|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On July 20 2020 19:12 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2020 12:38 MoltkeWarding wrote:On July 20 2020 11:30 ggrrg wrote:On July 19 2020 20:08 MoltkeWarding wrote:On July 19 2020 19:08 Wombat_NI wrote:On July 19 2020 18:36 Nouar wrote:On July 18 2020 08:32 Belisarius wrote:On July 18 2020 04:33 Nouar wrote:
Still, these kind of sanctions when there is no PROOF that Huawei hardware is rigged is over-the-top. The USA just threatened sanctions on TSMC (Taiwanese company) if they were to provide processors to Huawei.
Now, if there was proof, I'd argue differently. For now it just seems like a commercial war to push the US of A's own equipment to me. Okay, this isn't the position I expected from you here. We know that the CCP has an unprecedented level of control over its citizens and its companies. Xi has instituted a clear and strong shift in his foreign and domestic policy toward suppression and projection of power. The chinese state is aggressively expanding its footprint: physical, digital and cultural, often in blatant defiance of international law. It is pushing disinformation and suppressing speech critical of it in every domain it has access to. There is a well-documented record of chinese cyber-attacks all around the globe, and these have accelerated dramatically in recent years. Do you disagree with any of this? Acro said it fairly clearly; the only option left to most nations in the world is to choose who they would prefer to be spied on by. For all of Trump's.... Trumpness, any society built on liberal democracy will reluctantly select the US. By a third Trump term in a US that's gone full neofascist, that choice may be harder and both options worse, but there is still some hope that that timeline will be averted. I've had the feeling for a while that a large part of Europe is still in denial about either the CCP's ambitions or their ability to execute them. Here in their backyard, I feel we are more aware of the dragon we are sleeping next to. You are military, afaik. You are generally pretty pragmatic. If you are blase about this, what is the average euro thinking? Oh I am not in denial about the amount of influence China is asserting in Asia, Africa and even Europe (Greece took a big hit for example). I am also aware of the shit it's doing at home and their imperialistic views in their region. However, this is about something else. For countries that declare themselves respectful of laws, capitalistic, open to concurrence etc, I just find the hypocrisy in just barring another country's company from markets with no proof so... shameless ? It's just to cave to foreign pressure, and not based on facts. Just an excuse to favor your own companies (or allies'), no real root in counter-intelligence, just assumptions and possibilities. It's mainly lying to the public. In fact, this is furthered by this article, that states that British officials told Huawei that the ban was mostly due to geopolitical pressure from Trump and might be reversed if he loses the election : https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/jul/18/pressure-from-trump-led-to-5g-ban-britain-tells-huaweiThere is a well documented record of everyone doing cyber-attacks on everyone, be it France, five-eyes, Israel, China... Every country is fighting for influence, China is doing it to get its place in the world, the US has done it for decades via soft or hard pressure, Europe is still trying to do it here and there but it's not very efficient anymore, Russia is... This is a invisible war, and we (europe) are mainly being dominated by huge powers. I am blasé about it because I know and see what everyone is doing, including our "allies", not just what's shown in the news. The NSA having access to nearly every US company's data through backdoors, while these are the most used platforms worldwide and foreign data is physically sent and hosted in the US, is for me a much larger issue than "maybe Huawei devices can have a hardware backdoor but we are not sure". One that is slowly getting fixed by european laws. You need to take these items one by one, or if you're not happy, start a war against China ? If we start by not respecting international and trade laws, why should they ? You cannot put official pressure on them if you don't respect the rules yourself. If you don't, it ends up on a slope to all-out war (not necessarily immediately with arms, but a cold war at first, and then you end up with covert ops like Iran is doing, except China won't have the need to do it covertly). Well indeed. Partly why I was so critical of our government earlier in the thread. Although didn’t do a very good job in articulating my thoughts. Either the threat to security was there with Huawei to begin with, or it wasn’t and was overblown. As far as I’m aware very little has changed there on that technical level, so either the wrong decision was made initially and reversed, or the inverse. What has changed is the US taking a harder stance on China far as I can tell and boom it’s reversed. One of my main reasons for wanting us to remain in the EU was to keep Europe as a more powerful bloc in resisting the US and China, as well as fearing a more isolated UK being vulnerable to such leverage. The effects of which we’re seeing earlier than I expected due to the US and China’s relations dipping in the way they have lately. The EU as it is presently set up does not work. For one thing, the finances. The UK got a better deal out of it than Germany, at least. These are three loaded claims that would each require quite a bit of elaboration to even be considered as possibly having some factual basis. My response in order from last to first: - Given the non-existant explanation I am considering using the popular term "lol"... In what way did the UK get a good deal from leaving the EU? Besides being too early to judge the effects yet, it is certainly worth mentioning that the UK, and more specifically London, was the financial business heart of Europe. This is very likely to change after they leave the EU. And when comparing the UK to Germany: Germany gets to keep its free market access to every EU country. UK is likely to be out of the common market very soon. - I can only assume that you are refering to the financial union being discussed. Yes, there are issues within the EU. This is however no basis to claim that the EU "does not work". If anything this is an issue that is being discussed and assessed currently and I would not be surprised to see an attempt at a resolution very soon. - "Does not work" needs a whole lot of elaboration to even know what to respond to it... But as a citizen within the EU, I can at least give some examples of things that clearly work: Not a single war on European EU soil since the inception of the EU (as opposed to the decades of warfare within Europe before that or the countless wars around the world in the past 50 years); No EU countries falling victim to civil wars or outside aggression (as opposed to other European countries: see Yugoslavian wars, Kosovo, Montenegro, Ukraine, and if you will: Georgia and Armenia); No EU countries being outright puppets of foreign powers (what most Eastern EU countries were before '89 and what enough countries in Africa and Asia still are); No executions, disappearances, or any kind of totalitarian oppression (a common thing in all former Eastern block EU countries during their communist eras); No dictators in any EU country as of yet (unlike Belarus with its last European dictator, or a bit more abstract and inaccurate but still kind of relevant - Russia with Putin); freedom of travel and cultural exchange (good luck travelling through the iron curtain before '89 or even to the next city (never mind the next country) if you happened to be in the Eastern block). Honestly, for these things alone the EU is already worthy of near unlimited praise. All the other benefits and advantages of the EU would require extensive elaboration as well juxtaposition with all the things going sub-optimally within the union. So I will just leave it at the most obvious examples, since I don't feel like listing a whole bunch of other stuff without the necessary backing and explanations that would require way too much effort to be appropriately described. On the UK, concerning its finances and the EU: en.wikipedia.orgIn terms of net contributions, Germany is by far the largest net contributor to the EU, even excluding all of the "bailouts." The second question revolves around this "Brexit" problem. To me, it is obvious what is happening now. The EU intends to sink the UK to punish it for "Brexit." If the EU wants to try to be vindictive, let them try. You cannot really account for what is going on inside of the Brussels insiders' heads. Both sides are pro-free-trade, officially, even after Brexit. The marginalia concerning rules and regulations are what the argument is about. I did not say anything about the "Financial union." There has not been a war inside the EU, because no one has an answer to nuclear weapons. There can be no war between the major powers until someone solves the problem concerning nukes. And no country not under some foreign nuclear cover can implicitly be attacked without concerning oneself with nukes, and that means most of Europe at the moment. Again, it depends on what your definition of a "puppet power" is. Some may argue that West Germany was a de facto puppet. And why do you think De Gaulle first vetoed UK's entry? Again, no power in Western Europe is comparable to Eastern Europe. We are talking about very different cultures. As I said, "totalitarian oppression" does not mean anything to me, and even if Russian rule in Eastern Europe was unpopular with the locals, the governments there were predicated upon the Russian occupation. And Russia had a Russian-style government. There was another country which had never experienced democratic government throughout its long history. They created your country, Bulgaria, in the 19th century, but that was as much an anti-Ottoman measure as anything. Every country must be seen in the realisation of its own national historical discourse. Germany was occupied in the west by the Anglo-Americans. France has had many revolutions, and came to be what it is during the Cold War. There are still cleavages between French and British national politics. Every country has its own story. Russia became a de-facto "democracy" in the last 30 years. It is a de-facto one party state, with the second most popular party in Russia nowadays being the Communist party. Nonetheless, Russia, whatever it has become today, has been officially "democratic" a lot longer than many European examples. A lot of what many people today, especially the Anglo-Americans think of as "democracy" is ironically the English political model. And that model has itself undergone a very crooked path. The word "dictator" also does not mean anything. Some of the so-called "Dictators" were very popular in their time. Very few "dictators" would have held onto power for long, if they did not have massive popular support at home. Perhaps an illustration of the point: qz.com EU's trade rules are public knowledge. Everyone can look up what is needed to get free trade with the EU. The UK is unwilling to make the commitment to those rules, that is part of why they decided to leave in the first place. I don't see how the EU sticking by its own rules is them being vindictive towards the UK. People have been talking since day 1 about how this would be a problem.
I do not know what you are talking about here specifically,so let us here just stick with the issue of the "Fishing waters." The "Common fisheries policy," which is a huge part of the British economy, was set up in 1970...the EU changed itself in order to have more British fish. They "changed" the rules, so that new member countries, with very rich fishing waters, would have to pay their price for entry into the EU.
|
The EU can't change any rules as long as Britain was a member of it, "they changed it" included the Brits. Britain sells fishing rights to other EU countries, Britain exports tons of their fish to EU countries.
Its absolutely not an important part of the British economy. The UK has about 12'000 Fishermen and the Industry makes about 0.1% of the British GDP.
This is just some retarded side battle that has been blown up to a gigantic scale by the British goverment because it feels it can score points with it.
Btw: Some statistic i just saw said 64% of the fishing Vessels were Scottish... Which don't seem to have issues with the EU  .
|
On July 20 2020 19:38 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2020 19:12 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2020 12:38 MoltkeWarding wrote:On July 20 2020 11:30 ggrrg wrote:On July 19 2020 20:08 MoltkeWarding wrote:On July 19 2020 19:08 Wombat_NI wrote:On July 19 2020 18:36 Nouar wrote:On July 18 2020 08:32 Belisarius wrote:On July 18 2020 04:33 Nouar wrote:
Still, these kind of sanctions when there is no PROOF that Huawei hardware is rigged is over-the-top. The USA just threatened sanctions on TSMC (Taiwanese company) if they were to provide processors to Huawei.
Now, if there was proof, I'd argue differently. For now it just seems like a commercial war to push the US of A's own equipment to me. Okay, this isn't the position I expected from you here. We know that the CCP has an unprecedented level of control over its citizens and its companies. Xi has instituted a clear and strong shift in his foreign and domestic policy toward suppression and projection of power. The chinese state is aggressively expanding its footprint: physical, digital and cultural, often in blatant defiance of international law. It is pushing disinformation and suppressing speech critical of it in every domain it has access to. There is a well-documented record of chinese cyber-attacks all around the globe, and these have accelerated dramatically in recent years. Do you disagree with any of this? Acro said it fairly clearly; the only option left to most nations in the world is to choose who they would prefer to be spied on by. For all of Trump's.... Trumpness, any society built on liberal democracy will reluctantly select the US. By a third Trump term in a US that's gone full neofascist, that choice may be harder and both options worse, but there is still some hope that that timeline will be averted. I've had the feeling for a while that a large part of Europe is still in denial about either the CCP's ambitions or their ability to execute them. Here in their backyard, I feel we are more aware of the dragon we are sleeping next to. You are military, afaik. You are generally pretty pragmatic. If you are blase about this, what is the average euro thinking? Oh I am not in denial about the amount of influence China is asserting in Asia, Africa and even Europe (Greece took a big hit for example). I am also aware of the shit it's doing at home and their imperialistic views in their region. However, this is about something else. For countries that declare themselves respectful of laws, capitalistic, open to concurrence etc, I just find the hypocrisy in just barring another country's company from markets with no proof so... shameless ? It's just to cave to foreign pressure, and not based on facts. Just an excuse to favor your own companies (or allies'), no real root in counter-intelligence, just assumptions and possibilities. It's mainly lying to the public. In fact, this is furthered by this article, that states that British officials told Huawei that the ban was mostly due to geopolitical pressure from Trump and might be reversed if he loses the election : https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/jul/18/pressure-from-trump-led-to-5g-ban-britain-tells-huaweiThere is a well documented record of everyone doing cyber-attacks on everyone, be it France, five-eyes, Israel, China... Every country is fighting for influence, China is doing it to get its place in the world, the US has done it for decades via soft or hard pressure, Europe is still trying to do it here and there but it's not very efficient anymore, Russia is... This is a invisible war, and we (europe) are mainly being dominated by huge powers. I am blasé about it because I know and see what everyone is doing, including our "allies", not just what's shown in the news. The NSA having access to nearly every US company's data through backdoors, while these are the most used platforms worldwide and foreign data is physically sent and hosted in the US, is for me a much larger issue than "maybe Huawei devices can have a hardware backdoor but we are not sure". One that is slowly getting fixed by european laws. You need to take these items one by one, or if you're not happy, start a war against China ? If we start by not respecting international and trade laws, why should they ? You cannot put official pressure on them if you don't respect the rules yourself. If you don't, it ends up on a slope to all-out war (not necessarily immediately with arms, but a cold war at first, and then you end up with covert ops like Iran is doing, except China won't have the need to do it covertly). Well indeed. Partly why I was so critical of our government earlier in the thread. Although didn’t do a very good job in articulating my thoughts. Either the threat to security was there with Huawei to begin with, or it wasn’t and was overblown. As far as I’m aware very little has changed there on that technical level, so either the wrong decision was made initially and reversed, or the inverse. What has changed is the US taking a harder stance on China far as I can tell and boom it’s reversed. One of my main reasons for wanting us to remain in the EU was to keep Europe as a more powerful bloc in resisting the US and China, as well as fearing a more isolated UK being vulnerable to such leverage. The effects of which we’re seeing earlier than I expected due to the US and China’s relations dipping in the way they have lately. The EU as it is presently set up does not work. For one thing, the finances. The UK got a better deal out of it than Germany, at least. These are three loaded claims that would each require quite a bit of elaboration to even be considered as possibly having some factual basis. My response in order from last to first: - Given the non-existant explanation I am considering using the popular term "lol"... In what way did the UK get a good deal from leaving the EU? Besides being too early to judge the effects yet, it is certainly worth mentioning that the UK, and more specifically London, was the financial business heart of Europe. This is very likely to change after they leave the EU. And when comparing the UK to Germany: Germany gets to keep its free market access to every EU country. UK is likely to be out of the common market very soon. - I can only assume that you are refering to the financial union being discussed. Yes, there are issues within the EU. This is however no basis to claim that the EU "does not work". If anything this is an issue that is being discussed and assessed currently and I would not be surprised to see an attempt at a resolution very soon. - "Does not work" needs a whole lot of elaboration to even know what to respond to it... But as a citizen within the EU, I can at least give some examples of things that clearly work: Not a single war on European EU soil since the inception of the EU (as opposed to the decades of warfare within Europe before that or the countless wars around the world in the past 50 years); No EU countries falling victim to civil wars or outside aggression (as opposed to other European countries: see Yugoslavian wars, Kosovo, Montenegro, Ukraine, and if you will: Georgia and Armenia); No EU countries being outright puppets of foreign powers (what most Eastern EU countries were before '89 and what enough countries in Africa and Asia still are); No executions, disappearances, or any kind of totalitarian oppression (a common thing in all former Eastern block EU countries during their communist eras); No dictators in any EU country as of yet (unlike Belarus with its last European dictator, or a bit more abstract and inaccurate but still kind of relevant - Russia with Putin); freedom of travel and cultural exchange (good luck travelling through the iron curtain before '89 or even to the next city (never mind the next country) if you happened to be in the Eastern block). Honestly, for these things alone the EU is already worthy of near unlimited praise. All the other benefits and advantages of the EU would require extensive elaboration as well juxtaposition with all the things going sub-optimally within the union. So I will just leave it at the most obvious examples, since I don't feel like listing a whole bunch of other stuff without the necessary backing and explanations that would require way too much effort to be appropriately described. On the UK, concerning its finances and the EU: en.wikipedia.orgIn terms of net contributions, Germany is by far the largest net contributor to the EU, even excluding all of the "bailouts." The second question revolves around this "Brexit" problem. To me, it is obvious what is happening now. The EU intends to sink the UK to punish it for "Brexit." If the EU wants to try to be vindictive, let them try. You cannot really account for what is going on inside of the Brussels insiders' heads. Both sides are pro-free-trade, officially, even after Brexit. The marginalia concerning rules and regulations are what the argument is about. I did not say anything about the "Financial union." There has not been a war inside the EU, because no one has an answer to nuclear weapons. There can be no war between the major powers until someone solves the problem concerning nukes. And no country not under some foreign nuclear cover can implicitly be attacked without concerning oneself with nukes, and that means most of Europe at the moment. Again, it depends on what your definition of a "puppet power" is. Some may argue that West Germany was a de facto puppet. And why do you think De Gaulle first vetoed UK's entry? Again, no power in Western Europe is comparable to Eastern Europe. We are talking about very different cultures. As I said, "totalitarian oppression" does not mean anything to me, and even if Russian rule in Eastern Europe was unpopular with the locals, the governments there were predicated upon the Russian occupation. And Russia had a Russian-style government. There was another country which had never experienced democratic government throughout its long history. They created your country, Bulgaria, in the 19th century, but that was as much an anti-Ottoman measure as anything. Every country must be seen in the realisation of its own national historical discourse. Germany was occupied in the west by the Anglo-Americans. France has had many revolutions, and came to be what it is during the Cold War. There are still cleavages between French and British national politics. Every country has its own story. Russia became a de-facto "democracy" in the last 30 years. It is a de-facto one party state, with the second most popular party in Russia nowadays being the Communist party. Nonetheless, Russia, whatever it has become today, has been officially "democratic" a lot longer than many European examples. A lot of what many people today, especially the Anglo-Americans think of as "democracy" is ironically the English political model. And that model has itself undergone a very crooked path. The word "dictator" also does not mean anything. Some of the so-called "Dictators" were very popular in their time. Very few "dictators" would have held onto power for long, if they did not have massive popular support at home. Perhaps an illustration of the point: qz.com EU's trade rules are public knowledge. Everyone can look up what is needed to get free trade with the EU. The UK is unwilling to make the commitment to those rules, that is part of why they decided to leave in the first place. I don't see how the EU sticking by its own rules is them being vindictive towards the UK. People have been talking since day 1 about how this would be a problem. I do not know what you are talking about here specifically,so let us here just stick with the issue of the "Fishing waters." The "Common fisheries policy," which is a huge part of the British economy, was set up in 1970...the EU changed itself in order to have more British fish. They "changed" the rules, so that new member countries, with very rich fishing waters, would have to pay their price for entry into the EU. Fish don't care about national boundaries. The EU's fishing policy's are there to ensure fishing is done in a sustainable manner. If the UK fishes whatever they want in UK waters it will impact the sustainability of fishing for everyone around them.
Is the EU wanting to ensure that fishing remains sustainable being vindictive or punishing towards the UK rather then basic common sense?
|
On July 19 2020 09:12 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2020 08:36 stilt wrote:On July 18 2020 20:13 Acrofales wrote:On July 18 2020 19:54 Nyxisto wrote:On July 18 2020 19:45 sharkie wrote:On July 18 2020 18:45 Nyxisto wrote:On July 18 2020 08:19 Sermokala wrote:
China is definitely everything nazi Germany was if Hitler wasn't making explicit speeches about hating jews and just wanted to kill them in private. Its a wildly corrupt combination of state-owned industries, partially state-owned industries working as proxies, and no real accountability at any level of government that is controlled through one party that decides every other position in government.
Theres really nothing communist or socialist about the country anymore. They just keep the fiction running to stay in power. Having state-owned business doesn't turn you into Nazi Germany, what the hell lol. I was in Shenzhen for work about a year ago and I can safely tell you that it was nothing like Nazi Germany. China is an autocratic state, not a totalitarian one. The country is depoliticized, not caught in a giant struggle for life and death and total war. China's private sector is also large, probably 60-70% of the economy, a lot of it informal. In many ways the country is so capitalist it makes the US look socialist, competition between private firms is cutthroat in ways you don't find in many other places. So you know what it was like in Nazi Germany? Being German, having family who lived through World War 2, having talked to actual holocaust survivors I'm pretty sure I have a better grasp on what it was like in Nazi Germany than someone comparing every non-democratic government on the planet to it, yes. For most people, Nazi Germany was just another government. In fact, initially maybe even better than the previous one, because they stopped paying the ridiculous reparations and invested in huge government projects that gave many people jobs. We have this weird idea that because a regime is terrible, it must be awful for everyone living there. It is simply wrong. What happens is that life continues as normal except that the shoemaker on the corner suddenly disappears and if you try to ask what happens you get shushed. And if you don't shush then maybe you disappear as well, but most people shush. And then when the butcher opposite disappears they join in doing the shushing. And life continues for these people mostly the same as it was before except they can't talk about certain topics. Of course, if you happen to be a Jew, or gay, or gypsy then no matter how much you shush, you got disappeared. And China isn't dissimilar right now with how they're rounding up Uyghurs and "reeducating" them. Oh, and the "social credit" ranking program is something the Nazis could only dream of. Reeducating them doesn't mean exterminating them, they have to process the love of the state for the sake of this sort of confucian social order, it isn't racially motivated. Well, not that I agree but I believe it should calm down unless the cia finances some terrorists which is bound to happen. Anyway, this comparaison is quite stupid. Nazi Germany was a protestant and capitalist country with a tradition of decentralism just like the USA and GB (ah, the benevolant british empire...) which actively try to genocide/destroy culture by assimilating and overwhelming them with this mindless entertaining industry. This is exactly the same elite, the same people, the same political horizon, the same racial capitalism that american "progressists" and let's call the international bourgeoisie you're probably part of now use masterfully with identity policies. Now, if you combine it with this remnant of manifest destiny, we got imperialist power which base their political culture on identitary conflicts. Which leads naturally to the idea that genocide is in the ethos of those countries... And this theory is quite true, when Germany tried to destroy Russia, some historians presented it as the courageous german soldiers who fought to prevent the commies threatened western civilization and they were rights in the sense that Nazi Germany is indeed the true face of the world dominated by USA with an elite absolutely certain of its superiority and ready to wash the world of everything which isn't them. A world my country is now part of as our elite is pretty happy with these consumerism combined with this mindless entertainement for the masses and has thus decided to adopt the american way of life. As a result, there is no difference between a french bourgeois and an american one, they speak the same language, read the same stuff (1984, on the road => the little catechism of the liberal, after this, they are now ready to die for freedom, how cute) and think totally alike. But when people resist, well, it turns into a civilization conflict in which for example every arab nation who doesn't compel is mercilessly destroyed, humiliated, bombed or even stolen while you are being extremely good at building narrative to justify it : your superiority of values, "Democracy" (well, considering how uneducated and instrumentalized people are in the West, I would rather called this a perfectly locked oligarchy and idiocracy) and ofc, the "good side of history" which is quite easy to do when it's people of your class which wrote it but I am pretty sure that one day, the West today will probably be considered as way worse than any of his ennemies. But I am being pretty optimistic because the derugalation of economy, the careful destruction of social and polticial bodies with identity policies really make me wonder how things can be done for climate change when everything is done to incapacitate strong moves in this matter. As would say Maggie, there are no society or politics, just communities. Edit : I am obviously support the idea of China taking over the world over Western barbarism, maybe they could even accidentally save Europe from it. You think the Han Chinese don't think themselves superior to those around them? Ha. Your knowledge of China is severely limited. The Chinese State is awful and Han Nationalism is a big problem which has contributed to the eradication of Uighur communities (and who knows what else as it is very secretive in that part of China). If you think ICE detention centers on the Mexican border are bad, that's nothing compared to Chinese treatment of their Uighur population (or how they've treated the Nepalese they've displaced, etc.). My point being that you don't need to compare all awful Governments to Nazi's to make a point how awful they are. It just obfuscates the real issues and leads to pointless semantic debates. I'm not even going to address how you believe enlightenment values are barbaric, but let's just say in practice I'm not sure you're going to enjoy Chinese authoritarianism very much if you ever get to experience it. You'd probably have a low social credit score and wouldn't be able to fly, ride a train or bus, buy luxuries / decent food or have a good job. (Which is conveniently not addressed by Nyxisto) Political oppression and curtailment of civil liberties is very high in China, some of the worlds worst in fact, made worse by widespread technological application. Just because some cities have relatively free economies is not really fully addressing the issues (which is why I brought up Pinochet in the first place).
Ofc they feel superior, everybody feel superior to entairtainement industry as a culture. Reality show, disney, Harry Potter, Twilight, all the kitch of Las Vegas, sure, most people have a feeling of superiority toward it.
As far as enlightment for the West, well well, Auchwitz. I mean, this is the pure product of racial capitalism. My point being nazi germany and usa share a very similar legacy and political culture.
With its parody of american dream (Arbeit macht frei), his process of dehumanisation already discribed by Hugo in the Miserables (Fantine sell her body then her teeth, her hair...) isn't really enlightment just like the genocide attempt in Russia in 41-45, 25 millions deads while we're celebrating Normandy's landing...
Or the attempt of destruction on this country in the 90s by the West, sth China experimented during the second part of the 19th century and almost imploded in the 20th. You can reject the fault on Putin and the CCP but in the end, these two countries would have opted for strong and authoritarian regimes just because the West want to destroy them.
If you're talking about human right, well, french revolution is definetely a antiwestern thing with its universalism, centralism and progressive enphasis on social rights and brought the declaration of human right, end of slavery so... For question like feminism, this is even more hypocrite. Current feminism is dominated by anglosaxon ideology which means it is heavely identitary. My gf who happens to be arab and have a very patriarcal father (the guy is admirable in a lot of way but this is still a big problem) didn't receive much support because "we shouldn't judge a culture", I guess the West only judges the culture and condition of women when they bombard arab countries. It's funny, you're like "yeah yeah, look at what China does" while you're currently strangulating Lebanon and syria (after attempting to destroy it). I can continue with Syria and Iraq which usa totally FUCKED, Palestine which has been stolen with your total collaboration.
Moreover, the french elite almost speaks better english than french, you just have to read the transcription of political debates 50 or 100 years ago to see the use of our language is in bad shape. In french university, les "départements de poésie" are replaced with "cultural studies", not even translated, we are fully american now and of course, the bibliography is full of western ouvrages all the more anglosaxon ones, in the end, our universities are just factories who are producing individualist and liberal fanatics who think they are so uniques and rebellious while they are exactly what they have been formed to be.
Our bookshop are depleted of french classic or other monument of literature (no way you would find a Ernst Junger, Knut Hamsun books in the major brands), the most visited thing is Disneyland Paris, the most aceptised bs in Europe... I mean, my culture is just dying, the us is absorbing or eradicating absolutely everything. And to justify it, you're implying the oppression/imperialism of the european culture but it's just a pretext for your liberal cultural revolution, every major culture has reposed on pretty bad stuffs (but still way less bad than yours !), this is just a pretext for barbary who is spreading though the whole world.
Racial capitalism from the West is probably the most stable capitalist society there is with people only concerned about identitary conflicts with a smokescreen called democracy but which is rather a total plutocraty with a drowsiness of the masses. My colleagues who happen to be teacher are not even able to defend themselves when 15%-20% of their pension is retired for the benefit of the assurance, they don't have the energy for this, freaking molluscs, there is no cohesion, the only thing which can move them on might be identitary conflict.
In conclusion, while I don't have much illusion on China, for the sake of Middle East, my country and every cultures and nations in the world, it would be nice if usa was beaten by China.
|
Fish don't care about national boundaries. The EU's fishing policy's are there to ensure fishing is done in a sustainable manner. If the UK fishes whatever they want in UK waters it will impact the sustainability of fishing for everyone around them.]Fish don't care about national boundaries. The EU's fishing policy's are there to ensure fishing is done in a sustainable manner. If the UK fishes whatever they want in UK waters it will impact the sustainability of fishing for everyone around them.
The UK had by far the largest "exclusive economic zone" in Europe, concerning its territorial waters. There was no danger of fish going extinct in those waters at the time.
Part of the treaty did put certain restrictions on fishing peoples. For example on the Irish. They were restricted in terms of where they could go fish. The Fishing Federation was formed in response. There were reports that there was Fish that was cheaper in Europe, whereas Ireland has very rich fishing waters. And there there are the so-called "national quotas," whereby dead fish are uselessly thrown back into the sea.
|
On July 20 2020 20:35 stilt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2020 09:12 Wegandi wrote:On July 19 2020 08:36 stilt wrote:On July 18 2020 20:13 Acrofales wrote:On July 18 2020 19:54 Nyxisto wrote:On July 18 2020 19:45 sharkie wrote:On July 18 2020 18:45 Nyxisto wrote:On July 18 2020 08:19 Sermokala wrote:
China is definitely everything nazi Germany was if Hitler wasn't making explicit speeches about hating jews and just wanted to kill them in private. Its a wildly corrupt combination of state-owned industries, partially state-owned industries working as proxies, and no real accountability at any level of government that is controlled through one party that decides every other position in government.
Theres really nothing communist or socialist about the country anymore. They just keep the fiction running to stay in power. Having state-owned business doesn't turn you into Nazi Germany, what the hell lol. I was in Shenzhen for work about a year ago and I can safely tell you that it was nothing like Nazi Germany. China is an autocratic state, not a totalitarian one. The country is depoliticized, not caught in a giant struggle for life and death and total war. China's private sector is also large, probably 60-70% of the economy, a lot of it informal. In many ways the country is so capitalist it makes the US look socialist, competition between private firms is cutthroat in ways you don't find in many other places. So you know what it was like in Nazi Germany? Being German, having family who lived through World War 2, having talked to actual holocaust survivors I'm pretty sure I have a better grasp on what it was like in Nazi Germany than someone comparing every non-democratic government on the planet to it, yes. For most people, Nazi Germany was just another government. In fact, initially maybe even better than the previous one, because they stopped paying the ridiculous reparations and invested in huge government projects that gave many people jobs. We have this weird idea that because a regime is terrible, it must be awful for everyone living there. It is simply wrong. What happens is that life continues as normal except that the shoemaker on the corner suddenly disappears and if you try to ask what happens you get shushed. And if you don't shush then maybe you disappear as well, but most people shush. And then when the butcher opposite disappears they join in doing the shushing. And life continues for these people mostly the same as it was before except they can't talk about certain topics. Of course, if you happen to be a Jew, or gay, or gypsy then no matter how much you shush, you got disappeared. And China isn't dissimilar right now with how they're rounding up Uyghurs and "reeducating" them. Oh, and the "social credit" ranking program is something the Nazis could only dream of. Reeducating them doesn't mean exterminating them, they have to process the love of the state for the sake of this sort of confucian social order, it isn't racially motivated. Well, not that I agree but I believe it should calm down unless the cia finances some terrorists which is bound to happen. Anyway, this comparaison is quite stupid. Nazi Germany was a protestant and capitalist country with a tradition of decentralism just like the USA and GB (ah, the benevolant british empire...) which actively try to genocide/destroy culture by assimilating and overwhelming them with this mindless entertaining industry. This is exactly the same elite, the same people, the same political horizon, the same racial capitalism that american "progressists" and let's call the international bourgeoisie you're probably part of now use masterfully with identity policies. Now, if you combine it with this remnant of manifest destiny, we got imperialist power which base their political culture on identitary conflicts. Which leads naturally to the idea that genocide is in the ethos of those countries... And this theory is quite true, when Germany tried to destroy Russia, some historians presented it as the courageous german soldiers who fought to prevent the commies threatened western civilization and they were rights in the sense that Nazi Germany is indeed the true face of the world dominated by USA with an elite absolutely certain of its superiority and ready to wash the world of everything which isn't them. A world my country is now part of as our elite is pretty happy with these consumerism combined with this mindless entertainement for the masses and has thus decided to adopt the american way of life. As a result, there is no difference between a french bourgeois and an american one, they speak the same language, read the same stuff (1984, on the road => the little catechism of the liberal, after this, they are now ready to die for freedom, how cute) and think totally alike. But when people resist, well, it turns into a civilization conflict in which for example every arab nation who doesn't compel is mercilessly destroyed, humiliated, bombed or even stolen while you are being extremely good at building narrative to justify it : your superiority of values, "Democracy" (well, considering how uneducated and instrumentalized people are in the West, I would rather called this a perfectly locked oligarchy and idiocracy) and ofc, the "good side of history" which is quite easy to do when it's people of your class which wrote it but I am pretty sure that one day, the West today will probably be considered as way worse than any of his ennemies. But I am being pretty optimistic because the derugalation of economy, the careful destruction of social and polticial bodies with identity policies really make me wonder how things can be done for climate change when everything is done to incapacitate strong moves in this matter. As would say Maggie, there are no society or politics, just communities. Edit : I am obviously support the idea of China taking over the world over Western barbarism, maybe they could even accidentally save Europe from it. You think the Han Chinese don't think themselves superior to those around them? Ha. Your knowledge of China is severely limited. The Chinese State is awful and Han Nationalism is a big problem which has contributed to the eradication of Uighur communities (and who knows what else as it is very secretive in that part of China). If you think ICE detention centers on the Mexican border are bad, that's nothing compared to Chinese treatment of their Uighur population (or how they've treated the Nepalese they've displaced, etc.). My point being that you don't need to compare all awful Governments to Nazi's to make a point how awful they are. It just obfuscates the real issues and leads to pointless semantic debates. I'm not even going to address how you believe enlightenment values are barbaric, but let's just say in practice I'm not sure you're going to enjoy Chinese authoritarianism very much if you ever get to experience it. You'd probably have a low social credit score and wouldn't be able to fly, ride a train or bus, buy luxuries / decent food or have a good job. (Which is conveniently not addressed by Nyxisto) Political oppression and curtailment of civil liberties is very high in China, some of the worlds worst in fact, made worse by widespread technological application. Just because some cities have relatively free economies is not really fully addressing the issues (which is why I brought up Pinochet in the first place). + Show Spoiler +Ofc they feel superior, everybody feel superior to entairtainement industry as a culture. Reality show, disney, Harry Potter, Twilight, all the kitch of Las Vegas, sure, most people have a feeling of superiority toward it.
As far as enlightment for the West, well well, Auchwitz. I mean, this is the pure product of racial capitalism. My point being nazi germany and usa share a very similar legacy and political culture.
With its parody of american dream (Arbeit macht frei), his process of dehumanisation already discribed by Hugo in the Miserables (Fantine sell her body then her teeth, her hair...) isn't really enlightment just like the genocide attempt in Russia in 41-45, 25 millions deads while we're celebrating Normandy's landing...
Or the attempt of destruction on this country in the 90s by the West, sth China experimented during the second part of the 19th century and almost imploded in the 20th. You can reject the fault on Putin and the CCP but in the end, these two countries would have opted for strong and authoritarian regimes just because the West want to destroy them.
If you're talking about human right, well, french revolution is definetely a antiwestern thing with its universalism, centralism and progressive enphasis on social rights and brought the declaration of human right, end of slavery so... For question like feminism, this is even more hypocrite. Current feminism is dominated by anglosaxon ideology which means it is heavely identitary. My gf who happens to be arab and have a very patriarcal father (the guy is admirable in a lot of way but this is still a big problem) didn't receive much support because "we shouldn't judge a culture", I guess the West only judges the culture and condition of women when they bombard arab countries. It's funny, you're like "yeah yeah, look at what China does" while you're currently strangulating Lebanon and syria (after attempting to destroy it). I can continue with Syria and Iraq which usa totally FUCKED, Palestine which has been stolen with your total collaboration.
Moreover, the french elite almost speaks better english than french, you just have to read the transcription of political debates 50 or 100 years ago to see the use of our language is in bad shape. In french university, les "départements de poésie" are replaced with "cultural studies", not even translated, we are fully american now and of course, the bibliography is full of western ouvrages all the more anglosaxon ones, in the end, our universities are just factories who are producing individualist and liberal fanatics who think they are so uniques and rebellious while they are exactly what they have been formed to be.
Our bookshop are depleted of french classic or other monument of literature (no way you would find a Ernst Junger, Knut Hamsun books in the major brands), the most visited thing is Disneyland Paris, the most aceptised bs in Europe... I mean, my culture is just dying, the us is absorbing or eradicating absolutely everything. And to justify it, you're implying the oppression/imperialism of the european culture but it's just a pretext for your liberal cultural revolution, every major culture has reposed on pretty bad stuffs (but still way less bad than yours !), this is just a pretext for barbary who is spreading though the whole world.
Racial capitalism from the West is probably the most stable capitalist society there is with people only concerned about identitary conflicts with a smokescreen called democracy but which is rather a total plutocraty with a drowsiness of the masses. My colleagues who happen to be teacher are not even able to defend themselves when 15%-20% of their pension is retired for the benefit of the assurance, they don't have the energy for this, freaking molluscs, there is no cohesion, the only thing which can move them on might be identitary conflict.
In conclusion, while I don't have much illusion on China, for the sake of Middle East, my country and every cultures and nations in the world, it would be nice if usa was beaten by China.
The notion that China "beating" the US will solve any of those problems is ridiculous, no matter how hard you cling to cultural artifacts swept away by time and circumstance. That wistful nostalgia for an illusory past is extremely dangerous stuff man, don't take any wooden nickels.
|
On July 20 2020 20:37 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +Fish don't care about national boundaries. The EU's fishing policy's are there to ensure fishing is done in a sustainable manner. If the UK fishes whatever they want in UK waters it will impact the sustainability of fishing for everyone around them.]Fish don't care about national boundaries. The EU's fishing policy's are there to ensure fishing is done in a sustainable manner. If the UK fishes whatever they want in UK waters it will impact the sustainability of fishing for everyone around them. The UK had by far the largest "exclusive economic zone" in Europe, concerning its territorial waters. There was no danger of fish going extinct in those waters at the time. Part of the treaty did put certain restriction on fishing peoples. For example on the Irish. They were restricted in terms of where they could go fish. The Fishing Federation was formed in response. There were reports that there was Fish that was cheaper in Europe, whereas Ireland has very rich fishing waters. And there there are the so-called "national quotas," whereby dead fish are uselessly thrown back into the sea.
The quota if set correctly is there to make fishing unprofitable beyond a certain point. Decreasing the amount of fishers since they no longer make money.
|
On July 20 2020 20:42 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2020 20:37 MoltkeWarding wrote:Fish don't care about national boundaries. The EU's fishing policy's are there to ensure fishing is done in a sustainable manner. If the UK fishes whatever they want in UK waters it will impact the sustainability of fishing for everyone around them.]Fish don't care about national boundaries. The EU's fishing policy's are there to ensure fishing is done in a sustainable manner. If the UK fishes whatever they want in UK waters it will impact the sustainability of fishing for everyone around them. The UK had by far the largest "exclusive economic zone" in Europe, concerning its territorial waters. There was no danger of fish going extinct in those waters at the time. Part of the treaty did put certain restriction on fishing peoples. For example on the Irish. They were restricted in terms of where they could go fish. The Fishing Federation was formed in response. There were reports that there was Fish that was cheaper in Europe, whereas Ireland has very rich fishing waters. And there there are the so-called "national quotas," whereby dead fish are uselessly thrown back into the sea. The quota if set correctly is there to make fishing unprofitable beyond a certain point. Decreasing the amount of fishers since they no longer make money.
That is a rather materialistic view of things. I do not know what to say to that, if you really believe in it. I can only quote from Charles Dickens' Mr. Fezziwig here, back when people everywhere were very poor.
It's not just for money alone that one spends a lifetime building up a business…. It's to preserve a way of life that one knew and loved.
A "way of life." We cannot reduce our caricature of man to a "Homo Economicus." Certain people will do certain things even though they may make much more money in other things. I could have gone off in the pursuit of money, and be hugely rich by now. I did not. Neither do a lot of people.
The notion that China "beating" the US will solve any of those problems is ridiculous, no matter how hard you cling to cultural artifacts swept away by time and circumstance. That wistful nostalgia for an illusory past is extremely dangerous stuff man, don't take any wooden nickels.
Both countries have their share of problems. China is a different story, but in my experience, it has become more "Americanised."
But I read somewhere that the people of the USA believe that the whole world has an American soul awaiting liberation. The USA still is uniquely ignorant of other places, and they are terrible at foreign languages. An old joke goes: "What do you call a person who speaks two languages? Bilingual. A person who speaks three languages? Trilingual. A person who speaks one language? An American."
But is the world becoming more "Americanised"? In some ways, yes, and in others, no. I recently read a news report by a Korean immigrant, who said that she could never really feel American. This was because she went into a store wearing a mask, obeying the law. The owner of the store told her to leave, apparently for doing what the law told her to do.
I go back to the Bible, and the story of the Tower of Babel. The world is destined to be divided, among peoples and cultures. Even sometimes among the same people. I remember as an immigrant in Canada, there were Chinese people from three communities. Those from the mainland, from Hong Kong and from Taiwan. They hated each other. Now there are many disturbances over Hong Kong, and I believe it will not have a peaceful resolution. The "Chief executive" of that city already has little legitimacy. I talked to some people from Hong Kong, and they all said that she was a Chinese puppet. Hong Kong may be the next point of mass exodus for the world. We shall see.
|
On July 20 2020 20:50 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2020 20:42 Yurie wrote:On July 20 2020 20:37 MoltkeWarding wrote:Fish don't care about national boundaries. The EU's fishing policy's are there to ensure fishing is done in a sustainable manner. If the UK fishes whatever they want in UK waters it will impact the sustainability of fishing for everyone around them.]Fish don't care about national boundaries. The EU's fishing policy's are there to ensure fishing is done in a sustainable manner. If the UK fishes whatever they want in UK waters it will impact the sustainability of fishing for everyone around them. The UK had by far the largest "exclusive economic zone" in Europe, concerning its territorial waters. There was no danger of fish going extinct in those waters at the time. Part of the treaty did put certain restriction on fishing peoples. For example on the Irish. They were restricted in terms of where they could go fish. The Fishing Federation was formed in response. There were reports that there was Fish that was cheaper in Europe, whereas Ireland has very rich fishing waters. And there there are the so-called "national quotas," whereby dead fish are uselessly thrown back into the sea. The quota if set correctly is there to make fishing unprofitable beyond a certain point. Decreasing the amount of fishers since they no longer make money. That is a rather materialistic view of things. I do not know what to say to that, if you really believe in it. I can only quote from Charles Dickens' Mr. Fezziwig here, back when people everywhere were very poor. Show nested quote +It's not just for money alone that one spends a lifetime building up a business…. It's to preserve a way of life that one knew and loved. A "way of life."
What if their business threaten other businesses, and, therefore, other people's "way of life"? What if this business is unsustainable because there are too many people in it, therefore threatening their own "way of life" long term? There are plenty of reasons to look at the material side of things, and these make your emotional appeal look either blind to other people's problems or just shortsighted.
|
On July 20 2020 21:04 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2020 20:50 MoltkeWarding wrote:On July 20 2020 20:42 Yurie wrote:On July 20 2020 20:37 MoltkeWarding wrote:Fish don't care about national boundaries. The EU's fishing policy's are there to ensure fishing is done in a sustainable manner. If the UK fishes whatever they want in UK waters it will impact the sustainability of fishing for everyone around them.]Fish don't care about national boundaries. The EU's fishing policy's are there to ensure fishing is done in a sustainable manner. If the UK fishes whatever they want in UK waters it will impact the sustainability of fishing for everyone around them. The UK had by far the largest "exclusive economic zone" in Europe, concerning its territorial waters. There was no danger of fish going extinct in those waters at the time. Part of the treaty did put certain restriction on fishing peoples. For example on the Irish. They were restricted in terms of where they could go fish. The Fishing Federation was formed in response. There were reports that there was Fish that was cheaper in Europe, whereas Ireland has very rich fishing waters. And there there are the so-called "national quotas," whereby dead fish are uselessly thrown back into the sea. The quota if set correctly is there to make fishing unprofitable beyond a certain point. Decreasing the amount of fishers since they no longer make money. That is a rather materialistic view of things. I do not know what to say to that, if you really believe in it. I can only quote from Charles Dickens' Mr. Fezziwig here, back when people everywhere were very poor. It's not just for money alone that one spends a lifetime building up a business…. It's to preserve a way of life that one knew and loved. A "way of life." What if their business threaten other businesses, and, therefore, other people's "way of life"? What if this business is unsustainable because there are too many people in it, therefore threatening their own "way of life" long term? There are plenty of reasons to look at the material side of things, and these make your emotional appeal look either blind to other people's problems or just shortsighted.
In a free market, you compete on several criteria, but those are the modern rules of the game. We are not talking about British fishing here anyhow. Fishing was infinitely sustainable for the British and Irish economies. Fish are not panda.
I have plenty of reasons for believing that poor people simply exist differently. When I was born, my country of birth was one of the poorest countries in the world. Many stories of how people in the old China lived very differently, but one modern issue is: somehow the Chinese cling to this materialistic mentality even upon emigration, all their lives. Now in North America, "Asian-Americans" are the richest peoples....perhaps because of this "materialistic" mentality. It is perhaps understandable if you were raised during the Maoist era, when untold numbers of people simply starved to death. Today in most places in the world, we all have enough to eat and are housed under a shelter. "First world problems," you might call them. The EU is in that "first world" though.
|
On July 20 2020 20:37 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +Fish don't care about national boundaries. The EU's fishing policy's are there to ensure fishing is done in a sustainable manner. If the UK fishes whatever they want in UK waters it will impact the sustainability of fishing for everyone around them.]Fish don't care about national boundaries. The EU's fishing policy's are there to ensure fishing is done in a sustainable manner. If the UK fishes whatever they want in UK waters it will impact the sustainability of fishing for everyone around them. The UK had by far the largest "exclusive economic zone" in Europe, concerning its territorial waters. There was no danger of fish going extinct in those waters at the time. Part of the treaty did put certain restrictions on fishing peoples. For example on the Irish. They were restricted in terms of where they could go fish. The Fishing Federation was formed in response. There were reports that there was Fish that was cheaper in Europe, whereas Ireland has very rich fishing waters. And there there are the so-called "national quotas," whereby dead fish are uselessly thrown back into the sea. First off those discarded fish are what the 2014 change that you seems to be protesting earlier is supposed to address.
Secondly articles like https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms1013 seem to state that fishing in the UK, and most other places to be fair, was not sustainable previously.
And your still not explaining how ensuring sustainable fishing is the EU punishing the UK for leaving or being vindictive.
|
As usual he is fleeing into some weird philosophical limbo that is, if at all, only vaguely connected to the topic at hand.
|
I made no such claim.
As usual he is fleeing into some weird philosophical limbo that is, if at all, only vaguely connected to the topic at hand.
No. All I ask if for people to read what I wrote properly. He was making an attachment that I never made. He was somehow attaching two comments that I made, and assumed that they were somehow connected.
|
I might be wrong, but didn't British fishers sell their own quota and fishing rights to foreign fishing boats? By making fishing rights into a tradable commodity? I believe the story goes something like this:
In the mid-80s the UK government restricted access to new fishing licenses, which made people start buying the fishing licenses of others in order to be able to fish. In the early 90s the UK government formalized the right of “sector” fishermen to move licences and track records between vessels, while also allowing decommissioned fishing vessels to sell their quota. Around the end of the 90s, the UK replaced track records with “fixed quota allocations”, which give the holder an unchanging share of the UK’s quota. These were dished out to vessels in the sector based on their catches in the mid-nineties. The thought were to discourage the “race to fish”, but also made quota easier to swap, sell or lease to others.
The deregulation of fishing quotas and rights and its trading by the UK government allowed fishers to pool the rights/quotas and also sell it to the single market as a tradable commodity. Which a lot of them did. Now since it is still restricted access to new fishing licenses, those quotas and rights are now in the hands of foreign fisheries.
The decline of UK fisheries does not sound like the EUs fault to me, rather the UK government's obsession of deregulation. However if I am wrong about the history, I would to learn about it.
|
On July 20 2020 21:41 MoltkeWarding wrote:I made no such claim. Show nested quote +As usual he is fleeing into some weird philosophical limbo that is, if at all, only vaguely connected to the topic at hand. No. All I ask if for people to read what I wrote properly. He was making an attachment that I never made. He was somehow attaching two comments that I made, and assumed that they were somehow connected. On July 20 2020 12:38 MoltkeWarding wrote:
The second question revolves around this "Brexit" problem. To me, it is obvious what is happening now. The EU intends to sink the UK to punish it for "Brexit." If the EU wants to try to be vindictive, let them try. You cannot really account for what is going on inside of the Brussels insiders' heads. Both sides are pro-free-trade, officially, even after Brexit. The marginalia concerning rules and regulations are what the argument is about. On July 20 2020 19:12 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2020 12:38 MoltkeWarding wrote:On July 20 2020 11:30 ggrrg wrote:On July 19 2020 20:08 MoltkeWarding wrote:On July 19 2020 19:08 Wombat_NI wrote:On July 19 2020 18:36 Nouar wrote:On July 18 2020 08:32 Belisarius wrote:On July 18 2020 04:33 Nouar wrote:
Still, these kind of sanctions when there is no PROOF that Huawei hardware is rigged is over-the-top. The USA just threatened sanctions on TSMC (Taiwanese company) if they were to provide processors to Huawei.
Now, if there was proof, I'd argue differently. For now it just seems like a commercial war to push the US of A's own equipment to me. Okay, this isn't the position I expected from you here. We know that the CCP has an unprecedented level of control over its citizens and its companies. Xi has instituted a clear and strong shift in his foreign and domestic policy toward suppression and projection of power. The chinese state is aggressively expanding its footprint: physical, digital and cultural, often in blatant defiance of international law. It is pushing disinformation and suppressing speech critical of it in every domain it has access to. There is a well-documented record of chinese cyber-attacks all around the globe, and these have accelerated dramatically in recent years. Do you disagree with any of this? Acro said it fairly clearly; the only option left to most nations in the world is to choose who they would prefer to be spied on by. For all of Trump's.... Trumpness, any society built on liberal democracy will reluctantly select the US. By a third Trump term in a US that's gone full neofascist, that choice may be harder and both options worse, but there is still some hope that that timeline will be averted. I've had the feeling for a while that a large part of Europe is still in denial about either the CCP's ambitions or their ability to execute them. Here in their backyard, I feel we are more aware of the dragon we are sleeping next to. You are military, afaik. You are generally pretty pragmatic. If you are blase about this, what is the average euro thinking? Oh I am not in denial about the amount of influence China is asserting in Asia, Africa and even Europe (Greece took a big hit for example). I am also aware of the shit it's doing at home and their imperialistic views in their region. However, this is about something else. For countries that declare themselves respectful of laws, capitalistic, open to concurrence etc, I just find the hypocrisy in just barring another country's company from markets with no proof so... shameless ? It's just to cave to foreign pressure, and not based on facts. Just an excuse to favor your own companies (or allies'), no real root in counter-intelligence, just assumptions and possibilities. It's mainly lying to the public. In fact, this is furthered by this article, that states that British officials told Huawei that the ban was mostly due to geopolitical pressure from Trump and might be reversed if he loses the election : https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/jul/18/pressure-from-trump-led-to-5g-ban-britain-tells-huaweiThere is a well documented record of everyone doing cyber-attacks on everyone, be it France, five-eyes, Israel, China... Every country is fighting for influence, China is doing it to get its place in the world, the US has done it for decades via soft or hard pressure, Europe is still trying to do it here and there but it's not very efficient anymore, Russia is... This is a invisible war, and we (europe) are mainly being dominated by huge powers. I am blasé about it because I know and see what everyone is doing, including our "allies", not just what's shown in the news. The NSA having access to nearly every US company's data through backdoors, while these are the most used platforms worldwide and foreign data is physically sent and hosted in the US, is for me a much larger issue than "maybe Huawei devices can have a hardware backdoor but we are not sure". One that is slowly getting fixed by european laws. You need to take these items one by one, or if you're not happy, start a war against China ? If we start by not respecting international and trade laws, why should they ? You cannot put official pressure on them if you don't respect the rules yourself. If you don't, it ends up on a slope to all-out war (not necessarily immediately with arms, but a cold war at first, and then you end up with covert ops like Iran is doing, except China won't have the need to do it covertly). Well indeed. Partly why I was so critical of our government earlier in the thread. Although didn’t do a very good job in articulating my thoughts. Either the threat to security was there with Huawei to begin with, or it wasn’t and was overblown. As far as I’m aware very little has changed there on that technical level, so either the wrong decision was made initially and reversed, or the inverse. What has changed is the US taking a harder stance on China far as I can tell and boom it’s reversed. One of my main reasons for wanting us to remain in the EU was to keep Europe as a more powerful bloc in resisting the US and China, as well as fearing a more isolated UK being vulnerable to such leverage. The effects of which we’re seeing earlier than I expected due to the US and China’s relations dipping in the way they have lately. The EU as it is presently set up does not work. For one thing, the finances. The UK got a better deal out of it than Germany, at least. These are three loaded claims that would each require quite a bit of elaboration to even be considered as possibly having some factual basis. My response in order from last to first: - Given the non-existant explanation I am considering using the popular term "lol"... In what way did the UK get a good deal from leaving the EU? Besides being too early to judge the effects yet, it is certainly worth mentioning that the UK, and more specifically London, was the financial business heart of Europe. This is very likely to change after they leave the EU. And when comparing the UK to Germany: Germany gets to keep its free market access to every EU country. UK is likely to be out of the common market very soon. - I can only assume that you are refering to the financial union being discussed. Yes, there are issues within the EU. This is however no basis to claim that the EU "does not work". If anything this is an issue that is being discussed and assessed currently and I would not be surprised to see an attempt at a resolution very soon. - "Does not work" needs a whole lot of elaboration to even know what to respond to it... But as a citizen within the EU, I can at least give some examples of things that clearly work: Not a single war on European EU soil since the inception of the EU (as opposed to the decades of warfare within Europe before that or the countless wars around the world in the past 50 years); No EU countries falling victim to civil wars or outside aggression (as opposed to other European countries: see Yugoslavian wars, Kosovo, Montenegro, Ukraine, and if you will: Georgia and Armenia); No EU countries being outright puppets of foreign powers (what most Eastern EU countries were before '89 and what enough countries in Africa and Asia still are); No executions, disappearances, or any kind of totalitarian oppression (a common thing in all former Eastern block EU countries during their communist eras); No dictators in any EU country as of yet (unlike Belarus with its last European dictator, or a bit more abstract and inaccurate but still kind of relevant - Russia with Putin); freedom of travel and cultural exchange (good luck travelling through the iron curtain before '89 or even to the next city (never mind the next country) if you happened to be in the Eastern block). Honestly, for these things alone the EU is already worthy of near unlimited praise. All the other benefits and advantages of the EU would require extensive elaboration as well juxtaposition with all the things going sub-optimally within the union. So I will just leave it at the most obvious examples, since I don't feel like listing a whole bunch of other stuff without the necessary backing and explanations that would require way too much effort to be appropriately described. On the UK, concerning its finances and the EU: en.wikipedia.orgIn terms of net contributions, Germany is by far the largest net contributor to the EU, even excluding all of the "bailouts." The second question revolves around this "Brexit" problem. To me, it is obvious what is happening now. The EU intends to sink the UK to punish it for "Brexit." If the EU wants to try to be vindictive, let them try. You cannot really account for what is going on inside of the Brussels insiders' heads. Both sides are pro-free-trade, officially, even after Brexit. The marginalia concerning rules and regulations are what the argument is about. I did not say anything about the "Financial union." There has not been a war inside the EU, because no one has an answer to nuclear weapons. There can be no war between the major powers until someone solves the problem concerning nukes. And no country not under some foreign nuclear cover can implicitly be attacked without concerning oneself with nukes, and that means most of Europe at the moment. Again, it depends on what your definition of a "puppet power" is. Some may argue that West Germany was a de facto puppet. And why do you think De Gaulle first vetoed UK's entry? Again, no power in Western Europe is comparable to Eastern Europe. We are talking about very different cultures. As I said, "totalitarian oppression" does not mean anything to me, and even if Russian rule in Eastern Europe was unpopular with the locals, the governments there were predicated upon the Russian occupation. And Russia had a Russian-style government. There was another country which had never experienced democratic government throughout its long history. They created your country, Bulgaria, in the 19th century, but that was as much an anti-Ottoman measure as anything. Every country must be seen in the realisation of its own national historical discourse. Germany was occupied in the west by the Anglo-Americans. France has had many revolutions, and came to be what it is during the Cold War. There are still cleavages between French and British national politics. Every country has its own story. Russia became a de-facto "democracy" in the last 30 years. It is a de-facto one party state, with the second most popular party in Russia nowadays being the Communist party. Nonetheless, Russia, whatever it has become today, has been officially "democratic" a lot longer than many European examples. A lot of what many people today, especially the Anglo-Americans think of as "democracy" is ironically the English political model. And that model has itself undergone a very crooked path. The word "dictator" also does not mean anything. Some of the so-called "Dictators" were very popular in their time. Very few "dictators" would have held onto power for long, if they did not have massive popular support at home. Perhaps an illustration of the point: qz.com EU's trade rules are public knowledge. Everyone can look up what is needed to get free trade with the EU. The UK is unwilling to make the commitment to those rules, that is part of why they decided to leave in the first place. I don't see how the EU sticking by its own rules is them being vindictive towards the UK. People have been talking since day 1 about how this would be a problem. On July 20 2020 19:38 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2020 19:12 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2020 12:38 MoltkeWarding wrote:On July 20 2020 11:30 ggrrg wrote:On July 19 2020 20:08 MoltkeWarding wrote:On July 19 2020 19:08 Wombat_NI wrote:On July 19 2020 18:36 Nouar wrote:On July 18 2020 08:32 Belisarius wrote:On July 18 2020 04:33 Nouar wrote:
Still, these kind of sanctions when there is no PROOF that Huawei hardware is rigged is over-the-top. The USA just threatened sanctions on TSMC (Taiwanese company) if they were to provide processors to Huawei.
Now, if there was proof, I'd argue differently. For now it just seems like a commercial war to push the US of A's own equipment to me. Okay, this isn't the position I expected from you here. We know that the CCP has an unprecedented level of control over its citizens and its companies. Xi has instituted a clear and strong shift in his foreign and domestic policy toward suppression and projection of power. The chinese state is aggressively expanding its footprint: physical, digital and cultural, often in blatant defiance of international law. It is pushing disinformation and suppressing speech critical of it in every domain it has access to. There is a well-documented record of chinese cyber-attacks all around the globe, and these have accelerated dramatically in recent years. Do you disagree with any of this? Acro said it fairly clearly; the only option left to most nations in the world is to choose who they would prefer to be spied on by. For all of Trump's.... Trumpness, any society built on liberal democracy will reluctantly select the US. By a third Trump term in a US that's gone full neofascist, that choice may be harder and both options worse, but there is still some hope that that timeline will be averted. I've had the feeling for a while that a large part of Europe is still in denial about either the CCP's ambitions or their ability to execute them. Here in their backyard, I feel we are more aware of the dragon we are sleeping next to. You are military, afaik. You are generally pretty pragmatic. If you are blase about this, what is the average euro thinking? Oh I am not in denial about the amount of influence China is asserting in Asia, Africa and even Europe (Greece took a big hit for example). I am also aware of the shit it's doing at home and their imperialistic views in their region. However, this is about something else. For countries that declare themselves respectful of laws, capitalistic, open to concurrence etc, I just find the hypocrisy in just barring another country's company from markets with no proof so... shameless ? It's just to cave to foreign pressure, and not based on facts. Just an excuse to favor your own companies (or allies'), no real root in counter-intelligence, just assumptions and possibilities. It's mainly lying to the public. In fact, this is furthered by this article, that states that British officials told Huawei that the ban was mostly due to geopolitical pressure from Trump and might be reversed if he loses the election : https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/jul/18/pressure-from-trump-led-to-5g-ban-britain-tells-huaweiThere is a well documented record of everyone doing cyber-attacks on everyone, be it France, five-eyes, Israel, China... Every country is fighting for influence, China is doing it to get its place in the world, the US has done it for decades via soft or hard pressure, Europe is still trying to do it here and there but it's not very efficient anymore, Russia is... This is a invisible war, and we (europe) are mainly being dominated by huge powers. I am blasé about it because I know and see what everyone is doing, including our "allies", not just what's shown in the news. The NSA having access to nearly every US company's data through backdoors, while these are the most used platforms worldwide and foreign data is physically sent and hosted in the US, is for me a much larger issue than "maybe Huawei devices can have a hardware backdoor but we are not sure". One that is slowly getting fixed by european laws. You need to take these items one by one, or if you're not happy, start a war against China ? If we start by not respecting international and trade laws, why should they ? You cannot put official pressure on them if you don't respect the rules yourself. If you don't, it ends up on a slope to all-out war (not necessarily immediately with arms, but a cold war at first, and then you end up with covert ops like Iran is doing, except China won't have the need to do it covertly). Well indeed. Partly why I was so critical of our government earlier in the thread. Although didn’t do a very good job in articulating my thoughts. Either the threat to security was there with Huawei to begin with, or it wasn’t and was overblown. As far as I’m aware very little has changed there on that technical level, so either the wrong decision was made initially and reversed, or the inverse. What has changed is the US taking a harder stance on China far as I can tell and boom it’s reversed. One of my main reasons for wanting us to remain in the EU was to keep Europe as a more powerful bloc in resisting the US and China, as well as fearing a more isolated UK being vulnerable to such leverage. The effects of which we’re seeing earlier than I expected due to the US and China’s relations dipping in the way they have lately. The EU as it is presently set up does not work. For one thing, the finances. The UK got a better deal out of it than Germany, at least. These are three loaded claims that would each require quite a bit of elaboration to even be considered as possibly having some factual basis. My response in order from last to first: - Given the non-existant explanation I am considering using the popular term "lol"... In what way did the UK get a good deal from leaving the EU? Besides being too early to judge the effects yet, it is certainly worth mentioning that the UK, and more specifically London, was the financial business heart of Europe. This is very likely to change after they leave the EU. And when comparing the UK to Germany: Germany gets to keep its free market access to every EU country. UK is likely to be out of the common market very soon. - I can only assume that you are refering to the financial union being discussed. Yes, there are issues within the EU. This is however no basis to claim that the EU "does not work". If anything this is an issue that is being discussed and assessed currently and I would not be surprised to see an attempt at a resolution very soon. - "Does not work" needs a whole lot of elaboration to even know what to respond to it... But as a citizen within the EU, I can at least give some examples of things that clearly work: Not a single war on European EU soil since the inception of the EU (as opposed to the decades of warfare within Europe before that or the countless wars around the world in the past 50 years); No EU countries falling victim to civil wars or outside aggression (as opposed to other European countries: see Yugoslavian wars, Kosovo, Montenegro, Ukraine, and if you will: Georgia and Armenia); No EU countries being outright puppets of foreign powers (what most Eastern EU countries were before '89 and what enough countries in Africa and Asia still are); No executions, disappearances, or any kind of totalitarian oppression (a common thing in all former Eastern block EU countries during their communist eras); No dictators in any EU country as of yet (unlike Belarus with its last European dictator, or a bit more abstract and inaccurate but still kind of relevant - Russia with Putin); freedom of travel and cultural exchange (good luck travelling through the iron curtain before '89 or even to the next city (never mind the next country) if you happened to be in the Eastern block). Honestly, for these things alone the EU is already worthy of near unlimited praise. All the other benefits and advantages of the EU would require extensive elaboration as well juxtaposition with all the things going sub-optimally within the union. So I will just leave it at the most obvious examples, since I don't feel like listing a whole bunch of other stuff without the necessary backing and explanations that would require way too much effort to be appropriately described. On the UK, concerning its finances and the EU: en.wikipedia.orgIn terms of net contributions, Germany is by far the largest net contributor to the EU, even excluding all of the "bailouts." The second question revolves around this "Brexit" problem. To me, it is obvious what is happening now. The EU intends to sink the UK to punish it for "Brexit." If the EU wants to try to be vindictive, let them try. You cannot really account for what is going on inside of the Brussels insiders' heads. Both sides are pro-free-trade, officially, even after Brexit. The marginalia concerning rules and regulations are what the argument is about. I did not say anything about the "Financial union." There has not been a war inside the EU, because no one has an answer to nuclear weapons. There can be no war between the major powers until someone solves the problem concerning nukes. And no country not under some foreign nuclear cover can implicitly be attacked without concerning oneself with nukes, and that means most of Europe at the moment. Again, it depends on what your definition of a "puppet power" is. Some may argue that West Germany was a de facto puppet. And why do you think De Gaulle first vetoed UK's entry? Again, no power in Western Europe is comparable to Eastern Europe. We are talking about very different cultures. As I said, "totalitarian oppression" does not mean anything to me, and even if Russian rule in Eastern Europe was unpopular with the locals, the governments there were predicated upon the Russian occupation. And Russia had a Russian-style government. There was another country which had never experienced democratic government throughout its long history. They created your country, Bulgaria, in the 19th century, but that was as much an anti-Ottoman measure as anything. Every country must be seen in the realisation of its own national historical discourse. Germany was occupied in the west by the Anglo-Americans. France has had many revolutions, and came to be what it is during the Cold War. There are still cleavages between French and British national politics. Every country has its own story. Russia became a de-facto "democracy" in the last 30 years. It is a de-facto one party state, with the second most popular party in Russia nowadays being the Communist party. Nonetheless, Russia, whatever it has become today, has been officially "democratic" a lot longer than many European examples. A lot of what many people today, especially the Anglo-Americans think of as "democracy" is ironically the English political model. And that model has itself undergone a very crooked path. The word "dictator" also does not mean anything. Some of the so-called "Dictators" were very popular in their time. Very few "dictators" would have held onto power for long, if they did not have massive popular support at home. Perhaps an illustration of the point: qz.com EU's trade rules are public knowledge. Everyone can look up what is needed to get free trade with the EU. The UK is unwilling to make the commitment to those rules, that is part of why they decided to leave in the first place. I don't see how the EU sticking by its own rules is them being vindictive towards the UK. People have been talking since day 1 about how this would be a problem. I do not know what you are talking about here specifically,so let us here just stick with the issue of the "Fishing waters." The "Common fisheries policy," which is a huge part of the British economy, was set up in 1970...the EU changed itself in order to have more British fish. They "changed" the rules, so that new member countries, with very rich fishing waters, would have to pay their price for entry into the EU. You steered the conversation here so I will ask you again, what is punishing or vindictive about the EU wanting to ensure sustainable fishing in the region where both the UK and the EU are fishing from?
|
On July 20 2020 20:39 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2020 20:35 stilt wrote:On July 19 2020 09:12 Wegandi wrote:On July 19 2020 08:36 stilt wrote:On July 18 2020 20:13 Acrofales wrote:On July 18 2020 19:54 Nyxisto wrote:On July 18 2020 19:45 sharkie wrote:On July 18 2020 18:45 Nyxisto wrote:On July 18 2020 08:19 Sermokala wrote:
China is definitely everything nazi Germany was if Hitler wasn't making explicit speeches about hating jews and just wanted to kill them in private. Its a wildly corrupt combination of state-owned industries, partially state-owned industries working as proxies, and no real accountability at any level of government that is controlled through one party that decides every other position in government.
Theres really nothing communist or socialist about the country anymore. They just keep the fiction running to stay in power. Having state-owned business doesn't turn you into Nazi Germany, what the hell lol. I was in Shenzhen for work about a year ago and I can safely tell you that it was nothing like Nazi Germany. China is an autocratic state, not a totalitarian one. The country is depoliticized, not caught in a giant struggle for life and death and total war. China's private sector is also large, probably 60-70% of the economy, a lot of it informal. In many ways the country is so capitalist it makes the US look socialist, competition between private firms is cutthroat in ways you don't find in many other places. So you know what it was like in Nazi Germany? Being German, having family who lived through World War 2, having talked to actual holocaust survivors I'm pretty sure I have a better grasp on what it was like in Nazi Germany than someone comparing every non-democratic government on the planet to it, yes. For most people, Nazi Germany was just another government. In fact, initially maybe even better than the previous one, because they stopped paying the ridiculous reparations and invested in huge government projects that gave many people jobs. We have this weird idea that because a regime is terrible, it must be awful for everyone living there. It is simply wrong. What happens is that life continues as normal except that the shoemaker on the corner suddenly disappears and if you try to ask what happens you get shushed. And if you don't shush then maybe you disappear as well, but most people shush. And then when the butcher opposite disappears they join in doing the shushing. And life continues for these people mostly the same as it was before except they can't talk about certain topics. Of course, if you happen to be a Jew, or gay, or gypsy then no matter how much you shush, you got disappeared. And China isn't dissimilar right now with how they're rounding up Uyghurs and "reeducating" them. Oh, and the "social credit" ranking program is something the Nazis could only dream of. Reeducating them doesn't mean exterminating them, they have to process the love of the state for the sake of this sort of confucian social order, it isn't racially motivated. Well, not that I agree but I believe it should calm down unless the cia finances some terrorists which is bound to happen. Anyway, this comparaison is quite stupid. Nazi Germany was a protestant and capitalist country with a tradition of decentralism just like the USA and GB (ah, the benevolant british empire...) which actively try to genocide/destroy culture by assimilating and overwhelming them with this mindless entertaining industry. This is exactly the same elite, the same people, the same political horizon, the same racial capitalism that american "progressists" and let's call the international bourgeoisie you're probably part of now use masterfully with identity policies. Now, if you combine it with this remnant of manifest destiny, we got imperialist power which base their political culture on identitary conflicts. Which leads naturally to the idea that genocide is in the ethos of those countries... And this theory is quite true, when Germany tried to destroy Russia, some historians presented it as the courageous german soldiers who fought to prevent the commies threatened western civilization and they were rights in the sense that Nazi Germany is indeed the true face of the world dominated by USA with an elite absolutely certain of its superiority and ready to wash the world of everything which isn't them. A world my country is now part of as our elite is pretty happy with these consumerism combined with this mindless entertainement for the masses and has thus decided to adopt the american way of life. As a result, there is no difference between a french bourgeois and an american one, they speak the same language, read the same stuff (1984, on the road => the little catechism of the liberal, after this, they are now ready to die for freedom, how cute) and think totally alike. But when people resist, well, it turns into a civilization conflict in which for example every arab nation who doesn't compel is mercilessly destroyed, humiliated, bombed or even stolen while you are being extremely good at building narrative to justify it : your superiority of values, "Democracy" (well, considering how uneducated and instrumentalized people are in the West, I would rather called this a perfectly locked oligarchy and idiocracy) and ofc, the "good side of history" which is quite easy to do when it's people of your class which wrote it but I am pretty sure that one day, the West today will probably be considered as way worse than any of his ennemies. But I am being pretty optimistic because the derugalation of economy, the careful destruction of social and polticial bodies with identity policies really make me wonder how things can be done for climate change when everything is done to incapacitate strong moves in this matter. As would say Maggie, there are no society or politics, just communities. Edit : I am obviously support the idea of China taking over the world over Western barbarism, maybe they could even accidentally save Europe from it. You think the Han Chinese don't think themselves superior to those around them? Ha. Your knowledge of China is severely limited. The Chinese State is awful and Han Nationalism is a big problem which has contributed to the eradication of Uighur communities (and who knows what else as it is very secretive in that part of China). If you think ICE detention centers on the Mexican border are bad, that's nothing compared to Chinese treatment of their Uighur population (or how they've treated the Nepalese they've displaced, etc.). My point being that you don't need to compare all awful Governments to Nazi's to make a point how awful they are. It just obfuscates the real issues and leads to pointless semantic debates. I'm not even going to address how you believe enlightenment values are barbaric, but let's just say in practice I'm not sure you're going to enjoy Chinese authoritarianism very much if you ever get to experience it. You'd probably have a low social credit score and wouldn't be able to fly, ride a train or bus, buy luxuries / decent food or have a good job. (Which is conveniently not addressed by Nyxisto) Political oppression and curtailment of civil liberties is very high in China, some of the worlds worst in fact, made worse by widespread technological application. Just because some cities have relatively free economies is not really fully addressing the issues (which is why I brought up Pinochet in the first place). + Show Spoiler +Ofc they feel superior, everybody feel superior to entairtainement industry as a culture. Reality show, disney, Harry Potter, Twilight, all the kitch of Las Vegas, sure, most people have a feeling of superiority toward it.
As far as enlightment for the West, well well, Auchwitz. I mean, this is the pure product of racial capitalism. My point being nazi germany and usa share a very similar legacy and political culture.
With its parody of american dream (Arbeit macht frei), his process of dehumanisation already discribed by Hugo in the Miserables (Fantine sell her body then her teeth, her hair...) isn't really enlightment just like the genocide attempt in Russia in 41-45, 25 millions deads while we're celebrating Normandy's landing...
Or the attempt of destruction on this country in the 90s by the West, sth China experimented during the second part of the 19th century and almost imploded in the 20th. You can reject the fault on Putin and the CCP but in the end, these two countries would have opted for strong and authoritarian regimes just because the West want to destroy them.
If you're talking about human right, well, french revolution is definetely a antiwestern thing with its universalism, centralism and progressive enphasis on social rights and brought the declaration of human right, end of slavery so... For question like feminism, this is even more hypocrite. Current feminism is dominated by anglosaxon ideology which means it is heavely identitary. My gf who happens to be arab and have a very patriarcal father (the guy is admirable in a lot of way but this is still a big problem) didn't receive much support because "we shouldn't judge a culture", I guess the West only judges the culture and condition of women when they bombard arab countries. It's funny, you're like "yeah yeah, look at what China does" while you're currently strangulating Lebanon and syria (after attempting to destroy it). I can continue with Syria and Iraq which usa totally FUCKED, Palestine which has been stolen with your total collaboration.
Moreover, the french elite almost speaks better english than french, you just have to read the transcription of political debates 50 or 100 years ago to see the use of our language is in bad shape. In french university, les "départements de poésie" are replaced with "cultural studies", not even translated, we are fully american now and of course, the bibliography is full of western ouvrages all the more anglosaxon ones, in the end, our universities are just factories who are producing individualist and liberal fanatics who think they are so uniques and rebellious while they are exactly what they have been formed to be.
Our bookshop are depleted of french classic or other monument of literature (no way you would find a Ernst Junger, Knut Hamsun books in the major brands), the most visited thing is Disneyland Paris, the most aceptised bs in Europe... I mean, my culture is just dying, the us is absorbing or eradicating absolutely everything. And to justify it, you're implying the oppression/imperialism of the european culture but it's just a pretext for your liberal cultural revolution, every major culture has reposed on pretty bad stuffs (but still way less bad than yours !), this is just a pretext for barbary who is spreading though the whole world.
Racial capitalism from the West is probably the most stable capitalist society there is with people only concerned about identitary conflicts with a smokescreen called democracy but which is rather a total plutocraty with a drowsiness of the masses. My colleagues who happen to be teacher are not even able to defend themselves when 15%-20% of their pension is retired for the benefit of the assurance, they don't have the energy for this, freaking molluscs, there is no cohesion, the only thing which can move them on might be identitary conflict.
In conclusion, while I don't have much illusion on China, for the sake of Middle East, my country and every cultures and nations in the world, it would be nice if usa was beaten by China. The notion that China "beating" the US will solve any of those problems is ridiculous, no matter how hard you cling to cultural artifacts swept away by time and circumstance. That wistful nostalgia for an illusory past is extremely dangerous stuff man, don't take any wooden nickels.
By beaten, I mean us losing its cultural influence and stopping being a superpower.
Speaking of a culture as cultural artefact is typically the barbarism I am speaking of. The whole world is just a bunch of cultural artefact and pretty landscapes to visit to you.
For the part of nostalgia, sure, I regret the time the communist party and the gaulists were standing together against liberalism, what is left ?
It's not as dangerous as calling black americans afro americans tho.
|
Northern Ireland23953 Posts
There is probably a reason the fishing issue gets hugely disproportionate attention in media discourse to its role within the UK economy, really, really struggling to think of a theory as to why that would be...
|
On July 20 2020 21:54 stilt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2020 20:39 farvacola wrote:On July 20 2020 20:35 stilt wrote:On July 19 2020 09:12 Wegandi wrote:On July 19 2020 08:36 stilt wrote:On July 18 2020 20:13 Acrofales wrote:On July 18 2020 19:54 Nyxisto wrote:On July 18 2020 19:45 sharkie wrote:On July 18 2020 18:45 Nyxisto wrote:On July 18 2020 08:19 Sermokala wrote:
China is definitely everything nazi Germany was if Hitler wasn't making explicit speeches about hating jews and just wanted to kill them in private. Its a wildly corrupt combination of state-owned industries, partially state-owned industries working as proxies, and no real accountability at any level of government that is controlled through one party that decides every other position in government.
Theres really nothing communist or socialist about the country anymore. They just keep the fiction running to stay in power. Having state-owned business doesn't turn you into Nazi Germany, what the hell lol. I was in Shenzhen for work about a year ago and I can safely tell you that it was nothing like Nazi Germany. China is an autocratic state, not a totalitarian one. The country is depoliticized, not caught in a giant struggle for life and death and total war. China's private sector is also large, probably 60-70% of the economy, a lot of it informal. In many ways the country is so capitalist it makes the US look socialist, competition between private firms is cutthroat in ways you don't find in many other places. So you know what it was like in Nazi Germany? Being German, having family who lived through World War 2, having talked to actual holocaust survivors I'm pretty sure I have a better grasp on what it was like in Nazi Germany than someone comparing every non-democratic government on the planet to it, yes. For most people, Nazi Germany was just another government. In fact, initially maybe even better than the previous one, because they stopped paying the ridiculous reparations and invested in huge government projects that gave many people jobs. We have this weird idea that because a regime is terrible, it must be awful for everyone living there. It is simply wrong. What happens is that life continues as normal except that the shoemaker on the corner suddenly disappears and if you try to ask what happens you get shushed. And if you don't shush then maybe you disappear as well, but most people shush. And then when the butcher opposite disappears they join in doing the shushing. And life continues for these people mostly the same as it was before except they can't talk about certain topics. Of course, if you happen to be a Jew, or gay, or gypsy then no matter how much you shush, you got disappeared. And China isn't dissimilar right now with how they're rounding up Uyghurs and "reeducating" them. Oh, and the "social credit" ranking program is something the Nazis could only dream of. Reeducating them doesn't mean exterminating them, they have to process the love of the state for the sake of this sort of confucian social order, it isn't racially motivated. Well, not that I agree but I believe it should calm down unless the cia finances some terrorists which is bound to happen. Anyway, this comparaison is quite stupid. Nazi Germany was a protestant and capitalist country with a tradition of decentralism just like the USA and GB (ah, the benevolant british empire...) which actively try to genocide/destroy culture by assimilating and overwhelming them with this mindless entertaining industry. This is exactly the same elite, the same people, the same political horizon, the same racial capitalism that american "progressists" and let's call the international bourgeoisie you're probably part of now use masterfully with identity policies. Now, if you combine it with this remnant of manifest destiny, we got imperialist power which base their political culture on identitary conflicts. Which leads naturally to the idea that genocide is in the ethos of those countries... And this theory is quite true, when Germany tried to destroy Russia, some historians presented it as the courageous german soldiers who fought to prevent the commies threatened western civilization and they were rights in the sense that Nazi Germany is indeed the true face of the world dominated by USA with an elite absolutely certain of its superiority and ready to wash the world of everything which isn't them. A world my country is now part of as our elite is pretty happy with these consumerism combined with this mindless entertainement for the masses and has thus decided to adopt the american way of life. As a result, there is no difference between a french bourgeois and an american one, they speak the same language, read the same stuff (1984, on the road => the little catechism of the liberal, after this, they are now ready to die for freedom, how cute) and think totally alike. But when people resist, well, it turns into a civilization conflict in which for example every arab nation who doesn't compel is mercilessly destroyed, humiliated, bombed or even stolen while you are being extremely good at building narrative to justify it : your superiority of values, "Democracy" (well, considering how uneducated and instrumentalized people are in the West, I would rather called this a perfectly locked oligarchy and idiocracy) and ofc, the "good side of history" which is quite easy to do when it's people of your class which wrote it but I am pretty sure that one day, the West today will probably be considered as way worse than any of his ennemies. But I am being pretty optimistic because the derugalation of economy, the careful destruction of social and polticial bodies with identity policies really make me wonder how things can be done for climate change when everything is done to incapacitate strong moves in this matter. As would say Maggie, there are no society or politics, just communities. Edit : I am obviously support the idea of China taking over the world over Western barbarism, maybe they could even accidentally save Europe from it. You think the Han Chinese don't think themselves superior to those around them? Ha. Your knowledge of China is severely limited. The Chinese State is awful and Han Nationalism is a big problem which has contributed to the eradication of Uighur communities (and who knows what else as it is very secretive in that part of China). If you think ICE detention centers on the Mexican border are bad, that's nothing compared to Chinese treatment of their Uighur population (or how they've treated the Nepalese they've displaced, etc.). My point being that you don't need to compare all awful Governments to Nazi's to make a point how awful they are. It just obfuscates the real issues and leads to pointless semantic debates. I'm not even going to address how you believe enlightenment values are barbaric, but let's just say in practice I'm not sure you're going to enjoy Chinese authoritarianism very much if you ever get to experience it. You'd probably have a low social credit score and wouldn't be able to fly, ride a train or bus, buy luxuries / decent food or have a good job. (Which is conveniently not addressed by Nyxisto) Political oppression and curtailment of civil liberties is very high in China, some of the worlds worst in fact, made worse by widespread technological application. Just because some cities have relatively free economies is not really fully addressing the issues (which is why I brought up Pinochet in the first place). + Show Spoiler +Ofc they feel superior, everybody feel superior to entairtainement industry as a culture. Reality show, disney, Harry Potter, Twilight, all the kitch of Las Vegas, sure, most people have a feeling of superiority toward it.
As far as enlightment for the West, well well, Auchwitz. I mean, this is the pure product of racial capitalism. My point being nazi germany and usa share a very similar legacy and political culture.
With its parody of american dream (Arbeit macht frei), his process of dehumanisation already discribed by Hugo in the Miserables (Fantine sell her body then her teeth, her hair...) isn't really enlightment just like the genocide attempt in Russia in 41-45, 25 millions deads while we're celebrating Normandy's landing...
Or the attempt of destruction on this country in the 90s by the West, sth China experimented during the second part of the 19th century and almost imploded in the 20th. You can reject the fault on Putin and the CCP but in the end, these two countries would have opted for strong and authoritarian regimes just because the West want to destroy them.
If you're talking about human right, well, french revolution is definetely a antiwestern thing with its universalism, centralism and progressive enphasis on social rights and brought the declaration of human right, end of slavery so... For question like feminism, this is even more hypocrite. Current feminism is dominated by anglosaxon ideology which means it is heavely identitary. My gf who happens to be arab and have a very patriarcal father (the guy is admirable in a lot of way but this is still a big problem) didn't receive much support because "we shouldn't judge a culture", I guess the West only judges the culture and condition of women when they bombard arab countries. It's funny, you're like "yeah yeah, look at what China does" while you're currently strangulating Lebanon and syria (after attempting to destroy it). I can continue with Syria and Iraq which usa totally FUCKED, Palestine which has been stolen with your total collaboration.
Moreover, the french elite almost speaks better english than french, you just have to read the transcription of political debates 50 or 100 years ago to see the use of our language is in bad shape. In french university, les "départements de poésie" are replaced with "cultural studies", not even translated, we are fully american now and of course, the bibliography is full of western ouvrages all the more anglosaxon ones, in the end, our universities are just factories who are producing individualist and liberal fanatics who think they are so uniques and rebellious while they are exactly what they have been formed to be.
Our bookshop are depleted of french classic or other monument of literature (no way you would find a Ernst Junger, Knut Hamsun books in the major brands), the most visited thing is Disneyland Paris, the most aceptised bs in Europe... I mean, my culture is just dying, the us is absorbing or eradicating absolutely everything. And to justify it, you're implying the oppression/imperialism of the european culture but it's just a pretext for your liberal cultural revolution, every major culture has reposed on pretty bad stuffs (but still way less bad than yours !), this is just a pretext for barbary who is spreading though the whole world.
Racial capitalism from the West is probably the most stable capitalist society there is with people only concerned about identitary conflicts with a smokescreen called democracy but which is rather a total plutocraty with a drowsiness of the masses. My colleagues who happen to be teacher are not even able to defend themselves when 15%-20% of their pension is retired for the benefit of the assurance, they don't have the energy for this, freaking molluscs, there is no cohesion, the only thing which can move them on might be identitary conflict.
In conclusion, while I don't have much illusion on China, for the sake of Middle East, my country and every cultures and nations in the world, it would be nice if usa was beaten by China. The notion that China "beating" the US will solve any of those problems is ridiculous, no matter how hard you cling to cultural artifacts swept away by time and circumstance. That wistful nostalgia for an illusory past is extremely dangerous stuff man, don't take any wooden nickels. By beaten, I mean us losing its cultural influence and stopping being a superpower. Speaking of a culture as cultural artefact is typically the barbarism I am speaking of. The whole world is just a bunch of cultural artefact and pretty landscapes to visit to you. For the part of nostalgia, sure, I regret the time the communist party and the gaulists were standing together against liberalism. It's not as dangerous as calling black american afro american tho.
Your reactionary take on how culture works as an item that is fought over is its own kind of barbarism, so come down off that high horse and realize that you’re trading in notions used by some of the worst actors in history. The US has, does, and will do all kinds of horrible things to all manners of people, places, and ideas, but thats the stuff of Western History and China “winning” won’t make anything better, it will only make it different.
“Culture used to be better before______” is ahistoric nonsense that does no one interested in progress any good. And if you’d like to continue this conversation, I ask that you not assign to me or other Americans fault for the atrocities of their nation. I would think that natural to someone from France, but alas.
|
On July 20 2020 21:52 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2020 21:41 MoltkeWarding wrote:I made no such claim. As usual he is fleeing into some weird philosophical limbo that is, if at all, only vaguely connected to the topic at hand. No. All I ask if for people to read what I wrote properly. He was making an attachment that I never made. He was somehow attaching two comments that I made, and assumed that they were somehow connected. Show nested quote +On July 20 2020 12:38 MoltkeWarding wrote:
The second question revolves around this "Brexit" problem. To me, it is obvious what is happening now. The EU intends to sink the UK to punish it for "Brexit." If the EU wants to try to be vindictive, let them try. You cannot really account for what is going on inside of the Brussels insiders' heads. Both sides are pro-free-trade, officially, even after Brexit. The marginalia concerning rules and regulations are what the argument is about. Show nested quote +On July 20 2020 19:12 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2020 12:38 MoltkeWarding wrote:On July 20 2020 11:30 ggrrg wrote:On July 19 2020 20:08 MoltkeWarding wrote:On July 19 2020 19:08 Wombat_NI wrote:On July 19 2020 18:36 Nouar wrote:On July 18 2020 08:32 Belisarius wrote:On July 18 2020 04:33 Nouar wrote:
Still, these kind of sanctions when there is no PROOF that Huawei hardware is rigged is over-the-top. The USA just threatened sanctions on TSMC (Taiwanese company) if they were to provide processors to Huawei.
Now, if there was proof, I'd argue differently. For now it just seems like a commercial war to push the US of A's own equipment to me. Okay, this isn't the position I expected from you here. We know that the CCP has an unprecedented level of control over its citizens and its companies. Xi has instituted a clear and strong shift in his foreign and domestic policy toward suppression and projection of power. The chinese state is aggressively expanding its footprint: physical, digital and cultural, often in blatant defiance of international law. It is pushing disinformation and suppressing speech critical of it in every domain it has access to. There is a well-documented record of chinese cyber-attacks all around the globe, and these have accelerated dramatically in recent years. Do you disagree with any of this? Acro said it fairly clearly; the only option left to most nations in the world is to choose who they would prefer to be spied on by. For all of Trump's.... Trumpness, any society built on liberal democracy will reluctantly select the US. By a third Trump term in a US that's gone full neofascist, that choice may be harder and both options worse, but there is still some hope that that timeline will be averted. I've had the feeling for a while that a large part of Europe is still in denial about either the CCP's ambitions or their ability to execute them. Here in their backyard, I feel we are more aware of the dragon we are sleeping next to. You are military, afaik. You are generally pretty pragmatic. If you are blase about this, what is the average euro thinking? Oh I am not in denial about the amount of influence China is asserting in Asia, Africa and even Europe (Greece took a big hit for example). I am also aware of the shit it's doing at home and their imperialistic views in their region. However, this is about something else. For countries that declare themselves respectful of laws, capitalistic, open to concurrence etc, I just find the hypocrisy in just barring another country's company from markets with no proof so... shameless ? It's just to cave to foreign pressure, and not based on facts. Just an excuse to favor your own companies (or allies'), no real root in counter-intelligence, just assumptions and possibilities. It's mainly lying to the public. In fact, this is furthered by this article, that states that British officials told Huawei that the ban was mostly due to geopolitical pressure from Trump and might be reversed if he loses the election : https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/jul/18/pressure-from-trump-led-to-5g-ban-britain-tells-huaweiThere is a well documented record of everyone doing cyber-attacks on everyone, be it France, five-eyes, Israel, China... Every country is fighting for influence, China is doing it to get its place in the world, the US has done it for decades via soft or hard pressure, Europe is still trying to do it here and there but it's not very efficient anymore, Russia is... This is a invisible war, and we (europe) are mainly being dominated by huge powers. I am blasé about it because I know and see what everyone is doing, including our "allies", not just what's shown in the news. The NSA having access to nearly every US company's data through backdoors, while these are the most used platforms worldwide and foreign data is physically sent and hosted in the US, is for me a much larger issue than "maybe Huawei devices can have a hardware backdoor but we are not sure". One that is slowly getting fixed by european laws. You need to take these items one by one, or if you're not happy, start a war against China ? If we start by not respecting international and trade laws, why should they ? You cannot put official pressure on them if you don't respect the rules yourself. If you don't, it ends up on a slope to all-out war (not necessarily immediately with arms, but a cold war at first, and then you end up with covert ops like Iran is doing, except China won't have the need to do it covertly). Well indeed. Partly why I was so critical of our government earlier in the thread. Although didn’t do a very good job in articulating my thoughts. Either the threat to security was there with Huawei to begin with, or it wasn’t and was overblown. As far as I’m aware very little has changed there on that technical level, so either the wrong decision was made initially and reversed, or the inverse. What has changed is the US taking a harder stance on China far as I can tell and boom it’s reversed. One of my main reasons for wanting us to remain in the EU was to keep Europe as a more powerful bloc in resisting the US and China, as well as fearing a more isolated UK being vulnerable to such leverage. The effects of which we’re seeing earlier than I expected due to the US and China’s relations dipping in the way they have lately. The EU as it is presently set up does not work. For one thing, the finances. The UK got a better deal out of it than Germany, at least. These are three loaded claims that would each require quite a bit of elaboration to even be considered as possibly having some factual basis. My response in order from last to first: - Given the non-existant explanation I am considering using the popular term "lol"... In what way did the UK get a good deal from leaving the EU? Besides being too early to judge the effects yet, it is certainly worth mentioning that the UK, and more specifically London, was the financial business heart of Europe. This is very likely to change after they leave the EU. And when comparing the UK to Germany: Germany gets to keep its free market access to every EU country. UK is likely to be out of the common market very soon. - I can only assume that you are refering to the financial union being discussed. Yes, there are issues within the EU. This is however no basis to claim that the EU "does not work". If anything this is an issue that is being discussed and assessed currently and I would not be surprised to see an attempt at a resolution very soon. - "Does not work" needs a whole lot of elaboration to even know what to respond to it... But as a citizen within the EU, I can at least give some examples of things that clearly work: Not a single war on European EU soil since the inception of the EU (as opposed to the decades of warfare within Europe before that or the countless wars around the world in the past 50 years); No EU countries falling victim to civil wars or outside aggression (as opposed to other European countries: see Yugoslavian wars, Kosovo, Montenegro, Ukraine, and if you will: Georgia and Armenia); No EU countries being outright puppets of foreign powers (what most Eastern EU countries were before '89 and what enough countries in Africa and Asia still are); No executions, disappearances, or any kind of totalitarian oppression (a common thing in all former Eastern block EU countries during their communist eras); No dictators in any EU country as of yet (unlike Belarus with its last European dictator, or a bit more abstract and inaccurate but still kind of relevant - Russia with Putin); freedom of travel and cultural exchange (good luck travelling through the iron curtain before '89 or even to the next city (never mind the next country) if you happened to be in the Eastern block). Honestly, for these things alone the EU is already worthy of near unlimited praise. All the other benefits and advantages of the EU would require extensive elaboration as well juxtaposition with all the things going sub-optimally within the union. So I will just leave it at the most obvious examples, since I don't feel like listing a whole bunch of other stuff without the necessary backing and explanations that would require way too much effort to be appropriately described. On the UK, concerning its finances and the EU: en.wikipedia.orgIn terms of net contributions, Germany is by far the largest net contributor to the EU, even excluding all of the "bailouts." The second question revolves around this "Brexit" problem. To me, it is obvious what is happening now. The EU intends to sink the UK to punish it for "Brexit." If the EU wants to try to be vindictive, let them try. You cannot really account for what is going on inside of the Brussels insiders' heads. Both sides are pro-free-trade, officially, even after Brexit. The marginalia concerning rules and regulations are what the argument is about. I did not say anything about the "Financial union." There has not been a war inside the EU, because no one has an answer to nuclear weapons. There can be no war between the major powers until someone solves the problem concerning nukes. And no country not under some foreign nuclear cover can implicitly be attacked without concerning oneself with nukes, and that means most of Europe at the moment. Again, it depends on what your definition of a "puppet power" is. Some may argue that West Germany was a de facto puppet. And why do you think De Gaulle first vetoed UK's entry? Again, no power in Western Europe is comparable to Eastern Europe. We are talking about very different cultures. As I said, "totalitarian oppression" does not mean anything to me, and even if Russian rule in Eastern Europe was unpopular with the locals, the governments there were predicated upon the Russian occupation. And Russia had a Russian-style government. There was another country which had never experienced democratic government throughout its long history. They created your country, Bulgaria, in the 19th century, but that was as much an anti-Ottoman measure as anything. Every country must be seen in the realisation of its own national historical discourse. Germany was occupied in the west by the Anglo-Americans. France has had many revolutions, and came to be what it is during the Cold War. There are still cleavages between French and British national politics. Every country has its own story. Russia became a de-facto "democracy" in the last 30 years. It is a de-facto one party state, with the second most popular party in Russia nowadays being the Communist party. Nonetheless, Russia, whatever it has become today, has been officially "democratic" a lot longer than many European examples. A lot of what many people today, especially the Anglo-Americans think of as "democracy" is ironically the English political model. And that model has itself undergone a very crooked path. The word "dictator" also does not mean anything. Some of the so-called "Dictators" were very popular in their time. Very few "dictators" would have held onto power for long, if they did not have massive popular support at home. Perhaps an illustration of the point: qz.com EU's trade rules are public knowledge. Everyone can look up what is needed to get free trade with the EU. The UK is unwilling to make the commitment to those rules, that is part of why they decided to leave in the first place. I don't see how the EU sticking by its own rules is them being vindictive towards the UK. People have been talking since day 1 about how this would be a problem. Show nested quote +On July 20 2020 19:38 MoltkeWarding wrote:On July 20 2020 19:12 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2020 12:38 MoltkeWarding wrote:On July 20 2020 11:30 ggrrg wrote:On July 19 2020 20:08 MoltkeWarding wrote:On July 19 2020 19:08 Wombat_NI wrote:On July 19 2020 18:36 Nouar wrote:On July 18 2020 08:32 Belisarius wrote:On July 18 2020 04:33 Nouar wrote:
Still, these kind of sanctions when there is no PROOF that Huawei hardware is rigged is over-the-top. The USA just threatened sanctions on TSMC (Taiwanese company) if they were to provide processors to Huawei.
Now, if there was proof, I'd argue differently. For now it just seems like a commercial war to push the US of A's own equipment to me. Okay, this isn't the position I expected from you here. We know that the CCP has an unprecedented level of control over its citizens and its companies. Xi has instituted a clear and strong shift in his foreign and domestic policy toward suppression and projection of power. The chinese state is aggressively expanding its footprint: physical, digital and cultural, often in blatant defiance of international law. It is pushing disinformation and suppressing speech critical of it in every domain it has access to. There is a well-documented record of chinese cyber-attacks all around the globe, and these have accelerated dramatically in recent years. Do you disagree with any of this? Acro said it fairly clearly; the only option left to most nations in the world is to choose who they would prefer to be spied on by. For all of Trump's.... Trumpness, any society built on liberal democracy will reluctantly select the US. By a third Trump term in a US that's gone full neofascist, that choice may be harder and both options worse, but there is still some hope that that timeline will be averted. I've had the feeling for a while that a large part of Europe is still in denial about either the CCP's ambitions or their ability to execute them. Here in their backyard, I feel we are more aware of the dragon we are sleeping next to. You are military, afaik. You are generally pretty pragmatic. If you are blase about this, what is the average euro thinking? Oh I am not in denial about the amount of influence China is asserting in Asia, Africa and even Europe (Greece took a big hit for example). I am also aware of the shit it's doing at home and their imperialistic views in their region. However, this is about something else. For countries that declare themselves respectful of laws, capitalistic, open to concurrence etc, I just find the hypocrisy in just barring another country's company from markets with no proof so... shameless ? It's just to cave to foreign pressure, and not based on facts. Just an excuse to favor your own companies (or allies'), no real root in counter-intelligence, just assumptions and possibilities. It's mainly lying to the public. In fact, this is furthered by this article, that states that British officials told Huawei that the ban was mostly due to geopolitical pressure from Trump and might be reversed if he loses the election : https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/jul/18/pressure-from-trump-led-to-5g-ban-britain-tells-huaweiThere is a well documented record of everyone doing cyber-attacks on everyone, be it France, five-eyes, Israel, China... Every country is fighting for influence, China is doing it to get its place in the world, the US has done it for decades via soft or hard pressure, Europe is still trying to do it here and there but it's not very efficient anymore, Russia is... This is a invisible war, and we (europe) are mainly being dominated by huge powers. I am blasé about it because I know and see what everyone is doing, including our "allies", not just what's shown in the news. The NSA having access to nearly every US company's data through backdoors, while these are the most used platforms worldwide and foreign data is physically sent and hosted in the US, is for me a much larger issue than "maybe Huawei devices can have a hardware backdoor but we are not sure". One that is slowly getting fixed by european laws. You need to take these items one by one, or if you're not happy, start a war against China ? If we start by not respecting international and trade laws, why should they ? You cannot put official pressure on them if you don't respect the rules yourself. If you don't, it ends up on a slope to all-out war (not necessarily immediately with arms, but a cold war at first, and then you end up with covert ops like Iran is doing, except China won't have the need to do it covertly). Well indeed. Partly why I was so critical of our government earlier in the thread. Although didn’t do a very good job in articulating my thoughts. Either the threat to security was there with Huawei to begin with, or it wasn’t and was overblown. As far as I’m aware very little has changed there on that technical level, so either the wrong decision was made initially and reversed, or the inverse. What has changed is the US taking a harder stance on China far as I can tell and boom it’s reversed. One of my main reasons for wanting us to remain in the EU was to keep Europe as a more powerful bloc in resisting the US and China, as well as fearing a more isolated UK being vulnerable to such leverage. The effects of which we’re seeing earlier than I expected due to the US and China’s relations dipping in the way they have lately. The EU as it is presently set up does not work. For one thing, the finances. The UK got a better deal out of it than Germany, at least. These are three loaded claims that would each require quite a bit of elaboration to even be considered as possibly having some factual basis. My response in order from last to first: - Given the non-existant explanation I am considering using the popular term "lol"... In what way did the UK get a good deal from leaving the EU? Besides being too early to judge the effects yet, it is certainly worth mentioning that the UK, and more specifically London, was the financial business heart of Europe. This is very likely to change after they leave the EU. And when comparing the UK to Germany: Germany gets to keep its free market access to every EU country. UK is likely to be out of the common market very soon. - I can only assume that you are refering to the financial union being discussed. Yes, there are issues within the EU. This is however no basis to claim that the EU "does not work". If anything this is an issue that is being discussed and assessed currently and I would not be surprised to see an attempt at a resolution very soon. - "Does not work" needs a whole lot of elaboration to even know what to respond to it... But as a citizen within the EU, I can at least give some examples of things that clearly work: Not a single war on European EU soil since the inception of the EU (as opposed to the decades of warfare within Europe before that or the countless wars around the world in the past 50 years); No EU countries falling victim to civil wars or outside aggression (as opposed to other European countries: see Yugoslavian wars, Kosovo, Montenegro, Ukraine, and if you will: Georgia and Armenia); No EU countries being outright puppets of foreign powers (what most Eastern EU countries were before '89 and what enough countries in Africa and Asia still are); No executions, disappearances, or any kind of totalitarian oppression (a common thing in all former Eastern block EU countries during their communist eras); No dictators in any EU country as of yet (unlike Belarus with its last European dictator, or a bit more abstract and inaccurate but still kind of relevant - Russia with Putin); freedom of travel and cultural exchange (good luck travelling through the iron curtain before '89 or even to the next city (never mind the next country) if you happened to be in the Eastern block). Honestly, for these things alone the EU is already worthy of near unlimited praise. All the other benefits and advantages of the EU would require extensive elaboration as well juxtaposition with all the things going sub-optimally within the union. So I will just leave it at the most obvious examples, since I don't feel like listing a whole bunch of other stuff without the necessary backing and explanations that would require way too much effort to be appropriately described. On the UK, concerning its finances and the EU: en.wikipedia.orgIn terms of net contributions, Germany is by far the largest net contributor to the EU, even excluding all of the "bailouts." The second question revolves around this "Brexit" problem. To me, it is obvious what is happening now. The EU intends to sink the UK to punish it for "Brexit." If the EU wants to try to be vindictive, let them try. You cannot really account for what is going on inside of the Brussels insiders' heads. Both sides are pro-free-trade, officially, even after Brexit. The marginalia concerning rules and regulations are what the argument is about. I did not say anything about the "Financial union." There has not been a war inside the EU, because no one has an answer to nuclear weapons. There can be no war between the major powers until someone solves the problem concerning nukes. And no country not under some foreign nuclear cover can implicitly be attacked without concerning oneself with nukes, and that means most of Europe at the moment. Again, it depends on what your definition of a "puppet power" is. Some may argue that West Germany was a de facto puppet. And why do you think De Gaulle first vetoed UK's entry? Again, no power in Western Europe is comparable to Eastern Europe. We are talking about very different cultures. As I said, "totalitarian oppression" does not mean anything to me, and even if Russian rule in Eastern Europe was unpopular with the locals, the governments there were predicated upon the Russian occupation. And Russia had a Russian-style government. There was another country which had never experienced democratic government throughout its long history. They created your country, Bulgaria, in the 19th century, but that was as much an anti-Ottoman measure as anything. Every country must be seen in the realisation of its own national historical discourse. Germany was occupied in the west by the Anglo-Americans. France has had many revolutions, and came to be what it is during the Cold War. There are still cleavages between French and British national politics. Every country has its own story. Russia became a de-facto "democracy" in the last 30 years. It is a de-facto one party state, with the second most popular party in Russia nowadays being the Communist party. Nonetheless, Russia, whatever it has become today, has been officially "democratic" a lot longer than many European examples. A lot of what many people today, especially the Anglo-Americans think of as "democracy" is ironically the English political model. And that model has itself undergone a very crooked path. The word "dictator" also does not mean anything. Some of the so-called "Dictators" were very popular in their time. Very few "dictators" would have held onto power for long, if they did not have massive popular support at home. Perhaps an illustration of the point: qz.com EU's trade rules are public knowledge. Everyone can look up what is needed to get free trade with the EU. The UK is unwilling to make the commitment to those rules, that is part of why they decided to leave in the first place. I don't see how the EU sticking by its own rules is them being vindictive towards the UK. People have been talking since day 1 about how this would be a problem. I do not know what you are talking about here specifically,so let us here just stick with the issue of the "Fishing waters." The "Common fisheries policy," which is a huge part of the British economy, was set up in 1970...the EU changed itself in order to have more British fish. They "changed" the rules, so that new member countries, with very rich fishing waters, would have to pay their price for entry into the EU. You steered the conversation here so I will ask you again, what is punishing or vindictive about the EU wanting to ensure sustainable fishing in the region where both the UK and the EU are fishing from?
I was not talking about sustainable fishing. There are other complaints that the British isles have related to the EU policy, which does not have anything to do with the endangerment of certain fish species.
|
On July 20 2020 22:29 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2020 21:52 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2020 21:41 MoltkeWarding wrote:I made no such claim. As usual he is fleeing into some weird philosophical limbo that is, if at all, only vaguely connected to the topic at hand. No. All I ask if for people to read what I wrote properly. He was making an attachment that I never made. He was somehow attaching two comments that I made, and assumed that they were somehow connected. On July 20 2020 12:38 MoltkeWarding wrote:
The second question revolves around this "Brexit" problem. To me, it is obvious what is happening now. The EU intends to sink the UK to punish it for "Brexit." If the EU wants to try to be vindictive, let them try. You cannot really account for what is going on inside of the Brussels insiders' heads. Both sides are pro-free-trade, officially, even after Brexit. The marginalia concerning rules and regulations are what the argument is about. On July 20 2020 19:12 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2020 12:38 MoltkeWarding wrote:On July 20 2020 11:30 ggrrg wrote:On July 19 2020 20:08 MoltkeWarding wrote:On July 19 2020 19:08 Wombat_NI wrote:On July 19 2020 18:36 Nouar wrote:On July 18 2020 08:32 Belisarius wrote:On July 18 2020 04:33 Nouar wrote:
Still, these kind of sanctions when there is no PROOF that Huawei hardware is rigged is over-the-top. The USA just threatened sanctions on TSMC (Taiwanese company) if they were to provide processors to Huawei.
Now, if there was proof, I'd argue differently. For now it just seems like a commercial war to push the US of A's own equipment to me. Okay, this isn't the position I expected from you here. We know that the CCP has an unprecedented level of control over its citizens and its companies. Xi has instituted a clear and strong shift in his foreign and domestic policy toward suppression and projection of power. The chinese state is aggressively expanding its footprint: physical, digital and cultural, often in blatant defiance of international law. It is pushing disinformation and suppressing speech critical of it in every domain it has access to. There is a well-documented record of chinese cyber-attacks all around the globe, and these have accelerated dramatically in recent years. Do you disagree with any of this? Acro said it fairly clearly; the only option left to most nations in the world is to choose who they would prefer to be spied on by. For all of Trump's.... Trumpness, any society built on liberal democracy will reluctantly select the US. By a third Trump term in a US that's gone full neofascist, that choice may be harder and both options worse, but there is still some hope that that timeline will be averted. I've had the feeling for a while that a large part of Europe is still in denial about either the CCP's ambitions or their ability to execute them. Here in their backyard, I feel we are more aware of the dragon we are sleeping next to. You are military, afaik. You are generally pretty pragmatic. If you are blase about this, what is the average euro thinking? Oh I am not in denial about the amount of influence China is asserting in Asia, Africa and even Europe (Greece took a big hit for example). I am also aware of the shit it's doing at home and their imperialistic views in their region. However, this is about something else. For countries that declare themselves respectful of laws, capitalistic, open to concurrence etc, I just find the hypocrisy in just barring another country's company from markets with no proof so... shameless ? It's just to cave to foreign pressure, and not based on facts. Just an excuse to favor your own companies (or allies'), no real root in counter-intelligence, just assumptions and possibilities. It's mainly lying to the public. In fact, this is furthered by this article, that states that British officials told Huawei that the ban was mostly due to geopolitical pressure from Trump and might be reversed if he loses the election : https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/jul/18/pressure-from-trump-led-to-5g-ban-britain-tells-huaweiThere is a well documented record of everyone doing cyber-attacks on everyone, be it France, five-eyes, Israel, China... Every country is fighting for influence, China is doing it to get its place in the world, the US has done it for decades via soft or hard pressure, Europe is still trying to do it here and there but it's not very efficient anymore, Russia is... This is a invisible war, and we (europe) are mainly being dominated by huge powers. I am blasé about it because I know and see what everyone is doing, including our "allies", not just what's shown in the news. The NSA having access to nearly every US company's data through backdoors, while these are the most used platforms worldwide and foreign data is physically sent and hosted in the US, is for me a much larger issue than "maybe Huawei devices can have a hardware backdoor but we are not sure". One that is slowly getting fixed by european laws. You need to take these items one by one, or if you're not happy, start a war against China ? If we start by not respecting international and trade laws, why should they ? You cannot put official pressure on them if you don't respect the rules yourself. If you don't, it ends up on a slope to all-out war (not necessarily immediately with arms, but a cold war at first, and then you end up with covert ops like Iran is doing, except China won't have the need to do it covertly). Well indeed. Partly why I was so critical of our government earlier in the thread. Although didn’t do a very good job in articulating my thoughts. Either the threat to security was there with Huawei to begin with, or it wasn’t and was overblown. As far as I’m aware very little has changed there on that technical level, so either the wrong decision was made initially and reversed, or the inverse. What has changed is the US taking a harder stance on China far as I can tell and boom it’s reversed. One of my main reasons for wanting us to remain in the EU was to keep Europe as a more powerful bloc in resisting the US and China, as well as fearing a more isolated UK being vulnerable to such leverage. The effects of which we’re seeing earlier than I expected due to the US and China’s relations dipping in the way they have lately. The EU as it is presently set up does not work. For one thing, the finances. The UK got a better deal out of it than Germany, at least. These are three loaded claims that would each require quite a bit of elaboration to even be considered as possibly having some factual basis. My response in order from last to first: - Given the non-existant explanation I am considering using the popular term "lol"... In what way did the UK get a good deal from leaving the EU? Besides being too early to judge the effects yet, it is certainly worth mentioning that the UK, and more specifically London, was the financial business heart of Europe. This is very likely to change after they leave the EU. And when comparing the UK to Germany: Germany gets to keep its free market access to every EU country. UK is likely to be out of the common market very soon. - I can only assume that you are refering to the financial union being discussed. Yes, there are issues within the EU. This is however no basis to claim that the EU "does not work". If anything this is an issue that is being discussed and assessed currently and I would not be surprised to see an attempt at a resolution very soon. - "Does not work" needs a whole lot of elaboration to even know what to respond to it... But as a citizen within the EU, I can at least give some examples of things that clearly work: Not a single war on European EU soil since the inception of the EU (as opposed to the decades of warfare within Europe before that or the countless wars around the world in the past 50 years); No EU countries falling victim to civil wars or outside aggression (as opposed to other European countries: see Yugoslavian wars, Kosovo, Montenegro, Ukraine, and if you will: Georgia and Armenia); No EU countries being outright puppets of foreign powers (what most Eastern EU countries were before '89 and what enough countries in Africa and Asia still are); No executions, disappearances, or any kind of totalitarian oppression (a common thing in all former Eastern block EU countries during their communist eras); No dictators in any EU country as of yet (unlike Belarus with its last European dictator, or a bit more abstract and inaccurate but still kind of relevant - Russia with Putin); freedom of travel and cultural exchange (good luck travelling through the iron curtain before '89 or even to the next city (never mind the next country) if you happened to be in the Eastern block). Honestly, for these things alone the EU is already worthy of near unlimited praise. All the other benefits and advantages of the EU would require extensive elaboration as well juxtaposition with all the things going sub-optimally within the union. So I will just leave it at the most obvious examples, since I don't feel like listing a whole bunch of other stuff without the necessary backing and explanations that would require way too much effort to be appropriately described. On the UK, concerning its finances and the EU: en.wikipedia.orgIn terms of net contributions, Germany is by far the largest net contributor to the EU, even excluding all of the "bailouts." The second question revolves around this "Brexit" problem. To me, it is obvious what is happening now. The EU intends to sink the UK to punish it for "Brexit." If the EU wants to try to be vindictive, let them try. You cannot really account for what is going on inside of the Brussels insiders' heads. Both sides are pro-free-trade, officially, even after Brexit. The marginalia concerning rules and regulations are what the argument is about. I did not say anything about the "Financial union." There has not been a war inside the EU, because no one has an answer to nuclear weapons. There can be no war between the major powers until someone solves the problem concerning nukes. And no country not under some foreign nuclear cover can implicitly be attacked without concerning oneself with nukes, and that means most of Europe at the moment. Again, it depends on what your definition of a "puppet power" is. Some may argue that West Germany was a de facto puppet. And why do you think De Gaulle first vetoed UK's entry? Again, no power in Western Europe is comparable to Eastern Europe. We are talking about very different cultures. As I said, "totalitarian oppression" does not mean anything to me, and even if Russian rule in Eastern Europe was unpopular with the locals, the governments there were predicated upon the Russian occupation. And Russia had a Russian-style government. There was another country which had never experienced democratic government throughout its long history. They created your country, Bulgaria, in the 19th century, but that was as much an anti-Ottoman measure as anything. Every country must be seen in the realisation of its own national historical discourse. Germany was occupied in the west by the Anglo-Americans. France has had many revolutions, and came to be what it is during the Cold War. There are still cleavages between French and British national politics. Every country has its own story. Russia became a de-facto "democracy" in the last 30 years. It is a de-facto one party state, with the second most popular party in Russia nowadays being the Communist party. Nonetheless, Russia, whatever it has become today, has been officially "democratic" a lot longer than many European examples. A lot of what many people today, especially the Anglo-Americans think of as "democracy" is ironically the English political model. And that model has itself undergone a very crooked path. The word "dictator" also does not mean anything. Some of the so-called "Dictators" were very popular in their time. Very few "dictators" would have held onto power for long, if they did not have massive popular support at home. Perhaps an illustration of the point: qz.com EU's trade rules are public knowledge. Everyone can look up what is needed to get free trade with the EU. The UK is unwilling to make the commitment to those rules, that is part of why they decided to leave in the first place. I don't see how the EU sticking by its own rules is them being vindictive towards the UK. People have been talking since day 1 about how this would be a problem. On July 20 2020 19:38 MoltkeWarding wrote:On July 20 2020 19:12 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2020 12:38 MoltkeWarding wrote:On July 20 2020 11:30 ggrrg wrote:On July 19 2020 20:08 MoltkeWarding wrote:On July 19 2020 19:08 Wombat_NI wrote:On July 19 2020 18:36 Nouar wrote:On July 18 2020 08:32 Belisarius wrote:
[quote]
Okay, this isn't the position I expected from you here.
We know that the CCP has an unprecedented level of control over its citizens and its companies. Xi has instituted a clear and strong shift in his foreign and domestic policy toward suppression and projection of power. The chinese state is aggressively expanding its footprint: physical, digital and cultural, often in blatant defiance of international law. It is pushing disinformation and suppressing speech critical of it in every domain it has access to. There is a well-documented record of chinese cyber-attacks all around the globe, and these have accelerated dramatically in recent years. Do you disagree with any of this?
Acro said it fairly clearly; the only option left to most nations in the world is to choose who they would prefer to be spied on by. For all of Trump's.... Trumpness, any society built on liberal democracy will reluctantly select the US. By a third Trump term in a US that's gone full neofascist, that choice may be harder and both options worse, but there is still some hope that that timeline will be averted.
I've had the feeling for a while that a large part of Europe is still in denial about either the CCP's ambitions or their ability to execute them. Here in their backyard, I feel we are more aware of the dragon we are sleeping next to. You are military, afaik. You are generally pretty pragmatic. If you are blase about this, what is the average euro thinking? Oh I am not in denial about the amount of influence China is asserting in Asia, Africa and even Europe (Greece took a big hit for example). I am also aware of the shit it's doing at home and their imperialistic views in their region. However, this is about something else. For countries that declare themselves respectful of laws, capitalistic, open to concurrence etc, I just find the hypocrisy in just barring another country's company from markets with no proof so... shameless ? It's just to cave to foreign pressure, and not based on facts. Just an excuse to favor your own companies (or allies'), no real root in counter-intelligence, just assumptions and possibilities. It's mainly lying to the public. In fact, this is furthered by this article, that states that British officials told Huawei that the ban was mostly due to geopolitical pressure from Trump and might be reversed if he loses the election : https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/jul/18/pressure-from-trump-led-to-5g-ban-britain-tells-huaweiThere is a well documented record of everyone doing cyber-attacks on everyone, be it France, five-eyes, Israel, China... Every country is fighting for influence, China is doing it to get its place in the world, the US has done it for decades via soft or hard pressure, Europe is still trying to do it here and there but it's not very efficient anymore, Russia is... This is a invisible war, and we (europe) are mainly being dominated by huge powers. I am blasé about it because I know and see what everyone is doing, including our "allies", not just what's shown in the news. The NSA having access to nearly every US company's data through backdoors, while these are the most used platforms worldwide and foreign data is physically sent and hosted in the US, is for me a much larger issue than "maybe Huawei devices can have a hardware backdoor but we are not sure". One that is slowly getting fixed by european laws. You need to take these items one by one, or if you're not happy, start a war against China ? If we start by not respecting international and trade laws, why should they ? You cannot put official pressure on them if you don't respect the rules yourself. If you don't, it ends up on a slope to all-out war (not necessarily immediately with arms, but a cold war at first, and then you end up with covert ops like Iran is doing, except China won't have the need to do it covertly). Well indeed. Partly why I was so critical of our government earlier in the thread. Although didn’t do a very good job in articulating my thoughts. Either the threat to security was there with Huawei to begin with, or it wasn’t and was overblown. As far as I’m aware very little has changed there on that technical level, so either the wrong decision was made initially and reversed, or the inverse. What has changed is the US taking a harder stance on China far as I can tell and boom it’s reversed. One of my main reasons for wanting us to remain in the EU was to keep Europe as a more powerful bloc in resisting the US and China, as well as fearing a more isolated UK being vulnerable to such leverage. The effects of which we’re seeing earlier than I expected due to the US and China’s relations dipping in the way they have lately. The EU as it is presently set up does not work. For one thing, the finances. The UK got a better deal out of it than Germany, at least. These are three loaded claims that would each require quite a bit of elaboration to even be considered as possibly having some factual basis. My response in order from last to first: - Given the non-existant explanation I am considering using the popular term "lol"... In what way did the UK get a good deal from leaving the EU? Besides being too early to judge the effects yet, it is certainly worth mentioning that the UK, and more specifically London, was the financial business heart of Europe. This is very likely to change after they leave the EU. And when comparing the UK to Germany: Germany gets to keep its free market access to every EU country. UK is likely to be out of the common market very soon. - I can only assume that you are refering to the financial union being discussed. Yes, there are issues within the EU. This is however no basis to claim that the EU "does not work". If anything this is an issue that is being discussed and assessed currently and I would not be surprised to see an attempt at a resolution very soon. - "Does not work" needs a whole lot of elaboration to even know what to respond to it... But as a citizen within the EU, I can at least give some examples of things that clearly work: Not a single war on European EU soil since the inception of the EU (as opposed to the decades of warfare within Europe before that or the countless wars around the world in the past 50 years); No EU countries falling victim to civil wars or outside aggression (as opposed to other European countries: see Yugoslavian wars, Kosovo, Montenegro, Ukraine, and if you will: Georgia and Armenia); No EU countries being outright puppets of foreign powers (what most Eastern EU countries were before '89 and what enough countries in Africa and Asia still are); No executions, disappearances, or any kind of totalitarian oppression (a common thing in all former Eastern block EU countries during their communist eras); No dictators in any EU country as of yet (unlike Belarus with its last European dictator, or a bit more abstract and inaccurate but still kind of relevant - Russia with Putin); freedom of travel and cultural exchange (good luck travelling through the iron curtain before '89 or even to the next city (never mind the next country) if you happened to be in the Eastern block). Honestly, for these things alone the EU is already worthy of near unlimited praise. All the other benefits and advantages of the EU would require extensive elaboration as well juxtaposition with all the things going sub-optimally within the union. So I will just leave it at the most obvious examples, since I don't feel like listing a whole bunch of other stuff without the necessary backing and explanations that would require way too much effort to be appropriately described. On the UK, concerning its finances and the EU: en.wikipedia.orgIn terms of net contributions, Germany is by far the largest net contributor to the EU, even excluding all of the "bailouts." The second question revolves around this "Brexit" problem. To me, it is obvious what is happening now. The EU intends to sink the UK to punish it for "Brexit." If the EU wants to try to be vindictive, let them try. You cannot really account for what is going on inside of the Brussels insiders' heads. Both sides are pro-free-trade, officially, even after Brexit. The marginalia concerning rules and regulations are what the argument is about. I did not say anything about the "Financial union." There has not been a war inside the EU, because no one has an answer to nuclear weapons. There can be no war between the major powers until someone solves the problem concerning nukes. And no country not under some foreign nuclear cover can implicitly be attacked without concerning oneself with nukes, and that means most of Europe at the moment. Again, it depends on what your definition of a "puppet power" is. Some may argue that West Germany was a de facto puppet. And why do you think De Gaulle first vetoed UK's entry? Again, no power in Western Europe is comparable to Eastern Europe. We are talking about very different cultures. As I said, "totalitarian oppression" does not mean anything to me, and even if Russian rule in Eastern Europe was unpopular with the locals, the governments there were predicated upon the Russian occupation. And Russia had a Russian-style government. There was another country which had never experienced democratic government throughout its long history. They created your country, Bulgaria, in the 19th century, but that was as much an anti-Ottoman measure as anything. Every country must be seen in the realisation of its own national historical discourse. Germany was occupied in the west by the Anglo-Americans. France has had many revolutions, and came to be what it is during the Cold War. There are still cleavages between French and British national politics. Every country has its own story. Russia became a de-facto "democracy" in the last 30 years. It is a de-facto one party state, with the second most popular party in Russia nowadays being the Communist party. Nonetheless, Russia, whatever it has become today, has been officially "democratic" a lot longer than many European examples. A lot of what many people today, especially the Anglo-Americans think of as "democracy" is ironically the English political model. And that model has itself undergone a very crooked path. The word "dictator" also does not mean anything. Some of the so-called "Dictators" were very popular in their time. Very few "dictators" would have held onto power for long, if they did not have massive popular support at home. Perhaps an illustration of the point: qz.com EU's trade rules are public knowledge. Everyone can look up what is needed to get free trade with the EU. The UK is unwilling to make the commitment to those rules, that is part of why they decided to leave in the first place. I don't see how the EU sticking by its own rules is them being vindictive towards the UK. People have been talking since day 1 about how this would be a problem. I do not know what you are talking about here specifically,so let us here just stick with the issue of the "Fishing waters." The "Common fisheries policy," which is a huge part of the British economy, was set up in 1970...the EU changed itself in order to have more British fish. They "changed" the rules, so that new member countries, with very rich fishing waters, would have to pay their price for entry into the EU. You steered the conversation here so I will ask you again, what is punishing or vindictive about the EU wanting to ensure sustainable fishing in the region where both the UK and the EU are fishing from? I was not talking about sustainable fishing. There are other complaints that the British isles have related to the EU policy, which does not have anything to do with the endangerment of certain fish species.
Would you mind commenting on my post from earlier? What is wrong with my recollection of how UK fisheries lost most of their quotas and fishing rights?
On July 20 2020 21:45 Neneu wrote:
I might be wrong, but didn't British fishers sell their own quota and fishing rights to foreign fishing boats? By making fishing rights into a tradable commodity? I believe the story goes something like this:
In the mid-80s the UK government restricted access to new fishing licenses, which made people start buying the fishing licenses of others in order to be able to fish. In the early 90s the UK government formalized the right of “sector” fishermen to move licences and track records between vessels, while also allowing decommissioned fishing vessels to sell their quota. Around the end of the 90s, the UK replaced track records with “fixed quota allocations”, which give the holder an unchanging share of the UK’s quota. These were dished out to vessels in the sector based on their catches in the mid-nineties. The thought were to discourage the “race to fish”, but also made quota easier to swap, sell or lease to others.
The deregulation of fishing quotas and rights and its trading by the UK government allowed fishers to pool the rights/quotas and also sell it to the single market as a tradable commodity. Which a lot of them did. Now since it is still restricted access to new fishing licenses, those quotas and rights are now in the hands of foreign fisheries.
The decline of UK fisheries does not sound like the EUs fault to me, rather the UK government's obsession of deregulation. However if I am wrong about the history, I would to learn about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
