RayC

Any number of reasons but I'd suggest the main ones are (not in any particular order): 1) language: the refugee may speak English but not French, German, etc. 2) family and/or friends may already be resident in the UK 3) Anglophilia: Anything from believing that the UK will afford them more opportunities/ a better quality of life vis-a-vis other countries to some (family) connection through the colonial administration. I doubt that benefits per sec have much to do with it as benefits are just as generous - if not more so - in many mainland European countries.

I can see as clearly as the next person that importing terrorism of any description is a problem. What I can't see is an answer to my question asking you to identify the mistakes that you are claim were by the UK and that Australia is now in danger of following. I'm not looking for anything else merely asking you to clarify what you mean. Something you appear to be unable and/or unwilling to do.

If your numbers were correct then anarchy would prevail.

Agreed but the US constitution is codified, the UK's is not and is based on precedent, so it could be said that the constitution as a whole is less 'rigid' in the UK compared with the US. Nevertheless, the separation of powers in the UK has been recognised as being desirable for centuries. The previous system whereby judicial and executive/legislative powers were invested in the same institution i.e. the House of Lords blurred that distinction. IMO the creation of the UK Supreme Court was long overdue and initiatives which help to expand the distinction should be welcomed.

I've checked Candide's posts in this thread and none answer my question (no reason why they should). Consequently, I still can't be sure what mistakes Australia and the UK have made. I wouldn't want to misinterpret your meaning, so why don't you spell it out. I am neither evil nor insane so - like any other right-minded person - condemn any act of barbarism such as this. Diversity isn't necessarily good but neither is it the root of all evil as right-wing ideologues would have us believe.

Still trying to decide which interview was worse: Andrew's or Liz's. I'm leaning towards Liz. Maitlis had little sympathy for Andrew. The Spectator is a right-of-centre periodical broadly sympathetic to Tory politicians, which makes Trusses' interview even more of a 'car crash'. If proof was needed that Liz Truss was totally unsuitable for - and out of her depth as - PM then this interview offers an hour's worth of evidence. I would feel sorry for her having to go through such public humiliations if it wasn't for the fact that she volunteers for this type of punishment. She must be a masochist.

The executive, legislative and judiciary should be separated. If the creation of the Supreme Court increased the separation from the other two entities then that is a positive imo.

I can hardly believe that I'm saying this but if the only choice was Johnson or Truss, I'd probably be out there campaigning for Boris. Fortunately for the UK, other options exist.

What are those mistakes?

I had a quick look on the main EU website and couldn't find any mention of this plan. Could you provide a link please.

What happened to worrying about the poor Ukrainian widows and orphans? Your triumphan tone suggests that you are revelling in the possibility of Russia inflicting further damage on Ukraine.

Never let be said that rational discussion of the potential effects of a policy initiative got in the way of political bias.

So you would approve of a ban on Israel's participation? If so, by the same token, you would no doubt agree with the ban on Russian teams being banned from international competition.

Miliband is simply stating the obvious. Eight years on from the vote, and 4 years since we left the EU, the only rational conclusion is that Brexit has been bad for the UK. QED.

Most sports originally had 'open' categories. Some such as golf still have them e.g. British Open, US Open. Trans individuals can compete in these categories. Women's categories were created because women cannot hope to beat men in most sports. That is not a misogynistic statement, it is a fact. The evidence also suggests that when it comes to sport, individuals who have gone through puberty as a male and then transitioned retain many of the physical advantages of being borne male. Therefore, the obvious conclusion is that such individuals should not be allowed to compete in women only categories.

Hope that it works out for your lad and he gets what he wants. Good luck.

Exactly the response I expected. However, you are correct. I am quite capable of doing some research. That research offered the following when I searched for the phrase, "Brexit benefits" (other results are variations on a theme): https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/article/explainer/what-benefits-brexit-does-government-claim https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/feb/04/brexit-trade-perks-firms-business-department-leaving-eu-companies Imo calling the benefits, "all a bit marginal" is being generous. All a bit pitiful is closer to the truth.

If the portrayals of Andrew and Emily Maitlis are accurate, then they are both somewhat eccentric. Maitlis doesn't appear to go anywhere without her whippet in tow. More bizarrely, Andrew has a collection of dolls which have to be arranged in a particular seating arrangement! Imo it's a very good review. Despite the good acting performances I was left wondering why the producers felt it necessary to make this film. Other than the odd - very odd in the case of Andrew - tidbit, the film didn't offer anything new.

Here we go again. Brexit isn't the problem, it's the way it was implemented. So what Brexit should have been implemented? What exactly should the UK government have done differently? What does it need to do now to realise the promised Brexit benefits?

What a load of old <deleted>. When was the last time you were in London. Why look down you nose at "low earning ... legal immigrants"? In any event, it is absolute nonsense to suggest that ithe middle class in (South) London are being replaced by immigrants. The lack of social housing, high cost of private housing (for rental or sale) means that individuals and families have to earn in excess of the national mean and median salary to be able to afford to live in the capital. I can't comment on north of the river but if you knew anything about South London, you would know that it has improved out of all recognition since the '70s, 80s and '90s. Far from being "a toilet" or "a dump" it is vibrant and thriving. As far as safety knows, unfortunately knife crime has increased throughout the UK but, as an outsider, you've a lot less chance of being mugged in Brixton or Peckham now compared with 30 - 50 years ago.

What law did the pro-EU fireworks display break? What other laws has Khan broken? London's population is increasing on an annual basis. Where's the evidence that "educated high earners" are deserting the capital? Never let the facts get in the way of anti- Labour rant, eh.

And if the flags's being flown at half mast?

Belarus is effectively a satellite state of Russia. It has a large amount of Russian armaments on its soil, which pose a direct threat to the countries which border it (Latvia, Lithuania, Poland). Presumably, you would see no problem in NATO invading Belarus in order to prevent Belarus becoming even more integrated into Russia, and to reduce the threat to Latvia, Lithuania and Poland?

Crimea and the Donbass were within Ukraine's internationally agreed borders. What justification was there for Russia invading these areas?

Discrimination and hostility based on race, religion, disability and sexual orientation was already covered by existing UK legislation. Therefore, any criticisms centred on equality or the supposed curtailing of free speech could just as easily be directed at Westminster. Having said that, imo this Scottish law is contentious and a poor piece of legislation. If the Scottish government considered it necessary to extend the existing UK legislation to explicitly cover transgender identity, then wouldn't the first clause have been sufficient i.e the bullet point, "demonstrated hostility ... transgender identity" Imo the second clause, "been motivated ... transgender identity" is problematic. What constitutes motivation? Why introduce even more uncertainty into an already contentious area.