RayC

Shared a changing room have you?

The UK does not take responsibility for everyone. This is a Europe-wide problem. However, given some of the reporting and commentary, one could be forgiven for thinking that illegal immigration is a uniquely British problem which is being exasperated by those dastardly French and the EU.

It's not difficult to understand and I doubt that many people believe that males should complete in female competition. However, the problem in these cases was not "wokeness", it was people jumping to conclusions about these boxers' gender when there was little evidence in the public domain on which to base a judgement and what evidence there was conflicted.

I agree that sport needs to sort out the issue. My understanding is that chromosome testing is 99% accurate. Imo if an individual has an XY chromosome then they should not be permitted to take place in female competition.

From Reform's 'contract with the people' (manifesto): "Stop the Boats with our 4 Point Plan Leave the European Convention on Human Rights. Zero illegal immigrants to be resettled in the UK. New Department of Immigration. Pick up illegal migrants out of boats and take them back to France" How does leaving ECHR help? What will be done with illegal immigrants who are caught in the UK? What will this new department do? I doubt that France will agree to this measure I think that the only clear impact of Reform's policies would be a diplomatic row with France. Imo a consolidated European response which tackles the problem at its' source is needed. However, I have no idea what that response might be and whether it might be successful. Imo Reform's approach is overly simplistic, impractical and would not solve the problem.

Who are you referring to? The boxer, Imane Khelif? If so, can you post a link supporting those claims.

I suspect that we have a different view of "when" might happen.

I stand corrected. However, that "will" does not indicate "when". It is not true to say that Ukraine was keen to join NATO before 2014. Undoubtedly, certain factions were but all major political figures in Ukraine were committed to a referendum on NATO membership and public opinion was lukewarm on the idea. Couple this with Franco-German antipathy to Ukraine's membership and Yanukovych's statement, the situation in 2010, if not 2008, was that Ukraine was not going to join NATO any time soon. That Yanukovych disappeared was entirely his own fault. If he not looked to Russia but instead had signed the EU - Ukraine Association Agreement as the Ukrainian electorate mandated him to do, the Maidan Uprising would not have occurred.

NATO did not "make clear" that Ukraine and Georgia would become NATO members in 2008. A few voices stated support for the idea, but any decision to admit new member countries has to be unanimously agreed by the existing membership. When it came to Ukraine's accession, that was far from the case; France and Germany were lukewarm with their support to say the least. Moreover, by 2010 even the US's enthusiasm for Ukraine's accession to NATO had cooled and in that year, Yanukovych effectively dismissed the prospect of Ukraine joining NATO. The bottom line is that until Putin's invasion of Crimea in 2014, there was little chance of Ukraine joining either NATO or the EU, and without Russian aggression since 2014 imo there would have been little talk today of Ukraine joining either organisation in the immediate future.

And that justifies the Russian invasion of Ukraine? Whataboutery at its' worse.

Thanks for the links. As you say the research conducted by Pew contains no data about Belgium specifically, so it is basically irrelevant. Wrt the Brussels Times' link. Imo a wavering in support amongst the general public two years into a conflict is hardly surprising. The view amongst the Belgium public is consistent with the wider EU public opinion, so I'm not sure why you single out Belgium? Belgium's conduct in the Congo was shameful, but unless you believe that there is something in the Belgian pysche that lends itself to colonialism and sadistic behaviour, it has no relevant to the Belgium's role in the current Ukraine conflict. Unfortunately, the PVDA has a small number of unreconstructed Stalinists within its' ranks, so their support for Russia is hardly a surprise: Without wishing to sound like an apologist for Vlangs Belang - a party I abhor - their leadership has condemned and distanced itself from Russia since the invasion. So far as financial support from Belgium for Ukraine is concerned, the unimaginative titled 'Belgium -Ukraine' fund stands at €1.4 billion and the Belgium government passed a bill in March authorising €400m in military aid to Ukraine. (Note: The link which I have is in French so cannot be posted. A search of 'Le Soir (Belgium)' should uncover relevant details). Far from wavering in its' support for Ukraine, the Belgium government and public have remained as steadfast as others in the EU.

Do you have a link supporting that contention?

If you say so.

As opposed to either dismissing everything that appears in the MSM despite the evidence, for the simple reason that it does not fit your narrative or, alternatively, inventing 'facts' to 'support' that narrative.

Like most people, I don't like being patronised ("Do try to keep up"). However, I over-reacted. I have no excuse for labelling your post as a lie. I apologise and withdraw the comment. What I should have said about your comment that, " .. the expansion of (the) EU ... had a bigger impact (than Brexit)" on the £/baht exchange rate was that it is uninformed as it is not supported by the evidence. Sterling declined overnight by +/-10% due to the referendum result: When the EU expanded by 10 members in May 2004, the pound increased against the baht by 4%. Bulgaria and Romania (in 2007) and Croatia (in 2013) joined the EU, the £/baht rate declined by <1% (effectively within the range of a normal trading day). The idea that sterling's decline from 2007 onwards was a result of the events of 2004 i.e. that it would take the money markets 3 years to absorb the implications of the EU expansion in 2004 is imo nonsense. It might be argued that the Eurozone crisis from 2009 - 15 weighted on sterling vis-à-vis the baht but imo the effect was limited. The two most important events, which have moved the £/baht exchange rate over the past 20 years are 1) the financial crisis of 2007/08 and 2) the result of the Brexit referendum. In 1), the market judged the impact to be greater on the UK's economy than Thailand's hence the decline. 2) shouldn't require any further explanation. The effect of the expansion of the EU membership per sec had no negative impact on the £/baht exchange rate.

🤷 The pound declined as more countries were allowed membership of the EU: That is untrue; incorrect; a falsehood; a lie, etc. But my mistake, Donald, you didn't state that (top of p5) 🤦

Macron resigned from the Socialist Party in 2009. He's probably best described now as a right-of-centre liberal.

Your original post offers no qualification re residence or anything else. It is just a categorical statement. If you have changed your mind and now wish to introduce nuances that's fine, but let's not pretend that was the original point. Thanks The post in question is shown below. It is incorrect therefore it is not defamatory to call it as such. "The expansion of EU from a decent trading block to a gravy train had a bigger impact. Just look at the pound decling as more countries were allowed in."

That is quite a career. You should be proud of that.

Getting desperate. The realisation that their argument is lost may (hopefully) be beginning to dawn on some Putin supporters.

Your original post: "Here in UK my wife has a doctors appointment today. Booked it last week. My father is due an op. On the waiting list for 4 weeks already, due on 27th August. It's not as bad as some like to make out." Based on your family's experience you therefore conclude that waiting times are not as bad as some people claim. No nuance, no acknowledgement that other people's experiences may have been different. The clear implication of your post is to suggest that others are complaining unnecessarily. You will, no doubt, state that you didn't say that and that I am misinterpreting your position. Factual true you didn't state that explicitly, but given that I am not alone in my interpretation it might suggest that you should try to be less ambiguous in future. Imo you are being disingenuous. Still, I suppose that it is better than stating outright lies as did regarding £/baht exchange rates in another post.

A huge body of evidence would suggest otherwise

Once again, fine; you are happy with your personal experience. In your opinion, "it is not as bad as some people like to make out". There are people who don't share that view.

Untrue. The pound actually rose against the baht after the expansion of EU membership in May 2004 and January 2007. In contrast, the pound declined by 10% against the baht following the 2016 referendum.

If you are happy with the level of provision that's up to you, but then don't claim that, "it's not as bad as some like make out". That is a relative judgement: some people might believe that things are worse than reported.