back to article BoJo buckles: UK govt to cut Huawei 5G kit use 'to zero by 2023' after pressure from Tory MPs, Uncle Sam

UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson has reportedly agreed to a plan that will entirely cut Huawei equipment from the nation's 5G networks within the next three years. The word from Britain late on Friday, strategically via the Guardian and Telegraph, is that Johnson has caved after months of pressure from the backbench of his …

  1. IGotOut Silver badge

    So...

    Who's going to pay for this

    Oh yes. Us plebs

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: So...

      If the first batch of 5G Nokia and Ericsson kit get vandalised due to COVID-believing nutters/vigilantes, then maybe round two of replacement kit will come from Huawei.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: So...

        What do Nokia and Ericsson have to do with spreading the China Virus?

        1. Richard Jones 1
          FAIL

          Re: So...

          There is no accounting for the brain-dead stupid lot who think (or perhaps cannot think at all) a virus comes out of radios. So they go round threatening cable layers and setting fire to any masts they can find, just to prove how stupid they are.

          I am happy never to buy any more Chinese junk until they have cleaned up their foul act; it is called justice.

          1. DavCrav Silver badge

            Re: So...

            "There is no accounting for the brain-dead stupid lot who think (or perhaps cannot think at all) a virus comes out of radios."

            To be fair, that's not what they think, that would be crazy. What they 'think' is that COVID-19 is a cover story and these people are being killed by 5G signals. That's why they are assaulting cable layers and 4G masts. Obviously. And why countries with no 5G networks are suffering lots of COVID-19 deaths.

            1. Poncey McPonceface
              Black Helicopters

              Re: So...

              Unfortunately, that's not true either.

              There's this "EMF radiation is dangerous" dude, Martin L. Pall, who to the best of my knowledge is to health and WiFi (and 5G and 4G and 3G) as Andrew Wakefield is to vaccines and autism.

              I've had the misfortune of having this article https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935118300355#t0015 waved in my face: “Wi-Fi is an important threat to human health”

              I won't reproduce any of the "research" here – suffice it to say that they claim there are biochemical/bioelectrical pathways that are being messed with.

              There *are* the conspiracy nuts who think the whole thing is a giant cover-up/conspiracy – those folks are well into tin-foil hat territory and are seriously out to lunch, as in they have (and I mean this in a very literal sense) very little grasp on reality. There's another segment who are scientifically illiterate but realise that they have to make scientifically grounded claims and for these folks quacks like Pall (who push junk meta-analysis fear-mongering) are just the ticket.

              And if that wasn't bad enough these two groups are not even the same crowd as the "don't-tread-on-me, it's just the flu bro" folks.

              Not one, not two, but at least three distinct Sars-cov-2/Covid-19 rejectionists !

              I've lost friends over this so I know what I'm talking about :/

              1. DavCrav Silver badge

                Re: So...

                Don't forget the '5G signals suck oxygen out of the atmosphere' crowd.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: So...

                  I think the claim is that 5G is the same frequency as red blood cells and it affects Fe oxygen transference, which is a similar symptom to Covid19. The details escape me at present

                2. MR J

                  Re: So...

                  That could be true.

                  It would explain why the towers burn so well.....

                3. Tigra 07 Silver badge
                  Facepalm

                  Re: DavCrav

                  Don't forget the 'Windmill noises cause cancer crowd'. This unfortunately includes Donald Trump, who should really know better.

                  1. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: DavCrav

                    IIRC Trump's complaint was the Low Frequency noise driving people (and cows) crazy. He is not alone in this complaint

              2. Graham Dawson Silver badge

                Re: So...

                >Andrew Wakefield

                You know what really grinds my gears about that man? There is some anecdotal linkage between measles causing gut perforation and some types of ASD, but because of wakefield's utter bollocks, nobody in their right mind would dare to even touch the idea, so there's not going to be any meaningful research into it (either to confirm or rule out the hypothesis) for probably decades.

                That's the real damage caused by quacks and "campaigns": they make whole areas of research so radioactive that few dare follow up, and anyone who does even moderately related research is pilloried as just another nutcase, no matter what they set out to test.

                1. Peter2 Silver badge

                  Re: So...

                  There is some anecdotal linkage between measles causing gut perforation and some types of ASD

                  This still doesn't even touch what Wakefield was saying; which was that the MMR vaccine was the problem. And he was saying that because the companies that were making three separate vaccines didn't want a combined vaccine so they did a smear campaign.

                  As somebody who is not neurologically typical and who therefore generally keeps up with the latest in neurology just "because", my personal view is that neurologists take too fine a view of their area of expertise and stop paying attention to anything below the neck.

                  Which I think is a mistake because people who have allergies tend to miss out on entire food types. This means that they tend to be deficient in certain things and these pass through long and only dimly understood chemical chains to create things for the brain.

                  There is a very good set of studies that will eventually be done that is likely to prove a lot of issues are related to gut bacteria or the lack thereof of particular types of it. However, this isn't really neurology so neurologists aren't interested because they are looking about 6 steps down the line and seemingly aren't interested in the precursors.

                  So yeah, it's almost certain that particular types of gut damage will result in neurological abnormalities, but as you say the area of study is verboten probably for the next century or two. Unfortunately.

              3. Harry Kay

                Re: So...

                Of courser, 5G radiation is dangerous. It's radiation innit? Must be dangerous like them noocular reactors, bombs and things.

                What about the powerful broad spectrum radiation source we see every day (if we are lucky) in the sky? Huh?

                Btw - it's shining today - aren't we lucky

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: So...

                  That'll be why Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) machines were renamed to Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI).

                  1. H in The Hague Silver badge

                    Re: So...

                    Possibly. But methinks that using the term NMR for both chemical analysis instruments (which produce a pretty graph) and medical imaging instruments (which produce essentially a photograph) is potentially confusing. So having two terms for two quite different instruments (which use the same physical principle) might be helpful.

                2. martinusher Silver badge

                  Re: So...

                  >What about the powerful broad spectrum radiation source we see every day (if we are lucky) in the sky?

                  Even when its not shining we use our own local broad spectrum radiation sources so we can see.

                  I put it down to a generation or more of poor to non-existent science education.

                3. veti Silver badge

                  Re: So...

                  Well yes, the sun is generally recognised as dangerous. That's why sunscreen is a thing, to say nothing of an entire industry of hats and parasols and sun awareness campaigns.

                  1. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: So...

                    Vitamin D.

                    Sunlight is toxic to viruses and is essential in the bodies production of vitamin D. In earlier times, and even today, the therapeutic effects of sun are well understood for both physical and mental health.

                    The sun is not "generally recognised as dangerous". Over exposure is dangerous, but drinking 3 gallons of water in one go is dangerous as well, and we don't call water "dangerous" unless inhaled.

                    1. DiViDeD Silver badge

                      Re: So...

                      The sun is not "generally recognised as dangerous"

                      Absolutely. If it were, the Orange One would not have his medical experts looking for a way we can stuff sunlight up our arses to cure COVID-19.

                      Honestly, some people with their scaremongering!

                      1. P. Lee Silver badge

                        Re: So...

                        >The sun is not "generally recognised as dangerous"

                        You don't live in Australia.

                        Sunlight is very much recognised as dangerous. Children are not allowed onto the playgrounds at school without large brimmed hats. For outside swimming and the like, the general practise is sunscreen, hat, and uv-protective long-sleeved shirts. Sunglasses are also strongly recommended as sunscreen around the eyes isn't fun.

                        1 in 3 people here will get skin cancer.

                        Even growing up in the UK, I was taught to leave the bed-covers turned down for a while to allow sunlight onto the sheets.

                        And I do believe there are also companies looking at piping uv light into people's respiratory systems to disinfect them. Whether it works or not I don't know, but I don't think your understanding of what Trump was suggesting is accurate. I don't know if you would prefer to be ignorant or wilfully misleading. Either way, you don't help your cause by misrepresenting people you don't like. If it worked, I'd certainly prefer to have a light-based treatment than take a stack-load of antibiotics or retro-virals.

                        1. Anonymous Coward
                          Anonymous Coward

                          Re: So...

                          If you've ever had a child treated in hospital on a billiblanket, you'll have seen evidence of how effective UV therapy is. But much higher energy per unit area than a mobile phone antenna obvs.

                        2. Anonymous Coward
                          Anonymous Coward

                          Re: So...

                          Looks out the window. Yep, very definitely Australia.

                          Quoting half of what I wrote makes you a dick.

                          "The sun is not "generally recognised as dangerous". Over exposure is dangerous"

                          Those two sentences together are unassailably true. Despite what your retarded understanding of the matter is.

                          Which part of Over Exposure don't you understand? People have been avoiding over exposure to the sun since we lost our body hair ... nothing new. We also avoid inhaling water.

                      2. Tigra 07 Silver badge
                        Flame

                        Re: So...

                        "The sun is not "generally recognised as dangerous""

                        Probably not a good idea to go there on holiday...

                    2. Anonymous Coward
                      Anonymous Coward

                      Re: So...

                      I had the pleasure of reading the research papers behind the Vitamin D recommendation which only us and the US are pushing. It's based on the following, Australia has a low mortality rate because they get lots of sunshine unlike Italy and Spain (Yes, I know how stupid that sounds), countries south of the 35th parallel get more sun so are doing better (like Brazil??), Nordic countries have low mortality rates because they all take supplements (ok), they have correlated covid deaths with patient records and confirmed that vitamin D deficiency is a common factor (how would they know?). I'm not one to dick about with fake news but feel free to read those papers yourself including the ones that haven't been peer-reviewed but have been used for this recommendation. Final point, how do you get Vitamin D? That's right from the sun so in essence by giving that advice it encourages people to go out especially when everywhere has sold out of supplements. I might be wrong so keep taking your supplements if you are, they won't cause you any harm (but don't take more than the recommended amount as then it will).

            2. John Sturdy
              Trollface

              Re: So...

              I think there may be room for someone to make some money out of these idiots, by buying up sunscreen wholesale, adding an unusual colourant with a pseudoscientific explanation, and selling it as 5G protection cream.

          2. anonymous boring coward Silver badge

            Re: So...

            It all makes so much sense, as we know that USA is a paragon of friendliness and transparency. Therefore USA must be right in all it says.

          3. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: So...

            What foul act? The coronovirus?

            In society we have these things called "evidence" and "proof" and as you nor I nor anyone has any it's no good throwing round blame. There are 3 schools of thought, the virus came from an animal market, the virus came from a lab in Wuhan and the virus was planted by America. The first considering that all other corona viruses emerged via animals is the most plausible. The second feeds xenophobia towards China and the third feeds xenophobia towards America. It's a bit ironic that you are calling people stupid for a conspiracy theory then presenting one of your own. Me, I'll wait for the scientists to work out where it came from and avoid/ignore conspiracy theories. As for 5g I heard it can make your elbows bald however I have no hair on my elbows so I have nothing to worry about.

            1. TDog

              Re: So...

              You missed out option 4 which is that it accidentally leaked from the lab where it was being studied. No intent involved.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: So...

                Was that not implied in his option 2? In any case, that too was disproved quite quickly.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: So...

                  It wasn't, though. The lab in question had terrible biosecurity procedures (they documented them by accident in a press release, with a photograph showing a blown seal on one of their sample freezers, and a technician handling supposed virus samples in nearly no protective gear) and was within walking distance of the market where the breakout was claimed to have started. It was also researching coronaviruses found in bats. The host species of the virus is not native to the area.

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: So...

              A rational coverage of the plausible origins and why they are (or not) plausible is here. The wet market theory is rather thin when the evidence is laid out. I expect it's option 'x', that the virus was made as part of Gain of Function research and was released accidentally. GoF research on bat viruses is a thing and lots of research papers detail the results, particularly splicing the protein that uses ACE2 receptors for entry (from HIV if I recall my reading). No need for nefarious behaviour to release it when incompetence is entirely satisfactory!

              https://project-evidence.github.io/

          4. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge

            Re: CHinese Junk

            Good luck not buying anything that is not made in the PRC or has some parts not made there.

            You my find it harder than you think.

            You could also boycott Bangladesh, India and a half a dozen other S.E. Asian countries while you are at it. None of them are saints.

            1. Teiwaz Silver badge

              Re: CHinese Junk

              Secret is not to buy anything that isn't locally sourced and available at you local fortnightly craft fair.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: CHinese Junk

                Ah the "Gordon Ramsay" method.

          5. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: So...

            I don't know why I down voted your comment but it had 24 already so I joined the herd.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: So...

          from original A.C. poster: Sorry, was trying to link two memes -- that 5G causes Covid and that Covid came from China (and that, therefore, Scandiwegian 5G might be less bad) -- in sarcasm and failed horribly.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: So...

        Are you literally staying that 5g is not alien technology that caused covid?

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

    Seriously, with all the concerns about privacy; all our data going back to the Chinese government, is this move really a bad thing?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

      It most certainly is on the site that's become the tech equivalent of the Guardian, politically-speaking!

      1. Dan 55 Silver badge
        Facepalm

        Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

        Tell me AC, which IT news site better covers where you are on the political spectrum?

        1. Claverhouse Silver badge

          Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

          https://www.breitbart.com/tech/

          .

          First article off the block: U. of Kentucky Cheerleaders Defend Coaches Fired over Nude Hazing Rituals.

          1. anonymous boring coward Silver badge

            Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

            Yes, it's wrong. And stupid.

          2. Teiwaz Silver badge

            Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

            First article off the block: U. of Kentucky Cheerleaders Defend Coaches Fired over Nude Hazing Rituals.

            Does sound a better read than 'Boris backs Cummings'....

            1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge
              Paris Hilton

              Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

              Boris backs Cummings sounds like a porn film.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

          I'm not on any spectrum. My day release handler says so.

          Now fuck off, I've got a unicorn to paint and social conduct lessons to attend.

          1. Dan 55 Silver badge

            Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

            Classic Dom.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

      It's an imperfect world. If you can't compete in 5G, then you can't bake your own network.

      So whose is the biggest risk? USA or China? Well it depends on if Trump is a Russian puppet or not. Given Russias aggressive interference in European politics, and military actions at the East edge, they're the most imminent threat.

      Trump just cancelling 'Open Skies' the flyovers of Russian bases by unarmed surveillance aircraft, at Putin's request, the Reagan-Republicans that negotiated asked him not to pull out of that treaty. So yeh, it's difficult to go into denial about it now. He's a Russian puppet. He'll cancel the Russian sanctions next.

      Best to play both China and US routes, and back-benchers will fall into line as they see it unfolding.

      ~2023 seems a reasonable timeline.

      Hopefully Putin will die from Corona Virus, Russia gets a pro-democracy leadership, USA-Russia relationship flips from Sub-Dom to Dom-Sub. But that's a long shot.

      1. Chris the bean counter Bronze badge

        Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

        Tosh , zero evidence that President Trump is under Russia's thumb.

        Last year he put a stop to the Nord2 gas line which has caused Russia no end of problems.

        Also USA is a democracy , China aint. To me it is always democracy right or wrong. Democracies rarely go to war (yes be a pedant and publish the wikipedia entry of the democracy wars, most of which only happened because one side did not hear that a peace deal had been agreed).

        Your Whataboutism is the enemy of peace and freedom.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

          Nord Stream 2 runs from Russia to Europe. A law saying "US companies cannot be involved in construction" of a pipeline in which they are not involved, might fool you, but didn't fool anyone else:

          https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-18/u-s-concedes-defeat-on-nord-stream-2-pipeline-officials-say

          "USA is a democracy , China aint"

          Watch and learn how that pans out.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

          USA a democracy? We're the least democratic country in the whole western world.

          ... not all that high on the "free" index either.

          1. Packet

            Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

            Honestly, do you really believe that?

            The rights you have available to you in the US are the stuff of dreams in other countries, mate

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

              [citation needed]

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

              A characteristic of the US left is their visceral hatred of The Constitution and all that has been built upon it. They are spoiled babies throwing their toys out of the pram, too ignorant to recognise their own fatal shortcomings. This, I am sad to say, is a recurring theme in history, and the current "spoiled generation" are as always worthy of nothing but contempt, along with the deluded activists educators that brainwashed them into believing the bollocks that they do in the first place.

              The idea of free speech is now very widely opposed, a horrifying idea. Of course, just listen to Zuckerberg defending censorship (Zuck, it's indefensible) or Twitter and Alphabet who decide what OPINION can e expressed on their platforms.

              The age of freedom of thought and speech has passed and The Ministry of Truth by technocratic means is upon us.

              1. Jamie Jones Silver badge
                Flame

                Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

                Funnily enough, the parts of the constitution that the American "right" bangs on about most are called "amendments".

                If there was no disatisfaction with the constitution at the time, those amendments would never have been made!

                That aside, your post is complete projectionalist bollocks, of course.

                If you equate the "left" with SJW's complaining about everything, then I'll equate the right with racist anti-semitic nazis.

                Now, if you look at the facts, you'll see the right is far more vicious at trying to shout down freedom of speech they don't like.

                You are also confusing free speech with being unaccountable for what you say. You can't shout bullshit, and then moan about free speech rights when challenged.

                Anyway, how about the standing rock / Dakota pipeline protesters?

                How about the language Trump uses as rallies against protesters?

                You seem to not notice when it's your "team" doing the shouting down.

                You should read this, but you won't: https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/portland-speech-milo-antifa-koch/

                Oh, and it's ironic a right wing complaining about private companies being able to decide what they can do within their own companies..... Don't you believe in capitalism, and the free market? What are you?? Some sort of commie?

                Still, when nutjobs post obvious bullshit about 5g causing coronavirus, or that Bill Gates created coronavirus so that he has an excuse to microchip us all, it has to be removed, as it's been proved that there are enough right wing morons that believe anything.

                Like shouting "fire" in a crowded cinema, or "suicide bomber" in a crowded station, free speech has consequences, and until you understand that, you'll continue to be triggered.

                Oh, back to the constitution.. The first amendment relates to *government* censorship.

                The second amendment (origins in racism) is not under attack from background checks, any more than driving is under attack from requiring a driving license.

                Oh, as an aside, the 10th amendment gives the authority of states to impose restrictions on citizens for the "greater good" of the citizens in general.. So no, your ak47 bearing, pug ugly incel small dick protesters are (yet again) wrong about their constitutional rights to infect others being violated.

                FFS, I'm just a stupid Welsh git yet seem to know more about your political system than most right wingers...

              2. veti Silver badge

                Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

                A characteristic of both sides in the US is that they don't much like the constitution. Leftists hate the second amendment, rightists aren't too keen on the first. I think it's probably possible to define every major faction in US politics by identifying "which bit of the constitution they want to repeal".

                Trump and his scum really hate the 14th.

                As for the "spoiled generation", you can apply that description to a generation who have grown up with their private wealth jealously protected.

              3. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

                15 downvotes suggest that the "anti-freedom of speech" brigade dwell here as well.

        3. jason_derp Bronze badge

          Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

          "Also USA is a democracy , China aint."

          Well, Wikipedia has a whole article called "Elections in China", so I assume you mean that their elections aren't exactly fair because they have two parties. So if you compare the two, one country has one party instead of (effectively) two, voting itself is manipulated through underhanded means in both, and the power structures of both don't care about the people they govern.

          If democracy is supposed to be something different, I guess the US aint democracy either.

        4. The_Idiot

          Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

          "Also USA is a democracy" Well - maybe. It depends on your definition of 'democracy'. The US President is not elected by the will of the majority of the people (of course, neither is the UK's Prime Minister). Russia holds elections where people get to 'vote', though arguably the offering of only one candidate limits the 'power of the vote'.

          The US President is not elected by US voters. She or he is elected by the will of a much smaller group of generally older and well connected people. People who currently legally may or may not choose to vote how the electorate in their State told them to (the Electoral college). In short, I would suggest 'democracy' is a marketing catch phrase these days, not a definition. Thoughts?

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

            The USA is a REPUBLIC, it is explicitly designed NOT to be a democracy (where democracy is tyranny of the 51%). It is a democratic republic. If you do not understand this and you are from the USA, you failed civics and never read a Federalist paper. If you are from anywhere else, then I am unsurprised.

            If you think the being a "Democratic Republic" is a meaningless term, I suggest you look up how many brutal, bloody communist dictatorships went with the moniker, and then ask yourself why this term was so important for them to cower behind?

            1. The_Idiot

              Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

              @AC

              I respectfully suggest you and Chris the bean counter go sit in a corner and debate your views. He was the one who said, quite emphatically, that the USA _is_ a democracy. However, I would hold to my view. While Person A thinks 'democracy' is a mongoose, and Person B thinks it's a liquid, while Person C thinks it's round and Person D thinks it's a pink petunia - none of them can debate whether something 'is' or 'is not' democracy. Not because the word is meaningless - but because it has _too_many_ meanings. Which pretty much results in it appearing meaningless, and hence not a worthwhile element of discussion, debate or communication.

              1. EvilDrSmith Bronze badge

                Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

                Would have upvoted you apart from that last sentence - the fact that different people have a different understanding of the meaning is why it should be discussed and debated, if only to try an establish a common accepted definition (perhaps then as a first step to more meaningful discussions)

            2. The_Idiot

              Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

              @AC

              "democracy is tyranny of the 51%". I see. So what would you prefer? The 'tyranny of the less than 50%'? The 'tyranny of the Electoral College'? The 'tyranny of the Corporations'? In any system where decisions are made through a process (and even rolling dice can be seen as a 'tyranny' for those who like buzz phrases), there is always a 'tyranny' of some kind. The 'tyranny' of 'whoever decides'. The very establishment of a system of government, _any_ system of government, can be seen as the establishment of a 'tyranny' - at least, seen that way by those who disagree with the decisions imposed by the system. But to each their own marketing language - and their own debates.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

                "So what would you prefer? The 'tyranny of the less than 50%'?"

                It's irrelevant what I personally would prefer. Just as much as what you might define democracy to mean is irrelevant. I didn't call the USA a democracy. I know that it's a democratic republic, and importantly I know WHY it is a democratic republic.

                The only thing that matters in the discussion is what the authors of the US constitution understood it to mean and the system of government they created through the US constitution which they designed.

                My position is that enunciated by the signatories of the US Constitution and is unassailably correct.

                1. The_Idiot

                  Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

                  @AC

                  With genuine and sincere respect, if the position of the signatories of the US Constitution were 'unassailably correct', then logically, philosophically and legally there would be no such thing as an 'Amendment', no? To amend is to change, to change is to challenge and prevail - and to challenge is to assail. Or am I missing something? After all, I'm an Idiot... :-)

                  1. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

                    We are (or at least were) discussing the constitution's formulation and definition as a "democratic republic" as opposed to the US Constitution's authors' well documented understanding of "democracy".

                    It was discussed in tedious length at the time that position remains demonstrably correct as it was well documented at the time.

                    My opinion --> irrelevant

                    Your opinion --> irrelevant

                    Federalist Paper --> relevant

                    Constitution of The United States of America --> relevant

                    The amendments have nothing to do with this specific issue, but you knew that. Your pathetic straw man is noted.

        5. seven of five Silver badge

          Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

          "Democracies rarely go to war"

          There is a long list of countries attacked by the US. Or, more precise, by the CIA, which uses the US armed forces as its "enabler".

          1. foo_bar_baz

            Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

            I think the argument goes that two democracies don't usually go to war with each other.

            But yeah, the USA seems to find a lot of wars to fight.

        6. DiViDeD Silver badge

          Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

          USA is a democracy , China aint.

          That hasn't seemed to matter much, if at all, to merkins over the past 30 years or so as they've fallen over each other to set up cheap manufacturing facilities in China to screw over their home market consumers.

          It may be my memory failing me, but I don't seem to remember that nice Mr Jobs, or any other of our great, democracy loving Captains of Industry deciding that they would not open factories in China because of that country's authoritarian regime and appalling attitude to human rights, even if that factory would enable them to make even more obscene profits.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

        Negative modders, which part do you not want to believe?

        * That UK's biggest current threat is Russia not China?

        * That Putin owns Trump? One of them is the leader and one of them leads and one of them is the little butt-bitch, and it's Trump that's the little butt-bitch? Who in that pair do you think leads and who follows? Yeh exactly.

        * That UK needs to protect itself from a US owned by Putin?

        * That UK should play both teams given how uncertain the future is? USA is no longer a supporter of NATO and cannot be relied on for defense. Indeed it may be on the Russian side in any war.

        Look, assume Trump wins, the combination of wave-2 of the corona virus and suppression of mail in ballots, means he'll win by voter suppression or simply take power by a Republican controlled Supreme Court coup.

        Putin will take Georgia & Azerbaijan (telling Trump to end the open-skies treaty means he's planning to make a move, these are obvious next targets).

        Trump already removed Turkey from the favored trading nation status and Putin already did a deal with Erdogen, Turkey owned by Putin, Turkey will leave NATO.

        Putin already controls Syria (Trump withdrew troops and handed it to him). Syrian now owned by Putin.

        Iran is already pushed into Putin arms (Trump and his anti Iran war mongering + Putin lifting sanctions against them in 2016).

        Putin can already move his nukes onto his southern border (Trump cancelled the treaty that stopped this).

        It should be crystal clear to you that Trump is a moron. He has no idea what's going on, he reads nothing, he does not listen to briefings, does not read security reports, he knows more about chocolate cake than world security, and yet 'somehow' he knows in detail exactly which treaty he has to cancel to help Putin at any given time. Of course he gets an order and he follows it without understanding it.

        Not just that, he has no legal basis to cancel these ratified treaties. But he says "this Russian nukes treaty is cancelled" and Putin acts like the treaty is cancelled, and Republicans cower and block attempts to enforce the law. So it is defacto cancelled and US law is powerless. Each time he does it he establishes Putin > Trump > Republicans > US Law > America.

        Republicans can write whatever they like in a law, but Putin will simply ask Trump to cancel it, and then it will be ignored, and Republicans will go along with it and pretend all is well. So those sanctions against Russia that cannot be cancelled (Republicans controlled both houses, and wrote that law and voted it through almost unanimous to prevent Trump blocking it), they will be cancelled, and Republicans will pretend they are fine with it. Lindsey Graham will do his little Trump butt lick, Rand Paul will do his Putin feltch, better to be a Putin bitch than US defender and totally powerless.

        Iraq would be next, Trump would remove troops from Iraq in a timed withdrawal and hand it over to Putin.

        So at that point Putin would have his nukes bearing down on Saudi Arabia, he'd controlled a large part of the worlds oil and gas. He'd control all the pipelines into Europe, he'd have defacto control of the USA. Putin wins.

        You can see why Huawei 5G kit might not be the most important security threat right now. Given the obvious nature of what's happening in the USA.

        It's inevitable.

        It was as inevitable as Republicans trying to keep Corona Virus going till elections.

        As inevitable as Democrats trying to implement mail in ballots so the vote in November would happen despite the virus, to protect the vote.

        As inevitable as Trump trying to kill mail-in ballots.

        As inevitable as wave 2 corona virus is, the ~250k deaths.

        As inevitable as the Republican States cancelling the vote 'for safety'

        As inevitable as the Republican coup.

        It's right there, mod it down, stick your fingers in your ears, say 'la la la I'm not listening' it changes nothing. USA is done, it has a coup, Putin wins all, US becomes Putin little bitch. UK and Europe next.

        Literally the next few decisions made by Justice Roberts seal the fate, and I'm predicting he will go partisan and that's the end. After that it just plays out.

        1. First Light

          Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

          Love your analysis! It reads like an Oliver Stone script.

          (I guess that dates me). And it's probably true!

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

            Far, far less grounded in reality than Stone's scripts IMHO. The dude is off his meds.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

          Triggered much?

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

        So yeh, it's difficult to go into denial about it now. He's a Russian puppet. He'll cancel the Russian sanctions next.

        Putin really must be a genius. He's the leader of a country with a GDP smaller than that of Italy yet he controls the USA and by extension the rest of the free world!

        The Russian conspiracy theory is a nothingburger as proven by the unravelling of the politically-motivated, 2 year long Mueller investigation.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

          "Putin really must be a genius. He's the leader of a country with a GDP smaller than that of Italy yet he controls the USA and by extension the rest of the free world!"

          How's NATO doing? Exactly.

          Trump cancels Russian sanctions, regardless of US law drafted by Republicans.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

            >He's the leader of a country with a GDP smaller than that of Italy yet he controls the USA and by extension the rest of the free world!

            Israel has a GDP of a humus stall and yet dictates US foreign policy in the middle east.

            You just have to be smart where you apply your money and political pressure

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

            Y'all need to read a few books..

            NATO is already toast and America couldn't really care less. The USA set up NATO after the Europeans slaughtered themselves and bankrupted themselves. The USA is the guarantor of free trade since WWII through NATO and 11 carrier groups. The moment that the USA says "fuck off" to the retarded liberals in Europe and the CCP then the edifice they created will end. The effect on the USA will be slight and pass quickly.

            * NATO is more or less irrelevant for USA.

            * Russia has problems on it's western front that it needs to fix.

            * Europe is not energy independent (the USA is) and Germany will henceforth be Russia's energy bitch.

            * The EEGs in the EUR are all more or less financially bankrupt. Consumerism and growth cannot save them.

            * The EU is politically bankrupt and at the point of dissolution

            The only bright spot in Western Europe is the UK which, despite the retarded remoaners, is finally cutting the cord to the EU. The rest of the world wants to deal with the UK, so the future is bright until Europe descends into another war zone.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

              Y'all need to read a few books..

              Your post suggests you may need to update your reading material as well. Best without the rose tinted "USA! USA!" glasses.

              First of all, the US energy "independence" only exists if you continue down the 3rd world path of burning fossil fuels, and that's not going to do Miami's real estate any good as it's slowly swallowed by the sea, or Michigan's which has just seen that happen at a slightly more rapid clip.

              Secondly, China has the US by the cojones, and by that I don't mean the supply chain. Not only do they own a massive chunk of US debt, they also did a quick beta test of the mechanism - just for fun, they dropped the Dow over 750 points on the 5th of August 2019. That didn't even take 24h.

              They will probably use that trick again around voting time because the Orange Idiot and his friends have been annoying them for too long and give Putin far too much sway and say. In this respect I trust McConnell even less than Trump because he's playing both sides.

              As irony would have it, China is en route to address climate issues in a different way by using technology the Americans discarded. If they get this going (and signs are they have), there will be consequences for the US which will make their Covid19 crisis and resulting recession a walk in the park, and they're not like third world countries like Iraq - they can bomb right back. In addition, while Trump has been destroying international relationships, the Chinese have been building mines, dams and bridges abroad which come with income and lots of influence.

              So please, go forth with your mighty USA - it has brought us many good things, but with it came a lot of crap. Under current leadership, the latter is starting to have consequences.

              1. Packet

                Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

                Oh look another anonymous coward parroting rubbish.

                Fossil fuels are not going anywhere anytime soon - so slow your roll on that one.

                One country owning another country's sovereign debt doesn't really mean anything without the political will to actually engage with other means (Clausewitz)

                It's a matter of diminishing returns and escalating risk. It seemed like a good idea at first, but at no point does it become 'I say, good lad, we'll take that state and that other one there, then in lieu of payment, thank you very much'.

                If you think China cares about climate change, you're rather mistaken.

                What they are doing is attempting to use leverage by building out things in other countries (as part of their Belt and Road initiative.

                The current world scenario is one of upheaval (long before COVID-19) - and it's exposing rather ugly cracks in the edifices of many a nation (the US included).

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

                  Fossil fuels are not going anywhere anytime soon - so slow your roll on that one.

                  And that is exactly the crux: you just missed what is going on globally. Climate change has simple accelerated events (and Covid19 screwed up the timing) but there's more happening than just green energy. I would have preferred the US to be part of it as that would be globally less fractious, but that ain't gonna happen under Trump - and thus the consequences are his to bear too.

                  1. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

                    "And that is exactly the crux:"

                    No. it's not. Your are wrong, and were I predisposed to use several hours I could crush your childish non-physical view of the world idiocy.

                    Green energy isn't, and the fallout is the antithesis of eco-friendly.

                    You have been drinking too much Green New Deal Kool-Aid. Also, I have a some land down in the glades I would like to sell you.

                    1. Anonymous Coward
                      Anonymous Coward

                      Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

                      No. it's not. Your are wrong, and were I predisposed to use several hours I could crush your childish non-physical view of the world idiocy.

                      LOL. On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog, you know zip about me. However, taking this personal reveals a rather vast level of insecurity associated with those who still battle with zits. On the plus side, that means you have many years left to finally attain that wisdom you presently think you have. You'll find that wisdom and attitude live in the same place - the more you have of the one, the less there's room for the other.

                      Green energy isn't, and the fallout is the antithesis of eco-friendly.

                      Then speak, yea imagined master of da universe, which part of the sentence there's more happening than just green energy irks you so? There's a scale that at the top end reads "comprehensive reading ability", and at the bottom it reads "unwarranted attitude". You appear to be very much at that bottom end, "bottom" also indicative of the end from which you choose to communicate.

                      We agree on that very thing that prompted you to announce you would "crush" my world view. I'm not going to spell out what that makes you, but it rhymes with the chemical element referred to as "B" in the period table.

                      Maybe if you applied that alleged intellect to analysing which sources of energy work, which don't and which have a long term future, mix in climate change and then why certain currencies maintain their hold and level in a market that is all but hollowed out and then maybe, just maybe (unlikely, but we live in hope) you'll see what I saw some 5 years ago and which then, much to my surprise, recently popped up in global energy reports again.

                      Talk to me in five years again, because by then it will have become publicly visible.

                      That is, if you survive that long with that worldview. I'll stick with mine, thanks.

                      1. Anonymous Coward
                        Anonymous Coward

                        Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

                        Yeah, your right of course. What the fuck would I know? I only spent 15 years working in PGS. But hey, your green credentials give you credence I am sure. No, I am not going to even attempt to prove my credentials either.

                        CO2 driven climate change is not a thing in physics, only in politicised science - but that's an argument for another place. It doesn't matter because it's not CO2 that is at issue for electrical generation by "renewable technologies", it's physics and engineering + the very real issue that the burning of trees for power (I think still the largest of the available and approved renewable technologies in use, you can look up the actual value) is the antithesis of "Green".

                        I've read plenty of the bollocks about wind turbines and PV being cheaper than FF but the reality (Ed. reality is when engineering happens) is that they're not - we even built some wind parks - courtesy of subsidies - they made no economic sense whatsoever under any probable scenario. Their purpose was virtue signalling by politicians spending somebody else's money. Wind turbines are very heavy on steel and concrete (things you doubtless despise due to CO2 generation in production) and the blades are toxic. Wind Turbine PGS don't last long and are expensive to dismantle (if that even happens) - the concrete stays in the ground for the most part. Same for solar in all but specific use cases, plus PV solar production is hideously toxic. PVs are, IMHO, a waste of quartzite that has better utility in other industries.

                        Unreliable technologies can't power western industrial society any time soon, and if you think the third world want to stay in power poverty and develop their economies based on uneconomic and unstable technologies, you haven't been paying attention.

                        Bring on fusion (10 years away, for sure) or even Gen IV Fission, but oh wait, Green ideology is against those too, especially for those brown people.

                        While I hesitate to refer to polemics, the Planet of the Humans documentary is accurate with respect to what the renewable energy generation industry is and it's actual environmental impacts.

              2. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

                "First of all, the US energy "independence" only exists if you continue down the 3rd world path of burning fossil fuels, and that's not going to do Miami's real estate any good as it's slowly swallowed by the sea, or Michigan's which has just seen that happen at a slightly more rapid clip."

                That quote is fucking hilarious.

                None of it is remotely grounded in any physical reality. Florida is not being flooded by rising oceans, nor will it any time this century, if ever. Fossil fuel burning is not a third world path, it is the basis now and for the foreseeable future of western industrial civilisation. It is very much a first world path and will remain so until physics changes, or we invent something as energy dense or denser than fossil fuels. I hear Fusion is 10 years away, but I'm not holding my breath. The gas supply in the Permian Basin is, from an economic standpoint, inexhaustible. There is no "Peak Oil" either. We will actually have solved cold fusion before it runs out. The US no longer needs the Middle East and Europe doesn't get a free pass any more. The world order is changing, and the loony left free ride that Europe has been surfing is over.

                Whether you like it or not, Bretton Woods created the world trading order after WWII. 11 carrier groups are what maintains it. The USA wrote the WTO rules, and the WTO will disintegrate the second the USA decides for it to be so. It doesn't matter how much debt China has, their problem is internal and when it pops, and it will, the global fallout will be biblical. The USA along with their trading partners Canada and Mexico will all do just fine.

                The demographics dictate how things will go, and Europe has already butt fucked itself through lack of population growth and profligacy based on protection they got for free from the USA. Grennell has sent the bill to Germany & Co and Germany are squealing again this week. Stiff bickies. Europe is past repair, so welcome to your new reality, it's going to get ugly from here on.

                The sooner the UK start looking West rather than East, the better off they will be.

                Stay tuned and bookmark this page.

                Disclaimer: I am not an American, I just happened to have read more than a PHP syntax manual

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

                  Florida is not being flooded by rising oceans, nor will it any time this century, if ever

                  https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/08/08/analysis-sea-level-rise-is-combining-with-other-factors-regularly-flood-miami/ - and that was last year. There's a more recent analysis of the impact on real estate that is ALREADY happening, not some distant let-the-next-generation-worry-about-that future.

                  Fossil fuel burning is not a third world path, it is the basis now and for the foreseeable future of western industrial civilisation. It is very much a first world path and will remain so until physics changes, or we invent something as energy dense or denser than fossil fuels

                  It already exists, and has for some 50+ years. It just wasn't interesting to develop because at the time there was more profit in other solutions. However, climate change comes at a cost too, and if there is something that can offer energy at a price point competitive with fossil fuel, all hell will break loose. I give it 5 years, max. Trump just accelerated what is happening.

                  Oh, and Europe's in on this one. Oops.

                  1. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

                    Europe ... that's hilarious. Europe is dead in the water and won't be recovering any time soon. Pissing money into wind turbines and solar won't change that - it's demographics.

                    Investing borrowed money in dead-end solutions without engineering merit for virtue signalling purposes has only negative effects on the economy in the long run, and the supposed CO2 benefits (whatever that means for you) are unmeasurable and by definition incalculable, so that makes them a waste of effort and money.

                  2. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

                    "I give it 5 years, max."

                    Does this mean we'll have fusion power in 5 years, or is there some other technology that is going to break the laws of physics? It is unclear to me what you meant.

                    I am genuinely interested to know which technology you think will be an economic and engineering replacement for coal and gas (at whatever mix of the two) in your 5 year time frame.

                    1. Anonymous Coward
                      Anonymous Coward

                      Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

                      That'll be Thorium based nuclear power then, and those 5 years will be a rough guess on how long it will take the Chinese to improve upon the two plants they should have online by now (not sure if the virus got in the way of the schedule there, but they should have opened the second one in February). I think the last one is a joint project with France or with a group of European countries, but the Chinese have a whole University branch on this and hold patents on materials and coatings to deal with the rather aggressive nature of a liquid fluoride salt heated to some 750 degrees C.

                      I can see why this could make a difference - if you look at the whole picture there's a lot of boxes this ticks, not in the least because it's also far less polluting in terms of resulting waste.

                      I would separate the "fossil replacement" idea differently, though - energy and manufacturing.

                      Thorium could be a good replacement for energy needs as it is literally a rare earth mining waste product, but it will not replace fossil fuel as a source of the raw material for, for instance, plastics (it's maybe worth observing that petrol is actually a waste product in that context - it cannot be split further for anything else but as a fuel/cleaner). I am not sure what percentage of oil use is for energy and which part for raw materials.

                      1. Anonymous Coward
                        Anonymous Coward

                        Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

                        Re: Thorium. Yes. I mentioned it further up as "Gen IV Fission". I'm all for it, but you should do the math on how many reactors dispersed globally we'd need to build to replace even a small fraction of the energy generated by coal & gas ... The amount of energy generated by Gen IV nuclear in 2025 will be a rounding error in the global electricity generation mix.

                        Therein lies the problem with the Green movement and people who actually believe renewables (wind, solar, tree burning) are a viable long term solution to electricity generation for western civilisation, never mind the developing world.

                        The proponents of these techs cannot (or will not) do the math, don't understand physics, think engineering is irrelevant and most of all, think socialist economics and the labour theory of value is a viable model for humanity.

                      2. Anonymous Coward
                        Anonymous Coward

                        Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

                        The product mix in oil refining is pretty much determined by market requirements and the type of oil being refined. Oil refining also means we don't have to slaughter the remaining whales.

                        People forget that for every 1000 kg of new steel (about 75% of total steel produced globally), burning ca. 770 kg of coal is needed. 1806 million tonnes of steel produced a year means 1390 million tonnes of 7813 million tonnes of coal produced (17.7%). It's a big chunk. I don't think banning coal is going to happen any time soon.

            2. EvilDrSmith Bronze badge

              Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

              >* NATO is more or less irrelevant for USA.

              Possibly, but from the NATO website:

              "The principle of collective defence is enshrined in Article 5 of the Washington Treaty.

              NATO invoked Article 5 for the first time in its history after the 9/11 terrorist attacks against the United States."

              So the first NATO member to ever obtain military assistance in a conflict through NATO was the USA - clearly not an organisation that the US thought irrelevant at that time.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

                Quickly looks at calendar - yep 2020 and 9/11 was in 2001, so quite some time ago really.

          3. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

            "Trump cancels Russian sanctions, regardless of US law drafted by Republicans."

            Which ones? I haven't noticed precisely, so you'll be able to list them for me, right?

            Or was that a prediction?

        2. anonymous boring coward Silver badge

          Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

          "Putin really must be a genius. He's the leader of a country with a GDP smaller than that of Italy yet he controls the USA and by extension the rest of the free world!"

          Compared to Trump he is a genius. In case you haven't noticed, Putin is extremely crafty.

          And then we have piss-gate.

    3. Warm Braw Silver badge

      Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

      I don't think my personal data is at much risk from the Chinese government (at least for now) as it is from the Five Eyes, so I've not been terribly concerned about the data capture issue - the traditional telephone network is full of holes already.

      What seems rapidly to have become a bigger risk is the use of economic sanctions to achieve political ends - and it's not just China we have to be concerned about: the US is behaving just as badly. It would be very unfortunate it the national communications infrastructure became degraded as a result of an embargo on spare parts, or suppliers being placed on "entity lists". If we were part of some larger economic alliance we might have a bit more clout but trying to practise market defence on our own is going to be quite tricky.

      1. amanfromMars 1 Silver badge

        Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

        If we were part of some larger economic alliance we might have a bit more clout but trying to practise market defence on our own is going to be quite tricky. .... Warm Braw

        Ah, but you are not on your own and alone, Warm Braw. All here hear the pain and many would believe the future able to be fundamentally and radically enabled for Future Virtualised Realisations ....... with Novel Surroundings. Ideally Heavenly Spaces but Oft Hellish Places to Quench too.

        All one only really needs is an extremely engaging and almighty addictive tale to trail with each instalment for injection and onward infection of information, designed overwhelmingly for mutually beneficial positive effect offering and delivering an Advantage Leading AI.

      2. Danny 14

        Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

        You are dead wrong about the UK. We dont have any companies or manufacturing left for the government to spy with.

      3. Proton_badger

        Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

        Indeed, anybody with sensitive data should use safe protocols on top of the network. As you suggest: No network can be trusted.

    4. Bo Lox
      Mushroom

      Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

      All these China lovers here, and only loved by those who hate Trump. For the record, I dislike both.

      For those of you only born yesterday and not possessing any significant world history (UK and US school history lessons don't count...even if they might exist), China has been copying western tech for decades, it's the quick and obvious route to catch up. Our spies do it too for our benefit. It's a fact of life.

      As for Wah-way, surely no large tech company in China is not free of the reach of the State and its spies. And before you cry...it's exactly the same with US companies, and no doubt UK companies.

      1. Stork Silver badge

        Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

        Well exactly - that is why you need encryption of the traffic, not matter which hardware it runs over.

        Biggest theoretical risk is that a hostile power could switch the network off. But as the Huawei code has been inspected and nothing worse than sloppy code found, could we not expect that to be a similar risk no matter the equipment vendor?

        I think this is purely political and without technical reasons. And I do not find the Chinese leaders terribly cuddly either, not even Winnie-the-Pooh

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

        China has been copying western tech for decades, it's the quick and obvious route to catch up.

        Ironically, that's how the US started too, to the point that companies deliberately based themselves on opposite ends of the US to protect themselves (in the days before good communication, stealing secrets was a tad more hands on) so it's rather hypocritical in that respect..

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      @AC - Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

      Living out of reach from the Chinese government, I'd say my data going to China is the best choice. They can't use it against me unless I go there. On to the other hand, if U{S|K} has my data via GAFAM that would be a dire prospect.

    6. Cynical user

      Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

      Huawei's radio kit is actually quite good. Are we now to spend the next few years ripping out perfectly good Huawei kit from our thousands of radio sites, and installing inferior Nokia/Ericsson kit instead? Sounds like it.

      1. anonymous boring coward Silver badge

        Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

        Unlikely to actually happen, as we know the Tory so-called government says a lot of things that never actually happens. Still waiting for CV19 tracing to actually start. It's just words. Empty words.

        1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

          Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

          "we know the Tory so-called government says a lot of things that never actually happens"

          Corrected for your political bias.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

            Some many posts ago /\ up there somewhere, a guy was shot down for saying the Reg comments are becoming like the Guardian. Now a post that was removing left leaning political bias in favour of criticising all government is being downvoted... QED maybe?

            Just an observation as I have also tried to balance out the 'evil Tory' and 'commie Corbyn' posts. They are all as bad as each other - Labour would screw you over just the same as the Tories!

    7. Justthefacts

      Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

      Yes, it’s wrong.

      Because *the whole security design of 5G* (and 4G), divides it into Core Network and non-core. It’s not an arbitrary word distinction, it’s baked into the protocols. Only the Core Network gets to either “have your data”, or know who you are, or subtler things like traffic analysis. Huawei were specifically excluded from the Core Network kit.

      Don’t take my word for it, read CESG report (which you know as GCHQ) who have thoroughly analysed, including reading Huawei’s code, and instituting code-signing mechanisms. They came up with the plan for telecomm security encoded in U.K. policy, now being ignored by people trying to look good.

      And since our security services decided it was unsafe for more than 33% of kit to be placed with any one company, and now there are only two (Nokia and Ericsson), who is going to be responsible for the inevitable catastrophe of a Denial of Service breach taking down 50% of our infrastructure?

      In other news, you know that Trump wants to buy both Nokia and Ericsson right? He is in full strop mode that Finland and Sweden told him where to stick it, and has said officially (ie on Twatter), that if they don’t he will “ask Premier Putin to step in”.He has basically suggested Russia to invade a NATO countries to secure US ownership of global telecom infrastructure, and it’s *China* you’re worried about?

      1. Stork Silver badge

        Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

        Good start, but last I looked Sweden and Finland were not NATO members.

        1. Strahd Ivarius Bronze badge

          Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

          They are part of the NATO Response Force.

          1. EvilDrSmith Bronze badge

            Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

            But not actually NATO member countries.

            The NATO website shows them as partner nations (not members). The NATO website also shows Russia (amongst others) as a partner nation.

      2. ARGO

        Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

        Indeed. I'll accept the proposed ban isn't political when one of the objecting backbenchers demonstrates how to break 5G encryption at the mast.

  3. BrownishMonstr Bronze badge

    I hope we invest and create our own infrastructure. I wonder if America will be laughing as much.

    1. sanmigueelbeer Silver badge
      Happy

      I wonder if America will be laughing as much

      Don't be silly. The Yanks are too busy counting the cash to laugh.

    2. JetSetJim Silver badge

      > I hope we invest and create our own infrastructure

      That ship has long sailed. There's little infrastructure presence in the UK from *any* major telco manufacturer, let alone a homegrown one

      1. lsces

        And we have already given ARM to the Chinese so little chance of developing the core components. America seems to be under the impression that IT is the only country that designs the integrated circuits we all rely on, but in reality the major producers are all in the far east. How much of Apple's product is produced in the US? Could they afford to build kit if China shut the door ...

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          "And we have already given ARM to the Chinese so little chance of developing the core components. "

          Poppycock.

        2. deive
          Facepalm

          ARM was * bought * by a * Japanese * company.

          https://www.ft.com/content/235b1af4-4c7f-11e6-8172-e39ecd3b86fc

          1. DavCrav Silver badge

            "ARM was * bought * by a * Japanese * company."

            I'm sure it's all the same to him, of course.

            But Softbank, while domiciled in Japan, are not entirely Japanese. Their Vision Fund rounds 1 and (probably not 2), in which Softbank is heavily invested, are substantially funded by others, most notably some totally-fun Gulf states. Masayoshi Son is in a spot of bother at the moment. WeWork and Uber are two big bets with the Vision Fund, both turning brown at pace. Softbank recently took a massive charge on their investment in VF, which lost around $18 billion this year.

            The VF owns (I believe) a quarter of ARM Holdings.

          2. Chris the bean counter Bronze badge

            The ARM staff and skills are still in UK which is the main thing

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Arm is a global company with development centres to match. Not just in the UK.

            2. anonymous boring coward Silver badge

              "The ARM staff and skills are still in UK which is the main thing"

              No, it's "a thing". Not the "main thing".

              Selling out the control of something very often results in a bad outcome for the original employees.

          3. Cederic Silver badge

            It was still a disappointment. The UK used to be a technology world leader. Now we're one of many, and if we keep selling our top companies overseas we won't even be that.

            Even without the current geopolitics and pandemic, the economy rather benefits from a strong local manufacturing base, particularly one with high value and demand.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              "and if we keep selling our top companies overseas we won't even be that."

              You don't believe in free market capitalism and the buying and selling of companies? Communist.

              And you are fooling yourself if you thought the UK was ever that big a player. We certainly had a couple of top players but nothing more. And were never a big player in microelectronics manufacture. Because that takes massive longterm investment. Something the UK has not stomached since the early 70s. Which is why we are where we are. (With foreign investment needed to drive anything forward.)

              1. anonymous boring coward Silver badge

                Agreed. UK had lots of very small respected niche brands (hifi etc), and some larger ones for domestic consumption (rarely seen outside UK). Very few world wide technology brands. The Japanese had that covered.

                1. Cederic Silver badge

                  Yeah, companies like Rolls Royce, de Havilland, Fairey, Bombardier, Westland, Jaguar, Leyland, Rover, Austin, Humber, English Electric, Sopwith, BSA didn't exist.

                  The UK didn't build an empire because of its manufacturing dominance, didn't populate the world's powerful navy with UK built ships, didn't invent television, telephony, major advances in steam engines, multiple automated manufacturing machines or some of the finest aircraft ever built.

                  Right.

                  1. gnasher729 Silver badge

                    If the companies you mentioned, only three are known outside the U.K., plus one (Leyland) as a joke.

                  2. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    "Yeah, companies like Rolls Royce, de Havilland, Fairey, Bombardier, Westland, Jaguar, Leyland, Rover, Austin, Humber, English Electric, Sopwith, BSA didn't exist."

                    Seriously, you picked that list?! None of them in the microelectronics or semiconductor manufacturing sector. I can't see Sopwith raising the capital for a 5nm fab in the foreseable future.

                    You could have gone with: Inmos, BT Fulcrum, Plessey/Marconi etc. (All defunct too.)

                    Your list is from a long bygone era with the 2 survivors needing heavy investment from overseas. (Or needing to participate in heavy bribery.) That's the problem with Britain: it's all nostalgia, not investment. At least we can all keep dreaming about the Empire ...

                    1. Cederic Silver badge

                      Well, that was my original point. We used to be a world leader and now we're not, and selling off our few remaining strong companies will merely hasten the decline.

                      I think I disagree with you though regarding nostalgia. My point was very much focussed in the current times, and the things needed to maintain a strong economy.

                    2. DiViDeD Silver badge

                      At least we can all keep dreaming about the Empire

                      Wouldn't be worth it. Hasn't been the same since it went over to Bingo.

                  3. foo_bar_baz
                    Boffin

                    Bombardier is Canadian

                    As you were

                    1. Cederic Silver badge

                      Re: Bombardier is Canadian

                      I can't even claim British influence as they're from Quebec. Bugger.

                      I was misled by their presence in Derby, sorry.

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Apple can afford anything ...

          The issue for mega manufacturing is the number of people that need to be put on the ground in one place at ALL levels in the process, not just the drones. There are very good reasons why Foxcon exists that have to do with things other than money

      2. Jan 0

        It's time to relaunch it. Shouldn't a first world country be able to build its own infrastructure?

        1. Al fazed
          WTF?

          HS2

          "Shouldn't a first world country be able to build its own infrastructure?"

          1. The commentard formerly known as Mister_C

            Re: HS2

            Shame the company that makes rail wasn't deemed strategically important. The former British Steel, Scunthorpe - sold to Jingye group (a Chinese company) on 20 Mar 2020.

          2. anonymous boring coward Silver badge

            Re: HS2

            "HS2"

            Good one! A vanity project. Massive cost relative to possible positive impact. Typical Tory delusions.

        2. JetSetJim Silver badge

          So you're proposing to start a new company to provide 5G infrastructure to the UK?

          In theory possible, but in practice very difficult. Build from scratch high availability platforms to host a myriad of s/w that will scale up to millions of subscribers without falling over? Good luck with that...

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            So build it on top of what's already PD. Ericsson's OTP has been open source for decades and was designed specifically to scale to that order from the outset!

            1. JetSetJim Silver badge

              OK, so you have a s/w platform. You have no s/w to host the applications - from the OTP wiki page, it seems you still have to write your applications...

              There are some open source variants of the core network out there (e.g. Eurecom do OpenAirCN which includes all the bits for a CN, but I'm not sure if it scales that well - I've only played with it with single digit numbers of users), and you could buy a reliable server-based hardware platform to sit them on, but you have no USP, so will lose pretty much any RFx activity to the bigger players.

              Feel free to give it a go - I'll sit and cheer from the sidelines, but won't risk my money

  4. steviebuk Silver badge

    Its OK...

    ...to carry on using Apple though, that are also made in Chinese factories. And lots of other China made kit. That radio you have in your office PM, is it made in China?

    Surely if they are all this paranoid its not far fetched to believe the Chinese government could stick bugs in any electronic kit made in factories in their country.

    1. Al fazed
      FAIL

      Re: Its OK...

      if they are all this paranoid its not far fetched to believe the *?* government/firm could stick bugs in any electronic kit made in factories in their country.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Its OK...

        This is probably a good moment to remind everyone of the Cisco vuln in the secure boot loader that allowed any old code to be loaded. Silently. Unremovably. Undiscoverably.

        Only guaranteed remidiation: vulnerable kit (yes, all of it) -> doorstop.

    2. Chris the bean counter Bronze badge

      Re: Its OK...

      Twits who buy Apple have blood on their hands.

      Xi will carry on using concentration camps for Uyghurs, Killing Tibetans, threaten HK and Taiwan while he sees that Westerners care so little that they still buy Apple products.

      1. anonymous boring coward Silver badge

        Re: Its OK...

        "Twits who buy Apple have blood on their hands."

        Glad to find out just now that Android phones are all made outside China.

    3. Pascal Monett Silver badge

      Re: if they are all this paranoid

      They're not paranoid, they're just using that as an excuse to try and keep Huawei from dominating the market.

      You see, the US is all for capitalism as long as it is holding they keys. As soon as an actual competitor rises above its abilities, it's no holes barred to undermining said competitor by any means necessary.

      But I agree that Huawei, as a Chinese company, could very well be pressured by Beijing to reveal some sort of information at some point or another.

      However, we all know that Washington does pressure US companies and has even made a law allowing it to do so.

      So what I would like is a European initiative creating 5G infrastructure components that are not beholden either to the US or to China.

      Because if you want to be paranoid, you have to go all the way.

    4. Strahd Ivarius Bronze badge
      Devil

      Re: Its OK...

      You know that in every "Made in China" tag there are surveillance and tracking chips? (so tiny that you need an electronic microscope to see them)

      Just imagine all the information they gathered from the MAGA caps...

      1. stiine Silver badge

        Re: Its OK...

        Or, conversely, think about how much time and money they wasted...

  5. amanfromMars 1 Silver badge

    What a plonker. Couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery springs immediately to mind.

    Nice one, BoJo. Admiral Charles Fitzgerald, founder of the Order of the White Feather, will see you now.

    It does have one wondering about the mountainous piles of dirt with evidence of injudicious feather nesting which an Uncle Sam and an Almighty Blighty Secret Intelligence Service have/might have amassed on all Parliamentarians and the Conservative Cabinet Party over the years. Or is one to be led to believe that they are exempt from such necessary oversight, which very clearly would not be an intelligent thing to be doing whenever expected to be supplying secure protection against hostile state and non state actor vectors. Such would easily provide all manner of moles quite treasonous cover.

    That was a nice capture of Boris by Jennifer Arcuri though. Keeping things simple always works best for there be always less complications then in matters which can be extremely complex and potentially catastrophically damaging.

    1. amanfromMars 1 Silver badge

      Re: What a plonker. Couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery springs immediately to mind.

      Of course, any of that only matters if it matters ... rather than it being generally accepted as quite normal and fully to be expected and just par for a right dodgy sub-prime course of classic oxymoronic actions/planned future event failures.

      Which imperious clowns/puppets/muppets do you like to continue to support with your vote and obsequious quiescence in the Great Hugely Big Soap Opera?

    2. Claverhouse Silver badge

      Re: What a plonker. Couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery springs immediately to mind.

      Grim old gent, wasn't he ?

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Cooper_Penrose-Fitzgerald

      .

      Apparently his nickname was 'Rough'.

  6. ThinkingMonkey
    Stop

    We shall not suffer our citizenry to be spied upon!

    The U.S. has some huge balls to accuse somebody of spying 2 days after the articles were printed outlining the move by the government to allow FBI surveillance of web users data (presumably via ISPs) and without warrants. Add to that the actions of the illustrious NSA, who has people pulling their laptops apart and looking with magnifying glasses to see if any suspicious-looking chips are present and we have a populace who's so used to being spied on, they don't give one rat whether Huawei joins in.

    1. Chris the bean counter Bronze badge

      Re: We shall not suffer our citizenry to be spied upon!

      Whataboutism -

      USA a democracy, saved UK and West 3 times in last century.

      China a tyranny

      As Orwell nearly said

      " It is a strange fact, but it is unquestionably true that almost any English intellectual would feel more ashamed of acknowledging help of USA than of stealing from a poor box. All through the critical years many left-wingers were chipping away at English morale, trying to spread an outlook that was sometimes squashily pacifist, sometimes violently pro-Russian, but always anti-American.”

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: We shall not suffer our citizenry to be spied upon!

        USA is not a democracy. Only the rich can afford to participate at the top levels.

        They also did not "save" the UK and the West, and especially not out of altruism:

        - The UK only finished *paying* the US for it's 2nd World War "help" in 2006.

        - The US were late to the party on both occasions (which is fair enough given they are not in Europe, but nevertheless remains the case).

        - The UK, Russia, and the various Europeans who fled to the UK and joined up, had already done a lot of the work by that time.

        - US companies supported (materially) *both* sides of the war until the US actually joined in.

        - The US remains the only country to use nuclear bombs on civilian populations, and nobody seems to remember the massive firebombings of Japan in the days leading up to those bombs - truly evil.

        I'm not particularly left or right leaning, quite middle really, but I absolutely detest the way our country (UK) is moving away from a rule-of-law relatively fair European model to one based on money, ignorance (the rulers not necessarily the citizens), profit, and the abandonment of the poor (no healthcare, no hope, no future). The American Dream was always a lie.

        Obviously China is not a good alternative. Russia is not what people think it is (try reading the Putin interviews by Oliver Stone), but is also not a model to aspire to. The only hope we had was the EU keeping us from going all-in on the American Way, and now we have Brexit and nobody to keep our home-grown politicians in check.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: We shall not suffer our citizenry to be spied upon!

        Awww sweet, someone still believes the "patriotic" bullshit history we were taught in school.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: We shall not suffer our citizenry to be spied upon!

        The vote count on the bean counter post demonstrate the accuracy of the Orwell statement, the irony lost on the down voters whose cognitive dissonance is resolved as Orwell predicted.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: We shall not suffer our citizenry to be spied upon!

          The mere fact that you refer to Orwell who merely wrote a (very good) story as opposed to Jeremy Bentham who designed the actual theory that Orwell based his book on shows that your "insight" is not much more than superficial.

          Not that that is unique, but sometimes it's worth to look at something in depth to fully understand the picture. I recommend you do too, but I must warn you: knowing the detail of what is happening may make a lot more worrying.

  7. Must contain letters

    Another great opportunity for our tech savvy overlords

    To bluster that us Brits can build our own build a world beating 5G equipment, just like a replacement for Galileo, the dead end contact tracing app, and all those successful guvment IT projects. Don’t get me wrong on this, we’ve got great engineers and scientists, and we make good stuff, I just despair when lazy leaders have a good idea.

  8. 45RPM

    I don’t know whether Huawei kit is safe from spying, I think that question is better answered by more expert heads than mine but…

    …I thought Brexit was all about taking back control? If we ‘take back control’ from the EU, an alliance in which we had a say and a vote, and then do exactly what the Americans tell us to do in order to get a trade deal, any kind of deal, we’ll bend over for you deal, what exactly have we gained?

    Seems to me that we’ve gone from being an executive member of the board, if not the actual CEO (which we had to share on a rotating basis) to being the office dogsbody.

    Thanks Brexiteers. Ya muppets.

    1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Post-Brexit sovereignty. We're free from EU influence so we can do exactly what the US tells us to do.

      Just wait until the US trade talks start.

      1. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge

        re: just wait until the US trade talks start.

        What do we really want to import from the USA? (That is made in the USA)

        {not a lot really}

        Still we are over a barrel. The USA is a big bully and will demand that we take all sorts of crap US food that we could produce here at better standards but that will count for zilch, nada, zero. We will do what Trump says and that's the truth.

      2. Cederic Silver badge

        re: Just wait until the US trade talks start.

        Erm. They've already started.

        Apparently we're not going to allow the import of chlorine washed chicken, even though we'll continue to import chlorine washed vegetables from Europe.

        I find it all very confusing.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "We're free from EU influence so we can do exactly what the US tells us to do."

        Even more than previously. I honestly feel very bad, as a french, for you guys in Blighty ...

        I was all over the place when Sarkozy adhered to NATO commandment, meaning our ops would be over-sighted by the US ...

        Now, you're in a worst place ...

    2. jeffty

      Even if you aren't convinced by the potential spying threat from China through Huawei kit, there are other problems associated with their use as a vendor, namely their worrying habit of copying source code from rival manufacturers.

      Quick example - Huawei used Cisco source code to implement EIGRP, a Cisco-only proprietary routing protocol in their kit - https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10485560675556000

      They only stopped selling kit with this functionality when Switchzilla sueballed them.

      Assuming for sake of argument that they'd continued to sell it, and a flaw was uncovered in EIGRP that allowed for DoS or information to be leaked from a target device (like this - https://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-20051220-eigrp ), Cisco would patch their code and their devices, but you've got no guarantee that Huawei would have access to the fixed code, nor that they would fix it themselves, as they've obtained the code by copying the original source code (which I can only assume was leaked or obtained via questionable practices, and you can't guarantee that mechanism to grab the afffected code is still open to them).

      If they have previous for copying code just to support a proprietary protocol used by a competitor, we have no guarantees that the rest of the code running on their devices isn't copied from elsewhere, and we have no assurances that they'd patch upstream fixes for vulnerabilities found by these rival vendors, or even that they've realised their own devices are at risk to an exploit affecting someone elses switch and associated source code.

      I'd be less concerned if they were licensing code from other vendors and using it with commercial support in place, then they'd be tracking the versions properly, they'd entitled to see the fixed code and would apply it themselves.

      1. Al fazed
        Facepalm

        Of course

        A good old fashioned capitalist outfit like Apple (insert company name) would never dream of nicking someone elses ideas or source code for use in their own products, would they ?

        1. Danny 2 Silver badge

          Re: Of course

          When I worked for Burr Brown they reverse-engineered an Analog Devices VMEbus board. But that was okay because it was Red White & Blue on Red White & Blue violence.

          The Chinese are proper dodgy though. There was a Scottish wave generator being developed, the Chinese ambassador was given a tour, two days later their offices were burgled, one year later they went out of business, two years later an exact clone was being sold in China.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            True, or they just read the patent

            @"There was a Scottish wave generator being developed..."

            I was skeptical, but appears true:

            https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/10/mysterious-factory-break-in-raises-suspicions-about-chinese-visit

            Or they just copied it from the patents, e.g.

            https://patents.google.com/patent/US9018779

            Why do a complex breaking, when you can simply read a patent and apply it in China because the company doesn't hold a patent in China!?

            Obama's trade agreements were about locking out China from markets with products like this. Trump cancelled those.

            1. Danny 2 Silver badge

              Re: True, or they just read the patent

              "Why do a complex breaking"

              You mean a complex break-in? Pretty simple break-in. Why ignore all the other goods on offer, including in the different company on the ground floor unless it was targetted? The Chinese thieves will have saved years in development by gaining detailed plans and years of testing data. Occam's Razor. It walks, quacks, and tastes good in orange sauce - it's a duck.

              Thanks for providing the link though, lately I've been forgetting some of the things I say sound extraordinary and require supporting links.

              Joke:

              How do you get a bike in Amsterdam? Wait for cyclists to pass then shout, "Oi, that's my bike!"

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Misuse of Occam's Razor

                Who would break in and steal valuable laptops? Thieves. Occam's Razor

                How would the Chinese copy the design? They'd simply read the patent filing where the workings are described so that anyone skilled in the art can recreate the invention. Occam's Razor

                1. Danny 2 Silver badge

                  Re: Misuse of Occam's Razor

                  Like I said, the copy of the design is not what this is about, it's about the supporting test data.

                  You know, I hate to claim expertise, but I've spent some time chatting in police cells and have a reasonable idea about what thieves steal, and it's the easiest and quickest. They don't miss out an entire floor of goodies just to target a few laptops upstairs.

                  By your anonymous comment it appears the Chinese are back to steal Occam's razor.

                2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

                  Re: Misuse of Occam's Razor

                  "They'd simply read the patent filing where the workings are described so that anyone skilled in the art can recreate the invention."

                  The patent probably doesn't specify materials, stress loads, and all sorts of other stuff that might take a lot of time and experimentation to resolve when you can just steal the data.

                  We've all seen cheap Chinese knock-offs of products made with cheap plastic instead of the proper materials, both because they didn't know which material to use or simply to make it cheap and nasty to compete with the original, more expensive version. In this instance, they were not looking at cheap knock-offs but to make something as good or better than the original prototype to put into local production.

                  1. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: Misuse of Occam's Razor

                    Cheap Chinese steel products labelled to higher standards than they are, are a very real problem. People die because if it when stuff breaks.

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: True, or they just read the patent

              Reminds me of when cisco supplied one of two advanced prototype routers with extra new features to BT for analysis and testing, and it was stolen from B48 onsite testing datacentre that also had Huawei kit in the same room being managed by accompanied Huawei staff. The thieves cut a hole through the security perimeter fence near to b48's fire door entrance, forced the fire door (who's alarm mysteriously failed to alert) and broke into the server room itself using the actual access code for the door and stole *just* the experimental router. A few months later, Huawei had their own router with the same features. Magic. There is no proof it walked across the road from the Adastral Park main entrance to barack square, where Huawei have a dorm/office though.

              I really wish I could find a online source from this, but you'll have to have it first hand from someone who was there, anonymously posted of course.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Of course

          Have Apple actually done this? I am genuinely curious, since I don't follow this stuff as closely as I once did.

          IIRC Mr. Jobs proved that MS stole the Apple MPEG code and extracted a pretty penny from Bill G for that transgression, something that surely contributed to Apple's continued existence at the time.

          What other companies have actually been caught? I didn't know about the Cisco thing until this minute, so assume a blank slate on the subject.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Huawei used Cisco source code?

        Then there *are* backdoors in their software after all... straight back to the NSA!

    3. disgustedoftunbridgewells Silver badge

      How braindead must you be to confuse a membership of an international political body with whether or not we buy our network technology from a company which is controlled by the CCP.

      1. Strahd Ivarius Bronze badge

        or from a company secretly owned by the CIA?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          I didn't know FaceBook sold any products

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Pressure?

    Pressure from the "great" orange one? More paranoia.

  10. Tom 7 Silver badge

    Being too lazy to investigate the supply chains

    Can I just say we will be buying pretty much the same product just re-branded by a non Chinese company?

    1. tip pc Silver badge

      Re: Being too lazy to investigate the supply chains

      Designed :: not in China

      Assembled :: not in China

      Components :: made in China

  11. Will Godfrey Silver badge
    FAIL

    Disgusting

    Well, I was never especially proud of being British, but it never occured to me I'd get to be ashamed of my nationality.

    1. Al fazed
      Happy

      Re: Disgusting

      Join the 40 year old club, you are welcome

    2. Jamie Jones Silver badge
      Unhappy

      Re: Disgusting

      The brexit bullshit did that to me about a year or so ago.

      1. disgustedoftunbridgewells Silver badge

        Re: Disgusting

        You are a child.

  12. amanfromMars 1 Silver badge

    A Custer's Last Stand-like Bluster.

    and America was threatening to cut off intelligence to the British and pull out military assets if Huawei wasn't given the boot.

    Only one of those is in any way practically possible and immediately obvious to anyone threatened and who has more than just a modicum of intelligence although both are counter-productive and extremely damaging to that simple kind of Uncle Sam Bully, methinks.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: A Custer's Last Stand-like Bluster.

      Without US intelligence would we have to Google for our own dodgy dossiers?

      Fine, the UK leaves NATO and reduces its military spend, it keeps nukes just in case Belgium threatens to invade but otherwise avoids all those American offers to bring peace and democracy to any middle east country that threatens the Saudis.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: A Custer's Last Stand-like Bluster.

        In case you missed the memo, and to be fair, unless you follow the energy market you'd be clueless, the USA no longer needs or wants the Middle East or their oil.

        DJT was the "peace candidate" and has started no wars and the probability of him starting one is somewhere close to zero - his opinion on these matters hasn't changed that much.

        The Saudis are shitting their pants because Iran, the USA under DJT couldn't give two figs about whether Iran invades Saudi or Yemen nukes Syria. Aside from an historical interest in support of Israel, there no longer appears to be any compelling argument for one US soldier to be deployed in the Middle East. Russia, on the other hand has issues which are real and present in the ME.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: A Custer's Last Stand-like Bluster.

          So, why has this "peace candidate" (LOL) sent more troops to the Middle East than he's pulled out of Afghanistan?

          https://www.commondreams.org/views/2020/03/04/ending-myth-trump-ending-wars

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: A Custer's Last Stand-like Bluster.

            I don't think you understand how much of a Hawk HRC is. If you're not wired into US politics, you ma have missed it, but her time at State should provide a clue.

            DJT was very definitely the "peace candidate", this is not an assertion, it is a hard fact.

            That he hasn't yet been able, or perhaps completely willing, to extricate the USA from the entire ME is more a reflection of military inertia than any real geopolitical need on the US's part.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: A Custer's Last Stand-like Bluster.

              Oh geeeze. Another one who assumes that anyone who criticises Trump must love Hillary or Obama etc... Why do you have to be so one-dimensional?

              HRC is a war hawk. I agree. Trump CLAIMED to be anti-war pre election, that is true. But he also said he was going to drain the swamp, give everyone healthcare, etc.

              Anyway, it should have been obvious from the context, I wasn't against the assertion that out of the two, he was the self-described "peace candidate", but commenting that your so called "peace candidate" has pumped more soldiers into the middle east than he's removed. He's almost started wars with Iran, and North Korea, and now he wants a war with China, to deflect from his crappy domestic handling of coronavirus.

              He's also been responsible for trying to overthrow the Venuzualian government.

              On top of that, he's intentionally pitting American vs. American, so for you to still call him "peaceful" is laughable.

              Oh, and as for no need to reduce military activities (if so, why did he promise it) say that to the soldiers risking their lives every day; the ordinary americans who can't get healthinsurance because their tax dollars goes to the millitary complex; and the countries whose stability is continually compromised.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: A Custer's Last Stand-like Bluster.

                I didn't make the false dichotomy HRC-DJT. That is a misreading. The dove-hawk dichotomy exists and is uncontentious.

                "almost started wars with Iran, and North Korea". You read too many comics, and since no war happened, your argument is effectively that POTUS' actions were successful in averting war. As for ME, military inertia and residual need. Afghanistan is going to the Taliban, it's just a matter of timing now.

                One thing is empirically certain. The USA no longer needs the ME. Europe and Asia (incl. China) absolutely require the ME for their oil. They are shit scared that the USA will sail the 5th fleet home, and they should be. The combined sea power of Europe and Asia can't protect the oil supply lines for 5 minutes. The US doesn't need oil from the ME and can let it burn (whether they will is a different matter as it would be hard to contain to the region). There won't be any more US "oil wars" in the ME because "US oil supply interests" - that is now officially ended. The US interests in Asia's (aside from the CCP and NK) and Europe's well being will probably keep the fleet in the gulf for now. Long term, it is an open question.

                "now he wants a war with China". Trump's position on China is unchanged since long before he was POTUS. If by "war" you mean a "hot war", then you really are clueless. There are much easier ways to topple China, and the CCP know it as well as anyone else watching the data.

                An important thing going on in the China space is that the entire world is getting red-pilled about dependence on a communist regime for manufacturing due to the SAR-Cov-2 outbreak from China. What is more important, is that China is now via its official representatives, very actively torching their diplomatic and trade working relationships with just about every country in the world - you won't read that much in the USA, but it's everywhere. The CCP are not answering the phone to anyone these days.

                The CCP knows they let SARS-Cov-2 out of the bag, and part of their counter response to the West's real questions is unwinding otherwise tolerable relationships. Australia is "gum on a Chinese shoe" for example. This is a domestic policy issue for the CCP because the crash of their economy is coming and they need to align their citizenry for the CCP and against the west. Otherwise, when the Chinese start starving again, it will get ugly real quick.

                I doubt the Venezuelans have the ability to overthrow their dictatorship. It's what happens to unarmed populations when dictators assume power. DJT doesn't want a war with Venezuela, he wants another reliable trading partner on the same continent, which was what existed prior to Chavez. Using Venezuela to support you "hawk" portrayal of Trump is really stretching logic and reality. Supporting the overthrow of the current Venezuelan regime is an honourable position.

                The hard left swing of the Democratic party is not a product of DJT. The divisiveness that really got going in the 60's has reached a logical crescendo. It is not the fault of DJT or Barrack Obama, it started back in the 60's and has been rolling along to its current position. The Democratic party is a party of factions that have no cohesive policy other than their hatred of each other and of anyone not in "their tent". Their "diversity is strength" mantra is the shade they use to gloss over this fractiousness.

                They are unified only in their definition of their enemy. It has been thus for decades, it's just a little more obvious now to outsiders since 80% of the MSM has been weaponised more successfully on their behalf. Middle America is not WaPo or the NYT. To the extent they see those papers, they wrap fish in them rather than read them. The melting pot and shared ideals that made the USA exceptional and aspirational started to separate over two generations ago. No one knows where this will end, but a lot of very bright people have some compelling arguments about it - most of them are not sanguine.

                As for health care. Universal health care and other luxurious social programs are expensive and can be afforded by nations who live in the umbrella of global trade paid for and guaranteed by the USA since Bretton Woods after WWII. The USA decided to foot the bill so that European militaries are each rather powerless, having only any usefulness when united in NATO, but 70 years later, the need to foot the bill is far, far less. Subsequently, Europe's social program profligacy with borrowed money under the US protective umbrella is eventually going to collapse and deconstruct their societies. It is ugly already and will get uglier. The "guns v. butter" dichotomy is going to get real, quite soon.

                I get it, you don't like the guy.

                I don't particularly care for him personally. But my antipathy for the person DJT or the person BO is irrelevant. The global political and demographic shifts are there for all to see who are looking.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: global trade paid for and guaranteed by the USA

                  This is so funny.

                  You do realise that having the dollar as a reserve currency effectively means the rest of the world is paying for pretty much the entire American lifestyle - military and all?

                  I suspect you haven't got a clue :(

  13. Jason Bloomberg Silver badge
    Pirate

    Anone surpised?

    It was always clear that brexit was predicated on securing an American trade deal and, to get that, we would have to jump however high America told us to. And that will be pretty high with Trump pursuing his America First agenda.

    I always believed the only reason Johnson had allowed Huawei ibvolvement was to pretend we weren't already America's bitch and he would soon fold on that. Just as he'll fold on food standards and everything else Trump wants.

    The brexiteer elite, the alternative establishment, have always wanted us to become a Vassal State of America. They convinced the gullible and self-claimed 'not stupid' that it was 'freedom from the undemocratic EUSSR', and that's exactly what we are getting.

    Not in my name.

    1. Al fazed
      Thumb Up

      Re: Anone surpised?

      If people read deeper into IR35 they would see a parallel with the tax regime in USA. Now that's what I call strange.........., but I am not surprised at all

      1. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge

        Re: Anone surpised?

        Wasn't IR35 concieved when Tony Blair was PM? I think that predates the US Tax law.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Anone surpised?

          Yes, but so was the change from Open Source to "it must all be Microsoft" after Blair cozied up to Gates in the same way that Trump cozies up to dictators (I note with interest that that visit has been carefully scrubbed off the Net - a good thing El Reg still had it archived).

          I'm not sure it proves much.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Anone surpised?

            "Trump cozies up to dictators"

            Sadly, dictators exist. If nuking them is off the table, talking to them is the next best option.

            I am not a fan of talking to the Taliban at all, but to get out of Afghanistan, we need to cede the country back to them - millions will suffer horrible lives (especially women and children) and die miserable deaths because of it - so be it. Why should anyone now care what low IQ morons do to each other in Allah's name? Those who won't be saved can't be saved and people with an IQ of 70 aren't really amenable to abstract thinking. Freedom is an abstract concept.

            Rocket man (is he back from the salon yet or did he die?) is a ticking bomb, but is defused for the moment, no thanks to the 3 previous POTUS'. Talking to him is easier and less bloody than nuking him for the time being.

            I'm glad POTUS "cozies up to dictators" while carrying a very big stick.

    2. Roland6 Silver badge

      Re: Anone surpised?

      The Trade Bill going through Parliament at the moment removes the role of Parliament in the negotiation and review of trade deals... Not the sort of taking back control envisaged by many of those who voted Leave...

      1. mevets

        Re: Anone surpised?

        I doubt envisaged properly captures the visions that those dupes were experiencing.

  14. ChrisElvidge

    the plan was in danger of being voted down in Parliament by his own MPs

    If using Huawei is a good idea, why can't Labour vote with the Gov't to stuff the "no huawei here" MPs?

  15. Al fazed
    Alien

    Bags of bullshit sitting in a tree waiting to fall on me

    Technology ends when politicians think they can be in control of it................

    1. Version 1.0 Silver badge
      Unhappy

      Re: Bags of bullshit sitting in a tree waiting to fall on me

      The phone batteries would be dead by 2023 anyway.

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Trump is gone

    Trump will be out by the end of the year anyway

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Trump will be out by the end of the year anyway

      Not if he can fix it so that no one votes against him he won't. Gerrymandering is an art form in some parts of the USA.

      Then there are the difficulties registering to vote if you are of BME origin.

      He may not get the majority of votes (Again), but he'll buy the electoral college and that is what counts

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Trump will be out by the end of the year anyway

        "Gerrymandering is an art form in some parts of the USA"

        That is the most retarded statement I have seen today.

        Presidential elections are a STATE affair and you can't gerrymander a state.

        As for your assertion about BME difficulties in registration, it is a falsehood. Anyone capable of reading and signing their name can register to vote.

        1. Strahd Ivarius Bronze badge

          Re: Trump will be out by the end of the year anyway

          So why do the non-WASP have so much difficulties to register in Southern states?

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Trump will be out by the end of the year anyway

            Is that an assertion, or a Democratic party talking point?

            It's hard to tell. Did you read that in The Guardian, SMH, NYT or whichever is the equivalent in your country.

            Like I wrote, if you can read and sign your name and I should add credibly assert citizenship, then registering is not difficult.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Trump is gone

      @"Trump will be out by the end of the year anyway", I am not so sure.

      His continuing bluster and unsupported accusations whilst hiding behind presidential legal protection are likely to be eaten up by a fair percentage of the US electorate who are so full of hate and desperation after the decades of manipulation via the media that they cannot spot the truth if it was attached to their forehead and dangling before their eyes. Even when the balls drop they will still be willing to accept the blindness is due to distraction group X currently being blaimed rather than accept that they did it all themselves.

      Brexit worked great for those that orchestrated it, even now where the UK is having to bite the pillow really hard the brexit supporters are still okay with it. Thus it is reasonable to consider that the US version will continue to wreck havoc for an extended period to come.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Trump is gone

      No.

      Biden just apologized again, he's pathetic. There is zero chance Biden can take power from Trump.

      To understand how pathetic, Kellyanne Conway said there was zero help from Biden on the Corona Virus. So Biden contacted the Whitehouse, to offer his help. An intern called him back to get him to call in. i.e. Trump > Kellyanne > Intern > Biden

      Biden is truely pathetic. The intern would have told him what to do, and he would do it and Trump would be laughing.

      Which makes you wonder why Putin only prepared ONE attack package against ONE Democratic candidate. [That corrupt prosecutor's false claim that Trump was trying to force the Ukrainian PM to endorse].

      There was no planned attack package against any other candidate, look at the improvised attack on Bernie Sanders, "Putin wants Bernie to win", is the best they could fabricate quickly, slip shod and clearly unprepared. Indicating they knew who the DNC's candidate would be long before the primaries. Biden.

      The only transition of power scenarios, involved Bernie Sanders, and then only with Sanders leading a pitch fork mob to eject a loser that refuses to cede power.

      Trump will *not* be gone, Jan 20th 2021. They won't even have an election if the early polls show Republican losses, they'll close the polls, as a safety measure citing Covid19.

      Republicans better buckle up, your team-red no longer need your votes.

      1. Claverhouse Silver badge

        Re: Trump is gone

        ...look at the improvised attack on Bernie Sanders, "Putin wants Bernie to win", is the best they could fabricate quickly, slip shod and clearly unprepared. Indicating they knew who the DNC's candidate would be long before the primaries. Biden.

        .

        To be fair, they had seen how the Media fell for the Russiagate dementia, leading to a plethora of dumb wishful thinking 'Trump will be out in a month' scenarios --- in addition to the host of domestic 'Trump will be out in a month' theories --- and realised tapping the deep-seated well of anti-Russian xenophobia amongst the American Democratic hordes is a certain win.

        Dread Vlad also wanted Tulsi Gabbard to win: according to the old loony Trumpo defeated --- surely the most embarrassing shame in history, that one was of such a calibre one lost to Trump --- Tulsi was just like Donnie, a Russian Agent of Influence, groomed by KGB Vlad.

      2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        Re: Trump is gone

        "To understand how pathetic, Kellyanne Conway said there was zero help from Biden on the Corona Virus. So Biden contacted the Whitehouse, to offer his help. An intern called him back to get him to call in. i.e. Trump > Kellyanne > Intern > Biden"

        There doesn't seem to be any organised "opposition" in the US. The "losing" party seems to be just an aggregation of people not in Government randomly coming together at various times for various reasons. I wonder if it might work better if the the US adopted the UK model of a formal "Opposition" with an actual "Shadow Cabinet". This puts the opposing party into a more formal position with spokespeople on specific topics and whose job it is to know that topic and prepares the opposition for Government if and when they next win, rather than the apparent scramble to sack/appoint people after the elections are declared.

        Having said that, It may not work in the US where partisan politics is so strongly delineated it seems that even your choice of whether to wear a facemask in public is dictated by your party alignment rather than a consideration of medical facts and your own and others health needs.

  17. alain williams Silver badge

    Security or politics or economic competition ?

    Be slow to take the alleged reasons as being the true ones.

    China has grown a lot in economic and political power, it is doing a lot of things that we do not like: interning Muslims, reducing freedom in Hong Kong, internal surveillance, ... and lastly threatening the West's world dominance.

    You can either believe that international relationships should be warm & cuddly and all countries work to mutual benefit; or that it is dog eat dog and every country acts to achieve dominance. If you are weak (economically, militarily) then you try to cuddle. If you are strong then countries seem to try to dominate; the USA has done that for years (even before Trump's "America first" policy). China is increasingly trying to dominate.

    So how should others react to China's bullying actions ? Do we let it continue and become ever stronger or do we clip its wings ?

    It seems clear to me that the Huawei debacle is about clipping China's wings.

    The USA cannot just do so, World Trade Organization rules prohibit discrimination between trading partners, but provides exceptions for environmental protection, national security, and other important goals. So a reason needs to be found: security is a good excuse.

    If we ban Huawei then Western kit will be bought. This reduces the money that we send to China and benefits Western manufacturers - although, sadly, probably not any British ones -- although Brexit might (maybe) allow the UK government to help such initiatives -- if they can see that clearly.

    I leave this to you to decide if stopping Chinese dominance and rebuilding domestic manufacturing (at a price) is a good thing or not.

    1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Re: Security or politics or economic competition ?

      >There are no WTO rules, the WTO doesn't have an army - the only way the WTO could enforce any rules was to make economics ministers feel guilty and with the US boycott of the WTO court they don't even have that.

      If we ban Huawei then Western kit will be bought. At greater expense which will slow the rest of the economy. And the same rules will be applied everywhere else, France will insist on only buying French kit, so no Rolls Royce engines or BAe wings on Airbus. China will insist that any 3rd world country that is getting any Chinese investment doesn't buy any western kit.

      1. Jan 0

        Re: Security or politics or economic competition ?

        > If we ban Huawei then Western kit will be bought. At greater expense which will slow the rest of the economy

        Ermm, no. If we buy Western kit, we're circulating money in the Western economy. Growth is all about circulating money, not sending it out of the economy.

        1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

          Re: Security or politics or economic competition ?

          So you benefit in the UK if you pay 2x as much for cell service because the kit got bought from people in America?

          What if the American workers aren't even the same skin colour as you, or the same branch of christian - does that still count ?

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Security or politics or economic competition ?

        Why will the economy slow due to the lack of 5G. I personally don't see any compelling need for 5G personally, nor generally for quite some time.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Security or politics or economic competition ?

      "The USA cannot just do so, World Trade Organization rules prohibit discrimination between trading partners, but provides exceptions for environmental protection, national security, and other important goals."

      Au contraire.

      1: You might want to look up who wrote the WTO rules, as in who was the main person and what he does for a living now.

      2: The USA can simply leave the WTO and bring home the fleet for a while. I sort of hope they do. The carnage will be epic. NATO is already a dead duck, so Europe will be drowning in its own shit.

      Disclaimer: I am deeply invested in Europe. I have decided to sell up and leave.

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Ever tried to buy shares in Huawei?

    Nope, totally owned by the employees. Chinese employees only though, no room for diversity or transparency in this organisation.

    Most of BT's 21CN is Huawei kit, managed by Huawei employees in Ipswich, but let's only talk about 5G.

    1. BenDwire Silver badge
      Black Helicopters

      Re: Ever tried to buy shares in Huawei?

      Is there any proof of that fact? Enquiring minds would like to know ...

    2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      Re: Ever tried to buy shares in Huawei?

      FWIW, "Chinese" is a nationality made up of a number of local ethnic groups. So the real question is if a Chinese company employee roster reflects the racial or ethnic makeup of it's host nation.

  19. Danny 2 Silver badge

    Build it here

    We have the engineers and could rebuild our manufacturing. It would do us good to do something techy even if it costs us more. Buy British Built. I was never a fan of globalisation.

    Disclaimer: I am a bit, well not racist exactly as I am an anti-racist, but biased to an extreme by nationality. Nationalities do have personalities, and some personalities grate. For example I don't like Italians in general. Love the Spanish and French. I have an Italian friend, a lovely gay guy, but it took me ages to overcome my bias. I admitted my bias, we argued it and now we just joke about genitalia. Don't like Australians and can't even claim to have an Australian friend - in fact the more I meet the less I like them. Oh, I have a brilliant Australian cousin, forgot about her.

    I had dealings with a screed of foreign students a decade ago. Hugely different personalities by nationality. Bear in mind they all would be fairly rich to study in Scotland and nobody poor as me likes rich people. Some of them were lovely - the Finns were to die for. The overbearing unbearably condescendingly arrogant ones were US, Chinese and English. No offence to you lot, like I said these were rich kids. I remember one of the Chinese guys said animals are just a resource to be used like dirt. Aye, see where that got us.

  20. W. Anderson

    Inevitable USA ass kissing

    There is no question that it was/is reasonable to be suspicious of Huawei in it's relationship to the Chinese Communist Party, but the whole issue always came back to fact that GCHQ closely examined Huawei communications services in the UK, and with new stance of Boris Johnson administration of allowing only "periphery" 5G services from Huawei, one can challenge the Tory party and others for being mentally tainted by dysfunctional Trump administration into following Trump's demands that UK bow to almost every US proclamation, no matter how unreasonable and without supporting facts.

    Why is not the UK government concerned about American national Security Agency (NSA) spying - supposedly for terrorism, but decidedly for Industrial espionage as well - on Britain, and other allies for more than fifty years as was shown by exposure of US National security documents via Edward Snowden in 2013 and even more recently. Trump is desperate and anxious to distract from the horrible job being done by his cult administration in handling the Covid-19 pandemic and every other catastrophe of governance he has exuded during his three years in office.

    I do not understand why the UK incessantly and blindly follows the Yanks in everything they tell Brits they must do. There is a litany of technological disasters the UK has had in embracing terrible Microsoft technologies and other American companies' products and services, without evidentiary reason, and it should stop.

    Every year for the past three decades I have witnessed Brits, Europeans and every other nation for that matter being denigrated by vast amounts of Americans when it receives any foreign comment or criticism, no matter how constructive, as an ungrateful gesture since "US alone saved the planet in World War II".

    Want proof, just watch every USA produced movie about the War, from John Wayne epics forward?

    Huawei is not "the"enemy. Ignorance and stupidity are. The company, it's actions and services need constant and scrupulous evaluation and examination to satisfy UK and other western nations it is acting within regulations, laws and using good technological practices.

  21. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Build it here

    @"We have the engineers and could rebuild our manufacturing", it would take a very long time to repair the damage done over the last 40 years, what quality engineers remaining could indeed be moved away from Engineering to teach instead but in the mean time the existing engineering being done would have no experts and would stop generating external income to feed the masses of cheap semiskilled labour that have now become the vast majority of the UK work force. Are you proposing culling/deporting those that consume but cannot help with the project of getting the UK back upon it's feet?

    @"I was never a fan of globalisation." without dealing with the rest of the world then how are we going to buy things like food, materials etc given that our population consumes more than we can grow and after what materials we had remaining have been sold off to maintain the standards of living for those that put the UK last.

    If the UK really put STEM first and removed the blockages that are allowed to be imposed by those that put a higher value on classical languages than STEM then perhaps within 40-80 years then the UK could return to leading the world. The fact is that when this country lead the world they did is off the back of the colonies where high population and hence low wages were the norm means that everyone would have to get on board and put all their wealth behind and that just won't happen.

    Sadly those that currently hold the UK wealth are more likely to move out taking the wealth with them at the first indication that they will stop controlling how the UK is run.

    The Nationalism you seek only really works where their is a common culture and identity, what used to be "British" has been suppressed for so long that it exists, now, only in the rose tinted memories of those looking back on their naive childhood and wondering where it all went to.

    1. Jan 0

      Re: Build it here

      I think we have evidence from countries like China (either one), Vietnam, Singapore, etc. that it is possible to rapidly build a first class industrial economy without colonies.

      We can't produce enough food in this country, because we don't try. Our agricultural industry maximises profits not food production. I would guess that the WW2 productivity of allotments is still well ahead of current agribusiness.

      What we need is a government made up of STEM experts and a supportive electorate. We would also need an entirely different model of management in our industries.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Build it here

        @"I think we have evidence from countries like China (either one), Vietnam, Singapore" very different situations to UK, average intelligence, existing infrastructure / education base and presence of external investors along with physical location.

        The UK got it's empire via sail powered war ships and guns with which they grabbed a third of the world, the same third with some of the best thinkers in over populated countries. They lost their captive brain colonial power and then spent the time up until now selling their lead to anyone with money.

        Since WW2 we had the brain drain and active attacks against the UK manufacturing and engineering base to destroy the unions and the idea that the workers should have a say, such that we would have to put it all back again without the cash influx that your countries obtained. Those with the brains to leave are unlikely to return without a significant change in the world status quo, it has been too long for them to dream of going home to what is now an intentional third world country.

        It would be nice to think that it was all English brains that did the invention but the evidence is that it was the wealth here that brought inventors looking for investors along with raiding the colonies, that had been civilised much longer than the UK, for tech and re-branding it as British invention.

        1. Louis Schreurs Bronze badge

          Re: Build it here

          How not uninterested sabotaging working class do so because of British upperclasses’ stench?

    2. Danny 2 Silver badge

      Re: Build it here

      No offence, but I thought my post was weird and your reply is weirder. I would debate you more if you put your name to it, but for a start I don't think Britain should lead the world. I'm guessing we should be aiming for about 60th. I agree with a lot of what you say though.

      My main point, maybe too buried, is that we should be able to be self-reliant in manufacturing and as you say food production. The recent PPE crisis proves that.

      I hate it when people say, "British people won't or can't do that job" - we always did. Just pay us or train us, don't undermine our living standards with cheap imported labour.

      Dyson in Singapore is not short of a bob or two.

      That Virgin scammer, he's about to launch into space while trying to con the tax payer. End that nonsense.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Build it here

        @"British people won't or can't do that job" has been the justification for the destruction of the welfare system when the reality was that "at our unreasonable price" was intentionally omitted. I remember a number of news articles where people were decrying their inability to pay below the minimum wage so as to keep making the same profits. That they should have to pay a reasonable cost for the service required seemed not to be a concept they were familiar with. They believed that they had a right to be in business sitting in an office were others did all the work and they took all the profit for themselves without investing anything back.

        Since that time the taxes have continued to go up but the social benefit that the money was collected for have decreased in quality and quantity showing to me at least that things are no longer running for the benefit of the majority of tax payers who no longer have any safety net if things go wrong.

        How about instead of tax breaks for people who already have enough money they instead use that cash to promote innovation and create industry to bring cash in from outside rather than yet more service jobs requiring little skill and for low wages and hence low tax returns?

        1. Twanky Bronze badge

          Re: Build it here

          the destruction of the welfare system

          Genuine request: Can you point us (me) to any sources comparing the welfare system from inception to date? UK numbers rather than text would be preferred - though I'm not completely sure what the measure would be.

          1. Claverhouse Silver badge

            Re: Build it here

            If any haven't noticed that the Conservative administrations --- including New 'Welfare To Work !' Labour, which did it from Neo-liberal free market beliefs, and the SNP in Scotland --- from Lady Thatch on, and slightly preceding her with the Callaghan government, have deliberately degraded the Welfare State so that it does not help the lazy undeserving poor but is concentrated on the deserving 'Those in Genuine Need Only along with rising TB rates and other Victorian Values, I would think them remarkably oblivious.

            It is what they promised from Lady Thatcher through Cameron, and continue to promise, and achieved together with the destruction of most of the post-war nationalizations, and is what they are most proud of.

            They have nothing else to congratulate themselves on.

            .

            .

            Apart from Brexit and romping hand-in-hand on the bright sunlit uplands of tomorrow.

            1. Twanky Bronze badge

              Re: Build it here

              OK. Oblivious here. Numbers?

              Suggested examples - I don't know if any of these are true or not:

              1) More people in need and spending the same amount or less - or not proportionately more?

              2) Spending on the wrong sorts of welfare?

              3) Wrong definition of welfare?

              4) Can't trust the published numbers because <...>?

              5) Spending on rich pensioners not poor workers (OK that's a refinement of 2)?

              Also, noted: We've only had conservative governments since Jim Callaghan took over from Harold Wilson.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            sources comparing the welfare system

            I cannot think of a source beyond the Government figures which I would suggest have been manipulated since the start of the '80s,

            One thing I do know from working at the local UBO again in the '80 was that a study of how many were actually defrauding the benefit system across the UK was 6% total and this was during the time of the Algerians signing on illegally multiple times and shipping the cash back as M&S jumpers was reported in the news.

            Having worked at the UBO I understand that there were some people who abused the system but they were the same small minority that will always abused any compassion in society. The vast majority were people who had just been unlucky or disregarded and were desperate to return to working status.

            That the Torys switched the numbers around in their publications is why any actual record is likely to be corrupted with intentional bias. When I worked there it was to help people in need, now the equivalent job is to avoid doing so and that has had an effect on who is still willing to be the face of the system and the level of protection the new workers require. Where I lived had 5 full time tramps who were not criminals in anyway but just fell between the tracks of mental health due to addiction, they even had an article in the local paper when the last died complete with news reports of him chasing after a woman who dropped her handbag and other events that contradict the current view of the homeless.

            Now we have hotels full of people without housing whilst the Government and press are saying they do not exist and where they appear to it is just scam artists..

            You would imagine that the majority of people would spot the contradiction but they have been taught to blame their low take home, high tax on the "benefit cheats" rather than those that pay them less so those who do not need the money can have more.

            1. Twanky Bronze badge

              Re: sources comparing the welfare system

              I think I understand - and thank you.

              I am sure I could never work in an UBO as I find people difficult to interact with. I'm not 'on the spectrum' unless the spectrum is very wide but I'm not good with people.

              I understand that the definition of 'welfare' has been changed over the years and that can make it difficult to compare numbers before and after the changes. Some of the changes are/were purported to achieve consistency of reporting across Europe - though it would not surprise me to find countries interpreting the rules to their best advantage.

              The Attlee government started to bring in the findings of the Beveridge report and effectively codify what had been local government responsibilities before. On searching for numbers I found the https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk website which says it draws from Government data. It suggests that in terms of % of GDP or inflation adjusted pounds the only administrations which did not increase welfare spending were Tony Blair's and Cameron/May. There certainly does not seem to be a consistent Labour vs Conservative tug-o-war over welfare... however that is defined.

              I seem to have got us sidetracked - the article is about banning a particular company from being a key supplier... but I got triggered by a throwaway comment about 'destruction of the welfare state'.

        2. Joe W Silver badge

          Re: Build it here

          Tough one. It's especially bad in the US, looking at the wages in the service sector. Compare that to Norway, where waiters are being paid ok. Not huge amounts of money, but still. Same with other lines of work, most wages are not insultingly low nor excessive - except for the oil and gas sector, where wages are (were?) sky high. Norway is a bit special, since benefits are reliant on the income generated by oil exports (and they do a good job with actually not overspending, and being able to save some money for the future).

          The question is, what difference in terms of wages are we willing to accept? My current job pays little more than the previous one (same company) but comes with extra responsibilities and stress. Maybe the little extra pay is not worth that.

          But yeah, I'm with you on the low wages. There are so many people woefully underpaid (health care, child care,...)

          1. Danny 2 Silver badge

            Re: Build it here

            "Compare that to Norway, where waiters are being paid ok...The question is, what difference in terms of wages are we willing to accept?"

            It's wealth inequality not income inequality that sucks. But yeah, a German ex went to Norway to become a street cleaner and had a far better quality of life than me. Norway saved it's oil money, we gave ours to 'The City'. And Trident.

            When I first moved to the Netherlands my managing director threw a garden party because he'd just bought his house. It was a big deal there, but basically just the same sort of home my parents live in. (Not fancy, former council, and they never ran a large company)

            In my limited experience the lower the wealth inequality, the happier and more peaceful a society is.

            I went on holiday to California in 1986 and turned down a job there because the inequality scared me silly. Beggars outside of skyscrapers. An American ex demanded I marry her when Trump got elected, and I laughed and told her that was no longer possible because I don't earn enough. She has $25k savings, I have £0 savings, and she is terrified - the difference being healthcare.

            Someone give me a job paying £20k for a year so I can marry her and bring her here, and I'll pay it all back and you can sack me once I'm married.

            I'm actually between the cracks in our social safety net now to mix metaphors. I get housing benefits for a flat but don't want to risk that by going on to the Universal Credit, so no other benefits like dentistry or you know, food. It's easy to get food, but increasingly fraught to get a bottle of malt and a packet of fags.

            ETA: Never used a food bank or charity. I meant skipping and growing.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Build it here

              Universal Credit * now includes Housing Benefit, now taken away from local council administration to do down local councils, and is paid to the recipient as a lump sum with the living allowance each month [ unless the landlord requests it be paid direct to themselves as used to be the norm ].

              But I hear you on not risking housing benefit: Long ago I once stayed unemployed a short while, terrified of eviction if housing benefit stopped.

              .

              * Devised by the mighty brain of Iain Duncan Smith.

              1. Danny 2 Silver badge

                Re: Build it here

                Aye, I was homeless for a long while, Over a decade outdoors, far longer depending how you define it. Apart from housing benefit I've not claimed anything for years.

                I was planning all winter on signing on for Universal Credit in March, so I could get glasses and dental care and if I did lose my flat at least it wouldn't be snowy so I could save some of my belongings. Then covid, and suddenly the Universal Credit line is more popular than Tinder.

                I'm fine, I'm with my parents. I was always fine except twice when I nearly died.

    3. Boris the Cockroach Silver badge

      Re: Build it here

      Build it here will NEVER come back so long as the people that run companies are the beancounters and shysters who infest the upper manglement.

      Along with the spineless politicians who seem to worship the ground said beancounters walk on.

      Take Triumph motorcycles... bought out in 1984 when it finally went pop, the new owner ploughed anywhere from 50 million to 100 million into new designs, new plant and new manufacturing, and finally began making a profit in 1995-96 (as I remember).

      Can you imagine pitching that to the stock market? or to a bunch of vulture capitalists?

      10 years before any chance of a payback? hahahhahahahah fuck off.

      Then we deal with how manufacturing is viewed in this country... somethign akin to a bunch of strike minded lazy bastards hitting stuff with a hammer in some god forsaken northern mill town (and dont get me started on the islington socialists who think because they did 2 weeks of work experience , that somehow makes them working class)

      But why dont people go into manufacturing more (besides the points raised above) ... its mostly to do with the pay.

      In order to do my job of CNC programing/robot wrangling , I need someone who is fairly well educated, and can cope with the 4 yrs of training, PC experience, CAD/CAM experience, able to learn the dark arts of CNC(including tooling and fixture design) and be happy with their hands in a oily dirty sump trying to remove a stuck filter.

      The return on that is about 25K basic, rising to 30K, with overtime on top when qualified

      The same guy goes through A levels and uni in a media design course ends up 22-25k starting rate.

      Does'nt contest does it?

      And finally the welfare state that views people on welfare as more worthless scum except the 2 biggest bills in welfare are pensions and IN WORK benefits, in other words we use government welfare benefits so that stingey companies can pay workers min wage, and then use my tax money to undercut my employer..

      The UK is broken, and its been broken for the benefit of large companies and the parasites who hang off them.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        CAD CAM skills

        The required skills you are quoting were ones I picked up along the way on a number of "Engineering" courses during '80s along with virtually every vocational electronics course up to degree requiring me to make yet another a plum bob, drill stand etc along with material science which was interesting but included with the rest because Electronic Engineers were more expensive for the uni to employ that other disciplines.

        Technical drawing to drafting in autoCAD for my sister's company when I switched from electronics to computing but I still remember the tedious vocational lessons that included remembering the names of all the parts on machine shop kit for repair ordering along with the cutting angles and speeds that I haven't used since.

        Like everything else the time served training I obtained has disappeared to be replaced by chancers teaching from a book/pilfered presentations also written by chancers.

        I met a few of the people I took the courses with who had since lost limbs at work without compensation of any kind so you can imagine how many that went the same route as myself are willing to go back into the subject in the current working environment. I met up with a sheet metal MD who was complaining about lack of skilled people to employ but what he was really saying was that he was unwilling to either train or pay a reasonable rate for the skills.

        I mention all this because there are others like me that have done different things since they learnt the skills you require, perhaps you are looking and advertising in the wrong place for your new staff.

        1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

          Re: CAD CAM skills

          "saying was that he was unwilling to either train or pay a reasonable rate for the skills."

          I can sort of understand the unwillingness to invest in training when it's seen as a good thing to move on every few years. People who stay in a job and get good at it are seen as doing something wrong by not moving on. Some employers won't even consider an applicant unless they've got at least have a dozen previous employers listed on the CV. My entire CV consists of 4 employers. Two of those jobs could be expanded out by including the company names changing through buy-outs. I think it comes to 9 in total, but personally I think of it as four because I got full employment continuity, including terms of service and "continuous employment" with reference to long service extra holiday entitlement and possible future redundancy payouts. Current employer is much bigger than most of my previous employers and the in-house job adverts are never-ending, especially in sales, marketing, HR and account management.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: CAD CAM skills

            "I can sort of understand the unwillingness to invest in training when it's seen as a good thing to move on every few years", this is purely the creation of bad managers not the staff.

            It has been my experience that if you stay with the same employer for more than 3 years that bad management come to see you as furniture i.e. unworthy of recognition. That anyone with children is going to want to keep things stable seems not to be recognised where the same management rely upon laying off and employing new staff to be recognised as "not furniture" themselves.

            I left a few jobs in disgust of how I was treated and repeatedly afterwards heard that the companies had either gone out of business and/or had major changes to their management structure and staffing levels. This to me suggests that UK middle management are responsible for many UK companies going bust and is IMHO the product of allowing these employees, that bring in no income, operating so as to improve their own employ-ability over that of the company. I would further suggest that the English idea that the sign of success is not having to work any more is a factor in this problem

            The Upper management want to improve their wages/standing and hence emplyability by managing more lower managers who also want to follow suit. This, in my experience, goes on until the management tree is saturated with people who spend their time creating red tape and laying claim to any improvement that comes from those below them. The company profits eventually drop to the point where the highest tier start asking where all the money has gone whereupon they lay off a load of lower managers they are afraid of along with some random workers. There is then a short pause before the management saturation starts again ( via that bloke we laid off used to handle this and I can't do it whilst doing this other thing I have grabbed for myself and made to seem important) and is repeated until the whole thing eventually falls over.

            So I would suggest to any company owner that doesn't want their company to falter/fail is that they need to maintain the effort it took to get the company going and continue to managing it themselves or the end result is going to be failure. When the management they employ are the ones that believe that moving on to a higher paying job before their fkups get noticed is the reason for IMHO many UK companies failing.

            What should be self evident is that the real sign of success in business is still being in control of a company making money, putting your trust in others who have their own agendas, at odds with the needs of your company is your failure.

            IMHO if you want the best managers then qualifications/experience mean nothing, natural leaders are innately able to represent your needs and that of the people below them so that everyone is happy, aware and productive. If you can find someone like this then it beats 100 book management, which is likely what you will end up with rather than just the one right person if you go purely on qualification and experience. If you want to find one then look first to your own ranks because other employers will not take kindly to you looking at theirs. The people you are looking for are the ones that their peers seek out for advice, thus they are already knowledgeable and guiding your workers and do not actually need any synthetic authority to be respected. If they can understand your needs and are capable of managing the work load then these people of are much better investment than any outsider in terms of management suitability, if they cannot represent you fully then put them as high in your management structure as their abilities/understanding will allow and build the rest around them until you get more. Make sure to look after these guys as your competitors will be looking to steal them away from you, if you want to know how the company is doing then these are the people to speak to since they have stayed with you long enough to have a perspective and because they are tied to the company via friendship rather than just money.

      2. Danny 2 Silver badge

        Re: Build it here

        "robot wrangling"

        I would work for you for free just to hear stuff like that. I used to love lathes but CNCs are the Ms Pacman of the lathe world. Cutting edge, kind of.

        I agree with you 100% - I actually agree with you a lot more but there are mathematicians here who'd grumble.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Take Triumph motorcycles...

        Yep, they did start making bikes in the UK again. I have two of them in my Garage.

        They had to move most production to Malaysia in order to keep their costs down.

        Recently, they announced that all but one model will now be made in Malaysia and that there would be redundancies at Hinckley as a result.

        Same old, same old.

        Don't mention a UK company with only half the story. There will be people like me who will pick you up on it in a flash.

  22. davemcwish

    Nokia/Ericsson Execs

    Must be planning their future bonuses already given that their two companies have a joint pseudo-monopoly given it’s Anyone but Huawei.

    1. Kevin McMurtrie Silver badge

      Re: Nokia/Ericsson Execs

      Samsung makes radio equipment too, though T-Mobile/Sprint just said they aren't going to use it anymore. Samsung has been blocking updates for unlocked phones on T-Mobile for a while too. Not sure what's going on there.

  23. smudge Silver badge
    FAIL

    Bye, HCSEC!

    That must be the end of the Huawei cyber security evaluation centre in the UK, then.

    No need for it, since the rabid right-wingers know better. Who needs experts?

    1. Dan 55 Silver badge

      Re: Bye, HCSEC!

      As we have seen just this weekend, every decision is a political decision, it's just some of them have experts to back them up and others fly in the face of every expert in the country.

  24. Kevin McMurtrie Silver badge

    Where's Google?

    Remember discount GoogleFi, discount fiber, free citywide wireless, free Bluetooth beacon databases, free whitespace WiFi technology AND a free national whitespace database, free browser, free phone OS, free GPS accuracy enhancement, balloon Internet relays...

    l'm shocked that they haven't offered up 5G cellular equipment yet. So much data is going unwatched.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Where's Google?

      Snark aside, it's not going unwatched.

  25. amanfromMars 1 Silver badge

    Are there IntelAIgent Military Coup Options for Treasonous RAT Problems in Cabinet Offices?

    You have all been here before, haven't you.

    National relatively secret intelligence services deliberations and opinions being completely ignored in favour of that of a belligerent foreign administration in a distant wild wacky western land, with useful moles and Remote Access Trojans preciously embedded and precariously wedded to a politically incorrect and inept effete.

    You do remember the right dodgy Campbell Blair Scarlett Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction dossier which had life long intelligence and military officers played as useless fools with useful tools?

    It appears lessons promised to be learned from then have certainly not be learned and the same sub-prime game plan, which ignores the cream of intelligence analysis, is prepared for play again by muppets who be more enamoured of their puppet status than pleased to server OHMSS? That methinks is a fine and dandy ripe recipe for a colossal counterintelligence revolution with civil disobedience of government instructions the very least of home grown problems to deal with. Once that Sisyphusian Rock Star starts rolling, it aint for stopping for nothing until it has destroyed all deceit and everything in its wakes and paths.

    The abiding difficulty which you might have, and which leaves you catastrophically vulnerable to total collapse and systemic annihilation, is you cannot believe it simply possible, even as clear evidence of the rot and present danger abound around you everywhere.

    Does that mean y'all are stupid ....... or you just get to see and hear about all of the new almighty overwhelming problems you now be facing?

    It would be quite something if Einstein was right, although not in any good way ......... "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."

    1. amanfromMars 1 Silver badge

      Re: Does that mean y'all are stupid .....?

      Please accept our apologies for the paragraph above starting ....Does that mean y’all are stupid……. for it should end with .... ...... or you just didn’t and still don’t and may never get to see and hear about all of the new almighty overwhelming problems you now be facing?

      It is though, despite it being so personally damaging and systemically earth shaking and ground breaking, an extremely convenient and reasonably valid excuse/virtual fig leaf for the persistence of ignorance in the myriad parades of arrogance.

  26. This post has been deleted by a moderator

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Unrestricted Warfare and the CCP

      The arrogance that "our" way is the high way. You'll be telling us next that the UK's "divine right of kings" was sound doctrine and the UK is responsible for policing the planet. Good luck with that with no money in the kitty.

      There are encyclopedias worth of evidence on how untrustworthy certain western governments are.

  27. Rick.PGC
    FAIL

    How quickly we forget Snowden

    The main issue is that Chinese kit may not have a back door, which would be a big problem for CIA or GHCQ. The second issue is whether you have a problem with China, or USA, or UK monitoring your stuff. I will happily share everything with all of them simply to use up their CPU time to figure out that I am probably not a threat.

    1. foo_bar_baz
      Boffin

      Re: How quickly we forget Snowden

      All telecom equipment provides lawful interception. I don't see why they'd need back doors.

      1. amanfromMars 1 Silver badge

        Re: How quickly we forget Snowden

        All telecom equipment provides lawful interception. I don't see why they'd need back doors. ......foo_bar_baz

        Here's more specific information on the nature and scope of interception facilities and abilities, foo_bar_baz ........... Full Disclosure. The Internet Dark Age

        An illuminating read which has one wondering, if so much is so easily known about practically anything or anyone and everything, why current brains in the system cannot put everything together better and to greater intelligent use and oft share something ground breaking and even Earth- shattering?

        Perhaps such is as a threshold for human intelligence which requires a quantum leap of further understanding to storm over and benefit inordinately from?

  28. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Eeep!!

    My Huawei phone keeps sending money to China via Amazon, should I be concerened? I did receive some shiny tat for my troubles. Ah well, shouldnt worry.

  29. martinusher Silver badge

    Maybe by 2023 we will have some competitive kit

    Its a two pronged approach. Do what you can politically to hobble Huawei while cobbling together kit of our own that might just be competitive. It might just work. It probably won't because our infrastructure, technical education and corporate structures aren't set up to make competitive kit -- its how we ended up handing the market to Huawei and other Chinese companies in the first place. The only way to regain the initiative is a massive government investment program, a program that can't be implemented by handing huge sums of money to legacy players (you've seen how this works out many times). There just isn't enough money to be made in a realistic timeframe to attract suficent private capital.

    If SpaceX's launch goes off OK this week (hopefully) expect Trump et al to lay on the "triumph of American technology' bit really thick; instead of seeing it as success despite innumerable financial and technical obstacles its a validation of the system. The reality is that Musk, like Huawei, saw an opening in the market and went for it, everyone involved worked their tails off and despite setbacks made it hjappen.

  30. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Patents

    Huawei hold many key 5G patents, thanks to spending a lot of money over several years on R&D

    The UK has none and therefore no access to the patent pool.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Patents

      Interesting. Whilst the good reason for blocking Huawei is nation security, maybe the real reason is that Donny thinks they need to be punished for being more innovative than the US - how dare they.

      America is in for some big surprises in the coming decades. And not in a good way.

  31. Spanners Silver badge
    Holmes

    Can't we just wait?

    If we just do the "British thing" and think about it for a while, it is possible that the US might end up with an adult for president next year.

    A grown up in the job might reconsider all the protectionist falsehoods that SCROTUS has come up with in his time as Idiot In Charge. The claims he made about Huawei need to be investigated and have been. His, and our, spooks apparently found nothing. They should keep those processes running. Our security services need to be as vigilant against US software .

  32. Louis Schreurs Bronze badge

    Brexit

    bending over showing bottom to be sodomised by Uncle $am.

  33. codemonkey
    Joke

    FUD

    Take that as you will.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020