RayC

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 They might not be published because there is no substance to them.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?

You ignore the majority of a well reasoned argument why Putin might be replaced as Russian leader and offer an analogy based on a work of fiction in support of your position?! 😂😂😂😂😂

Which is what happened post-WW2. Are you suggesting that wasn't a war worth fighting? Often there is a cost of victory as well as defeat.

Are you saying that the justification for Russia's invasion of Ukraine is that it is a reaction to (1) The US hegemony in Europe and (2) Ukraine's application to join NATO? If so, then imo neither has much validity. The US has been, and remains, an important ally in Europe but its' influence is waning: European states increasingly look to Brussels, rather than Washington, for guidance especially since the large increase in EU membership in the 2000s. Ukraine was not going to become a NATO member anytime soon prior to the Russian invasion.

Yes it is about being "invited". The UK government has identified sectors of the economy in the UK where, for whatever reason, there are positions which are not being filled by the local population. Therefore, it "invites" overseas workers to fill those positions. Imo it is counter-productive to restrict the potential supply pool by imposing draconian restrictions such as potentially breaking up the family unit. We can agree that bringing a partner (and children) to the UK will entail expense, it is therefore higher unlikely that a potential economic migrant will apply for a position if the move doesn't cost-in for them. I guess that where someone stands on the issue of (legal) mitigation depends largely upon one's initial assumptions. It is surely incontestable that people migrate to improve their lot? Where a difference occurs is that some of us start from the position whereby we believe that migrants are overwhelmingly decent people, who are prepared to work hard and integrate themselves into the host society. At the other end of the spectrum, there are those who are suspicious of immigrants and think that they are simply on the take and, in the worst-case scenario, out to destroy the host country's way of live. Sadly, an increasing number of people seem drawn to the latter extreme. If you are going to paraphrase what I say please do not alter the meaning: I did not say that "Taking investments and property ownership into account would ... make (some) feel hard done by". What I actually said was " ...any means tested system will almost certainly leave some people feeling hard done by" which is completely different. You are probably more fortunate than many by not being greatly affected by this proposed change.

Yes, I am being picky. I do this to illustrate the point that any means tested system will almost certainly leave some people feeling hard done by. Imo it should be done away with completely. Anyone coming to this country at the invitation of the UK government should be able to bring their (nuclear) family with them. (I think that?) we agree that this proposed change in legislation has nothing to do with fairness and morality. That is not the point. If there is a reduction in the number of spousal visas granted, with a corresponding decrease in the number of immigrants to the UK, then the government can claim a 'victory': You appear unwilling to acknowledge this as, unfortunately, this change in legislation has negative implications for you personally.

Absolutely correct. Low hanging fruit.

If fairness (morality) had anything to do with it, then the legislation wouldn't be being proposed in the first place. However, I don't believe that it would be necessarily simple to take into account the different living costs throughout the UK. For a start: How should it be done? By region? By borough? What about the unintended consequences of introducing such a plan? For example, there are nursing/ care vacancies throughout the country. If the financial requirements for London are higher than elsewhere - which would almost certainly be the case - there may well a shortage of applicants applying for jobs there compared with other areas, especially if this means keeping the family unit together.

I would imagine that most, if not all, applicants' situations are unique in some way; however, addressing 50+k applicants based on their own individual circumstances simply isn't possible. Some structure is necessary. As I said previously, I don't agree with the proposed legislation but, in this instance, I understand why it has taken this form. The KISS principle definitely applies here given the objective.

If the waiting times for processing applications are being reduced then that is welcome news. Wrt including property and investments in the calculations, why would the government do that? The whole point of this piece of legislation is to reduce the number of (spousal) immigrants. Why introduce anything that undermines that objective? I don't agree with the objective; I think it cruel. But as piece of legislation to support the goal of reducing immigration it makes perfect sense, even if the numbers involved are relatively small.

The bottom line is that the economics associated with immigration in the UK is just a side-issue: It's all about the absolute number of immigrants. Right-wing populists and their media mouthpieces scream that there are too many immigrants - not that they are racists or xenophobes you understand - without having the faintest idea of what criteria should be used to determine the 'right' number, let alone what that number actually should be. Unfortunately, this call for a reduction in the number of immigrants seems to resonate with a sizeable minority of the electorate. The Tory government - which is hemorrhaging support - has decided that embracing this anti-immigrant rhetoric gives it the best chance of avoiding defeat at the forthcoming general election.

But it presumably would require extra cost, time and effort to verify the legitimately of this additional data as a time when there is already a backlog? And where do you draw the line regarding what additional data to take into account?

For once, I agree with your conclusion. Illegal immigration is a problem both in human and financial terms. From a purely financial perspective it costs £3bn per year according to the Home Office figures. Apparently it takes an average of 6 months to reach a first decision on an asylum application and 75% are granted. It then takes an average of 82 weeks to complete the appeal process. Given that housing illegal immigrants costs £8m/day, reducing the time taken to close an asylum case by only a month would save +/-£300m. Surely that must be possible? Having said that, illegal immigration accounts for only +/-0.5% of total immigration and is therefore relatively unimportant in the wider scheme of things. What the UK lacks is a coherent government immigration strategy based on a 'top-down' analysis of the its' requirements, not the 'bottom-up', knee-jerk "we must cut the number of immigrants" strategy which we have now. Oh for the halycon days when the UK could source its' labour requirements from its' near-neighbours without many problems and without much difficulty. (I have no idea why some text has suddenly appeared in red!) (Postscript: Some text appeared on my screen in red. Honest!)

But within the constraints imposed by the regulations.

What's the alternative? It's not practical to look at each application on an individual basis?

The Crown Estate is a property orientated business. It's wealth has (virtually) nothing to do with Charles or the royal brand. It would, most likely, continue to make similar profits under different ownership. It's absolute nonsense to infer that a country must still be a Kingdom in order for a royal residence to have meaning for tourists. Tell that to the 15m tourists who visit the Palace of Versailles annually. You have still not produced any hard evidence* of the actual worth of the 'Royal' brand. * The Brandfinance report isn't hard evidence