Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[PJL]

Really not seeing the EU as an economic NATO

And even if you buy that - she's talking about China, in Japan and referencing Australia. I think it wouldn't necessarily be bad if Western allies including the EU, but also Canada, Australia, Japan etc were able to cooperate economically to counter China.

Of course the NATO comparison is asinine on its own because the core of NATO is Article 5 - I'm not really sure what the equivalent would be. And the allies need to work out a common approach, which may not be possible: the US wants to keep China from getting higher tech in a way that could threaten the US' position; I think Canada, Australia, Japan etc want increase resilience/support when they face Chinese sanctions/trade restrictions; the EU wants China to play by the rules. Those have a common core but I'm not sure the perspectives are close enough to really coordinate.

The two cases that I thought really called for a unified response was when China slashed imports of iron ore from Australia in response to an investigation into influence buying and when China locked up those two Canadian "drug smugglers" in response to Canada arresting that Chinese female executive for extradition to the US.  But as you say the devil is in the details.

I do take slight exception to your characterization of the US wanting to improve its position which has the odor of protectionism.  Everything I've read suggests its motivated primarily by security interests.

One man's security interests is another man's protectionism. It could be argued that Hitler's autarky policies were as much about what he considered security concerns as opposed to protectionism to the outside world.

[Duque de Bragança]

My mum and dad live next door to a vicar who was Anglican and converted to the Antiochian Orthodox church over women priests in the early 90s

So still under the theoretical andn distant guidance of Constantinople? Going mono/mia-physite would be fun though. 

And he has a very small little chapen which, in the middle of rural Dorset, serves the old school Anglicans but also, apparently, has Greeks, Russians, Ukrainians, Romanians etc travelling for miles for the big holidays - which is very sweet.

Temple merchants would have approved as well.
 

[Sheilbh]

The two cases that I thought really called for a unified response was when China slashed imports of iron ore from Australia in response to an investigation into influence buying and when China locked up those two Canadian "drug smugglers" in response to Canada arresting that Chinese female executive for extradition to the US.  But as you say the devil is in the details.

Yeah the ones that stick out for me are trying to bully Australia through trade restrictions and China's behaviour towards Lithuania. Where the EU response is to go through the WTO - and practically, according to reports, European exporters are just recalibrating their supply chains to make sure Lithuania doesn't touch exports to China which is not exactly Article 5.

I do take slight exception to your characterization of the US wanting to improve its position which has the odor of protectionism.  Everything I've read suggests its motivated primarily by security interests.

It's not a criticism. America's "national security interests" and its protectionism form a perfect circle in a venn diagram. In part because legally that's the argument you need to make to not obviously trash the WTO - there is an exemption for national security. But also I think it's the way to get things passed through Congress.

Same with climate - the way to get massive support for greening America is to position it as a national security necessity to prevent China dominating the green energy supply chain and it'll help create lots of American jobs.

I don't think either are necessarily bad or wrong but the result of both policies is US protectionism.

[Duque de Bragança]

And it is usually because there is this perception that the Catholic Church is somehow a purer form of Christianity as many of the mainline Protestant churches struggle with modernizing trends. That tempts the reactionary and conservatives to "swim the Tiber".

And Benedict created an Anglican Ordinariate witihin the Catholic Church so they could keep some of their liturgy/Anglican traditions - not least because Anglo-Catholics are even more into their smells and bells than Rome

Catholic as in universal, of course. 
From High Church rite to Catholic should not be that different, however.
It's not like there is only the Latin Rite in the Catholic Church, even in Latin Europe.

[Admiral Yi]

One man's security interests is another man's protectionism. It could be argued that Hitler's autarky policies were as much about what he considered security concerns as opposed to protectionism to the outside world.

It would be very hard on the other hand to argue, for example, that Canada's domestic media protection was predicated on national security grounds.

[PJL]

One man's security interests is another man's protectionism. It could be argued that Hitler's autarky policies were as much about what he considered security concerns as opposed to protectionism to the outside world.

It would be very hard on the other hand to argue, for example, that Canada's domestic media protection was predicated on national security grounds.

Cultural security. Much like in France where they have rules re French language music etc

[Admiral Yi]

Cultural security. Much like in France where they have rules re French language music etc

Sure, and American farmers used to argue for food security.  I was talking about national security, which has a narrower meaning.

[Jacob]

Sure, and American farmers used to argue for food security.  I was talking about national security, which has a narrower meaning.

I don't think the massive tariffs on Chinese solar panel products fit within a particularly narrow definition of national security. Not that I'm arguing against them, mind you.

[Admiral Yi]

I don't think the massive tariffs on Chinese solar panel products fit within a particularly narrow definition of national security. Not that I'm arguing against them, mind you.

I agree.  I was thinking of the chip export restrictions primarily.

I guess I should have asked Shelf what he was referring to.

[Sheilbh]

I agree.  I was thinking of the chip export restrictions primarily.

I guess I should have asked Shelf what he was referring to.

I'd still disagree

The chips legislation also includes hundreds of billions of dollars of spending domestic manufacturing and building up secure supply chains (read: American).

With both the high tech stuff and the green energy there is a reason that the EU has possibly been even more vocal about it than China. China and national security gets you a legal fig leaf and it gets political support - but the effect is a huge finger on the scales in the global market and American industrial strategy based around the next generation of key tech.

As I say I don't necessarily think it's wrong.

[Admiral Yi]

I'd still disagree

The chips legislation also includes hundreds of billions of dollars of spending domestic manufacturing and building up secure supply chains (read: American).

I don't get this.  If we accept the national security premise, where should the US build its China-proof fabricators?

[Sheilbh]

I don't get this.  If we accept the national security premise, where should the US build its China-proof fabricators?

Could they not just let the market decide?

[Admiral Yi]

Could they not just let the market decide?

The market decided on China and Taiwan.

[Sheilbh]

The market decided on China and Taiwan.

Right.

So for national security reasons you restrict that. I don't see why pumping billions into making sure the market picks the US or securing domestic supply chains follows from that "national security" justification.

You could even set national security criteria and then let the market decide: no countries likely to start or be the victim of WW3, democracies only - or whatever else you want. But the US goal isn't only national security but industrial policy.

[Admiral Yi]

Right.

So for national security reasons you restrict that. I don't see why pumping billions into making sure the market picks the US or securing domestic supply chains follows from that "national security" justification.

You could even set national security criteria and then let the market decide: no countries likely to start or be the victim of WW3, democracies only - or whatever else you want. But the US goal isn't only national security but industrial policy.

The logic as I understand it is that capacity would not be built without the massive subsidies.  So if the subsides are going to be spent, you think it's only fair that it be spent all around the world?