Will Britain piss off and get on with Brexit II (mod warning in OP)

Leroy42

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

You misunderstand. I didnt mean migrants cause homelessness. I meant there is a clear distinction between refugees and migrants.

A refugee is someone in danger in their homeland and needs help so should we accept them...As long as they are genuine and law abiding yes.

A migrant is somebody who just decided to go and live elsewhere and not because their lives were in danger........Should we accept them.....absolutely not and if you do it only encourages more of the same.........Migrants must only be accepted if they are needed and wanted by the population. Not because someone is going to benefit by accepting them (political).

If you do accepts migrants then it not only affects the native population it also affects genuine refugees in many ways and none of them good.

You linked migrants with dealing with the homeless. And there isn't any link. We can do both, or neither or either.

Not for the first time you have made a silly argument and then tried to row back on it by twisting your own words.

Timberrrrrrrr

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

As a migrant myself I would say as long as you obey the law then yes.

But other migrants who obey the law? What makes me different to a migrant from Nigeria? Syria? Moldova etc?

Boredstiff666

Deleted User wrote: »

Misleading people, but I don't see that he was, and nothing you posted convinced me he was factually incorrect. Why do you think making yourself look like an arsehole is the best way to combat what you see as misleading information?

This.......During the Brexit referendum campaign it was Remainers who said a Brexit vote would mean leaving the single market, and they were rubbished by Brexiters for saying so. ........Brexiteers as he calls them said leave means leave and they are leaving the single market.

This......I think what we have here is just another iteration of what I have just decided to call the Brexiter’s Dilemma. It has bedevilled the Brexit project pretty much from the get-go, initially because too many Brexiters were simply in denial that the Brexiter’s Dilemma existed, and then because they simply refused or were unable to make the choice that the Dilemma required them to make, and then because they could not agree among themselves how to make that choice. Brexit was three times delayed by the Brexiter’s dilemma, May’s career was ended by it and it played at least a signficant role in the collapse of Corbyn’s hopes and dreams.........People had a clear choice of leave or stay.......the delay afterwards was by politicians only trying to muddy the waters for their own means after all of them said they were going to obey the wish of the people.

Boredstiff666

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

But other migrants who obey the law? What makes me different to a migrant from Nigeria? Syria? Moldova etc?

If any migrants enter through the proper migrant procedure for immigrants then that is ok. People entering by hiding in trucks and boats because they know they will never be accepted in other ways is wrong.

Leroy42

theological wrote: »

The UK has to set some red lines also and define what is in and what is not in their interests. Giving ECJ jurisdiction over UK law and automatically adopting the EU rulebook isn't acceptable. That is irrespective of what the EU is concerned with.

Again the line I would hold is that if Canada wouldn't accept it the UK shouldn't either. I would happily consider a quota based FTA over this.

It isn't that I don't understand. I don't agree.

Of course the UK should have its red lines, but the fact that they want something, or won't accept something doesn't mean that the EU needs to agree with them.

The EU have been very clear. Don't leave as this is the best deal.
OK. you have decided to leave, here are the options based on your red lines.
OK, we understand you really can't change your red lines, which leaves you with X, but if you could agree to drop some red lines we could have Y.

That has it been the discussion from Day 1. Hasn't changed. The last three years has all been about the UK arguing with itself over what it actually wants and blaming the EU for making things difficult.

Remember they were set to leave on March. And then in the Summer. And then Boris would never seek and extension? Have you ever questioned why they took a delay? If WTO is so brilliant, why not have left last year, or at the latest in October?

Because Johnson knows he needs a deal, and all this guff is simply HMG trying to PR spin their way out of it to look like the winners.

Boredstiff666

Leroy42 wrote: »

I don't understand. The people voted for her. Are you trying to suggest that both the conservative party and the voters got that wrong?.....Absolutely....She was never any good in any of her jobs.



100%. It said nothing about how integrated with the EU UK would remain. Said nothing about standards, borders, payments. So, as you agree, the UK could leave the EU and BRINO and that would meet the result of the vote.........personally I think from 1st of Feb it should be out completely all around then just make deals to suit....or not.



Rubbish. Farage himself, claimed that Norway wouldn't be bad and something the UK should look to. Many MEP, MPs etc said that nobody was advocating leaving the SM. Can you point to any evidence of someone, before the vote, calling for a hard Brexit?.......Leave means leave was pointed out many times before and after.



He calls it the SM because that is what it is. It is a leverage point, kind of like the whole 'german car makers need us'. The problem for the UK is that the SM is worth far more than the UK market to the German car makers........Then you answered your own question about the german car market....also include fisheries etc.



Fair enough. The sea border it is, along with the customs checks and delays that brings. Not sure I heard too much about that during the ref, but I assume that is what people voted for.

Leroy42

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

This.......During the Brexit referendum campaign it was Remainers who said a Brexit vote would mean leaving the single market, and they were rubbished by Brexiters for saying so. ........Brexiteers as he calls them said leave means leave and they are leaving the single market.

Do you have any proof of this? People didn't vote for remain, meaning they didn't agree with what remainers said, project fear and all that. Brexiteers claimed it was all project fear. They voted to leave the EU, that doesn't mean leaving the SM. That is what people have made it to be since they canoot square the circle they promised.

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

People had a clear choice of leave or stay.......the delay afterwards was by politicians only trying to muddy the waters for their own means after all of them said they were going to obey the wish of the people.

It is not the leaving that is the issue. TM had a deal to leave the EU, but was torn to shreds for it. Why? It meant they were going to leave. But then others decided that their version of leave was the real version and anything else was not leave.

Boredstiff666

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

This.......During the Brexit referendum campaign it was Remainers who said a Brexit vote would mean leaving the single market, and they were rubbished by Brexiters for saying so. ........Brexiteers as he calls them said leave means leave and they are leaving the single market.

This......I think what we have here is just another iteration of what I have just decided to call the Brexiter’s Dilemma. It has bedevilled the Brexit project pretty much from the get-go, initially because too many Brexiters were simply in denial that the Brexiter’s Dilemma existed, and then because they simply refused or were unable to make the choice that the Dilemma required them to make, and then because they could not agree among themselves how to make that choice. Brexit was three times delayed by the Brexiter’s dilemma, May’s career was ended by it and it played at least a signficant role in the collapse of Corbyn’s hopes and dreams.........People had a clear choice of leave or stay.......the delay afterwards was by politicians only trying to muddy the waters for their own means after all of them said they were going to obey the wish of the people.

Boredstiff666

Deleted User wrote: »

Look fellas I type with one finger. I cant in any way answer everone at the same time..............But Ads....for fecks sake mate........If all you are going to do is throw up a propaganda vid made by someone trying to slag leavers by one man saying one thing to a question and then another man saying something else to a question.............then you really may as well just go home...........pure bollox mate.

Leroy42

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

Absolutely....She was never any good in any of her jobs.[/COLOR]

Great, so we both agree, just because people vote for something does not mean it is either correct of should stay forever.

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

personally I think from 1st of Feb it should be out completely all around then just make deals to suit....or not.

What you personally think it not relevant really. One has to abide by the result, not what each person thinks the vote meant. That the question was so utterly abject for such a big issue is where the problem lies. The real issue is that certain people have decided that there personal POV on what it all meant is the only real one and all others are wrong.

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

Leave means leave was pointed out many times before and after.

So what does that mean? Brexit means Brexit? TM had a deal to leave the EU, but the like of JRM and Johnson were against it (until of course they voted for it! Do you have any proof that leavers stated they wanted to leave the SM prior to the vote?

And again, do you have any basis of how you are going to measure the success or failure of Brexit? It is very difficult to have a reasonable debate when one has no idea what you are placing a value on?

Leroy42

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

Look fellas I type with one finger. I cant in any way answer everone at the same time..............But Ads....for fecks sake mate........If all you are going to do is throw up a propaganda vid made by someone trying to slag leavers by one man saying one thing to a question and then another man saying something else to a question.............then you really may as well just go home...........pure bollox mate.

Just some proof would be nice. Google is your friend. Don't use the excuse that you type slow.

Maybe go off and find the proof, you must know of it since you belief it to be true and come back with that rather than pointless answer you chose to post.

Boredstiff666

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

Look fellas I type with one finger. I cant in any way answer everone at the same time..............But Ads....for fecks sake mate........If all you are going to do is throw up a propaganda vid made by someone trying to slag leavers by one man saying one thing to a question and then another man saying something else to a question.............then you really may as well just go home...........pure bollox mate.

What's pure bollox is that we were having a good debate with theological before you joined and like you've done every day since the 1st, turned the thread into a farce.

You made a claim and I provided video evidence that refutes it. Your self-defence mechanism means you call this propaganda, tell me I should go home, and say it's pure bollox. If Farage himself called you on the phone right now and told you he had actually said those things, you'd probably implode into a black hole rather than let your mind have to process it.

Boredstiff666

Deleted User wrote: »

What's pure bollox is that we were having a good debate with theological before you joined and like you've done every day since the 1st, turned the thread into a farce.

You made a claim and I provided video evidence that refutes it. Your self-defence mechanism means you call this propaganda, tell me I should go home, and say it's pure bollox. If Farage himself called you on the phone right now and told you he had actually said those things, you'd probably implode into a black hole rather than let your mind have to process it.

Ok no probs I wont interrupt your debate.

theological

First Up wrote: »

Quotas for who?

I don't you understand how international trade works. Governments don't sell to each other; trade is carried out between private companies, one sale at a time.

The whole point of the EU (and especially the Single Market) is to get governments OUT of the trade business. by creating an environment where companies compete and trade with each other based on quality, price and performance.

Regulatory alignment is a fundamental part of that. Quotas are the exact opposite.

Quotas for the amounts of goods covered in the free trade agreement to prevent dumping.

Before claiming I don't understand perhaps you should read the thread first in context.

Deleted User wrote: »

I agree with you regarding ECJ. It should be along the lines of what was agreed in CETA or something. But I don't see what you mean by saying "you don't agree"? It isn't an opinion.. Their reasons are laid out here. I wanted to know if you understood that their reasons are not "to keep the UK under its control".

As for the rest, the EU's red lines are there to limit an actual existential threat to the bloc. The UK's red lines are only there to keep it open for business around the world.

It's up to the UK to decide how this plays out. I imagine the UK will end up taking your approach and go with something very limited. I think this is a bad idea as average tariffs around the world are so low already, there isn't a massive amount to be gained. Not enough anyways to make up for what differing standards will do to the UK's EU trade and manufacturing processes.

That's about all there is to what the EU's opening position was. They offered the UK maximum trade, but with caveats. It had to do this. Now, the UK will lay out its position in more detail and the EU will respond accordingly.

So you agree the ECJ argument is chancing their arm?

I don't agree that the EU's position should determine what the UK should accept. Linking to a doc doesn't make the slightest difference. The UK shouldn't accept automatically accepting EU rules as a part of this agreement. Full stop.

I am probably an advocate of a looser arrangement than what you would say is ideal. Free trade shouldn't require a merging of rule books. That's what we see in the other FTAs the EU has done but also other FTAs other countries do with other countries.

Annascaul

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I'm English, spent most of my life as a "migrant" in Ireland and contributed positively to the country. I now live in England again but if I decide to return to Ireland are you saying I shouldn't be allowed?

As a Brit you will always be able to return to Ireland to live and work, and even vote in every election. Free movement between the UK and Ireland is older than the EU.

Leroy42

theological wrote: »

I don't agree that the EU's position should determine what the UK should accept. Linking to a doc doesn't make the slightest difference. The UK shouldn't accept automatically accepting EU rules as a part of this agreement. Full stop.

I am probably an advocate of a looser arrangement than what you would say is ideal. Free trade shouldn't require a merging of rule books. That's what we see in the other FTAs the EU has done but also other FTAs other countries do with other countries.

The EU has a very well defined and working process to easily allow the free movement of goods within the EU. This is proven and beneficial.

The UK are now asking that a new system be devised, just for them, to allow them to trade freely but not using the current system.

It works for all the other 27 other countries and working perfectly fine (operationally) for the Uk up until now. Why should the EU divert from a system that they know works simply because the UK don't like it?

It shouldn't require it, and for , limited trade it doesn't. And all other trade deals are done on the basis of increasing a relationship such that over time, hopefully, things naturally start to merge. Brexit is the exact opposite. Whatever this agreement is, the UK want to diverge over time not get close, so this deal is as good as it will get for the EU.

Timberrrrrrrr

Annascaul wrote: »

As a Brit you will always be able to return to Ireland to live and work, and even vote in every election. Free movement between the UK and Ireland is older than the EU.

Yes, but I would still be a migrant, and that poster said migrants should not be accepted if they are only moving for selfish reasons. Just pointing out the absurdity of that claim.

Annascaul

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Yes, but I would still be a migrant, and that poster said migrants should not be accepted if they are only moving for selfish reasons. Just pointing out the absurdity of that claim.

Depends how selfish is seen.

Moving for a job with a better salary, or a nicer lifestyle? Isn't that selfish? Aren't we all selfish in some way?

Boredstiff666

Annascaul wrote: »

Depends how selfish is seen.

Moving for a job with a better salary, or a nicer lifestyle? Isn't that selfish? Aren't we all selfish in some way?

Except the poster he refers too never ever said anything like 'selfish reasons' so he is in effect totally distorting the meaning of the post for his own means. The poster he refers to explained exactly what he meant and also the type of 'migrant' he was referring too.

Laughable.

I am told not to post here ......but it just seems a group of people posting what they want even though it isnt true in some cases and if anybody disagrees with them they just rewrite the meanings of their posts to suit whatever they want them to mean.

Fellas I have to say.......you simply make a joke of yourselves.

sondagefaux

theological wrote: »

Thought we could do with a bit of new content. On Wednesday Andrew Neil grilled Natalie Loiseau French MEP on her position on the FTA with the UK and said that they are being double minded saying they are open to a Canada arrangement while expecting forced alignment and ECJ oversight which they do not demand of any other country they have a FTA with. She basically becomes so exasperated that she says "I didn't realise I was speaking to Boris Johnson's spokesman" because Neil dared to grill her in the EU's approach.

For those of you with access to iPlayer it is here from 12:15 in full.
For those without a snippet.

Canada does not have a zero tariff, zero quota trade deal with the EU.

There are tariff-rate quotas for numerous products included in the Canada-EU trade deal (CETA).

Fo example, Canada can export 50,000 tonnes of beef to the EU annually without tariffs being imposed. Anything over that amount is subject to the import tariff rates set out in CETA.

There would be no quotas on any UK products under the outline proposal from the EU, which is based on what was agreed in the Political Declaration to the Withdrawal Agreement

The UK agreed to have extensive 'level playing field' provisions included in the Political Declaration to the Withdrawal Agreement.

Feigning outrage at something you've already agreed may work with the British media, but it's not going to impress the EU, and it's now obvious that the UK signed up to the Withdrawal Agreement in bad faith.

As ever, Neil is not just badly informed but aggressively so.

Snickers Man

threeball wrote: »

Trump has being tickling their genitals to hide the fact he's just about to bend them over. He won't like the Huawei deal either and has a history of being spiteful.

Wow! He sure doesn't like that Huawei deal, according to today's Irish Times.

Excerpts for those barred from the paywall.

Donald Trump vented “apoplectic” fury at Boris Johnson in a tense phone call over Britain’s decision to allow Huawei a role in its 5G mobile phone networks, according to officials in London and Washington.

..one individual briefed on the contents of the call said Mr Trump was “apoplectic” with Mr Johnson for his Huawei decision and expressed his views in livid terms.

A second official confirmed that the Trump-Johnson call was “very difficult”. British officials with knowledge of the exchange said they were taken aback by the force of the president’s language towards Mr Johnson.

And now for the interesting bit.

Following the Huawei decision, London and Washington have agreed to collaborate on reducing the use of Huawei equipment in Britain. William Barr, the US attorney-general, suggested on Thursday that the US should consider buying a controlling stake in Ericsson and Nokia to help build a stronger international competitor.

Mr Barr said America and its allies should be “actively considering” proposals for “American ownership of a controlling stake” in the European companies, “either directly or through a consortium of private American and allied companies”. He added “it’s all very well to tell our friends and allies they shouldn’t install Huawei’s, but whose infrastructure are they going to install?”


Wow. There's an admission. "We don't want them buying Chinese but our own cellular/digital technology is so crap we can't offer them a viable alternative so let's buy a company of Euroweenies so that we can compete"!!!!!!!

This is like Westland all over again. (Do we buy European or suck up to America?) Why did the Brits buy Chinese? Is their detestation of Europe so total that they wouldn't buy from their neighbours, couldn't buy from their best friends (the Yanks) so they have to buy from their mutual rivals?

Taking Back Control: it's great isn't it?

Leroy42

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

Except the poster he refers too never ever said anything like 'selfish reasons' so he is in effect totally distorting the meaning of the post for his own means. The poster he refers to explained exactly what he meant and also the type of 'migrant' he was referring too.

Laughable.

I am told not to post here ......but it just seems a group of people posting what they want even though it isnt true in some cases and if anybody disagrees with them they just rewrite the meanings of their posts to suit whatever they want them to mean.

Fellas I have to say.......you simply make a joke of yourselves.

Is this you never complaining again!

Any proof of your claim about Leavers saying that leaving meant leaving the SM?

Have you been able to come up with a basis for how you judge Brexit as a success or failure yet?

ambro25

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

Except the poster he refers too never ever said anything like 'selfish reasons' so he is in effect totally distorting the meaning of the post for his own means. The poster he refers to explained exactly what he meant and also the type of 'migrant' he was referring too.

(...)

Indeed, you defined 'unacceptable' migrants, as any who is not a (genuine) refugee, nor 'wanted by the population', in your earlier post.

Which, logically, makes any migrant who has not been specifically invited by that population, selfish for wanting to move there uninvited...right?

It's a redundant/rethorical question anyway, because many of those whom the UK wants to invite under its new immigration paradigm, the doctors, programmers, researchers, academics, etc. already don't seem too bothered these days, judging from job application stats reprised in MSM like the Guardian, the Independent, 'i' etc.

So with extra hoops to jump through at year end, and more uncertainty than ever on socio-economic outcomes in the UK (quals recognition? ease of professional movements? data sharing with EU-based peers? access to EU R&D programmes & funding? FDI? etc, etc, etc), on that timescale and beyond...

Timberrrrrrrr

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

Except the poster he refers too never ever said anything like 'selfish reasons' so he is in effect totally distorting the meaning of the post for his own means. The poster he refers to explained exactly what he meant and also the type of 'migrant' he was referring too.

Laughable.

I am told not to post here ......but it just seems a group of people posting what they want even though it isnt true in some cases and if anybody disagrees with them they just rewrite the meanings of their posts to suit whatever they want them to mean.

Fellas I have to say.......you simply make a joke of yourselves.

Ok here is your post

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

You misunderstand. I didnt mean migrants cause homelessness. I meant there is a clear distinction between refugees and migrants.

A refugee is someone in danger in their homeland and needs help so should we accept them...As long as they are genuine and law abiding yes.

A migrant is somebody who just decided to go and live elsewhere and not because their lives were in danger........Should we accept them.....absolutely not and if you do it only encourages more of the same.........Migrants must only be accepted if they are needed and wanted by the population. Not because someone is going to benefit by accepting them (political).

If you do accepts migrants then it not only affects the native population it also affects genuine refugees in many ways and none of them good.

So yes, you didn't use the words "selfish reasons" and I apologise for misquoting you.

I was never asked to move to Ireland, when we 1st moved there (early 80's) both myself and my mother received some abuse due to our accents and given the times I can understand why some people felt that way.

So I was ever "needed" nor "wanted" by the population, If I decide to move back next year because I feel I could give myself a better quality of life should I only arrive if I am invited? Who do I ask?

Boredstiff666

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Ok here is your post



So yes, you didn't use the words "selfish reasons" and I apologise for misquoting you.

I was never asked to move to Ireland, when we 1st moved there (early 80's) both myself and my mother received some abuse due to our accents and given the times I can understand why some people felt that way.

So I was ever "needed" nor "wanted" by the population, If I decide to move back next year because I feel I could give myself a better quality of life should I only arrive if I am invited? Who do I ask?

But as you well know and even someone mentioned it earlier that the UK and Ireland have had an arrangement since who knows. The EU has free movement so the migrants I was referring too are the ones that some (political) try to dress as the same as refugees.

It really was open and shut black and white. There was no reason to try and turn it into something else....end of story.

Snickers Man

Snickers Man wrote: »

This is like Westland all over again. (Do we buy European or suck up to America?) Why did the Brits buy Chinese? Is their detestation of Europe so total that they wouldn't buy from their neighbours, couldn't buy from their best friends (the Yanks) so they have to buy from their mutual rivals?

Taking Back Control: it's great isn't it?

jesus that is some stretching you are doing there. Huawai are in every telecoms network in Europe. in fact, if you are posting on mobile, then there is a very very good chance you are doing so through some huawai equipment somewhere.

All networks will be a mix of manufacturers as different ones excel in different parts of the network. who does what and where will be the outcome of various tenders for different bits of kit. these aren't carried out by the government, they are carried out by multinational companies, like BT, Vodafone and Three.

but yeah, carry on with the rather pathetic attempt to paint this as some sort of anti european agenda by the nasty British :rolleyes:

First Up

theological wrote:

Quotas for the amounts of goods covered in the free trade agreement to prevent dumping.


Before claiming I don't understand perhaps you should read the thread first in context.

There is no context in which quotas prevent dumping.

Quotas (absolute or tariff rate) are included in trade agreements to protect specific local industries.

Dumping means selling below cost and is policed under specific WTO procedures. A quota would imply that some dumping is allowed - which it isn't.

theological wrote:

So you agree the ECJ argument is chancing their arm?

The ECJ is an arbitration mechanism. If the UK rejects it, they are welcome to suggest another.

Tony EH

Snickers Man wrote: »

Wow! He sure doesn't like that Huawei deal, according to today's Irish Times.

Excerpts for those barred from the paywall.

Donald Trump vented “apoplectic” fury at Boris Johnson in a tense phone call over Britain’s decision to allow Huawei a role in its 5G mobile phone networks, according to officials in London and Washington.

..one individual briefed on the contents of the call said Mr Trump was “apoplectic” with Mr Johnson for his Huawei decision and expressed his views in livid terms.

A second official confirmed that the Trump-Johnson call was “very difficult”. British officials with knowledge of the exchange said they were taken aback by the force of the president’s language towards Mr Johnson.

And now for the interesting bit.

Following the Huawei decision, London and Washington have agreed to collaborate on reducing the use of Huawei equipment in Britain. William Barr, the US attorney-general, suggested on Thursday that the US should consider buying a controlling stake in Ericsson and Nokia to help build a stronger international competitor.

Mr Barr said America and its allies should be “actively considering” proposals for “American ownership of a controlling stake” in the European companies, “either directly or through a consortium of private American and allied companies”. He added “it’s all very well to tell our friends and allies they shouldn’t install Huawei’s, but whose infrastructure are they going to install?”


Wow. There's an admission. "We don't want them buying Chinese but our own cellular/digital technology is so crap we can't offer them a viable alternative so let's buy a company of Euroweenies so that we can compete"!!!!!!!

This is like Westland all over again. (Do we buy European or suck up to America?) Why did the Brits buy Chinese? Is their detestation of Europe so total that they wouldn't buy from their neighbours, couldn't buy from their best friends (the Yanks) so they have to buy from their mutual rivals?

Taking Back Control: it's great isn't it?

...and this is JUST the start of it.

Snickers Man

Aegir wrote: »

jesus that is some stretching you are doing there.

these aren't carried out by the government, they are carried out by multinational companies, like BT, Vodafone and Three.

but yeah, carry on with the rather pathetic attempt to paint this as some sort of anti european agenda by the nasty British :rolleyes:

Hey. I'm not the apoplectic one. That's Mr Trump.
And I know I said it was in the Irish Times (it was) but it is a syndicated piece originally sourced from the FT. So probably quite credible.

And if the decision was entirely in the hands of "BT, Vodafone and Three", why is that nasty Mr Trump tearing strips of poor little Boris?

I am no expert on cellular network infrastructure deployment but I am fairly certain for projects of this kind there has to be some sort of regulatory sign-off as to what or whose products can be used, and that the Prime Minister (or someone close to him) would have some influence as to who were at least permissible, if not preferred, tenderers.

Again, it was a member of the Trump administration who suggested beefing up American expertise in this area by buying up two European companies, albeit given that one of them owns the venerable American institution Bell Labs. It would seem to be HIS opinion, therefore, that America lacks sufficient clout in this marketplace to fight off the dastardly Chinese but the almost as dastardly Europeans do and so the Yanks should try to acquire it back from them.

The fact that I do indeed have a Huawei mobile phone but am posting this from my PC. (A Lenovo--also Chinese) is immaterial.

Snickers Man

Snickers Man wrote: »

Hey. I'm not the apoplectic one. That's Mr Trump.
And I know I said it was in the Irish Times (it was) but it is a syndicated piece originally sourced from the FT. So probably quite credible.

And if the decision was entirely in the hands of "BT, Vodafone and Three", why is that nasty Mr Trump tearing strips of poor little Boris?

I am no expert on cellular network infrastructure deployment but I am fairly certain for projects of this kind there has to be some sort of regulatory sign-off as to what or whose products can be used, and that the Prime Minister (or someone close to him) would have some influence as to who were at least permissible, if not preferred, tenderers.

Again, it was a member of the Trump administration who suggested beefing up American expertise in this area by buying up two European companies, albeit given that one of them owns the venerable American institution Bell Labs. It would seem to be HIS opinion, therefore, that America lacks sufficient clout in this marketplace to fight off the dastardly Chinese but the almost as dastardly Europeans do and so the Yanks should try to acquire it back from them.

The fact that I do indeed have a Huawei mobile phone but am posting this from my PC. (A Lenovo--also Chinese) is immaterial.

you put two and two together and came up with eight hundred and seventy six.

The telco infrastructure market has seen massive consolidation over the last deacde, with companies like Alcatel (French) and Lucent (US) merging, only for the company to get bought entirely by Nokia. Nokia also bought Siemens who had previously bought Marconi/Plessey

then came Huawai who blitzed everything and the outcome was only three major companies, Ericsson, Nokia and Huawai. Most of the networks manage these guys centrally and play one off against the other whilst trying to make sure no one has an overly dominant position, but all the time trying to keep some form of standard within their network so they don't need engineers trained in different technologies (BT are currently stripping out Huawai stuff and replacing it with Ericsson at the moment).

It has nothing to do with the Brits not wanting to buy european at all, that was a stupid comment, especially when you consider that Vodafone central procurement, who make purchasing decisions on behalf of the whole group, is based in Luxembourg.

The concerns with Huawai are that they have an obligation as a Chinese company to share information with the Chinese government. They claim this is only in China, but the US aren't convinced.

There is also the other train of thought, that the US know Huawai are spying on their customers, because the US use US companies to do the same for them. Let's face it, we have no idea what all that Intel stuff in our PCs is sharing with the CIA/NSA etc :eek: