Howdy, Stranger!

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

All polls now have CON leads: LAB’s brief moment in the Sun is over – politicalbetting.com

124678

Comments

  • TazTaz Posts: 10,703

    MaxPB said:

    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.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,585
    MaxPB said:

    NYT:

    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

    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.
    So Johnson has won your vote back in around a week.

    Piss the French off and a "socialist" tax on working age Britons is forgiven and forgotten.
  • 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.


    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-real-reason-france-was-excluded-from-aukus
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,616

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    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.

  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,616
    DavidL said:

    felix said:

    NYT:

    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

    You have to feel sorry for Biden in this - the left are gonna crucify him for betraying the cause.
    It's ok, he probably won't notice.
    In the US, standing up to China is very popular on the left - jobs exported, human rights. It is popular across the political spectrum, in fact.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797

    MaxPB said:

    NYT:

    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

    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.
    So Johnson has won your vote back in around a week.

    Piss the French off and a "socialist" tax on working age Britons is forgiven and forgotten.
    MaxPB will be sat in Switzerland come the next election - his vote won't really matter
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    edited September 2021

    MaxPB said:

    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.
  • Dura_Ace said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Nigelb said:

    MaxPB said:

    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.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775

    MaxPB said:

    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

    This has been asked before, but I still haven't seen a clear answer... what is the nature of this Chinese aggression?
    We can agree that China is a threat to Taiwan, but is there anything beyond that?
    I have this vague idea that America is a bigger threat to third countries than China, based on recent history. Can someone explain why I'm wrong about that?

    And please note, I am not in any way saying China is better. Yes the internal repression in China is criminal and deeply wrong. I'm asking about external aggression.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,616
    IshmaelZ said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    felix said:



    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.
  • MaxPB said:

    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

    China has also applied to join the CPTPP.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    eek said:

    MaxPB said:

    NYT:

    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

    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.
    So Johnson has won your vote back in around a week.

    Piss the French off and a "socialist" tax on working age Britons is forgiven and forgotten.
    MaxPB will be sat in Switzerland come the next election - his vote won't really matter
    Aren't they planning on votes for expats?
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    kle4 said:

    eek said:

    MaxPB said:

    NYT:

    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

    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.
    So Johnson has won your vote back in around a week.

    Piss the French off and a "socialist" tax on working age Britons is forgiven and forgotten.
    MaxPB will be sat in Switzerland come the next election - his vote won't really matter
    Aren't they planning on votes for expats?
    economic migrants
  • DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    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.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited September 2021
    DavidL said:

    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
  • MaxPB said:

    NYT:

    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

    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.
    So Johnson has won your vote back in around a week.

    Piss the French off and a "socialist" tax on working age Britons is forgiven and forgotten.
    BJ is a sorcerer, he’s even got certain parties luvvin’ the Biden.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 4,555
    edited September 2021



    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.
  • HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    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.
  • Farooq said:

    MaxPB said:

    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

    This has been asked before, but I still haven't seen a clear answer... what is the nature of this Chinese aggression?
    South China Seas - they've set off an arms race:

    https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/Indo-Pacific/Indonesia-looks-to-triple-submarine-fleet-after-Chinese-incursions
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,960

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    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.

    Mass migration not an issue for the US? Are you sure about that?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-58593632
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    IshmaelZ said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    felix said:



    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.
    I do worry about his assumption that the Revolutionary Committee will accept his claim that he drove all those Porsches purely ironically.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    MaxPB said:

    NYT:

    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

    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.
    So Johnson has won your vote back in around a week.

    Piss the French off and a "socialist" tax on working age Britons is forgiven and forgotten.
    This hasn't shifted my vote and I'd have expected a Labour government to pursue an identical policy (well maybe not under Jez but Starmer definitely would be doing the same).
  • Fishing said:



    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.
    So your main proof point of French flakiness is from 1985?

    Ok.
  • Farooq said:

    MaxPB said:

    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

    This has been asked before, but I still haven't seen a clear answer... what is the nature of this Chinese aggression?
    We can agree that China is a threat to Taiwan, but is there anything beyond that?
    I have this vague idea that America is a bigger threat to third countries than China, based on recent history. Can someone explain why I'm wrong about that?

    And please note, I am not in any way saying China is better. Yes the internal repression in China is criminal and deeply wrong. I'm asking about external aggression.
    The threat is not just Taiwan but the South China Sea which is a vital sea route and coincidental one which I partly sailed across from South Korea to China

    I think a lot of the misunderstanding in all of this is that little attention is given in this country to anywhere beyond Europe, when in fact it is a small region when compared to the one that this threat is perceived as very real
  • MaxPB said:

    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

    China has also applied to join the CPTPP.

    MaxPB said:

    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

    China has also applied to join the CPTPP.

    Yes through NZ and it will go nowhere
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775

    Farooq said:

    MaxPB said:

    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

    This has been asked before, but I still haven't seen a clear answer... what is the nature of this Chinese aggression?
    We can agree that China is a threat to Taiwan, but is there anything beyond that?
    I have this vague idea that America is a bigger threat to third countries than China, based on recent history. Can someone explain why I'm wrong about that?

    And please note, I am not in any way saying China is better. Yes the internal repression in China is criminal and deeply wrong. I'm asking about external aggression.
    South China Seas - they've set off an arms race:

    https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/Indo-Pacific/Indonesia-looks-to-triple-submarine-fleet-after-Chinese-incursions
    I've restored my full post to your quote because the other bits are directly relevant.
    Chinese incursions in the South China Seas, ok, yes. It's pretty normal for large powers to do this. Russia is well known in recent years for putting planes and subs in other countries' territory. America undertakes military operations in foreign territory without permission a lot.

    So your example is a fine one, but doesn't really go any distance to answering my question.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812
    edited September 2021

    MaxPB said:

    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

    China has also applied to join the CPTPP.

    MaxPB said:

    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

    China has also applied to join the CPTPP.

    Yes through NZ and it will go nowhere
    Is that the same NZ you claim has “embraced China”?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    Dura_Ace said:

    felix said:



    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.
    Except when it comes to the banal nationalism of the SNP
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775

    Farooq said:

    MaxPB said:

    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

    This has been asked before, but I still haven't seen a clear answer... what is the nature of this Chinese aggression?
    We can agree that China is a threat to Taiwan, but is there anything beyond that?
    I have this vague idea that America is a bigger threat to third countries than China, based on recent history. Can someone explain why I'm wrong about that?

    And please note, I am not in any way saying China is better. Yes the internal repression in China is criminal and deeply wrong. I'm asking about external aggression.
    The threat is not just Taiwan but the South China Sea which is a vital sea route and coincidental one which I partly sailed across from South Korea to China

    I think a lot of the misunderstanding in all of this is that little attention is given in this country to anywhere beyond Europe, when in fact it is a small region when compared to the one that this threat is perceived as very real
    Please see my response to Carlotta on the same matter. I'm afraid my question remains.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    Personally, I think C

    MaxPB said:

    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

    China has also applied to join the CPTPP.

    MaxPB said:

    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

    China has also applied to join the CPTPP.

    Yes through NZ and it will go nowhere
    Is that the same NZ you claim has “embraced China”?
    It won't go anywhere because their application will get vetoed by Japan. Though I'm not sure applying in NZ is as big of a deal as people think, you probably know better than I do but Auckland is the CPTPP depository so it's necessary to apply to NZ.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    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.
    He doesn't. He said Russia is no real threat to western Europe
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,061
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    NYT:

    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

    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.
    So Johnson has won your vote back in around a week.

    Piss the French off and a "socialist" tax on working age Britons is forgiven and forgotten.
    This hasn't shifted my vote and I'd have expected a Labour government to pursue an identical policy (well maybe not under Jez but Starmer definitely would be doing the same).
    It is ironic though that such a sabre rattling Brexiteer is moving to Europe to live in a country whose foreign policy is absolute neutrality, even in the face of Nazi genocide. Money trumps all I guess.
  • Fishing said:



    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.
    The whole point is that no country can be relied on.
    They can't. (For any value of "they".)
    We can't.

    Countries have pragmatic interests, not eternal soulmate allies. Whatever the rights and wrongs of recent foreign policy, the idea that an Anglosphere that girdles the world is any more durable than any other arrangement is just nuts.

  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,616
    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    felix said:



    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.
    I do worry about his assumption that the Revolutionary Committee will accept his claim that he drove all those Porsches purely ironically.
    Well, the original Bolsheviks had this pet bank robber, who got the money in. They were all slapping themselves on the back - they would attend fashionable parties in pre-revolution Russia as the funky, cool, anarchist types and he really made them look dangerous.... Plus the piles of money he bought in. And he was 100% under their control - they had the brains after all, and all the correct theories. All he had was guns....

    He had them all shot, in the end....
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    MaxPB said:

    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

    This has been asked before, but I still haven't seen a clear answer... what is the nature of this Chinese aggression?
    We can agree that China is a threat to Taiwan, but is there anything beyond that?
    I have this vague idea that America is a bigger threat to third countries than China, based on recent history. Can someone explain why I'm wrong about that?

    And please note, I am not in any way saying China is better. Yes the internal repression in China is criminal and deeply wrong. I'm asking about external aggression.
    The threat is not just Taiwan but the South China Sea which is a vital sea route and coincidental one which I partly sailed across from South Korea to China

    I think a lot of the misunderstanding in all of this is that little attention is given in this country to anywhere beyond Europe, when in fact it is a small region when compared to the one that this threat is perceived as very real
    Please see my response to Carlotta on the same matter. I'm afraid my question remains.
    How about this one - it's the right thing to do.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 10,458
    edited September 2021

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    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.
    I liked HYUFD's post because it was concise and spot on in my opinion. I hadn't read the post he was responding to.

    I would have to be careful of criticising because of the last 3 humdinger arguments I have had with HYUFD I have actually agreed with him on the actual point he was making in 2 of them (I think I could be accused of pot and kettle), just not the way they were argued.
  • MaxPB said:

    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.
    You do know China are so supported by NZ that they have submitted an application to join CPTPP through them

    And my knowledge is based on extensive travel to Australia, NZ, and also Japan, South Korea and indeed China
  • Jimmy Greaves has died (81)

    RIP Jimmy
  • TazTaz Posts: 10,703

    IshmaelZ said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    felix said:



    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.
    He should stick to posting about military matters where he offers some insight.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Endillion said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    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.

    Mass migration not an issue for the US? Are you sure about that?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-58593632
    The non-habitability of S California and half a dozen other SW states might also cause them to take a bit of notice.
  • Farooq said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Aslan said:

    Leon said:

    I just worked out the ambassador thing


    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?
    If you're going to get it deliberately wrong, why not use "acrostic"?

    It's similarly, but more interestingly, wrong. At least you won't sound like a BBC news bod at the TUC conference..
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,616

    MaxPB said:

    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

    China has also applied to join the CPTPP.

    MaxPB said:

    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

    China has also applied to join the CPTPP.

    Yes through NZ and it will go nowhere
    Is that the same NZ you claim has “embraced China”?
    CPTPP membership goes through a vote of the existing members. I believe it has to be unanimous. Japan will vote no, for a start.

    NZ is the (effective) HQ for the organisation, IIRC.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    MaxPB said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    MaxPB said:

    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

    This has been asked before, but I still haven't seen a clear answer... what is the nature of this Chinese aggression?
    We can agree that China is a threat to Taiwan, but is there anything beyond that?
    I have this vague idea that America is a bigger threat to third countries than China, based on recent history. Can someone explain why I'm wrong about that?

    And please note, I am not in any way saying China is better. Yes the internal repression in China is criminal and deeply wrong. I'm asking about external aggression.
    The threat is not just Taiwan but the South China Sea which is a vital sea route and coincidental one which I partly sailed across from South Korea to China

    I think a lot of the misunderstanding in all of this is that little attention is given in this country to anywhere beyond Europe, when in fact it is a small region when compared to the one that this threat is perceived as very real
    Please see my response to Carlotta on the same matter. I'm afraid my question remains.
    How about this one - it's the right thing to do.
    To take a stance against countries that undertake incursions into other countries' territories? You could be right, but my question is why single out China is that respect? The USA does the same (possibly to a far greater extent), but the idea of forming an alliance against America would be risible. What makes the difference?
  • Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    MaxPB said:

    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

    This has been asked before, but I still haven't seen a clear answer... what is the nature of this Chinese aggression?
    We can agree that China is a threat to Taiwan, but is there anything beyond that?
    I have this vague idea that America is a bigger threat to third countries than China, based on recent history. Can someone explain why I'm wrong about that?

    And please note, I am not in any way saying China is better. Yes the internal repression in China is criminal and deeply wrong. I'm asking about external aggression.
    South China Seas - they've set off an arms race:

    https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/Indo-Pacific/Indonesia-looks-to-triple-submarine-fleet-after-Chinese-incursions
    Chinese incursions in the South China Seas, ok, yes. It's pretty normal for large powers to do this.
    Really?

    Which other big powers have built bases in other countries waters?

    At all, let alone on anything remotely approaching the scale of the Chinese?

    https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/territorial-disputes-south-china-sea
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    Farooq said:

    MaxPB said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    MaxPB said:

    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

    This has been asked before, but I still haven't seen a clear answer... what is the nature of this Chinese aggression?
    We can agree that China is a threat to Taiwan, but is there anything beyond that?
    I have this vague idea that America is a bigger threat to third countries than China, based on recent history. Can someone explain why I'm wrong about that?

    And please note, I am not in any way saying China is better. Yes the internal repression in China is criminal and deeply wrong. I'm asking about external aggression.
    The threat is not just Taiwan but the South China Sea which is a vital sea route and coincidental one which I partly sailed across from South Korea to China

    I think a lot of the misunderstanding in all of this is that little attention is given in this country to anywhere beyond Europe, when in fact it is a small region when compared to the one that this threat is perceived as very real
    Please see my response to Carlotta on the same matter. I'm afraid my question remains.
    How about this one - it's the right thing to do.
    To take a stance against countries that undertake incursions into other countries' territories? You could be right, but my question is why single out China is that respect? The USA does the same (possibly to a far greater extent), but the idea of forming an alliance against America would be risible. What makes the difference?
    America is (still) a democratic nation. China is a fascistic one.
  • Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    MaxPB said:

    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

    This has been asked before, but I still haven't seen a clear answer... what is the nature of this Chinese aggression?
    We can agree that China is a threat to Taiwan, but is there anything beyond that?
    I have this vague idea that America is a bigger threat to third countries than China, based on recent history. Can someone explain why I'm wrong about that?

    And please note, I am not in any way saying China is better. Yes the internal repression in China is criminal and deeply wrong. I'm asking about external aggression.
    The threat is not just Taiwan but the South China Sea which is a vital sea route and coincidental one which I partly sailed across from South Korea to China

    I think a lot of the misunderstanding in all of this is that little attention is given in this country to anywhere beyond Europe, when in fact it is a small region when compared to the one that this threat is perceived as very real
    Please see my response to Carlotta on the same matter. I'm afraid my question remains.
    To be honest no matter what concerns those Trans Pacific countries have about China are going to satisfy your demands

    I would however suggests you read about the South China Sea and its importance in the economies of the countries who need it as their trade routes
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    MaxPB said:

    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

    This has been asked before, but I still haven't seen a clear answer... what is the nature of this Chinese aggression?
    We can agree that China is a threat to Taiwan, but is there anything beyond that?
    I have this vague idea that America is a bigger threat to third countries than China, based on recent history. Can someone explain why I'm wrong about that?

    And please note, I am not in any way saying China is better. Yes the internal repression in China is criminal and deeply wrong. I'm asking about external aggression.
    South China Seas - they've set off an arms race:

    https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/Indo-Pacific/Indonesia-looks-to-triple-submarine-fleet-after-Chinese-incursions
    I've restored my full post to your quote because the other bits are directly relevant.
    Chinese incursions in the South China Seas, ok, yes. It's pretty normal for large powers to do this. Russia is well known in recent years for putting planes and subs in other countries' territory. America undertakes military operations in foreign territory without permission a lot.

    So your example is a fine one, but doesn't really go any distance to answering my question.
    From my perspective, China is a threat on three key grounds:

    1. It’s ideology is (or should be) anathema to liberal democracies.

    2. It claims ownership of the South China Sea (in opposition to the claims of its neighbours) which is a critical route for global trade, and is increasingly arming up to support incursions etc.

    3. It attempts to silence and/or buy-off various actors around the world in support of (1) and (2).

    Since the rise of Xi - who is effectively now leader for life - it has ramped up the aggressive rhetoric and behaviour and seems increasingly willing to disturb the global order instead of maintaining it.

    It has also corrupted international organisations like the WHO, WTO and now World Bank from the latest news. It is a malign influence and it has been waging a cold war against the democratic world.
  • MaxPB said:

    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.
    You do know China are so supported by NZ that they have submitted an application to join CPTPP through them

    And my knowledge is based on extensive travel to Australia, NZ, and also Japan, South Korea and indeed China
    Any applicant to the CPTPP must apply via the NZ government, who act as “depositary”.

    The U.K. did the same.

    Please, I beg of you, stop talking utter nonsense.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Fishing said:



    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.
    The reasons France withdrew from NATO are pretty obvious to me. Look it up. Rainbow Warrior v regrettable, but people shouldn't join Greenpeace if they can't take a joke.

    And I'd have thought peak Frog post War perfidy was 1956. I could sit here from now to the end of time beating my brain as to why you prefer the rather anodyne events of 1966 as an exemplar, and not arrive at an answer.
  • MaxPB said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    MaxPB said:

    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

    This has been asked before, but I still haven't seen a clear answer... what is the nature of this Chinese aggression?
    We can agree that China is a threat to Taiwan, but is there anything beyond that?
    I have this vague idea that America is a bigger threat to third countries than China, based on recent history. Can someone explain why I'm wrong about that?

    And please note, I am not in any way saying China is better. Yes the internal repression in China is criminal and deeply wrong. I'm asking about external aggression.
    South China Seas - they've set off an arms race:

    https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/Indo-Pacific/Indonesia-looks-to-triple-submarine-fleet-after-Chinese-incursions
    I've restored my full post to your quote because the other bits are directly relevant.
    Chinese incursions in the South China Seas, ok, yes. It's pretty normal for large powers to do this. Russia is well known in recent years for putting planes and subs in other countries' territory. America undertakes military operations in foreign territory without permission a lot.

    So your example is a fine one, but doesn't really go any distance to answering my question.
    From my perspective, China is a threat on three key grounds:

    1. It’s ideology is (or should be) anathema to liberal democracies.

    2. It claims ownership of the South China Sea (in opposition to the claims of its neighbours) which is a critical route for global trade, and is increasingly arming up to support incursions etc.

    3. It attempts to silence and/or buy-off various actors around the world in support of (1) and (2).

    Since the rise of Xi - who is effectively now leader for life - it has ramped up the aggressive rhetoric and behaviour and seems increasingly willing to disturb the global order instead of maintaining it.

    It has also corrupted international organisations like the WHO, WTO and now World Bank from the latest news. It is a malign influence and it has been waging a cold war against the democratic world.
    What’s the World Bank thing?
  • Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    MaxPB said:

    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

    This has been asked before, but I still haven't seen a clear answer... what is the nature of this Chinese aggression?
    We can agree that China is a threat to Taiwan, but is there anything beyond that?
    I have this vague idea that America is a bigger threat to third countries than China, based on recent history. Can someone explain why I'm wrong about that?

    And please note, I am not in any way saying China is better. Yes the internal repression in China is criminal and deeply wrong. I'm asking about external aggression.
    South China Seas - they've set off an arms race:

    https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/Indo-Pacific/Indonesia-looks-to-triple-submarine-fleet-after-Chinese-incursions
    I've restored my full post to your quote because the other bits are directly relevant.
    Chinese incursions in the South China Seas, ok, yes. It's pretty normal for large powers to do this. Russia is well known in recent years for putting planes and subs in other countries' territory. America undertakes military operations in foreign territory without permission a lot.

    So your example is a fine one, but doesn't really go any distance to answering my question.
    From my perspective, China is a threat on three key grounds:

    1. It’s ideology is (or should be) anathema to liberal democracies.

    2. It claims ownership of the South China Sea (in opposition to the claims of its neighbours) which is a critical route for global trade, and is increasingly arming up to support incursions etc.

    3. It attempts to silence and/or buy-off various actors around the world in support of (1) and (2).

    Since the rise of Xi - who is effectively now leader for life - it has ramped up the aggressive rhetoric and behaviour and seems increasingly willing to disturb the global order instead of maintaining it.

    In that case I assume you support AUKUS
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812
    edited September 2021
    My mate’s Dad was high up in the NZ police in 1985 and was chosen to go to Paris to investigate the Rainbow Warrior bombing on the grounds he could speak French.

    I’m not sure he actually spoke any French.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    MaxPB said:

    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

    This has been asked before, but I still haven't seen a clear answer... what is the nature of this Chinese aggression?
    We can agree that China is a threat to Taiwan, but is there anything beyond that?
    I have this vague idea that America is a bigger threat to third countries than China, based on recent history. Can someone explain why I'm wrong about that?

    And please note, I am not in any way saying China is better. Yes the internal repression in China is criminal and deeply wrong. I'm asking about external aggression.
    South China Seas - they've set off an arms race:

    https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/Indo-Pacific/Indonesia-looks-to-triple-submarine-fleet-after-Chinese-incursions
    Chinese incursions in the South China Seas, ok, yes. It's pretty normal for large powers to do this.
    Really?

    Which other big powers have built bases in other countries waters?

    At all, let alone on anything remotely approaching the scale of the Chinese?

    https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/territorial-disputes-south-china-sea
    You edit down my posts and then reply as if that's all there is in them.
    Do you need a rundown of American interventions in the last few years, including boots on the ground. Focusing on waters is a good way to twist the question into a more favourable form, but doesn't answer a thing about why we treat China differently to others.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,716
    edited September 2021
    Jimmy Greaves, Englands fourth highest goalscorer, and scorer of more hat-tricks for England than anyone else, has died.
    81. Must say that when I saw him at Essex Cricket a few years ago he didn't look well at all.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    MaxPB said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    MaxPB said:

    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

    This has been asked before, but I still haven't seen a clear answer... what is the nature of this Chinese aggression?
    We can agree that China is a threat to Taiwan, but is there anything beyond that?
    I have this vague idea that America is a bigger threat to third countries than China, based on recent history. Can someone explain why I'm wrong about that?

    And please note, I am not in any way saying China is better. Yes the internal repression in China is criminal and deeply wrong. I'm asking about external aggression.
    South China Seas - they've set off an arms race:

    https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/Indo-Pacific/Indonesia-looks-to-triple-submarine-fleet-after-Chinese-incursions
    I've restored my full post to your quote because the other bits are directly relevant.
    Chinese incursions in the South China Seas, ok, yes. It's pretty normal for large powers to do this. Russia is well known in recent years for putting planes and subs in other countries' territory. America undertakes military operations in foreign territory without permission a lot.

    So your example is a fine one, but doesn't really go any distance to answering my question.
    From my perspective, China is a threat on three key grounds:

    1. It’s ideology is (or should be) anathema to liberal democracies.

    2. It claims ownership of the South China Sea (in opposition to the claims of its neighbours) which is a critical route for global trade, and is increasingly arming up to support incursions etc.

    3. It attempts to silence and/or buy-off various actors around the world in support of (1) and (2).

    Since the rise of Xi - who is effectively now leader for life - it has ramped up the aggressive rhetoric and behaviour and seems increasingly willing to disturb the global order instead of maintaining it.

    It has also corrupted international organisations like the WHO, WTO and now World Bank from the latest news. It is a malign influence and it has been waging a cold war against the democratic world.
    What’s the World Bank thing?
    Same old thing, bribery, they bribed people in the World Bank to boost China's statistics, or at least not downgrade them. I'll see if I can dig up the article at some point, but it's also pizza day in casa MaxPB and I'm head pizzaiolo.
  • Endillion said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    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.

    Mass migration not an issue for the US? Are you sure about that?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-58593632

    Not from Africa or the Middle East, no.

  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,616

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    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.

    Er, if Global Warming does it's thing, an even bigger percentage of Central America will be heading North........
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,226
    Taz said:

    MaxPB said:

    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.
    Quite a hilariously contorted comment. Don’t you realise that the Chinese communist party espouses an ideology based above all else around racial supremacy? And that a great many Chinese nationals every year give up their citizenship because they’re so appalled by the anti reformist direction that Xi has taken China?

    China under Xi is a mortal threat to free thinking people everywhere no matter their skin colour.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,061

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    MaxPB said:

    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

    This has been asked before, but I still haven't seen a clear answer... what is the nature of this Chinese aggression?
    We can agree that China is a threat to Taiwan, but is there anything beyond that?
    I have this vague idea that America is a bigger threat to third countries than China, based on recent history. Can someone explain why I'm wrong about that?

    And please note, I am not in any way saying China is better. Yes the internal repression in China is criminal and deeply wrong. I'm asking about external aggression.
    South China Seas - they've set off an arms race:

    https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/Indo-Pacific/Indonesia-looks-to-triple-submarine-fleet-after-Chinese-incursions
    Chinese incursions in the South China Seas, ok, yes. It's pretty normal for large powers to do this.
    Really?

    Which other big powers have built bases in other countries waters?

    At all, let alone on anything remotely approaching the scale of the Chinese?

    https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/territorial-disputes-south-china-sea
    We used to do it all the time!

    Now China launches as many warships a year as we have in our entire Navy.
  • Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    MaxPB said:

    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

    This has been asked before, but I still haven't seen a clear answer... what is the nature of this Chinese aggression?
    We can agree that China is a threat to Taiwan, but is there anything beyond that?
    I have this vague idea that America is a bigger threat to third countries than China, based on recent history. Can someone explain why I'm wrong about that?

    And please note, I am not in any way saying China is better. Yes the internal repression in China is criminal and deeply wrong. I'm asking about external aggression.
    South China Seas - they've set off an arms race:

    https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/Indo-Pacific/Indonesia-looks-to-triple-submarine-fleet-after-Chinese-incursions
    Chinese incursions in the South China Seas, ok, yes. It's pretty normal for large powers to do this.
    Really?

    Which other big powers have built bases in other countries waters?

    At all, let alone on anything remotely approaching the scale of the Chinese?

    https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/territorial-disputes-south-china-sea
    You edit down my posts and then reply as if that's all there is in them.
    Do you need a rundown of American interventions in the last few years, including boots on the ground. Focusing on waters is a good way to twist the question into a more favourable form, but doesn't answer a thing about why we treat China differently to others.
    Did you see my post, Farrook?
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,087
    DavidL said:

    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.

    Disagree. When distributing the finite resources that the UK, as a middle power, has available for defence, the navy seems a reasonable priority.

    Of course, this also extends to a substantial flotilla of small patrol boats (whether operated by the armed forces or coastguard,) to make a concerted effort to intercept and detain all the boat people before they can get ashore. They can then all be deported, in the same fashion as the Australians have done, to one of our conveniently remote rocks in the South Atlantic, or perhaps to a friendly African country willing to play host to detention facilities (and which would appreciate a very large annual stipend in exchange for rendering assistance.)

    The only way to deal with mass scale irregular migration successfully is to demonstrate that it cannot possibly succeed, and that throwing money at the smuggling gangs is therefore wasteful and futile. Do that for long enough, then people will learn not to bother to try anymore, and the problem resolves itself. Our neighbours will eventually do this for us by strengthening their own borders when the flow of migrants becomes unbearably large for them (as we've already seen happening on the far side of the continent in Greece and Turkey,) but until then it's up to Britain to look to its own defences.

    And yes, that's all nasty and horrible and pity the poor tragic refugees etc, etc, etc, but this is a classic case of the irresistible force of people wanting to go wherever the Hell they like meeting the immovable object of the resident population that simply doesn't want them - not to mention the fact that England (which is where at least nine-tenths of the arrivals will inevitably end up) is already more crowded than any of the EU27 states except Malta. As you say, the numbers of migrants (most of whom will be economic rather than refugee in any event) is only going to keep increasing, and there's neither the desire nor the space to accommodate tens of thousands, let alone a future stream of hundreds of thousands, of random settlers in this country every year.

    Ultimately, dealing with a flow of desperate people that's larger than your population is willing to put up with requires an approach of complete ruthlessness, which is something that voters typically don't want to think about because it makes them so uncomfortable - but the issue has to be confronted or it will simply fester and get worse and worse and worse.
  • MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    MaxPB said:

    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

    This has been asked before, but I still haven't seen a clear answer... what is the nature of this Chinese aggression?
    We can agree that China is a threat to Taiwan, but is there anything beyond that?
    I have this vague idea that America is a bigger threat to third countries than China, based on recent history. Can someone explain why I'm wrong about that?

    And please note, I am not in any way saying China is better. Yes the internal repression in China is criminal and deeply wrong. I'm asking about external aggression.
    South China Seas - they've set off an arms race:

    https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/Indo-Pacific/Indonesia-looks-to-triple-submarine-fleet-after-Chinese-incursions
    I've restored my full post to your quote because the other bits are directly relevant.
    Chinese incursions in the South China Seas, ok, yes. It's pretty normal for large powers to do this. Russia is well known in recent years for putting planes and subs in other countries' territory. America undertakes military operations in foreign territory without permission a lot.

    So your example is a fine one, but doesn't really go any distance to answering my question.
    From my perspective, China is a threat on three key grounds:

    1. It’s ideology is (or should be) anathema to liberal democracies.

    2. It claims ownership of the South China Sea (in opposition to the claims of its neighbours) which is a critical route for global trade, and is increasingly arming up to support incursions etc.

    3. It attempts to silence and/or buy-off various actors around the world in support of (1) and (2).

    Since the rise of Xi - who is effectively now leader for life - it has ramped up the aggressive rhetoric and behaviour and seems increasingly willing to disturb the global order instead of maintaining it.

    It has also corrupted international organisations like the WHO, WTO and now World Bank from the latest news. It is a malign influence and it has been waging a cold war against the democratic world.
    What’s the World Bank thing?
    Same old thing, bribery, they bribed people in the World Bank to boost China's statistics, or at least not downgrade them. I'll see if I can dig up the article at some point, but it's also pizza day in casa MaxPB and I'm head pizzaiolo.
    No pineapple, one hopes.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,274
    Betting post:
    I don't bet but given the mess Macron has made of the reaction to AUKUS, is Barnier a snip at 25/1 for the 2022 French presidential election? He must stand a chance of winning the Republicans' nomination.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,140
    HYUFD said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    felix said:



    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.
    Except when it comes to the banal nationalism of the SNP
    Your comment is meaningless as anyone who knows anything about Scottish politics knows that the Scottish Greens are a completely different party from the lot in rUK to which (I believe) DA belongs.

  • MaxPB said:

    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

    China has also applied to join the CPTPP.

    MaxPB said:

    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

    China has also applied to join the CPTPP.

    Yes through NZ and it will go nowhere

    Hmmm ...

    https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2021/09/19/miti-malaysia-looking-forward-to-welcoming-china-in-cptpp-as-early-as-next/2006765

  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    MaxPB said:

    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

    This has been asked before, but I still haven't seen a clear answer... what is the nature of this Chinese aggression?
    We can agree that China is a threat to Taiwan, but is there anything beyond that?
    I have this vague idea that America is a bigger threat to third countries than China, based on recent history. Can someone explain why I'm wrong about that?

    And please note, I am not in any way saying China is better. Yes the internal repression in China is criminal and deeply wrong. I'm asking about external aggression.
    South China Seas - they've set off an arms race:

    https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/Indo-Pacific/Indonesia-looks-to-triple-submarine-fleet-after-Chinese-incursions
    I've restored my full post to your quote because the other bits are directly relevant.
    Chinese incursions in the South China Seas, ok, yes. It's pretty normal for large powers to do this. Russia is well known in recent years for putting planes and subs in other countries' territory. America undertakes military operations in foreign territory without permission a lot.

    So your example is a fine one, but doesn't really go any distance to answering my question.
    From my perspective, China is a threat on three key grounds:

    1. It’s ideology is (or should be) anathema to liberal democracies.

    2. It claims ownership of the South China Sea (in opposition to the claims of its neighbours) which is a critical route for global trade, and is increasingly arming up to support incursions etc.

    3. It attempts to silence and/or buy-off various actors around the world in support of (1) and (2).

    Since the rise of Xi - who is effectively now leader for life - it has ramped up the aggressive rhetoric and behaviour and seems increasingly willing to disturb the global order instead of maintaining it.

    It has also corrupted international organisations like the WHO, WTO and now World Bank from the latest news. It is a malign influence and it has been waging a cold war against the democratic world.
    What’s the World Bank thing?
    Same old thing, bribery, they bribed people in the World Bank to boost China's statistics, or at least not downgrade them. I'll see if I can dig up the article at some point, but it's also pizza day in casa MaxPB and I'm head pizzaiolo.
    No pineapple, one hopes.
    No pineapple, no sweetcorn, no chicken, no BBQ sauce. 😄
  • Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    MaxPB said:

    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

    This has been asked before, but I still haven't seen a clear answer... what is the nature of this Chinese aggression?
    We can agree that China is a threat to Taiwan, but is there anything beyond that?
    I have this vague idea that America is a bigger threat to third countries than China, based on recent history. Can someone explain why I'm wrong about that?

    And please note, I am not in any way saying China is better. Yes the internal repression in China is criminal and deeply wrong. I'm asking about external aggression.
    South China Seas - they've set off an arms race:

    https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/Indo-Pacific/Indonesia-looks-to-triple-submarine-fleet-after-Chinese-incursions
    Chinese incursions in the South China Seas, ok, yes. It's pretty normal for large powers to do this.
    Really?

    Which other big powers have built bases in other countries waters?

    At all, let alone on anything remotely approaching the scale of the Chinese?

    https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/territorial-disputes-south-china-sea
    Chagos islanders say hi.
  • Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    MaxPB said:

    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

    This has been asked before, but I still haven't seen a clear answer... what is the nature of this Chinese aggression?
    We can agree that China is a threat to Taiwan, but is there anything beyond that?
    I have this vague idea that America is a bigger threat to third countries than China, based on recent history. Can someone explain why I'm wrong about that?

    And please note, I am not in any way saying China is better. Yes the internal repression in China is criminal and deeply wrong. I'm asking about external aggression.
    South China Seas - they've set off an arms race:

    https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/Indo-Pacific/Indonesia-looks-to-triple-submarine-fleet-after-Chinese-incursions
    I've restored my full post to your quote because the other bits are directly relevant.
    Chinese incursions in the South China Seas, ok, yes. It's pretty normal for large powers to do this. Russia is well known in recent years for putting planes and subs in other countries' territory. America undertakes military operations in foreign territory without permission a lot.

    So your example is a fine one, but doesn't really go any distance to answering my question.
    I think the situation is a bit different here because you've got a country that's making a lot of specific territorial claims at the expense of basically every country around it. This is happening because it used to be a powerful country, then got various bits lopped off it by various colonial powers, then became a powerful country again. That's left a bunch of hot territorial disputes where in most of the world territorial borders are mostly settled. There are a few cases like that with Russia (with a more recent period of supremacy, but less of a resurgence) but I don't think there are many others; The US attacks countries all over the place in pursuit of various agendas, but it's not trying to expand the US.
  • Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    MaxPB said:

    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

    This has been asked before, but I still haven't seen a clear answer... what is the nature of this Chinese aggression?
    We can agree that China is a threat to Taiwan, but is there anything beyond that?
    I have this vague idea that America is a bigger threat to third countries than China, based on recent history. Can someone explain why I'm wrong about that?

    And please note, I am not in any way saying China is better. Yes the internal repression in China is criminal and deeply wrong. I'm asking about external aggression.
    South China Seas - they've set off an arms race:

    https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/Indo-Pacific/Indonesia-looks-to-triple-submarine-fleet-after-Chinese-incursions
    I've restored my full post to your quote because the other bits are directly relevant.
    Chinese incursions in the South China Seas, ok, yes. It's pretty normal for large powers to do this. Russia is well known in recent years for putting planes and subs in other countries' territory. America undertakes military operations in foreign territory without permission a lot.

    So your example is a fine one, but doesn't really go any distance to answering my question.
    From my perspective, China is a threat on three key grounds:

    1. It’s ideology is (or should be) anathema to liberal democracies.

    2. It claims ownership of the South China Sea (in opposition to the claims of its neighbours) which is a critical route for global trade, and is increasingly arming up to support incursions etc.

    3. It attempts to silence and/or buy-off various actors around the world in support of (1) and (2).

    Since the rise of Xi - who is effectively now leader for life - it has ramped up the aggressive rhetoric and behaviour and seems increasingly willing to disturb the global order instead of maintaining it.

    In that case I assume you support AUKUS
    I am not instinctively unfavourable, but I am currently reserving judgment.

    It’s not obvious what the U.K. is getting from this.
    Nor why it was necessary to humiliate France.

    For US and Australia, yes this makes sense.
  • TazTaz Posts: 10,703
    moonshine said:

    Taz said:

    MaxPB said:

    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.
    Quite a hilariously contorted comment. Don’t you realise that the Chinese communist party espouses an ideology based above all else around racial supremacy? And that a great many Chinese nationals every year give up their citizenship because they’re so appalled by the anti reformist direction that Xi has taken China?

    China under Xi is a mortal threat to free thinking people everywhere no matter their skin colour.
    No, I don’t, so enlighten me. All I see is a lot of comment and invective as to how they are a threat and little substance only comments on Taiwan and the South China Sea.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    MaxPB said:

    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

    This has been asked before, but I still haven't seen a clear answer... what is the nature of this Chinese aggression?
    We can agree that China is a threat to Taiwan, but is there anything beyond that?
    I have this vague idea that America is a bigger threat to third countries than China, based on recent history. Can someone explain why I'm wrong about that?

    And please note, I am not in any way saying China is better. Yes the internal repression in China is criminal and deeply wrong. I'm asking about external aggression.
    South China Seas - they've set off an arms race:

    https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/Indo-Pacific/Indonesia-looks-to-triple-submarine-fleet-after-Chinese-incursions
    I've restored my full post to your quote because the other bits are directly relevant.
    Chinese incursions in the South China Seas, ok, yes. It's pretty normal for large powers to do this. Russia is well known in recent years for putting planes and subs in other countries' territory. America undertakes military operations in foreign territory without permission a lot.

    So your example is a fine one, but doesn't really go any distance to answering my question.
    From my perspective, China is a threat on three key grounds:

    1. It’s ideology is (or should be) anathema to liberal democracies.

    2. It claims ownership of the South China Sea (in opposition to the claims of its neighbours) which is a critical route for global trade, and is increasingly arming up to support incursions etc.

    3. It attempts to silence and/or buy-off various actors around the world in support of (1) and (2).

    Since the rise of Xi - who is effectively now leader for life - it has ramped up the aggressive rhetoric and behaviour and seems increasingly willing to disturb the global order instead of maintaining it.

    1. is spot on: China's ideology IS anathema, but does little to answer the question I have about aggression. Still, it's always best to keep it in mind.

    3. is troubling, but again I'll go into comparisons. Various countries get involved in this kind of thing. USA, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Russia are four that spring to mind.

    2. is the most interesting, but is there any threat to trade? It seems to be China is very dependent on trade. Is its projection of force objectively more worrying than that which other large powers do?
  • TazTaz Posts: 10,703
    Farooq said:

    MaxPB said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    MaxPB said:

    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

    This has been asked before, but I still haven't seen a clear answer... what is the nature of this Chinese aggression?
    We can agree that China is a threat to Taiwan, but is there anything beyond that?
    I have this vague idea that America is a bigger threat to third countries than China, based on recent history. Can someone explain why I'm wrong about that?

    And please note, I am not in any way saying China is better. Yes the internal repression in China is criminal and deeply wrong. I'm asking about external aggression.
    The threat is not just Taiwan but the South China Sea which is a vital sea route and coincidental one which I partly sailed across from South Korea to China

    I think a lot of the misunderstanding in all of this is that little attention is given in this country to anywhere beyond Europe, when in fact it is a small region when compared to the one that this threat is perceived as very real
    Please see my response to Carlotta on the same matter. I'm afraid my question remains.
    How about this one - it's the right thing to do.
    To take a stance against countries that undertake incursions into other countries' territories? You could be right, but my question is why single out China is that respect? The USA does the same (possibly to a far greater extent), but the idea of forming an alliance against America would be risible. What makes the difference?
    There’s more than an air of protecting western hegemony here.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797

    MaxPB said:

    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.
    You do know China are so supported by NZ that they have submitted an application to join CPTPP through them

    And my knowledge is based on extensive travel to Australia, NZ, and also Japan, South Korea and indeed China
    Any applicant to the CPTPP must apply via the NZ government, who act as “depositary”.

    The U.K. did the same.

    Please, I beg of you, stop talking utter nonsense.
    And as I pointed out on Friday the Chinese application seems to have been waiting for the ideal point to apply to confirm/ prove a point.
  • MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:


    Same old thing, bribery, they bribed people in the World Bank to boost China's statistics, or at least not downgrade them. I'll see if I can dig up the article at some point, but it's also pizza day in casa MaxPB and I'm head pizzaiolo.

    No pineapple, one hopes.
    No pineapple, no sweetcorn, no chicken, no BBQ sauce. 😄
    Have you ever tried Scamorza on pizza instead of Mozzarella?

    Goes similarly stringy, but has a far more interesting flavour.
  • MaxPB said:

    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

    China has also applied to join the CPTPP.

    MaxPB said:

    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

    China has also applied to join the CPTPP.

    Yes through NZ and it will go nowhere

    Hmmm ...

    https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2021/09/19/miti-malaysia-looking-forward-to-welcoming-china-in-cptpp-as-early-as-next/2006765

    It has to be unanimous and Japan and others will veto it
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:


    Same old thing, bribery, they bribed people in the World Bank to boost China's statistics, or at least not downgrade them. I'll see if I can dig up the article at some point, but it's also pizza day in casa MaxPB and I'm head pizzaiolo.

    No pineapple, one hopes.
    No pineapple, no sweetcorn, no chicken, no BBQ sauce. 😄
    Have you ever tried Scamorza on pizza instead of Mozzarella?

    Goes similarly stringy, but has a far more interesting flavour.
    I have, it's good but I've got a new mozzarella to try which is half buffalo milk and half cow milk.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,140
    O/T but to add to the intermittent discussion of 'retirement flats' from McCarthy Stone and similar firms, an interesting roundup in the Grauniad

    https://www.theguardian.com/money/2021/sep/18/are-retirement-properties-sound-investments-or-inheritance-headaches
  • Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    MaxPB said:

    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

    This has been asked before, but I still haven't seen a clear answer... what is the nature of this Chinese aggression?
    We can agree that China is a threat to Taiwan, but is there anything beyond that?
    I have this vague idea that America is a bigger threat to third countries than China, based on recent history. Can someone explain why I'm wrong about that?

    And please note, I am not in any way saying China is better. Yes the internal repression in China is criminal and deeply wrong. I'm asking about external aggression.
    South China Seas - they've set off an arms race:

    https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/Indo-Pacific/Indonesia-looks-to-triple-submarine-fleet-after-Chinese-incursions
    I've restored my full post to your quote because the other bits are directly relevant.
    Chinese incursions in the South China Seas, ok, yes. It's pretty normal for large powers to do this. Russia is well known in recent years for putting planes and subs in other countries' territory. America undertakes military operations in foreign territory without permission a lot.

    So your example is a fine one, but doesn't really go any distance to answering my question.
    From my perspective, China is a threat on three key grounds:

    1. It’s ideology is (or should be) anathema to liberal democracies.

    2. It claims ownership of the South China Sea (in opposition to the claims of its neighbours) which is a critical route for global trade, and is increasingly arming up to support incursions etc.

    3. It attempts to silence and/or buy-off various actors around the world in support of (1) and (2).

    Since the rise of Xi - who is effectively now leader for life - it has ramped up the aggressive rhetoric and behaviour and seems increasingly willing to disturb the global order instead of maintaining it.

    In that case I assume you support AUKUS
    I am not instinctively unfavourable, but I am currently reserving judgment.

    It’s not obvious what the U.K. is getting from this.
    Nor why it was necessary to humiliate France.

    For US and Australia, yes this makes sense.
    Aligning with Australia and humiliating France cheers up and distracts the very parts of Tory support most concerned with the unfairness of the recent tax hikes and lack of progress on social care. That is what we are getting from this initially.
  • 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.


    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-real-reason-france-was-excluded-from-aukus

    If France wasn't France we would definitely have wanted France in it.

    The problem is that France *is* France.
  • pigeon said:

    DavidL said:

    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.

    Disagree. When distributing the finite resources that the UK, as a middle power, has available for defence, the navy seems a reasonable priority.

    Of course, this also extends to a substantial flotilla of small patrol boats (whether operated by the armed forces or coastguard,) to make a concerted effort to intercept and detain all the boat people before they can get ashore. They can then all be deported, in the same fashion as the Australians have done, to one of our conveniently remote rocks in the South Atlantic, or perhaps to a friendly African country willing to play host to detention facilities (and which would appreciate a very large annual stipend in exchange for rendering assistance.)

    The only way to deal with mass scale irregular migration successfully is to demonstrate that it cannot possibly succeed, and that throwing money at the smuggling gangs is therefore wasteful and futile. Do that for long enough, then people will learn not to bother to try anymore, and the problem resolves itself. Our neighbours will eventually do this for us by strengthening their own borders when the flow of migrants becomes unbearably large for them (as we've already seen happening on the far side of the continent in Greece and Turkey,) but until then it's up to Britain to look to its own defences.

    And yes, that's all nasty and horrible and pity the poor tragic refugees etc, etc, etc, but this is a classic case of the irresistible force of people wanting to go wherever the Hell they like meeting the immovable object of the resident population that simply doesn't want them - not to mention the fact that England (which is where at least nine-tenths of the arrivals will inevitably end up) is already more crowded than any of the EU27 states except Malta. As you say, the numbers of migrants (most of whom will be economic rather than refugee in any event) is only going to keep increasing, and there's neither the desire nor the space to accommodate tens of thousands, let alone a future stream of hundreds of thousands, of random settlers in this country every year.

    Ultimately, dealing with a flow of desperate people that's larger than your population is willing to put up with requires an approach of complete ruthlessness, which is something that voters typically don't want to think about because it makes them so uncomfortable - but the issue has to be confronted or it will simply fester and get worse and worse and worse.
    Migration is going to be one of the biggest issues in European politics over the next 30 years, and will be directly fuelled by demographics across the African continent and climate change.

    We ain't seen nothing yet.
  • MaxPB said:

    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.
    You do know China are so supported by NZ that they have submitted an application to join CPTPP through them

    And my knowledge is based on extensive travel to Australia, NZ, and also Japan, South Korea and indeed China
    New Xi-land.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    MaxPB said:

    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

    This has been asked before, but I still haven't seen a clear answer... what is the nature of this Chinese aggression?
    We can agree that China is a threat to Taiwan, but is there anything beyond that?
    I have this vague idea that America is a bigger threat to third countries than China, based on recent history. Can someone explain why I'm wrong about that?

    And please note, I am not in any way saying China is better. Yes the internal repression in China is criminal and deeply wrong. I'm asking about external aggression.
    South China Seas - they've set off an arms race:

    https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/Indo-Pacific/Indonesia-looks-to-triple-submarine-fleet-after-Chinese-incursions
    Chinese incursions in the South China Seas, ok, yes. It's pretty normal for large powers to do this.
    Really?

    Which other big powers have built bases in other countries waters?

    At all, let alone on anything remotely approaching the scale of the Chinese?

    https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/territorial-disputes-south-china-sea
    Chagos islanders say hi.
    As an aside, I suspect one by-product of AUKUS is that Mauritius does not get its hands on the Chagos islands (not that it was likely to any time soon).
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,087

    MaxPB said:

    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

    China has also applied to join the CPTPP.

    MaxPB said:

    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

    China has also applied to join the CPTPP.

    Yes through NZ and it will go nowhere

    Hmmm ...

    https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2021/09/19/miti-malaysia-looking-forward-to-welcoming-china-in-cptpp-as-early-as-next/2006765

    It has to be unanimous and Japan and others will veto it
    It'll be interesting to see whether they block outright or test whether or not the Chinese are prepared to meet the standards required for membership, especially with respect to labour rights. CPTPP isn't nearly so tight a bloc with as stringent a rule set as the EU, but there are standards to be met nonetheless.

    Although that said, there is exactly zero prospect of China being admitted so long as it refuses to play nice with Australia...
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,616
    Carnyx said:

    O/T but to add to the intermittent discussion of 'retirement flats' from McCarthy Stone and similar firms, an interesting roundup in the Grauniad

    https://www.theguardian.com/money/2021/sep/18/are-retirement-properties-sound-investments-or-inheritance-headaches

    The theft is in "buying" the pensioners property at a discount in exchange for an overpriced flat.

    The pitch is "You are living in your house. It is old, tatty and hasn't been done up in years. We'll sell it for you, and you get a nice shiny new flat with a kitchen with all the mod cons, and a lady who cleans coming in every week*. We do all the nasty paperwork and sort everything out".

    They leave out the bit where they transfer the house to a subsidiary which does a rapid, low quality makeover on it and flips it into the rental market.

    *For a large fee. And the cleaning is not optional.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812
    edited September 2021
    Farooq said:



    1. is spot on: China's ideology IS anathema, but does little to answer the question I have about aggression. Still, it's always best to keep it in mind.

    3. is troubling, but again I'll go into comparisons. Various countries get involved in this kind of thing. USA, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Russia are four that spring to mind.

    2. is the most interesting, but is there any threat to trade? It seems to be China is very dependent on trade. Is its projection of force objectively more worrying than that which other large powers do?

    The Pacific has been a US-guaranteed pond since 1945. The US’s ideology (as Britain’s was before it) is essentially to support free and open trade.

    China is the only power capable of blocking the South China Seas; and cannot be relied upon by its neighbours.

    In fact, a combination of territorial claims, incursions, ideology and armament, plus rhetoric under Xi makes them very unreliable.

    One (state sponsored) media outlet threatened a missile strike on Australia in response to what is, after all, just a security arrangement with the U.K./U.S.

    Containment is perhaps the wrong word, but essentially the liberal democracies and their allies are now in a kind of Cold War with China - and the “frontline” is both physical and ideological.
  • Australia pushed back Sunday against France's cries of betrayal over a canceled submarine deal, arguing Paris should have been well aware of Canberra's reservations.

    "I think they would have had every reason to know that we had deep and grave concerns that the capability being delivered by the Attack Class submarine was not going to meet our strategic interests," Australia's Prime Minister Scott Morrison told reporters Sunday, according to Agence-France Presse.

    "We made very clear that we would be making a decision based on our strategic national interest. I don't regret the decision to put Australia's national interest first. Never will," he added.


    https://www.politico.eu/article/australia-france-scott-morrison-submarine-contract-national-interest/
  • StockyStocky Posts: 9,653

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    MaxPB said:

    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

    This has been asked before, but I still haven't seen a clear answer... what is the nature of this Chinese aggression?
    We can agree that China is a threat to Taiwan, but is there anything beyond that?
    I have this vague idea that America is a bigger threat to third countries than China, based on recent history. Can someone explain why I'm wrong about that?

    And please note, I am not in any way saying China is better. Yes the internal repression in China is criminal and deeply wrong. I'm asking about external aggression.
    South China Seas - they've set off an arms race:

    https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/Indo-Pacific/Indonesia-looks-to-triple-submarine-fleet-after-Chinese-incursions
    I've restored my full post to your quote because the other bits are directly relevant.
    Chinese incursions in the South China Seas, ok, yes. It's pretty normal for large powers to do this. Russia is well known in recent years for putting planes and subs in other countries' territory. America undertakes military operations in foreign territory without permission a lot.

    So your example is a fine one, but doesn't really go any distance to answering my question.
    From my perspective, China is a threat on three key grounds:

    1. It’s ideology is (or should be) anathema to liberal democracies.

    2. It claims ownership of the South China Sea (in opposition to the claims of its neighbours) which is a critical route for global trade, and is increasingly arming up to support incursions etc.

    3. It attempts to silence and/or buy-off various actors around the world in support of (1) and (2).

    Since the rise of Xi - who is effectively now leader for life - it has ramped up the aggressive rhetoric and behaviour and seems increasingly willing to disturb the global order instead of maintaining it.

    It's also a disaster environmentally.
  • rcs1000 said:

    felix said:

    rcs1000 said:

    felix said:

    rcs1000 said:

    felix said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    I just worked out the ambassador thing


    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.)
    Yet the lack of pleasure about rising wages among the low paid from those who claim to be concerned about them is noticeable.

    Instead the mentality of 'we need more low skilled immigrants to keep the wages down' appears widespread.
  • The problem for the U.K. in China’s CPTPP application is that some members may not be willing to appear to favour the U.K. application over China’s.

    Since China’s application looks unlikely to proceed very quickly, that could leave the UK’s application in limbo.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,616
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-58612961

    Interesting, the levels of achievement vs hype, compared to the Bezos and Branson efforts...
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,616

    rcs1000 said:

    felix said:

    rcs1000 said:

    felix said:

    rcs1000 said:

    felix said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    I just worked out the ambassador thing


    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.)
    Yet the lack of pleasure about rising wages among the low paid from those who claim to be concerned about them is noticeable.

    Instead the mentality of 'we need more low skilled immigrants to keep the wages down' appears widespread.
    More money for Thick Evul Lazy Racists is Bad.
  • rcs1000 said:

    felix said:

    rcs1000 said:

    felix said:

    rcs1000 said:

    felix said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    I just worked out the ambassador thing


    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.)
    Yet the lack of pleasure about rising wages among the low paid from those who claim to be concerned about them is noticeable.

    Instead the mentality of 'we need more low skilled immigrants to keep the wages down' appears widespread.
    This meme has become holy writ among the more retarded (ie all of them) Brexiters.

    Can’t we have one day off from it? It’s a Sunday after all.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136
    edited September 2021

    The problem for the U.K. in China’s CPTPP application is that some members may not be willing to appear to favour the U.K. application over China’s.

    Since China’s application looks unlikely to proceed very quickly, that could leave the UK’s application in limbo.

    The Japanese leadership candidates are mostly saying things like "we will have to see if China can satisfy the high standards required". I don't know what everybody thinks of the UK joining but I think it's very easy to find a justification to let the UK in but not China. If any particular country wants to avoid pissing off China they can just let another country be the bad guy since you only need the one veto, they won't be short of volunteers.
  • The problem for the U.K. in China’s CPTPP application is that some members may not be willing to appear to favour the U.K. application over China’s.

    Since China’s application looks unlikely to proceed very quickly, that could leave the UK’s application in limbo.

    As a matter of interests which members of CPTPP are you referring to
This discussion has been closed.