RayC

Touché. My apologies. I deserved that. It was a simple, childish comment. ..... however given that you know nothing of my educational achievements, that is no more than a guess. Personally, I wouldn't be confident that a guess was correct but each to their own.

Presumably there weren't as many job vacancies then and hence less need to import labour. What does this figure of 350,000 relate to? I don't understand what point you are trying to make. The UK public cast their votes in a general election every 4 or 5 years to elect a government. The government then (broadly) determines how many migrants should be allowed into the country. Yes. Immigration usually figures fairly prominently in the various party manifestos. The attached link gives an overview of the main parties' views on immigration in the 2019 election. https://freemovement.org.uk/general-election-manifestos-2019/

Jonny, Why do you feel the need to demonstrate that you failed GCSE Logic?😉

You're correct. I'm one of them. Anything else is discrimination pure and simple. I've yet to read a convincing argument to justify any such discrimination. In general - there are exceptions - an individual needs to have been living in the UK legally for 5 years before being eligible to apply for permanent residency. Imo this length of time is about right. Someone entering the country legally has either brought something to the table or is the partner/ child of someone who has. Assuming that the individual has not committed a serious crime, and that they still meet the same conditions, which led to their visa being granted in the first place, I don't see why their application for permanent residency should be refused. Only fair and just don't you think? I agree. However, a problem arises for supporters of this change in the law. Economic migrants fill jobs that, for whatever reason, cannot be filled by the local population. Can we agree on that? One estimate suggests that this bill will reduce immigration by 300,000 per annum. I believe that that there are +/-50,000 spousal views issued each year. Let's assume that the proposed new legislation reduces that number to zero. Doesn't this mean that there will 250,000 unfilled job vacancies? This cannot be 'good' from an economic standpoint and must therefore mean that the reduction in immigration numbers is intrinsically 'good' in itself. And why is a drop in immigration numbers good in itself? I can't think of any other logical answer other than it is because the immigrant is perceived as being 'different' (inferior?). I'd call that racism (or xenophobia).

I doubt that anyone in their right mind is under the illusion that the UK is a charity. The UK already has a points-based immigration system. I don't know how closely it aligns with the Australian system. I imagine that the vast majority of Australians are thoroughly decent individuals. However, just like the UK, there are almost certainly also a number of evil, bigoted racists as well.

"Tens of thousands"!!! Was there anybody apart from illegal Indians and Philipinos working in the Australian fast-food sector at the time? On the positive side, at least, the Australian government were able to put the correct visa stamp in tens of thousands of Indian and Filipino passports.

Your misplaced arrogance and delusion that you are some sort of oracle dispatching wisdom from on high is laughable. Your inability to accept basic logical reasoning illustrates that. Initially you made the factually incorrect claim that France and Germany were in favour of NATO expansion and cited this as evidence to support your theory. You now cite the fact that France and Germany were against NATO expansion as evidence in favour of your theory. I'll be generous and call this muddled thinking. That is unsurprisingly given that you have been unable to address any of my other points up to now. No Yes. Imo it goes further than that i.e the rise of India, the increased political power of the EU as a bloc, the formation of other regional blocks. See previous paragraph. Imo the US remains the dominant force. China's economic woes are a setback to its' ambitions. Russia's influence was waning which imo is one - perhaps, "the" - reason why it invaded Ukraine. I dispute the idea that three is the magic number. No. As you can see from the above, unlike you I address questions directly. For once, you are correct. I do dispute your contention that the US induced Russia to attack Ukraine. It didn't. No. Generally speaking, I think that in common with other nations, the US acts according to what it perceives as its' own best interests. So, now that we have established all that, how does destabilizing central Europe help protect (increase?) US hegemony? In a previous post, I posed the following question to you which, unsurprisingly, remains unanswered: "What has been achieved from a US perspective (by this war)? True, NATO appears to have acquired more resolve .... and added a couple of new members (Finland and Sweden), but that can hardly be called success. Indeed, Russia is still standing and if it is victorious in this war will, arguably, be stronger politically with the US shown to be weaker. Surely, if your theory is correct, the US will want to avoid this outcome at all costs and would continue funding Ukraine?" Almost certainly the wiser thing that you have said. It's just a shame that you couldn't have adopted this position at the outset. Hallelujah! Praise the Lord! You're almost certainly correct. I feel that that we might part on a positive note. You too, honey.

Let's return to basics. In your rush to curb immigration, you miss the main reason for it: Immigrants are needed to provide labour which the UK is unable to source locally. One estimate suggests that this proposed legislation will cut applications by 300,000. Great for the numbers but it does beg the question, who will do the work? How about answering this one then? Why would an increase in illegal migration have anything to do with legal migration?

In the words of the UK's recently appointed foreign secretary and former PM, David Cameron: "Calm down, dear!". Let's get some facts straight. Firstly, the only evidence that you previously posted was Burns' quote. You have not mentioned any of the other sources up to now. More importantly, let's for the sake of argument assume that Russia invaded Ukraine in order to prevent further NATO expansion. Even if true, this is in no way sufficient to prove your original contention about the war being due to a US-led unipolar hegemony. As I pointed out in my original reply to you, the US remains influential in Europe and is the driving force in NATO but the EU is highly influential in the region as well, and often holds an opposing view to the US. An example of this is Ukraine's application to join NATO. Contrary to your claim that France and Germany were in favour of the application, the opposite is true https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220404-merkel-defends-2008-decision-to-block-ukraine-from-nato I will go even further in playing devil's advocate, let's assume that your premise about this war all being about a US-led unipolar hegemony is correct. Why would the US decide to act now? Surely the annexation of Crimea in 2014 offered just as good an opportunity? More importantly, if this invasion is all part of a plan to reinforce US hegemony, why would Congress think about cutting funds now? What has been achieved from a US perspective? True, NATO appears to have acquired more resolve as illustrated in the Sachs' link which you posted and added a couple of new members (Finland and Sweden), but that can hardly be called success. Indeed, Russia is still standing and if it is victorious in this war will, arguably, be stronger politically with the US shown to be weaker. Surely, if your theory is correct, the US will want to avoid this outcome at all costs and would continue funding Ukraine? I believe that the truth is somewhat more mundane: Putin is an unreconstructed KGB man who yearns for the return of a Russian dominated Central and Eastern Europe. This is nicely outlined in a previously posted link by Kwonitoy (reposted here for ease of reference). Yes, of course it is a bias source but imo the gist of the story rings true. https://war.ukraine.ua/why-is-russia-invading-ukraine/ In answer to your other questions: No I have not being living under a rock or a bridge. My question to you: Do you have any more online meetings planned with your fellow conspiracy theorists? If so, would it be possible for me to attend as an observer? I'd like to see first-hand how these things work, although I should warn you that I'll probably drop out when it starts to become really absurd.

And that is the problem. The UK visa requirements are morally repugnant. I doubt that if the UK were to relax its' visa requirements that the birth rate in the developing world would increase dramatically.

You're being absurd by suggesting that I'm trolling. The answer to each of your question is 'No' but that doesn't mean it is morally right. What level of discrimination against non-nationals do you consider acceptable?

Maybe they should be. As I said in a previous post I don't condone the discrimination which exists in Thailand but that means that we should ape it in the UK. For a supposedly enlightened country, it's becoming increasingly dark in the UK.

You seem to assume that anyone wishing to immigrate to the UK or, perish the thought, bring their partner and family with them is a ne'er do well who is on the make. Why would an increase in illegal mitigation have anything to do with legal mitigation?

Yep it's ridiculous that someone should consider it an entitlement to be able to live with their partner and kids.

You're right. My mistake. They are excluded. However, in my defence I interpreted your original post as a proposition which should apply universally.

Institutionally discriminating against a certain group in society. Doesn't history illustrate the dangers in doing that?

The promotion of discrimination is overwhelming.

When I lived in Belgium, apart from being ineligible to serve in the Belgian state institutions and stand/vote in national elections, I can't think of any additional rights denied to me which were granted to native-born Belgians. Imo I should have been allowed to vote but, other than that, I'd say that I was treated very equitably.

Absolute tosh. The number of spouses accompanying returning Brits is about 5% of the total number of annual migrants (+/-50k). The number of " ... freeloaders targeting hoping to get a visa by marrying a Brit loser" - as you so charmingly put it - is miniscule.

I agree that this is an attempt by the Tories to stop their support migrating (pun intended) to Reform but, if they are to have any chance of that happening, they will need to enact this proposal: Dropping it will make them look even more forlorn.

"Cry racism all you like ..." Ok, it's racist (or xenophobic). The fact that other nations such as Thailand also have laws which discriminate against non-nationals is no justification.

Cue (next) nursing crisis in the NHS.

We are going round in circles! It is not "very simple ...full stop period" because the statement "Russia invaded Ukraine because of NATO" is not - as I have pointed out previously - an 'a prori truth' i.e. true in itself and not requiring any further justification. In order for the statement: "Russia invaded Ukraine because of NATO" to have validity, it needs evidence to support it. To date, you haven't supplied any, other than another theory about Russia securing the only avenue by which it might be attacked. This latter theory has been debunked by geographical fact. It is not in the slightest bit difficult to understand that because it is (overly) simplistic. However - repeating myself for the umpteenth time - simply stating it does not make it necessarily true. You need to supply evidence to support this premise. You haven't done so. How difficult is that to understand? Another competing theory is that Russia - or more specifically, Putin - does not recognise the right of Ukraine to exist as a sovereign nation. Evidence for this premise exists: Google it! Intuitively, one. And your point is? You surely don't consider this constitutes sufficient evidence to support your premise?

😂That last sentence is a priceless example of the pot calling the kettle black. Imo those who are unable to compose a rational, coherent argument to support their premise usually fall back on tired excuses such as labelling their opponents close-minded, MSM bias or a variety of assorted conspiracy theories.

I'm a member of your 'Ignore' club. I have never insulted you unless you believe that labelling you a 'Putjn apologist' is an insult. Rather than make a big show of using the 'Ignore' card every time you realise your rationale doesn't add up, why don't simply quietly let the matter drop?