draw. Important documents will arrive at [my address, give or take] in a large orange envelope bearing a green 028 Tracking Ref label. It contains everything you need to guarantee your chance to take delivery of the prize cheque. [Yes, this emphasis is all theirs].

I can’t be bothered to write the rest as it carries on much in that vein, but losing the humour somewhat. They’d run out of their best jokes by the time I stopped quoting there.

Now I did have some questions relating to this prize draw, such as: Why were they making such a big deal out of it? Why do they write like a bad spoof of a 1950s hard-boiled detective story? Is there a possibility that they’re trying to persuade me that I’ve already won a prize despite this patently not being the case? Do they really think anyone is going to fall for it? And lastly, not too sound spoilt, but is £5,000 really enough to cause “weeks of exhilaration”?

I, Mr Freeman, after taking a few minutes of utter exhilaration to think about it, made the decision to read the enclosed Frequently Asked Questions booklet, because surely I couldn’t be the only one who was confused by this letter.

The top of the booklet was sliced inexpertly, deleting the tops of the letters of some of the questions. Intrigued and impressed by this stylistic touch, I started reading. The first few questions were to do with procedure if I was “confirmed” as the winner. Then came the truly wonderful queries which I’m surprised are Frequently Asked, if they are indeed:

Will I be contacted by the media?

If you win, it’s possible that you may be contacted by your local newspaper. [Oooooh! Golly and gosh!]

What kind of questions would I be asked?

Questions are usually anecdotal, such as ‘did you always believe in your chance to win?’, or ‘what were the reactions of family and friends upon learning of your good fortune?’.

Are there any other helpful hints and tips a winner might want to know about?

Some winners feel it’s a good idea to share the news with close family first in order to decide what to do with the prize! For instance, would you want to splurge on some luxury items, or put the money into a secure savings plan?

Other winners said that the money didn’t really change them as people. It just made life a lot easier!

This isn’t really a scam of the first order. It’s just a way to find the gullible, the semi-educated, the lonely and the elderly in our society and target them with crap which they will be powerless to stop. As amusing as I found this letter initially — and I did have a good chuckle again while typing it up just now — I can’t really understand how the people behind it can live with themselves for knowingly writing such tosh and thus being fully aware that only the most vulnerable of people will respond to it. Shame on them.

Comments (1)

How the British make laws

Tuesday 17th March, 2009 at 10:59:22 · Filed under House of Lords, Politics

This has to be read to be believed. It is a description by Frances Gertrue Clair “Baroness” D’Souza, CMG, a member of the House of Lords, of an attempt by a Liberal Democrat peer to restrict membership of that club only to people who are registered to pay tax in the UK. A reasonable aim, you might think, and certainly one that should be
discussed seriously.

Or, if you have no respect for ethics or even a desire to look like you’re concerned with ethics, you could take advantage of the Government’s power to schedule time to discuss Bills — which in this case was about two hours — and just talk a lot about nothing particularly relevant until time has run out.

This is actually a real tactic, and is called a “filibuster”. Read the whole debate, if you dare, if you can understand it, and sigh with despair or boredom or frustration. This is how laws are made around here.

Leave a Comment

Film review, of a sort

Saturday 14th March, 2009 at 20:51:57 · Filed under Media ·Tagged , ,

love is funny
life is funny
“vicky cristina barcelona” is very very funny: Woody Allen at his adolescent best

[Why did it take so long to be released in the UK legally? According to the Internet Movie Database, it was released in the US in August 2008, but here only in February 2009. There are no translation issues, so what's going on?]

Leave a Comment

Emacs has it

Wednesday 11th March, 2009 at 18:01:02 · Filed under Site news

You can blog from emacs too, as I just did with this post — if you’re crazy enough to use emacs, which I am.

(Adding categories requires the inefficient and far too common method of using a Web browser for now, but given time and misplaced effort I’ll find a way around this too).

Leave a Comment

How many countries can a citizen visit without a visa? [Bonus Economist Graph Edition]

Thursday 5th March, 2009 at 22:22:51 · Filed under Politics, The Economist, Travel

I have considering the titular question for some time, and today The Economist did its job of answering it for me by relaying the findings of Henley and Partners, who apparently “are the world’s leading specialists in international residence and citizenship planning”, as well as being tax avoidance advisers, by their own reckoning. I’m proud to advertise their services.

A graph showing some of the more notable countries and interesting statistics is at The Economist’s website, while H&P’s full list is in PDF form at their site.

Some of the most interesting finds for me are:

  • Afghanistan comes last, followed by Iraq. Is this because of the American invasions? They rank even lower than Somalia and North Korea.
  • What causes some of the small discrepancies between the countries whose citizens have greatest freedom to travel? To take the most obvious example, what is that extra country that gave Denmark the sole lead with 157 countries not requiring a visa from its citizens? Which countries let in Portuguese but not Brits?
  • Courtesy of the cat: If one could have two passports from any on the list, which ones should be chosen in order to maximise the number of visa-less countries one could travel to? Denmark’s might not necessarily be one of them, of course. Similarly for three passports, and so on. And so what is the minimum number of passports needed in order to visit every country in the world without a visa, assuming it’s possible? Is it possible?
  • Even more interesting would be to list the countries in order of how many other countries’ citizens can enter them freely. I suspect it’d look quite different from this one, maybe even to the extent that merely listing them in the opposite order to the current one would almost suffice…

    • A 0-1 matrix showing which countries let in which other countries’ citizens will answer most of the questions. Come on, Economist, I’m waiting…

Comments (6)

« Newer Posts · Older Posts »