Another source (after The Times story yesterday) that the Australians approached the British first:
According to one diplomatic source in Washington, Australian officials first approached the British government to check that London would give its support before going to the Biden administration, knowing they would be pushing at a partially open door.
The French can cope with being humiliated and screwed over by America. Because the USA is much bigger. A superpower. Like China. That’s life. Withdraw the ambassador. It’s a mere gesture but it might sting them
The French can cope with the Australian betrayal (tho it hurts more). The Australians are inferior. A small country with too many kangaroos. Pff! Withdraw the ambassador and try and destabilize their tiny politics
Britain? Brexit Britain? Perfidious Albion? This is their exact rival, and equal. The country next door that constantly infuriates them even as it intrigues them. This stupid foggy island has totally beaten us?? It’s the pain of Sunderland losing to Newcastle. It is a bitter local rivalry. Withdrawing the French ambassador in London would be acknowledging England’s triumph. It is too painful, so instead they resort to cooking metaphors
I think there's another layer which is that the French elite are collectively afraid of contemplating the possibility that Boris Johnson was right about the EU. They can't take him seriously, because their own worldview depends on seeing him as a clown.
This is why they didn't withdraw ambassadors from the UK. They are desperate to make this seem Australia and US driven. They can't accept Johnson is a major player.
Surely they didn't remove the ambassador to the UK, because the thing they were upset about was the loss of a €90bn contract from the Australians to the US.
As has been predicted here, it looks as though in the short term Australia will look at buying off the shelf while it builds up its own capability. That sounds to me like they're going to get a couple of Astutes. The unit price on them is small compared to what the French were charging.
It's clear that the French are incredibly upset with us but don't want to validate the post Brexit shifting of tides. Their worldview is bring shattered and the EU is not going to help France project its power and ambition globally. That realisation must be very, very difficult for the French to accept.
They keep on getting humiliated through having an absurdly inflated view of France's power and importance, and keep on making the same mistake.
Why on earth should there be seat losses to the SNP? The Tories have been winning council seats from the SNP in Scotland. In addition there will be 7 fewer Scottish seats after the boundary changes. It really is time the remoaners on this site realise they lost in 2016 and we have left the EU for good. If Boris won the next election with a majority of 100, most of you would be trying to find a way to dismiss it as a disaster for him. The LobDems might win the odd council by-election and may even win some of the new Westminster seats after the boundary changes but they stabbed their most successful leader, Charles Kennedy in the back and they have kept going backwards ever since. I said 2 years ago Starmer would bore the working class and so it is proving to be.
Well up here in Aberdeenshire I think the Tories basic problem is that their delivery of Brexit has shagged Farming and Fishing. As those are the big industries up here in the sticks that does make life difficult for the Tory MPs representing us.
You can froth on about "remoaners" but this isn't replaying the referendum. This is how the hell has this government managed to sign and implement a deal in a way that totally shags exports but gives imports the open door treatment?
The EU doesn't have a single university ranked in the World's top twenty....
Sorry but your tweet is a reflection of the over militarization of the US foreign policy. Most of the major issues of today and tomorrow are not military: Climate change, trade, artificial intelligence, cyberspace etc. In all these fields, the EU is a superpower.
It's remarkably ignorant. The US dominates AI and cyberspace, the EU isn't even close behind. China is in second place.
Right now there is a huge amount of capital being expended on producing accelerators for machine learning, and I would guess that 9 out of 10 times the companies involved are US or Chinese, and occcasionally the UK will pop up with a company like Graphcore. Mind you most of this capital will go down the drain, and only a couple of lucky winners will emerge. It's a bit like the 3d accelerator race of the 90s, which started with something like 30 odd companies, and basically ended up with Nvidia and ATI. Maybe the EU will get lucky and produce something people want, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
How? I don't think the EU has anything that will serve as a decent starting point..
The French can cope with being humiliated and screwed over by America. Because the USA is much bigger. A superpower. Like China. That’s life. Withdraw the ambassador. It’s a mere gesture but it might sting them
The French can cope with the Australian betrayal (tho it hurts more). The Australians are inferior. A small country with too many kangaroos. Pff! Withdraw the ambassador and try and destabilize their tiny politics
Britain? Brexit Britain? Perfidious Albion? This is their exact rival, and equal. The country next door that constantly infuriates them even as it intrigues them. This stupid foggy island has totally beaten us?? It’s the pain of Sunderland losing to Newcastle. It is a bitter local rivalry. Withdrawing the French ambassador in London would be acknowledging England’s triumph. It is too painful, so instead they resort to cooking metaphors
I think there's another layer which is that the French elite are collectively afraid of contemplating the possibility that Boris Johnson was right about the EU. They can't take him seriously, because their own worldview depends on seeing him as a clown.
The same applies to a great number of posters on this site.
The PB elite?
It has been even more noticeable in the post-Brexit years that a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north. Of course it all began with the unfortunate microphone incident with Gordon Brown. It is this above all which has riven the Labour party asunder and it's unclear that they are even on the road to recognising let alone mending this problem. The current treatment of some of their women MPs referred to above is simply the latest example of this problem.
Putting thoughts and motivations in other people's minds has also become common, no?
Have you ever read Roger's comments? Do you think the GB microphone comment was fake?
How would you feel if I attributed the views of (say) @HYUFD to broadly right wing people?
Fine - but be more specific - I referred to, quote, 'a section of the liberal left' which, without wishing to be condescending, is I think rather narrower than 'broadly right wing people', no?
I apologise if I've gotten a bit shirty. One of the things that has really annoyed me about the... shall I call it Trump era? although it's clearly a bigger issue...is this creating caricatures of our political opponents.
I see it when politicians of the Left accuse those on the Right of being racist for not signing up to the whole BLM thing.
Anyway: you're usually a pretty thoughtful and nuanced poster, but "a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north" triggered me.
The reality is that the vast, vast majority of our political opponents only want the best for the British people. They may have a slightly different view of what exactly best constitutes or the correct path to get there.
But their views, by and large, and every bit as morally valid as ours. (Albeit often not as practical, well thought out, properly costed, or recognising of the foibles of human nature.)
Another source (after The Times story yesterday) that the Australians approached the British first:
According to one diplomatic source in Washington, Australian officials first approached the British government to check that London would give its support before going to the Biden administration, knowing they would be pushing at a partially open door.
The French can cope with being humiliated and screwed over by America. Because the USA is much bigger. A superpower. Like China. That’s life. Withdraw the ambassador. It’s a mere gesture but it might sting them
The French can cope with the Australian betrayal (tho it hurts more). The Australians are inferior. A small country with too many kangaroos. Pff! Withdraw the ambassador and try and destabilize their tiny politics
Britain? Brexit Britain? Perfidious Albion? This is their exact rival, and equal. The country next door that constantly infuriates them even as it intrigues them. This stupid foggy island has totally beaten us?? It’s the pain of Sunderland losing to Newcastle. It is a bitter local rivalry. Withdrawing the French ambassador in London would be acknowledging England’s triumph. It is too painful, so instead they resort to cooking metaphors
I think there's another layer which is that the French elite are collectively afraid of contemplating the possibility that Boris Johnson was right about the EU. They can't take him seriously, because their own worldview depends on seeing him as a clown.
This is why they didn't withdraw ambassadors from the UK. They are desperate to make this seem Australia and US driven. They can't accept Johnson is a major player.
Surely they didn't remove the ambassador to the UK, because the thing they were upset about was the loss of a €90bn contract from the Australians to the US.
As has been predicted here, it looks as though in the short term Australia will look at buying off the shelf while it builds up its own capability. That sounds to me like they're going to get a couple of Astutes. The unit price on them is small compared to what the French were charging.
It takes ten years from laying down an Astute to commissioning it and they are probably five years away from starting so that's not exactly a short term solution. They are incredibly labour intensive to build. There is no pipe section longer than 2m in any of them which means a LOT of welding, fettling, inspecting, testing.
Selling them Agamemnon and Agincourt is a short term solution. Having Australia build their own Astutes is the opposite of that.
I think if they ever get their SSNs they will be short wheelbase Virginias with no VLS and no VPM.
Looking into the details of the now canned Australia/France sub deal, the unit cost was mental for conventional power at AU$7.5bn each. Our dreadnought class subs will cost £7bn each and the size and capability difference is in another league. An Astute can be purchased for £1.5bn with a lead time of a few years, plus there's already two complete ones that can be leased to Australia tomorrow if they wanted to go down that route.
How did France ever get to a position where they thought $7.5bn for conventional power was going to be waved through by Australia when the Aussies can see the UK building nuclear subs for a third of the cost.
The EU doesn't have a single university ranked in the World's top twenty....
Sorry but your tweet is a reflection of the over militarization of the US foreign policy. Most of the major issues of today and tomorrow are not military: Climate change, trade, artificial intelligence, cyberspace etc. In all these fields, the EU is a superpower.
It's remarkably ignorant. The US dominates AI and cyberspace, the EU isn't even close behind. China is in second place.
Right now there is a huge amount of capital being expended on producing accelerators for machine learning, and I would guess that 9 out of 10 times the companies involved are US or Chinese, and occcasionally the UK will pop up with a company like Graphcore. Mind you most of this capital will go down the drain, and only a couple of lucky winners will emerge. It's a bit like the 3d accelerator race of the 90s, which started with something like 30 odd companies, and basically ended up with Nvidia and ATI. Maybe the EU will get lucky and produce something people want, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
How? I don't think the EU has anything that will serve as a decent starting point..
The EU does have ambitions in this area, but most of them involve forming committees, dispensing large amounts of public money, and for now at least licensing IP. It's not quite the same as the dozens of US companies raising billions of dollars of venture capital to design their own hardware in the hope of becoming the next Intel.
Basically if you really want to solve this problem, you first need to figure out why Europe (not just the EU) has done such a lousy job of producing companies like Intel, Apple, Microsoft, Qualcomm, Google etc. I think it has a lot more to do with finance and business broadly, than what the state does through funding research and providing capital.
The French can cope with being humiliated and screwed over by America. Because the USA is much bigger. A superpower. Like China. That’s life. Withdraw the ambassador. It’s a mere gesture but it might sting them
The French can cope with the Australian betrayal (tho it hurts more). The Australians are inferior. A small country with too many kangaroos. Pff! Withdraw the ambassador and try and destabilize their tiny politics
Britain? Brexit Britain? Perfidious Albion? This is their exact rival, and equal. The country next door that constantly infuriates them even as it intrigues them. This stupid foggy island has totally beaten us?? It’s the pain of Sunderland losing to Newcastle. It is a bitter local rivalry. Withdrawing the French ambassador in London would be acknowledging England’s triumph. It is too painful, so instead they resort to cooking metaphors
I think there's another layer which is that the French elite are collectively afraid of contemplating the possibility that Boris Johnson was right about the EU. They can't take him seriously, because their own worldview depends on seeing him as a clown.
The same applies to a great number of posters on this site.
The PB elite?
It has been even more noticeable in the post-Brexit years that a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north. Of course it all began with the unfortunate microphone incident with Gordon Brown. It is this above all which has riven the Labour party asunder and it's unclear that they are even on the road to recognising let alone mending this problem. The current treatment of some of their women MPs referred to above is simply the latest example of this problem.
Yeah the Labour Party hates working class northern women who didn't go to university so much that they (checks notes) elected one as deputy leader.
Let’s see how they’d react if she decided to have the wrong views on the trans issue.
This is an aspect of the deal I think we’ve yet to discuss ?
https://thebulletin.org/2021/09/the-new-australia-uk-and-us-nuclear-submarine-announcement-a-terrible-decision-for-the-nonproliferation-regime/ … The United States and UK operate naval reactors in their submarines that are fueled with 93.5 percent enriched uranium (civilian power plants are typically fueled with three to five percent uranium-235) in quantities sufficient to last for the lifetime of their ships (33 years for attack submarines).Having resisted domestic efforts to minimize the use of HEU and convert their naval reactors to LEU fuel, the United States and UK have no alternative fuel to offer. France, on the other hand, now runs naval reactors fueled with LEU. The new Suffren-class submarine, from which the French conventional submarine offered to Australia was derived, even runs on fuel enriched below 6 percent.
So Australia is likely to receive HEU technology, unless an LEU crash program is launched that could take more than a decade to complete or in a dramatic reversal, France is pulled back into a deal—two scenarios that remain unlikely at this point and at any rate do not solve all proliferation concerns. Assuming the high-enrichment route is followed, if Canberra wants to operate six to 12 nuclear submarines for about 30 years, it will need some three to six tons of HEU. It has none on hand and no domestic capacity to enrich uranium. So unless it kickstarts an enrichment program for military purposes, the material would need to come from the United States or the UK.
One can only imagine the drops of sweat trickling down the neck of the International Atomic Energy Agency leadership in Vienna when an Australian delegation comes knocking at its door bringing the good news. The agency, which is currently battling to prevent Iran from acquiring enough fissile material to build a nuclear weapon—25 kilograms (0.025 ton) of HEU according to the internationally agreed standard—will have to figure out how to monitor and account for 100 to 200 times that amount without gaining access to secret naval reactor design information. Managing that feat while keeping its credibility intact will be difficult to pull off...
Does raise another interesting point - Suffren class nuclear subs need to be refuelled every 10 years - unlike the US/UK boats which won't during their lifetime - so even if the French had been willing to export their nuclear technology, (reports say not) how was Australia to refuel them? Send them back to France?
The French can cope with being humiliated and screwed over by America. Because the USA is much bigger. A superpower. Like China. That’s life. Withdraw the ambassador. It’s a mere gesture but it might sting them
The French can cope with the Australian betrayal (tho it hurts more). The Australians are inferior. A small country with too many kangaroos. Pff! Withdraw the ambassador and try and destabilize their tiny politics
Britain? Brexit Britain? Perfidious Albion? This is their exact rival, and equal. The country next door that constantly infuriates them even as it intrigues them. This stupid foggy island has totally beaten us?? It’s the pain of Sunderland losing to Newcastle. It is a bitter local rivalry. Withdrawing the French ambassador in London would be acknowledging England’s triumph. It is too painful, so instead they resort to cooking metaphors
I think there's another layer which is that the French elite are collectively afraid of contemplating the possibility that Boris Johnson was right about the EU. They can't take him seriously, because their own worldview depends on seeing him as a clown.
The same applies to a great number of posters on this site.
The PB elite?
It has been even more noticeable in the post-Brexit years that a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north. Of course it all began with the unfortunate microphone incident with Gordon Brown. It is this above all which has riven the Labour party asunder and it's unclear that they are even on the road to recognising let alone mending this problem. The current treatment of some of their women MPs referred to above is simply the latest example of this problem.
Putting thoughts and motivations in other people's minds has also become common, no?
Have you ever read Roger's comments? Do you think the GB microphone comment was fake?
How would you feel if I attributed the views of (say) @HYUFD to broadly right wing people?
Fine - but be more specific - I referred to, quote, 'a section of the liberal left' which, without wishing to be condescending, is I think rather narrower than 'broadly right wing people', no?
I apologise if I've gotten a bit shirty. One of the things that has really annoyed me about the... shall I call it Trump era? although it's clearly a bigger issue...is this creating caricatures of our political opponents.
I see it when politicians of the Left accuse those on the Right of being racist for not signing up to the whole BLM thing.
Anyway: you're usually a pretty thoughtful and nuanced poster, but "a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north" triggered me.
The reality is that the vast, vast majority of our political opponents only want the best for the British people. They may have a slightly different view of what exactly best constitutes or the correct path to get there.
But their views, by and large, and every bit as morally valid as ours. (Albeit often not as practical, well thought out, properly costed, or recognising of the foibles of human nature.)
Of course this is true, the only problem is the hugely tenuous connection between what some politicians say "for the best of British people" and what is actually best. I can accept that pop-eyed loons like Desmond Swayne deep down do actually think that treating the lower orders as chattel will eventually make them self-improve, but the other 90% of him is an amoral scumbag. Same with the "Free Palestine" Labour MPs - I'm sure they are self-righteously convinced that sweeping Israel from the map will benefit the people of Coventry South, but its hard for the rest of us to judge how.
As for caricatures, I know that I call the Prime Minister Clown, Shagger, Worzel, Liar. These are definitely caricatures, but several are all statements of fact. In the old days of serious politics it was perfectly possible to disagree utterly with politicians based on their policies but respect them as people. Now we seem to have reduced politics to "stick morons and idiots into the top job" - I give you Chris Failing ruining every department he touches, Gavin Williamson threatening to sue schools for carrying out his own policy, and now the department for "levelling up".
When politics has become self-satire its hard to not treat them with comedic contempt.
The French can cope with being humiliated and screwed over by America. Because the USA is much bigger. A superpower. Like China. That’s life. Withdraw the ambassador. It’s a mere gesture but it might sting them
The French can cope with the Australian betrayal (tho it hurts more). The Australians are inferior. A small country with too many kangaroos. Pff! Withdraw the ambassador and try and destabilize their tiny politics
Britain? Brexit Britain? Perfidious Albion? This is their exact rival, and equal. The country next door that constantly infuriates them even as it intrigues them. This stupid foggy island has totally beaten us?? It’s the pain of Sunderland losing to Newcastle. It is a bitter local rivalry. Withdrawing the French ambassador in London would be acknowledging England’s triumph. It is too painful, so instead they resort to cooking metaphors
I think there's another layer which is that the French elite are collectively afraid of contemplating the possibility that Boris Johnson was right about the EU. They can't take him seriously, because their own worldview depends on seeing him as a clown.
The same applies to a great number of posters on this site.
The PB elite?
It has been even more noticeable in the post-Brexit years that a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north. Of course it all began with the unfortunate microphone incident with Gordon Brown. It is this above all which has riven the Labour party asunder and it's unclear that they are even on the road to recognising let alone mending this problem. The current treatment of some of their women MPs referred to above is simply the latest example of this problem.
Putting thoughts and motivations in other people's minds has also become common, no?
Have you ever read Roger's comments? Do you think the GB microphone comment was fake?
How would you feel if I attributed the views of (say) @HYUFD to broadly right wing people?
Fine - but be more specific - I referred to, quote, 'a section of the liberal left' which, without wishing to be condescending, is I think rather narrower than 'broadly right wing people', no?
I apologise if I've gotten a bit shirty. One of the things that has really annoyed me about the... shall I call it Trump era? although it's clearly a bigger issue...is this creating caricatures of our political opponents.
I see it when politicians of the Left accuse those on the Right of being racist for not signing up to the whole BLM thing.
Anyway: you're usually a pretty thoughtful and nuanced poster, but "a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north" triggered me.
The reality is that the vast, vast majority of our political opponents only want the best for the British people. They may have a slightly different view of what exactly best constitutes or the correct path to get there.
But their views, by and large, and every bit as morally valid as ours. (Albeit often not as practical, well thought out, properly costed, or recognising of the foibles of human nature.)
But "a section of the liberal left elite" who keep proposing the same remedy to the nation's ills - namely, piling unsustainable levels of tax and borrowing onto the shoulders of the private sector to the benefit of the public sector - is wilfully NOT wanting the best for the British people. It is looking out for a narrow section of its own self-interest, whilst ignoring that every time they implement it, the economy goes tits up. And the poorest inevitably suffer the most.
At what point is it safe to heap moral opprobrium on them for that?
The French can cope with being humiliated and screwed over by America. Because the USA is much bigger. A superpower. Like China. That’s life. Withdraw the ambassador. It’s a mere gesture but it might sting them
The French can cope with the Australian betrayal (tho it hurts more). The Australians are inferior. A small country with too many kangaroos. Pff! Withdraw the ambassador and try and destabilize their tiny politics
Britain? Brexit Britain? Perfidious Albion? This is their exact rival, and equal. The country next door that constantly infuriates them even as it intrigues them. This stupid foggy island has totally beaten us?? It’s the pain of Sunderland losing to Newcastle. It is a bitter local rivalry. Withdrawing the French ambassador in London would be acknowledging England’s triumph. It is too painful, so instead they resort to cooking metaphors
I think there's another layer which is that the French elite are collectively afraid of contemplating the possibility that Boris Johnson was right about the EU. They can't take him seriously, because their own worldview depends on seeing him as a clown.
This is why they didn't withdraw ambassadors from the UK. They are desperate to make this seem Australia and US driven. They can't accept Johnson is a major player.
Surely they didn't remove the ambassador to the UK, because the thing they were upset about was the loss of a €90bn contract from the Australians to the US.
As has been predicted here, it looks as though in the short term Australia will look at buying off the shelf while it builds up its own capability. That sounds to me like they're going to get a couple of Astutes. The unit price on them is small compared to what the French were charging.
It takes ten years from laying down an Astute to commissioning it and they are probably five years away from starting so that's not exactly a short term solution. They are incredibly labour intensive to build. There is no pipe section longer than 2m in any of them which means a LOT of welding, fettling, inspecting, testing.
Selling them Agamemnon and Agincourt is a short term solution. Having Australia build their own Astutes is the opposite of that.
I think if they ever get their SSNs they will be short wheelbase Virginias with no VLS and no VPM.
What do all those acronyms (no, I refuse to call them initialisms) mean?
VLS = Vertical Launch System. The Virginia class (unlike the French and British equivalents) can launch missiles vertically from within the hull so it packs a lot more firepower - 4-5x an that of an Astute.
VPM = Virginia Payload Module. This a configurable mission module so you can use the boat for lots of different ops like special forces insertions, controlling drones, etc.
It's hilarious - after pulling off one of the greatest diplomatic and military coups in decades:
The exclusion of France from the Aukus pact leaves the UK at risk of further isolation after Brexit
Probably best not to use the phrase "military coup" in connection with the French these days, especially after that open letter by those 50 generals to Macron in May, basically threatening just that.
We don't want to gloat about our stunning triumph after all.
This is an aspect of the deal I think we’ve yet to discuss ?
https://thebulletin.org/2021/09/the-new-australia-uk-and-us-nuclear-submarine-announcement-a-terrible-decision-for-the-nonproliferation-regime/ … The United States and UK operate naval reactors in their submarines that are fueled with 93.5 percent enriched uranium (civilian power plants are typically fueled with three to five percent uranium-235) in quantities sufficient to last for the lifetime of their ships (33 years for attack submarines).Having resisted domestic efforts to minimize the use of HEU and convert their naval reactors to LEU fuel, the United States and UK have no alternative fuel to offer. France, on the other hand, now runs naval reactors fueled with LEU. The new Suffren-class submarine, from which the French conventional submarine offered to Australia was derived, even runs on fuel enriched below 6 percent.
So Australia is likely to receive HEU technology, unless an LEU crash program is launched that could take more than a decade to complete or in a dramatic reversal, France is pulled back into a deal—two scenarios that remain unlikely at this point and at any rate do not solve all proliferation concerns. Assuming the high-enrichment route is followed, if Canberra wants to operate six to 12 nuclear submarines for about 30 years, it will need some three to six tons of HEU. It has none on hand and no domestic capacity to enrich uranium. So unless it kickstarts an enrichment program for military purposes, the material would need to come from the United States or the UK.
One can only imagine the drops of sweat trickling down the neck of the International Atomic Energy Agency leadership in Vienna when an Australian delegation comes knocking at its door bringing the good news. The agency, which is currently battling to prevent Iran from acquiring enough fissile material to build a nuclear weapon—25 kilograms (0.025 ton) of HEU according to the internationally agreed standard—will have to figure out how to monitor and account for 100 to 200 times that amount without gaining access to secret naval reactor design information. Managing that feat while keeping its credibility intact will be difficult to pull off...
Does raise another interesting point - Suffren class nuclear subs need to be refuelled every 10 years - unlike the US/UK boats which won't during their lifetime - so even if the French had been willing to export their nuclear technology, (reports say not) how was Australia to refuel them? Send them back to France?
One imagines the tech transfer would have to cover refuelling otherwise you have nuclear subs that depend on another country.
My view remains that Europe as a world power or even a place of significance has had its (pretty long) day in the sun. In 1945 Europe was still such a significant part of world manufacturing that it had strategic importance to the US who could not allow the Soviet Union to dominate it. Hence NATO.
Now, the threat from Russia is massively diminished. I wouldn't be saying that if I lived in the Baltic states or Ukraine or other parts of the former Soviet Union of course. There, their aspirations and mischief making would be a major concern but from the US point of view there is no longer any strategic issue in protecting western Europe which isn't facing any real threat anyway. So NATO is redundant, even if it is politically useful to keep it going in form if not in substance.
Instead the US has strategic interests and concerns in the Pacific. This tilt in this direction has been going on for some time but accelerated considerably under Obama and continued under Trump. AUKUS is a small part of this strategic engagement but there are a host of other treaties and agreements which also play a part.
The UK could have accepted the same backwater status as the rest of Europe but has decided that it wants to play. Some of this is undoubtedly delusional, we want to still matter in world affairs, some of it is a response to Brexit, some of it is looking where economic growth is taking place and wanting a cut of the action, some of it is a bit needy in that we still want to be the US's best pal. I think it is far too early to say whether this will prove a distraction or an economic opportunity and most responses to it say more about the writer's view of UK internal politics than the actual merits. France also wanted to play too and feels left out at the moment but, frankly, who cares?
The French can cope with being humiliated and screwed over by America. Because the USA is much bigger. A superpower. Like China. That’s life. Withdraw the ambassador. It’s a mere gesture but it might sting them
The French can cope with the Australian betrayal (tho it hurts more). The Australians are inferior. A small country with too many kangaroos. Pff! Withdraw the ambassador and try and destabilize their tiny politics
Britain? Brexit Britain? Perfidious Albion? This is their exact rival, and equal. The country next door that constantly infuriates them even as it intrigues them. This stupid foggy island has totally beaten us?? It’s the pain of Sunderland losing to Newcastle. It is a bitter local rivalry. Withdrawing the French ambassador in London would be acknowledging England’s triumph. It is too painful, so instead they resort to cooking metaphors
I think there's another layer which is that the French elite are collectively afraid of contemplating the possibility that Boris Johnson was right about the EU. They can't take him seriously, because their own worldview depends on seeing him as a clown.
The same applies to a great number of posters on this site.
The PB elite?
It has been even more noticeable in the post-Brexit years that a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north. Of course it all began with the unfortunate microphone incident with Gordon Brown. It is this above all which has riven the Labour party asunder and it's unclear that they are even on the road to recognising let alone mending this problem. The current treatment of some of their women MPs referred to above is simply the latest example of this problem.
Putting thoughts and motivations in other people's minds has also become common, no?
Have you ever read Roger's comments? Do you think the GB microphone comment was fake?
How would you feel if I attributed the views of (say) @HYUFD to broadly right wing people?
Fine - but be more specific - I referred to, quote, 'a section of the liberal left' which, without wishing to be condescending, is I think rather narrower than 'broadly right wing people', no?
I apologise if I've gotten a bit shirty. One of the things that has really annoyed me about the... shall I call it Trump era? although it's clearly a bigger issue...is this creating caricatures of our political opponents.
I see it when politicians of the Left accuse those on the Right of being racist for not signing up to the whole BLM thing.
Anyway: you're usually a pretty thoughtful and nuanced poster, but "a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north" triggered me.
The reality is that the vast, vast majority of our political opponents only want the best for the British people. They may have a slightly different view of what exactly best constitutes or the correct path to get there.
But their views, by and large, and every bit as morally valid as ours. (Albeit often not as practical, well thought out, properly costed, or recognising of the foibles of human nature.)
But "a section of the liberal left elite" who keep proposing the same remedy to the nation's ills - namely, piling unsustainable levels of tax and borrowing onto the shoulders of the private sector to the benefit of the public sector - is wilfully NOT wanting the best for the British people. It is looking out for a narrow section of its own self-interest, whilst ignoring that every time they implement it, the economy goes tits up. And the poorest inevitably suffer the most.
At what point is it safe to heap moral opprobrium on them for that?
Question. As it is now the populist right actively "piling unsustainable levels of tax and borrowing onto the shoulders of the private sector" is the solution for you to (a) support your team despite the policies or (b) find a party that isn't mad?
I know the Nigel is as mad as a box of frogs, but if he could turn REFUK into a small state low tax conservative party and Worzel continues to tax working people to death there may be some switching.
Does raise another interesting point - Suffren class nuclear subs need to be refuelled every 10 years - unlike the US/UK boats which won't during their lifetime - so even if the French had been willing to export their nuclear technology, (reports say not) how was Australia to refuel them? Send them back to France?
I can remember when the V boats were never going to be refuelled due to their 'lifetime fuelled' PWR2 reactors. Vanguard has now been in bits for five years while they try to figure out how to refuel it.
The French can cope with being humiliated and screwed over by America. Because the USA is much bigger. A superpower. Like China. That’s life. Withdraw the ambassador. It’s a mere gesture but it might sting them
The French can cope with the Australian betrayal (tho it hurts more). The Australians are inferior. A small country with too many kangaroos. Pff! Withdraw the ambassador and try and destabilize their tiny politics
Britain? Brexit Britain? Perfidious Albion? This is their exact rival, and equal. The country next door that constantly infuriates them even as it intrigues them. This stupid foggy island has totally beaten us?? It’s the pain of Sunderland losing to Newcastle. It is a bitter local rivalry. Withdrawing the French ambassador in London would be acknowledging England’s triumph. It is too painful, so instead they resort to cooking metaphors
I think there's another layer which is that the French elite are collectively afraid of contemplating the possibility that Boris Johnson was right about the EU. They can't take him seriously, because their own worldview depends on seeing him as a clown.
This is why they didn't withdraw ambassadors from the UK. They are desperate to make this seem Australia and US driven. They can't accept Johnson is a major player.
Surely they didn't remove the ambassador to the UK, because the thing they were upset about was the loss of a €90bn contract from the Australians to the US.
As has been predicted here, it looks as though in the short term Australia will look at buying off the shelf while it builds up its own capability. That sounds to me like they're going to get a couple of Astutes. The unit price on them is small compared to what the French were charging.
It takes ten years from laying down an Astute to commissioning it and they are probably five years away from starting so that's not exactly a short term solution. They are incredibly labour intensive to build. There is no pipe section longer than 2m in any of them which means a LOT of welding, fettling, inspecting, testing.
Selling them Agamemnon and Agincourt is a short term solution. Having Australia build their own Astutes is the opposite of that.
I think if they ever get their SSNs they will be short wheelbase Virginias with no VLS and no VPM.
Selling them Agincourt would be amusing. Maybe the new ones could be named after those captured French ships they brought into British service during the Napoleonic wars, such as Tonneur and Temeraire
The French can cope with being humiliated and screwed over by America. Because the USA is much bigger. A superpower. Like China. That’s life. Withdraw the ambassador. It’s a mere gesture but it might sting them
The French can cope with the Australian betrayal (tho it hurts more). The Australians are inferior. A small country with too many kangaroos. Pff! Withdraw the ambassador and try and destabilize their tiny politics
Britain? Brexit Britain? Perfidious Albion? This is their exact rival, and equal. The country next door that constantly infuriates them even as it intrigues them. This stupid foggy island has totally beaten us?? It’s the pain of Sunderland losing to Newcastle. It is a bitter local rivalry. Withdrawing the French ambassador in London would be acknowledging England’s triumph. It is too painful, so instead they resort to cooking metaphors
I think there's another layer which is that the French elite are collectively afraid of contemplating the possibility that Boris Johnson was right about the EU. They can't take him seriously, because their own worldview depends on seeing him as a clown.
This is why they didn't withdraw ambassadors from the UK. They are desperate to make this seem Australia and US driven. They can't accept Johnson is a major player.
Surely they didn't remove the ambassador to the UK, because the thing they were upset about was the loss of a €90bn contract from the Australians to the US.
As has been predicted here, it looks as though in the short term Australia will look at buying off the shelf while it builds up its own capability. That sounds to me like they're going to get a couple of Astutes. The unit price on them is small compared to what the French were charging.
It's clear that the French are incredibly upset with us but don't want to validate the post Brexit shifting of tides. Their worldview is bring shattered and the EU is not going to help France project its power and ambition globally. That realisation must be very, very difficult for the French to accept.
They keep on getting humiliated through having an absurdly inflated view of France's power and importance, and keep on making the same mistake.
They remember everything and learn nothing.
I don’t think it’s quite as clear cut as that - after all, they have actual territory and voters in the Pacific, and are a considerable naval power, so have some claim to being a logical partner for Australia in this venture.
That said, the contract they signed turned out to be a disaster, which is why the ‘stab in the back’ happened. Would have saved everyone a lot of trouble if Australia had bought the new lithium battery powered Taigei class from Japan. Which is an actual boat rather than a design blueprint.
The French can cope with being humiliated and screwed over by America. Because the USA is much bigger. A superpower. Like China. That’s life. Withdraw the ambassador. It’s a mere gesture but it might sting them
The French can cope with the Australian betrayal (tho it hurts more). The Australians are inferior. A small country with too many kangaroos. Pff! Withdraw the ambassador and try and destabilize their tiny politics
Britain? Brexit Britain? Perfidious Albion? This is their exact rival, and equal. The country next door that constantly infuriates them even as it intrigues them. This stupid foggy island has totally beaten us?? It’s the pain of Sunderland losing to Newcastle. It is a bitter local rivalry. Withdrawing the French ambassador in London would be acknowledging England’s triumph. It is too painful, so instead they resort to cooking metaphors
I think there's another layer which is that the French elite are collectively afraid of contemplating the possibility that Boris Johnson was right about the EU. They can't take him seriously, because their own worldview depends on seeing him as a clown.
The same applies to a great number of posters on this site.
The PB elite?
It has been even more noticeable in the post-Brexit years that a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north. Of course it all began with the unfortunate microphone incident with Gordon Brown. It is this above all which has riven the Labour party asunder and it's unclear that they are even on the road to recognising let alone mending this problem. The current treatment of some of their women MPs referred to above is simply the latest example of this problem.
Putting thoughts and motivations in other people's minds has also become common, no?
Have you ever read Roger's comments? Do you think the GB microphone comment was fake?
How would you feel if I attributed the views of (say) @HYUFD to broadly right wing people?
Fine - but be more specific - I referred to, quote, 'a section of the liberal left' which, without wishing to be condescending, is I think rather narrower than 'broadly right wing people', no?
I apologise if I've gotten a bit shirty. One of the things that has really annoyed me about the... shall I call it Trump era? although it's clearly a bigger issue...is this creating caricatures of our political opponents.
I see it when politicians of the Left accuse those on the Right of being racist for not signing up to the whole BLM thing.
Anyway: you're usually a pretty thoughtful and nuanced poster, but "a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north" triggered me.
The reality is that the vast, vast majority of our political opponents only want the best for the British people. They may have a slightly different view of what exactly best constitutes or the correct path to get there.
But their views, by and large, and every bit as morally valid as ours. (Albeit often not as practical, well thought out, properly costed, or recognising of the foibles of human nature.)
But "a section of the liberal left elite" who keep proposing the same remedy to the nation's ills - namely, piling unsustainable levels of tax and borrowing onto the shoulders of the private sector to the benefit of the public sector - is wilfully NOT wanting the best for the British people. It is looking out for a narrow section of its own self-interest, whilst ignoring that every time they implement it, the economy goes tits up. And the poorest inevitably suffer the most.
At what point is it safe to heap moral opprobrium on them for that?
I do not doubt for one minute the original analysis concerning an element of the “liberal left elite” having utter contempt for people who live in areas like mine, in the north and predominantly white working class. We have seen it over a variety of issues be it brexit, voting Tory or whatever. It goes along way to explain why labour is still dislocated from many of its former working class strongholds. It’s very noticeable, especially in the online activists posts.
It’s something labour has still failed to address and has not made any proper effort to re engage these communities. It just expects them to drift back.
This is an aspect of the deal I think we’ve yet to discuss ?
https://thebulletin.org/2021/09/the-new-australia-uk-and-us-nuclear-submarine-announcement-a-terrible-decision-for-the-nonproliferation-regime/ … The United States and UK operate naval reactors in their submarines that are fueled with 93.5 percent enriched uranium (civilian power plants are typically fueled with three to five percent uranium-235) in quantities sufficient to last for the lifetime of their ships (33 years for attack submarines).Having resisted domestic efforts to minimize the use of HEU and convert their naval reactors to LEU fuel, the United States and UK have no alternative fuel to offer. France, on the other hand, now runs naval reactors fueled with LEU. The new Suffren-class submarine, from which the French conventional submarine offered to Australia was derived, even runs on fuel enriched below 6 percent.
So Australia is likely to receive HEU technology, unless an LEU crash program is launched that could take more than a decade to complete or in a dramatic reversal, France is pulled back into a deal—two scenarios that remain unlikely at this point and at any rate do not solve all proliferation concerns. Assuming the high-enrichment route is followed, if Canberra wants to operate six to 12 nuclear submarines for about 30 years, it will need some three to six tons of HEU. It has none on hand and no domestic capacity to enrich uranium. So unless it kickstarts an enrichment program for military purposes, the material would need to come from the United States or the UK.
One can only imagine the drops of sweat trickling down the neck of the International Atomic Energy Agency leadership in Vienna when an Australian delegation comes knocking at its door bringing the good news. The agency, which is currently battling to prevent Iran from acquiring enough fissile material to build a nuclear weapon—25 kilograms (0.025 ton) of HEU according to the internationally agreed standard—will have to figure out how to monitor and account for 100 to 200 times that amount without gaining access to secret naval reactor design information. Managing that feat while keeping its credibility intact will be difficult to pull off...
That's an interesting angle. However, AIUI it may not be much of a problem: the latest reactors have a much longer lifetime without refuelling. There's also a political angle: Australia may not want to have to deal with the expense of refuelling, so may decide the deal includes the US doing that for them, if it is required. That increases the reliance on the US or UK, and makes the boats less independent, but would be much, much cheaper.
It might be the only significant nuclear material from this deal is the sub reactors themselves.
I am pretty sure that the deal will involve the reactors being supplied by the US or the UK (probably US) and returned at end-of-life for disposal. The reactors will probably be supplied fuelled as a sealed unit. And since they don't need refuelling for the life of the submarine......
I wonder if people may get triggered by a reference to TRIGA
The fun version - for many years the US distributed mini research reactors around the world. In one of those hilarious-but-true things they were inherently 100% safe - because they used weapons grade Uranium cores. Basically, the reaction slows down (core expands slightly) automatically if it exceeds a designed power level... Not quite sure how safe they are with LEU fuel.
A really fun fact - there was enough HEU in the core of a TRIGA to build a bomb. When the first Iraq war kicked off, the Iraqis had a TRIGA type reactor. Supplied by the French.
The French can cope with being humiliated and screwed over by America. Because the USA is much bigger. A superpower. Like China. That’s life. Withdraw the ambassador. It’s a mere gesture but it might sting them
The French can cope with the Australian betrayal (tho it hurts more). The Australians are inferior. A small country with too many kangaroos. Pff! Withdraw the ambassador and try and destabilize their tiny politics
Britain? Brexit Britain? Perfidious Albion? This is their exact rival, and equal. The country next door that constantly infuriates them even as it intrigues them. This stupid foggy island has totally beaten us?? It’s the pain of Sunderland losing to Newcastle. It is a bitter local rivalry. Withdrawing the French ambassador in London would be acknowledging England’s triumph. It is too painful, so instead they resort to cooking metaphors
I think there's another layer which is that the French elite are collectively afraid of contemplating the possibility that Boris Johnson was right about the EU. They can't take him seriously, because their own worldview depends on seeing him as a clown.
The same applies to a great number of posters on this site.
The PB elite?
It has been even more noticeable in the post-Brexit years that a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north. Of course it all began with the unfortunate microphone incident with Gordon Brown. It is this above all which has riven the Labour party asunder and it's unclear that they are even on the road to recognising let alone mending this problem. The current treatment of some of their women MPs referred to above is simply the latest example of this problem.
Yeah the Labour Party hates working class northern women who didn't go to university so much that they (checks notes) elected one as deputy leader.
Lol - but the only mainstream party yet to have a women leader.....
Yes but that has nothing to do with changes “post-Brexit” nor with attitudes toward the working class. Your analysis is all over the place this morning.
Wasn't Margaret Beckett Acting Leader for a short while?
Technically no, because there is no post of Acting Leader in Labour. So Beckett and later Harman (twice) were leaders of the party and female.
However, since they were only leaders pending the calling of a special conference to elect a new leader, and were not automatically on the ballot for the election unlike an incumbent leader,* they are not usually included on the list.
*Although Beckett was nominated and did stand in 1994, coming third.
History will not remember Beckett for her own leadership, but for lending Corbyn her vote for his nomination - enabling that once he was on the ballot, he did became leader.
The French can cope with being humiliated and screwed over by America. Because the USA is much bigger. A superpower. Like China. That’s life. Withdraw the ambassador. It’s a mere gesture but it might sting them
The French can cope with the Australian betrayal (tho it hurts more). The Australians are inferior. A small country with too many kangaroos. Pff! Withdraw the ambassador and try and destabilize their tiny politics
Britain? Brexit Britain? Perfidious Albion? This is their exact rival, and equal. The country next door that constantly infuriates them even as it intrigues them. This stupid foggy island has totally beaten us?? It’s the pain of Sunderland losing to Newcastle. It is a bitter local rivalry. Withdrawing the French ambassador in London would be acknowledging England’s triumph. It is too painful, so instead they resort to cooking metaphors
I think there's another layer which is that the French elite are collectively afraid of contemplating the possibility that Boris Johnson was right about the EU. They can't take him seriously, because their own worldview depends on seeing him as a clown.
This is why they didn't withdraw ambassadors from the UK. They are desperate to make this seem Australia and US driven. They can't accept Johnson is a major player.
Surely they didn't remove the ambassador to the UK, because the thing they were upset about was the loss of a €90bn contract from the Australians to the US.
As has been predicted here, it looks as though in the short term Australia will look at buying off the shelf while it builds up its own capability. That sounds to me like they're going to get a couple of Astutes. The unit price on them is small compared to what the French were charging.
It takes ten years from laying down an Astute to commissioning it and they are probably five years away from starting so that's not exactly a short term solution. They are incredibly labour intensive to build. There is no pipe section longer than 2m in any of them which means a LOT of welding, fettling, inspecting, testing.
Selling them Agamemnon and Agincourt is a short term solution. Having Australia build their own Astutes is the opposite of that.
I think if they ever get their SSNs they will be short wheelbase Virginias with no VLS and no VPM.
What do all those acronyms (no, I refuse to call them initialisms) mean?
VLS = Vertical Launch System. The Virginia class (unlike the French and British equivalents) can launch missiles vertically from within the hull so it packs a lot more firepower - 4-5x an that of an Astute.
VPM = Virginia Payload Module. This a configurable mission module so you can use the boat for lots of different ops like special forces insertions, controlling drones, etc.
The S Korean Dosan Ahn Chang-ho class has VLS - and recently launched a ballistic missile. How long before they now decide to develop nuclear powered subs ?
The French can cope with being humiliated and screwed over by America. Because the USA is much bigger. A superpower. Like China. That’s life. Withdraw the ambassador. It’s a mere gesture but it might sting them
The French can cope with the Australian betrayal (tho it hurts more). The Australians are inferior. A small country with too many kangaroos. Pff! Withdraw the ambassador and try and destabilize their tiny politics
Britain? Brexit Britain? Perfidious Albion? This is their exact rival, and equal. The country next door that constantly infuriates them even as it intrigues them. This stupid foggy island has totally beaten us?? It’s the pain of Sunderland losing to Newcastle. It is a bitter local rivalry. Withdrawing the French ambassador in London would be acknowledging England’s triumph. It is too painful, so instead they resort to cooking metaphors
I think there's another layer which is that the French elite are collectively afraid of contemplating the possibility that Boris Johnson was right about the EU. They can't take him seriously, because their own worldview depends on seeing him as a clown.
The same applies to a great number of posters on this site.
The PB elite?
It has been even more noticeable in the post-Brexit years that a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north. Of course it all began with the unfortunate microphone incident with Gordon Brown. It is this above all which has riven the Labour party asunder and it's unclear that they are even on the road to recognising let alone mending this problem. The current treatment of some of their women MPs referred to above is simply the latest example of this problem.
Putting thoughts and motivations in other people's minds has also become common, no?
Have you ever read Roger's comments? Do you think the GB microphone comment was fake?
How would you feel if I attributed the views of (say) @HYUFD to broadly right wing people?
Fine - but be more specific - I referred to, quote, 'a section of the liberal left' which, without wishing to be condescending, is I think rather narrower than 'broadly right wing people', no?
I apologise if I've gotten a bit shirty. One of the things that has really annoyed me about the... shall I call it Trump era? although it's clearly a bigger issue...is this creating caricatures of our political opponents.
I see it when politicians of the Left accuse those on the Right of being racist for not signing up to the whole BLM thing.
Anyway: you're usually a pretty thoughtful and nuanced poster, but "a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north" triggered me.
The reality is that the vast, vast majority of our political opponents only want the best for the British people. They may have a slightly different view of what exactly best constitutes or the correct path to get there.
But their views, by and large, and every bit as morally valid as ours. (Albeit often not as practical, well thought out, properly costed, or recognising of the foibles of human nature.)
Of course this is true, the only problem is the hugely tenuous connection between what some politicians say "for the best of British people" and what is actually best. I can accept that pop-eyed loons like Desmond Swayne deep down do actually think that treating the lower orders as chattel will eventually make them self-improve, but the other 90% of him is an amoral scumbag. Same with the "Free Palestine" Labour MPs - I'm sure they are self-righteously convinced that sweeping Israel from the map will benefit the people of Coventry South, but its hard for the rest of us to judge how.
As for caricatures, I know that I call the Prime Minister Clown, Shagger, Worzel, Liar. These are definitely caricatures, but several are all statements of fact. In the old days of serious politics it was perfectly possible to disagree utterly with politicians based on their policies but respect them as people. Now we seem to have reduced politics to "stick morons and idiots into the top job" - I give you Chris Failing ruining every department he touches, Gavin Williamson threatening to sue schools for carrying out his own policy, and now the department for "levelling up".
When politics has become self-satire its hard to not treat them with comedic contempt.
This post is, probably unintentionally, a perfect summary of what RCS1000 refers to in his first sentence. Likening it to Trump and his kind, or this sort of invective, is pretty fair.
This is an aspect of the deal I think we’ve yet to discuss ?
https://thebulletin.org/2021/09/the-new-australia-uk-and-us-nuclear-submarine-announcement-a-terrible-decision-for-the-nonproliferation-regime/ … The United States and UK operate naval reactors in their submarines that are fueled with 93.5 percent enriched uranium (civilian power plants are typically fueled with three to five percent uranium-235) in quantities sufficient to last for the lifetime of their ships (33 years for attack submarines).Having resisted domestic efforts to minimize the use of HEU and convert their naval reactors to LEU fuel, the United States and UK have no alternative fuel to offer. France, on the other hand, now runs naval reactors fueled with LEU. The new Suffren-class submarine, from which the French conventional submarine offered to Australia was derived, even runs on fuel enriched below 6 percent.
So Australia is likely to receive HEU technology, unless an LEU crash program is launched that could take more than a decade to complete or in a dramatic reversal, France is pulled back into a deal—two scenarios that remain unlikely at this point and at any rate do not solve all proliferation concerns. Assuming the high-enrichment route is followed, if Canberra wants to operate six to 12 nuclear submarines for about 30 years, it will need some three to six tons of HEU. It has none on hand and no domestic capacity to enrich uranium. So unless it kickstarts an enrichment program for military purposes, the material would need to come from the United States or the UK.
One can only imagine the drops of sweat trickling down the neck of the International Atomic Energy Agency leadership in Vienna when an Australian delegation comes knocking at its door bringing the good news. The agency, which is currently battling to prevent Iran from acquiring enough fissile material to build a nuclear weapon—25 kilograms (0.025 ton) of HEU according to the internationally agreed standard—will have to figure out how to monitor and account for 100 to 200 times that amount without gaining access to secret naval reactor design information. Managing that feat while keeping its credibility intact will be difficult to pull off...
Does raise another interesting point - Suffren class nuclear subs need to be refuelled every 10 years - unlike the US/UK boats which won't during their lifetime - so even if the French had been willing to export their nuclear technology, (reports say not) how was Australia to refuel them? Send them back to France?
The other point is that they use ordinary commercial reactor grade uranium - so their export would not be inherently proliferative.
The Brexit thing is overdone by “commentators” on here. There’s no direct Brexit angle.
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
The French can cope with being humiliated and screwed over by America. Because the USA is much bigger. A superpower. Like China. That’s life. Withdraw the ambassador. It’s a mere gesture but it might sting them
The French can cope with the Australian betrayal (tho it hurts more). The Australians are inferior. A small country with too many kangaroos. Pff! Withdraw the ambassador and try and destabilize their tiny politics
Britain? Brexit Britain? Perfidious Albion? This is their exact rival, and equal. The country next door that constantly infuriates them even as it intrigues them. This stupid foggy island has totally beaten us?? It’s the pain of Sunderland losing to Newcastle. It is a bitter local rivalry. Withdrawing the French ambassador in London would be acknowledging England’s triumph. It is too painful, so instead they resort to cooking metaphors
I think there's another layer which is that the French elite are collectively afraid of contemplating the possibility that Boris Johnson was right about the EU. They can't take him seriously, because their own worldview depends on seeing him as a clown.
This is why they didn't withdraw ambassadors from the UK. They are desperate to make this seem Australia and US driven. They can't accept Johnson is a major player.
Surely they didn't remove the ambassador to the UK, because the thing they were upset about was the loss of a €90bn contract from the Australians to the US.
As has been predicted here, it looks as though in the short term Australia will look at buying off the shelf while it builds up its own capability. That sounds to me like they're going to get a couple of Astutes. The unit price on them is small compared to what the French were charging.
It takes ten years from laying down an Astute to commissioning it and they are probably five years away from starting so that's not exactly a short term solution. They are incredibly labour intensive to build. There is no pipe section longer than 2m in any of them which means a LOT of welding, fettling, inspecting, testing.
Selling them Agamemnon and Agincourt is a short term solution. Having Australia build their own Astutes is the opposite of that.
I think if they ever get their SSNs they will be short wheelbase Virginias with no VLS and no VPM.
Would selling Oz over a quarter of the UK’s new attack sub capacity (which was presumably part of a strategic plan) going to do much for our own ability to put the shits up Putin, or Xi for that matter?
I read that even in 2007 the Astute programme was 50% over budget and 4.5 years behind schedule so sneering at the French tardiness in delivering their subs ain’t the best look.
The Brexit thing is overdone by “commentators” on here. There’s no direct Brexit angle.
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
TBH, I don't think it can, now. That's not to say it couldn't be, once. But times have moved on, and it's by no means impossible that a Trumpite president will be elected again before long.
(En passant, autocorrect wanted to correct Trumpite to Trumpet!)
The French can cope with being humiliated and screwed over by America. Because the USA is much bigger. A superpower. Like China. That’s life. Withdraw the ambassador. It’s a mere gesture but it might sting them
The French can cope with the Australian betrayal (tho it hurts more). The Australians are inferior. A small country with too many kangaroos. Pff! Withdraw the ambassador and try and destabilize their tiny politics
Britain? Brexit Britain? Perfidious Albion? This is their exact rival, and equal. The country next door that constantly infuriates them even as it intrigues them. This stupid foggy island has totally beaten us?? It’s the pain of Sunderland losing to Newcastle. It is a bitter local rivalry. Withdrawing the French ambassador in London would be acknowledging England’s triumph. It is too painful, so instead they resort to cooking metaphors
I think there's another layer which is that the French elite are collectively afraid of contemplating the possibility that Boris Johnson was right about the EU. They can't take him seriously, because their own worldview depends on seeing him as a clown.
The same applies to a great number of posters on this site.
The PB elite?
It has been even more noticeable in the post-Brexit years that a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north. Of course it all began with the unfortunate microphone incident with Gordon Brown. It is this above all which has riven the Labour party asunder and it's unclear that they are even on the road to recognising let alone mending this problem. The current treatment of some of their women MPs referred to above is simply the latest example of this problem.
Putting thoughts and motivations in other people's minds has also become common, no?
Have you ever read Roger's comments? Do you think the GB microphone comment was fake?
How would you feel if I attributed the views of (say) @HYUFD to broadly right wing people?
Fine - but be more specific - I referred to, quote, 'a section of the liberal left' which, without wishing to be condescending, is I think rather narrower than 'broadly right wing people', no?
I apologise if I've gotten a bit shirty. One of the things that has really annoyed me about the... shall I call it Trump era? although it's clearly a bigger issue...is this creating caricatures of our political opponents.
I see it when politicians of the Left accuse those on the Right of being racist for not signing up to the whole BLM thing.
Anyway: you're usually a pretty thoughtful and nuanced poster, but "a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north" triggered me.
The reality is that the vast, vast majority of our political opponents only want the best for the British people. They may have a slightly different view of what exactly best constitutes or the correct path to get there.
But their views, by and large, and every bit as morally valid as ours. (Albeit often not as practical, well thought out, properly costed, or recognising of the foibles of human nature.)
But "a section of the liberal left elite" who keep proposing the same remedy to the nation's ills - namely, piling unsustainable levels of tax and borrowing onto the shoulders of the private sector to the benefit of the public sector - is wilfully NOT wanting the best for the British people. It is looking out for a narrow section of its own self-interest, whilst ignoring that every time they implement it, the economy goes tits up. And the poorest inevitably suffer the most.
At what point is it safe to heap moral opprobrium on them for that?
I do not doubt for one minute the original analysis concerning an element of the “liberal left elite” having utter contempt for people who live in areas like mine, in the north and predominantly white working class. We have seen it over a variety of issues be it brexit, voting Tory or whatever. It goes along way to explain why labour is still dislocated from many of its former working class strongholds. It’s very noticeable, especially in the online activists posts.
It’s something labour has still failed to address and has not made any proper effort to re engage these communities. It just expects them to drift back.
One thing springs to mind - an aquaintance works in the care/protection world.
He told me, that at the time of the Rotherham revelations, there were numbers of senior people, who believed with utter sincerity that there was going to be a pogrom launched against the Muslim community. Not a few demos or spray painting insults - mobs murdering people by the hundred. There were memos flying around demanding that the Army be sent in...
What struck him was that the people involved seemed to be competing for who could hate.... *the locals* more.
It has been even more noticeable in the post-Brexit years that a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north.
This why we Greens are the most honest and principled political party. We despise these people, their retrograde cultural conservatism, their moronic aspirations and their banal nationalism. We don't want anything to do with them and we certainly don't want their votes. However, unlike the other parties we don't pretend otherwise.
The Brexit thing is overdone by “commentators” on here. There’s no direct Brexit angle.
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
My hot take: the staging was intended for China's consumption, and France was just collateral damage. Either they decided that humiliating France was a price worth paying (a view seemingly shared with enthusiasm on these pages) or they just didn't think it through (which is a lot more worrying).
It feels like they didn’t think it through.
Let’s not forget Biden’s actions and communications (or lack of them) over Afghanistan.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
The trouble is France - and (some in) the EU - preach "Strategic Autonomy" but don't pony up the money to practice it - hardly the hallmarks of "reliable" allies themselves.
Oh, and there's this:
Royal Air Force Chinooks currently deployed to Mali have passed a significant milestone after completing 3,000 flying hours in their role supporting the French military in the country.....
Since the inception of the task in 2018, the CH-47 detachment has moved more than 1,500 tonnes of freight and more than 18,000 soldiers.
The Brexit thing is overdone by “commentators” on here. There’s no direct Brexit angle.
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
The Brexit thing is overdone by “commentators” on here. There’s no direct Brexit angle.
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
I think the key takeaway here is the opposite. The US has lost patience with the EU being hamstrung by Germany's foreign policy objectives. France is being asked the question of whether or not they are serious about containing China in APAC. Once the noise goes away I wouldn't be surprised if tentative moves to get the French into some associate membership position aren't made.
The point if this partnership is to jettison those slow moving countries like Germany who hold back a much tougher western response to Chinese aggression. The internal EU squabbling is something we know frustrated us when we were in it trying to target Russia with sanctions or trying to get an EU-wide policy on Huawei. To an outsider like the US the process must seem interminable and with their major military power now not in the EU, they have no reason to care about it.
It has been even more noticeable in the post-Brexit years that a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north.
This why we Greens are the most honest and principled political party. We despise these people, their retrograde cultural conservatism, their moronic aspirations and their banal nationalism. We don't want anything to do with them and we certainly don't want their votes. However, unlike the other parties we don't pretend otherwise.
Rather like all the other funny little far right and far left parties. Ideologically pure, and consequently tiny and impotent.
Looking into the details of the now canned Australia/France sub deal, the unit cost was mental for conventional power at AU$7.5bn each. Our dreadnought class subs will cost £7bn each and the size and capability difference is in another league. An Astute can be purchased for £1.5bn with a lead time of a few years, plus there's already two complete ones that can be leased to Australia tomorrow if they wanted to go down that route.
How did France ever get to a position where they thought $7.5bn for conventional power was going to be waved through by Australia when the Aussies can see the UK building nuclear subs for a third of the cost.
Half of that equation was Australia wanting to build them domestically - having zero existing experience or facilities. They apparently intend to do the same with the new deal, which seems even more impractical. After a few years study they might change their minds on that, and a deal to buy the Japanese boats might well then make even more sense. Who knows, Japan might be part of whatever the alliance is called by then…
My view remains that Europe as a world power or even a place of significance has had its (pretty long) day in the sun. In 1945 Europe was still such a significant part of world manufacturing that it had strategic importance to the US who could not allow the Soviet Union to dominate it. Hence NATO.
Now, the threat from Russia is massively diminished. I wouldn't be saying that if I lived in the Baltic states or Ukraine or other parts of the former Soviet Union of course. There, their aspirations and mischief making would be a major concern but from the US point of view there is no longer any strategic issue in protecting western Europe which isn't facing any real threat anyway. So NATO is redundant, even if it is politically useful to keep it going in form if not in substance.
Instead the US has strategic interests and concerns in the Pacific. This tilt in this direction has been going on for some time but accelerated considerably under Obama and continued under Trump. AUKUS is a small part of this strategic engagement but there are a host of other treaties and agreements which also play a part.
The UK could have accepted the same backwater status as the rest of Europe but has decided that it wants to play. Some of this is undoubtedly delusional, we want to still matter in world affairs, some of it is a response to Brexit, some of it is looking where economic growth is taking place and wanting a cut of the action, some of it is a bit needy in that we still want to be the US's best pal. I think it is far too early to say whether this will prove a distraction or an economic opportunity and most responses to it say more about the writer's view of UK internal politics than the actual merits. France also wanted to play too and feels left out at the moment but, frankly, who cares?
My view is that France would have done to the UK what the UK has done to France, if given half the chance - and that France probably will get the chance at some point. We are competitors and allies. We fixate far more on the former than the latter and have never trusted each other - even when fighting on the same side in actual wars!
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
The trouble is France - and (some in) the EU - preach "Strategic Autonomy" but don't pony up the money to practice it - hardly the hallmarks of "reliable" allies themselves.
Oh, and there's this:
Royal Air Force Chinooks currently deployed to Mali have passed a significant milestone after completing 3,000 flying hours in their role supporting the French military in the country.....
Since the inception of the task in 2018, the CH-47 detachment has moved more than 1,500 tonnes of freight and more than 18,000 soldiers.
To your main point, isn’t France spending more than the U.K. on defence these days?
It’s been French policy since Suez to pursue “strategic autonomy” and, why not? Is it better to be a puppet of the US, as Britain increasingly looks to be?
The French can cope with being humiliated and screwed over by America. Because the USA is much bigger. A superpower. Like China. That’s life. Withdraw the ambassador. It’s a mere gesture but it might sting them
The French can cope with the Australian betrayal (tho it hurts more). The Australians are inferior. A small country with too many kangaroos. Pff! Withdraw the ambassador and try and destabilize their tiny politics
Britain? Brexit Britain? Perfidious Albion? This is their exact rival, and equal. The country next door that constantly infuriates them even as it intrigues them. This stupid foggy island has totally beaten us?? It’s the pain of Sunderland losing to Newcastle. It is a bitter local rivalry. Withdrawing the French ambassador in London would be acknowledging England’s triumph. It is too painful, so instead they resort to cooking metaphors
I think there's another layer which is that the French elite are collectively afraid of contemplating the possibility that Boris Johnson was right about the EU. They can't take him seriously, because their own worldview depends on seeing him as a clown.
The same applies to a great number of posters on this site.
The PB elite?
It has been even more noticeable in the post-Brexit years that a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north. Of course it all began with the unfortunate microphone incident with Gordon Brown. It is this above all which has riven the Labour party asunder and it's unclear that they are even on the road to recognising let alone mending this problem. The current treatment of some of their women MPs referred to above is simply the latest example of this problem.
Yeah the Labour Party hates working class northern women who didn't go to university so much that they (checks notes) elected one as deputy leader.
Lol - but the only mainstream party yet to have a women leader.....
Yes but that has nothing to do with changes “post-Brexit” nor with attitudes toward the working class. Your analysis is all over the place this morning.
Oh dear - who said it was? I responded to a specific point there. Labour is a mess on so many fronts - yet the only obvious partner for the LDs. That's got to have you rattled.
The French can cope with being humiliated and screwed over by America. Because the USA is much bigger. A superpower. Like China. That’s life. Withdraw the ambassador. It’s a mere gesture but it might sting them
The French can cope with the Australian betrayal (tho it hurts more). The Australians are inferior. A small country with too many kangaroos. Pff! Withdraw the ambassador and try and destabilize their tiny politics
Britain? Brexit Britain? Perfidious Albion? This is their exact rival, and equal. The country next door that constantly infuriates them even as it intrigues them. This stupid foggy island has totally beaten us?? It’s the pain of Sunderland losing to Newcastle. It is a bitter local rivalry. Withdrawing the French ambassador in London would be acknowledging England’s triumph. It is too painful, so instead they resort to cooking metaphors
I think there's another layer which is that the French elite are collectively afraid of contemplating the possibility that Boris Johnson was right about the EU. They can't take him seriously, because their own worldview depends on seeing him as a clown.
This is why they didn't withdraw ambassadors from the UK. They are desperate to make this seem Australia and US driven. They can't accept Johnson is a major player.
Surely they didn't remove the ambassador to the UK, because the thing they were upset about was the loss of a €90bn contract from the Australians to the US.
As has been predicted here, it looks as though in the short term Australia will look at buying off the shelf while it builds up its own capability. That sounds to me like they're going to get a couple of Astutes. The unit price on them is small compared to what the French were charging.
It takes ten years from laying down an Astute to commissioning it and they are probably five years away from starting so that's not exactly a short term solution. They are incredibly labour intensive to build. There is no pipe section longer than 2m in any of them which means a LOT of welding, fettling, inspecting, testing.
Selling them Agamemnon and Agincourt is a short term solution. Having Australia build their own Astutes is the opposite of that.
I think if they ever get their SSNs they will be short wheelbase Virginias with no VLS and no VPM.
Would selling Oz over a quarter of the UK’s new attack sub capacity (which was presumably part of a strategic plan) going to do much for our own ability to put the shits up Putin, or Xi for that matter?
I read that even in 2007 the Astute programme was 50% over budget and 4.5 years behind schedule so sneering at the French tardiness in delivering their subs ain’t the best look.
General question: has any defence procurement programme, at least in modern times, been delivered on time and on budget?
I come on this website to read a range of conflicting views and it usually justifies my optimism. One thing I can rely on is that there's always a need to pigeonhole people into extreme views.
There are people here in the North, who label everyone from the South (and especially in London) as being posh and rich. If they vote Tory, they're always 'Bullingdon boys'. In a similar way, some Southerners claim Northerners are semi-simians with no right to vote.
The reason for this is obvious - it makes them feel better about themselves. They can feel superior. In some ways, I'm sure the anti-vaxxers have the same need. They know better than the common herd.
I persist in coming and occasionally comment, but we know it's mostly froth. But that's why Andy Burnham can stand up for his city as long as he strokes the prejudice. Why the Guardian can stand up for 'independent' journalism when it's nothing of the sort. It's a game that we all play. I probably do too.
Corbyn is honest in that he believes what he says. Nadine Dorries does too. But they're both politicians and take advantage of prejudice if it helps them - because they know they're right.
The problem arises because it means people never actually listen. I doubt very few are ever convinced by another's arguments.
The French can cope with being humiliated and screwed over by America. Because the USA is much bigger. A superpower. Like China. That’s life. Withdraw the ambassador. It’s a mere gesture but it might sting them
The French can cope with the Australian betrayal (tho it hurts more). The Australians are inferior. A small country with too many kangaroos. Pff! Withdraw the ambassador and try and destabilize their tiny politics
Britain? Brexit Britain? Perfidious Albion? This is their exact rival, and equal. The country next door that constantly infuriates them even as it intrigues them. This stupid foggy island has totally beaten us?? It’s the pain of Sunderland losing to Newcastle. It is a bitter local rivalry. Withdrawing the French ambassador in London would be acknowledging England’s triumph. It is too painful, so instead they resort to cooking metaphors
I think there's another layer which is that the French elite are collectively afraid of contemplating the possibility that Boris Johnson was right about the EU. They can't take him seriously, because their own worldview depends on seeing him as a clown.
The same applies to a great number of posters on this site.
The PB elite?
It has been even more noticeable in the post-Brexit years that a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north. Of course it all began with the unfortunate microphone incident with Gordon Brown. It is this above all which has riven the Labour party asunder and it's unclear that they are even on the road to recognising let alone mending this problem. The current treatment of some of their women MPs referred to above is simply the latest example of this problem.
Yeah the Labour Party hates working class northern women who didn't go to university so much that they (checks notes) elected one as deputy leader.
Lol - but the only mainstream party yet to have a women leader.....
Yes but that has nothing to do with changes “post-Brexit” nor with attitudes toward the working class. Your analysis is all over the place this morning.
"analysis"
Another nerve struck. You'll be calling me a bigot next.
It has been even more noticeable in the post-Brexit years that a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north.
This why we Greens are the most honest and principled political party. We despise these people, their retrograde cultural conservatism, their moronic aspirations and their banal nationalism. We don't want anything to do with them and we certainly don't want their votes. However, unlike the other parties we don't pretend otherwise.
The Green Party would far sooner bow in support of the likes of Aimee Challenor, that is true, but come the local elections there were plenty of green candidates standing up here who were begging for our votes.
Looking into the details of the now canned Australia/France sub deal, the unit cost was mental for conventional power at AU$7.5bn each. Our dreadnought class subs will cost £7bn each and the size and capability difference is in another league. An Astute can be purchased for £1.5bn with a lead time of a few years, plus there's already two complete ones that can be leased to Australia tomorrow if they wanted to go down that route.
How did France ever get to a position where they thought $7.5bn for conventional power was going to be waved through by Australia when the Aussies can see the UK building nuclear subs for a third of the cost.
Half of that equation was Australia wanting to build them domestically - having zero existing experience or facilities.
There is no possibility of building additional Astutes in the UK. DDH is full with the last two Astutes and the first Dreadnought and will remain at capacity as the Trident replacement program progresses.
Looking into the details of the now canned Australia/France sub deal, the unit cost was mental for conventional power at AU$7.5bn each. Our dreadnought class subs will cost £7bn each and the size and capability difference is in another league. An Astute can be purchased for £1.5bn with a lead time of a few years, plus there's already two complete ones that can be leased to Australia tomorrow if they wanted to go down that route.
How did France ever get to a position where they thought $7.5bn for conventional power was going to be waved through by Australia when the Aussies can see the UK building nuclear subs for a third of the cost.
Half of that equation was Australia wanting to build them domestically - having zero existing experience or facilities. They apparently intend to do the same with the new deal, which seems even more impractical. After a few years study they might change their minds on that, and a deal to buy the Japanese boats might well then make even more sense. Who knows, Japan might be part of whatever the alliance is called by then…
I know very little of the ins and outs of this deal so have found reading posts from people who are knowledgeable about it, like yourself, fascinating.
This whole deal sounded like a real dogs dinner. I have to wonder how did it ever get off the ground.
The Brexit thing is overdone by “commentators” on here. There’s no direct Brexit angle.
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
I think the key takeaway here is the opposite. The US has lost patience with the EU being hamstrung by Germany's foreign policy objectives. France is being asked the question of whether or not they are serious about containing China in APAC. Once the noise goes away I wouldn't be surprised if tentative moves to get the French into some associate membership position aren't made.
The point if this partnership is to jettison those slow moving countries like Germany who hold back a much tougher western response to Chinese aggression. The internal EU squabbling is something we know frustrated us when we were in it trying to target Russia with sanctions or trying to get an EU-wide policy on Huawei. To an outsider like the US the process must seem interminable and with their major military power now not in the EU, they have no reason to care about it.
Why is it in France’s interests to “contain” China?
If this is the USA forcing France to pick sides, it’s a very humiliating way to go about it.
LONDON — As relations between France and the United States sink to their lowest depths in decades, Britain has emerged as the unlikely winner in a maritime security alliance that has sowed anger and recrimination across three continents.
The British government played an early role in brokering the three-way alliance with the United States and Australia to deploy nuclear-powered submarines in the Pacific, according to officials in London and Washington. The landmark agreement was announced hours after Australia canceled a $66 billion deal for diesel-electric submarines with France, provoking fury in Paris and quiet satisfaction in London.
For Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who will meet this coming week with President Biden at the White House and speak at the United Nations, it is his first tangible victory in a campaign to make post-Brexit Britain a player on the global stage.
The French can cope with being humiliated and screwed over by America. Because the USA is much bigger. A superpower. Like China. That’s life. Withdraw the ambassador. It’s a mere gesture but it might sting them
The French can cope with the Australian betrayal (tho it hurts more). The Australians are inferior. A small country with too many kangaroos. Pff! Withdraw the ambassador and try and destabilize their tiny politics
Britain? Brexit Britain? Perfidious Albion? This is their exact rival, and equal. The country next door that constantly infuriates them even as it intrigues them. This stupid foggy island has totally beaten us?? It’s the pain of Sunderland losing to Newcastle. It is a bitter local rivalry. Withdrawing the French ambassador in London would be acknowledging England’s triumph. It is too painful, so instead they resort to cooking metaphors
I think there's another layer which is that the French elite are collectively afraid of contemplating the possibility that Boris Johnson was right about the EU. They can't take him seriously, because their own worldview depends on seeing him as a clown.
The same applies to a great number of posters on this site.
The PB elite?
It has been even more noticeable in the post-Brexit years that a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north. Of course it all began with the unfortunate microphone incident with Gordon Brown. It is this above all which has riven the Labour party asunder and it's unclear that they are even on the road to recognising let alone mending this problem. The current treatment of some of their women MPs referred to above is simply the latest example of this problem.
Yeah the Labour Party hates working class northern women who didn't go to university so much that they (checks notes) elected one as deputy leader.
Lol - but the only mainstream party yet to have a women leader.....
Yes but that has nothing to do with changes “post-Brexit” nor with attitudes toward the working class. Your analysis is all over the place this morning.
"analysis"
Another nerve struck. You'll be calling me a bigot next.
The French can cope with being humiliated and screwed over by America. Because the USA is much bigger. A superpower. Like China. That’s life. Withdraw the ambassador. It’s a mere gesture but it might sting them
The French can cope with the Australian betrayal (tho it hurts more). The Australians are inferior. A small country with too many kangaroos. Pff! Withdraw the ambassador and try and destabilize their tiny politics
Britain? Brexit Britain? Perfidious Albion? This is their exact rival, and equal. The country next door that constantly infuriates them even as it intrigues them. This stupid foggy island has totally beaten us?? It’s the pain of Sunderland losing to Newcastle. It is a bitter local rivalry. Withdrawing the French ambassador in London would be acknowledging England’s triumph. It is too painful, so instead they resort to cooking metaphors
I think there's another layer which is that the French elite are collectively afraid of contemplating the possibility that Boris Johnson was right about the EU. They can't take him seriously, because their own worldview depends on seeing him as a clown.
The same applies to a great number of posters on this site.
The PB elite?
It has been even more noticeable in the post-Brexit years that a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north. Of course it all began with the unfortunate microphone incident with Gordon Brown. It is this above all which has riven the Labour party asunder and it's unclear that they are even on the road to recognising let alone mending this problem. The current treatment of some of their women MPs referred to above is simply the latest example of this problem.
Yeah the Labour Party hates working class northern women who didn't go to university so much that they (checks notes) elected one as deputy leader.
Lol - but the only mainstream party yet to have a women leader.....
Yes but that has nothing to do with changes “post-Brexit” nor with attitudes toward the working class. Your analysis is all over the place this morning.
"analysis"
Another nerve struck. You'll be calling me a bigot next.
Not really, because I think you're half right in what you said. But it was all over the place. More of a splurge than an analysis.
Looking into the details of the now canned Australia/France sub deal, the unit cost was mental for conventional power at AU$7.5bn each. Our dreadnought class subs will cost £7bn each and the size and capability difference is in another league. An Astute can be purchased for £1.5bn with a lead time of a few years, plus there's already two complete ones that can be leased to Australia tomorrow if they wanted to go down that route.
How did France ever get to a position where they thought $7.5bn for conventional power was going to be waved through by Australia when the Aussies can see the UK building nuclear subs for a third of the cost.
Half of that equation was Australia wanting to build them domestically - having zero existing experience or facilities. They apparently intend to do the same with the new deal, which seems even more impractical. After a few years study they might change their minds on that, and a deal to buy the Japanese boats might well then make even more sense. Who knows, Japan might be part of whatever the alliance is called by then…
My view remains that Europe as a world power or even a place of significance has had its (pretty long) day in the sun. In 1945 Europe was still such a significant part of world manufacturing that it had strategic importance to the US who could not allow the Soviet Union to dominate it. Hence NATO.
Now, the threat from Russia is massively diminished. I wouldn't be saying that if I lived in the Baltic states or Ukraine or other parts of the former Soviet Union of course. There, their aspirations and mischief making would be a major concern but from the US point of view there is no longer any strategic issue in protecting western Europe which isn't facing any real threat anyway. So NATO is redundant, even if it is politically useful to keep it going in form if not in substance.
Instead the US has strategic interests and concerns in the Pacific. This tilt in this direction has been going on for some time but accelerated considerably under Obama and continued under Trump. AUKUS is a small part of this strategic engagement but there are a host of other treaties and agreements which also play a part.
The UK could have accepted the same backwater status as the rest of Europe but has decided that it wants to play. Some of this is undoubtedly delusional, we want to still matter in world affairs, some of it is a response to Brexit, some of it is looking where economic growth is taking place and wanting a cut of the action, some of it is a bit needy in that we still want to be the US's best pal. I think it is far too early to say whether this will prove a distraction or an economic opportunity and most responses to it say more about the writer's view of UK internal politics than the actual merits. France also wanted to play too and feels left out at the moment but, frankly, who cares?
My view is that France would have done to the UK what the UK has done to France, if given half the chance - and that France probably will get the chance at some point. We are competitors and allies. We fixate far more on the former than the latter and have never trusted each other - even when fighting on the same side in actual wars!
Absolutely. And the unilateral and frankly embarrassing steps taken by Biden in Afghanistan show very clearly it is not just us and France that have that problem. Boris asked for a few more days to get a few more people to whom promises had been made out. He was turned down. Being best buds to a superpower can be a bruising experience. France, of course, are very much leading the punishment school in Brussels and deserve all they get in response.
If this treaty facilitates our membership of TPP it will have been a masterstroke. If it doesn't it may prove a rather pointless drain on our very stretched defence budget.
The EU doesn't have a single university ranked in the World's top twenty....
Sorry but your tweet is a reflection of the over militarization of the US foreign policy. Most of the major issues of today and tomorrow are not military: Climate change, trade, artificial intelligence, cyberspace etc. In all these fields, the EU is a superpower.
It's remarkably ignorant. The US dominates AI and cyberspace, the EU isn't even close behind. China is in second place.
Right now there is a huge amount of capital being expended on producing accelerators for machine learning, and I would guess that 9 out of 10 times the companies involved are US or Chinese, and occcasionally the UK will pop up with a company like Graphcore. Mind you most of this capital will go down the drain, and only a couple of lucky winners will emerge. It's a bit like the 3d accelerator race of the 90s, which started with something like 30 odd companies, and basically ended up with Nvidia and ATI. Maybe the EU will get lucky and produce something people want, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
Yep - all true. But then look at who is doing a lot of the heavy lifting in the hardware and software that will support it all and you will find two European companies strongly featuring - Ericsson and Nokia - with only one US company (Qualcomm) even close to being a player (and that only in one part). The Koreans and the Chinese, meanwhile, are just getting on with it.
Looking into the details of the now canned Australia/France sub deal, the unit cost was mental for conventional power at AU$7.5bn each. Our dreadnought class subs will cost £7bn each and the size and capability difference is in another league. An Astute can be purchased for £1.5bn with a lead time of a few years, plus there's already two complete ones that can be leased to Australia tomorrow if they wanted to go down that route.
How did France ever get to a position where they thought $7.5bn for conventional power was going to be waved through by Australia when the Aussies can see the UK building nuclear subs for a third of the cost.
Half of that equation was Australia wanting to build them domestically - having zero existing experience or facilities.
There is no possibility of building additional Astutes in the UK. DDH is full with the last two Astutes and the first Dreadnought and will remain at capacity as the Trident replacement program progresses.
I would just like to say how much your comments have added to the debate and are very helpful
Maybe some of your abbreviations would benefit from explanation but thank you for your contributions
The French can cope with being humiliated and screwed over by America. Because the USA is much bigger. A superpower. Like China. That’s life. Withdraw the ambassador. It’s a mere gesture but it might sting them
The French can cope with the Australian betrayal (tho it hurts more). The Australians are inferior. A small country with too many kangaroos. Pff! Withdraw the ambassador and try and destabilize their tiny politics
Britain? Brexit Britain? Perfidious Albion? This is their exact rival, and equal. The country next door that constantly infuriates them even as it intrigues them. This stupid foggy island has totally beaten us?? It’s the pain of Sunderland losing to Newcastle. It is a bitter local rivalry. Withdrawing the French ambassador in London would be acknowledging England’s triumph. It is too painful, so instead they resort to cooking metaphors
I think there's another layer which is that the French elite are collectively afraid of contemplating the possibility that Boris Johnson was right about the EU. They can't take him seriously, because their own worldview depends on seeing him as a clown.
The same applies to a great number of posters on this site.
The PB elite?
It has been even more noticeable in the post-Brexit years that a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north. Of course it all began with the unfortunate microphone incident with Gordon Brown. It is this above all which has riven the Labour party asunder and it's unclear that they are even on the road to recognising let alone mending this problem. The current treatment of some of their women MPs referred to above is simply the latest example of this problem.
Putting thoughts and motivations in other people's minds has also become common, no?
Have you ever read Roger's comments? Do you think the GB microphone comment was fake?
How would you feel if I attributed the views of (say) @HYUFD to broadly right wing people?
Fine - but be more specific - I referred to, quote, 'a section of the liberal left' which, without wishing to be condescending, is I think rather narrower than 'broadly right wing people', no?
I apologise if I've gotten a bit shirty. One of the things that has really annoyed me about the... shall I call it Trump era? although it's clearly a bigger issue...is this creating caricatures of our political opponents.
I see it when politicians of the Left accuse those on the Right of being racist for not signing up to the whole BLM thing.
Anyway: you're usually a pretty thoughtful and nuanced poster, but "a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north" triggered me.
The reality is that the vast, vast majority of our political opponents only want the best for the British people. They may have a slightly different view of what exactly best constitutes or the correct path to get there.
But their views, by and large, and every bit as morally valid as ours. (Albeit often not as practical, well thought out, properly costed, or recognising of the foibles of human nature.)
But "a section of the liberal left elite" who keep proposing the same remedy to the nation's ills - namely, piling unsustainable levels of tax and borrowing onto the shoulders of the private sector to the benefit of the public sector - is wilfully NOT wanting the best for the British people. It is looking out for a narrow section of its own self-interest, whilst ignoring that every time they implement it, the economy goes tits up. And the poorest inevitably suffer the most.
At what point is it safe to heap moral opprobrium on them for that?
I do not doubt for one minute the original analysis concerning an element of the “liberal left elite” having utter contempt for people who live in areas like mine, in the north and predominantly white working class. We have seen it over a variety of issues be it brexit, voting Tory or whatever. It goes along way to explain why labour is still dislocated from many of its former working class strongholds. It’s very noticeable, especially in the online activists posts.
It’s something labour has still failed to address and has not made any proper effort to re engage these communities. It just expects them to drift back.
One thing springs to mind - an aquaintance works in the care/protection world.
He told me, that at the time of the Rotherham revelations, there were numbers of senior people, who believed with utter sincerity that there was going to be a pogrom launched against the Muslim community. Not a few demos or spray painting insults - mobs murdering people by the hundred. There were memos flying around demanding that the Army be sent in...
What struck him was that the people involved seemed to be competing for who could hate.... *the locals* more.
That’s staggering.
The whole debate around Rotherham online was depressing, and hate is a good word. You had the nationalist right blaming using it as a weapon to attack all Muslims and the far left getting into all sorts of contortions to excuse this behaviour and the suffering of the victims was secondary. It was awful.
Ann Cryer was ostracised many years ago for talking about this sort of practise.
I read that even in 2007 the Astute programme was 50% over budget and 4.5 years behind schedule so sneering at the French tardiness in delivering their subs ain’t the best look.
They had to bring a team from General Dynamics Electric Boat in Connecticut to rescue the Astute program and get it off the rocks onto which BAE had steered it. So if you were in the market for SSNs you'd be best served by going to GDEB in the first place...
LONDON — As relations between France and the United States sink to their lowest depths in decades, Britain has emerged as the unlikely winner in a maritime security alliance that has sowed anger and recrimination across three continents.
The British government played an early role in brokering the three-way alliance with the United States and Australia to deploy nuclear-powered submarines in the Pacific, according to officials in London and Washington. The landmark agreement was announced hours after Australia canceled a $66 billion deal for diesel-electric submarines with France, provoking fury in Paris and quiet satisfaction in London.
For Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who will meet this coming week with President Biden at the White House and speak at the United Nations, it is his first tangible victory in a campaign to make post-Brexit Britain a player on the global stage.
The Brexit thing is overdone by “commentators” on here. There’s no direct Brexit angle.
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
I think the key takeaway here is the opposite. The US has lost patience with the EU being hamstrung by Germany's foreign policy objectives. France is being asked the question of whether or not they are serious about containing China in APAC. Once the noise goes away I wouldn't be surprised if tentative moves to get the French into some associate membership position aren't made.
The point if this partnership is to jettison those slow moving countries like Germany who hold back a much tougher western response to Chinese aggression. The internal EU squabbling is something we know frustrated us when we were in it trying to target Russia with sanctions or trying to get an EU-wide policy on Huawei. To an outsider like the US the process must seem interminable and with their major military power now not in the EU, they have no reason to care about it.
Why is it in France’s interests to “contain” China?
If this is the USA forcing France to pick sides, it’s a very humiliating way to go about it.
Looking into the details of the now canned Australia/France sub deal, the unit cost was mental for conventional power at AU$7.5bn each. Our dreadnought class subs will cost £7bn each and the size and capability difference is in another league. An Astute can be purchased for £1.5bn with a lead time of a few years, plus there's already two complete ones that can be leased to Australia tomorrow if they wanted to go down that route.
How did France ever get to a position where they thought $7.5bn for conventional power was going to be waved through by Australia when the Aussies can see the UK building nuclear subs for a third of the cost.
Half of that equation was Australia wanting to build them domestically - having zero existing experience or facilities.
There is no possibility of building additional Astutes in the UK. DDH is full with the last two Astutes and the first Dreadnought and will remain at capacity as the Trident replacement program progresses.
I would just like to say how much your comments have added to the debate and are very helpful
Maybe some of your abbreviations would benefit from explanation but thank you for your contributions
DDH = Devonshire Dock Hall. The facility where the UK builds nuclear submarines. It's actually in Cumbria despite the name.
Looking into the details of the now canned Australia/France sub deal, the unit cost was mental for conventional power at AU$7.5bn each. Our dreadnought class subs will cost £7bn each and the size and capability difference is in another league. An Astute can be purchased for £1.5bn with a lead time of a few years, plus there's already two complete ones that can be leased to Australia tomorrow if they wanted to go down that route.
How did France ever get to a position where they thought $7.5bn for conventional power was going to be waved through by Australia when the Aussies can see the UK building nuclear subs for a third of the cost.
Half of that equation was Australia wanting to build them domestically - having zero existing experience or facilities.
There is no possibility of building additional Astutes in the UK. DDH is full with the last two Astutes and the first Dreadnought and will remain at capacity as the Trident replacement program progresses.
You’re likely right in thinking the deal (if it ever actually goes ahead) will be for US boats (probably built in the US ?).
But isn’t it reasonably likely that some other option is preferred after a couple of years’ study ? As you’ve pointed out, you can’t just hand over a couple of nukes with a good luck handshake. Even off the shelf will be a very long and expensive learning process.
My view remains that Europe as a world power or even a place of significance has had its (pretty long) day in the sun. In 1945 Europe was still such a significant part of world manufacturing that it had strategic importance to the US who could not allow the Soviet Union to dominate it. Hence NATO.
Now, the threat from Russia is massively diminished. I wouldn't be saying that if I lived in the Baltic states or Ukraine or other parts of the former Soviet Union of course. There, their aspirations and mischief making would be a major concern but from the US point of view there is no longer any strategic issue in protecting western Europe which isn't facing any real threat anyway. So NATO is redundant, even if it is politically useful to keep it going in form if not in substance.
Instead the US has strategic interests and concerns in the Pacific. This tilt in this direction has been going on for some time but accelerated considerably under Obama and continued under Trump. AUKUS is a small part of this strategic engagement but there are a host of other treaties and agreements which also play a part.
The UK could have accepted the same backwater status as the rest of Europe but has decided that it wants to play. Some of this is undoubtedly delusional, we want to still matter in world affairs, some of it is a response to Brexit, some of it is looking where economic growth is taking place and wanting a cut of the action, some of it is a bit needy in that we still want to be the US's best pal. I think it is far too early to say whether this will prove a distraction or an economic opportunity and most responses to it say more about the writer's view of UK internal politics than the actual merits. France also wanted to play too and feels left out at the moment but, frankly, who cares?
My view is that France would have done to the UK what the UK has done to France, if given half the chance - and that France probably will get the chance at some point. We are competitors and allies. We fixate far more on the former than the latter and have never trusted each other - even when fighting on the same side in actual wars!
Absolutely. And the unilateral and frankly embarrassing steps taken by Biden in Afghanistan show very clearly it is not just us and France that have that problem. Boris asked for a few more days to get a few more people to whom promises had been made out. He was turned down. Being best buds to a superpower can be a bruising experience. France, of course, are very much leading the punishment school in Brussels and deserve all they get in response.
If this treaty facilitates our membership of TPP it will have been a masterstroke. If it doesn't it may prove a rather pointless drain on our very stretched defence budget.
I think membership of the TPP is pretty much guaranteed anyway. It's just a matter of when as there are a few difficult issues that will need to be sorted out. As you say, the danger is that we now think that the US is our mate again when it is pretty clear that the Biden Administration is just as transactional as the Trump one was. That is the big takeaway here. US foreign policy has changed forever - both in focus and, crucially, in approach. We will need alliances with different groups of countries for different things - and the fact is that whether we like it or not, most of the big challenges we face are shared by the likes of France and Germany, and less so by the US. We do need to find ways to work with them.
LONDON — As relations between France and the United States sink to their lowest depths in decades, Britain has emerged as the unlikely winner in a maritime security alliance that has sowed anger and recrimination across three continents.
The British government played an early role in brokering the three-way alliance with the United States and Australia to deploy nuclear-powered submarines in the Pacific, according to officials in London and Washington. The landmark agreement was announced hours after Australia canceled a $66 billion deal for diesel-electric submarines with France, provoking fury in Paris and quiet satisfaction in London.
For Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who will meet this coming week with President Biden at the White House and speak at the United Nations, it is his first tangible victory in a campaign to make post-Brexit Britain a player on the global stage.
LONDON — As relations between France and the United States sink to their lowest depths in decades, Britain has emerged as the unlikely winner in a maritime security alliance that has sowed anger and recrimination across three continents.
The British government played an early role in brokering the three-way alliance with the United States and Australia to deploy nuclear-powered submarines in the Pacific, according to officials in London and Washington. The landmark agreement was announced hours after Australia canceled a $66 billion deal for diesel-electric submarines with France, provoking fury in Paris and quiet satisfaction in London.
For Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who will meet this coming week with President Biden at the White House and speak at the United Nations, it is his first tangible victory in a campaign to make post-Brexit Britain a player on the global stage.
The Brexit thing is overdone by “commentators” on here. There’s no direct Brexit angle.
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
I think the key takeaway here is the opposite. The US has lost patience with the EU being hamstrung by Germany's foreign policy objectives. France is being asked the question of whether or not they are serious about containing China in APAC. Once the noise goes away I wouldn't be surprised if tentative moves to get the French into some associate membership position aren't made.
The point if this partnership is to jettison those slow moving countries like Germany who hold back a much tougher western response to Chinese aggression. The internal EU squabbling is something we know frustrated us when we were in it trying to target Russia with sanctions or trying to get an EU-wide policy on Huawei. To an outsider like the US the process must seem interminable and with their major military power now not in the EU, they have no reason to care about it.
Why is it in France’s interests to “contain” China?
If this is the USA forcing France to pick sides, it’s a very humiliating way to go about it.
It is in everyone's interest to contain China
Why? Is China a material threat to France? In fact, China and Europe need each other.
LONDON — As relations between France and the United States sink to their lowest depths in decades, Britain has emerged as the unlikely winner in a maritime security alliance that has sowed anger and recrimination across three continents.
The British government played an early role in brokering the three-way alliance with the United States and Australia to deploy nuclear-powered submarines in the Pacific, according to officials in London and Washington. The landmark agreement was announced hours after Australia canceled a $66 billion deal for diesel-electric submarines with France, provoking fury in Paris and quiet satisfaction in London.
For Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who will meet this coming week with President Biden at the White House and speak at the United Nations, it is his first tangible victory in a campaign to make post-Brexit Britain a player on the global stage.
Government sources have confirmed this morning that, under the new travel system, 17-year olds and under will be exempt from having to take Pre-departure test, Day 2 and Day 8 PCR tests, as well as exempt from self-isolation, if they are not fully-jabbed. @ThePCAgency
LONDON — As relations between France and the United States sink to their lowest depths in decades, Britain has emerged as the unlikely winner in a maritime security alliance that has sowed anger and recrimination across three continents.
The British government played an early role in brokering the three-way alliance with the United States and Australia to deploy nuclear-powered submarines in the Pacific, according to officials in London and Washington. The landmark agreement was announced hours after Australia canceled a $66 billion deal for diesel-electric submarines with France, provoking fury in Paris and quiet satisfaction in London.
For Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who will meet this coming week with President Biden at the White House and speak at the United Nations, it is his first tangible victory in a campaign to make post-Brexit Britain a player on the global stage.
Every word typed of that piece must have been like a dagger to the heart of the writer.
It wasn't supposed to happen this way. The EU assured the world that the UK would be sidelined and turned into a backwater.
If what you say is right, then it shows a level of intellectual honesty that it would be nice to see reciprocated by those who claimed there would be no downsides to Brexit!
LONDON — As relations between France and the United States sink to their lowest depths in decades, Britain has emerged as the unlikely winner in a maritime security alliance that has sowed anger and recrimination across three continents.
The British government played an early role in brokering the three-way alliance with the United States and Australia to deploy nuclear-powered submarines in the Pacific, according to officials in London and Washington. The landmark agreement was announced hours after Australia canceled a $66 billion deal for diesel-electric submarines with France, provoking fury in Paris and quiet satisfaction in London.
For Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who will meet this coming week with President Biden at the White House and speak at the United Nations, it is his first tangible victory in a campaign to make post-Brexit Britain a player on the global stage.
The Brexit thing is overdone by “commentators” on here. There’s no direct Brexit angle.
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
I think the key takeaway here is the opposite. The US has lost patience with the EU being hamstrung by Germany's foreign policy objectives. France is being asked the question of whether or not they are serious about containing China in APAC. Once the noise goes away I wouldn't be surprised if tentative moves to get the French into some associate membership position aren't made.
The point if this partnership is to jettison those slow moving countries like Germany who hold back a much tougher western response to Chinese aggression. The internal EU squabbling is something we know frustrated us when we were in it trying to target Russia with sanctions or trying to get an EU-wide policy on Huawei. To an outsider like the US the process must seem interminable and with their major military power now not in the EU, they have no reason to care about it.
Why is it in France’s interests to “contain” China?
If this is the USA forcing France to pick sides, it’s a very humiliating way to go about it.
There are 1.5m French citizens in the Pacific, for one.
It's not forcing them to pick a side, it's the US saying that they're done with waiting for European countries to come up with a credible policy. It was difficult enough when we were in it, now it's impossible.
It has been even more noticeable in the post-Brexit years that a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north.
This why we Greens are the most honest and principled political party. We despise these people, their retrograde cultural conservatism, their moronic aspirations and their banal nationalism. We don't want anything to do with them and we certainly don't want their votes. However, unlike the other parties we don't pretend otherwise.
I think the Greens would recognise themselves in that lot about as much as the tories do in HYUFD
My view remains that Europe as a world power or even a place of significance has had its (pretty long) day in the sun. In 1945 Europe was still such a significant part of world manufacturing that it had strategic importance to the US who could not allow the Soviet Union to dominate it. Hence NATO.
Now, the threat from Russia is massively diminished. I wouldn't be saying that if I lived in the Baltic states or Ukraine or other parts of the former Soviet Union of course. There, their aspirations and mischief making would be a major concern but from the US point of view there is no longer any strategic issue in protecting western Europe which isn't facing any real threat anyway. So NATO is redundant, even if it is politically useful to keep it going in form if not in substance.
Instead the US has strategic interests and concerns in the Pacific. This tilt in this direction has been going on for some time but accelerated considerably under Obama and continued under Trump. AUKUS is a small part of this strategic engagement but there are a host of other treaties and agreements which also play a part.
The UK could have accepted the same backwater status as the rest of Europe but has decided that it wants to play. Some of this is undoubtedly delusional, we want to still matter in world affairs, some of it is a response to Brexit, some of it is looking where economic growth is taking place and wanting a cut of the action, some of it is a bit needy in that we still want to be the US's best pal. I think it is far too early to say whether this will prove a distraction or an economic opportunity and most responses to it say more about the writer's view of UK internal politics than the actual merits. France also wanted to play too and feels left out at the moment but, frankly, who cares?
My view is that France would have done to the UK what the UK has done to France, if given half the chance - and that France probably will get the chance at some point. We are competitors and allies. We fixate far more on the former than the latter and have never trusted each other - even when fighting on the same side in actual wars!
Absolutely. And the unilateral and frankly embarrassing steps taken by Biden in Afghanistan show very clearly it is not just us and France that have that problem. Boris asked for a few more days to get a few more people to whom promises had been made out. He was turned down. Being best buds to a superpower can be a bruising experience. France, of course, are very much leading the punishment school in Brussels and deserve all they get in response.
If this treaty facilitates our membership of TPP it will have been a masterstroke. If it doesn't it may prove a rather pointless drain on our very stretched defence budget.
I think membership of the TPP is pretty much guaranteed anyway. It's just a matter of when as there are a few difficult issues that will need to be sorted out. As you say, the danger is that we now think that the US is our mate again when it is pretty clear that the Biden Administration is just as transactional as the Trump one was. That is the big takeaway here. US foreign policy has changed forever - both in focus and, crucially, in approach. We will need alliances with different groups of countries for different things - and the fact is that whether we like it or not, most of the big challenges we face are shared by the likes of France and Germany, and less so by the US. We do need to find ways to work with them.
My concern is that we do not have the weight to really influence the US. We delude ourselves with the special relationship from which we do get some intelligence benefits but those benefits are increasingly dearly bought. It is possible that the European countries as a group have that counterweight so when we are supported by or supporting France and Germany we definitely have a louder voice but the US can still go its own way if it wants and in the Pacific it is much more interested in what SK, Japan and Taiwan thinks.
The major challenges we are going to face over the next 30-50 years are in my view likely to come from Africa where an exploding, very young population is going to generate huge instability, wars and millions upon millions of refugees. How do we handle that? France in particular are a much more obvious partner for that than the US who show very little interest. How does this affect our military spend? What capabilities are we actually going to need? A blue water, nuclear powered aircraft carrier based navy seems a relatively unimportant part of the mix.
LONDON — As relations between France and the United States sink to their lowest depths in decades, Britain has emerged as the unlikely winner in a maritime security alliance that has sowed anger and recrimination across three continents.
The British government played an early role in brokering the three-way alliance with the United States and Australia to deploy nuclear-powered submarines in the Pacific, according to officials in London and Washington. The landmark agreement was announced hours after Australia canceled a $66 billion deal for diesel-electric submarines with France, provoking fury in Paris and quiet satisfaction in London.
For Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who will meet this coming week with President Biden at the White House and speak at the United Nations, it is his first tangible victory in a campaign to make post-Brexit Britain a player on the global stage.
The Brexit thing is overdone by “commentators” on here. There’s no direct Brexit angle.
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
I think the key takeaway here is the opposite. The US has lost patience with the EU being hamstrung by Germany's foreign policy objectives. France is being asked the question of whether or not they are serious about containing China in APAC. Once the noise goes away I wouldn't be surprised if tentative moves to get the French into some associate membership position aren't made.
The point if this partnership is to jettison those slow moving countries like Germany who hold back a much tougher western response to Chinese aggression. The internal EU squabbling is something we know frustrated us when we were in it trying to target Russia with sanctions or trying to get an EU-wide policy on Huawei. To an outsider like the US the process must seem interminable and with their major military power now not in the EU, they have no reason to care about it.
Why is it in France’s interests to “contain” China?
If this is the USA forcing France to pick sides, it’s a very humiliating way to go about it.
It is in everyone's interest to contain China
Why? Is China a material threat to France? In fact, China and Europe need each other.
And that is the problem
The issue is that for many they do not comprehend the concerns in the Trans Pacific about China and their need to deter Chinese aggression that could destabilise the whole vast area.
There is also a need to compete with China commercially and an expanded CPTPP including the UK and possibly the US would go a long way to providing such a market place.
I know you are a Kiwi and of course NZ has embraced China and banned Australian nuclear subs from her waters
Like Europe, NZ will have a choice to make herself in the years ahead
The Brexit thing is overdone by “commentators” on here. There’s no direct Brexit angle.
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
I think the key takeaway here is the opposite. The US has lost patience with the EU being hamstrung by Germany's foreign policy objectives. France is being asked the question of whether or not they are serious about containing China in APAC. Once the noise goes away I wouldn't be surprised if tentative moves to get the French into some associate membership position aren't made.
The point if this partnership is to jettison those slow moving countries like Germany who hold back a much tougher western response to Chinese aggression. The internal EU squabbling is something we know frustrated us when we were in it trying to target Russia with sanctions or trying to get an EU-wide policy on Huawei. To an outsider like the US the process must seem interminable and with their major military power now not in the EU, they have no reason to care about it.
Why is it in France’s interests to “contain” China?
If this is the USA forcing France to pick sides, it’s a very humiliating way to go about it.
It is in everyone's interest to contain China
Why? Is China a material threat to France? In fact, China and Europe need each other.
We do, we certainly do and there does seem to be some elements of Sinophobia at Play.
As for China being a threat to France, possibly its Pacific terroritirs but that’s hard to see.
LONDON — As relations between France and the United States sink to their lowest depths in decades, Britain has emerged as the unlikely winner in a maritime security alliance that has sowed anger and recrimination across three continents.
The British government played an early role in brokering the three-way alliance with the United States and Australia to deploy nuclear-powered submarines in the Pacific, according to officials in London and Washington. The landmark agreement was announced hours after Australia canceled a $66 billion deal for diesel-electric submarines with France, provoking fury in Paris and quiet satisfaction in London.
For Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who will meet this coming week with President Biden at the White House and speak at the United Nations, it is his first tangible victory in a campaign to make post-Brexit Britain a player on the global stage.
Keiger argues that "the need for speed" was one of the factors in sidelining the French in AUKUS:
What the three Anglosphere states in the Aukus pact have put together is a loose, flexible and nimble arrangement for managing Indo-Pacific security directly. This is something that is second nature to states of a culture that General de Gaulle always referred to as ‘Anglo-Saxon’. It is just the kind of arrangement that is anathema to the formal, rational and legalistic method of the French and their cultural offshoot the EU, whose modus operandi was best demonstrated by the glacial formalism applied to the Brexit negotiations.....
Aukus members probably wanted France in the pact. Diplomatically and militarily she has much to offer in terms of naval projection, nuclear submarines and weapons, intelligence and physical presence by dint of her overseas territories in the south Pacific. But wishing to react rapidly, they were probably anxious about her cultural proclivity to define every term, role and eventuality. The crucial problem for France is that by her own admission the Australian deal wasn’t merely about submarines. It was the keystone in a regional security edifice carefully pieced together that will now have to be remodelled completely, were that possible. This is the source of their disappointment and public outrage.
My view remains that Europe as a world power or even a place of significance has had its (pretty long) day in the sun. In 1945 Europe was still such a significant part of world manufacturing that it had strategic importance to the US who could not allow the Soviet Union to dominate it. Hence NATO.
Now, the threat from Russia is massively diminished. I wouldn't be saying that if I lived in the Baltic states or Ukraine or other parts of the former Soviet Union of course. There, their aspirations and mischief making would be a major concern but from the US point of view there is no longer any strategic issue in protecting western Europe which isn't facing any real threat anyway. So NATO is redundant, even if it is politically useful to keep it going in form if not in substance.
Instead the US has strategic interests and concerns in the Pacific. This tilt in this direction has been going on for some time but accelerated considerably under Obama and continued under Trump. AUKUS is a small part of this strategic engagement but there are a host of other treaties and agreements which also play a part.
The UK could have accepted the same backwater status as the rest of Europe but has decided that it wants to play. Some of this is undoubtedly delusional, we want to still matter in world affairs, some of it is a response to Brexit, some of it is looking where economic growth is taking place and wanting a cut of the action, some of it is a bit needy in that we still want to be the US's best pal. I think it is far too early to say whether this will prove a distraction or an economic opportunity and most responses to it say more about the writer's view of UK internal politics than the actual merits. France also wanted to play too and feels left out at the moment but, frankly, who cares?
My view is that France would have done to the UK what the UK has done to France, if given half the chance - and that France probably will get the chance at some point. We are competitors and allies. We fixate far more on the former than the latter and have never trusted each other - even when fighting on the same side in actual wars!
Absolutely. And the unilateral and frankly embarrassing steps taken by Biden in Afghanistan show very clearly it is not just us and France that have that problem. Boris asked for a few more days to get a few more people to whom promises had been made out. He was turned down. Being best buds to a superpower can be a bruising experience. France, of course, are very much leading the punishment school in Brussels and deserve all they get in response.
If this treaty facilitates our membership of TPP it will have been a masterstroke. If it doesn't it may prove a rather pointless drain on our very stretched defence budget.
I think membership of the TPP is pretty much guaranteed anyway. It's just a matter of when as there are a few difficult issues that will need to be sorted out. As you say, the danger is that we now think that the US is our mate again when it is pretty clear that the Biden Administration is just as transactional as the Trump one was. That is the big takeaway here. US foreign policy has changed forever - both in focus and, crucially, in approach. We will need alliances with different groups of countries for different things - and the fact is that whether we like it or not, most of the big challenges we face are shared by the likes of France and Germany, and less so by the US. We do need to find ways to work with them.
American foreign policy has always been transactional. The funniest thing used to be countries (such as France, Germany and the UK) complaining that the US acted in it's own best interests first. As if the complaining countries did anything different.
The sub deal makes me wonder about the story I heard regrading the EU and CPTPP - that "EU diplomats" tried to tell Australia to block an application from the UK.
The reason I wonder, is that it seems a head of steam has been building up between France and Australia - The Australians, in the final analysis, seem to have wanted to go for the approach on not telling the French until the announcement.
LONDON — As relations between France and the United States sink to their lowest depths in decades, Britain has emerged as the unlikely winner in a maritime security alliance that has sowed anger and recrimination across three continents.
The British government played an early role in brokering the three-way alliance with the United States and Australia to deploy nuclear-powered submarines in the Pacific, according to officials in London and Washington. The landmark agreement was announced hours after Australia canceled a $66 billion deal for diesel-electric submarines with France, provoking fury in Paris and quiet satisfaction in London.
For Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who will meet this coming week with President Biden at the White House and speak at the United Nations, it is his first tangible victory in a campaign to make post-Brexit Britain a player on the global stage.
LONDON — As relations between France and the United States sink to their lowest depths in decades, Britain has emerged as the unlikely winner in a maritime security alliance that has sowed anger and recrimination across three continents.
The British government played an early role in brokering the three-way alliance with the United States and Australia to deploy nuclear-powered submarines in the Pacific, according to officials in London and Washington. The landmark agreement was announced hours after Australia canceled a $66 billion deal for diesel-electric submarines with France, provoking fury in Paris and quiet satisfaction in London.
For Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who will meet this coming week with President Biden at the White House and speak at the United Nations, it is his first tangible victory in a campaign to make post-Brexit Britain a player on the global stage.
The Brexit thing is overdone by “commentators” on here. There’s no direct Brexit angle.
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
I think the key takeaway here is the opposite. The US has lost patience with the EU being hamstrung by Germany's foreign policy objectives. France is being asked the question of whether or not they are serious about containing China in APAC. Once the noise goes away I wouldn't be surprised if tentative moves to get the French into some associate membership position aren't made.
The point if this partnership is to jettison those slow moving countries like Germany who hold back a much tougher western response to Chinese aggression. The internal EU squabbling is something we know frustrated us when we were in it trying to target Russia with sanctions or trying to get an EU-wide policy on Huawei. To an outsider like the US the process must seem interminable and with their major military power now not in the EU, they have no reason to care about it.
Why is it in France’s interests to “contain” China?
If this is the USA forcing France to pick sides, it’s a very humiliating way to go about it.
It is in everyone's interest to contain China
Why? Is China a material threat to France? In fact, China and Europe need each other.
It's not mutually exclusive to need one another and need to contain each other.
Indeed, nations continually work to get what they need or want from each other whilst limiting to on the terms most favourable to them.
It's not a binary choice between warlike aggression and utter inaction. And physical threat is not the only factor, theres nothing wrong with concerns around economic power over others (plenty in the world concerned at American power that way) which has huge potential negative impacts on geopolitical choices.
Looking into the details of the now canned Australia/France sub deal, the unit cost was mental for conventional power at AU$7.5bn each. Our dreadnought class subs will cost £7bn each and the size and capability difference is in another league. An Astute can be purchased for £1.5bn with a lead time of a few years, plus there's already two complete ones that can be leased to Australia tomorrow if they wanted to go down that route.
How did France ever get to a position where they thought $7.5bn for conventional power was going to be waved through by Australia when the Aussies can see the UK building nuclear subs for a third of the cost.
Half of that equation was Australia wanting to build them domestically - having zero existing experience or facilities.
There is no possibility of building additional Astutes in the UK. DDH is full with the last two Astutes and the first Dreadnought and will remain at capacity as the Trident replacement program progresses.
I would just like to say how much your comments have added to the debate and are very helpful
Maybe some of your abbreviations would benefit from explanation but thank you for your contributions
DDH = Devonshire Dock Hall. The facility where the UK builds nuclear submarines. It's actually in Cumbria despite the name.
Its development was planned and partly funded by William Cavendish, the Earl of Burlington and the 7th Duke of Devonshire. His family still live where he died, not far away in Cartmel.
It has been even more noticeable in the post-Brexit years that a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north.
This why we Greens are the most honest and principled political party. We despise these people, their retrograde cultural conservatism, their moronic aspirations and their banal nationalism. We don't want anything to do with them and we certainly don't want their votes. However, unlike the other parties we don't pretend otherwise.
I think the Greens would recognise themselves in that lot about as much as the tories do in HYUFD
I think Dura Ace is inspired by the Bolsheviks. The Northern Scum can play the Kulaks in his revolution, probably.
The Brexit thing is overdone by “commentators” on here. There’s no direct Brexit angle.
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
I think the key takeaway here is the opposite. The US has lost patience with the EU being hamstrung by Germany's foreign policy objectives. France is being asked the question of whether or not they are serious about containing China in APAC. Once the noise goes away I wouldn't be surprised if tentative moves to get the French into some associate membership position aren't made.
The point if this partnership is to jettison those slow moving countries like Germany who hold back a much tougher western response to Chinese aggression. The internal EU squabbling is something we know frustrated us when we were in it trying to target Russia with sanctions or trying to get an EU-wide policy on Huawei. To an outsider like the US the process must seem interminable and with their major military power now not in the EU, they have no reason to care about it.
Why is it in France’s interests to “contain” China?
If this is the USA forcing France to pick sides, it’s a very humiliating way to go about it.
It is in everyone's interest to contain China
Why? Is China a material threat to France? In fact, China and Europe need each other.
And that is the problem
The issue is that for many they do not comprehend the concerns in the Trans Pacific about China and their need to deter Chinese aggression that could destabilise the whole vast area.
There is also a need to compete with China commercially and an expanded CPTPP including the UK and possibly the US would go a long way to providing such a market place.
I know you are a Kiwi and of course NZ has embraced China and banned Australian nuclear subs from her waters
Like Europe, NZ will have a choice to make herself in the years ahead
LONDON — As relations between France and the United States sink to their lowest depths in decades, Britain has emerged as the unlikely winner in a maritime security alliance that has sowed anger and recrimination across three continents.
The British government played an early role in brokering the three-way alliance with the United States and Australia to deploy nuclear-powered submarines in the Pacific, according to officials in London and Washington. The landmark agreement was announced hours after Australia canceled a $66 billion deal for diesel-electric submarines with France, provoking fury in Paris and quiet satisfaction in London.
For Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who will meet this coming week with President Biden at the White House and speak at the United Nations, it is his first tangible victory in a campaign to make post-Brexit Britain a player on the global stage.
My view remains that Europe as a world power or even a place of significance has had its (pretty long) day in the sun. In 1945 Europe was still such a significant part of world manufacturing that it had strategic importance to the US who could not allow the Soviet Union to dominate it. Hence NATO.
Now, the threat from Russia is massively diminished. I wouldn't be saying that if I lived in the Baltic states or Ukraine or other parts of the former Soviet Union of course. There, their aspirations and mischief making would be a major concern but from the US point of view there is no longer any strategic issue in protecting western Europe which isn't facing any real threat anyway. So NATO is redundant, even if it is politically useful to keep it going in form if not in substance.
Instead the US has strategic interests and concerns in the Pacific. This tilt in this direction has been going on for some time but accelerated considerably under Obama and continued under Trump. AUKUS is a small part of this strategic engagement but there are a host of other treaties and agreements which also play a part.
The UK could have accepted the same backwater status as the rest of Europe but has decided that it wants to play. Some of this is undoubtedly delusional, we want to still matter in world affairs, some of it is a response to Brexit, some of it is looking where economic growth is taking place and wanting a cut of the action, some of it is a bit needy in that we still want to be the US's best pal. I think it is far too early to say whether this will prove a distraction or an economic opportunity and most responses to it say more about the writer's view of UK internal politics than the actual merits. France also wanted to play too and feels left out at the moment but, frankly, who cares?
My view is that France would have done to the UK what the UK has done to France, if given half the chance - and that France probably will get the chance at some point. We are competitors and allies. We fixate far more on the former than the latter and have never trusted each other - even when fighting on the same side in actual wars!
Absolutely. And the unilateral and frankly embarrassing steps taken by Biden in Afghanistan show very clearly it is not just us and France that have that problem. Boris asked for a few more days to get a few more people to whom promises had been made out. He was turned down. Being best buds to a superpower can be a bruising experience. France, of course, are very much leading the punishment school in Brussels and deserve all they get in response.
If this treaty facilitates our membership of TPP it will have been a masterstroke. If it doesn't it may prove a rather pointless drain on our very stretched defence budget.
I think membership of the TPP is pretty much guaranteed anyway. It's just a matter of when as there are a few difficult issues that will need to be sorted out. As you say, the danger is that we now think that the US is our mate again when it is pretty clear that the Biden Administration is just as transactional as the Trump one was. That is the big takeaway here. US foreign policy has changed forever - both in focus and, crucially, in approach. We will need alliances with different groups of countries for different things - and the fact is that whether we like it or not, most of the big challenges we face are shared by the likes of France and Germany, and less so by the US. We do need to find ways to work with them.
My concern is that we do not have the weight to really influence the US. We delude ourselves with the special relationship from which we do get some intelligence benefits but those benefits are increasingly dearly bought. It is possible that the European countries as a group have that counterweight so when we are supported by or supporting France and Germany we definitely have a louder voice but the US can still go its own way if it wants and in the Pacific it is much more interested in what SK, Japan and Taiwan thinks.
The major challenges we are going to face over the next 30-50 years are in my view likely to come from Africa where an exploding, very young population is going to generate huge instability, wars and millions upon millions of refugees. How do we handle that? France in particular are a much more obvious partner for that than the US who show very little interest. How does this affect our military spend? What capabilities are we actually going to need? A blue water, nuclear powered aircraft carrier based navy seems a relatively unimportant part of the mix.
I agree. Climate change and conflicts in Africa and the Middle East will create direct challenges for the UK and other major European countries that the US just does not face - mass migration, of course, being the biggest.
My view remains that Europe as a world power or even a place of significance has had its (pretty long) day in the sun. In 1945 Europe was still such a significant part of world manufacturing that it had strategic importance to the US who could not allow the Soviet Union to dominate it. Hence NATO.
Now, the threat from Russia is massively diminished. I wouldn't be saying that if I lived in the Baltic states or Ukraine or other parts of the former Soviet Union of course. There, their aspirations and mischief making would be a major concern but from the US point of view there is no longer any strategic issue in protecting western Europe which isn't facing any real threat anyway. So NATO is redundant, even if it is politically useful to keep it going in form if not in substance.
Instead the US has strategic interests and concerns in the Pacific. This tilt in this direction has been going on for some time but accelerated considerably under Obama and continued under Trump. AUKUS is a small part of this strategic engagement but there are a host of other treaties and agreements which also play a part.
The UK could have accepted the same backwater status as the rest of Europe but has decided that it wants to play. Some of this is undoubtedly delusional, we want to still matter in world affairs, some of it is a response to Brexit, some of it is looking where economic growth is taking place and wanting a cut of the action, some of it is a bit needy in that we still want to be the US's best pal. I think it is far too early to say whether this will prove a distraction or an economic opportunity and most responses to it say more about the writer's view of UK internal politics than the actual merits. France also wanted to play too and feels left out at the moment but, frankly, who cares?
The EU as a whole is still the 3rd largest economy in the world after the USA and China and our largest export destination, we cannot ignore it and we cannot forget that geographically we are part of Europe still even if out of the EU.
Russia is also the 3rd most powerful military in the world still after the USA and China and geographically far closer to us than China is, it is extremely complacent to dismiss Putin, we still need NATO
LONDON — As relations between France and the United States sink to their lowest depths in decades, Britain has emerged as the unlikely winner in a maritime security alliance that has sowed anger and recrimination across three continents.
The British government played an early role in brokering the three-way alliance with the United States and Australia to deploy nuclear-powered submarines in the Pacific, according to officials in London and Washington. The landmark agreement was announced hours after Australia canceled a $66 billion deal for diesel-electric submarines with France, provoking fury in Paris and quiet satisfaction in London.
For Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who will meet this coming week with President Biden at the White House and speak at the United Nations, it is his first tangible victory in a campaign to make post-Brexit Britain a player on the global stage.
The Brexit thing is overdone by “commentators” on here. There’s no direct Brexit angle.
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
I think the key takeaway here is the opposite. The US has lost patience with the EU being hamstrung by Germany's foreign policy objectives. France is being asked the question of whether or not they are serious about containing China in APAC. Once the noise goes away I wouldn't be surprised if tentative moves to get the French into some associate membership position aren't made.
The point if this partnership is to jettison those slow moving countries like Germany who hold back a much tougher western response to Chinese aggression. The internal EU squabbling is something we know frustrated us when we were in it trying to target Russia with sanctions or trying to get an EU-wide policy on Huawei. To an outsider like the US the process must seem interminable and with their major military power now not in the EU, they have no reason to care about it.
Why is it in France’s interests to “contain” China?
If this is the USA forcing France to pick sides, it’s a very humiliating way to go about it.
It is in everyone's interest to contain China
Why? Is China a material threat to France? In fact, China and Europe need each other.
And that is the problem
The issue is that for many they do not comprehend the concerns in the Trans Pacific about China and their need to deter Chinese aggression that could destabilise the whole vast area.
There is also a need to compete with China commercially and an expanded CPTPP including the UK and possibly the US would go a long way to providing such a market place.
I know you are a Kiwi and of course NZ has embraced China and banned Australian nuclear subs from her waters
Like Europe, NZ will have a choice to make herself in the years ahead
Your posts really are complete drivel.
What does it even mean that France “do not comprehend the concerns in the Trans Pacific about China”.
And, NZ has not “embraced China”.
Australian subs are only banned inasmuch as NZ had banned all nuclear powered ships since 1987; it’s a reiteration of standing policy.
This is what happens when you get your foreign policy news via the sudoku pages of the Daily Mail.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
For a country that withdrew from NATO for no obvious reason, then rejoined, and bombed a peaceful protest boat in a friendly foreign country, to say that others can't be relied on, is beyond parody.
And that's not even to mention their behaviour to us since we exercised our right to leave the EU.
My view remains that Europe as a world power or even a place of significance has had its (pretty long) day in the sun. In 1945 Europe was still such a significant part of world manufacturing that it had strategic importance to the US who could not allow the Soviet Union to dominate it. Hence NATO.
Now, the threat from Russia is massively diminished. I wouldn't be saying that if I lived in the Baltic states or Ukraine or other parts of the former Soviet Union of course. There, their aspirations and mischief making would be a major concern but from the US point of view there is no longer any strategic issue in protecting western Europe which isn't facing any real threat anyway. So NATO is redundant, even if it is politically useful to keep it going in form if not in substance.
Instead the US has strategic interests and concerns in the Pacific. This tilt in this direction has been going on for some time but accelerated considerably under Obama and continued under Trump. AUKUS is a small part of this strategic engagement but there are a host of other treaties and agreements which also play a part.
The UK could have accepted the same backwater status as the rest of Europe but has decided that it wants to play. Some of this is undoubtedly delusional, we want to still matter in world affairs, some of it is a response to Brexit, some of it is looking where economic growth is taking place and wanting a cut of the action, some of it is a bit needy in that we still want to be the US's best pal. I think it is far too early to say whether this will prove a distraction or an economic opportunity and most responses to it say more about the writer's view of UK internal politics than the actual merits. France also wanted to play too and feels left out at the moment but, frankly, who cares?
The EU as a whole is still the 3rd largest economy in the world after the USA and China and our largest export destination, we cannot ignore it and we cannot forget that geographically we are part of Europe still even if out of the EU.
Russia is also the 3rd most powerful military in the world still after the USA and China and geographically far closer to us than China is, it is extremely complacent to dismiss Putin, we still need NATO
This is one of those weird posts where HYUFD argues pedantically against someone who agrees with him on the substantive point.
Comments
According to one diplomatic source in Washington, Australian officials first approached the British government to check that London would give its support before going to the Biden administration, knowing they would be pushing at a partially open door.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/19/baptism-of-fire-as-liz-truss-heads-to-us-amid-submarine-row
They remember everything and learn nothing.
You can froth on about "remoaners" but this isn't replaying the referendum. This is how the hell has this government managed to sign and implement a deal in a way that totally shags exports but gives imports the open door treatment?
The exclusion of France from the Aukus pact leaves the UK at risk of further isolation after Brexit
I see it when politicians of the Left accuse those on the Right of being racist for not signing up to the whole BLM thing.
Anyway: you're usually a pretty thoughtful and nuanced poster, but "a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north" triggered me.
The reality is that the vast, vast majority of our political opponents only want the best for the British people. They may have a slightly different view of what exactly best constitutes or the correct path to get there.
But their views, by and large, and every bit as morally valid as ours. (Albeit often not as practical, well thought out, properly costed, or recognising of the foibles of human nature.)
Selling them Agamemnon and Agincourt is a short term solution. Having Australia build their own Astutes is the opposite of that.
I think if they ever get their SSNs they will be short wheelbase Virginias with no VLS and no VPM.
How did France ever get to a position where they thought $7.5bn for conventional power was going to be waved through by Australia when the Aussies can see the UK building nuclear subs for a third of the cost.
Basically if you really want to solve this problem, you first need to figure out why Europe (not just the EU) has done such a lousy job of producing companies like Intel, Apple, Microsoft, Qualcomm, Google etc. I think it has a lot more to do with finance and business broadly, than what the state does through funding research and providing capital.
As for caricatures, I know that I call the Prime Minister Clown, Shagger, Worzel, Liar. These are definitely caricatures, but several are all statements of fact. In the old days of serious politics it was perfectly possible to disagree utterly with politicians based on their policies but respect them as people. Now we seem to have reduced politics to "stick morons and idiots into the top job" - I give you Chris Failing ruining every department he touches, Gavin Williamson threatening to sue schools for carrying out his own policy, and now the department for "levelling up".
When politics has become self-satire its hard to not treat them with comedic contempt.
At what point is it safe to heap moral opprobrium on them for that?
VPM = Virginia Payload Module. This a configurable mission module so you can use the boat for lots of different ops like special forces insertions, controlling drones, etc.
We don't want to gloat about our stunning triumph after all.
Now, the threat from Russia is massively diminished. I wouldn't be saying that if I lived in the Baltic states or Ukraine or other parts of the former Soviet Union of course. There, their aspirations and mischief making would be a major concern but from the US point of view there is no longer any strategic issue in protecting western Europe which isn't facing any real threat anyway. So NATO is redundant, even if it is politically useful to keep it going in form if not in substance.
Instead the US has strategic interests and concerns in the Pacific. This tilt in this direction has been going on for some time but accelerated considerably under Obama and continued under Trump. AUKUS is a small part of this strategic engagement but there are a host of other treaties and agreements which also play a part.
The UK could have accepted the same backwater status as the rest of Europe but has decided that it wants to play. Some of this is undoubtedly delusional, we want to still matter in world affairs, some of it is a response to Brexit, some of it is looking where economic growth is taking place and wanting a cut of the action, some of it is a bit needy in that we still want to be the US's best pal. I think it is far too early to say whether this will prove a distraction or an economic opportunity and most responses to it say more about the writer's view of UK internal politics than the actual merits. France also wanted to play too and feels left out at the moment but, frankly, who cares?
I know the Nigel is as mad as a box of frogs, but if he could turn REFUK into a small state low tax conservative party and Worzel continues to tax working people to death there may be some switching.
That said, the contract they signed turned out to be a disaster, which is why the ‘stab in the back’ happened.
Would have saved everyone a lot of trouble if Australia had bought the new lithium battery powered Taigei class from Japan. Which is an actual boat rather than a design blueprint.
It’s something labour has still failed to address and has not made any proper effort to re engage these communities. It just expects them to drift back.
I wonder if people may get triggered by a reference to TRIGA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIGA
The fun version - for many years the US distributed mini research reactors around the world. In one of those hilarious-but-true things they were inherently 100% safe - because they used weapons grade Uranium cores. Basically, the reaction slows down (core expands slightly) automatically if it exceeds a designed power level... Not quite sure how safe they are with LEU fuel.
A really fun fact - there was enough HEU in the core of a TRIGA to build a bomb. When the first Iraq war kicked off, the Iraqis had a TRIGA type reactor. Supplied by the French.
How long before they now decide to develop nuclear powered subs ?
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/19589678.snps-joanna-cherry-hints-career-move-accuses-party-abuse-bullying-smears/
I read that even in 2007 the Astute programme was 50% over budget and 4.5 years behind schedule so sneering at the French tardiness in delivering their subs ain’t the best look.
(En passant, autocorrect wanted to correct Trumpite to Trumpet!)
He told me, that at the time of the Rotherham revelations, there were numbers of senior people, who believed with utter sincerity that there was going to be a pogrom launched against the Muslim community. Not a few demos or spray painting insults - mobs murdering people by the hundred. There were memos flying around demanding that the Army be sent in...
What struck him was that the people involved seemed to be competing for who could hate.... *the locals* more.
Let’s not forget Biden’s actions and communications (or lack of them) over Afghanistan.
France can’t trust the US now.
Can we?
Oh, and there's this:
Royal Air Force Chinooks currently deployed to Mali have passed a significant milestone after completing 3,000 flying hours in their role supporting the French military in the country.....
Since the inception of the task in 2018, the CH-47 detachment has moved more than 1,500 tonnes of freight and more than 18,000 soldiers.
https://www.forces.net/news/raf-chinooks-pass-3000-flying-hours-milestone-mali
The point if this partnership is to jettison those slow moving countries like Germany who hold back a much tougher western response to Chinese aggression. The internal EU squabbling is something we know frustrated us when we were in it trying to target Russia with sanctions or trying to get an EU-wide policy on Huawei. To an outsider like the US the process must seem interminable and with their major military power now not in the EU, they have no reason to care about it.
They apparently intend to do the same with the new deal, which seems even more impractical. After a few years study they might change their minds on that, and a deal to buy the Japanese boats might well then make even more sense.
Who knows, Japan might be part of whatever the alliance is called by then…
It’s been French policy since Suez to pursue “strategic autonomy” and, why not? Is it better to be a puppet of the US, as Britain increasingly looks to be?
There are people here in the North, who label everyone from the South (and especially in London) as being posh and rich. If they vote Tory, they're always 'Bullingdon boys'. In a similar way, some Southerners claim Northerners are semi-simians with no right to vote.
The reason for this is obvious - it makes them feel better about themselves. They can feel superior. In some ways, I'm sure the anti-vaxxers have the same need. They know better than the common herd.
I persist in coming and occasionally comment, but we know it's mostly froth. But that's why Andy Burnham can stand up for his city as long as he strokes the prejudice. Why the Guardian can stand up for 'independent' journalism when it's nothing of the sort. It's a game that we all play. I probably do too.
Corbyn is honest in that he believes what he says. Nadine Dorries does too. But they're both politicians and take advantage of prejudice if it helps them - because they know they're right.
The problem arises because it means people never actually listen. I doubt very few are ever convinced by another's arguments.
But it's fun.
This whole deal sounded like a real dogs dinner. I have to wonder how did it ever get off the ground.
If this is the USA forcing France to pick sides, it’s a very humiliating way to go about it.
LONDON — As relations between France and the United States sink to their lowest depths in decades, Britain has emerged as the unlikely winner in a maritime security alliance that has sowed anger and recrimination across three continents.
The British government played an early role in brokering the three-way alliance with the United States and Australia to deploy nuclear-powered submarines in the Pacific, according to officials in London and Washington. The landmark agreement was announced hours after Australia canceled a $66 billion deal for diesel-electric submarines with France, provoking fury in Paris and quiet satisfaction in London.
For Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who will meet this coming week with President Biden at the White House and speak at the United Nations, it is his first tangible victory in a campaign to make post-Brexit Britain a player on the global stage.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/18/world/europe/britain-us-france-submarines-brexit.html
If this treaty facilitates our membership of TPP it will have been a masterstroke. If it doesn't it may prove a rather pointless drain on our very stretched defence budget.
Maybe some of your abbreviations would benefit from explanation but thank you for your contributions
The whole debate around Rotherham online was depressing, and hate is a good word. You had the nationalist right blaming using it as a weapon to attack all Muslims and the far left getting into all sorts of contortions to excuse this behaviour and the suffering of the victims was secondary. It was awful.
Ann Cryer was ostracised many years ago for talking about this sort of practise.
The victims should have come first.
But isn’t it reasonably likely that some other option is preferred after a couple of years’ study ?
As you’ve pointed out, you can’t just hand over a couple of nukes with a good luck handshake. Even off the shelf will be a very long and expensive learning process.
In fact, China and Europe need each other.
It wasn't supposed to happen this way. The EU assured the world that the UK would be sidelined and turned into a backwater.
Government sources have confirmed this morning that, under the new travel system, 17-year olds and under will be exempt from having to take Pre-departure test, Day 2 and Day 8 PCR tests, as well as exempt from self-isolation, if they are not fully-jabbed.
@ThePCAgency
https://twitter.com/PPaulCharles/status/1439501451869495297?s=20
Exactly the right response. Tongue in cheek.
I come originally from Boston, but I've lived in the NW a long time now. Still not one of them, but I can see their point.
It's not forcing them to pick a side, it's the US saying that they're done with waiting for European countries to come up with a credible policy. It was difficult enough when we were in it, now it's impossible.
The major challenges we are going to face over the next 30-50 years are in my view likely to come from Africa where an exploding, very young population is going to generate huge instability, wars and millions upon millions of refugees. How do we handle that? France in particular are a much more obvious partner for that than the US who show very little interest. How does this affect our military spend? What capabilities are we actually going to need? A blue water, nuclear powered aircraft carrier based navy seems a relatively unimportant part of the mix.
The issue is that for many they do not comprehend the concerns in the Trans Pacific about China and their need to deter Chinese aggression that could destabilise the whole vast area.
There is also a need to compete with China commercially and an expanded CPTPP including the UK and possibly the US would go a long way to providing such a market place.
I know you are a Kiwi and of course NZ has embraced China and banned Australian nuclear subs from her waters
Like Europe, NZ will have a choice to make herself in the years ahead
As for China being a threat to France, possibly its Pacific terroritirs but that’s hard to see.
Piss the French off and a "socialist" tax on working age Britons is forgiven and forgotten.
What the three Anglosphere states in the Aukus pact have put together is a loose, flexible and nimble arrangement for managing Indo-Pacific security directly. This is something that is second nature to states of a culture that General de Gaulle always referred to as ‘Anglo-Saxon’. It is just the kind of arrangement that is anathema to the formal, rational and legalistic method of the French and their cultural offshoot the EU, whose modus operandi was best demonstrated by the glacial formalism applied to the Brexit negotiations.....
Aukus members probably wanted France in the pact. Diplomatically and militarily she has much to offer in terms of naval projection, nuclear submarines and weapons, intelligence and physical presence by dint of her overseas territories in the south Pacific. But wishing to react rapidly, they were probably anxious about her cultural proclivity to define every term, role and eventuality. The crucial problem for France is that by her own admission the Australian deal wasn’t merely about submarines. It was the keystone in a regional security edifice carefully pieced together that will now have to be remodelled completely, were that possible. This is the source of their disappointment and public outrage.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-real-reason-france-was-excluded-from-aukus
The sub deal makes me wonder about the story I heard regrading the EU and CPTPP - that "EU diplomats" tried to tell Australia to block an application from the UK.
The reason I wonder, is that it seems a head of steam has been building up between France and Australia - The Australians, in the final analysis, seem to have wanted to go for the approach on not telling the French until the announcement.
Indeed, nations continually work to get what they need or want from each other whilst limiting to on the terms most favourable to them.
It's not a binary choice between warlike aggression and utter inaction. And physical threat is not the only factor, theres nothing wrong with concerns around economic power over others (plenty in the world concerned at American power that way) which has huge potential negative impacts on geopolitical choices.
Russia is also the 3rd most powerful military in the world still after the USA and China and geographically far closer to us than China is, it is extremely complacent to dismiss Putin, we still need NATO
What does it even mean that France “do not comprehend the concerns in the Trans Pacific about China”.
And, NZ has not “embraced China”.
Australian subs are only banned inasmuch as NZ had banned all nuclear powered ships since 1987; it’s a reiteration of standing policy.
This is what happens when you get your foreign policy news via the sudoku pages of the Daily Mail.
And that's not even to mention their behaviour to us since we exercised our right to leave the EU.