‘How dare the US attack the UK’s free speech’: Independent readers call out trade deal demands
-
Overall, our readers had a clear message for Prime Minister Keir Starmer: don’t trade away British laws and values for a quick economic boost. Many argued that any deal undermining protections, particularly for LGBT+ people and other minority groups, would be not only politically reckless but morally indefensible.
-
System shared this topic on
-
Overall, our readers had a clear message for Prime Minister Keir Starmer: don’t trade away British laws and values for a quick economic boost. Many argued that any deal undermining protections, particularly for LGBT+ people and other minority groups, would be not only politically reckless but morally indefensible.
So, as usual, they're attempting to bully other nations into becoming as ridiculous as they are.
I'm not sure Starmer has the backbone to resist these clowns, which says a lot.
-
Overall, our readers had a clear message for Prime Minister Keir Starmer: don’t trade away British laws and values for a quick economic boost. Many argued that any deal undermining protections, particularly for LGBT+ people and other minority groups, would be not only politically reckless but morally indefensible.
"Free speech absolutists" trying to limit the free speech of others. Classic.
-
Overall, our readers had a clear message for Prime Minister Keir Starmer: don’t trade away British laws and values for a quick economic boost. Many argued that any deal undermining protections, particularly for LGBT+ people and other minority groups, would be not only politically reckless but morally indefensible.
Time to sell some bonds.
-
Overall, our readers had a clear message for Prime Minister Keir Starmer: don’t trade away British laws and values for a quick economic boost. Many argued that any deal undermining protections, particularly for LGBT+ people and other minority groups, would be not only politically reckless but morally indefensible.
British person here - any government that bows to a tyrant deserves the Cromwell treatment.
-
Overall, our readers had a clear message for Prime Minister Keir Starmer: don’t trade away British laws and values for a quick economic boost. Many argued that any deal undermining protections, particularly for LGBT+ people and other minority groups, would be not only politically reckless but morally indefensible.
Normally, Congress imposes tariffs, rather than the President.
Trump's authority to impose tariffs is entirely based on him making extremely-questionably-legally-well-founded use of an act granting him authority to act in emergency situations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Emergency_Economic_Powers_Act
The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), Title II of Pub. L. 95–223, 91 Stat. 1626, enacted October 28, 1977, is a United States federal law authorizing the president to regulate international commerce after declaring a national emergency in response to any unusual and extraordinary threat to the United States which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States.[1] The act was signed by President Jimmy Carter on December 28, 1977.[2]
I think that there is probably a pretty strong argument that LGBT policy in the UK does not rise to the level of an emergency posing an unusual or extraordinary threat to the United States.
-
Normally, Congress imposes tariffs, rather than the President.
Trump's authority to impose tariffs is entirely based on him making extremely-questionably-legally-well-founded use of an act granting him authority to act in emergency situations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Emergency_Economic_Powers_Act
The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), Title II of Pub. L. 95–223, 91 Stat. 1626, enacted October 28, 1977, is a United States federal law authorizing the president to regulate international commerce after declaring a national emergency in response to any unusual and extraordinary threat to the United States which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States.[1] The act was signed by President Jimmy Carter on December 28, 1977.[2]
I think that there is probably a pretty strong argument that LGBT policy in the UK does not rise to the level of an emergency posing an unusual or extraordinary threat to the United States.
Trump isn't giving much 'i care about the law'-vibes lately
-
Time to sell some bonds.
James Bond.
I'll seeyself out...
-
"Free speech absolutists" trying to limit the free speech of others. Classic.
Its alwys thus, freeze oeach for me not thee. It's just "right wing woke" (shortened to wank) for hate speech.
-
Trump isn't giving much 'i care about the law'-vibes lately
I mean, he's a populist. He scores political points by blaming "the elite". That's kind of hard when you're the President, since you are the establishment, and especially when your party holds a trifecta, so he's got to find someone to show himself fighting, be it being in the news over court cases or whatever.
During term one, he kept himself in the news by having legal fights over his "ban immigration from several majority-Muslim countries" thing.
He's got to always be visibly fighting something for that to work.
-
British person here - any government that bows to a tyrant deserves the Cromwell treatment.
You mean post-humous execution?
-
So, as usual, they're attempting to bully other nations into becoming as ridiculous as they are.
I'm not sure Starmer has the backbone to resist these clowns, which says a lot.
Supreme court just made a ruling on the definition of a "woman", and my crystal ball says we're following America down the rabbit hole.
If we get Farridge as a PM, I'm going full nuclear on this shit.
-
Overall, our readers had a clear message for Prime Minister Keir Starmer: don’t trade away British laws and values for a quick economic boost. Many argued that any deal undermining protections, particularly for LGBT+ people and other minority groups, would be not only politically reckless but morally indefensible.
Trump's a big fan of throwing out decades of precedence and international agreements. UK should formally renounce the Treaty of Paris and just to fuck with him.
-
Normally, Congress imposes tariffs, rather than the President.
Trump's authority to impose tariffs is entirely based on him making extremely-questionably-legally-well-founded use of an act granting him authority to act in emergency situations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Emergency_Economic_Powers_Act
The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), Title II of Pub. L. 95–223, 91 Stat. 1626, enacted October 28, 1977, is a United States federal law authorizing the president to regulate international commerce after declaring a national emergency in response to any unusual and extraordinary threat to the United States which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States.[1] The act was signed by President Jimmy Carter on December 28, 1977.[2]
I think that there is probably a pretty strong argument that LGBT policy in the UK does not rise to the level of an emergency posing an unusual or extraordinary threat to the United States.
Emergency laws and authoritarian power grabs. Name a more iconic duo.
-
Overall, our readers had a clear message for Prime Minister Keir Starmer: don’t trade away British laws and values for a quick economic boost. Many argued that any deal undermining protections, particularly for LGBT+ people and other minority groups, would be not only politically reckless but morally indefensible.
I mean yeah, the UK is already doing that by itself, they dont need help with being a police state.
