RayC

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?

I'm pleased that you are happy with my 'compliment'. I imagine that I will have more opportunities in the future to be even more complimentary. I wasn't aware that "some" were finding it difficult to keep up. Perhaps, you could point out instances of where this has occurred and I'll help out if I can. My offer is, of course, open to you as well if you find yourself struggling. Correct. But the 'simple' fact is that you misunderstood and therefore misrepresented a comment of mine (deliberately or not?🤔) which was an error irrespective of whether it was a lack of clarity on my part or a lack of nous on yours.

We can agree on both these points You offered a premise based around a theory about a US-led unipolar hegemony. You have not offered any evidence, other than another a disproved contention about Russia cutting off the only possible route for a hypothetical NATO invasion, to support your premise. See above and also my first two replies to you. You have not answered the questions which I raised. The map is superfluous. You state this as if it were an a priori truth. It is not. I cannot explain why I disagree with you because I do not think that you have explained your theory adequately (apologies if that sounds rude). This again relates to my original questions. I do not understand your answers: Why and how, did US hegemony 'force' Russia to invade Ukraine? Simply stating that Russia invaded Ukraine to keep it neutral is not proof. It is just another contention that requires proof. In any event, it certainly isn't a moral justification (reason) for invading Russia. I also countered by suggesting that, although the US remains important in Europe, its' influence is decreasing and that the EU is becoming increasingly important: I think that that you have suggested that the EU is being used by the US? My interpretation of your view of the EU/US relationship may well be completely incorrect as, again, I have been unable to understand your explanation. I have already learnt a new phrase 'unipolar theory', so that's something. I am quite prepared to accept that I am wrong but, in order to do so, I firstly have to understand what, why and how your theory is correct. At the moment, I don't understand any of those three things.

That's what I'm asking you to explain! Isn't that what you are claiming?

I didn't because your contention that, "With a neutral Ukraine, any invasion against Russia would need to come through the The Suwalki Corridor. This not opinion, this is fact." is incorrect. Unless you supply evidence to suggest that any hypothetical NATO attack could not come via Estonia, Finland or Latvia I don't see what there is discuss on this point.

The bit about the reason for the invasion being due to a US-led unipolar hegemonic order

Do media outlets have bias? Of course they do? Are editors selective in what they choose to publish? Again, no doubt. However, the absence of certain stories from the Western media doesn't mean that they are true. They might not be published because there is no substance to them. Russia (excluding Kaliningrad) shares land borders with Estonia, Finland and Latvia. I'm no military strategist and can't claim any knowledge of the terrain in this region but, in the extremely unlikely event that NATO chose to invade Russia, why couldn't it launch an attack via this area? I'm not being disrespectful when I suggest that this all sounds like a conspiracy theory without any substance to me.

One of the most difficult grape varieties to grow and consequently one with high production costs and you suggest buying a cheap bottle of it. Yep, that makes sense.

"I can know": Robert Parker has entered the conversation What bit of: "It depends on how you define "nice" and everything is subjective opinion, of course" is unclear? I'm pleased that you are able to enjoy 500 baht wines. Obviously you have an ability to sniff out these high-quality bargains. On the other hand, perhaps, you don't have a very refined palate?

So to be absolutely clear that I understand you correctly. You are saying that one (the only?) reason for the Russian invasion of Ukraine is to counter the US-led unipolar hegemonic order? If so, it is definitely not true that "everyone who knows anything about this issue" shares this view. Again, to be clear. What are you saying? That the EU is a danger or an insurance policy (or both?) created by the US to protect its' hegemony? Not as far, or as well inserted, as it might, or should have been, according to some sources https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/05/09/ukraine-military-2014-russia-us-training/ I would but this line of reasoning does not apply here. I don't think that the Russian leadership is stupid, but neither do I think that they had any just cause to invade Ukraine. By your own admission, you don't know enough "for the 'justifications'", and imo your perception of events is flawed. You seem to seem to think that the potential break-up of Ukraine is a cause for celebration. (In any event, this is presumptive).

It depends on how you define "nice" and everything is subjective opinion, of course. My rule of thumb in Europe (other than France) is to spend no less than €10 on a bottle. Such bottles will set you back 2000+ baht in Thailand. The other problem buying wine in Thailand is that the supermarkets and department stores generally have no idea how to cellar or store wine. Whatever else Thailand may be, it is not a wine drinker's paradise.

Here we go again! True to form: More linguistic gymnastics from you. Anyway, I'm in a generous mood. Have a look at the attached link from about 3' 45" to 4' 15": I'm sure that you will enjoy it. https://youtu.be/98UYFpVC0pc?feature=shared

Where have I either misquoted you or paraphrased your view incorrectly? Post an instance of me doing so and I will apologise, although I don't expect to have to do so. You really don't like having your errors pointed out to you, do you?