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. …
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"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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..
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.
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.
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...) ?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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"
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!!
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?
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 ;-)
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.
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
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)
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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. 🙂
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, which is why eventually European nations who are willing to stand up to China will be invited to join the non-tech sharing aspects of this new pact. France included. They'll huff an puff but ultimately realise that AUKUS is the only game in town to help contain China.
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
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.
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
It’s nothing but a bad joke Big G. A fig leaf to try and cover up how awful the Tories have been in foreign affairs.
If you want to be tough on Chinese strength and influence, you need to be tough on the causes of Chinese strength and influence. If you want to be serious, safeguard this countries interests for the long term - jail the Tory traitors.
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.
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.
China is not pure capitalist, in fact it has over 150,000 State owned enterprises, by far the largest number of nationalised industries in the world so it still has socialist elements in its economy as well as being still undemocratic and authoritarian
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.
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.
Nor do I but it will depend on France
France will not be part of AUKUS but it has a role to play if it wishes to do so, that is a decision for them
The story of human progress has been about gradually overcoming that irrational mistrust of the other and becoming part of something bigger, so that we can share resources for our mutual benefit.
At the heart of the nationalist proposition is that the people on the other side of an imaginary line are so irreconcilably different from us that we cannot share with them. That deeper debate, between those who see the difference and work towards division, and those of us who see what is shared and seek solidarity, isn’t spoken about enough. We should talk about it more because the values of unity, togetherness, friendship and family, are a powerful emotional foundation for the political idea of union.
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.
India, Commonwealth.. hmmmm
Yes, they want nothing to do with the UK....
Of course we must remember for the SNP and Scottish Nationalists the main enemy is the UK, not China
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.
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.
Your evidence is ?
And why are they meeting Biden and Morrison and Japan's leader in the US on the 24th September in a quad security meeting
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.
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.
China is not pure capitalist, in fact it has over 150,000 State owned enterprises, by far the largest number of nationalised industries in the world so it still has socialist elements in its economy as well as being still undemocratic and authoritarian
Those "state owned" enterprises have been carved up by the apparatchiks in the Communist Party. Just as the Public Lands were actually carved up by the Senatorial class in Ancient Rome.
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.
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.
China is not pure capitalist, in fact it has over 150,000 State owned enterprises, by far the largest number of nationalised industries in the world so it still has socialist elements in its economy as well as being still undemocratic and authoritarian
Don't forget things like no free flow of capital, messing with currency valuation, big arm of the state deciding what capitalist industries are allowed (and quick to decide overnight a certain sector of the economy isn't going to be allowed anymore).
Managed capitalism i think best describes even the non-state part of the economy.
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.
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.
China is not pure capitalist, in fact it has over 150,000 State owned enterprises, by far the largest number of nationalised industries in the world so it still has socialist elements in its economy as well as being still undemocratic and authoritarian
Spot on. All Chinese companies, whether nominally owned by whomever, trade at the sufferance of the State. There are no "capitalist" businesses. Their ultimate loyalty is to the CCP. Is just a pity it took the imbeciles in the Tory government so long to even come somewhere near appreciatting this fact. Their tongues were on the floor at the potential moolah.
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.
Your evidence is ?
And why are they meeting Biden and Morrison and Japan's leader in the US on the 24th September in a quad security meeting
China vs India is already a serious conflict. India is looking for more friends.....
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
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.
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
I’ve said many things about Johnson’s Tories but I’ve never accused them of supporting Extinction Rebellion.
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.
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.
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.
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.
China is not pure capitalist, in fact it has over 150,000 State owned enterprises, by far the largest number of nationalised industries in the world so it still has socialist elements in its economy as well as being still undemocratic and authoritarian
Don't forget things like no free flow of capital, messing with currency valuation, big arm of the state deciding what capitalist industries are allowed (and quick to decide overnight a certain sector of the economy isn't going to be allowed anymore).
Managed capitalism i think best describes even the non-state part of the economy.
It's an oligarchy where your share is determined by your place in the ruling Party. Which barely pretends to Communism any more.
The economics resembles Fascism, more than anything else.
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.
Don’t you think it’s time for UK to give up our nuclear weapons then HY? What a load of money for absolutely nothing? Isn’t it?
No, as long as Putin has them so must we
But surely if you are making the argument UK got to have nuclear weapons, to spend all those billions on Nuclear Weapons, surely it’s the same argument Japan, Canada, Germany etc etc need them too? But they are spending all those billions on Health Care, Social Care, Education, keeping people safe on the streets in their communities instead, aren’t they?
Surely that destroys whatever fig leaf of an argument you have?
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
That will depend on the UK and the EU entering into a defence agreement, the one Mark Rutte was talking about with Boris in no 10 yesterday
I’m still trying to see just what the Aussies are getting from this deal, other than an upgrade from diesel- to nuclear-powered subs (which to be fair, could be a big plus as AFAIAA nuke-powered subs are much harder for adversaries to track).
But on the other hand, the existing project was already not scheduled to deliver for another decade; will this not now take longer, starting again from scratch? And while that project was facing delays and cost overruns, it’d hardly be a shock if this more complex project does too.
Australia is already in a mutual defense pact with the US, and the whole reason they pivoted towards the Americans after WW2 was that they thought they were being left to the tender mercies of the Japanese by the UK (not that we had a whole lot of choice). Nice that they trust us again, but we don’t have the presence in their part of the world that we once did. I know the UK has beefed up its remaining naval facility in Singapore recently, but it’s hard to see it ever making a big difference to Australia’s defense.
For the US the benefits are clear: more pork for the military-industrial complex, while Boris gets to indulge his Churchillian fantasies while attempting to distract from the Brexit car-wreck.
What does Australia get from this substantially, other than to help some of the rest of the Anglosphere give the French a bit of a shoeing? I know that never goes down badly in the English-speaking world, but is it really worth it for them?
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.
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
I’ve said many things about Johnson’s Tories but I’ve never accused them of supporting Extinction Rebellion.
I meant same sponsors , though Tories seem to favour Russians as their No 1 with Chinese as backup.
I’m still trying to see just what the Aussies are getting from this deal, other than an upgrade from diesel- to nuclear-powered subs (which to be fair, could be a big plus as AFAIAA nuke-powered subs are much harder for adversaries to track).
But on the other hand, the existing project was already not scheduled to deliver for another decade; will this not now take longer, starting again from scratch? And while that project was facing delays and cost overruns, it’d hardly be a shock if this more complex project does too.
Australia is already in a mutual defense pact with the US, and the whole reason they pivoted towards the Americans after WW2 was that they thought they were being left to the tender mercies of the Japanese by the UK (not that we had a whole lot of choice). Nice that they trust is again, but we don’t have the presence in their part of the world that we once did. I know the UK has beefed up its remaining naval facility in Singapore recently, but it’s hard to see it ever making a big difference to Australia’s defense.
For the US the benefits are clear: more pork for the military-industrial complex, while Boris gets to indulge his Churchillian fantasies while attempting to distract from the Brexit car-wreck.
What does Australia get from this substantially, other than to help some of the rest of the Anglosphere give the French a bit of a shoeing? I know that never goes down badly in the English-speaking world, but is it really worth it for them?
It's to appease the Right when a big U-turn on climate comes. With Biden in power, and our PM taking it seriously, they are heavily isolated at COP.
Comments
@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.
- 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.
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.
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
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.
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
..
Only a very small fall in week on week case numbers in England today
I guess little old you is right, and they are all mad or lying or something?
I think 100 deaths a day on average should certainly be expected for the foreseeable future.
https://twitter.com/formichenews/status/1436721199355097088?s=20
What a phenomenal servant of county cricket he is.
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)
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
https://youtu.be/RTwDinIFcQk
https://www.chathamhouse.org/2021/09/aukus-reveals-much-about-new-global-strategic-context
At some point we will run out of anti-vaxxers who haven't been previously infected.
We will never run out of sick oldies.
What on the internet ???
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
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
https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/defence-and-foreign-affairs/admission-of-failure-albanese-criticises-morrison-government-over-submarine-deal/news-story/49db06b6bf187053fa685134c4507f39
https://twitter.com/SecStateJohnHay/status/1439243428647391232?s=20
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?
However, did Ben Dover ever go metric?
The full 225mm ?
(I can confirm that housebricks mainly did).
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.
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.
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
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.
The Chinese "Communist" party has long left behind any communism. These days they preach dog-eat-dog capitalism.
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
Yes, they want nothing to do with the UK....
If you want to be tough on Chinese strength and influence, you need to be tough on the causes of Chinese strength and influence. If you want to be serious, safeguard this countries interests for the long term - jail the Tory traitors.
https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2021-04-24/cameron-exploited-lobbying-loophole-to-discuss-1bn-china-fund-with-treasury
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk-politics/2020/07/china-s-ownership-uk-assets-exposes-britain-s-broken-model
And how does all this change From now on? Eh? Eh?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/china-now-owns-ps143bn-in-uk-assets-from-nuclear-power-to-pubs-and-schools-b1841056.html
https://news.cgtn.com/news/2021-06-14/Explainer-Why-China-has-so-many-state-owned-enterprises-115vt8ntcZ2/index.html
France will not be part of AUKUS but it has a role to play if it wishes to do so, that is a decision for them
At the heart of the nationalist proposition is that the people on the other side of an imaginary line are so irreconcilably different from us that we cannot share with them. That deeper debate, between those who see the difference and work towards division, and those of us who see what is shared and seek solidarity, isn’t spoken about enough. We should talk about it more because the values of unity, togetherness, friendship and family, are a powerful emotional foundation for the political idea of union.
https://twitter.com/blairmcdougall/status/1439129563213094920?s=20
And why are they meeting Biden and Morrison and Japan's leader in the US on the 24th September in a quad security meeting
Socialised loses and privatised profits....
Managed capitalism i think best describes even the non-state part of the economy.
All Chinese companies, whether nominally owned by whomever, trade at the sufferance of the State. There are no "capitalist" businesses. Their ultimate loyalty is to the CCP.
Is just a pity it took the imbeciles in the Tory government so long to even come somewhere near appreciatting this fact. Their tongues were on the floor at the potential moolah.
The economics resembles Fascism, more than anything else.
Surely that destroys whatever fig leaf of an argument you have?
https://twitter.com/MinPres/status/1438952865238749185?s=19
By Jenny Hill
BBC Berlin correspondent"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-58597504
But on the other hand, the existing project was already not scheduled to deliver for another decade; will this not now take longer, starting again from scratch? And while that project was facing delays and cost overruns, it’d hardly be a shock if this more complex project does too.
Australia is already in a mutual defense pact with the US, and the whole reason they pivoted towards the Americans after WW2 was that they thought they were being left to the tender mercies of the Japanese by the UK (not that we had a whole lot of choice). Nice that they trust us again, but we don’t have the presence in their part of the world that we once did. I know the UK has beefed up its remaining naval facility in Singapore recently, but it’s hard to see it ever making a big difference to Australia’s defense.
For the US the benefits are clear: more pork for the military-industrial complex, while Boris gets to indulge his Churchillian fantasies while attempting to distract from the Brexit car-wreck.
What does Australia get from this substantially, other than to help some of the rest of the Anglosphere give the French a bit of a shoeing? I know that never goes down badly in the English-speaking world, but is it really worth it for them?
Remember 12 of her 16 years in government as Chancellor were in coalition with the SPD