to think that its 1979, and Britain is an important world power.
It isn't. Churchills Britain is forever gone.
What replaced it, is medium sized country on the periphery of Europe, with deep financial, industrial and demographic problems, with luxuries such as carriers and nuclear missiles it can't really afford.
If Britain is to have a future instead if a steep decline, it needs good relations and trade with all nations. including Russia and China.
I had listened to 'them' going on (and on) about this tenuity - it just felt tenuous: I didn't know the details until reading yr piece thanks - and wondered whether Mr Gladstone was not through yet again on the Beeb's Ouija board. - In his Bulgarian Massacre hat, not his free trade titfer. Lotta moralizing bollix, as you say.
An obvious case of the British security establishment sucking up to American China hawks in a vain attempt at trying to find common ground with the new administration, and keeping their “special ally” perks.
Which is brain dead.
The UK is fast on the route to going nowhere. Good relations with China: The world’s second largest power will only be a good thing for Britain.
Wow! Pretty obvious who is filling your rice bowl.
The fact you have been 'driven' to write this shows just how desperate certain circles are becoming.
'How will I afford the school fees? Or my place in the South of France!'
You have zero understanding of China or its ambitions, nor evidently of the true situation that has required the security services to actively leak to The Times to get the situation out to the wider public, because the Government and its constituent parts, especially the Home Office & FCO, have been ignoring everything put in front of them, and this is all before the US pulls the plug on 5 eyes, which they are about to do. Which would probably make you happy.
Pimlico 'Right Wingers' my arse, grow a chin posh boy.
In the last century we learnt a lesson from WWII: do not trade with, or finance countries that are an existential threat or the threat will become reality. This lesson was behind the embargo on trade with the communists.
In the past 40 years the corporate lobby has argued that trade will make China capitalist and lead it to becoming a democracy. The embargo argument was forgotten and China was welcomed into the WTO despite continuously breaking its rules.
All that capitalism has done for China, Russia, Vietnam, Cambodia etc. is to convert them from communism to National Socialism (not the German Nazi variety which included an excess of racism). China is now a full blown superpower and a mortal enemy of any democratic nationalist.
How on earth is “China an existential threat” to Britain.
Have I been transported into a parallel reality where China is Britain’s neighbor and filled with revanchist warmongers?
You might as well argue that we need a British base on the moon, since there’s a distinct possibility it’s made of cheese, and Britain could thereby cease to import cheddar.
China is no threat to Britain, neither is it really a threat to British interests. I assure you, that when Xi Jinping goes to bed at night, conquering The UK in the last thing on his mind.
(Heck, he’s probably thinking about countries like Brazil and Ethiopia before his mind turns to old Avalon.)
Britain NEEDS China, to a far greater degree than China needs Britain.
The existential threat results from the threat of WWIII as China flexes its muscles in the West Pacific and supports other totalitarian regimes in Europe, Africa etc. There are also tactical threats from the occupation of the South China Sea and consequently a potential stranglehold on global chip production.
The democratic nation states have always had to face threats from totalitarian powers. The threat from China is particularly severe because it is a National Socialist state that combines the productivity of Capitalist enterprise with Totalitarian Socialism.
Britain does not NEED China any more than China needs Britain. Our corporate and international banking lobbies want Chinese trade and our politicians are easy to 'hire' to represent their interests.
One thing that the recent tariff wars have shown the USA is that re-homing production has a low direct cost and huge domestic benefit in employment and strategic independence.
And again with the boomer brain worm. “Muh THRREAT TO DEMOCRACY!!!”
And?! Another failed crusade to rescue democracy on the other side of the globe?
Who fucking cares? China has been extraordinarily successful. I, and many other young people, would rather live in a successful, orderly, well functioning national socialist state, then a “democracy” where I can’t afford a house and trash is flooding the streets.
This is extremely naive. China has good relations with lots of countries and trades with everyone.
And?
How does China supporting some tinpot dictator (while Britain supports some other tinpot dictator mind you), affect the UK?
What does China’s power plays in the pacific do to affect daily day life in Britain?
The answer is of course: Absolutely nothing. Britain has far bigger immediate problems, than who controls a sea border in the pacific. It’s a pointless distraction.
If you want a productive and nationally beneficial relationship with China then we absolutely should pursue the case against Cash and Berry. Signaling to China's Government that we are not going to be taken for a ride or surrender national security is in no way antagonistic to good economic relations. In fact we need to draw such lines in order to avoid wasting effort on even more intrusive attempts at infiltration in future which would only further erode the economic relationship.
I think it's better to prosecute people if you really think they did something wrong and harmful, not to "send a signal". The whole point of this article is that it seems very likely that they acted stupidly but not criminally, or at least not criminally if our national security laws were sane. NB that in the US the First Amendment is a powerful check on very broadly worded anti-espionage national security laws: other countries like Australia have explicit carve-outs for journalism.
Much needed perspective
The British ruling elites still seem
to think that its 1979, and Britain is an important world power.
It isn't. Churchills Britain is forever gone.
What replaced it, is medium sized country on the periphery of Europe, with deep financial, industrial and demographic problems, with luxuries such as carriers and nuclear missiles it can't really afford.
If Britain is to have a future instead if a steep decline, it needs good relations and trade with all nations. including Russia and China.
I had listened to 'them' going on (and on) about this tenuity - it just felt tenuous: I didn't know the details until reading yr piece thanks - and wondered whether Mr Gladstone was not through yet again on the Beeb's Ouija board. - In his Bulgarian Massacre hat, not his free trade titfer. Lotta moralizing bollix, as you say.
An obvious case of the British security establishment sucking up to American China hawks in a vain attempt at trying to find common ground with the new administration, and keeping their “special ally” perks.
Which is brain dead.
The UK is fast on the route to going nowhere. Good relations with China: The world’s second largest power will only be a good thing for Britain.
Wow! Pretty obvious who is filling your rice bowl.
The fact you have been 'driven' to write this shows just how desperate certain circles are becoming.
'How will I afford the school fees? Or my place in the South of France!'
You have zero understanding of China or its ambitions, nor evidently of the true situation that has required the security services to actively leak to The Times to get the situation out to the wider public, because the Government and its constituent parts, especially the Home Office & FCO, have been ignoring everything put in front of them, and this is all before the US pulls the plug on 5 eyes, which they are about to do. Which would probably make you happy.
Pimlico 'Right Wingers' my arse, grow a chin posh boy.
Not an argument
In the last century we learnt a lesson from WWII: do not trade with, or finance countries that are an existential threat or the threat will become reality. This lesson was behind the embargo on trade with the communists.
In the past 40 years the corporate lobby has argued that trade will make China capitalist and lead it to becoming a democracy. The embargo argument was forgotten and China was welcomed into the WTO despite continuously breaking its rules.
All that capitalism has done for China, Russia, Vietnam, Cambodia etc. is to convert them from communism to National Socialism (not the German Nazi variety which included an excess of racism). China is now a full blown superpower and a mortal enemy of any democratic nationalist.
See https://therenwhere.substack.com/p/china for why we must not trade with China.
Sorry, this is nonsensical.
How on earth is “China an existential threat” to Britain.
Have I been transported into a parallel reality where China is Britain’s neighbor and filled with revanchist warmongers?
You might as well argue that we need a British base on the moon, since there’s a distinct possibility it’s made of cheese, and Britain could thereby cease to import cheddar.
China is no threat to Britain, neither is it really a threat to British interests. I assure you, that when Xi Jinping goes to bed at night, conquering The UK in the last thing on his mind.
(Heck, he’s probably thinking about countries like Brazil and Ethiopia before his mind turns to old Avalon.)
Britain NEEDS China, to a far greater degree than China needs Britain.
The existential threat results from the threat of WWIII as China flexes its muscles in the West Pacific and supports other totalitarian regimes in Europe, Africa etc. There are also tactical threats from the occupation of the South China Sea and consequently a potential stranglehold on global chip production.
The democratic nation states have always had to face threats from totalitarian powers. The threat from China is particularly severe because it is a National Socialist state that combines the productivity of Capitalist enterprise with Totalitarian Socialism.
Britain does not NEED China any more than China needs Britain. Our corporate and international banking lobbies want Chinese trade and our politicians are easy to 'hire' to represent their interests.
One thing that the recent tariff wars have shown the USA is that re-homing production has a low direct cost and huge domestic benefit in employment and strategic independence.
And again with the boomer brain worm. “Muh THRREAT TO DEMOCRACY!!!”
And?! Another failed crusade to rescue democracy on the other side of the globe?
Who fucking cares? China has been extraordinarily successful. I, and many other young people, would rather live in a successful, orderly, well functioning national socialist state, then a “democracy” where I can’t afford a house and trash is flooding the streets.
Brilliant! Thanks.
There could be no clearer exposition of your viewpoint.
This is extremely naive. China has good relations with lots of countries and trades with everyone.
And?
How does China supporting some tinpot dictator (while Britain supports some other tinpot dictator mind you), affect the UK?
What does China’s power plays in the pacific do to affect daily day life in Britain?
The answer is of course: Absolutely nothing. Britain has far bigger immediate problems, than who controls a sea border in the pacific. It’s a pointless distraction.
If you want a productive and nationally beneficial relationship with China then we absolutely should pursue the case against Cash and Berry. Signaling to China's Government that we are not going to be taken for a ride or surrender national security is in no way antagonistic to good economic relations. In fact we need to draw such lines in order to avoid wasting effort on even more intrusive attempts at infiltration in future which would only further erode the economic relationship.
I think it's better to prosecute people if you really think they did something wrong and harmful, not to "send a signal". The whole point of this article is that it seems very likely that they acted stupidly but not criminally, or at least not criminally if our national security laws were sane. NB that in the US the First Amendment is a powerful check on very broadly worded anti-espionage national security laws: other countries like Australia have explicit carve-outs for journalism.