Don't think this will be the main barrier to rejoining the UK, that's more no political desire on either side.

Nothing says it's impossible but makes it more difficult in theory. None of the UK rules, laws or regulations seem to have been incompatible with CPTPP, so broadly compatible.

CPTPP with UK will have a GDP of $16.6tn Vs EU $16.3tn.

This will still only be the 3rd largest free trade agreement after RCEP and US-Mexico-Canada (Old NAFTA).

Come on don't argue with them, they have a job to do.

So the Paris Agreement means targets for different countries at different times.

The agreement was that everyone would scale back but advanced economies that already benefitted from cheap dirty energy would stop sooner.

China target under the Paris Agreement was peak CO2 emissions 2030 then cutting down afterwards to be carbon neutral in 2060. China revised to be peak 2025 (they only seem to set publicly once on target) and agreement not to build coal power stations outside China.

So whilst we can agree it's bad news, it is still within the agreement.

Well good luck with your life being angry at everything including your imagination. May I suggest you investigate ulcer treatments.

There are a lot of nuances in English and they seem to be lost on you. If she made no comment about her own views, I may have seen your point.

You are just being professionally offended at this stage. There is much to criticise but you are turning valid problems into background noise by trying to find issue where there is none.

I asked your views on what Forbes said, you haven't condemned them or even said they were wrong. According to you, I should be claiming that you are anti marriage equality, context indicates that is not the case.

I don't understand your point. I suspect we both disagree with the Forbes views, so what is your political stance on it, if you were asked?

I think the political stance is obvious from part I quoted originally. Forbes had the right to say she wouldn't have voted for gay marriage due to religious views, and won't condemn someone expressing their views based on a religious stance.

If you mean her own views on gay marriage, the article states several times she supports it personally .

>Asked by POLITICO whether she would condemn the views Forbes had put forward, Badenoch directly declined, and said that while she personally supports gay marriage, she “would not want people to condemn me for having personal views.”

My political stance, the more you shine a light on these views and debate them the sillier the objections are - it's what killed the BNP resurgence.

So describing Badenoch views as problematic (trans and environment to start) would understatement. In this case she's actually correct to defend someone's right to say what was said, even though she doesn't agree with it, as her job as Equalities Minister.

>Pointing to her role as “guardian” of the U.K.’s Equality Act, which includes religious protections, Badenoch said: “To ask me to criticize someone for their religious beliefs, when I’m supposed to be safeguarding it, shows that those people don’t understand equality. What they want is to use the Equality Act as a sword to fight their own personal battles, rather than as a shield to prevent others from discrimination.”

Please don't say stupid stuff that makes me defend them again.

Strong growth, people put all earnings in the stock market, the age geographically advantaged and have good access to energy. They could be doing a lot better.

> Some of the achievements made on clean energy and reducing Russia’s revenues are good but it is not a permanent solution.

Well the extra energy from clean sources is fairly permanent for solutions.

Europe buying Russian gas in significant amounts is doubtful. Not because we’ll never forgive but simply because fossil fuels are being phased out and by the time relations are normalised renewables will be the majority.

Be interesting to see the figures before mobilisation.

These are not people fleeing a country and war they opposed, these are people fleeing because it now impacts them.

Think of it as the difference between being taught in a class of 30 and having private tuition.

Immunotherapy, hormone therapy, targeted (attacking a molecule on a cancer to restrict growth), combinations of cancer growth blockers. Daily checkups. Bespoke diet. Medical advice and pills on request to stop side effects.

Snubbing means to ignore. You use snub to indicate it's done on purpose and shows how the people feel.

So if I personally invited you to a birthday party telling you all the information and you just didn't bother to get back to me and not show up, I would see that as a snub.

Qatar and UK have had closer ties since 2008, particularly with finance, energy and defence.

One reason is that with the withdrawal from the Middle East by the US, as they more inward looking, it means Qatar wants other friends and UK has decent soft power.

Reasons UK likes it are things like, in November 2021 they became our supplier of last resort, so they divert LNG tankers to us if gas is running short, like last year, so we get priority over others. There was a deal to create 40,000 green jobs with rolls Royce at COP26, £50bn of investments, joint oil searches, etc.

I dislike getting into bed with them, I don’t think we will make changes we think we will.

Talking about Charles 3?

Whatever you say No. 6

40% of our electricity is generated by burning gas

Their main counter is killing thousands upon thousands of Russian soldiers and many countries absolutely wrecking the Russian economy. Russia really needs an exit strategy.