Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Some terrible front pages for BoJo over COVID – politicalbetting.com

123457»

Comments

  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 26,661
    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    Jesus, I just discovered Unit 731, run by the Japanese in Manchuria in the 1930s and 1940s

    I was aware the Japanese empire did some terrible things to China in that time - I've read the Rape of Nanjing - but this is on a different level of cruelty.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731

    In terms of pointless sadism, it is possibly worse than the Nazis. One of the greatest crimes in history. Never truly addressed. The Japanese must fondly hope the newly super-powerful Chinese don't ever gain a taste for revenge

    I'm honestly surprised that you hadn't heard of us bad ass Brits blowing up København and now Unit 731.
    SeanT would have known this stuff.
    Each successive reincarnation has watered down the essence of SeanT such that all we see nowadays is a pale shadow. Which isn’t entirely bad news.
    As explained in this documentary - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117108/ - excessive cloning of clones leads to DNA issues...
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 20,921

    Carnyx said:

    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    Jesus, I just discovered Unit 731, run by the Japanese in Manchuria in the 1930s and 1940s

    I was aware the Japanese empire did some terrible things to China in that time - I've read the Rape of Nanjing - but this is on a different level of cruelty.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731

    In terms of pointless sadism, it is possibly worse than the Nazis. One of the greatest crimes in history. Never truly addressed. The Japanese must fondly hope the newly super-powerful Chinese don't ever gain a taste for revenge

    The Chinese distaste for Japan knows few bounds. It isn't overt, as it is a humiliating period of their history.
    But it is there.
    The Koreans are not exactly fans, either. For similar reasons. Japan is surrounded by nations with a cause to dislike it

    On the other hand, many nations in the region are equally fearful or loathing: of the Chinese. The Vietnamese, for a start
    A somewhat stupid friend thought that anti-Japanese sentiment was all American WWII racism. She even bought into the "Japanese were throwing out the colonisers of East Asia" line......

    I managed to persuade her, before a trip to South Korea, to be very, very careful where she said stuff like that.
    Reading an account of the role of the Japanese at the conferences leading up to the Versailles treaty, and the reactions of the Americans to them, is instructive, and an under-studied corner of history. There’s an argument that Versailles sowed the seeds of the Pacific WWII almost as much as it did in Europe.
    Also resentment (argued. however, by some Japanese to be misplaced) at the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 which limited them to 60% of capital ship tonnage compared with the USN or RN.
    The Washington treaty was actually the following ratio in capital ships -

    5 US
    5 UK
    3 Japan
    1.67 Italy
    1.67 France

    Strangely, those who sell the racism story about the treaty lead out the fact that the Japanese were allotted a tonnage almost as great as Italy and France combined.

    The reason for the numbers was simple - UK and US were multi-ocean navies. The Japanese were interested in the Pacific alone.

    As Yamamoto observed, the Japanese economy could barely sustain their allocation. So the treaty, from the Japanese perspective really restricted others.

    As seen during WWI. If the Japanese Navy had sunk every single row boat in the US Navy, the US Navy would have been bigger than the Japanese Navy by 1944 at the latest....
    Oh yes, some of the Japanese at the time fully realised they were being done well by. But a lot didn't.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 39,709
    edited October 2021
    MrEd said:

    IanB2 said:

    TimT said:

    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    Jesus, I just discovered Unit 731, run by the Japanese in Manchuria in the 1930s and 1940s

    I was aware the Japanese empire did some terrible things to China in that time - I've read the Rape of Nanjing - but this is on a different level of cruelty.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731

    In terms of pointless sadism, it is possibly worse than the Nazis. One of the greatest crimes in history. Never truly addressed. The Japanese must fondly hope the newly super-powerful Chinese don't ever gain a taste for revenge

    The Chinese distaste for Japan knows few bounds. It isn't overt, as it is a humiliating period of their history.
    But it is there.
    The Koreans are not exactly fans, either. For similar reasons. Japan is surrounded by nations with a cause to dislike it

    On the other hand, many nations in the region are equally fearful or loathing: of the Chinese. The Vietnamese, for a start
    A somewhat stupid friend thought that anti-Japanese sentiment was all American WWII racism. She even bought into the "Japanese were throwing out the colonisers of East Asia" line......

    I managed to persuade her, before a trip to South Korea, to be very, very careful where she said stuff like that.
    Reading an account of the role of the Japanese at the conferences leading up to the Versailles treaty, and the reactions of the Americans to them, is instructive, and an under-studied corner of history. There’s an argument that Versailles sowed the seeds of the Pacific WWII almost as much as it did in Europe.
    Is there a link to that account, or a book title. Sounds fascinating.
    The MacMillan book on the negotiations contains some interesting chapters on the subject. The Japanese were desperately keen for a racial equality statement within the treaty - based upon Wilson’s ultimately hypocritical obsession with self-determination - which the US effectively vetoed for fear of stirring up discontent in its southern states. And, as with Germany, the results of the territorial aspects of the treaty gifted Japan sufficient grievances to pursue into the next war.
    If there is one lesson globally from the past 100 years, it’s never let the States take the running when it comes to geopolitics. They are shit. Fucked it up post WW1 with Wilson, fucked it up 1948 in China when Mao Tse Tung was on the ropes and again in 1971 / 1989 when it came to China, fucked it up with Russia in the 90s and then the Middle East and Afghanistan. They truly are useless when it comes to deals.

    One of the reasons I liked Trump. He had a bit of the old school British Empire way of dealing with geopolitical topics.
    Yes, but the essential problem with Americans is that they don’t travel often enough to the rest of the world (and when they do generally turn out to be utterly clueless), and consequently view everything from the perspective of people for whom a trip into the adjacent state is an adventure into a world of ‘here be dragons’. Trump wasn’t a good example in this respect.

    One of my favourite memories is sitting at a dining table on the Queen Mary Two, telling my American dining companions that I was about to make a road trip out to South Dakota, and having them (who were from New York, Chicago, or lived in gated communities on the Georgia coast) tell me that the population of the state was only a few tens of thousands and that I would drive for hours without seeing another car. Of course, none of them had ever been there themselves.

    People who don’t even know their own country certainly don’t understand the world.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 26,661
    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    Jesus, I just discovered Unit 731, run by the Japanese in Manchuria in the 1930s and 1940s

    I was aware the Japanese empire did some terrible things to China in that time - I've read the Rape of Nanjing - but this is on a different level of cruelty.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731

    In terms of pointless sadism, it is possibly worse than the Nazis. One of the greatest crimes in history. Never truly addressed. The Japanese must fondly hope the newly super-powerful Chinese don't ever gain a taste for revenge

    The Chinese distaste for Japan knows few bounds. It isn't overt, as it is a humiliating period of their history.
    But it is there.
    The Koreans are not exactly fans, either. For similar reasons. Japan is surrounded by nations with a cause to dislike it

    On the other hand, many nations in the region are equally fearful or loathing: of the Chinese. The Vietnamese, for a start
    A somewhat stupid friend thought that anti-Japanese sentiment was all American WWII racism. She even bought into the "Japanese were throwing out the colonisers of East Asia" line......

    I managed to persuade her, before a trip to South Korea, to be very, very careful where she said stuff like that.
    Reading an account of the role of the Japanese at the conferences leading up to the Versailles treaty, and the reactions of the Americans to them, is instructive, and an under-studied corner of history. There’s an argument that Versailles sowed the seeds of the Pacific WWII almost as much as it did in Europe.
    Reacting badly to racism didn't necessarily involve a genocidal Facist* rampage across Asia that was fundamentally going to fail. Said failure was forecast by some of the architects of said rampage.....

    If the Japanese had accepted the various treaties they had signed, they would have been prosperous, powerful and secure against attack.

    The problem was that the Japanese government wanted stuff that belonged to other people. A lot of stuff.

    *Anyone who buys into the bullshit about Japanese culture being the reason for all the atrocities needs to explain their behaviour in the Russo-Japanese war and in WWI. When, apparently it wasn't necessary to cut prisoners of war up, alive.
    You misunderstand. I am not for a moment excusing Japan’s appalling behaviour towards its neighbours or its conduct during WWII, I am simply pointing out that there is an argument that its demands at Versailles were essentially reasonable - and suffered simply for being ahead of their time.
    Lots of people got screwed at Versailles. It was inevitable since it involved dividing up a bunch of empires. Until we can figure out how to give the same real estate to multiple people....

    As it was, the Japanese came out ahead from WWI. The regional power in SEA. Just not a super power.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,015
    IanB2 said:

    MrEd said:

    IanB2 said:

    TimT said:

    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    Jesus, I just discovered Unit 731, run by the Japanese in Manchuria in the 1930s and 1940s

    I was aware the Japanese empire did some terrible things to China in that time - I've read the Rape of Nanjing - but this is on a different level of cruelty.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731

    In terms of pointless sadism, it is possibly worse than the Nazis. One of the greatest crimes in history. Never truly addressed. The Japanese must fondly hope the newly super-powerful Chinese don't ever gain a taste for revenge

    The Chinese distaste for Japan knows few bounds. It isn't overt, as it is a humiliating period of their history.
    But it is there.
    The Koreans are not exactly fans, either. For similar reasons. Japan is surrounded by nations with a cause to dislike it

    On the other hand, many nations in the region are equally fearful or loathing: of the Chinese. The Vietnamese, for a start
    A somewhat stupid friend thought that anti-Japanese sentiment was all American WWII racism. She even bought into the "Japanese were throwing out the colonisers of East Asia" line......

    I managed to persuade her, before a trip to South Korea, to be very, very careful where she said stuff like that.
    Reading an account of the role of the Japanese at the conferences leading up to the Versailles treaty, and the reactions of the Americans to them, is instructive, and an under-studied corner of history. There’s an argument that Versailles sowed the seeds of the Pacific WWII almost as much as it did in Europe.
    Is there a link to that account, or a book title. Sounds fascinating.
    The MacMillan book on the negotiations contains some interesting chapters on the subject. The Japanese were desperately keen for a racial equality statement within the treaty - based upon Wilson’s ultimately hypocritical obsession with self-determination - which the US effectively vetoed for fear of stirring up discontent in its southern states. And, as with Germany, the results of the territorial aspects of the treaty gifted Japan sufficient grievances to pursue into the next war.
    If there is one lesson globally from the past 100 years, it’s never let the States take the running when it comes to geopolitics. They are shit. Fucked it up post WW1 with Wilson, fucked it up 1948 in China when Mao Tse Tung was on the ropes and again in 1971 / 1989 when it came to China, fucked it up with Russia in the 90s and then the Middle East and Afghanistan. They truly are useless when it comes to deals.

    One of the reasons I liked Trump. He had a bit of the old school British Empire way of dealing with geopolitical topics.
    Yes, but the essential problem with Americans is that they don’t travel often enough to the rest of the world (and when they do generally turn out to be utterly clueless), and consequently view everything from the perspective of people for whom a trip into the adjacent state is an adventure into a world of ‘here be dragons’. Trump wasn’t a good example in this respect.
    There is an element of that. I’d argue that it is more Americans tend to take a black and white view of the world whereas Europeans (historically) take it as grey - there is no totally good or bad, you do what it takes so things work out. Which is why I make the comment about Trump.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,015
    Never thought I would say this but I’m quite starting to like Nicky Minaj

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-58882822
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 26,661
    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    Jesus, I just discovered Unit 731, run by the Japanese in Manchuria in the 1930s and 1940s

    I was aware the Japanese empire did some terrible things to China in that time - I've read the Rape of Nanjing - but this is on a different level of cruelty.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731

    In terms of pointless sadism, it is possibly worse than the Nazis. One of the greatest crimes in history. Never truly addressed. The Japanese must fondly hope the newly super-powerful Chinese don't ever gain a taste for revenge

    The Chinese distaste for Japan knows few bounds. It isn't overt, as it is a humiliating period of their history.
    But it is there.
    The Koreans are not exactly fans, either. For similar reasons. Japan is surrounded by nations with a cause to dislike it

    On the other hand, many nations in the region are equally fearful or loathing: of the Chinese. The Vietnamese, for a start
    A somewhat stupid friend thought that anti-Japanese sentiment was all American WWII racism. She even bought into the "Japanese were throwing out the colonisers of East Asia" line......

    I managed to persuade her, before a trip to South Korea, to be very, very careful where she said stuff like that.
    Reading an account of the role of the Japanese at the conferences leading up to the Versailles treaty, and the reactions of the Americans to them, is instructive, and an under-studied corner of history. There’s an argument that Versailles sowed the seeds of the Pacific WWII almost as much as it did in Europe.
    Also resentment (argued. however, by some Japanese to be misplaced) at the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 which limited them to 60% of capital ship tonnage compared with the USN or RN.
    The Washington treaty was actually the following ratio in capital ships -

    5 US
    5 UK
    3 Japan
    1.67 Italy
    1.67 France

    Strangely, those who sell the racism story about the treaty lead out the fact that the Japanese were allotted a tonnage almost as great as Italy and France combined.

    The reason for the numbers was simple - UK and US were multi-ocean navies. The Japanese were interested in the Pacific alone.

    As Yamamoto observed, the Japanese economy could barely sustain their allocation. So the treaty, from the Japanese perspective really restricted others.

    As seen during WWI. If the Japanese Navy had sunk every single row boat in the US Navy, the US Navy would have been bigger than the Japanese Navy by 1944 at the latest....
    Oh yes, some of the Japanese at the time fully realised they were being done well by. But a lot didn't.
    Because the leadership were, according to rational standards, insane.

    "We must go to war. With everyone. To rule the World! We don't have the military capacity to fight everyone. So we will lose. But that is better than not fighting and settling for merely being the premier power in SEA."
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 39,709
    MrEd said:

    IanB2 said:

    MrEd said:

    IanB2 said:

    TimT said:

    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    Jesus, I just discovered Unit 731, run by the Japanese in Manchuria in the 1930s and 1940s

    I was aware the Japanese empire did some terrible things to China in that time - I've read the Rape of Nanjing - but this is on a different level of cruelty.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731

    In terms of pointless sadism, it is possibly worse than the Nazis. One of the greatest crimes in history. Never truly addressed. The Japanese must fondly hope the newly super-powerful Chinese don't ever gain a taste for revenge

    The Chinese distaste for Japan knows few bounds. It isn't overt, as it is a humiliating period of their history.
    But it is there.
    The Koreans are not exactly fans, either. For similar reasons. Japan is surrounded by nations with a cause to dislike it

    On the other hand, many nations in the region are equally fearful or loathing: of the Chinese. The Vietnamese, for a start
    A somewhat stupid friend thought that anti-Japanese sentiment was all American WWII racism. She even bought into the "Japanese were throwing out the colonisers of East Asia" line......

    I managed to persuade her, before a trip to South Korea, to be very, very careful where she said stuff like that.
    Reading an account of the role of the Japanese at the conferences leading up to the Versailles treaty, and the reactions of the Americans to them, is instructive, and an under-studied corner of history. There’s an argument that Versailles sowed the seeds of the Pacific WWII almost as much as it did in Europe.
    Is there a link to that account, or a book title. Sounds fascinating.
    The MacMillan book on the negotiations contains some interesting chapters on the subject. The Japanese were desperately keen for a racial equality statement within the treaty - based upon Wilson’s ultimately hypocritical obsession with self-determination - which the US effectively vetoed for fear of stirring up discontent in its southern states. And, as with Germany, the results of the territorial aspects of the treaty gifted Japan sufficient grievances to pursue into the next war.
    If there is one lesson globally from the past 100 years, it’s never let the States take the running when it comes to geopolitics. They are shit. Fucked it up post WW1 with Wilson, fucked it up 1948 in China when Mao Tse Tung was on the ropes and again in 1971 / 1989 when it came to China, fucked it up with Russia in the 90s and then the Middle East and Afghanistan. They truly are useless when it comes to deals.

    One of the reasons I liked Trump. He had a bit of the old school British Empire way of dealing with geopolitical topics.
    Yes, but the essential problem with Americans is that they don’t travel often enough to the rest of the world (and when they do generally turn out to be utterly clueless), and consequently view everything from the perspective of people for whom a trip into the adjacent state is an adventure into a world of ‘here be dragons’. Trump wasn’t a good example in this respect.
    There is an element of that. I’d argue that it is more Americans tend to take a black and white view of the world whereas Europeans (historically) take it as grey - there is no totally good or bad, you do what it takes so things work out. Which is why I make the comment about Trump.
    See my self edit above
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 39,709
    MrEd said:

    IanB2 said:

    MrEd said:

    IanB2 said:

    TimT said:

    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    Jesus, I just discovered Unit 731, run by the Japanese in Manchuria in the 1930s and 1940s

    I was aware the Japanese empire did some terrible things to China in that time - I've read the Rape of Nanjing - but this is on a different level of cruelty.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731

    In terms of pointless sadism, it is possibly worse than the Nazis. One of the greatest crimes in history. Never truly addressed. The Japanese must fondly hope the newly super-powerful Chinese don't ever gain a taste for revenge

    The Chinese distaste for Japan knows few bounds. It isn't overt, as it is a humiliating period of their history.
    But it is there.
    The Koreans are not exactly fans, either. For similar reasons. Japan is surrounded by nations with a cause to dislike it

    On the other hand, many nations in the region are equally fearful or loathing: of the Chinese. The Vietnamese, for a start
    A somewhat stupid friend thought that anti-Japanese sentiment was all American WWII racism. She even bought into the "Japanese were throwing out the colonisers of East Asia" line......

    I managed to persuade her, before a trip to South Korea, to be very, very careful where she said stuff like that.
    Reading an account of the role of the Japanese at the conferences leading up to the Versailles treaty, and the reactions of the Americans to them, is instructive, and an under-studied corner of history. There’s an argument that Versailles sowed the seeds of the Pacific WWII almost as much as it did in Europe.
    Is there a link to that account, or a book title. Sounds fascinating.
    The MacMillan book on the negotiations contains some interesting chapters on the subject. The Japanese were desperately keen for a racial equality statement within the treaty - based upon Wilson’s ultimately hypocritical obsession with self-determination - which the US effectively vetoed for fear of stirring up discontent in its southern states. And, as with Germany, the results of the territorial aspects of the treaty gifted Japan sufficient grievances to pursue into the next war.
    If there is one lesson globally from the past 100 years, it’s never let the States take the running when it comes to geopolitics. They are shit. Fucked it up post WW1 with Wilson, fucked it up 1948 in China when Mao Tse Tung was on the ropes and again in 1971 / 1989 when it came to China, fucked it up with Russia in the 90s and then the Middle East and Afghanistan. They truly are useless when it comes to deals.

    One of the reasons I liked Trump. He had a bit of the old school British Empire way of dealing with geopolitical topics.
    Yes, but the essential problem with Americans is that they don’t travel often enough to the rest of the world (and when they do generally turn out to be utterly clueless), and consequently view everything from the perspective of people for whom a trip into the adjacent state is an adventure into a world of ‘here be dragons’. Trump wasn’t a good example in this respect.
    There is an element of that. I’d argue that it is more Americans tend to take a black and white view of the world whereas Europeans (historically) take it as grey - there is no totally good or bad, you do what it takes so things work out. Which is why I make the comment about Trump.
    Aka Americans watch too many movies and make the mistake of thinking they are real.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 44,589

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    algarkirk said:

    In all the discussions of immigration, population ageing needs to be front and centre. Looking at the UK labour market data, since the Brexit referendum our population aged 16-49 has gone down by about 500,000 people. Our population aged 50+ has gone up by 1.3 million, including 700,000 over 65. So the fact is, we *are* going to have continued immigration, in sizeable numbers. And in so-called low skill occupations, too. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just deluding themselves.
    I liked three things about using the EU single market for providing that immigration. First, it was reciprocal, so we got something in return. Second, freedom of movement gave people rights and freedoms. It treated people as citizens, not simply commodities, tied to a specific employer or job. Third, the system was simple, lowering the burden of red tape for both employers and employees.
    My guess is that we will end up with continued immigration, because of the demand for workers created by our ageing society, but with no reciprocity, loads more red tape, and with workers treated as simply labour inputs, not citizens with rights.

    And it had no numerical control, which meant that it biased the system against people from anywhere else, eg the whole of Africa. This was the fatal flaw, both politically and from a humane viewpoint.

    That is true. I'm sure that some of the 17.4mn were motivated by a desire to raise immigration from Africa but I struggle to believe it was the majority view.
    Actually I think that getting easier migration from the rest of the world for skilled migrants who should be able to make it here, by tightening up on unskilled migrants who shouldn't, was a bigger selling point than you imagine. Especially but not just in minority communities.

    The current Home Secretary actually made that argument herself. That it would be easier to have rest of the world migration if European migration were controlled.

    That was one of the arguments that swung my vote. I'm all in favour of immigration, I just don't want discrimination in the immigration system. So when I saw the pro-Brexit serious MP politicians (as opposed to Farage and his band of twats) making a liberal argument against discrimination instead of an illiberal argument against migrants at all, then I was pleased with that.

    I grew up in another country myself before returning to the UK. That country has more British emigrants than the entire European Union (exc Ireland) combined. Yet while in the EU it was far tougher for eg one of my school friends to get a visa and come to the UK, than it was any random unskilled person in Europe, despite their country taking more of our citizens than the entire EU (exc Ireland) combined. There is no justification for that discrimination.
    There are justifications for that distinction, and using the word "discrimination" begs the question.
    You already know this, but you continue to use words like "discrimination" because you are a sophist. Have some honour.
    There is no good justification for the discrimination.

    If you are discriminating against potential migrants based on country of origin as opposed to their own skills and what they have to offer then what would you call that other than discrimination?
    You've already had the answer to this, you know the argument, so your feigning ignorance is just a part of your dishonest approach to this whole question.

    Here it is, once again.
    Freedom of movement is part of a free market, and having freedoms of movement of goods, services, and labour within that market is a sensible package of reforms that ought be done at the same time.

    That's the proposition. You may not agree with it, but the idea that the geographical distinction is based on "discrimination" is not one that is at all a part of the argument in favour.
    If you cannot argue against it in its own terms and instead have to slay straw men, you are a fool. Other people are able to better take on the debate and address that point with greater or lesser degrees of success, because they are better than you at this.

    Examples of good counter arguments are
    1. We aren't as constrained by geography as we used to be (I don't agree we're there yet)
    2. Other countries are willing and able to enter into this sort of thing (true, more should be done)
    3. The penalties of the free market outweigh the benefits, so we shouldn't seek market integration (I strongly disagree)

    Examples of bad counter arguments are
    1. Having a stronger trading relationship with our neighbours is racist!!!1!

    You can have the last word on the subject, I don't intend to reply to you on this again because it's a waste of everyone's time.
    That's total bullshit. So your argument is that free movement is sensible because free movement is sensible. Why?

    Simply saying that it is "a sensible package of reforms that ought to be done at the same time" doesn't answer the question as to WHY you think it is a sensible package, you are merely restating your opinion.

    Saying you support free movement because free movement is sensible is like saying "I believe in God because I believe in God". That's just faith, that's not an argument.

    People are not commodities, indeed as I said more people from the UK go abroad to Australia than to the entire EU combined (exc Ireland) so the idea of "gravity" or "neighbours" affecting people is complete poppycock.

    If you want an argument as to why this discrimination is OK then you need a stronger argument than "it is sensible", you need a reason WHY it is sensible. That you haven't given. Until then, its pure discrimination.
    Free movement wasn't really a big problem until three things came together:

    (1) The integration of the EU 8, which were very significantly poorer than then existing EU members. When previously poor countries had joined (Portugal, Greece, Spain), they were relatively small, this was 8 countries (including one big one) all at the same time. The UK was also pretty much the only country not to go with transitional controls on immigration. This meant that instead of a few million people being spread out across the whole EU, they came mostly to the UK.

    (2) The UK's benefits system. As far as I can tell, there is no other country in Europe that has either a system that is as non-contributory bases, not one which was so generous with in work benefits system like the UK. Prior to the Maastricht treaty, you could work in any member state, but there was no presumption of benefits. The consequence of this is that (pretty much alone of the countries in the EU), it was possible for a migrant to come to the UK and pick up benefits from day one.

    (3) The Eurozone crisis, which caused a dramatic dip in demand for migrant labour in the Southern EU states *and* led to the exporting their own young.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,015
    IanB2 said:

    MrEd said:

    IanB2 said:

    MrEd said:

    IanB2 said:

    TimT said:

    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    Jesus, I just discovered Unit 731, run by the Japanese in Manchuria in the 1930s and 1940s

    I was aware the Japanese empire did some terrible things to China in that time - I've read the Rape of Nanjing - but this is on a different level of cruelty.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731

    In terms of pointless sadism, it is possibly worse than the Nazis. One of the greatest crimes in history. Never truly addressed. The Japanese must fondly hope the newly super-powerful Chinese don't ever gain a taste for revenge

    The Chinese distaste for Japan knows few bounds. It isn't overt, as it is a humiliating period of their history.
    But it is there.
    The Koreans are not exactly fans, either. For similar reasons. Japan is surrounded by nations with a cause to dislike it

    On the other hand, many nations in the region are equally fearful or loathing: of the Chinese. The Vietnamese, for a start
    A somewhat stupid friend thought that anti-Japanese sentiment was all American WWII racism. She even bought into the "Japanese were throwing out the colonisers of East Asia" line......

    I managed to persuade her, before a trip to South Korea, to be very, very careful where she said stuff like that.
    Reading an account of the role of the Japanese at the conferences leading up to the Versailles treaty, and the reactions of the Americans to them, is instructive, and an under-studied corner of history. There’s an argument that Versailles sowed the seeds of the Pacific WWII almost as much as it did in Europe.
    Is there a link to that account, or a book title. Sounds fascinating.
    The MacMillan book on the negotiations contains some interesting chapters on the subject. The Japanese were desperately keen for a racial equality statement within the treaty - based upon Wilson’s ultimately hypocritical obsession with self-determination - which the US effectively vetoed for fear of stirring up discontent in its southern states. And, as with Germany, the results of the territorial aspects of the treaty gifted Japan sufficient grievances to pursue into the next war.
    If there is one lesson globally from the past 100 years, it’s never let the States take the running when it comes to geopolitics. They are shit. Fucked it up post WW1 with Wilson, fucked it up 1948 in China when Mao Tse Tung was on the ropes and again in 1971 / 1989 when it came to China, fucked it up with Russia in the 90s and then the Middle East and Afghanistan. They truly are useless when it comes to deals.

    One of the reasons I liked Trump. He had a bit of the old school British Empire way of dealing with geopolitical topics.
    Yes, but the essential problem with Americans is that they don’t travel often enough to the rest of the world (and when they do generally turn out to be utterly clueless), and consequently view everything from the perspective of people for whom a trip into the adjacent state is an adventure into a world of ‘here be dragons’. Trump wasn’t a good example in this respect.
    There is an element of that. I’d argue that it is more Americans tend to take a black and white view of the world whereas Europeans (historically) take it as grey - there is no totally good or bad, you do what it takes so things work out. Which is why I make the comment about Trump.
    See my self edit above
    Just saw it. Yes, to many Americans, most of their own country is a mystery. To be fair, the same could be same of the English - how many NW3 residents have visited Easington?
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,015
    IanB2 said:

    MrEd said:

    IanB2 said:

    MrEd said:

    IanB2 said:

    TimT said:

    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    Jesus, I just discovered Unit 731, run by the Japanese in Manchuria in the 1930s and 1940s

    I was aware the Japanese empire did some terrible things to China in that time - I've read the Rape of Nanjing - but this is on a different level of cruelty.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731

    In terms of pointless sadism, it is possibly worse than the Nazis. One of the greatest crimes in history. Never truly addressed. The Japanese must fondly hope the newly super-powerful Chinese don't ever gain a taste for revenge

    The Chinese distaste for Japan knows few bounds. It isn't overt, as it is a humiliating period of their history.
    But it is there.
    The Koreans are not exactly fans, either. For similar reasons. Japan is surrounded by nations with a cause to dislike it

    On the other hand, many nations in the region are equally fearful or loathing: of the Chinese. The Vietnamese, for a start
    A somewhat stupid friend thought that anti-Japanese sentiment was all American WWII racism. She even bought into the "Japanese were throwing out the colonisers of East Asia" line......

    I managed to persuade her, before a trip to South Korea, to be very, very careful where she said stuff like that.
    Reading an account of the role of the Japanese at the conferences leading up to the Versailles treaty, and the reactions of the Americans to them, is instructive, and an under-studied corner of history. There’s an argument that Versailles sowed the seeds of the Pacific WWII almost as much as it did in Europe.
    Is there a link to that account, or a book title. Sounds fascinating.
    The MacMillan book on the negotiations contains some interesting chapters on the subject. The Japanese were desperately keen for a racial equality statement within the treaty - based upon Wilson’s ultimately hypocritical obsession with self-determination - which the US effectively vetoed for fear of stirring up discontent in its southern states. And, as with Germany, the results of the territorial aspects of the treaty gifted Japan sufficient grievances to pursue into the next war.
    If there is one lesson globally from the past 100 years, it’s never let the States take the running when it comes to geopolitics. They are shit. Fucked it up post WW1 with Wilson, fucked it up 1948 in China when Mao Tse Tung was on the ropes and again in 1971 / 1989 when it came to China, fucked it up with Russia in the 90s and then the Middle East and Afghanistan. They truly are useless when it comes to deals.

    One of the reasons I liked Trump. He had a bit of the old school British Empire way of dealing with geopolitical topics.
    Yes, but the essential problem with Americans is that they don’t travel often enough to the rest of the world (and when they do generally turn out to be utterly clueless), and consequently view everything from the perspective of people for whom a trip into the adjacent state is an adventure into a world of ‘here be dragons’. Trump wasn’t a good example in this respect.
    There is an element of that. I’d argue that it is more Americans tend to take a black and white view of the world whereas Europeans (historically) take it as grey - there is no totally good or bad, you do what it takes so things work out. Which is why I make the comment about Trump.
    Aka Americans watch too many movies and make the mistake of thinking they are real.
    Yes, they definitely see themselves as the heros fighting injustice. Not sure that equates with reality.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 1,254
    Frost talking utter drivel . And blaming just the EU for the problems as if no 10 had nothing to do with any of this .
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 39,709
    edited October 2021
    MrEd said:

    IanB2 said:

    MrEd said:

    IanB2 said:

    MrEd said:

    IanB2 said:

    TimT said:

    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    Jesus, I just discovered Unit 731, run by the Japanese in Manchuria in the 1930s and 1940s

    I was aware the Japanese empire did some terrible things to China in that time - I've read the Rape of Nanjing - but this is on a different level of cruelty.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731

    In terms of pointless sadism, it is possibly worse than the Nazis. One of the greatest crimes in history. Never truly addressed. The Japanese must fondly hope the newly super-powerful Chinese don't ever gain a taste for revenge

    The Chinese distaste for Japan knows few bounds. It isn't overt, as it is a humiliating period of their history.
    But it is there.
    The Koreans are not exactly fans, either. For similar reasons. Japan is surrounded by nations with a cause to dislike it

    On the other hand, many nations in the region are equally fearful or loathing: of the Chinese. The Vietnamese, for a start
    A somewhat stupid friend thought that anti-Japanese sentiment was all American WWII racism. She even bought into the "Japanese were throwing out the colonisers of East Asia" line......

    I managed to persuade her, before a trip to South Korea, to be very, very careful where she said stuff like that.
    Reading an account of the role of the Japanese at the conferences leading up to the Versailles treaty, and the reactions of the Americans to them, is instructive, and an under-studied corner of history. There’s an argument that Versailles sowed the seeds of the Pacific WWII almost as much as it did in Europe.
    Is there a link to that account, or a book title. Sounds fascinating.
    The MacMillan book on the negotiations contains some interesting chapters on the subject. The Japanese were desperately keen for a racial equality statement within the treaty - based upon Wilson’s ultimately hypocritical obsession with self-determination - which the US effectively vetoed for fear of stirring up discontent in its southern states. And, as with Germany, the results of the territorial aspects of the treaty gifted Japan sufficient grievances to pursue into the next war.
    If there is one lesson globally from the past 100 years, it’s never let the States take the running when it comes to geopolitics. They are shit. Fucked it up post WW1 with Wilson, fucked it up 1948 in China when Mao Tse Tung was on the ropes and again in 1971 / 1989 when it came to China, fucked it up with Russia in the 90s and then the Middle East and Afghanistan. They truly are useless when it comes to deals.

    One of the reasons I liked Trump. He had a bit of the old school British Empire way of dealing with geopolitical topics.
    Yes, but the essential problem with Americans is that they don’t travel often enough to the rest of the world (and when they do generally turn out to be utterly clueless), and consequently view everything from the perspective of people for whom a trip into the adjacent state is an adventure into a world of ‘here be dragons’. Trump wasn’t a good example in this respect.
    There is an element of that. I’d argue that it is more Americans tend to take a black and white view of the world whereas Europeans (historically) take it as grey - there is no totally good or bad, you do what it takes so things work out. Which is why I make the comment about Trump.
    See my self edit above
    Just saw it. Yes, to many Americans, most of their own country is a mystery. To be fair, the same could be same of the English - how many NW3 residents have visited Easington?
    True, for sure.

    Nevetheless a foreign policy based on parachuting into far flung parts of the world and demanding to know “who are the bad guys here?” doesn’t have an encouraging track record. Cinema isn’t good for dispassionate analysis.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,196
    IanB2 said:

    TimT said:

    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    Jesus, I just discovered Unit 731, run by the Japanese in Manchuria in the 1930s and 1940s

    I was aware the Japanese empire did some terrible things to China in that time - I've read the Rape of Nanjing - but this is on a different level of cruelty.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731

    In terms of pointless sadism, it is possibly worse than the Nazis. One of the greatest crimes in history. Never truly addressed. The Japanese must fondly hope the newly super-powerful Chinese don't ever gain a taste for revenge

    The Chinese distaste for Japan knows few bounds. It isn't overt, as it is a humiliating period of their history.
    But it is there.
    The Koreans are not exactly fans, either. For similar reasons. Japan is surrounded by nations with a cause to dislike it

    On the other hand, many nations in the region are equally fearful or loathing: of the Chinese. The Vietnamese, for a start
    A somewhat stupid friend thought that anti-Japanese sentiment was all American WWII racism. She even bought into the "Japanese were throwing out the colonisers of East Asia" line......

    I managed to persuade her, before a trip to South Korea, to be very, very careful where she said stuff like that.
    Reading an account of the role of the Japanese at the conferences leading up to the Versailles treaty, and the reactions of the Americans to them, is instructive, and an under-studied corner of history. There’s an argument that Versailles sowed the seeds of the Pacific WWII almost as much as it did in Europe.
    Is there a link to that account, or a book title. Sounds fascinating.
    The MacMillan book on the negotiations contains some interesting chapters on the subject. The Japanese were desperately keen for a racial equality statement within the treaty - based upon Wilson’s ultimately hypocritical obsession with self-determination - which the US effectively vetoed for fear of stirring up discontent in its southern states. And, as with Germany, the results of the territorial aspects of the treaty gifted Japan sufficient grievances to pursue into the next war.
    Thanks. My predecessor at UNSCOM did an interesting piece comparing the Versailles Treaty disarmament provisions and experience with the UNSCOM UNSCRs and experience. Both disarmament bodies lasted 7 years and 4 months, IIRC.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,638
    Fishing said:

    Fishing said:

    geoffw said:

     

    Fishing said:

    Congratulations to David Card who won the Nobel Prize for Economics the other day.

    His work demonstrated that immigrants don’t take jobs away from native workers, nor do they lead to lower wages. This includes “low skilled” immigrants.

    Please don’t tell the PB Tories, their heads might explode.

    So the wokeists that gave Obama his Nobel Prize For Fuck Knows What has now extended to Economics.

    (that sound you just heard was Gardenwalker's head exploding....)
    I’ll wait of course for your devastating takedown of Card’s work.

    Take your time.
    Card's work is controversial, and his findings are heavily disputed. On the whole, I agree with him on employment and disagree on wages.

    See for example the finding that a 1 percentage point increase in the ratio of migrants to non-migrants leads to a 0.6% decrease in wages for workers at the 5th earnings percentile and a 0.5% decrease at the 10th percentile (Dustmann et al (2013)). Or, from Nickell and Salaheen 2015, in the unskilled and semi-skilled service sector, a 1 percentage point rise in the share of migrants reduced average wages in that occupation by about 0.2%.

    Or another study in 2018 estimated that an increase in the number of EU migrants corresponding to 1% of the UK-born working-age population resulted in a 0.8% decrease in UK-born wages at the 5th and 10th percentiles (i.e. people in the bottom 5-10% of earners), and a 0.6% increase at the 90th percentile (i.e. high earners). In practice, this means that between 1993 and 2017, the total effect of EU migration on the wages of UK-born workers was estimated to be a 4.9% reduction in wages for those at the 10th earnings percentile, a 1.6% reduction at the 25th percentile, a 1.6% increase at the 50th percentile, and a 4.4% increase at the 90th percentile.

    When you take the gamut of their empirical work you can find aspects that support various political positions as indeed you show. A bit like the Bible. But Card's award (earned with the late Alan Krueger) is for their methodological advances in teasing out causation. This is not easy in a subject like economics where there are multiple feedback processes. It relies on the econometric concepts of 'identification' and exogeneity. Unlike experimental sciences, controlled experiments are not possible in economics, so it takes imagination and careful specification to use 'natural experiments' to tease out causal patterns.
    Yes, of course. Card did excellent work in improving methodology. The Nobel Prize was definitely deserved. I remember reading his famous paper on fast food wages in Pennsylvania and New Jersey when it came out. But my point was that other studies using methodologies developed from his have led to completely opposite conclusions. So those that try to use his award to promote their political ideologies are simply wrong to do so.
    They really haven’t.

    And even in the local context, there’s very little evidence to support the idea of repression of lower decile or lower skill native wages.

    PB Tories need to give this one up.

    One suspects they won’t though, as perpetuating this nonsense allows Brexiters to claim they have egalitarian reasons for supporting economic decrepitude.
    They really have. And there is plenty of evidence (see the three papers I linked with for a start, using Card-like methdologies) and also persuasive theory and common sense.

    So I don't think PB Tories are the ones who need to give this up.
    The Supply & Demand deniers are at it again
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 27,676
    edited October 2021
    Carnyx said:

    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    Jesus, I just discovered Unit 731, run by the Japanese in Manchuria in the 1930s and 1940s

    I was aware the Japanese empire did some terrible things to China in that time - I've read the Rape of Nanjing - but this is on a different level of cruelty.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731

    In terms of pointless sadism, it is possibly worse than the Nazis. One of the greatest crimes in history. Never truly addressed. The Japanese must fondly hope the newly super-powerful Chinese don't ever gain a taste for revenge

    The Chinese distaste for Japan knows few bounds. It isn't overt, as it is a humiliating period of their history.
    But it is there.
    The Koreans are not exactly fans, either. For similar reasons. Japan is surrounded by nations with a cause to dislike it

    On the other hand, many nations in the region are equally fearful or loathing: of the Chinese. The Vietnamese, for a start
    A somewhat stupid friend thought that anti-Japanese sentiment was all American WWII racism. She even bought into the "Japanese were throwing out the colonisers of East Asia" line......

    I managed to persuade her, before a trip to South Korea, to be very, very careful where she said stuff like that.
    Reading an account of the role of the Japanese at the conferences leading up to the Versailles treaty, and the reactions of the Americans to them, is instructive, and an under-studied corner of history. There’s an argument that Versailles sowed the seeds of the Pacific WWII almost as much as it did in Europe.
    Also resentment (argued. however, by some Japanese to be misplaced) at the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 which limited them to 60% of capital ship tonnage compared with the USN or RN.
    Several years ago, on a trip on the Eastern Oriental Express (recommended) we had a stop at the Bridge on the River Kwai (almost) and a talk by, if my notes are right, the Director of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission for Thailand who said that, under American pressure the British did not renew the Anglo-Japanese Treaty of Friendship and co-operation in 1920 or so, at the time that the Militarists came to power in Japan. Could be said that the Yanks messed up their Asia policy from there on in. If they had not interfered with that Japan MIGHT not have attacked Britain. We would have been their friends and could maybe have talked them out of China ten years later.
    Anyway that's a note from my diary, written at the time.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 21,053
    nico679 said:

    Frost talking utter drivel . And blaming just the EU for the problems as if no 10 had nothing to do with any of this .

    Should have listened to this guy...


  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,196
    MrEd said:

    IanB2 said:

    MrEd said:

    IanB2 said:

    MrEd said:

    IanB2 said:

    TimT said:

    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    Jesus, I just discovered Unit 731, run by the Japanese in Manchuria in the 1930s and 1940s

    I was aware the Japanese empire did some terrible things to China in that time - I've read the Rape of Nanjing - but this is on a different level of cruelty.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731

    In terms of pointless sadism, it is possibly worse than the Nazis. One of the greatest crimes in history. Never truly addressed. The Japanese must fondly hope the newly super-powerful Chinese don't ever gain a taste for revenge

    The Chinese distaste for Japan knows few bounds. It isn't overt, as it is a humiliating period of their history.
    But it is there.
    The Koreans are not exactly fans, either. For similar reasons. Japan is surrounded by nations with a cause to dislike it

    On the other hand, many nations in the region are equally fearful or loathing: of the Chinese. The Vietnamese, for a start
    A somewhat stupid friend thought that anti-Japanese sentiment was all American WWII racism. She even bought into the "Japanese were throwing out the colonisers of East Asia" line......

    I managed to persuade her, before a trip to South Korea, to be very, very careful where she said stuff like that.
    Reading an account of the role of the Japanese at the conferences leading up to the Versailles treaty, and the reactions of the Americans to them, is instructive, and an under-studied corner of history. There’s an argument that Versailles sowed the seeds of the Pacific WWII almost as much as it did in Europe.
    Is there a link to that account, or a book title. Sounds fascinating.
    The MacMillan book on the negotiations contains some interesting chapters on the subject. The Japanese were desperately keen for a racial equality statement within the treaty - based upon Wilson’s ultimately hypocritical obsession with self-determination - which the US effectively vetoed for fear of stirring up discontent in its southern states. And, as with Germany, the results of the territorial aspects of the treaty gifted Japan sufficient grievances to pursue into the next war.
    If there is one lesson globally from the past 100 years, it’s never let the States take the running when it comes to geopolitics. They are shit. Fucked it up post WW1 with Wilson, fucked it up 1948 in China when Mao Tse Tung was on the ropes and again in 1971 / 1989 when it came to China, fucked it up with Russia in the 90s and then the Middle East and Afghanistan. They truly are useless when it comes to deals.

    One of the reasons I liked Trump. He had a bit of the old school British Empire way of dealing with geopolitical topics.
    Yes, but the essential problem with Americans is that they don’t travel often enough to the rest of the world (and when they do generally turn out to be utterly clueless), and consequently view everything from the perspective of people for whom a trip into the adjacent state is an adventure into a world of ‘here be dragons’. Trump wasn’t a good example in this respect.
    There is an element of that. I’d argue that it is more Americans tend to take a black and white view of the world whereas Europeans (historically) take it as grey - there is no totally good or bad, you do what it takes so things work out. Which is why I make the comment about Trump.
    See my self edit above
    Just saw it. Yes, to many Americans, most of their own country is a mystery. To be fair, the same could be same of the English - how many NW3 residents have visited Easington?
    Indeed, how many true New Yorkers have been to Ellis Island, visited the Statue of Liberty, or been to the top of either the Empire State or Chrysler buildings?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 39,709
    MrEd said:

    IanB2 said:

    MrEd said:

    IanB2 said:

    MrEd said:

    IanB2 said:

    TimT said:

    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    Jesus, I just discovered Unit 731, run by the Japanese in Manchuria in the 1930s and 1940s

    I was aware the Japanese empire did some terrible things to China in that time - I've read the Rape of Nanjing - but this is on a different level of cruelty.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731

    In terms of pointless sadism, it is possibly worse than the Nazis. One of the greatest crimes in history. Never truly addressed. The Japanese must fondly hope the newly super-powerful Chinese don't ever gain a taste for revenge

    The Chinese distaste for Japan knows few bounds. It isn't overt, as it is a humiliating period of their history.
    But it is there.
    The Koreans are not exactly fans, either. For similar reasons. Japan is surrounded by nations with a cause to dislike it

    On the other hand, many nations in the region are equally fearful or loathing: of the Chinese. The Vietnamese, for a start
    A somewhat stupid friend thought that anti-Japanese sentiment was all American WWII racism. She even bought into the "Japanese were throwing out the colonisers of East Asia" line......

    I managed to persuade her, before a trip to South Korea, to be very, very careful where she said stuff like that.
    Reading an account of the role of the Japanese at the conferences leading up to the Versailles treaty, and the reactions of the Americans to them, is instructive, and an under-studied corner of history. There’s an argument that Versailles sowed the seeds of the Pacific WWII almost as much as it did in Europe.
    Is there a link to that account, or a book title. Sounds fascinating.
    The MacMillan book on the negotiations contains some interesting chapters on the subject. The Japanese were desperately keen for a racial equality statement within the treaty - based upon Wilson’s ultimately hypocritical obsession with self-determination - which the US effectively vetoed for fear of stirring up discontent in its southern states. And, as with Germany, the results of the territorial aspects of the treaty gifted Japan sufficient grievances to pursue into the next war.
    If there is one lesson globally from the past 100 years, it’s never let the States take the running when it comes to geopolitics. They are shit. Fucked it up post WW1 with Wilson, fucked it up 1948 in China when Mao Tse Tung was on the ropes and again in 1971 / 1989 when it came to China, fucked it up with Russia in the 90s and then the Middle East and Afghanistan. They truly are useless when it comes to deals.

    One of the reasons I liked Trump. He had a bit of the old school British Empire way of dealing with geopolitical topics.
    Yes, but the essential problem with Americans is that they don’t travel often enough to the rest of the world (and when they do generally turn out to be utterly clueless), and consequently view everything from the perspective of people for whom a trip into the adjacent state is an adventure into a world of ‘here be dragons’. Trump wasn’t a good example in this respect.
    There is an element of that. I’d argue that it is more Americans tend to take a black and white view of the world whereas Europeans (historically) take it as grey - there is no totally good or bad, you do what it takes so things work out. Which is why I make the comment about Trump.
    Aka Americans watch too many movies and make the mistake of thinking they are real.
    Yes, they definitely see themselves as the heros fighting injustice. Not sure that equates with reality.
    Bruno Macaes’s book on the US is an interesting read. He argues that the influence of cinema over the late 20th century in the US has been so strong that many Americans tend to see themselves as the star of a film about their own life, and that this explains many of the aspect of contemporary US culture that we in Europe find so perplexing.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 42,286
    rcs1000 said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    algarkirk said:

    In all the discussions of immigration, population ageing needs to be front and centre. Looking at the UK labour market data, since the Brexit referendum our population aged 16-49 has gone down by about 500,000 people. Our population aged 50+ has gone up by 1.3 million, including 700,000 over 65. So the fact is, we *are* going to have continued immigration, in sizeable numbers. And in so-called low skill occupations, too. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just deluding themselves.
    I liked three things about using the EU single market for providing that immigration. First, it was reciprocal, so we got something in return. Second, freedom of movement gave people rights and freedoms. It treated people as citizens, not simply commodities, tied to a specific employer or job. Third, the system was simple, lowering the burden of red tape for both employers and employees.
    My guess is that we will end up with continued immigration, because of the demand for workers created by our ageing society, but with no reciprocity, loads more red tape, and with workers treated as simply labour inputs, not citizens with rights.

    And it had no numerical control, which meant that it biased the system against people from anywhere else, eg the whole of Africa. This was the fatal flaw, both politically and from a humane viewpoint.

    That is true. I'm sure that some of the 17.4mn were motivated by a desire to raise immigration from Africa but I struggle to believe it was the majority view.
    Actually I think that getting easier migration from the rest of the world for skilled migrants who should be able to make it here, by tightening up on unskilled migrants who shouldn't, was a bigger selling point than you imagine. Especially but not just in minority communities.

    The current Home Secretary actually made that argument herself. That it would be easier to have rest of the world migration if European migration were controlled.

    That was one of the arguments that swung my vote. I'm all in favour of immigration, I just don't want discrimination in the immigration system. So when I saw the pro-Brexit serious MP politicians (as opposed to Farage and his band of twats) making a liberal argument against discrimination instead of an illiberal argument against migrants at all, then I was pleased with that.

    I grew up in another country myself before returning to the UK. That country has more British emigrants than the entire European Union (exc Ireland) combined. Yet while in the EU it was far tougher for eg one of my school friends to get a visa and come to the UK, than it was any random unskilled person in Europe, despite their country taking more of our citizens than the entire EU (exc Ireland) combined. There is no justification for that discrimination.
    There are justifications for that distinction, and using the word "discrimination" begs the question.
    You already know this, but you continue to use words like "discrimination" because you are a sophist. Have some honour.
    There is no good justification for the discrimination.

    If you are discriminating against potential migrants based on country of origin as opposed to their own skills and what they have to offer then what would you call that other than discrimination?
    You've already had the answer to this, you know the argument, so your feigning ignorance is just a part of your dishonest approach to this whole question.

    Here it is, once again.
    Freedom of movement is part of a free market, and having freedoms of movement of goods, services, and labour within that market is a sensible package of reforms that ought be done at the same time.

    That's the proposition. You may not agree with it, but the idea that the geographical distinction is based on "discrimination" is not one that is at all a part of the argument in favour.
    If you cannot argue against it in its own terms and instead have to slay straw men, you are a fool. Other people are able to better take on the debate and address that point with greater or lesser degrees of success, because they are better than you at this.

    Examples of good counter arguments are
    1. We aren't as constrained by geography as we used to be (I don't agree we're there yet)
    2. Other countries are willing and able to enter into this sort of thing (true, more should be done)
    3. The penalties of the free market outweigh the benefits, so we shouldn't seek market integration (I strongly disagree)

    Examples of bad counter arguments are
    1. Having a stronger trading relationship with our neighbours is racist!!!1!

    You can have the last word on the subject, I don't intend to reply to you on this again because it's a waste of everyone's time.
    That's total bullshit. So your argument is that free movement is sensible because free movement is sensible. Why?

    Simply saying that it is "a sensible package of reforms that ought to be done at the same time" doesn't answer the question as to WHY you think it is a sensible package, you are merely restating your opinion.

    Saying you support free movement because free movement is sensible is like saying "I believe in God because I believe in God". That's just faith, that's not an argument.

    People are not commodities, indeed as I said more people from the UK go abroad to Australia than to the entire EU combined (exc Ireland) so the idea of "gravity" or "neighbours" affecting people is complete poppycock.

    If you want an argument as to why this discrimination is OK then you need a stronger argument than "it is sensible", you need a reason WHY it is sensible. That you haven't given. Until then, its pure discrimination.
    Free movement wasn't really a big problem until three things came together:

    (1) The integration of the EU 8, which were very significantly poorer than then existing EU members. When previously poor countries had joined (Portugal, Greece, Spain), they were relatively small, this was 8 countries (including one big one) all at the same time. The UK was also pretty much the only country not to go with transitional controls on immigration. This meant that instead of a few million people being spread out across the whole EU, they came mostly to the UK.

    (2) The UK's benefits system. As far as I can tell, there is no other country in Europe that has either a system that is as non-contributory bases, not one which was so generous with in work benefits system like the UK. Prior to the Maastricht treaty, you could work in any member state, but there was no presumption of benefits. The consequence of this is that (pretty much alone of the countries in the EU), it was possible for a migrant to come to the UK and pick up benefits from day one.

    (3) The Eurozone crisis, which caused a dramatic dip in demand for migrant labour in the Southern EU states *and* led to the exporting their own young.
    Plus a further expansion in consumption in the UK creating a wall of service based jobs which required little, if anything, in the form of transferrable skills. When my daughter was helping refugees in Calais last year they were all convinced that if they could just get over this annoying channel thing they would walk into jobs in the UK. They were probably right.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,196
    Scott_xP said:

    nico679 said:

    Frost talking utter drivel . And blaming just the EU for the problems as if no 10 had nothing to do with any of this .

    Should have listened to this guy...


    Clearly a diet of whisky is better for you than all the diplomatic dinners and lunches, by the look of Frost's current waistline.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 27,676
    MrEd said:

    IanB2 said:

    MrEd said:

    IanB2 said:

    MrEd said:

    IanB2 said:

    TimT said:

    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    Jesus, I just discovered Unit 731, run by the Japanese in Manchuria in the 1930s and 1940s

    I was aware the Japanese empire did some terrible things to China in that time - I've read the Rape of Nanjing - but this is on a different level of cruelty.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731

    In terms of pointless sadism, it is possibly worse than the Nazis. One of the greatest crimes in history. Never truly addressed. The Japanese must fondly hope the newly super-powerful Chinese don't ever gain a taste for revenge

    The Chinese distaste for Japan knows few bounds. It isn't overt, as it is a humiliating period of their history.
    But it is there.
    The Koreans are not exactly fans, either. For similar reasons. Japan is surrounded by nations with a cause to dislike it

    On the other hand, many nations in the region are equally fearful or loathing: of the Chinese. The Vietnamese, for a start
    A somewhat stupid friend thought that anti-Japanese sentiment was all American WWII racism. She even bought into the "Japanese were throwing out the colonisers of East Asia" line......

    I managed to persuade her, before a trip to South Korea, to be very, very careful where she said stuff like that.
    Reading an account of the role of the Japanese at the conferences leading up to the Versailles treaty, and the reactions of the Americans to them, is instructive, and an under-studied corner of history. There’s an argument that Versailles sowed the seeds of the Pacific WWII almost as much as it did in Europe.
    Is there a link to that account, or a book title. Sounds fascinating.
    The MacMillan book on the negotiations contains some interesting chapters on the subject. The Japanese were desperately keen for a racial equality statement within the treaty - based upon Wilson’s ultimately hypocritical obsession with self-determination - which the US effectively vetoed for fear of stirring up discontent in its southern states. And, as with Germany, the results of the territorial aspects of the treaty gifted Japan sufficient grievances to pursue into the next war.
    If there is one lesson globally from the past 100 years, it’s never let the States take the running when it comes to geopolitics. They are shit. Fucked it up post WW1 with Wilson, fucked it up 1948 in China when Mao Tse Tung was on the ropes and again in 1971 / 1989 when it came to China, fucked it up with Russia in the 90s and then the Middle East and Afghanistan. They truly are useless when it comes to deals.

    One of the reasons I liked Trump. He had a bit of the old school British Empire way of dealing with geopolitical topics.
    Yes, but the essential problem with Americans is that they don’t travel often enough to the rest of the world (and when they do generally turn out to be utterly clueless), and consequently view everything from the perspective of people for whom a trip into the adjacent state is an adventure into a world of ‘here be dragons’. Trump wasn’t a good example in this respect.
    There is an element of that. I’d argue that it is more Americans tend to take a black and white view of the world whereas Europeans (historically) take it as grey - there is no totally good or bad, you do what it takes so things work out. Which is why I make the comment about Trump.
    See my self edit above
    Just saw it. Yes, to many Americans, most of their own country is a mystery. To be fair, the same could be same of the English - how many NW3 residents have visited Easington?
    Dealt with yesterday.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 26,661

    Carnyx said:

    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    Jesus, I just discovered Unit 731, run by the Japanese in Manchuria in the 1930s and 1940s

    I was aware the Japanese empire did some terrible things to China in that time - I've read the Rape of Nanjing - but this is on a different level of cruelty.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731

    In terms of pointless sadism, it is possibly worse than the Nazis. One of the greatest crimes in history. Never truly addressed. The Japanese must fondly hope the newly super-powerful Chinese don't ever gain a taste for revenge

    The Chinese distaste for Japan knows few bounds. It isn't overt, as it is a humiliating period of their history.
    But it is there.
    The Koreans are not exactly fans, either. For similar reasons. Japan is surrounded by nations with a cause to dislike it

    On the other hand, many nations in the region are equally fearful or loathing: of the Chinese. The Vietnamese, for a start
    A somewhat stupid friend thought that anti-Japanese sentiment was all American WWII racism. She even bought into the "Japanese were throwing out the colonisers of East Asia" line......

    I managed to persuade her, before a trip to South Korea, to be very, very careful where she said stuff like that.
    Reading an account of the role of the Japanese at the conferences leading up to the Versailles treaty, and the reactions of the Americans to them, is instructive, and an under-studied corner of history. There’s an argument that Versailles sowed the seeds of the Pacific WWII almost as much as it did in Europe.
    Also resentment (argued. however, by some Japanese to be misplaced) at the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 which limited them to 60% of capital ship tonnage compared with the USN or RN.
    Several years ago, on a trip on the Eastern Oriental Express (recommended) we had a stop at the Bridge on the River Kwai (almost) and a talk, if my notes are right, the Director of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission for Thailand who said that, under American pressure the British did not renew the Anglo-Japanese Treaty of Friendship and co-operation in 1920 or so, at the time that the Militarists came to power in Japan. Could be said that the Yanks messed up their Asia policy from there on in. If they had not interfered with that Japan MIGHT not have attacked Britain. We would have been their friends and could maybe have talked them out of China ten years later.
    Anyway that's a note from my diary, written at the time.
    The ending of the various treaties around the world, between various powers was *part* of the Washington Treaty process.

    The idea behind Washington was -

    1) That excessive armaments had lead to WWI
    2) That interlocking treaties had led to WWI
    3) We are all broke and we don't want more war

    So the idea was that by limiting the number of ships to fixed ratios, no one country could win against another. By limiting treaties, no combination of nations could gang up on another.

    The reason that this upset the Japanese militarists was that it made it impossible to pursue an aggressive war.

    For everyone else, that was a feature.
  • Tru dat

    Robert Hutton
    @RobDotHutton
    10m
    Reminded of @rafaelbehr's observation that Lord Frost's role is to show us how weak Boris Johnson's arguments are, by delivering them without Johnsonian pizzazz.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 30,829
    edited October 2021
    Leon said:

    Jesus, I just discovered Unit 731, run by the Japanese in Manchuria in the 1930s and 1940s

    I was aware the Japanese empire did some terrible things to China in that time - I've read the Rape of Nanjing - but this is on a different level of cruelty.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731

    In terms of pointless sadism, it is possibly worse than the Nazis. One of the greatest crimes in history. Never truly addressed. The Japanese must fondly hope the newly super-powerful Chinese don't ever gain a taste for revenge

    The Imperial Japanese Army from 1931 to 1945, was absolutely brutal by any measure. That was a deliberate policy, cultivated from the top. The Japanese army in the Russo-Japanese army, by contrast, was quite well-behaved.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 1,254
    So the no 10 position is give us everything we want or we’ll just be awful neighbours .
  • TimT said:

    Scott_xP said:

    nico679 said:

    Frost talking utter drivel . And blaming just the EU for the problems as if no 10 had nothing to do with any of this .

    Should have listened to this guy...


    Clearly a diet of whisky is better for you than all the diplomatic dinners and lunches, by the look of Frost's current waistline.
    Well, all these food shortages he's engineering should help him return to his former physique.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 2,599
    edited October 2021
    Heathener said:

    This egregious attempt to let Boris off the hook by lazy appeal to 'hindsighting' needs to be called out and ground down. It's utter nonsense.

    A political leader of any calibre ALWAYS keeps abreast of facts with an eye for detail and an attention to their brief. It's their job. They are SUPPOSED to lead.

    Can anyone really tell me that Margaret Thatcher or even Tony Blair would have been so shockingly inept as Johnson was in spring 2019? Permitting events like the Cheltenham Festival to continue when Italy had already gone into lockdown has nothing to do with us using hindsighting.

    It was, and is, the most shocking example of an inept useless buffoon who never should have been elected Prime Minister and who is totally unfit for the office.

    I love it that someone ticked this as 'off topic.'

    It's obviously very much on topic: just not to their taste which is a 'dislike,' for which there's no button.
  • nico679 said:

    So the no 10 position is give us everything we want or we’ll just be awful neighbours .

    Missing the calculation that many will be making that even if we give them everything they want they'll still be awful neighbours.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 1,438
    On the topic of human wanderlust, evolution and freedom of movement. This is something I've long found fascinating. Is there a genetic difference between those people who are happy to stay put, and are rooted in their communities, and those who are forever on the search for new horizons. Citizens of the world. The Paul Young gene. And by extension does this have an impact on politics or are other factors like social class, upbringing and economics much more important?

    There is at least some scientific basis for some of this, e.g. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14100-did-hyperactivity-evolve-as-a-survival-aid-for-nomads/

    The question is does this also drive differences between the somewheres and the nowheres, the migratory urban populations and the sedentary rural ones? Who knows.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 44,589
    edited October 2021
    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Jesus, I just discovered Unit 731, run by the Japanese in Manchuria in the 1930s and 1940s

    I was aware the Japanese empire did some terrible things to China in that time - I've read the Rape of Nanjing - but this is on a different level of cruelty.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731

    In terms of pointless sadism, it is possibly worse than the Nazis. One of the greatest crimes in history. Never truly addressed. The Japanese must fondly hope the newly super-powerful Chinese don't ever gain a taste for revenge

    The Imperial Japanese Army from 1931 to 1945, was absolutely brutal by any measure. That was a deliberate policy, cultivated from the top. The Japanese army in the Russo-Japanese army, by contrast, was quite well-behaved.
    Yes. I read about that recently: I'm just trying to remember where.

    (Ahhh. I remember now. Ian Toll's absolutely superb three volume history of the US Pacific War.)
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 7,453
    MrEd said:

    IanB2 said:

    TimT said:

    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    Jesus, I just discovered Unit 731, run by the Japanese in Manchuria in the 1930s and 1940s

    I was aware the Japanese empire did some terrible things to China in that time - I've read the Rape of Nanjing - but this is on a different level of cruelty.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731

    In terms of pointless sadism, it is possibly worse than the Nazis. One of the greatest crimes in history. Never truly addressed. The Japanese must fondly hope the newly super-powerful Chinese don't ever gain a taste for revenge

    The Chinese distaste for Japan knows few bounds. It isn't overt, as it is a humiliating period of their history.
    But it is there.
    The Koreans are not exactly fans, either. For similar reasons. Japan is surrounded by nations with a cause to dislike it

    On the other hand, many nations in the region are equally fearful or loathing: of the Chinese. The Vietnamese, for a start
    A somewhat stupid friend thought that anti-Japanese sentiment was all American WWII racism. She even bought into the "Japanese were throwing out the colonisers of East Asia" line......

    I managed to persuade her, before a trip to South Korea, to be very, very careful where she said stuff like that.
    Reading an account of the role of the Japanese at the conferences leading up to the Versailles treaty, and the reactions of the Americans to them, is instructive, and an under-studied corner of history. There’s an argument that Versailles sowed the seeds of the Pacific WWII almost as much as it did in Europe.
    Is there a link to that account, or a book title. Sounds fascinating.
    The MacMillan book on the negotiations contains some interesting chapters on the subject. The Japanese were desperately keen for a racial equality statement within the treaty - based upon Wilson’s ultimately hypocritical obsession with self-determination - which the US effectively vetoed for fear of stirring up discontent in its southern states. And, as with Germany, the results of the territorial aspects of the treaty gifted Japan sufficient grievances to pursue into the next war.
    If there is one lesson globally from the past 100 years, it’s never let the States take the running when it comes to geopolitics. They are shit. Fucked it up post WW1 with Wilson, fucked it up 1948 in China when Mao Tse Tung was on the ropes and again in 1971 / 1989 when it came to China, fucked it up with Russia in the 90s and then the Middle East and Afghanistan. They truly are useless when it comes to deals.

    One of the reasons I liked Trump. He had a bit of the old school British Empire way of dealing with geopolitical topics.
    When did the British Empire deal with these things well?

    I saw one argument that the peace of 1815 created the conditions for WWI and WWII.

    But then I'm tempted to suggest that peace treaties are harder to get right than pandemic responses, and we know how hard that is...
  • TimSTimS Posts: 1,438
    IanB2 said:

    MrEd said:

    IanB2 said:

    MrEd said:

    IanB2 said:

    MrEd said:

    IanB2 said:

    TimT said:

    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    Jesus, I just discovered Unit 731, run by the Japanese in Manchuria in the 1930s and 1940s

    I was aware the Japanese empire did some terrible things to China in that time - I've read the Rape of Nanjing - but this is on a different level of cruelty.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731

    In terms of pointless sadism, it is possibly worse than the Nazis. One of the greatest crimes in history. Never truly addressed. The Japanese must fondly hope the newly super-powerful Chinese don't ever gain a taste for revenge

    The Chinese distaste for Japan knows few bounds. It isn't overt, as it is a humiliating period of their history.
    But it is there.
    The Koreans are not exactly fans, either. For similar reasons. Japan is surrounded by nations with a cause to dislike it

    On the other hand, many nations in the region are equally fearful or loathing: of the Chinese. The Vietnamese, for a start
    A somewhat stupid friend thought that anti-Japanese sentiment was all American WWII racism. She even bought into the "Japanese were throwing out the colonisers of East Asia" line......

    I managed to persuade her, before a trip to South Korea, to be very, very careful where she said stuff like that.
    Reading an account of the role of the Japanese at the conferences leading up to the Versailles treaty, and the reactions of the Americans to them, is instructive, and an under-studied corner of history. There’s an argument that Versailles sowed the seeds of the Pacific WWII almost as much as it did in Europe.
    Is there a link to that account, or a book title. Sounds fascinating.
    The MacMillan book on the negotiations contains some interesting chapters on the subject. The Japanese were desperately keen for a racial equality statement within the treaty - based upon Wilson’s ultimately hypocritical obsession with self-determination - which the US effectively vetoed for fear of stirring up discontent in its southern states. And, as with Germany, the results of the territorial aspects of the treaty gifted Japan sufficient grievances to pursue into the next war.
    If there is one lesson globally from the past 100 years, it’s never let the States take the running when it comes to geopolitics. They are shit. Fucked it up post WW1 with Wilson, fucked it up 1948 in China when Mao Tse Tung was on the ropes and again in 1971 / 1989 when it came to China, fucked it up with Russia in the 90s and then the Middle East and Afghanistan. They truly are useless when it comes to deals.

    One of the reasons I liked Trump. He had a bit of the old school British Empire way of dealing with geopolitical topics.
    Yes, but the essential problem with Americans is that they don’t travel often enough to the rest of the world (and when they do generally turn out to be utterly clueless), and consequently view everything from the perspective of people for whom a trip into the adjacent state is an adventure into a world of ‘here be dragons’. Trump wasn’t a good example in this respect.
    There is an element of that. I’d argue that it is more Americans tend to take a black and white view of the world whereas Europeans (historically) take it as grey - there is no totally good or bad, you do what it takes so things work out. Which is why I make the comment about Trump.
    Aka Americans watch too many movies and make the mistake of thinking they are real.
    Yes, they definitely see themselves as the heros fighting injustice. Not sure that equates with reality.
    Bruno Macaes’s book on the US is an interesting read. He argues that the influence of cinema over the late 20th century in the US has been so strong that many Americans tend to see themselves as the star of a film about their own life, and that this explains many of the aspect of contemporary US culture that we in Europe find so perplexing.
    That's a fascinating theory. What's the British equivalent? We're all regular characters in our own gritty soap opera.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 40,112

    MrEd said:

    IanB2 said:

    TimT said:

    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    Jesus, I just discovered Unit 731, run by the Japanese in Manchuria in the 1930s and 1940s

    I was aware the Japanese empire did some terrible things to China in that time - I've read the Rape of Nanjing - but this is on a different level of cruelty.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731

    In terms of pointless sadism, it is possibly worse than the Nazis. One of the greatest crimes in history. Never truly addressed. The Japanese must fondly hope the newly super-powerful Chinese don't ever gain a taste for revenge

    The Chinese distaste for Japan knows few bounds. It isn't overt, as it is a humiliating period of their history.
    But it is there.
    The Koreans are not exactly fans, either. For similar reasons. Japan is surrounded by nations with a cause to dislike it

    On the other hand, many nations in the region are equally fearful or loathing: of the Chinese. The Vietnamese, for a start
    A somewhat stupid friend thought that anti-Japanese sentiment was all American WWII racism. She even bought into the "Japanese were throwing out the colonisers of East Asia" line......

    I managed to persuade her, before a trip to South Korea, to be very, very careful where she said stuff like that.
    Reading an account of the role of the Japanese at the conferences leading up to the Versailles treaty, and the reactions of the Americans to them, is instructive, and an under-studied corner of history. There’s an argument that Versailles sowed the seeds of the Pacific WWII almost as much as it did in Europe.
    Is there a link to that account, or a book title. Sounds fascinating.
    The MacMillan book on the negotiations contains some interesting chapters on the subject. The Japanese were desperately keen for a racial equality statement within the treaty - based upon Wilson’s ultimately hypocritical obsession with self-determination - which the US effectively vetoed for fear of stirring up discontent in its southern states. And, as with Germany, the results of the territorial aspects of the treaty gifted Japan sufficient grievances to pursue into the next war.
    If there is one lesson globally from the past 100 years, it’s never let the States take the running when it comes to geopolitics. They are shit. Fucked it up post WW1 with Wilson, fucked it up 1948 in China when Mao Tse Tung was on the ropes and again in 1971 / 1989 when it came to China, fucked it up with Russia in the 90s and then the Middle East and Afghanistan. They truly are useless when it comes to deals.

    One of the reasons I liked Trump. He had a bit of the old school British Empire way of dealing with geopolitical topics.
    When did the British Empire deal with these things well?

    I saw one argument that the peace of 1815 created the conditions for WWI and WWII.

    But then I'm tempted to suggest that peace treaties are harder to get right than pandemic responses, and we know how hard that is...
    A century is a pretty long stretch, and the creation of a united Germany in the interim was a pretty significant change to the situation that they were dealing with in 1815.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 1,438
    nico679 said:

    So the no 10 position is give us everything we want or we’ll just be awful neighbours .

    I suppose it's worked for Putin for a few years. Not made Russia richer or happier, but successfully annoyed the neighbours.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 19,049
    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Jesus, I just discovered Unit 731, run by the Japanese in Manchuria in the 1930s and 1940s

    I was aware the Japanese empire did some terrible things to China in that time - I've read the Rape of Nanjing - but this is on a different level of cruelty.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731

    In terms of pointless sadism, it is possibly worse than the Nazis. One of the greatest crimes in history. Never truly addressed. The Japanese must fondly hope the newly super-powerful Chinese don't ever gain a taste for revenge

    The Imperial Japanese Army from 1931 to 1945, was absolutely brutal by any measure. That was a deliberate policy, cultivated from the top. The Japanese army in the Russo-Japanese army, by contrast, was quite well-behaved.
    The details of what they did in /unit 731 go beyond brutality. This is not a conquering army trampling everyone underfoot as they march across Asia.

    They had already conquered China. This is bizarre, determined, grotesque and inhuman cruelty after the event, on an imperious scale.

    Like an entire nation turning into Fred West, or the Moors Murderers. Psychopathic
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 26,661

    MrEd said:

    IanB2 said:

    TimT said:

    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    Jesus, I just discovered Unit 731, run by the Japanese in Manchuria in the 1930s and 1940s

    I was aware the Japanese empire did some terrible things to China in that time - I've read the Rape of Nanjing - but this is on a different level of cruelty.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731

    In terms of pointless sadism, it is possibly worse than the Nazis. One of the greatest crimes in history. Never truly addressed. The Japanese must fondly hope the newly super-powerful Chinese don't ever gain a taste for revenge

    The Chinese distaste for Japan knows few bounds. It isn't overt, as it is a humiliating period of their history.
    But it is there.
    The Koreans are not exactly fans, either. For similar reasons. Japan is surrounded by nations with a cause to dislike it

    On the other hand, many nations in the region are equally fearful or loathing: of the Chinese. The Vietnamese, for a start
    A somewhat stupid friend thought that anti-Japanese sentiment was all American WWII racism. She even bought into the "Japanese were throwing out the colonisers of East Asia" line......

    I managed to persuade her, before a trip to South Korea, to be very, very careful where she said stuff like that.
    Reading an account of the role of the Japanese at the conferences leading up to the Versailles treaty, and the reactions of the Americans to them, is instructive, and an under-studied corner of history. There’s an argument that Versailles sowed the seeds of the Pacific WWII almost as much as it did in Europe.
    Is there a link to that account, or a book title. Sounds fascinating.
    The MacMillan book on the negotiations contains some interesting chapters on the subject. The Japanese were desperately keen for a racial equality statement within the treaty - based upon Wilson’s ultimately hypocritical obsession with self-determination - which the US effectively vetoed for fear of stirring up discontent in its southern states. And, as with Germany, the results of the territorial aspects of the treaty gifted Japan sufficient grievances to pursue into the next war.
    If there is one lesson globally from the past 100 years, it’s never let the States take the running when it comes to geopolitics. They are shit. Fucked it up post WW1 with Wilson, fucked it up 1948 in China when Mao Tse Tung was on the ropes and again in 1971 / 1989 when it came to China, fucked it up with Russia in the 90s and then the Middle East and Afghanistan. They truly are useless when it comes to deals.

    One of the reasons I liked Trump. He had a bit of the old school British Empire way of dealing with geopolitical topics.
    When did the British Empire deal with these things well?

    I saw one argument that the peace of 1815 created the conditions for WWI and WWII.

    But then I'm tempted to suggest that peace treaties are harder to get right than pandemic responses, and we know how hard that is...
    War in Europe came because the unification of Germany created a new power, that upset the old balances. Not sure that 1815 really caused that.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited October 2021
    rcs1000 said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    algarkirk said:

    In all the discussions of immigration, population ageing needs to be front and centre. Looking at the UK labour market data, since the Brexit referendum our population aged 16-49 has gone down by about 500,000 people. Our population aged 50+ has gone up by 1.3 million, including 700,000 over 65. So the fact is, we *are* going to have continued immigration, in sizeable numbers. And in so-called low skill occupations, too. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just deluding themselves.
    I liked three things about using the EU single market for providing that immigration. First, it was reciprocal, so we got something in return. Second, freedom of movement gave people rights and freedoms. It treated people as citizens, not simply commodities, tied to a specific employer or job. Third, the system was simple, lowering the burden of red tape for both employers and employees.
    My guess is that we will end up with continued immigration, because of the demand for workers created by our ageing society, but with no reciprocity, loads more red tape, and with workers treated as simply labour inputs, not citizens with rights.

    And it had no numerical control, which meant that it biased the system against people from anywhere else, eg the whole of Africa. This was the fatal flaw, both politically and from a humane viewpoint.

    That is true. I'm sure that some of the 17.4mn were motivated by a desire to raise immigration from Africa but I struggle to believe it was the majority view.
    Actually I think that getting easier migration from the rest of the world for skilled migrants who should be able to make it here, by tightening up on unskilled migrants who shouldn't, was a bigger selling point than you imagine. Especially but not just in minority communities.

    The current Home Secretary actually made that argument herself. That it would be easier to have rest of the world migration if European migration were controlled.

    That was one of the arguments that swung my vote. I'm all in favour of immigration, I just don't want discrimination in the immigration system. So when I saw the pro-Brexit serious MP politicians (as opposed to Farage and his band of twats) making a liberal argument against discrimination instead of an illiberal argument against migrants at all, then I was pleased with that.

    I grew up in another country myself before returning to the UK. That country has more British emigrants than the entire European Union (exc Ireland) combined. Yet while in the EU it was far tougher for eg one of my school friends to get a visa and come to the UK, than it was any random unskilled person in Europe, despite their country taking more of our citizens than the entire EU (exc Ireland) combined. There is no justification for that discrimination.
    There are justifications for that distinction, and using the word "discrimination" begs the question.
    You already know this, but you continue to use words like "discrimination" because you are a sophist. Have some honour.
    There is no good justification for the discrimination.

    If you are discriminating against potential migrants based on country of origin as opposed to their own skills and what they have to offer then what would you call that other than discrimination?
    You've already had the answer to this, you know the argument, so your feigning ignorance is just a part of your dishonest approach to this whole question.

    Here it is, once again.
    Freedom of movement is part of a free market, and having freedoms of movement of goods, services, and labour within that market is a sensible package of reforms that ought be done at the same time.

    That's the proposition. You may not agree with it, but the idea that the geographical distinction is based on "discrimination" is not one that is at all a part of the argument in favour.
    If you cannot argue against it in its own terms and instead have to slay straw men, you are a fool. Other people are able to better take on the debate and address that point with greater or lesser degrees of success, because they are better than you at this.

    Examples of good counter arguments are
    1. We aren't as constrained by geography as we used to be (I don't agree we're there yet)
    2. Other countries are willing and able to enter into this sort of thing (true, more should be done)
    3. The penalties of the free market outweigh the benefits, so we shouldn't seek market integration (I strongly disagree)

    Examples of bad counter arguments are
    1. Having a stronger trading relationship with our neighbours is racist!!!1!

    You can have the last word on the subject, I don't intend to reply to you on this again because it's a waste of everyone's time.
    That's total bullshit. So your argument is that free movement is sensible because free movement is sensible. Why?

    Simply saying that it is "a sensible package of reforms that ought to be done at the same time" doesn't answer the question as to WHY you think it is a sensible package, you are merely restating your opinion.

    Saying you support free movement because free movement is sensible is like saying "I believe in God because I believe in God". That's just faith, that's not an argument.

    People are not commodities, indeed as I said more people from the UK go abroad to Australia than to the entire EU combined (exc Ireland) so the idea of "gravity" or "neighbours" affecting people is complete poppycock.

    If you want an argument as to why this discrimination is OK then you need a stronger argument than "it is sensible", you need a reason WHY it is sensible. That you haven't given. Until then, its pure discrimination.
    Free movement wasn't really a big problem until three things came together:

    (1) The integration of the EU 8, which were very significantly poorer than then existing EU members. When previously poor countries had joined (Portugal, Greece, Spain), they were relatively small, this was 8 countries (including one big one) all at the same time. The UK was also pretty much the only country not to go with transitional controls on immigration. This meant that instead of a few million people being spread out across the whole EU, they came mostly to the UK.

    (2) The UK's benefits system. As far as I can tell, there is no other country in Europe that has either a system that is as non-contributory bases, not one which was so generous with in work benefits system like the UK. Prior to the Maastricht treaty, you could work in any member state, but there was no presumption of benefits. The consequence of this is that (pretty much alone of the countries in the EU), it was possible for a migrant to come to the UK and pick up benefits from day one.

    (3) The Eurozone crisis, which caused a dramatic dip in demand for migrant labour in the Southern EU states *and* led to the exporting their own young.
    Very well said. Number 2 was possibly the biggest failing and again shows what a mess Maastricht made of things. I would add to that as a special factor:

    (4) The English language. Even when we had transitory controls (eg with Romania) it simply postponed the migration of the poor and unskilled until the transitory controls finished. The English language combined with the UK's benefits system was an extra special "pull" that sent Eastern Europe's unskilled migrants heading directly to the UK over other nations.

    (5) The Minimum Wage. This was significantly higher than could be achieved in Eastern Europe while simultaneously being perceived in the UK by many businesses as a Maximum Wage instead. So companies could advertise jobs for the Minimum Wage and know that somebody would fill it at that rate, with no reason to increase pay rates to a 'market' rate.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 27,676

    MrEd said:

    IanB2 said:

    TimT said:

    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    Jesus, I just discovered Unit 731, run by the Japanese in Manchuria in the 1930s and 1940s

    I was aware the Japanese empire did some terrible things to China in that time - I've read the Rape of Nanjing - but this is on a different level of cruelty.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731

    In terms of pointless sadism, it is possibly worse than the Nazis. One of the greatest crimes in history. Never truly addressed. The Japanese must fondly hope the newly super-powerful Chinese don't ever gain a taste for revenge

    The Chinese distaste for Japan knows few bounds. It isn't overt, as it is a humiliating period of their history.
    But it is there.
    The Koreans are not exactly fans, either. For similar reasons. Japan is surrounded by nations with a cause to dislike it

    On the other hand, many nations in the region are equally fearful or loathing: of the Chinese. The Vietnamese, for a start
    A somewhat stupid friend thought that anti-Japanese sentiment was all American WWII racism. She even bought into the "Japanese were throwing out the colonisers of East Asia" line......

    I managed to persuade her, before a trip to South Korea, to be very, very careful where she said stuff like that.
    Reading an account of the role of the Japanese at the conferences leading up to the Versailles treaty, and the reactions of the Americans to them, is instructive, and an under-studied corner of history. There’s an argument that Versailles sowed the seeds of the Pacific WWII almost as much as it did in Europe.
    Is there a link to that account, or a book title. Sounds fascinating.
    The MacMillan book on the negotiations contains some interesting chapters on the subject. The Japanese were desperately keen for a racial equality statement within the treaty - based upon Wilson’s ultimately hypocritical obsession with self-determination - which the US effectively vetoed for fear of stirring up discontent in its southern states. And, as with Germany, the results of the territorial aspects of the treaty gifted Japan sufficient grievances to pursue into the next war.
    If there is one lesson globally from the past 100 years, it’s never let the States take the running when it comes to geopolitics. They are shit. Fucked it up post WW1 with Wilson, fucked it up 1948 in China when Mao Tse Tung was on the ropes and again in 1971 / 1989 when it came to China, fucked it up with Russia in the 90s and then the Middle East and Afghanistan. They truly are useless when it comes to deals.

    One of the reasons I liked Trump. He had a bit of the old school British Empire way of dealing with geopolitical topics.
    When did the British Empire deal with these things well?

    I saw one argument that the peace of 1815 created the conditions for WWI and WWII.

    But then I'm tempted to suggest that peace treaties are harder to get right than pandemic responses, and we know how hard that is...
    Didn't the British Empire of the 19thC model itself, at least theoretically, on the Roman?
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 19,486

    MrEd said:

    IanB2 said:

    TimT said:

    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    Jesus, I just discovered Unit 731, run by the Japanese in Manchuria in the 1930s and 1940s

    I was aware the Japanese empire did some terrible things to China in that time - I've read the Rape of Nanjing - but this is on a different level of cruelty.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731

    In terms of pointless sadism, it is possibly worse than the Nazis. One of the greatest crimes in history. Never truly addressed. The Japanese must fondly hope the newly super-powerful Chinese don't ever gain a taste for revenge

    The Chinese distaste for Japan knows few bounds. It isn't overt, as it is a humiliating period of their history.
    But it is there.
    The Koreans are not exactly fans, either. For similar reasons. Japan is surrounded by nations with a cause to dislike it

    On the other hand, many nations in the region are equally fearful or loathing: of the Chinese. The Vietnamese, for a start
    A somewhat stupid friend thought that anti-Japanese sentiment was all American WWII racism. She even bought into the "Japanese were throwing out the colonisers of East Asia" line......

    I managed to persuade her, before a trip to South Korea, to be very, very careful where she said stuff like that.
    Reading an account of the role of the Japanese at the conferences leading up to the Versailles treaty, and the reactions of the Americans to them, is instructive, and an under-studied corner of history. There’s an argument that Versailles sowed the seeds of the Pacific WWII almost as much as it did in Europe.
    Is there a link to that account, or a book title. Sounds fascinating.
    The MacMillan book on the negotiations contains some interesting chapters on the subject. The Japanese were desperately keen for a racial equality statement within the treaty - based upon Wilson’s ultimately hypocritical obsession with self-determination - which the US effectively vetoed for fear of stirring up discontent in its southern states. And, as with Germany, the results of the territorial aspects of the treaty gifted Japan sufficient grievances to pursue into the next war.
    If there is one lesson globally from the past 100 years, it’s never let the States take the running when it comes to geopolitics. They are shit. Fucked it up post WW1 with Wilson, fucked it up 1948 in China when Mao Tse Tung was on the ropes and again in 1971 / 1989 when it came to China, fucked it up with Russia in the 90s and then the Middle East and Afghanistan. They truly are useless when it comes to deals.

    One of the reasons I liked Trump. He had a bit of the old school British Empire way of dealing with geopolitical topics.
    When did the British Empire deal with these things well?

    I saw one argument that the peace of 1815 created the conditions for WWI and WWII.

    But then I'm tempted to suggest that peace treaties are harder to get right than pandemic responses, and we know how hard that is...
    War in Europe came because the unification of Germany created a new power, that upset the old balances. Not sure that 1815 really caused that.
    99 years without a continent wide war seems pretty good to me to be honest.
    We haven't managed it since.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 26,661
    dixiedean said:

    MrEd said:

    IanB2 said:

    TimT said:

    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    Jesus, I just discovered Unit 731, run by the Japanese in Manchuria in the 1930s and 1940s

    I was aware the Japanese empire did some terrible things to China in that time - I've read the Rape of Nanjing - but this is on a different level of cruelty.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731

    In terms of pointless sadism, it is possibly worse than the Nazis. One of the greatest crimes in history. Never truly addressed. The Japanese must fondly hope the newly super-powerful Chinese don't ever gain a taste for revenge

    The Chinese distaste for Japan knows few bounds. It isn't overt, as it is a humiliating period of their history.
    But it is there.
    The Koreans are not exactly fans, either. For similar reasons. Japan is surrounded by nations with a cause to dislike it

    On the other hand, many nations in the region are equally fearful or loathing: of the Chinese. The Vietnamese, for a start
    A somewhat stupid friend thought that anti-Japanese sentiment was all American WWII racism. She even bought into the "Japanese were throwing out the colonisers of East Asia" line......

    I managed to persuade her, before a trip to South Korea, to be very, very careful where she said stuff like that.
    Reading an account of the role of the Japanese at the conferences leading up to the Versailles treaty, and the reactions of the Americans to them, is instructive, and an under-studied corner of history. There’s an argument that Versailles sowed the seeds of the Pacific WWII almost as much as it did in Europe.
    Is there a link to that account, or a book title. Sounds fascinating.
    The MacMillan book on the negotiations contains some interesting chapters on the subject. The Japanese were desperately keen for a racial equality statement within the treaty - based upon Wilson’s ultimately hypocritical obsession with self-determination - which the US effectively vetoed for fear of stirring up discontent in its southern states. And, as with Germany, the results of the territorial aspects of the treaty gifted Japan sufficient grievances to pursue into the next war.
    If there is one lesson globally from the past 100 years, it’s never let the States take the running when it comes to geopolitics. They are shit. Fucked it up post WW1 with Wilson, fucked it up 1948 in China when Mao Tse Tung was on the ropes and again in 1971 / 1989 when it came to China, fucked it up with Russia in the 90s and then the Middle East and Afghanistan. They truly are useless when it comes to deals.

    One of the reasons I liked Trump. He had a bit of the old school British Empire way of dealing with geopolitical topics.
    When did the British Empire deal with these things well?

    I saw one argument that the peace of 1815 created the conditions for WWI and WWII.

    But then I'm tempted to suggest that peace treaties are harder to get right than pandemic responses, and we know how hard that is...
    War in Europe came because the unification of Germany created a new power, that upset the old balances. Not sure that 1815 really caused that.
    99 years without a continent wide war seems pretty good to me to be honest.
    We haven't managed it since.
    1870 was pretty big...
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 16,365
    "We must stop being slaves to the algorithm

    Social media has damaged democracy, exacerbated division and harmed children — it’s time for much tougher regulation
    William Hague" (£)

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/we-must-stop-being-slaves-to-the-algorithm-p8ctrfrsz
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 22,620
    NEW THREAD
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 22,192
    Big day for Covid cases tomorrow.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 19,486

    dixiedean said:

    MrEd said:

    IanB2 said:

    TimT said:

    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    Jesus, I just discovered Unit 731, run by the Japanese in Manchuria in the 1930s and 1940s

    I was aware the Japanese empire did some terrible things to China in that time - I've read the Rape of Nanjing - but this is on a different level of cruelty.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731

    In terms of pointless sadism, it is possibly worse than the Nazis. One of the greatest crimes in history. Never truly addressed. The Japanese must fondly hope the newly super-powerful Chinese don't ever gain a taste for revenge

    The Chinese distaste for Japan knows few bounds. It isn't overt, as it is a humiliating period of their history.
    But it is there.
    The Koreans are not exactly fans, either. For similar reasons. Japan is surrounded by nations with a cause to dislike it

    On the other hand, many nations in the region are equally fearful or loathing: of the Chinese. The Vietnamese, for a start
    A somewhat stupid friend thought that anti-Japanese sentiment was all American WWII racism. She even bought into the "Japanese were throwing out the colonisers of East Asia" line......

    I managed to persuade her, before a trip to South Korea, to be very, very careful where she said stuff like that.
    Reading an account of the role of the Japanese at the conferences leading up to the Versailles treaty, and the reactions of the Americans to them, is instructive, and an under-studied corner of history. There’s an argument that Versailles sowed the seeds of the Pacific WWII almost as much as it did in Europe.
    Is there a link to that account, or a book title. Sounds fascinating.
    The MacMillan book on the negotiations contains some interesting chapters on the subject. The Japanese were desperately keen for a racial equality statement within the treaty - based upon Wilson’s ultimately hypocritical obsession with self-determination - which the US effectively vetoed for fear of stirring up discontent in its southern states. And, as with Germany, the results of the territorial aspects of the treaty gifted Japan sufficient grievances to pursue into the next war.
    If there is one lesson globally from the past 100 years, it’s never let the States take the running when it comes to geopolitics. They are shit. Fucked it up post WW1 with Wilson, fucked it up 1948 in China when Mao Tse Tung was on the ropes and again in 1971 / 1989 when it came to China, fucked it up with Russia in the 90s and then the Middle East and Afghanistan. They truly are useless when it comes to deals.

    One of the reasons I liked Trump. He had a bit of the old school British Empire way of dealing with geopolitical topics.
    When did the British Empire deal with these things well?

    I saw one argument that the peace of 1815 created the conditions for WWI and WWII.

    But then I'm tempted to suggest that peace treaties are harder to get right than pandemic responses, and we know how hard that is...
    War in Europe came because the unification of Germany created a new power, that upset the old balances. Not sure that 1815 really caused that.
    99 years without a continent wide war seems pretty good to me to be honest.
    We haven't managed it since.
    1870 was pretty big...
    Short, sharp and contained.
    In comparison.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 34,434
    rcs1000 said:

    Free movement wasn't really a big problem until three things came together:

    (1) The integration of the EU 8, which were very significantly poorer than then existing EU members. When previously poor countries had joined (Portugal, Greece, Spain), they were relatively small, this was 8 countries (including one big one) all at the same time. The UK was also pretty much the only country not to go with transitional controls on immigration. This meant that instead of a few million people being spread out across the whole EU, they came mostly to the UK.

    (2) The UK's benefits system. As far as I can tell, there is no other country in Europe that has either a system that is as non-contributory bases, not one which was so generous with in work benefits system like the UK. Prior to the Maastricht treaty, you could work in any member state, but there was no presumption of benefits. The consequence of this is that (pretty much alone of the countries in the EU), it was possible for a migrant to come to the UK and pick up benefits from day one.

    (3) The Eurozone crisis, which caused a dramatic dip in demand for migrant labour in the Southern EU states *and* led to the exporting their own young.

    Hold on. Are immigrants coming here and depressing wages or are they coming over here and claiming benefits?

    Get the story straight, lads.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 7,378
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Jesus, I just discovered Unit 731, run by the Japanese in Manchuria in the 1930s and 1940s

    Which planet have you been living on? Too many foreign holidays I fear! :lol:
    I know. How was I unaware?!!

    I guess I WAS vaguely aware, I've read about live vivisections, bomb tests on living victims, etc

    But the huge scale and organisation of it, and the depth of the depravity. No, that is new to me. And horrifiyng

    Possibly half a million people were killed. Mind-boggling
    And yet the Nazis are seen as worse than the Japanese? Both were horrifying and both needed utter destruction. The horrors of the atom bomb must be seen in this context.
  • MrEd said:

    IanB2 said:

    TimT said:

    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    Jesus, I just discovered Unit 731, run by the Japanese in Manchuria in the 1930s and 1940s

    I was aware the Japanese empire did some terrible things to China in that time - I've read the Rape of Nanjing - but this is on a different level of cruelty.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731

    In terms of pointless sadism, it is possibly worse than the Nazis. One of the greatest crimes in history. Never truly addressed. The Japanese must fondly hope the newly super-powerful Chinese don't ever gain a taste for revenge

    The Chinese distaste for Japan knows few bounds. It isn't overt, as it is a humiliating period of their history.
    But it is there.
    The Koreans are not exactly fans, either. For similar reasons. Japan is surrounded by nations with a cause to dislike it

    On the other hand, many nations in the region are equally fearful or loathing: of the Chinese. The Vietnamese, for a start
    A somewhat stupid friend thought that anti-Japanese sentiment was all American WWII racism. She even bought into the "Japanese were throwing out the colonisers of East Asia" line......

    I managed to persuade her, before a trip to South Korea, to be very, very careful where she said stuff like that.
    Reading an account of the role of the Japanese at the conferences leading up to the Versailles treaty, and the reactions of the Americans to them, is instructive, and an under-studied corner of history. There’s an argument that Versailles sowed the seeds of the Pacific WWII almost as much as it did in Europe.
    Is there a link to that account, or a book title. Sounds fascinating.
    The MacMillan book on the negotiations contains some interesting chapters on the subject. The Japanese were desperately keen for a racial equality statement within the treaty - based upon Wilson’s ultimately hypocritical obsession with self-determination - which the US effectively vetoed for fear of stirring up discontent in its southern states. And, as with Germany, the results of the territorial aspects of the treaty gifted Japan sufficient grievances to pursue into the next war.
    If there is one lesson globally from the past 100 years, it’s never let the States take the running when it comes to geopolitics. They are shit. Fucked it up post WW1 with Wilson, fucked it up 1948 in China when Mao Tse Tung was on the ropes and again in 1971 / 1989 when it came to China, fucked it up with Russia in the 90s and then the Middle East and Afghanistan. They truly are useless when it comes to deals.

    One of the reasons I liked Trump. He had a bit of the old school British Empire way of dealing with geopolitical topics.
    When did the British Empire deal with these things well?

    I saw one argument that the peace of 1815 created the conditions for WWI and WWII.

    But then I'm tempted to suggest that peace treaties are harder to get right than pandemic responses, and we know how hard that is...
    War in Europe came because the unification of Germany created a new power, that upset the old balances. Not sure that 1815 really caused that.
    There is an argument to be made that the 1814 and 1815 peace treaties created the circumstances that allowed Prussia to emerge as the pre-eminent German power, leading ultimately to the Austro-Prussia War of 1866, the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, the unification of Germany and therefore WWI and WWII.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 5,122
    Bihe said:

    Dominic Cummings said today that the leaders of both the government and the Labour party are both "jokes" and therefore "we" "obviously" need a new political system. This line of thought makes sense if you believe that super-performing leadership that doesn't muck about can save the world from what will otherwise be inevitable Armageddon, which has long been the Cummings mantra.

    I wonder when he thinks the last time was that the two main parties both had leaders who weren't jokes? Churchill-Attlee maybe, long before he was born?*

    For that matter, when does he think the last time was that at least one of the leaders wasn't a joke? Blair? As for the Tories, going backwards he would presumably start with Thatcher and then perhaps he'd jump straight to Churchill. And actually I'm not too sure he'd even say Churchill.

    Funny how the political system has lasted so long. First meteorite that comes along, it'll bite the dust. But...wait...the Oxford history graduate is tearing off his t-shirt... We're going to be saved after all!

    You gotta admit, Dave may have had a point...

    Meanwhile, the minister that Cummings never criticises must be feeling great about getting reshuffled before the report came out.


    (*) As Cummings must be aware, there have long been some on the far right who openly favour war as a good thing because it puts a premium on leadership.

    I would rather have the joke leaders we can vote in and vote out again than unhumorous leaders that we can't.

  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 7,453

    MrEd said:

    IanB2 said:

    TimT said:

    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    Jesus, I just discovered Unit 731, run by the Japanese in Manchuria in the 1930s and 1940s

    I was aware the Japanese empire did some terrible things to China in that time - I've read the Rape of Nanjing - but this is on a different level of cruelty.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731

    In terms of pointless sadism, it is possibly worse than the Nazis. One of the greatest crimes in history. Never truly addressed. The Japanese must fondly hope the newly super-powerful Chinese don't ever gain a taste for revenge

    The Chinese distaste for Japan knows few bounds. It isn't overt, as it is a humiliating period of their history.
    But it is there.
    The Koreans are not exactly fans, either. For similar reasons. Japan is surrounded by nations with a cause to dislike it

    On the other hand, many nations in the region are equally fearful or loathing: of the Chinese. The Vietnamese, for a start
    A somewhat stupid friend thought that anti-Japanese sentiment was all American WWII racism. She even bought into the "Japanese were throwing out the colonisers of East Asia" line......

    I managed to persuade her, before a trip to South Korea, to be very, very careful where she said stuff like that.
    Reading an account of the role of the Japanese at the conferences leading up to the Versailles treaty, and the reactions of the Americans to them, is instructive, and an under-studied corner of history. There’s an argument that Versailles sowed the seeds of the Pacific WWII almost as much as it did in Europe.
    Is there a link to that account, or a book title. Sounds fascinating.
    The MacMillan book on the negotiations contains some interesting chapters on the subject. The Japanese were desperately keen for a racial equality statement within the treaty - based upon Wilson’s ultimately hypocritical obsession with self-determination - which the US effectively vetoed for fear of stirring up discontent in its southern states. And, as with Germany, the results of the territorial aspects of the treaty gifted Japan sufficient grievances to pursue into the next war.
    If there is one lesson globally from the past 100 years, it’s never let the States take the running when it comes to geopolitics. They are shit. Fucked it up post WW1 with Wilson, fucked it up 1948 in China when Mao Tse Tung was on the ropes and again in 1971 / 1989 when it came to China, fucked it up with Russia in the 90s and then the Middle East and Afghanistan. They truly are useless when it comes to deals.

    One of the reasons I liked Trump. He had a bit of the old school British Empire way of dealing with geopolitical topics.
    When did the British Empire deal with these things well?

    I saw one argument that the peace of 1815 created the conditions for WWI and WWII.

    But then I'm tempted to suggest that peace treaties are harder to get right than pandemic responses, and we know how hard that is...
    War in Europe came because the unification of Germany created a new power, that upset the old balances. Not sure that 1815 really caused that.
    Well the argument was that the British boosted the power of Prussia as a counterweight to France, which meant that when Germany was united, it was united under militaristic Prussian control, which was ultimately the driving force behind WWI and WWII.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 6,160

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    algarkirk said:

    In all the discussions of immigration, population ageing needs to be front and centre. Looking at the UK labour market data, since the Brexit referendum our population aged 16-49 has gone down by about 500,000 people. Our population aged 50+ has gone up by 1.3 million, including 700,000 over 65. So the fact is, we *are* going to have continued immigration, in sizeable numbers. And in so-called low skill occupations, too. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just deluding themselves.
    I liked three things about using the EU single market for providing that immigration. First, it was reciprocal, so we got something in return. Second, freedom of movement gave people rights and freedoms. It treated people as citizens, not simply commodities, tied to a specific employer or job. Third, the system was simple, lowering the burden of red tape for both employers and employees.
    My guess is that we will end up with continued immigration, because of the demand for workers created by our ageing society, but with no reciprocity, loads more red tape, and with workers treated as simply labour inputs, not citizens with rights.

    And it had no numerical control, which meant that it biased the system against people from anywhere else, eg the whole of Africa. This was the fatal flaw, both politically and from a humane viewpoint.

    That is true. I'm sure that some of the 17.4mn were motivated by a desire to raise immigration from Africa but I struggle to believe it was the majority view.
    Actually I think that getting easier migration from the rest of the world for skilled migrants who should be able to make it here, by tightening up on unskilled migrants who shouldn't, was a bigger selling point than you imagine. Especially but not just in minority communities.

    The current Home Secretary actually made that argument herself. That it would be easier to have rest of the world migration if European migration were controlled.

    That was one of the arguments that swung my vote. I'm all in favour of immigration, I just don't want discrimination in the immigration system. So when I saw the pro-Brexit serious MP politicians (as opposed to Farage and his band of twats) making a liberal argument against discrimination instead of an illiberal argument against migrants at all, then I was pleased with that.

    I grew up in another country myself before returning to the UK. That country has more British emigrants than the entire European Union (exc Ireland) combined. Yet while in the EU it was far tougher for eg one of my school friends to get a visa and come to the UK, than it was any random unskilled person in Europe, despite their country taking more of our citizens than the entire EU (exc Ireland) combined. There is no justification for that discrimination.
    There are justifications for that distinction, and using the word "discrimination" begs the question.
    You already know this, but you continue to use words like "discrimination" because you are a sophist. Have some honour.
    There is no good justification for the discrimination.

    If you are discriminating against potential migrants based on country of origin as opposed to their own skills and what they have to offer then what would you call that other than discrimination?
    You've already had the answer to this, you know the argument, so your feigning ignorance is just a part of your dishonest approach to this whole question.

    Here it is, once again.
    Freedom of movement is part of a free market, and having freedoms of movement of goods, services, and labour within that market is a sensible package of reforms that ought be done at the same time.

    That's the proposition. You may not agree with it, but the idea that the geographical distinction is based on "discrimination" is not one that is at all a part of the argument in favour.
    If you cannot argue against it in its own terms and instead have to slay straw men, you are a fool. Other people are able to better take on the debate and address that point with greater or lesser degrees of success, because they are better than you at this.

    Examples of good counter arguments are
    1. We aren't as constrained by geography as we used to be (I don't agree we're there yet)
    2. Other countries are willing and able to enter into this sort of thing (true, more should be done)
    3. The penalties of the free market outweigh the benefits, so we shouldn't seek market integration (I strongly disagree)

    Examples of bad counter arguments are
    1. Having a stronger trading relationship with our neighbours is racist!!!1!

    You can have the last word on the subject, I don't intend to reply to you on this again because it's a waste of everyone's time.
    That's total bullshit. So your argument is that free movement is sensible because free movement is sensible. Why?

    Simply saying that it is "a sensible package of reforms that ought to be done at the same time" doesn't answer the question as to WHY you think it is a sensible package, you are merely restating your opinion.

    Saying you support free movement because free movement is sensible is like saying "I believe in God because I believe in God". That's just faith, that's not an argument.

    People are not commodities, indeed as I said more people from the UK go abroad to Australia than to the entire EU combined (exc Ireland) so the idea of "gravity" or "neighbours" affecting people is complete poppycock.

    If you want an argument as to why this discrimination is OK then you need a stronger argument than "it is sensible", you need a reason WHY it is sensible. That you haven't given. Until then, its pure discrimination.
    Misrepresenting entirely what I said. You make me sad.
    I'm not going to bother going into detail what you've got wrong. You can't even read properly. You bloviating wankstain.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 31,317
    Fascinating mortality patterns by age in today’s CMI Mortality Monitor for Q3 2021. Whilst year-to-date death rates at older ages are back within the normal range, at ages below 65 they are even higher than last year! https://t.co/HQpntIMpN2

    https://twitter.com/ActuaryByDay/status/1447958785159581696?t=LRHpHRm3iqGlwGhYFHqhkg&s=19

    Looks like vaccinations work...
This discussion has been closed.