‘PM Viktor Orbán has signed a government resolution which supports the decision of the Polish constitutional court about the primacy of national law above EU law.
The resolution also calls on EU institutions to respect national sovereignty.’
Is there another domino to fall? Poland and Hungary really is rounding up the usual suspects.....
French domestic politics is a tinderbox. The risk for the EU is that the mainstream candidates might end up being forced into a Cameron style demand to renegotiate the treaties.
It's already coming, you can feel it. The issue for the EU is that the precedent of Dave's renegotiation is set. Maybe the French will do better than Dave, I'm not sure bit France doesn't have many friends in the EU either and Germany see them as a needy subordinate much in the same way the US views the UK.
Another problem for France's "reset to a strategically autonomous Europe" most of Eastern Europe wants nothing to do with it, and is actively inimical to France.
A Czech military-political boffin here:
"Jakub Janda @_JakubJanda · Oct 7 Central and Eastern Europe will never support the French attempt to go sideways and create new defense structures next to NATO in Europe.
We only trust the U.S. military via NATO that they will defend us against a Russian aggression, that is why.
"Fact is that only Balts and Poles openly voice their concerns about Macron's push for "independence", but many, many other EU countries are equally concerned and not on board, they just don't want to have that dispute in public."
With France's military history it is no surprise that no one would trust them to.come to their aid.
Yes, French military strategy is almost entirely selfish. It is very hard to see France seriously coming to defend Poland or the Baltics against Russia. More likely France would reach some accord with Putin and Germany would play the lofty peacemaker
So the E Europeans cleave to the USA.
What they should do is cleave to THEMSELVES. The combined GDP of Poland, Romania, Czechia, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, the Baltics, etc, would not be entirely insignificant. Add in Austria maybe. If they seriously pooled their resources and manpower, bought their kit as one, became a single army, that would be a huge bulwark against Putin
These smaller multilateral alliances are the future. Aukus for the East
France is interested in what advances France, hence her desire for an Indo-Pacific strategy to protect her assets there, which she is, frankly, incapable of protecting by herself. She is no longer strong enough to seriously defend Polynesia. The Chinese could buy New Caledonia tomorrow
France went to war in 1939 because of an invasion of Poland. Sure, it didn't do them much practical use, but you would have to say the same for UK and Empire too.
Quite a long time ago
If the Baltics were invaded, would France really lead an autonomous Europe to challenge Putin? I just don't see it. If they had the Brits alongside, maybe, but we won't be there, any more. We are tilting to a maritime, oceanic strategy, allied to AUKUS, let the euros defend themselves, or not, as they wish.
The French might challenge Putin if Germany was up for it, but Germany is not up for it, any may never be so
Wait! We left NATO? I realise this government can't fall over itself quick enough to implement Corbynism. But that one passed me by.
NATO is tottering. America is pivoting. The UK is quietly shuffling away. Macron says NATO is "brain dead"
The great threat is China, not Russia. Russia is a weakening power which is only a threat to its near neighbours and with its fuel "weapon"
Within ten years NATO will be finished in all but name. It will be up to the EU to defend itself. Americans will no longer pay, or they will jolly well expect every European nation to do its 2% and buy American kit if they want American protection. You can't blame America for that. Russia is not a threat to the USA, why should the USA care what happens to Estonia or Bulgaria?
Germany has to step up, it is pathetically inert. France needs to get over its Gaullist pretentions and realise it must commit, in an equal way, to an EU army - not one it wants to lead but only in a manner which serves French interests
Meanwhile the UK has joined AUKUS and looks to the seas. So it turns out the Anglosphere is a thing after all.
Despite all that Remainer mockery, I have seen more mention of the "Anglosphere" and the "Anglo-Saxons" on Twitter in the last month than in the last 5 years
You really, really loathe the EU don't you?
I suspect it's not so much that @Leon hates the EU, as that he has a wistful longing for a return to the days when Britain (and thus England) ruled the largest empire in the world.
Those days are gone for good of course so all his yearning will come to nowt.
Jesus. That is so utterly far from the truth I despair. You guys really don't even BEGIN to understand the Leaver mindset. It's just.... pitiful. It's also bizarre
Yet you're constantly banging on about the rise of the so-called 'Anglosphere', a construct that has much basis in reality as Narnia.
Except, it really does have a reality. AUKUS is the new military embodiment, Five Eyes is the intelligence embodiment. Now that the UK (in some ways a pivotal nation in this construct) is out of the EU, you will see further moves to make this a political reality, beyond military and intel
Canada, Oz, UK, Australia, NZ, and some smaller English speaking nations (or maybe even virtually English speaking nations, like Norway) share a common culture, often a monarchy, a common law system, an artistic legacy, Shakespeare, the Kardashians, the Beatles, the same social media, the same language
And this latter point is crucial. I read American social media daily. Americans look at the BBC daily. The Daily Mail is huge across the Anglosphere, so is the NYTimes.
I can't speak German so I don't read their media except with Google Translate, and my French is pretty poor, so sometimes there I also do machine translation. It is slow and laborious and basically I get bored and miss the nuances.
I'm not plugged in to their culture the same way I instantly plug into Anglophone culture, wherever it is. LA, Sydney, Edinburgh, Auckland.
Now this language thing becomes a political thing. In the face of an external enemy that unites us. China.
Twas ever thus. You always need an external enemy
"You always need an external enemy" is a weird sentiment.
It's a long-observed and accepted truth of both nation-building and alliance-building. Without an external enemy, there is no need to unite
NATO came to existence because of the USSR
Arguably, the UK came into existence because of Catholic Europe, especially France
Now China is creating new alliances in opposition. This is not some outlandish new theory
To say that you "need" an enemy suggests that if nobody was actually threatening you then you would have to invent one. NATO isn't in that category, clearly. I do find it a bit weird that we are being dragged into a beef with China by the US (who see China trying to usurp it in the Pacific) and Australia (who also feels threatened). I don't think they are much of a threat to us and I don't understand what we're getting out of this new gang we seem to be joining. And where was the referendum where I got to express my opinion on it?
China are the biggest threat to world peace and the newest Evil Empire. If they disrupt trade in the Pacific then the entire global supply chain of things like computer chips etc would be disrupted and our economies and the NHS and everything else related would collapse. If you don't think that affects our Defence, then what do you think does?
As for when you got to express your opinion: Thursday 12 December 2019.
You could have elected a Marxist PM who wanted to quit NATO and hates the USA. But we didn't.
I already said that I 100% understand NATO, pay attention. And I hate the USA so much that I lived there for 5 years. I didn't sign up to get dragged into some pointless conflict on the other side of the world against a country that has never threatened the United Kingdom.
Again I repeat: "If they disrupt trade in the Pacific then the entire global supply chain of things like computer chips etc would be disrupted and our economies and the NHS and everything else related would collapse."
You think our Defence being aimed at preventing that is "pointless"?
What have they done to disrupt trade in the Pacific?
They're threatening Taiwan that is the #1 source of computer chips on the planet.
A Chinese invasion of Taiwan could do comparable economic disruption to the UK than Covid19 potentially.
How many British lives would you sacrifice to defend Taiwan? Has Parliament had a chance to debate our mutual aid treaty with Taiwan? And how comfortably far from the warzone will you be when the bullets start flying?
More practically what would the UK military actually be in a position to do to defend Taiwan?
Our job will be to police and calm the north Atlantic - basically, keep the Frogs in their box - provide bases (esp Diego Garcia), and add some naval commitment east of Suez, possibly a carrier, plus special forces, which will now all be based in Oz
Europe is becoming utterly irrelevant. A beautiful museum. This is probably good for Europeans, if they can maintain their enviable quality of life AND fend off Putin, but it is a relegation for European powers that feel more global: ie the UK and France
Hence, the raucous reaction to Aukus
The EU is still the 3rd largest economy on the planet after the US and China
And we haven't left NATO AFAIK. But apart from that.
Doing it for these women, and empowering them with their western liberal rights is one thing. I guess I agree. But my main argument is different;
They should be forced to ditch the burka for *US* - for the shared concept of an *US.*
A recognition that they live in the same society as the rest of us. Like not wearing your pajamas when you go to the supermarket. Or taking the effort to learn English. It’s about basic decency toward their fellow countryman/women.
I don’t care if it’s seen by liberals as authoritarian. It’s this argument that, I think, cuts through and has broad support (in a way that the liberal womens rights argument fails).
Let’s be honest about it and not pretend we’re doing it entirely for them. A decent, inclusive case can be made to legislate to ditch the burka. It’s cultural separatism and not part of Britain and our shared British values. It offends and fragments our sense of us.
Speak for yourself. I object to the Government telling me what *I* can wear, never mind Muslim women. Today it's the burka, tomorrow it'll be T-shirts with messages that might annoy someone. I get super-libertarian about this sort of thing - it is None of the Government's Business What We Wear (bar basic decency).
Obviously if people are forced to wear a burka that's something else, and there are laws against coercive control. But the idea that there is One True Standard to which we must all conform is positively Maoist, and if the Government tries to impose one it can fuck right off.
I agree with you on the libertarianism, and incidentally so too did the now-PM in that infamous article, but the entire point of the burqa is about coercive control and segregating and dehumanising women. There is no flipside to it.
So while you're addressing your concerns about the government getting involved [and I completely agree with that] it seems you have nothing to say about the repugnant misogynistic evil that it is. Do you have anything to say on that subject, or do you just want to turn a blind eye to that and fire your ire just on a hypothetical future government?
No role for government in fighting evil? Odd stance. Are we leaving it to Batman?
Absolutely 100% yes.
The state "fighting evil" could have in the past in this country (or the present in other countries) led to myself and other individuals on this site being executed in the name of "fighting evil". The state fighting evil has led to atheists, or gays, or women who want to control their own bodies or a plethora of other individuals being executed or persecuted.
The state fighting evil was the notion being Section 28.
It is not the state's job to determine good and evil. But it is all of ours.
In the words of John Stuart Mill:
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion. Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing. He is not a good man who, without a protest, allows wrong to be committed in his name, and with the means which he helps to supply, because he will not trouble himself to use his mind on the subject.
It’s worth remembering the history. The burqa was hardly seen in the Arab world until the British banned it in Egypt. It was then adopted as a sign of anti-British Arab nationalism.
Fundamentally it’s not anti-women (they are just collateral damage). It’s an explicit and political rejection of Western values.
Isn't that a distinction without a difference, though? One of the Western values they hate is freedom for women. Hence the very first thing these repressive Islamic regimes do is to repress women, lower the age of consent, tell them what to wear and how they should look etc and generally remove their freedoms.
As far as women are concerned, these are anti-women moves, dressed up as rebellion against the British or Americans or whoever.
No - it’s a fundamentally important distinction. A political anti-Western stance is something we should have no hesitation in combatting. A liberal society has the right to protect itself.
If it was “just” about discrimination against women the argument against government banning things is harder to refute
To be fair to Islam, it is being asked to accept what is essentially a Judeo-Christian view of the world when it comes to women’s rights. The key underlying reason why Christian societies eventually moved to banning slavery, giving the women the vote etc was that, under a ethics system that said all people were equal under God and made in God’s image, it was logically impossible to reconcile that with having people as slaves, one sex seen as inferior etc.
However, Islam (and other religions) don’t have that same view because the core of their ethics system - the Koran - doesn’t preach the view everyone is equal. Far from it. So, when the argument is made that eg Saudi should treat men and women equally, Saudis - arguably fairly - say “why should we adopt your views”. Imagine if Islam tried to impose its views on the West…
We don't need to imagine. From the Rushdie fatwa to the beheadings of French teachers and slaughter of cartoonists to the treatment of girls in Islamic schools here we can see exactly what the imposition of Islamic views on the West means.
‘PM Viktor Orbán has signed a government resolution which supports the decision of the Polish constitutional court about the primacy of national law above EU law.
The resolution also calls on EU institutions to respect national sovereignty.’
Is there another domino to fall? Poland and Hungary really is rounding up the usual suspects.....
French domestic politics is a tinderbox. The risk for the EU is that the mainstream candidates might end up being forced into a Cameron style demand to renegotiate the treaties.
It's already coming, you can feel it. The issue for the EU is that the precedent of Dave's renegotiation is set. Maybe the French will do better than Dave, I'm not sure bit France doesn't have many friends in the EU either and Germany see them as a needy subordinate much in the same way the US views the UK.
Another problem for France's "reset to a strategically autonomous Europe" most of Eastern Europe wants nothing to do with it, and is actively inimical to France.
A Czech military-political boffin here:
"Jakub Janda @_JakubJanda · Oct 7 Central and Eastern Europe will never support the French attempt to go sideways and create new defense structures next to NATO in Europe.
We only trust the U.S. military via NATO that they will defend us against a Russian aggression, that is why.
"Fact is that only Balts and Poles openly voice their concerns about Macron's push for "independence", but many, many other EU countries are equally concerned and not on board, they just don't want to have that dispute in public."
With France's military history it is no surprise that no one would trust them to.come to their aid.
Yes, French military strategy is almost entirely selfish. It is very hard to see France seriously coming to defend Poland or the Baltics against Russia. More likely France would reach some accord with Putin and Germany would play the lofty peacemaker
So the E Europeans cleave to the USA.
What they should do is cleave to THEMSELVES. The combined GDP of Poland, Romania, Czechia, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, the Baltics, etc, would not be entirely insignificant. Add in Austria maybe. If they seriously pooled their resources and manpower, bought their kit as one, became a single army, that would be a huge bulwark against Putin
These smaller multilateral alliances are the future. Aukus for the East
France is interested in what advances France, hence her desire for an Indo-Pacific strategy to protect her assets there, which she is, frankly, incapable of protecting by herself. She is no longer strong enough to seriously defend Polynesia. The Chinese could buy New Caledonia tomorrow
France went to war in 1939 because of an invasion of Poland. Sure, it didn't do them much practical use, but you would have to say the same for UK and Empire too.
Quite a long time ago
If the Baltics were invaded, would France really lead an autonomous Europe to challenge Putin? I just don't see it. If they had the Brits alongside, maybe, but we won't be there, any more. We are tilting to a maritime, oceanic strategy, allied to AUKUS, let the euros defend themselves, or not, as they wish.
The French might challenge Putin if Germany was up for it, but Germany is not up for it, any may never be so
Wait! We left NATO? I realise this government can't fall over itself quick enough to implement Corbynism. But that one passed me by.
NATO is tottering. America is pivoting. The UK is quietly shuffling away. Macron says NATO is "brain dead"
The great threat is China, not Russia. Russia is a weakening power which is only a threat to its near neighbours and with its fuel "weapon"
Within ten years NATO will be finished in all but name. It will be up to the EU to defend itself. Americans will no longer pay, or they will jolly well expect every European nation to do its 2% and buy American kit if they want American protection. You can't blame America for that. Russia is not a threat to the USA, why should the USA care what happens to Estonia or Bulgaria?
Germany has to step up, it is pathetically inert. France needs to get over its Gaullist pretentions and realise it must commit, in an equal way, to an EU army - not one it wants to lead but only in a manner which serves French interests
Meanwhile the UK has joined AUKUS and looks to the seas. So it turns out the Anglosphere is a thing after all.
Despite all that Remainer mockery, I have seen more mention of the "Anglosphere" and the "Anglo-Saxons" on Twitter in the last month than in the last 5 years
You really, really loathe the EU don't you?
I suspect it's not so much that @Leon hates the EU, as that he has a wistful longing for a return to the days when Britain (and thus England) ruled the largest empire in the world.
Those days are gone for good of course so all his yearning will come to nowt.
That is such a lazy analysis though. The number of Empire nostalgists is grossly exaggerated, seemingly as it is a nice convenient explanation which puts everything that has happened entirely on British shoulders, and whilst that's where most of the focus should be, events have not happened in a vaccuum and the status quo has been a factor, not just imperial yearning.
I've even tried mentally putting my own punctuation into your post but it didn't help. Should I try google translate?
I had the same issue. Ultimately I assumed @kle4 was trying to say that nostalgia for the Empire was not the sole reason for the Leave vote, which I entirely concur with.
I suspect it (Empire nostalgia) was only a factor for a minority of Leave voters. Sovereignty, immigration, red tape, concerns about democracy, loss of identity, jobs, standard of living, and of course simple dislike of foreigners... these and others all played a part and I have some sympathy for a number of these.
Comes down to personal taste. Most Leavers are older less well educated less likely to speak other languages less likely to be interested in art music literature and culture so prefer what reminds them of home. The jokes about the English taking their cornflakes on holiday isn't a joke. Just a little outdated now that young people who have tasted the delights of our diverse continent but they're mainly Remainers
Classic Roger bullshit. Looking down your nose at people from your villa in southern France.
1. I prefer not to do negotiations by twitter, but since @simoncoveney has begun the process...
...the issue of governance & the CJEU is not new. We set out our concerns three months ago in our 21 July Command Paper.
The problem is that too few people seem to have listened.
2. We await proposals from @MarosSefcovic. We will look at them seriously & positively whatever they say. We will discuss them seriously and intensively.
But there needs to be significant change to the current situation if there is to be a positive outcome.
Oh. And "we" have spent the better part of 50 years endangering Taiwan and enabling the PRC. If there is an imminent threat, then the West has sown the seeds. With the UK front and centre.
Genuine question and not saying you're wrong but what would have been the policy that the US/UK should have been following that wouldn't have endangered Taiwan and enabled the PRC?
How many British lives would you sacrifice to defend Taiwan? Has Parliament had a chance to debate our mutual aid treaty with Taiwan? And how comfortably far from the warzone will you be when the bullets start flying?
The UK didn't do shit for Hong Kong and they aren't going to do shit for Taiwan.
They idea of getting into a shooting war with China over it is ludicrous.
How many British lives would you sacrifice to defend Taiwan? Has Parliament had a chance to debate our mutual aid treaty with Taiwan? And how comfortably far from the warzone will you be when the bullets start flying?
The UK didn't do shit for Hong Kong and they aren't going to do shit for Taiwan.
They idea of getting into a shooting war with China over it is ludicrous.
The whole of the West needs to come together to think of a combined strategy to help Taiwan. Individual countries can't do much, except the USA.
Having triumphantly kyboshed the negotiation he originally designed and forced the EU to come up with exactly what he now wants from them, Machiavelli Frost is now going to kybosh exactly what he now wants from them.
‘PM Viktor Orbán has signed a government resolution which supports the decision of the Polish constitutional court about the primacy of national law above EU law.
The resolution also calls on EU institutions to respect national sovereignty.’
Is there another domino to fall? Poland and Hungary really is rounding up the usual suspects.....
French domestic politics is a tinderbox. The risk for the EU is that the mainstream candidates might end up being forced into a Cameron style demand to renegotiate the treaties.
It's already coming, you can feel it. The issue for the EU is that the precedent of Dave's renegotiation is set. Maybe the French will do better than Dave, I'm not sure bit France doesn't have many friends in the EU either and Germany see them as a needy subordinate much in the same way the US views the UK.
Another problem for France's "reset to a strategically autonomous Europe" most of Eastern Europe wants nothing to do with it, and is actively inimical to France.
A Czech military-political boffin here:
"Jakub Janda @_JakubJanda · Oct 7 Central and Eastern Europe will never support the French attempt to go sideways and create new defense structures next to NATO in Europe.
We only trust the U.S. military via NATO that they will defend us against a Russian aggression, that is why.
"Fact is that only Balts and Poles openly voice their concerns about Macron's push for "independence", but many, many other EU countries are equally concerned and not on board, they just don't want to have that dispute in public."
With France's military history it is no surprise that no one would trust them to.come to their aid.
Yes, French military strategy is almost entirely selfish. It is very hard to see France seriously coming to defend Poland or the Baltics against Russia. More likely France would reach some accord with Putin and Germany would play the lofty peacemaker
So the E Europeans cleave to the USA.
What they should do is cleave to THEMSELVES. The combined GDP of Poland, Romania, Czechia, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, the Baltics, etc, would not be entirely insignificant. Add in Austria maybe. If they seriously pooled their resources and manpower, bought their kit as one, became a single army, that would be a huge bulwark against Putin
These smaller multilateral alliances are the future. Aukus for the East
France is interested in what advances France, hence her desire for an Indo-Pacific strategy to protect her assets there, which she is, frankly, incapable of protecting by herself. She is no longer strong enough to seriously defend Polynesia. The Chinese could buy New Caledonia tomorrow
France went to war in 1939 because of an invasion of Poland. Sure, it didn't do them much practical use, but you would have to say the same for UK and Empire too.
Quite a long time ago
If the Baltics were invaded, would France really lead an autonomous Europe to challenge Putin? I just don't see it. If they had the Brits alongside, maybe, but we won't be there, any more. We are tilting to a maritime, oceanic strategy, allied to AUKUS, let the euros defend themselves, or not, as they wish.
The French might challenge Putin if Germany was up for it, but Germany is not up for it, any may never be so
Wait! We left NATO? I realise this government can't fall over itself quick enough to implement Corbynism. But that one passed me by.
NATO is tottering. America is pivoting. The UK is quietly shuffling away. Macron says NATO is "brain dead"
The great threat is China, not Russia. Russia is a weakening power which is only a threat to its near neighbours and with its fuel "weapon"
Within ten years NATO will be finished in all but name. It will be up to the EU to defend itself. Americans will no longer pay, or they will jolly well expect every European nation to do its 2% and buy American kit if they want American protection. You can't blame America for that. Russia is not a threat to the USA, why should the USA care what happens to Estonia or Bulgaria?
Germany has to step up, it is pathetically inert. France needs to get over its Gaullist pretentions and realise it must commit, in an equal way, to an EU army - not one it wants to lead but only in a manner which serves French interests
Meanwhile the UK has joined AUKUS and looks to the seas. So it turns out the Anglosphere is a thing after all.
Despite all that Remainer mockery, I have seen more mention of the "Anglosphere" and the "Anglo-Saxons" on Twitter in the last month than in the last 5 years
You really, really loathe the EU don't you?
I suspect it's not so much that @Leon hates the EU, as that he has a wistful longing for a return to the days when Britain (and thus England) ruled the largest empire in the world.
Those days are gone for good of course so all his yearning will come to nowt.
Jesus. That is so utterly far from the truth I despair. You guys really don't even BEGIN to understand the Leaver mindset. It's just.... pitiful. It's also bizarre
Yet you're constantly banging on about the rise of the so-called 'Anglosphere', a construct that has much basis in reality as Narnia.
Except, it really does have a reality. AUKUS is the new military embodiment, Five Eyes is the intelligence embodiment. Now that the UK (in some ways a pivotal nation in this construct) is out of the EU, you will see further moves to make this a political reality, beyond military and intel
Canada, Oz, UK, Australia, NZ, and some smaller English speaking nations (or maybe even virtually English speaking nations, like Norway) share a common culture, often a monarchy, a common law system, an artistic legacy, Shakespeare, the Kardashians, the Beatles, the same social media, the same language
And this latter point is crucial. I read American social media daily. Americans look at the BBC daily. The Daily Mail is huge across the Anglosphere, so is the NYTimes.
I can't speak German so I don't read their media except with Google Translate, and my French is pretty poor, so sometimes there I also do machine translation. It is slow and laborious and basically I get bored and miss the nuances.
I'm not plugged in to their culture the same way I instantly plug into Anglophone culture, wherever it is. LA, Sydney, Edinburgh, Auckland.
Now this language thing becomes a political thing. In the face of an external enemy that unites us. China.
Twas ever thus. You always need an external enemy
"You always need an external enemy" is a weird sentiment.
It's a long-observed and accepted truth of both nation-building and alliance-building. Without an external enemy, there is no need to unite
NATO came to existence because of the USSR
Arguably, the UK came into existence because of Catholic Europe, especially France
Now China is creating new alliances in opposition. This is not some outlandish new theory
To say that you "need" an enemy suggests that if nobody was actually threatening you then you would have to invent one. NATO isn't in that category, clearly. I do find it a bit weird that we are being dragged into a beef with China by the US (who see China trying to usurp it in the Pacific) and Australia (who also feels threatened). I don't think they are much of a threat to us and I don't understand what we're getting out of this new gang we seem to be joining. And where was the referendum where I got to express my opinion on it?
China are the biggest threat to world peace and the newest Evil Empire. If they disrupt trade in the Pacific then the entire global supply chain of things like computer chips etc would be disrupted and our economies and the NHS and everything else related would collapse. If you don't think that affects our Defence, then what do you think does?
As for when you got to express your opinion: Thursday 12 December 2019.
You could have elected a Marxist PM who wanted to quit NATO and hates the USA. But we didn't.
I already said that I 100% understand NATO, pay attention. And I hate the USA so much that I lived there for 5 years. I didn't sign up to get dragged into some pointless conflict on the other side of the world against a country that has never threatened the United Kingdom.
Again I repeat: "If they disrupt trade in the Pacific then the entire global supply chain of things like computer chips etc would be disrupted and our economies and the NHS and everything else related would collapse."
You think our Defence being aimed at preventing that is "pointless"?
What have they done to disrupt trade in the Pacific?
They're threatening Taiwan that is the #1 source of computer chips on the planet.
A Chinese invasion of Taiwan could do comparable economic disruption to the UK than Covid19 potentially.
How many British lives would you sacrifice to defend Taiwan? Has Parliament had a chance to debate our mutual aid treaty with Taiwan? And how comfortably far from the warzone will you be when the bullets start flying?
How long do you think our flagship will last when the Chinese missiles start flying?
How many British lives would you sacrifice to defend Taiwan? Has Parliament had a chance to debate our mutual aid treaty with Taiwan? And how comfortably far from the warzone will you be when the bullets start flying?
The UK didn't do shit for Hong Kong and they aren't going to do shit for Taiwan.
They idea of getting into a shooting war with China over it is ludicrous.
The whole of the West needs to come together to think of a combined strategy to help Taiwan. Individual countries can't do much, except the USA.
The UK has certainly done its bit to encourage trust and unity in the West.
Comments
1. I prefer not to do negotiations by twitter, but since @simoncoveney has begun the process...
...the issue of governance & the CJEU is not new. We set out our concerns three months ago in our 21 July Command Paper.
The problem is that too few people seem to have listened.
2. We await proposals from @MarosSefcovic. We will look at them seriously & positively whatever they say. We will discuss them seriously and intensively.
But there needs to be significant change to the current situation if there is to be a positive outcome.
They idea of getting into a shooting war with China over it is ludicrous.
It's just acting in bad faith to now say that is a red line.