This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Liam Fox is out in the Philippines telling President Duterte (death squad organiser and self confessed murderer) that we can build a relationship on “a foundation of shared values and shared interests".
Cruella is in Saudi Arabia making vital statements about easter eggs while pledging the best Yemeni killing weaponry we can manufacture.
Turkey is to receive some shiny fighter jets which the increasingly authoritarian regime will definitely only use for defence.
Kuwait, Bahrain and Oman also courted.
I feel like the government is making us turn our back on an honest job to embrace a life of crime; flogging nasty weaponry to murderers.
Or maybe prostitution is a better analogy.
Cruella is in Saudi Arabia making vital statements about easter eggs while pledging the best Yemeni killing weaponry we can manufacture.
Turkey is to receive some shiny fighter jets which the increasingly authoritarian regime will definitely only use for defence.
Kuwait, Bahrain and Oman also courted.
I feel like the government is making us turn our back on an honest job to embrace a life of crime; flogging nasty weaponry to murderers.
Or maybe prostitution is a better analogy.
28
5
In reply to pasbury:
Where have you been the last 70 years ? Now is not a good time to be ditching long standing trade partnera outside the EU, really, is it ?
Oh and by the way last time I looked Turkey were part of NATO.
Where have you been the last 70 years ? Now is not a good time to be ditching long standing trade partnera outside the EU, really, is it ?
Oh and by the way last time I looked Turkey were part of NATO.
11
5
In reply to GrahamD:
In my mind 'progress' would involve backing away from the business of selling weaponry to regimes who we know might use them against their own people or illegally, or in putting increasing conditions on their sale.
So what?
> Where have you been the last 70 years ? Now is not a good time to be ditching long standing trade partnera outside the EU, really, is it ?
In my mind 'progress' would involve backing away from the business of selling weaponry to regimes who we know might use them against their own people or illegally, or in putting increasing conditions on their sale.
> Oh and by the way last time I looked Turkey were part of NATO.
So what?
6
2
In reply to pasbury:
Crap isn't it, but as Graham says, it's been going on for years. I work in the aerospace industry, I'm sure I have held pieces of metal that have been used to kill innocent people. It has really started to play on my conscience, so I'm getting out of it as soon as I can.
Crap isn't it, but as Graham says, it's been going on for years. I work in the aerospace industry, I'm sure I have held pieces of metal that have been used to kill innocent people. It has really started to play on my conscience, so I'm getting out of it as soon as I can.
9
In reply to pasbury:
and I believe we're to do a lot more business with a country that permits people to be born into and marked as amember of a caste and treated for the duration as a member of that caste
where do you get that in modern European culture?
(I hadn't seen that in operation until I worked in an office in Cumbria where there were people recently arrived from different castes - unbelievable)
and I believe we're to do a lot more business with a country that permits people to be born into and marked as amember of a caste and treated for the duration as a member of that caste
where do you get that in modern European culture?
(I hadn't seen that in operation until I worked in an office in Cumbria where there were people recently arrived from different castes - unbelievable)
Post edited at 12:31
2
In reply to wercat:
I wouldn't bank on that. India need us a lot less than we need them. They also want much better mobility of their workforce.
I wouldn't bank on that. India need us a lot less than we need them. They also want much better mobility of their workforce.
1
2
In reply to wercat:
Not sure but try being a working class person trying to get a job in a Hedge Fund
Not sure but try being a working class person trying to get a job in a Hedge Fund
6
In reply to pasbury:
it's fine as long as people are made to renounce all the baggage like caste, forced marriages, honour killings, bride punishment, keeping slaves etc when they come here, on pain of immediate removal.
it's fine as long as people are made to renounce all the baggage like caste, forced marriages, honour killings, bride punishment, keeping slaves etc when they come here, on pain of immediate removal.
1
In reply to jasonC abroad:
yes, it did occur to me as I was posting and I'm quite ashamed of what has happened to social mobility in the UK since the 60s and 70s
yes, it did occur to me as I was posting and I'm quite ashamed of what has happened to social mobility in the UK since the 60s and 70s
4
1
In reply to pasbury:
It means we're committed to defending them if they're attacked by Russia, after they shoot down Russian jets and Ambassadors and call Putin a pussy.
> > Oh and by the way last time I looked Turkey were part of NATO.
> So what?
It means we're committed to defending them if they're attacked by Russia, after they shoot down Russian jets and Ambassadors and call Putin a pussy.
3
In reply to pasbury:
Social progress, as you say, would involve many things including moving away from arms trade. I doubt our society is actually that advanced that it it willing to encompass this.
Calling our country's current representatives puerile names isn't getting your point over very well - just comes over as a piece of anti Conservative rhetoric rather than anything constructive.
On Turkey, since they are our allies in defence, I'd have thought them to be eminently suitable people to sell arms to.
Social progress, as you say, would involve many things including moving away from arms trade. I doubt our society is actually that advanced that it it willing to encompass this.
Calling our country's current representatives puerile names isn't getting your point over very well - just comes over as a piece of anti Conservative rhetoric rather than anything constructive.
On Turkey, since they are our allies in defence, I'd have thought them to be eminently suitable people to sell arms to.
6
2
In reply to winhill:
Presumably the same applies to, say, Denmark- it doesn't mean we have to prop up our economy by arming them to the teeth.
Presumably the same applies to, say, Denmark- it doesn't mean we have to prop up our economy by arming them to the teeth.
1
3
In reply to GrahamD:
I disagree, if most individuals were presented with the facts (or perhaps witnessed an atrocity committed by such a regime) then I think minds would be changed.
Cruella? Don't be so pompous!
I would worry that they might be used internally in an increasingly authoritarian country with several internal sources of unrest and separatist movements.
From wikipedia "In March 2017, the United Nations accused the Turkish government of "massive destruction, killings and numerous other serious human rights violations" against the ethnic Kurdish minority."
Or should we turn a blind eye because we get some money.
> Social progress, as you say, would involve many things including moving away from arms trade. I doubt our society is actually that advanced that it it willing to encompass this.
I disagree, if most individuals were presented with the facts (or perhaps witnessed an atrocity committed by such a regime) then I think minds would be changed.
> Calling our country's current representatives puerile names isn't getting your point over very well - just comes over as a piece of anti Conservative rhetoric rather than anything constructive.
Cruella? Don't be so pompous!
> On Turkey, since they are our allies in defence, I'd have thought them to be eminently suitable people to sell arms to.
I would worry that they might be used internally in an increasingly authoritarian country with several internal sources of unrest and separatist movements.
From wikipedia "In March 2017, the United Nations accused the Turkish government of "massive destruction, killings and numerous other serious human rights violations" against the ethnic Kurdish minority."
Or should we turn a blind eye because we get some money.
Post edited at 13:01
4
3
In reply to pasbury:
I doubt it. Because when the alternative is presented, the loss of jobs / revenue at home would trump it. Just as the threat of higher energy prices would trump flooding in Bangladesh for instance.
Anyway feel free to try, but you will have more credibility if you don't reduce it to just name calling the current bunch of politicians doing our trade negotiating.
> I disagree, if most individuals were presented with the facts (or perhaps witnessed an atrocity committed by such a regime) then I think minds would be changed.
I doubt it. Because when the alternative is presented, the loss of jobs / revenue at home would trump it. Just as the threat of higher energy prices would trump flooding in Bangladesh for instance.
Anyway feel free to try, but you will have more credibility if you don't reduce it to just name calling the current bunch of politicians doing our trade negotiating.
4
1
In reply to GrahamD:
You're right of course, that people are happy for our government to cuddle up to murderous regimes and dictators just so long as it bolsters the economy, but that in itself is a sad state of affairs. As for the energy prices and Bangladesh, that's equally sad. If it isn't happening in Blighty then who cares...we've got jobs and can afford a week in Magaluf and 2 cars eh!? Good for the OP for speaking out about his ideals. Yes, it's idealistic, but with the current state of affairs any moves towards a more ideal situation (i.e. one where the economy doesn't always seem to trump morality and decency) should be welcome.
> I doubt it. Because when the alternative is presented, the loss of jobs / revenue at home would trump it. Just as the threat of higher energy prices would trump flooding in Bangladesh for instance.
You're right of course, that people are happy for our government to cuddle up to murderous regimes and dictators just so long as it bolsters the economy, but that in itself is a sad state of affairs. As for the energy prices and Bangladesh, that's equally sad. If it isn't happening in Blighty then who cares...we've got jobs and can afford a week in Magaluf and 2 cars eh!? Good for the OP for speaking out about his ideals. Yes, it's idealistic, but with the current state of affairs any moves towards a more ideal situation (i.e. one where the economy doesn't always seem to trump morality and decency) should be welcome.
4
2
In reply to GrahamD:
Increasingly the best that can be said for Turkey is "enemy of my enemy" - this may be good grounds for a mutual defence pact but it's a much worse basis for wider links than many of those we are throwing out along with our EU membership.
> Oh and by the way last time I looked Turkey were part of NATO.
Increasingly the best that can be said for Turkey is "enemy of my enemy" - this may be good grounds for a mutual defence pact but it's a much worse basis for wider links than many of those we are throwing out along with our EU membership.
5
2
2
In reply to pasbury:
£176 million worth of arms sales to Denmark https://www.caat.org.uk/resources/export-licences/region
> Presumably the same applies to, say, Denmark- it doesn't mean we have to prop up our economy by arming them to the teeth.
£176 million worth of arms sales to Denmark https://www.caat.org.uk/resources/export-licences/region
3
In reply to pasbury:
It maybe cycnical but sadly we have to deal with the world as it is, not as we'd like it to be.
The Economist Intelligence unit classifies only 19 of the world's countries as "fully fledged democracies". 57 are "flawed democracies" or "hybrid regimes" but these include places like the Philippines and Turkey which you don't appear to think we should trade with.
50 are "authoritarian" so they're presumably "out"
In the real world, particularly one as unstable as it is now, do you think we should restrict our dealings to 19 countries? Do you think we should encourage Turkey into the arms of Russia and the Philippines into the arms of China? How do you think we would fare if we simply cut off "allies" of whom we did not entirely approve?
I don't pretend to know the answers but maybe we should have some before we condemn the UK's dealings with long time "allies" out of hand.
> What a deeply cynical view of humanity
It maybe cycnical but sadly we have to deal with the world as it is, not as we'd like it to be.
The Economist Intelligence unit classifies only 19 of the world's countries as "fully fledged democracies". 57 are "flawed democracies" or "hybrid regimes" but these include places like the Philippines and Turkey which you don't appear to think we should trade with.
50 are "authoritarian" so they're presumably "out"
In the real world, particularly one as unstable as it is now, do you think we should restrict our dealings to 19 countries? Do you think we should encourage Turkey into the arms of Russia and the Philippines into the arms of China? How do you think we would fare if we simply cut off "allies" of whom we did not entirely approve?
I don't pretend to know the answers but maybe we should have some before we condemn the UK's dealings with long time "allies" out of hand.
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
Whilst I agree with most of that and it is in fact the reality of the world, Saudi Arabia? Long time allies? Saudi Arabia are a "snake in the grass"! They fund ISIS and other terrorist factions, they are directly involved in horrendous atrocities in Yemen, as well as being guilty of commiting gross human rights abuses at home. There has to be a line in the sand (excuse the pun) somewhere, doesn't there?
Whilst I agree with most of that and it is in fact the reality of the world, Saudi Arabia? Long time allies? Saudi Arabia are a "snake in the grass"! They fund ISIS and other terrorist factions, they are directly involved in horrendous atrocities in Yemen, as well as being guilty of commiting gross human rights abuses at home. There has to be a line in the sand (excuse the pun) somewhere, doesn't there?
1
In reply to Ridge:
Oh look, funny old world. Saudi Arabia number 1 at £9.5bn, UAE number 3 at £7bn, Egypt and Lebanon on the list too. Now just where did the 9/11 attackers come from? (Who carried out the attack on number 2 of the list).
> £176 million worth of arms sales to Denmark https://www.caat.org.uk/resources/export-licences/region
Oh look, funny old world. Saudi Arabia number 1 at £9.5bn, UAE number 3 at £7bn, Egypt and Lebanon on the list too. Now just where did the 9/11 attackers come from? (Who carried out the attack on number 2 of the list).
In reply to Hugh J:
Don't make the mistake of thinking of Saudi Arabia as one bloc acting in concert on the world stage. There are many different power bases acting directly against each other.
The problem we have is working out who is who.
Don't make the mistake of thinking of Saudi Arabia as one bloc acting in concert on the world stage. There are many different power bases acting directly against each other.
The problem we have is working out who is who.
1
In reply to Hugh J:
Which is why I left them off the list! There are long term reasons why we have cosied up to the Saudis, not least because they've got the oil, they offer a counterweight to Iran, and they accept Israel (for their own reasons). Personally it seems to me the dangers of the relationship have some time outweighed the benefits. We (and the US of course) completely f*cked up the relationship with Iran by believing in the Shah but otherwise we we'd probably have been better off befriending Iran. As it happens I think the Saudis themselves are regretting some of their support, official or otherwise, for the radicals.
My point is not that all are geopolitical decisions are right (there definitely not!) , but simply that we shouldn't make "moral" decisions in ignorance of their real world implications.
> Whilst I agree with most of that and it is in fact the reality of the world, Saudi Arabia? Long time allies? Saudi Arabia are a "snake in the grass"! They fund ISIS and other terrorist factions, they are directly involved in horrendous atrocities in Yemen, as well as being guilty of commiting gross human rights abuses at home. There has to be a line in the sand (excuse the pun) somewhere, doesn't there?
Which is why I left them off the list! There are long term reasons why we have cosied up to the Saudis, not least because they've got the oil, they offer a counterweight to Iran, and they accept Israel (for their own reasons). Personally it seems to me the dangers of the relationship have some time outweighed the benefits. We (and the US of course) completely f*cked up the relationship with Iran by believing in the Shah but otherwise we we'd probably have been better off befriending Iran. As it happens I think the Saudis themselves are regretting some of their support, official or otherwise, for the radicals.
My point is not that all are geopolitical decisions are right (there definitely not!) , but simply that we shouldn't make "moral" decisions in ignorance of their real world implications.
2
In reply to Stichtplate:
Not exactly a great set of circumstances in which to sells them weapons of mass destruction then, is it?
Not exactly a great set of circumstances in which to sells them weapons of mass destruction then, is it?
In reply to Postmanpat:
Again, I can't disagree, though I'm not sure of the Saudis actual acceptance of Israel, or whether that's just for political gains. (And I would have used the word "immoral" instead of "moral").
Again, I can't disagree, though I'm not sure of the Saudis actual acceptance of Israel, or whether that's just for political gains. (And I would have used the word "immoral" instead of "moral").
Post edited at 19:10
In reply to Hugh J:
Which is why we only sell them conventional weapon systems of which the top ticket items are so heavily reliant on Bae Systems service personnel as to render them even less independent than our trident missiles.
> Not exactly a great set of circumstances in which to sells them weapons of mass destruction then, is it?
Which is why we only sell them conventional weapon systems of which the top ticket items are so heavily reliant on Bae Systems service personnel as to render them even less independent than our trident missiles.
In reply to Stichtplate:
Thanks Bae!
http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/eight-women-child-killed-raid-yemen-funer...
Thanks Bae!
http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/eight-women-child-killed-raid-yemen-funer...
Post edited at 19:33
In reply to Hugh J:
What I meant was that if one makes a decision on "moral" grounds eg. not to deal with Turkey, one has to understand what that might mean in terms of Turkey's policies thereafter.
> Again, I can't disagree, though I'm not sure of the Saudis actual acceptance of Israel, or whether that's just for political gains. (And I would have used the word "immoral" instead of "moral").
What I meant was that if one makes a decision on "moral" grounds eg. not to deal with Turkey, one has to understand what that might mean in terms of Turkey's policies thereafter.
In reply to wercat:
Harking back to grammar school days and where perhaps only 5-10% of society went to uni and people lived or worked in the same place their entire life. Mobility? The good olde days!!
> yes, it did occur to me as I was posting and I'm quite ashamed of what has happened to social mobility in the UK since the 60s and 70s
Harking back to grammar school days and where perhaps only 5-10% of society went to uni and people lived or worked in the same place their entire life. Mobility? The good olde days!!
Post edited at 19:36
3
In reply to Postmanpat:
Realpolitik. The place where good and evil get to hang out and shoot the breeze.
> What I meant was that if one makes a decision on "moral" grounds eg. not to deal with Turkey, one has to understand what that might mean in terms of Turkey's policies thereafter.
Realpolitik. The place where good and evil get to hang out and shoot the breeze.
In reply to Postmanpat:
In all these cases our influence on the policy of these states is less and the impact of their economic policies on us is greater since we decided to 'go it alone'.
> What I meant was that if one makes a decision on "moral" grounds eg. not to deal with Turkey, one has to understand what that might mean in terms of Turkey's policies thereafter.
In all these cases our influence on the policy of these states is less and the impact of their economic policies on us is greater since we decided to 'go it alone'.
Post edited at 22:00
In reply to pasbury:
Tony Bliar; "Our relationship with Saudi Arabia is vitally important for our country in terms of counter-terrorism, in terms of the broader Middle East, in terms of helping in respect of Israel and Palestine. That strategic interest comes first."
Tony Bliar; "Our relationship with Saudi Arabia is vitally important for our country in terms of counter-terrorism, in terms of the broader Middle East, in terms of helping in respect of Israel and Palestine. That strategic interest comes first."
In reply to GrahamD:
Above and beyond name calling, what do the left have to offer as an alternative?
> Anyway feel free to try, but you will have more credibility if you don't reduce it to just name calling the current bunch of politicians doing our trade negotiating.
Above and beyond name calling, what do the left have to offer as an alternative?
In reply to pasbury:
Well Turkey and the European Union have an agreement that goods may travel between them without any customs restrictions.
> Turkey is to receive some shiny fighter jets which the increasingly authoritarian regime will definitely only use for defence.
Well Turkey and the European Union have an agreement that goods may travel between them without any customs restrictions.
Post edited at 22:21
In reply to pasbury:
Possibly, but this is not the brexit thread so it's not really central to either your argument of mine. Most of what you describe would have happened regardless of brexit,as it has been for 70 years.
> In all these cases our influence on the policy of these states is less and the impact of their economic policies on us is greater since we decided to 'go it alone'.
Possibly, but this is not the brexit thread so it's not really central to either your argument of mine. Most of what you describe would have happened regardless of brexit,as it has been for 70 years.
Post edited at 22:26
In reply to Big Ger:
Good, more pertinent is what those goods are and what they might be used for!
Good, more pertinent is what those goods are and what they might be used for!
Post edited at 22:40
In reply to Postmanpat:
Oh no it wouldn't. The government is scrabbling for trade scraps in desperation.
> Possibly, but this is not the brexit thread so it's not really central to either your argument of mine. Most of what you describe would have happened regardless of brexit,as it has been for 70 years.
Oh no it wouldn't. The government is scrabbling for trade scraps in desperation.
In reply to Big Ger:
Is that meant to be a point in support of selling weapons to them?
> Tony Bliar; "Our relationship with Saudi Arabia is vitally important for our country in terms of counter-terrorism, in terms of the broader Middle East, in terms of helping in respect of Israel and Palestine. That strategic interest comes first."
Is that meant to be a point in support of selling weapons to them?
In reply to pasbury:
That's just plain wrong. All the ME countries you name have been major importers of UK arms for decades. The UK is the major trainer of the Jordanian and Oman armed forces.
Arms sales to Turkey have picked up recently (from pre-brexit 2015) largely as a result of the crisis on Turkey's borders. They are not new. The UK exported about $300mn 2006-15.
The UK and the Philippines announced their attention to sign a closer defence agreement, possibly including training and arms sales (along with the US which is stepping up military involvement in there) in January 2016, 6 months before brexit. This was largely a function of the Philippines (and US) concern about Chinese naval expansion and territorial claims.
Sure, the government is raising the profile of such deals, but nothing much has changed about the policies.
> Oh no it wouldn't.
>That's just plain wrong. All the ME countries you name have been major importers of UK arms for decades. The UK is the major trainer of the Jordanian and Oman armed forces.
Arms sales to Turkey have picked up recently (from pre-brexit 2015) largely as a result of the crisis on Turkey's borders. They are not new. The UK exported about $300mn 2006-15.
The UK and the Philippines announced their attention to sign a closer defence agreement, possibly including training and arms sales (along with the US which is stepping up military involvement in there) in January 2016, 6 months before brexit. This was largely a function of the Philippines (and US) concern about Chinese naval expansion and territorial claims.
Sure, the government is raising the profile of such deals, but nothing much has changed about the policies.
Post edited at 23:09
In reply to Big Ger:
If you are going to name call, at least target someone uniquely culpable. Just making it sound like an 'Anti Tory' tirade of cliches doesn't help get the widespread support of Conservatives that might otherwise agree with the cause. Its not party political.
> Above and beyond name calling, what do the left have to offer as an alternative?
If you are going to name call, at least target someone uniquely culpable. Just making it sound like an 'Anti Tory' tirade of cliches doesn't help get the widespread support of Conservatives that might otherwise agree with the cause. Its not party political.
2
In reply to pasbury:
Its called profit. So your analogy with prostitution may be correct. Its been going on for years.
We do try to sell the stuff to people we think won't use it on us.
Its called profit. So your analogy with prostitution may be correct. Its been going on for years.
We do try to sell the stuff to people we think won't use it on us.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...