Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
China Power United Kingdom Businesses EU Government The Almighty Buck News Politics Science Technology

China To UK: 'Golden' Ties At Crucial Juncture Over Nuclear Delay (reuters.com) 170

Posted by BeauHD from the money-at-stake dept.
mdsolar quotes a report from Reuters: China has cautioned Britain against closing the door to Chinese money and said relations were at a crucial juncture after Prime Minister Theresa May delayed signing off on a $24 billion nuclear power project. In China's sternest warning to date over May's surprise decision to review the building of Britain's first nuclear plant in decades, Beijing's ambassador to London said that Britain could face power shortages unless May approved the Franco-Chinese deal. "The China-UK relationship is at a crucial historical juncture. Mutual trust should be treasured even more," Liu Xiaoming wrote in the Financial Times. "I hope the UK will keep its door open to China and that the British government will continue to support Hinkley Point -- and come to a decision as soon as possible so that the project can proceed smoothly." The comments signal deep frustration in Beijing at May's move to delay, her most striking corporate intervention since winning power in the political turmoil which followed Britain's June 23 referendum to leave the European Union.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

China To UK: 'Golden' Ties At Crucial Juncture Over Nuclear Delay More

China To UK: 'Golden' Ties At Crucial Juncture Over Nuclear Delay

Comments Filter:

  • It was a terrible deal for Britain anyway (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 10, 2016 @05:09AM (#52676607)

    Given that the wholesale price being guaranteed by the government for each kWh was massively higher than even the price consumers are expected to be paying when it was due to open I see no reason to go ahead with it. Energy prices should be dropping not climbing as we have better renewables being developed.

    • Re:It was a terrible deal for Britain anyway (Score:5, Informative)

      by Chrisq ( 894406 ) on Wednesday August 10, 2016 @05:36AM (#52676669)

      Given that the wholesale price being guaranteed by the government for each kWh was massively higher than even the price consumers are expected to be paying when it was due to open I see no reason to go ahead with it. Energy prices should be dropping not climbing as we have better renewables being developed.

      Yes but quite a few politicians would have got backhanders, erm I mean consultation fees

    • Absolutely, the only advantage to having infrastructure projects in the private sector is to remove the risks from the public sector. This deal basically gave the government all the risk and the private sector all the rewards. The government may as well own it if they are taking the risks and therefore avoid the national security risks of having a nuclear facility owned by foreign nations.
      • Well, yes, if it wasn't for the fact the plant will be owned and operated by EDF. The French state owned power company. Not seeing a private sector there
      • The key subsidy for the Hinkley Point C project is the contract for difference (CFD) which assures a stable level of revenue provided that the plant performs. The CFD, designed to provide an inflation linked "fixed" price for energy sold, is the exact same model as has been used for renewable generation in the UK for the last decade or so. The idea is that any "low carbon" energy source can utilise the same financial and legislative framework. (With some complications because "renewable" energy is exempt fr

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      The pay back for political leaders is in party political patronage.
      Later full access to China is the lure held in front of any nation during such negotiations going back over decades.
      Political leaders see access to China for their friends in big business as their constituents not any price issues raised by voters.
      China wants to fully secure global profits and enjoy a constant flow of cash from as many different nations energy sectors as it is allowed to buy into.
      Nuclear needs experts to design, build,

    • Given that the wholesale price being guaranteed by the government for each kWh was massively higher than even the price consumers are expected to be paying when it was due to open I see no reason to go ahead with it. Energy prices should be dropping not climbing as we have better renewables being developed.

      I don't know if what you claim is factually true, and unfortunately I don't see any citations. And I don't think the numbers issue is important enough to engage me in a search, to be honest. But there are two things I think are incorrect:

      - There are plenty of reasons why we should not just abandon a project of this magnitude at such a late stage. One would assume - or at least hope - that those involved over the years have done all the necessary research into all apsects of the project, before they reach th

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Agripa ( 139780 )

      That wholesale price reflects both the energy production cost and the cost of availability. The power from nuclear power plant is available under conditions where the power from renewable energy is not. If you are *only* going to pay for the energy production cost, then prepare for blackouts when power is not available at any price.

  • Chinese island (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 10, 2016 @05:20AM (#52676629)

    If you're unaware, China has made an artificial island in the South China sea, near the Philippines. It's claiming a lot of sea off Vietnam, Malasia and Phillipines waters as its own territory. It's even build an airbase on the new island and placed ground-to-air missiles on it.

    It's military has targetted US spy planes flying over the islands, despite those planes having permission from the Philippines to fly over its sea.

    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/30/world/asia/what-china-has-been-building-in-the-south-china-sea.html?_r=0

    UN has already adjudicated on this, and ruled the island as fake and the Chinese claim as false.

    Do you really want their nuclear power plant in a western country? They seem to want to stir up a war.

    • A lot of South East Asia is reminiscent of Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries. They're realizing their newfound power on the world stage and they're comparing dick sizes against each other. They're building monuments to try and out-impress each other and other status symbols. China is the modern day Britain or France. They want to lay claim to any rock one of their boats has ever passed. Whereas, so far they've pursued their irresponsible dreams responsibly, that could change at any time.

      China is cu

      • Re:Chinese island (Score:5, Insightful)

        by pereric ( 528017 ) on Wednesday August 10, 2016 @06:55AM (#52676807) Homepage

        so far they've pursued their irresponsible dreams responsibly, that could change at any time

        Mostly, from our point, yes. But probably many in in occupied Tibet or of the Uyghurs (and many other ethnical minorities) beg to differ.

        • China is busy imitating imperial Japan of the 1930s as a rogue state. Of course after less than a megaton of bombs, Japan calmed right down...

      • Re:Chinese island (Score:5, Insightful)

        by gtall ( 79522 ) on Wednesday August 10, 2016 @07:32AM (#52676925)

        BS: China was hegemony in S. E. Asia to tell others what to do. It wants Taiwan. It wants all of the S. China Sea. It wants the U.S. far, far away and unable to protect S. Korea and Japan from Chinese military adventures. If it needs to go to war to get that and its Communist oiks still running the show, then it will do that. There will be no public opinion to oppose it since public opinion is not allowed in their kingdom.

        Want to see what their view of S. E. Asia is? Look at Tibet and what they did to its people.

      • Actually, because of the one child policy, China is on the verge of a critical population bust.
        They know their time is now to flex their military muscle and try to grab as much as they can, because when their retiring populations come home to roost, they will have to pay for the social services to support them under their "communist" system.

        The CCP knows this and knows it will also have to make a hard decision of social spending versus everything else in the next 10-20 years.
        The US doesn't have this
        • You can obviate China's "one-child-policy" by paying a fee|tax for the second+ child. I'm also fairly sure the fee is less than the hospital fees for a single child in an American hospital.
          • Never the less, the fact that they have a huge dip in population, while a generation that is about to (ahem...) "retire" is going to cause major problems for China.
            My point here is that for some reason many in the West view China as this juggernaut of inevitable world domination, whereas the truth is anything but.
  • The various unions at EDF have been less than happy with the terms of the deal for ages and have seized on this as grounds for EDF to invalidate their current agreement and re-negotiate their end of the deal on more favourable terms. Unions being what they are in matters like this, they'll probably be quite happy to sour the entire deal in the hope of getting a better deal for their members, and if a major deal between the UK and EDF goes south then that's almost certainly going to have a knock-on effect o

    • Re:Not just the Chinese (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Feral Nerd ( 3929873 ) on Wednesday August 10, 2016 @06:21AM (#52676743)

      ...Yep, the same French government that is going to be taking a lead role in the Article 50 negotiations governing Brexit, already seems to be taking a hardline stance on the potential terms and, like all other members of the EU, has the ability to veto any deal that might be negotiated over Brexit. That all bodes well for a better Brexit deal with lower trade tariffs than the WTO default, doesn't it?

      Anybody who thinks the UK will get some sort of sweetheart deal on access to the common market is delusional ...the same goes for anybody who thinks that only getting access to the common market on WTO defaults won't have an impact on the UK economy because UK trade in goods and services with the EU is so minimal as to be unimportant. I'm pretty sure the negotiations about a post Brexit relationship with the EU nations will not be hallmarked by the EU doing Britain any favours. These negotiations will be long be hard and quite mercilessly focused on what's in the best interest of the EU and as the negotiations drag on the uncertainty over what future they will face will either deter companies from making investments in the UK or if they have UK based operations they will simply move those operations elsewhere in Europe where the political classes are less likely to shoot themselves in both feet.

      Meanwhile, having annoyed the Chinese, Theresa May is now apparently trying to improve relations with Russia [bbc.co.uk] which, while it definitely needs to happen in its own right, doesn't exactly scan well in connection with alienating the Chinese the week prior.

      Not to mention that fact that normalising relations with Russia as long as the Ukrainian wound continues to fester will piss off a whole string off their allies, most of whom the UK will be conducting sensitive trade and economic negotiations that will severely affect the economic future of the UK for the foreseeable future.

      • Re:Not just the Chinese (Score:4, Informative)

        by Zocalo ( 252965 ) on Wednesday August 10, 2016 @06:47AM (#52676779) Homepage
        I totally agree; there's never going to be a sweetheart deal, nor was there ever any chance of one. The EU has to look out for the EU at this point. Basically, I think it's going to come down a choice between an EEA access agreement similar to Norway's with all the strings that entails, or a full exit and having to pay trade tariffs to the EU with all the strings that entails. There will be a little give and take on the details, but pretty much everything else comes down to window dressing on the EEA terms & conditions. Obviously any EEA access agreement that includes the almost inevitable free travel precondition is going to be considered completely unacceptable to most of those who voted Brexit, so I'm really looking forwards to see how Theresa May tries to salvage this and get another term - and who she's going to throw under the bus to try and pull it off (other than David Davis and Boris Johnson, obviously).

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          The EEA option would be the best we can hope for from this disaster, but I'd say the chances are remote. It will be a hard sell politically, because people want and end to freedom of movement and EU rules. Also, Norway might block us because it would create headaches for them, and potentially cause them political problems when we inevitably start trying to negotiate opt-outs and special treatment.

          I think the only way it could happen if a vote is somehow forced on Brexit. One of the legal challenges, or an e

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        I really wonder if May is trying to sabotage the whole thing. She put the worst of the Brexiters in charge of our negotiations and forging new deals with the rest of the world, making what was always going to be a difficult task doomed to utter failure. They all have unrealistic goals, a severe lack of talent and in Boris' case a well earned reputation for lying and xenophobia.

        May probably thinks that the situation is hopeless and that the only way she can survive is by making sure others take the blame.

        Oh,

        • Scotland doesnt own 100% of the UK's oil and gas reserves, and in any case could not afford to leave the union - their last case for independence was based around fiscal funding from massive oil and gas revenues, revenues which collapsed by 90% the year after the 2014 independence vote.

          Gibraltar won't ever leave, because the only alternative it would have to survive would be to join Spain (Spain wouldn't allow it to join the EU as an independent country), and basically no one in Gibraltar wants that.

          And I d

          • Re:Not just the Chinese (Score:4, Interesting)

            by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Wednesday August 10, 2016 @09:25AM (#52677461) Homepage Journal

            Scotland will leave. Gibraltar will join them, either as part of Scotland or as an independent micronation. Otherwise they will have to accept joint Spanish sovereignty because once outside the EU, Spain will no longer be obliged to make passing through the border they depend on easy.

            If Scotland leaves Sterling, it will only have to retain its own debts. It's bizarre to think it could be any other way. You are correct that the UK national debt is not tied to the currency, it's tied to the UK government. If Soctland retains Sterling it will be obliged to contribute to reducing that debt, because the value of Sterling is partially dependent on the ability for it to be serviced and because any agreement would likely mandate that they do. If they adopt the Euro, only debts belonging to the Scottish government and secured on Scottish assets will be carried with them, and the rest will be left to the rUK.

            That's why the rUK will likely agree to let them keep Sterling, assuming they still want it. Post Brexit, they may feel that the Euro is a better bet, especially if Gibraltar joins them.

            • Re: (Score:3)

              by Xest ( 935314 )

              Don't disagree with the rest of what you say, but the link you're making between sterling and debt is complete drivel. It was something Salmond plastered together when he started getting desperate and is as incorrect as Farage and co's £350mill claims. It was broadly debunked at the time, so I'm amazed anyone would still parrot it.

              The fact is that debt and currency are two separate things, a debt is expressed in a currency, but is not in any way linked to that currency. The international norm fo

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                The international norm

                Right, it's just the baseline for a country becoming independent. It's not a law or a requirement, it's merely the starting point of a negotiation.

                Scotland doesn't have any independent debts because it's not an independent country.

                Of course it does, that's just a bizarre statement... Do you also think that local councils can't have debts, "because they are not independent countries"? I'll try telling my bank I don't have any debts because I'm not an "independent country".

                If the Scottish government borrows money, that debt belongs to the Scottish government. If the UK government borrows mon

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by Xest ( 935314 )

                  "Of course it does, that's just a bizarre statement... Do you also think that local councils can't have debts, "because they are not independent countries"? I'll try telling my bank I don't have any debts because I'm not an "independent country"."

                  I don't know why you're even engaging in a discussion like this if you don't know the difference between national debt, organisational debt, and personal debt. I don't believe you're really that stupid though are you? You're just arguing because you want to try and

                  • Re: (Score:2)

                    by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                    automatically Scotland's population proportional share of the UK's national debt goes with it, along with Scotland's population proportional share of UK assets

                    You are going to have to cite the law that says this is the case. Please also explain how this "share" is calculated.

                    Right, but you've explicitly pointed out you're talking about situations of written off debt.

                    Sorry, I wasn't clear enough for you. I meant that the assets belonging to the former masters were written off, they didn't try to put a monetary value on them and then use them to proportion debt to the former colonies.

                    done based on population proportional percentage. That is the baseline for independence negotiations

                    By what law?

                    I'm interested to understand what legal basis you think all this has. The ICJ will only rule on matters of law, and you mentioned them, so what would the complaint

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by Xest ( 935314 )

                      "You are going to have to cite the law that says this is the case. Please also explain how this "share" is calculated."

                      I suggest you look at the international standards for past splits - Czechoslovakia for example.

                      I don't understand why you're asking again how the share is calculated? I can't tell if you're really as dumb as you're sounding at this point as you've been told multiple times already. Population proportional share. Can you not read this or something? do you have some kind of browser plugin that

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                      I suggest you look at the international standards for past splits - Czechoslovakia for example.

                      Exactly, it's not a rule, it's just what sometimes happened in the past when other countries split. Of course the UK is quite different to Czechoslovakia, not least because Scotland is a devolved power and already a country in its own right (look it up, it's a "country of the United Kingdom", just not an independent one) with its own parliament and considerable tax raising and spending powers. It's not just a subdivision of the UK government.

                      In fact, if you want to use past examples as your guide rather tha

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by Xest ( 935314 )

                      You're still talking completely fantastical drivel, and you're backing it up with outright fabrications and ignorance of the answers I've already given you.

                      The Isle of Man has a completely different relationship with the UK, it's a crown depedency, Scotland isn't, it's part of the UK proper and still is funded entirely from the UK treasury regardless of what agreements have been raised as to how much Scotland gets from the treasury.

                      "True but totally irrelevant. You can't pass debt to your dependants without

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                      So explain how the UK government seized Rotherham council when it started to fail? What about the numerous council purchased schools over the years that were doing such a bad job that central government seized control of them to sort them out.

                      Powers granted under the Local Government Act. It's got nothing to do with ownership, it's a power granted by an Act of Parliament.

                      Do you even understand the basics of how government is structured in the UK? It's not at all based on the the "UK government" owning everything, it's based on powers granted by Acts to create and control institutions.

                      Which, once again, I've obviously done, by pointing to the agreements overseen by the ICJ

                      No, that's just an argument that was used in a specific case relating to other countries in differing situations. Please state precisely which law would require Sco

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by Xest ( 935314 )

                      "Do you even understand the basics of how government is structured in the UK? It's not at all based on the the "UK government" owning everything, it's based on powers granted by Acts to create and control institutions."

                      And which can be revoked, and return control to central government, which is the ultimate controlling authority.

                      Yes, congratulations, you're beginning to get it now.

                      "No, that's just an argument that was used in a specific case relating to other countries in differing situations. Please state

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                      Name the law. Establish a legal basis for your claims.

                      Even if Scotland did default, as part of the EU it wouldn't become a isolated 3rd world nation or unable to get credit or trade. And even if somehow it magically did, Argentina defaulted on even larger debts and didn't become a 3rd world nation. You are living in a fantasy world where some weird kind of international justice rules, regardless of the law or how this has worked in the past.

                      There will be a negotiation, and the offer of having some control o

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by Xest ( 935314 )

                      Oh god, I give up, I've answered all your questions and you still don't get it, it turns out you sadly really are just not intelligent enough for this discussion. I've explained the way international law works on issues like this and you still don't get it posing once again, a question already answered.

                      Argentina didn't become a 3rd world nation because it still adhered to international law in restructuring it's debts, and settling the others in court. What you're talking about is working outside the establi

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                      What law?

                      It's a simple question, and you can't answer it.

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by Xest ( 935314 )

                      I have answered it, and you're apparnetly incapable of understanding it. Repeating a questiond doesn't make the answer go away no matter how inconvenient for your lack of knowledge of the topic.

        • My guess is that she's hoping to be able to invoke a second referendum once the terms of the proposed deal will be and present the following choices:
          • We pay money to the EU, have a seat on the council and a bunch of MEPs, and have to abide by the free movement rules and EU regulations.
          • We pay more money to the EU, have no say in anything, and still have to abide by all of the same rules and regulations.

          You'd have to be pretty insane to prefer the second one. Given those choices, I doubt that leave would

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by gtall ( 79522 )

        I think the biggest problem for Britain in the future is keeping their seed corn at home, the youngins weren't happy about leaving the EU and will resent having their career paths yoked to Britain's economy. If that causes a brain drain, Britain is screwed.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Xest ( 935314 )

      "Meanwhile, having annoyed the Chinese, Theresa May is now apparently trying to improve relations with Russia which, while it definitely needs to happen in its own right, doesn't exactly scan well in connection with alienating the Chinese the week prior."

      Are you surprised? As leaders, both Putin and May are basically unelected dictators whatever shame of a democracy they profess to be legitamised by. No one voted in a democratic election of the populace for May to be PM. If she wants legitimacy she'll have

  • Chinese imports will ruin Britain (Score:4)

    by ickleberry ( 864871 ) <web@pineapple.vg> on Wednesday August 10, 2016 @05:39AM (#52676683) Homepage
    Given that the British economy is mostly based on people sitting in office chairs surrounded by imported Chinese goods and that the British are already completely dependent on China for the most basic of everyday products it is in the interest of the Chinese to further nurture this culture of dependency on China. The British are deluded to think that the Chinese will continue to shower them in iPhones and PC's while they pump out nothing but intangible financial services. The Chinese are already realising they don't need the Western business suit middleman, having already made their way into the smartphone industry with completely domestic models and taken over the drone industry almost completely. Soon the Brits will have to start selling out to the Chinese bigtime if they want to continue their office chair based lifestyle for longer. I'd be very worried about the Chinese attempts to strong arm their way in and would be trying to keep them at bay and reduce dependency on imports from that country
    • China will shower Great Briton in iPhones and PC's as long as the British people keep giving them money. China is hugely dependent on other countries for revenue and there is absolutely no way China could handle a sudden loss of manufacturing. There is a symbiotic relationship between China and the countries it makes trinkets for, neither can survive without the other.
      • That you had to explain that to him is ridiculous...

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        That's why China has been buying up stuff in the UK and UK debt, as well as that of other western countries. It gives them some element of control over our economies. It started in the 90s with the US, and expanded from there.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      The UK has been asset stripping itself for a while now. We sold off most of our industry and successful businesses.

      I sort of wonder if people will start to wake up after Brexit, when the traditional boogy-men (the EU and immigrants) can no longer be blamed for everything. The poor will probably get hammered even more, but it's hard to blame regulation and lack of jobs on them. Perhaps May is setting the Chinese up to be the next star of the Five Minutes Hate, aka the Daily Mail.

  • Missing from the story.. (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    The Chinese will be investing money AND reactor parts. I'm all for giving them the middle finger and telling them to piss off.

  • A lice little country you have there (Score:4, Funny)

    by grungeman ( 590547 ) on Wednesday August 10, 2016 @06:40AM (#52676769)
    Liu: Well suppose some of your power plants was to get broken and power lines start getting cut, er, power outages could occur during general inspection, like.
    Xi: It wouldn't be good for business would it, Ma'am?
    May: Are you threatening me?
    Xi: Oh, no, no, no.
    Liu: Whatever made you think that, Ma'am?
    Xi: The Prime Minister doesn't think we're nice people, Liu.
    Liu: We're your buddies, Ma'am.
    Xi: We want to look after you.
    May: Look after me?
    https://youtu.be/pm5mtpPtW1Q?t... [youtu.be]
  • Hinkley was not only criminally expensive, it was a nuclear disaster waiting to happen.

  • UK steel workers (or their Indian owners) how beneficial and fair trade with China is.

  • The Good Earth (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Was a propaganda piece.

    Remember, culturally, China takes the long view, and that includes fucking you over until you are their vassal.

  • Can China be trusted? (Score:3)

    by Panoptes ( 1041206 ) on Wednesday August 10, 2016 @07:25AM (#52676889)

    The Chinese government's reaction to the delay could be construed as rather hypocritical, in view of its present action in claiming territorial rights over almost the whole of the South China Sea - in flagrant disregard of international law.

    The British government is, in my opinion, quite right to pause and consider the full ramifications of the Hinkley Point project, including the reliance on Chinese investment on such a massive scale. Britain must not make itself a hostage to fortune.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      Build more dams in Scotland? Scotland setting its own energy policy could see English power been fully imported at any price Scotland can set.
      Buy German, French and risk renting parts and support via the EU its massive bureaucracy? A made in the USA nuclear turn key multi national with its hidden parts supply chain going back to China? Ask the US if the UK is allowed to open talks with Russia?
      Where and what to build has become vital to the interests of England. If its not built in England now with so

  • State owned enterprises (Score:3)

    by mdsolar ( 1045926 ) on Wednesday August 10, 2016 @07:47AM (#52676983) Homepage Journal
    The nuclear business in China is state owned and supported by goverment sponsered industrial espionage. It is unsurprising that it would get diplomatic assistance as well. The forcefulness of that aid may only confirm the UKs concern over their involvement.

  • I don't think you need to be a paranoid... (Score:3)

    by argStyopa ( 232550 ) on Wednesday August 10, 2016 @09:41AM (#52677551) Journal

    ...to see that a nuclear plant built in your country by a state which has shown:
    - complete disregard for international norms,
    - a callous disregard for its own citizens lives (to say nothing of others)
    - a cheerful disregard of international commitments
    - policy goals inimical to the general goals of Western powers ...might be a colossally bad idea, strategically.

  • security experts were worried (Score:5, Insightful)

    by oh_my_080980980 ( 773867 ) on Wednesday August 10, 2016 @09:46AM (#52677579)
    "But Nick Timothy, May's influential joint chief of staff, also said last year that security experts were worried the state-owned Chinese group would have access to computer systems that could allow it to shut down Britain's energy production.

    "Rational concerns about national security are being swept to one side because of the desperate desire for Chinese trade and investment," Timothy wrote in October 2015 in a column for a conservative news and comment website. " http://www.reuters.com/article... [reuters.com]

    Sorry China not everyone's your bitch....
  • "Kowtow, bitches!" Karmic payback for the Opium Wars. But if the money is right, the money-grubbing Tories will rollover and take a big old puff off their masters' pipe.

Slashdot Top Deals

Do molecular biologists wear designer genes?

Close