Skip to content

We should ask China to send us more money not less

For once it is possible largely to agree with what the Chinese had to say about it, characteristically blunt and bellicose though it was.

The European Union, China’s ministry of commerce said, was guilty of “a naked protectionist act” in launching a subsidies investigation into China’s electric car industry.

In her annual state of the union address, Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, made it abundantly clear that Chinese EVs are very likely soon to be subjected to punishing EU tariffs and other forms of import restriction – all possibly dressed up under the catch-all of a carbon border tax.

If China is subsidising something we want – here EVs – then the correct reaction is “Please Sir, send us some more”. Chinese taxpayers spend money that makes us better off. Why wouldn’t we want more of that?

13 thoughts on “We should ask China to send us more money not less”

  1. Perhaps in the short term we are better off being subsidised by the Chinese. It sounds great on the face of it.
    But are the Chinese doing it out of a great sense of benevolence towards us?
    Somehow I think not. It strikes me more like a drug dealer giving away cheap samples of his product to get us hooked. Thereafter we are forever subservient to them.

  2. Another similarity I can see, is that of Western nations carpet bombing Africa with charity shop clothes and goods. A good thing initially and on a short term scale, but absolutely catastrophic on a long term basis. Destroying any chance of small scale textile and manufacturing start-ups from pulling themselves out of poverty by their bootlaces.

  3. China isn’t subsidising something we want. It is using subsidies to try and put European auto manufacturers, already weakened by the demands of the net zero madness, out of business.

  4. Bloke in North Dorset

    “ In her annual state of the union address, Ursula von der Leyen, ”

    Which, to my amusement, she gave in English except for the bit where she switched to German to curry favour with her home constituency as part of her reelection campaign.

  5. MC @ 9.35, as with the video wars back in the day. And the Esso ‘price watch’ campaign – designed to eradicate the independant petrol stations.

    “A naked protectionist act”. What, like the EU restricting the amount of Ukranian grain allowed onto the market to protect EU farmers?

  6. Zammo – true. Also the stereotypes about drug dealers are quite harmful. Most drug sellers are good lads (the British ones anyway, I wouldn’t buy from foreigners).

    MC – already weakened by the demands of the net zero madness

    I think you’re being overly optimistic.

    European and UK industry has already been killed by Net Zero and the sanctions on Russia, it’s just currently doing the Wily E Coyote dance in mid air.

    No affordable energy means no industry. Since the EU and UK’s unelected Presidents and Prime Minister have no intention of permitting cheap energy, we will have no industries.

  7. Why wouldn’t we want more of that?

    This is obviously one of those little religious texts you can’t move beyond (cough*carbon tax*cough).

    Try coming at it from another angle. Examine why you’re against open borders immigration despite free movement of labour being a pillar of liberal economics. It’s basically because there’s existentially more at stake than liberal economics.

  8. @PJF – “Examine why you’re against open borders immigration despite free movement of labour being a pillar of liberal economics.”

    It is, of course, foolish to oppose free movement of labour.

  9. Yup, provided they are non-criminals, disease free, and their visas are stamped NRTPF.
    If the EU version of free movement encompassed those elements UK would still be a member.
    Alas, some dusky scrotes granted swedish passports in the noughties were on the first SAS flight to London where an able-bodied couple could work 16 hours a week and be entitled to housing benefit. ‘Cos the same rules applied for domestic claimants.

  10. It is, of course, foolish to oppose free movement of labour.

    Within a nation state (or similar polity) at peace, yes. Other than that it should be regulated for the wider interests of the nation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *