Yep, as per my post to Mr Tyndall, my mind is changed. The veto is key. I’d not really thought about it before. It’s a shame we’re giving up our EU one, but that’s another story ...
What EU one?
Blair/Brown already gave up almost all our EU vetoes with the EU Constitution/Lisbon Treaty.
None of that explains why giving up the seat would be a bad idea. We are a properous mid-sized country in Europe that really doesn’t need to pretend to be anything other than that post-Brexit.
Actually it all explains why it would be a bad idea. If you believe that the UK can be a force for good in the world (even if at times it does not exercise that power) then it is ludicrous to suggest giving up a powerful seat, from which to project our values, to another nation which may not share our values and which would be given influence over us.
If, on the other hand, you believe that we are a force for evil or harm then I can see your point but I rather think you would reject that view.
The third view of course is that the UNSC has no value and should not exist in the first place but again I suspect that is not your view and nor is it mine.
Yep - fair points. You have changed my mind!
As you have mine on occasion in the past. For the better I hope.
None of that explains why giving up the seat would be a bad idea. We are a properous mid-sized country in Europe that really doesn’t need to pretend to be anything other than that post-Brexit.
Actually it all explains why it would be a bad idea. If you believe that the UK can be a force for good in the world (even if at times it does not exercise that power) then it is ludicrous to suggest giving up a powerful seat, from which to project our values, to another nation which may not share our values and which would be given influence over us.
If, on the other hand, you believe that we are a force for evil or harm then I can see your point but I rather think you would reject that view.
The third view of course is that the UNSC has no value and should not exist in the first place but again I suspect that is not your view and nor is it mine.
Yep - fair points. You have changed my mind!
As you have mine on occasion in the past. For the better I hope.
Absolutely. It’s important to try, at least, to be open to civilised persuasion. A closed book is no good to anyone. We will continue to disagree on many - most - things, but I always make sure to read what you have to say. Ditto with a few others on here whose political views are not my own, like Messrs Herdson & Nabavi. It’s why I keep coming back to PB, despite its frustrations!!
In any case, when you include the government leaflet, “Remain” outspent “Leave” by 50%.....
But the government leaflet was just Tory propaganda, wasn`t it? I don`t remember even reading it - though I suppose I must have done. Cameron and Osborne ran a useless campaign for Remain.
Indeed - I voted 'Leave' simply to get rid of Cameron and Osborne.
And if someone else has a friend who says different, which is right?
What foreign policy do we have apart from Brexit at present?
Hopefully, one Brexit dividend will be that leaving the EU causes us to reassess our need to be "heard" by making what we have to say a lot less interesting to people. Our importance to the US outside the EU is bound to be reduced, while the Chinese do not take us very seriously even now. More focus on being a prosperous, mid-size European country and not a global player would do us a whole lot of good.
I tend to agree. Being a player may be fun and interesting for our political elite but it does next to nothing for the rest of us except cost money and blood.
Yep. We have a big task ahead of us in rebuilding the soft power Brexit is causing us to lose. One way of doing it would be to present a very different UK to the world. Aid is part of that, but voluntarily giving up our UN Security Council seat and recognising our time in the sun has gone and that others, such as India, are more entitled and better equipped to take things on from here would be a huge statement that would be viewed very favourably everywhere - except perhaps Washington DC. And that would probably be very good for us, too.
It would be an absolutely ridiculous move, based on the same flawed thinking that led Blair to give up Britain's rebate. It would certainly present "very different UK to the world": one that was not interested in - and worse, didn't understand - hard power and was retreating from its responsibilities.
Agreed and well put. It would basically mean giving up on NATO. God help the Baltic states.
NATO is obsolescent. It should be replaced by a single EU military organisation, which would take the responsibility for the defence of the Baltic States. The UK shouldn't be involved post Brexit.
Many countries around the Indian Ocean are being quietly colonised by China - I regularly visit Madagascar and whereas EU support is visible on notice boards on small projects, Chinese influence is much more active and extensive. They have taken over gold mines and ports and effectively replaced the old colonial power France.
It is only a matter of time (10 years) before Indian Ocean becomes the new South China Sea.
And that in turn requires that China construct a significant blue water navy to police it, and permanent overseas air and naval bases (at least) to operate from.
However, if you're an American, it won't be clear whether those ships are for the Indian or Pacific Oceans, not least because there can be no such distinction.
Does it really require a blue water Chinese Navy?
Depends how much of an empire they truly want to be. It gives them more options at the least.
Military empire building is so nineteenth century. The Chinese simply do not need a military presence in Africa, or on the sea routes. It is a cost financially, and perceived as a threat to local sovereignty, with no upside.
Modern empires are an economic construct.
Not quite true: they are free riding on US and UK naval activities (anti-piracy) in the Straits of Mallaca and off the Horn of Africa.*
* that's why the port they are building in Myanmar is so intriguing
A reliable entry point from Myanmar to China means not having to navigate the straights at Singapore or in Indonesia.
What an absurd proposal? The UK is still the 5th largest economy in the world and still contributes above its weight in UN peacekeeping operations etc. It would be a catastrophic error to give up our UN Security Council seat especially as only we could voluntarily do so. Once on the Security Council no nation can be removed except voluntarily.
Expand the UN Security Council to include India (provided Pakistan does not veto of course), Japan and Germany and Brazil by all means but do not give up the UK seat.
The UK should stop posturing on the world stage - it can no longer afford to do so. It should hand over its remaining overseas territories to suitable local countries (e.g. Gibraltar to Spain, the Cyprus bases to Turkey), and the 6 counties to Eire (which solves the Brexit Irish border problem) and redesign its military forces to be based solely in GB and to be solely for the defence of GB.
I’m sure the Greek Cypriots would love having the UK bases given to Turkey. Just bonkers.
Oh and small matter of democracy. If you can sever the bits you don’t fancy can I remove the bits I don’t much like?
except the Irish figures are misleading. The GDP is flattered by being a tax haven for US multinats avoiding tax. Irish people do not benefit from this much higher level of GDP, big corporations and banks do.
And if someone else has a friend who says different, which is right?
What foreign policy do we have apart from Brexit at present?
Hopefully, one Brexit dividend will be that leaving the EU causes us to reassess our need to be "heard" by making what we have to say a lot less interesting to people. Our importance to the US outside the EU is bound to be reduced, while the Chinese do not take us very seriously even now. More focus on being a prosperous, mid-size European country and not a global player would do us a whole lot of good.
I tend to agree. Being a player may be fun and interesting for our political elite but it does next to nothing for the rest of us except cost money and blood.
Yep. We have a big task ahead of us in rebuilding the soft power Brexit is causing us to lose. One way of doing it would be to present a very different UK to the world. Aid is part of that, but voluntarily giving up our UN Security Council seat and recognising our time in the sun has gone and that others, such as India, are more entitled and better equipped to take things on from here would be a huge statement that would be viewed very favourably everywhere - except perhaps Washington DC. And that would probably be very good for us, too.
It would be an absolutely ridiculous move, based on the same flawed thinking that led Blair to give up Britain's rebate. It would certainly present "very different UK to the world": one that was not interested in - and worse, didn't understand - hard power and was retreating from its responsibilities.
Agreed and well put. It would basically mean giving up on NATO. God help the Baltic states.
NATO is obsolescent. It should be replaced by a single EU military organisation, which would take the responsibility for the defence of the Baltic States. The UK shouldn't be involved post Brexit.
Christmas come early for a Mr Putin of Moscow then. Though I agree we shouldn’t go near it.
And if someone else has a friend who says different, which is right?
What foreign policy do we have apart from Brexit at present?
Hopefully, one Brexit dividend will be that leaving the EU causes us to reassess our need to be "heard" by making what we have to say a lot less interesting to people. Our importance to the US outside the EU is bound to be reduced, while the Chinese do not take us very seriously even now. More focus on being a prosperous, mid-size European country and not a global player would do us a whole lot of good.
I tend to agree. Being a player may be fun and interesting for our political elite but it does next to nothing for the rest of us except cost money and blood.
Yep. We have a big task ahead of us in rebuilding the soft power Brexit is causing us to lose. One way of doing it would be to present a very different UK to the world. Aid is part of that, but voluntarily giving up our UN Security Council seat and recognising our time in the sun has gone and that others, such as India, are more entitled and better equipped to take things on from here would be a huge statement that would be viewed very favourably everywhere - except perhaps Washington DC. And that would probably be very good for us, too.
It would be an absolutely ridiculous move, based on the same flawed thinking that led Blair to give up Britain's rebate. It would certainly present "very different UK to the world": one that was not interested in - and worse, didn't understand - hard power and was retreating from its responsibilities.
Agreed and well put. It would basically mean giving up on NATO. God help the Baltic states.
NATO is obsolescent. It should be replaced by a single EU military organisation, which would take the responsibility for the defence of the Baltic States. The UK shouldn't be involved post Brexit.
Christmas come early for a Mr Putin of Moscow then. Though I agree we shouldn’t go near it.
He's from Leningrad, so removing British troops from Estonia would be particularly welcome.
except the Irish figures are misleading. The GDP is flattered by being a tax haven for US multinats avoiding tax. Irish people do not benefit from this much higher level of GDP, big corporations and banks do.
I seem to recall the Irish stressing GNP as opposed to GDP at certain times because the GDP figures flattered them too much for things like eligibility for EU grants.
And if someone else has a friend who says different, which is right?
What foreign policy do we have apart from Brexit at present?
Hopefully, one Brexit dividend will be that leaving the EU causes us to reassess our need to be "heard" by making what we have to say a lot less interesting to people. Our importance to the US outside the EU is bound to be reduced, while the Chinese do not take us very seriously even now. More focus on being a prosperous, mid-size European country and not a global player would do us a whole lot of good.
I tend to agree. Being a player may be fun and interesting for our political elite but it does next to nothing for the rest of us except cost money and blood.
Yep. We have a big task ahead of us in rebuilding the soft power Brexit is causing us to lose. One way of doing it would be to present a very different UK to the world. Aid is part of that, but voluntarily giving up our UN Security Council seat and recognising our time in the sun has gone and that others, such as India, are more entitled and better equipped to take things on from here would be a huge statement that would be viewed very favourably everywhere - except perhaps Washington DC. And that would probably be very good for us, too.
It would be an absolutely ridiculous move, based on the same flawed thinking that led Blair to give up Britain's rebate. It would certainly present "very different UK to the world": one that was not interested in - and worse, didn't understand - hard power and was retreating from its responsibilities.
Agreed and well put. It would basically mean giving up on NATO. God help the Baltic states.
NATO is obsolescent. It should be replaced by a single EU military organisation, which would take the responsibility for the defence of the Baltic States. The UK shouldn't be involved post Brexit.
Christmas come early for a Mr Putin of Moscow then. Though I agree we shouldn’t go near it.
He's from Leningrad, so removing British troops from Estonia would be particularly welcome.
True. But I also suspect he’d see the EU army as a joke.
And if someone else has a friend who says different, which is right?
What foreign policy do we have apart from Brexit at present?
Hopefully, one Brexit dividend will be that leaving the EU causes us to reassess our need to be "heard" by making what we have to say a lot less interesting to people. Our importance to the US outside the EU is bound to be reduced, while the Chinese do not take us very seriously even now. More focus on being a prosperous, mid-size European country and not a global player would do us a whole lot of good.
I tend to agree. Being a player may be fun and interesting for our political elite but it does next to nothing for the rest of us except cost money and blood.
Yep. We have a big task ahead of us in rebuilding the soft power Brexit is causing us to lose. One way of doing it would be to present a very different UK to the world. Aid is part of that, but voluntarily giving up our UN Security Council seat and recognising our time in the sun has gone and that others, such as India, are more entitled and better equipped to take things on from here would be a huge statement that would be viewed very favourably everywhere - except perhaps Washington DC. And that would probably be very good for us, too.
It would be an absolutely ridiculous move, based on the same flawed thinking that led Blair to give up Britain's rebate. It would certainly present "very different UK to the world": one that was not interested in - and worse, didn't understand - hard power and was retreating from its responsibilities.
Agreed and well put. It would basically mean giving up on NATO. God help the Baltic states.
NATO is obsolescent. It should be replaced by a single EU military organisation, which would take the responsibility for the defence of the Baltic States. The UK shouldn't be involved post Brexit.
That would leave all the burden mainly on France of holding off Russia. The UK is the only military in Europe of comparable size to France's and without UK and French combined strength Russia would have much more leeway to do what it wanted.
In any case, when you include the government leaflet, “Remain” outspent “Leave” by 50%.....
But the government leaflet was just Tory propaganda, wasn`t it? I don`t remember even reading it - though I suppose I must have done. Cameron and Osborne ran a useless campaign for Remain.
Indeed - I voted 'Leave' simply to get rid of Cameron and Osborne.
except the Irish figures are misleading. The GDP is flattered by being a tax haven for US multinats avoiding tax. Irish people do not benefit from this much higher level of GDP, big corporations and banks do.
I seem to recall the Irish stressing GNP as opposed to GDP at certain times because the GDP figures flattered them too much for things like eligibility for EU grants.
using a simple measure
I feel poor any time I visit Switzerland
I dont feel poor when I visit RoI
However Ireland has done a fantastic job in pulling itself out of the mire. When I grew up in the 60 and 70s visiting relatives in the RoI it always felt a backwater. Today the North feels shabbier since it has had nowhere near the level of infrastructure investment.
But then the UK has an appallingly unenlightened view of capital investment
except the Irish figures are misleading. The GDP is flattered by being a tax haven for US multinats avoiding tax. Irish people do not benefit from this much higher level of GDP, big corporations and banks do.
ALP 44 and LNP 37 seats so far and while PHON have not won any seats yet they are polling 20 to 30% in some places and clearly costing the LNP seats if they are not then preferencing them.
ALP 44 and LNP 37 seats so far and while PHON have not won any seats yet they are polling 20 to 30% in some places and clearly costing the LNP seats if they are not then preferencing them.
except the Irish figures are misleading. The GDP is flattered by being a tax haven for US multinats avoiding tax. Irish people do not benefit from this much higher level of GDP, big corporations and banks do.
And if someone else has a friend who says different, which is right?
What foreign policy do we have apart from Brexit at present?
Hopefully, one Brexit dividend will be that leaving the EU causes us to reassess our need to be "heard" by making what we have to say a lot less interesting to people. Our importance to the US outside the EU is bound to be reduced, while the Chinese do not take us very seriously even now. More focus on being a prosperous, mid-size European country and not a global player would do us a whole lot of good.
I tend to agree. Being a player may be fun and interesting for our political elite but it does next to nothing for the rest of us except cost money and blood.
Yep. We have a big task ahead of us in rebuilding the soft power Brexit is causing us to lose. One way of doing it would be to present a very different UK to the world. Aid is part of that, but voluntarily giving up our UN Security Council seat and recognising our time in the sun has gone and that others, such as India, are more entitled and better equipped to take things on from here would be a huge statement that would be viewed very favourably everywhere - except perhaps Washington DC. And that would probably be very good for us, too.
It would be an absolutely ridiculous move, based on the same flawed thinking that led Blair to give up Britain's rebate. It would certainly present "very different UK to the world": one that was not interested in - and worse, didn't understand - hard power and was retreating from its responsibilities.
Agreed and well put. It would basically mean giving up on NATO. God help the Baltic states.
NATO is obsolescent. It should be replaced by a single EU military organisation, which would take the responsibility for the defence of the Baltic States. The UK shouldn't be involved post Brexit.
Christmas come early for a Mr Putin of Moscow then. Though I agree we shouldn’t go near it.
He's from Leningrad, so removing British troops from Estonia would be particularly welcome.
Why use a name that the residents of the town have repudiated?
In any case, when you include the government leaflet, “Remain” outspent “Leave” by 50%.....
But the government leaflet was just Tory propaganda, wasn`t it? I don`t remember even reading it - though I suppose I must have done. Cameron and Osborne ran a useless campaign for Remain.
Indeed - I voted 'Leave' simply to get rid of Cameron and Osborne.
Are you enjoying their replacements as much?
I enjoyed the fact that a year later the new PM called an election which removed the Tory majority!
ALP 44 and LNP 37 seats so far and while PHON have not won any seats yet they are polling 20 to 30% in some places and clearly costing the LNP seats if they are not then preferencing them.
ALP 41 LNP 38 now, early days yet.
In voteshare with over 50% in ALP 36% LNP 33% PHON 13% Greens 10%.
ALP 44 and LNP 37 seats so far and while PHON have not won any seats yet they are polling 20 to 30% in some places and clearly costing the LNP seats if they are not then preferencing them.
ALP 41 LNP 38 now, early days yet.
I note that the PHON QLD leader has just lost his seat.
Could an aficionado of voting systems explain the significance of the shift from optional preferential voting to compulsory preferential voting in the electoral obliteration of Hanson?
ALP 44 and LNP 37 seats so far and while PHON have not won any seats yet they are polling 20 to 30% in some places and clearly costing the LNP seats if they are not then preferencing them.
ALP 41 LNP 38 now, early days yet.
I note that the PHON leader has just lost his seat.
Could an aficionado of voting systems explain the significance of the shift from optional preferential voting to compulsory preferential voting in the electoral obliteration of Hanson?
There is no 'electoral obliteration' of Hanson, PHON have jumped from 1% at the last Queensland election to 13% this time at the expense of the main parties. While Roberts did not win PHON won won seats at the last Queensland election either so that does not change anything
And if someone else has a friend who says different, which is right?
What foreign policy do we have apart from Brexit at present?
Hopefully, one Brexit dividend will be that leaving the EU causes us to reassess our need to be "heard" by making what we have to say a lot less interesting to people. Our importance to the US outside the EU is bound to be reduced, while the Chinese do not take us very seriously even now. More focus on being a prosperous, mid-size European country and not a global player would do us a whole lot of good.
I tend to agree. Being a player may be fun and interesting for our political elite but it does next to nothing for the rest of us except cost money and blood.
Yep. We have a big task ahead of us in rebuilding the soft power Brexit is causing us to lose. One way of doing it would be to present a very different UK to the world. Aid is part of that, but voluntarily giving up our UN Security Council seat and recognising our time in the sun has gone and that others, such as India, are more entitled and better equipped to take things on from here would be a huge statement that would be viewed very favourably everywhere - except perhaps Washington DC. And that would probably be very good for us, too.
It would be an absolutely ridiculous move, based on the same flawed thinking that led Blair to give up Britain's rebate. It would certainly present "very different UK to the world": one that was not interested in - and worse, didn't understand - hard power and was retreating from its responsibilities.
Agreed and well put. It would basically mean giving up on NATO. God help the Baltic states.
NATO is obsolescent. It should be replaced by a single EU military organisation, which would take the responsibility for the defence of the Baltic States. The UK shouldn't be involved post Brexit.
Christmas come early for a Mr Putin of Moscow then. Though I agree we shouldn’t go near it.
He's from Leningrad, so removing British troops from Estonia would be particularly welcome.
Why use a name that the residents of the town have repudiated?
Surely that was the name of the city when he was born there?
ALP 44 and LNP 37 seats so far and while PHON have not won any seats yet they are polling 20 to 30% in some places and clearly costing the LNP seats if they are not then preferencing them.
ALP 41 LNP 38 now, early days yet.
I note that the PHON leader has just lost his seat.
Could an aficionado of voting systems explain the significance of the shift from optional preferential voting to compulsory preferential voting in the electoral obliteration of Hanson?
There is no 'electoral obliteration' of Hanson, PHON have jumped from 1% at the last Queensland election to 13% this time at the expense of the main parties. While Roberts did not win PHON won won seats at the last Queensland election either so that does not change anything
Queensland has always had a redneck approach to politics (I remember Premier Jo), so with PHON falling flat there and in WA, I cannot see them getting far.
As a 50% Cypriot-Turk I can only wonder - whilst in an annum of technical exile - how so many eejits from the skool of DrFauxSuchs have been bred within OGH's purse-of-dhimmy-pennies. Anyone with a couple of brain-cells would realise the Akritori is no place for a foreign Turkish air-base (not least as it is part of Echelon).
The more the dhimmies squeal the greater the pleasure. I would also salute Alanbrooke and Sven for correcting our in-house Leicester imbicile for pontificating without any known facts.
Many countries around the Indian Ocean are being quietly colonised by China - I regularly visit Madagascar and whereas EU support is visible on notice boards on small projects, Chinese influence is much more active and extensive. They have taken over gold mines and ports and effectively replaced the old colonial power France.
It is only a matter of time (10 years) before Indian Ocean becomes the new South China Sea.
And that in turn requires that China construct a significant blue water navy to police it, and permanent overseas air and naval bases (at least) to operate from.
However, if you're an American, it won't be clear whether those ships are for the Indian or Pacific Oceans, not least because there can be no such distinction.
Does it really require a blue water Chinese Navy?
Depends how much of an empire they truly want to be. It gives them more options at the least.
They have moved beyond the stage where they reasonably have an option. To not have a fleet risks the US, India or even a bunch of pirates choking their flow of supplies.
The largest contribution to the anti-piracy operation in the Gulf of Aden is from China.
ALP 44 and LNP 37 seats so far and while PHON have not won any seats yet they are polling 20 to 30% in some places and clearly costing the LNP seats if they are not then preferencing them.
ALP 41 LNP 38 now, early days yet.
I note that the PHON leader has just lost his seat.
Could an aficionado of voting systems explain the significance of the shift from optional preferential voting to compulsory preferential voting in the electoral obliteration of Hanson?
There is no 'electoral obliteration' of Hanson, PHON have jumped from 1% at the last Queensland election to 13% this time at the expense of the main parties. While Roberts did not win PHON won won seats at the last Queensland election either so that does not change anything
Is that supposed rise in PHON votes in part due to the change in voting system.
Under the old voting system people were not obliged to vote for parties that they despise, even in last place.
As a 50% Cypriot-Turk I can only wonder - whilst in an annum of technical exile - how so many eejits from the skool of DrFauxSuchs have been bred within OGH's purse-of-dhimmy-pennies. Anyone with a couple of brain-cells would realise the Akritori is no place for a foreign Turkish air-base (not least as it is part of Echelon).
The more the dhimmies squeal the greater the pleasure. I would also salute Alanbrooke and Sven for correcting our in-house Leicester imbicile for pontificating without any known facts.
:some-things-never-change:
I am not sure why you name me in your incoherent drivel. I have expressed no opinion on the Cypriot SBA's.
Many countries around the Indian Ocean are being quietly colonised by China - I regularly visit Madagascar and whereas EU support is visible on notice boards on small projects, Chinese influence is much more active and extensive. They have taken over gold mines and ports and effectively replaced the old colonial power France.
It is only a matter of time (10 years) before Indian Ocean becomes the new South China Sea.
And that in turn requires that China construct a significant blue water navy to police it, and permanent overseas air and naval bases (at least) to operate from.
However, if you're an American, it won't be clear whether those ships are for the Indian or Pacific Oceans, not least because there can be no such distinction.
Does it really require a blue water Chinese Navy?
Depends how much of an empire they truly want to be. It gives them more options at the least.
They have moved beyond the stage where they reasonably have an option. To not have a fleet risks the US, India or even a bunch of pirates choking their flow of supplies.
The largest contribution to the anti-piracy operation in the Gulf of Aden is from China.
Indeed, which proves my point. But it will need to be bigger in the future, and will be. By the mid-2020s, China will be comfortably the second most powerful navy in the world
In any case, when you include the government leaflet, “Remain” outspent “Leave” by 50%.....
But the government leaflet was just Tory propaganda, wasn`t it? I don`t remember even reading it - though I suppose I must have done. Cameron and Osborne ran a useless campaign for Remain.
Indeed - I voted 'Leave' simply to get rid of Cameron and Osborne.
Yes that is the trouble with referendums many people vote not on the question asked.
OGH's site - and threads thereof - are like a Test-Match:
Some people mumble as to why they are blamed for a run-out decision but miss the fact that their performance is being judged over-the-whole. Maybe everything must be simplified for them as they know not what they have done...?
And if someone else has a friend who says different, which is right?
What foreign policy do we have apart from Brexit at present?
Hopefully, one Brexit dividend will be that leaving the EU causes us to reassess our need to be "heard" by making what we have to say a lot less interesting to people. Our importance to the US outside the EU is bound to be reduced, while the Chinese do not take us very seriously even now. More focus on being a prosperous, mid-size European country and not a global player would do us a whole lot of good.
I tend to agree. Being a player may be fun and interesting for our political elite but it does next to nothing for the rest of us except cost money and blood.
Yep. We have a big task ahead of us in rebuilding the soft power Brexit is causing us to lose. One way of doing it would be to present a very different UK to the world. Aid is part of that, but voluntarily giving up our UN Security Council seat and recognising our time in the sun has gone and that others, such as India, are more entitled and better equipped to take things on from here would be a huge statement that would be viewed very favourably everywhere - except perhaps Washington DC. And that would probably be very good for us, too.
It would be an absolutely ridiculous move, based on the same flawed thinking that led Blair to give up Britain's rebate. It would certainly present "very different UK to the world": one that was not interested in - and worse, didn't understand - hard power and was retreating from its responsibilities.
Agreed and well put. It would basically mean giving up on NATO. God help the Baltic states.
NATO is obsolescent. It should be replaced by a single EU military organisation, which would take the responsibility for the defence of the Baltic States. The UK shouldn't be involved post Brexit.
Trouble is when they get themselves into trouble with Russia you just know the US and UK will be expected to get them out of it like always...
Many countries around the Indian Ocean are being quietly colonised by China - I regularly visit Madagascar and whereas EU support is visible on notice boards on small projects, Chinese influence is much more active and extensive. They have taken over gold mines and ports and effectively replaced the old colonial power France.
It is only a matter of time (10 years) before Indian Ocean becomes the new South China Sea.
And that in turn requires that China construct a significant blue water navy to police it, and permanent overseas air and naval bases (at least) to operate from.
However, if you're an American, it won't be clear whether those ships are for the Indian or Pacific Oceans, not least because there can be no such distinction.
Does it really require a blue water Chinese Navy?
Depends how much of an empire they truly want to be. It gives them more options at the least.
They have moved beyond the stage where they reasonably have an option. To not have a fleet risks the US, India or even a bunch of pirates choking their flow of supplies.
The largest contribution to the anti-piracy operation in the Gulf of Aden is from China.
Indeed, which proves my point. But it will need to be bigger in the future, and will be. By the mid-2020s, China will be comfortably the second most powerful navy in the world
ALP 44 and LNP 37 seats so far and while PHON have not won any seats yet they are polling 20 to 30% in some places and clearly costing the LNP seats if they are not then preferencing them.
ALP 41 LNP 38 now, early days yet.
I note that the PHON leader has just lost his seat.
Could an aficionado of voting systems explain the significance of the shift from optional preferential voting to compulsory preferential voting in the electoral obliteration of Hanson?
There is no 'electoral obliteration' of Hanson, PHON have jumped from 1% at the last Queensland election to 13% this time at the expense of the main parties. While Roberts did not win PHON won won seats at the last Queensland election either so that does not change anything
Is that supposed rise in PHON votes in part due to the change in voting system.
Under the old voting system people were not obliged to vote for parties that they despise, even in last place.
A little perhaps but mainly due to voters particularly from the Liberal National Coalition switching to the populist, anti immigration PHON. At the last election the Federal Liberal leader was the socially conservative, tough on illegal immigration, monarchist Tony Abbott at this election the Federal Liberal leader is the globalist, socially liberal, republican Malcolm Turnbull.
ALP 44 and LNP 37 seats so far and while PHON have not won any seats yet they are polling 20 to 30% in some places and clearly costing the LNP seats if they are not then preferencing them.
ALP 41 LNP 38 now, early days yet.
I note that the PHON leader has just lost his seat.
Could an aficionado of voting systems explain the significance of the shift from optional preferential voting to compulsory preferential voting in the electoral obliteration of Hanson?
There is no 'electoral obliteration' of Hanson, PHON have jumped from 1% at the last Queensland election to 13% this time at the expense of the main parties. While Roberts did not win PHON won won seats at the last Queensland election either so that does not change anything
Queensland has always had a redneck approach to politics (I remember Premier Jo), so with PHON falling flat there and in WA, I cannot see them getting far.
14% of the vote for PHON in Queensland is more than UKIP got here in 2015
In any case, when you include the government leaflet, “Remain” outspent “Leave” by 50%.....
But the government leaflet was just Tory propaganda, wasn`t it? I don`t remember even reading it - though I suppose I must have done. Cameron and Osborne ran a useless campaign for Remain.
Indeed - I voted 'Leave' simply to get rid of Cameron and Osborne.
And if someone else has a friend who says different, which is right?
What foreign policy do we have apart from Brexit at present?
Hopefully, one Brexit dividend will be that leaving the EU causes us to reassess our need to be "heard" by making what we have to say a lot less interesting to people. Our importance to the US outside the EU is bound to be reduced, while the Chinese do not take us very seriously even now. More focus on being a prosperous, mid-size European country and not a global player would do us a whole lot of good.
I tend to agree. Being a player may be fun and interesting for our political elite but it does next to nothing for the rest of us except cost money and blood.
Yep. We have a big task ahead of us in rebuilding the soft power Brexit is causing us to lose. One way of doing it would be to present a very different UK to the world. Aid is part of that, but voluntarily giving up our UN Security Council seat and recognising our time in the sun has gone and that others, such as India, are more entitled and better equipped to take things on from here would be a huge statement that would be viewed very favourably everywhere - except perhaps Washington DC. And that would probably be very good for us, too.
It would be an absolutely ridiculous move, based on the same flawed thinking that led Blair to give up Britain's rebate. It would certainly present "very different UK to the world": one that was not interested in - and worse, didn't understand - hard power and was retreating from its responsibilities.
Agreed and well put. It would basically mean giving up on NATO. God help the Baltic states.
NATO is obsolescent. It should be replaced by a single EU military organisation, which would take the responsibility for the defence of the Baltic States. The UK shouldn't be involved post Brexit.
Trouble is when they get themselves into trouble with Russia you just know the US and UK will be expected to get them out of it like always...
Whether the UK would be willing to do so will depend on what sort of a relationship it has with the EU post Brexit. The way things are going at present, I wouldn't count on that. In 1941, the UK regarded working with Russia as the lesser of 2 evils.
In any case, when you include the government leaflet, “Remain” outspent “Leave” by 50%.....
But the government leaflet was just Tory propaganda, wasn`t it? I don`t remember even reading it - though I suppose I must have done. Cameron and Osborne ran a useless campaign for Remain.
Indeed - I voted 'Leave' simply to get rid of Cameron and Osborne.
Are you enjoying their replacements as much?
Probably Cameron > May but Hammond > Osborne. voting against the EU to get rid of Cameron is a bit like selling your house because you don’t like the curtains.
ALP 44 and LNP 37 seats so far and while PHON have not won any seats yet they are polling 20 to 30% in some places and clearly costing the LNP seats if they are not then preferencing them.
ALP 41 LNP 38 now, early days yet.
I note that the PHON leader has just lost his seat.
Could an aficionado of voting systems explain the significance of the shift from optional preferential voting to compulsory preferential voting in the electoral obliteration of Hanson?
There is no 'electoral obliteration' of Hanson, PHON have jumped from 1% at the last Queensland election to 13% this time at the expense of the main parties. While Roberts did not win PHON won won seats at the last Queensland election either so that does not change anything
Is that supposed rise in PHON votes in part due to the change in voting system.
Under the old voting system people were not obliged to vote for parties that they despise, even in last place.
A little perhaps but mainly due to voters particularly from the Liberal National Coalition switching to the populist, anti immigration PHON. At the last election the Federal Liberal leader was the socially conservative, tough on illegal immigration, monarchist Tony Abbott at this election the Federal Liberal leader is the globalist, socially liberal, republican Malcolm Turnbull.
Malcolm Turnbull is basically a TSE wet dream of what a centre right PM should look like, though for blue collar and rural conservatives (of whom there are plenty in Queensland) rather less so.
Many countries around the Indian Ocean are being quietly colonised by China - I regularly visit Madagascar and whereas EU support is visible on notice boards on small projects, Chinese influence is much more active and extensive. They have taken over gold mines and ports and effectively replaced the old colonial power France.
It is only a matter of time (10 years) before Indian Ocean becomes the new South China Sea.
And that in turn requires that China construct a significant blue water navy to police it, and permanent overseas air and naval bases (at least) to operate from.
However, if you're an American, it won't be clear whether those ships are for the Indian or Pacific Oceans, not least because there can be no such distinction.
Does it really require a blue water Chinese Navy?
Depends how much of an empire they truly want to be. It gives them more options at the least.
They have moved beyond the stage where they reasonably have an option. To not have a fleet risks the US, India or even a bunch of pirates choking their flow of supplies.
The largest contribution to the anti-piracy operation in the Gulf of Aden is from China.
Indeed, which proves my point. But it will need to be bigger in the future, and will be. By the mid-2020s, China will be comfortably the second most powerful navy in the world
Yes, but in itself that means little; it's the gap to the first-placed one that matters.
ISTR that relatively recently the first, second and third largest air forces in the world were the USAF, the US Navy, and the US Marines. I think the USAF and the USN are still #1 and #2.
China having two or three carriers will still have nowhere near the projection power that the US has; if, that is, they decide to widen their naval ambitions from the littoral.
Many countries around the Indian Ocean are being quietly colonised by China - I regularly visit Madagascar and whereas EU support is visible on notice boards on small projects, Chinese influence is much more active and extensive. They have taken over gold mines and ports and effectively replaced the old colonial power France.
It is only a matter of time (10 years) before Indian Ocean becomes the new South China Sea.
And that in turn requires that China construct a significant blue water navy to police it, and permanent overseas air and naval bases (at least) to operate from.
However, if you're an American, it won't be clear whether those ships are for the Indian or Pacific Oceans, not least because there can be no such distinction.
Does it really require a blue water Chinese Navy?
Depends how much of an empire they truly want to be. It gives them more options at the least.
They have moved beyond the stage where they reasonably have an option. To not have a fleet risks the US, India or even a bunch of pirates choking their flow of supplies.
The largest contribution to the anti-piracy operation in the Gulf of Aden is from China.
Indeed, which proves my point. But it will need to be bigger in the future, and will be. By the mid-2020s, China will be comfortably the second most powerful navy in the world
In any case, when you include the government leaflet, “Remain” outspent “Leave” by 50%.....
But the government leaflet was just Tory propaganda, wasn`t it? I don`t remember even reading it - though I suppose I must have done. Cameron and Osborne ran a useless campaign for Remain.
Indeed - I voted 'Leave' simply to get rid of Cameron and Osborne.
Short sighted idiot.
Not at all - I did not hold strong views on the substantive question one way or the other - and voted to reject the scaremongering style of politics used by Cameron & Osborne in 2015 and which they tried to rely on in the London Mayoral election and EU Referendum.
ALP 44 and LNP 37 seats so far and while PHON have not won any seats yet they are polling 20 to 30% in some places and clearly costing the LNP seats if they are not then preferencing them.
ALP 41 LNP 38 now, early days yet.
I note that the PHON leader has just lost his seat.
Could an aficionado of voting systems explain the significance of the shift from optional preferential voting to compulsory preferential voting in the electoral obliteration of Hanson?
There is no 'electoral obliteration' of Hanson, PHON have jumped from 1% at the last Queensland election to 13% this time at the expense of the main parties. While Roberts did not win PHON won won seats at the last Queensland election either so that does not change anything
Is that supposed rise in PHON votes in part due to the change in voting system.
Under the old voting system people were not obliged to vote for parties that they despise, even in last place.
A little perhaps but mainly due to voters particularly from the Liberal National Coalition switching to the populist, anti immigration PHON. At the last election the Federal Liberal leader was the socially conservative, tough on illegal immigration, monarchist Tony Abbott at this election the Federal Liberal leader is the globalist, socially liberal, republican Malcolm Turnbull.
So Australia is swinging to socially liberal reppublicans
ALP 44 and LNP 37 seats so far and while PHON have not won any seats yet they are polling 20 to 30% in some places and clearly costing the LNP seats if they are not then preferencing them.
ALP 41 LNP 38 now, early days yet.
I note that the PHON leader has just lost his seat.
Could an aficionado of voting systems explain the significance of the shift from optional preferential voting to compulsory preferential voting in the electoral obliteration of Hanson?
There is no 'electoral obliteration' of Hanson, PHON have jumped from 1% at the last Queensland election to 13% this time at the expense of the main parties. While Roberts did not win PHON won won seats at the last Queensland election either so that does not change anything
Is that supposed rise in PHON votes in part due to the change in voting system.
Under the old voting system people were not obliged to vote for parties that they despise, even in last place.
A little perhaps but mainly due to voters particularly from the Liberal National Coalition switching to the populist, anti immigration PHON. At the last election the Federal Liberal leader was the socially conservative, tough on illegal immigration, monarchist Tony Abbott at this election the Federal Liberal leader is the globalist, socially liberal, republican Malcolm Turnbull.
So Australia is swinging to socially liberal reppublicans
Not really given Tony Abbott, a socially conservative monarchist, won a majority in 2013 which Malcolm Turnbull almost lost in 2016. Though Australia has now backed gay marriage as we have
In any case, when you include the government leaflet, “Remain” outspent “Leave” by 50%.....
But the government leaflet was just Tory propaganda, wasn`t it? I don`t remember even reading it - though I suppose I must have done. Cameron and Osborne ran a useless campaign for Remain.
Indeed - I voted 'Leave' simply to get rid of Cameron and Osborne.
Great to see neo-liberalism’s greatest critic - Paul Mason - has a couple of companies through which he gets to channel at leadt some of his earnings, so reducing his tax burden by allowing him to make use of the Tory tax cuts he gets paid to write critical articles. Genius!! https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/officers/rdpwWpIzjnzFH3UNMejdm5h0uw0/appointments
A rare chance to comment on a David H piece, for which, as always, many thanks. Outside British politics, I generally find myself in agreement with these pieces and today is no exception. The Chinese involvement in Africa has been extensive and is growing.
If you want to create a stable political environment, you have two choices - carrot or stick (usually a mix). Too much stick and not enough carrot will eventually fail and fail bloodily and spectacularly.
The other approach isn't without its issues but is preferable over the longer period. Providing economic prosperity, peace and opportunity is a pretty good way of maintaining order, stability and social and political harmony. I have always argued many of the problems of the Middle East could be solved by investing in places like Gaza and the West Bank.
As the old saying goes, if people are busy making money, they are less inclined to make trouble.
Yes, no none doubts there is corruption in much of Africa and I'm sure the full benefits of the Chinese investment are struggling to make their way down to ordinary people on the ground but it's something and a whole lot better than nothing.
As they have at home and indeed as exists in much of Asia, economic prosperity is traded off against challenging authority and order. To be honest, though, didn't the same happen in Egypt ? A corrupt and venal leader in Mubarak was hounded out of office by popular action but the likelihood of a genuinely popular Government which would have shaken the existing commercial and political power structures led to a clampdown by Sisi who has maintained the commercial and political power of the Egyptian armed forces and its no doubt highly lucrative business relationships.
On topic while much of the rise of China is discussed with regards to how it affects the West, especially the USA's hegemony and European nations like ours . . . I wonder if the nation with the most to lose from the rise of China is actually Russia.
For decades the USSR was the Eastern Superpower and still today when people think of the East they end up thinking about Russia. Post-Soviet Union Russia has been on a decline militarily, economically, demographically etc but has maintained its "power" image due to Putin.
Economically Russia is far weaker than we are with less than half our nominal GDP. It is only militarily because of their self-confident combined with PPP and the fact they spend 5% of GDP on their military versus our 2% that they are considered a stronger power. Currently Putin is making a lot of noise especially with his troll factories online potentially influencing elections but ultimately Russia is on a long term and surely irreversible decline that they've not faced up to yet.
We've adjusted ourselves to the fact we play second-fiddle to the USA. We're OK with that. Russia have not. They still see themselves as a primary power but they are now absolutely getting dwarfed by China, which shares their region and has a major border with them.
Ultimately Russia only has one thing that China lacks at the moment: an aggressive self-confidence and determination to push itself forwards. As China steps more out of the shadows they will absolutely dwarf Russia who won't have much power in their own Eastern regions let alone globally. Psychologically they don't seem at all happy with being clear second fiddles globally to the USA, how are they going to cope with being pushed around by their southern neighbours in China?
What are fresh elections going to achieve? The polls don't seem to have moved significantly.
Can't see anything other than Grand Coalition or Jamaica being plausible either way.
I doubt they'll achieve much, but that doesnt stop people saying they want them
for anything to tangibly change Merkel would have to step down
I'm surprised that Schulz hasn't offered the Gordon Brown ultimatum to Merkel...
Schulz is currently offering Merkel the chance to stay in power if she implements large chunks for the SPD manifesto
sort of makes you wonder what the point of the CDU is
Not sure I see how German politics moves on until she goes. Surely that would be the obvious gambit to take? Makes SPD victory next time more likely, doesn't it?
And that in turn requires that China construct a significant blue water navy to police it, and permanent overseas air and naval bases (at least) to operate from.
However, if you're an American, it won't be clear whether those ships are for the Indian or Pacific Oceans, not least because there can be no such distinction.
Does it really require a blue water Chinese Navy?
Depends how much of an empire they truly want to be. It gives them more options at the least.
They have moved beyond the stage where they reasonably have an option. To not have a fleet risks the US, India or even a bunch of pirates choking their flow of supplies.
The largest contribution to the anti-piracy operation in the Gulf of Aden is from China.
Indeed, which proves my point. But it will need to be bigger in the future, and will be. By the mid-2020s, China will be comfortably the second most powerful navy in the world
Yes, but in itself that means little; it's the gap to the first-placed one that matters.
ISTR that relatively recently the first, second and third largest air forces in the world were the USAF, the US Navy, and the US Marines. I think the USAF and the USN are still #1 and #2.
China having two or three carriers will still have nowhere near the projection power that the US has; if, that is, they decide to widen their naval ambitions from the littoral.
On a global scale, that's true. However in the medium term, their power projection plans won't be that ambitious. They won't need three-ocean capacity and the 3+ carriers they're likely to have within 10 years would be adequate for any threat they're likely to face. In the longer term, I would fully expect them to end up with 10+ carriers in their fleet but it's not going to happen immediately. When the US was building their first supercarrier fleet in the 1950s, they still had the knowledge and expertise accumulated from WW2. China is still learning and it's inevitable that they're going to build an iterative element into their design-build cycle (not least because their first three home-built ships will probably all be of different classes).
On topic while much of the rise of China is discussed with regards to how it affects the West, especially the USA's hegemony and European nations like ours . . . I wonder if the nation with the most to lose from the rise of China is actually Russia.
For decades the USSR was the Eastern Superpower and still today when people think of the East they end up thinking about Russia. Post-Soviet Union Russia has been on a decline militarily, economically, demographically etc but has maintained its "power" image due to Putin.
Economically Russia is far weaker than we are with less than half our nominal GDP. It is only militarily because of their self-confident combined with PPP and the fact they spend 5% of GDP on their military versus our 2% that they are considered a stronger power. Currently Putin is making a lot of noise especially with his troll factories online potentially influencing elections but ultimately Russia is on a long term and surely irreversible decline that they've not faced up to yet.
We've adjusted ourselves to the fact we play second-fiddle to the USA. We're OK with that. Russia have not. They still see themselves as a primary power but they are now absolutely getting dwarfed by China, which shares their region and has a major border with them.
Ultimately Russia only has one thing that China lacks at the moment: an aggressive self-confidence and determination to push itself forwards. As China steps more out of the shadows they will absolutely dwarf Russia who won't have much power in their own Eastern regions let alone globally. Psychologically they don't seem at all happy with being clear second fiddles globally to the USA, how are they going to cope with being pushed around by their southern neighbours in China?
Russia has effectively turned the Syrian civil war in favour of its client Assad through Russian jets and is still very influential in Eastern Europe and the Middle East. China is not even a bit player in either region.
Economically Russia is miles behind the USA and China but in achieving and being prepared to put military muscle behind its foreign policy objectives at the moment it is arguably ahead of China as a rival to the USA given China is unwilling to intervene much beyond its borders and the Far East unlike the US and Russia.
What are fresh elections going to achieve? The polls don't seem to have moved significantly.
Can't see anything other than Grand Coalition or Jamaica being plausible either way.
I doubt they'll achieve much, but that doesnt stop people saying they want them
for anything to tangibly change Merkel would have to step down
I'm surprised that Schulz hasn't offered the Gordon Brown ultimatum to Merkel...
Schulz is currently offering Merkel the chance to stay in power if she implements large chunks for the SPD manifesto
sort of makes you wonder what the point of the CDU is
Not sure I see how German politics moves on until she goes. Surely that would be the obvious gambit to take? Makes SPD victory next time more likely, doesn't it?
the CDU is a mess, but their one advantage is Schulz is a popular as Michael Gove at a momentum rally
Germany seems to be in the process of electoral change, no idea how it will shake out. Merkel seems to have thought that properity would keep her in power, however the voters are taking prosperity for granted and appear to want something else
Many countries around the Indian Ocean are being quietly colonised by China - I regularly visit Madagascar and whereas EU support is visible on notice boards on small projects, Chinese influence is much more active and extensive. They have taken over gold mines and ports and effectively replaced the old colonial power France.
It is only a matter of time (10 years) before Indian Ocean becomes the new South China Sea.
And that in turn requires that China construct a significant blue water navy to police it, and permanent overseas air and naval bases (at least) to operate from.
However, if you're an American, it won't be clear whether those ships are for the Indian or Pacific Oceans, not least because there can be no such distinction.
Does it really require a blue water Chinese Navy?
Depends how much of an empire they truly want to be. It gives them more options at the least.
They have moved beyond the stage where they reasonably have an option. To not have a fleet risks the US, India or even a bunch of pirates choking their flow of supplies.
The largest contribution to the anti-piracy operation in the Gulf of Aden is from China.
Indeed, which proves my point. But it will need to be bigger in the future, and will be. By the mid-2020s, China will be comfortably the second most powerful navy in the world
Very depressing.
Of course, not a damn thing we could do about it (or the USA) no matter what decisions we took.
ALP 44 and LNP 37 seats so far and while PHON have not won any seats yet they are polling 20 to 30% in some places and clearly costing the LNP seats if they are not then preferencing them.
ALP 41 LNP 38 now, early days yet.
ALP wins. Charles succeeds. End of Australian monarchy.
On topic while much of the rise of China is discussed with regards to how it affects the West, especially the USA's hegemony and European nations like ours . . . I wonder if the nation with the most to lose from the rise of China is actually Russia.
For decades the USSR was the Eastern Superpower and still today when people think of the East they end up thinking about Russia. Post-Soviet Union Russia has been on a decline militarily, economically, demographically etc but has maintained its "power" image due to Putin.
Economically Russia is far weaker than we are with less than half our nominal GDP. It is only militarily because of their self-confident combined with PPP and the fact they spend 5% of GDP on their military versus our 2% that they are considered a stronger power. Currently Putin is making a lot of noise especially with his troll factories online potentially influencing elections but ultimately Russia is on a long term and surely irreversible decline that they've not faced up to yet.
We've adjusted ourselves to the fact we play second-fiddle to the USA. We're OK with that. Russia have not. They still see themselves as a primary power but they are now absolutely getting dwarfed by China, which shares their region and has a major border with them.
Ultimately Russia only has one thing that China lacks at the moment: an aggressive self-confidence and determination to push itself forwards. As China steps more out of the shadows they will absolutely dwarf Russia who won't have much power in their own Eastern regions let alone globally. Psychologically they don't seem at all happy with being clear second fiddles globally to the USA, how are they going to cope with being pushed around by their southern neighbours in China?
Russia has enough power to cause trouble but not enough to create a world or even a regional order. When you are top tog - the USA* previously and China increasingly now - you generally want to keep it that way by eliminating instability.
* American Middle East / Israel policy is an anomaly. I guess your national interest is what you say it is, even if it appears counter-productive to your interest.
And that in turn requires that China construct a significant blue water navy to police it, and permanent overseas air and naval bases (at least) to operate from.
However, if you're an American, it won't be clear whether those ships are for the Indian or Pacific Oceans, not least because there can be no such distinction.
Does it really require a blue water Chinese Navy?
Depends how much of an empire they truly want to be. It gives them more options at the least.
They have moved beyond the stage where they reasonably have an option. To not have a fleet risks the US, India or even a bunch of pirates choking their flow of supplies.
The largest contribution to the anti-piracy operation in the Gulf of Aden is from China.
Indeed, which proves my point. But it will need to be bigger in the future, and will be. By the mid-2020s, China will be comfortably the second most powerful navy in the world
Yes, but in itself that means little; it's the gap to the first-placed one that matters.
ISTR that relatively recently the first, second and third largest air forces in the world were the USAF, the US Navy, and the US Marines. I think the USAF and the USN are still #1 and #2.
China having two or three carriers will still have nowhere near the projection power that the US has; if, that is, they decide to widen their naval ambitions from the littoral.
On a global scale, that's true. However in the medium term, their power projection plans won't be that ambitious. They won't need three-ocean capacity and the 3+ carriers they're likely to have within 10 years would be adequate for any threat they're likely to face. In the longer term, I would fully expect them to end up with 10+ carriers in their fleet but it's not going to happen immediately. When the US was building their first supercarrier fleet in the 1950s, they still had the knowledge and expertise accumulated from WW2. China is still learning and it's inevitable that they're going to build an iterative element into their design-build cycle (not least because their first three home-built ships will probably all be of different classes).
China's strategic interests are to push America out of the China Seas past Korea, Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines and Indonesia and to secure supplylines of materials so it can never be blockaded, particularly at the Malacca Strait
On topic while much of the rise of China is discussed with regards to how it affects the West, especially the USA's hegemony and European nations like ours . . . I wonder if the nation with the most to lose from the rise of China is actually Russia.
For decades the USSR was the Eastern Superpower and still today when people think of the East they end up thinking about Russia. Post-Soviet Union Russia has been on a decline militarily, economically, demographically etc but has maintained its "power" image due to Putin.
Economically Russia is far weaker than we are with less than half our nominal GDP. It is only militarily because of their self-confident combined with PPP and the fact they spend 5% of GDP on their military versus our 2% that they are considered a stronger power. Currently Putin is making a lot of noise especially with his troll factories online potentially influencing elections but ultimately Russia is on a long term and surely irreversible decline that they've not faced up to yet.
We've adjusted ourselves to the fact we play second-fiddle to the USA. We're OK with that. Russia have not. They still see themselves as a primary power but they are now absolutely getting dwarfed by China, which shares their region and has a major border with them.
Ultimately Russia only has one thing that China lacks at the moment: an aggressive self-confidence and determination to push itself forwards. As China steps more out of the shadows they will absolutely dwarf Russia who won't have much power in their own Eastern regions let alone globally. Psychologically they don't seem at all happy with being clear second fiddles globally to the USA, how are they going to cope with being pushed around by their southern neighbours in China?
Good comment. Russian undoubtedly sees the two principal threats that it faces are the rise of an outwardly-facing China and Islamic fundamentalism along its southern borders. In terms of both threats and competition, the position is the same for the US and the rest of the West.
On topic while much of the rise of China is discussed with regards to how it affects the West, especially the USA's hegemony and European nations like ours . . . I wonder if the nation with the most to lose from the rise of China is actually Russia.
For decades the USSR was the Eastern Superpower and still today when people think of the East they end up thinking about Russia. Post-Soviet Union Russia has been on a decline militarily, economically, demographically etc but has maintained its "power" image due to Putin.
Economically Russia is far weaker than we are with less than half our nominal GDP. It is only militarily because of their self-confident combined with PPP and the fact they spend 5% of GDP on their military versus our 2% that they are considered a stronger power. Currently Putin is making a lot of noise especially with his troll factories online potentially influencing elections but ultimately Russia is on a long term and surely irreversible decline that they've not faced up to yet.
We've adjusted ourselves to the fact we play second-fiddle to the USA. We're OK with that. Russia have not. They still see themselves as a primary power but they are now absolutely getting dwarfed by China, which shares their region and has a major border with them.
Ultimately Russia only has one thing that China lacks at the moment: an aggressive self-confidence and determination to push itself forwards. As China steps more out of the shadows they will absolutely dwarf Russia who won't have much power in their own Eastern regions let alone globally. Psychologically they don't seem at all happy with being clear second fiddles globally to the USA, how are they going to cope with being pushed around by their southern neighbours in China?
Good comment. Russian undoubtedly sees the two principal threats that it faces are the rise of an outwardly-facing China and Islamic fundamentalism along its southern borders. In terms of both threats and competition, the position is the same for the US and the rest of the West.
Russian and Western interests are the same. Except neither knows that.
On topic while much of the rise of China is discussed with regards to how it affects the West, especially the USA's hegemony and European nations like ours . . . I wonder if the nation with the most to lose from the rise of China is actually Russia.
For decades the USSR was the Eastern Superpower and still today when people think of the East they end up thinking about Russia. Post-Soviet Union Russia has been on a decline militarily, economically, demographically etc but has maintained its "power" image due to Putin.
Economically Russia is far weaker than we are with less than half our nominal GDP. It is only militarily because of their self-confident combined with PPP and the fact they spend 5% of GDP on their military versus our 2% that they are considered a stronger power. Currently Putin is making a lot of noise especially with his troll factories online potentially influencing elections but ultimately Russia is on a long term and surely irreversible decline that they've not faced up to yet.
We've adjusted ourselves to the fact we play second-fiddle to the USA. We're OK with that. Russia have not. They still see themselves as a primary power but they are now absolutely getting dwarfed by China, which shares their region and has a major border with them.
Ultimately Russia only has one thing that China lacks at the moment: an aggressive self-confidence and determination to push itself forwards. As China steps more out of the shadows they will absolutely dwarf Russia who won't have much power in their own Eastern regions let alone globally. Psychologically they don't seem at all happy with being clear second fiddles globally to the USA, how are they going to cope with being pushed around by their southern neighbours in China?
Good comment. Russian undoubtedly sees the two principal threats that it faces are the rise of an outwardly-facing China and Islamic fundamentalism along its southern borders. In terms of both threats and competition, the position is the same for the US and the rest of the West.
Russian and Western interests are the same. Except neither knows that.
Yes. At some point the penny will drop. But again, as with the Zimbabwe example in the leader, they'll have to stop playing yesterday's games first.
'The result of the Queensland election remains in doubt, with neither Labor nor the Liberal National Party close to a majority by the end of counting on Saturday night.
ALP 44 and LNP 37 seats so far and while PHON have not won any seats yet they are polling 20 to 30% in some places and clearly costing the LNP seats if they are not then preferencing them.
ALP 41 LNP 38 now, early days yet.
ALP wins. Charles succeeds. End of Australian monarchy.
? The biggest voteshare gain in the election was by the pro monarchist One Nation, up 13%, Turnbull, Federal Leader of the LNP, is a republican and the LNP has lost 8% and the republican Labor Party 1% compared to the 2015 Queensland election. http://www.abc.net.au/news/qld-election-2017/results/
Plus this is a Queensland election not an Australian one.
Many countries around the Indian Ocean are being quietly colonised by China - I regularly visit Madagascar and whereas EU support is visible on notice boards on small projects, Chinese influence is much more active and extensive. They have taken over gold mines and ports and effectively replaced the old colonial power France.
It is only a matter of time (10 years) before Indian Ocean becomes the new South China Sea.
And that in turn requires that China construct a significant blue water navy to police it, and permanent overseas air and naval bases (at least) to operate from.
However, if you're an American, it won't be clear whether those ships are for the Indian or Pacific Oceans, not least because there can be no such distinction.
Does it really require a blue water Chinese Navy?
Depends how much of an empire they truly want to be. It gives them more options at the least.
They have moved beyond the stage where they reasonably have an option. To not have a fleet risks the US, India or even a bunch of pirates choking their flow of supplies.
The largest contribution to the anti-piracy operation in the Gulf of Aden is from China.
Indeed, which proves my point. But it will need to be bigger in the future, and will be. By the mid-2020s, China will be comfortably the second most powerful navy in the world
Very depressing.
Of course, not a damn thing we could do about it (or the USA) no matter what decisions we took.
Yet China's navy would still be behind the US navy and still China does little beyond its own Far Eastern region in projecting military power.
'The result of the Queensland election remains in doubt, with neither Labor nor the Liberal National Party close to a majority by the end of counting on Saturday night.
There seems no route to a amjority for the LNP who have taken a pounding in this election mainly at the hands of PHON who might win one seat while KAP might pick up another couple.
A final split might be ALP 50 LNP 38 but the majority looks there and I don't quite see Antony Green's reticence though doubtless he knows far more than I.
Russia has effectively turned the Syrian civil war in favour of its client Assad through Russian jets and is still very influential in Eastern Europe and the Middle East. China is not even a bit player in either region.
Economically Russia is miles behind the USA and China but in achieving and being prepared to put military muscle behind its foreign policy objectives at the moment it is arguably ahead of China as a rival to the USA given China is unwilling to intervene much beyond its borders and the Far East unlike the US and Russia.
Why would China have chosen to intervene in Syria ? Beijing has more sense than to waste military capital and assets in a devastated war zone. Much easier to work with parties with some form of infrastructure which they can improve rather than one they have to rebuild from scratch.
Russia has effectively turned the Syrian civil war in favour of its client Assad through Russian jets and is still very influential in Eastern Europe and the Middle East. China is not even a bit player in either region.
Economically Russia is miles behind the USA and China but in achieving and being prepared to put military muscle behind its foreign policy objectives at the moment it is arguably ahead of China as a rival to the USA given China is unwilling to intervene much beyond its borders and the Far East unlike the US and Russia.
Why would China have chosen to intervene in Syria ? Beijing has more sense than to waste military capital and assets in a devastated war zone. Much easier to work with parties with some form of infrastructure which they can improve rather than one they have to rebuild from scratch.
I met the Chinese ambassador in Damascus. He was setting up a Confucius Institute - a cultural institute similar to the British Council that provides Chinese language lessons etc. Before the war obviously.
'The result of the Queensland election remains in doubt, with neither Labor nor the Liberal National Party close to a majority by the end of counting on Saturday night.
There seems no route to a amjority for the LNP who have taken a pounding in this election mainly at the hands of PHON who might win one seat while KAP might pick up another couple.
A final split might be ALP 50 LNP 38 but the majority looks there and I don't quite see Antony Green's reticence though doubtless he knows far more than I.
Currently looking at all the seats in Queensland won it is ALP 43 and LNP 33 and Katter's Party 2, the 15 in doubt seats are crucial with 12 contests between the ALP and LNP yet to be decided and 1 with Katter's Party currently ahead and 1 with PHONP ahead and 1 with an independent ahead.
I agree though it is likely to be another ALP government in Queensland, the question is whether it is a minority or majority government and that is still in doubt.
Russia has effectively turned the Syrian civil war in favour of its client Assad through Russian jets and is still very influential in Eastern Europe and the Middle East. China is not even a bit player in either region.
Economically Russia is miles behind the USA and China but in achieving and being prepared to put military muscle behind its foreign policy objectives at the moment it is arguably ahead of China as a rival to the USA given China is unwilling to intervene much beyond its borders and the Far East unlike the US and Russia.
Why would China have chosen to intervene in Syria ? Beijing has more sense than to waste military capital and assets in a devastated war zone. Much easier to work with parties with some form of infrastructure which they can improve rather than one they have to rebuild from scratch.
Yes but it is Russia who now has Assad as their client and not China.
Currently looking at all the seats in Queensland won it is ALP 43 and LNP 33 and Katter's Party 2, the 15 in doubt seats are crucial with 12 contests between the ALP and LNP yet to be decided and 1 with Katter's Party currently ahead and 1 with PHONP ahead and 1 with an independent ahead.
I agree though it is likely to be another ALP government in Queensland, the question is whether it is a minority or majority government and that is still in doubt.
Not quite - of the 15 seats still in doubt, Mirani looks a PHON gain from ALP while Hinchinbrook is a KAP gain from LNP. IND candidate should take Rockhampton from ALP while ALP regain Pumicestone (all very rocky) from IND and Noora is right up in the air with an Independent candidate coming from nowhere to lead on first preferences.
That leaves 10 contests between the ALP and LNP - the former are up in seven but need only three to achieve a majority if Pumicestone is taken. Three of the ALP leads look substantial and very hard to overcome so I can't see ALP getting less than 47 on what I'm seeing.
Comments
Blair/Brown already gave up almost all our EU vetoes with the EU Constitution/Lisbon Treaty.
Ireland $29 099 UK $60 065
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_financial_assets_per_capita
Median wealth per adult
Ireland $79 346 UK $130 590
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_per_adult
Oh and small matter of democracy. If you can sever the bits you don’t fancy can I remove the bits I don’t much like?
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/sustaining-northern-standard-of-living-is-a-costly-exercise-1.2597861
https://www.independent.ie/business/on-borrowed-time-irelands-deceptive-debt-numbers-34390952.html
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/state-election-2017
Scroll down...
Edited extra bit: interrupted, not halted. Yellow, rather than red, flagged.
I feel poor any time I visit Switzerland
I dont feel poor when I visit RoI
However Ireland has done a fantastic job in pulling itself out of the mire. When I grew up in the 60 and 70s visiting relatives in the RoI it always felt a backwater. Today the North feels shabbier since it has had nowhere near the level of infrastructure investment.
But then the UK has an appallingly unenlightened view of capital investment
https://data.oecd.org/inequality/income-inequality.htm
ALP 44 and LNP 37 seats so far and while PHON have not won any seats yet they are polling 20 to 30% in some places and clearly costing the LNP seats if they are not then preferencing them.
just shows how english liberals cant run a bath
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-25/queensland-election-live-blog-external-link-article/9193770
Looks like another ALP government in Queensland but not yet clear whether ALP will have a majority.
Could an aficionado of voting systems explain the significance of the shift from optional preferential voting to compulsory preferential voting in the electoral obliteration of Hanson?
https://twitter.com/ReclaimAnglesea/status/934352653676560385
The more the dhimmies squeal the greater the pleasure. I would also salute Alanbrooke and Sven for correcting our in-house Leicester imbicile for pontificating without any known facts.
:some-things-never-change:
Under the old voting system people were not obliged to vote for parties that they despise, even in last place.
http://nofibs.com.au/redclaw-politics-in-the-unicameral-state-analysis-qldaah-qldpol/
Some people mumble as to why they are blamed for a run-out decision but miss the fact that their performance is being judged over-the-whole. Maybe everything must be simplified for them as they know not what they have done...?
voting against the EU to get rid of Cameron is a bit like selling your house because you don’t like the curtains.
ISTR that relatively recently the first, second and third largest air forces in the world were the USAF, the US Navy, and the US Marines. I think the USAF and the USN are still #1 and #2.
China having two or three carriers will still have nowhere near the projection power that the US has; if, that is, they decide to widen their naval ambitions from the littoral.
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2017/11/abu-dhabi-pre-qualifying-2017.html
I was tempted by a split stake bet on Bottas/Raikkonen each way for pole at 7/17 (third the odds for top 2) but decided against it.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/934393017926025216
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/officers/rdpwWpIzjnzFH3UNMejdm5h0uw0/appointments
https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https://youtu.be/ej7b8tbtTz4&h=ATMbsZKxnSXhn9yHFgIKJNGIjp3yfJ7rKZvfBqZzPdTwEef6j06pabjsa2dPQeOiHJH1tkF00SwIxg6srJeXFYQ4oR6K3cZQRcBxraNqXe10EckQPsChmNs4rxY4qI-Wqtrq1B0NWg
A rare chance to comment on a David H piece, for which, as always, many thanks. Outside British politics, I generally find myself in agreement with these pieces and today is no exception. The Chinese involvement in Africa has been extensive and is growing.
If you want to create a stable political environment, you have two choices - carrot or stick (usually a mix). Too much stick and not enough carrot will eventually fail and fail bloodily and spectacularly.
The other approach isn't without its issues but is preferable over the longer period. Providing economic prosperity, peace and opportunity is a pretty good way of maintaining order, stability and social and political harmony. I have always argued many of the problems of the Middle East could be solved by investing in places like Gaza and the West Bank.
As the old saying goes, if people are busy making money, they are less inclined to make trouble.
Yes, no none doubts there is corruption in much of Africa and I'm sure the full benefits of the Chinese investment are struggling to make their way down to ordinary people on the ground but it's something and a whole lot better than nothing.
As they have at home and indeed as exists in much of Asia, economic prosperity is traded off against challenging authority and order. To be honest, though, didn't the same happen in Egypt ? A corrupt and venal leader in Mubarak was hounded out of office by popular action but the likelihood of a genuinely popular Government which would have shaken the existing commercial and political power structures led to a clampdown by Sisi who has maintained the commercial and political power of the Egyptian armed forces and its no doubt highly lucrative business relationships.
https://twitter.com/amberruddhr/status/934404523837272064
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKJYfVz7E1g
Merkel doesnt want fresh elections despite most germans saying the do
https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/live170690932/Merkel-trauert-Jamaika-Koalition-nicht-hinterher.html
Can't see anything other than Grand Coalition or Jamaica being plausible either way.
for anything to tangibly change Merkel would have to step down
sort of makes you wonder what the point of the CDU is
For decades the USSR was the Eastern Superpower and still today when people think of the East they end up thinking about Russia. Post-Soviet Union Russia has been on a decline militarily, economically, demographically etc but has maintained its "power" image due to Putin.
Economically Russia is far weaker than we are with less than half our nominal GDP. It is only militarily because of their self-confident combined with PPP and the fact they spend 5% of GDP on their military versus our 2% that they are considered a stronger power. Currently Putin is making a lot of noise especially with his troll factories online potentially influencing elections but ultimately Russia is on a long term and surely irreversible decline that they've not faced up to yet.
We've adjusted ourselves to the fact we play second-fiddle to the USA. We're OK with that. Russia have not. They still see themselves as a primary power but they are now absolutely getting dwarfed by China, which shares their region and has a major border with them.
Ultimately Russia only has one thing that China lacks at the moment: an aggressive self-confidence and determination to push itself forwards. As China steps more out of the shadows they will absolutely dwarf Russia who won't have much power in their own Eastern regions let alone globally. Psychologically they don't seem at all happy with being clear second fiddles globally to the USA, how are they going to cope with being pushed around by their southern neighbours in China?
Economically Russia is miles behind the USA and China but in achieving and being prepared to put military muscle behind its foreign policy objectives at the moment it is arguably ahead of China as a rival to the USA given China is unwilling to intervene much beyond its borders and the Far East unlike the US and Russia.
Germany seems to be in the process of electoral change, no idea how it will shake out. Merkel seems to have thought that properity would keep her in power, however the voters are taking prosperity for granted and appear to want something else
Of course, not a damn thing we could do about it (or the USA) no matter what decisions we took.
* American Middle East / Israel policy is an anomaly. I guess your national interest is what you say it is, even if it appears counter-productive to your interest.
F1: ha. Annoyed by that result. But there we are. It's been that sort of year.
Labor looks the more likely of the two major parties to form government, but ABC election analyst Antony Green said there was "a high probability" the ALP would not win the 47 seats needed for a majority'
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-25/election-queensland-counting-underway-poll-predicts-labor-win/9193692
With 69% in Labor has 43 seats, the LNP 32 seats and the populist Katter Australia party 2 seats with 16 still in doubt.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/qld-election-2017/results/
http://www.abc.net.au/news/qld-election-2017/results/
Plus this is a Queensland election not an Australian one.
The Chinese authorities would be a lot less accommodating in China, obviously
http://www.abc.net.au/news/qld-election-2017/results/list/?selector=indoubt&sort=az
There seems no route to a amjority for the LNP who have taken a pounding in this election mainly at the hands of PHON who might win one seat while KAP might pick up another couple.
A final split might be ALP 50 LNP 38 but the majority looks there and I don't quite see Antony Green's reticence though doubtless he knows far more than I.
I agree though it is likely to be another ALP government in Queensland, the question is whether it is a minority or majority government and that is still in doubt.
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/the-inside-story-of-how-david-cameron-drove-britain-to-brexit
If joining the Euro was a requirement of EU membership it would be a Leave landslide.
That leaves 10 contests between the ALP and LNP - the former are up in seven but need only three to achieve a majority if Pumicestone is taken. Three of the ALP leads look substantial and very hard to overcome so I can't see ALP getting less than 47 on what I'm seeing.