But Theresa May let the People's Army build a nuclear installation in Somerset.......
The Chinese nuclear power station was probably a bad idea too, not to mention Chinese steel warships. But isn't this leak a bit too convenient? Is Number 10 flying a kite here?
(Actually this thing has had so much exposure, the risk of Huawei doing something clandestine with Britain's 5G through their systems has to be quite low. The Chinese are likely to take more obscure route)
Johnson is on an absolute hiding to nothing with this. He's caught up in the middle of a much bigger war between the US and the Chinese and is opening himself to criticism whichever way he jumps (and he does have to jump). If he says no to Huawei, he's an unthinking lapdog for Trump's America. If he says yes, he's selling the country down the river.
(Actually this thing has had so much exposure, the risk of Huawei doing something clandestine with Britain's 5G through their systems has to be quite low. The Chinese are likely to take more obscure route)
The danger is not that they do something clandestine. It’s rather that some time in the future they might throw a massive spanner in the workings of the UK economy, in a fairly blatant manner. Or threaten to do so.
It’s not a personal gamble. Or not just that. It’s gamble with our security, our privacy and our freedom.
We have a British PM who trusts the Chinese Communist party more than he trusts the EU or the US.
Do you want to explain why Huawei, which is heavily scrutinised by GCHQ, is a risk, but the alternatives (Nokia, Ericsson, and Samsung) which aren't scrutinised to any real degree are "safe"?
My own pet theory is that the US government has a lot of leverage over the likes of Nokia, Ericsson, and Samsung*, but essentially none over Huawei. It's not Chinese spying the US fears, but the threat of networks "going dark" as US alligned suppliers are cut out of networks.
Certainly in the case of Samsung the South Korean government always does what the US wants. I have basically zero doubt that US intelligence community can run riot over a Samsung based network. I suspect they also get a lot of support from Finland and Sweden, but probably to a lesser degree. I also think it very likely that the US government has agents working for all of those companies, recruiting an agent in Huawei is likely to be much harder for them.
I realise that there is a political dimension to this decision, but all other things being equal I would always pick the supplier where our people have examined the code over the ones where they haven't.
* For US suppliers, not that there really are any serious 5G network players, you can simply assume they have already received a National Security Letter and are betraying their customers en masse.
Johnson is on an absolute hiding to nothing with this. He's caught up in the middle of a much bigger war between the US and the Chinese and is opening himself to criticism whichever way he jumps (and he does have to jump). If he says no to Huawei, he's an unthinking lapdog for Trump's America. If he says yes, he's selling the country down the river.
I'm unconvinced that becoming an unthinking lapdog for Trump's America is entirely discrete from selling the country down the river.
But Theresa May let the People's Army build a nuclear installation in Somerset.......
So Boris is as stupid as Mrs May, is what you’re saying.
I'm saying that as Theresa May had already allowed the Chinese to turn the lights off in UK plc, allowing 5G to report back to Beijing that it has happened is kinda small fry.....
(Actually this thing has had so much exposure, the risk of Huawei doing something clandestine with Britain's 5G through their systems has to be quite low. The Chinese are likely to take more obscure route)
For now, maybe. In 5 or 10 years time, they won’t give a stuff.
If they can control our infrastructure they don’t need to do anything, they can simply point out that they can shut down our internet unless...
Essentially, it allows the Chinese to determine the internet of the future. When you look at what they are doing now with the capabilities they have now, why on earth is Britain siding with such a nasty illiberal and authoritarian regime, which does not even remotely pay lip service to any of our values at all, the law and which has repeatedly shown its utter ruthlessness?
It’s not a personal gamble. Or not just that. It’s gamble with our security, our privacy and our freedom.
We have a British PM who trusts the Chinese Communist party more than he trusts the EU or the US.
Do you want to explain why Huawei, which is heavily scrutinised by GCHQ, is a risk, but the alternatives (Nokia, Ericsson, and Samsung) which aren't scrutinised to any real degree are "safe"?
My own pet theory is that the US government has a lot of leverage over the likes of Nokia, Ericsson, and Samsung*, but essentially none over Huawei. It's not Chinese spying the US fears, but the threat of networks "going dark" as US alligned suppliers are cut out of networks.
Certainly in the case of Samsung the South Korean government always does what the US wants. I have basically zero doubt that US intelligence community can run riot over a Samsung based network. I suspect they also get a lot of support from Finland and Sweden, but probably to a lesser degree. I also think it very likely that the US government has agents working for all of those companies, recruiting an agent in Huawei is likely to be much harder for them.
I realise that there is a political dimension to this decision, but all other things being equal I would always pick the supplier where our people have examined the code over the ones where they haven't.
* For US suppliers, not that there really are any serious 5G network players, you can simply assume they have already received a National Security Letter and are betraying their customers en masse.
Nokia and Ericsson both source chips from Qualcomm.
But Theresa May let the People's Army build a nuclear installation in Somerset.......
So Boris is as stupid as Mrs May, is what you’re saying.
I'm saying that as Theresa May had already allowed the Chinese to turn the lights off in UK plc, allowing 5G to report back to Beijing that it has happened is kinda small fry.....
Literally everything in this comment is incorrect. What an achievement.
It’s not a personal gamble. Or not just that. It’s gamble with our security, our privacy and our freedom.
Do you want to explain why Huawei, which is heavily scrutinised by GCHQ, is a risk, but the alternatives (Nokia, Ericsson, and Samsung) which aren't scrutinised to any real degree are "safe"?
My own pet theory is that the US government has a lot of leverage over the likes of Nokia, Ericsson, and Samsung*, but essentially none over Huawei. It's not Chinese spying the US fears, but the threat of networks "going dark" as US alligned suppliers are cut out of networks.
Certainly in the case of Samsung the South Korean government always does what the US wants. I have basically zero doubt that US intelligence community can run riot over a Samsung based network. I suspect they also get a lot of support from Finland and Sweden, but probably to a lesser degree. I also think it very likely that the US government has agents working for all of those companies, recruiting an agent in Huawei is likely to be much harder for them.
I realise that there is a political dimension to this decision, but all other things being equal I would always pick the supplier where our people have examined the code over the ones where they haven't.
Huawei is a risk because it is ultimately under Chinese law under the control of the Chinese Communist Party and has to do what it says, regardless of the laws of the countries where it operates. It is in no sense a private company
The Chinese Communist Party shares none of our values, will not obey our laws and is utterly ruthless. I have no doubt that if it controls our internet it will use that leverage for its interests and only for its interests, regardless of British interests. It may say now that it wants a friendly relationship but, as the former Australian PM put it, “intent can change in a heartbeat” and if Chinese intent becomes malign, we’re stuffed.
As a small example, look at the worrying stories about how Chinese students here who are opposed to the Beijing regime are being harassed or spied on or attacked by those loyal to Beijing. Imagine what a country with much greater control over our infrastructure could do to those in this country who say or do something the Chinese state does not like. Or indeed the pressure it would put on authorities in this country - all behind the scenes of course.
I don’t much trust the US but I absolutely do not trust China. It is a vile state. Putting our vital infrastructure under Chinese control is a risk too far to save a couple of billion quid and 2 years delay to find an alternative as Canada and Korea and Australia and New Zealand and even Vietnam are doing.
It’s not a personal gamble. Or not just that. It’s gamble with our security, our privacy and our freedom.
We have a British PM who trusts the Chinese Communist party more than he trusts the EU or the US.
Do you want to explain why Huawei, which is heavily scrutinised by GCHQ, is a risk, but the alternatives (Nokia, Ericsson, and Samsung) which aren't scrutinised to any real degree are "safe"?
My own pet theory is that the US government has a lot of leverage over the likes of Nokia, Ericsson, and Samsung*, but essentially none over Huawei. It's not Chinese spying the US fears, but the threat of networks "going dark" as US alligned suppliers are cut out of networks.
Certainly in the case of Samsung the South Korean government always does what the US wants. I have basically zero doubt that US intelligence community can run riot over a Samsung based network. I suspect they also get a lot of support from Finland and Sweden, but probably to a lesser degree. I also think it very likely that the US government has agents working for all of those companies, recruiting an agent in Huawei is likely to be much harder for them.
I realise that there is a political dimension to this decision, but all other things being equal I would always pick the supplier where our people have examined the code over the ones where they haven't.
* For US suppliers, not that there really are any serious 5G network players, you can simply assume they have already received a National Security Letter and are betraying their customers en masse.
Nokia and Ericsson both source chips from Qualcomm.
Almost any mobile network is going to have some Qualcomm components, but AFAIK both Nokia and Ericsson have a lot of their own components in their radio access network hardware for 5G. Of course this really boils down to whether you think the periphery, core, or whole system matters.
But more broadly the whole Chinese/not-Chinese argument really falls down when so many suppliers of hardware and software are involved in any deployed system, nevermind where it is all manufactured which is another issue, no matter what the badge on the box says.
And I'd still pick the system our people have poked around in.
But Johnson probably wont be around to face the music when the spying becomes a major problem.
Spying is a major problem TODAY. The people telling us not to use Huawei have the NSA which is an organisation that was boasting, in one of the documents Snowden leaked, of intecepting ALL the telephone calls in an unnamed country.
This is like getting advice about fire safety from an arsonist.
This is pretty much my day-job. I’ve been to Huawei HQ in Shenzhen a few times, I know Ericsson, Nokia and Qualcomm very well. The truth is that 5G strategy in Europe and the US is non-existent. We have gifted Huawei leadership because we have done absolutely nothing to help our own companies compete. It is a total failure of collective will and wisdom. Even now the US government is suing Qualcomm, while parts of the Commission (DG Competition, in particular) are looking for an excuse to attack Nokia and Ericsson as patent monopolists. This is all self-inflicted wounds. Huawei has great tech, but it did not have to be like this - and still doesn’t have to be.
I've just changed stations in That London and did the connection via the tube. Whilst I was down there I saw a little brown mouse - and no, it wasn't a rat. I said "Hallo little mouse": we made eye contact and both went on our way. I felt quite cheered. Then I sat down waiting for my connection and the drunken vagrant on the nearby seat projectile vomited onto the floor.
Personally I am not bothered either way over Huawei. We have sold off all our other assets, why not this too?
China is not our enemy, in the post Brexit world we will have to dance to their tune, so might as well get on with it.
China is not our friend and I rather fear will end up being our enemy. It is certainly now an enemy of our values and freedoms and will not hesitate to use its powers to quash them if that is in the interests of China. IMO.
All those worrying about Trump’s “America First” policy seem awfully sanguine about China’s equally firm and ruthless “China First” policy.
I've just changed stations in That London and did the connection via the tube. Whilst I was down there I saw a little brown mouse - and no, it wasn't a rat. I said "Hallo little mouse": we made eye contact and both went on our way. I felt quite cheered. Then I sat down waiting for my connection and the drunken vagrant on the nearby seat projectile vomited onto the floor.
I've just changed stations in That London and did the connection via the tube. Whilst I was down there I saw a little brown mouse - and no, it wasn't a rat. I said "Hallo little mouse": we made eye contact and both went on our way. I felt quite cheered. Then I sat down waiting for my connection and the drunken vagrant on the nearby seat projectile vomited onto the floor.
It’s not a personal gamble. Or not just that. It’s gamble with our security, our privacy and our freedom.
Do you want to explain why Huawei, which is heavily scrutinised by GCHQ, is a risk, but the alternatives (Nokia, Ericsson, and Samsung) which aren't scrutinised to any real degree are "safe"?
My own pet theory is that the US government has a lot of leverage over the likes of Nokia, Ericsson, and Samsung*, but essentially none over Huawei. It's not Chinese spying the US fears, but the threat of networks "going dark" as US alligned suppliers are cut out of networks.
snip
I realise that there is a political dimension to this decision, but all other things being equal I would always pick the supplier where our people have examined the code over the ones where they haven't.
Huawei is a risk because it is ultimately under Chinese law under the control of the Chinese Communist Party and has to do what it says, regardless of the laws of the countries where it operates. It is in no sense a private company
The Chinese Communist Party shares none of our values, will not obey our laws and is utterly ruthless. I have no doubt that if it controls our internet it will use that leverage for its interests and only for its interests, regardless of British interests. It may say now that it wants a friendly relationship but, as the former Australian PM put it, “intent can change in a heartbeat” and if Chinese intent becomes malign, we’re stuffed.
As a small example, look at the worrying stories about how Chinese students here who are opposed to the Beijing regime are being harassed or spied on or attacked by those loyal to Beijing. Imagine what a country with much greater control over our infrastructure could do to those in this country who say or do something the Chinese state does not like. Or indeed the pressure it would put on authorities in this country - all behind the scenes of course.
I don’t much trust the US but I absolutely do not trust China. It is a vile state. Putting our vital infrastructure under Chinese control is a risk too far to save a couple of billion quid and 2 years delay to find an alternative as Canada and Korea and Australia and New Zealand and even Vietnam are doing.
Yep. We could spend the two years of delay wondering why the country that invented the computer has thrown away its IT/telecoms industry.
This is pretty much my day-job. I’ve been to Huawei HQ in Shenzhen a few times, I know Ericsson, Nokia and Qualcomm very well. The truth is that 5G strategy in Europe and the US is non-existent. We have gifted Huawei leadership because we have done absolutely nothing to help our own companies compete. It is a total failure of collective will and wisdom. Even now the US government is suing Qualcomm, while parts of the Commission (DG Competition, in particular) are looking for an excuse to attack Nokia and Ericsson as patent monopolists. This is all self-inflicted wounds. Huawei has great tech, but it did not have to be like this - and still doesn’t have to be.
If you haven’t watched The Windermere Children (on BBC2 tonight) worth seeing. Beautifully acted and written. It let the story speak for itself rather than overdose on the emotion.
If I don’t post again it will be down to the blasted Chinese reading my posts. And they can also stuff their stupid virus where the sun don’t shine.
If you haven’t watched The Windermere Children (on BBC2 tonight) worth seeing. Beautifully acted and written. It let the story speak for itself rather than overdose on the emotion.
If I don’t post again it will be down to the blasted Chinese reading my posts. And they can also stuff their stupid virus where the sun don’t shine.
Personally I am not bothered either way over Huawei. We have sold off all our other assets, why not this too?
China is not our enemy, in the post Brexit world we will have to dance to their tune, so might as well get on with it.
China is not our friend and I rather fear will end up being our enemy. It is certainly now an enemy of our values and freedoms and will not hesitate to use its powers to quash them if that is in the interests of China. IMO.
All those worrying about Trump’s “America First” policy seem awfully sanguine about China’s equally firm and ruthless “China First” policy.
I didn't say it was our friend or enemy. It just is what it is. We are shortly leaving the EU, the bastion of free democratic states, so cannot be too prissy about who we deal with.
Think of it as the Opium Wars, in reverse, with the Chinese selling us an addictive product.
This is pretty much my day-job. I’ve been to Huawei HQ in Shenzhen a few times, I know Ericsson, Nokia and Qualcomm very well. The truth is that 5G strategy in Europe and the US is non-existent. We have gifted Huawei leadership because we have done absolutely nothing to help our own companies compete. It is a total failure of collective will and wisdom. Even now the US government is suing Qualcomm, while parts of the Commission (DG Competition, in particular) are looking for an excuse to attack Nokia and Ericsson as patent monopolists. This is all self-inflicted wounds. Huawei has great tech, but it did not have to be like this - and still doesn’t have to be.
This. 100 x this.
I think this does miss the point a little. There is really no longer such a thing as the US electronics industry, or the European electronics industry. Electronics, telecoms, and computing are global industries, and most of the manufacturing and increasingly the development is in Asia, and hardly any business in the industry is vertically integrated now. The days when you could keep the Reds at bay by buying an IBM computer full of IBM components, made in IBM factories, running IBM software, serviced by IBM personnel, are gone.
Anyone telling you "just buy this kit, from these guys" is selling snake oil.
This is a very difficult issue and the only reasonable approach is to trust nobody.
Personally I am not bothered either way over Huawei. We have sold off all our other assets, why not this too?
China is not our enemy, in the post Brexit world we will have to dance to their tune, so might as well get on with it.
China is not our friend and I rather fear will end up being our enemy. It is certainly now an enemy of our values and freedoms and will not hesitate to use its powers to quash them if that is in the interests of China. IMO.
All those worrying about Trump’s “America First” policy seem awfully sanguine about China’s equally firm and ruthless “China First” policy.
I didn't say it was our friend or enemy. It just is what it is. We are shortly leaving the EU, the bastion of free democratic states, so cannot be too prissy about who we deal with.
Think of it as the Opium Wars, in reverse, with the Chinese selling us an addictive product.
AIUI most of the fentonyl illegally used in the US comes from China. As the production and despatch of those drugs will not be done without the knowledge of elements of the Chinese state, there is an argument that a reverse Opium War is currently under way.
Good point. Where are the other contenders (all 8 of them)? Surely this is a chance for all of them to score some points off the Government for a change, rather than each other. Does indicate somewhat that Starmer is the most fit for purpose among them.
Also no word from the actual Leader of the Opposition, or (eg) his shadow home sec? Just the one front bench spokesman whose role ceases to exist at the end of the week...
Jeez. Dem primary voters are self-indulgent fools based on this. Corbyn US style here we come.
Four more MAGA years.
Anyone else watching the impeachment trial presentations about Hunter Biden? Will it get any traction? Have to say it makes Mark Thatcher's dealings in the Gulf remind me of happier gentler amateur times.
If you haven’t watched The Windermere Children (on BBC2 tonight) worth seeing. Beautifully acted and written. It let the story speak for itself rather than overdose on the emotion.
If I don’t post again it will be down to the blasted Chinese reading my posts. And they can also stuff their stupid virus where the sun don’t shine.
It’s not a personal gamble. Or not just that. It’s gamble with our security, our privacy and our freedom.
Do y working for all of those companies, recruiting an agent in Huawei is likely to be much harder for them.
I realise that there is a political dimension to this decision, but all other things being equal I would always pick the supplier where our people have examined the code over the ones where they haven't.
Huawei is a risk because it is ultimately under Chinese law under the control of the Chinese Communist Party and has to do what it says, regardless of the laws of the countries where it operates. It is in no sense a private company
The Chinese Communist Party shares none of our values, will not obey our laws and is utterly ruthless. I have no doubt that if it controls our internet it will use that leverage for its interests and only for its interests, regardless of British interests. It may say now that it wants a friendly relationship but, as the former Australian PM put it, “intent can change in a heartbeat” and if Chinese intent becomes malign, we’re stuffed.
As a small example, look at the worrying stories about how Chinese students here who are opposed to the Beijing regime are being harassed or spied on or attacked by those loyal to Beijing. Imagine what a country with much greater control over our infrastructure could do to those in this country who say or do something the Chinese state does not like. Or indeed the pressure it would put on authorities in this country - all behind the scenes of course.
I don’t much trust the US but I absolutely do not trust China. It is a vile state. Putting our vital infrastructure under Chinese control is a risk too far to save a couple of billion quid and 2 years delay to find an alternative as Canada and Korea and Australia and New Zealand and even Vietnam are doing.
I'm currently reading The Whisperers: Private Life in Stalin's Russia - I cannot help but feel the Chinese Community Party would love every aspect of the control and fear in every day life it describes, and it makes me worry that they can do it a lot less destructively than the Soviets did if given the chance.
I know a bit more than most about how the Chinese state thinks about the world and how it operates.
The most optimistic reason why we should not be allowing Huawei tech in the network is because at a future point they will look to use anti competitive practices to try and achieve technological dominance in this sector, as is the target in all the others. Plenty of speeches have been given more or less to this effect.
The more realistic view is because the prevalent view in the Communist Party is that China is engaged in a slow multi generational conflict with the West. And achieving cultural, economic and racial hegemony is the only goal that matters.
GCHQ say they can “manage the risk”, just give us more people and money. Personally I’d rather see that talent building private enterprise rather rather the bloating the egos and budgets of civil servants.
Boris seems to be naively following the same path as Osborne with respect to China (see Evening Standard exhortations). The same Osborne who was widely derided by polite and informed society in Asia for humiliating his great nation by pathetically prostrating himself before the Chinese communist party (all adjectives in that sentence are ones I heard first hand).
There’s not a great deal where Trump and I have common ground but his policy stance on China is spot on, even if the execution has in some regards been flawed. For some reason the British establishment just doesn’t understand the Dragon.
I note the FBI are whinging about Prince Andrew refusing to cooperate with their Epstein inquiry. I feel like there's a win-win scenario involving Anne Sacoolas.
It’s not a personal gamble. Or not just that. It’s gamble with our security, our privacy and our freedom.
Do you want to explain why Huawei, which is heavily scrutinised by GCHQ, is a risk, but the alternatives (Nokia, Ericsson, and Samsung) which aren't scrutinised to any real degree are "safe"?
My own pet theory is that the US government has a lot of leverage over the likes of Nokia, Ericsson, and Samsung*, but essentially none over Huawei. It's not Chinese spying the US fears, but the threat of networks "going dark" as US alligned suppliers are cut out of networks.
snip
I realise that there is a political dimension to this decision, but all other things being equal I would always pick the supplier where our people have examined the code over the ones where they haven't.
Huawei is a risk because it is ultimately under Chinese law under the control of the Chinese Communist Party and has to do what it says, regardless of the laws of the countries where it operates. It is in no sense a private company
The Chinese Communist Party shares none of our values, will not obey our laws and is utterly ruthless. I have no doubt that if it controls our internet it will use that leverage for its interests and only for its interests, regardless of British interests. It may say now that it wants a friendly relationship but, as the former Australian PM put it, “intent can change in a heartbeat” and if Chinese intent becomes malign, we’re stuffed.
As a small example, look at the worrying stories about how Chinese students here who are opposed to the Beijing regime are being harassed or spied on or attacked by those loyal to Beijing. Imagine what a country with much greater control over our infrastructure could do to those in this country who say or do something the Chinese state does not like. Or indeed the pressure it would put on authorities in this country - all behind the scenes of course.
I don’t much trust the US but I absolutely do not trust China. It is a vile state. Putting our vital infrastructure under Chinese control is a risk too far to save a couple of billion quid and 2 years delay to find an alternative as Canada and Korea and Australia and New Zealand and even Vietnam are doing.
Yep. We could spend the two years of delay wondering why the country that invented the computer has thrown away its IT/telecoms industry.
Because we preferred having imported consumer tat and foreign holidays.
I note the FBI are whinging about Prince Andrew refusing to cooperate with their Epstein inquiry. I feel like there's a win-win scenario involving Anne Sacoolas.
It’s not a personal gamble. Or not just that. It’s gamble with our security, our privacy and our freedom.
We have a British PM who trusts the Chinese Communist party more than he trusts the EU or the US.
With Boris, I'd assume whatever gives a quick win is likely to sway him. Gratification now, sort things out later, truly a man for our times.
Yes, this is very dangerous for Boris. We can tell on here it is conservatives that are as upset by this as anyone else. He has built his house on the foundation of sovereigntists. Now he is placing British sovereignty and security partially in Chinese hands.
It’s not a personal gamble. Or not just that. It’s gamble with our security, our privacy and our freedom.
We have a British PM who trusts the Chinese Communist party more than he trusts the EU or the US.
With Boris, I'd assume whatever gives a quick win is likely to sway him. Gratification now, sort things out later, truly a man for our times.
Yes, this is very dangerous for Boris. We can tell on here it is conservatives that are as upset by this as anyone else. He has built his house on the foundation of sovereigntists. Now he is placing British sovereignty and security partially in Chinese hands.
I was a big Boris backer. I derided Osborne and May for their wholly naive view of the world. Sadly the smoke signals indicate that Boris is little better in this regard.
Perhaps once Brexit is a distant memory Tom Tugenhardt might be the one.
Have you failed to spot this is a completely different story below the glib security headline and newspaper commentary’s in the sort of papers that would say “Kate! Now there’s a royal who knows how to behave”?
1. Is it a change to now involve them, or are they already involved? 2. Did the expert security assessment say can’t be managed, or easy to manage?
Expert security assessment 1 vacuous drivel in The Sun and Daily Mail 0
Meanwhile Snake Flu causing financial meltdown posters on here said it couldn’t. And British press embarrass themselves on mass by claiming Andrew, the Royal allowed to step down from duty but keep his titles, avoiding FBI when FBI have claimed no such thing...
Have you failed to spot this is a completely different story below the glib security headline and newspaper commentary’s in the sort of papers that would say “Kate! Now there’s a royal who knows how to behave”?
1. Is it a change to now involve them, or are they already involved? 2. Did the expert security assessment say can’t be managed, or easy to manage?
Expert security assessment 1 vacuous drivel in The Sun and Daily Mail 0
Meanwhile Snake Flu causing financial meltdown posters on here said it couldn’t. And British press embarrass themselves on mass by claiming Andrew, the Royal allowed to step down from duty but keep his titles, avoiding FBI when FBI have claimed no such thing...
Since Nixon there has been an established policy of engagement by western powers with China. The hope was that as China became more middle class, its political system would gradually democratise. WTO membership was a central plank of this approach in recent years. Nice one George W. At least Condi Rice had the good grace to apologise for that recently to a group of Asian business leaders.
To anyone paying attention, the engagement policy has demonstrably failed. There is a woolly minded view among many that China has opened their economic system up to capitalism. Rubbish. In China the term private sector doesn’t mean what you think it does. Nor for that matter does the term state sector but that’s another story.
Just because bad decisions were made in the past, it certainly does not mean we should continue with them. Especially since digital technology now acts as the spinal chord of our economy and security state, in a way that was simply not true at the turn of the century.
This might be a poor decision for British security (I don't know, but suspect it is), but I don't quite see that this is going to be all that risky for Boris.
If the concern is that the Chinese are able to more easily spy on us... well if they are we probably won't find out about it? And the link between that and the public getting angry with Boris seems tenuous.
The link between the modern Tory party and national security leaks is well established in any case; Fox, Patel, Williamson. Public seem relaxed about it all.
I note the FBI are whinging about Prince Andrew refusing to cooperate with their Epstein inquiry. I feel like there's a win-win scenario involving Anne Sacoolas.
Sunil probably already knows about it (!) but it basically gives up to the minute information on what trains are where on Britain’s railway network.
So I idly investigated the number of trains per day at Rugeley Trent Valley - which is not on the busiest part of the WCML - and after several attempts at counting I think it comes to 391.
That’s 16 an hour, which is rather a lot. At times, it’s much busier than that, especially during the morning, at lunchtime (when, to my surprise, I found there was a lot of freight going through) and in the evening.
It rather gives the lie to the claims of Joe Rukin that there is lots of space to spare on the railway.
I've just changed stations in That London and did the connection via the tube. Whilst I was down there I saw a little brown mouse - and no, it wasn't a rat. I said "Hallo little mouse": we made eye contact and both went on our way. I felt quite cheered. Then I sat down waiting for my connection and the drunken vagrant on the nearby seat projectile vomited onto the floor.
I've just changed stations in That London and did the connection via the tube. Whilst I was down there I saw a little brown mouse - and no, it wasn't a rat. I said "Hallo little mouse": we made eye contact and both went on our way. I felt quite cheered. Then I sat down waiting for my connection and the drunken vagrant on the nearby seat projectile vomited onto the floor.
#ihatefuckingtrainsireallydo.
The mouse went down the wrong way?
Most likely I misread the tube posters but they seemed to be saying fares were frozen until 2020, rather than until the end of 2020.
I know a bit more than most about how the Chinese state thinks about the world and how it operates.
The most optimistic reason why we should not be allowing Huawei tech in the network is because at a future point they will look to use anti competitive practices to try and achieve technological dominance in this sector, as is the target in all the others. Plenty of speeches have been given more or less to this effect.
The more realistic view is because the prevalent view in the Communist Party is that China is engaged in a slow multi generational conflict with the West. And achieving cultural, economic and racial hegemony is the only goal that matters.
GCHQ say they can “manage the risk”, just give us more people and money. Personally I’d rather see that talent building private enterprise rather rather the bloating the egos and budgets of civil servants.
Boris seems to be naively following the same path as Osborne with respect to China (see Evening Standard exhortations). The same Osborne who was widely derided by polite and informed society in Asia for humiliating his great nation by pathetically prostrating himself before the Chinese communist party (all adjectives in that sentence are ones I heard first hand).
There’s not a great deal where Trump and I have common ground but his policy stance on China is spot on, even if the execution has in some regards been flawed. For some reason the British establishment just doesn’t understand the Dragon.
That is a fair point. There does seem to be a lot of "China" in the Register of Members' Interests.
Did nor Huawei start supplying BT etc in 2005? Hands up whoever bought a Huawei smartphone?
If we exclude Huawei, we are effectively spending several billion to subsidise European and US manufacturers, while significantly hampering telecoms related development in the UK for a number of years. On the other hand, contributing to Huawei’s market dominance might mean we don’t have realistic alternatives next time around, either. China is able to subsidise the development of whole industries in a manner simply not possible in the west.
Sunil probably already knows about it (!) but it basically gives up to the minute information on what trains are where on Britain’s railway network.
So I idly investigated the number of trains per day at Rugeley Trent Valley - which is not on the busiest part of the WCML - and after several attempts at counting I think it comes to 391.
That’s 16 an hour, which is rather a lot. At times, it’s much busier than that, especially during the morning, at lunchtime (when, to my surprise, I found there was a lot of freight going through) and in the evening.
It rather gives the lie to the claims of Joe Rukin that there is lots of space to spare on the railway.
A vital tool for the commuter. Gives you advance notice of platform changes.
If we exclude Huawei, we are effectively spending several billion to subsidise European and US manufacturers, while significantly hampering telecoms related development in the UK for a number of years. On the other hand, contributing to Huawei’s market dominance might mean we don’t have realistic alternatives next time around, either. China is able to subsidise the development of whole industries in a manner simply not possible in the west.
It is not a simple decision.
Yes it is. There is no plausible reason to allow yet another industry to be dominated by the lackeys of the Chinese Communist Party on an anti competitive basis. That this is a high tech industry that will form the backbone of the 21st security state just makes this even more idiotic.
They did the same thing squeezing global steel producers out of business, and using every political and diplomatic lever possible to secure the most promising copper resources in emerging markets. They did this because of their military value. Don't be fooled by any other explanation. The same is true in the high tech sector.
I am holding onto a faint hope that Boris is just throwing Art of the Deal back at Trump and in the end he'll negotiate this away in exchange for something else. Am not holding my breath though.
I know a bit more than most about how the Chinese state thinks about the world and how it operates.
The most optimistic reason why we should not be allowing Huawei tech in the network is because at a future point they will look to use anti competitive practices to try and achieve technological dominance in this sector, as is the target in all the others. Plenty of speeches have been given more or less to this effect.
The more realistic view is because the prevalent view in the Communist Party is that China is engaged in a slow multi generational conflict with the West. And achieving cultural, economic and racial hegemony is the only goal that matters.
GCHQ say they can “manage the risk”, just give us more people and money. Personally I’d rather see that talent building private enterprise rather rather the bloating the egos and budgets of civil servants.
Boris seems to be naively following the same path as Osborne with respect to China (see Evening Standard exhortations). The same Osborne who was widely derided by polite and informed society in Asia for humiliating his great nation by pathetically prostrating himself before the Chinese communist party (all adjectives in that sentence are ones I heard first hand).
There’s not a great deal where Trump and I have common ground but his policy stance on China is spot on, even if the execution has in some regards been flawed. For some reason the British establishment just doesn’t understand the Dragon.
It's a pretty simple position for the US, though - they are simply defending their domestic commercial interests. And asking us to do the same for them at significant cost.
It would be a great deal simpler if we had our own domestic industry, but we don't. And the likelihood of our developing one is effectively nil.
With all due respect to that group of the elderly, so what ?
They will be feeding that back to their MPs when they return to their constituencies this weekend, I expect a big Tory rebellion on this, Tom Tugenhadt and IDS are already co ordinating backbenchers to oppose Huawei being given the 5G contract and of course Trump is also opposed too
If we exclude Huawei, we are effectively spending several billion to subsidise European and US manufacturers, while significantly hampering telecoms related development in the UK for a number of years. On the other hand, contributing to Huawei’s market dominance might mean we don’t have realistic alternatives next time around, either. China is able to subsidise the development of whole industries in a manner simply not possible in the west.
It is not a simple decision.
A lot of governing is about taking 51-49 decisions.
Or punting them down the road for your successor to deal wirh. Boris doesn't have that option, with 5G or HS2.
Personally I am not bothered either way over Huawei. We have sold off all our other assets, why not this too?
China is not our enemy, in the post Brexit world we will have to dance to their tune, so might as well get on with it.
I would rather have China as an enemy than as a master.
China might not be your enemy but rest assured, Britain is the enemy of China. It is this misunderstanding that has led to such terrible policy coming out the State Dept and FCO in the last two decades.
The BBC has a decent analysis of the decision: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-51263799 If we exclude Huawei, we are effectively spending several billion to subsidise European and US manufacturers, while significantly hampering telecoms related development in the UK for a number of years. On the other hand, contributing to Huawei’s market dominance might mean we don’t have realistic alternatives next time around, either. China is able to subsidise the development of whole industries in a manner simply not possible in the west. It is not a simple decision.
A lot of governing is about taking 51-49 decisions. Or punting them down the road for your successor to deal wirh. Boris doesn't have that option, with 5G or HS2.
Agreed. In theory, this is a decision which could have been taken by May (as HS2 clearly could have been) ...
With all due respect to that group of the elderly, so what ?
They will be feeding that back to their MPs when they return to their constituencies this weekend, I expect a big Tory rebellion on this, Tom Tugenhadt and IDS are already co ordinating backbenchers to oppose Huawei being given the 5G contract and of course Trump is also opposed too
With all due respect to that group of the elderly, so what ?
They will be feeding that back to their MPs when they return to their constituencies this weekend, I expect a big Tory rebellion on this, Tom Tugenhadt and IDS are already co ordinating backbenchers to oppose Huawei being given the 5G contract and of course Trump is also opposed too
With all due respect to that group of the elderly, so what ?
They will be feeding that back to their MPs when they return to their constituencies this weekend, I expect a big Tory rebellion on this, Tom Tugenhadt and IDS are already co ordinating backbenchers to oppose Huawei being given the 5G contract and of course Trump is also opposed too
There is not going to be a rebellion with such a healthy majority. Get real.
Comments
Let's give state secrets to China instead"
We have a British PM who trusts the Chinese Communist party more than he trusts the EU or the US.
(Actually this thing has had so much exposure, the risk of Huawei doing something clandestine with Britain's 5G through their systems has to be quite low. The Chinese are likely to take more obscure route)
So yes.
The Chinese could not, even if they wanted to, shut down the reactor.
Or threaten to do so.
My own pet theory is that the US government has a lot of leverage over the likes of Nokia, Ericsson, and Samsung*, but essentially none over Huawei. It's not Chinese spying the US fears, but the threat of networks "going dark" as US alligned suppliers are cut out of networks.
Certainly in the case of Samsung the South Korean government always does what the US wants. I have basically zero doubt that US intelligence community can run riot over a Samsung based network. I suspect they also get a lot of support from Finland and Sweden, but probably to a lesser degree. I also think it very likely that the US government has agents working for all of those companies, recruiting an agent in Huawei is likely to be much harder for them.
I realise that there is a political dimension to this decision, but all other things being equal I would always pick the supplier where our people have examined the code over the ones where they haven't.
* For US suppliers, not that there really are any serious 5G network players, you can simply assume they have already received a National Security Letter and are betraying their customers en masse.
If they can control our infrastructure they don’t need to do anything, they can simply point out that they can shut down our internet unless...
Essentially, it allows the Chinese to determine the internet of the future. When you look at what they are doing now with the capabilities they have now, why on earth is Britain siding with such a nasty illiberal and authoritarian regime, which does not even remotely pay lip service to any of our values at all, the law and which has repeatedly shown its utter ruthlessness?
Why?
Money? Stupidity? A desire to stick it to the US?
But Johnson probably wont be around to face the music when the spying becomes a major problem.
The Chinese Communist Party shares none of our values, will not obey our laws and is utterly ruthless. I have no doubt that if it controls our internet it will use that leverage for its interests and only for its interests, regardless of British interests. It may say now that it wants a friendly relationship but, as the former Australian PM put it, “intent can change in a heartbeat” and if Chinese intent becomes malign, we’re stuffed.
As a small example, look at the worrying stories about how Chinese students here who are opposed to the Beijing regime are being harassed or spied on or attacked by those loyal to Beijing. Imagine what a country with much greater control over our infrastructure could do to those in this country who say or do something the Chinese state does not like. Or indeed the pressure it would put on authorities in this country - all behind the scenes of course.
I don’t much trust the US but I absolutely do not trust China. It is a vile state. Putting our vital infrastructure under Chinese control is a risk too far to save a couple of billion quid and 2 years delay to find an alternative as Canada and Korea and Australia and New Zealand and even Vietnam are doing.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-23282308
But more broadly the whole Chinese/not-Chinese argument really falls down when so many suppliers of hardware and software are involved in any deployed system, nevermind where it is all manufactured which is another issue, no matter what the badge on the box says.
And I'd still pick the system our people have poked around in.
China is not our enemy, in the post Brexit world we will have to dance to their tune, so might as well get on with it.
This is like getting advice about fire safety from an arsonist.
#ihatefuckingtrainsireallydo.
All those worrying about Trump’s “America First” policy seem awfully sanguine about China’s equally firm and ruthless “China First” policy.
If you haven’t watched The Windermere Children (on BBC2 tonight) worth seeing. Beautifully acted and written. It let the story speak for itself rather than overdose on the emotion.
If I don’t post again it will be down to the blasted Chinese reading my posts. And they can also stuff their stupid virus where the sun don’t shine.
Night all.
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1221884678745051142?s=20
Four more MAGA years.
Think of it as the Opium Wars, in reverse, with the Chinese selling us an addictive product.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jan/27/keir-starmer-accuses-of-boris-johnson-of-doing-a-runner-on-huawei
Anyone telling you "just buy this kit, from these guys" is selling snake oil.
This is a very difficult issue and the only reasonable approach is to trust nobody.
Also no word from the actual Leader of the Opposition, or (eg) his shadow home sec? Just the one front bench spokesman whose role ceases to exist at the end of the week...
The most optimistic reason why we should not be allowing Huawei tech in the network is because at a future point they will look to use anti competitive practices to try and achieve technological dominance in this sector, as is the target in all the others. Plenty of speeches have been given more or less to this effect.
The more realistic view is because the prevalent view in the Communist Party is that China is engaged in a slow multi generational conflict with the West. And achieving cultural, economic and racial hegemony is the only goal that matters.
GCHQ say they can “manage the risk”, just give us more people and money. Personally I’d rather see that talent building private enterprise rather rather the bloating the egos and budgets of civil servants.
Boris seems to be naively following the same path as Osborne with respect to China (see Evening Standard exhortations). The same Osborne who was widely derided by polite and informed society in Asia for humiliating his great nation by pathetically prostrating himself before the Chinese communist party (all adjectives in that sentence are ones I heard first hand).
There’s not a great deal where Trump and I have common ground but his policy stance on China is spot on, even if the execution has in some regards been flawed. For some reason the British establishment just doesn’t understand the Dragon.
Perhaps once Brexit is a distant memory Tom Tugenhardt might be the one.
1. Is it a change to now involve them, or are they already involved?
2. Did the expert security assessment say can’t be managed, or easy to manage?
Expert security assessment 1 vacuous drivel in The Sun and Daily Mail 0
Meanwhile Snake Flu causing financial meltdown posters on here said it couldn’t. And British press embarrass themselves on mass by claiming Andrew, the Royal allowed to step down from duty but keep his titles, avoiding FBI when FBI have claimed no such thing...
To anyone paying attention, the engagement policy has demonstrably failed. There is a woolly minded view among many that China has opened their economic system up to capitalism. Rubbish. In China the term private sector doesn’t mean what you think it does. Nor for that matter does the term state sector but that’s another story.
Just because bad decisions were made in the past, it certainly does not mean we should continue with them. Especially since digital technology now acts as the spinal chord of our economy and security state, in a way that was simply not true at the turn of the century.
Prime minister says vote will be held on 19 September after ‘positive, factual and robust’ campaign"
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/28/new-zealand-election-jacinda-ardern-sets-september-date-for-poll
If the concern is that the Chinese are able to more easily spy on us... well if they are we probably won't find out about it? And the link between that and the public getting angry with Boris seems tenuous.
The link between the modern Tory party and national security leaks is well established in any case; Fox, Patel, Williamson. Public seem relaxed about it all.
Whoops...
Cold start to the day.
I look forward to the moment when one of the two major parties is led by someone who isn't an imbecile.
https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/
Sunil probably already knows about it (!) but it basically gives up to the minute information on what trains are where on Britain’s railway network.
So I idly investigated the number of trains per day at Rugeley Trent Valley - which is not on the busiest part of the WCML - and after several attempts at counting I think it comes to 391.
That’s 16 an hour, which is rather a lot. At times, it’s much busier than that, especially during the morning, at lunchtime (when, to my surprise, I found there was a lot of freight going through) and in the evening.
It rather gives the lie to the claims of Joe Rukin that there is lots of space to spare on the railway.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7934583/Thats-b-s-Rebecca-Long-Bailey-says-Jeremy-Corbyns-catastrophic-election-defeat-does.html
Did nor Huawei start supplying BT etc in 2005? Hands up whoever bought a Huawei smartphone?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-51263799
If we exclude Huawei, we are effectively spending several billion to subsidise European and US manufacturers, while significantly hampering telecoms related development in the UK for a number of years.
On the other hand, contributing to Huawei’s market dominance might mean we don’t have realistic alternatives next time around, either. China is able to subsidise the development of whole industries in a manner simply not possible in the west.
It is not a simple decision.
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2020/01/weve-avoided-making-up-our-minds-about-how-to-deal-with-china-hence-the-huawei-quandary.html
We're not part of any Chinese hinterland and there is business to be done.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2020_New_Zealand_general_election
Aces - Sandgren 27 / Federer 5
Winners - Sandgren 73 / Federer 44
Unforced errors - Sandgren 53 / Federer 56
Total points won - Sandgren 161 / Federer 160
They did the same thing squeezing global steel producers out of business, and using every political and diplomatic lever possible to secure the most promising copper resources in emerging markets. They did this because of their military value. Don't be fooled by any other explanation. The same is true in the high tech sector.
I am holding onto a faint hope that Boris is just throwing Art of the Deal back at Trump and in the end he'll negotiate this away in exchange for something else. Am not holding my breath though.
And asking us to do the same for them at significant cost.
It would be a great deal simpler if we had our own domestic industry, but we don't. And the likelihood of our developing one is effectively nil.
Or punting them down the road for your successor to deal wirh. Boris doesn't have that option, with 5G or HS2.
... stifles giggle.