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

13

Comments

  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 19,754
    HYUFD said:

    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
    Cheered on by the British right. As noted above.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 38,629
    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
    France, of course, has citizens and territory in the Pacific.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 34,652
    geoffw said:

    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.

    She's looking for broomsticks.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    HYUFD said:
    UNS produces something similar with 46 Labour gains from the Toties and possibly 3 or 4 from SNP & Plaid to take the party to 250 seats. Tory losses to SNP might reduce them to 315.
    Labour's losses in Scotland from 2015 have effectively chipped circa 2% from its GB vote share. Without that the the two main parties really would be level pegging.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 47,957
    MaxPB said:

    geoffw said:

    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.

    She's looking for broomsticks.
    That would besom performance.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 38,629
    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?

    ...

    No.

  • MattWMattW Posts: 13,486
    edited September 2021
    ydoethur said:

    MaxPB said:

    geoffw said:

    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.

    She's looking for broomsticks.
    That would besom performance.
    That pun sweeps the board.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 19,754

    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?
    Yes. He banged his head and wisely went to hospital to get the all clear.
    Which has become having a bleed on his brain from the vaccine. Or summat.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 70,902
    edited September 2021
    geoffw said:

    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.

    Talking of subs and UdvL....

    Entire German submarine fleet out of action

    “It’s a real disaster for the Navy, it’s the first time in history that there will not be any submarine operating for months,”

    https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/entire-german-submarine-fleet-action/
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 34,652
    Nigelb said:

    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
    France, of course, has citizens and territory in the Pacific.
    Which is why the new alliance won't defy gravity and France will eventually join. It makes sense for them to have an association to it. There's just a lot of bitterness right now, understandably because they've lost a €47bn contract, but that will subside, Macron won't be able to sign France up but the next president will be able to.
  • dixiedean said:

    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.
    I would just pose simple question

    Why has Starmer and Blackford endorsed AUKUS and as far as I am aware nobody in the HOC, outside Corbyn has objected to it

    Trying to make this all about Boris ignores the fact he has cross party support for AUKUS
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 97,860
    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    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
    Cheered on by the British right. As noted above.
    The libertarian British right maybe, the UKIP British right now back in the Tory Party were never fans of China
  • LeonLeon Posts: 19,413
    MaxPB 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.
    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.)
    Bitter. You're the jilted ex right now. Boris has, for the first time in a while, played an absolute blinder in making what started as Australia asking us for nuclear subs into a new Anglosphere alliance to take on China. Even the American press has been surprised as to the depth and ambition of what is being proposed.
    I also wonder if the explicitly humiliating timing for Macron, France and the EU was deliberate. Just as the EU is about to announce its own (silly, formless) Indo-Pac policy? Just two weeks after ScoMo met Macron and said all is well?

    Whenever it was announced it was going to be shocking and hurtful. For France, most of all. Why not make a virtue of necessity and make it so stinging the French and Europeans are forced to look at themselves and decide: where do we stand? Are we with China or the West? Is it time for an EU army?

    Forcing the EU to face these questions is a good thing
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 18,740
    edited September 2021
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 97,860
    edited September 2021
    Even if they were it would be the TUV taking most of their votes on that poll and thus most of their seats, the TUV are even more hardline Unionists.

    If the UUP pick up a few seats as that poll suggests that would also help the Tories for as Justin has correctly stated they are closer aligned to the Tories than the DUP, even running joint candidates with the Tories in 2010
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 70,902
    edited September 2021
    Incredible scenes in the cricket, never seen anything like that.

    Outfielder makes a catch, but runs into another player who is touching the boundary rope.....result SIX....
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 47,957
    GIN1138 said:
    One wonders what would be an immediate cause for concern? A lack of tea, perhaps? Or Truss and Johnson caught in a clinch?
  • MaxPB 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.
    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.)
    Bitter. You're the jilted ex right now. Boris has, for the first time in a while, played an absolute blinder in making what started as Australia asking us for nuclear subs into a new Anglosphere alliance to take on China. Even the American press has been surprised as to the depth and ambition of what is being proposed.
    Curiously enough Boris, never the details man, has seen the bigger picture.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 16,459
    One thing that might help the Conservatives in Canada is that their share in Alberta and Saskatchewan is predicted to drop by a mammoth 20 percentage points or so, but because they were so high before they'll only lose a small number of seats, as few as 5. That drop may be affecting their national share in the opinion polls, but doesn't mean they'll do badly in other parts of Canada.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 19,754
    edited September 2021

    dixiedean said:

    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.
    I would just pose simple question

    Why has Starmer and Blackford endorsed AUKUS and as far as I am aware nobody in the HOC, outside Corbyn has objected to it

    Trying to make this all about Boris ignores the fact he has cross party support for AUKUS
    You're answering a point I haven't made. I'm delighted folk have woken up to the PRC.
    I am questioning why they have luxuriated in it for decades.
    And wondering what exactly has changed? So far not a thing has been forthcoming other than stuff which was already going on.
    And fully known to be going on.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 47,957

    Incredible scenes in the cricket, never seen anything like that.

    Outfielder makes a catch, but runs into another player who is touching the boundary rope.

    Oops.

    This touching just shows they’re all oversixed.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 5,174
    ydoethur said:

    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…
    I think the maths is this:

    650 seats, 1 speaker so 325 gives a majority of 1
    Say SF win 7 seats that is effectively 643 seats including 1 speaker
    To have a majority you need 322 seats, with 1 speaker and 320 other parties = 643.

    (If you have 321 seats, 1 speaker and 321 other parties, 7 SF, no idea.)

    So each SF seat reduces the target by about .5

  • Leon said:

    MaxPB 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.
    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.)
    Bitter. You're the jilted ex right now. Boris has, for the first time in a while, played an absolute blinder in making what started as Australia asking us for nuclear subs into a new Anglosphere alliance to take on China. Even the American press has been surprised as to the depth and ambition of what is being proposed.
    I also wonder if the explicitly humiliating timing for Macron, France and the EU was deliberate. Just as the EU is about to announce its own (silly, formless) Indo-Pac policy? Just two weeks after ScoMo met Macron and said all is well?

    Whenever it was announced it was going to be shocking and hurtful. For France, most of all. Why not make a virtue of necessity and make it so stinging the French and Europeans are forced to look at themselves and decide: where do we stand? Are we with China or the West? Is it time for an EU army?

    Forcing the EU to face these questions is a good thing
    Nah - I suspect it has more to do with the Quad meeting in Washington next week and the UN General Assembly with Johnson, Morrison and Biden all in the US. If anything I suspect they underestimated the French reaction.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 97,860
    edited September 2021
    Andy_JS said:

    One thing that might help the Conservatives in Canada is that their share in Alberta and Saskatchewan is predicted to drop by a mammoth 20 percentage points or so, but because they were so high before they'll only lose a small number of seats, as few as 5. That drop may be affecting their national share in the opinion polls, but doesn't mean they'll do badly in other parts of Canada.

    Mainstreet today however still has the Liberals ahead in Ontario by 34.6% to 32.3% for the Conservatives and in Quebec with the BQ second and Conservatives third. Nationally the Liberals also narrowly lead 31% to 30.8%.

    If that holds Trudeau will be re elected on Monday with the Liberals getting most seats, albeit without the majority he wanted

    https://archive.ph/qTvVJ
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 31,498
    Australian PM Curtain on Dec 27th 1941:

    "Without any inhibitions of any kind, I make it quite clear that Australia looks to America, free of any pangs as to our traditional links or kinship with the United Kingdom"

    From: https://www.pacificwar.org.au/battaust/Britain_betrays_Australia.html

  • Leon said:

    MaxPB 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.
    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.)
    Bitter. You're the jilted ex right now. Boris has, for the first time in a while, played an absolute blinder in making what started as Australia asking us for nuclear subs into a new Anglosphere alliance to take on China. Even the American press has been surprised as to the depth and ambition of what is being proposed.
    I also wonder if the explicitly humiliating timing for Macron, France and the EU was deliberate. Just as the EU is about to announce its own (silly, formless) Indo-Pac policy? Just two weeks after ScoMo met Macron and said all is well?

    Whenever it was announced it was going to be shocking and hurtful. For France, most of all. Why not make a virtue of necessity and make it so stinging the French and Europeans are forced to look at themselves and decide: where do we stand? Are we with China or the West? Is it time for an EU army?

    Forcing the EU to face these questions is a good thing
    They could have scrapped the deal first then announced AUUKUS a few weeks later. That might have spared some French dignity by making it look slightly less obvious that they were connected. Quite possible that Boris insisted on doing it all at once - he knows that bashing the French will play well with the base after the NI hike.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 3,410
    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    stodge said:

    Leon said:


    But that's the point. America is, clearly, edging towards the sobering moment when it pulls out of NATO, or, at least, withdraws that total commitment

    Aukus is part of that. Trump and Biden are on the same page here. By creating Aukus Biden is sending a clear signal to the EU - we're focused on the Indo-Pacific and China, as our main rival, you are not relevant any more, and you have enough money to defend yourselves. Indeed, humiliating the French so spectacularly might just be part of this: as it motivates the French to focus on European alternatives to American defence

    Why should average Americans continue to pay for, and die for, Europeans who have a nicer life than them, yet refuse to spend more on their own defence?

    It's an inarguable point. America is not going to defend wealthy Germany forever

    It's not that simple - as every German leader since Adenauer would have argued, West Germany was going to be the battlefield. German towns and cities would be the ones destroyed in a conventional war, not American.

    I don't know if this was true of American forces but the West Germans paid for the BAOR and we maintained forces in West Germany for years after the Wall fell because the Germans paying for the upkeep of our military was a better option than us having to. The argument for "spending on defence" wasn't as simple as Trump and those of his ilk portrayed it.

    After 1989, the Europeans took the advantage of Soviet collapse to enjoy a "Peace Dividend" and you can rightly argue the weakness of Europe's efforts in bringing about a resolution to Yugoslavia's dreadful conflict illustrated the paucity of its military.

    30 years on and the inevitable movement of American interest from the Atlantic to the Pacific has moved another step. If Europe is now having to defend itself, some sharp questions need to be asked - should the British and French nuclear deterrents be extended to the defence of Riga and Tallinn? Are they our concern or should we tell them they will need to reach some form of accommodation with Putin?
    Yes, I agree with much of that, and No, I don't think Britain should commit to defending the Baltics forever. We are out of the EU

    The EU is perfectly capable of defending itself, it is an enormous economy of 450m people that dwarfs Russia. The German economy alone is massively bigger than Russia

    It is insane the EU is unable to organise a proper army and navy to deter Putin

    Perhaps, if and when NATO collapses, they will finally grow the nads to do it
    Albeit with the proviso that we might suddenly find ourselves a bit uncomfortable if our near neighbor is a heavily armed ally of China.
    China does not have allies. History tells us that. The Middle Kingdom has vassals and satrapies, and it treats them brutally, or with disdain. Either way it expects absolute fealty and lots of presents

    That's not quite true. China was a member of the Allies during two world wars. Not a perfect one, of course (who was?) but under its more progressive, western-oriented governments it wasn't too bad.

    But under Imperial rule, whether dynastic or Communist, you're right, it is a monster.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 19,413
    edited September 2021
    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    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.
    I would just pose simple question

    Why has Starmer and Blackford endorsed AUKUS and as far as I am aware nobody in the HOC, outside Corbyn has objected to it

    Trying to make this all about Boris ignores the fact he has cross party support for AUKUS
    You're answering a point I haven't made. I'm delighted folk have woken up to the PRC.
    I am questioning why they have luxuriated in it for decades.
    And wondering what exactly has changed? So far not a thing has been forthcoming other than stuff which was already going on.
    And fully known to be going on.
    utter bollocks. Until early last year we weren't facing a global pandemic, killing millions, which probably "leaked" from a Chinese lab, which was engineered to be nasty, which the Chinese tried to cover up, and which the Chinese then happily seeded around the world, by keeping open Chinese air-routes even as they sealed China internally

    Note that this whole Aukus thing stems from China bullying Australia, and embargoing Australian produce, after Australia dared to request a global investigation into the origins of Covid-19

    This made Australia realise it was becoming a feudal underling, in the new Chinese Empire, not allowed an independent opinion, so they sought greater alliances than that offered by France

    China is behaving like a terrible global bully, Aukus is the reaction. That's it. China over-reached. Xi made an error. The West is wising up
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 70,902
    edited September 2021
    God they have made a second season..

    The Queen And Piers Morgan Congratulate Emma Raducanu | Spitting Image
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42h4y1zKa8E

    Its really not funny and just lazy writing. Also, you don't need a spitting image version of Piers Moron now there is all his tweets.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 34,652
    Leon said:

    MaxPB 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.
    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.)
    Bitter. You're the jilted ex right now. Boris has, for the first time in a while, played an absolute blinder in making what started as Australia asking us for nuclear subs into a new Anglosphere alliance to take on China. Even the American press has been surprised as to the depth and ambition of what is being proposed.
    I also wonder if the explicitly humiliating timing for Macron, France and the EU was deliberate. Just as the EU is about to announce its own (silly, formless) Indo-Pac policy? Just two weeks after ScoMo met Macron and said all is well?

    Whenever it was announced it was going to be shocking and hurtful. For France, most of all. Why not make a virtue of necessity and make it so stinging the French and Europeans are forced to look at themselves and decide: where do we stand? Are we with China or the West? Is it time for an EU army?

    Forcing the EU to face these questions is a good thing
    The issue the US has with the EU is they just want to do it with cheap words rather than tangible action. Giving Australia nuclear sub capability is a huge, huge step for the nuclear nations in the deal. This is stuff that is considered incredibly valuable and kept top secret for a reason. We would never countenance sharing the information with any single EU country but we've just done it with Australia.

    All the EU will do is make some bold statement about how preserving the peace in APAC is of utmost importance but commit no resources to achieving it. They'll leave it to France but hamstring them with German policy objectives of being able sell China BMWs and dishwashers.

    The timing does seem to have been picked to pre-empt whatever nonsense the EU will come out with from their summit.
  • dixiedean said:

    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.
    I think people have increasingly noticed over the past decade. For years now more and more people have been raising

    All of them were quite different a decade ago.

    HK did have democracy. There were some issues with the 2016 elections but they were relatively free. Since then there's been a massive deterioration.
    The atrocities in Xinjiang have become much more public in recent years.
    The militarisation of the S China Sea has again escalated a lot in the past few years.

    Yes there were red flags but there were reasons to be hopeful that economic liberalisation would lead to political liberalisation too. Spoiler: It didn't.
  • 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?
    Pitcairn says hello!
  • dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    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.
    I would just pose simple question

    Why has Starmer and Blackford endorsed AUKUS and as far as I am aware nobody in the HOC, outside Corbyn has objected to it

    Trying to make this all about Boris ignores the fact he has cross party support for AUKUS
    You're answering a point I haven't made. I'm delighted folk have woken up to the PRC.
    I am questioning why they have luxuriated in it for decades.
    And wondering what exactly has changed? So far not a thing has been forthcoming other than stuff which was already going on.
    The change is the threat felt across the Trans Pacific and the need to counter that threat by a relevant and strong enough defence force

    I sometimes wonder, and I am not being critical, but that we tend to look on Europe as the most important region to ourselves, but when you travel extensively as I have done to Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, Eastern Russia, the South China Sea and China itself you realise just how expansive it is and vast compared to Europe
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 97,860
    edited September 2021
    Foxy said:

    Australian PM Curtain on Dec 27th 1941:

    "Without any inhibitions of any kind, I make it quite clear that Australia looks to America, free of any pangs as to our traditional links or kinship with the United Kingdom"

    From: https://www.pacificwar.org.au/battaust/Britain_betrays_Australia.html

    So Boris has done a great job getting the UK aligned to the US and Australian alliance post Brexit then.

    Australia has always been the US' closest ally not us, fighting in every US war since WW1, including Vietnam unlike us.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 51,493
    edited September 2021

    Leon said:

    MaxPB 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.
    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.)
    Bitter. You're the jilted ex right now. Boris has, for the first time in a while, played an absolute blinder in making what started as Australia asking us for nuclear subs into a new Anglosphere alliance to take on China. Even the American press has been surprised as to the depth and ambition of what is being proposed.
    I also wonder if the explicitly humiliating timing for Macron, France and the EU was deliberate. Just as the EU is about to announce its own (silly, formless) Indo-Pac policy? Just two weeks after ScoMo met Macron and said all is well?

    Whenever it was announced it was going to be shocking and hurtful. For France, most of all. Why not make a virtue of necessity and make it so stinging the French and Europeans are forced to look at themselves and decide: where do we stand? Are we with China or the West? Is it time for an EU army?

    Forcing the EU to face these questions is a good thing
    They could have scrapped the deal first then announced AUUKUS a few weeks later. That might have spared some French dignity by making it look slightly less obvious that they were connected. Quite possible that Boris insisted on doing it all at once - he knows that bashing the French will play well with the base after the NI hike.
    The core of this is that Biden-Morrison - Boris did not trust France nor the 27 EU countries not to leak to China and Russia
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 31,498

    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?
    Pitcairn says hello!
    England is substantially closer to China than Pitcairn...
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 70,902
    edited September 2021
    Why no ability to use hawkeye for the T20 finals?

    Final might well have just been determined by a terrible umpire decision.
  • Foxy 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?
    Pitcairn says hello!
    England is substantially closer to China than Pitcairn...
    There's even a direct freight train from China to London.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 31,498

    Foxy 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?
    Pitcairn says hello!
    England is substantially closer to China than Pitcairn...
    There's even a direct freight train from China to London.
    Ooh. If only they would put on a sleeper car...
  • FishingFishing Posts: 3,410
    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 Chinese made a similar miscalculation. They welcomed us leaving the EU because they thought it would lead us to be isolated and hence more pliable. Whereas, since the referendum, we have largely banned Huawei, offered to take in 5 million Hong Kongers, and now helped in a small way to arm Australia against them.
  • MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB 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.
    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.)
    Bitter. You're the jilted ex right now. Boris has, for the first time in a while, played an absolute blinder in making what started as Australia asking us for nuclear subs into a new Anglosphere alliance to take on China. Even the American press has been surprised as to the depth and ambition of what is being proposed.
    I also wonder if the explicitly humiliating timing for Macron, France and the EU was deliberate. Just as the EU is about to announce its own (silly, formless) Indo-Pac policy? Just two weeks after ScoMo met Macron and said all is well?

    Whenever it was announced it was going to be shocking and hurtful. For France, most of all. Why not make a virtue of necessity and make it so stinging the French and Europeans are forced to look at themselves and decide: where do we stand? Are we with China or the West? Is it time for an EU army?

    Forcing the EU to face these questions is a good thing
    The issue the US has with the EU is they just want to do it with cheap words rather than tangible action. Giving Australia nuclear sub capability is a huge, huge step for the nuclear nations in the deal. This is stuff that is considered incredibly valuable and kept top secret for a reason. We would never countenance sharing the information with any single EU country but we've just done it with Australia.

    All the EU will do is make some bold statement about how preserving the peace in APAC is of utmost importance but commit no resources to achieving it. They'll leave it to France but hamstring them with German policy objectives of being able sell China BMWs and dishwashers.

    The timing does seem to have been picked to pre-empt whatever nonsense the EU will come out with from their summit.
    I think one undoubted benefit of Brexit has been a more agile and effective foreign policy.

    Be it on Hong Kong, sanctions against Putin or alliance action against China we can move far more quickly and robustly outside the CFSP, and put pressure on others more effectively too.

    In the EU we took a long time to agree rather bland and insipid statements that we only succeeded in tacking our way a tad after exhaustive and prolonged effort.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 19,413
    geoffw said:

    Boris's 'opportunism' has been deplored along with his 'perfidy' and 'treachery'. However, that opportunism shows a sure-footedness in international relations that we could not expect from the likes of Theresa May or most EU leaders. Much to be applauded, that opportunism.

    Also, "political opportunism" is the absolute definition of a good, clever foreign policy. The kind of thing France has sometimes exhibited, over the centuries. What nation ever acts selflessly and without an eye to advantage?!

    There are sometimes opportunities in foreign policy. Not often, but sometimes. Clear ways to advance your nation's interests quickly and significantly. It seems like Boris spotted one, and seized it. Good for him. All else is French spluttering and weird Remoaner bleating
  • BlancheLivermoreBlancheLivermore Posts: 2,627
    edited September 2021

    Leon said:

    MaxPB 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.
    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.)
    Bitter. You're the jilted ex right now. Boris has, for the first time in a while, played an absolute blinder in making what started as Australia asking us for nuclear subs into a new Anglosphere alliance to take on China. Even the American press has been surprised as to the depth and ambition of what is being proposed.
    I also wonder if the explicitly humiliating timing for Macron, France and the EU was deliberate. Just as the EU is about to announce its own (silly, formless) Indo-Pac policy? Just two weeks after ScoMo met Macron and said all is well?

    Whenever it was announced it was going to be shocking and hurtful. For France, most of all. Why not make a virtue of necessity and make it so stinging the French and Europeans are forced to look at themselves and decide: where do we stand? Are we with China or the West? Is it time for an EU army?

    Forcing the EU to face these questions is a good thing
    They could have scrapped the deal first then announced AUUKUS a few weeks later. That might have spared some French dignity by making it look slightly less obvious that they were connected. Quite possible that Boris insisted on doing it all at once - he knows that bashing the French will play well with the base after the NI hike.
    Alternatively Biden/Morrison/Johnson had higher priorities to deal with than saving French face.
    I'm disappointed Morrison didn't announce he was cancelling the order for quasi-ineffective French submarines, and remind Macron why he should be thoroughly shame-faced for eternity.
  • Leon said:

    geoffw said:

    Boris's 'opportunism' has been deplored along with his 'perfidy' and 'treachery'. However, that opportunism shows a sure-footedness in international relations that we could not expect from the likes of Theresa May or most EU leaders. Much to be applauded, that opportunism.

    Also, "political opportunism" is the absolute definition of a good, clever foreign policy. The kind of thing France has sometimes exhibited, over the centuries. What nation ever acts selflessly and without an eye to advantage?!

    There are sometimes opportunities in foreign policy. Not often, but sometimes. Clear ways to advance your nation's interests quickly and significantly. It seems like Boris spotted one, and seized it. Good for him. All else is French spluttering and weird Remoaner bleating
    At heart, the French are furious that they've been outwitted at their own game.
  • TomsToms Posts: 2,355
    Is there a word to describe the eminently human practice of trying to use a fact or facts to tenuously justify a hidden agenda?
  • MattWMattW Posts: 13,486
    edited September 2021
    Foxy said:

    Australian PM Curtain on Dec 27th 1941:

    "Without any inhibitions of any kind, I make it quite clear that Australia looks to America, free of any pangs as to our traditional links or kinship with the United Kingdom"

    From: https://www.pacificwar.org.au/battaust/Britain_betrays_Australia.html

    I think that's not a rounded report.

    It didn't take him long to change his tune and tilt away from the USA again. Which suggests that the attitude was pretty tactical.

    By 1943, when the threat of Japanese invasion had passed, Curtin increasingly returned to a commitment to the British Empire. Downplaying nationalism, he said that Australia comprised "seven million Britishers". He saw the United States as a predatory economic and military power that would threaten Australia's own ambitions in the Pacific. Australia moved closer to New Zealand, and suggested a lesser role for the United States after the war. Washington was annoyed.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Curtin

    (I'll leave aside that your source pulls one sentence out of the middle of a para in a longer speech. A longer quote is on my wiki link above.)
  • One person will be very pleased tonight : Vladimir Putin.
  • MattW said:

    Foxy said:

    Australian PM Curtain on Dec 27th 1941:

    "Without any inhibitions of any kind, I make it quite clear that Australia looks to America, free of any pangs as to our traditional links or kinship with the United Kingdom"

    From: https://www.pacificwar.org.au/battaust/Britain_betrays_Australia.html

    It didn't take him long to change his tune and tilt away from the USA again. Which suggests that the attitude was pretty tactical.

    By 1943, when the threat of Japanese invasion had passed, Curtin increasingly returned to a commitment to the British Empire. Downplaying nationalism, he said that Australia comprised "seven million Britishers". He saw the United States as a predatory economic and military power that would threaten Australia's own ambitions in the Pacific. Australia moved closer to New Zealand, and suggested a lesser role for the United States after the war. Washington was annoyed.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Curtin

    (I'll leave aside that your source pulls one sentence out of the middle of a para in a longer speech. A longer quote is on my wiki link above.)
    Indeed its a completely different meaning to the sentence in its full paragraph. Certainly no talk of betrayal.
  • One person will be very pleased tonight : Vladimir Putin.

    Quite the opposite. The US, UK and allies working closely together is not in Putin's interests.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 31,498

    MattW said:

    Foxy said:

    Australian PM Curtain on Dec 27th 1941:

    "Without any inhibitions of any kind, I make it quite clear that Australia looks to America, free of any pangs as to our traditional links or kinship with the United Kingdom"

    From: https://www.pacificwar.org.au/battaust/Britain_betrays_Australia.html

    It didn't take him long to change his tune and tilt away from the USA again. Which suggests that the attitude was pretty tactical.

    By 1943, when the threat of Japanese invasion had passed, Curtin increasingly returned to a commitment to the British Empire. Downplaying nationalism, he said that Australia comprised "seven million Britishers". He saw the United States as a predatory economic and military power that would threaten Australia's own ambitions in the Pacific. Australia moved closer to New Zealand, and suggested a lesser role for the United States after the war. Washington was annoyed.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Curtin

    (I'll leave aside that your source pulls one sentence out of the middle of a para in a longer speech. A longer quote is on my wiki link above.)
    Indeed its a completely different meaning to the sentence in its full paragraph. Certainly no talk of betrayal.
    I think the sentence is representative of the longer speech. Certainly Churchill is seen not to have been a friend of Australia in either war.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 6,412
    edited September 2021

    One person will be very pleased tonight : Vladimir Putin.

    Quite the opposite. The US, UK and allies working closely together is not in Putin's interests.
    NATO looks more disunited than it almost ever has. Perfect for him.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 19,413

    One person will be very pleased tonight : Vladimir Putin.

    Quite the opposite. The US, UK and allies working closely together is not in Putin's interests.
    Yes, this is the opposite of what he wants. If the Anglosphere really unites, militarily, that is a strong deterrent to him and China. He can rely on the EU to be pathetically divided and inert. Not this new alliance.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 6,412
    edited September 2021
    The Indo-Pacific isn't really the key for Russia, and never has been historically, I wouldn't say. What he will be interested in is any NATO incoherence in Eurasia, from central and eastern europe to the caucuses.
  • 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.
    No doubt you’ll like this one too:

    Macron did not recall the UK ambassador, apparently, according to sources close to the Elysee, "for the same reason that when the cooking in a restaurant is not first class, you sack the chef, not the guy who washes the dishes."

    https://twitter.com/t0nyyates/status/1439321091768561671
  • Looks on twitter....Robert Webb trending....wonders why...oh he is on the dance programme....oh no wait....the twatterati are wishing all sorts of shit on him, because he once said he agreed with an article that was critical about Mermaids (the trans kid organisation)....so he is instantly a massive transphobe who shouldn't on Strictly.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 34,652
    Leon said:

    One person will be very pleased tonight : Vladimir Putin.

    Quite the opposite. The US, UK and allies working closely together is not in Putin's interests.
    Yes, this is the opposite of what he wants. If the Anglosphere really unites, militarily, that is a strong deterrent to him and China. He can rely on the EU to be pathetically divided and inert. Not this new alliance.
    Exactly, excluding appeaser nations like Germany gives this teeth. Both China and Russia have benefited from internal EU squabbling hamstringing any serious western response to their aggression. By jettisoning those nations the world became a less easy place for Putin and Xi to peddle their malign influence.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 6,337

    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.
    No doubt you’ll like this one too:

    Macron did not recall the UK ambassador, apparently, according to sources close to the Elysee, "for the same reason that when the cooking in a restaurant is not first class, you sack the chef, not the guy who washes the dishes."

    https://twitter.com/t0nyyates/status/1439321091768561671
    hahaha, what a putdown!
  • Leon said:

    One person will be very pleased tonight : Vladimir Putin.

    Quite the opposite. The US, UK and allies working closely together is not in Putin's interests.
    Yes, this is the opposite of what he wants. If the Anglosphere really unites, militarily, that is a strong deterrent to him and China. He can rely on the EU to be pathetically divided and inert. Not this new alliance.
    Wait, Australia’s going to help out against Putin? How will that work?
  • Foxy said:

    MattW said:

    Foxy said:

    Australian PM Curtain on Dec 27th 1941:

    "Without any inhibitions of any kind, I make it quite clear that Australia looks to America, free of any pangs as to our traditional links or kinship with the United Kingdom"

    From: https://www.pacificwar.org.au/battaust/Britain_betrays_Australia.html

    It didn't take him long to change his tune and tilt away from the USA again. Which suggests that the attitude was pretty tactical.

    By 1943, when the threat of Japanese invasion had passed, Curtin increasingly returned to a commitment to the British Empire. Downplaying nationalism, he said that Australia comprised "seven million Britishers". He saw the United States as a predatory economic and military power that would threaten Australia's own ambitions in the Pacific. Australia moved closer to New Zealand, and suggested a lesser role for the United States after the war. Washington was annoyed.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Curtin

    (I'll leave aside that your source pulls one sentence out of the middle of a para in a longer speech. A longer quote is on my wiki link above.)
    Indeed its a completely different meaning to the sentence in its full paragraph. Certainly no talk of betrayal.
    I think the sentence is representative of the longer speech. Certainly Churchill is seen not to have been a friend of Australia in either war.
    Yes but the context of the sentence is that he's saying he doesn't think the UK is capable of defending Australia because of being preoccupied with Germany - not as that weird website tries to spin it that Aus is being betrayed.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 6,224

    The Indo-Pacific isn't really the key for Russia, and has never been historically. What he will be interested in is any NATO incoherence in Eurasia, from eastern europe to the caucuses.

    What's changed in NATO other than that the French are peeved? They're still in NATO as are the US and the UK, and for that matter most Eastern European countries in Russia's 'near abroad'.

  • HYUFD said:

    Even if they were it would be the TUV taking most of their votes on that poll and thus most of their seats, the TUV are even more hardline Unionists.

    If the UUP pick up a few seats as that poll suggests that would also help the Tories for as Justin has correctly stated they are closer aligned to the Tories than the DUP, even running joint candidates with the Tories in 2010
    TUV don't have any seats at Westminster.
  • If the Frogs are upset, who cares. They have behaved abominably towards us since Brexit. As ye sow....
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 6,337

    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
    The satire got a bit too close to home there eh?
  • FishingFishing Posts: 3,410
    Leon said:

    One person will be very pleased tonight : Vladimir Putin.

    Quite the opposite. The US, UK and allies working closely together is not in Putin's interests.
    Yes, this is the opposite of what he wants. If the Anglosphere really unites, militarily, that is a strong deterrent to him and China. He can rely on the EU to be pathetically divided and inert. Not this new alliance.
    We need to get the Canadians involved once Trudeau is gone, though.

    We can live without New Zealand, frankly.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 19,413

    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.
    No doubt you’ll like this one too:

    Macron did not recall the UK ambassador, apparently, according to sources close to the Elysee, "for the same reason that when the cooking in a restaurant is not first class, you sack the chef, not the guy who washes the dishes."

    https://twitter.com/t0nyyates/status/1439321091768561671
    Unless the guy who washes the dishes came up with the recipe. Oops

    Jesus the French are making a tragic spectacle of themselves. Admittedly it's a bad situation for them (and if this was the UK we'd be equally furious) but entire weeks of trantruming? Eeesh. It's not going to make it better. It just prolongs the humiliation
  • 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.
    No doubt you’ll like this one too:

    Macron did not recall the UK ambassador, apparently, according to sources close to the Elysee, "for the same reason that when the cooking in a restaurant is not first class, you sack the chef, not the guy who washes the dishes."

    https://twitter.com/t0nyyates/status/1439321091768561671
    The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 6,224
    Fishing said:

    Leon said:

    One person will be very pleased tonight : Vladimir Putin.

    Quite the opposite. The US, UK and allies working closely together is not in Putin's interests.
    Yes, this is the opposite of what he wants. If the Anglosphere really unites, militarily, that is a strong deterrent to him and China. He can rely on the EU to be pathetically divided and inert. Not this new alliance.
    We need to get the Canadians involved once Trudeau is gone, though.

    We can live without New Zealand, frankly.
    Kiwis are Chinese Gooseberries as is well known.

  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 6,412
    edited September 2021
    geoffw said:

    The Indo-Pacific isn't really the key for Russia, and has never been historically. What he will be interested in is any NATO incoherence in Eurasia, from eastern europe to the caucuses.

    What's changed in NATO other than that the French are peeved? They're still in NATO as are the US and the UK, and for that matter most Eastern European countries in Russia's 'near abroad'.

    That depends on the French and then subsequently European response. If France regards it a statement against military co-operation, trust and resource-sharing, you can be sure it will affect NATO.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 2,120
    This continued shifting of alliances has a very pre WW1 feel to it. Makes me very uneasy.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 6,337
    Fishing said:

    Leon said:

    One person will be very pleased tonight : Vladimir Putin.

    Quite the opposite. The US, UK and allies working closely together is not in Putin's interests.
    Yes, this is the opposite of what he wants. If the Anglosphere really unites, militarily, that is a strong deterrent to him and China. He can rely on the EU to be pathetically divided and inert. Not this new alliance.
    We need to get the Canadians involved once Trudeau is gone, though.

    We can live without New Zealand, frankly.
    Why "once Trudeau is gone"?
  • So come on, own up, which PBers are which...

    SCOTLAND ON SUNDAY: Revealed: COP26 ‘sustainability’ advisor’s ties to fossil fuel firms

    https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1439330213045886979?s=20
  • FishingFishing Posts: 3,410
    edited September 2021
    Leon 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.
    No doubt you’ll like this one too:

    Macron did not recall the UK ambassador, apparently, according to sources close to the Elysee, "for the same reason that when the cooking in a restaurant is not first class, you sack the chef, not the guy who washes the dishes."

    https://twitter.com/t0nyyates/status/1439321091768561671
    Unless the guy who washes the dishes came up with the recipe. Oops

    Jesus the French are making a tragic spectacle of themselves. Admittedly it's a bad situation for them (and if this was the UK we'd be equally furious) but entire weeks of trantruming? Eeesh. It's not going to make it better. It just prolongs the humiliation
    It causes problems for us too.

    Think of the pressure on global popcorn supplies ...
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 6,337
    darkage said:

    This continued shifting of alliances has a very pre WW1 feel to it. Makes me very uneasy.

    Mid C18th.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stately_quadrille
  • FishingFishing Posts: 3,410
    Farooq said:

    Fishing said:

    Leon said:

    One person will be very pleased tonight : Vladimir Putin.

    Quite the opposite. The US, UK and allies working closely together is not in Putin's interests.
    Yes, this is the opposite of what he wants. If the Anglosphere really unites, militarily, that is a strong deterrent to him and China. He can rely on the EU to be pathetically divided and inert. Not this new alliance.
    We need to get the Canadians involved once Trudeau is gone, though.

    We can live without New Zealand, frankly.
    Why "once Trudeau is gone"?
    Because the Conservatives want to be in, while Trudeau can't be bothered.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 16,296

    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.
    No doubt you’ll like this one too:

    Macron did not recall the UK ambassador, apparently, according to sources close to the Elysee, "for the same reason that when the cooking in a restaurant is not first class, you sack the chef, not the guy who washes the dishes."

    https://twitter.com/t0nyyates/status/1439321091768561671
    On the nail!
  • Fishing said:

    Leon said:

    One person will be very pleased tonight : Vladimir Putin.

    Quite the opposite. The US, UK and allies working closely together is not in Putin's interests.
    Yes, this is the opposite of what he wants. If the Anglosphere really unites, militarily, that is a strong deterrent to him and China. He can rely on the EU to be pathetically divided and inert. Not this new alliance.
    We need to get the Canadians involved once Trudeau is gone, though.

    We can live without New Zealand, frankly.
    Don't forget Ireland :lol:
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 6,337
    Fishing said:

    Farooq said:

    Fishing said:

    Leon said:

    One person will be very pleased tonight : Vladimir Putin.

    Quite the opposite. The US, UK and allies working closely together is not in Putin's interests.
    Yes, this is the opposite of what he wants. If the Anglosphere really unites, militarily, that is a strong deterrent to him and China. He can rely on the EU to be pathetically divided and inert. Not this new alliance.
    We need to get the Canadians involved once Trudeau is gone, though.

    We can live without New Zealand, frankly.
    Why "once Trudeau is gone"?
    Because the Conservatives want to be in, while Trudeau can't be bothered.
    "Can't be bothered"? Yesterday everyone was saying Canada wasn't invited.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 16,098
    Farooq said:

    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
    The satire got a bit too close to home there eh?
    Our troops haven't played football with the heads of dead babies in the recent past, which is more than a token difference. Or not while anyone's been watching.
  • geoffw said:

    Fishing said:

    Leon said:

    One person will be very pleased tonight : Vladimir Putin.

    Quite the opposite. The US, UK and allies working closely together is not in Putin's interests.
    Yes, this is the opposite of what he wants. If the Anglosphere really unites, militarily, that is a strong deterrent to him and China. He can rely on the EU to be pathetically divided and inert. Not this new alliance.
    We need to get the Canadians involved once Trudeau is gone, though.

    We can live without New Zealand, frankly.
    Kiwis are Chinese Gooseberries as is well known.

    Or macaque peaches, in Chinese
  • geoffw said:

    The Indo-Pacific isn't really the key for Russia, and has never been historically. What he will be interested in is any NATO incoherence in Eurasia, from eastern europe to the caucuses.

    What's changed in NATO other than that the French are peeved? They're still in NATO as are the US and the UK, and for that matter most Eastern European countries in Russia's 'near abroad'.

    That depends on the French and then subsequently European response. If France regards it a statement against military co-operation, trust and resource-sharing, you can be sure it will affect NATO.
    The 💪 in NATO is in AUKUS.

    What floppy discs do you think will be lost from NATO? The frogs have had a hokey-cokey relationship with NATO all along and most of the rest of Europe is shielding behind us and US not contributing.
  • darkage said:

    This continued shifting of alliances has a very pre WW1 feel to it. Makes me very uneasy.

    Italy was a paid up member of the Central Powers - but joined the Allies in 1915.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 3,410
    Farooq said:

    Fishing said:

    Farooq said:

    Fishing said:

    Leon said:

    One person will be very pleased tonight : Vladimir Putin.

    Quite the opposite. The US, UK and allies working closely together is not in Putin's interests.
    Yes, this is the opposite of what he wants. If the Anglosphere really unites, militarily, that is a strong deterrent to him and China. He can rely on the EU to be pathetically divided and inert. Not this new alliance.
    We need to get the Canadians involved once Trudeau is gone, though.

    We can live without New Zealand, frankly.
    Why "once Trudeau is gone"?
    Because the Conservatives want to be in, while Trudeau can't be bothered.
    "Can't be bothered"? Yesterday everyone was saying Canada wasn't invited.
    You only invite someone to something like this when you are pretty sure they'll accept.

    I don't actually know which it was. If Canada wants to join, I'd be glad to be wrong and happy to have them in, under Trudeau or O'Toole.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 6,412
    edited September 2021

    geoffw said:

    The Indo-Pacific isn't really the key for Russia, and has never been historically. What he will be interested in is any NATO incoherence in Eurasia, from eastern europe to the caucuses.

    What's changed in NATO other than that the French are peeved? They're still in NATO as are the US and the UK, and for that matter most Eastern European countries in Russia's 'near abroad'.

    That depends on the French and then subsequently European response. If France regards it a statement against military co-operation, trust and resource-sharing, you can be sure it will affect NATO.
    The 💪 in NATO is in AUKUS.

    What floppy discs do you think will be lost from NATO? The frogs have had a hokey-cokey relationship with NATO all along and most of the rest of Europe is shielding behind us and US not contributing.

    Because of German reticence, France is still the key organising European military, bureaucratic and diplomatic power, just not economic or financial. It matters largely because of France's role in both the EU and NATO.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 6,337
    IshmaelZ said:

    Farooq said:

    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
    The satire got a bit too close to home there eh?
    Our troops haven't played football with the heads of dead babies in the recent past, which is more than a token difference. Or not while anyone's been watching.
    I'm not really sure what you're talking about. Do you need me to explain my joke was meant to sound like I was referring to Japan but was actually referring to the UK?
  • Leon said:

    One person will be very pleased tonight : Vladimir Putin.

    Quite the opposite. The US, UK and allies working closely together is not in Putin's interests.
    Yes, this is the opposite of what he wants. If the Anglosphere really unites, militarily, that is a strong deterrent to him and China. He can rely on the EU to be pathetically divided and inert. Not this new alliance.
    Wait, Australia’s going to help out against Putin? How will that work?
    They already do, yes.

    Intelligence and Five Eyes is considerable. The Australians have their expertise.
  • So the same hysterics who took five seconds to whip up a whole ‘Taliban will be the new Khmer Rouge and it’s all Biden’s fault’ narrative have now moved on to ‘this new Anglosphere alliance is a triumph and will put a stopper on both Vlad & Xi, with Biden leading the way’ in an even shorter time.

    This is an unexpected turn of events I must say, but these people have a great predictive record so fingers crossed.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 19,413
    Fishing said:

    Farooq said:

    Fishing said:

    Farooq said:

    Fishing said:

    Leon said:

    One person will be very pleased tonight : Vladimir Putin.

    Quite the opposite. The US, UK and allies working closely together is not in Putin's interests.
    Yes, this is the opposite of what he wants. If the Anglosphere really unites, militarily, that is a strong deterrent to him and China. He can rely on the EU to be pathetically divided and inert. Not this new alliance.
    We need to get the Canadians involved once Trudeau is gone, though.

    We can live without New Zealand, frankly.
    Why "once Trudeau is gone"?
    Because the Conservatives want to be in, while Trudeau can't be bothered.
    "Can't be bothered"? Yesterday everyone was saying Canada wasn't invited.
    You only invite someone to something like this when you are pretty sure they'll accept.

    I don't actually know which it was. If Canada wants to join, I'd be glad to be wrong and happy to have them in, under Trudeau or O'Toole.
    According to reports, the Canadians were entirely ignored, and were as surprised and blind-sided as France and the EU

    I've no idea why
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 16,098
    Farooq said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Farooq said:

    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
    The satire got a bit too close to home there eh?
    Our troops haven't played football with the heads of dead babies in the recent past, which is more than a token difference. Or not while anyone's been watching.
    I'm not really sure what you're talking about. Do you need me to explain my joke was meant to sound like I was referring to Japan but was actually referring to the UK?
    And do you need me to tell you it was too laboured to be worth the effort?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 19,413
    French Foreign Policy falling apart, hour by hour



    Jakub Janda
    @_JakubJanda
    Why Central Europe does not trust Paris?

    1) Macron conducts appeasement policy to Russia without caring about CEE

    2) Macron pushes anti US moves for domestic electoral reasons, while US is only real security provider against Russia

    3) France doesnt care about Eastern Europe


    https://twitter.com/_JakubJanda/status/1439237084330463236?s=20
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 34,652
    Leon said:

    Fishing said:

    Farooq said:

    Fishing said:

    Farooq said:

    Fishing said:

    Leon said:

    One person will be very pleased tonight : Vladimir Putin.

    Quite the opposite. The US, UK and allies working closely together is not in Putin's interests.
    Yes, this is the opposite of what he wants. If the Anglosphere really unites, militarily, that is a strong deterrent to him and China. He can rely on the EU to be pathetically divided and inert. Not this new alliance.
    We need to get the Canadians involved once Trudeau is gone, though.

    We can live without New Zealand, frankly.
    Why "once Trudeau is gone"?
    Because the Conservatives want to be in, while Trudeau can't be bothered.
    "Can't be bothered"? Yesterday everyone was saying Canada wasn't invited.
    You only invite someone to something like this when you are pretty sure they'll accept.

    I don't actually know which it was. If Canada wants to join, I'd be glad to be wrong and happy to have them in, under Trudeau or O'Toole.
    According to reports, the Canadians were entirely ignored, and were as surprised and blind-sided as France and the EU

    I've no idea why
    It's the nature of what is being proposed. We're sharing our nuclear secrets with a third nation. It's a lot closer the MDA between the US and UK which Canada is also not party to. When associate membership becomes an option I'm sure Canada and others will be invited but the nature of what is in the pact is why it is very narrow.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 16,098
    Roger 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.
    No doubt you’ll like this one too:

    Macron did not recall the UK ambassador, apparently, according to sources close to the Elysee, "for the same reason that when the cooking in a restaurant is not first class, you sack the chef, not the guy who washes the dishes."

    https://twitter.com/t0nyyates/status/1439321091768561671
    On the nail!
    It really isn't. I yield to nobody in my dislike of Johnson, but the word petulant might have been invented to describe that pathetic fail of an insult.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 6,337
    edited September 2021
    Fishing said:

    Farooq said:

    Fishing said:

    Farooq said:

    Fishing said:

    Leon said:

    One person will be very pleased tonight : Vladimir Putin.

    Quite the opposite. The US, UK and allies working closely together is not in Putin's interests.
    Yes, this is the opposite of what he wants. If the Anglosphere really unites, militarily, that is a strong deterrent to him and China. He can rely on the EU to be pathetically divided and inert. Not this new alliance.
    We need to get the Canadians involved once Trudeau is gone, though.

    We can live without New Zealand, frankly.
    Why "once Trudeau is gone"?
    Because the Conservatives want to be in, while Trudeau can't be bothered.
    "Can't be bothered"? Yesterday everyone was saying Canada wasn't invited.
    You only invite someone to something like this when you are pretty sure they'll accept.

    I don't actually know which it was. If Canada wants to join, I'd be glad to be wrong and happy to have them in, under Trudeau or O'Toole.
    I'm glad you said this, because it's obvious that an awful lot of people on here are winging it, some to ridiculous effect. I wish more people on here admitted that they don't have the complete picture. Edit: because none of us do.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 6,337
    IshmaelZ said:

    Farooq said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Farooq said:

    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
    The satire got a bit too close to home there eh?
    Our troops haven't played football with the heads of dead babies in the recent past, which is more than a token difference. Or not while anyone's been watching.
    I'm not really sure what you're talking about. Do you need me to explain my joke was meant to sound like I was referring to Japan but was actually referring to the UK?
    And do you need me to tell you it was too laboured to be worth the effort?
    Yes, you can do if you like. I'm still not sure where the dead babies came into the picture. Lighten up.
  • Leon said:

    One person will be very pleased tonight : Vladimir Putin.

    Quite the opposite. The US, UK and allies working closely together is not in Putin's interests.
    Yes, this is the opposite of what he wants. If the Anglosphere really unites, militarily, that is a strong deterrent to him and China. He can rely on the EU to be pathetically divided and inert. Not this new alliance.
    Wait, Australia’s going to help out against Putin? How will that work?
    They already do, yes.

    Intelligence and Five Eyes is considerable. The Australians have their expertise.
    They already do? So what does that consist of, what’s the extra special stuff that they’ll be providing from now on, and which geographical flash points will it be taking place in?
  • Captain Underpants has spoken:

    The AUKUS deal seems to have been a big mistake. Someone seems to have forgotten that France is central to NATO and the Pacific.

    https://twitter.com/RhonddaBryant/status/1439335093768794116?s=20
  • geoffw said:

    The Indo-Pacific isn't really the key for Russia, and has never been historically. What he will be interested in is any NATO incoherence in Eurasia, from eastern europe to the caucuses.

    What's changed in NATO other than that the French are peeved? They're still in NATO as are the US and the UK, and for that matter most Eastern European countries in Russia's 'near abroad'.

    That depends on the French and then subsequently European response. If France regards it a statement against military co-operation, trust and resource-sharing, you can be sure it will affect NATO.
    The 💪 in NATO is in AUKUS.

    What floppy discs do you think will be lost from NATO? The frogs have had a hokey-cokey relationship with NATO all along and most of the rest of Europe is shielding behind us and US not contributing.
    Because of German reticence, France is the still key organising European military and diplomatic power. It matters largely because of France's role in both the EU and NATO.
    France have always been semi-detached from NATO, this is nothing new. Plenty of history with de Gaulle and "Jupiter" loves to tread in his footsteps.

    France may be the main European military within the EU, but not the main European figure in NATO. There is a reason the President of the United States knows to call London before Paris - and a close alignment between Washington and London is the last thing either Moscow or Beijing wants.
This discussion has been closed.