Dave
TS Founding Member
No, as the two combined don’t even cover 1% of the 4% drop in GDP from leaving the EU.
- News all the latest
- Theme Park explore the park
- Resort tour the resort
- Future looking forward
- History looking back
- Community and meetups
-
ℹ️ Heads up...
This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks. - Thread starter Matt.GC
- Start date
UK Politics General Discussion
No, as the two combined don’t even cover 1% of the 4% drop in GDP from leaving the EU.
Dave
TS Founding Member
The Indian deal will boost GDP by 0.1%
Just to add them up (all the deals)
New Zealand 0.03%
Australia 0.08%
Japan 0.07%
India 0.01%
All other trade deals are to two decimal places 0%
We lost 4% when we left the EU.
The US deal at best reduces the harm of Trumps idiocy, it will minimise GPD losses but won’t boost it.
Not going to happen. I've got Bigly socks and Elon said not to change more than one at a time. I mean, with North Korea and Chei-nna very unstable - very very unstable. Bigly unstable. Marcon might change both of his socks at the same time, but he's leaving the back door open. Someone could come behind him and grab his p***y. Probably sleepy Joe looking for the washroom.
pluk
TS Member
I didn't suggest these deals make up for the stupidity that is Brexit, but it is apparent that not being in the EU has meant we have been able to make these deals to our advantage in a way that we wouldn't have been able to if we were still in.
Benzin
TS Member
Depends on defining the advantage.
Though it was funny to see one of the Indian ministers call out Badenoch after she naturally moaned about the deal.
Really wish MPs and Councillers weren't able just to type baseless lies online without any consequence.
Brexit is done. There's no point even discussing it anymore. I look forward to the EU doing a deal with the USA as it will be of benefit to us also. Unless the Walloonians (Walloonies?) block the deal again - problem with trying to get a group of 28 "friends" trying to decide which restaurant to eat at... I imagine the road to be long, with many a winding turn....
You speak like a politician. I support biological sex spaces (one of the 60%) and have no view of trans people (esp naked!). They are just people and can live their lives how they wish. I also don't have an issue with anyone using any toilet (a cubicle is a safe space - no?) but my wife might object to seeing a swinging dick in the gym locker room (her mother would faint or have a heart attack). The rights/wishes of trans people should not trample over the rights of the populous.
As for sports, etc. trans people are very welcome to compete in mixed/mens competitions - they don't because they don't have a physical advantage. The disabled community seem to be very happy separating blind people from competing against those who only have 1 leg in the 100m
Dave
TS Founding Member
You speak like a politician. I support biological sex spaces (one of the 60%) and have no view of trans people (esp naked!). They are just people and can live their lives how they wish. I also don't have an issue with anyone using any toilet (a cubicle is a safe space - no?) but my wife might object to seeing a swinging dick in the gym locker room (her mother would faint or have a heart attack). The rights/wishes of trans people should not trample over the rights of the populous.
As for sports, etc. trans people are very welcome to compete in mixed/mens competitions - they don't because they don't have a physical advantage. The disabled community seem to be very happy separating blind people from competing against those who only have 1 leg in the 100m
You speak like a reform politician.
A trans woman isn’t swinging a dick around the place, you are mixing up drag with trans there. If someone is transitioning they won’t be making any sort of big deal about their genitalia, and if they have transitioned they don’t have a dick.
The rights of anyone shouldn’t be trampled on, particularly not to satisfy bogus safety concerns.
And as I said in my post I accept there is a debate to be had in sport, I think there are also possible reasons in other sectors to have some limited exemptions. But again it’s not a binary decision, it should be based on science.
Last edited:
Touche!! The law is there to protect the many from the few. Not trans people, but people abusing trans rights as they were. So we end up with one "swinging dick" voyeur that makes a claim to being trans/non-binary, and here we are... I don't think separate biological sex spaces is too much to ask, just as I'm comfortable in a German sauna where everyone has everything hanging out (and at my age, that's not a good look!).
Toilets are not naked spaces. Gyms are. At my gym children over 8 are not allowed in the other sex changing rooms. I've always thought that a very sensible rule, and no person I am aware of has ever questioned it. I'm struggling to know how this is different.
Matt.GC
TS Member
And whilst we're all looking at each others groins in changing rooms, slagging off foreigners, and pretending that there's thousands of houses with corpses inside from pensioners who froze to death over the winter, the rich get richer.
I bet not in a single one of us has ever been abused by a trans person in a changing room, been directly disadvantaged by an asylum seeker (come at me, I stick by that), or know a pensioner who has frozen to death as a direct result of a £300 bribe not being given to them.
Every single one of us, however, has been impacted by the money that is no longer moving around our economy. Whether it's because a heavily indebted government can no longer afford to give out voting bribes, fund the control of our borders, or fund basic public services. Whilst us and politicians are busy pointing fingers at eachother and fighting amongst ourselves, we're all being pickpocketed by the super wealthy whilst we're distracted.
That's how a bunch of clowns gain councils, MP's and mayors. That's how some of the wealthiest people in the world get free roam of the White House. It's designed this way. Devide and conquer.
I bet not in a single one of us has ever been abused by a trans person in a changing room, been directly disadvantaged by an asylum seeker (come at me, I stick by that), or know a pensioner who has frozen to death as a direct result of a £300 bribe not being given to them.
Every single one of us, however, has been impacted by the money that is no longer moving around our economy. Whether it's because a heavily indebted government can no longer afford to give out voting bribes, fund the control of our borders, or fund basic public services. Whilst us and politicians are busy pointing fingers at eachother and fighting amongst ourselves, we're all being pickpocketed by the super wealthy whilst we're distracted.
That's how a bunch of clowns gain councils, MP's and mayors. That's how some of the wealthiest people in the world get free roam of the White House. It's designed this way. Devide and conquer.
Dave
TS Founding Member
Yeah the law is not there to protect the many from the few. If you want to be poetic about it it’s there to protect justice. Though in reality it’s there to enforce a set of rules society think are important, the trouble is societies idea on what is important is changeable and often manipulated by those with money, hence why fraud nearly always has lower penalties than theft.
Anyway you still haven’t identified the story where some trans person waved their genitals around, you also haven’t answered whether you think trans women should go in the men’s changing room and whether the trans men will go in the women’s changing room?
Craig
TS Administrator
Just stepping in briefly as I fear we’ll simply end up going round in circles on people’s views on gender identity and drift further away from general discussion about UK politics, with this topic bogged down with extensive discussion on this one subject.
I’ve opened up the gender identity topic again if people would like to discuss their own views on this in more detail. However, please keep this topic about politics in general and in terms of gender, things like things like proposed law changes in here. As always with any polarising topic, please remain respectful, especially toward those with opposing views. Thanks
.
I’ve opened up the gender identity topic again if people would like to discuss their own views on this in more detail. However, please keep this topic about politics in general and in terms of gender, things like things like proposed law changes in here. As always with any polarising topic, please remain respectful, especially toward those with opposing views. Thanks
.
Dave
TS Founding Member
I was a bit worried about that but it looks like they are mostly talking about reducing economic migration.
I have no particular beef with migration but economically it would be better to try and get some of the 9 million economically inactive people active and have less migration needed.
The ban on visas for care workings is baffling though, think that will bite hard.
I for one have no issues with legal immigration, when it has a positive effect on the economy and society. I also have no issue with us taking "our share" of legitimate asylum seekers that arrive in the EU. I have issues with illegal immigration and with economic migrants falsely claiming asylum.
If you are claiming asylum, it should be in the first safe country you arrive in. You should not be paying money and risking your life to travel to a "country of your choice". I think all politicians need to agree common sense rules, and I think the Govt need to do what they need to so that anyone crossing the channel is picked up and returned to France. We can then better support legal migration and asylum seekers that have a legitimate reason to "choose" the UK (e.g. family)
If you are claiming asylum, it should be in the first safe country you arrive in. You should not be paying money and risking your life to travel to a "country of your choice". I think all politicians need to agree common sense rules, and I think the Govt need to do what they need to so that anyone crossing the channel is picked up and returned to France. We can then better support legal migration and asylum seekers that have a legitimate reason to "choose" the UK (e.g. family)
Dave
TS Founding Member
The best solution would be a processing centre in France but Reform and conservative inclined supporters would go ape if that happened so politically that’s dead in the water.
The people trying to get to the UK have a reason in their minds to want to be here (it’s usually the language, but can be family as well).
The irony is the binary “stop the boats” brigade won’t listen to reason when it comes to dealing with migration so politicians are forced into processes that don’t work. If we actually set up safe routes and collected biometric data on all applicants then if they are rejected and come in illegally we will know where they have come from and can return them. The issue at the moment is often if we do catch them and reject their claim we can’t prove where they originated from to return them.
More than baffling mate, absolutely raving crazy...pandering to the racists.
My recent experiences with recent immigrant carers, personally and professionally, has been magnificent, absolutely top class.
My care, and that of others near me, both family and at work, would not happen without decent immigrant carers, who are only here because our dysfunctional health system simply can't cope without them.
So stop them coming in, and screw up the care system all the more, for votes, silly.