BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
I don’t think you can say that of the EU as a whole. Pockets sure but the majority of all the main decision making bodies are not in favour of that.TheBigBean said:
Whether you think it fits the definition doesn't really change the point - lusting after a big country isn't much different than lusting after a smaller one.rjsterry said:
I think that's bending the definition of nationalism somewhat, but agree that flags and anthems are a bit anachronistic.TheBigBean said:
It's definitely a minority of the pro-EU, but flags, anthems and foreign ministers are all steps in that direction. Also, I would consider wanting a federal states of Europe to be a nationalist movement.rjsterry said:
I think that's a stretch, but certainly some of the #FBPE crowd and their fetishising of the EU flag are equally objectionable.TheBigBean said:
What if you see the EU as nationalism?rjsterry said:
Think of it less as zeal for the EU and more as a loathing of nationalism in all its forms.david37 said:
Well in fairness there does seem to be a healthy zealous pro European approach and anyone who is not on the EU good Brexit bad bandwaggon gets it in the neck. though the zealous might be blind to their "zeal"rjsterry said:
And there you go. Anyone who takes even a slightly more positive view of the EU than you and Stevo is apparently now a zealot.ballysmate said:
It seems that if you are not an EU zealot then you are malevolent. No middle ground.Stevo_666 said:
What malevolence?surrey_commuter said:
probably true to say that there are a myriad of reasons, I was looking at the Leave Leadership.Stevo_666 said:
See my point above. Also good if you can avoid lazy stereotyping.surrey_commuter said:
The continued malevolence towards the EU would suggest their issue is the EU not GB's membership of it.focuszing723 said:Isn't this discussion futile, it's happened. The EU was created at that moment in time and has evolved since into a union which can command more power, rather than an individual European country. Isn't this a good thing given that soon China will have the largest economy and consequential military budget at it's disposable?
I don't get why some people seem fixated and take pleasure in anything negative which happens to it? I bet the same people are happy to spend money on European cars and holidays bragging at how wonderful they've been (if you hate it so much buy British). Completely bizarre to me!
Why is another interesting question, my own guess is that it is because they see GB through a Nelsonian/Victorian lens so see the EU as a threat to their European hegemony
How would you explain your own continued malevolence towards the EU?
I am less bothered now we have left, although I will continue to judge them on how they behave towards us in future.0 -
I think the idea that you could stay out of such a conflict is a bit like thinking you could stay out of the Cold War.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Prime Minister Boris Johnson is keen to create a secure relationship with the Biden administration, especially in the wake of Brexit and the incoming President’s past disparaging comments about the UK leaving the EU. The outgoing President, Donald Trump, started a trade war with China, and Mr Biden has acknowledged the tensions between two superpowers.
Former Conservative leader and MP Iain Duncan Smith has been pushing for MPs to support an amendment to allow evidence of potential genocide in China to be brought to the High Country for judgement.
He also claimed on Twitter: ”Any attempt to have the treatment of the #Uyghur classified as genocide is blocked by China at the UN.”
Writing in The Spectator, commentator James Forsyth concluded: “The strengthening of Britain’s stance on China continues, and in ways that are hard to dismiss as tokenism.”
Indeed, this action against the treatment of Uyghur Muslims is the latest movement in a growing list of the Government’s moves to reduce China’s reach.
There was a U-turn over the intentions to have Huawei integrated into the UK’s 5G network, and ministers have recently emphasised that the Modern Slavery Act forbids Britain from buying any goods which may have been produced by forced labour.
Mr Forsyth claimed: “All this is designed to send a message to the incoming administration in Washington: the UK will put principles before profit even at the expense of the inevitable economic retaliation from Beijing.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1385392/brexit-news-boris-johnson-joe-biden-china-european-union-huawei-spt0 -
Which is why I said "It's definitely a minority of the pro-EU"rick_chasey said:
I don’t think you can say that of the EU as a whole. Pockets sure but the majority of all the main decision making bodies are not in favour of that.TheBigBean said:
Whether you think it fits the definition doesn't really change the point - lusting after a big country isn't much different than lusting after a smaller one.rjsterry said:
I think that's bending the definition of nationalism somewhat, but agree that flags and anthems are a bit anachronistic.TheBigBean said:
It's definitely a minority of the pro-EU, but flags, anthems and foreign ministers are all steps in that direction. Also, I would consider wanting a federal states of Europe to be a nationalist movement.rjsterry said:
I think that's a stretch, but certainly some of the #FBPE crowd and their fetishising of the EU flag are equally objectionable.TheBigBean said:
What if you see the EU as nationalism?rjsterry said:
Think of it less as zeal for the EU and more as a loathing of nationalism in all its forms.david37 said:
Well in fairness there does seem to be a healthy zealous pro European approach and anyone who is not on the EU good Brexit bad bandwaggon gets it in the neck. though the zealous might be blind to their "zeal"rjsterry said:
And there you go. Anyone who takes even a slightly more positive view of the EU than you and Stevo is apparently now a zealot.ballysmate said:
It seems that if you are not an EU zealot then you are malevolent. No middle ground.Stevo_666 said:
What malevolence?surrey_commuter said:
probably true to say that there are a myriad of reasons, I was looking at the Leave Leadership.Stevo_666 said:
See my point above. Also good if you can avoid lazy stereotyping.surrey_commuter said:
The continued malevolence towards the EU would suggest their issue is the EU not GB's membership of it.focuszing723 said:Isn't this discussion futile, it's happened. The EU was created at that moment in time and has evolved since into a union which can command more power, rather than an individual European country. Isn't this a good thing given that soon China will have the largest economy and consequential military budget at it's disposable?
I don't get why some people seem fixated and take pleasure in anything negative which happens to it? I bet the same people are happy to spend money on European cars and holidays bragging at how wonderful they've been (if you hate it so much buy British). Completely bizarre to me!
Why is another interesting question, my own guess is that it is because they see GB through a Nelsonian/Victorian lens so see the EU as a threat to their European hegemony
How would you explain your own continued malevolence towards the EU?
I am less bothered now we have left, although I will continue to judge them on how they behave towards us in future.0 -
OK, got it.TheBigBean said:Stevo_666 said:
What response was that, out of interest?TheBigBean said:
So far it has proved to be better as the UK has managed to stay out of petty EU squabbles and only commented on matters more important to the UK e.g. Hong Kong. The fundamental problem the EU has is that to agree a statement let alone sanctions requires unanimity. This seems sensible until countries use it to negotiate something entirely different because they have no interest in world matters.rjsterry said:
Agreed. There are few that have the heft to stand up to China and Russia and its worrying when those that can choose not to. Notwithstanding this, I can't help thinking that being on our own is not the best move with a more disinterested US.TheBigBean said:
I think that China represents the next challenge, and the ease with which Hong Kong fell is worrying. I never thought an invasion of Taiwan would happen, and it is still not that likely, but it is becoming a possibility.rjsterry said:
Frequently by picking a side in the Cold War and relying on their new 'friend' for protection. Now that that duopoly no longer really exists what next?TheBigBean said:
My argument is fairly basic. Many other regions of the world have gone from wars to peace.rick_chasey said:
It's a bit more basic isn't it?TheBigBean said:You need a control group for any assertion.
Try using East Asia: China, Japan, the Koreas and Taiwan. Not in a political union. Still holding grudges since the second war. No wars since the end of Korean war in 1953.
Or how about South America? A couple of skirmishes between Ecuador and Peru, the odd civil war and the Falklands, but again, largely peaceful.
What about the Caribbean? Again, no wars.
Australia and New Zealand haven't kicked off either.
If you spend a lot of time working *with* nations to come to mutually agreeable solutions, and are heavily integrated from a trading and people movement perspective, you're much less likely to want to kill them, right?
I'm not gonna sit here and say the EU is the sole reason for peace in Europe, but by the same token, Europe was a fairly bellicose continent for a long time, and I think the project has really focused the minds on how to work collaboratively and not competitively.
The union does take some of the sting out of nationalism, which is often what it is criticised for, but that has advantages for peace, for obvious reasons.
There are other ways to go about that, sure, but that doesn't diminish the role of the EU.
Counter factual history is clearly a hiding to nothing, but I think the above is relevant and should not be undervalued.
So, I suppose it depends how much meddling China plans to do. If it is US level then that will no doubt lead to proxy wars.
The challenge for the EU is how to react. So far, it has been very disappointing. Too much need for Russian gas is one example. The signing of the investment agreement with China is another.
Incidentally, I do like the UK's response. Annoys China and potentially boosts UK growth.Stevo_666 said:
What response was that, out of interest?TheBigBean said:
So far it has proved to be better as the UK has managed to stay out of petty EU squabbles and only commented on matters more important to the UK e.g. Hong Kong. The fundamental problem the EU has is that to agree a statement let alone sanctions requires unanimity. This seems sensible until countries use it to negotiate something entirely different because they have no interest in world matters.rjsterry said:
Agreed. There are few that have the heft to stand up to China and Russia and its worrying when those that can choose not to. Notwithstanding this, I can't help thinking that being on our own is not the best move with a more disinterested US.TheBigBean said:
I think that China represents the next challenge, and the ease with which Hong Kong fell is worrying. I never thought an invasion of Taiwan would happen, and it is still not that likely, but it is becoming a possibility.rjsterry said:
Frequently by picking a side in the Cold War and relying on their new 'friend' for protection. Now that that duopoly no longer really exists what next?TheBigBean said:
My argument is fairly basic. Many other regions of the world have gone from wars to peace.rick_chasey said:
It's a bit more basic isn't it?TheBigBean said:You need a control group for any assertion.
Try using East Asia: China, Japan, the Koreas and Taiwan. Not in a political union. Still holding grudges since the second war. No wars since the end of Korean war in 1953.
Or how about South America? A couple of skirmishes between Ecuador and Peru, the odd civil war and the Falklands, but again, largely peaceful.
What about the Caribbean? Again, no wars.
Australia and New Zealand haven't kicked off either.
If you spend a lot of time working *with* nations to come to mutually agreeable solutions, and are heavily integrated from a trading and people movement perspective, you're much less likely to want to kill them, right?
I'm not gonna sit here and say the EU is the sole reason for peace in Europe, but by the same token, Europe was a fairly bellicose continent for a long time, and I think the project has really focused the minds on how to work collaboratively and not competitively.
The union does take some of the sting out of nationalism, which is often what it is criticised for, but that has advantages for peace, for obvious reasons.
There are other ways to go about that, sure, but that doesn't diminish the role of the EU.
Counter factual history is clearly a hiding to nothing, but I think the above is relevant and should not be undervalued.
So, I suppose it depends how much meddling China plans to do. If it is US level then that will no doubt lead to proxy wars.
The challenge for the EU is how to react. So far, it has been very disappointing. Too much need for Russian gas is one example. The signing of the investment agreement with China is another.
Incidentally, I do like the UK's response. Annoys China and potentially boosts UK growth.Stevo_666 said:
What response was that, out of interest?TheBigBean said:
So far it has proved to be better as the UK has managed to stay out of petty EU squabbles and only commented on matters more important to the UK e.g. Hong Kong. The fundamental problem the EU has is that to agree a statement let alone sanctions requires unanimity. This seems sensible until countries use it to negotiate something entirely different because they have no interest in world matters.rjsterry said:
Agreed. There are few that have the heft to stand up to China and Russia and its worrying when those that can choose not to. Notwithstanding this, I can't help thinking that being on our own is not the best move with a more disinterested US.TheBigBean said:
I think that China represents the next challenge, and the ease with which Hong Kong fell is worrying. I never thought an invasion of Taiwan would happen, and it is still not that likely, but it is becoming a possibility.rjsterry said:
Frequently by picking a side in the Cold War and relying on their new 'friend' for protection. Now that that duopoly no longer really exists what next?TheBigBean said:
My argument is fairly basic. Many other regions of the world have gone from wars to peace.rick_chasey said:
It's a bit more basic isn't it?TheBigBean said:You need a control group for any assertion.
Try using East Asia: China, Japan, the Koreas and Taiwan. Not in a political union. Still holding grudges since the second war. No wars since the end of Korean war in 1953.
Or how about South America? A couple of skirmishes between Ecuador and Peru, the odd civil war and the Falklands, but again, largely peaceful.
What about the Caribbean? Again, no wars.
Australia and New Zealand haven't kicked off either.
If you spend a lot of time working *with* nations to come to mutually agreeable solutions, and are heavily integrated from a trading and people movement perspective, you're much less likely to want to kill them, right?
I'm not gonna sit here and say the EU is the sole reason for peace in Europe, but by the same token, Europe was a fairly bellicose continent for a long time, and I think the project has really focused the minds on how to work collaboratively and not competitively.
The union does take some of the sting out of nationalism, which is often what it is criticised for, but that has advantages for peace, for obvious reasons.
There are other ways to go about that, sure, but that doesn't diminish the role of the EU.
Counter factual history is clearly a hiding to nothing, but I think the above is relevant and should not be undervalued.
So, I suppose it depends how much meddling China plans to do. If it is US level then that will no doubt lead to proxy wars.
The challenge for the EU is how to react. So far, it has been very disappointing. Too much need for Russian gas is one example. The signing of the investment agreement with China is another.
Incidentally, I do like the UK's response. Annoys China and potentially boosts UK growth.
Allowing a lot of Hong Kong residents to move to the UK. Starts this year I think.Stevo_666 said:
What response was that, out of interest?TheBigBean said:
So far it has proved to be better as the UK has managed to stay out of petty EU squabbles and only commented on matters more important to the UK e.g. Hong Kong. The fundamental problem the EU has is that to agree a statement let alone sanctions requires unanimity. This seems sensible until countries use it to negotiate something entirely different because they have no interest in world matters.rjsterry said:
Agreed. There are few that have the heft to stand up to China and Russia and its worrying when those that can choose not to. Notwithstanding this, I can't help thinking that being on our own is not the best move with a more disinterested US.TheBigBean said:
I think that China represents the next challenge, and the ease with which Hong Kong fell is worrying. I never thought an invasion of Taiwan would happen, and it is still not that likely, but it is becoming a possibility.rjsterry said:
Frequently by picking a side in the Cold War and relying on their new 'friend' for protection. Now that that duopoly no longer really exists what next?TheBigBean said:
My argument is fairly basic. Many other regions of the world have gone from wars to peace.rick_chasey said:
It's a bit more basic isn't it?TheBigBean said:You need a control group for any assertion.
Try using East Asia: China, Japan, the Koreas and Taiwan. Not in a political union. Still holding grudges since the second war. No wars since the end of Korean war in 1953.
Or how about South America? A couple of skirmishes between Ecuador and Peru, the odd civil war and the Falklands, but again, largely peaceful.
What about the Caribbean? Again, no wars.
Australia and New Zealand haven't kicked off either.
If you spend a lot of time working *with* nations to come to mutually agreeable solutions, and are heavily integrated from a trading and people movement perspective, you're much less likely to want to kill them, right?
I'm not gonna sit here and say the EU is the sole reason for peace in Europe, but by the same token, Europe was a fairly bellicose continent for a long time, and I think the project has really focused the minds on how to work collaboratively and not competitively.
The union does take some of the sting out of nationalism, which is often what it is criticised for, but that has advantages for peace, for obvious reasons.
There are other ways to go about that, sure, but that doesn't diminish the role of the EU.
Counter factual history is clearly a hiding to nothing, but I think the above is relevant and should not be undervalued.
So, I suppose it depends how much meddling China plans to do. If it is US level then that will no doubt lead to proxy wars.
The challenge for the EU is how to react. So far, it has been very disappointing. Too much need for Russian gas is one example. The signing of the investment agreement with China is another.
Incidentally, I do like the UK's response. Annoys China and potentially boosts UK growth.
Stealing HK entrepreneurs. Good move."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
There's some parallels with brexit here....TheBigBean said:
Hong Kong's value came from its rule of law and westernisation. If you destroy that all you have is a tiny bit more land in a big country. Thatcher explained this to Deng when he asked why he was negotiating a handover when he could just take it.elbowloh said:
The situation in Hong Kong has been coming since we handed it back. Anyone who thought China would actually honour the deal was/is deluded.TheBigBean said:
I think that China represents the next challenge, and the ease with which Hong Kong fell is worrying. I never thought an invasion of Taiwan would happen, and it is still not that likely, but it is becoming a possibility.rjsterry said:
Frequently by picking a side in the Cold War and relying on their new 'friend' for protection. Now that that duopoly no longer really exists what next?TheBigBean said:
My argument is fairly basic. Many other regions of the world have gone from wars to peace.rick_chasey said:
It's a bit more basic isn't it?TheBigBean said:You need a control group for any assertion.
Try using East Asia: China, Japan, the Koreas and Taiwan. Not in a political union. Still holding grudges since the second war. No wars since the end of Korean war in 1953.
Or how about South America? A couple of skirmishes between Ecuador and Peru, the odd civil war and the Falklands, but again, largely peaceful.
What about the Caribbean? Again, no wars.
Australia and New Zealand haven't kicked off either.
If you spend a lot of time working *with* nations to come to mutually agreeable solutions, and are heavily integrated from a trading and people movement perspective, you're much less likely to want to kill them, right?
I'm not gonna sit here and say the EU is the sole reason for peace in Europe, but by the same token, Europe was a fairly bellicose continent for a long time, and I think the project has really focused the minds on how to work collaboratively and not competitively.
The union does take some of the sting out of nationalism, which is often what it is criticised for, but that has advantages for peace, for obvious reasons.
There are other ways to go about that, sure, but that doesn't diminish the role of the EU.
Counter factual history is clearly a hiding to nothing, but I think the above is relevant and should not be undervalued.
So, I suppose it depends how much meddling China plans to do. If it is US level then that will no doubt lead to proxy wars.
The challenge for the EU is how to react. So far, it has been very disappointing. Too much need for Russian gas is one example. The signing of the investment agreement with China is another.
China wants to rival and exceed the US's influence. The amount they have invested in developing nations to build up support and have those countries in hock to them is huge.
Unfortunately, Xi is an egotistical dimwit. No better example than the banning of Winnie the Pooh, because people thought that is what he looked like.
It's ridiculous to think that people would believe China would stick to a deal that, to them, limits them in what they can do in their own sovereign nation.
0 -
HAHAHAHAHAH is that true?TheBigBean said:
Hong Kong's value came from its rule of law and westernisation. If you destroy that all you have is a tiny bit more land in a big country. Thatcher explained this to Deng when he asked why he was negotiating a handover when he could just take it.elbowloh said:
The situation in Hong Kong has been coming since we handed it back. Anyone who thought China would actually honour the deal was/is deluded.TheBigBean said:
I think that China represents the next challenge, and the ease with which Hong Kong fell is worrying. I never thought an invasion of Taiwan would happen, and it is still not that likely, but it is becoming a possibility.rjsterry said:
Frequently by picking a side in the Cold War and relying on their new 'friend' for protection. Now that that duopoly no longer really exists what next?TheBigBean said:
My argument is fairly basic. Many other regions of the world have gone from wars to peace.rick_chasey said:
It's a bit more basic isn't it?TheBigBean said:You need a control group for any assertion.
Try using East Asia: China, Japan, the Koreas and Taiwan. Not in a political union. Still holding grudges since the second war. No wars since the end of Korean war in 1953.
Or how about South America? A couple of skirmishes between Ecuador and Peru, the odd civil war and the Falklands, but again, largely peaceful.
What about the Caribbean? Again, no wars.
Australia and New Zealand haven't kicked off either.
If you spend a lot of time working *with* nations to come to mutually agreeable solutions, and are heavily integrated from a trading and people movement perspective, you're much less likely to want to kill them, right?
I'm not gonna sit here and say the EU is the sole reason for peace in Europe, but by the same token, Europe was a fairly bellicose continent for a long time, and I think the project has really focused the minds on how to work collaboratively and not competitively.
The union does take some of the sting out of nationalism, which is often what it is criticised for, but that has advantages for peace, for obvious reasons.
There are other ways to go about that, sure, but that doesn't diminish the role of the EU.
Counter factual history is clearly a hiding to nothing, but I think the above is relevant and should not be undervalued.
So, I suppose it depends how much meddling China plans to do. If it is US level then that will no doubt lead to proxy wars.
The challenge for the EU is how to react. So far, it has been very disappointing. Too much need for Russian gas is one example. The signing of the investment agreement with China is another.
China wants to rival and exceed the US's influence. The amount they have invested in developing nations to build up support and have those countries in hock to them is huge.
Unfortunately, Xi is an egotistical dimwit. No better example than the banning of Winnie the Pooh, because people thought that is what he looked like.
0 -
It's not quite the "putting £350m a week into the NHS" that was on the side of the bus...
0 -
Yes it's true, China are willing to shoot themselves in the foot economically in order to exert their sovereignty.david37 said:
HAHAHAHAHAH is that true?TheBigBean said:
Hong Kong's value came from its rule of law and westernisation. If you destroy that all you have is a tiny bit more land in a big country. Thatcher explained this to Deng when he asked why he was negotiating a handover when he could just take it.elbowloh said:
The situation in Hong Kong has been coming since we handed it back. Anyone who thought China would actually honour the deal was/is deluded.TheBigBean said:
I think that China represents the next challenge, and the ease with which Hong Kong fell is worrying. I never thought an invasion of Taiwan would happen, and it is still not that likely, but it is becoming a possibility.rjsterry said:
Frequently by picking a side in the Cold War and relying on their new 'friend' for protection. Now that that duopoly no longer really exists what next?TheBigBean said:
My argument is fairly basic. Many other regions of the world have gone from wars to peace.rick_chasey said:
It's a bit more basic isn't it?TheBigBean said:You need a control group for any assertion.
Try using East Asia: China, Japan, the Koreas and Taiwan. Not in a political union. Still holding grudges since the second war. No wars since the end of Korean war in 1953.
Or how about South America? A couple of skirmishes between Ecuador and Peru, the odd civil war and the Falklands, but again, largely peaceful.
What about the Caribbean? Again, no wars.
Australia and New Zealand haven't kicked off either.
If you spend a lot of time working *with* nations to come to mutually agreeable solutions, and are heavily integrated from a trading and people movement perspective, you're much less likely to want to kill them, right?
I'm not gonna sit here and say the EU is the sole reason for peace in Europe, but by the same token, Europe was a fairly bellicose continent for a long time, and I think the project has really focused the minds on how to work collaboratively and not competitively.
The union does take some of the sting out of nationalism, which is often what it is criticised for, but that has advantages for peace, for obvious reasons.
There are other ways to go about that, sure, but that doesn't diminish the role of the EU.
Counter factual history is clearly a hiding to nothing, but I think the above is relevant and should not be undervalued.
So, I suppose it depends how much meddling China plans to do. If it is US level then that will no doubt lead to proxy wars.
The challenge for the EU is how to react. So far, it has been very disappointing. Too much need for Russian gas is one example. The signing of the investment agreement with China is another.
China wants to rival and exceed the US's influence. The amount they have invested in developing nations to build up support and have those countries in hock to them is huge.
Unfortunately, Xi is an egotistical dimwit. No better example than the banning of Winnie the Pooh, because people thought that is what he looked like.1 -
Yep pretty big news at the time https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-china-blog-40627855- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono1 -
I don't see us selling the concept of Spitting Image to China then.1
-
I lived on the edge by listening to China by Joan Baez as I walked across Tiananmen Square.0
-
What was next on your playlist China In Your Hands by T'pau:)0
-
Putting faith in that was putting optimism before historical evidence to the contrary.TheBigBean said:
The security law.pblakeney said:
Interested in how you think Hong Kong "fell".TheBigBean said:
I think that China represents the next challenge, and the ease with which Hong Kong fell is worrying.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Kung Fu Fighting, Carl Douglas....focuszing723 said:What was next on your playlist China In Your Hands by T'pau:)
We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
Whilst I don't disagree it does intrigue me that we see nothing wrong with USA interfering in China's backyard without considering how that must feel to them.john80 said:Russia is a bit of an irrelevance. It has not done structural changes to allow it to become a super power again. It economy is pretty average and future wars don't really fit with oligarchs wading off with piles of cash. China is a different kettle of fish. It won't be long before they start to take more territory in the South China sea as the see a lot of sovereign states as theirs. This will then provoke USA into a response. China is starting to get to becoming an equal and a serious threat. To the world order. I personally would rather the UK did not get involved with this as it won't be in our interests. A smart UK PM will offer words of support but little else.
Imagine if China projected military might to halt or even roll back US expansionism in Latin America?0 -
Yellow River - Christie.ddraver said:
Kung Fu Fighting, Carl Douglas....focuszing723 said:What was next on your playlist China In Your Hands by T'pau:)
0 -
If you are a True Believer of the communist party, which we can presume Xi is, why would he see any value in a Westernised rule of law?TheBigBean said:
Hong Kong's value came from its rule of law and westernisation. If you destroy that all you have is a tiny bit more land in a big country. Thatcher explained this to Deng when he asked why he was negotiating a handover when he could just take it.elbowloh said:
The situation in Hong Kong has been coming since we handed it back. Anyone who thought China would actually honour the deal was/is deluded.TheBigBean said:
I think that China represents the next challenge, and the ease with which Hong Kong fell is worrying. I never thought an invasion of Taiwan would happen, and it is still not that likely, but it is becoming a possibility.rjsterry said:
Frequently by picking a side in the Cold War and relying on their new 'friend' for protection. Now that that duopoly no longer really exists what next?TheBigBean said:
My argument is fairly basic. Many other regions of the world have gone from wars to peace.rick_chasey said:
It's a bit more basic isn't it?TheBigBean said:You need a control group for any assertion.
Try using East Asia: China, Japan, the Koreas and Taiwan. Not in a political union. Still holding grudges since the second war. No wars since the end of Korean war in 1953.
Or how about South America? A couple of skirmishes between Ecuador and Peru, the odd civil war and the Falklands, but again, largely peaceful.
What about the Caribbean? Again, no wars.
Australia and New Zealand haven't kicked off either.
If you spend a lot of time working *with* nations to come to mutually agreeable solutions, and are heavily integrated from a trading and people movement perspective, you're much less likely to want to kill them, right?
I'm not gonna sit here and say the EU is the sole reason for peace in Europe, but by the same token, Europe was a fairly bellicose continent for a long time, and I think the project has really focused the minds on how to work collaboratively and not competitively.
The union does take some of the sting out of nationalism, which is often what it is criticised for, but that has advantages for peace, for obvious reasons.
There are other ways to go about that, sure, but that doesn't diminish the role of the EU.
Counter factual history is clearly a hiding to nothing, but I think the above is relevant and should not be undervalued.
So, I suppose it depends how much meddling China plans to do. If it is US level then that will no doubt lead to proxy wars.
The challenge for the EU is how to react. So far, it has been very disappointing. Too much need for Russian gas is one example. The signing of the investment agreement with China is another.
China wants to rival and exceed the US's influence. The amount they have invested in developing nations to build up support and have those countries in hock to them is huge.
Unfortunately, Xi is an egotistical dimwit. No better example than the banning of Winnie the Pooh, because people thought that is what he looked like.
If you are in the game of competing ideologies, and increasingly I think China is, than having a shining beacon of the other ideology on your doorstep doesn't make much sense.
I don't think that is dimwitted. I think he has different priorities.0 -
When China signed the deal, the money might have seemed attractive.
Now that the chinese economy has grown and they're on track to overtake the USA, they don't need Hong Kong's money.0 -
The value is that other countries see value in the rule of law. Especially common law and a finance hub. Or to put it another way, I see no value in the Mona Lisa. Definitely wouldn't hang it on my wall, but I certainly wouldn't destroy it because I know it is valued by others.rick_chasey said:
If you are a True Believer of the communist party, which we can presume Xi is, why would he see any value in a Westernised rule of law?TheBigBean said:
Hong Kong's value came from its rule of law and westernisation. If you destroy that all you have is a tiny bit more land in a big country. Thatcher explained this to Deng when he asked why he was negotiating a handover when he could just take it.elbowloh said:
The situation in Hong Kong has been coming since we handed it back. Anyone who thought China would actually honour the deal was/is deluded.TheBigBean said:
I think that China represents the next challenge, and the ease with which Hong Kong fell is worrying. I never thought an invasion of Taiwan would happen, and it is still not that likely, but it is becoming a possibility.rjsterry said:
Frequently by picking a side in the Cold War and relying on their new 'friend' for protection. Now that that duopoly no longer really exists what next?TheBigBean said:
My argument is fairly basic. Many other regions of the world have gone from wars to peace.rick_chasey said:
It's a bit more basic isn't it?TheBigBean said:You need a control group for any assertion.
Try using East Asia: China, Japan, the Koreas and Taiwan. Not in a political union. Still holding grudges since the second war. No wars since the end of Korean war in 1953.
Or how about South America? A couple of skirmishes between Ecuador and Peru, the odd civil war and the Falklands, but again, largely peaceful.
What about the Caribbean? Again, no wars.
Australia and New Zealand haven't kicked off either.
If you spend a lot of time working *with* nations to come to mutually agreeable solutions, and are heavily integrated from a trading and people movement perspective, you're much less likely to want to kill them, right?
I'm not gonna sit here and say the EU is the sole reason for peace in Europe, but by the same token, Europe was a fairly bellicose continent for a long time, and I think the project has really focused the minds on how to work collaboratively and not competitively.
The union does take some of the sting out of nationalism, which is often what it is criticised for, but that has advantages for peace, for obvious reasons.
There are other ways to go about that, sure, but that doesn't diminish the role of the EU.
Counter factual history is clearly a hiding to nothing, but I think the above is relevant and should not be undervalued.
So, I suppose it depends how much meddling China plans to do. If it is US level then that will no doubt lead to proxy wars.
The challenge for the EU is how to react. So far, it has been very disappointing. Too much need for Russian gas is one example. The signing of the investment agreement with China is another.
China wants to rival and exceed the US's influence. The amount they have invested in developing nations to build up support and have those countries in hock to them is huge.
Unfortunately, Xi is an egotistical dimwit. No better example than the banning of Winnie the Pooh, because people thought that is what he looked like.
If you are in the game of competing ideologies, and increasingly I think China is, than having a shining beacon of the other ideology on your doorstep doesn't make much sense.
I don't think that is dimwitted. I think he has different priorities.
Of course, if you are an egotistical dictator this needs to be balanced against the "dangers" of offering freedom of speech and the like. However, if you have the Great Firewall of China at your disposal, the risk isn't that great.
It's just a classic dictator move. Most of China's advances over the last 30 years have come from doing the opposite - growing the economy, clamping down on corruption, keeping the people happy etc.0 -
Disagree. To some extent. Yes it is a dictator move but you are seeing it through the lens of a liberal democracy guy.
Your analogy with the Mona Lisa does not work as it is not a shining beacon of the alternative ideology to yours.
If you believe in the communist party by definition you are opposed to what HK is.
The value you see they see as a threat.0 -
I think the communist party has moved on from communism. They still believe in a one party state, but everything else is capitalism.rick_chasey said:Disagree.
Your analogy with the Mona Lisa does not work as it is not a shining beacon of the alternative ideology to yours.
If you believe in the communist party by definition you are opposed to what HK is.
The value you see they see as a threat.1 -
Yes I don’t disagree with that much.TheBigBean said:
I think the communist party has moved on from communism. They still believe in a one party state, but everything else is capitalism.rick_chasey said:Disagree.
Your analogy with the Mona Lisa does not work as it is not a shining beacon of the alternative ideology to yours.
If you believe in the communist party by definition you are opposed to what HK is.
The value you see they see as a threat.
But if you believe that is the best way to run society why would you let HK exist if it is in your control?0 -
Because it makes money, and due to the great firewall, doesn't really impact much on the one party state. The same reason China has happily played along for years.rick_chasey said:
Yes I don’t disagree with that much.TheBigBean said:
I think the communist party has moved on from communism. They still believe in a one party state, but everything else is capitalism.rick_chasey said:Disagree.
Your analogy with the Mona Lisa does not work as it is not a shining beacon of the alternative ideology to yours.
If you believe in the communist party by definition you are opposed to what HK is.
The value you see they see as a threat.
But if you believe that is the best way to run society why would you let HK exist if it is in your control?
You need to put yourself in the shoes of someone who is offended by Winnie the Pooh. It's just the culmination of absolute power, and nothing to do with whether it is a successful way to run a country.0 -
This to a certain extent is the problem with the USAs position. Defending another sovereign state miles from your borders generally results in more conflict than is necessary. But then again I would not want to be ruled by China if I was an independent state in the South China Sea.surrey_commuter said:
Whilst I don't disagree it does intrigue me that we see nothing wrong with USA interfering in China's backyard without considering how that must feel to them.john80 said:Russia is a bit of an irrelevance. It has not done structural changes to allow it to become a super power again. It economy is pretty average and future wars don't really fit with oligarchs wading off with piles of cash. China is a different kettle of fish. It won't be long before they start to take more territory in the South China sea as the see a lot of sovereign states as theirs. This will then provoke USA into a response. China is starting to get to becoming an equal and a serious threat. To the world order. I personally would rather the UK did not get involved with this as it won't be in our interests. A smart UK PM will offer words of support but little else.
Imagine if China projected military might to halt or even roll back US expansionism in Latin America?0 -
-
"Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0
-
Woman didn't realise that importing stuff from abroad attracted customs duties and VAT?blazing_saddles said:Wow!
I mean no wonder she sent them back.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55734277
Saw her picture and she was smiling. I would have been too embarrassed to have reported it, let alone have my picture taken.0 -
Talking to my distributor in Ireland yesterday. He's having a nightmare with some products (not ours which are all UK made and therefore just involve shed loads of paperwork).
Basically if a UK business is selling some products made outside the UK, back into an EU market, it still attracts tariffs (the COO issue discussed upthread and dismissed by some...).
And before anyone pipes up 'well make them in the UK then' we're talking food - lots of ingredients / products cannot be grown or made here. Hence why we import shed-loads for our own use.
The upshot is - Irish consumers will be hit (increased prices) or more likely the UK company will suffer the loss of that line of business. Well done Boris & Farage.0
