Howdy, Stranger!

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

Sunak back again as favourite in the next PM betting – politicalbetting.com

24

Comments

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 92,999
    edited September 2021
    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    At the moment if Boris leaves before the next general election then the Tory leadership will likely be contested between Sunak and Truss as to who becomes PM. If Boris is re elected the same applies when he steps down.

    If however Boris loses the next general election then Patel would certainly come into the fray too as the party would likely shift further right in opposition. In which case Sunak, like David Miliband, may find he missed his best chance to become PM when his party was still in power and ends up missing out on even becoming party leader when the party goes into opposition

    Don't agree there. If Boris loses the election, it would be bad news for the likes of Patel. Patel isn't well-liked in the party, and, I believe, in the country. There's no logic to her being chosen as the leader. Patel would be on the back benches.
    The opposite. If parties lose an election and lose power they normally become more extreme, eg when the Tories lost in 1997 Hague beat the centrist heavyweight former Chancellor Clarke, when Labour lost in 2010 Ed Miliband beat the centrist heavyweight former Foreign Secretary David Miliband.

    Patel as a populist rightwinger has no chance while the Tories are in power, in opposition though she certainly has a shot
  • French foreign minister says France didn't recall the British ambassador over the AUKUS row because France is familiar with the UK's "permanent opportunism" and said Boris Johnson was the "fifth wheel on the carriage".

    https://twitter.com/kimwillsher1/status/1439294035357749257
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 26,587
    Ratters said:

    The big questions for me are will continental Europe be neutral with respect to China (‘not our fight’)? And will Russia increase its provocations in non-NATO Eastern Europe with the US firmly facing towards the Pacific?

    We may see a splintering with Germany remaining neutral, while the likes of Poland aligning closely with the US on its policy on China out of fear that a future US (let’s face it, Republican President) could weaken its NATO commitment.

    It all feels to me like one step closer to Cold War II.

    It does. But it's being hyped to absurdity imo - esp our role.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 3,556
    MaxPB said:

    Farooq said:

    England’s deputy chief medical officer asked ministers to withhold all UK clinical trial data from the EU if European countries continued to deny entry to British vaccine trial volunteers, the Observer can reveal.

    Jonathan Van-Tam made the extraordinary proposal after months of uncertainty for the 19,000 volunteers who are effectively unable to travel to Europe to see family, work or go on holiday because they took part in trials of Novavax and Valneva.

    Because neither treatment has yet been approved by medical regulators, people who received vaccines during the trials are faced with a catch-22. They have had two doses, so they are not allowed other vaccines through the NHS. But since their trial vaccines were unlicensed, they cannot prove their vaccination status outside the UK, which means that many countries require them to quarantine.


    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/sep/18/ministers-told-bar-eu-uk-trial-data-vaccines-row-england-deputy-chief-medical-guinea-pigs

    Is there any obstacle to just vaccinating them. Sounds like our rules are the problem here.
    It would mess up the trial data.
    ok, interesting.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 1,265
    With regard to AUKUS, are we not simply moving towards the realisation of an ancient Russian idea that the entirety of the continent of Europe falls within its sphere of influence, with the UK simply being a marginalised outpost?

    It is difficult to see this as anything other than the fragmentation of the west; an obvious policy objective of both China and Russia.

    As far as I can see, the only thing that is positive about all of this is that some countries have finally smartened up towards China, but it is around 2 decades too late, and at a point when their power is in rapid decline.
  • French foreign minister says France didn't recall the British ambassador over the AUKUS row because France is familiar with the UK's "permanent opportunism" and said Boris Johnson was the "fifth wheel on the carriage".

    https://twitter.com/kimwillsher1/status/1439294035357749257

    Good heavens they're bitter! Ad they recognise themselves in us!
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 17,225
    kinabalu said:

    Ratters said:

    The big questions for me are will continental Europe be neutral with respect to China (‘not our fight’)? And will Russia increase its provocations in non-NATO Eastern Europe with the US firmly facing towards the Pacific?

    We may see a splintering with Germany remaining neutral, while the likes of Poland aligning closely with the US on its policy on China out of fear that a future US (let’s face it, Republican President) could weaken its NATO commitment.

    It all feels to me like one step closer to Cold War II.

    It does. But it's being hyped to absurdity imo - esp our role.
    Indeed.
    You would think 70 years of worldwide foreign policy had been upturned by the sagacious Boris, who has hit a target no other politician could see.
    From some of the posts on here.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 17,225
    Exactly when and why did folk decide the PRC was an enemy?
    It seems to have appeared swiftly and recently.
  • One thing that's highlighted what an unreliable people the French are is the ENORMOUS difference between those who said they'd take a covid vaccine a year ago (about 40%) and those that have had the vax (about 80%?)
  • "Deliver" doing a lot of work there....

    France has also doubts regarding the Flag of AustraliaFlag of United StatesFlag of United Kingdom partnership in itself. While France was prepared to deliver a first submarine to Canberra in 2023, "the agreement is only about a study of 18 months which will eventually lead to a contract".

    https://twitter.com/morcos_pierre/status/1439293493516570627?s=20
  • MaxPB said:

    French foreign minister says France didn't recall the British ambassador over the AUKUS row because France is familiar with the UK's "permanent opportunism" and said Boris Johnson was the "fifth wheel on the carriage".

    https://twitter.com/kimwillsher1/status/1439294035357749257

    Gosh they really are very bitter about this aren't they. Incredibly insecure as well, unsurprising given that their expectations of Britain being sidelined by Brexit are being shattered time and again. What's still completely insane is that they paved the way for their own doom by being so intractable during Brexit negotiations. Their insistence on "Brexit means Brexit" has cleaved the UK away from the EU sphere. Whatever the remainers want to believe the reality is that Brexit has irrevocably taken Britain out of the EU's influence and stuff like this will embolden the government on holding firm on continued trade issues with them.
    It is also clear that the defence of Europe is a matter for the 27 and if they want our cooperation then it will have to be on our terms
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 3,556

    MaxPB said:

    French foreign minister says France didn't recall the British ambassador over the AUKUS row because France is familiar with the UK's "permanent opportunism" and said Boris Johnson was the "fifth wheel on the carriage".

    https://twitter.com/kimwillsher1/status/1439294035357749257

    Gosh they really are very bitter about this aren't they. Incredibly insecure as well, unsurprising given that their expectations of Britain being sidelined by Brexit are being shattered time and again. What's still completely insane is that they paved the way for their own doom by being so intractable during Brexit negotiations. Their insistence on "Brexit means Brexit" has cleaved the UK away from the EU sphere. Whatever the remainers want to believe the reality is that Brexit has irrevocably taken Britain out of the EU's influence and stuff like this will embolden the government on holding firm on continued trade issues with them.
    It is also clear that the defence of Europe is a matter for the 27 and if they want our cooperation then it will have to be on our terms
    We've already got terms set. It's called NATO.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 33,405
    darkage said:

    With regard to AUKUS, are we not simply moving towards the realisation of an ancient Russian idea that the entirety of the continent of Europe falls within its sphere of influence, with the UK simply being a marginalised outpost?

    It is difficult to see this as anything other than the fragmentation of the west; an obvious policy objective of both China and Russia.

    As far as I can see, the only thing that is positive about all of this is that some countries have finally smartened up towards China, but it is around 2 decades too late, and at a point when their power is in rapid decline.

    The last point is the key to all of this and also why the scope of the partnership has been kept to just a few countries willing to make big moves on nuclear technology sharing as well as research and development. Widening that partnership to more countries would have to necessarily water down what can be achieved. Including any EU nation would mean anything shared would end up on the hands of Russia, China or both.

    What the western alliance needs to do now is rapidly scale up associate membership to AUKUS and selectively invite countries into it who will contribute to keeping China contained with naval or intelligence resources without access to the technology sharing aspects of the pact.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,638
    ...

    Some of the anti-vax protesters in London today were actually wearing tin foil hats.

    Friend of mine on Facebook, actually a friend in real life too, was on that match… obsessed with thinking it’s all a big conspiracy, has posted a pic of Dan Walker in hospital with a suspected bleed on the brain and said ‘I’m sure it’s not the vaccine…’

    5 secs and a google later, Dan Walker walked into a glass door yesterday and bumped his head

  • ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Farooq said:

    Next leader odds tracking the VI polling ups and downs. An overreaction at this stage?

    History is no guide either. Only six times since 1902 has somebody other than the Foreign Secretary or Chancellor become PM in an in-office leadership struggle, but the last two occasions were two of those six times (the others being Lloyd George in 1916, Bonar Law in 1922, Baldwin in 1935 and Churchill in 1940).
    Baldwin in 1923 surely!
    Baldwin was Chancellor in 1923. In 1935 he was Lord President of the Council.

    The other occasions were peculiar. Lloyd George was a backbencher, having just resigned as Secretary of State for War, but the government had in effect collapsed. Similarly with Bonar Law in 1922. In 1935 Baldwin had been in effect the co-Prime Minister and in any case led the largest party in the coalition. In 1940 the Foreign Secretary was in the Lords, the Chancellor was leader of a minor party and only Churchill commanded the confidence of the country at large.

    Which is why the last two failures to be Chancellor or FS taking over is a sign that historical precedent has broken down.
    I misread your previous comment and assumed you were referring to those who had held the office of Chancellor or Foreign Secretary.
    No - only the office they held immediately before elevatIon to the premiership.

    From that point of view Baldwin is an awkward one because he had more than one term - one of three to do so since 1902 if memory serves, along with Macdonald and Wilson. So he was Chancellor, Leader of the Opposition and Lord President at different tImes.
    And Churchill.
    Yes - but he was only once Prime Minister *in peacetime*. The entirety of his first spell in office was during the Second World War when democracy was in effect suspended.
    Ah - I see I forgot to say ‘in peacetime’ in my original comment as I meant to. Which makes the follow up comment something of a bizarre non-sequitur. Yes, on the terms as I accidentally wrote them, Churchill should have been included. My apologies.
    Churchill had of course been Chancellor back in the 1920s, so it is not as if he was an unknown quantity.
  • NATO is definitely finished. Boris has destroyed it. The bitter irony is that the hapless Sir Keir can't even hold Boris to account over that, owing to the fact that he campaigned for the anti-NATO Corbyn only a short time ago - something Boris gleefully mentioned in the HoC last week. Boris is master of all he surveys and Sir Keir is impotent.

    LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?

    The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 44,936

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Farooq said:

    Next leader odds tracking the VI polling ups and downs. An overreaction at this stage?

    History is no guide either. Only six times since 1902 has somebody other than the Foreign Secretary or Chancellor become PM in an in-office leadership struggle, but the last two occasions were two of those six times (the others being Lloyd George in 1916, Bonar Law in 1922, Baldwin in 1935 and Churchill in 1940).
    Baldwin in 1923 surely!
    Baldwin was Chancellor in 1923. In 1935 he was Lord President of the Council.

    The other occasions were peculiar. Lloyd George was a backbencher, having just resigned as Secretary of State for War, but the government had in effect collapsed. Similarly with Bonar Law in 1922. In 1935 Baldwin had been in effect the co-Prime Minister and in any case led the largest party in the coalition. In 1940 the Foreign Secretary was in the Lords, the Chancellor was leader of a minor party and only Churchill commanded the confidence of the country at large.

    Which is why the last two failures to be Chancellor or FS taking over is a sign that historical precedent has broken down.
    I misread your previous comment and assumed you were referring to those who had held the office of Chancellor or Foreign Secretary.
    No - only the office they held immediately before elevatIon to the premiership.

    From that point of view Baldwin is an awkward one because he had more than one term - one of three to do so since 1902 if memory serves, along with Macdonald and Wilson. So he was Chancellor, Leader of the Opposition and Lord President at different tImes.
    And Churchill.
    Yes - but he was only once Prime Minister *in peacetime*. The entirety of his first spell in office was during the Second World War when democracy was in effect suspended.
    Ah - I see I forgot to say ‘in peacetime’ in my original comment as I meant to. Which makes the follow up comment something of a bizarre non-sequitur. Yes, on the terms as I accidentally wrote them, Churchill should have been included. My apologies.
    Churchill had of course been Chancellor back in the 1920s, so it is not as if he was an unknown quantity.
    Yes, but that wasn’t the question.

    Just as Johnson had been FS and Mayor of London before he was a loudmouth backbencher.
  • Farooq said:

    MaxPB said:

    French foreign minister says France didn't recall the British ambassador over the AUKUS row because France is familiar with the UK's "permanent opportunism" and said Boris Johnson was the "fifth wheel on the carriage".

    https://twitter.com/kimwillsher1/status/1439294035357749257

    Gosh they really are very bitter about this aren't they. Incredibly insecure as well, unsurprising given that their expectations of Britain being sidelined by Brexit are being shattered time and again. What's still completely insane is that they paved the way for their own doom by being so intractable during Brexit negotiations. Their insistence on "Brexit means Brexit" has cleaved the UK away from the EU sphere. Whatever the remainers want to believe the reality is that Brexit has irrevocably taken Britain out of the EU's influence and stuff like this will embolden the government on holding firm on continued trade issues with them.
    It is also clear that the defence of Europe is a matter for the 27 and if they want our cooperation then it will have to be on our terms
    We've already got terms set. It's called NATO.
    Indeed.

    NATO is based on international law.

    The boat game is based on an online squirrel marketing promo.
  • glwglw Posts: 7,959
    dixiedean said:

    Exactly when and why did folk decide the PRC was an enemy?
    It seems to have appeared swiftly and recently.

    4th June 1989.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 3,556

    NATO is definitely finished. Boris has destroyed it. The bitter irony is that the hapless Sir Keir can't even hold Boris to account over that, owing to the fact that he campaigned for the anti-NATO Corbyn only a short time ago - something Boris gleefully mentioned in the HoC last week. Boris is master of all he surveys and Sir Keir is impotent.

    LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?

    The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
    But is he wrong or right on his first point? Is NATO finished? I'm getting really mixed messages from the Aukus fans on here.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 28,773
    dixiedean said:

    Exactly when and why did folk decide the PRC was an enemy?
    It seems to have appeared swiftly and recently.

    Shortly after deciding that China was the coming big thing and a massive economic opportunity of Brexit, see @SeanT passim.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 3,556

    Farooq said:

    MaxPB said:

    French foreign minister says France didn't recall the British ambassador over the AUKUS row because France is familiar with the UK's "permanent opportunism" and said Boris Johnson was the "fifth wheel on the carriage".

    https://twitter.com/kimwillsher1/status/1439294035357749257

    Gosh they really are very bitter about this aren't they. Incredibly insecure as well, unsurprising given that their expectations of Britain being sidelined by Brexit are being shattered time and again. What's still completely insane is that they paved the way for their own doom by being so intractable during Brexit negotiations. Their insistence on "Brexit means Brexit" has cleaved the UK away from the EU sphere. Whatever the remainers want to believe the reality is that Brexit has irrevocably taken Britain out of the EU's influence and stuff like this will embolden the government on holding firm on continued trade issues with them.
    It is also clear that the defence of Europe is a matter for the 27 and if they want our cooperation then it will have to be on our terms
    We've already got terms set. It's called NATO.
    Indeed.

    NATO is based on international law.

    The boat game is based on an online squirrel marketing promo.
    It's a squirrel only in a specific and limited sense.
  • Is there any chance we have some very useful intelligence assets in China, through an SIS HK branch?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 33,405
    Farooq said:

    NATO is definitely finished. Boris has destroyed it. The bitter irony is that the hapless Sir Keir can't even hold Boris to account over that, owing to the fact that he campaigned for the anti-NATO Corbyn only a short time ago - something Boris gleefully mentioned in the HoC last week. Boris is master of all he surveys and Sir Keir is impotent.

    LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?

    The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
    But is he wrong or right on his first point? Is NATO finished? I'm getting really mixed messages from the Aukus fans on here.
    It's not finished, it will just have to adjust to the US and UK being much less interested in defending the eastern border of Europe.
  • Farooq said:

    MaxPB said:

    French foreign minister says France didn't recall the British ambassador over the AUKUS row because France is familiar with the UK's "permanent opportunism" and said Boris Johnson was the "fifth wheel on the carriage".

    https://twitter.com/kimwillsher1/status/1439294035357749257

    Gosh they really are very bitter about this aren't they. Incredibly insecure as well, unsurprising given that their expectations of Britain being sidelined by Brexit are being shattered time and again. What's still completely insane is that they paved the way for their own doom by being so intractable during Brexit negotiations. Their insistence on "Brexit means Brexit" has cleaved the UK away from the EU sphere. Whatever the remainers want to believe the reality is that Brexit has irrevocably taken Britain out of the EU's influence and stuff like this will embolden the government on holding firm on continued trade issues with them.
    It is also clear that the defence of Europe is a matter for the 27 and if they want our cooperation then it will have to be on our terms
    We've already got terms set. It's called NATO.
    Would that be the NATO that has suffered brain death as per one M. Macron?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 44,936
    dixiedean said:

    "Deliver" doing a lot of work there....

    France has also doubts regarding the Flag of AustraliaFlag of United StatesFlag of United Kingdom partnership in itself. While France was prepared to deliver a first submarine to Canberra in 2023, "the agreement is only about a study of 18 months which will eventually lead to a contract".

    https://twitter.com/morcos_pierre/status/1439293493516570627?s=20

    No wonder it fell through.
    Delivering a submarine to Canberra is no mean feat. Sydney would have been easier.
    Bloody French idiots.
    There’s a wonderful exchange on armaments exports in Yes Minister.

    Hacker: ‘Would you be surprised if, say, an aircraft carrier turned up in the Central African Republic?’

    Appleby: ‘Well, I for one would be very surprised Minister, as it’s a thousand miles inland.’
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 3,556

    Farooq said:

    MaxPB said:

    French foreign minister says France didn't recall the British ambassador over the AUKUS row because France is familiar with the UK's "permanent opportunism" and said Boris Johnson was the "fifth wheel on the carriage".

    https://twitter.com/kimwillsher1/status/1439294035357749257

    Gosh they really are very bitter about this aren't they. Incredibly insecure as well, unsurprising given that their expectations of Britain being sidelined by Brexit are being shattered time and again. What's still completely insane is that they paved the way for their own doom by being so intractable during Brexit negotiations. Their insistence on "Brexit means Brexit" has cleaved the UK away from the EU sphere. Whatever the remainers want to believe the reality is that Brexit has irrevocably taken Britain out of the EU's influence and stuff like this will embolden the government on holding firm on continued trade issues with them.
    It is also clear that the defence of Europe is a matter for the 27 and if they want our cooperation then it will have to be on our terms
    We've already got terms set. It's called NATO.
    Would that be the NATO that has suffered brain death as per one M. Macron?
    Yes, that's the one. What's the Aukus-fan stance? Really, genuine question. Because for a few days now I'm getting polar opposite advice from people who think they agree with each other.
  • Is there any chance we have some very useful intelligence assets in China, through an SIS HK branch?

    Yes but of course we will have lost listening stations when HK was handed back to China.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 3,556
    MaxPB said:

    Farooq said:

    NATO is definitely finished. Boris has destroyed it. The bitter irony is that the hapless Sir Keir can't even hold Boris to account over that, owing to the fact that he campaigned for the anti-NATO Corbyn only a short time ago - something Boris gleefully mentioned in the HoC last week. Boris is master of all he surveys and Sir Keir is impotent.

    LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?

    The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
    But is he wrong or right on his first point? Is NATO finished? I'm getting really mixed messages from the Aukus fans on here.
    It's not finished, it will just have to adjust to the US and UK being much less interested in defending the eastern border of Europe.
    So that's one view. Malmsbury says the area of operations are different so implying there's no impact, and Leon says NATO is over.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 17,225
    glw said:

    dixiedean said:

    Exactly when and why did folk decide the PRC was an enemy?
    It seems to have appeared swiftly and recently.

    4th June 1989.
    Oh. But they didn't. Not in the slightest.
  • Farooq said:

    NATO is definitely finished. Boris has destroyed it. The bitter irony is that the hapless Sir Keir can't even hold Boris to account over that, owing to the fact that he campaigned for the anti-NATO Corbyn only a short time ago - something Boris gleefully mentioned in the HoC last week. Boris is master of all he surveys and Sir Keir is impotent.

    LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?

    The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
    But is he wrong or right on his first point? Is NATO finished? I'm getting really mixed messages from the Aukus fans on here.
    Probably not, though of course Macron said it was years ago, but then again the French have always only ever been half-engaged with NATO.

    The reality is that while NATO exists its not the priority anymore, because the threats of the 21st century are in the Pacific not the Atlantic.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 47,760
    edited September 2021
    Opinium
    @OpiniumResearch

    Latest numbers:

    Con 40% (+2)

    Lab 37% (-1)

    Lib Dem 7% (-1)

    Green 6% (NC)
  • dixiedean said:

    glw said:

    dixiedean said:

    Exactly when and why did folk decide the PRC was an enemy?
    It seems to have appeared swiftly and recently.

    4th June 1989.
    Oh. But they didn't. Not in the slightest.
    Should have set more alarm bells ringing than it did though.

    15 November 2012 is another big one.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 17,225
    Farooq said:

    MaxPB said:

    Farooq said:

    NATO is definitely finished. Boris has destroyed it. The bitter irony is that the hapless Sir Keir can't even hold Boris to account over that, owing to the fact that he campaigned for the anti-NATO Corbyn only a short time ago - something Boris gleefully mentioned in the HoC last week. Boris is master of all he surveys and Sir Keir is impotent.

    LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?

    The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
    But is he wrong or right on his first point? Is NATO finished? I'm getting really mixed messages from the Aukus fans on here.
    It's not finished, it will just have to adjust to the US and UK being much less interested in defending the eastern border of Europe.
    So that's one view. Malmsbury says the area of operations are different so implying there's no impact, and Leon says NATO is over.
    One or two are finding it difficult to disguise their tumescence at the prospect of Putin rolling through the EU.
    That wouldn't be a hassle for us, no.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 17,225

    Farooq said:

    NATO is definitely finished. Boris has destroyed it. The bitter irony is that the hapless Sir Keir can't even hold Boris to account over that, owing to the fact that he campaigned for the anti-NATO Corbyn only a short time ago - something Boris gleefully mentioned in the HoC last week. Boris is master of all he surveys and Sir Keir is impotent.

    LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?

    The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
    But is he wrong or right on his first point? Is NATO finished? I'm getting really mixed messages from the Aukus fans on here.
    Probably not, though of course Macron said it was years ago, but then again the French have always only ever been half-engaged with NATO.

    The reality is that while NATO exists its not the priority anymore, because the threats of the 21st century are in the Pacific not the Atlantic.
    Correct me if I'm wrong. We are in the Atlantic not the Pacific still, aren't we?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 92,999
    edited September 2021

    Farooq said:

    NATO is definitely finished. Boris has destroyed it. The bitter irony is that the hapless Sir Keir can't even hold Boris to account over that, owing to the fact that he campaigned for the anti-NATO Corbyn only a short time ago - something Boris gleefully mentioned in the HoC last week. Boris is master of all he surveys and Sir Keir is impotent.

    LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?

    The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
    But is he wrong or right on his first point? Is NATO finished? I'm getting really mixed messages from the Aukus fans on here.
    Probably not, though of course Macron said it was years ago, but then again the French have always only ever been half-engaged with NATO.

    The reality is that while NATO exists its not the priority anymore, because the threats of the 21st century are in the Pacific not the Atlantic.
    It remains pivotal too.

    The UK is in a unique position of being geographically part of Europe and therefore pivotal to NATO and containing Putin's Russia as well as being part of the Anglosphere and Commonwealth and thus also able to play an important role containing Xi's China
  • dixiedean said:

    Farooq said:

    NATO is definitely finished. Boris has destroyed it. The bitter irony is that the hapless Sir Keir can't even hold Boris to account over that, owing to the fact that he campaigned for the anti-NATO Corbyn only a short time ago - something Boris gleefully mentioned in the HoC last week. Boris is master of all he surveys and Sir Keir is impotent.

    LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?

    The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
    But is he wrong or right on his first point? Is NATO finished? I'm getting really mixed messages from the Aukus fans on here.
    Probably not, though of course Macron said it was years ago, but then again the French have always only ever been half-engaged with NATO.

    The reality is that while NATO exists its not the priority anymore, because the threats of the 21st century are in the Pacific not the Atlantic.
    Correct me if I'm wrong. We are in the Atlantic not the Pacific still, aren't we?
    We are actually in both

    On the 6th September Aircraft carrier Queen Elizabeth was at a naval base near Tokyo entertaining Japan's Defence Minister and military commanders
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 6,849
    dixiedean said:

    Farooq said:

    MaxPB said:

    Farooq said:

    NATO is definitely finished. Boris has destroyed it. The bitter irony is that the hapless Sir Keir can't even hold Boris to account over that, owing to the fact that he campaigned for the anti-NATO Corbyn only a short time ago - something Boris gleefully mentioned in the HoC last week. Boris is master of all he surveys and Sir Keir is impotent.

    LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?

    The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
    But is he wrong or right on his first point? Is NATO finished? I'm getting really mixed messages from the Aukus fans on here.
    It's not finished, it will just have to adjust to the US and UK being much less interested in defending the eastern border of Europe.
    So that's one view. Malmsbury says the area of operations are different so implying there's no impact, and Leon says NATO is over.
    One or two are finding it difficult to disguise their tumescence at the prospect of Putin rolling through the EU.
    That wouldn't be a hassle for us, no.
    It is odd that it should be that way round Russia>EU. The EU states are after all richer, have generally better tech, and have three times the population of the Russians. Also, unless they're really upset with Boris, there's only one border to worry about for them.

    I don't think that NATO is endangered by this AUKUS arrangement, and the idea that Boris has killed NATO is simply daft.

    There are issues with NATO and the EU though - it seems odd given that most of the NATO members are part of the EU.

    The biggest threat to world peace today is Russia, but AUKUS undoubtedly is looking towards a time when that might no longer be true - if the Chinese really chose to be aggressive. I don't think that they will.

  • NATO is definitely finished. Boris has destroyed it. The bitter irony is that the hapless Sir Keir can't even hold Boris to account over that, owing to the fact that he campaigned for the anti-NATO Corbyn only a short time ago - something Boris gleefully mentioned in the HoC last week. Boris is master of all he surveys and Sir Keir is impotent.

    LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?

    The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
    dixiedean said:

    Farooq said:

    MaxPB said:

    Farooq said:

    NATO is definitely finished. Boris has destroyed it. The bitter irony is that the hapless Sir Keir can't even hold Boris to account over that, owing to the fact that he campaigned for the anti-NATO Corbyn only a short time ago - something Boris gleefully mentioned in the HoC last week. Boris is master of all he surveys and Sir Keir is impotent.

    LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?

    The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
    But is he wrong or right on his first point? Is NATO finished? I'm getting really mixed messages from the Aukus fans on here.
    It's not finished, it will just have to adjust to the US and UK being much less interested in defending the eastern border of Europe.
    So that's one view. Malmsbury says the area of operations are different so implying there's no impact, and Leon says NATO is over.
    One or two are finding it difficult to disguise their tumescence at the prospect of Putin rolling through the EU.
    That wouldn't be a hassle for us, no.
    Australia is as reliable as Putin. They’ve just shafted one strategic partner and are just as likely to shaft the next dopes.

    The first boat would be in service in about two decades. Considering that the Australian government has just buggered up Covid, they aren’t going to last beyond the next GE.
  • dixiedean said:

    Farooq said:

    NATO is definitely finished. Boris has destroyed it. The bitter irony is that the hapless Sir Keir can't even hold Boris to account over that, owing to the fact that he campaigned for the anti-NATO Corbyn only a short time ago - something Boris gleefully mentioned in the HoC last week. Boris is master of all he surveys and Sir Keir is impotent.

    LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?

    The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
    But is he wrong or right on his first point? Is NATO finished? I'm getting really mixed messages from the Aukus fans on here.
    Probably not, though of course Macron said it was years ago, but then again the French have always only ever been half-engaged with NATO.

    The reality is that while NATO exists its not the priority anymore, because the threats of the 21st century are in the Pacific not the Atlantic.
    Correct me if I'm wrong. We are in the Atlantic not the Pacific still, aren't we?
    Yes we are but that's the wrong way to look at it. Another way to say it is we're on Planet Earth and a global threat is a threat to all of us; an extra couple of thousands miles doesn't make us safer in the 21st century from global threats.

    We may be in the Atlantic. The threat we're facing is in the Pacific.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 33,405
    dixiedean said:

    Farooq said:

    MaxPB said:

    Farooq said:

    NATO is definitely finished. Boris has destroyed it. The bitter irony is that the hapless Sir Keir can't even hold Boris to account over that, owing to the fact that he campaigned for the anti-NATO Corbyn only a short time ago - something Boris gleefully mentioned in the HoC last week. Boris is master of all he surveys and Sir Keir is impotent.

    LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?

    The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
    But is he wrong or right on his first point? Is NATO finished? I'm getting really mixed messages from the Aukus fans on here.
    It's not finished, it will just have to adjust to the US and UK being much less interested in defending the eastern border of Europe.
    So that's one view. Malmsbury says the area of operations are different so implying there's no impact, and Leon says NATO is over.
    One or two are finding it difficult to disguise their tumescence at the prospect of Putin rolling through the EU.
    That wouldn't be a hassle for us, no.
    I think the point being made is that it's very clear now that the US is no longer going to shoulder the burden of cost to keep Europe safe and with the UK also strategically no longer aligned with the EU it will be up to them to cover that capability and funding gap. The EU is a very rich group of countries and can afford to pay its way.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 92,999
    edited September 2021

    NATO is definitely finished. Boris has destroyed it. The bitter irony is that the hapless Sir Keir can't even hold Boris to account over that, owing to the fact that he campaigned for the anti-NATO Corbyn only a short time ago - something Boris gleefully mentioned in the HoC last week. Boris is master of all he surveys and Sir Keir is impotent.

    LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?

    The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
    dixiedean said:

    Farooq said:

    MaxPB said:

    Farooq said:

    NATO is definitely finished. Boris has destroyed it. The bitter irony is that the hapless Sir Keir can't even hold Boris to account over that, owing to the fact that he campaigned for the anti-NATO Corbyn only a short time ago - something Boris gleefully mentioned in the HoC last week. Boris is master of all he surveys and Sir Keir is impotent.

    LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?

    The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
    But is he wrong or right on his first point? Is NATO finished? I'm getting really mixed messages from the Aukus fans on here.
    It's not finished, it will just have to adjust to the US and UK being much less interested in defending the eastern border of Europe.
    So that's one view. Malmsbury says the area of operations are different so implying there's no impact, and Leon says NATO is over.
    One or two are finding it difficult to disguise their tumescence at the prospect of Putin rolling through the EU.
    That wouldn't be a hassle for us, no.
    Australia is as reliable as Putin. They’ve just shafted one strategic partner and are just as likely to shaft the next dopes.

    The first boat would be in service in about two decades. Considering that the Australian government has just buggered up Covid, they aren’t going to last beyond the next GE.
    Morrison still leads Albanese as preferred PM but even Albanese has committed Labor to this deal
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 3,556

    dixiedean said:

    Farooq said:

    NATO is definitely finished. Boris has destroyed it. The bitter irony is that the hapless Sir Keir can't even hold Boris to account over that, owing to the fact that he campaigned for the anti-NATO Corbyn only a short time ago - something Boris gleefully mentioned in the HoC last week. Boris is master of all he surveys and Sir Keir is impotent.

    LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?

    The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
    But is he wrong or right on his first point? Is NATO finished? I'm getting really mixed messages from the Aukus fans on here.
    Probably not, though of course Macron said it was years ago, but then again the French have always only ever been half-engaged with NATO.

    The reality is that while NATO exists its not the priority anymore, because the threats of the 21st century are in the Pacific not the Atlantic.
    Correct me if I'm wrong. We are in the Atlantic not the Pacific still, aren't we?
    We are actually in both

    On the 6th September Aircraft carrier Queen Elizabeth was at a naval base near Tokyo entertaining Japan's Defence Minister and military commanders
    We took Japan? About time too! That'll show them. Stupid monolingual islanders with their culture of deference and their history of imperial aggression...
  • Omnium said:

    dixiedean said:

    Farooq said:

    MaxPB said:

    Farooq said:

    NATO is definitely finished. Boris has destroyed it. The bitter irony is that the hapless Sir Keir can't even hold Boris to account over that, owing to the fact that he campaigned for the anti-NATO Corbyn only a short time ago - something Boris gleefully mentioned in the HoC last week. Boris is master of all he surveys and Sir Keir is impotent.

    LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?

    The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
    But is he wrong or right on his first point? Is NATO finished? I'm getting really mixed messages from the Aukus fans on here.
    It's not finished, it will just have to adjust to the US and UK being much less interested in defending the eastern border of Europe.
    So that's one view. Malmsbury says the area of operations are different so implying there's no impact, and Leon says NATO is over.
    One or two are finding it difficult to disguise their tumescence at the prospect of Putin rolling through the EU.
    That wouldn't be a hassle for us, no.
    It is odd that it should be that way round Russia>EU. The EU states are after all richer, have generally better tech, and have three times the population of the Russians. Also, unless they're really upset with Boris, there's only one border to worry about for them.

    I don't think that NATO is endangered by this AUKUS arrangement, and the idea that Boris has killed NATO is simply daft.

    There are issues with NATO and the EU though - it seems odd given that most of the NATO members are part of the EU.

    The biggest threat to world peace today is Russia, but AUKUS undoubtedly is looking towards a time when that might no longer be true - if the Chinese really chose to be aggressive. I don't think that they will.

    What makes Russia dangerous is not the size of their army, their cyberwarriors or troll farms, but that Putin is prepared to use them.
  • Omnium said:

    dixiedean said:

    Farooq said:

    MaxPB said:

    Farooq said:

    NATO is definitely finished. Boris has destroyed it. The bitter irony is that the hapless Sir Keir can't even hold Boris to account over that, owing to the fact that he campaigned for the anti-NATO Corbyn only a short time ago - something Boris gleefully mentioned in the HoC last week. Boris is master of all he surveys and Sir Keir is impotent.

    LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?

    The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
    But is he wrong or right on his first point? Is NATO finished? I'm getting really mixed messages from the Aukus fans on here.
    It's not finished, it will just have to adjust to the US and UK being much less interested in defending the eastern border of Europe.
    So that's one view. Malmsbury says the area of operations are different so implying there's no impact, and Leon says NATO is over.
    One or two are finding it difficult to disguise their tumescence at the prospect of Putin rolling through the EU.
    That wouldn't be a hassle for us, no.
    It is odd that it should be that way round Russia>EU. The EU states are after all richer, have generally better tech, and have three times the population of the Russians. Also, unless they're really upset with Boris, there's only one border to worry about for them.

    I don't think that NATO is endangered by this AUKUS arrangement, and the idea that Boris has killed NATO is simply daft.

    There are issues with NATO and the EU though - it seems odd given that most of the NATO members are part of the EU.

    The biggest threat to world peace today is Russia, but AUKUS undoubtedly is looking towards a time when that might no longer be true - if the Chinese really chose to be aggressive. I don't think that they will.

    Agree with all that except the biggest threat to the world is no longer Russia.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 22,233
    Farooq said:

    MaxPB said:

    Farooq said:

    NATO is definitely finished. Boris has destroyed it. The bitter irony is that the hapless Sir Keir can't even hold Boris to account over that, owing to the fact that he campaigned for the anti-NATO Corbyn only a short time ago - something Boris gleefully mentioned in the HoC last week. Boris is master of all he surveys and Sir Keir is impotent.

    LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?

    The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
    But is he wrong or right on his first point? Is NATO finished? I'm getting really mixed messages from the Aukus fans on here.
    It's not finished, it will just have to adjust to the US and UK being much less interested in defending the eastern border of Europe.
    So that's one view. Malmsbury says the area of operations are different so implying there's no impact, and Leon says NATO is over.
    NATO was quite careful constructed as the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation only. Hence the concept of the rest of the world being out-of-area. Hence SEATO and other such treaties.

    NATO has nothing to do with the Pacific. And never has.
  • NATO is definitely finished. Boris has destroyed it. The bitter irony is that the hapless Sir Keir can't even hold Boris to account over that, owing to the fact that he campaigned for the anti-NATO Corbyn only a short time ago - something Boris gleefully mentioned in the HoC last week. Boris is master of all he surveys and Sir Keir is impotent.

    LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?

    The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
    Er, I haven't even mentioned Brexit or the EU, which have rather bugger all to do with NATO. So I think that says something about your own preoccupations. You also seem oddly obsessed with my avatar by the way, even haranguing me about it when I said I favoured the preservation of the London green belt. Actually, I was thinking of changing it but will now keep it because I know it annoys you.
  • glw said:

    dixiedean said:

    Exactly when and why did folk decide the PRC was an enemy?
    It seems to have appeared swiftly and recently.

    4th June 1989.
    Shame about the subsequent state visit then.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 3,556

    Farooq said:

    MaxPB said:

    Farooq said:

    NATO is definitely finished. Boris has destroyed it. The bitter irony is that the hapless Sir Keir can't even hold Boris to account over that, owing to the fact that he campaigned for the anti-NATO Corbyn only a short time ago - something Boris gleefully mentioned in the HoC last week. Boris is master of all he surveys and Sir Keir is impotent.

    LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?

    The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
    But is he wrong or right on his first point? Is NATO finished? I'm getting really mixed messages from the Aukus fans on here.
    It's not finished, it will just have to adjust to the US and UK being much less interested in defending the eastern border of Europe.
    So that's one view. Malmsbury says the area of operations are different so implying there's no impact, and Leon says NATO is over.
    NATO was quite careful constructed as the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation only. Hence the concept of the rest of the world being out-of-area. Hence SEATO and other such treaties.

    NATO has nothing to do with the Pacific. And never has.
    I'm not disagreeing
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 47,760
    edited September 2021

    NATO is definitely finished. Boris has destroyed it. The bitter irony is that the hapless Sir Keir can't even hold Boris to account over that, owing to the fact that he campaigned for the anti-NATO Corbyn only a short time ago - something Boris gleefully mentioned in the HoC last week. Boris is master of all he surveys and Sir Keir is impotent.

    LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?

    The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
    dixiedean said:

    Farooq said:

    MaxPB said:

    Farooq said:

    NATO is definitely finished. Boris has destroyed it. The bitter irony is that the hapless Sir Keir can't even hold Boris to account over that, owing to the fact that he campaigned for the anti-NATO Corbyn only a short time ago - something Boris gleefully mentioned in the HoC last week. Boris is master of all he surveys and Sir Keir is impotent.

    LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?

    The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
    But is he wrong or right on his first point? Is NATO finished? I'm getting really mixed messages from the Aukus fans on here.
    It's not finished, it will just have to adjust to the US and UK being much less interested in defending the eastern border of Europe.
    So that's one view. Malmsbury says the area of operations are different so implying there's no impact, and Leon says NATO is over.
    One or two are finding it difficult to disguise their tumescence at the prospect of Putin rolling through the EU.
    That wouldn't be a hassle for us, no.
    Australia is as reliable as Putin. They’ve just shafted one strategic partner and are just as likely to shaft the next dopes.

    The first boat would be in service in about two decades. Considering that the Australian government has just buggered up Covid, they aren’t going to last beyond the next GE.
    You really are putting forward your prejudices against AUKUS here, and really do not seem to understand the strategic interest of Australia and the US in the Trans Pacific

    Furthermore, it has been suggested the US may base a nuclear sub in Perth in the meantime or even one or two of our own subs from Barrow could be assigned to AUKUS

  • Farooq said:

    MaxPB said:

    Farooq said:

    NATO is definitely finished. Boris has destroyed it. The bitter irony is that the hapless Sir Keir can't even hold Boris to account over that, owing to the fact that he campaigned for the anti-NATO Corbyn only a short time ago - something Boris gleefully mentioned in the HoC last week. Boris is master of all he surveys and Sir Keir is impotent.

    LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?

    The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
    But is he wrong or right on his first point? Is NATO finished? I'm getting really mixed messages from the Aukus fans on here.
    It's not finished, it will just have to adjust to the US and UK being much less interested in defending the eastern border of Europe.
    So that's one view. Malmsbury says the area of operations are different so implying there's no impact, and Leon says NATO is over.
    NATO was quite careful constructed as the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation only. Hence the concept of the rest of the world being out-of-area. Hence SEATO and other such treaties.

    NATO has nothing to do with the Pacific. And never has.
    It was quite deliberately done and why Australia is not a member of NATO despite being one of our closest allies.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 17,225

    dixiedean said:

    Farooq said:

    NATO is definitely finished. Boris has destroyed it. The bitter irony is that the hapless Sir Keir can't even hold Boris to account over that, owing to the fact that he campaigned for the anti-NATO Corbyn only a short time ago - something Boris gleefully mentioned in the HoC last week. Boris is master of all he surveys and Sir Keir is impotent.

    LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?

    The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
    But is he wrong or right on his first point? Is NATO finished? I'm getting really mixed messages from the Aukus fans on here.
    Probably not, though of course Macron said it was years ago, but then again the French have always only ever been half-engaged with NATO.

    The reality is that while NATO exists its not the priority anymore, because the threats of the 21st century are in the Pacific not the Atlantic.
    Correct me if I'm wrong. We are in the Atlantic not the Pacific still, aren't we?
    Yes we are but that's the wrong way to look at it. Another way to say it is we're on Planet Earth and a global threat is a threat to all of us; an extra couple of thousands miles doesn't make us safer in the 21st century from global threats.

    We may be in the Atlantic. The threat we're facing is in the Pacific.
    Yes. But what exacrly is the "threat" that folk have recently identified? And when did it become manifest?
    What precisely has changed? Is what I am trying to understand.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 18,558

    Opinium
    @OpiniumResearch

    Latest numbers:

    Con 40% (+2)

    Lab 37% (-1)

    Lib Dem 7% (-1)

    Green 6% (NC)

    Con Winning Here :D
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 26,587

    French foreign minister says France didn't recall the British ambassador over the AUKUS row because France is familiar with the UK's "permanent opportunism" and said Boris Johnson was the "fifth wheel on the carriage".

    https://twitter.com/kimwillsher1/status/1439294035357749257

    "Fifth wheel on the carriage" - yes exactly. Nicely put. In his second language too.
  • Farooq said:

    dixiedean said:

    Farooq said:

    NATO is definitely finished. Boris has destroyed it. The bitter irony is that the hapless Sir Keir can't even hold Boris to account over that, owing to the fact that he campaigned for the anti-NATO Corbyn only a short time ago - something Boris gleefully mentioned in the HoC last week. Boris is master of all he surveys and Sir Keir is impotent.

    LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?

    The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
    But is he wrong or right on his first point? Is NATO finished? I'm getting really mixed messages from the Aukus fans on here.
    Probably not, though of course Macron said it was years ago, but then again the French have always only ever been half-engaged with NATO.

    The reality is that while NATO exists its not the priority anymore, because the threats of the 21st century are in the Pacific not the Atlantic.
    Correct me if I'm wrong. We are in the Atlantic not the Pacific still, aren't we?
    We are actually in both

    On the 6th September Aircraft carrier Queen Elizabeth was at a naval base near Tokyo entertaining Japan's Defence Minister and military commanders
    We took Japan? About time too! That'll show them. Stupid monolingual islanders with their culture of deference and their history of imperial aggression...
    You really do not add to the debate with nonsense like that
  • .
    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    Farooq said:

    NATO is definitely finished. Boris has destroyed it. The bitter irony is that the hapless Sir Keir can't even hold Boris to account over that, owing to the fact that he campaigned for the anti-NATO Corbyn only a short time ago - something Boris gleefully mentioned in the HoC last week. Boris is master of all he surveys and Sir Keir is impotent.

    LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?

    The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
    But is he wrong or right on his first point? Is NATO finished? I'm getting really mixed messages from the Aukus fans on here.
    Probably not, though of course Macron said it was years ago, but then again the French have always only ever been half-engaged with NATO.

    The reality is that while NATO exists its not the priority anymore, because the threats of the 21st century are in the Pacific not the Atlantic.
    Correct me if I'm wrong. We are in the Atlantic not the Pacific still, aren't we?
    Yes we are but that's the wrong way to look at it. Another way to say it is we're on Planet Earth and a global threat is a threat to all of us; an extra couple of thousands miles doesn't make us safer in the 21st century from global threats.

    We may be in the Atlantic. The threat we're facing is in the Pacific.
    Yes. But what exacrly is the "threat" that folk have recently identified? And when did it become manifest?
    What precisely has changed? Is what I am trying to understand.
    The threat is in a word China.

    When did it manifest? Over the past decade since Xi Jinping took charge.

    What changed is that Xi Jining ended China's liberalisations and took a much more sinister and aggressive path with the world.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 68,477
    edited September 2021
    Crickey people seem to be losing their shit over this sub deal....i blame it on the vaccine, Bill Gates activating the microchips ;-)
  • LeonLeon Posts: 14,909

    French foreign minister says France didn't recall the British ambassador over the AUKUS row because France is familiar with the UK's "permanent opportunism" and said Boris Johnson was the "fifth wheel on the carriage".

    https://twitter.com/kimwillsher1/status/1439294035357749257

    That entire thread is FULL of Remoaners somehow trying to pretend this looks bad for the UK, does not humiliate Macron or France (riiiiiiiight), and anyway NOBODY IN THE EU CARES ABOUT THE UK THAT'S WHY WE ARE RANTING ON TWITTER ABOUT THE UK

    It is a shame the whole world is viewed through a Brexit prism, but for some - especially Remoaners - it still is. That is just a fact
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 33,405
    kinabalu said:

    French foreign minister says France didn't recall the British ambassador over the AUKUS row because France is familiar with the UK's "permanent opportunism" and said Boris Johnson was the "fifth wheel on the carriage".

    https://twitter.com/kimwillsher1/status/1439294035357749257

    "Fifth wheel on the carriage" - yes exactly. Nicely put. In his second language too.
    Lol, it must be tough having your world view shattered by the lumbering oaf.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 17,225

    .

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    Farooq said:

    NATO is definitely finished. Boris has destroyed it. The bitter irony is that the hapless Sir Keir can't even hold Boris to account over that, owing to the fact that he campaigned for the anti-NATO Corbyn only a short time ago - something Boris gleefully mentioned in the HoC last week. Boris is master of all he surveys and Sir Keir is impotent.

    LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?

    The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
    But is he wrong or right on his first point? Is NATO finished? I'm getting really mixed messages from the Aukus fans on here.
    Probably not, though of course Macron said it was years ago, but then again the French have always only ever been half-engaged with NATO.

    The reality is that while NATO exists its not the priority anymore, because the threats of the 21st century are in the Pacific not the Atlantic.
    Correct me if I'm wrong. We are in the Atlantic not the Pacific still, aren't we?
    Yes we are but that's the wrong way to look at it. Another way to say it is we're on Planet Earth and a global threat is a threat to all of us; an extra couple of thousands miles doesn't make us safer in the 21st century from global threats.

    We may be in the Atlantic. The threat we're facing is in the Pacific.
    Yes. But what exacrly is the "threat" that folk have recently identified? And when did it become manifest?
    What precisely has changed? Is what I am trying to understand.
    The threat is in a word China.

    When did it manifest? Over the past decade since Xi Jinping took charge.

    What changed is that Xi Jining ended China's liberalisations and took a much more sinister and aggressive path with the world.
    What precisely is China threatening to do? That it didn't before?
    And why has it taken nearly a decade for our Tory government to notice Xi is not a benign bloke?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 22,233

    Crickey people seem to be losing their shit over this sub deal....i blame it on the vaccine, Bill Gates activating the microchips ;-)

    It's because reality is wrong.

    Bit like those US Republicans who believe that Trump is actually president.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 26,587

    NATO is definitely finished. Boris has destroyed it. The bitter irony is that the hapless Sir Keir can't even hold Boris to account over that, owing to the fact that he campaigned for the anti-NATO Corbyn only a short time ago - something Boris gleefully mentioned in the HoC last week. Boris is master of all he surveys and Sir Keir is impotent.

    LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?

    The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
    dixiedean said:

    Farooq said:

    MaxPB said:

    Farooq said:

    NATO is definitely finished. Boris has destroyed it. The bitter irony is that the hapless Sir Keir can't even hold Boris to account over that, owing to the fact that he campaigned for the anti-NATO Corbyn only a short time ago - something Boris gleefully mentioned in the HoC last week. Boris is master of all he surveys and Sir Keir is impotent.

    LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?

    The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
    But is he wrong or right on his first point? Is NATO finished? I'm getting really mixed messages from the Aukus fans on here.
    It's not finished, it will just have to adjust to the US and UK being much less interested in defending the eastern border of Europe.
    So that's one view. Malmsbury says the area of operations are different so implying there's no impact, and Leon says NATO is over.
    One or two are finding it difficult to disguise their tumescence at the prospect of Putin rolling through the EU.
    That wouldn't be a hassle for us, no.
    Australia is as reliable as Putin. They’ve just shafted one strategic partner and are just as likely to shaft the next dopes.

    The first boat would be in service in about two decades. Considering that the Australian government has just buggered up Covid, they aren’t going to last beyond the next GE.
    Yep, what a shower. One day it's ball tampering, the next it's welshing on big time defence contracts. Aussies - the chaps you cannot trust.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 14,909
    Foxy said:

    dixiedean said:

    Exactly when and why did folk decide the PRC was an enemy?
    It seems to have appeared swiftly and recently.

    Shortly after deciding that China was the coming big thing and a massive economic opportunity of Brexit, see @SeanT passim.
    I don't know about this Sean dude but for me it was a year or two after Xi Jinping became Chinese leader in 2013, and - tragically - steered China towards a much more aggressive, malignant, autocratic future. A future which spells danger for China's own citizens and menace for other nations. Moreover, at the same time, evidence began to emerge from Xinjiang, of what China was doing to the Uighurs. And then, of course, we had Covid AND Hong Kong

    It was possible to be hopeful, even excited, about the rise of China in, say, 2012 - so many people lifted out of poverty (and that remains a great achievement). By 2018 it was impossible to be sanguine and right now a wary and watchful pessimism about China seems the best mindset: they keep surprising on the downside

    The facts changed. Minds follow
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 47,760
    edited September 2021
    Has anybody considered just how other EU members view France's strop on this

    I would expect a considerable number of EU states are pleased with AUKUS and rather embarrassed by France but then we will see shortly as this is bound to be discussed in the EU

    Good to see at least one grown up in the EU saying today that this will not affect negotiations between the EU and AU for a trade deal
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 28,773
    edited September 2021

    NATO is definitely finished. Boris has destroyed it. The bitter irony is that the hapless Sir Keir can't even hold Boris to account over that, owing to the fact that he campaigned for the anti-NATO Corbyn only a short time ago - something Boris gleefully mentioned in the HoC last week. Boris is master of all he surveys and Sir Keir is impotent.

    LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?

    The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
    dixiedean said:

    Farooq said:

    MaxPB said:

    Farooq said:

    NATO is definitely finished. Boris has destroyed it. The bitter irony is that the hapless Sir Keir can't even hold Boris to account over that, owing to the fact that he campaigned for the anti-NATO Corbyn only a short time ago - something Boris gleefully mentioned in the HoC last week. Boris is master of all he surveys and Sir Keir is impotent.

    LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?

    The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
    But is he wrong or right on his first point? Is NATO finished? I'm getting really mixed messages from the Aukus fans on here.
    It's not finished, it will just have to adjust to the US and UK being much less interested in defending the eastern border of Europe.
    So that's one view. Malmsbury says the area of operations are different so implying there's no impact, and Leon says NATO is over.
    One or two are finding it difficult to disguise their tumescence at the prospect of Putin rolling through the EU.
    That wouldn't be a hassle for us, no.
    Australia is as reliable as Putin. They’ve just shafted one strategic partner and are just as likely to shaft the next dopes.

    The first boat would be in service in about two decades. Considering that the Australian government has just buggered up Covid, they aren’t going to last beyond the next GE.
    No, it is the other way round.

    It was Imperial Britain under Churchill that led to Australia's tilt to the USA. When the Japanese were bearing down on Australia in 1942, it was Churchill that refused to release the Australian divisions from the Western Desert, while the USA sent its fleet for the battle of the Coral Sea.

    Australians have always been considered expendable in defence of British interests.
  • NATO is definitely finished. Boris has destroyed it. The bitter irony is that the hapless Sir Keir can't even hold Boris to account over that, owing to the fact that he campaigned for the anti-NATO Corbyn only a short time ago - something Boris gleefully mentioned in the HoC last week. Boris is master of all he surveys and Sir Keir is impotent.

    LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?

    The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
    dixiedean said:

    Farooq said:

    MaxPB said:

    Farooq said:

    NATO is definitely finished. Boris has destroyed it. The bitter irony is that the hapless Sir Keir can't even hold Boris to account over that, owing to the fact that he campaigned for the anti-NATO Corbyn only a short time ago - something Boris gleefully mentioned in the HoC last week. Boris is master of all he surveys and Sir Keir is impotent.

    LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?

    The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
    But is he wrong or right on his first point? Is NATO finished? I'm getting really mixed messages from the Aukus fans on here.
    It's not finished, it will just have to adjust to the US and UK being much less interested in defending the eastern border of Europe.
    So that's one view. Malmsbury says the area of operations are different so implying there's no impact, and Leon says NATO is over.
    One or two are finding it difficult to disguise their tumescence at the prospect of Putin rolling through the EU.
    That wouldn't be a hassle for us, no.
    Australia is as reliable as Putin. They’ve just shafted one strategic partner and are just as likely to shaft the next dopes.

    The first boat would be in service in about two decades. Considering that the Australian government has just buggered up Covid, they aren’t going to last beyond the next GE.
    You really are putting forward your prejudices against AUKUS here, and really do not seem to understand the strategic interest of Australia and the US in the Trans Pacific

    Furthermore, it has been suggested the US may base a nuclear sub in Perth in the meantime or even one or two of our own subs from Barrow could be assigned to AUKUS

    How can one have “prejudices” against an online press conference? It’s all trappings. Australia welched on a deal and everybody is supposed to be impressed. Sneaks deserve each other.
  • Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    This is the best argument AGAINST Aukus

    By tying ourselves inextricably to the USA we are hitching our future to that of a superpower in relative decline, which is showing signs of total madness

    https://unherd.com/thepost/aukus-is-a-risky-bet-on-american-hegemony/


    However the comment beneath it gives the correct counter-argument. What choice do we have? For all of America's many faults, it is still a democracy, it does not indulge in genocide. It is increasingly impossible to stay neutral on China just so as to benefit from the trade. China is a hostile, expansive, malign, autocratic, imperialist power, and it bullies anyone it can (eg Australia) and annexes territories at will

    Hooking up with the Yanks is our only real option, even if they are bit psycho, at the moment

    Being a more equal military and diplomatic partner in Europe, and maintaining a more dignified rather than subordinate stance, has always been an option for us, and will probably always remain so, I think.
    lol

    Not any more, I don't think

    How would France react now if we tried to rejoin the EU? A big fat Non, that's how

    We are hooked into the Anglosphere for good now. We've chosen our team. We are a senior member, 2nd in command, but not the captain. Other members will come along.
    Yes now we are out of the EU and firmly in the Anglosphere zone, the EU is basically run by France and Germany.

    Germany runs the EU economy and France may end up running EU military, security and foreign policy
    The future is clear. There will be two "western" alliances

    1. an Anglophone alliance of Aukus, Five Eyes and some associated Asian members, India, Taiwan, Japan, Korea, aiming to contain China

    2. the EU, or an evolution of NATO, which must surely now step up and grow an army and navy, which secures western interests in Europe and against MENA/Putin

    A couple of nations might straddle both: France, possibly the UK
    What the EU haven't accepted yet is that Brexit will change them too and in ways they can't control.

    Trying to deny that basic truth, buried deep within their subconscious, is at the root of so much of their behaviour.
  • kinabalu said:

    French foreign minister says France didn't recall the British ambassador over the AUKUS row because France is familiar with the UK's "permanent opportunism" and said Boris Johnson was the "fifth wheel on the carriage".

    https://twitter.com/kimwillsher1/status/1439294035357749257

    "Fifth wheel on the carriage" - yes exactly. Nicely put. In his second language too.
    "Talking to France 2, Jean-Yves Le Drian said: Le Drian said Australia told France that it was breaking the submarine contract and making a new deal with the US and UK, just one hour before Scott Morrison the Australian PM announced this at a press conference."
    https://twitter.com/kimwillsher1/status/1439295467125448704

    Why was he talking to France 2 in English?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 92,999
    edited September 2021
    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    dixiedean said:

    Exactly when and why did folk decide the PRC was an enemy?
    It seems to have appeared swiftly and recently.

    Shortly after deciding that China was the coming big thing and a massive economic opportunity of Brexit, see @SeanT passim.
    I don't know about this Sean dude but for me it was a year or two after Xi Jinping became Chinese leader in 2013, and - tragically - steered China towards a much more aggressive, malignant, autocratic future. A future which spells danger for China's own citizens and menace for other nations. Moreover, at the same time, evidence began to emerge from Xinjiang, of what China was doing to the Uighurs. And then, of course, we had Covid AND Hong Kong

    It was possible to be hopeful, even excited, about the rise of China in, say, 2012 - so many people lifted out of poverty (and that remains a great achievement). By 2018 it was impossible to be sanguine and right now a wary and watchful pessimism about China seems the best mindset: they keep surprising on the downside

    The facts changed. Minds follow
    After the end of the cold war there was about a decade from 1991 to 9/11 in 2001 of relative prosperity when Russia had a moderate, pro western leader in Yeltsin for most of the 1990s, China was focused on making money not threatening its neighbours under Jiang Zemin and jihadi extremists seemed far away and no major threat to the west.

    Now that has all changed, anti western nationalists are in charge of Russia and China in the form of Putin and Xi and 9/11 showed jihadis can strike at the heart of the west if we let them

  • MaxPB said:

    French foreign minister says France didn't recall the British ambassador over the AUKUS row because France is familiar with the UK's "permanent opportunism" and said Boris Johnson was the "fifth wheel on the carriage".

    https://twitter.com/kimwillsher1/status/1439294035357749257

    Gosh they really are very bitter about this aren't they. Incredibly insecure as well, unsurprising given that their expectations of Britain being sidelined by Brexit are being shattered time and again. What's still completely insane is that they paved the way for their own doom by being so intractable during Brexit negotiations. Their insistence on "Brexit means Brexit" has cleaved the UK away from the EU sphere. Whatever the remainers want to believe the reality is that Brexit has irrevocably taken Britain out of the EU's influence and stuff like this will embolden the government on holding firm on continued trade issues with them.
    The French would rather lose-lose with post Brexit Britain than win-win.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 14,909
    dixiedean said:

    .

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    Farooq said:

    NATO is definitely finished. Boris has destroyed it. The bitter irony is that the hapless Sir Keir can't even hold Boris to account over that, owing to the fact that he campaigned for the anti-NATO Corbyn only a short time ago - something Boris gleefully mentioned in the HoC last week. Boris is master of all he surveys and Sir Keir is impotent.

    LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?

    The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
    But is he wrong or right on his first point? Is NATO finished? I'm getting really mixed messages from the Aukus fans on here.
    Probably not, though of course Macron said it was years ago, but then again the French have always only ever been half-engaged with NATO.

    The reality is that while NATO exists its not the priority anymore, because the threats of the 21st century are in the Pacific not the Atlantic.
    Correct me if I'm wrong. We are in the Atlantic not the Pacific still, aren't we?
    Yes we are but that's the wrong way to look at it. Another way to say it is we're on Planet Earth and a global threat is a threat to all of us; an extra couple of thousands miles doesn't make us safer in the 21st century from global threats.

    We may be in the Atlantic. The threat we're facing is in the Pacific.
    Yes. But what exacrly is the "threat" that folk have recently identified? And when did it become manifest?
    What precisely has changed? Is what I am trying to understand.
    The threat is in a word China.

    When did it manifest? Over the past decade since Xi Jinping took charge.

    What changed is that Xi Jining ended China's liberalisations and took a much more sinister and aggressive path with the world.
    What precisely is China threatening to do? That it didn't before?
    And why has it taken nearly a decade for our Tory government to notice Xi is not a benign bloke?
    Have you not noticed this nasty bug going round?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited September 2021
    dixiedean said:

    .

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    Farooq said:

    NATO is definitely finished. Boris has destroyed it. The bitter irony is that the hapless Sir Keir can't even hold Boris to account over that, owing to the fact that he campaigned for the anti-NATO Corbyn only a short time ago - something Boris gleefully mentioned in the HoC last week. Boris is master of all he surveys and Sir Keir is impotent.

    LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?

    The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
    But is he wrong or right on his first point? Is NATO finished? I'm getting really mixed messages from the Aukus fans on here.
    Probably not, though of course Macron said it was years ago, but then again the French have always only ever been half-engaged with NATO.

    The reality is that while NATO exists its not the priority anymore, because the threats of the 21st century are in the Pacific not the Atlantic.
    Correct me if I'm wrong. We are in the Atlantic not the Pacific still, aren't we?
    Yes we are but that's the wrong way to look at it. Another way to say it is we're on Planet Earth and a global threat is a threat to all of us; an extra couple of thousands miles doesn't make us safer in the 21st century from global threats.

    We may be in the Atlantic. The threat we're facing is in the Pacific.
    Yes. But what exacrly is the "threat" that folk have recently identified? And when did it become manifest?
    What precisely has changed? Is what I am trying to understand.
    The threat is in a word China.

    When did it manifest? Over the past decade since Xi Jinping took charge.

    What changed is that Xi Jining ended China's liberalisations and took a much more sinister and aggressive path with the world.
    What precisely is China threatening to do? That it didn't before?
    And why has it taken nearly a decade for our Tory government to notice Xi is not a benign bloke?
    Have you missed what's happened in Hong Kong?
    Have you missed what's happened in Xinjiang?
    Have you missed the escalating conflicts and militarisation of the South China Sea in the Pacific? Which despite the name is international not Chinese waters.

    Potentially have you missed Covid19?

    It takes time to realise what others are up to, it doesn't happen immediately. But it has been realised.
  • NATO is definitely finished. Boris has destroyed it. The bitter irony is that the hapless Sir Keir can't even hold Boris to account over that, owing to the fact that he campaigned for the anti-NATO Corbyn only a short time ago - something Boris gleefully mentioned in the HoC last week. Boris is master of all he surveys and Sir Keir is impotent.

    LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?

    The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
    dixiedean said:

    Farooq said:

    MaxPB said:

    Farooq said:

    NATO is definitely finished. Boris has destroyed it. The bitter irony is that the hapless Sir Keir can't even hold Boris to account over that, owing to the fact that he campaigned for the anti-NATO Corbyn only a short time ago - something Boris gleefully mentioned in the HoC last week. Boris is master of all he surveys and Sir Keir is impotent.

    LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?

    The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
    But is he wrong or right on his first point? Is NATO finished? I'm getting really mixed messages from the Aukus fans on here.
    It's not finished, it will just have to adjust to the US and UK being much less interested in defending the eastern border of Europe.
    So that's one view. Malmsbury says the area of operations are different so implying there's no impact, and Leon says NATO is over.
    One or two are finding it difficult to disguise their tumescence at the prospect of Putin rolling through the EU.
    That wouldn't be a hassle for us, no.
    Australia is as reliable as Putin. They’ve just shafted one strategic partner and are just as likely to shaft the next dopes.

    The first boat would be in service in about two decades. Considering that the Australian government has just buggered up Covid, they aren’t going to last beyond the next GE.
    You really are putting forward your prejudices against AUKUS here, and really do not seem to understand the strategic interest of Australia and the US in the Trans Pacific

    Furthermore, it has been suggested the US may base a nuclear sub in Perth in the meantime or even one or two of our own subs from Barrow could be assigned to AUKUS

    How can one have “prejudices” against an online press conference? It’s all trappings. Australia welched on a deal and everybody is supposed to be impressed. Sneaks deserve each other.
    The deal you refer to started in 2016 and when Australia recently sought nuclear rather than diesel subs and France would not supply them then the deal was terminated
  • dixiedean said:

    .

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    Farooq said:

    NATO is definitely finished. Boris has destroyed it. The bitter irony is that the hapless Sir Keir can't even hold Boris to account over that, owing to the fact that he campaigned for the anti-NATO Corbyn only a short time ago - something Boris gleefully mentioned in the HoC last week. Boris is master of all he surveys and Sir Keir is impotent.

    LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?

    The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
    But is he wrong or right on his first point? Is NATO finished? I'm getting really mixed messages from the Aukus fans on here.
    Probably not, though of course Macron said it was years ago, but then again the French have always only ever been half-engaged with NATO.

    The reality is that while NATO exists its not the priority anymore, because the threats of the 21st century are in the Pacific not the Atlantic.
    Correct me if I'm wrong. We are in the Atlantic not the Pacific still, aren't we?
    Yes we are but that's the wrong way to look at it. Another way to say it is we're on Planet Earth and a global threat is a threat to all of us; an extra couple of thousands miles doesn't make us safer in the 21st century from global threats.

    We may be in the Atlantic. The threat we're facing is in the Pacific.
    Yes. But what exacrly is the "threat" that folk have recently identified? And when did it become manifest?
    What precisely has changed? Is what I am trying to understand.
    The threat is in a word China.

    When did it manifest? Over the past decade since Xi Jinping took charge.

    What changed is that Xi Jining ended China's liberalisations and took a much more sinister and aggressive path with the world.
    What precisely is China threatening to do? That it didn't before?
    And why has it taken nearly a decade for our Tory government to notice Xi is not a benign bloke?
    Yes, it's curious. For a decade or more the orthodoxy amongst the British Right was that America was a fading giant, enervated by the liberal decadence of the Obama era and a unproductive economy, and China and the Far East were where it was now at.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 17,225
    edited September 2021
    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    dixiedean said:

    Exactly when and why did folk decide the PRC was an enemy?
    It seems to have appeared swiftly and recently.

    Shortly after deciding that China was the coming big thing and a massive economic opportunity of Brexit, see @SeanT passim.
    I don't know about this Sean dude but for me it was a year or two after Xi Jinping became Chinese leader in 2013, and - tragically - steered China towards a much more aggressive, malignant, autocratic future. A future which spells danger for China's own citizens and menace for other nations. Moreover, at the same time, evidence began to emerge from Xinjiang, of what China was doing to the Uighurs. And then, of course, we had Covid AND Hong Kong

    It was possible to be hopeful, even excited, about the rise of China in, say, 2012 - so many people lifted out of poverty (and that remains a great achievement). By 2018 it was impossible to be sanguine and right now a wary and watchful pessimism about China seems the best mindset: they keep surprising on the downside

    The facts changed. Minds follow
    Evidence began to emerge. LOL!!!
    It was well known about the Uighurs in the 90's. And Tibet since the 50's.
    Under the golden, liberal age of Hu Jintao, Chinese foreign policy was, er, pretty much the same.
    Facts haven't changed much.
    To me, the problem seems to be, the Coalition thought they could make untold billions out of China.
    Unfortunately, the Chinese were determined to make trillions out of us. And have done.
    So then folk noticed what they previously wilfully refused to see.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 33,405

    MaxPB said:

    French foreign minister says France didn't recall the British ambassador over the AUKUS row because France is familiar with the UK's "permanent opportunism" and said Boris Johnson was the "fifth wheel on the carriage".

    https://twitter.com/kimwillsher1/status/1439294035357749257

    Gosh they really are very bitter about this aren't they. Incredibly insecure as well, unsurprising given that their expectations of Britain being sidelined by Brexit are being shattered time and again. What's still completely insane is that they paved the way for their own doom by being so intractable during Brexit negotiations. Their insistence on "Brexit means Brexit" has cleaved the UK away from the EU sphere. Whatever the remainers want to believe the reality is that Brexit has irrevocably taken Britain out of the EU's influence and stuff like this will embolden the government on holding firm on continued trade issues with them.
    The French would rather lose-lose with post Brexit Britain than win-win.
    Absolutely, and they engineered a Brexit that they thought they could win from and we would lose from but it has turned out the other way with the UK winning and the French losing.
  • glwglw Posts: 7,959
    edited September 2021

    The threat is in a word China.

    When did it manifest? Over the past decade since Xi Jinping took charge.

    What changed is that Xi Jining ended China's liberalisations and took a much more sinister and aggressive path with the world.

    In Russia there was a belief that economic liberalism would lead to political liberalism. That didn't last long past the rise of Putin, and his response to the sinking of the Kursk and early refusal of Western help should have set the alarm bells ringing.

    With China the regime didn't collapse, but again we broadly assumed that economic liberalism would weaken the Chinese state, up until Xi's Presidency it was possible to believe that things weren't going backwards, maybe prorgress was slow but Jiang and Hu didn't cause much alarm. Xi on the other hand has clearly pursued a more confrontational approach towards the West.

    We've had over thirty years of wishful thinking that economic liberalism, capitalism, and free markets inevitably lead to political liberalism, democracy, and the rule of law. Sadly that does not seem to be the case.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 92,999

    dixiedean said:

    .

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    Farooq said:

    NATO is definitely finished. Boris has destroyed it. The bitter irony is that the hapless Sir Keir can't even hold Boris to account over that, owing to the fact that he campaigned for the anti-NATO Corbyn only a short time ago - something Boris gleefully mentioned in the HoC last week. Boris is master of all he surveys and Sir Keir is impotent.

    LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?

    The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
    But is he wrong or right on his first point? Is NATO finished? I'm getting really mixed messages from the Aukus fans on here.
    Probably not, though of course Macron said it was years ago, but then again the French have always only ever been half-engaged with NATO.

    The reality is that while NATO exists its not the priority anymore, because the threats of the 21st century are in the Pacific not the Atlantic.
    Correct me if I'm wrong. We are in the Atlantic not the Pacific still, aren't we?
    Yes we are but that's the wrong way to look at it. Another way to say it is we're on Planet Earth and a global threat is a threat to all of us; an extra couple of thousands miles doesn't make us safer in the 21st century from global threats.

    We may be in the Atlantic. The threat we're facing is in the Pacific.
    Yes. But what exacrly is the "threat" that folk have recently identified? And when did it become manifest?
    What precisely has changed? Is what I am trying to understand.
    The threat is in a word China.

    When did it manifest? Over the past decade since Xi Jinping took charge.

    What changed is that Xi Jining ended China's liberalisations and took a much more sinister and aggressive path with the world.
    What precisely is China threatening to do? That it didn't before?
    And why has it taken nearly a decade for our Tory government to notice Xi is not a benign bloke?
    Yes, it's curious. For a decade or more the orthodoxy amongst the British Right was that America was a fading giant, enervated by the liberal decadence of the Obama era and a unproductive economy, and China and the Far East were where it was now at.
    That was mainly George Osborne
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 47,760
    edited September 2021

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    This is the best argument AGAINST Aukus

    By tying ourselves inextricably to the USA we are hitching our future to that of a superpower in relative decline, which is showing signs of total madness

    https://unherd.com/thepost/aukus-is-a-risky-bet-on-american-hegemony/


    However the comment beneath it gives the correct counter-argument. What choice do we have? For all of America's many faults, it is still a democracy, it does not indulge in genocide. It is increasingly impossible to stay neutral on China just so as to benefit from the trade. China is a hostile, expansive, malign, autocratic, imperialist power, and it bullies anyone it can (eg Australia) and annexes territories at will

    Hooking up with the Yanks is our only real option, even if they are bit psycho, at the moment

    Being a more equal military and diplomatic partner in Europe, and maintaining a more dignified rather than subordinate stance, has always been an option for us, and will probably always remain so, I think.
    lol

    Not any more, I don't think

    How would France react now if we tried to rejoin the EU? A big fat Non, that's how

    We are hooked into the Anglosphere for good now. We've chosen our team. We are a senior member, 2nd in command, but not the captain. Other members will come along.
    Yes now we are out of the EU and firmly in the Anglosphere zone, the EU is basically run by France and Germany.

    Germany runs the EU economy and France may end up running EU military, security and foreign policy
    The future is clear. There will be two "western" alliances

    1. an Anglophone alliance of Aukus, Five Eyes and some associated Asian members, India, Taiwan, Japan, Korea, aiming to contain China

    2. the EU, or an evolution of NATO, which must surely now step up and grow an army and navy, which secures western interests in Europe and against MENA/Putin

    A couple of nations might straddle both: France, possibly the UK
    What the EU haven't accepted yet is that Brexit will change them too and in ways they can't control.

    Trying to deny that basic truth, buried deep within their subconscious, is at the root of so much of their behaviour.
    And I have to say it is evident on this forum as the criticism as far as I can see is virtually exclusively from EU supporters

    It has come as a bitter blow to to them and I cannot imagine just how they would reverse it if the US had done the deal with France, leaving the UK isolated and alone

    That was their ultimate dream which is now in tatters
  • Foxy said:

    NATO is definitely finished. Boris has destroyed it. The bitter irony is that the hapless Sir Keir can't even hold Boris to account over that, owing to the fact that he campaigned for the anti-NATO Corbyn only a short time ago - something Boris gleefully mentioned in the HoC last week. Boris is master of all he surveys and Sir Keir is impotent.

    LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?

    The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
    dixiedean said:

    Farooq said:

    MaxPB said:

    Farooq said:

    NATO is definitely finished. Boris has destroyed it. The bitter irony is that the hapless Sir Keir can't even hold Boris to account over that, owing to the fact that he campaigned for the anti-NATO Corbyn only a short time ago - something Boris gleefully mentioned in the HoC last week. Boris is master of all he surveys and Sir Keir is impotent.

    LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?

    The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
    But is he wrong or right on his first point? Is NATO finished? I'm getting really mixed messages from the Aukus fans on here.
    It's not finished, it will just have to adjust to the US and UK being much less interested in defending the eastern border of Europe.
    So that's one view. Malmsbury says the area of operations are different so implying there's no impact, and Leon says NATO is over.
    One or two are finding it difficult to disguise their tumescence at the prospect of Putin rolling through the EU.
    That wouldn't be a hassle for us, no.
    Australia is as reliable as Putin. They’ve just shafted one strategic partner and are just as likely to shaft the next dopes.

    The first boat would be in service in about two decades. Considering that the Australian government has just buggered up Covid, they aren’t going to last beyond the next GE.
    No, it is the other way round.

    It was Imperial Britain under Churchill that led to Australia's tilt to the USA. When the Japanese were bearing down on Australia in 1942, it was Churchill that refused to release the Australian divisions from the Western Desert, while the USA sent its fleet for the battle of the Coral Sea.

    Australians have always been considered expendable in defence of British interests.
    That's not true, it's just that after Singapore fell we couldn't do much about it, particularly given we were facing a life or death struggle in the near East.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    On the other hand the UUP would be more natural Tory allies than the DUP.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 44,936
    justin124 said:

    On the other hand the UUP would be more natural Tory allies than the DUP.
    And of course every seat Sinn Fein win is one less they need to win for a majority…
  • MattWMattW Posts: 11,863
    MattW said:

    kinabalu said:

    French foreign minister says France didn't recall the British ambassador over the AUKUS row because France is familiar with the UK's "permanent opportunism" and said Boris Johnson was the "fifth wheel on the carriage".

    https://twitter.com/kimwillsher1/status/1439294035357749257

    "Fifth wheel on the carriage" - yes exactly. Nicely put. In his second language too.
    "Talking to France 2, Jean-Yves Le Drian said: Le Drian said Australia told France that it was breaking the submarine contract and making a new deal with the US and UK, just one hour before Scott Morrison the Australian PM announced this at a press conference."
    https://twitter.com/kimwillsher1/status/1439295467125448704

    Why was he talking to France 2 in English?
    They aren't "breaking the contract" - they seem to be exercising a termination clause.

    There are bits of this rhetoric that are similar to the opening lies when EuCo launched their assault on AZ.
    Though that France is narked, is most understandable.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 28,773

    Foxy said:

    NATO is definitely finished. Boris has destroyed it. The bitter irony is that the hapless Sir Keir can't even hold Boris to account over that, owing to the fact that he campaigned for the anti-NATO Corbyn only a short time ago - something Boris gleefully mentioned in the HoC last week. Boris is master of all he surveys and Sir Keir is impotent.

    LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?

    The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
    dixiedean said:

    Farooq said:

    MaxPB said:

    Farooq said:

    NATO is definitely finished. Boris has destroyed it. The bitter irony is that the hapless Sir Keir can't even hold Boris to account over that, owing to the fact that he campaigned for the anti-NATO Corbyn only a short time ago - something Boris gleefully mentioned in the HoC last week. Boris is master of all he surveys and Sir Keir is impotent.

    LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?

    The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
    But is he wrong or right on his first point? Is NATO finished? I'm getting really mixed messages from the Aukus fans on here.
    It's not finished, it will just have to adjust to the US and UK being much less interested in defending the eastern border of Europe.
    So that's one view. Malmsbury says the area of operations are different so implying there's no impact, and Leon says NATO is over.
    One or two are finding it difficult to disguise their tumescence at the prospect of Putin rolling through the EU.
    That wouldn't be a hassle for us, no.
    Australia is as reliable as Putin. They’ve just shafted one strategic partner and are just as likely to shaft the next dopes.

    The first boat would be in service in about two decades. Considering that the Australian government has just buggered up Covid, they aren’t going to last beyond the next GE.
    No, it is the other way round.

    It was Imperial Britain under Churchill that led to Australia's tilt to the USA. When the Japanese were bearing down on Australia in 1942, it was Churchill that refused to release the Australian divisions from the Western Desert, while the USA sent its fleet for the battle of the Coral Sea.

    Australians have always been considered expendable in defence of British interests.
    That's not true, it's just that after Singapore fell we couldn't do much about it, particularly given we were facing a life or death struggle in the near East.
    That was how it was seen in Australia, hence the tilt to the USA from 1942 onwards.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 19,069
    isam said:

    ...

    Some of the anti-vax protesters in London today were actually wearing tin foil hats.

    Friend of mine on Facebook, actually a friend in real life too, was on that match… obsessed with thinking it’s all a big conspiracy, has posted a pic of Dan Walker in hospital with a suspected bleed on the brain and said ‘I’m sure it’s not the vaccine…’

    5 secs and a google later, Dan Walker walked into a glass door yesterday and bumped his head

    The same Dan Walker who's on Strictly tonight?
  • Another, possible reason why the French Ambassador to London has not been recalled:

    https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/articles/raf-deployment-in-mali-has-extended/
  • NATO is definitely finished. Boris has destroyed it. The bitter irony is that the hapless Sir Keir can't even hold Boris to account over that, owing to the fact that he campaigned for the anti-NATO Corbyn only a short time ago - something Boris gleefully mentioned in the HoC last week. Boris is master of all he surveys and Sir Keir is impotent.

    LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?

    The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
    dixiedean said:

    Farooq said:

    MaxPB said:

    Farooq said:

    NATO is definitely finished. Boris has destroyed it. The bitter irony is that the hapless Sir Keir can't even hold Boris to account over that, owing to the fact that he campaigned for the anti-NATO Corbyn only a short time ago - something Boris gleefully mentioned in the HoC last week. Boris is master of all he surveys and Sir Keir is impotent.

    LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?

    The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
    But is he wrong or right on his first point? Is NATO finished? I'm getting really mixed messages from the Aukus fans on here.
    It's not finished, it will just have to adjust to the US and UK being much less interested in defending the eastern border of Europe.
    So that's one view. Malmsbury says the area of operations are different so implying there's no impact, and Leon says NATO is over.
    One or two are finding it difficult to disguise their tumescence at the prospect of Putin rolling through the EU.
    That wouldn't be a hassle for us, no.
    Australia is as reliable as Putin. They’ve just shafted one strategic partner and are just as likely to shaft the next dopes.

    The first boat would be in service in about two decades. Considering that the Australian government has just buggered up Covid, they aren’t going to last beyond the next GE.
    You really are putting forward your prejudices against AUKUS here, and really do not seem to understand the strategic interest of Australia and the US in the Trans Pacific

    Furthermore, it has been suggested the US may base a nuclear sub in Perth in the meantime or even one or two of our own subs from Barrow could be assigned to AUKUS

    How can one have “prejudices” against an online press conference? It’s all trappings. Australia welched on a deal and everybody is supposed to be impressed. Sneaks deserve each other.
    The deal you refer to started in 2016 and when Australia recently sought nuclear rather than diesel subs and France would not supply them then the deal was terminated
    If the deal really did need to be terminated there were surely better ways of going about it. Publicly humiliating Macron on live TV was rather unseemly. Morrison just looked like the lesser bully who can suddenly throw his weight about because he's teamed up with a bigger bully. (Boris just looked like the fag of both of them, holding their coats.)
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 5,795
    When will UvdL give her considered opinion on the matter? After all she is an experienced ex-minister of defence as well as top international bureaucrat.
  • Another, possible reason why the French Ambassador to London has not been recalled:

    https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/articles/raf-deployment-in-mali-has-extended/

    12 Jun 2020?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 14,909

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    This is the best argument AGAINST Aukus

    By tying ourselves inextricably to the USA we are hitching our future to that of a superpower in relative decline, which is showing signs of total madness

    https://unherd.com/thepost/aukus-is-a-risky-bet-on-american-hegemony/


    However the comment beneath it gives the correct counter-argument. What choice do we have? For all of America's many faults, it is still a democracy, it does not indulge in genocide. It is increasingly impossible to stay neutral on China just so as to benefit from the trade. China is a hostile, expansive, malign, autocratic, imperialist power, and it bullies anyone it can (eg Australia) and annexes territories at will

    Hooking up with the Yanks is our only real option, even if they are bit psycho, at the moment

    Being a more equal military and diplomatic partner in Europe, and maintaining a more dignified rather than subordinate stance, has always been an option for us, and will probably always remain so, I think.
    lol

    Not any more, I don't think

    How would France react now if we tried to rejoin the EU? A big fat Non, that's how

    We are hooked into the Anglosphere for good now. We've chosen our team. We are a senior member, 2nd in command, but not the captain. Other members will come along.
    Yes now we are out of the EU and firmly in the Anglosphere zone, the EU is basically run by France and Germany.

    Germany runs the EU economy and France may end up running EU military, security and foreign policy
    The future is clear. There will be two "western" alliances

    1. an Anglophone alliance of Aukus, Five Eyes and some associated Asian members, India, Taiwan, Japan, Korea, aiming to contain China

    2. the EU, or an evolution of NATO, which must surely now step up and grow an army and navy, which secures western interests in Europe and against MENA/Putin

    A couple of nations might straddle both: France, possibly the UK
    What the EU haven't accepted yet is that Brexit will change them too and in ways they can't control.

    Trying to deny that basic truth, buried deep within their subconscious, is at the root of so much of their behaviour.
    And I have to say it is evident on this forum as the criticism as far as I can see is virtually exclusively from EU supporters

    It has come as a bitter blow to to them and I cannot imagine just how they would reverse it if the US had done the deal with France, leaving the UK isolated and alone

    That was there ultimate dream which is now in tatters
    Yes, I think they REALLY believed that Brexit was so bad it would end up with the UK like some lonely, isolated toilet of a place, shunned by all the other powers, forced to eat lichen and dung. IT was a creed and they avowed it. Brexit could never be advantageous, never being anything good, Brexit was and is will always be evil and wrong

    Now they have irrefutable evidence that Brexit has done no such thing, and the isolated nation here is France, with the Americans and Aussies preferring Brexit Britain.

    This is like a fervent Catholic being confronted with evidence that Satan is actually OK, sometimes, and worship of him can get you a discount in shops. Does Not Compute
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 17,225
    edited September 2021

    dixiedean said:

    .

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    Farooq said:

    NATO is definitely finished. Boris has destroyed it. The bitter irony is that the hapless Sir Keir can't even hold Boris to account over that, owing to the fact that he campaigned for the anti-NATO Corbyn only a short time ago - something Boris gleefully mentioned in the HoC last week. Boris is master of all he surveys and Sir Keir is impotent.

    LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?

    The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
    But is he wrong or right on his first point? Is NATO finished? I'm getting really mixed messages from the Aukus fans on here.
    Probably not, though of course Macron said it was years ago, but then again the French have always only ever been half-engaged with NATO.

    The reality is that while NATO exists its not the priority anymore, because the threats of the 21st century are in the Pacific not the Atlantic.
    Correct me if I'm wrong. We are in the Atlantic not the Pacific still, aren't we?
    Yes we are but that's the wrong way to look at it. Another way to say it is we're on Planet Earth and a global threat is a threat to all of us; an extra couple of thousands miles doesn't make us safer in the 21st century from global threats.

    We may be in the Atlantic. The threat we're facing is in the Pacific.
    Yes. But what exacrly is the "threat" that folk have recently identified? And when did it become manifest?
    What precisely has changed? Is what I am trying to understand.
    The threat is in a word China.

    When did it manifest? Over the past decade since Xi Jinping took charge.

    What changed is that Xi Jining ended China's liberalisations and took a much more sinister and aggressive path with the world.
    What precisely is China threatening to do? That it didn't before?
    And why has it taken nearly a decade for our Tory government to notice Xi is not a benign bloke?
    Have you missed what's happened in Hong Kong?
    Have you missed what's happened in Xinjiang?
    Have you missed the escalating conflicts and militarisation of the South China Sea in the Pacific? Which despite the name is international not Chinese waters.

    Potentially have you missed Covid19?

    It takes time to realise what others are up to, it doesn't happen immediately. But it has been realised.
    And why didn't you and your Party of troughers notice before?
    Have you not noticed that precisely none of the examples you note were much different when pockets were gleefully being lined.
    HK had no democracy.
    Xinjiang was being persecuted.
    And PRC claimed many islands and waters in the S China Sea.
    Those all go back decades.

    So spare me the moral outrage for asking questions when you've just woken up.
    Fact is. There was much rejoicing when folk thought the PRC would be a haven for international capitalism. And a brutal, repressive dictatorship.
  • NATO is definitely finished. Boris has destroyed it. The bitter irony is that the hapless Sir Keir can't even hold Boris to account over that, owing to the fact that he campaigned for the anti-NATO Corbyn only a short time ago - something Boris gleefully mentioned in the HoC last week. Boris is master of all he surveys and Sir Keir is impotent.

    LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?

    The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
    dixiedean said:

    Farooq said:

    MaxPB said:

    Farooq said:

    NATO is definitely finished. Boris has destroyed it. The bitter irony is that the hapless Sir Keir can't even hold Boris to account over that, owing to the fact that he campaigned for the anti-NATO Corbyn only a short time ago - something Boris gleefully mentioned in the HoC last week. Boris is master of all he surveys and Sir Keir is impotent.

    LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?

    The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
    But is he wrong or right on his first point? Is NATO finished? I'm getting really mixed messages from the Aukus fans on here.
    It's not finished, it will just have to adjust to the US and UK being much less interested in defending the eastern border of Europe.
    So that's one view. Malmsbury says the area of operations are different so implying there's no impact, and Leon says NATO is over.
    One or two are finding it difficult to disguise their tumescence at the prospect of Putin rolling through the EU.
    That wouldn't be a hassle for us, no.
    Australia is as reliable as Putin. They’ve just shafted one strategic partner and are just as likely to shaft the next dopes.

    The first boat would be in service in about two decades. Considering that the Australian government has just buggered up Covid, they aren’t going to last beyond the next GE.
    You really are putting forward your prejudices against AUKUS here, and really do not seem to understand the strategic interest of Australia and the US in the Trans Pacific

    Furthermore, it has been suggested the US may base a nuclear sub in Perth in the meantime or even one or two of our own subs from Barrow could be assigned to AUKUS

    How can one have “prejudices” against an online press conference? It’s all trappings. Australia welched on a deal and everybody is supposed to be impressed. Sneaks deserve each other.
    The deal you refer to started in 2016 and when Australia recently sought nuclear rather than diesel subs and France would not supply them then the deal was terminated
    If the deal really did need to be terminated there were surely better ways of going about it. Publicly humiliating Macron on live TV was rather unseemly. Morrison just looked like the lesser bully who can suddenly throw his weight about because he's teamed up with a bigger bully. (Boris just looked like the fag of both of them, holding their coats.)
    I am afraid this deal was commenced in March and while Macron was talking sausages and NI protocol at the G7, the deal was done with I understand just 10 people in HMG knowing the detail

    The reason it was done this way is that France was not trusted to try to sabotage the deal (correct as it turns out) nor that the 27 EU countries in the EU would not pass information back to China
This discussion has been closed.