Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Laundering Reputations: China and its Uighurs

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited July 23 in General
imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Laundering Reputations: China and its Uighurs

It’s time to talk about the Uighurs again. Despite a harrowing Panorama programme and this header, last December no-one was much bothered, beyond some token expressions of concern. What a difference 7 months, a Made in China pandemic, a security law obliterating HK’s freedoms and news of Huawei’s active involvement in the security apparatus used for Uighur persecution make. 25 years after the Srebrenica massacre by Serbs of 8,000 Muslim Bosnian men and boys – the inevitable murderous conclusion of a campaign of ethnic cleansing and hate – the West has noticed China’s brutality to another little known Muslim community. There are Holocaust and Bosnia echoes with recent revelations of organ-harvesting, prisoners’ hair sold, rape of women and blindfolded prisoners being loaded into trains. Now there is to be a Parliamentary debate on sanctions against China over this (following the indefatigable Maajid Nawaz’s campaign). 

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 37,085
    edited July 23
    FPT

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Scott_xP said:

    kle4 said:

    What a devastating tweet - indy supporter says existence of PM proves why indy is needed.

    It's the same argument as Brexit

    Brexiteer says existence of Brussels proves why Brexit is needed.

    It's unmitigated shite whichever petty nationalist is spouting it, but the point is it works. In both cases.
    Nationalism is neither petty nor nonsense.

    Nationalism is a very good thing, but like all good things is bad if taken to extremes.
    I think unless the driver is to create a new and viable democratic state with civilized values it is usually a bad thing. But I wouldn't be dogmatic about it. Each case is different.
    Nationalism at its best is no more and no less than wanting the best for your own nation and its interests. That does not have to be negative to other nations, wanting the best for yourselves is a good thing. It is about recognising your nation . . . and your fellow men and women within it . . . as being important.
    What I'm getting at a more specific distinction. That between (1) A nationalist movement to create a new state and (2) Strong nationalist sentiment in an existing state.

    (2) is usually bad news. Sometimes VERY bad news.
    I don't agree. Taking it to extremes it can be a bad thing but anything taken to extremes is a bad thing.
    I'm saying it's usually bad news not that it always has to be. Simply take a look around. Strong nationalist movements in existing states tend to be malign. Trump. LePen. Salvini. Duda. Wilders. Golden Dawn. Orban. Farage. Etc Etc. Plus countless historical examples.
    Disagreed. They're the extremists.

    How about Obama, Bill Clinton, Macron etc?

    Every one of them flies their flag everywhere they go. Every American leader has been a nationalist I can't think of a single one that isn't - they all fly the flag, do the pledge of allegiance etc, etc, etc . . . you just take it for granted. People moaned here about 'nationalist' Boris putting a Union Flag on the airplane even after it was pointed out Macron's plane has a Tricolour on it. People moan here about British ministers speaking in front of a Union Flag, but Macron always speaks in front of a Tricolour.
    If you're going to define the US Dems under Clinton/Obama and En Marche in France as "nationalist movements", I suggest we have lost any useful common unders
    tanding of what the N word means.

    You say my examples are extremists. Well, yes. Nationalist movements in existing states tend to be malign extremists. This is the point.

    Trump MAGA. LePen. Salvini. Duda. Wilders. Golden Dawn. Orban. Farage. BNP. Bolsonaro. AfD in Germany. Etc. They are all over. See here just for Europe -

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36130006

    Quite a list. Perhaps you can supply a list of "benign" nationalist movements in existing states and we can see who has the bigger one.
    I think we should define nationalist by how it is defined here then compare across the globe.Every time Boris gets near a flag we hear that it is because he is a nationalist . . . well on that standard so is literally every President ever. And they are. By our standards nearly every American is a nationalist because they don't view that, they don't view patriotism, as something to be ashamed of.
    So let's see a list of current nationalist movements in existing states that are iyo benign. Just start with Europe if this makes it easier. I'm truly intrigued.
    Benign - not necessarily I would vote for them, and I'm going to steer clear of the EU.

    UK:
    The Conservative Party
    The Scottish National Party
    Plaid Cymru

    USA:
    The Democrats

    Australia:
    The Liberals
    The Nationals
    The Australian Labor Party

    New Zealand
    Labour (currently in coalition with NZ First)
    NZ First (currently in coalition with Labour)
    National

    Do you have a problem with Jacinda Ahern's government in New Zealand?
    The SNP and PC don't fit the criteria since their cause is creation of a new sovereign state. The US Democrats are in no recognizable meaning of the word a Nationalist party. Nor are the Libs or Labour down under. Leaving us with Johnson's Tories, NZ First, and the Australia National Party. That's 3 nationalist parties which are arguably not malign and xenophobic - although some would beg to differ - versus the much greater number on my list that clearly are. This rather speaks for itself. I will therefore retype my now proven assertion and put it in italics to mark the end of this exchange -

    Nationalist movements in existing sovereign states are usually malign.
    In any meaningful definition the US Democrats are nationalist. A person who strongly identifies with their own nation and vigorously supports its interests

    Do US Democrats strongly identify with their own nation and vigorously support its own interests, yes or no?

    I could have listed dozens and dozens more parties if I wanted to do so, so your assertion is entirely fallacious.
    I see you truncated the definition to suit.

    "identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations.

    You need the last bit otherwise almost every mainstream political party classifies and it loses utility as a term.

    So, no, the Dems are not a nationalist party. Maintaining they are will take you into trolling territory and you know how that ends. It ends with another item on the list.

    Do you want "The US Democrats are a Nationalist Party" to go as number 11 on the list?
    I've said all along that detriment to others is only for extremists. That is a definition made by opponents of nationalism.

    Who are the NZ government of Jacinda Ahern trying to be to the detriment of?
    I'll take that as a yes. We have reached 11. Bottom line is almost everyone is a Nationalist per your exotic definition. The Lib Dems. They identify with Britain and want the best for the country. VERY strongly in favour of the national interest but without damaging others. Just ask Ed Davey. He'll tell you.
    Almost everyone is a nationalist yes.

    Internationalists, who don't value their own country at all are an extreme minority.
    Read Orwell's Notes On Nationalism.

    He analysed the various "international" allegiances of his day - Communism, Catholicism etc. His point was that they represented a variant on nationalism - the transference of nationalistic feeling from the Nation to the Supra-Nation. Much as, historically, clan/tribe loyalty had been transferred/added to regional nationalism, then nation level nationalism

    Most of the "internationalism" you see is a variation on this theme - EU Nationalism, for example.
    Completely agreed. See a great many EU Nationalists on this site.

    @Nigel_Foremain and @williamglenn for instance are both EU Nationalists.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 27,168
    Second like Boris
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 3,198
    Chinese imperialism is modelled on English imperialism. It was you guys who learnt them the ropes.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 1,083

    Chinese imperialism is modelled on English imperialism. It was you guys who learnt them the ropes.

    No, Chinese imperialism existed long before the British (Scots were imperialists, just like the English) variety. Indeed, long before the English were even a nation.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 5,764
    NHS Hospital Numbers out

    Headline - 19
    7 days - 9 - lots of backdating
    Yesterday - 1

    image
    image
    image
    image
    image
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 35,023
    What do Chinese Communists use to communicate with the dead?

    A Uighur-board.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 6,023

    Carnyx said:

    How much money has HMG spent on this crap?

    How very peculiar. It appears to be the "English" one, English in the sense that it has no jurisdiction in Scotland where the virus is concerned, and whose name appears in the little video in the tweet ("UK Goivernment Scotland").

    But the tweet cites the website of VisotScotland, an agency of the Scottish government (and shows a photo of, I suspect, that cafe alley off Byres Road in Glasgow).

    It may just be cooperation - but the dissonance at once raises questions about how reliable it is.
    If one, heaven forfend, was of a cynical turn of mind, one might think that HMG is buying twitter ad space to give the impression that it has some oversight over an area of government or regulation in Scotland which it does not have.
    FPT.

    And linked with Mr Johnson's imperial progress.

    The other interpretation I considered (also being a cynic) is that it is to try and bounce the Scottish Gmt into following the English one (e.g. to make money for tourist-business-owning ScoTories - I can think of one hotelier). But I think yours is probably correct. Though muddying the waters as to who is responsible for what has a long and disreputable pedigree amongst Unionists in Scotland since 1997.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 935
    Fishing said:

    Chinese imperialism is modelled on English imperialism. It was you guys who learnt them the ropes.

    No, Chinese imperialism existed long before the British (Scots were imperialists, just like the English) variety. Indeed, long before the English were even a nation.
    Wasn't the reason for the Union failed Scottish imperialism?

    (Ducks and takes cover)
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 24,155
    edited July 23

    FPT

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Scott_xP said:

    kle4 said:

    What a devastating tweet - indy supporter says existence of PM proves why indy is needed.

    It's the same argument as Brexit

    Brexiteer says existence of Brussels proves why Brexit is needed.

    It's unmitigated shite whichever petty nationalist is spouting it, but the point is it works. In both cases.
    Nationalism is neither petty nor nonsense.

    Nationalism is a very good thing, but like all good things is bad if taken to extremes.
    I think unless the driver is to create a new and viable democratic state with civilized values it is usually a bad thing. But I wouldn't be dogmatic about it. Each case is different.
    Nationalism at its best is no more and no less than wanting the best for your own nation and its interests. That does not have to be negative to other nations, wanting the best for yourselves is a good thing. It is about recognising your nation . . . and your fellow men and women within it . . . as being important.
    What I'm getting at a more specific distinction. That between (1) A nationalist movement to create a new state and (2) Strong nationalist sentiment in an existing state.

    (2) is usually bad news. Sometimes VERY bad news.
    I don't agree. Taking it to extremes it can be a bad thing but anything taken to extremes is a bad thing.
    I'm saying it's usually bad news not that it always has to be. Simply take a look around. Strong nationalist movements in existing states tend to be malign. Trump. LePen. Salvini. Duda. Wilders. Golden Dawn. Orban. Farage. Etc Etc. Plus countless historical examples.
    Disagreed. They're the extremists.

    How about Obama, Bill Clinton, Macron etc?

    Every one of them flies their flag everywhere they go. Every American leader has been a nationalist I can't think of a single one that isn't - they all fly the flag, do the pledge of allegiance etc, etc, etc . . . you just take it for granted. People moaned here about 'nationalist' Boris putting a Union Flag on the airplane even after it was pointed out Macron's plane has a Tricolour on it. People moan here about British ministers speaking in front of a Union Flag, but Macron always speaks in front of a Tricolour.
    If you're going to define the US Dems under Clinton/Obama and En Marche in France as "nationalist movements", I suggest we have lost any useful common unders
    tanding of what the N word means.

    You say my examples are extremists. Well, yes. Nationalist movements in existing states tend to be malign extremists. This is the point.

    Trump MAGA. LePen. Salvini. Duda. Wilders. Golden Dawn. Orban. Farage. BNP. Bolsonaro. AfD in Germany. Etc. They are all over. See here just for Europe -

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36130006

    Quite a list. Perhaps you can supply a list of "benign" nationalist movements in existing states and we can see who has the bigger one.
    I think we should define nationalist by how it is defined here then compare across the globe.Every time Boris gets near a flag we hear that it is because he is a nationalist . . . well on that standard so is literally every President ever. And they are. By our standards nearly every American is a nationalist because they don't view that, they don't view patriotism, as something to be ashamed of.
    So let's see a list of current nationalist movements in existing states that are iyo benign. Just start with Europe if this makes it easier. I'm truly intrigued.
    Benign - not necessarily I would vote for them, and I'm going to steer clear of the EU.

    UK:
    The Conservative Party
    The Scottish National Party
    Plaid Cymru

    USA:
    The Democrats

    Australia:
    The Liberals
    The Nationals
    The Australian Labor Party

    New Zealand
    Labour (currently in coalition with NZ First)
    NZ First (currently in coalition with Labour)
    National

    Do you have a problem with Jacinda Ahern's government in New Zealand?
    The SNP and PC don't fit the criteria since their cause is creation of a new sovereign state. The US Democrats are in no recognizable meaning of the word a Nationalist party. Nor are the Libs or Labour down under. Leaving us with Johnson's Tories, NZ First, and the Australia National Party. That's 3 nationalist parties which are arguably not malign and xenophobic - although some would beg to differ - versus the much greater number on my list that clearly are. This rather speaks for itself. I will therefore retype my now proven assertion and put it in italics to mark the end of this exchange -

    Nationalist movements in existing sovereign states are usually malign.
    In any meaningful definition the US Democrats are nationalist. A person who strongly identifies with their own nation and vigorously supports its interests

    Do US Democrats strongly identify with their own nation and vigorously support its own interests, yes or no?

    I could have listed dozens and dozens more parties if I wanted to do so, so your assertion is entirely fallacious.
    I see you truncated the definition to suit.

    "identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations.

    You need the last bit otherwise almost every mainstream political party classifies and it loses utility as a term.

    So, no, the Dems are not a nationalist party. Maintaining they are will take you into trolling territory and you know how that ends. It ends with another item on the list.

    Do you want "The US Democrats are a Nationalist Party" to go as number 11 on the list?
    I've said all along that detriment to others is only for extremists. That is a definition made by opponents of nationalism.

    Who are the NZ government of Jacinda Ahern trying to be to the detriment of?
    I'll take that as a yes. We have reached 11. Bottom line is almost everyone is a Nationalist per your exotic definition. The Lib Dems. They identify with Britain and want the best for the country. VERY strongly in favour of the national interest but without damaging others. Just ask Ed Davey. He'll tell you.
    Almost everyone is a nationalist yes.

    Internationalists, who don't value their own country at all are an extreme minority.
    Read Orwell's Notes On Nationalism.

    He analysed the various "international" allegiances of his day - Communism, Catholicism etc. His point was that they represented a variant on nationalism - the transference of nationalistic feeling from the Nation to the Supra-Nation. Much as, historically, clan/tribe loyalty had been transferred/added to regional nationalism, then nation level nationalism

    Most of the "internationalism" you see is a variation on this theme - EU Nationalism, for example.
    Completely agreed. See a great many EU Nationalists on this site.

    @Nigel_Foremain and @williamglenn for instance are both EU Nationalists.
    So we're expanding the "nationalist" definition to expand, what, the globe? I think everyone knows what nationalism means apart from you who said that almost everyone is a nationalist. When your experiences on PB (which as I said you seem to populate 24/7) does not bear that out.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 5,764
    On topic - must we then dispense with the great beating heart of our illustrious Universities? By that I mean Independent Academic Principles.

    The rules of which are

    1) Our principle are our soul. Set in stone. Unmovable. Unchangeable. Rooted in moral philosophy and the Enlightenment.
    2) If you don't like those principles, we have others we can sell you.

    See Landmine College, Oxford and Qaddafi & LSE.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 1,083
    "A start. Now Britain needs to use its UN vote against Xi Xinping’s wish for a seat on the UN Human Rights Council, if the concept of “human rights” is to have any worthwhile meaning, that is."

    I'm afraid that pass was sold a long time ago, when countries like Libya or Saudia Arabia were allowed to get on the Council.

    The HRC should really change its name to the UN Anti-Israel Council, as since the creation of the Council in 2006, it has resolved almost more resolutions condemning Israel than on the rest of the world combined.
  • I wonder if No Deal will be announced sooner than we think
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 6,023
    TimT said:

    Fishing said:

    Chinese imperialism is modelled on English imperialism. It was you guys who learnt them the ropes.

    No, Chinese imperialism existed long before the British (Scots were imperialists, just like the English) variety. Indeed, long before the English were even a nation.
    Wasn't the reason for the Union failed Scottish imperialism?

    (Ducks and takes cover)
    Only for some of the very upper classes (when Darien failed). Big fat bribes for the former, and English ecnomic and (threatened) military pressure thanks to their terror of a Stuart dynasty next door to a shaky Hanoverian one, were more important.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 3,198
    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cyclefree said:

    geoffw said:

    Showing my ignorance here, but is there any other country where the head of state is also the leader of the national church?

    Iran? Wasn’t that what Khomeini was? Not sure about his successors.
    Andorra (although that's an exceptional case).

    Cyprus, for a time, although that was a coincidence rather than an established practice.

    Zimbabwe, for the first months of majority rule.
    Wales is not an example though.
    One point that might be worth making is that the Church of England is not a 'national' church. It is a church that covers a part of the UK (admittedly by far the largest part). In Wales and Northern Ireland there is no established church. In Scotland the status of the Church of Scotland (no connection to the Church of England) is distinctly ambiguous, but whether it is established or not the Monarch is not the Head of it.

    Speaking as an Anglican, it is an anomaly I would be happy to see tidied up by transferring the role of Head of the Church de jure and de facto to the Archbishop of Canterbury.
    Why have a ‘national’ church at all?

    Most people are atheists and even among the religious Anglicans are in a minority.

    The whole concept is completely bonkers.
    A system that developed as a result of a horny old man trying to get his leg over, and acquire some money, and blunder through complicated 16th century theological disputes is bonkers? Who could have seen that coming?
    In that case, you won’t want to examine the birth of the Union too closely. Who could have seen this coming?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 28,773
    An excellent header.

    We have a long and illustrious record of burnishing the reputations of the world's sleaziest people.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 37,085
    TOPPING said:

    FPT

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Scott_xP said:

    kle4 said:

    What a devastating tweet - indy supporter says existence of PM proves why indy is needed.

    It's the same argument as Brexit

    Brexiteer says existence of Brussels proves why Brexit is needed.

    It's unmitigated shite whichever petty nationalist is spouting it, but the point is it works. In both cases.
    Nationalism is neither petty nor nonsense.

    Nationalism is a very good thing, but like all good things is bad if taken to extremes.
    I think unless the driver is to create a new and viable democratic state with civilized values it is usually a bad thing. But I wouldn't be dogmatic about it. Each case is different.
    Nationalism at its best is no more and no less than wanting the best for your own nation and its interests. That does not have to be negative to other nations, wanting the best for yourselves is a good thing. It is about recognising your nation . . . and your fellow men and women within it . . . as being important.
    What I'm getting at a more specific distinction. That between (1) A nationalist movement to create a new state and (2) Strong nationalist sentiment in an existing state.

    (2) is usually bad news. Sometimes VERY bad news.
    I don't agree. Taking it to extremes it can be a bad thing but anything taken to extremes is a bad thing.
    I'm saying it's usually bad news not that it always has to be. Simply take a look around. Strong nationalist movements in existing states tend to be malign. Trump. LePen. Salvini. Duda. Wilders. Golden Dawn. Orban. Farage. Etc Etc. Plus countless historical examples.
    Disagreed. They're the extremists.

    How about Obama, Bill Clinton, Macron etc?

    Every one of them flies their flag everywhere they go. Every American leader has been a nationalist I can't think of a single one that isn't - they all fly the flag, do the pledge of allegiance etc, etc, etc . . . you just take it for granted. People moaned here about 'nationalist' Boris putting a Union Flag on the airplane even after it was pointed out Macron's plane has a Tricolour on it. People moan here about British ministers speaking in front of a Union Flag, but Macron always speaks in front of a Tricolour.
    If you're going to define the US Dems under Clinton/Obama and En Marche in France as "nationalist movements", I suggest we have lost any useful common unders
    tanding of what the N word means.

    You say my examples are extremists. Well, yes. Nationalist movements in existing states tend to be malign extremists. This is the point.

    Trump MAGA. LePen. Salvini. Duda. Wilders. Golden Dawn. Orban. Farage. BNP. Bolsonaro. AfD in Germany. Etc. They are all over. See here just for Europe -

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36130006

    Quite a list. Perhaps you can supply a list of "benign" nationalist movements in existing states and we can see who has the bigger one.
    I think we should define nationalist by how it is defined here then compare across the globe.Every time Boris gets near a flag we hear that it is because he is a nationalist . . . well on that standard so is literally every President ever. And they are. By our standards nearly every American is a nationalist because they don't view that, they don't view patriotism, as something to be ashamed of.
    So let's see a list of current nationalist movements in existing states that are iyo benign. Just start with Europe if this makes it easier. I'm truly intrigued.
    Benign - not necessarily I would vote for them, and I'm going to steer clear of the EU.

    UK:
    The Conservative Party
    The Scottish National Party
    Plaid Cymru

    USA:
    The Democrats

    Australia:
    The Liberals
    The Nationals
    The Australian Labor Party

    New Zealand
    Labour (currently in coalition with NZ First)
    NZ First (currently in coalition with Labour)
    National

    Do you have a problem with Jacinda Ahern's government in New Zealand?
    The SNP and PC don't fit the criteria since their cause is creation of a new sovereign state. The US Democrats are in no recognizable meaning of the word a Nationalist party. Nor are the Libs or Labour down under. Leaving us with Johnson's Tories, NZ First, and the Australia National Party. That's 3 nationalist parties which are arguably not malign and xenophobic - although some would beg to differ - versus the much greater number on my list that clearly are. This rather speaks for itself. I will therefore retype my now proven assertion and put it in italics to mark the end of this exchange -

    Nationalist movements in existing sovereign states are usually malign.
    In any meaningful definition the US Democrats are nationalist. A person who strongly identifies with their own nation and vigorously supports its interests

    Do US Democrats strongly identify with their own nation and vigorously support its own interests, yes or no?

    I could have listed dozens and dozens more parties if I wanted to do so, so your assertion is entirely fallacious.
    I see you truncated the definition to suit.

    "identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations.

    You need the last bit otherwise almost every mainstream political party classifies and it loses utility as a term.

    So, no, the Dems are not a nationalist party. Maintaining they are will take you into trolling territory and you know how that ends. It ends with another item on the list.

    Do you want "The US Democrats are a Nationalist Party" to go as number 11 on the list?
    I've said all along that detriment to others is only for extremists. That is a definition made by opponents of nationalism.

    Who are the NZ government of Jacinda Ahern trying to be to the detriment of?
    I'll take that as a yes. We have reached 11. Bottom line is almost everyone is a Nationalist per your exotic definition. The Lib Dems. They identify with Britain and want the best for the country. VERY strongly in favour of the national interest but without damaging others. Just ask Ed Davey. He'll tell you.
    Almost everyone is a nationalist yes.

    Internationalists, who don't value their own country at all are an extreme minority.
    Read Orwell's Notes On Nationalism.

    He analysed the various "international" allegiances of his day - Communism, Catholicism etc. His point was that they represented a variant on nationalism - the transference of nationalistic feeling from the Nation to the Supra-Nation. Much as, historically, clan/tribe loyalty had been transferred/added to regional nationalism, then nation level nationalism

    Most of the "internationalism" you see is a variation on this theme - EU Nationalism, for example.
    Completely agreed. See a great many EU Nationalists on this site.

    @Nigel_Foremain and @williamglenn for instance are both EU Nationalists.
    So we're expanding the "nationalist" definition to expand, what, the globe? I think everyone knows what nationalism means apart from you who said that almost everyone is a nationalist. When your experiences on PB (which as I said you seem to populate 24/7) does not bear that out.
    On this site we have a variety of forms of nationalists. Quite a few Scottish nationalists, quite a few British/UK nationalists, quite a few European nationalists . . . I think (but may be wrong) I'm possibly the only English nationalist.

    What people are perceiving as their nation: the UK/Scotland/Europe/England that they're nationalistically supporting varies but there is a heck of a lot of nationalism here.

    The number of true internationalists here is quite limited.
  • sarissasarissa Posts: 876
    TimT said:

    Fishing said:

    Chinese imperialism is modelled on English imperialism. It was you guys who learnt them the ropes.

    No, Chinese imperialism existed long before the British (Scots were imperialists, just like the English) variety. Indeed, long before the English were even a nation.
    Wasn't the reason for the Union failed Scottish imperialism?

    (Ducks and takes cover)
    Blocked is the word you were looking for.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 935
    Carnyx said:

    TimT said:

    Fishing said:

    Chinese imperialism is modelled on English imperialism. It was you guys who learnt them the ropes.

    No, Chinese imperialism existed long before the British (Scots were imperialists, just like the English) variety. Indeed, long before the English were even a nation.
    Wasn't the reason for the Union failed Scottish imperialism?

    (Ducks and takes cover)
    Only for some of the very upper classes (when Darien failed). Big fat bribes for the former, and English ecnomic and (threatened) military pressure thanks to their terror of a Stuart dynasty next door to a shaky Hanoverian one, were more important.
    Seriously, this is an area where my knowledge of history is deficient. Do you have any good books on lead up to and politics of the union to recommend?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 5,764
    TOPPING said:

    FPT

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Scott_xP said:

    kle4 said:

    What a devastating tweet - indy supporter says existence of PM proves why indy is needed.

    It's the same argument as Brexit

    Brexiteer says existence of Brussels proves why Brexit is needed.

    It's unmitigated shite whichever petty nationalist is spouting it, but the point is it works. In both cases.
    Nationalism is neither petty nor nonsense.

    Nationalism is a very good thing, but like all good things is bad if taken to extremes.
    I think unless the driver is to create a new and viable democratic state with civilized values it is usually a bad thing. But I wouldn't be dogmatic about it. Each case is different.
    Nationalism at its best is no more and no less than wanting the best for your own nation and its interests. That does not have to be negative to other nations, wanting the best for yourselves is a good thing. It is about recognising your nation . . . and your fellow men and women within it . . . as being important.
    What I'm getting at a more specific distinction. That between (1) A nationalist movement to create a new state and (2) Strong nationalist sentiment in an existing state.

    (2) is usually bad news. Sometimes VERY bad news.
    I don't agree. Taking it to extremes it can be a bad thing but anything taken to extremes is a bad thing.
    I'm saying it's usually bad news not that it always has to be. Simply take a look around. Strong nationalist movements in existing states tend to be malign. Trump. LePen. Salvini. Duda. Wilders. Golden Dawn. Orban. Farage. Etc Etc. Plus countless historical examples.
    Disagreed. They're the extremists.

    How about Obama, Bill Clinton, Macron etc?

    Every one of them flies their flag everywhere they go. Every American leader has been a nationalist I can't think of a single one that isn't - they all fly the flag, do the pledge of allegiance etc, etc, etc . . . you just take it for granted. People moaned here about 'nationalist' Boris putting a Union Flag on the airplane even after it was pointed out Macron's plane has a Tricolour on it. People moan here about British ministers speaking in front of a Union Flag, but Macron always speaks in front of a Tricolour.
    If you're going to define the US Dems under Clinton/Obama and En Marche in France as "nationalist movements", I suggest we have lost any useful common unders
    tanding of what the N word means.

    You say my examples are extremists. Well, yes. Nationalist movements in existing states tend to be malign extremists. This is the point.

    Trump MAGA. LePen. Salvini. Duda. Wilders. Golden Dawn. Orban. Farage. BNP. Bolsonaro. AfD in Germany. Etc. They are all over. See here just for Europe -

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36130006

    Quite a list. Perhaps you can supply a list of "benign" nationalist movements in existing states and we can see who has the bigger one.
    I think we should define nationalist by how it is defined here then compare across the globe.Every time Boris gets near a flag we hear that it is because he is a nationalist . . . well on that standard so is literally every President ever. And they are. By our standards nearly every American is a nationalist because they don't view that, they don't view patriotism, as something to be ashamed of.
    So let's see a list of current nationalist movements in existing states that are iyo benign. Just start with Europe if this makes it easier. I'm truly intrigued.
    Benign - not necessarily I would vote for them, and I'm going to steer clear of the EU.

    UK:
    The Conservative Party
    The Scottish National Party
    Plaid Cymru

    USA:
    The Democrats

    Australia:
    The Liberals
    The Nationals
    The Australian Labor Party

    New Zealand
    Labour (currently in coalition with NZ First)
    NZ First (currently in coalition with Labour)
    National

    Do you have a problem with Jacinda Ahern's government in New Zealand?
    The SNP and PC don't fit the criteria since their cause is creation of a new sovereign state. The US Democrats are in no recognizable meaning of the word a Nationalist party. Nor are the Libs or Labour down under. Leaving us with Johnson's Tories, NZ First, and the Australia National Party. That's 3 nationalist parties which are arguably not malign and xenophobic - although some would beg to differ - versus the much greater number on my list that clearly are. This rather speaks for itself. I will therefore retype my now proven assertion and put it in italics to mark the end of this exchange -

    Nationalist movements in existing sovereign states are usually malign.
    In any meaningful definition the US Democrats are nationalist. A person who strongly identifies with their own nation and vigorously supports its interests

    Do US Democrats strongly identify with their own nation and vigorously support its own interests, yes or no?

    I could have listed dozens and dozens more parties if I wanted to do so, so your assertion is entirely fallacious.
    I see you truncated the definition to suit.

    "identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations.

    You need the last bit otherwise almost every mainstream political party classifies and it loses utility as a term.

    So, no, the Dems are not a nationalist party. Maintaining they are will take you into trolling territory and you know how that ends. It ends with another item on the list.

    Do you want "The US Democrats are a Nationalist Party" to go as number 11 on the list?
    I've said all along that detriment to others is only for extremists. That is a definition made by opponents of nationalism.

    Who are the NZ government of Jacinda Ahern trying to be to the detriment of?
    I'll take that as a yes. We have reached 11. Bottom line is almost everyone is a Nationalist per your exotic definition. The Lib Dems. They identify with Britain and want the best for the country. VERY strongly in favour of the national interest but without damaging others. Just ask Ed Davey. He'll tell you.
    Almost everyone is a nationalist yes.

    Internationalists, who don't value their own country at all are an extreme minority.
    Read Orwell's Notes On Nationalism.

    He analysed the various "international" allegiances of his day - Communism, Catholicism etc. His point was that they represented a variant on nationalism - the transference of nationalistic feeling from the Nation to the Supra-Nation. Much as, historically, clan/tribe loyalty had been transferred/added to regional nationalism, then nation level nationalism

    Most of the "internationalism" you see is a variation on this theme - EU Nationalism, for example.
    Completely agreed. See a great many EU Nationalists on this site.

    @Nigel_Foremain and @williamglenn for instance are both EU Nationalists.
    So we're expanding the "nationalist" definition to expand, what, the globe? I think everyone knows what nationalism means apart from you who said that almost everyone is a nationalist. When your experiences on PB (which as I said you seem to populate 24/7) does not bear that out.
    You should read Notes on Nationalism.

    Orwell pointed out that the same mental structures applied to at various sizes of community. The loyalty to Wessex had been (partially) transferred to England, then to Britain etc. He saw (and showed) that the various supra-nationalisms are just a continuation of the same thing.

    As interesting example, the other day - the idea that pubs should keep a record of their customers.

    Denounced as stupid, ridiculous etc when it was thought to be the idea of the UK government alone.

    When it was pointed out that this was exactly what was happening ion certain other countries - instantly some voices were stilled.

    Orwell would have smiled at that, I think.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 14,675
    edited July 23
    A good article. I am a little wary of the vastly increased interest in Chinese human rights violations since Mr Trump and Mr Xi fell out, but that's not to deny that very serious violations are happening, and Cyclefree's suggestions make good sense. Frankly we can perfectly well afford to do without these generous "investments" - huge to an individual, they remain trivial in national GDP terms.

    I encountered a small example of this sort of thing when I was an MP. Someone representing an Azerbaijani group approached me to ask if I'd be willing to take an interest in affairs of the region - not necessarily to raise them in the Commons ("or not at first") but to take an intelligent view. They would be more than happy to help fund my next reelection campaign, since they felt that MPs who were even remotely interested were so rare. Where should they send the money, please?

    Even though I'm a bit naive about these things, that struck me as dodgy, so I declined. And of course if I'd asked my constituency party to take the money it would then have been an offence to mention Azerbaijan in the Commons without declaring the interest. But the fact that it's not actually an offence to accept foreign money in return for "taking an interest" strikes me as even more dubious now than it did then. The USA doesn't allow foreign contributions to political parties - perhaps we should emulate that?

    Not taking no for an answer, their representative pressed the case by saying that Azerbaijan was very important in confronting the remnants of communism and he felt sure I'd be sympathetic as a strong supporter of the Western alliance. He looked a bit puzzled when I laughed - possibly he should have researched my background a bit. Presumably he was trying everyone he could find - I did wonder if he got any other takers.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 6,023
    TimT said:

    Carnyx said:

    TimT said:

    Fishing said:

    Chinese imperialism is modelled on English imperialism. It was you guys who learnt them the ropes.

    No, Chinese imperialism existed long before the British (Scots were imperialists, just like the English) variety. Indeed, long before the English were even a nation.
    Wasn't the reason for the Union failed Scottish imperialism?

    (Ducks and takes cover)
    Only for some of the very upper classes (when Darien failed). Big fat bribes for the former, and English ecnomic and (threatened) military pressure thanks to their terror of a Stuart dynasty next door to a shaky Hanoverian one, were more important.
    Seriously, this is an area where my knowledge of history is deficient. Do you have any good books on lead up to and politics of the union to recommend?
    I'm not that well up on the period - I'm much more familiar with the C19 (hence my remarks on the Kirks today!) But I usually like Tom Devine's trilogy if I want a general history of Scotland . The Scottish Nation 1700-2000 may be worth a try.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 935
    Carnyx said:

    TimT said:

    Carnyx said:

    TimT said:

    Fishing said:

    Chinese imperialism is modelled on English imperialism. It was you guys who learnt them the ropes.

    No, Chinese imperialism existed long before the British (Scots were imperialists, just like the English) variety. Indeed, long before the English were even a nation.
    Wasn't the reason for the Union failed Scottish imperialism?

    (Ducks and takes cover)
    Only for some of the very upper classes (when Darien failed). Big fat bribes for the former, and English ecnomic and (threatened) military pressure thanks to their terror of a Stuart dynasty next door to a shaky Hanoverian one, were more important.
    Seriously, this is an area where my knowledge of history is deficient. Do you have any good books on lead up to and politics of the union to recommend?
    I'm not that well up on the period - I'm much more familiar with the C19 (hence my remarks on the Kirks today!) But I usually like Tom Devine's trilogy if I want a general history of Scotland . The Scottish Nation 1700-2000 may be worth a try.
    Thanks
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 24,155

    TOPPING said:

    FPT

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Scott_xP said:

    kle4 said:

    What a devastating tweet - indy supporter says existence of PM proves why indy is needed.

    It's the same argument as Brexit

    Brexiteer says existence of Brussels proves why Brexit is needed.

    It's unmitigated shite whichever petty nationalist is spouting it, but the point is it works. In both cases.
    Nationalism is neither petty nor nonsense.

    Nationalism is a very good thing, but like all good things is bad if taken to extremes.
    I think unless the driver is to create a new and viable democratic state with civilized values it is usually a bad thing. But I wouldn't be dogmatic about it. Each case is different.
    Nationalism at its best is no more and no less than wanting the best for your own nation and its interests. That does not have to be negative to other nations, wanting the best for yourselves is a good thing. It is about recognising your nation . . . and your fellow men and women within it . . . as being important.
    What I'm getting at a more specific distinction. That between (1) A nationalist movement to create a new state and (2) Strong nationalist sentiment in an existing state.

    (2) is usually bad news. Sometimes VERY bad news.
    I don't agree. Taking it to extremes it can be a bad thing but anything taken to extremes is a bad thing.
    I'm saying it's usually bad news not that it always has to be. Simply take a look around. Strong nationalist movements in existing states tend to be malign. Trump. LePen. Salvini. Duda. Wilders. Golden Dawn. Orban. Farage. Etc Etc. Plus countless historical examples.
    Disagreed. They're the extremists.

    How about Obama, Bill Clinton, Macron etc?

    Every one of them flies their flag everywhere they go. Every American leader has been a nationalist I can't think of a single one that isn't - they all fly the flag, do the pledge of allegiance etc, etc, etc . . . you just take it for granted. People moaned here about 'nationalist' Boris putting a Union Flag on the airplane even after it was pointed out Macron's plane has a Tricolour on it. People moan here about British ministers speaking in front of a Union Flag, but Macron always speaks in front of a Tricolour.
    If you're going to define the US Dems under Clinton/Obama and En Marche in France as "nationalist movements", I suggest we have lost any useful common unders
    tanding of what the N word means.

    You say my examples are extremists. Well, yes. Nationalist movements in existing states tend to be malign extremists. This is the point.

    Trump MAGA. LePen. Salvini. Duda. Wilders. Golden Dawn. Orban. Farage. BNP. Bolsonaro. AfD in Germany. Etc. They are all over. See here just for Europe -

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36130006

    Quite a list. Perhaps you can supply a list of "benign" nationalist movements in existing states and we can see who has the bigger one.
    I think we should define nationalist by how it is defined here then compare across the globe.Every time Boris gets near a flag we hear that it is because he is a nationalist . . . well on that standard so is literally every President ever. And they are. By our standards nearly every American is a nationalist because they don't view that, they don't view patriotism, as something to be ashamed of.
    So let's see a list of current nationalist movements in existing states that are iyo benign. Just start with Europe if this makes it easier. I'm truly intrigued.
    Benign - not necessarily I would vote for them, and I'm going to steer clear of the EU.

    UK:
    The Conservative Party
    The Scottish National Party
    Plaid Cymru

    USA:
    The Democrats

    Australia:
    The Liberals
    The Nationals
    The Australian Labor Party

    New Zealand
    Labour (currently in coalition with NZ First)
    NZ First (currently in coalition with Labour)
    National

    Do you have a problem with Jacinda Ahern's government in New Zealand?
    The SNP and PC don't fit the criteria since their cause is creation of a new sovereign state. The US Democrats are in no recognizable meaning of the word a Nationalist party. Nor are the Libs or Labour down under. Leaving us with Johnson's Tories, NZ First, and the Australia National Party. That's 3 nationalist parties which are arguably not malign and xenophobic - although some would beg to differ - versus the much greater number on my list that clearly are. This rather speaks for itself. I will therefore retype my now proven assertion and put it in italics to mark the end of this exchange -

    Nationalist movements in existing sovereign states are usually malign.
    In any meaningful definition the US Democrats are nationalist. A person who strongly identifies with their own nation and vigorously supports its interests

    Do US Democrats strongly identify with their own nation and vigorously support its own interests, yes or no?

    I could have listed dozens and dozens more parties if I wanted to do so, so your assertion is entirely fallacious.
    I see you truncated the definition to suit.

    "identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations.

    You need the last bit otherwise almost every mainstream political party classifies and it loses utility as a term.

    So, no, the Dems are not a nationalist party. Maintaining they are will take you into trolling territory and you know how that ends. It ends with another item on the list.

    Do you want "The US Democrats are a Nationalist Party" to go as number 11 on the list?
    I've said all along that detriment to others is only for extremists. That is a definition made by opponents of nationalism.

    Who are the NZ government of Jacinda Ahern trying to be to the detriment of?
    I'll take that as a yes. We have reached 11. Bottom line is almost everyone is a Nationalist per your exotic definition. The Lib Dems. They identify with Britain and want the best for the country. VERY strongly in favour of the national interest but without damaging others. Just ask Ed Davey. He'll tell you.
    Almost everyone is a nationalist yes.

    Internationalists, who don't value their own country at all are an extreme minority.
    Read Orwell's Notes On Nationalism.

    He analysed the various "international" allegiances of his day - Communism, Catholicism etc. His point was that they represented a variant on nationalism - the transference of nationalistic feeling from the Nation to the Supra-Nation. Much as, historically, clan/tribe loyalty had been transferred/added to regional nationalism, then nation level nationalism

    Most of the "internationalism" you see is a variation on this theme - EU Nationalism, for example.
    Completely agreed. See a great many EU Nationalists on this site.

    @Nigel_Foremain and @williamglenn for instance are both EU Nationalists.
    So we're expanding the "nationalist" definition to expand, what, the globe? I think everyone knows what nationalism means apart from you who said that almost everyone is a nationalist. When your experiences on PB (which as I said you seem to populate 24/7) does not bear that out.
    You should read Notes on Nationalism.

    Orwell pointed out that the same mental structures applied to at various sizes of community. The loyalty to Wessex had been (partially) transferred to England, then to Britain etc. He saw (and showed) that the various supra-nationalisms are just a continuation of the same thing.

    As interesting example, the other day - the idea that pubs should keep a record of their customers.

    Denounced as stupid, ridiculous etc when it was thought to be the idea of the UK government alone.

    When it was pointed out that this was exactly what was happening ion certain other countries - instantly some voices were stilled.

    Orwell would have smiled at that, I think.
    I will certainly read it I adore his writings and it is an omission.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 6,023
    TimT said:

    Carnyx said:

    TimT said:

    Carnyx said:

    TimT said:

    Fishing said:

    Chinese imperialism is modelled on English imperialism. It was you guys who learnt them the ropes.

    No, Chinese imperialism existed long before the British (Scots were imperialists, just like the English) variety. Indeed, long before the English were even a nation.
    Wasn't the reason for the Union failed Scottish imperialism?

    (Ducks and takes cover)
    Only for some of the very upper classes (when Darien failed). Big fat bribes for the former, and English ecnomic and (threatened) military pressure thanks to their terror of a Stuart dynasty next door to a shaky Hanoverian one, were more important.
    Seriously, this is an area where my knowledge of history is deficient. Do you have any good books on lead up to and politics of the union to recommend?
    I'm not that well up on the period - I'm much more familiar with the C19 (hence my remarks on the Kirks today!) But I usually like Tom Devine's trilogy if I want a general history of Scotland . The Scottish Nation 1700-2000 may be worth a try.
    Thanks
    and

    https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=346wCgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=scottish+independence&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjImuDkvOPqAhWGT8AKHVKrDa44HhDoATAIegQIBxAC#v=onepage&q=scottish independence&f=false

    - yfou can get at least some of the relevant bit here
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 1,825
    Excellent, and impossible to disagree. Of these issues education stands out form relevance. It is very hard to believe that some universities have not been corrupted by their physical presence in leftfascist states, their dependence on totalitarian money, the large numbers of students here who will be fearful of their state back home and so intellectually compromise. To say nothing of the implicit requirements of dubious donors.

    Internationalism is fine in a world which is rapidly leaning towards a free, open and liberal society. It isn't.

    BTW there is an opening for SKS in these areas. He is a genuinely moderate left centrist (I think) without Boris's authoritarian instincts. There are lots of possibilities for SKS to please liberals and UK patriots at the same time in the area of relations with brutal foreign powers.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 21,106



    As interesting example, the other day - the idea that pubs should keep a record of their customers.

    Denounced as stupid, ridiculous etc when it was thought to be the idea of the UK government alone.

    When it was pointed out that this was exactly what was happening ion certain other countries - instantly some voices were stilled.

    Have you got some examples of that? As far as I'm aware anyone on here paying attention knew that the practice was instigated by other countries well before the UK/English government, and I'd got the the impression that the general consensus was that it was sensible.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 4,087
    Seems to be a strange thread from Jess Philips saying she has no recourse against anyonymous twitter satirists.

    Their policy - like the rest - is to respond to requests from law enforcers and Courts.

    https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter-law-enforcement-support#16
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 5,764



    As interesting example, the other day - the idea that pubs should keep a record of their customers.

    Denounced as stupid, ridiculous etc when it was thought to be the idea of the UK government alone.

    When it was pointed out that this was exactly what was happening ion certain other countries - instantly some voices were stilled.

    Have you got some examples of that? As far as I'm aware anyone on here paying attention knew that the practice was instigated by other countries well before the UK/English government, and I'd got the the impression that the general consensus was that it was sensible.
    I would have to dig - it was rather funny. Invective followed by silence.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 21,106
    OK, one last time. These are small… but the ones out there are far away. Small… far away.

  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 5,764
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    FPT

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Scott_xP said:

    kle4 said:

    What a devastating tweet - indy supporter says existence of PM proves why indy is needed.

    It's the same argument as Brexit

    Brexiteer says existence of Brussels proves why Brexit is needed.

    It's unmitigated shite whichever petty nationalist is spouting it, but the point is it works. In both cases.
    Nationalism is neither petty nor nonsense.

    Nationalism is a very good thing, but like all good things is bad if taken to extremes.
    I think unless the driver is to create a new and viable democratic state with civilized values it is usually a bad thing. But I wouldn't be dogmatic about it. Each case is different.
    Nationalism at its best is no more and no less than wanting the best for your own nation and its interests. That does not have to be negative to other nations, wanting the best for yourselves is a good thing. It is about recognising your nation . . . and your fellow men and women within it . . . as being important.
    What I'm getting at a more specific distinction. That between (1) A nationalist movement to create a new state and (2) Strong nationalist sentiment in an existing state.

    (2) is usually bad news. Sometimes VERY bad news.
    I don't agree. Taking it to extremes it can be a bad thing but anything taken to extremes is a bad thing.
    I'm saying it's usually bad news not that it always has to be. Simply take a look around. Strong nationalist movements in existing states tend to be malign. Trump. LePen. Salvini. Duda. Wilders. Golden Dawn. Orban. Farage. Etc Etc. Plus countless historical examples.
    Disagreed. They're the extremists.

    How about Obama, Bill Clinton, Macron etc?

    Every one of them flies their flag everywhere they go. Every American leader has been a nationalist I can't think of a single one that isn't - they all fly the flag, do the pledge of allegiance etc, etc, etc . . . you just take it for granted. People moaned here about 'nationalist' Boris putting a Union Flag on the airplane even after it was pointed out Macron's plane has a Tricolour on it. People moan here about British ministers speaking in front of a Union Flag, but Macron always speaks in front of a Tricolour.
    If you're going to define the US Dems under Clinton/Obama and En Marche in France as "nationalist movements", I suggest we have lost any useful common unders
    tanding of what the N word means.

    You say my examples are extremists. Well, yes. Nationalist movements in existing states tend to be malign extremists. This is the point.

    Trump MAGA. LePen. Salvini. Duda. Wilders. Golden Dawn. Orban. Farage. BNP. Bolsonaro. AfD in Germany. Etc. They are all over. See here just for Europe -

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36130006

    Quite a list. Perhaps you can supply a list of "benign" nationalist movements in existing states and we can see who has the bigger one.
    I think we should define nationalist by how it is defined here then compare across the globe.Every time Boris gets near a flag we hear that it is because he is a nationalist . . . well on that standard so is literally every President ever. And they are. By our standards nearly every American is a nationalist because they don't view that, they don't view patriotism, as something to be ashamed of.
    So let's see a list of current nationalist movements in existing states that are iyo benign. Just start with Europe if this makes it easier. I'm truly intrigued.
    Benign - not necessarily I would vote for them, and I'm going to steer clear of the EU.

    UK:
    The Conservative Party
    The Scottish National Party
    Plaid Cymru

    USA:
    The Democrats

    Australia:
    The Liberals
    The Nationals
    The Australian Labor Party

    New Zealand
    Labour (currently in coalition with NZ First)
    NZ First (currently in coalition with Labour)
    National

    Do you have a problem with Jacinda Ahern's government in New Zealand?
    The SNP and PC don't fit the criteria since their cause is creation of a new sovereign state. The US Democrats are in no recognizable meaning of the word a Nationalist party. Nor are the Libs or Labour down under. Leaving us with Johnson's Tories, NZ First, and the Australia National Party. That's 3 nationalist parties which are arguably not malign and xenophobic - although some would beg to differ - versus the much greater number on my list that clearly are. This rather speaks for itself. I will therefore retype my now proven assertion and put it in italics to mark the end of this exchange -

    Nationalist movements in existing sovereign states are usually malign.
    In any meaningful definition the US Democrats are nationalist. A person who strongly identifies with their own nation and vigorously supports its interests

    Do US Democrats strongly identify with their own nation and vigorously support its own interests, yes or no?

    I could have listed dozens and dozens more parties if I wanted to do so, so your assertion is entirely fallacious.
    I see you truncated the definition to suit.

    "identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations.

    You need the last bit otherwise almost every mainstream political party classifies and it loses utility as a term.

    So, no, the Dems are not a nationalist party. Maintaining they are will take you into trolling territory and you know how that ends. It ends with another item on the list.

    Do you want "The US Democrats are a Nationalist Party" to go as number 11 on the list?
    I've said all along that detriment to others is only for extremists. That is a definition made by opponents of nationalism.

    Who are the NZ government of Jacinda Ahern trying to be to the detriment of?
    I'll take that as a yes. We have reached 11. Bottom line is almost everyone is a Nationalist per your exotic definition. The Lib Dems. They identify with Britain and want the best for the country. VERY strongly in favour of the national interest but without damaging others. Just ask Ed Davey. He'll tell you.
    Almost everyone is a nationalist yes.

    Internationalists, who don't value their own country at all are an extreme minority.
    Read Orwell's Notes On Nationalism.

    He analysed the various "international" allegiances of his day - Communism, Catholicism etc. His point was that they represented a variant on nationalism - the transference of nationalistic feeling from the Nation to the Supra-Nation. Much as, historically, clan/tribe loyalty had been transferred/added to regional nationalism, then nation level nationalism

    Most of the "internationalism" you see is a variation on this theme - EU Nationalism, for example.
    Completely agreed. See a great many EU Nationalists on this site.

    @Nigel_Foremain and @williamglenn for instance are both EU Nationalists.
    So we're expanding the "nationalist" definition to expand, what, the globe? I think everyone knows what nationalism means apart from you who said that almost everyone is a nationalist. When your experiences on PB (which as I said you seem to populate 24/7) does not bear that out.
    You should read Notes on Nationalism.

    Orwell pointed out that the same mental structures applied to at various sizes of community. The loyalty to Wessex had been (partially) transferred to England, then to Britain etc. He saw (and showed) that the various supra-nationalisms are just a continuation of the same thing.

    As interesting example, the other day - the idea that pubs should keep a record of their customers.

    Denounced as stupid, ridiculous etc when it was thought to be the idea of the UK government alone.

    When it was pointed out that this was exactly what was happening ion certain other countries - instantly some voices were stilled.

    Orwell would have smiled at that, I think.
    I will certainly read it I adore his writings and it is an omission.
    What is excellent about it, apart from Orwell's usual brilliant prose, is that

    - It approaches the topic relatively dispassionately
    - He skewers the nationalistic mental process, in a way that makes you look at yourself.
    - It has aged very well
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 21,106
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 33,319

    TOPPING said:

    FPT

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Scott_xP said:

    kle4 said:

    What a devastating tweet - indy supporter says existence of PM proves why indy is needed.

    It's the same argument as Brexit

    Brexiteer says existence of Brussels proves why Brexit is needed.

    It's unmitigated shite whichever petty nationalist is spouting it, but the point is it works. In both cases.
    Nationalism is neither petty nor nonsense.

    Nationalism is a very good thing, but like all good things is bad if taken to extremes.
    I think unless the driver is to create a new and viable democratic state with civilized values it is usually a bad thing. But I wouldn't be dogmatic about it. Each case is different.
    Nationalism at its best is no more and no less than wanting the best for your own nation and its interests. That does not have to be negative to other nations, wanting the best for yourselves is a good thing. It is about recognising your nation . . . and your fellow men and women within it . . . as being important.
    What I'm getting at a more specific distinction. That between (1) A nationalist movement to create a new state and (2) Strong nationalist sentiment in an existing state.

    (2) is usually bad news. Sometimes VERY bad news.
    I don't agree. Taking it to extremes it can be a bad thing but anything taken to extremes is a bad thing.
    I'm saying it's usually bad news not that it always has to be. Simply take a look around. Strong nationalist movements in existing states tend to be malign. Trump. LePen. Salvini. Duda. Wilders. Golden Dawn. Orban. Farage. Etc Etc. Plus countless historical examples.
    Disagreed. They're the extremists.

    How about Obama, Bill Clinton, Macron etc?

    Every one of them flies their flag everywhere they go. Every American leader has been a nationalist I can't think of a single one that isn't - they all fly the flag, do the pledge of allegiance etc, etc, etc . . . you just take it for granted. People moaned here about 'nationalist' Boris putting a Union Flag on the airplane even after it was pointed out Macron's plane has a Tricolour on it. People moan here about British ministers speaking in front of a Union Flag, but Macron always speaks in front of a Tricolour.
    If you're going to define the US Dems under Clinton/Obama and En Marche in France as "nationalist movements", I suggest we have lost any useful common unders
    tanding of what the N word means.

    You say my examples are extremists. Well, yes. Nationalist movements in existing states tend to be malign extremists. This is the point.

    Trump MAGA. LePen. Salvini. Duda. Wilders. Golden Dawn. Orban. Farage. BNP. Bolsonaro. AfD in Germany. Etc. They are all over. See here just for Europe -

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36130006

    Quite a list. Perhaps you can supply a list of "benign" nationalist movements in existing states and we can see who has the bigger one.
    I think we should define nationalist by how it is defined here then compare across the globe.Every time Boris gets near a flag we hear that it is because he is a nationalist . . . well on that standard so is literally every President ever. And they are. By our standards nearly every American is a nationalist because they don't view that, they don't view patriotism, as something to be ashamed of.
    So let's see a list of current nationalist movements in existing states that are iyo benign. Just start with Europe if this makes it easier. I'm truly intrigued.
    Benign - not necessarily I would vote for them, and I'm going to steer clear of the EU.

    UK:
    The Conservative Party
    The Scottish National Party
    Plaid Cymru

    USA:
    The Democrats

    Australia:
    The Liberals
    The Nationals
    The Australian Labor Party

    New Zealand
    Labour (currently in coalition with NZ First)
    NZ First (currently in coalition with Labour)
    National

    Do you have a problem with Jacinda Ahern's government in New Zealand?
    The SNP and PC don't fit the criteria since their cause is creation of a new sovereign state. The US Democrats are in no recognizable meaning of the word a Nationalist party. Nor are the Libs or Labour down under. Leaving us with Johnson's Tories, NZ First, and the Australia National Party. That's 3 nationalist parties which are arguably not malign and xenophobic - although some would beg to differ - versus the much greater number on my list that clearly are. This rather speaks for itself. I will therefore retype my now proven assertion and put it in italics to mark the end of this exchange -

    Nationalist movements in existing sovereign states are usually malign.
    In any meaningful definition the US Democrats are nationalist. A person who strongly identifies with their own nation and vigorously supports its interests

    Do US Democrats strongly identify with their own nation and vigorously support its own interests, yes or no?

    I could have listed dozens and dozens more parties if I wanted to do so, so your assertion is entirely fallacious.
    I see you truncated the definition to suit.

    "identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations.

    You need the last bit otherwise almost every mainstream political party classifies and it loses utility as a term.

    So, no, the Dems are not a nationalist party. Maintaining they are will take you into trolling territory and you know how that ends. It ends with another item on the list.

    Do you want "The US Democrats are a Nationalist Party" to go as number 11 on the list?
    I've said all along that detriment to others is only for extremists. That is a definition made by opponents of nationalism.

    Who are the NZ government of Jacinda Ahern trying to be to the detriment of?
    I'll take that as a yes. We have reached 11. Bottom line is almost everyone is a Nationalist per your exotic definition. The Lib Dems. They identify with Britain and want the best for the country. VERY strongly in favour of the national interest but without damaging others. Just ask Ed Davey. He'll tell you.
    Almost everyone is a nationalist yes.

    Internationalists, who don't value their own country at all are an extreme minority.
    Read Orwell's Notes On Nationalism.

    He analysed the various "international" allegiances of his day - Communism, Catholicism etc. His point was that they represented a variant on nationalism - the transference of nationalistic feeling from the Nation to the Supra-Nation. Much as, historically, clan/tribe loyalty had been transferred/added to regional nationalism, then nation level nationalism

    Most of the "internationalism" you see is a variation on this theme - EU Nationalism, for example.
    Completely agreed. See a great many EU Nationalists on this site.

    @Nigel_Foremain and @williamglenn for instance are both EU Nationalists.
    So we're expanding the "nationalist" definition to expand, what, the globe? I think everyone knows what nationalism means apart from you who said that almost everyone is a nationalist. When your experiences on PB (which as I said you seem to populate 24/7) does not bear that out.
    On this site we have a variety of forms of nationalists. Quite a few Scottish nationalists, quite a few British/UK nationalists, quite a few European nationalists . . . I think (but may be wrong) I'm possibly the only English nationalist.

    What people are perceiving as their nation: the UK/Scotland/Europe/England that they're nationalistically supporting varies but there is a heck of a lot of nationalism here.

    The number of true internationalists here is quite limited.
    For an English nationalist, you don't half bang on about the UK a lot.
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 2,809

    Chinese imperialism is modelled on English imperialism. It was you guys who learnt them the ropes.

    Chinese imperialism was around at the same time the Roman version was getting going.

    Actually we need to be a bit worried by the Chinese insistence that they have never been conquered, just been subject to civil wars. Those who you might think did, like Gengis Khan, were obviously Chinese all along.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 12,809
    Great header.

    There is a trade-off between ethics in these policy areas and self-interest. Drop your ethics, boost your status and bank balance being the default formulation of the relationship between the two.

    And I would draw the following distinction which I think is key -

    (1) Where the self-interest is national - i.e. it is the UK's status and bank balance being boosted - there are genuinely difficult decisions to be made. China falls into this category. You need to strike a balance between sacrificing your ethics entirely, thus losing self-respect, and an unacceptable level of impoverishment arising from being too ethical. How best to do this is above my pay grade. I'd err on the high ethics and impoverishment side myself but that's probably because I can afford to take my share of a big hit to national GDP. Not sure this applies to everybody. In fact I'm sure it doesn't. Many people cannot afford to take such a hit - and many who could are not prepared to.

    (2) It's an easier question to answer where the self-interest is primarily that of a relatively small number of well-connected individuals. In this case it is imo obvious that the practice - of swapping ethics for cash and influence - should be stamped out. Of course this is difficult to do in practice precisely because the individuals who benefit are well-connected. Nevertheless it should be the goal. There should be zero tolerance for this form of ethics mongering.

    So, we need an informed and intelligent balance for (1) and a ruthless clampdown on (2).

    I wonder what the chances of either are under a Boris Johnson administration. Do we see anything like this occurring? No comment.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 5,549
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    FPT

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Scott_xP said:

    kle4 said:

    What a devastating tweet - indy supporter says existence of PM proves why indy is needed.

    It's the same argument as Brexit

    Brexiteer says existence of Brussels proves why Brexit is needed.

    It's unmitigated shite whichever petty nationalist is spouting it, but the point is it works. In both cases.
    Nationalism is neither petty nor nonsense.

    Nationalism is a very good thing, but like all good things is bad if taken to extremes.
    I think unless the driver is to create a new and viable democratic state with civilized values it is usually a bad thing. But I wouldn't be dogmatic about it. Each case is different.
    Nationalism at its best is no more and no less than wanting the best for your own nation and its interests. That does not have to be negative to other nations, wanting the best for yourselves is a good thing. It is about recognising your nation . . . and your fellow men and women within it . . . as being important.
    What I'm getting at a more specific distinction. That between (1) A nationalist movement to create a new state and (2) Strong nationalist sentiment in an existing state.

    (2) is usually bad news. Sometimes VERY bad news.
    I don't agree. Taking it to extremes it can be a bad thing but anything taken to extremes is a bad thing.
    I'm saying it's usually bad news not that it always has to be. Simply take a look around. Strong nationalist movements in existing states tend to be malign. Trump. LePen. Salvini. Duda. Wilders. Golden Dawn. Orban. Farage. Etc Etc. Plus countless historical examples.
    Disagreed. They're the extremists.

    How about Obama, Bill Clinton, Macron etc?

    Every one of them flies their flag everywhere they go. Every American leader has been a nationalist I can't think of a single one that isn't - they all fly the flag, do the pledge of allegiance etc, etc, etc . . . you just take it for granted. People moaned here about 'nationalist' Boris putting a Union Flag on the airplane even after it was pointed out Macron's plane has a Tricolour on it. People moan here about British ministers speaking in front of a Union Flag, but Macron always speaks in front of a Tricolour.
    If you're going to define the US Dems under Clinton/Obama and En Marche in France as "nationalist movements", I suggest we have lost any useful common unders
    tanding of what the N word means.

    You say my examples are extremists. Well, yes. Nationalist movements in existing states tend to be malign extremists. This is the point.

    Trump MAGA. LePen. Salvini. Duda. Wilders. Golden Dawn. Orban. Farage. BNP. Bolsonaro. AfD in Germany. Etc. They are all over. See here just for Europe -

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36130006

    Quite a list. Perhaps you can supply a list of "benign" nationalist movements in existing states and we can see who has the bigger one.
    I think we should define nationalist by how it is defined here then compare across the globe.Every time Boris gets near a flag we hear that it is because he is a nationalist . . . well on that standard so is literally every President ever. And they are. By our standards nearly every American is a nationalist because they don't view that, they don't view patriotism, as something to be ashamed of.
    So let's see a list of current nationalist movements in existing states that are iyo benign. Just start with Europe if this makes it easier. I'm truly intrigued.
    Benign - not necessarily I would vote for them, and I'm going to steer clear of the EU.

    UK:
    The Conservative Party
    The Scottish National Party
    Plaid Cymru

    USA:
    The Democrats

    Australia:
    The Liberals
    The Nationals
    The Australian Labor Party

    New Zealand
    Labour (currently in coalition with NZ First)
    NZ First (currently in coalition with Labour)
    National

    Do you have a problem with Jacinda Ahern's government in New Zealand?
    The SNP and PC don't fit the criteria since their cause is creation of a new sovereign state. The US Democrats are in no recognizable meaning of the word a Nationalist party. Nor are the Libs or Labour down under. Leaving us with Johnson's Tories, NZ First, and the Australia National Party. That's 3 nationalist parties which are arguably not malign and xenophobic - although some would beg to differ - versus the much greater number on my list that clearly are. This rather speaks for itself. I will therefore retype my now proven assertion and put it in italics to mark the end of this exchange -

    Nationalist movements in existing sovereign states are usually malign.
    In any meaningful definition the US Democrats are nationalist. A person who strongly identifies with their own nation and vigorously supports its interests

    Do US Democrats strongly identify with their own nation and vigorously support its own interests, yes or no?

    I could have listed dozens and dozens more parties if I wanted to do so, so your assertion is entirely fallacious.
    I see you truncated the definition to suit.

    "identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations.

    You need the last bit otherwise almost every mainstream political party classifies and it loses utility as a term.

    So, no, the Dems are not a nationalist party. Maintaining they are will take you into trolling territory and you know how that ends. It ends with another item on the list.

    Do you want "The US Democrats are a Nationalist Party" to go as number 11 on the list?
    I've said all along that detriment to others is only for extremists. That is a definition made by opponents of nationalism.

    Who are the NZ government of Jacinda Ahern trying to be to the detriment of?
    I'll take that as a yes. We have reached 11. Bottom line is almost everyone is a Nationalist per your exotic definition. The Lib Dems. They identify with Britain and want the best for the country. VERY strongly in favour of the national interest but without damaging others. Just ask Ed Davey. He'll tell you.
    Almost everyone is a nationalist yes.

    Internationalists, who don't value their own country at all are an extreme minority.
    Read Orwell's Notes On Nationalism.

    He analysed the various "international" allegiances of his day - Communism, Catholicism etc. His point was that they represented a variant on nationalism - the transference of nationalistic feeling from the Nation to the Supra-Nation. Much as, historically, clan/tribe loyalty had been transferred/added to regional nationalism, then nation level nationalism

    Most of the "internationalism" you see is a variation on this theme - EU Nationalism, for example.
    Completely agreed. See a great many EU Nationalists on this site.

    @Nigel_Foremain and @williamglenn for instance are both EU Nationalists.
    So we're expanding the "nationalist" definition to expand, what, the globe? I think everyone knows what nationalism means apart from you who said that almost everyone is a nationalist. When your experiences on PB (which as I said you seem to populate 24/7) does not bear that out.
    You should read Notes on Nationalism.

    Orwell pointed out that the same mental structures applied to at various sizes of community. The loyalty to Wessex had been (partially) transferred to England, then to Britain etc. He saw (and showed) that the various supra-nationalisms are just a continuation of the same thing.

    As interesting example, the other day - the idea that pubs should keep a record of their customers.

    Denounced as stupid, ridiculous etc when it was thought to be the idea of the UK government alone.

    When it was pointed out that this was exactly what was happening ion certain other countries - instantly some voices were stilled.

    Orwell would have smiled at that, I think.
    I will certainly read it I adore his writings and it is an omission.
    Oh dear, Philip Thompson doesn't know what nationalism is, but he is clearly a nationalist from what he says, in the same way Donald Trump is, someone he pretends to despise. Just for the record, Philip, your ridiculous suggestion (ridiculous even by your standards is really going some) that I am a "EU nationalist" both misunderstands what nationalism is (you clearly don't have the first clue), and my position on the EU.

    In your simplistic mind someone who believes Brexit to be pointless, juvenile and damaging, as I do, must be a "Europhile". I have never been such. It is perfectly rational to think leaving an organisation is dumb without blindly loving that organisation. Bit too complex for a headbanging-nationalistic-keyboard-warrior-sixth-form-common-room-bore-contrarian such as yourself I know, but there we are. If you eventually become part of the grown up world you might start to understand, but no-one on here is holding their breath.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 26,233
    edited July 23
    Hmm, it's a popular view that the UK is an easy target for money laundering, but is it really that easy nowadays?

    To take one example from the header: Anyone can buy [London property] if they have the money. Up to a point, Ms Cyclefree. First they have to work around the fact that the estate agents, solicitors, and banks involved have to comply with the Money Laundering Regulations 2017 and other laws. These are pretty draconian nowadays.

    In any case, all of this has virtually no connection with the appalling treatment of the Uighurs. There's a bit of a non-sequitur here.

  • eekeek Posts: 8,645
    edited July 23
    MattW said:

    Seems to be a strange thread from Jess Philips saying she has no recourse against anyonymous twitter satirists.

    Their policy - like the rest - is to respond to requests from law enforcers and Courts.

    https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter-law-enforcement-support#16

    Twitter is an american company and satirists are legal there - heck BoredElonMusk is one of my favourite tweeters.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 26,233

    ...The USA doesn't allow foreign contributions to political parties - perhaps we should emulate that?...

    Nor does the UK. I'm surprised you've forgotten that.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 2,523
    edited July 23
    Some important points in the header.

    The balkans have been a reference point throughout, but we need to remember that the west's conduct there during the 1990s has been far from the exemplar of humanitarian liberal intervensionism often made out, as an uncomplicated good before Iraq.

    Not only was the response to crimes in Bosnia woefully, fatally slow, but the EU failed to acknowledge that historical geostrategic factors had influenced the early German and Austrian recognition of Croatia and Slovenia, accelerating a fatal unravelling of Yugoslavia that was by no means guaranteed.

    The EU and NATO followed up their woefully slow response to the plight of the Bosnian muslims as result of serb forces in that area, with a one-eyed response to post-conflict Kosovo - where former war criminals were hailed for good governance, and evidence of the KLA having harvested the organs of kosovan Serbs, as happened in reverse elsewhere, was never investigated, and has effectively been covered up, again for geostrategic reasons ; the trail led right to the top of the Kosovar administration.

    The Balkans bears important lessons, but it's also a hideously complex place.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 82,942

    Hmm, it's a popular view that the UK is an easy target for money laundering, but is it really that easy nowadays?

    To take one example from the header: Anyone can buy [London property] if they have the money. Up to a point, Ms Cyclefree. First they have to work around the fact that the estate agents, solicitors, and banks involved have to comply with the Money Laundering Regulations 2017 and other laws. These are pretty draconian nowadays.

    In any case, all of this has virtually no connection with the appalling treatment of the Uighurs. There's a bit of a non-sequitur here.

    Updated by the Money laundering and terrorist financing (amendment) regulations 2019.

    Not that I'm bitter.

    But for your original point, well...
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 8,300
    Boris is obsessed with fishing. Nobody outside of a tiny minority gives a shit about fishing, let’s be real here.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 5,809

    Boris is obsessed with fishing. Nobody outside of a tiny minority gives a shit about fishing, let’s be real here.

    2 million people go fishing... oh not that kind of fishing!
  • RobDRobD Posts: 47,661

    Boris is obsessed with fishing. Nobody outside of a tiny minority gives a shit about fishing, let’s be real here.

    Barnier does, certainly.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 35,023

    Different strokes for different folks.

    twitter.com/ProjectLincoln/status/1286294947755433986?s=20

  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 34,369

    Boris is obsessed with fishing. Nobody outside of a tiny minority gives a shit about fishing, let’s be real here.

    My Scottish family do and with a passion.

    Their communities were founded on fishing
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 60,345
    Just how much fish are we planning on catching to make up for the economic hit of hard Brexit :D
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 21,664
    " Now Britain needs to use its UN vote against Xi Xinping’s wish for a seat on the UN Human Rights Council, if the concept of “human rights” is to have any worthwhile meaning, that is."

    Whilst I agree entirely with both the sentiment and the practical suggestion of this sentence, I am afraid that as far as the UN Human Rights Council is concerned that ship sailed long ago.

    Current members of the Council include Libya, Afghanistan, the DRC and Venezuela. Recent members included Saudi Arabia and Egypt. 18 of the current members have the death penalty.

    The Advisory Committee is headed by a Saudi and includes 4 members from countries that still have the death penalty and actively use it.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 26,233
    Pulpstar said:

    Just how much fish are we planning on catching to make up for the economic hit of hard Brexit :D

    And who are we going to sell it to?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 60,345
    @Gallowgate An important familial/political point, it was Gove's original reason for wanting to leave I think.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 1,919
    RobD said:

    Boris is obsessed with fishing. Nobody outside of a tiny minority gives a shit about fishing, let’s be real here.

    Barnier does, certainly.
    Fishing has become completely totemic in Britain electorally. There is no way we are giving ground there.

    I don;t see why it is so important to the EU, where it is a drop in ocean economically.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 8,300

    Boris is obsessed with fishing. Nobody outside of a tiny minority gives a shit about fishing, let’s be real here.

    My Scottish family do and with a passion.

    Their communities were founded on fishing
    And they will be in the tiny minority. North Shields on Tyneside was “founded on fishing” and yet the Fish Quay, whilst still being a working fishing port, is full of edgy bars and flats these days.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 34,369
    Sky interviewed the CEO of the Scotish Chambers of Commerce who welcomed Boris visit and openly said that England was doing much better as Scotland had been slow in opening the economy causing damage to Scottish business

    And as for playing politics, Sturgeon has not stopped usuing covid for her own agenda
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 14,546
    Pulpstar said:

    Just how much fish are we planning on catching to make up for the economic hit of hard Brexit :D

    It seems to upset the French in particular, so it does look like we have something to gain by standing firm.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 8,300
    Pulpstar said:

    @Gallowgate An important familial/political point, it was Gove's original reason for wanting to leave I think.

    I know that, but yet no leaver I have spoken to talks about fishing unless prompted, and even then it’s met with a shrug and a “yeah, I guess that too”.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 21,106

    Sky interviewed the CEO of the Scotish Chambers of Commerce who welcomed Boris visit and openly said that England was doing much better as Scotland had been slow in opening the economy causing damage to Scottish business

    And as for playing politics, Sturgeon has not stopped usuing covid for her own agenda
    'Why won't Sturgeon indulge in shallow, tin eared populism like our beloved, world beating PM? She's just politicking.'
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 34,369

    Sky interviewed the CEO of the Scotish Chambers of Commerce who welcomed Boris visit and openly said that England was doing much better as Scotland had been slow in opening the economy causing damage to Scottish business

    And as for playing politics, Sturgeon has not stopped usuing covid for her own agenda
    'Why won't Sturgeon indulge in shallow, tin eared populism like our beloved, world beating PM? She's just politicking.'
    But remember I have no issue with another referendum, independence will fail again for amultitude reasons
  • I would opine the top reason to vote leave was immigration
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 82,942
    tlg86 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Just how much fish are we planning on catching to make up for the economic hit of hard Brexit :D

    It seems to upset the French in particular, so it does look like we have something to gain by standing firm.
    Well if you wanted to really annoy the French you should have voted Remain.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 34,369

    Boris is obsessed with fishing. Nobody outside of a tiny minority gives a shit about fishing, let’s be real here.

    My Scottish family do and with a passion.

    Their communities were founded on fishing
    And they will be in the tiny minority. North Shields on Tyneside was “founded on fishing” and yet the Fish Quay, whilst still being a working fishing port, is full of edgy bars and flats these days.
    It does not mean that fishing is not a big issue in the North East Scottish fishing communities
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 8,300

    Boris is obsessed with fishing. Nobody outside of a tiny minority gives a shit about fishing, let’s be real here.

    My Scottish family do and with a passion.

    Their communities were founded on fishing
    And they will be in the tiny minority. North Shields on Tyneside was “founded on fishing” and yet the Fish Quay, whilst still being a working fishing port, is full of edgy bars and flats these days.
    It does not mean that fishing is not a big issue in the North East Scottish fishing communities
    I didn’t say it wasn’t, I’m simply calling them a tiny minority, which they are.

    Everyone else doesn’t give two hoots.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 1,825
    edited July 23
    RobD said:

    Boris is obsessed with fishing. Nobody outside of a tiny minority gives a shit about fishing, let’s be real here.

    Barnier does, certainly.
    Food is never just about the proportion of the economy it comprises. Fish and ag are different. Agriculture +fish is supposed to be about 1% of the economy, which is I suppose equivalent to the contribution of panama hats, nightclubs and inflatable dolphins to GDP as a percentage. But it isn't difficult to guess, especially if you have ever not eaten for a couple of days, why the place of food production in politics and reality is nothing to do with how much of the economy it comprises. And this will never change. At the moment where I live you can't move without being behind slow moving agricultural vehicles all the time. I was stopped this week for the movement of about 1000 sheep down a lane, filling it from side to side. And, from the heartland of northern England dairying, beef and lamb production, this is a very good thing.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 1,919
    edited July 23

    Boris is obsessed with fishing. Nobody outside of a tiny minority gives a shit about fishing, let’s be real here.

    My Scottish family do and with a passion.

    Their communities were founded on fishing
    And they will be in the tiny minority. North Shields on Tyneside was “founded on fishing” and yet the Fish Quay, whilst still being a working fishing port, is full of edgy bars and flats these days.
    It does not mean that fishing is not a big issue in the North East Scottish fishing communities
    Fishing is a massive issue Mr G, crazy but true.

    If Boris 'betrays' those fishermen (persons?) he can forget leading the tories into the next election and I would doubt the tories would form the next government.

    We want those waters. We want to tell Frenchman and Spaniards they cannot fish there even if we don;t want to fish there ourselves. Are we right to want that at the expense of much else? I don;t know, but I know its true.

    Fishing really is that big.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 5,764

    RobD said:

    Boris is obsessed with fishing. Nobody outside of a tiny minority gives a shit about fishing, let’s be real here.

    Barnier does, certainly.
    Fishing has become completely totemic in Britain electorally. There is no way we are giving ground there.

    I don;t see why it is so important to the EU, where it is a drop in ocean economically.
    An Icelandic friend told me that when after the 2008 crash, an EU delegation was having a blow out meal at the top restaurant in Reykjavik.

    The waiters spread word of what they overheard - apparently the EU delegation was carving up the Icelandic fishing rights among themselves, as if they owned the place.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 31,859

    Boris is obsessed with fishing. Nobody outside of a tiny minority gives a shit about fishing, let’s be real here.

    My Scottish family do and with a passion.

    Their communities were founded on fishing
    And they will be in the tiny minority. North Shields on Tyneside was “founded on fishing” and yet the Fish Quay, whilst still being a working fishing port, is full of edgy bars and flats these days.
    It does not mean that fishing is not a big issue in the North East Scottish fishing communities
    Fishing has an emotional impact beyond its economic one: I think the number of fishermen in the UK is smaller than the number of employees of Harrod's.

    It's also worth remembering that our actual ability to limit non-UK fishermen from UK waters is rather more limited than one would think. Take two examples. Let's say that we only allow UK domiciled entities (i.e. British resident people plus UK companies) to own fishing licenses. Well, how do you stop a Canadian or Spanish company starting UK Fishing Boats Ltd and using that to bid on licenses?

    And there's another issue. People lease boats all the time. John Smith in Aberdeen leases a boat from Joe Spaniard - which is fine, Brit with license, Brit with leased Spanish boat. But what if he enters into a wet least with Joe Spaniard. Now, while John Smith is ultimately responsible, the fishing vessel and its crew are all Spanish; the boat may never even unload fish in the UK.

    Prohibiting both these cases is very hard under any traditional free trade agreement - especially as the UK's services industries will be incredibly keen to stop other people using these kind of measures to protect domestic industries. (And what's good for the goose is good for the gander.) And do we protect British law or accounting (exports $40bn+/year) or British sea fishing (exports perhaps 1% of that number)?
  • Fishing is a ridiculously small part of the UK economy, it's mostly irrelevant but it's given vital importance so on that basis if Johnson sells them out - which I think he will - then he's going to have problems.

    I only foresee the UK capitulating. It's what Johnson did last time.
  • eekeek Posts: 8,645

    Boris is obsessed with fishing. Nobody outside of a tiny minority gives a shit about fishing, let’s be real here.

    My Scottish family do and with a passion.

    Their communities were founded on fishing
    And they will be in the tiny minority. North Shields on Tyneside was “founded on fishing” and yet the Fish Quay, whilst still being a working fishing port, is full of edgy bars and flats these days.
    It does not mean that fishing is not a big issue in the North East Scottish fishing communities
    Fishing is a massive issue Mr G, crazy but true.

    If Boris 'betrays' those fishermen (persons?) he can forget leading the tories into the next election and I would doubt the tories would form the next government.

    We want those waters. We want to tell Frenchman and Spaniards they cannot fish there even if we don;t want to fish there ourselves. Are we right to want that at the expense of much else? I don;t know, but I know its true.

    Fishing really is that big.
    That's a problem when most of the French and especially the Spaniards who fish here do so because they bought the rights from British fishermen...
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 53,828
    edited July 23
    Mr. kle4, particularly amusing given Qin Shi Huangdi was around in roughly 200 BC, seven centuries prior to the earliest possible definition of the English.

    Edited extra bit: not to mention the definitive Han Dynasty ran for four centuries ending in 200 AD.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 31,859
    edited July 23

    Boris is obsessed with fishing. Nobody outside of a tiny minority gives a shit about fishing, let’s be real here.

    My Scottish family do and with a passion.

    Their communities were founded on fishing
    And they will be in the tiny minority. North Shields on Tyneside was “founded on fishing” and yet the Fish Quay, whilst still being a working fishing port, is full of edgy bars and flats these days.
    It does not mean that fishing is not a big issue in the North East Scottish fishing communities
    Fishing is a massive issue Mr G, crazy but true.

    If Boris 'betrays' those fishermen (persons?) he can forget leading the tories into the next election and I would doubt the tories would form the next government.

    We want those waters. We want to tell Frenchman and Spaniards they cannot fish there even if we don;t want to fish there ourselves. Are we right to want that at the expense of much else? I don;t know, but I know its true.

    Fishing really is that big.
    Fishing is going to be a massive issue with Canada in FTAs too, as their large fishing firms have bought up UK-EU licenses. (Because, guess what, the Canada-EU FTA prohibits the use of NTBs in this area.)

    Any attempt to strip Canadian firms of licenses legally got (mostly by buying the from UK fishermen) is going to (a) go down really badly in Ottowa if we want a deal with the Canadians, and (b) open the UK up to legal challenges.

    Ultimately, we have been massive proponents of getting rid of NTBs. We want British professional services firms to be able to get Canadian banking and law licenses. We will not be able to get people to lower their barriers to us, if we're putting up barriers to their favoured industries.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 21,106

    Fishing is a ridiculously small part of the UK economy, it's mostly irrelevant but it's given vital importance so on that basis if Johnson sells them out - which I think he will - then he's going to have problems.

    I only foresee the UK capitulating. It's what Johnson did last time.

    Surely history suggests that UK fishing is safe in the hands of the Tories?

    This time it'll be different, some of the saddest words in the English language.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 5,809

    Boris is obsessed with fishing. Nobody outside of a tiny minority gives a shit about fishing, let’s be real here.

    My Scottish family do and with a passion.

    Their communities were founded on fishing
    And they will be in the tiny minority. North Shields on Tyneside was “founded on fishing” and yet the Fish Quay, whilst still being a working fishing port, is full of edgy bars and flats these days.
    It does not mean that fishing is not a big issue in the North East Scottish fishing communities
    Fishing is a massive issue Mr G, crazy but true.

    If Boris 'betrays' those fishermen (persons?) he can forget leading the tories into the next election and I would doubt the tories would form the next government.

    We want those waters. We want to tell Frenchman and Spaniards they cannot fish there even if we don;t want to fish there ourselves. Are we right to want that at the expense of much else? I don;t know, but I know its true.

    Fishing really is that big.
    Well we shouldn’t have sold them the quotas
  • https://www.politicshome.com/thehouse/article/as-nitrous-oxide-quickly-becomes-the-gateway-drug-of-the-summer-its-time-for-fast-action-on-how-sales-can-be-further-restricted

    Moronic from this Labour MP.

    The war on drugs has failed, decriminalise/legalise and tax the shit out of these non-dangerous drugs.
  • Fishing is a ridiculously small part of the UK economy, it's mostly irrelevant but it's given vital importance so on that basis if Johnson sells them out - which I think he will - then he's going to have problems.

    I only foresee the UK capitulating. It's what Johnson did last time.

    Surely history suggests that UK fishing is safe in the hands of the Tories?

    This time it'll be different, some of the saddest words in the English language.
    Well this Government assures us it is different so we will see.

    What I will say is that Johnson's original deal was a capitulation, so he'll either go for No Deal or we'll end up with what the EU basically want. And if it's the former we will end up with the latter anyway.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 10,739

    https://www.politicshome.com/thehouse/article/as-nitrous-oxide-quickly-becomes-the-gateway-drug-of-the-summer-its-time-for-fast-action-on-how-sales-can-be-further-restricted

    Moronic from this Labour MP.

    The war on drugs has failed, decriminalise/legalise and tax the shit out of these non-dangerous drugs.

    The prevalence of Nox is not a good indicator of whether the war on drugs is being won or not.

    Indeed for my part I am quite certain that there is a spike in popularity for any drug which has the appeal of being illegal but without the threat of prison time. If we can keep that to Nox with its relatively limited effects, much better that than many other things.

    Overall drug use in the population is falling!
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 1,919
    nichomar said:

    Boris is obsessed with fishing. Nobody outside of a tiny minority gives a shit about fishing, let’s be real here.

    My Scottish family do and with a passion.

    Their communities were founded on fishing
    And they will be in the tiny minority. North Shields on Tyneside was “founded on fishing” and yet the Fish Quay, whilst still being a working fishing port, is full of edgy bars and flats these days.
    It does not mean that fishing is not a big issue in the North East Scottish fishing communities
    Fishing is a massive issue Mr G, crazy but true.

    If Boris 'betrays' those fishermen (persons?) he can forget leading the tories into the next election and I would doubt the tories would form the next government.

    We want those waters. We want to tell Frenchman and Spaniards they cannot fish there even if we don;t want to fish there ourselves. Are we right to want that at the expense of much else? I don;t know, but I know its true.

    Fishing really is that big.
    Well we shouldn’t have sold them the quotas
    exactly there's a giant myth been built up about the doughty, weathered fishermen of Britain being sold down the river by slick London bureaucrats.

    Even so, betray those no existent fishermen at your political peril. We want those waters, even though we may not know what to do with them.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 8,300

    Boris is obsessed with fishing. Nobody outside of a tiny minority gives a shit about fishing, let’s be real here.

    My Scottish family do and with a passion.

    Their communities were founded on fishing
    And they will be in the tiny minority. North Shields on Tyneside was “founded on fishing” and yet the Fish Quay, whilst still being a working fishing port, is full of edgy bars and flats these days.
    It does not mean that fishing is not a big issue in the North East Scottish fishing communities
    Fishing is a massive issue Mr G, crazy but true.

    If Boris 'betrays' those fishermen (persons?) he can forget leading the tories into the next election and I would doubt the tories would form the next government.

    We want those waters. We want to tell Frenchman and Spaniards they cannot fish there even if we don;t want to fish there ourselves. Are we right to want that at the expense of much else? I don;t know, but I know its true.

    Fishing really is that big.
    Imagine being this detached from reality.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 12,809

    Pulpstar said:

    @Gallowgate An important familial/political point, it was Gove's original reason for wanting to leave I think.

    I know that, but yet no leaver I have spoken to talks about fishing unless prompted, and even then it’s met with a shrug and a “yeah, I guess that too”.
    I think it carries a certain primordial clout that is over and above its objective importance. We are an Island surrounded by water and in that water - 'our waters' - reside our fish. This is a powerful vision. And then there is the practice of catching the fish. The rugged, romantic ideal of the seasoned fisherman going out in all weathers to do the necessary. He may not be contributing any more to GDP than a parking warden or an interior designer but it feels like he is. This is my sense of it anyway. I could be wrong.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 2,523
    edited July 23
    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    @Gallowgate An important familial/political point, it was Gove's original reason for wanting to leave I think.

    I know that, but yet no leaver I have spoken to talks about fishing unless prompted, and even then it’s met with a shrug and a “yeah, I guess that too”.
    I think it carries a certain primordial clout that is over and above its objective importance. We are an Island surrounded by water and in that water - 'our waters' - reside our fish. This is a powerful vision. And then there is the practice of catching the fish. The rugged, romantic ideal of the seasoned fisherman going out in all weathers to do the necessary. He may not be contributing any more to GDP than a parking warden or an interior designer but it feels like he is. This is my sense of it anyway. I could be wrong.
    An eloquently, even lyrically, put post.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 8,300
    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    @Gallowgate An important familial/political point, it was Gove's original reason for wanting to leave I think.

    I know that, but yet no leaver I have spoken to talks about fishing unless prompted, and even then it’s met with a shrug and a “yeah, I guess that too”.
    I think it carries a certain primordial clout that is over and above its objective importance. We are an Island surrounded by water and in that water - 'our waters' - reside our fish. This is a powerful vision. And then there is the practice of catching the fish. The rugged, romantic ideal of the seasoned fisherman going out in all weathers to do the necessary. He may not be contributing any more to GDP than a parking warden or an interior designer but it feels like he is. This is my sense of it anyway. I could be wrong.
    In theory, but like I said, no leaver I have spoken to has ever talked about fishing unprompted. Why would they?
  • eekeek Posts: 8,645

    Fishing is a ridiculously small part of the UK economy, it's mostly irrelevant but it's given vital importance so on that basis if Johnson sells them out - which I think he will - then he's going to have problems.

    I only foresee the UK capitulating. It's what Johnson did last time.

    As I think both myself and RCS1000 have pointed out - we don't actually own most of our fishing rights as we've already sold them to foreigners.

    So there is actually little point trying to get them back, it's best just to trade them away for something that is actually useful.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 1,919
    rcs1000 said:

    Boris is obsessed with fishing. Nobody outside of a tiny minority gives a shit about fishing, let’s be real here.

    My Scottish family do and with a passion.

    Their communities were founded on fishing
    And they will be in the tiny minority. North Shields on Tyneside was “founded on fishing” and yet the Fish Quay, whilst still being a working fishing port, is full of edgy bars and flats these days.
    It does not mean that fishing is not a big issue in the North East Scottish fishing communities
    Fishing is a massive issue Mr G, crazy but true.

    If Boris 'betrays' those fishermen (persons?) he can forget leading the tories into the next election and I would doubt the tories would form the next government.

    We want those waters. We want to tell Frenchman and Spaniards they cannot fish there even if we don;t want to fish there ourselves. Are we right to want that at the expense of much else? I don;t know, but I know its true.

    Fishing really is that big.
    Fishing is going to be a massive issue with Canada in FTAs too, as their large fishing firms have bought up UK-EU licenses. (Because, guess what, the Canada-EU FTA prohibits the use of NTBs in this area.)

    Any attempt to strip Canadian firms of licenses legally got (mostly by buying the from UK fishermen) is going to (a) go down really badly in Ottowa if we want a deal with the Canadians, and (b) open the UK up to legal challenges.

    Ultimately, we have been massive proponents of getting rid of NTBs. We want British professional services firms to be able to get Canadian banking and law licenses. We will not be able to get people to lower their barriers to us, if we're putting up barriers to their favoured industries.
    I don't think who owns the boats is the important bit.

    Quotas are.

    Some guy from the Fishing lobby claimed the French have a 60% quota for the British bit of the celtic sea, for example.



  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,281
    nichomar said:

    Boris is obsessed with fishing. Nobody outside of a tiny minority gives a shit about fishing, let’s be real here.

    My Scottish family do and with a passion.

    Their communities were founded on fishing
    And they will be in the tiny minority. North Shields on Tyneside was “founded on fishing” and yet the Fish Quay, whilst still being a working fishing port, is full of edgy bars and flats these days.
    It does not mean that fishing is not a big issue in the North East Scottish fishing communities
    Fishing is a massive issue Mr G, crazy but true.

    If Boris 'betrays' those fishermen (persons?) he can forget leading the tories into the next election and I would doubt the tories would form the next government.

    We want those waters. We want to tell Frenchman and Spaniards they cannot fish there even if we don;t want to fish there ourselves. Are we right to want that at the expense of much else? I don;t know, but I know its true.

    Fishing really is that big.
    Well we shouldn’t have sold them the quotas
    Maybe the EEC shouldn’t have dreamt up the Common Fisheries Policy back in the early 70’s just so it could make a grab for fishing rights ( or natural resources as they are) of the then four prospective joiners, the UK, Ireland, Denmark, and Norway who just so happened to bring with them vast oceans which the EEC did not possess, but which could force them to hand over as a joining fee of acquis communautaire. Norway voted not to join of course, partly because of this issue I’m sure.

    Just imagine if Spain Italy Greece and Portugal joined, and the northerners dreamt up a Common Citrus Fruit Policy and said hand over your lemon groves because we’ve not got any.

    It was a total injustice 50 years ago, that may be close to being at least partially righted, and despite its minuscule economic value the whole issue has become far more totemic than Barnier wanted I’m sure. Maybe they should’ve been a bit more circumspect about screwing us over on this in the 70’s in the first place? What goes around and all that.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 12,809

    Boris is obsessed with fishing. Nobody outside of a tiny minority gives a shit about fishing, let’s be real here.

    My Scottish family do and with a passion.

    Their communities were founded on fishing
    And they will be in the tiny minority. North Shields on Tyneside was “founded on fishing” and yet the Fish Quay, whilst still being a working fishing port, is full of edgy bars and flats these days.
    It does not mean that fishing is not a big issue in the North East Scottish fishing communities
    Fishing is a massive issue Mr G, crazy but true.

    If Boris 'betrays' those fishermen (persons?) he can forget leading the tories into the next election and I would doubt the tories would form the next government.

    We want those waters. We want to tell Frenchman and Spaniards they cannot fish there even if we don;t want to fish there ourselves. Are we right to want that at the expense of much else? I don;t know, but I know its true.

    Fishing really is that big.
    My sense too.

    It will be interesting to see how Fishing is treated in the Deal.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 31,859
    edited July 23

    rcs1000 said:

    Boris is obsessed with fishing. Nobody outside of a tiny minority gives a shit about fishing, let’s be real here.

    My Scottish family do and with a passion.

    Their communities were founded on fishing
    And they will be in the tiny minority. North Shields on Tyneside was “founded on fishing” and yet the Fish Quay, whilst still being a working fishing port, is full of edgy bars and flats these days.
    It does not mean that fishing is not a big issue in the North East Scottish fishing communities
    Fishing is a massive issue Mr G, crazy but true.

    If Boris 'betrays' those fishermen (persons?) he can forget leading the tories into the next election and I would doubt the tories would form the next government.

    We want those waters. We want to tell Frenchman and Spaniards they cannot fish there even if we don;t want to fish there ourselves. Are we right to want that at the expense of much else? I don;t know, but I know its true.

    Fishing really is that big.
    Fishing is going to be a massive issue with Canada in FTAs too, as their large fishing firms have bought up UK-EU licenses. (Because, guess what, the Canada-EU FTA prohibits the use of NTBs in this area.)

    Any attempt to strip Canadian firms of licenses legally got (mostly by buying the from UK fishermen) is going to (a) go down really badly in Ottowa if we want a deal with the Canadians, and (b) open the UK up to legal challenges.

    Ultimately, we have been massive proponents of getting rid of NTBs. We want British professional services firms to be able to get Canadian banking and law licenses. We will not be able to get people to lower their barriers to us, if we're putting up barriers to their favoured industries.
    I don't think who owns the boats is the important bit.

    Quotas are.

    Some guy from the Fishing lobby claimed the French have a 60% quota for the British bit of the celtic sea, for example.



    If the British fisherman has wet leased the boat from a Spaniard, so none of the people on the boat are British and the fish aren't being landed in the UK, then how is that different from actually selling the quota from an economic perspective?

    Mrs Thatcher said you can't buck the market. And the reality is that the Canadians, French, Koreans and Spanish have invested in large, high-tech vessels that catch fish more cheaply.

    It will therefore always make economic sense for a British fisherman with a small boat to find a way to make sure his fish are caught by someone with a more efficient boat. That can happen via selling his quota, or him wet leasing capacity.
  • eek said:

    Fishing is a ridiculously small part of the UK economy, it's mostly irrelevant but it's given vital importance so on that basis if Johnson sells them out - which I think he will - then he's going to have problems.

    I only foresee the UK capitulating. It's what Johnson did last time.

    As I think both myself and RCS1000 have pointed out - we don't actually own most of our fishing rights as we've already sold them to foreigners.

    So there is actually little point trying to get them back, it's best just to trade them away for something that is actually useful.
    I didn't wish to disagree with what you were saying. I think the capitulation will involve acknowledging and accepting what you've both indicated.

    My belief has been - and remains - that there is no complete Brexit (including deal) which pleases all Leavers. Brexit as an abstract concept was a fantastic way to keep Johnson's coalition together but as soon as it is defined in some final way, people are going to get pissed off.

    I just cannot see a way that Johnson gets a deal that keeps everyone happy. People are going to get screwed, it's just playing the numbers at this point.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 10,739
    Belgium reintroducing new measures. Surely the UK is going to be hit by a second wave, even if from a low base (as are the Belgian figures - to be clear they are a big increase but only in percentage terms)
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 8,300
    welshowl said:

    nichomar said:

    Boris is obsessed with fishing. Nobody outside of a tiny minority gives a shit about fishing, let’s be real here.

    My Scottish family do and with a passion.

    Their communities were founded on fishing
    And they will be in the tiny minority. North Shields on Tyneside was “founded on fishing” and yet the Fish Quay, whilst still being a working fishing port, is full of edgy bars and flats these days.
    It does not mean that fishing is not a big issue in the North East Scottish fishing communities
    Fishing is a massive issue Mr G, crazy but true.

    If Boris 'betrays' those fishermen (persons?) he can forget leading the tories into the next election and I would doubt the tories would form the next government.

    We want those waters. We want to tell Frenchman and Spaniards they cannot fish there even if we don;t want to fish there ourselves. Are we right to want that at the expense of much else? I don;t know, but I know its true.

    Fishing really is that big.
    Well we shouldn’t have sold them the quotas
    Maybe the EEC shouldn’t have dreamt up the Common Fisheries Policy back in the early 70’s just so it could make a grab for fishing rights ( or natural resources as they are) of the then four prospective joiners, the UK, Ireland, Denmark, and Norway who just so happened to bring with them vast oceans which the EEC did not possess, but which could force them to hand over as a joining fee of acquis communautaire. Norway voted not to join of course, partly because of this issue I’m sure.

    Just imagine if Spain Italy Greece and Portugal joined, and the northerners dreamt up a Common Citrus Fruit Policy and said hand over your lemon groves because we’ve not got any.

    It was a total injustice 50 years ago, that may be close to being at least partially righted, and despite its minuscule economic value the whole issue has become far more totemic than Barnier wanted I’m sure. Maybe they should’ve been a bit more circumspect about screwing us over on this in the 70’s in the first place? What goes around and all that.
    You must realise how out of touch you are, right?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 34,309

    Belgium reintroducing new measures. Surely the UK is going to be hit by a second wave, even if from a low base (as are the Belgian figures - to be clear they are a big increase but only in percentage terms)

    Good luck with trying to introduce another lockdown in UK.
  • eekeek Posts: 8,645

    rcs1000 said:

    Boris is obsessed with fishing. Nobody outside of a tiny minority gives a shit about fishing, let’s be real here.

    My Scottish family do and with a passion.

    Their communities were founded on fishing
    And they will be in the tiny minority. North Shields on Tyneside was “founded on fishing” and yet the Fish Quay, whilst still being a working fishing port, is full of edgy bars and flats these days.
    It does not mean that fishing is not a big issue in the North East Scottish fishing communities
    Fishing is a massive issue Mr G, crazy but true.

    If Boris 'betrays' those fishermen (persons?) he can forget leading the tories into the next election and I would doubt the tories would form the next government.

    We want those waters. We want to tell Frenchman and Spaniards they cannot fish there even if we don;t want to fish there ourselves. Are we right to want that at the expense of much else? I don;t know, but I know its true.

    Fishing really is that big.
    Fishing is going to be a massive issue with Canada in FTAs too, as their large fishing firms have bought up UK-EU licenses. (Because, guess what, the Canada-EU FTA prohibits the use of NTBs in this area.)

    Any attempt to strip Canadian firms of licenses legally got (mostly by buying the from UK fishermen) is going to (a) go down really badly in Ottowa if we want a deal with the Canadians, and (b) open the UK up to legal challenges.

    Ultimately, we have been massive proponents of getting rid of NTBs. We want British professional services firms to be able to get Canadian banking and law licenses. We will not be able to get people to lower their barriers to us, if we're putting up barriers to their favoured industries.
    I don't think who owns the boats is the important bit.

    Quotas are.

    Some guy from the Fishing lobby claimed the French have a 60% quota for the British bit of the celtic sea, for example.



    How much of that is the french government and how much of it is french fisherman buying rights from UK fishermen?

    The problem with figures is that you can usually use them to prove whatever point you want to prove...
  • Lockdown in winter is going to suck
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,281

    welshowl said:

    nichomar said:

    Boris is obsessed with fishing. Nobody outside of a tiny minority gives a shit about fishing, let’s be real here.

    My Scottish family do and with a passion.

    Their communities were founded on fishing
    And they will be in the tiny minority. North Shields on Tyneside was “founded on fishing” and yet the Fish Quay, whilst still being a working fishing port, is full of edgy bars and flats these days.
    It does not mean that fishing is not a big issue in the North East Scottish fishing communities
    Fishing is a massive issue Mr G, crazy but true.

    If Boris 'betrays' those fishermen (persons?) he can forget leading the tories into the next election and I would doubt the tories would form the next government.

    We want those waters. We want to tell Frenchman and Spaniards they cannot fish there even if we don;t want to fish there ourselves. Are we right to want that at the expense of much else? I don;t know, but I know its true.

    Fishing really is that big.
    Well we shouldn’t have sold them the quotas
    Maybe the EEC shouldn’t have dreamt up the Common Fisheries Policy back in the early 70’s just so it could make a grab for fishing rights ( or natural resources as they are) of the then four prospective joiners, the UK, Ireland, Denmark, and Norway who just so happened to bring with them vast oceans which the EEC did not possess, but which could force them to hand over as a joining fee of acquis communautaire. Norway voted not to join of course, partly because of this issue I’m sure.

    Just imagine if Spain Italy Greece and Portugal joined, and the northerners dreamt up a Common Citrus Fruit Policy and said hand over your lemon groves because we’ve not got any.

    It was a total injustice 50 years ago, that may be close to being at least partially righted, and despite its minuscule economic value the whole issue has become far more totemic than Barnier wanted I’m sure. Maybe they should’ve been a bit more circumspect about screwing us over on this in the 70’s in the first place? What goes around and all that.
    You must realise how out of touch you are, right?
    Oddly no.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 8,300

    eek said:

    Fishing is a ridiculously small part of the UK economy, it's mostly irrelevant but it's given vital importance so on that basis if Johnson sells them out - which I think he will - then he's going to have problems.

    I only foresee the UK capitulating. It's what Johnson did last time.

    As I think both myself and RCS1000 have pointed out - we don't actually own most of our fishing rights as we've already sold them to foreigners.

    So there is actually little point trying to get them back, it's best just to trade them away for something that is actually useful.
    I didn't wish to disagree with what you were saying. I think the capitulation will involve acknowledging and accepting what you've both indicated.

    My belief has been - and remains - that there is no complete Brexit (including deal) which pleases all Leavers. Brexit as an abstract concept was a fantastic way to keep Johnson's coalition together but as soon as it is defined in some final way, people are going to get pissed off.

    I just cannot see a way that Johnson gets a deal that keeps everyone happy. People are going to get screwed, it's just playing the numbers at this point.
    I mean you’re completely correct, objectively. Even if “Brexit” as a project turns out to be a success in the long run, at least a significant minority of “Leavers” are going to feel betrayed.

    I’ve already extensively explained (with no counter argument I might add) how 98% British born, and White, Blyth Valley, is going to see no benefit to the “points based immigration system”. All their existing problems currently blamed on phantom immigration still remains, unless tackled in other ways.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 1,825

    welshowl said:

    nichomar said:

    Boris is obsessed with fishing. Nobody outside of a tiny minority gives a shit about fishing, let’s be real here.

    My Scottish family do and with a passion.

    Their communities were founded on fishing
    And they will be in the tiny minority. North Shields on Tyneside was “founded on fishing” and yet the Fish Quay, whilst still being a working fishing port, is full of edgy bars and flats these days.
    It does not mean that fishing is not a big issue in the North East Scottish fishing communities
    Fishing is a massive issue Mr G, crazy but true.

    If Boris 'betrays' those fishermen (persons?) he can forget leading the tories into the next election and I would doubt the tories would form the next government.

    We want those waters. We want to tell Frenchman and Spaniards they cannot fish there even if we don;t want to fish there ourselves. Are we right to want that at the expense of much else? I don;t know, but I know its true.

    Fishing really is that big.
    Well we shouldn’t have sold them the quotas
    Maybe the EEC shouldn’t have dreamt up the Common Fisheries Policy back in the early 70’s just so it could make a grab for fishing rights ( or natural resources as they are) of the then four prospective joiners, the UK, Ireland, Denmark, and Norway who just so happened to bring with them vast oceans which the EEC did not possess, but which could force them to hand over as a joining fee of acquis communautaire. Norway voted not to join of course, partly because of this issue I’m sure.

    Just imagine if Spain Italy Greece and Portugal joined, and the northerners dreamt up a Common Citrus Fruit Policy and said hand over your lemon groves because we’ve not got any.

    It was a total injustice 50 years ago, that may be close to being at least partially righted, and despite its minuscule economic value the whole issue has become far more totemic than Barnier wanted I’m sure. Maybe they should’ve been a bit more circumspect about screwing us over on this in the 70’s in the first place? What goes around and all that.
    You must realise how out of touch you are, right?
    This 'out of touch' argument seems quite well founded and decently argued to me. Could Gallowgate tell us what's wrong with it?

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 34,309
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 8,300
    algarkirk said:

    welshowl said:

    nichomar said:

    Boris is obsessed with fishing. Nobody outside of a tiny minority gives a shit about fishing, let’s be real here.

    My Scottish family do and with a passion.

    Their communities were founded on fishing
    And they will be in the tiny minority. North Shields on Tyneside was “founded on fishing” and yet the Fish Quay, whilst still being a working fishing port, is full of edgy bars and flats these days.
    It does not mean that fishing is not a big issue in the North East Scottish fishing communities
    Fishing is a massive issue Mr G, crazy but true.

    If Boris 'betrays' those fishermen (persons?) he can forget leading the tories into the next election and I would doubt the tories would form the next government.

    We want those waters. We want to tell Frenchman and Spaniards they cannot fish there even if we don;t want to fish there ourselves. Are we right to want that at the expense of much else? I don;t know, but I know its true.

    Fishing really is that big.
    Well we shouldn’t have sold them the quotas
    Maybe the EEC shouldn’t have dreamt up the Common Fisheries Policy back in the early 70’s just so it could make a grab for fishing rights ( or natural resources as they are) of the then four prospective joiners, the UK, Ireland, Denmark, and Norway who just so happened to bring with them vast oceans which the EEC did not possess, but which could force them to hand over as a joining fee of acquis communautaire. Norway voted not to join of course, partly because of this issue I’m sure.

    Just imagine if Spain Italy Greece and Portugal joined, and the northerners dreamt up a Common Citrus Fruit Policy and said hand over your lemon groves because we’ve not got any.

    It was a total injustice 50 years ago, that may be close to being at least partially righted, and despite its minuscule economic value the whole issue has become far more totemic than Barnier wanted I’m sure. Maybe they should’ve been a bit more circumspect about screwing us over on this in the 70’s in the first place? What goes around and all that.
    You must realise how out of touch you are, right?
    This 'out of touch' argument seems quite well founded and decently argued to me. Could Gallowgate tell us what's wrong with it?

    I already have. @welshowl is treating “fishing” like an issue of significant national importance, when actually no normal person gives a hoot.
This discussion has been closed.