Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

The Government really doesn’t want Lockdown 4 – politicalbetting.com

123457

Comments

  • International (public) responses to Australia's nuclear submarine announcement:

    France: apoplectic
    China: hostile
    Japan: happy
    Indonesia: very uneasy
    Malaysia: what Indonesia said
    Singapore: comfortable
    Philippines: at ease
    Germany: indifferent
    New Zealand: watchful


    https://twitter.com/stephendziedzic/status/1439167137797472260?s=20

    The Indonesian position may be more nuanced - officially they are “unaligned” - but their Foreign Minister just had the Chinese Ambassador in to complain about Chinese vessels in Indonesia’s EEZ…
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775

    Farooq said:

    algarkirk said:

    MrEd said:

    Interesting article on the BBC:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-58584976

    What is depressing, but not surprising, is the attitude expressed by some environmental protestors that it is racist to question whether China should be doing more to cut emissions.

    It also runs the risk of being counter productive. Let’s say that protestors tell Western nations they have to be responsible for reducing all global emissions. That gives a powerful incentive to China to become more dirty, knowing that Western nations would then have to cut faster and harder to satisfy the global commitments.

    You almost think that the main priority of some is not global climate change but having the opportunity to swing against western governments.

    Quite right. This bit from Roger Harrabin gives the game away:

    But when I initially asked the radical green group Extinction Rebellion (XR) if they had considered demonstrating against China, it triggered a furious response.

    An XR member tweeted accusing me of perpetuating anti-Chinese racist stereotypes and failing to report climate change properly.

    Why so vitriolic?

    Well, there are two reasons. The first is practical: climate campaigning groups like Greenpeace and WWF have offices in Beijing and if they rattle China too hard, they could be swiftly closed down.





    Ie the subject touches on two critical matters: their totalitarian anti liberal friends and jobs for the boys and girls in the international NGO industry.
    Likewise the environmental frothers in the 1980s were always fanatically opposed to any criticism of the Soviet Union's activities such as draining the Aral Sea.
    Any evidence for that?
    Evidence for what ?

    That the Soviet Union drained the Aral Sea ?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea#Irrigation_canals
    No, for "environmental frothers in the 1980s were always fanatically opposed to any criticism of the Soviet Union's activities such as draining the Aral Sea"
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,124
    Farooq said:

    AUKUS has seen an extraordinary, though predictable, outpouring of dismay, disbelief, dismissal, anger and contempt from those who hold the EU dear and just cannot come to terms with this 'bolt out of the blue ' that has shaken their belief that the UK was marooned in international irrelevance post brexit and that the US would cleave to the EU

    Overnight the narrative has changed and AUKUS will be the dominant organisation that will seek to deter Chinese aggression and will associate with most countries opposed to China but membership of AUKUS will be to the three who are sharing the nuclear sub technology but also embracing cyber warfare, space and development of AI and quantum computing for defence and security

    France now finds itself outside this and will be offered the opportunity to cooperate but not be part of AUKUS

    Despite the comments of remain supporters it must be remembered this has been welcomed across the HOC and throughout the countries under threat from China

    This also does put UK back as part of the international community with our membership of CPTPP in due course expanding our trade worldwide

    You voted remain
    So did I. We lost... and moved on..
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,407
    edited September 2021
    Foxy said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    stodge said:

    Dr. Foxy, New Zealand is isolated and has been far chummier with the Communists than they might wish to be.

    As for Australia, the rising threat of China is something that must be accounted for. Sure, you can feed a crocodile, but appeasement does not work. Australia must be able to defend itself.

    New Zealand is and has been a non-nuclear state for three decades - that's why ANZUS was suspended as NZ didn't want American nuclear submarines in its waters which is, I think, the main reason Auckland has been excluded from the AUKUS discussions.

    NZ, like Australia, has significant trading links with China worth a lot to the NZ economy. Tourism from the mainland was growing strongly pre-pandemic as well.

    In any case, are we seriously arguing China is a significant military threat to Australia and New Zealand? It may be more significant if, for instance, China did a deal with Fiji and established a military base at Suva or Nadi or some other island.

    China shares a border with many other countries - Russia, India, Afghanistan and Vietnam to name but four. Are we offering them any kind of guarantee or support against Chinese military expansionism? I doubt it but again that's missing the point - China is achieving economically what the PLA couldn't do militarily. It effectively controls parts of Africa - Chinese funded infrastructure may be about getting access to resources but the local Governments aren't going to say no to improved road and rail links and the economic benefits they bring.

    How has the West responded to China's economic imperialism (that's what it is)? Answer it hasn't. The thinking and the rhetoric remains trapped in the Cold War - a couple of nuclear submarines versus providing jobs and a better standard of living for thousands of impoverished people. I think we know what works.
    My understanding is that it doesn’t really provide jobs for the locals - they fly in Chinese workers who live in a separate compound and build. (Based on an article I read about Tuvalu).

    The “gift” is also structured as a loan - it’s all about intergovernmental power and influence
    Sure. China learned a lot from the "unequal treaties" of the 19th century, foreign concessions and extraterritorality. They are holding the whip now.
    That's their propaganda nonsense, I don't know why we spout it. China never knew anything about unequal treatment before us? I'm sure you don't believe it would be an excuse even if it was, so I don't know why we should pretend their actions now are actually related to them, except for their bullcrap justifications.
    I think the experience of the unequal treaties, with privileged trade concessions and self governing foreign enclaves is part of how China is operating now. I didn't express an opinion about whether this is good or bad, or justified or not.

    Indeed, considering how it impacted on China, it is clearly not a good long term option, it only breeds resentment and ultimately rejection in the country imposed upon.
    I did say you won't have thought it was an excuse for their actions, but peddling it so simply does have the effect of advancing their own justifications as if they have validity.

    I don't believe for one second that the cold, rational minds of the CCP see the experience of that time as genuinely impacting how China is operating now, only how they justify what they are doing now. What they are doing now is just about how they currently perceive it best to advance their interests, and it makes sense in that regar. That past experience is useful as justification, but nothing whatsoever to do with why they are doing it in my opinion, and thus other than general historical context doesn't bear mentioning, given how they seek to use that context as pretext.

    It's simple enough to see that - if we tried the same arguments they use using historical incidents negatively impacting us, or others mentioned it so prominently as context, our opponents would call bullcrap on it, rightly so. We should do the same with China, and accordingly there's no benefit to dwelling on it dispassionately either because it is pretty much irrelevant except for historians.
  • France has suggested that Australia's perfidy on submarines might threaten Australia-EU free trade negotiations. But the EU doesn't sound like it wants a bar of it. Here's the EU's top diplomat Josep Borrell- "we are not taking ad hoc action motivated by individual events"

    https://twitter.com/stephendziedzic/status/1439194757268271106?s=20
  • kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Gérard Araud seems to think France should pull out of NATO.

    The new reality of the world rivalry of great and middle powers should lead France to a 2.0 Gaullist stance. Allied but not aligned. Some confrontations are not ours.

    https://twitter.com/gerardaraud/status/1439163329952591872

    It wouldn't be the first time.

    And that for the benefit of @kinabalu is why AUKUS and not FR/GER are the "chaps we can trust."
    French anger is directed at the US and Oz and the reason for this is we have little to do with what’s happening, which is all about the submarine deal. Australia was offered the nuclear option by America, said yes to that, therefore cancelled their order of lower tech ones from France. That's the essence of it.
    According to The Times (posted up thread) Australia approached the UK first over submarines because the French contract was well over budget and very late - it was the UK that suggested expanding it into a broader scope project and not just “a submarine deal”. The UK and Australia then worked through the US system to get it agreed.

    The funny thing is that while Macron was strutting his stuff at the G7 in Cornwall with stories of “isolated Britain” the biggest strategic alliance in decades was being cooked up behind his back.

    France doesn’t want any narrative to get out about post-Brexit Britain being other than isolated which is why they are pretending it had little to do with us.
    That sounds unlikely to me, that we were the driver. But I get the Times today so I'll check out the story.
    Hmm. This kind of has Boris written all over it - indulging in his usual fantasy by trying to be Churchill to Biden's FDR. Biden's going senile and is advised by idiots, so it's easy to see how they'd be persuaded. Quite why the Fella Down Under thought it would be a good approach remains mysterious.
    The whole Aukus thing, you mean, or the nuclear subs?
    The sub thing would have gone ahead anyway, though I suspect more would have been done to soothe French indignation. The AUUKUS branding element however is pure Boris: heavy on slogans and wishful thinking but poorly conceived and riddled with hidden dangers.
    The French are indignant because they've lost billions of Aussie dollars.

    Its pure mercantile greed that is the only reason they're upset. There's no way to soothe that over. That's their problem.
    Didn't the French and Aussies have some kind of contract between them?
    A contract the Aussies were capable of cancelling it seems.
    so much for honour.
    That's an odd way of looking at it. Don't most contracts contain provisions on how and when they can be terminated? Have the French alleged the Aussies have broken the terms by which it could be terminated, or are they just angry it has been?

    I don't really see what honour has to do with a commercial matter - sure, we 'honour' agreements, but if the agreement permits its ending, there's nothing untoward about it even if the manner of termination was abrupt.
    That's what I said. If the contract was cancelled due to poor service then I would expect it to be cancelled. Honouring the contract is important surely?
  • Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    algarkirk said:

    MrEd said:

    Interesting article on the BBC:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-58584976

    What is depressing, but not surprising, is the attitude expressed by some environmental protestors that it is racist to question whether China should be doing more to cut emissions.

    It also runs the risk of being counter productive. Let’s say that protestors tell Western nations they have to be responsible for reducing all global emissions. That gives a powerful incentive to China to become more dirty, knowing that Western nations would then have to cut faster and harder to satisfy the global commitments.

    You almost think that the main priority of some is not global climate change but having the opportunity to swing against western governments.

    Quite right. This bit from Roger Harrabin gives the game away:

    But when I initially asked the radical green group Extinction Rebellion (XR) if they had considered demonstrating against China, it triggered a furious response.

    An XR member tweeted accusing me of perpetuating anti-Chinese racist stereotypes and failing to report climate change properly.

    Why so vitriolic?

    Well, there are two reasons. The first is practical: climate campaigning groups like Greenpeace and WWF have offices in Beijing and if they rattle China too hard, they could be swiftly closed down.





    Ie the subject touches on two critical matters: their totalitarian anti liberal friends and jobs for the boys and girls in the international NGO industry.
    Likewise the environmental frothers in the 1980s were always fanatically opposed to any criticism of the Soviet Union's activities such as draining the Aral Sea.
    Any evidence for that?
    Evidence for what ?

    That the Soviet Union drained the Aral Sea ?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea#Irrigation_canals
    No, for "environmental frothers in the 1980s were always fanatically opposed to any criticism of the Soviet Union's activities such as draining the Aral Sea"
    The evidence is that they didn't criticise the Soviet Union.

    Just as the XR types don't protest at Chinese embassies.
  • Farooq said:

    AUKUS has seen an extraordinary, though predictable, outpouring of dismay, disbelief, dismissal, anger and contempt from those who hold the EU dear and just cannot come to terms with this 'bolt out of the blue ' that has shaken their belief that the UK was marooned in international irrelevance post brexit and that the US would cleave to the EU

    Overnight the narrative has changed and AUKUS will be the dominant organisation that will seek to deter Chinese aggression and will associate with most countries opposed to China but membership of AUKUS will be to the three who are sharing the nuclear sub technology but also embracing cyber warfare, space and development of AI and quantum computing for defence and security

    France now finds itself outside this and will be offered the opportunity to cooperate but not be part of AUKUS

    Despite the comments of remain supporters it must be remembered this has been welcomed across the HOC and throughout the countries under threat from China

    This also does put UK back as part of the international community with our membership of CPTPP in due course expanding our trade worldwide

    You voted remain
    How many times do I have to say I respect the referendum and now I am firmly in favour of leaving and our new course internationally
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    algarkirk said:

    MrEd said:

    Interesting article on the BBC:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-58584976

    What is depressing, but not surprising, is the attitude expressed by some environmental protestors that it is racist to question whether China should be doing more to cut emissions.

    It also runs the risk of being counter productive. Let’s say that protestors tell Western nations they have to be responsible for reducing all global emissions. That gives a powerful incentive to China to become more dirty, knowing that Western nations would then have to cut faster and harder to satisfy the global commitments.

    You almost think that the main priority of some is not global climate change but having the opportunity to swing against western governments.

    Quite right. This bit from Roger Harrabin gives the game away:

    But when I initially asked the radical green group Extinction Rebellion (XR) if they had considered demonstrating against China, it triggered a furious response.

    An XR member tweeted accusing me of perpetuating anti-Chinese racist stereotypes and failing to report climate change properly.

    Why so vitriolic?

    Well, there are two reasons. The first is practical: climate campaigning groups like Greenpeace and WWF have offices in Beijing and if they rattle China too hard, they could be swiftly closed down.





    Ie the subject touches on two critical matters: their totalitarian anti liberal friends and jobs for the boys and girls in the international NGO industry.
    Likewise the environmental frothers in the 1980s were always fanatically opposed to any criticism of the Soviet Union's activities such as draining the Aral Sea.
    Any evidence for that?
    Evidence for what ?

    That the Soviet Union drained the Aral Sea ?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea#Irrigation_canals
    No, for "environmental frothers in the 1980s were always fanatically opposed to any criticism of the Soviet Union's activities such as draining the Aral Sea"
    The evidence is that they didn't criticise the Soviet Union.

    Just as the XR types don't protest at Chinese embassies.
    Why would they piss off their most reliable donors?
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    felix said:

    Farooq said:

    AUKUS has seen an extraordinary, though predictable, outpouring of dismay, disbelief, dismissal, anger and contempt from those who hold the EU dear and just cannot come to terms with this 'bolt out of the blue ' that has shaken their belief that the UK was marooned in international irrelevance post brexit and that the US would cleave to the EU

    Overnight the narrative has changed and AUKUS will be the dominant organisation that will seek to deter Chinese aggression and will associate with most countries opposed to China but membership of AUKUS will be to the three who are sharing the nuclear sub technology but also embracing cyber warfare, space and development of AI and quantum computing for defence and security

    France now finds itself outside this and will be offered the opportunity to cooperate but not be part of AUKUS

    Despite the comments of remain supporters it must be remembered this has been welcomed across the HOC and throughout the countries under threat from China

    This also does put UK back as part of the international community with our membership of CPTPP in due course expanding our trade worldwide

    You voted remain
    So did I. We lost... and moved on..
    Indeed, which is why it's strange to read him implying he opposite.
  • kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Gérard Araud seems to think France should pull out of NATO.

    The new reality of the world rivalry of great and middle powers should lead France to a 2.0 Gaullist stance. Allied but not aligned. Some confrontations are not ours.

    https://twitter.com/gerardaraud/status/1439163329952591872

    It wouldn't be the first time.

    And that for the benefit of @kinabalu is why AUKUS and not FR/GER are the "chaps we can trust."
    French anger is directed at the US and Oz and the reason for this is we have little to do with what’s happening, which is all about the submarine deal. Australia was offered the nuclear option by America, said yes to that, therefore cancelled their order of lower tech ones from France. That's the essence of it.
    According to The Times (posted up thread) Australia approached the UK first over submarines because the French contract was well over budget and very late - it was the UK that suggested expanding it into a broader scope project and not just “a submarine deal”. The UK and Australia then worked through the US system to get it agreed.

    The funny thing is that while Macron was strutting his stuff at the G7 in Cornwall with stories of “isolated Britain” the biggest strategic alliance in decades was being cooked up behind his back.

    France doesn’t want any narrative to get out about post-Brexit Britain being other than isolated which is why they are pretending it had little to do with us.
    That sounds unlikely to me, that we were the driver. But I get the Times today so I'll check out the story.
    Hmm. This kind of has Boris written all over it - indulging in his usual fantasy by trying to be Churchill to Biden's FDR. Biden's going senile and is advised by idiots, so it's easy to see how they'd be persuaded. Quite why the Fella Down Under thought it would be a good approach remains mysterious.
    The whole Aukus thing, you mean, or the nuclear subs?
    The sub thing would have gone ahead anyway, though I suspect more would have been done to soothe French indignation. The AUUKUS branding element however is pure Boris: heavy on slogans and wishful thinking but poorly conceived and riddled with hidden dangers.
    The French are indignant because they've lost billions of Aussie dollars.

    Its pure mercantile greed that is the only reason they're upset. There's no way to soothe that over. That's their problem.
    Didn't the French and Aussies have some kind of contract between them?
    A contract the Aussies were capable of cancelling it seems.
    so much for honour.
    Why should the Aussies honour a contract with the French that is over budget, years late and doesn't meet their needs?

    Maybe if they'd been on time and on budget the contract would have been honoured. Just a thought.
    In that case there would be penalty clauses and withdrawal clauses. If the contract was cancelled properly then I would understand it.
    One assumes the Aussies are indeed invoking a withdrawal clause.
    It would help us all in this room if the French/Aussies actually published why the contract was cancelled, rather than speculation.
  • Australia Foreign Minister:

    Australia & the EU share a commitment to strengthening the Indo-Pacific. Australia strongly supports the European Union’s new Joint Communication & looks forward to building on our shared regional priorities including COVID recovery, economic & security cooperation.

    @JosepBorrellF

    @vonderleyen


    https://twitter.com/MarisePayne/status/1439188118976880642?s=20
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,254

    Paul Keating really stressing the Cultural Cringe element of AUUKUS:

    The arrangement would witness a further dramatic loss of Australian sovereignty, as materiel dependency on the United States robbed Australia of any freedom or choice in any engagement Australia may deem appropriate.

    [...]

    If the US military with all its might could not beat a bunch of Taliban rebels with AK-47s rifles in pick-up trucks. what chance would it have in a full-blown war with China, not only the biggest state in the world but the occupant and commander of the biggest land mass in Asia.


    Keating is still highly respected by the Australian Left. Could be a opportunity for Labor if they can work out the tactics.

    If you bothered to read the thread, you'd see that the Australian Opposition has fully endorsed Aukus and the sub-deal, even if they snipe at the mishandling of diplomacy and finances

    They were briefed from the start, this is bipartisan (as it has to be, as it is so momentous for Oz)

    Keating is taking an extreme position, within Australian politics. He's a kind of Aussie nationalist-isolationist-republican
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,407

    Paul Keating really stressing the Cultural Cringe element of AUUKUS:

    The arrangement would witness a further dramatic loss of Australian sovereignty, as materiel dependency on the United States robbed Australia of any freedom or choice in any engagement Australia may deem appropriate.

    [...]

    If the US military with all its might could not beat a bunch of Taliban rebels with AK-47s rifles in pick-up trucks. what chance would it have in a full-blown war with China, not only the biggest state in the world but the occupant and commander of the biggest land mass in Asia.


    Keating is still highly respected by the Australian Left. Could be a opportunity for Labor if they can work out the tactics.

    I'm not a military expert by any means, but I'd have thought in some ways a full blown war against a state opponent might be simpler than a native low level insurgency, the same way conquering a highly centralised state was often easier than a decentralised one.
  • kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Gérard Araud seems to think France should pull out of NATO.

    The new reality of the world rivalry of great and middle powers should lead France to a 2.0 Gaullist stance. Allied but not aligned. Some confrontations are not ours.

    https://twitter.com/gerardaraud/status/1439163329952591872

    It wouldn't be the first time.

    And that for the benefit of @kinabalu is why AUKUS and not FR/GER are the "chaps we can trust."
    French anger is directed at the US and Oz and the reason for this is we have little to do with what’s happening, which is all about the submarine deal. Australia was offered the nuclear option by America, said yes to that, therefore cancelled their order of lower tech ones from France. That's the essence of it.
    According to The Times (posted up thread) Australia approached the UK first over submarines because the French contract was well over budget and very late - it was the UK that suggested expanding it into a broader scope project and not just “a submarine deal”. The UK and Australia then worked through the US system to get it agreed.

    The funny thing is that while Macron was strutting his stuff at the G7 in Cornwall with stories of “isolated Britain” the biggest strategic alliance in decades was being cooked up behind his back.

    France doesn’t want any narrative to get out about post-Brexit Britain being other than isolated which is why they are pretending it had little to do with us.
    That sounds unlikely to me, that we were the driver. But I get the Times today so I'll check out the story.
    Hmm. This kind of has Boris written all over it - indulging in his usual fantasy by trying to be Churchill to Biden's FDR. Biden's going senile and is advised by idiots, so it's easy to see how they'd be persuaded. Quite why the Fella Down Under thought it would be a good approach remains mysterious.
    The whole Aukus thing, you mean, or the nuclear subs?
    The sub thing would have gone ahead anyway, though I suspect more would have been done to soothe French indignation. The AUUKUS branding element however is pure Boris: heavy on slogans and wishful thinking but poorly conceived and riddled with hidden dangers.
    The French are indignant because they've lost billions of Aussie dollars.

    Its pure mercantile greed that is the only reason they're upset. There's no way to soothe that over. That's their problem.
    Didn't the French and Aussies have some kind of contract between them?
    Yes which was late, over budget and had had the Australian build dropped from 90% to 60% maybe.
    source?
  • kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Gérard Araud seems to think France should pull out of NATO.

    The new reality of the world rivalry of great and middle powers should lead France to a 2.0 Gaullist stance. Allied but not aligned. Some confrontations are not ours.

    https://twitter.com/gerardaraud/status/1439163329952591872

    It wouldn't be the first time.

    And that for the benefit of @kinabalu is why AUKUS and not FR/GER are the "chaps we can trust."
    French anger is directed at the US and Oz and the reason for this is we have little to do with what’s happening, which is all about the submarine deal. Australia was offered the nuclear option by America, said yes to that, therefore cancelled their order of lower tech ones from France. That's the essence of it.
    According to The Times (posted up thread) Australia approached the UK first over submarines because the French contract was well over budget and very late - it was the UK that suggested expanding it into a broader scope project and not just “a submarine deal”. The UK and Australia then worked through the US system to get it agreed.

    The funny thing is that while Macron was strutting his stuff at the G7 in Cornwall with stories of “isolated Britain” the biggest strategic alliance in decades was being cooked up behind his back.

    France doesn’t want any narrative to get out about post-Brexit Britain being other than isolated which is why they are pretending it had little to do with us.
    That sounds unlikely to me, that we were the driver. But I get the Times today so I'll check out the story.
    Hmm. This kind of has Boris written all over it - indulging in his usual fantasy by trying to be Churchill to Biden's FDR. Biden's going senile and is advised by idiots, so it's easy to see how they'd be persuaded. Quite why the Fella Down Under thought it would be a good approach remains mysterious.
    The whole Aukus thing, you mean, or the nuclear subs?
    The sub thing would have gone ahead anyway, though I suspect more would have been done to soothe French indignation. The AUUKUS branding element however is pure Boris: heavy on slogans and wishful thinking but poorly conceived and riddled with hidden dangers.
    The French are indignant because they've lost billions of Aussie dollars.

    Its pure mercantile greed that is the only reason they're upset. There's no way to soothe that over. That's their problem.
    Didn't the French and Aussies have some kind of contract between them?
    A contract the Aussies were capable of cancelling it seems.
    so much for honour.
    Why should the Aussies honour a contract with the French that is over budget, years late and doesn't meet their needs?

    Maybe if they'd been on time and on budget the contract would have been honoured. Just a thought.
    In that case there would be penalty clauses and withdrawal clauses. If the contract was cancelled properly then I would understand it.
    One assumes the Aussies are indeed invoking a withdrawal clause.
    It would help us all in this room if the French/Aussies actually published why the contract was cancelled, rather than speculation.
    Diesel v nuclear powered

    Nothing more, nothing less
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,407
    edited September 2021

    Pembrokeshire hotel slated for £200 fee to deter instagrammers

    https://www.bbc.com/news/58607498

    Quite right, keep the riff-raff out.

    The Druidstone Hotel, Haverfordwest, Pembrokeshire, has been criticised as "elitist" after starting the members-only club.

    Membership clubs are elitist? And why shouldn't they be if they want to be? I thought it was a general principle that businesses could refuse service.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    algarkirk said:

    MrEd said:

    Interesting article on the BBC:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-58584976

    What is depressing, but not surprising, is the attitude expressed by some environmental protestors that it is racist to question whether China should be doing more to cut emissions.

    It also runs the risk of being counter productive. Let’s say that protestors tell Western nations they have to be responsible for reducing all global emissions. That gives a powerful incentive to China to become more dirty, knowing that Western nations would then have to cut faster and harder to satisfy the global commitments.

    You almost think that the main priority of some is not global climate change but having the opportunity to swing against western governments.

    Quite right. This bit from Roger Harrabin gives the game away:

    But when I initially asked the radical green group Extinction Rebellion (XR) if they had considered demonstrating against China, it triggered a furious response.

    An XR member tweeted accusing me of perpetuating anti-Chinese racist stereotypes and failing to report climate change properly.

    Why so vitriolic?

    Well, there are two reasons. The first is practical: climate campaigning groups like Greenpeace and WWF have offices in Beijing and if they rattle China too hard, they could be swiftly closed down.





    Ie the subject touches on two critical matters: their totalitarian anti liberal friends and jobs for the boys and girls in the international NGO industry.
    Likewise the environmental frothers in the 1980s were always fanatically opposed to any criticism of the Soviet Union's activities such as draining the Aral Sea.
    Any evidence for that?
    Evidence for what ?

    That the Soviet Union drained the Aral Sea ?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea#Irrigation_canals
    No, for "environmental frothers in the 1980s were always fanatically opposed to any criticism of the Soviet Union's activities such as draining the Aral Sea"
    The evidence is that they didn't criticise the Soviet Union.

    Just as the XR types don't protest at Chinese embassies.
    The evidence that they didn't "fanatically opposed to any criticism of the Soviet Union's activities such as draining the Aral Sea" is that they "didn't criticise the Soviet Union"? That's circular logic.
    Look, I am too young to remember that time so all I'm asking is whether there's any evidence available for what your saying, because I find it a little unconvincing, and I don't want to doubt you unfairly.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072
    All I see is one giant circle jerk about how “remoaners” hate AUKUS whilst at the same time seeing very few “remainers” caring either way

    My pov is that I can’t think of anything that would have less of an impact on my day to day life than this.

    I guess my mate who works at BAE Systems might be happy
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,254

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Gérard Araud seems to think France should pull out of NATO.

    The new reality of the world rivalry of great and middle powers should lead France to a 2.0 Gaullist stance. Allied but not aligned. Some confrontations are not ours.

    https://twitter.com/gerardaraud/status/1439163329952591872

    It wouldn't be the first time.

    And that for the benefit of @kinabalu is why AUKUS and not FR/GER are the "chaps we can trust."
    French anger is directed at the US and Oz and the reason for this is we have little to do with what’s happening, which is all about the submarine deal. Australia was offered the nuclear option by America, said yes to that, therefore cancelled their order of lower tech ones from France. That's the essence of it.
    According to The Times (posted up thread) Australia approached the UK first over submarines because the French contract was well over budget and very late - it was the UK that suggested expanding it into a broader scope project and not just “a submarine deal”. The UK and Australia then worked through the US system to get it agreed.

    The funny thing is that while Macron was strutting his stuff at the G7 in Cornwall with stories of “isolated Britain” the biggest strategic alliance in decades was being cooked up behind his back.

    France doesn’t want any narrative to get out about post-Brexit Britain being other than isolated which is why they are pretending it had little to do with us.
    That sounds unlikely to me, that we were the driver. But I get the Times today so I'll check out the story.
    Hmm. This kind of has Boris written all over it - indulging in his usual fantasy by trying to be Churchill to Biden's FDR. Biden's going senile and is advised by idiots, so it's easy to see how they'd be persuaded. Quite why the Fella Down Under thought it would be a good approach remains mysterious.
    The whole Aukus thing, you mean, or the nuclear subs?
    The sub thing would have gone ahead anyway, though I suspect more would have been done to soothe French indignation. The AUUKUS branding element however is pure Boris: heavy on slogans and wishful thinking but poorly conceived and riddled with hidden dangers.
    The French are indignant because they've lost billions of Aussie dollars.

    Its pure mercantile greed that is the only reason they're upset. There's no way to soothe that over. That's their problem.
    Didn't the French and Aussies have some kind of contract between them?
    A contract the Aussies were capable of cancelling it seems.
    so much for honour.
    Why should the Aussies honour a contract with the French that is over budget, years late and doesn't meet their needs?

    Maybe if they'd been on time and on budget the contract would have been honoured. Just a thought.
    In that case there would be penalty clauses and withdrawal clauses. If the contract was cancelled properly then I would understand it.
    One assumes the Aussies are indeed invoking a withdrawal clause.
    It would help us all in this room if the French/Aussies actually published why the contract was cancelled, rather than speculation.
    They've said. Morrison said it "it's not a change of wants, it's a change of needs"

    Chinese has expanded its navy so quickly and upgraded its tech so effectively, a dozen new diesel subs - delivered in ten years - would be horribly outdated the first moment they went in the water. Entirely useless. A waste of £40bn

    Australia realised it needed nuke subs that can act with endurance and stealth and which no Chinese naval technology, in the foreseeable future, will be able to nullify


    They actually asked the French if they would share their nuclear sub tech, the French said no. Australia cancelled the contract and turned to the US/UK
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,407

    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Gérard Araud seems to think France should pull out of NATO.

    The new reality of the world rivalry of great and middle powers should lead France to a 2.0 Gaullist stance. Allied but not aligned. Some confrontations are not ours.

    https://twitter.com/gerardaraud/status/1439163329952591872

    It wouldn't be the first time.

    And that for the benefit of @kinabalu is why AUKUS and not FR/GER are the "chaps we can trust."
    French anger is directed at the US and Oz and the reason for this is we have little to do with what’s happening, which is all about the submarine deal. Australia was offered the nuclear option by America, said yes to that, therefore cancelled their order of lower tech ones from France. That's the essence of it.
    According to The Times (posted up thread) Australia approached the UK first over submarines because the French contract was well over budget and very late - it was the UK that suggested expanding it into a broader scope project and not just “a submarine deal”. The UK and Australia then worked through the US system to get it agreed.

    The funny thing is that while Macron was strutting his stuff at the G7 in Cornwall with stories of “isolated Britain” the biggest strategic alliance in decades was being cooked up behind his back.

    France doesn’t want any narrative to get out about post-Brexit Britain being other than isolated which is why they are pretending it had little to do with us.
    That sounds unlikely to me, that we were the driver. But I get the Times today so I'll check out the story.
    Hmm. This kind of has Boris written all over it - indulging in his usual fantasy by trying to be Churchill to Biden's FDR. Biden's going senile and is advised by idiots, so it's easy to see how they'd be persuaded. Quite why the Fella Down Under thought it would be a good approach remains mysterious.
    The whole Aukus thing, you mean, or the nuclear subs?
    The sub thing would have gone ahead anyway, though I suspect more would have been done to soothe French indignation. The AUUKUS branding element however is pure Boris: heavy on slogans and wishful thinking but poorly conceived and riddled with hidden dangers.
    The French are indignant because they've lost billions of Aussie dollars.

    Its pure mercantile greed that is the only reason they're upset. There's no way to soothe that over. That's their problem.
    Didn't the French and Aussies have some kind of contract between them?
    A contract the Aussies were capable of cancelling it seems.
    so much for honour.
    That's an odd way of looking at it. Don't most contracts contain provisions on how and when they can be terminated? Have the French alleged the Aussies have broken the terms by which it could be terminated, or are they just angry it has been?

    I don't really see what honour has to do with a commercial matter - sure, we 'honour' agreements, but if the agreement permits its ending, there's nothing untoward about it even if the manner of termination was abrupt.
    That's what I said. If the contract was cancelled due to poor service then I would expect it to be cancelled. Honouring the contract is important surely?
    Why? If the contract allows them to terminate, whatever the reason, then self evidently they are allowed to utilise the provisions to terminate and shouldn't be condemned for exercising that right. It'd annoy the other party if there was not much cause, and it might make others with contracts wary, but if you have a right I don't see why others should get offended when you exercise it.
  • France has suggested that Australia's perfidy on submarines might threaten Australia-EU free trade negotiations. But the EU doesn't sound like it wants a bar of it. Here's the EU's top diplomat Josep Borrell- "we are not taking ad hoc action motivated by individual events"

    https://twitter.com/stephendziedzic/status/1439194757268271106?s=20

    The EU is being sensible here. If the AUS-EU free-trade were scrapped it would have effectively meant that Boris had exercised a veto.
  • algarkirk said:

    MrEd said:

    Interesting article on the BBC:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-58584976

    What is depressing, but not surprising, is the attitude expressed by some environmental protestors that it is racist to question whether China should be doing more to cut emissions.

    It also runs the risk of being counter productive. Let’s say that protestors tell Western nations they have to be responsible for reducing all global emissions. That gives a powerful incentive to China to become more dirty, knowing that Western nations would then have to cut faster and harder to satisfy the global commitments.

    You almost think that the main priority of some is not global climate change but having the opportunity to swing against western governments.

    Quite right. This bit from Roger Harrabin gives the game away:

    But when I initially asked the radical green group Extinction Rebellion (XR) if they had considered demonstrating against China, it triggered a furious response.

    An XR member tweeted accusing me of perpetuating anti-Chinese racist stereotypes and failing to report climate change properly.

    Why so vitriolic?

    Well, there are two reasons. The first is practical: climate campaigning groups like Greenpeace and WWF have offices in Beijing and if they rattle China too hard, they could be swiftly closed down.





    Ie the subject touches on two critical matters: their totalitarian anti liberal friends and jobs for the boys and girls in the international NGO industry.
    Likewise the environmental frothers in the 1980s were always fanatically opposed to any criticism of the Soviet Union's activities such as draining the Aral Sea.
    What have Greenpeace and WWF got to do with extremists in XR?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851
    Nigelb said:

    Manchild cements hold on party of juveniles.

    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/572798-emboldened-trump-takes-aim-at-gop-foes
    Donald Trump claimed his first scalp of the campaign cycle this week, forcing Rep. Anthony Gonzalez (Ohio) — a rising GOP star and one of 10 Republicans who voted to impeach the former president — into an early retirement.

    An emboldened Trump will now focus his energy and attention on purging the remaining Republicans he views as disloyal, backing primary challengers to those on his impeachment hit list such as Reps. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) and Jamie Herrera Beutler (R-Wash.).

    “1 down, 9 to go!” Trump said in a statement Friday.

    He followed up with a second statement: “RINO Congressman Anthony Gonzalez, who has poorly represented his district in the Great State of Ohio, has decided to quit after enduring a tremendous loss of popularity, of which he had little, since his ill-informed and otherwise very stupid impeachment vote against the sitting President of the United States, me.”

    The stunning move by Gonzalez, a 36-year-old Cuban American former NFL player, underscores two obvious truths about today’s GOP politics: Those who want to rise in the Republican party must pledge absolute fealty to Trump, and Trump’s power and influence over the party is only growing as he and his staunch loyalists take their revenge on political enemies one by one. …

    He can't retake the WH, Nigel, can he?
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    edited September 2021

    Farooq said:

    AUKUS has seen an extraordinary, though predictable, outpouring of dismay, disbelief, dismissal, anger and contempt from those who hold the EU dear and just cannot come to terms with this 'bolt out of the blue ' that has shaken their belief that the UK was marooned in international irrelevance post brexit and that the US would cleave to the EU

    Overnight the narrative has changed and AUKUS will be the dominant organisation that will seek to deter Chinese aggression and will associate with most countries opposed to China but membership of AUKUS will be to the three who are sharing the nuclear sub technology but also embracing cyber warfare, space and development of AI and quantum computing for defence and security

    France now finds itself outside this and will be offered the opportunity to cooperate but not be part of AUKUS

    Despite the comments of remain supporters it must be remembered this has been welcomed across the HOC and throughout the countries under threat from China

    This also does put UK back as part of the international community with our membership of CPTPP in due course expanding our trade worldwide

    You voted remain
    How many times do I have to say I respect the referendum and now I am firmly in favour of leaving and our new course internationally
    Ok, so you don't want to label people according to their vote? Ok, I'm with you.

    Except... why did you do exactly that just now?
  • France has suggested that Australia's perfidy on submarines might threaten Australia-EU free trade negotiations. But the EU doesn't sound like it wants a bar of it. Here's the EU's top diplomat Josep Borrell- "we are not taking ad hoc action motivated by individual events"

    https://twitter.com/stephendziedzic/status/1439194757268271106?s=20

    The EU is being sensible here. If the AUS-EU free-trade were scrapped it would have effectively meant that Boris had exercised a veto.
    Grown ups at last
  • All I see is one giant circle jerk about how “remoaners” hate AUKUS whilst at the same time seeing very few “remainers” caring either way

    My pov is that I can’t think of anything that would have less of an impact on my day to day life than this.

    I guess my mate who works at BAE Systems might be happy

    No Remainers care either way?

    @Roger @Daveyboy1961 @kinabalu @Stark_Dawning and a few others seem to have taken this as a personal insult to be diminished.

    Agreed on your mate at BAE. This is good news for them.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,407

    All I see is one giant circle jerk about how “remoaners” hate AUKUS whilst at the same time seeing very few “remainers” caring either way

    My pov is that I can’t think of anything that would have less of an impact on my day to day life than this.

    I guess my mate who works at BAE Systems might be happy

    People do need to make up their minds though. Is it something with very low impact, or is it some dangerous, ally provoking move? If it is not at all important then frantic reporting on how there is a 'backlash' internationally is just plain weird.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 4,555

    There seems to be a lot of people who seem to think they know what this deal means, who did what in forming etc....when until a few days ago nobody had any idea it was even in the works as the parties involved kept it very hush hush...i remember all those people saying boris was sidelined at his own gig in cornwall, Biden doesn't want anything to do with him or the UK etc, when in fact 3 major world powers were doing a deal.

    I think it might be wise to wait and see, rather than look foolish making bold uninformed claims one way or another.

    You haven't really got the hang of this Remoaning thing, have you? Looking foolish is what extreme and disillusioned Remainers do, because:

    - the EU is the only international organisation that matters, so when we left it we were ISOLATED, despite being on the UN Security Council, in Five Eyes, in NATO, etc., etc. etc.
    - whether on vaccine procurement, agricultural policy, sucking up to China or whatever, the EU can do no wrong
    - whatever England has done since 23rd June 2016, is WRONG, whether or not it has anything to do with the EU at all
    - but we haven't mattered anyway since 23rd June 2016, so whatever we do is also IRRELEVANT
    - conversely, whatever our competitors or enemies do is RIGHT, especially if they are members of the EU.

    OK, that's a parody, but as far as some extreme Remainers go, not a very gross one.
  • PhilPhil Posts: 1,919
    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    Manchild cements hold on party of juveniles.

    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/572798-emboldened-trump-takes-aim-at-gop-foes
    Donald Trump claimed his first scalp of the campaign cycle this week, forcing Rep. Anthony Gonzalez (Ohio) — a rising GOP star and one of 10 Republicans who voted to impeach the former president — into an early retirement.

    An emboldened Trump will now focus his energy and attention on purging the remaining Republicans he views as disloyal, backing primary challengers to those on his impeachment hit list such as Reps. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) and Jamie Herrera Beutler (R-Wash.).

    “1 down, 9 to go!” Trump said in a statement Friday.

    He followed up with a second statement: “RINO Congressman Anthony Gonzalez, who has poorly represented his district in the Great State of Ohio, has decided to quit after enduring a tremendous loss of popularity, of which he had little, since his ill-informed and otherwise very stupid impeachment vote against the sitting President of the United States, me.”

    The stunning move by Gonzalez, a 36-year-old Cuban American former NFL player, underscores two obvious truths about today’s GOP politics: Those who want to rise in the Republican party must pledge absolute fealty to Trump, and Trump’s power and influence over the party is only growing as he and his staunch loyalists take their revenge on political enemies one by one. …

    He can't retake the WH, Nigel, can he?
    I think underestimating Trump would be a mistake. I am not looking forward to the battle of the two old men at the next US presidential election.
  • Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    algarkirk said:

    MrEd said:

    Interesting article on the BBC:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-58584976

    What is depressing, but not surprising, is the attitude expressed by some environmental protestors that it is racist to question whether China should be doing more to cut emissions.

    It also runs the risk of being counter productive. Let’s say that protestors tell Western nations they have to be responsible for reducing all global emissions. That gives a powerful incentive to China to become more dirty, knowing that Western nations would then have to cut faster and harder to satisfy the global commitments.

    You almost think that the main priority of some is not global climate change but having the opportunity to swing against western governments.

    Quite right. This bit from Roger Harrabin gives the game away:

    But when I initially asked the radical green group Extinction Rebellion (XR) if they had considered demonstrating against China, it triggered a furious response.

    An XR member tweeted accusing me of perpetuating anti-Chinese racist stereotypes and failing to report climate change properly.

    Why so vitriolic?

    Well, there are two reasons. The first is practical: climate campaigning groups like Greenpeace and WWF have offices in Beijing and if they rattle China too hard, they could be swiftly closed down.





    Ie the subject touches on two critical matters: their totalitarian anti liberal friends and jobs for the boys and girls in the international NGO industry.
    Likewise the environmental frothers in the 1980s were always fanatically opposed to any criticism of the Soviet Union's activities such as draining the Aral Sea.
    Any evidence for that?
    Evidence for what ?

    That the Soviet Union drained the Aral Sea ?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea#Irrigation_canals
    No, for "environmental frothers in the 1980s were always fanatically opposed to any criticism of the Soviet Union's activities such as draining the Aral Sea"
    The evidence is that they didn't criticise the Soviet Union.

    Just as the XR types don't protest at Chinese embassies.
    The evidence that they didn't "fanatically opposed to any criticism of the Soviet Union's activities such as draining the Aral Sea" is that they "didn't criticise the Soviet Union"? That's circular logic.
    Look, I am too young to remember that time so all I'm asking is whether there's any evidence available for what your saying, because I find it a little unconvincing, and I don't want to doubt you unfairly.
    Okay, its before your time. But its not before my time.

    As to proof - well trying to prove such things in pre internet days is more trouble than its worth.

    So you can either believe or disbelieve my comment that the previous generation of XR types never had any criticism of the Soviet Union.

    Or you can take how the current XR types act towards China as a proxy to how the previous generation did towards the Soviet Union.
  • What evidence is there the EU/Europeans are prepared to become strategic players in the Indo-Pacific? It took the Germans years to decide to send one (!) frigate to the region. They’ve been debating setting up a national security council for even longer with no end in sight..

    Given that the EU’s largest country is more interested in debating whether there should be speed limits on the autobahn than global strategy, it shouldn’t be a surprise that the Europeans have no seat at the adults’ table..


    https://twitter.com/MKarnitschnig/status/1439224805597851652?s=20
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758
    Phil said:

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    Manchild cements hold on party of juveniles.

    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/572798-emboldened-trump-takes-aim-at-gop-foes
    Donald Trump claimed his first scalp of the campaign cycle this week, forcing Rep. Anthony Gonzalez (Ohio) — a rising GOP star and one of 10 Republicans who voted to impeach the former president — into an early retirement.

    An emboldened Trump will now focus his energy and attention on purging the remaining Republicans he views as disloyal, backing primary challengers to those on his impeachment hit list such as Reps. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) and Jamie Herrera Beutler (R-Wash.).

    “1 down, 9 to go!” Trump said in a statement Friday.

    He followed up with a second statement: “RINO Congressman Anthony Gonzalez, who has poorly represented his district in the Great State of Ohio, has decided to quit after enduring a tremendous loss of popularity, of which he had little, since his ill-informed and otherwise very stupid impeachment vote against the sitting President of the United States, me.”

    The stunning move by Gonzalez, a 36-year-old Cuban American former NFL player, underscores two obvious truths about today’s GOP politics: Those who want to rise in the Republican party must pledge absolute fealty to Trump, and Trump’s power and influence over the party is only growing as he and his staunch loyalists take their revenge on political enemies one by one. …

    He can't retake the WH, Nigel, can he?
    I think underestimating Trump would be a mistake. I am not looking forward to the battle of the two old men at the next US presidential election.
    It’s worth remembering perhaps that with a few exceptions while we mostly agreed Hilary was a terrible choice of candidate few on this board thought her likely to lose.

    Similarly, there was much talk about how Biden would win by a big margin. Well - it was eventually the same margin as Trump and in many states it was very close.

    That’s said in fear of course but as you note underestimating Trump has not traditionally proven profitable.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775

    All I see is one giant circle jerk about how “remoaners” hate AUKUS whilst at the same time seeing very few “remainers” caring either way

    My pov is that I can’t think of anything that would have less of an impact on my day to day life than this.

    I guess my mate who works at BAE Systems might be happy

    Glad I'm not the only one.
    "Remainers" is rapidly becoming a word that merely discredits the user more than the target. I'm not even sure what it is meant to mean any more, since it's not about your 2016 vote, and it's clearly not about "rejoining". It's quickly becoming like "leftie", "Nazi", "neocon", "Marxist", and all those other words that get thrown around thoughtlessly.
  • PhilPhil Posts: 1,919
    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Gérard Araud seems to think France should pull out of NATO.

    The new reality of the world rivalry of great and middle powers should lead France to a 2.0 Gaullist stance. Allied but not aligned. Some confrontations are not ours.

    https://twitter.com/gerardaraud/status/1439163329952591872

    It wouldn't be the first time.

    And that for the benefit of @kinabalu is why AUKUS and not FR/GER are the "chaps we can trust."
    French anger is directed at the US and Oz and the reason for this is we have little to do with what’s happening, which is all about the submarine deal. Australia was offered the nuclear option by America, said yes to that, therefore cancelled their order of lower tech ones from France. That's the essence of it.
    According to The Times (posted up thread) Australia approached the UK first over submarines because the French contract was well over budget and very late - it was the UK that suggested expanding it into a broader scope project and not just “a submarine deal”. The UK and Australia then worked through the US system to get it agreed.

    The funny thing is that while Macron was strutting his stuff at the G7 in Cornwall with stories of “isolated Britain” the biggest strategic alliance in decades was being cooked up behind his back.

    France doesn’t want any narrative to get out about post-Brexit Britain being other than isolated which is why they are pretending it had little to do with us.
    That sounds unlikely to me, that we were the driver. But I get the Times today so I'll check out the story.
    Hmm. This kind of has Boris written all over it - indulging in his usual fantasy by trying to be Churchill to Biden's FDR. Biden's going senile and is advised by idiots, so it's easy to see how they'd be persuaded. Quite why the Fella Down Under thought it would be a good approach remains mysterious.
    The whole Aukus thing, you mean, or the nuclear subs?
    The sub thing would have gone ahead anyway, though I suspect more would have been done to soothe French indignation. The AUUKUS branding element however is pure Boris: heavy on slogans and wishful thinking but poorly conceived and riddled with hidden dangers.
    The French are indignant because they've lost billions of Aussie dollars.

    Its pure mercantile greed that is the only reason they're upset. There's no way to soothe that over. That's their problem.
    Didn't the French and Aussies have some kind of contract between them?
    A contract the Aussies were capable of cancelling it seems.
    so much for honour.
    Why should the Aussies honour a contract with the French that is over budget, years late and doesn't meet their needs?

    Maybe if they'd been on time and on budget the contract would have been honoured. Just a thought.
    In that case there would be penalty clauses and withdrawal clauses. If the contract was cancelled properly then I would understand it.
    One assumes the Aussies are indeed invoking a withdrawal clause.
    It would help us all in this room if the French/Aussies actually published why the contract was cancelled, rather than speculation.
    They've said. Morrison said it "it's not a change of wants, it's a change of needs"

    Chinese has expanded its navy so quickly and upgraded its tech so effectively, a dozen new diesel subs - delivered in ten years - would be horribly outdated the first moment they went in the water. Entirely useless. A waste of £40bn

    Australia realised it needed nuke subs that can act with endurance and stealth and which no Chinese naval technology, in the foreseeable future, will be able to nullify


    They actually asked the French if they would share their nuclear sub tech, the French said no. Australia cancelled the contract and turned to the US/UK
    Did the French refuse? I thought I had read elsewhere that the French had offered to build AU nuclear subs, but maybe that was mistaken (or I misremember...) ?
  • kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Gérard Araud seems to think France should pull out of NATO.

    The new reality of the world rivalry of great and middle powers should lead France to a 2.0 Gaullist stance. Allied but not aligned. Some confrontations are not ours.

    https://twitter.com/gerardaraud/status/1439163329952591872

    It wouldn't be the first time.

    And that for the benefit of @kinabalu is why AUKUS and not FR/GER are the "chaps we can trust."
    French anger is directed at the US and Oz and the reason for this is we have little to do with what’s happening, which is all about the submarine deal. Australia was offered the nuclear option by America, said yes to that, therefore cancelled their order of lower tech ones from France. That's the essence of it.
    According to The Times (posted up thread) Australia approached the UK first over submarines because the French contract was well over budget and very late - it was the UK that suggested expanding it into a broader scope project and not just “a submarine deal”. The UK and Australia then worked through the US system to get it agreed.

    The funny thing is that while Macron was strutting his stuff at the G7 in Cornwall with stories of “isolated Britain” the biggest strategic alliance in decades was being cooked up behind his back.

    France doesn’t want any narrative to get out about post-Brexit Britain being other than isolated which is why they are pretending it had little to do with us.
    That sounds unlikely to me, that we were the driver. But I get the Times today so I'll check out the story.
    Hmm. This kind of has Boris written all over it - indulging in his usual fantasy by trying to be Churchill to Biden's FDR. Biden's going senile and is advised by idiots, so it's easy to see how they'd be persuaded. Quite why the Fella Down Under thought it would be a good approach remains mysterious.
    The whole Aukus thing, you mean, or the nuclear subs?
    The sub thing would have gone ahead anyway, though I suspect more would have been done to soothe French indignation. The AUUKUS branding element however is pure Boris: heavy on slogans and wishful thinking but poorly conceived and riddled with hidden dangers.
    The French are indignant because they've lost billions of Aussie dollars.

    Its pure mercantile greed that is the only reason they're upset. There's no way to soothe that over. That's their problem.
    Didn't the French and Aussies have some kind of contract between them?
    Yes which was late, over budget and had had the Australian build dropped from 90% to 60% maybe.
    source?
    Earlier in the thread JosiasJessop posted a link to an 84 minute video explaining the whole sorry saga.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,088

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Gérard Araud seems to think France should pull out of NATO.

    The new reality of the world rivalry of great and middle powers should lead France to a 2.0 Gaullist stance. Allied but not aligned. Some confrontations are not ours.

    https://twitter.com/gerardaraud/status/1439163329952591872

    It wouldn't be the first time.

    And that for the benefit of @kinabalu is why AUKUS and not FR/GER are the "chaps we can trust."
    French anger is directed at the US and Oz and the reason for this is we have little to do with what’s happening, which is all about the submarine deal. Australia was offered the nuclear option by America, said yes to that, therefore cancelled their order of lower tech ones from France. That's the essence of it.
    According to The Times (posted up thread) Australia approached the UK first over submarines because the French contract was well over budget and very late - it was the UK that suggested expanding it into a broader scope project and not just “a submarine deal”. The UK and Australia then worked through the US system to get it agreed.

    The funny thing is that while Macron was strutting his stuff at the G7 in Cornwall with stories of “isolated Britain” the biggest strategic alliance in decades was being cooked up behind his back.

    France doesn’t want any narrative to get out about post-Brexit Britain being other than isolated which is why they are pretending it had little to do with us.
    That sounds unlikely to me, that we were the driver. But I get the Times today so I'll check out the story.
    Hmm. This kind of has Boris written all over it - indulging in his usual fantasy by trying to be Churchill to Biden's FDR. Biden's going senile and is advised by idiots, so it's easy to see how they'd be persuaded. Quite why the Fella Down Under thought it would be a good approach remains mysterious.
    The whole Aukus thing, you mean, or the nuclear subs?
    The sub thing would have gone ahead anyway, though I suspect more would have been done to soothe French indignation. The AUUKUS branding element however is pure Boris: heavy on slogans and wishful thinking but poorly conceived and riddled with hidden dangers.
    The French are indignant because they've lost billions of Aussie dollars.

    Its pure mercantile greed that is the only reason they're upset. There's no way to soothe that over. That's their problem.
    Didn't the French and Aussies have some kind of contract between them?
    Yes which was late, over budget and had had the Australian build dropped from 90% to 60% maybe.
    source?
    Posted multiple times on PB over the last 24 hours.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,407
    edited September 2021
    Farooq said:

    All I see is one giant circle jerk about how “remoaners” hate AUKUS whilst at the same time seeing very few “remainers” caring either way

    My pov is that I can’t think of anything that would have less of an impact on my day to day life than this.

    I guess my mate who works at BAE Systems might be happy

    Glad I'm not the only one.
    "Remainers" is rapidly becoming a word that merely discredits the user more than the target. I'm not even sure what it is meant to mean any more, since it's not about your 2016 vote, and it's clearly not about "rejoining". It's quickly becoming like "leftie", "Nazi", "neocon", "Marxist", and all those other words that get thrown around thoughtlessly.
    Or indeed, 'Brexiter'.

    Unfortunately parties still have an interest in seeking that the Brexit tribes remain cohesive, rather than bring them together.

    But for old times' sake let us remember the shades of Brexit/Remain opinion by degree of fanaticism.

    Brexiter/Brexiteer/Brexitard
    Remainer/Remoaner/Remainiac
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,254
    Phil said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Gérard Araud seems to think France should pull out of NATO.

    The new reality of the world rivalry of great and middle powers should lead France to a 2.0 Gaullist stance. Allied but not aligned. Some confrontations are not ours.

    https://twitter.com/gerardaraud/status/1439163329952591872

    It wouldn't be the first time.

    And that for the benefit of @kinabalu is why AUKUS and not FR/GER are the "chaps we can trust."
    French anger is directed at the US and Oz and the reason for this is we have little to do with what’s happening, which is all about the submarine deal. Australia was offered the nuclear option by America, said yes to that, therefore cancelled their order of lower tech ones from France. That's the essence of it.
    According to The Times (posted up thread) Australia approached the UK first over submarines because the French contract was well over budget and very late - it was the UK that suggested expanding it into a broader scope project and not just “a submarine deal”. The UK and Australia then worked through the US system to get it agreed.

    The funny thing is that while Macron was strutting his stuff at the G7 in Cornwall with stories of “isolated Britain” the biggest strategic alliance in decades was being cooked up behind his back.

    France doesn’t want any narrative to get out about post-Brexit Britain being other than isolated which is why they are pretending it had little to do with us.
    That sounds unlikely to me, that we were the driver. But I get the Times today so I'll check out the story.
    Hmm. This kind of has Boris written all over it - indulging in his usual fantasy by trying to be Churchill to Biden's FDR. Biden's going senile and is advised by idiots, so it's easy to see how they'd be persuaded. Quite why the Fella Down Under thought it would be a good approach remains mysterious.
    The whole Aukus thing, you mean, or the nuclear subs?
    The sub thing would have gone ahead anyway, though I suspect more would have been done to soothe French indignation. The AUUKUS branding element however is pure Boris: heavy on slogans and wishful thinking but poorly conceived and riddled with hidden dangers.
    The French are indignant because they've lost billions of Aussie dollars.

    Its pure mercantile greed that is the only reason they're upset. There's no way to soothe that over. That's their problem.
    Didn't the French and Aussies have some kind of contract between them?
    A contract the Aussies were capable of cancelling it seems.
    so much for honour.
    Why should the Aussies honour a contract with the French that is over budget, years late and doesn't meet their needs?

    Maybe if they'd been on time and on budget the contract would have been honoured. Just a thought.
    In that case there would be penalty clauses and withdrawal clauses. If the contract was cancelled properly then I would understand it.
    One assumes the Aussies are indeed invoking a withdrawal clause.
    It would help us all in this room if the French/Aussies actually published why the contract was cancelled, rather than speculation.
    They've said. Morrison said it "it's not a change of wants, it's a change of needs"

    Chinese has expanded its navy so quickly and upgraded its tech so effectively, a dozen new diesel subs - delivered in ten years - would be horribly outdated the first moment they went in the water. Entirely useless. A waste of £40bn

    Australia realised it needed nuke subs that can act with endurance and stealth and which no Chinese naval technology, in the foreseeable future, will be able to nullify


    They actually asked the French if they would share their nuclear sub tech, the French said no. Australia cancelled the contract and turned to the US/UK
    Did the French refuse? I thought I had read elsewhere that the French had offered to build AU nuclear subs, but maybe that was mistaken (or I misremember...) ?
    They refused, I believe (though there is much misinfo floating about)
  • France has suggested that Australia's perfidy on submarines might threaten Australia-EU free trade negotiations. But the EU doesn't sound like it wants a bar of it. Here's the EU's top diplomat Josep Borrell- "we are not taking ad hoc action motivated by individual events"

    https://twitter.com/stephendziedzic/status/1439194757268271106?s=20

    The EU is being sensible here. If the AUS-EU free-trade were scrapped it would have effectively meant that Boris had exercised a veto.
    The problem the EU has is that France is next to assume the Presidency….
  • All I see is one giant circle jerk about how “remoaners” hate AUKUS whilst at the same time seeing very few “remainers” caring either way

    My pov is that I can’t think of anything that would have less of an impact on my day to day life than this.

    I guess my mate who works at BAE Systems might be happy

    No Remainers care either way?

    @Roger @Daveyboy1961 @kinabalu @Stark_Dawning and a few others seem to have taken this as a personal insult to be diminished.

    Agreed on your mate at BAE. This is good news for them.
    I don't actually care as much as you think. I'm not French, and Boris is always gonna take his PR chances where and when they occur. My only comments about the contract were made because we have a penchant for breaking rules/contracts at the moment. I wish I could have broken some contracts myself, especially with credit cards and gym memberships of old!!
  • Darren Stevens showing T20 isn't just a young mans game.....
  • kle4 said:

    All I see is one giant circle jerk about how “remoaners” hate AUKUS whilst at the same time seeing very few “remainers” caring either way

    My pov is that I can’t think of anything that would have less of an impact on my day to day life than this.

    I guess my mate who works at BAE Systems might be happy

    People do need to make up their minds though. Is it something with very low impact, or is it some dangerous, ally provoking move? If it is not at all important then frantic reporting on how there is a 'backlash' internationally is just plain weird.
    In substance it probably won't amount to much - it's just an Australian arms-procurement exercise after all. However, the marketing that Boris brought to the table has certainly lit a diplomatic firestorm of global proportions, shattering old alliances and destabilizing the planet. How much he intended of any of that is uncertain. Does he even care?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,084
    edited September 2021

    ..
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    algarkirk said:

    MrEd said:

    Interesting article on the BBC:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-58584976

    What is depressing, but not surprising, is the attitude expressed by some environmental protestors that it is racist to question whether China should be doing more to cut emissions.

    It also runs the risk of being counter productive. Let’s say that protestors tell Western nations they have to be responsible for reducing all global emissions. That gives a powerful incentive to China to become more dirty, knowing that Western nations would then have to cut faster and harder to satisfy the global commitments.

    You almost think that the main priority of some is not global climate change but having the opportunity to swing against western governments.

    Quite right. This bit from Roger Harrabin gives the game away:

    But when I initially asked the radical green group Extinction Rebellion (XR) if they had considered demonstrating against China, it triggered a furious response.

    An XR member tweeted accusing me of perpetuating anti-Chinese racist stereotypes and failing to report climate change properly.

    Why so vitriolic?

    Well, there are two reasons. The first is practical: climate campaigning groups like Greenpeace and WWF have offices in Beijing and if they rattle China too hard, they could be swiftly closed down.





    Ie the subject touches on two critical matters: their totalitarian anti liberal friends and jobs for the boys and girls in the international NGO industry.
    Likewise the environmental frothers in the 1980s were always fanatically opposed to any criticism of the Soviet Union's activities such as draining the Aral Sea.
    Any evidence for that?
    Evidence for what ?

    That the Soviet Union drained the Aral Sea ?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea#Irrigation_canals
    No, for "environmental frothers in the 1980s were always fanatically opposed to any criticism of the Soviet Union's activities such as draining the Aral Sea"
    The evidence is that they didn't criticise the Soviet Union.

    Just as the XR types don't protest at Chinese embassies.
    The evidence that they didn't "fanatically opposed to any criticism of the Soviet Union's activities such as draining the Aral Sea" is that they "didn't criticise the Soviet Union"? That's circular logic.
    Look, I am too young to remember that time so all I'm asking is whether there's any evidence available for what your saying, because I find it a little unconvincing, and I don't want to doubt you unfairly.
    Okay, its before your time. But its not before my time.

    As to proof - well trying to prove such things in pre internet days is more trouble than its worth.

    So you can either believe or disbelieve my comment that the previous generation of XR types never had any criticism of the Soviet Union.

    Or you can take how the current XR types act towards China as a proxy to how the previous generation did towards the Soviet Union.
    I'm on the fence. The reason I'm sceptical is because the way you put it ("frothers", "fanatically"). That's no cause to disbelieve you, but it did get me thinking about it. I assume there's at least something in what you say, but I get the feeling you exaggerate for effect.
  • Leon said:

    Phil said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Gérard Araud seems to think France should pull out of NATO.

    The new reality of the world rivalry of great and middle powers should lead France to a 2.0 Gaullist stance. Allied but not aligned. Some confrontations are not ours.

    https://twitter.com/gerardaraud/status/1439163329952591872

    It wouldn't be the first time.

    And that for the benefit of @kinabalu is why AUKUS and not FR/GER are the "chaps we can trust."
    French anger is directed at the US and Oz and the reason for this is we have little to do with what’s happening, which is all about the submarine deal. Australia was offered the nuclear option by America, said yes to that, therefore cancelled their order of lower tech ones from France. That's the essence of it.
    According to The Times (posted up thread) Australia approached the UK first over submarines because the French contract was well over budget and very late - it was the UK that suggested expanding it into a broader scope project and not just “a submarine deal”. The UK and Australia then worked through the US system to get it agreed.

    The funny thing is that while Macron was strutting his stuff at the G7 in Cornwall with stories of “isolated Britain” the biggest strategic alliance in decades was being cooked up behind his back.

    France doesn’t want any narrative to get out about post-Brexit Britain being other than isolated which is why they are pretending it had little to do with us.
    That sounds unlikely to me, that we were the driver. But I get the Times today so I'll check out the story.
    Hmm. This kind of has Boris written all over it - indulging in his usual fantasy by trying to be Churchill to Biden's FDR. Biden's going senile and is advised by idiots, so it's easy to see how they'd be persuaded. Quite why the Fella Down Under thought it would be a good approach remains mysterious.
    The whole Aukus thing, you mean, or the nuclear subs?
    The sub thing would have gone ahead anyway, though I suspect more would have been done to soothe French indignation. The AUUKUS branding element however is pure Boris: heavy on slogans and wishful thinking but poorly conceived and riddled with hidden dangers.
    The French are indignant because they've lost billions of Aussie dollars.

    Its pure mercantile greed that is the only reason they're upset. There's no way to soothe that over. That's their problem.
    Didn't the French and Aussies have some kind of contract between them?
    A contract the Aussies were capable of cancelling it seems.
    so much for honour.
    Why should the Aussies honour a contract with the French that is over budget, years late and doesn't meet their needs?

    Maybe if they'd been on time and on budget the contract would have been honoured. Just a thought.
    In that case there would be penalty clauses and withdrawal clauses. If the contract was cancelled properly then I would understand it.
    One assumes the Aussies are indeed invoking a withdrawal clause.
    It would help us all in this room if the French/Aussies actually published why the contract was cancelled, rather than speculation.
    They've said. Morrison said it "it's not a change of wants, it's a change of needs"

    Chinese has expanded its navy so quickly and upgraded its tech so effectively, a dozen new diesel subs - delivered in ten years - would be horribly outdated the first moment they went in the water. Entirely useless. A waste of £40bn

    Australia realised it needed nuke subs that can act with endurance and stealth and which no Chinese naval technology, in the foreseeable future, will be able to nullify


    They actually asked the French if they would share their nuclear sub tech, the French said no. Australia cancelled the contract and turned to the US/UK
    Did the French refuse? I thought I had read elsewhere that the French had offered to build AU nuclear subs, but maybe that was mistaken (or I misremember...) ?
    They refused, I believe (though there is much misinfo floating about)
    (I would agree there)
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,124
    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Gérard Araud seems to think France should pull out of NATO.

    The new reality of the world rivalry of great and middle powers should lead France to a 2.0 Gaullist stance. Allied but not aligned. Some confrontations are not ours.

    https://twitter.com/gerardaraud/status/1439163329952591872

    It wouldn't be the first time.

    And that for the benefit of @kinabalu is why AUKUS and not FR/GER are the "chaps we can trust."
    French anger is directed at the US and Oz and the reason for this is we have little to do with what’s happening, which is all about the submarine deal. Australia was offered the nuclear option by America, said yes to that, therefore cancelled their order of lower tech ones from France. That's the essence of it.
    According to The Times (posted up thread) Australia approached the UK first over submarines because the French contract was well over budget and very late - it was the UK that suggested expanding it into a broader scope project and not just “a submarine deal”. The UK and Australia then worked through the US system to get it agreed.

    The funny thing is that while Macron was strutting his stuff at the G7 in Cornwall with stories of “isolated Britain” the biggest strategic alliance in decades was being cooked up behind his back.

    France doesn’t want any narrative to get out about post-Brexit Britain being other than isolated which is why they are pretending it had little to do with us.
    That sounds unlikely to me, that we were the driver. But I get the Times today so I'll check out the story.
    Hmm. This kind of has Boris written all over it - indulging in his usual fantasy by trying to be Churchill to Biden's FDR. Biden's going senile and is advised by idiots, so it's easy to see how they'd be persuaded. Quite why the Fella Down Under thought it would be a good approach remains mysterious.
    The whole Aukus thing, you mean, or the nuclear subs?
    The sub thing would have gone ahead anyway, though I suspect more would have been done to soothe French indignation. The AUUKUS branding element however is pure Boris: heavy on slogans and wishful thinking but poorly conceived and riddled with hidden dangers.
    The French are indignant because they've lost billions of Aussie dollars.

    Its pure mercantile greed that is the only reason they're upset. There's no way to soothe that over. That's their problem.
    Didn't the French and Aussies have some kind of contract between them?
    A contract the Aussies were capable of cancelling it seems.
    so much for honour.
    That's an odd way of looking at it. Don't most contracts contain provisions on how and when they can be terminated? Have the French alleged the Aussies have broken the terms by which it could be terminated, or are they just angry it has been?

    I don't really see what honour has to do with a commercial matter - sure, we 'honour' agreements, but if the agreement permits its ending, there's nothing untoward about it even if the manner of termination was abrupt.
    That's what I said. If the contract was cancelled due to poor service then I would expect it to be cancelled. Honouring the contract is important surely?
    Why? If the contract allows them to terminate, whatever the reason, then self evidently they are allowed to utilise the provisions to terminate and shouldn't be condemned for exercising that right. It'd annoy the other party if there was not much cause, and it might make others with contracts wary, but if you have a right I don't see why others should get offended when you exercise it.
    I seem to recall in recent times the EU not being so keen on contracts that didn't do what they wanted... wonder how that ended.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,149
    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    algarkirk said:

    MrEd said:

    Interesting article on the BBC:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-58584976

    What is depressing, but not surprising, is the attitude expressed by some environmental protestors that it is racist to question whether China should be doing more to cut emissions.

    It also runs the risk of being counter productive. Let’s say that protestors tell Western nations they have to be responsible for reducing all global emissions. That gives a powerful incentive to China to become more dirty, knowing that Western nations would then have to cut faster and harder to satisfy the global commitments.

    You almost think that the main priority of some is not global climate change but having the opportunity to swing against western governments.

    Quite right. This bit from Roger Harrabin gives the game away:

    But when I initially asked the radical green group Extinction Rebellion (XR) if they had considered demonstrating against China, it triggered a furious response.

    An XR member tweeted accusing me of perpetuating anti-Chinese racist stereotypes and failing to report climate change properly.

    Why so vitriolic?

    Well, there are two reasons. The first is practical: climate campaigning groups like Greenpeace and WWF have offices in Beijing and if they rattle China too hard, they could be swiftly closed down.





    Ie the subject touches on two critical matters: their totalitarian anti liberal friends and jobs for the boys and girls in the international NGO industry.
    Likewise the environmental frothers in the 1980s were always fanatically opposed to any criticism of the Soviet Union's activities such as draining the Aral Sea.
    Any evidence for that?
    Evidence for what ?

    That the Soviet Union drained the Aral Sea ?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea#Irrigation_canals
    No, for "environmental frothers in the 1980s were always fanatically opposed to any criticism of the Soviet Union's activities such as draining the Aral Sea"
    The evidence is that they didn't criticise the Soviet Union.

    Just as the XR types don't protest at Chinese embassies.
    The evidence that they didn't "fanatically opposed to any criticism of the Soviet Union's activities such as draining the Aral Sea" is that they "didn't criticise the Soviet Union"? That's circular logic.
    Look, I am too young to remember that time so all I'm asking is whether there's any evidence available for what your saying, because I find it a little unconvincing, and I don't want to doubt you unfairly.
    Okay, its before your time. But its not before my time.

    As to proof - well trying to prove such things in pre internet days is more trouble than its worth.

    So you can either believe or disbelieve my comment that the previous generation of XR types never had any criticism of the Soviet Union.

    Or you can take how the current XR types act towards China as a proxy to how the previous generation did towards the Soviet Union.
    I'm on the fence. The reason I'm sceptical is because the way you put it ("frothers", "fanatically"). That's no cause to disbelieve you, but it did get me thinking about it. I assume there's at least something in what you say, but I get the feeling you exaggerate for effect.
    It was definitely being discussed in the 1980s as an ecological disaster, as I well recall.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,407
    edited September 2021

    kle4 said:

    All I see is one giant circle jerk about how “remoaners” hate AUKUS whilst at the same time seeing very few “remainers” caring either way

    My pov is that I can’t think of anything that would have less of an impact on my day to day life than this.

    I guess my mate who works at BAE Systems might be happy

    People do need to make up their minds though. Is it something with very low impact, or is it some dangerous, ally provoking move? If it is not at all important then frantic reporting on how there is a 'backlash' internationally is just plain weird.
    In substance it probably won't amount to much - it's just an Australian arms-procurement exercise after all. However, the marketing that Boris brought to the table has certainly lit a diplomatic firestorm of global proportions, shattering old alliances and destabilizing the planet. How much he intended of any of that is uncertain. Does he even care?
    Shattering old alliances seems like an exaggeration despite a petulant initial reaction from the French for example. If it does shatter because of an 'arms-procurement exercise', even one marketed grandly, then it was clearly on very shaky foundations. I cannot credit Boris with that much power and influence to rock decades long alliances to their core like that. I also hold it as a principle that even if someone is provoked they are responsible for their own reaction, especially if that reaction is disproportionate. And responding to what you've described with a shattering of alliances would be wildly disproportionate and not reasonably to have been predicted.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited September 2021
    30,144 cases...164 deaths

    Only a very small fall in week on week case numbers in England today
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,254

    kle4 said:

    All I see is one giant circle jerk about how “remoaners” hate AUKUS whilst at the same time seeing very few “remainers” caring either way

    My pov is that I can’t think of anything that would have less of an impact on my day to day life than this.

    I guess my mate who works at BAE Systems might be happy

    People do need to make up their minds though. Is it something with very low impact, or is it some dangerous, ally provoking move? If it is not at all important then frantic reporting on how there is a 'backlash' internationally is just plain weird.
    In substance it probably won't amount to much - it's just an Australian arms-procurement exercise after all. However, the marketing that Boris brought to the table has certainly lit a diplomatic firestorm of global proportions, shattering old alliances and destabilizing the planet. How much he intended of any of that is uncertain. Does he even care?
    Why should we believe the opinion of "that Stark Dawning off of PB" when we have the opinion of innumerable politicians, defence experts, foreign policy analysts - in the USA, UK, Australia, France, the EU, Asia, and beyond - who think Aukus is a very big deal indeed. Transformational, in fact

    I guess little old you is right, and they are all mad or lying or something?
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,124

    All I see is one giant circle jerk about how “remoaners” hate AUKUS whilst at the same time seeing very few “remainers” caring either way

    My pov is that I can’t think of anything that would have less of an impact on my day to day life than this.

    I guess my mate who works at BAE Systems might be happy

    No Remainers care either way?

    @Roger @Daveyboy1961 @kinabalu @Stark_Dawning and a few others seem to have taken this as a personal insult to be diminished.

    Agreed on your mate at BAE. This is good news for them.
    Don't forget the absent ScottnPaste - recalled to Paris for consultations?
  • I am surprised we can not sell the aussies a fart powered submarine given the taking the amount of talking out of the arse there has been on this on here and on Twitter.
  • I am surprised we can not sell the aussies a fart powered submarine given the taking the amount of talking out of the arse there has been on this on here and on Twitter.

    Isn't that the sort of thing the French were trying to sell them ;-)
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,407

    30,144 cases...164 deaths

    Only a very small fall in week on week case numbers in England today

    If things stay as they are or fall a little that seems sustainable as a position.
  • kle4 said:

    30,144 cases...164 deaths

    Only a very small fall in week on week case numbers in England today

    If things stay as they are or fall a little that seems sustainable as a position.
    That's the big question I guess, what is the background level of COVID.

    I think 100 deaths a day on average should certainly be expected for the foreseeable future.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,254
    lol.. To add even more spice to the geopolitical curry, an Italian politician says it is time for Italy to attempt to join the Five Eyes Alliance


    https://twitter.com/formichenews/status/1436721199355097088?s=20
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    Leon said:

    lol.. To add even more spice to the geopolitical curry, an Italian politician says it is time for Italy to attempt to join the Five Eyes Alliance


    https://twitter.com/formichenews/status/1436721199355097088?s=20

    Lol, that just seems extremely unlikely.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,959
    Farooq said:

    All I see is one giant circle jerk about how “remoaners” hate AUKUS whilst at the same time seeing very few “remainers” caring either way

    My pov is that I can’t think of anything that would have less of an impact on my day to day life than this.

    I guess my mate who works at BAE Systems might be happy

    Glad I'm not the only one.
    "Remainers" is rapidly becoming a word that merely discredits the user more than the target. I'm not even sure what it is meant to mean any more, since it's not about your 2016 vote, and it's clearly not about "rejoining". It's quickly becoming like "leftie", "Nazi", "neocon", "Marxist", and all those other words that get thrown around thoughtlessly.
    "Remainers" has already become a word to denote people who have not accepted they don't remain in anything. We have left. The much smaller group of Rejoiners are living in some bubble of hope that the world can return to 2015. That bubble just got popped.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    Mid December, a little provocative Ashes shenanigans and Australia 1-0 up in the series, and it'll be:

    We have always been at war with Australia!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758

    Darren Stevens showing T20 isn't just a young mans game.....

    Do we know if he’s playing on next season?

    What a phenomenal servant of county cricket he is.
  • Leon said:

    lol.. To add even more spice to the geopolitical curry, an Italian politician says it is time for Italy to attempt to join the Five Eyes Alliance


    https://twitter.com/formichenews/status/1436721199355097088?s=20

    They have a history of wanting to barge into groups of five - used to be the Five nations Rugby before they insisted they join and then proceeded to lose every game they play
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,254
    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    All I see is one giant circle jerk about how “remoaners” hate AUKUS whilst at the same time seeing very few “remainers” caring either way

    My pov is that I can’t think of anything that would have less of an impact on my day to day life than this.

    I guess my mate who works at BAE Systems might be happy

    People do need to make up their minds though. Is it something with very low impact, or is it some dangerous, ally provoking move? If it is not at all important then frantic reporting on how there is a 'backlash' internationally is just plain weird.
    In substance it probably won't amount to much - it's just an Australian arms-procurement exercise after all. However, the marketing that Boris brought to the table has certainly lit a diplomatic firestorm of global proportions, shattering old alliances and destabilizing the planet. How much he intended of any of that is uncertain. Does he even care?
    Shattering old alliances seems like an exaggeration despite a petulant initial reaction from the French for example. If it does shatter because of an 'arms-procurement exercise', even one marketed grandly, then it was clearly on very shaky foundations. I cannot credit Boris with that much power and influence to rock decades long alliances to their core like that. I also hold it as a principle that even if someone is provoked they are responsible for their own reaction, especially if that reaction is disproportionate. And responding to what you've described with a shattering of alliances would be wildly disproportionate and not reasonably to have been predicted.
    A European pundit in the Spectator explains why - in his opinion - the ambassador to London was not recalled. It's got nothing to do with some weird "snub to London" to prove that "Britain is irrelevant"

    It's a subtle signal that France wants to keep lines of communication open, and already realises that, in the end, the likeliest outcome will be some French semi-attachment to Aukus (as happened with NATO), which will save some French face (but won't save the sub contract)
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    Leon said:

    lol.. To add even more spice to the geopolitical curry, an Italian politician says it is time for Italy to attempt to join the Five Eyes Alliance


    https://twitter.com/formichenews/status/1436721199355097088?s=20

    Italy of course joined the UK and Australia in invading Iraq in 2003 unlike France, Germany, Canada and New Zealand as well as the Afghanistan invasion.

    In fact I would go so far as to say Italy would be a more reliable ally in Five Eyes than New Zealand, certainly as far as China is concerned as long as Ardern stays in power and if a new right of centre coalition of Lega Nord, Brothers of Italy and Forza Italia wins the next Italian election
  • kle4 said:

    30,144 cases...164 deaths

    Only a very small fall in week on week case numbers in England today

    If things stay as they are or fall a little that seems sustainable as a position.
    Especially with millions of booster doses to be done in the next few weeks.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851
    ydoethur said:

    kinabalu said:

    This is a forever partnership for a new time between the oldest and most trusted of friends.

    A forever partnership that will enable us to protect our national security interests, and to keep our people safe.

    It’s Britain, America and Australia standing indivisible. #AUKUS


    https://twitter.com/aushouselondon/status/1438970055149096960

    M: Come in 007, take a seat.

    JB: Thank you sir.

    M: So you've been briefed? You know the mission?

    JB: Yes sir.

    M: What do you think?

    JB: About time sir. We need to nip the Chinese in the bud. Getting uppity.

    M: Good. And the team? Happy with them? Leiter from the Cousins and the Australian chappie?

    JB: Dundee? Yes sir.

    M: Chaps we can trust eh?

    JB: Sir.
    Surely the Aussie Bond worked with was Dikko Henderson?
    Yep. A 'big man' who was always sweating. That was his USP.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    edited September 2021

    Paul Keating really stressing the Cultural Cringe element of AUUKUS:

    The arrangement would witness a further dramatic loss of Australian sovereignty, as materiel dependency on the United States robbed Australia of any freedom or choice in any engagement Australia may deem appropriate.

    [...]

    If the US military with all its might could not beat a bunch of Taliban rebels with AK-47s rifles in pick-up trucks. what chance would it have in a full-blown war with China, not only the biggest state in the world but the occupant and commander of the biggest land mass in Asia.


    Keating is still highly respected by the Australian Left. Could be a opportunity for Labor if they can work out the tactics.

    Paul Keating once famously mocked France’s pretensions as a Pacific power.

    https://youtu.be/RTwDinIFcQk
  • Next, in helping Australia resolve this conundrum, the British government has revealed the versatility of its new foreign policy. Part of the reason UK prime minister Boris Johnson eschewed the concept of a formal foreign policy and security treaty in the post-Brexit deal with the European Union (EU) was to pursue freely new ventures such as the recent ‘G7-plus’ summit in Cornwall, and enhanced cooperation among the Five Eyes allies. AUKUS reveals that this approach can produce real results.

    https://www.chathamhouse.org/2021/09/aukus-reveals-much-about-new-global-strategic-context
  • kle4 said:

    30,144 cases...164 deaths

    Only a very small fall in week on week case numbers in England today

    If things stay as they are or fall a little that seems sustainable as a position.
    That's the big question I guess, what is the background level of COVID.

    I think 100 deaths a day on average should certainly be expected for the foreseeable future.
    The deaths split into anti-vaxxers and sick oldies dying with but not from covid.

    At some point we will run out of anti-vaxxers who haven't been previously infected.

    We will never run out of sick oldies.
  • Leon said:

    lol.. To add even more spice to the geopolitical curry, an Italian politician says it is time for Italy to attempt to join the Five Eyes Alliance


    https://twitter.com/formichenews/status/1436721199355097088?s=20

    About the same time that Turkey joins the EU…
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,959

    30,144 cases...164 deaths

    Only a very small fall in week on week case numbers in England today

    On the plus side, Reading and Leeds don't seem to have been mega spreader events - or if they were, other rates of general decline have masked it.
  • Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    algarkirk said:

    MrEd said:

    Interesting article on the BBC:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-58584976

    What is depressing, but not surprising, is the attitude expressed by some environmental protestors that it is racist to question whether China should be doing more to cut emissions.

    It also runs the risk of being counter productive. Let’s say that protestors tell Western nations they have to be responsible for reducing all global emissions. That gives a powerful incentive to China to become more dirty, knowing that Western nations would then have to cut faster and harder to satisfy the global commitments.

    You almost think that the main priority of some is not global climate change but having the opportunity to swing against western governments.

    Quite right. This bit from Roger Harrabin gives the game away:

    But when I initially asked the radical green group Extinction Rebellion (XR) if they had considered demonstrating against China, it triggered a furious response.

    An XR member tweeted accusing me of perpetuating anti-Chinese racist stereotypes and failing to report climate change properly.

    Why so vitriolic?

    Well, there are two reasons. The first is practical: climate campaigning groups like Greenpeace and WWF have offices in Beijing and if they rattle China too hard, they could be swiftly closed down.





    Ie the subject touches on two critical matters: their totalitarian anti liberal friends and jobs for the boys and girls in the international NGO industry.
    Likewise the environmental frothers in the 1980s were always fanatically opposed to any criticism of the Soviet Union's activities such as draining the Aral Sea.
    Any evidence for that?
    Evidence for what ?

    That the Soviet Union drained the Aral Sea ?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea#Irrigation_canals
    No, for "environmental frothers in the 1980s were always fanatically opposed to any criticism of the Soviet Union's activities such as draining the Aral Sea"
    The evidence is that they didn't criticise the Soviet Union.

    Just as the XR types don't protest at Chinese embassies.
    The evidence that they didn't "fanatically opposed to any criticism of the Soviet Union's activities such as draining the Aral Sea" is that they "didn't criticise the Soviet Union"? That's circular logic.
    Look, I am too young to remember that time so all I'm asking is whether there's any evidence available for what your saying, because I find it a little unconvincing, and I don't want to doubt you unfairly.
    Okay, its before your time. But its not before my time.

    As to proof - well trying to prove such things in pre internet days is more trouble than its worth.

    So you can either believe or disbelieve my comment that the previous generation of XR types never had any criticism of the Soviet Union.

    Or you can take how the current XR types act towards China as a proxy to how the previous generation did towards the Soviet Union.
    I'm on the fence. The reason I'm sceptical is because the way you put it ("frothers", "fanatically"). That's no cause to disbelieve you, but it did get me thinking about it. I assume there's at least something in what you say, but I get the feeling you exaggerate for effect.
    Exaggerate for effect ?

    What on the internet ???
  • Farooq said:

    All I see is one giant circle jerk about how “remoaners” hate AUKUS whilst at the same time seeing very few “remainers” caring either way

    My pov is that I can’t think of anything that would have less of an impact on my day to day life than this.

    I guess my mate who works at BAE Systems might be happy

    Glad I'm not the only one.
    "Remainers" is rapidly becoming a word that merely discredits the user more than the target. I'm not even sure what it is meant to mean any more, since it's not about your 2016 vote, and it's clearly not about "rejoining". It's quickly becoming like "leftie", "Nazi", "neocon", "Marxist", and all those other words that get thrown around thoughtlessly.
    Generally 'remainer' would apply to those who want to re-join the EU and have not accepted Brexit in their mind

    Re-joining is very much on the mind of many mainly in the lib dems and is openly expressed on here

    To be fair I think it better to say those who support the EU
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    Next, in helping Australia resolve this conundrum, the British government has revealed the versatility of its new foreign policy. Part of the reason UK prime minister Boris Johnson eschewed the concept of a formal foreign policy and security treaty in the post-Brexit deal with the European Union (EU) was to pursue freely new ventures such as the recent ‘G7-plus’ summit in Cornwall, and enhanced cooperation among the Five Eyes allies. AUKUS reveals that this approach can produce real results.

    https://www.chathamhouse.org/2021/09/aukus-reveals-much-about-new-global-strategic-context

    Yes, the orthodoxy during the negotiations was that the UK needed to agree the security proportion of the deal more than the EU needed the UK to agree it. It was an attempt by remainers to permanently bind the UK to EU foreign policy objectives.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,254
    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    lol.. To add even more spice to the geopolitical curry, an Italian politician says it is time for Italy to attempt to join the Five Eyes Alliance


    https://twitter.com/formichenews/status/1436721199355097088?s=20

    Lol, that just seems extremely unlikely.
    Yeah, file under "not gonna happen"

    However it shows, already, that Aukus is realigning everything. A new miliary polarity has emerged - and it will attract other nations, just as the EU gained members over time

    This time the UK is in at the beginning so we will be able to shape the architecture so that it suits us, as well as the USA and Oz.

    Britain made a huge geopolitical error in not joining the EU (EEC) right at the start. We could have moulded it much more in our image, and to our huge benefit.

    I sense this is another reason for French anger and pique. They can see the new western military alliance forming in front of their eyes, the alliance which will supplant NATO. And it will be very much English-speaking led by America, then the UK and Oz. France will just have to cope. Even tho it pisses them off

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712

    Paul Keating really stressing the Cultural Cringe element of AUUKUS:

    The arrangement would witness a further dramatic loss of Australian sovereignty, as materiel dependency on the United States robbed Australia of any freedom or choice in any engagement Australia may deem appropriate.

    [...]

    If the US military with all its might could not beat a bunch of Taliban rebels with AK-47s rifles in pick-up trucks. what chance would it have in a full-blown war with China, not only the biggest state in the world but the occupant and commander of the biggest land mass in Asia.


    Keating is still highly respected by the Australian Left. Could be a opportunity for Labor if they can work out the tactics.

    Even Labor leader Albanese has said ' his team had been briefed on the deal and “fully endorsed” the new nuclear-powered submarines' even if they criticised the waste of scrapping the previous deal


    https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/defence-and-foreign-affairs/admission-of-failure-albanese-criticises-morrison-government-over-submarine-deal/news-story/49db06b6bf187053fa685134c4507f39
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    edited September 2021
    More and more it seems perhaps Britain are the big winner of this episode. They brought something of real value to the US and partly validated their vision for a global role post-Brexit, which often seemed too ambitious, within the “Anglosphere” framework they favor

    https://twitter.com/SecStateJohnHay/status/1439243428647391232?s=20
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,624
    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    algarkirk said:

    MrEd said:

    Interesting article on the BBC:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-58584976

    What is depressing, but not surprising, is the attitude expressed by some environmental protestors that it is racist to question whether China should be doing more to cut emissions.

    It also runs the risk of being counter productive. Let’s say that protestors tell Western nations they have to be responsible for reducing all global emissions. That gives a powerful incentive to China to become more dirty, knowing that Western nations would then have to cut faster and harder to satisfy the global commitments.

    You almost think that the main priority of some is not global climate change but having the opportunity to swing against western governments.

    Quite right. This bit from Roger Harrabin gives the game away:

    But when I initially asked the radical green group Extinction Rebellion (XR) if they had considered demonstrating against China, it triggered a furious response.

    An XR member tweeted accusing me of perpetuating anti-Chinese racist stereotypes and failing to report climate change properly.

    Why so vitriolic?

    Well, there are two reasons. The first is practical: climate campaigning groups like Greenpeace and WWF have offices in Beijing and if they rattle China too hard, they could be swiftly closed down.





    Ie the subject touches on two critical matters: their totalitarian anti liberal friends and jobs for the boys and girls in the international NGO industry.
    Likewise the environmental frothers in the 1980s were always fanatically opposed to any criticism of the Soviet Union's activities such as draining the Aral Sea.
    Any evidence for that?
    Evidence for what ?

    That the Soviet Union drained the Aral Sea ?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea#Irrigation_canals
    No, for "environmental frothers in the 1980s were always fanatically opposed to any criticism of the Soviet Union's activities such as draining the Aral Sea"
    The evidence is that they didn't criticise the Soviet Union.

    Just as the XR types don't protest at Chinese embassies.
    The evidence that they didn't "fanatically opposed to any criticism of the Soviet Union's activities such as draining the Aral Sea" is that they "didn't criticise the Soviet Union"? That's circular logic.
    Look, I am too young to remember that time so all I'm asking is whether there's any evidence available for what your saying, because I find it a little unconvincing, and I don't want to doubt you unfairly.
    Okay, its before your time. But its not before my time.

    As to proof - well trying to prove such things in pre internet days is more trouble than its worth.

    So you can either believe or disbelieve my comment that the previous generation of XR types never had any criticism of the Soviet Union.

    Or you can take how the current XR types act towards China as a proxy to how the previous generation did towards the Soviet Union.
    I'm on the fence. The reason I'm sceptical is because the way you put it ("frothers", "fanatically"). That's no cause to disbelieve you, but it did get me thinking about it. I assume there's at least something in what you say, but I get the feeling you exaggerate for effect.
    I grew up in the 80s, went to university in the 90s.

    The green types would call you "Fascist" if you mentioned environmental issues in the USSR. China (more in the 90s) as well.

    Given the crossover between the Useful Idiots/Tankies and the Green movement, and the inability of the Useful Idiots/Tankies to realise that times have changed and broth Russia and China are not run by communists any more.... why are you suprised?
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,088
    edited September 2021
    Things to do.

    However, did Ben Dover ever go metric?

    The full 225mm ?

    (I can confirm that housebricks mainly did).
  • 30,144 cases...164 deaths

    Only a very small fall in week on week case numbers in England today

    On the plus side, Reading and Leeds don't seem to have been mega spreader events - or if they were, other rates of general decline have masked it.
    Plenty of STD spreading though :-)
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,282
    HYUFD said:

    Paul Keating really stressing the Cultural Cringe element of AUUKUS:

    The arrangement would witness a further dramatic loss of Australian sovereignty, as materiel dependency on the United States robbed Australia of any freedom or choice in any engagement Australia may deem appropriate.

    [...]

    If the US military with all its might could not beat a bunch of Taliban rebels with AK-47s rifles in pick-up trucks. what chance would it have in a full-blown war with China, not only the biggest state in the world but the occupant and commander of the biggest land mass in Asia.


    Keating is still highly respected by the Australian Left. Could be a opportunity for Labor if they can work out the tactics.

    Even Labor leader Albanese has said ' his team had been briefed on the deal and “fully endorsed” the new nuclear-powered submarines' even if they criticised the waste of scrapping the previous deal


    https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/defence-and-foreign-affairs/admission-of-failure-albanese-criticises-morrison-government-over-submarine-deal/news-story/49db06b6bf187053fa685134c4507f39
    Once again, left-wingers seem to be whingeing and moaning about something, in this case Paul Keating. They never seem to be happy or cheerful about anything.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    lol.. To add even more spice to the geopolitical curry, an Italian politician says it is time for Italy to attempt to join the Five Eyes Alliance


    https://twitter.com/formichenews/status/1436721199355097088?s=20

    Lol, that just seems extremely unlikely.
    Yeah, file under "not gonna happen"

    However it shows, already, that Aukus is realigning everything. A new miliary polarity has emerged - and it will attract other nations, just as the EU gained members over time

    This time the UK is in at the beginning so we will be able to shape the architecture so that it suits us, as well as the USA and Oz.

    Britain made a huge geopolitical error in not joining the EU (EEC) right at the start. We could have moulded it much more in our image, and to our huge benefit.

    I sense this is another reason for French anger and pique. They can see the new western military alliance forming in front of their eyes, the alliance which will supplant NATO. And it will be very much English-speaking led by America, then the UK and Oz. France will just have to cope. Even tho it pisses them off

    Yes, the western/democratic alliance is now being reconstituted, it will eject the likes of Germany while picking up Japan, India and eventually France/Italy and other Europe countries. Appeaser nations won't be invited to join.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072

    Farooq said:

    All I see is one giant circle jerk about how “remoaners” hate AUKUS whilst at the same time seeing very few “remainers” caring either way

    My pov is that I can’t think of anything that would have less of an impact on my day to day life than this.

    I guess my mate who works at BAE Systems might be happy

    Glad I'm not the only one.
    "Remainers" is rapidly becoming a word that merely discredits the user more than the target. I'm not even sure what it is meant to mean any more, since it's not about your 2016 vote, and it's clearly not about "rejoining". It's quickly becoming like "leftie", "Nazi", "neocon", "Marxist", and all those other words that get thrown around thoughtlessly.
    Generally 'remainer' would apply to those who want to re-join the EU and have not accepted Brexit in their mind

    Re-joining is very much on the mind of many mainly in the lib dems and is openly expressed on here

    To be fair I think it better to say those who support the EU
    The EU isn’t a football team.

    For example, I will likely always believe Britain is better off in the EU and that we should rejoin but at the end of the day there are more pressing issues facing the average Briton which must be seen as a priority.
  • Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    lol.. To add even more spice to the geopolitical curry, an Italian politician says it is time for Italy to attempt to join the Five Eyes Alliance


    https://twitter.com/formichenews/status/1436721199355097088?s=20

    Lol, that just seems extremely unlikely.
    Yeah, file under "not gonna happen"

    However it shows, already, that Aukus is realigning everything. A new miliary polarity has emerged - and it will attract other nations, just as the EU gained members over time

    This time the UK is in at the beginning so we will be able to shape the architecture so that it suits us, as well as the USA and Oz.

    Britain made a huge geopolitical error in not joining the EU (EEC) right at the start. We could have moulded it much more in our image, and to our huge benefit.

    I sense this is another reason for French anger and pique. They can see the new western military alliance forming in front of their eyes, the alliance which will supplant NATO. And it will be very much English-speaking led by America, then the UK and Oz. France will just have to cope. Even tho it pisses them off

    De Gaulle would not let us join, remember?
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    lol.. To add even more spice to the geopolitical curry, an Italian politician says it is time for Italy to attempt to join the Five Eyes Alliance


    https://twitter.com/formichenews/status/1436721199355097088?s=20

    Lol, that just seems extremely unlikely.
    Yeah, file under "not gonna happen"

    However it shows, already, that Aukus is realigning everything. A new miliary polarity has emerged - and it will attract other nations, just as the EU gained members over time

    This time the UK is in at the beginning so we will be able to shape the architecture so that it suits us, as well as the USA and Oz.

    Britain made a huge geopolitical error in not joining the EU (EEC) right at the start. We could have moulded it much more in our image, and to our huge benefit.

    I sense this is another reason for French anger and pique. They can see the new western military alliance forming in front of their eyes, the alliance which will supplant NATO. And it will be very much English-speaking led by America, then the UK and Oz. France will just have to cope. Even tho it pisses them off

    If the aim is, as you seem to imply, to forge a military alliance that does not include mainland European countries to replace the one that does, then the French have every right to be pissed off, and we ought to be pissed off too. That would be a huge strategic blunder and a gift to the authoritarian opponents we face.
    That would be a geopolitical equivalent of that horror movie trope where the soon-to-be-victims split up to search the haunted house. It's not smart.

    For what it's worth, I don't think that this is what's intended, so I'm not that worried. I don't think Boris and Biden are that stupid.
  • MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    lol.. To add even more spice to the geopolitical curry, an Italian politician says it is time for Italy to attempt to join the Five Eyes Alliance


    https://twitter.com/formichenews/status/1436721199355097088?s=20

    Lol, that just seems extremely unlikely.
    Yeah, file under "not gonna happen"

    However it shows, already, that Aukus is realigning everything. A new miliary polarity has emerged - and it will attract other nations, just as the EU gained members over time

    This time the UK is in at the beginning so we will be able to shape the architecture so that it suits us, as well as the USA and Oz.

    Britain made a huge geopolitical error in not joining the EU (EEC) right at the start. We could have moulded it much more in our image, and to our huge benefit.

    I sense this is another reason for French anger and pique. They can see the new western military alliance forming in front of their eyes, the alliance which will supplant NATO. And it will be very much English-speaking led by America, then the UK and Oz. France will just have to cope. Even tho it pisses them off

    Yes, the western/democratic alliance is now being reconstituted, it will eject the likes of Germany while picking up Japan, India and eventually France/Italy and other Europe countries. Appeaser nations won't be invited to join.
    If you think India is going to join an alliance of which Britain is the one of the three keyholders you're sorely mistaken.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674

    Andy_JS said:

    Really "handy" guide on the Beeb website to the cabinet reshuffle

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-58574180

    It has buttons that allow you to filter out the whites or the men.

    Very progressive.
    and totally unsurprising. I am suprised you cant search for gay, lesbian transgender, non binary or any other non norm grouping tgat may crop up over time.

    It will enable the BBC to claim that there is discrimination even when there isnt.
    More interesting is lower down – that Boris's Cabinet is 2/3 privately-educated, up from 1/3 Theresa May's. And historically, even Boris is quite low.
    I would have thought it a good idea to have well educated people in the Cabinet.... you are certainly more likely to be well educated in a private school.
    If you are thick to start with it makes no difference , a donkey will always be a donkey and the cabinet is jam packed with them.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    algarkirk said:

    MrEd said:

    Interesting article on the BBC:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-58584976

    What is depressing, but not surprising, is the attitude expressed by some environmental protestors that it is racist to question whether China should be doing more to cut emissions.

    It also runs the risk of being counter productive. Let’s say that protestors tell Western nations they have to be responsible for reducing all global emissions. That gives a powerful incentive to China to become more dirty, knowing that Western nations would then have to cut faster and harder to satisfy the global commitments.

    You almost think that the main priority of some is not global climate change but having the opportunity to swing against western governments.

    Quite right. This bit from Roger Harrabin gives the game away:

    But when I initially asked the radical green group Extinction Rebellion (XR) if they had considered demonstrating against China, it triggered a furious response.

    An XR member tweeted accusing me of perpetuating anti-Chinese racist stereotypes and failing to report climate change properly.

    Why so vitriolic?

    Well, there are two reasons. The first is practical: climate campaigning groups like Greenpeace and WWF have offices in Beijing and if they rattle China too hard, they could be swiftly closed down.





    Ie the subject touches on two critical matters: their totalitarian anti liberal friends and jobs for the boys and girls in the international NGO industry.
    Likewise the environmental frothers in the 1980s were always fanatically opposed to any criticism of the Soviet Union's activities such as draining the Aral Sea.
    Any evidence for that?
    Evidence for what ?

    That the Soviet Union drained the Aral Sea ?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea#Irrigation_canals
    No, for "environmental frothers in the 1980s were always fanatically opposed to any criticism of the Soviet Union's activities such as draining the Aral Sea"
    The evidence is that they didn't criticise the Soviet Union.

    Just as the XR types don't protest at Chinese embassies.
    The evidence that they didn't "fanatically opposed to any criticism of the Soviet Union's activities such as draining the Aral Sea" is that they "didn't criticise the Soviet Union"? That's circular logic.
    Look, I am too young to remember that time so all I'm asking is whether there's any evidence available for what your saying, because I find it a little unconvincing, and I don't want to doubt you unfairly.
    Okay, its before your time. But its not before my time.

    As to proof - well trying to prove such things in pre internet days is more trouble than its worth.

    So you can either believe or disbelieve my comment that the previous generation of XR types never had any criticism of the Soviet Union.

    Or you can take how the current XR types act towards China as a proxy to how the previous generation did towards the Soviet Union.
    I'm on the fence. The reason I'm sceptical is because the way you put it ("frothers", "fanatically"). That's no cause to disbelieve you, but it did get me thinking about it. I assume there's at least something in what you say, but I get the feeling you exaggerate for effect.
    I grew up in the 80s, went to university in the 90s.

    The green types would call you "Fascist" if you mentioned environmental issues in the USSR. China (more in the 90s) as well.

    Given the crossover between the Useful Idiots/Tankies and the Green movement, and the inability of the Useful Idiots/Tankies to realise that times have changed and broth Russia and China are not run by communists any more.... why are you suprised?
    China is run by communists.
  • gealbhangealbhan Posts: 2,362

    All I see is one giant circle jerk about how “remoaners” hate AUKUS whilst at the same time seeing very few “remainers” caring either way

    My pov is that I can’t think of anything that would have less of an impact on my day to day life than this.

    I guess my mate who works at BAE Systems might be happy

    No Remainers care either way?

    @Roger @Daveyboy1961 @kinabalu @Stark_Dawning and a few others seem to have taken this as a personal insult to be diminished.

    Agreed on your mate at BAE. This is good news for them.
    Don’t forget me! The only thing achieved here is Chinese wetting themselves, laughing, as clueless Whitehouse and Downing Street shatters anti Chinese coalition. 🙂
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,624
    Farooq said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    lol.. To add even more spice to the geopolitical curry, an Italian politician says it is time for Italy to attempt to join the Five Eyes Alliance


    https://twitter.com/formichenews/status/1436721199355097088?s=20

    Lol, that just seems extremely unlikely.
    Yeah, file under "not gonna happen"

    However it shows, already, that Aukus is realigning everything. A new miliary polarity has emerged - and it will attract other nations, just as the EU gained members over time

    This time the UK is in at the beginning so we will be able to shape the architecture so that it suits us, as well as the USA and Oz.

    Britain made a huge geopolitical error in not joining the EU (EEC) right at the start. We could have moulded it much more in our image, and to our huge benefit.

    I sense this is another reason for French anger and pique. They can see the new western military alliance forming in front of their eyes, the alliance which will supplant NATO. And it will be very much English-speaking led by America, then the UK and Oz. France will just have to cope. Even tho it pisses them off

    If the aim is, as you seem to imply, to forge a military alliance that does not include mainland European countries to replace the one that does, then the French have every right to be pissed off, and we ought to be pissed off too. That would be a huge strategic blunder and a gift to the authoritarian opponents we face.
    That would be a geopolitical equivalent of that horror movie trope where the soon-to-be-victims split up to search the haunted house. It's not smart.

    For what it's worth, I don't think that this is what's intended, so I'm not that worried. I don't think Boris and Biden are that stupid.
    The Pacific is specifically out-of-area for NATO. This is something like a new version of SEATO.

    The French are upset because they had their own grand plans for Pacific military diplomacy.

    The reason that (some) mainland EU countries are not being invited is that they have resisted action on China repeatedly. Pretty hard to have an alliance to stand up to China that includes the countries that don't want to stand up to China.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    lol.. To add even more spice to the geopolitical curry, an Italian politician says it is time for Italy to attempt to join the Five Eyes Alliance


    https://twitter.com/formichenews/status/1436721199355097088?s=20

    Lol, that just seems extremely unlikely.
    Yeah, file under "not gonna happen"

    However it shows, already, that Aukus is realigning everything. A new miliary polarity has emerged - and it will attract other nations, just as the EU gained members over time

    This time the UK is in at the beginning so we will be able to shape the architecture so that it suits us, as well as the USA and Oz.

    Britain made a huge geopolitical error in not joining the EU (EEC) right at the start. We could have moulded it much more in our image, and to our huge benefit.

    I sense this is another reason for French anger and pique. They can see the new western military alliance forming in front of their eyes, the alliance which will supplant NATO. And it will be very much English-speaking led by America, then the UK and Oz. France will just have to cope. Even tho it pisses them off

    That alliance is fine to contain China in the South China Sea and it will also need Japanese, South Korean and Indian naval forces to be effective.

    However to contain Putin's Russia it is not Australian troops who will be much help, nor is the US as willing to commit forces as they were in the 1980s to European defence. So we need France to still lead European defence with us as the main western European military powers.

    Of course it was De Gaulle who refused our original EEC application as he saw us as too closely aligned to the US, the Commonwealth and Anglosphere to ever fully commit to a European Union and on that events have probably proved him right
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674
    ydoethur said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    algarkirk said:

    MrEd said:

    Interesting article on the BBC:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-58584976

    What is depressing, but not surprising, is the attitude expressed by some environmental protestors that it is racist to question whether China should be doing more to cut emissions.

    It also runs the risk of being counter productive. Let’s say that protestors tell Western nations they have to be responsible for reducing all global emissions. That gives a powerful incentive to China to become more dirty, knowing that Western nations would then have to cut faster and harder to satisfy the global commitments.

    You almost think that the main priority of some is not global climate change but having the opportunity to swing against western governments.

    Quite right. This bit from Roger Harrabin gives the game away:

    But when I initially asked the radical green group Extinction Rebellion (XR) if they had considered demonstrating against China, it triggered a furious response.

    An XR member tweeted accusing me of perpetuating anti-Chinese racist stereotypes and failing to report climate change properly.

    Why so vitriolic?

    Well, there are two reasons. The first is practical: climate campaigning groups like Greenpeace and WWF have offices in Beijing and if they rattle China too hard, they could be swiftly closed down.





    Ie the subject touches on two critical matters: their totalitarian anti liberal friends and jobs for the boys and girls in the international NGO industry.
    Likewise the environmental frothers in the 1980s were always fanatically opposed to any criticism of the Soviet Union's activities such as draining the Aral Sea.
    Any evidence for that?
    Evidence for what ?

    That the Soviet Union drained the Aral Sea ?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea#Irrigation_canals
    No, for "environmental frothers in the 1980s were always fanatically opposed to any criticism of the Soviet Union's activities such as draining the Aral Sea"
    The evidence is that they didn't criticise the Soviet Union.

    Just as the XR types don't protest at Chinese embassies.
    Why would they piss off their most reliable donors?
    Just like the Tories
  • Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    lol.. To add even more spice to the geopolitical curry, an Italian politician says it is time for Italy to attempt to join the Five Eyes Alliance


    https://twitter.com/formichenews/status/1436721199355097088?s=20

    Lol, that just seems extremely unlikely.
    Yeah, file under "not gonna happen"

    However it shows, already, that Aukus is realigning everything. A new miliary polarity has emerged - and it will attract other nations, just as the EU gained members over time

    This time the UK is in at the beginning so we will be able to shape the architecture so that it suits us, as well as the USA and Oz.

    Britain made a huge geopolitical error in not joining the EU (EEC) right at the start. We could have moulded it much more in our image, and to our huge benefit.

    I sense this is another reason for French anger and pique. They can see the new western military alliance forming in front of their eyes, the alliance which will supplant NATO. And it will be very much English-speaking led by America, then the UK and Oz. France will just have to cope. Even tho it pisses them off

    De Gaulle would not let us join, remember?
    That was when we applied in the sixties - well after the foundation.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    edited September 2021

    30,144 cases...164 deaths

    Only a very small fall in week on week case numbers in England today

    No cases from Wales today either.

    Bit this is how it works, the step change happens on Wednesdays. It was like this on the way up (which i ruthlessly mocked people for not understanding) and it happens on the way down.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    lol.. To add even more spice to the geopolitical curry, an Italian politician says it is time for Italy to attempt to join the Five Eyes Alliance


    https://twitter.com/formichenews/status/1436721199355097088?s=20

    Lol, that just seems extremely unlikely.
    Yeah, file under "not gonna happen"

    However it shows, already, that Aukus is realigning everything. A new miliary polarity has emerged - and it will attract other nations, just as the EU gained members over time

    This time the UK is in at the beginning so we will be able to shape the architecture so that it suits us, as well as the USA and Oz.

    Britain made a huge geopolitical error in not joining the EU (EEC) right at the start. We could have moulded it much more in our image, and to our huge benefit.

    I sense this is another reason for French anger and pique. They can see the new western military alliance forming in front of their eyes, the alliance which will supplant NATO. And it will be very much English-speaking led by America, then the UK and Oz. France will just have to cope. Even tho it pisses them off

    Yes, the western/democratic alliance is now being reconstituted, it will eject the likes of Germany while picking up Japan, India and eventually France/Italy and other Europe countries. Appeaser nations won't be invited to join.
    If you think India is going to join an alliance of which Britain is the one of the three keyholders you're sorely mistaken.
    Why because they're worried that Queen Victoria will rise from her grave and take over the country again? India and the UK are very well aligned and both nations have a stated desire to deepen the existing ties now that we're out of the EU and able to do so.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    lol.. To add even more spice to the geopolitical curry, an Italian politician says it is time for Italy to attempt to join the Five Eyes Alliance


    https://twitter.com/formichenews/status/1436721199355097088?s=20

    Lol, that just seems extremely unlikely.
    Yeah, file under "not gonna happen"

    However it shows, already, that Aukus is realigning everything. A new miliary polarity has emerged - and it will attract other nations, just as the EU gained members over time

    This time the UK is in at the beginning so we will be able to shape the architecture so that it suits us, as well as the USA and Oz.

    Britain made a huge geopolitical error in not joining the EU (EEC) right at the start. We could have moulded it much more in our image, and to our huge benefit.

    I sense this is another reason for French anger and pique. They can see the new western military alliance forming in front of their eyes, the alliance which will supplant NATO. And it will be very much English-speaking led by America, then the UK and Oz. France will just have to cope. Even tho it pisses them off

    Yes, the western/democratic alliance is now being reconstituted, it will eject the likes of Germany while picking up Japan, India and eventually France/Italy and other Europe countries. Appeaser nations won't be invited to join.
    If you think India is going to join an alliance of which Britain is the one of the three keyholders you're sorely mistaken.
    They were well done over by them and no chance they will have anything to do with the back stabbers.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,624
    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    algarkirk said:

    MrEd said:

    Interesting article on the BBC:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-58584976

    What is depressing, but not surprising, is the attitude expressed by some environmental protestors that it is racist to question whether China should be doing more to cut emissions.

    It also runs the risk of being counter productive. Let’s say that protestors tell Western nations they have to be responsible for reducing all global emissions. That gives a powerful incentive to China to become more dirty, knowing that Western nations would then have to cut faster and harder to satisfy the global commitments.

    You almost think that the main priority of some is not global climate change but having the opportunity to swing against western governments.

    Quite right. This bit from Roger Harrabin gives the game away:

    But when I initially asked the radical green group Extinction Rebellion (XR) if they had considered demonstrating against China, it triggered a furious response.

    An XR member tweeted accusing me of perpetuating anti-Chinese racist stereotypes and failing to report climate change properly.

    Why so vitriolic?

    Well, there are two reasons. The first is practical: climate campaigning groups like Greenpeace and WWF have offices in Beijing and if they rattle China too hard, they could be swiftly closed down.





    Ie the subject touches on two critical matters: their totalitarian anti liberal friends and jobs for the boys and girls in the international NGO industry.
    Likewise the environmental frothers in the 1980s were always fanatically opposed to any criticism of the Soviet Union's activities such as draining the Aral Sea.
    Any evidence for that?
    Evidence for what ?

    That the Soviet Union drained the Aral Sea ?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea#Irrigation_canals
    No, for "environmental frothers in the 1980s were always fanatically opposed to any criticism of the Soviet Union's activities such as draining the Aral Sea"
    The evidence is that they didn't criticise the Soviet Union.

    Just as the XR types don't protest at Chinese embassies.
    The evidence that they didn't "fanatically opposed to any criticism of the Soviet Union's activities such as draining the Aral Sea" is that they "didn't criticise the Soviet Union"? That's circular logic.
    Look, I am too young to remember that time so all I'm asking is whether there's any evidence available for what your saying, because I find it a little unconvincing, and I don't want to doubt you unfairly.
    Okay, its before your time. But its not before my time.

    As to proof - well trying to prove such things in pre internet days is more trouble than its worth.

    So you can either believe or disbelieve my comment that the previous generation of XR types never had any criticism of the Soviet Union.

    Or you can take how the current XR types act towards China as a proxy to how the previous generation did towards the Soviet Union.
    I'm on the fence. The reason I'm sceptical is because the way you put it ("frothers", "fanatically"). That's no cause to disbelieve you, but it did get me thinking about it. I assume there's at least something in what you say, but I get the feeling you exaggerate for effect.
    I grew up in the 80s, went to university in the 90s.

    The green types would call you "Fascist" if you mentioned environmental issues in the USSR. China (more in the 90s) as well.

    Given the crossover between the Useful Idiots/Tankies and the Green movement, and the inability of the Useful Idiots/Tankies to realise that times have changed and broth Russia and China are not run by communists any more.... why are you suprised?
    China is run by communists.
    Ha ha ha ha. So the National German Socialist Workers Party was really a bunch of socialist workers?

    The Chinese "Communist" party has long left behind any communism. These days they preach dog-eat-dog capitalism.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited September 2021

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    lol.. To add even more spice to the geopolitical curry, an Italian politician says it is time for Italy to attempt to join the Five Eyes Alliance


    https://twitter.com/formichenews/status/1436721199355097088?s=20

    Lol, that just seems extremely unlikely.
    Yeah, file under "not gonna happen"

    However it shows, already, that Aukus is realigning everything. A new miliary polarity has emerged - and it will attract other nations, just as the EU gained members over time

    This time the UK is in at the beginning so we will be able to shape the architecture so that it suits us, as well as the USA and Oz.

    Britain made a huge geopolitical error in not joining the EU (EEC) right at the start. We could have moulded it much more in our image, and to our huge benefit.

    I sense this is another reason for French anger and pique. They can see the new western military alliance forming in front of their eyes, the alliance which will supplant NATO. And it will be very much English-speaking led by America, then the UK and Oz. France will just have to cope. Even tho it pisses them off

    Yes, the western/democratic alliance is now being reconstituted, it will eject the likes of Germany while picking up Japan, India and eventually France/Italy and other Europe countries. Appeaser nations won't be invited to join.
    If you think India is going to join an alliance of which Britain is the one of the three keyholders you're sorely mistaken.
    China is more of a direct security threat to India than it is to us, they will join in time.

    Modi is certainly no fan of Xi and border disputes have escalated between India and China
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-53062484
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674
    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    lol.. To add even more spice to the geopolitical curry, an Italian politician says it is time for Italy to attempt to join the Five Eyes Alliance


    https://twitter.com/formichenews/status/1436721199355097088?s=20

    Lol, that just seems extremely unlikely.
    Yeah, file under "not gonna happen"

    However it shows, already, that Aukus is realigning everything. A new miliary polarity has emerged - and it will attract other nations, just as the EU gained members over time

    This time the UK is in at the beginning so we will be able to shape the architecture so that it suits us, as well as the USA and Oz.

    Britain made a huge geopolitical error in not joining the EU (EEC) right at the start. We could have moulded it much more in our image, and to our huge benefit.

    I sense this is another reason for French anger and pique. They can see the new western military alliance forming in front of their eyes, the alliance which will supplant NATO. And it will be very much English-speaking led by America, then the UK and Oz. France will just have to cope. Even tho it pisses them off

    Yes, the western/democratic alliance is now being reconstituted, it will eject the likes of Germany while picking up Japan, India and eventually France/Italy and other Europe countries. Appeaser nations won't be invited to join.
    Usual ill informed deluded total bollox
  • Farooq said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    lol.. To add even more spice to the geopolitical curry, an Italian politician says it is time for Italy to attempt to join the Five Eyes Alliance


    https://twitter.com/formichenews/status/1436721199355097088?s=20

    Lol, that just seems extremely unlikely.
    Yeah, file under "not gonna happen"

    However it shows, already, that Aukus is realigning everything. A new miliary polarity has emerged - and it will attract other nations, just as the EU gained members over time

    This time the UK is in at the beginning so we will be able to shape the architecture so that it suits us, as well as the USA and Oz.

    Britain made a huge geopolitical error in not joining the EU (EEC) right at the start. We could have moulded it much more in our image, and to our huge benefit.

    I sense this is another reason for French anger and pique. They can see the new western military alliance forming in front of their eyes, the alliance which will supplant NATO. And it will be very much English-speaking led by America, then the UK and Oz. France will just have to cope. Even tho it pisses them off

    If the aim is, as you seem to imply, to forge a military alliance that does not include mainland European countries to replace the one that does, then the French have every right to be pissed off, and we ought to be pissed off too. That would be a huge strategic blunder and a gift to the authoritarian opponents we face.
    That would be a geopolitical equivalent of that horror movie trope where the soon-to-be-victims split up to search the haunted house. It's not smart.

    For what it's worth, I don't think that this is what's intended, so I'm not that worried. I don't think Boris and Biden are that stupid.
    I'm not so sanguine. I don't think Biden quite knows what he's doing. As for Boris - we all know the man's obsessed with erecting his own monuments with little or no thought for the practicalities or consequences. I fear AUUKUS will be the diplomatic/military equivalent of Routemaster.
This discussion has been closed.