RayC

From the source article: “I don’t think he’s well. He doesn’t look well at all,” remarked one distrustful employee". No flies on that employee which is probably more than can be said for one of the other actors in this scenario. I know, I know. I'm a bad person.

Learn from our mistakes? Naw ... perish the thought.

I doubt that there are many people who would deny that COVID had a major effect on the world and the individual national economies. The war in Ukraine has also had some effect on the UK economy, but it has been much more damaging to most of the EU member states. However, when are Brexiters going to stop hiding behind these events and acknowledge that the overwhelming body of evidence shows that Brexit has damaged the UK economy? If Brexiters don't accept the findings of these various reports, then they should be able to point to the flaws in the argument and/or conclusions and/or methodologies. The fact that so little material exists disputing these findings, or offering valid counter arguments tells us all we need to know.

Perhaps but it will make even more of ass of us if we don't know the why, what and how of changing something.

I assume that the application process will try to identify such people.

George Osborne was the instigator of 'Project Fear'. Some of his predictions are listed in the link below. He overstated the impact but a 'pack of lies'? I think not. Sterling fell by 10% immediately after the referendum result and took years to recover without any significant change to our volume of exports. Estimates suggest that leaving the single market took 4% off of GDP and increased inflation by 0.4% pa. Importing from and exporting to the EU is undoubtedly more bureaucratic, time consuming and expensive than it was when we were an EU member. Academic, cultural and diplomatic relationships with the EU and the member states have been damaged. And for what? Where are these promised Brexit benefits? Little sign of them. Yes, a better Brexit could have been negotiated by remaining in the Customs Union and Single Market. An even harder Brexit, which you seemingly would have liked, would have made things worse: Osborne's 'Project Fear' predictions might then have been realised. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1339954/chancellor-who-orchestrated-project-fear-facing-the-end-of-his-political-career/

No.

Is that it? If so then it is a statement of the blindingly obvious. No government in its' right mind would want to import extremists and terrorists. I assumed that you were pointing to something more substantial i.e. specific mistakes in UK immigration policy and legislation which Australia should avoid. My error.

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.