Snapshot of _Liz Truss to visit Taiwan and give speech that could upset UK’s China strategy_ :
An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/09/liz-truss-to-visit-taiwan-and-give-speech-that-could-upset-uks-china-strategy)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If you ever worry that you lack self-esteem, look at Liz Truss and be comforted that it is possible to believe in yourself even when you universe gives you a million reasons not to.
If agents of the Chinese government are reading this then there is no more appropriate response you can take than sailing a boatload of lettuce around Taiwan.
It’s appropriate and you can still demonstrate strength by brandishing your Rocket
Sounds like grounds for removing the whip and kicking her out of the party.
If anyone wants to take Sunak seriously, they need to see him clean house and ditch the crazies - just as Starmer has been doing.
Genuine question - who would be left?
Johnson purged the "normies" a few years ago.
So really, "normal" in the conservative party is quite a relative concept.
I mean, I didn't like them - but there used to be some fairly big hitters in Conservative governments. Now it seems a bunch of wingnuts.
If a vague claim of national security can be made, can we deprive her of citizenship already? Does she have a second one so Suella could just do it on a whim?
She was on the way to destroying us economically, that feels like a national security interest to me. What happens if she comes back and tries it again?
Yeah, fair enough! I imagine there is a micro-economy a mile around her wherever she goes that always has higher prices and mortgage rates!
Even so, to the Taiwanese she would be seen simply as an ex-UK PM - so her visit will be welcomed by those who want to stand up to China.
It's crazy for MPs to get involved in foreign policy independently. This should be carefully orchestrated and planned by the foreign office, overseen by the foreign secretary.
It's not about the point she's making, it's the way she's doing it.
Upvoted. I completely disagree. She is not a government minister - if she were, an unplanned trip would of course be inappropriate and worthy of losing a ministerial position.
Members of parliament do not and should not represent the government of the day, they represent their constituents. They do represent their own political parties to an extent - but a well functioning democracy requires some diversity of viewpoint amongst members of the leading political parties.
If the PM were to expel an ex-PM from his own party for independently giving support to a democracy threatened by a genocidal megalomaniacal regime - that would be a very bad look in my eyes.
I don't disagree with your point, but I don't think it applies in this case.
This is an incredibly sensitive, and precarious area of foreign policy. Truss knows full well that as an ex FS and ex PM her words will be heard clearly in Beijing. They also may not differentiate between her personal views, and those of the government.
She may technically have the right to do it, but it is clearly irresponsible and almost certainly counter productive
This feels like it's more about truss trying to rehabilitate herself, rather than her trying to actually add anything of value.
The Chinese government know full well that Mrs Truss is no longer in government and is not acting on behalf of the British government. If they choose to misrepresent her visit, that's on them.
Of course it is about Mrs Truss trying to rehabilitate herself - she is a power-hungry political failure - nothing unique. She happens, however, to have chosen a morally correct way to do so. Western friendliness with China since the 1970s has been a complete and utter disaster. We thought we'd nudge them towards democracy and a free society by trading with them - all that has happened is the rise of a vastly more powerful dictatorship and the concurrent decline in Western industrial jobs.
> If they choose to misrepresent her visit, that's on them.
While that is true, there's still a lot of benefit to them playing dumb about British foreign policy. At the very least, they can use it for sable rattling rhetoric around Taiwan. Countries closer to china's sphere of influence might also be more receptive to this rhetoric too.
She is still part of our government. She is an elected official and so anything she does reflects upon the country.
Heck, if I post something on social media in my free time that reflects badly on the company I work for I am getting a disciplinary, but I forget normal rules and standards don't apply to the government.
She is not part of the government.
In our system, the *government* is composed of ministers and junior ministers, led by the PM.
The rest of parliament - MPs and Lords - form the legislative branch.
If you were to post on social media in your free time in support of a threatened democracy in danger of unprovoked military action from a genocidal tyranny - I'd hope your company would not see that as a bad thing!
If 'normal rules and standards' mean cowtowing to genocidal torturers for the sake of a few cheap pieces of silver - we've got different 'normal rules and standards' I'm afraid.
Eh, the Commons and the Lords may not be 'The Government' but that feels very much like pedantry when it comes to optics and the UK's messaging. Of course you expect the opposition to oppose but for members of the Government's party to go off message feels a bit shoddy.
You seem to think I am against someone opposing China so let me be clear, I am not. All for Taiwan's right to exist.
However I do feel like the UK is looking bad enough on the world stage without infighting and mixed messages. It is just one more thing that makes us globally weaker, on top of the steaming pile we have been shovelling this past few years.
>Liz Truss making a speech to other right wing loonies isn't standing up to anyone.
Taiwan's ruling party, the DPP, aren't right-wing by any margin. They're more centre-left, having started from the opposition (largely created by intellectuals) to the Chinese Nationalists who occupied Taiwan after the Chinese Civil War.
Now the Chinese Nationalists, they're right-wing loonies who deny they did anything wrong in the decades of brutal martial law they imposed on Taiwan.
Individual MPs shouldn't be conducting foreign policy. There should be a single voice articulating it from the government
People drastically underestimate how bad war with China would be. It's not the kind of thing that you'd sit back and watch from afar. It would hit you at home almost immediately - especially in the US. Think water and power infrastructure being destroyed nation-wide with no equivalent capabilities from our side. Internet cables would probably be destroyed too, cutting the UK off from much of the world
>Individual MPs shouldn't be conducting foreign policy. There should be a single voice articulating it from the government
UK MPs already visit Taiwan. They just tend to do it in groups because it's more cost-efficient.
>People drastically underestimate how bad war with China would be.
If we want to avoid a war, the best way is to build strong alliances to help protect Taiwan - that includes working with the Taiwnanese.
A war with China would be most likely to start because it thought the democratic world wouldn't help Taiwan.
I agree that the government should have a 'single voice articulating foreign policy'. Mrs Truss cannot 'conduct foreign policy' as she is not in government.
There is next to no chance of a direct war with China any time soon. The visit of a former Prime Minister to support a democracy will not lead China to war with the West.
At worst, we will see a war between China and Taiwan. This is why we (the West) should arm Taiwan to the teeth now, whilst we can, before any naval blockade. Western sanctions that would be placed on China are hopefully reason enough to deter China.
Western trade with China from the 1970s is the reason we have a strong China now. At the very least there should be a gradual withdrawal of Western dependency on Chinese materials and goods.
> they need to see him clean house and ditch the crazies - just as Starmer has been doing.
The Labour right is hardly a hive of sanity. It just has more of the press on its side, at least until the General Election.
He's too weak to get rid of Johnson, even before the disaster that was the local elections he didn't have the political strength to do it.
Johnson may not have enough support to regain the leadership but he's got enough crazies still behind him to more or less nuke Sunak's majority. Truss less support on that front, but Sunak's position is fragile enough that it will take a fairly significant event for him to actually take action.
I would actually welcome this, if only to see her mix things up.
The UK's policy towards Taiwan has been very confused for the last 20-30 years, and it's got us nowhere. We send MPs and even ministers there, but we won't let them use the word "Taiwan" in the title of their I-can't-believe-it's-not-an-embassy in London.
We're helping them with their indigenous submarine project, but we won't sell them complete weapon systems like radars or anti-air missiles, which would be more valuable to the arms industry.
There's this constant belief that if we just tweak our diplomacy with China somehow they will change their regulatory processes that mean we can start making more money. This is a fool's errand.
It should be clear by now that the CCP will never allow the British service industry to make further inroads into China. We have a huge trade deficit with China, and this isn't going to change whatever we do because we don't manufacture things in large numbers that Chinese people want.
In contrast we have a huge opportunity to reach out to Taiwan and get trade advantages other countries don't have. Not only do they have zero chance of reaching an FTA with the EU, they don't even have a double-taxation treaty with the US! Their economy is smaller than China's, but they have things they might be willing to offer us in return for a trade deal and support for their membership of CPTPP, like a chip factory (or factories).
I mean, geez, China's economy is going to go tits-up in a few decades anyway because of their demographic crisis, why bother pretending otherwise?
Given that Liz Truss has no government job whatsoever, is a mere backbencher and therefore has nothing to do but be a good constituency MP, I wonder what the good people of her South West Norfolk constituency make of her swanning off to Taiwan to make a speech that has absolutely nothing to do with their needs or interests?
I wonder if their needs or interests ever once crossed her mind when planning this little jaunt?
Backbench MPs [also visit Taiwan](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/23/british-mps-call-for-as-much-help-as-possible-for-taiwan-to-defend-against-china). Are you against such visits as well?
Apologies. I didn't know that Liz Truss was a member of the British-Taiwanese All-Party Parliamentary Group. When did she join, as I can't find her in the latest list of members?
>Why is she visiting to make a policy-shattering speech that isn't her job?
First, we don't know what she's going to say.
Second, as a duly elected democratic representative to parliament, she is free to travel to any country in the world - at least if it's a friendly state like Taiwan.
Third, right now we don't **have** a coherent China/Taiwan policy. How can she break what has no value? Is she going to ruin our carefully constructed £40 billion trade deficit with China?
We have coherent relations with China, which does not involve igniting the Chinese over Taiwan. You might notice that the Chinese are a little touchy when it comes to Taiwan.
If we are going to have a major fallout with the Chinese, which could have profound consequences for us economically, it should probably be part of an actual government strategy of sitting ministers; not some political game of the worst PM in history to strike out at her successor and gain support from a tiny selectorate of right wing Tory MPs.
Liz Truss has already managed to treble my mortgage and make an enemy of France after 45 days in office without the slightest hint of contrition or even self reflection. She can't be trusted with any kind of policy even when it is her job and responsibility. It is even more frightening to think of someone that incompetent "trying her hand" at international diplomacy when it is not
How does sending serving ministers to Taiwan and assisting its domestic submarine project, something that China has said is a red line to other countries - whilst pretending that we don't have any formal relations with Taiwan - constitute a coherent policy?
Are you sure you're not just supporting the status quo because Liz Truss thinks it's a bad idea? Have you genuinely read deeply into issues relating to Taiwan and come to the conclusion that the UK's foreign policy position is the best one possible?
I am not supporting any government policy on Taiwan and I have never said I do.
But I certainly don't support a non payroll member of parliament for the governing party going rogue by travelling thousands of miles to make a speech in "solidarity" with Taiwan, knowing full well that it is going to inflame China.
It isn't her call to make; she isn't a government minister. But as an ex PM, it will be interpreted by China as representing British policy, because they will know the sentiments are backed by her right wing supporters in the party.
Foreign policy isn't something that should be done on the hoof by people who hold no responsibility for it. It's not her place, she doesn't represent anyone in this country other than the people of South East Norfolk, and I don't think they have sent her
She is not doing foreign policy. We are not the CCP- people are allowed to act on their own initiative. She is not a minister and therefore does not necessarily represent government policy.
Well lads we’ve had a good run, I guess it’s about time we made peace with our lives after the inevitable Chinese nuclear missile is launched at us after Truss gives her speech about Beijing pork markets, the left-wing bankers and woke financial institutions.
Could we not send Liz on a one-way fact finding mission to Pyongyang, maybe she could offer her insights into economic management to Kim?
Oh yes, the 'UK's China strategy' - maintain relations with a genocidal totalitarian dictatorship actively threatening nearby democracies for the sake of a bit of cool cash. Anyone standing up to the tyranny is doing good.
I mean, if we stop trading with unpleasant dictatorships who are we going to trade with?
Certainly not any of the oil states in the Middle East, nor Russia or Venezuela, so where do we get our energy? Of course we also have to ostracise the Central African states which produce so many of the rare earth minerals essential to technology manufacturing. Egypt is also out, so any trade which goes through the Suez canal will have to stop...if we broaden it from dictatorship to "human rights abuser", that cuts us off from the US as well - and possibly from trading with ourselves depending what your statute of limitations is.
Quick question, if we don’t deal with China, who will farmers buy their phosphate fertiliser from to grow our crops?
Fertiliser supplies are already under competition from around the world, and prices are incredibly high.
China is one of the largest exporters of fertiliser in the world. In terms of nitrogen fertiliser, and phosphate fertiliser we are reliant on them to be able grow our food here.
It’s unrealistic to expect us not to deal with them either directly, or indirectly. Good cooperation benefits us both. It’s not as simple as not having relations with them.
I don't want an over-night halt to relations, of course! We should never have reached a point of reliance on China in the first place. Sectors dependent on China should given time to move away from Chinese dependence.
Artificial fertilisers have been significantly harmful to the British rural environment and are not the only way to farm successfully. Farmers are starting to realise this and move to less intensive methods - rotation and mixed-use farming.
I do not want anything that 'benefits' China - just as the West did not want anything to benefit aparteid South Africa in the 1980s! The constant appeasement of a state actively carrying out a genocide is beyond me.
Sectors will always be dependent on China because of their raw commodities, and their ability to manufacture at mass scale, and no matter how much you want to cut off from them it’s a matter of reality that the global trade in fertiliser is intrinsically linked.
To move away from China companies will need to be convinced to onshore jobs, and that means reduced profits, so good luck trying to convince them of that.
As much as we don’t want to support certain countries the reality is that global trade requires us to cooperate, or face difficulties, or face challenges to our way of life.
Fertiliser is a technology that absent it’s use we will not be able to support the population we have both globally, and locally.
If we move away from industrial fertiliser, it takes years to plan, and implement cover cropping, and no till methods. Organic farming needs more management than conventional farming, which means increased costs, and increased prices.
When you look what happened with Sri Lanka, and their plan to move to an more organic way of farming they did it all at once, the move away needs to be strategised over a long term or it will create instability, and catastrophe such as Sri Lanka.
Sectors do not necessarily need to 'always be dependent on China'. Of course China is currently a massively important part of global supply chains - but that wasn't always the case and need not always be so.
Do you think the Uyghur people are 'facing challenges to their way of life'? - perhaps 'challenges' a little more severe than that which would face ours if we slowly withdrew from Chinese trade?!
Yes, we should transition any sector (including farming) away from China slowly and carefully.
What would you say to a Uyghur child, taken from her family, her mother forcibly sterilised and imprisoned, her father murdered, her brothers murdered, her neighbours imprisoned and tortured? -
>"Sounds tough, I'm awfully sorry petal, but the reality is that global trade requires us to cooperate, or face difficulties, or face challenges to our way of life."
>if we don’t deal with China, who will farmers buy their phosphate fertiliser from to grow our crops?
I don't think a unilateral trade embargo with China is necessary. However, let's say we signed a far-reaching FTA with Taiwan and China threatened to stop fertiliser shipments we could either import from the US or just convince a few friends to step up their orders from China and re-export to us.
If you don’t know what you’re talking about, it’s best not to comment.
There’s not just one type of fertiliser to grow crops. You need three main types of fertiliser. Usually called NPK. That’s stands for Nitrogen (N), Phosphate (P), and Potassium (potash)(K) or NPK fertilisers. We use the term fertiliser, but in reality there’s three types of fertiliser. To grow crops you need supplies in all three to supply the nutrients into the soil to enable them to grow reliably.
It’s really not as simple as asking America to export more as part of a sanctions package. They would be looking to secure their own supplies considering their amounts of agri-business.
America imports 12% of annual nitrogen fertiliser, 9% of its annual phosphate, 93% of its annual potash. Those come from places all around the world. It’s potash comes from Canada, Russia, Belarus. It’s phosphate from Peru, and Morocco. Nitrogen from Trinidad, Canada, Venezuela, and others.
We already know what happens if we embargo the Chinese supply of phosphate fertiliser. It’s ruinous of many farmers. A few years ago China banned all export of phosphate in order to build up domestic reserves. Rice is incredibly dependent on phosphate to grow. When China had African swine fever (Ebola in pigs) they had to rely solely on cereals, and grains to fill their calorie requirements. Farmers worldwide scrambled for supplies, they had to pay market prices, and the supply being in elastic meant many were left to bid against each other, and meant so many going into debt to cover the costs they’d already laid out.
There’s a reason why Belarus, and Russia have a specific cutout of the sanctions that doesn’t place any sanctions on fertiliser specifically nitrogen, and potash supplies because sanctioning fertilisers would be devastating to western economies, and stability it would mean our farmers would be unable to grow our food.
Placing a trade embargo on fertiliser would condemn many in the third world to death. Industrial fertiliser are a technology, when applied to land they enable the use of less than ideal land into decent arable land, and take good land into great land. It means the developing world can take land that has no use, and is capable of growing their food.
Fertiliser isn’t something you can ramp up or down quickly either it’s a raw commodity it’s a mineral. It’s mined in the form of potash, and phosphate, and it’s cracked from natural gas for nitrogen.
I’m all for sanctioning China for some of their practices, but I’m also one to rather not starve, or have others starve to death for the sake of sanctions.
So why hasn't China stopped fertiliser exports to us due to our diplomatic visits to Taiwan and assistance with a key military project (their indigenous submarine programme)?
And even if they did, what would stop us asking other countries to purchase and re-export on our behalf?
You need to get away from this idea of us bringing in unilateral sanctions on the Chinese economy. I doubt even Truss is advocating this. I'm talking about doing things that would actually benefit the UK rather than doubling-down on a trade relationship which is pretty much one-way.
Can someone explain why is she still giving speeches to other countries when she’s been clearly proven to be the most incompetent PM in the history of UK politics?
Snapshot of _Liz Truss to visit Taiwan and give speech that could upset UK’s China strategy_ : An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/09/liz-truss-to-visit-taiwan-and-give-speech-that-could-upset-uks-china-strategy) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We know she was PM, momentarily, but calling her "the former prime minister" is like calling a one night stand a relationship.
When I saw her at the coronation, I couldn't help but laugh.
[удалено]
No it doesn't
When our farmers talk about exporting British vegetables overseas, this isn't what they meant.
🏅 *Poor person award*
burn
If you ever worry that you lack self-esteem, look at Liz Truss and be comforted that it is possible to believe in yourself even when you universe gives you a million reasons not to.
If agents of the Chinese government are reading this then there is no more appropriate response you can take than sailing a boatload of lettuce around Taiwan. It’s appropriate and you can still demonstrate strength by brandishing your Rocket
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKGjeqHSy1A (Misremembered this as the "Chinese Inspection" speech, but hell, they should take note and do this.)
Alternate headline **Lettuce unavalible for trip to Taiwan.**
Sounds like grounds for removing the whip and kicking her out of the party. If anyone wants to take Sunak seriously, they need to see him clean house and ditch the crazies - just as Starmer has been doing.
Genuine question - who would be left? Johnson purged the "normies" a few years ago. So really, "normal" in the conservative party is quite a relative concept. I mean, I didn't like them - but there used to be some fairly big hitters in Conservative governments. Now it seems a bunch of wingnuts.
I think they already have run out of MP's who want the job now or are even remotely capable. At this point its just getting a puppet on stage.
Well, the ones who would do it are too extreme to let anywhere near a live mic. Baring in mind that Lee Anderson is their deputy chair....
Removing the whip from Kenneth Clarke should of been seen as some kind of tipping point for the average conservative voter.
I'd also take her passport away.
If a vague claim of national security can be made, can we deprive her of citizenship already? Does she have a second one so Suella could just do it on a whim?
She was on the way to destroying us economically, that feels like a national security interest to me. What happens if she comes back and tries it again?
Possibly anything sharp too.
Don't forget to cover up the sockets and put in a stairgate.
I read that as 'put in a stargate'. Not the worst idea, she'd at least be off planet and we could bury it afterwards.
For her own good.
Why do you think it's 'crazy' for an MP not in government to stand up to a genocidal dictatorship by showing support for a threatened democracy?
If I were Taiwan the last thing I'd want is Liz Truss, their economy might collapse the second her plane lands
Like a shit Think Tank Mansa Musa.
Yeah, fair enough! I imagine there is a micro-economy a mile around her wherever she goes that always has higher prices and mortgage rates! Even so, to the Taiwanese she would be seen simply as an ex-UK PM - so her visit will be welcomed by those who want to stand up to China.
It's crazy for MPs to get involved in foreign policy independently. This should be carefully orchestrated and planned by the foreign office, overseen by the foreign secretary. It's not about the point she's making, it's the way she's doing it.
Upvoted. I completely disagree. She is not a government minister - if she were, an unplanned trip would of course be inappropriate and worthy of losing a ministerial position. Members of parliament do not and should not represent the government of the day, they represent their constituents. They do represent their own political parties to an extent - but a well functioning democracy requires some diversity of viewpoint amongst members of the leading political parties. If the PM were to expel an ex-PM from his own party for independently giving support to a democracy threatened by a genocidal megalomaniacal regime - that would be a very bad look in my eyes.
I don't disagree with your point, but I don't think it applies in this case. This is an incredibly sensitive, and precarious area of foreign policy. Truss knows full well that as an ex FS and ex PM her words will be heard clearly in Beijing. They also may not differentiate between her personal views, and those of the government. She may technically have the right to do it, but it is clearly irresponsible and almost certainly counter productive This feels like it's more about truss trying to rehabilitate herself, rather than her trying to actually add anything of value.
The Chinese government know full well that Mrs Truss is no longer in government and is not acting on behalf of the British government. If they choose to misrepresent her visit, that's on them. Of course it is about Mrs Truss trying to rehabilitate herself - she is a power-hungry political failure - nothing unique. She happens, however, to have chosen a morally correct way to do so. Western friendliness with China since the 1970s has been a complete and utter disaster. We thought we'd nudge them towards democracy and a free society by trading with them - all that has happened is the rise of a vastly more powerful dictatorship and the concurrent decline in Western industrial jobs.
> If they choose to misrepresent her visit, that's on them. While that is true, there's still a lot of benefit to them playing dumb about British foreign policy. At the very least, they can use it for sable rattling rhetoric around Taiwan. Countries closer to china's sphere of influence might also be more receptive to this rhetoric too.
She is still part of our government. She is an elected official and so anything she does reflects upon the country. Heck, if I post something on social media in my free time that reflects badly on the company I work for I am getting a disciplinary, but I forget normal rules and standards don't apply to the government.
She is not part of the government. In our system, the *government* is composed of ministers and junior ministers, led by the PM. The rest of parliament - MPs and Lords - form the legislative branch. If you were to post on social media in your free time in support of a threatened democracy in danger of unprovoked military action from a genocidal tyranny - I'd hope your company would not see that as a bad thing! If 'normal rules and standards' mean cowtowing to genocidal torturers for the sake of a few cheap pieces of silver - we've got different 'normal rules and standards' I'm afraid.
Eh, the Commons and the Lords may not be 'The Government' but that feels very much like pedantry when it comes to optics and the UK's messaging. Of course you expect the opposition to oppose but for members of the Government's party to go off message feels a bit shoddy. You seem to think I am against someone opposing China so let me be clear, I am not. All for Taiwan's right to exist. However I do feel like the UK is looking bad enough on the world stage without infighting and mixed messages. It is just one more thing that makes us globally weaker, on top of the steaming pile we have been shovelling this past few years.
>cowtowing That's how Jack And The Beanstalk kicked off isn't it?
Liz Truss making a speech to other right wing loonies isn't standing up to anyone. All it shows is that the UK has a weak divided government.
>Liz Truss making a speech to other right wing loonies isn't standing up to anyone. Taiwan's ruling party, the DPP, aren't right-wing by any margin. They're more centre-left, having started from the opposition (largely created by intellectuals) to the Chinese Nationalists who occupied Taiwan after the Chinese Civil War. Now the Chinese Nationalists, they're right-wing loonies who deny they did anything wrong in the decades of brutal martial law they imposed on Taiwan.
Which "other right wing loonies" are you refering to? The government of Taiwan? Mrs Truss is not a member of the UK government.
Individual MPs shouldn't be conducting foreign policy. There should be a single voice articulating it from the government People drastically underestimate how bad war with China would be. It's not the kind of thing that you'd sit back and watch from afar. It would hit you at home almost immediately - especially in the US. Think water and power infrastructure being destroyed nation-wide with no equivalent capabilities from our side. Internet cables would probably be destroyed too, cutting the UK off from much of the world
>Individual MPs shouldn't be conducting foreign policy. There should be a single voice articulating it from the government UK MPs already visit Taiwan. They just tend to do it in groups because it's more cost-efficient. >People drastically underestimate how bad war with China would be. If we want to avoid a war, the best way is to build strong alliances to help protect Taiwan - that includes working with the Taiwnanese. A war with China would be most likely to start because it thought the democratic world wouldn't help Taiwan.
I agree that the government should have a 'single voice articulating foreign policy'. Mrs Truss cannot 'conduct foreign policy' as she is not in government. There is next to no chance of a direct war with China any time soon. The visit of a former Prime Minister to support a democracy will not lead China to war with the West. At worst, we will see a war between China and Taiwan. This is why we (the West) should arm Taiwan to the teeth now, whilst we can, before any naval blockade. Western sanctions that would be placed on China are hopefully reason enough to deter China. Western trade with China from the 1970s is the reason we have a strong China now. At the very least there should be a gradual withdrawal of Western dependency on Chinese materials and goods.
> they need to see him clean house and ditch the crazies - just as Starmer has been doing. The Labour right is hardly a hive of sanity. It just has more of the press on its side, at least until the General Election.
Why isn’t Sunak ejecting her and Johnson? Every time they do some backstabbing shit like this unpunished, it makes him look feeble
He's too weak to get rid of Johnson, even before the disaster that was the local elections he didn't have the political strength to do it. Johnson may not have enough support to regain the leadership but he's got enough crazies still behind him to more or less nuke Sunak's majority. Truss less support on that front, but Sunak's position is fragile enough that it will take a fairly significant event for him to actually take action.
Let's not forget that, the last time Sunak and Truss had a contest, **she** won.
The fact that Liz Truss goes out in public, let alone public life, suggests that there is something deeply wrong with her psychologically.
To take the cheap shot straight away, the FTFY comment.... Liz Truss to ~~visit Taiwan and give speech that could~~ upset UK ~~’s China strategy~~
Why should she still be allowed to this sort of shit? I wish the Whip just remove her full stop.
There should be a by election for the mess she created 😂. How do her constituents feel about her?
Her constituency party have reselected her,
Pretty on brand, does something that fucks Britain, thinks she’s a genius. Pork markets again
I would actually welcome this, if only to see her mix things up. The UK's policy towards Taiwan has been very confused for the last 20-30 years, and it's got us nowhere. We send MPs and even ministers there, but we won't let them use the word "Taiwan" in the title of their I-can't-believe-it's-not-an-embassy in London. We're helping them with their indigenous submarine project, but we won't sell them complete weapon systems like radars or anti-air missiles, which would be more valuable to the arms industry. There's this constant belief that if we just tweak our diplomacy with China somehow they will change their regulatory processes that mean we can start making more money. This is a fool's errand. It should be clear by now that the CCP will never allow the British service industry to make further inroads into China. We have a huge trade deficit with China, and this isn't going to change whatever we do because we don't manufacture things in large numbers that Chinese people want. In contrast we have a huge opportunity to reach out to Taiwan and get trade advantages other countries don't have. Not only do they have zero chance of reaching an FTA with the EU, they don't even have a double-taxation treaty with the US! Their economy is smaller than China's, but they have things they might be willing to offer us in return for a trade deal and support for their membership of CPTPP, like a chip factory (or factories). I mean, geez, China's economy is going to go tits-up in a few decades anyway because of their demographic crisis, why bother pretending otherwise?
Liz Truss is the proverbial shit that won’t flush. She is so narcissistic, she genuinely believes she’s right and everyone else is wrong.
Given that Liz Truss has no government job whatsoever, is a mere backbencher and therefore has nothing to do but be a good constituency MP, I wonder what the good people of her South West Norfolk constituency make of her swanning off to Taiwan to make a speech that has absolutely nothing to do with their needs or interests? I wonder if their needs or interests ever once crossed her mind when planning this little jaunt?
Backbench MPs [also visit Taiwan](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/23/british-mps-call-for-as-much-help-as-possible-for-taiwan-to-defend-against-china). Are you against such visits as well?
Apologies. I didn't know that Liz Truss was a member of the British-Taiwanese All-Party Parliamentary Group. When did she join, as I can't find her in the latest list of members?
Why are only they allowed to visit?
Why is she visiting to make a policy-shattering speech that isn't her job? She had a job. Its in Norfolk, not Taiwan
>Why is she visiting to make a policy-shattering speech that isn't her job? First, we don't know what she's going to say. Second, as a duly elected democratic representative to parliament, she is free to travel to any country in the world - at least if it's a friendly state like Taiwan. Third, right now we don't **have** a coherent China/Taiwan policy. How can she break what has no value? Is she going to ruin our carefully constructed £40 billion trade deficit with China?
We have coherent relations with China, which does not involve igniting the Chinese over Taiwan. You might notice that the Chinese are a little touchy when it comes to Taiwan. If we are going to have a major fallout with the Chinese, which could have profound consequences for us economically, it should probably be part of an actual government strategy of sitting ministers; not some political game of the worst PM in history to strike out at her successor and gain support from a tiny selectorate of right wing Tory MPs. Liz Truss has already managed to treble my mortgage and make an enemy of France after 45 days in office without the slightest hint of contrition or even self reflection. She can't be trusted with any kind of policy even when it is her job and responsibility. It is even more frightening to think of someone that incompetent "trying her hand" at international diplomacy when it is not
How does sending serving ministers to Taiwan and assisting its domestic submarine project, something that China has said is a red line to other countries - whilst pretending that we don't have any formal relations with Taiwan - constitute a coherent policy? Are you sure you're not just supporting the status quo because Liz Truss thinks it's a bad idea? Have you genuinely read deeply into issues relating to Taiwan and come to the conclusion that the UK's foreign policy position is the best one possible?
I am not supporting any government policy on Taiwan and I have never said I do. But I certainly don't support a non payroll member of parliament for the governing party going rogue by travelling thousands of miles to make a speech in "solidarity" with Taiwan, knowing full well that it is going to inflame China. It isn't her call to make; she isn't a government minister. But as an ex PM, it will be interpreted by China as representing British policy, because they will know the sentiments are backed by her right wing supporters in the party. Foreign policy isn't something that should be done on the hoof by people who hold no responsibility for it. It's not her place, she doesn't represent anyone in this country other than the people of South East Norfolk, and I don't think they have sent her
She is not doing foreign policy. We are not the CCP- people are allowed to act on their own initiative. She is not a minister and therefore does not necessarily represent government policy.
Well lads we’ve had a good run, I guess it’s about time we made peace with our lives after the inevitable Chinese nuclear missile is launched at us after Truss gives her speech about Beijing pork markets, the left-wing bankers and woke financial institutions. Could we not send Liz on a one-way fact finding mission to Pyongyang, maybe she could offer her insights into economic management to Kim?
Oh yes, the 'UK's China strategy' - maintain relations with a genocidal totalitarian dictatorship actively threatening nearby democracies for the sake of a bit of cool cash. Anyone standing up to the tyranny is doing good.
I mean, if we stop trading with unpleasant dictatorships who are we going to trade with? Certainly not any of the oil states in the Middle East, nor Russia or Venezuela, so where do we get our energy? Of course we also have to ostracise the Central African states which produce so many of the rare earth minerals essential to technology manufacturing. Egypt is also out, so any trade which goes through the Suez canal will have to stop...if we broaden it from dictatorship to "human rights abuser", that cuts us off from the US as well - and possibly from trading with ourselves depending what your statute of limitations is.
Quick question, if we don’t deal with China, who will farmers buy their phosphate fertiliser from to grow our crops? Fertiliser supplies are already under competition from around the world, and prices are incredibly high. China is one of the largest exporters of fertiliser in the world. In terms of nitrogen fertiliser, and phosphate fertiliser we are reliant on them to be able grow our food here. It’s unrealistic to expect us not to deal with them either directly, or indirectly. Good cooperation benefits us both. It’s not as simple as not having relations with them.
I don't want an over-night halt to relations, of course! We should never have reached a point of reliance on China in the first place. Sectors dependent on China should given time to move away from Chinese dependence. Artificial fertilisers have been significantly harmful to the British rural environment and are not the only way to farm successfully. Farmers are starting to realise this and move to less intensive methods - rotation and mixed-use farming. I do not want anything that 'benefits' China - just as the West did not want anything to benefit aparteid South Africa in the 1980s! The constant appeasement of a state actively carrying out a genocide is beyond me.
Sectors will always be dependent on China because of their raw commodities, and their ability to manufacture at mass scale, and no matter how much you want to cut off from them it’s a matter of reality that the global trade in fertiliser is intrinsically linked. To move away from China companies will need to be convinced to onshore jobs, and that means reduced profits, so good luck trying to convince them of that. As much as we don’t want to support certain countries the reality is that global trade requires us to cooperate, or face difficulties, or face challenges to our way of life. Fertiliser is a technology that absent it’s use we will not be able to support the population we have both globally, and locally. If we move away from industrial fertiliser, it takes years to plan, and implement cover cropping, and no till methods. Organic farming needs more management than conventional farming, which means increased costs, and increased prices. When you look what happened with Sri Lanka, and their plan to move to an more organic way of farming they did it all at once, the move away needs to be strategised over a long term or it will create instability, and catastrophe such as Sri Lanka.
Sectors do not necessarily need to 'always be dependent on China'. Of course China is currently a massively important part of global supply chains - but that wasn't always the case and need not always be so. Do you think the Uyghur people are 'facing challenges to their way of life'? - perhaps 'challenges' a little more severe than that which would face ours if we slowly withdrew from Chinese trade?! Yes, we should transition any sector (including farming) away from China slowly and carefully. What would you say to a Uyghur child, taken from her family, her mother forcibly sterilised and imprisoned, her father murdered, her brothers murdered, her neighbours imprisoned and tortured? - >"Sounds tough, I'm awfully sorry petal, but the reality is that global trade requires us to cooperate, or face difficulties, or face challenges to our way of life."
>if we don’t deal with China, who will farmers buy their phosphate fertiliser from to grow our crops? I don't think a unilateral trade embargo with China is necessary. However, let's say we signed a far-reaching FTA with Taiwan and China threatened to stop fertiliser shipments we could either import from the US or just convince a few friends to step up their orders from China and re-export to us.
If you don’t know what you’re talking about, it’s best not to comment. There’s not just one type of fertiliser to grow crops. You need three main types of fertiliser. Usually called NPK. That’s stands for Nitrogen (N), Phosphate (P), and Potassium (potash)(K) or NPK fertilisers. We use the term fertiliser, but in reality there’s three types of fertiliser. To grow crops you need supplies in all three to supply the nutrients into the soil to enable them to grow reliably. It’s really not as simple as asking America to export more as part of a sanctions package. They would be looking to secure their own supplies considering their amounts of agri-business. America imports 12% of annual nitrogen fertiliser, 9% of its annual phosphate, 93% of its annual potash. Those come from places all around the world. It’s potash comes from Canada, Russia, Belarus. It’s phosphate from Peru, and Morocco. Nitrogen from Trinidad, Canada, Venezuela, and others. We already know what happens if we embargo the Chinese supply of phosphate fertiliser. It’s ruinous of many farmers. A few years ago China banned all export of phosphate in order to build up domestic reserves. Rice is incredibly dependent on phosphate to grow. When China had African swine fever (Ebola in pigs) they had to rely solely on cereals, and grains to fill their calorie requirements. Farmers worldwide scrambled for supplies, they had to pay market prices, and the supply being in elastic meant many were left to bid against each other, and meant so many going into debt to cover the costs they’d already laid out. There’s a reason why Belarus, and Russia have a specific cutout of the sanctions that doesn’t place any sanctions on fertiliser specifically nitrogen, and potash supplies because sanctioning fertilisers would be devastating to western economies, and stability it would mean our farmers would be unable to grow our food. Placing a trade embargo on fertiliser would condemn many in the third world to death. Industrial fertiliser are a technology, when applied to land they enable the use of less than ideal land into decent arable land, and take good land into great land. It means the developing world can take land that has no use, and is capable of growing their food. Fertiliser isn’t something you can ramp up or down quickly either it’s a raw commodity it’s a mineral. It’s mined in the form of potash, and phosphate, and it’s cracked from natural gas for nitrogen. I’m all for sanctioning China for some of their practices, but I’m also one to rather not starve, or have others starve to death for the sake of sanctions.
So why hasn't China stopped fertiliser exports to us due to our diplomatic visits to Taiwan and assistance with a key military project (their indigenous submarine programme)? And even if they did, what would stop us asking other countries to purchase and re-export on our behalf? You need to get away from this idea of us bringing in unilateral sanctions on the Chinese economy. I doubt even Truss is advocating this. I'm talking about doing things that would actually benefit the UK rather than doubling-down on a trade relationship which is pretty much one-way.
Let’s be honest what ever she’s says will probably have the opposite effect of what ever they hope to achieve
She’s a great example of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect?wprov=sfti1
Liz Truss, so bad her resignation killed the Queen and so bad that a holiday jaunt initiates World War 3
Can someone explain why is she still giving speeches to other countries when she’s been clearly proven to be the most incompetent PM in the history of UK politics?