The Tories don't actually have to do anything, though, do they? The SNP Scottish government sets one up, it needs the assent of Westminster to be legally binding, which won't be forthcoming, so they can hold one if they like but it has no power. At that point unionist voters will simply not turn up and claim the referendum has no validity.
I have been thinking that might be the most effective option but it's not without downsides. If they want to go the Catalonia route putting troops in Edinburgh to remind them they cannot secede is not a very good look.
I guess they'll only need to worry about that if Sturgeon starts making noises about seceding. Trying to do so after a minority of voters turn out for your referendum isn't a great look either.
More interesting pressure coming on johnson, this time relating to a christmas party held at downsing street last year when they absolutely were not allowed: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59491568
So far the only defence from johnson is that 'no rules were broken', even though it's pretty plain they were, just like the 'childcare' he invited over for christmas last year. It's pretty obvious that he simply ignored the rules while everyone else struggled. The embedded video also shows how easily Starmer outclasses him at PMQs. Johnson's response comes across as nonsensical waffle (well, no change there I guess) entirely divorced from the point at hand.
I wonder if we'll see more of this build up over the next month. I doubt they'd remove him before new year at least, and so far nobody has obviously signaled a challenge, but there seems to be some bubbling discontent with his performance.
0
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
marx on lord palmerston, posted for no particular reason
This clip really emphasises how unstatesmanlike Johnson really is.
Looking dishevelled, hands in his pockets till he's told by the teacher to take them out. That bloody two thumbs up gesture before darting off, completely ignoring the woman he's meant to be showing his support to.
Just cannot stand the man.
+6
Options
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
I don’t care that Meghan Markle isn’t in the line of succession, you all should make her Queen anyway (i bolded the best part)
“Today, the courts ruled in my favor—again—cementing that The Mail on Sunday, owned by Lord Jonathan Rothermere, has broken the law. The courts have held the defendant to account, and my hope is that we all begin to do the same.
"Because as far removed as it may seem from your personal life, it's not. Tomorrow it could be you. These harmful practices don't happen once in a blue moon—they are a daily fail that divide us, and we all deserve better."
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
The Tories don't actually have to do anything, though, do they? The SNP Scottish government sets one up, it needs the assent of Westminster to be legally binding, which won't be forthcoming, so they can hold one if they like but it has no power. At that point unionist voters will simply not turn up and claim the referendum has no validity.
We don't have legally binding referendums. The last Sindy ref wasn't legally binding.
What there was was a Section 30 order that guaranteed that Scotland had the power to hold a referendum. But there was no mechanism in place to do anything after the referendum was held.
What Sturgeon is proposing to do is to ask for a Section 30 to square everything away and if she doesn't get it to then pass the legislation to hold the referendum anyways because it has always been the SNP position that they don't need a Section 30 order to hold a non-binding referendum. The UK government then needs to actively object and take the Scottish Government to court to block the referendum at that point. If they don't object then the referendum is de facto legal.
I don’t care that Meghan Markle isn’t in the line of succession, you all should make her Queen anyway (i bolded the best part)
“Today, the courts ruled in my favor—again—cementing that The Mail on Sunday, owned by Lord Jonathan Rothermere, has broken the law. The courts have held the defendant to account, and my hope is that we all begin to do the same.
"Because as far removed as it may seem from your personal life, it's not. Tomorrow it could be you. These harmful practices don't happen once in a blue moon—they are a daily fail that divide us, and we all deserve better."
A few years back I was working at a Canadian museum which at one point was doing a commemorative thing for war brides. Prince Charles was in attendance, which of course means the tabloidosphere was as well. After the main event stuff he was mingling casually with some of the guests and museum staff, and got to talking current events with one of the volunteers, who's been around long enough to have survived the Holocaust. They were chatting about some fuckery or another that Russia was doing at the time; Charles mentioned feeling some 1930s-Germany parallels with what was going on, and the volunteer (who, note, experienced those firsthand) said she could see where he was coming from. You know, in that kind of noncommittal way you do when you're in a public-facing role and someone seventeen rungs above you on the social ladder wants your take on their opinion.
Thing is, they didn't know they were in earshot of a DM reporter.
Next day, headlines are screaming "CANADIAN CIVIL SERVANT SAYS PUTIN IS HITLER" or whatnot, the museum's in PR siege mode, and the volunteer had to spend several days basically in hiding because tabloid types were trying to camp out in front of an octogenarian's home in the hopes of getting their pound of outrage flesh. I don't remember if she stopped volunteering there after that, or just took ages to feel safe returning.
I'm still seething about it after all this time.
So yeah, when she says "tomorrow it could be you," it really could be.
Remember the little dhingy with 27 people who died in the channel?
Apparently, they were in contact with BOTH coast guards, the French, and the British a F-nging day before they all died. All the while, the French refused to help them because they were in British waters, and The British refused to help because they were in French Water.
But of course, a helicopter was send out 3 times to hover over them to make sure that they drifted out back to French seas.
Because no-one, not the French, not the British, seem to give a shit that people die, as long as it isn't in their waters.
I am sorely disappointed in the French, it would've been SO easy to rescue them, they had ships standing by, and a GPS location.
But nope, they suddenly can't enter British waters anymore, something that hasn't stopped them in the last..oohh... 2000 years or so.
I'm also disappointed in the British, because apparently, this is part of their "pro-active deterred" where this is phase one: There is a standing order that the Coast guard will not aid immigrants ever. Ooh, and there's a phase 2: Use jetski's and tug boats to push them back into French waters. But it seems that the UK government has turned from jerks into straight up drowning people, and it's official policy, so at least they can practice their "Befehl ist Befehl" line.
Certainly not helping my somewhat low opinion of the fishing industry. Hopefully those involved will have the book thrown at them (although honestly, I doubt they'll even get fined) but it's a shame that the political instigators of attacks on the RNLI will get off scot-free.
altid on
+1
Options
Kane Red RobeMaster of MagicArcanusRegistered Userregular
Any seaman who won't rescue someone in danger of drowning deserves Neptune's wrath.
Remember the little dhingy with 27 people who died in the channel?
Apparently, they were in contact with BOTH coast guards, the French, and the British a F-nging day before they all died. All the while, the French refused to help them because they were in British waters, and The British refused to help because they were in French Water.
But of course, a helicopter was send out 3 times to hover over them to make sure that they drifted out back to French seas.
Because no-one, not the French, not the British, seem to give a shit that people die, as long as it isn't in their waters.
I am sorely disappointed in the French, it would've been SO easy to rescue them, they had ships standing by, and a GPS location.
But nope, they suddenly can't enter British waters anymore, something that hasn't stopped them in the last..oohh... 2000 years or so.
I'm also disappointed in the British, because apparently, this is part of their "pro-active deterred" where this is phase one: There is a standing order that the Coast guard will not aid immigrants ever. Ooh, and there's a phase 2: Use jetski's and tug boats to push them back into French waters. But it seems that the UK government has turned from jerks into straight up drowning people, and it's official policy, so at least they can practice their "Befehl ist Befehl" line.
I hate everything about this.
No government wants refugees except on their own terms. The entire international system around the issue is mostly a way to make someone else deal with it.
Remember the little dhingy with 27 people who died in the channel?
Apparently, they were in contact with BOTH coast guards, the French, and the British a F-nging day before they all died. All the while, the French refused to help them because they were in British waters, and The British refused to help because they were in French Water.
But of course, a helicopter was send out 3 times to hover over them to make sure that they drifted out back to French seas.
Because no-one, not the French, not the British, seem to give a shit that people die, as long as it isn't in their waters.
I am sorely disappointed in the French, it would've been SO easy to rescue them, they had ships standing by, and a GPS location.
But nope, they suddenly can't enter British waters anymore, something that hasn't stopped them in the last..oohh... 2000 years or so.
I'm also disappointed in the British, because apparently, this is part of their "pro-active deterred" where this is phase one: There is a standing order that the Coast guard will not aid immigrants ever. Ooh, and there's a phase 2: Use jetski's and tug boats to push them back into French waters. But it seems that the UK government has turned from jerks into straight up drowning people, and it's official policy, so at least they can practice their "Befehl ist Befehl" line.
I hate everything about this.
No government wants refugees except on their own terms. The entire international system around the issue is mostly a way to make someone else deal with it.
And "their own terms" means zero refugees because the voting public proved that if centrist politicians don't "take care of the problem", they will vote for the fascists that will.
Remember the little dhingy with 27 people who died in the channel?
Apparently, they were in contact with BOTH coast guards, the French, and the British a F-nging day before they all died. All the while, the French refused to help them because they were in British waters, and The British refused to help because they were in French Water.
But of course, a helicopter was send out 3 times to hover over them to make sure that they drifted out back to French seas.
Because no-one, not the French, not the British, seem to give a shit that people die, as long as it isn't in their waters.
I am sorely disappointed in the French, it would've been SO easy to rescue them, they had ships standing by, and a GPS location.
But nope, they suddenly can't enter British waters anymore, something that hasn't stopped them in the last..oohh... 2000 years or so.
I'm also disappointed in the British, because apparently, this is part of their "pro-active deterred" where this is phase one: There is a standing order that the Coast guard will not aid immigrants ever. Ooh, and there's a phase 2: Use jetski's and tug boats to push them back into French waters. But it seems that the UK government has turned from jerks into straight up drowning people, and it's official policy, so at least they can practice their "Befehl ist Befehl" line.
I hate everything about this.
No government wants refugees except on their own terms. The entire international system around the issue is mostly a way to make someone else deal with it.
And "their own terms" means zero refugees because the voting public proved that if centrist politicians don't "take care of the problem", they will vote for the fascists that will.
Nah, it can mean a decent number of refugees sometimes. It just always means a finite number though and only the way they want them to come. Rather then some undefined number just coming over however they are forced to.
+1
Options
Zilla36021st Century. |She/Her|Trans* Woman In Aviators Firing A Bazooka. ⚛️Registered Userregular
I assume the 51 weeks is to avoid some kind of regulation for sentences of one year or over?
Presumably, yes.
Also, what was the point of the UK fighting, and so many people dying, in World War 2, if we ended up sleepwalking into being ruled over by xenophobic, racist, corrupt fascists anyhow?
Where you can face prison time just for holding up a sign in a public place? To protest against an oncoming global omnicide/human extinction/the planet fucking burning?
Remember the little dhingy with 27 people who died in the channel?
Apparently, they were in contact with BOTH coast guards, the French, and the British a F-nging day before they all died. All the while, the French refused to help them because they were in British waters, and The British refused to help because they were in French Water.
But of course, a helicopter was send out 3 times to hover over them to make sure that they drifted out back to French seas.
Because no-one, not the French, not the British, seem to give a shit that people die, as long as it isn't in their waters.
I am sorely disappointed in the French, it would've been SO easy to rescue them, they had ships standing by, and a GPS location.
But nope, they suddenly can't enter British waters anymore, something that hasn't stopped them in the last..oohh... 2000 years or so.
I'm also disappointed in the British, because apparently, this is part of their "pro-active deterred" where this is phase one: There is a standing order that the Coast guard will not aid immigrants ever. Ooh, and there's a phase 2: Use jetski's and tug boats to push them back into French waters. But it seems that the UK government has turned from jerks into straight up drowning people, and it's official policy, so at least they can practice their "Befehl ist Befehl" line.
I hate everything about this.
Franch should just go all in and provide decent boats.
Not GIVE them a boat, more of a "Oh look, someone's left a perfectly serviceable, fully fueled up boat on the dock, with GPS and a map to the UK" in it.
If I was French, I would be fully in No Fucks Given mode about cooperating with the UK.
Remember the little dhingy with 27 people who died in the channel?
Apparently, they were in contact with BOTH coast guards, the French, and the British a F-nging day before they all died. All the while, the French refused to help them because they were in British waters, and The British refused to help because they were in French Water.
But of course, a helicopter was send out 3 times to hover over them to make sure that they drifted out back to French seas.
Because no-one, not the French, not the British, seem to give a shit that people die, as long as it isn't in their waters.
I am sorely disappointed in the French, it would've been SO easy to rescue them, they had ships standing by, and a GPS location.
But nope, they suddenly can't enter British waters anymore, something that hasn't stopped them in the last..oohh... 2000 years or so.
I'm also disappointed in the British, because apparently, this is part of their "pro-active deterred" where this is phase one: There is a standing order that the Coast guard will not aid immigrants ever. Ooh, and there's a phase 2: Use jetski's and tug boats to push them back into French waters. But it seems that the UK government has turned from jerks into straight up drowning people, and it's official policy, so at least they can practice their "Befehl ist Befehl" line.
I hate everything about this.
Franch should just go all in and provide decent boats.
Not GIVE them a boat, more of a "Oh look, someone's left a perfectly serviceable, fully fueled up boat on the dock, with GPS and a map to the UK" in it.
If I was French, I would be fully in No Fucks Given mode about cooperating with the UK.
That screeching sound just beyond your hearing range is Nigele Farage having a simultaneous aneurism and orgasm, knowing that he would earn a fortune by being angrier at the French.
The basic problem with refugees is that there's two separate questions:
1. Who legitimately qualifies as a refugee
2. How many refugees does a country's government want to accept?
Weren't they saying that 70-80% are grantey asylum? I don't know why they don't just allocate a few spaces each day on the ferries. It'd reduce the number of boats and probably reduce the number of failed claims.
Weren't they saying that 70-80% are grantey asylum? I don't know why they don't just allocate a few spaces each day on the ferries. It'd reduce the number of boats and probably reduce the number of failed claims.
The right wing always needs to define itself against an external enemy.
If it's not refugees, then it would be someone else. Criminals, "welfare queens", "Cultural Marxists", the Jews, the Muslims, the blacks, the gypsies, the gays, the trans.
These people define themselves by hate and the desire to control others. If people from the "out" group become part of the "in" group, they'll just find a new Other to hate and despise.
These people define themselves by hate and the desire to control others. If people from the "out" group become part of the "in" group, they'll just find a new Other to hate and despise.
They don't need to find a new group, the "in" people just become One Of The Good Ones.
Weren't they saying that 70-80% are grantey asylum? I don't know why they don't just allocate a few spaces each day on the ferries. It'd reduce the number of boats and probably reduce the number of failed claims.
I guess that number is based on "80% of the people who actually manage to make it to our shores and don't drown, or are repelled before entering our waters, or aren't considered to have been granted Asylum somewhere else" because the UK grants very little asylum, like, a magnitude less then France and Germany, even though they are comparable in size.
Do note that I'm not saying that France and Germany are perfect in this, they each have their own issues.
+5
Options
Zilla36021st Century. |She/Her|Trans* Woman In Aviators Firing A Bazooka. ⚛️Registered Userregular
Pushbacks of refugees are also decidedly illegal under international law but nobody responsible really cares that much. Same thing happens regularly in the Aegean sea with the frontex mission.
The basic problem with refugees is that there's two separate questions:
1. Who legitimately qualifies as a refugee
2. How many refugees does a country's government want to accept?
The problem is and always has been any meaningful definition of what should allow someone to seek refugee status or asylum would fit literally billions of people. Between people living in horrible poverty, not having access to clean water, living under regimes that commit human right abuses anyone in the right mind would want to flee...
That's why we get madness like sending gay people back to Saudi Arabia because that's totally a safe place for them to live! No one wants to set that precedent.
Weren't they saying that 70-80% are grantey asylum? I don't know why they don't just allocate a few spaces each day on the ferries. It'd reduce the number of boats and probably reduce the number of failed claims.
I guess that number is based on "80% of the people who actually manage to make it to our shores and don't drown, or are repelled before entering our waters, or aren't considered to have been granted Asylum somewhere else" because the UK grants very little asylum, like, a magnitude less then France and Germany, even though they are comparable in size.
Do note that I'm not saying that France and Germany are perfect in this, they each have their own issues.
I'm assuming that the sucess rate in being granted assylm is more or less independant from the chance of crossing the channel once on a boat.
The UK also has significantly fewer applicants compared to France or Germany as it's harder to get to - you need to have an additional motivation to make the additional effort rather than applying in Germany (family generally, apparently. Though also some qualifications that are recognised across the commonwealth.
I presume the reasoning behind this particular atrocity was that once they land the UK has to at least process them? Murder because you don't want to deal with paperwork is...something.
+1
Options
Zilla36021st Century. |She/Her|Trans* Woman In Aviators Firing A Bazooka. ⚛️Registered Userregular
I presume the reasoning behind this particular atrocity was that once they land the UK has to at least process them? Murder because you don't want to deal with paperwork is...something.
No, it's the thinly veiled racism and xenophobia. They are 'others' and speak a different language, and/or have a different skin colour, and are therefore 'not human'.
I believe a huge part of the problem is that the UK doesn't provide any safe route for asylum seekers crossing from France. The French have suggested setting up centres near the french coast where UK immigration officials could process asylum requests, but it seems for now the only option for seeking asylum in britain is to take dangerous routes into the country.
Posts
I have been thinking that might be the most effective option but it's not without downsides. If they want to go the Catalonia route putting troops in Edinburgh to remind them they cannot secede is not a very good look.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Not as far as I'm aware. For all the reasons you might expect.
The Mirror is a news organisation.
Steam | XBL
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59491568
So far the only defence from johnson is that 'no rules were broken', even though it's pretty plain they were, just like the 'childcare' he invited over for christmas last year. It's pretty obvious that he simply ignored the rules while everyone else struggled. The embedded video also shows how easily Starmer outclasses him at PMQs. Johnson's response comes across as nonsensical waffle (well, no change there I guess) entirely divorced from the point at hand.
I wonder if we'll see more of this build up over the next month. I doubt they'd remove him before new year at least, and so far nobody has obviously signaled a challenge, but there seems to be some bubbling discontent with his performance.
marx on lord palmerston, posted for no particular reason
That is an apt description of a cat.
This clip really emphasises how unstatesmanlike Johnson really is.
Looking dishevelled, hands in his pockets till he's told by the teacher to take them out. That bloody two thumbs up gesture before darting off, completely ignoring the woman he's meant to be showing his support to.
Just cannot stand the man.
“Today, the courts ruled in my favor—again—cementing that The Mail on Sunday, owned by Lord Jonathan Rothermere, has broken the law. The courts have held the defendant to account, and my hope is that we all begin to do the same.
"Because as far removed as it may seem from your personal life, it's not. Tomorrow it could be you. These harmful practices don't happen once in a blue moon—they are a daily fail that divide us, and we all deserve better."
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Oh, you picking a fight with Barney now?
We don't have legally binding referendums. The last Sindy ref wasn't legally binding.
What there was was a Section 30 order that guaranteed that Scotland had the power to hold a referendum. But there was no mechanism in place to do anything after the referendum was held.
What Sturgeon is proposing to do is to ask for a Section 30 to square everything away and if she doesn't get it to then pass the legislation to hold the referendum anyways because it has always been the SNP position that they don't need a Section 30 order to hold a non-binding referendum. The UK government then needs to actively object and take the Scottish Government to court to block the referendum at that point. If they don't object then the referendum is de facto legal.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Steam | XBL
A few years back I was working at a Canadian museum which at one point was doing a commemorative thing for war brides. Prince Charles was in attendance, which of course means the tabloidosphere was as well. After the main event stuff he was mingling casually with some of the guests and museum staff, and got to talking current events with one of the volunteers, who's been around long enough to have survived the Holocaust. They were chatting about some fuckery or another that Russia was doing at the time; Charles mentioned feeling some 1930s-Germany parallels with what was going on, and the volunteer (who, note, experienced those firsthand) said she could see where he was coming from. You know, in that kind of noncommittal way you do when you're in a public-facing role and someone seventeen rungs above you on the social ladder wants your take on their opinion.
Thing is, they didn't know they were in earshot of a DM reporter.
Next day, headlines are screaming "CANADIAN CIVIL SERVANT SAYS PUTIN IS HITLER" or whatnot, the museum's in PR siege mode, and the volunteer had to spend several days basically in hiding because tabloid types were trying to camp out in front of an octogenarian's home in the hopes of getting their pound of outrage flesh. I don't remember if she stopped volunteering there after that, or just took ages to feel safe returning.
I'm still seething about it after all this time.
So yeah, when she says "tomorrow it could be you," it really could be.
Coast guards prefer to play political games over actually helping people.
Remember the little dhingy with 27 people who died in the channel?
Apparently, they were in contact with BOTH coast guards, the French, and the British a F-nging day before they all died. All the while, the French refused to help them because they were in British waters, and The British refused to help because they were in French Water.
But of course, a helicopter was send out 3 times to hover over them to make sure that they drifted out back to French seas.
Because no-one, not the French, not the British, seem to give a shit that people die, as long as it isn't in their waters.
I am sorely disappointed in the French, it would've been SO easy to rescue them, they had ships standing by, and a GPS location.
But nope, they suddenly can't enter British waters anymore, something that hasn't stopped them in the last..oohh... 2000 years or so.
I'm also disappointed in the British, because apparently, this is part of their "pro-active deterred" where this is phase one: There is a standing order that the Coast guard will not aid immigrants ever. Ooh, and there's a phase 2: Use jetski's and tug boats to push them back into French waters. But it seems that the UK government has turned from jerks into straight up drowning people, and it's official policy, so at least they can practice their "Befehl ist Befehl" line.
I hate everything about this.
https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/fishermen-blocked-rnli-boat-rescuing-migrants/
Certainly not helping my somewhat low opinion of the fishing industry. Hopefully those involved will have the book thrown at them (although honestly, I doubt they'll even get fined) but it's a shame that the political instigators of attacks on the RNLI will get off scot-free.
No government wants refugees except on their own terms. The entire international system around the issue is mostly a way to make someone else deal with it.
And "their own terms" means zero refugees because the voting public proved that if centrist politicians don't "take care of the problem", they will vote for the fascists that will.
Nah, it can mean a decent number of refugees sometimes. It just always means a finite number though and only the way they want them to come. Rather then some undefined number just coming over however they are forced to.
Where you can face prison time just for holding up a sign in a public place? To protest against an oncoming global omnicide/human extinction/the planet fucking burning?
I am utterly fucking furious about all of this.
Franch should just go all in and provide decent boats.
Not GIVE them a boat, more of a "Oh look, someone's left a perfectly serviceable, fully fueled up boat on the dock, with GPS and a map to the UK" in it.
If I was French, I would be fully in No Fucks Given mode about cooperating with the UK.
That screeching sound just beyond your hearing range is Nigele Farage having a simultaneous aneurism and orgasm, knowing that he would earn a fortune by being angrier at the French.
1. Who legitimately qualifies as a refugee
2. How many refugees does a country's government want to accept?
This is why the EU/UK tried to classify Eritrea as a "safe country" to return refugees to. (https://righttoremain.org.uk/politics-before-protection-the-story-of-eritrean-asylum-seekers-in-the-uk/) The country is basically a cross between North Korea and the Lord's Resistance Army, but *bottom line* we don't want any more refugees so Eritrea is a safe country.
If it's not refugees, then it would be someone else. Criminals, "welfare queens", "Cultural Marxists", the Jews, the Muslims, the blacks, the gypsies, the gays, the trans.
These people define themselves by hate and the desire to control others. If people from the "out" group become part of the "in" group, they'll just find a new Other to hate and despise.
I guess that number is based on "80% of the people who actually manage to make it to our shores and don't drown, or are repelled before entering our waters, or aren't considered to have been granted Asylum somewhere else" because the UK grants very little asylum, like, a magnitude less then France and Germany, even though they are comparable in size.
Do note that I'm not saying that France and Germany are perfect in this, they each have their own issues.
Ethan Shone is a journalist.
£190k is less than chicken feed wages according to Boris. Maybe he should take a fourth job to escape poverty...
The problem is and always has been any meaningful definition of what should allow someone to seek refugee status or asylum would fit literally billions of people. Between people living in horrible poverty, not having access to clean water, living under regimes that commit human right abuses anyone in the right mind would want to flee...
That's why we get madness like sending gay people back to Saudi Arabia because that's totally a safe place for them to live! No one wants to set that precedent.
I'm assuming that the sucess rate in being granted assylm is more or less independant from the chance of crossing the channel once on a boat.
The UK also has significantly fewer applicants compared to France or Germany as it's harder to get to - you need to have an additional motivation to make the additional effort rather than applying in Germany (family generally, apparently. Though also some qualifications that are recognised across the commonwealth.