Brexit, for once some facts.

[flecc]

interdependence is key to a green energy revolution - we import nuclear from France, export wind surplus when it blows (like Scotland, once we have enough) to other countries. to me the whole issue of national identity, boundaries are spurious. the kind of thing opportunistic manipulators like boris or trump or putin use to foment war. id rather not live in a world where our identities are based on arbitrary geographical boundaries and rather on other qualities (what we do, how we contribute). the eu were expanding, russia may not have liked that. but i did - it created a very large space not defined by national boundaries in which a citizen could move freely living lives dictated by what they do, what they need - not arbitrary boundaries some fascist creep try to use to get them to fight a war against other equally manipulated sods living within other arbitrary geographical boundaries.

Still the old argument that I'd dispelled, nothing to do with globalisation. Shared electricity generation is of necessity local within limited areas like Europe with adjacent countries, but even there far more self sufficiency is needed. Years of lazy reliance on France's nuclear surplus has put us and other EU countries into the current mess that we are in, as their ageing nuclear fleet fails to keep up with demand.

It's not about competition, we all need to be as self reliant as possible so that we can manage alone normally, but also be able to help others at times of unexpected need, such as a sudden major power station outage or national grid failure.

Self reliance also needs to go further, with very local areas more independent for power and food. That is one area where Germany is well ahead with many whole villages completely independent of their nations grid due to being Europe's leader in solar harvesting. They have also long had a tradition of personally run small scale part time farms, producing lots of very local food. Once they wean themselves off gas and oil reliance they will be in a very good place indeed in our rapidly changing world.

We need to make those changes too and forget the false dawn of globalisation tied to such as the USA and China. If we don't we'll always remain dependently poor, while continuing to destroy the planet.
.

 

[jonathan.agnew]

Again, I agree with that but as in all things there is a compromise. No countries could possibly be totally self reliant, probably on any front. However, looking throughout Europe as a whole it probably represents the least self reliant group on the planet. Norway is the least self reliant in the world with Argentina being the most.
Working towards more self reliance and close cooperation on issues that bernefit from close relations is surely way more beneficial than becoming dependant on essentially corrupt and or brutal dictatorships.
Why on earth did so much of Europe become almost utterly reliant on Russia? Why is so much of World dependant on goods from China. Its senseless and short sighted at best and catastroohic for our freedoms at worst.
Yes, by all means buy Putins gas but don't rely on it. We really all should be energy self reliant,and that includes not relying on China supplying majority of every piece of technical equipment needed to achieve zero carbon. (how many heat pumps, wind turbine parts, lithium batteries, etc etc arr sourced from China?)
We have been sleep walking into catastrophe for years. (not just UK, probably all Western developed countries)
Is that process globalisation or is it China/Russia taking advantage of our warped view of it?

And i agree with most of that. But the globalized first second and third world we live in (in which the second and third provide raw material, cheap labour and goods to an affluent first world) owes its architecture more to a colonial past than anything else. And our cheap labour reservoirs in the third world were always politically dodgy places we kept that way because it suited us. Were in a painful transition away from that architecture, the growing pains of a new order include i think the painful violent transition of places like Russia, China into something more democratic - as is inevitable (much as democracy is inevitable, even in china as a byproduct of economic development). In the long run Russia doesn't have a chance in Ukraine or globally, much the way a china destroyed by its covid lockdown policies will be out competed by other countries such as Vietnam in the post covid world in the far east and have to change, collaborate more openly mutually with neighbours. I think the conflict with russia or china are part of a painful but ultimately meaningful adjustment. the era for cold wars and fascist empires are history, china and russia are simply struggling to come to terms with that. there isn't, however, any risk of them defeating the west or NATO or prevailing.

 

[Zlatan]

And i agree with most of that. But the globalized first second and third world we live in (in which the second and third provide raw material, cheap labour and goods to an affluent first world) owes its architecture more to a colonial past than anything else. And our cheap labour reservoirs in the third world were always politically dodgy places we kept that way because it suited us. Were in a painful transition away from that architecture, the growing pains of a new order include i think the painful violent transition of places like Russia, China into something more democratic - as is inevitable (much as democracy is inevitable, even in china as a byproduct of economic development). In the long run Russia doesn't have a chance in Ukraine or globally, much the way a china destroyed by its covid lockdown policies will be out competed by other countries such as Vietnam in the post covid world in the far east and have to change, collaborate more openly mutually with neighbours. I think the conflict with russia or china are part of a painful but ultimately meaningful adjustment. the era for cold wars and fascist empires are history, china and russia are simply struggling to come to terms with that. there isn't, however, any risk of them defeating the west or NATO or prevailing.

Yep, agreed to a point. But that cheap labour we once took advantage of with slavery originally, then underpaid immigrants is simply replaced with us taking advantage of Chinese poor wages but with added advantage of assuming we are no longer morally responsible for the situation. We pass that to Xi Jinping and his authoritarian hold over Chinese. We take advantage of that cheap labour under premise of calling it globalisation. Is that really more morally defensible than us paying slave wages.
We then call Xi a dictator and criticise his regime but happily buy their cheap goods???
We then do exactly same with Putin.
Amazingly, we are surprised when Putin takes further steps we see as intolerable. We nurtured him into it by not stopping him before now and in becoming dependant on his energy (actually the Russian peoples' energy) We indirectly gave him our blessing.
Lovrav almost said as much last March. After first round of sanctions he actually said
"well, you, ll all be back soon doing business with us again, you want our energy"
He was right to think that. That's how we, ve behaved for last 15 years or more.
Is that globalisation? Well, probably not. Ideally, world should be as one, acting as a single trading body with total globalisation.
We haven't had that. Until humans are mature enough to have true, cooperative globalisation countries must rely on self reliance and close cooperation with those worthy of trust.

 

[flecc]

I think the conflict with russia or china are part of a painful but ultimately meaningful adjustment. the era for cold wars and fascist empires are history, china and russia are simply struggling to come to terms with that.

I think it's as much or more the USA which is struggling to come to terms with that truth. As shown by Russia's repeated attempts to be friends with the west after they ended the cold war, but the USA blocking their attempts by hostility and trying to expand NATO when it was no longer needed.

In the early 1990s Russia was still in conflict with China, but the USA's hostility to Russia's attempts to join the West drove then into Beijing's arms, prompting them first to have a border deal and later to sign a peace deal** with China and adopt China's form of communism.

The outcome has been mass immigration from China into eastern Russia and ever closer ties between the two.

That is how stupid America's foreign policy is, binding those two as an enemy and just another of the reasons why we should never trust them or their globalisation.

**The Treaty of Good-Neighborliness and Friendly Cooperation Between the People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation (FCT) is a twenty-year strategic treaty that was signed by the leaders of the two international powers, Jiang Zemin and Vladimir Putin, on July 16, 2001.

June 10, 2022 (Reuters) - Russia and China opened a new cross-border bridge in the far east on Friday which they hope will further boost trade as Moscow reels from sweeping Western sanctions imposed over its actions in Ukraine.

The bridge linking the Russian city of Blagoveshchensk to the Chinese city of Heihe across the Amur river - known in China as Heilongjiang - is just over one kilometre long and cost 19 billion roubles ($342 million), the RIA news agency reported.

Amid a firework display, freight trucks from both ends crossed the two-lane bridge that was festooned with flags in the colours of both countries, video footage of the opening showed.

Russian authorities said the bridge would bring Moscow and Beijing closer together by boosting trade after they announced a "no limits" partnership in February, shortly before President Vladimir Putin sent his forces into Ukraine.

Another "clever" US achievement.
.

 

[jonathan.agnew]

I think it's as much or more the USA which is struggling to come to terms with that truth. As shown by Russia's repeated attempts to be friends with the west after they ended the cold war, but the USA blocking their attempts by hostility and trying to expand NATO when it was no longer needed.

In the early 1990s Russia was still in conflict with China, but the USA's hostility to Russia's attempts to join the West drove then into Beijing's arms, prompting them first to have a border deal and later to sign a peace deal** with China and adopt China's form of communism.

The outcome has been mass immigration from China into eastern Russia and ever closer ties between the two.

That is how stupid America's foreign policy is, binding those two as an enemy and just another of the reasons why we should never trust them or their globalisation.

**The Treaty of Good-Neighborliness and Friendly Cooperation Between the People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation (FCT) is a twenty-year strategic treaty that was signed by the leaders of the two international powers, Jiang Zemin and Vladimir Putin, on July 16, 2001.

June 10, 2022 (Reuters) - Russia and China opened a new cross-border bridge in the far east on Friday which they hope will further boost trade as Moscow reels from sweeping Western sanctions imposed over its actions in Ukraine.

The bridge linking the Russian city of Blagoveshchensk to the Chinese city of Heihe across the Amur river - known in China as Heilongjiang - is just over one kilometre long and cost 19 billion roubles ($342 million), the RIA news agency reported.

Amid a firework display, freight trucks from both ends crossed the two-lane bridge that was festooned with flags in the colours of both countries, video footage of the opening showed.

Russian authorities said the bridge would bring Moscow and Beijing closer together by boosting trade after they announced a "no limits" partnership in February, shortly before President Vladimir Putin sent his forces into Ukraine.

Another "clever" US achievement.
.

We will have to agree to disagree on this. Russia and China are kleptocracies united by their disregard for democratic values, institutions. America's not great, but it's preferable to that

 

[Zlatan]

We will have to agree to disagree on this. Russia and China are kleptocracies united by their disregard for democratic values, institutions. America's not great, but it's preferable to that

I, m sort of between the 2 of you on this. Totally agree with your assessment of Russia /China and would include North Korea.
However, I do think USA, and to a lesser extent West in general, need strategic enemies to keep defence spending and hence the massive production of arms going.
Without strategic enemies USA would only be involved with "police" like peace keeping missions. (ie fighting against Taliban/terrorists etc hardly requires the resources now flowing into our new arms race)
Entire world since last Feb are investing heavily in arms. I wonder who benefits most from that??
But, I agree, the regime in USA is infinitely more desirable than that in Russia/China, even with its possibly corrupt and misguided policies.

 

[flecc]

We will have to agree to disagree on this. Russia and China are kleptocracies united by their disregard for democratic values, institutions. America's not great, but it's preferable to that

But, I agree, the regime in USA is infinitely more desirable than that in Russia/China, even with its possibly corrupt and misguided policies.

But we don't need any of them, not China or the USA or the current form of Russia. Long term we in Europe can get along fine with self sufficiency, and if we'd listened to post war Germany instead of the USA, Russia today would be the part of Europe it wanted to be instead of aligned to China.

In no way is the USA infinitely more desirable since from 1948 on they have only ever meant trouble for us in Europe, more trouble than either Russia or China ever caused us.
.

 

[Zlatan]

But we don't need any of them, not China or the USA or the current form of Russia. Long term we in Europe can get along fine with self sufficiency, and if we'd listened to post war Germany instead of the USA, Russia today would be the part of Europe it wanted to be instead of aligned to China.

In no way is the USA infinitely more desirable since from 1948 on they have only ever meant trouble for us in Europe, more trouble than either Russia or China ever caused us.
.

So given choice Flecc which regime would you live under. I think its easy to criticise our system (we are allowed) and USA but then accept all the freedoms we now enjoy?
Are you so convinced idealogy of USSR was so benign we (the west) should have not taken stance we did. (and continue to take)
I suspect without the nuclear deterent and strength in arms US have maintained for 60 years we would all be communists.??? Would you now or in past stake your freedoms and way of life on your views?? It's a dangerous assumption.
The premise of the cold War was always West would be fighting defensively a cross Europe and simply delaying the massive offensive USSR tank battalions in their rush through Europe. Agreed, things changed when West realised massed tanks could be destroyed with modern missiles launched from helicopters. But Nato has never
planned offensively. Its the creeping coka cola, McDonalds invasion USSR and now Russia are really afraid of. The choice of freedom by society in both Russia and China would destroy their regimes. Not bombs and invasion.

 

[flecc]

So given choice Flecc which regime would you live under.

As I said, neither.

Europe, especially with the EU, is large enough to be safe, two and a half times Russia's reduced population now there is no USSR.

You are stuck with an outdated view of Russia that only existed for part of the 20th century. Russia is on no way a natural ally of China, for centuries those two were constantly at war, right up to the millennium.

But Russia is a natural friend of Europe and long has been. The Royal families of both are closely related with friendships dating from 1698 when the young Tsar Peter the Great visited King William the third. Peter's ambition was to westernise Russia and in that he largely succeeded.

Prince Philip was related to the Romanovs through both his mother and his father. Through his father, Prince Andrew of Greece and Denmark, Philip was the grandnephew of Alexandra Romanov, Nicholas II's wife, and the last Tsarina of Russia. Through his mother, Princess Alice of Battenberg, Philip was also a cousin to the Russian royal family. Philip's children and grandchildren, including William and Harry, are therefore related to the Romanovs as well.

In fact, when the remains of two children thought to be Maria and Alexei Romanov were found in a field in 2007, it was Prince Philip's DNA that was used to identify them.

You'll also know of many Russian composer names from Glinka through to Tchaikovsky, but what you may not know is that they were all naval officers and often politically powerful as well. The navy has always been important to Russia so their elite all joined the navy as the officer class. The importance of this is that they were commonly partly educated in other European countries and spent much of their adult lives in European cities.

Though the Bolsheviks upset this apple cart with their revolution, it wasn't in any way anti European, they just ended up being cast in that role, chiefly by the USA who have always been phobically anti left wing.

And of course that Bolshevik era was very short, just over 70 years. Just look at what followed:

Russia ended the cold war.

The Duma voted to make peace with the West, appointing the right person to do just that in Mikhail Gorbachov.

Yeltsin who replaced him continued the same policy, and when he appointed Putin to follow, Putin also faithfully followed that same policy until the USA made it impossible to any longer, driving Russia into Beijing's arms.

The rest of this unnecessary tragedy you know from then, but please stop thinking that the last 20 years is all that matters. It isn't, like the Bolshevik revolution it's just a brief hiccup in time.
.

 

[snafu]

Do you have a side hustle Whoosh?

Russia's Whoosh eyes $400 million valuation in upcoming IPO

 

[Woosh]

Do you have a side hustle Whoosh?

Russia's Whoosh eyes $400 million valuation in upcoming IPO

I thought I could keep it quiet! What was I thinking??

 

[snafu]

I thought I could keep it quiet! What was I thinking??

I did wonder if you had changed the spelling to throw us off the scent.

TTFN
John.

 

[Woosh]

what do you think of Starmer's plan for constitutional reforms?

 

[jonathan.agnew]

what do you think of Starmer's plan for constitutional reforms?

I know its populist (and trust starmer about as much as the next laywer), but as populist tripe go it's the best I've seen in years. And isnt the tories* just utterly desperate to scupper it, to keep their sweaty grubby fat little paws on the gravy train?

Gordon Brown's devolution agenda isn't relevant to anyone

In the midst of a cost-of-living crisis, his constitutional tinkering is a prime example of the political class speaking its own language

www.telegraph.co.uk

* who have dropped a further 2% in the voting intention poll to 28%

Budget latest: Wednesday set to bring 'biggest tax-raising budget in history'

The Chancellor Rachel Reeves is set to deliver her budget on Wednesday and, ahead of it, has promised that she will “invest, invest, invest” Follow updates and analysis in the Politics Hub.

news.sky.com

 

[Zlatan]

I know its populist (and trust starmer about as much as the next laywer), but as populist tripe go it's the best I've seen in years. And isnt the tories* just utterly desperate to scupper it, to keep their sweaty grubby fat little paws on the gravy train?

Gordon Brown's devolution agenda isn't relevant to anyone

In the midst of a cost-of-living crisis, his constitutional tinkering is a prime example of the political class speaking its own language

www.telegraph.co.uk

* who have dropped a further 2% in the voting intention poll to 28%

Budget latest: Wednesday set to bring 'biggest tax-raising budget in history'

The Chancellor Rachel Reeves is set to deliver her budget on Wednesday and, ahead of it, has promised that she will “invest, invest, invest” Follow updates and analysis in the Politics Hub.

news.sky.com

Amazingly the recurrent theme from Labour.
Announce plans, policies that they might do, which are pretty much lightweight anyway, and never mention the stuff voters are, and will be come next election, bothered about.
Does Brown actually speak to real people outside his entourage. Out of touch doesn't start to describe it.
Country is almost at war, Putin is invading his neighbour, there is a food supply catastrophe building, NHS is on brink of collapse with more on waiting lists than ever, public service folk are downing tools, inflation is rampant, debt is growing,... the list goes on and on. And Brown gives us this, with his major issue being devolution. Then Starmer has a hard on about private schools and HoL.
That will solve everything.Devolve power, stop tax incentives for private schools and close House of Lords. Great. Job done.

 

[guerney]

I thought I could keep it quiet! What was I thinking??

The threat of a trademark lawsuit could threaten to scupper or delay the time sensitive IPO, and they could pay you handsomely to go away. Or the Russians could make you go away through other more permanent means.

 

[guerney]

Decentralise enough power, and councils could be scapegoated for practically everything, and people will become even more disillusioned, seeing little change after voting for national government.

 

[guerney]

Tech contractor who uses an umbrella company? UK tax is coming after them

Britain's wallet-checkers suspect VAT avoidance from some of them – to the tune of 10,000-case tribunal backlog

UK tax collectors clamp down on umbrella companies

Britain's wallet-checkers suspect VAT avoidance from some of them – to the tune of 10,000-case tribunal backlog

www.theregister.com

 

[Danidl]

Again, I agree with that but as in all things there is a compromise. No countries could possibly be totally self reliant, probably on any front. However, looking throughout Europe as a whole it probably represents the least self reliant group on the planet. Norway is the least self reliant in the world with Argentina being the most.
Working towards more self reliance and close cooperation on issues that bernefit from close relations is surely way more beneficial than becoming dependant on essentially corrupt and or brutal dictatorships.
Why on earth did so much of Europe become almost utterly reliant on Russia? Why is so much of World dependant on goods from China. Its senseless and short sighted at best and catastroohic for our freedoms at worst.
Yes, by all means buy Putins gas but don't rely on it. We really all should be energy self reliant,and that includes not relying on China supplying majority of every piece of technical equipment needed to achieve zero carbon. (how many heat pumps, wind turbine parts, lithium batteries, etc etc arr sourced from China?)
We have been sleep walking into catastrophe for years. (not just UK, probably all Western developed countries)
Is that process globalisation or is it China/Russia taking advantage of our warped view of it?

The reason that Europe developed a reliance on Russia was HOPE. The hope was that with strong economic links that aggression would be unthinkable. Such a hope was rational,but now we see it was misguided. It assumed that Russia had basically the same mindset as the West. Since Russia was not big in Hi Tech ,the only thing they could offer was Energy. Much of Soviet Advanced Technology had been designed in Hungary and Czechoslovakia and built in the Ukraine.
And yes I have constantly been flabbergasted by the shortsightedness of my colleagues. I made a presentation at a seminar about 20 years ago now in reference to closing down manufacturing capacity in the West and transferring it to The East. My view was that Chinese people are just as proud as us, and they were never going to allow the humiliation of the Opium War to go unavenged. It was politely ignored ....

 

[Zlatan]

The reason that Europe developed a reliance on Russia was HOPE. The hope was that with strong economic links that aggression would be unthinkable. Such a hope was rational,but now we see it was misguided. It assumed that Russia had basically the same mindset as the West. Since Russia was not big in Hi Tech ,the only thing they could offer was Energy. Much of Soviet Advanced Technology had been designed in Hungary and Czechoslovakia and built in the Ukraine.
And yes I have constantly been flabbergasted by the shortsightedness of my colleagues. I made a presentation at a seminar about 20 years ago now in reference to closing down manufacturing capacity in the West and transferring it to The East. My view was that Chinese people are just as proud as us, and they were never going to allow the humiliation of the Opium War to go unavenged. It was politely ignored ....

Hope for the best, plan for the worst??