Yuan Yi Zhu

Thank you!

Thank you!

Thank you!

Thank you!

Thank you!

Thank you! Very kind!

Thank you!

Thank you!

Thank you!

Thank you!

Thank you!

Thank you!

Thank you!

Thank you again!

Thank you!

Thank you!

Thank you!

Thank you!

Thank you!

Thank you!

Thank you!

Thank you!

Apart from the unnecessary hardship this will inflict on individuals, this will be bad for integration and social cohesion, bad for the economy, and will increase irregular migration.

[And, as @robfordmancs.bsky.social has shown, it's hugely unpopular and out of step with the British public]

We have registered a new corporation.

Retrospectively removing indefinite leave to remain would be immoral and economically damaging. It would tear families apart.
Attacking it as ‘potentially illegal’ is completely beside the point.
Argue with the (awful) idea. Don’t try ’well, actually you can’t do that’.

Remember when opponents of the right to die legislation said it would lead to people being encouraged to die to relieve the burden on the state, and were told that this was alarmism?

Yeah.

Let them die The case for assisted dying

“Assisted dying would appear to mitigate some of those problems, curbing the pensions bill, the NHS bill and the care bill.” The New Statesman says the quiet part out loud: kill granny to save money. www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk-...

I am neither. But sure, knock yourself out pretending the guy who said he is committing to ideological blacklisting is going to treat you fairly.

There's a reason why you are at Reading and I am at Leiden. But the Canadian disease is coming to Europe.

I admire your adherence to Menshevik principles. But our interlocutor has publicly said he wants to blacklist people based on their scholarly approach. You know as well as I do that Canadian law schools aren't going to hire you over mediocrities who are on the team.