Can French citizens move freely to the French Southern Territories? (people, work)

[deneb78]

Originally Posted by Dry Heat

I understand OP’s question is entirely hypothetical, but I cannot help pointing out the French territories he mentions are hardly suitable for settlements and/or entrepreneurial activities.
They are barren wastelands with a dreadful climate and on top of that are light years away from the nearest signs of human life.
Good places for a hermit, not so good for the average bloke...
How could a Frenchman survive with no baguettes, no wine, no Roquefort?

People live on Easter Island and Tristan da Cunha which are just as if not more remote. Amsterdam Island actually has a pretty mild climate year round. Yes the question is hypothetical as I imagine only a select few would be daring enough and have the right mindset to try. I was just enquiring about why the government doesn't want people to move to a place that doesn't have a permanent population and can sustain themselves.

[forgotten username]

Originally Posted by Pokitobounto

^obviously, it's impossible, not only roquefort, but cheese in general.

i'm fine with italian cheese


but yeah obviously these places are not really attractive for human life to begin with

[deneb78]

Originally Posted by forgotten username

i'm fine with italian cheese


but yeah obviously these places are not really attractive for human life to begin with

And yet people live in Greenland and Northern Canada...

[forgotten username]

Originally Posted by deneb78

And yet people live in Greenland and Northern Canada...

Well it's different in the sense that Greenland and Northern Canada are big areas connected to even bigger land areas. Humans have lived there for thousands of years so even if the conditions can be harsh, there are supposedly enough ressources for a certain amount of people, whereas we're talking here about tiny stretches of land in the middle of a cold ocean, so it's better to leave it to penguins and scientists.


And actually last time I was in Montréal I talked about it with a friend who told me that basically it was impossible for most Canadians to go there (Nunavut actually). Not sure how it works exactly, but would it be easy for you to leave the city and start a life on Ellesmere Island ?

[deneb78]

Originally Posted by forgotten username

Well it's different in the sense that Greenland and Northern Canada are big areas connected to even bigger land areas. Humans have lived there for thousands of years so even if the conditions can be harsh, there are supposedly enough ressources for a certain amount of people, whereas we're talking here about tiny stretches of land in the middle of a cold ocean, so it's better to leave it to penguins and scientists.


And actually last time I was in Montréal I talked about it with a friend who told me that basically it was impossible for most Canadians to go there (Nunavut actually). Not sure how it works exactly, but would it be easy for you to leave the city and start a life on Ellesmere Island ?

If the culture is based around the sea and fishing then you could easily build a sustainable economy in the southern ocean. There are lots of resources there. Places like Greenland derive a large part of their economy in the sea.
Actually I know a couple of people who moved to Nunavut. They aren't really friends just acquaintances. They both got government jobs there. I asked them how it is and they said that in the town they live they know everyone but everything is super expensive. They have been there a while and enjoy the open space and peace there. So it is possible for people to enjoy that kind of life. I know it wouldn't be for me but it could be appealing to.some.

[forgotten username]

COnsidering your climate preferences I have a hard time imagining you moving there.


I guess in the case of these areas the space is so small that there has been a conscious choice to "forbid" access to these areas to prevent any form of environmental degradation, like for most of the Antarctic continent. As much as I'd be curious to visit these places, I think it's better if they are left as they are.



Some place more likely to be visited / lived on is the Svallbard Islands, which are closer, bigger, more populated and within the reach of most europeans. Still, it's mostly for scientists.

[deneb78]

Originally Posted by forgotten username

COnsidering your climate preferences I have a hard time imagining you moving there.


I guess in the case of these areas the space is so small that there has been a conscious choice to "forbid" access to these areas to prevent any form of environmental degradation, like for most of the Antarctic continent. As much as I'd be curious to visit these places, I think it's better if they are left as they are.



Some place more likely to be visited / lived on is the Svallbard Islands, which are closer, bigger, more populated and within the reach of most europeans. Still, it's mostly for scientists.

I definitely understand the need for environmental protection as I imagine these environments are quite fragile. But why didn't France turn the whole territory into a national park then? It probably would give it more protection than it has now.

[Bordeaux33]

These islands are classified as "réserve naturelle", it's similar to a national park.

They aren't interesting in itself, what interests the French state is the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and the resources they possess under the ocean.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_economic_zone

[forgotten username]

ah yeah, I guess it's the economic zone that's interesting mostly. Otherwise I don't see why they would have gone there in the first place.

[Moth]

How about those two islands off of Canada that France still owns?