Julia
In Memoriam
- Joined
- 10 May 2005
- Posts
- 16,986
- Reactions
- 1,973
He's by no means an idiot. And I'd think his political base would be much wider than that which existed for Pauline Hanson.Barnaby Joyce is a first class idiot with the political base of a Pauline Hanson.
Me thinks that Barnaby is still preaching purely from the perspective of the other side of the black stump.
Vote 1 BJ.Good on Joyce for speaking up for a position which any ordinary Australian would support
So was Joh.Barnaby is a Queenslander and knows what he is talking about.
It wasn't so long ago that the cry from Queensland was that the Japanese ownership of Queensland properties posed a threat to Australia.
And before that the coming invasion of Australia from Indonesia.Queenslanders were more aware of the threat than southerners because they were closer to the danger.
Something not in the water up there-no flouride at the time?
Me thinks that Barnaby is still preaching purely from the perspective of the other side of the black stump.
So was Joh.
Barnaby is a Queenslander and knows what he is talking about.
The Chinese are very tough negotiaters and a little bit of biff on our part is not going to upset them.
They have good contacts with both sides of politics, particularly Labor in NSW, so don't fret that they will go away.
They need us.
And thats where I'd personally like to keep them. Good on Joyce for speaking up for a position which any ordinary Australian would support (except basket weavers in the Southern cities).
gg
Couldnt agree more
And so it starts -- back to the boondocks
Personally I think we should be concerned about selling out resource companies to any overseas countries, especially if they are customers of our resource. Instead of pouring all our money into ever increasing house prices and the junk inside that we think we need, most imported from China, it might be prudent to think of the future. After all beside commodities what else do we produce that the world wants. If our resources are primarily owned by our customers what control of prices do we have?
Just to be clear, I do have some concerns about Mr Joyce's undisciplined outbursts, but it's the principle of unlimited Chinese investment in Australia that we're discussing here.
Discipline to party dogma and policy lines did not exist many years ago and the community was more productive for tangible value. Parliamentarians spoke for the people they represented in the area from where they came.
All this pansy stuff has broken down the voice of and the democracy for the people. Bring on more bent bananas so that we can debate issues only, not cloistered for the more wealthy vested interests.
I see it as a fair game. It wasn't too long ago that commodties were, just commodities. There is always a chance that the Chinese will end up overpaying.
The Chinese investment issue can be adequately addressed from an anti-competitive angle. No need to complicate it with xenophobic sentiments.
Alphaman. Joyce was talking about Chinese government investment in key Australian industries. He didn't say that investment from Chinese companies in general was unwelcome. There is a huge difference between a government controlled entity and a private entity when it comes to such issues, as has been discussed in some of the posts above. This is not just an issue for Australia, but many other countries have similar concerns about Chinese government investment in their strategic industries.
By suggesting that these concerns are xenophobic is doing exactly what you are saying should be avoided. You are the one who is introducing xenophobic sentiments to a debate that is about foreign state control.
Is there really a huge difference, or is the difference enlarged by xenophobic sentiments? I ask because other than some vague uneasiness about the Chinese government, I don't see any real discussion.There is a huge difference between a government controlled entity and a private entity when it comes to such issues, as has been discussed in some of the posts above. This is not just an issue for Australia, but many other countries have similar concerns about Chinese government investment in their strategic industries.
Exactly.Alphaman. Joyce was talking about Chinese government investment in key Australian industries. He didn't say that investment from Chinese companies in general was unwelcome. There is a huge difference between a government controlled entity and a private entity when it comes to such issues, as has been discussed in some of the posts above. This is not just an issue for Australia, but many other countries have similar concerns about Chinese government investment in their strategic industries.
By suggesting that these concerns are xenophobic is doing exactly what you are saying should be avoided. You are the one who is introducing xenophobic sentiments to a debate that is about foreign state control.
Here is what Mr Joyce said:Is there really a huge difference, or is the difference enlarged by xenophobic sentiments? I ask because other than some vague uneasiness about the Chinese government, I don't see any real discussion.
As I said, the real market issue can be handled from an anti-competitive angle. Calling for outright ban is dumb, but I don't think he's really that dumb. Most probably just doing what a politician needs to do.
Senator Joyce said while he wasn't opposed to Chinese investment in Australia, he had concerns with a Chinese government-run enterprise owning a stake in Rio Tinto.
"If they are both the owner of the minerals in the ground in Australia and the purchaser of the minerals in China, then they'll do what any accountant will tell them to do and that is to get the cheapest price possible," Senator Joyce said.
"And if you try to dispute that, you've turned a corporate issue into a diplomatic one with an emerging superpower."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?