Howdy, Stranger!

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

Can Starmer get a conference boost? – politicalbetting.com

12357

Comments

  • ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    Surely a good 25 Tory MPs have been dropped by Johnson from the Government over the last 2 years. Plenty of potential for alienation there and for sending in letters to Graham Brady.

    Doesn't work like that.

    Think about it, during Thatcher's era it only took two (well three) MPs to trigger a leadership challenge, it was only ten years into her premiership when she faced her first leadership challenge and she regularly sacked people.
    I am aware of that - but the former system surely required a stalking horse - eg Anthony Meyer - whilst now the requirement is simply a threshold in terms of letters delivered to Brady.
    Nope, for the second half of her premiership she had someone credible ready to challenge her for the leadership without the need for a stalking horse, and indeed end up challenging her without the need for a stalking horse.
    Some do argue that Anthony Meyer set the scene for Heseltine by challenging in 1989 and polling a respectable vote.
    Respectable?

    Thatcher 314

    Meyer 33.

    That's a humiliation. That's a Tories in Liverpool showing.
    And 27 abstentions.
    Was it ever revealed who voted for Meyer? Was Ted amongst them for example?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    The Commission is pushing a narrative that EU vaccine strategy has been a triumph. And how silly the media was, in spring, to point out how badly it misfired.

    I respectufully disagree

    Just because you ramp up vaccination quickly doesn't make up for a poor start.

    A short 🧵 https://t.co/ZQzQNnxYgm

    https://twitter.com/spignal/status/1438484167671549964?s=19

    Well, surely vaccination on its own is not quite the right measure. Surely it's a combination of vaccination and a return to normal life.

    And you know what, they've done fine. They were behind the US (and UK) at first, but normality returned to the EU at about the same time as the UK, and they've avoided the dreadful third wave that the US has had.

    Could they have done better? Sure. But in the general scheme of things, they've done a lot better than one would have expected six months ago, and people on the continent have not really had a noticeably better (or worse) experience than Brits or Canadians, and might even have had a better one than Americans now.

  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,289
    Former French Ambassador to the US seems pretty chilled about the whole thing. Exuding Gallic sangfroid and a sense of "meh"


    "“The US has trampled our national interest. What the US has done to our national interest is a hostile act,” he said.

    "“What we were doing with the Australians was a strategic choice and this strategic choice has been swept away not only by the Australians but also by the Americans.”

    "He said the British involvement was immaterial because they were “poodles of the Americans, as usual”."

    https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/stab-in-the-back-europe-s-fury-with-morrison-and-biden-over-aukus-submarine-deal-20210916-p58sea.html


    AHAHAHAHAHAHAH
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,288

    tlg86 said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/football/2021/sep/16/gareth-southgate-england-football-team-setup-women-gender-equality

    Gareth Southgate has said he urgently needs to hire more women to work with the England men’s football team, after accepting the current training setup is “nowhere near where we should be” when it comes to gender equality.

    Didn’t Glenn Hoddle bring in a female influence? Not sure it worked too well for him...

    Maybe he could hire the best person for the job, and not worry if they are male, female or something else?
    A lot of the time 'the best person for the job' is entirely subjective though
    So what? I believe in gender neutral hiring, not positive discrimination.
    The whole point of positive discrimination is to produce gender neutral hiring because people's subconscious prejudices often get in the way.
    I prefer better training of recruiting panels to positive discrimination. If you have tow exactly equal candidates and want to choose the female, I have no issue,
    . If you want to choose a poorer candidate over a better because they are female, then I have a huge problem with that.
    Candidate selection invariably ends up being subjective though. The person you may feel is the poorer candidate may not be so in another recruiter's judgement.

    Historically there has been an (understandable) tendency for recruiters to select 'people like us'. It seems entriely reasonable to me to have recruitment targets for under-represented groups to counter that.
  • justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    Surely a good 25 Tory MPs have been dropped by Johnson from the Government over the last 2 years. Plenty of potential for alienation there and for sending in letters to Graham Brady.

    I don’t know I’d describe them as a ‘good 25 Tory MPs.’ There were some pretty useless ones among them.
    I do wonder how strong the lust for revenge is. I can imagine some people immediately sending off the required letter as an act of retaliation - if only to gain some emotional satisfaction from the act of doing so.
    Foolish to do too quickly, though. If Bozza only has 50 h8ers (as I believe they youth put it), he would be strengthened by the ensuing victory.

    How big would a rebel alliance need to be to cause No 10 serious concern, I wonder?
    It might still be a good tactic to send in 25 letters as 'bankers' - to be topped up later when opportunities arise.
    Nope, do what the Tories did in 2002/03 with Michael Spicer.

    About a dozen Tories sent Sir Michael Spicer letters but told him they'd only become active once if Sir Michael received 15 official letters from other MPs.
  • Leon said:

    Former French Ambassador to the US seems pretty chilled about the whole thing. Exuding Gallic sangfroid and a sense of "meh"


    "“The US has trampled our national interest. What the US has done to our national interest is a hostile act,” he said.

    "“What we were doing with the Australians was a strategic choice and this strategic choice has been swept away not only by the Australians but also by the Americans.”

    "He said the British involvement was immaterial because they were “poodles of the Americans, as usual”."

    https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/stab-in-the-back-europe-s-fury-with-morrison-and-biden-over-aukus-submarine-deal-20210916-p58sea.html


    AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    He’s got a point about the poodle thing, hasn’t he?

    What’s the material benefit for the U.K. here?

    Beyond, you know, deterring that risk of Taiwanese invasion that even cider-addled toddlers are aware of.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Leon said:

    Former French Ambassador to the US seems pretty chilled about the whole thing. Exuding Gallic sangfroid and a sense of "meh"


    "“The US has trampled our national interest. What the US has done to our national interest is a hostile act,” he said.

    "“What we were doing with the Australians was a strategic choice and this strategic choice has been swept away not only by the Australians but also by the Americans.”

    "He said the British involvement was immaterial because they were “poodles of the Americans, as usual”."

    https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/stab-in-the-back-europe-s-fury-with-morrison-and-biden-over-aukus-submarine-deal-20210916-p58sea.html


    AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    Hell hath no fury…
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,289

    Leon said:

    Former French Ambassador to the US seems pretty chilled about the whole thing. Exuding Gallic sangfroid and a sense of "meh"


    "“The US has trampled our national interest. What the US has done to our national interest is a hostile act,” he said.

    "“What we were doing with the Australians was a strategic choice and this strategic choice has been swept away not only by the Australians but also by the Americans.”

    "He said the British involvement was immaterial because they were “poodles of the Americans, as usual”."

    https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/stab-in-the-back-europe-s-fury-with-morrison-and-biden-over-aukus-submarine-deal-20210916-p58sea.html


    AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    He’s got a point about the poodle thing, hasn’t he?

    What’s the material benefit for the U.K. here?

    Beyond, you know, deterring that risk of Taiwanese invasion that even cider-addled toddlers are aware of.
    One of the many things idiot Remainers like you told us, was this: the USA would now side with the more-important EU, and the UK would be demoted. A sideshow

    To be fair to you I think half of elite France, including Macron, believed this bullshit, even though Leavers like me said: NO, America will always, in the end, come down on the side of her English speaking family. And so it is

    We were right, you were wrong. It happens

    As for being a poodle, no. We are certainly nothing more than the support act to America. We are the drummer. America is the lead guitar and vocalist. Australia has come in to do some keyboard stuff

    The main thing is: the band is back together

    The EU is in the audience when they expected to be on stage. AUKS
  • Leon said:

    Former French Ambassador to the US seems pretty chilled about the whole thing. Exuding Gallic sangfroid and a sense of "meh"


    "“The US has trampled our national interest. What the US has done to our national interest is a hostile act,” he said.

    "“What we were doing with the Australians was a strategic choice and this strategic choice has been swept away not only by the Australians but also by the Americans.”

    "He said the British involvement was immaterial because they were “poodles of the Americans, as usual”."

    https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/stab-in-the-back-europe-s-fury-with-morrison-and-biden-over-aukus-submarine-deal-20210916-p58sea.html


    AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    Biden has single-handedly taken a wrecking ball to the western alliances. Putin and Xi must wondering why the hell they bothered with that amateur Trump.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    Interested to read that Johson's late mother was not a Tory voter.I knew his sister had joined the LDs some time ago - apparently he has a brother who is likely to be pro-Labour.If nothing else, it rather suggests he comes from a family of freethinkers.
  • Leon said:

    Former French Ambassador to the US seems pretty chilled about the whole thing. Exuding Gallic sangfroid and a sense of "meh"


    "“The US has trampled our national interest. What the US has done to our national interest is a hostile act,” he said.

    "“What we were doing with the Australians was a strategic choice and this strategic choice has been swept away not only by the Australians but also by the Americans.”

    "He said the British involvement was immaterial because they were “poodles of the Americans, as usual”."

    https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/stab-in-the-back-europe-s-fury-with-morrison-and-biden-over-aukus-submarine-deal-20210916-p58sea.html


    AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    So bitter
  • Leon said:

    Former French Ambassador to the US seems pretty chilled about the whole thing. Exuding Gallic sangfroid and a sense of "meh"


    "“The US has trampled our national interest. What the US has done to our national interest is a hostile act,” he said.

    "“What we were doing with the Australians was a strategic choice and this strategic choice has been swept away not only by the Australians but also by the Americans.”

    "He said the British involvement was immaterial because they were “poodles of the Americans, as usual”."

    https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/stab-in-the-back-europe-s-fury-with-morrison-and-biden-over-aukus-submarine-deal-20210916-p58sea.html


    AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    Biden has single-handedly taken a wrecking ball to the western alliances. Putin and Xi must wondering why the hell they bothered with that amateur Trump.
    Can you explain what Macron's "European autonomy" means in the context of the Western alliance?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited September 2021

    The Commission is pushing a narrative that EU vaccine strategy has been a triumph. And how silly the media was, in spring, to point out how badly it misfired.

    I respectufully disagree

    Just because you ramp up vaccination quickly doesn't make up for a poor start.

    A short 🧵 https://t.co/ZQzQNnxYgm

    https://twitter.com/spignal/status/1438484167671549964?s=19

    One could equally argue that getting off to a good start with a vaccination programme is not much use if you allow it to drift in the latter stages.

    France, Italy, Spain, Ireland have all vaccinated a larger proportion of their population than the UK. Our great start has been squandered.
    I don't think it was squandered. All those that wanted to get vaccinated and at any risk, got vaccinated quickly.

    Now, i would have wanted kids done quicker. But JCVI want to jab the world, dragged their feet like a toddler told no sweeties in the supermarket. the government could have just said sod them I suppose.

    And in terms of the 5m hold outs, without going full vaccine passport, you will be unpersoned without, like France, i am not sure what more can be done. The government have made it trivial to get jabbed.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    Leon said:

    Former French Ambassador to the US seems pretty chilled about the whole thing. Exuding Gallic sangfroid and a sense of "meh"


    "“The US has trampled our national interest. What the US has done to our national interest is a hostile act,” he said.

    "“What we were doing with the Australians was a strategic choice and this strategic choice has been swept away not only by the Australians but also by the Americans.”

    "He said the British involvement was immaterial because they were “poodles of the Americans, as usual”."

    https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/stab-in-the-back-europe-s-fury-with-morrison-and-biden-over-aukus-submarine-deal-20210916-p58sea.html


    AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    He’s got a point about the poodle thing, hasn’t he?

    What’s the material benefit for the U.K. here?

    Beyond, you know, deterring that risk of Taiwanese invasion that even cider-addled toddlers are aware of.
    Poodle taunts are just childish. I don't really know what the UK gets from it, but the other two must have wanted our inclusion for some reason and it seems implausible they didn't offer anything useful for us.
  • Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Former French Ambassador to the US seems pretty chilled about the whole thing. Exuding Gallic sangfroid and a sense of "meh"


    "“The US has trampled our national interest. What the US has done to our national interest is a hostile act,” he said.

    "“What we were doing with the Australians was a strategic choice and this strategic choice has been swept away not only by the Australians but also by the Americans.”

    "He said the British involvement was immaterial because they were “poodles of the Americans, as usual”."

    https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/stab-in-the-back-europe-s-fury-with-morrison-and-biden-over-aukus-submarine-deal-20210916-p58sea.html


    AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    He’s got a point about the poodle thing, hasn’t he?

    What’s the material benefit for the U.K. here?

    Beyond, you know, deterring that risk of Taiwanese invasion that even cider-addled toddlers are aware of.
    One of the many things idiot Remainers like you told us, was this: the USA would now side with the more-important EU, and the UK would be demoted. A sideshow

    To be fair to you I think half of elite France, including Macron, believed this bullshit, even though Leavers like me said: NO, America will always, in the end, come down on the side of her English speaking family. And so it is

    We were right, you were wrong. It happens

    As for being a poodle, no. We are certainly nothing more than the support act to America. We are the drummer. America is the lead guitar and vocalist. Australia has come in to do some keyboard stuff

    The main thing is: the band is back together

    The EU is in the audience when they expected to be on stage. AUKS
    I mean, I personally never suggested or predicted that the US would “side with the EU”, simply that in the quantum of geopolitics, Brexit made the simply U.K. less relevant to the US (and everyone else).

    Which is still true, I think.
  • Leon said:

    Former French Ambassador to the US seems pretty chilled about the whole thing. Exuding Gallic sangfroid and a sense of "meh"


    "“The US has trampled our national interest. What the US has done to our national interest is a hostile act,” he said.

    "“What we were doing with the Australians was a strategic choice and this strategic choice has been swept away not only by the Australians but also by the Americans.”

    "He said the British involvement was immaterial because they were “poodles of the Americans, as usual”."

    https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/stab-in-the-back-europe-s-fury-with-morrison-and-biden-over-aukus-submarine-deal-20210916-p58sea.html


    AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    He’s got a point about the poodle thing, hasn’t he?

    What’s the material benefit for the U.K. here?

    Beyond, you know, deterring that risk of Taiwanese invasion that even cider-addled toddlers are aware of.
    The wider picture and prize is the Trans Pacific partnership deal which will dwarf the EU
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    justin124 said:

    Interested to read that Johson's late mother was not a Tory voter.I knew his sister had joined the LDs some time ago - apparently he has a brother who is likely to be pro-Labour.If nothing else, it rather suggests he comes from a family of freethinkers.

    And while he and Jo have made up for the price of a peerage that the latter quit a government run by his brother still fits that free thinking.
  • Leon said:

    Former French Ambassador to the US seems pretty chilled about the whole thing. Exuding Gallic sangfroid and a sense of "meh"


    "“The US has trampled our national interest. What the US has done to our national interest is a hostile act,” he said.

    "“What we were doing with the Australians was a strategic choice and this strategic choice has been swept away not only by the Australians but also by the Americans.”

    "He said the British involvement was immaterial because they were “poodles of the Americans, as usual”."

    https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/stab-in-the-back-europe-s-fury-with-morrison-and-biden-over-aukus-submarine-deal-20210916-p58sea.html


    AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    He’s got a point about the poodle thing, hasn’t he?

    What’s the material benefit for the U.K. here?

    Beyond, you know, deterring that risk of Taiwanese invasion that even cider-addled toddlers are aware of.
    The wider picture and prize is the Trans Pacific partnership deal which will dwarf the EU
    No, it wont.
    In population, maybe, but not in depth of trade.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,288
    Are the vaccines for 12-15 year olds going to be administered at schools?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,289

    Leon said:

    Former French Ambassador to the US seems pretty chilled about the whole thing. Exuding Gallic sangfroid and a sense of "meh"


    "“The US has trampled our national interest. What the US has done to our national interest is a hostile act,” he said.

    "“What we were doing with the Australians was a strategic choice and this strategic choice has been swept away not only by the Australians but also by the Americans.”

    "He said the British involvement was immaterial because they were “poodles of the Americans, as usual”."

    https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/stab-in-the-back-europe-s-fury-with-morrison-and-biden-over-aukus-submarine-deal-20210916-p58sea.html


    AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    Biden has single-handedly taken a wrecking ball to the western alliances. Putin and Xi must wondering why the hell they bothered with that amateur Trump.
    Biden has gone up, a lot, in my estimation. He instinctively senses that NATO is over. And it is

    Russia is not a strategic threat to the West. It just isn't. Its economy is too small and its people too drunk

    They might try another Crimea on the Baltics, but I doubt it. They export virtually nothing but conventional oil, which is increasingly worthless, as energy gets cheaper, because renewables, shale, etc.

    Xi Jinping's China, by contrast, is the greatest "threat" the West has faced in a couple of centuries. Worse than Nazi Germany

    All that matters is containing her (we cannot "defeat" her). And that means rock-solid alliances with close friends ensuring that we stand together, whatever. That is how you beat bullies




  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    Leon said:

    Former French Ambassador to the US seems pretty chilled about the whole thing. Exuding Gallic sangfroid and a sense of "meh"


    "“The US has trampled our national interest. What the US has done to our national interest is a hostile act,” he said.

    "“What we were doing with the Australians was a strategic choice and this strategic choice has been swept away not only by the Australians but also by the Americans.”

    "He said the British involvement was immaterial because they were “poodles of the Americans, as usual”."

    https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/stab-in-the-back-europe-s-fury-with-morrison-and-biden-over-aukus-submarine-deal-20210916-p58sea.html


    AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    He’s got a point about the poodle thing, hasn’t he?

    What’s the material benefit for the U.K. here?

    Beyond, you know, deterring that risk of Taiwanese invasion that even cider-addled toddlers are aware of.
    The wider picture and prize is the Trans Pacific partnership deal which will dwarf the EU
    Not really the same type of thing though is it? They aren't comparable entities.
  • Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Former French Ambassador to the US seems pretty chilled about the whole thing. Exuding Gallic sangfroid and a sense of "meh"


    "“The US has trampled our national interest. What the US has done to our national interest is a hostile act,” he said.

    "“What we were doing with the Australians was a strategic choice and this strategic choice has been swept away not only by the Australians but also by the Americans.”

    "He said the British involvement was immaterial because they were “poodles of the Americans, as usual”."

    https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/stab-in-the-back-europe-s-fury-with-morrison-and-biden-over-aukus-submarine-deal-20210916-p58sea.html


    AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    He’s got a point about the poodle thing, hasn’t he?

    What’s the material benefit for the U.K. here?

    Beyond, you know, deterring that risk of Taiwanese invasion that even cider-addled toddlers are aware of.
    One of the many things idiot Remainers like you told us, was this: the USA would now side with the more-important EU, and the UK would be demoted. A sideshow

    To be fair to you I think half of elite France, including Macron, believed this bullshit, even though Leavers like me said: NO, America will always, in the end, come down on the side of her English speaking family. And so it is

    We were right, you were wrong. It happens

    As for being a poodle, no. We are certainly nothing more than the support act to America. We are the drummer. America is the lead guitar and vocalist. Australia has come in to do some keyboard stuff

    The main thing is: the band is back together

    The EU is in the audience when they expected to be on stage. AUKS
    I mean, I personally never suggested or predicted that the US would “side with the EU”, simply that in the quantum of geopolitics, Brexit made the simply U.K. less relevant to the US (and everyone else).

    Which is still true, I think.
    I think it's time to admit that it isn't true.
  • Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Former French Ambassador to the US seems pretty chilled about the whole thing. Exuding Gallic sangfroid and a sense of "meh"


    "“The US has trampled our national interest. What the US has done to our national interest is a hostile act,” he said.

    "“What we were doing with the Australians was a strategic choice and this strategic choice has been swept away not only by the Australians but also by the Americans.”

    "He said the British involvement was immaterial because they were “poodles of the Americans, as usual”."

    https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/stab-in-the-back-europe-s-fury-with-morrison-and-biden-over-aukus-submarine-deal-20210916-p58sea.html


    AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    He’s got a point about the poodle thing, hasn’t he?

    What’s the material benefit for the U.K. here?

    Beyond, you know, deterring that risk of Taiwanese invasion that even cider-addled toddlers are aware of.
    One of the many things idiot Remainers like you told us, was this: the USA would now side with the more-important EU, and the UK would be demoted. A sideshow

    To be fair to you I think half of elite France, including Macron, believed this bullshit, even though Leavers like me said: NO, America will always, in the end, come down on the side of her English speaking family. And so it is

    We were right, you were wrong. It happens

    As for being a poodle, no. We are certainly nothing more than the support act to America. We are the drummer. America is the lead guitar and vocalist. Australia has come in to do some keyboard stuff

    The main thing is: the band is back together

    The EU is in the audience when they expected to be on stage. AUKS
    I mean, I personally never suggested or predicted that the US would “side with the EU”, simply that in the quantum of geopolitics, Brexit made the simply U.K. less relevant to the US (and everyone else).

    Which is still true, I think.
    Not on this week's evidence
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    The Commission is pushing a narrative that EU vaccine strategy has been a triumph. And how silly the media was, in spring, to point out how badly it misfired.

    I respectufully disagree

    Just because you ramp up vaccination quickly doesn't make up for a poor start.

    A short 🧵 https://t.co/ZQzQNnxYgm

    https://twitter.com/spignal/status/1438484167671549964?s=19

    One could equally argue that getting off to a good start with a vaccination programme is not much use if you allow it to drift in the latter stages.

    France, Italy, Spain, Ireland have all vaccinated a larger proportion of their population than the UK. Our great start has been squandered.
    I don't think it was squandered. All those that wanted to get vaccinated and at any risk, got vaccinated quickly.

    Now, i would have wanted kids done quicker. But JCVI want to jab the world, dragged their feet like a toddler told no sweeties in the supermarket. the government could have just said sod them I suppose.

    And in terms of the 5m hold outs, without going full vaccine passport, you will be unpersoned without, like France, i am not sure what more can be done. The government have made it trivial to get jabbed.
    I think the thing is a quick start really is extremely crucial particularly when in the midst of a wave. So the impact from slowing up at the end, when less vulnerable are getting jabbed, is less than being slower to get to the most vulnerable.

    Otherwise you're into the idea getting the highest number vaccinated is best even if it took 10 years.
  • kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Former French Ambassador to the US seems pretty chilled about the whole thing. Exuding Gallic sangfroid and a sense of "meh"


    "“The US has trampled our national interest. What the US has done to our national interest is a hostile act,” he said.

    "“What we were doing with the Australians was a strategic choice and this strategic choice has been swept away not only by the Australians but also by the Americans.”

    "He said the British involvement was immaterial because they were “poodles of the Americans, as usual”."

    https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/stab-in-the-back-europe-s-fury-with-morrison-and-biden-over-aukus-submarine-deal-20210916-p58sea.html


    AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    He’s got a point about the poodle thing, hasn’t he?

    What’s the material benefit for the U.K. here?

    Beyond, you know, deterring that risk of Taiwanese invasion that even cider-addled toddlers are aware of.
    The wider picture and prize is the Trans Pacific partnership deal which will dwarf the EU
    Not really the same type of thing though is it? They aren't comparable entities.
    This deal opens all kinds of opportunities with the Trans Pacific countries and that is where the world's trade will be
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    kle4 said:

    The Commission is pushing a narrative that EU vaccine strategy has been a triumph. And how silly the media was, in spring, to point out how badly it misfired.

    I respectufully disagree

    Just because you ramp up vaccination quickly doesn't make up for a poor start.

    A short 🧵 https://t.co/ZQzQNnxYgm

    https://twitter.com/spignal/status/1438484167671549964?s=19

    One could equally argue that getting off to a good start with a vaccination programme is not much use if you allow it to drift in the latter stages.

    France, Italy, Spain, Ireland have all vaccinated a larger proportion of their population than the UK. Our great start has been squandered.
    I don't think it was squandered. All those that wanted to get vaccinated and at any risk, got vaccinated quickly.

    Now, i would have wanted kids done quicker. But JCVI want to jab the world, dragged their feet like a toddler told no sweeties in the supermarket. the government could have just said sod them I suppose.

    And in terms of the 5m hold outs, without going full vaccine passport, you will be unpersoned without, like France, i am not sure what more can be done. The government have made it trivial to get jabbed.
    I think the thing is a quick start really is extremely crucial particularly when in the midst of a wave. So the impact from slowing up at the end, when less vulnerable are getting jabbed, is less than being slower to get to the most vulnerable.

    Otherwise you're into the idea getting the highest number vaccinated is best even if it took 10 years.
    Has everyone forgotten the creative accounting that the EU uses to count numbers of vaccinated?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Leon said:

    Former French Ambassador to the US seems pretty chilled about the whole thing. Exuding Gallic sangfroid and a sense of "meh"


    "“The US has trampled our national interest. What the US has done to our national interest is a hostile act,” he said.

    "“What we were doing with the Australians was a strategic choice and this strategic choice has been swept away not only by the Australians but also by the Americans.”

    "He said the British involvement was immaterial because they were “poodles of the Americans, as usual”."

    https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/stab-in-the-back-europe-s-fury-with-morrison-and-biden-over-aukus-submarine-deal-20210916-p58sea.html


    AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    OK we were FDR's poodle, and you were...?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Former French Ambassador to the US seems pretty chilled about the whole thing. Exuding Gallic sangfroid and a sense of "meh"


    "“The US has trampled our national interest. What the US has done to our national interest is a hostile act,” he said.

    "“What we were doing with the Australians was a strategic choice and this strategic choice has been swept away not only by the Australians but also by the Americans.”

    "He said the British involvement was immaterial because they were “poodles of the Americans, as usual”."

    https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/stab-in-the-back-europe-s-fury-with-morrison-and-biden-over-aukus-submarine-deal-20210916-p58sea.html


    AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    He’s got a point about the poodle thing, hasn’t he?

    What’s the material benefit for the U.K. here?

    Beyond, you know, deterring that risk of Taiwanese invasion that even cider-addled toddlers are aware of.
    The wider picture and prize is the Trans Pacific partnership deal which will dwarf the EU
    Not really the same type of thing though is it? They aren't comparable entities.
    This deal opens all kinds of opportunities with the Trans Pacific countries and that is where the world's trade will be
    Yes, and that's great, but you were talking about dwarfing the EU, and we know the EU is trying for a very different sort of partnership, which will naturally mean it cannot become as large as something mostly about just trade.
  • Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Former French Ambassador to the US seems pretty chilled about the whole thing. Exuding Gallic sangfroid and a sense of "meh"


    "“The US has trampled our national interest. What the US has done to our national interest is a hostile act,” he said.

    "“What we were doing with the Australians was a strategic choice and this strategic choice has been swept away not only by the Australians but also by the Americans.”

    "He said the British involvement was immaterial because they were “poodles of the Americans, as usual”."

    https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/stab-in-the-back-europe-s-fury-with-morrison-and-biden-over-aukus-submarine-deal-20210916-p58sea.html


    AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    He’s got a point about the poodle thing, hasn’t he?

    What’s the material benefit for the U.K. here?

    Beyond, you know, deterring that risk of Taiwanese invasion that even cider-addled toddlers are aware of.
    One of the many things idiot Remainers like you told us, was this: the USA would now side with the more-important EU, and the UK would be demoted. A sideshow

    To be fair to you I think half of elite France, including Macron, believed this bullshit, even though Leavers like me said: NO, America will always, in the end, come down on the side of her English speaking family. And so it is

    We were right, you were wrong. It happens

    As for being a poodle, no. We are certainly nothing more than the support act to America. We are the drummer. America is the lead guitar and vocalist. Australia has come in to do some keyboard stuff

    The main thing is: the band is back together

    The EU is in the audience when they expected to be on stage. AUKS
    I mean, I personally never suggested or predicted that the US would “side with the EU”, simply that in the quantum of geopolitics, Brexit made the simply U.K. less relevant to the US (and everyone else).

    Which is still true, I think.
    Not on this week's evidence
    Not really.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    Former French Ambassador to the US seems pretty chilled about the whole thing. Exuding Gallic sangfroid and a sense of "meh"


    "“The US has trampled our national interest. What the US has done to our national interest is a hostile act,” he said.

    "“What we were doing with the Australians was a strategic choice and this strategic choice has been swept away not only by the Australians but also by the Americans.”

    "He said the British involvement was immaterial because they were “poodles of the Americans, as usual”."

    https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/stab-in-the-back-europe-s-fury-with-morrison-and-biden-over-aukus-submarine-deal-20210916-p58sea.html


    AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    OK we were FDR's poodle, and you were...?
    Hitler’s gimp?
  • kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Former French Ambassador to the US seems pretty chilled about the whole thing. Exuding Gallic sangfroid and a sense of "meh"


    "“The US has trampled our national interest. What the US has done to our national interest is a hostile act,” he said.

    "“What we were doing with the Australians was a strategic choice and this strategic choice has been swept away not only by the Australians but also by the Americans.”

    "He said the British involvement was immaterial because they were “poodles of the Americans, as usual”."

    https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/stab-in-the-back-europe-s-fury-with-morrison-and-biden-over-aukus-submarine-deal-20210916-p58sea.html


    AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    He’s got a point about the poodle thing, hasn’t he?

    What’s the material benefit for the U.K. here?

    Beyond, you know, deterring that risk of Taiwanese invasion that even cider-addled toddlers are aware of.
    The wider picture and prize is the Trans Pacific partnership deal which will dwarf the EU
    Not really the same type of thing though is it? They aren't comparable entities.
    This deal opens all kinds of opportunities with the Trans Pacific countries and that is where the world's trade will be
    That is quite the stretch.
  • kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Former French Ambassador to the US seems pretty chilled about the whole thing. Exuding Gallic sangfroid and a sense of "meh"


    "“The US has trampled our national interest. What the US has done to our national interest is a hostile act,” he said.

    "“What we were doing with the Australians was a strategic choice and this strategic choice has been swept away not only by the Australians but also by the Americans.”

    "He said the British involvement was immaterial because they were “poodles of the Americans, as usual”."

    https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/stab-in-the-back-europe-s-fury-with-morrison-and-biden-over-aukus-submarine-deal-20210916-p58sea.html


    AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    He’s got a point about the poodle thing, hasn’t he?

    What’s the material benefit for the U.K. here?

    Beyond, you know, deterring that risk of Taiwanese invasion that even cider-addled toddlers are aware of.
    The wider picture and prize is the Trans Pacific partnership deal which will dwarf the EU
    Not really the same type of thing though is it? They aren't comparable entities.
    This deal opens all kinds of opportunities with the Trans Pacific countries and that is where the world's trade will be
    That is quite the stretch.
    You mean you hope it is
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Former French Ambassador to the US seems pretty chilled about the whole thing. Exuding Gallic sangfroid and a sense of "meh"


    "“The US has trampled our national interest. What the US has done to our national interest is a hostile act,” he said.

    "“What we were doing with the Australians was a strategic choice and this strategic choice has been swept away not only by the Australians but also by the Americans.”

    "He said the British involvement was immaterial because they were “poodles of the Americans, as usual”."

    https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/stab-in-the-back-europe-s-fury-with-morrison-and-biden-over-aukus-submarine-deal-20210916-p58sea.html


    AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    Biden has single-handedly taken a wrecking ball to the western alliances. Putin and Xi must wondering why the hell they bothered with that amateur Trump.
    Biden has gone up, a lot, in my estimation. He instinctively senses that NATO is over. And it is

    Russia is not a strategic threat to the West. It just isn't. Its economy is too small and its people too drunk

    They might try another Crimea on the Baltics, but I doubt it. They export virtually nothing but conventional oil, which is increasingly worthless, as energy gets cheaper, because renewables, shale, etc.

    Xi Jinping's China, by contrast, is the greatest "threat" the West has faced in a couple of centuries. Worse than Nazi Germany

    All that matters is containing her (we cannot "defeat" her). And that means rock-solid alliances with close friends ensuring that we stand together, whatever. That is how you beat bullies




    Yes, even though I think his economic policies are turning into a disaster and he is obviously losing his capabilities, when it comes to foreign affairs I have a lot of grudging respect for the fact that Biden has turned out to be so fundamentally ruthless and willing to break the cosy consensus. I’d be interested to see how long Blinken stays around
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,289

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Former French Ambassador to the US seems pretty chilled about the whole thing. Exuding Gallic sangfroid and a sense of "meh"


    "“The US has trampled our national interest. What the US has done to our national interest is a hostile act,” he said.

    "“What we were doing with the Australians was a strategic choice and this strategic choice has been swept away not only by the Australians but also by the Americans.”

    "He said the British involvement was immaterial because they were “poodles of the Americans, as usual”."

    https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/stab-in-the-back-europe-s-fury-with-morrison-and-biden-over-aukus-submarine-deal-20210916-p58sea.html


    AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    He’s got a point about the poodle thing, hasn’t he?

    What’s the material benefit for the U.K. here?

    Beyond, you know, deterring that risk of Taiwanese invasion that even cider-addled toddlers are aware of.
    One of the many things idiot Remainers like you told us, was this: the USA would now side with the more-important EU, and the UK would be demoted. A sideshow

    To be fair to you I think half of elite France, including Macron, believed this bullshit, even though Leavers like me said: NO, America will always, in the end, come down on the side of her English speaking family. And so it is

    We were right, you were wrong. It happens

    As for being a poodle, no. We are certainly nothing more than the support act to America. We are the drummer. America is the lead guitar and vocalist. Australia has come in to do some keyboard stuff

    The main thing is: the band is back together

    The EU is in the audience when they expected to be on stage. AUKS
    I mean, I personally never suggested or predicted that the US would “side with the EU”, simply that in the quantum of geopolitics, Brexit made the simply U.K. less relevant to the US (and everyone else).

    Which is still true, I think.
    Not on this week's evidence
    Not really.
    One day a PB Remoaner - williamglenn apart, PBUH - will fess up and say "OK I got this totally fucking wrong"

    Brexiteers like me happily admit we were clueless on shit like the Irish border, and should have thought a lot harder

    You will grow, spiritually, when you admit your geopolitical errors. Jeez. You're not alone. Macron, not a stupid man, just made a howler for the generations. He trusted perfidious Albion, the stab-in-the-back Aussies, and the arrogant Anglo-Saxon Americans: not to band together and tell him to do one
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,288

    The Commission is pushing a narrative that EU vaccine strategy has been a triumph. And how silly the media was, in spring, to point out how badly it misfired.

    I respectufully disagree

    Just because you ramp up vaccination quickly doesn't make up for a poor start.

    A short 🧵 https://t.co/ZQzQNnxYgm

    https://twitter.com/spignal/status/1438484167671549964?s=19

    One could equally argue that getting off to a good start with a vaccination programme is not much use if you allow it to drift in the latter stages.

    France, Italy, Spain, Ireland have all vaccinated a larger proportion of their population than the UK. Our great start has been squandered.
    I don't think it was squandered. All those that wanted to get vaccinated and at any risk, got vaccinated quickly.

    Now, i would have wanted kids done quicker. But JCVI want to jab the world, dragged their feet like a toddler told no sweeties in the supermarket. the government could have just said sod them I suppose.

    And in terms of the 5m hold outs, without going full vaccine passport, you will be unpersoned without, like France, i am not sure what more can be done. The government have made it trivial to get jabbed.
    But you've just pointed out the two major things HMG could have done in the summer but failed to do: vaccines for children and vaccine passports.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812
    edited September 2021

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Former French Ambassador to the US seems pretty chilled about the whole thing. Exuding Gallic sangfroid and a sense of "meh"


    "“The US has trampled our national interest. What the US has done to our national interest is a hostile act,” he said.

    "“What we were doing with the Australians was a strategic choice and this strategic choice has been swept away not only by the Australians but also by the Americans.”

    "He said the British involvement was immaterial because they were “poodles of the Americans, as usual”."

    https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/stab-in-the-back-europe-s-fury-with-morrison-and-biden-over-aukus-submarine-deal-20210916-p58sea.html


    AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    He’s got a point about the poodle thing, hasn’t he?

    What’s the material benefit for the U.K. here?

    Beyond, you know, deterring that risk of Taiwanese invasion that even cider-addled toddlers are aware of.
    The wider picture and prize is the Trans Pacific partnership deal which will dwarf the EU
    Not really the same type of thing though is it? They aren't comparable entities.
    This deal opens all kinds of opportunities with the Trans Pacific countries and that is where the world's trade will be
    That is quite the stretch.
    You mean you hope it is
    I’d be delighted if the U.K. could become an significant exporting power to Asia-Pacific.

    But the connection between that possibility, and a military agreement with US/Aus, is pretty tenuous.

    Perhaps this helps at the margins? I don’t know.

    You’re postings on this last night were truly comic, though. Never change (posting Pb Tory guff).
  • Leon said:

    Former French Ambassador to the US seems pretty chilled about the whole thing. Exuding Gallic sangfroid and a sense of "meh"


    "“The US has trampled our national interest. What the US has done to our national interest is a hostile act,” he said.

    "“What we were doing with the Australians was a strategic choice and this strategic choice has been swept away not only by the Australians but also by the Americans.”

    "He said the British involvement was immaterial because they were “poodles of the Americans, as usual”."

    https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/stab-in-the-back-europe-s-fury-with-morrison-and-biden-over-aukus-submarine-deal-20210916-p58sea.html


    AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    He’s got a point about the poodle thing, hasn’t he?
    If we're a poodle why did Biden check with Johnson before agreeing Morrison's request?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,289
    MrEd said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Former French Ambassador to the US seems pretty chilled about the whole thing. Exuding Gallic sangfroid and a sense of "meh"


    "“The US has trampled our national interest. What the US has done to our national interest is a hostile act,” he said.

    "“What we were doing with the Australians was a strategic choice and this strategic choice has been swept away not only by the Australians but also by the Americans.”

    "He said the British involvement was immaterial because they were “poodles of the Americans, as usual”."

    https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/stab-in-the-back-europe-s-fury-with-morrison-and-biden-over-aukus-submarine-deal-20210916-p58sea.html


    AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    Biden has single-handedly taken a wrecking ball to the western alliances. Putin and Xi must wondering why the hell they bothered with that amateur Trump.
    Biden has gone up, a lot, in my estimation. He instinctively senses that NATO is over. And it is

    Russia is not a strategic threat to the West. It just isn't. Its economy is too small and its people too drunk

    They might try another Crimea on the Baltics, but I doubt it. They export virtually nothing but conventional oil, which is increasingly worthless, as energy gets cheaper, because renewables, shale, etc.

    Xi Jinping's China, by contrast, is the greatest "threat" the West has faced in a couple of centuries. Worse than Nazi Germany

    All that matters is containing her (we cannot "defeat" her). And that means rock-solid alliances with close friends ensuring that we stand together, whatever. That is how you beat bullies




    Yes, even though I think his economic policies are turning into a disaster and he is obviously losing his capabilities, when it comes to foreign affairs I have a lot of grudging respect for the fact that Biden has turned out to be so fundamentally ruthless and willing to break the cosy consensus. I’d be interested to see how long Blinken stays around
    Yep. I think he is a bit senile, and foolish in some respects, but when it comes to foreign policy he has clear instincts and wise opinions: as to what is in America's interest, and he has a certain heartless brutality in seeing them done. If you want to boss a superpower, I guess that is important

    So this will kill 100,000 Afghans? So be it. So this will kill off our relationship with France for 3 years? So be it

    Etc. Not pretty, but maybe needed
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    The Commission is pushing a narrative that EU vaccine strategy has been a triumph. And how silly the media was, in spring, to point out how badly it misfired.

    I respectufully disagree

    Just because you ramp up vaccination quickly doesn't make up for a poor start.

    A short 🧵 https://t.co/ZQzQNnxYgm

    https://twitter.com/spignal/status/1438484167671549964?s=19

    One could equally argue that getting off to a good start with a vaccination programme is not much use if you allow it to drift in the latter stages.

    France, Italy, Spain, Ireland have all vaccinated a larger proportion of their population than the UK. Our great start has been squandered.
    I don't think it was squandered. All those that wanted to get vaccinated and at any risk, got vaccinated quickly.

    Now, i would have wanted kids done quicker. But JCVI want to jab the world, dragged their feet like a toddler told no sweeties in the supermarket. the government could have just said sod them I suppose.

    And in terms of the 5m hold outs, without going full vaccine passport, you will be unpersoned without, like France, i am not sure what more can be done. The government have made it trivial to get jabbed.
    But you've just pointed out the two major things HMG could have done in the summer but failed to do: vaccines for children and vaccine passports.
    I don’t think it fair to say the “government failed to do them”. That wording presupposes it was an error.

    The government decided not to do them. That was a deliberate choice. They may be proven wrong, but I don’t think they have been yet.

    Their views - which are worthy of respect even if they are proven wrong - was that: (a) it was not right to impose risks to children for marginal benefits to society; and (b) the threat to our society from the erosion of civil liberties and the introduction of “othering” outweighed the benefits from vaccine passports.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769

    Leon said:

    Former French Ambassador to the US seems pretty chilled about the whole thing. Exuding Gallic sangfroid and a sense of "meh"


    "“The US has trampled our national interest. What the US has done to our national interest is a hostile act,” he said.

    "“What we were doing with the Australians was a strategic choice and this strategic choice has been swept away not only by the Australians but also by the Americans.”

    "He said the British involvement was immaterial because they were “poodles of the Americans, as usual”."

    https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/stab-in-the-back-europe-s-fury-with-morrison-and-biden-over-aukus-submarine-deal-20210916-p58sea.html


    AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    He’s got a point about the poodle thing, hasn’t he?
    If we're a poodle why did Biden check with Johnson before agreeing Morrison's request?
    Perhaps he just wanted to find out who the Aussie PM was this week?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Former French Ambassador to the US seems pretty chilled about the whole thing. Exuding Gallic sangfroid and a sense of "meh"


    "“The US has trampled our national interest. What the US has done to our national interest is a hostile act,” he said.

    "“What we were doing with the Australians was a strategic choice and this strategic choice has been swept away not only by the Australians but also by the Americans.”

    "He said the British involvement was immaterial because they were “poodles of the Americans, as usual”."

    https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/stab-in-the-back-europe-s-fury-with-morrison-and-biden-over-aukus-submarine-deal-20210916-p58sea.html


    AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    He’s got a point about the poodle thing, hasn’t he?

    What’s the material benefit for the U.K. here?

    Beyond, you know, deterring that risk of Taiwanese invasion that even cider-addled toddlers are aware of.
    One of the many things idiot Remainers like you told us, was this: the USA would now side with the more-important EU, and the UK would be demoted. A sideshow

    To be fair to you I think half of elite France, including Macron, believed this bullshit, even though Leavers like me said: NO, America will always, in the end, come down on the side of her English speaking family. And so it is

    We were right, you were wrong. It happens

    As for being a poodle, no. We are certainly nothing more than the support act to America. We are the drummer. America is the lead guitar and vocalist. Australia has come in to do some keyboard stuff

    The main thing is: the band is back together

    The EU is in the audience when they expected to be on stage. AUKS
    I mean, I personally never suggested or predicted that the US would “side with the EU”, simply that in the quantum of geopolitics, Brexit made the simply U.K. less relevant to the US (and everyone else).

    Which is still true, I think.
    Maybe you need to reassess that view. The evidence is all mounting that the US wants the UK on its side and is pulling the UK out of the EU's orbit.

    Yesterday the EU became much less relevant to the world. No one looks to Berlin, Brussels or Paris for leadership. The EU has become even more insular without the UK, constantly squabbling amongst itself about the minutiae of who said what and why some country is upset at another one while the rest of the world moves on without it.

    If I were to place the turning point it wasn't Brexit, it was actually Merkel getting up on stage with Xi at Davos to denounce the US as the enemy of free trade, 2017 or 2018 iirc. From that moment onwards everyone in the world knows the German vision of the EU is an organisation that has a price. The EU can be bought and both Chinese money and Russian gas are buying EU foreign policy. The world looked on as Brussels tried to pretend otherwise but ploughed on with Nordstream 2 and continued to censor itself on Chinese aggression in HK and towards its own people for fear of losing China as a customer.

    In some ways the EU is reverting to type, it is a trading bloc, not a political entity. The issue is that it now has political power but uses it terribly because the overall aim of the EU is trade and money. Sometimes foreign policy objectives are more important than trade and money. Without the UK who is reminding them of that?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812
    edited September 2021

    Leon said:

    Former French Ambassador to the US seems pretty chilled about the whole thing. Exuding Gallic sangfroid and a sense of "meh"


    "“The US has trampled our national interest. What the US has done to our national interest is a hostile act,” he said.

    "“What we were doing with the Australians was a strategic choice and this strategic choice has been swept away not only by the Australians but also by the Americans.”

    "He said the British involvement was immaterial because they were “poodles of the Americans, as usual”."

    https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/stab-in-the-back-europe-s-fury-with-morrison-and-biden-over-aukus-submarine-deal-20210916-p58sea.html


    AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    He’s got a point about the poodle thing, hasn’t he?
    If we're a poodle why did Biden check with Johnson before agreeing Morrison's request?
    Pre-existing tech sharing agreements.

    Poodle is too strong a word, maybe, but that Atlantic article you posted noted that this deal basically permanently locks U.K. into US policy in the Pacific.

    Anyway, I’m trying to listen to a podcast about it how it was Rishikesh not Yoko that created a split between Lennon and McCartney, so I’ll leave you guys to it.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Former French Ambassador to the US seems pretty chilled about the whole thing. Exuding Gallic sangfroid and a sense of "meh"


    "“The US has trampled our national interest. What the US has done to our national interest is a hostile act,” he said.

    "“What we were doing with the Australians was a strategic choice and this strategic choice has been swept away not only by the Australians but also by the Americans.”

    "He said the British involvement was immaterial because they were “poodles of the Americans, as usual”."

    https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/stab-in-the-back-europe-s-fury-with-morrison-and-biden-over-aukus-submarine-deal-20210916-p58sea.html


    AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    He’s got a point about the poodle thing, hasn’t he?

    What’s the material benefit for the U.K. here?

    Beyond, you know, deterring that risk of Taiwanese invasion that even cider-addled toddlers are aware of.
    Poodle taunts are just childish. I don't really know what the UK gets from it, but the other two must have wanted our inclusion for some reason and it seems implausible they didn't offer anything useful for us.
    If we are moving back to an era where sea power again regains its fundamental importance then the U.K. a has a decent role to play given its submarine / nuclear capabilities (and maybe it’s aircraft carriers). It is also the nation that the US feels most comfortable with on matters of defence.

    If the Conservatives win Canada’s election, then i think they will join despite their woeful record on defence spending because, apart from the Pacific, the Arctic Circle is another potential flashpoint. It therefore would make sense to have Canada more tied in, especially given what may happen with Greenland.

    One interesting question will be New Zealand. I can see a situation where China increasingly targets NZ with the aim of turning it into a quasi-client state. That would give China a possible friend in a sensitive part of the Pacific. Don’t think it will happen but the Chinese may hope that NZ effectively becomes a neutral state, further detached from the western powers.
  • kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Former French Ambassador to the US seems pretty chilled about the whole thing. Exuding Gallic sangfroid and a sense of "meh"


    "“The US has trampled our national interest. What the US has done to our national interest is a hostile act,” he said.

    "“What we were doing with the Australians was a strategic choice and this strategic choice has been swept away not only by the Australians but also by the Americans.”

    "He said the British involvement was immaterial because they were “poodles of the Americans, as usual”."

    https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/stab-in-the-back-europe-s-fury-with-morrison-and-biden-over-aukus-submarine-deal-20210916-p58sea.html


    AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    He’s got a point about the poodle thing, hasn’t he?

    What’s the material benefit for the U.K. here?

    Beyond, you know, deterring that risk of Taiwanese invasion that even cider-addled toddlers are aware of.
    The wider picture and prize is the Trans Pacific partnership deal which will dwarf the EU
    Not really the same type of thing though is it? They aren't comparable entities.
    This deal opens all kinds of opportunities with the Trans Pacific countries and that is where the world's trade will be
    That is quite the stretch.
    You mean you hope it is
    I’d be delighted if the U.K. could become an significant exporting power to Asia-Pacific.

    But the connection between that possibility, and a military agreement with US/Aus, is pretty tenuous.

    Perhaps this helps at the margins? I don’t know.

    You’re postings on this last night were truly comic, though. Never change (posting Pb Tory guff).
    My postings were perfectly feasible and it is fairly stark that objections are mainly from those who are EU supporters

    This last 24 hours has seen France and the EU marginalised by this agreement, and supporters are angry, bewildered, and stunned that the US has turned to the UK for this agreement

    It was not supposed to be like this
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,289
    France still taking this REALLY well

    "After calling the Biden administration’s failure to include France in the national security pact with the United Kingdom and Australia a “stab in the back,” French officials on Thursday canceled a gala at their Washington embassy, a new report says.

    "French officials canceled the Friday affair, which was set to commemorate the “240th Anniversary of the Battle of the Capes” at the embassy and on a French frigate in Baltimore, Maryland, according to the New York Times.

    "The cancellation comes one day after French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian called the newly announced AUKUS nuclear submarine pact “a stab in the back” to the country. "

    https://nypost.com/2021/09/16/france-cancels-dc-gala-after-being-left-out-of-aukus-pact/?utm_source=twitter_sitebuttons&utm_medium=site buttons&utm_campaign=site buttons
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    Leon said:

    So this will kill 100,000 Afghans? So be it.

    As long as no dolphins are harmed
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,288
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Former French Ambassador to the US seems pretty chilled about the whole thing. Exuding Gallic sangfroid and a sense of "meh"


    "“The US has trampled our national interest. What the US has done to our national interest is a hostile act,” he said.

    "“What we were doing with the Australians was a strategic choice and this strategic choice has been swept away not only by the Australians but also by the Americans.”

    "He said the British involvement was immaterial because they were “poodles of the Americans, as usual”."

    https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/stab-in-the-back-europe-s-fury-with-morrison-and-biden-over-aukus-submarine-deal-20210916-p58sea.html


    AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    He’s got a point about the poodle thing, hasn’t he?

    What’s the material benefit for the U.K. here?

    Beyond, you know, deterring that risk of Taiwanese invasion that even cider-addled toddlers are aware of.
    One of the many things idiot Remainers like you told us, was this: the USA would now side with the more-important EU, and the UK would be demoted. A sideshow

    To be fair to you I think half of elite France, including Macron, believed this bullshit, even though Leavers like me said: NO, America will always, in the end, come down on the side of her English speaking family. And so it is

    We were right, you were wrong. It happens

    As for being a poodle, no. We are certainly nothing more than the support act to America. We are the drummer. America is the lead guitar and vocalist. Australia has come in to do some keyboard stuff

    The main thing is: the band is back together

    The EU is in the audience when they expected to be on stage. AUKS
    I mean, I personally never suggested or predicted that the US would “side with the EU”, simply that in the quantum of geopolitics, Brexit made the simply U.K. less relevant to the US (and everyone else).

    Which is still true, I think.
    Not on this week's evidence
    Not really.
    One day a PB Remoaner - williamglenn apart, PBUH - will fess up and say "OK I got this totally fucking wrong"

    Brexiteers like me happily admit we were clueless on shit like the Irish border, and should have thought a lot harder

    You will grow, spiritually, when you admit your geopolitical errors. Jeez. You're not alone. Macron, not a stupid man, just made a howler for the generations. He trusted perfidious Albion, the stab-in-the-back Aussies, and the arrogant Anglo-Saxon Americans: not to band together and tell him to do one
    On the subject of getting things wrong I confess I am totally surprised by the fact that at this stage of the pandemic we have an all time job vacancies high. I would have predicted exactly the opposite.

    My powers of prediction are superb, until it comes to predicting the future.
  • ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    Former French Ambassador to the US seems pretty chilled about the whole thing. Exuding Gallic sangfroid and a sense of "meh"


    "“The US has trampled our national interest. What the US has done to our national interest is a hostile act,” he said.

    "“What we were doing with the Australians was a strategic choice and this strategic choice has been swept away not only by the Australians but also by the Americans.”

    "He said the British involvement was immaterial because they were “poodles of the Americans, as usual”."

    https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/stab-in-the-back-europe-s-fury-with-morrison-and-biden-over-aukus-submarine-deal-20210916-p58sea.html


    AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    He’s got a point about the poodle thing, hasn’t he?
    If we're a poodle why did Biden check with Johnson before agreeing Morrison's request?
    Perhaps he just wanted to find out who the Aussie PM was this week?
    Lol.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 3,056
    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    tlg86 said:
    Is why its best for former PMs to leave the stage left and not hang around on the backbenchers for long.
    Nonsense. If they have their own perspective to offer and enjoy and are good at backbench or legislative/policy scrutiny (even if they were no good as a PM) then absolutely they should stick around. Some might make it back into government as a Minister perhaps.

    Becoming PM need not mean your days in politics are numbered once you stop. If they end up making themselves look bitter who cares? Better that than ex PMs have no prospect of political contribution, particularly when they have so many years to live and will be criticised if they cash in.
    May regularly asks Johnson more difficult questions than Starmer - on policy - not politics.
    May is asking a very good question, btw.

    The orgasmic sighs last night about this deal from PB Tories were hilarious.

    On balance I think this sounds like a good thing for the U.K., but it does raise all sorts of questions.
    In what way is it a "very good question". A fucking toddler on a cider bender knows that China invading Taiwan is a real risk (AUKUS or no AUKUS) and that we would have a horrible dilemma whether to intervene or not.

    Taiwan is super strategic.

    Yesterday's pact just means we have a better chance of deterring that invasion. That's one reason why it is a good thing
    Personally... I think it's quite hard for China to invade Taiwan.

    It's

    (a) quite a long way from Mainland China,
    Your comment is entirely correct, in my view, but for those who don’t realise, not all of Taiwan is a long way away:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinmen

    China could take Kinmen tomorrow, if they felt like it (they don’t).
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    Charles said:

    kle4 said:

    The Commission is pushing a narrative that EU vaccine strategy has been a triumph. And how silly the media was, in spring, to point out how badly it misfired.

    I respectufully disagree

    Just because you ramp up vaccination quickly doesn't make up for a poor start.

    A short 🧵 https://t.co/ZQzQNnxYgm

    https://twitter.com/spignal/status/1438484167671549964?s=19

    One could equally argue that getting off to a good start with a vaccination programme is not much use if you allow it to drift in the latter stages.

    France, Italy, Spain, Ireland have all vaccinated a larger proportion of their population than the UK. Our great start has been squandered.
    I don't think it was squandered. All those that wanted to get vaccinated and at any risk, got vaccinated quickly.

    Now, i would have wanted kids done quicker. But JCVI want to jab the world, dragged their feet like a toddler told no sweeties in the supermarket. the government could have just said sod them I suppose.

    And in terms of the 5m hold outs, without going full vaccine passport, you will be unpersoned without, like France, i am not sure what more can be done. The government have made it trivial to get jabbed.
    I think the thing is a quick start really is extremely crucial particularly when in the midst of a wave. So the impact from slowing up at the end, when less vulnerable are getting jabbed, is less than being slower to get to the most vulnerable.

    Otherwise you're into the idea getting the highest number vaccinated is best even if it took 10 years.
    Has everyone forgotten the creative accounting that the EU uses to count numbers of vaccinated?
    I'm sorry, I think "one jab plus infection" is a perfectly sensible measure of fully vaccinated. It's not creative accounting, it's a sensible assessment that the protection you get is perfectly adequate.

    If you want to take greater issue, I'd go with the use of the Janssens vaccine - which is barely more effective than the use of a single dose of Moderna/Pfizer.
  • Charles said:

    Charles said:

    The most exciting thing about the reshuffle really is Gove (and O’Brien and Badenoch) at MHCLG.

    The problem is Sunak (and Kwasi) are fiscal hawks and if Gove really wants to level up he needs money.

    Will be fascinating to see both what policy they come up with, and the result of Gove v Sunak clashes.

    And who will Cummings side with?

    Badenoch should be at education
    She's a hacker, bad role model for da kidz.
    She understands CRT and the damage it’ll do to our children
    Cathode Ray Tubes can be dangerous but shouldn't we have moved on to LCD by now?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The Commission is pushing a narrative that EU vaccine strategy has been a triumph. And how silly the media was, in spring, to point out how badly it misfired.

    I respectufully disagree

    Just because you ramp up vaccination quickly doesn't make up for a poor start.

    A short 🧵 https://t.co/ZQzQNnxYgm

    https://twitter.com/spignal/status/1438484167671549964?s=19

    Well, surely vaccination on its own is not quite the right measure. Surely it's a combination of vaccination and a return to normal life.

    And you know what, they've done fine. They were behind the US (and UK) at first, but normality returned to the EU at about the same time as the UK, and they've avoided the dreadful third wave that the US has had.

    Could they have done better? Sure. But in the general scheme of things, they've done a lot better than one would have expected six months ago, and people on the continent have not really had a noticeably better (or worse) experience than Brits or Canadians, and might even have had a better one than Americans now.

    Yes, they've really done quite well. Tho they should do "really quite well", as they have so much vax production within EU borders

    What EU bigwigs should be asking themselves is: how they managed to turn a relative triumph - THIS - into a moral disaster where they tried to reimpose a border across Ireland (without asking Ireland), interrupted vaccine shipments to friendly nations, like Oz (hence AUKUS?), and trashed an excellent, cheap, non-for-profit vaccine (AZ) which could save the world, just because Brexit (thus, probably, killing many thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands)

    The EU completely fucked up everything about the vaccine PR, because they are led by mediocre unelected fools who are sent as failures to Brussels, like Ursula.

    Hence, Brexit

    Agree 100%.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 3,056
    carnforth said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    tlg86 said:
    Is why its best for former PMs to leave the stage left and not hang around on the backbenchers for long.
    Nonsense. If they have their own perspective to offer and enjoy and are good at backbench or legislative/policy scrutiny (even if they were no good as a PM) then absolutely they should stick around. Some might make it back into government as a Minister perhaps.

    Becoming PM need not mean your days in politics are numbered once you stop. If they end up making themselves look bitter who cares? Better that than ex PMs have no prospect of political contribution, particularly when they have so many years to live and will be criticised if they cash in.
    May regularly asks Johnson more difficult questions than Starmer - on policy - not politics.
    May is asking a very good question, btw.

    The orgasmic sighs last night about this deal from PB Tories were hilarious.

    On balance I think this sounds like a good thing for the U.K., but it does raise all sorts of questions.
    In what way is it a "very good question". A fucking toddler on a cider bender knows that China invading Taiwan is a real risk (AUKUS or no AUKUS) and that we would have a horrible dilemma whether to intervene or not.

    Taiwan is super strategic.

    Yesterday's pact just means we have a better chance of deterring that invasion. That's one reason why it is a good thing
    Personally... I think it's quite hard for China to invade Taiwan.

    It's

    (a) quite a long way from Mainland China,
    Your comment is entirely correct, in my view, but for those who don’t realise, not all of Taiwan is a long way away:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinmen

    China could take Kinmen tomorrow, if they felt like it (they don’t).
    For illustration, closest islet (Taiwan foreground, China background):



  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    carnforth said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    tlg86 said:
    Is why its best for former PMs to leave the stage left and not hang around on the backbenchers for long.
    Nonsense. If they have their own perspective to offer and enjoy and are good at backbench or legislative/policy scrutiny (even if they were no good as a PM) then absolutely they should stick around. Some might make it back into government as a Minister perhaps.

    Becoming PM need not mean your days in politics are numbered once you stop. If they end up making themselves look bitter who cares? Better that than ex PMs have no prospect of political contribution, particularly when they have so many years to live and will be criticised if they cash in.
    May regularly asks Johnson more difficult questions than Starmer - on policy - not politics.
    May is asking a very good question, btw.

    The orgasmic sighs last night about this deal from PB Tories were hilarious.

    On balance I think this sounds like a good thing for the U.K., but it does raise all sorts of questions.
    In what way is it a "very good question". A fucking toddler on a cider bender knows that China invading Taiwan is a real risk (AUKUS or no AUKUS) and that we would have a horrible dilemma whether to intervene or not.

    Taiwan is super strategic.

    Yesterday's pact just means we have a better chance of deterring that invasion. That's one reason why it is a good thing
    Personally... I think it's quite hard for China to invade Taiwan.

    It's

    (a) quite a long way from Mainland China,
    Your comment is entirely correct, in my view, but for those who don’t realise, not all of Taiwan is a long way away:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinmen

    China could take Kinmen tomorrow, if they felt like it (they don’t).
    Wow.

    I didn't know that. That'd be a pot of piss.
  • Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The Commission is pushing a narrative that EU vaccine strategy has been a triumph. And how silly the media was, in spring, to point out how badly it misfired.

    I respectufully disagree

    Just because you ramp up vaccination quickly doesn't make up for a poor start.

    A short 🧵 https://t.co/ZQzQNnxYgm

    https://twitter.com/spignal/status/1438484167671549964?s=19

    Well, surely vaccination on its own is not quite the right measure. Surely it's a combination of vaccination and a return to normal life.

    And you know what, they've done fine. They were behind the US (and UK) at first, but normality returned to the EU at about the same time as the UK, and they've avoided the dreadful third wave that the US has had.

    Could they have done better? Sure. But in the general scheme of things, they've done a lot better than one would have expected six months ago, and people on the continent have not really had a noticeably better (or worse) experience than Brits or Canadians, and might even have had a better one than Americans now.

    Yes, they've really done quite well. Tho they should do "really quite well", as they have so much vax production within EU borders

    What EU bigwigs should be asking themselves is: how they managed to turn a relative triumph - THIS - into a moral disaster where they tried to reimpose a border across Ireland (without asking Ireland), interrupted vaccine shipments to friendly nations, like Oz (hence AUKUS?), and trashed an excellent, cheap, non-for-profit vaccine (AZ) which could save the world, just because Brexit (thus, probably, killing many thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands)

    The EU completely fucked up everything about the vaccine PR, because they are led by mediocre unelected fools who are sent as failures to Brussels, like Ursula.

    Hence, Brexit

    But also Government vs Politics.

    Yes, the politics and PR of the EU have been rubbish, panicky and counterproductive. No question. And that is in large part because the Commission is staffed by second division politicians, because the job isn't that interesting to people who can make it to the top of a reasonably large home country.

    But.

    The lurid predictions of February and March, that vaccinated Brits would be swanning round Europe, laughing and coughing at our benighted neighbours, didn't happen. They have opened up at roughly the same rate as us- in GDP terms, it will be a wash. I don't think anyone expected that six months ago; I remember being told (on this very site!) that I was a deluded Europhile for thinking the UK's final lead would be as small as six weeks. It's the counterpart of the speedboat-oil tanker thing; a speedboat can respond quickly, but ultimately an oil tanker carries more further.

    And.

    The AZ vaccine is a remarkable piece of science, and it's been marketed in a way that shows what bloody good eggs pure scientists are. Even at Oxford. But AZ did do a shambolic job of demonstrating how remarkable it is, and it would have been wiser to listen to and work round the concerns, rather than drowning them out by singing "Land of Hope and Glory".

    And.

    There's no escaping the numbers- in most of comparable Western Europe, national governments did a better job of keeping people safe and alive until they could be vaccinated than Westminster did.

    Yes- Brussels made a hideous mess of the politics, but they did better than OK on the government. In London, the balance went the other way. I think we've all assumed that political competence is a good marker for governmental competence- but the experience of the last few years makes that harder to justify.
  • Leon said:

    Former French Ambassador to the US seems pretty chilled about the whole thing. Exuding Gallic sangfroid and a sense of "meh"


    "“The US has trampled our national interest. What the US has done to our national interest is a hostile act,” he said.

    "“What we were doing with the Australians was a strategic choice and this strategic choice has been swept away not only by the Australians but also by the Americans.”

    "He said the British involvement was immaterial because they were “poodles of the Americans, as usual”."

    https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/stab-in-the-back-europe-s-fury-with-morrison-and-biden-over-aukus-submarine-deal-20210916-p58sea.html


    AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    Biden has single-handedly taken a wrecking ball to the western alliances. Putin and Xi must wondering why the hell they bothered with that amateur Trump.
    The cheese eating surrender monkeys have never been critical to the western alliances. And the 21st century's threat is in the Pacific not the west anyway.

    The time for an east/west mindset is over. We need to contain China, that needs collective transpacific and transatlantic co-ordination. It means putting petty geography behind us. And anyone so obsessed with their tiny corner of the world that they can't see past that is not the ally we need right now.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    Leon said:

    MrEd said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Former French Ambassador to the US seems pretty chilled about the whole thing. Exuding Gallic sangfroid and a sense of "meh"


    "“The US has trampled our national interest. What the US has done to our national interest is a hostile act,” he said.

    "“What we were doing with the Australians was a strategic choice and this strategic choice has been swept away not only by the Australians but also by the Americans.”

    "He said the British involvement was immaterial because they were “poodles of the Americans, as usual”."

    https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/stab-in-the-back-europe-s-fury-with-morrison-and-biden-over-aukus-submarine-deal-20210916-p58sea.html


    AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    Biden has single-handedly taken a wrecking ball to the western alliances. Putin and Xi must wondering why the hell they bothered with that amateur Trump.
    Biden has gone up, a lot, in my estimation. He instinctively senses that NATO is over. And it is

    Russia is not a strategic threat to the West. It just isn't. Its economy is too small and its people too drunk

    They might try another Crimea on the Baltics, but I doubt it. They export virtually nothing but conventional oil, which is increasingly worthless, as energy gets cheaper, because renewables, shale, etc.

    Xi Jinping's China, by contrast, is the greatest "threat" the West has faced in a couple of centuries. Worse than Nazi Germany

    All that matters is containing her (we cannot "defeat" her). And that means rock-solid alliances with close friends ensuring that we stand together, whatever. That is how you beat bullies




    Yes, even though I think his economic policies are turning into a disaster and he is obviously losing his capabilities, when it comes to foreign affairs I have a lot of grudging respect for the fact that Biden has turned out to be so fundamentally ruthless and willing to break the cosy consensus. I’d be interested to see how long Blinken stays around
    Yep. I think he is a bit senile, and foolish in some respects, but when it comes to foreign policy he has clear instincts and wise opinions: as to what is in America's interest, and he has a certain heartless brutality in seeing them done. If you want to boss a superpower, I guess that is important

    So this will kill 100,000 Afghans? So be it. So this will kill off our relationship with France for 3 years? So be it

    Etc. Not pretty, but maybe needed
    It won't kill the US-French relationship.

    The French are players. They are making massive scene out of this, so that the Americans throw them a bone in some other area.
  • MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Former French Ambassador to the US seems pretty chilled about the whole thing. Exuding Gallic sangfroid and a sense of "meh"


    "“The US has trampled our national interest. What the US has done to our national interest is a hostile act,” he said.

    "“What we were doing with the Australians was a strategic choice and this strategic choice has been swept away not only by the Australians but also by the Americans.”

    "He said the British involvement was immaterial because they were “poodles of the Americans, as usual”."

    https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/stab-in-the-back-europe-s-fury-with-morrison-and-biden-over-aukus-submarine-deal-20210916-p58sea.html


    AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    He’s got a point about the poodle thing, hasn’t he?

    What’s the material benefit for the U.K. here?

    Beyond, you know, deterring that risk of Taiwanese invasion that even cider-addled toddlers are aware of.
    One of the many things idiot Remainers like you told us, was this: the USA would now side with the more-important EU, and the UK would be demoted. A sideshow

    To be fair to you I think half of elite France, including Macron, believed this bullshit, even though Leavers like me said: NO, America will always, in the end, come down on the side of her English speaking family. And so it is

    We were right, you were wrong. It happens

    As for being a poodle, no. We are certainly nothing more than the support act to America. We are the drummer. America is the lead guitar and vocalist. Australia has come in to do some keyboard stuff

    The main thing is: the band is back together

    The EU is in the audience when they expected to be on stage. AUKS
    I mean, I personally never suggested or predicted that the US would “side with the EU”, simply that in the quantum of geopolitics, Brexit made the simply U.K. less relevant to the US (and everyone else).

    Which is still true, I think.
    Maybe you need to reassess that view. The evidence is all mounting that the US wants the UK on its side and is pulling the UK out of the EU's orbit.

    Yesterday the EU became much less relevant to the world. No one looks to Berlin, Brussels or Paris for leadership. The EU has become even more insular without the UK, constantly squabbling amongst itself about the minutiae of who said what and why some country is upset at another one while the rest of the world moves on without it.

    If I were to place the turning point it wasn't Brexit, it was actually Merkel getting up on stage with Xi at Davos to denounce the US as the enemy of free trade, 2017 or 2018 iirc. From that moment onwards everyone in the world knows the German vision of the EU is an organisation that has a price. The EU can be bought and both Chinese money and Russian gas are buying EU foreign policy. The world looked on as Brussels tried to pretend otherwise but ploughed on with Nordstream 2 and continued to censor itself on Chinese aggression in HK and towards its own people for fear of losing China as a customer.

    In some ways the EU is reverting to type, it is a trading bloc, not a political entity. The issue is that it now has political power but uses it terribly because the overall aim of the EU is trade and money. Sometimes foreign policy objectives are more important than trade and money. Without the UK who is reminding them of that?
    Actually I agree with a lot of this, although I think you oversell this Germany as Russian or Chinese stooge thing.

    I think the US is making the best of a bad situation. It’s most reliable ally (ie, us) is no longer inside the EU pulling against the stuff you are complaining about.

    We’re not useless to US strategy - but we’re being used here to support US policy in Asia-Pacific*. It’s not obvious what the quid pro quo is.

    *I hate the term Indo-Pacific.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Former French Ambassador to the US seems pretty chilled about the whole thing. Exuding Gallic sangfroid and a sense of "meh"


    "“The US has trampled our national interest. What the US has done to our national interest is a hostile act,” he said.

    "“What we were doing with the Australians was a strategic choice and this strategic choice has been swept away not only by the Australians but also by the Americans.”

    "He said the British involvement was immaterial because they were “poodles of the Americans, as usual”."

    https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/stab-in-the-back-europe-s-fury-with-morrison-and-biden-over-aukus-submarine-deal-20210916-p58sea.html


    AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    He’s got a point about the poodle thing, hasn’t he?

    What’s the material benefit for the U.K. here?

    Beyond, you know, deterring that risk of Taiwanese invasion that even cider-addled toddlers are aware of.
    One of the many things idiot Remainers like you told us, was this: the USA would now side with the more-important EU, and the UK would be demoted. A sideshow

    To be fair to you I think half of elite France, including Macron, believed this bullshit, even though Leavers like me said: NO, America will always, in the end, come down on the side of her English speaking family. And so it is

    We were right, you were wrong. It happens

    As for being a poodle, no. We are certainly nothing more than the support act to America. We are the drummer. America is the lead guitar and vocalist. Australia has come in to do some keyboard stuff

    The main thing is: the band is back together

    The EU is in the audience when they expected to be on stage. AUKS
    I mean, I personally never suggested or predicted that the US would “side with the EU”, simply that in the quantum of geopolitics, Brexit made the simply U.K. less relevant to the US (and everyone else).

    Which is still true, I think.
    Maybe you need to reassess that view. The evidence is all mounting that the US wants the UK on its side and is pulling the UK out of the EU's orbit.

    Yesterday the EU became much less relevant to the world. No one looks to Berlin, Brussels or Paris for leadership. The EU has become even more insular without the UK, constantly squabbling amongst itself about the minutiae of who said what and why some country is upset at another one while the rest of the world moves on without it.

    If I were to place the turning point it wasn't Brexit, it was actually Merkel getting up on stage with Xi at Davos to denounce the US as the enemy of free trade, 2017 or 2018 iirc. From that moment onwards everyone in the world knows the German vision of the EU is an organisation that has a price. The EU can be bought and both Chinese money and Russian gas are buying EU foreign policy. The world looked on as Brussels tried to pretend otherwise but ploughed on with Nordstream 2 and continued to censor itself on Chinese aggression in HK and towards its own people for fear of losing China as a customer.

    In some ways the EU is reverting to type, it is a trading bloc, not a political entity. The issue is that it now has political power but uses it terribly because the overall aim of the EU is trade and money. Sometimes foreign policy objectives are more important than trade and money. Without the UK who is reminding them of that?
    Effectively, it’s not even the whole EU, everyone knows that Germany can be bought. Fair play to Germany, it has projected the brand of being one of the most tolerant, democrat and fair countries in the world when, in many regards, it has a level of institutional corruption that would put Italy to shame with its cosy corporate-Government consensus, and its views can be so easily bought.

    The issue for the EU is that everyone knows Germany runs the show. I think this is one of the key reasons why the French have been excluded - not only because they can’t be trusted fundamentally (although Macron gets that China is a threat) but that, when push comes to shove, France would fall in behind Germany.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,288
    edited September 2021
    Charles said:

    The Commission is pushing a narrative that EU vaccine strategy has been a triumph. And how silly the media was, in spring, to point out how badly it misfired.

    I respectufully disagree

    Just because you ramp up vaccination quickly doesn't make up for a poor start.

    A short 🧵 https://t.co/ZQzQNnxYgm

    https://twitter.com/spignal/status/1438484167671549964?s=19

    One could equally argue that getting off to a good start with a vaccination programme is not much use if you allow it to drift in the latter stages.

    France, Italy, Spain, Ireland have all vaccinated a larger proportion of their population than the UK. Our great start has been squandered.
    I don't think it was squandered. All those that wanted to get vaccinated and at any risk, got vaccinated quickly.

    Now, i would have wanted kids done quicker. But JCVI want to jab the world, dragged their feet like a toddler told no sweeties in the supermarket. the government could have just said sod them I suppose.

    And in terms of the 5m hold outs, without going full vaccine passport, you will be unpersoned without, like France, i am not sure what more can be done. The government have made it trivial to get jabbed.
    But you've just pointed out the two major things HMG could have done in the summer but failed to do: vaccines for children and vaccine passports.
    I don’t think it fair to say the “government failed to do them”. That wording presupposes it was an error.

    The government decided not to do them. That was a deliberate choice. They may be proven wrong, but I don’t think they have been yet.

    Their views - which are worthy of respect even if they are proven wrong - was that: (a) it was not right to impose risks to children for marginal benefits to society; and (b) the threat to our society from the erosion of civil liberties and the introduction of “othering” outweighed the benefits from vaccine passports.
    Your point about vaccinating children would make more sense if HMG hadn't belatedly decided to do it.

    The government have been vacillating when they should have been vaccinating.
  • Leon said:

    Former French Ambassador to the US seems pretty chilled about the whole thing. Exuding Gallic sangfroid and a sense of "meh"


    "“The US has trampled our national interest. What the US has done to our national interest is a hostile act,” he said.

    "“What we were doing with the Australians was a strategic choice and this strategic choice has been swept away not only by the Australians but also by the Americans.”

    "He said the British involvement was immaterial because they were “poodles of the Americans, as usual”."

    https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/stab-in-the-back-europe-s-fury-with-morrison-and-biden-over-aukus-submarine-deal-20210916-p58sea.html


    AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    He’s got a point about the poodle thing, hasn’t he?

    What’s the material benefit for the U.K. here?

    Beyond, you know, deterring that risk of Taiwanese invasion that even cider-addled toddlers are aware of.
    The wider picture and prize is the Trans Pacific partnership deal which will dwarf the EU
    Breaking: China have today lodged papers with New Zealand to join the TPP.

    If the UK join the TPP and then the EU apply we are back in the EU!
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 3,056
    rcs1000 said:

    carnforth said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    tlg86 said:
    Is why its best for former PMs to leave the stage left and not hang around on the backbenchers for long.
    Nonsense. If they have their own perspective to offer and enjoy and are good at backbench or legislative/policy scrutiny (even if they were no good as a PM) then absolutely they should stick around. Some might make it back into government as a Minister perhaps.

    Becoming PM need not mean your days in politics are numbered once you stop. If they end up making themselves look bitter who cares? Better that than ex PMs have no prospect of political contribution, particularly when they have so many years to live and will be criticised if they cash in.
    May regularly asks Johnson more difficult questions than Starmer - on policy - not politics.
    May is asking a very good question, btw.

    The orgasmic sighs last night about this deal from PB Tories were hilarious.

    On balance I think this sounds like a good thing for the U.K., but it does raise all sorts of questions.
    In what way is it a "very good question". A fucking toddler on a cider bender knows that China invading Taiwan is a real risk (AUKUS or no AUKUS) and that we would have a horrible dilemma whether to intervene or not.

    Taiwan is super strategic.

    Yesterday's pact just means we have a better chance of deterring that invasion. That's one reason why it is a good thing
    Personally... I think it's quite hard for China to invade Taiwan.

    It's

    (a) quite a long way from Mainland China,
    Your comment is entirely correct, in my view, but for those who don’t realise, not all of Taiwan is a long way away:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinmen

    China could take Kinmen tomorrow, if they felt like it (they don’t).
    Wow.

    I didn't know that. That'd be a pot of piss.
    Kinmen speaker array for booming Taiwanese propaganda at China:




    (Unused these days)
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    MrEd said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Former French Ambassador to the US seems pretty chilled about the whole thing. Exuding Gallic sangfroid and a sense of "meh"


    "“The US has trampled our national interest. What the US has done to our national interest is a hostile act,” he said.

    "“What we were doing with the Australians was a strategic choice and this strategic choice has been swept away not only by the Australians but also by the Americans.”

    "He said the British involvement was immaterial because they were “poodles of the Americans, as usual”."

    https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/stab-in-the-back-europe-s-fury-with-morrison-and-biden-over-aukus-submarine-deal-20210916-p58sea.html


    AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    Biden has single-handedly taken a wrecking ball to the western alliances. Putin and Xi must wondering why the hell they bothered with that amateur Trump.
    Biden has gone up, a lot, in my estimation. He instinctively senses that NATO is over. And it is

    Russia is not a strategic threat to the West. It just isn't. Its economy is too small and its people too drunk

    They might try another Crimea on the Baltics, but I doubt it. They export virtually nothing but conventional oil, which is increasingly worthless, as energy gets cheaper, because renewables, shale, etc.

    Xi Jinping's China, by contrast, is the greatest "threat" the West has faced in a couple of centuries. Worse than Nazi Germany

    All that matters is containing her (we cannot "defeat" her). And that means rock-solid alliances with close friends ensuring that we stand together, whatever. That is how you beat bullies




    Yes, even though I think his economic policies are turning into a disaster and he is obviously losing his capabilities, when it comes to foreign affairs I have a lot of grudging respect for the fact that Biden has turned out to be so fundamentally ruthless and willing to break the cosy consensus. I’d be interested to see how long Blinken stays around
    Yep. I think he is a bit senile, and foolish in some respects, but when it comes to foreign policy he has clear instincts and wise opinions: as to what is in America's interest, and he has a certain heartless brutality in seeing them done. If you want to boss a superpower, I guess that is important

    So this will kill 100,000 Afghans? So be it. So this will kill off our relationship with France for 3 years? So be it

    Etc. Not pretty, but maybe needed
    It won't kill the US-French relationship.

    The French are players. They are making massive scene out of this, so that the Americans throw them a bone in some other area.
    I'm not so sure that will happen. The Biden administration has continually sidelined Europe. I just don't think they care and don't see any EU country as a potential ally in the looming cold war against China. I wrote out my thoughts just now, the world has realised that the EU is happy to kowtow to China for fear of losing money.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    MrEd said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Former French Ambassador to the US seems pretty chilled about the whole thing. Exuding Gallic sangfroid and a sense of "meh"


    "“The US has trampled our national interest. What the US has done to our national interest is a hostile act,” he said.

    "“What we were doing with the Australians was a strategic choice and this strategic choice has been swept away not only by the Australians but also by the Americans.”

    "He said the British involvement was immaterial because they were “poodles of the Americans, as usual”."

    https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/stab-in-the-back-europe-s-fury-with-morrison-and-biden-over-aukus-submarine-deal-20210916-p58sea.html


    AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    Biden has single-handedly taken a wrecking ball to the western alliances. Putin and Xi must wondering why the hell they bothered with that amateur Trump.
    Biden has gone up, a lot, in my estimation. He instinctively senses that NATO is over. And it is

    Russia is not a strategic threat to the West. It just isn't. Its economy is too small and its people too drunk

    They might try another Crimea on the Baltics, but I doubt it. They export virtually nothing but conventional oil, which is increasingly worthless, as energy gets cheaper, because renewables, shale, etc.

    Xi Jinping's China, by contrast, is the greatest "threat" the West has faced in a couple of centuries. Worse than Nazi Germany

    All that matters is containing her (we cannot "defeat" her). And that means rock-solid alliances with close friends ensuring that we stand together, whatever. That is how you beat bullies




    Yes, even though I think his economic policies are turning into a disaster and he is obviously losing his capabilities, when it comes to foreign affairs I have a lot of grudging respect for the fact that Biden has turned out to be so fundamentally ruthless and willing to break the cosy consensus. I’d be interested to see how long Blinken stays around
    Yep. I think he is a bit senile, and foolish in some respects, but when it comes to foreign policy he has clear instincts and wise opinions: as to what is in America's interest, and he has a certain heartless brutality in seeing them done. If you want to boss a superpower, I guess that is important

    So this will kill 100,000 Afghans? So be it. So this will kill off our relationship with France for 3 years? So be it

    Etc. Not pretty, but maybe needed
    It won't kill the US-French relationship.

    The French are players. They are making massive scene out of this, so that the Americans throw them a bone in some other area.
    Fair point. And Macron has an election coming where his main threat is Le Pen. He can’t take this lying down.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 14,884

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The Commission is pushing a narrative that EU vaccine strategy has been a triumph. And how silly the media was, in spring, to point out how badly it misfired.

    I respectufully disagree

    Just because you ramp up vaccination quickly doesn't make up for a poor start.

    A short 🧵 https://t.co/ZQzQNnxYgm

    https://twitter.com/spignal/status/1438484167671549964?s=19

    Well, surely vaccination on its own is not quite the right measure. Surely it's a combination of vaccination and a return to normal life.

    And you know what, they've done fine. They were behind the US (and UK) at first, but normality returned to the EU at about the same time as the UK, and they've avoided the dreadful third wave that the US has had.

    Could they have done better? Sure. But in the general scheme of things, they've done a lot better than one would have expected six months ago, and people on the continent have not really had a noticeably better (or worse) experience than Brits or Canadians, and might even have had a better one than Americans now.

    Yes, they've really done quite well. Tho they should do "really quite well", as they have so much vax production within EU borders

    What EU bigwigs should be asking themselves is: how they managed to turn a relative triumph - THIS - into a moral disaster where they tried to reimpose a border across Ireland (without asking Ireland), interrupted vaccine shipments to friendly nations, like Oz (hence AUKUS?), and trashed an excellent, cheap, non-for-profit vaccine (AZ) which could save the world, just because Brexit (thus, probably, killing many thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands)

    The EU completely fucked up everything about the vaccine PR, because they are led by mediocre unelected fools who are sent as failures to Brussels, like Ursula.

    Hence, Brexit

    But also Government vs Politics.

    Yes, the politics and PR of the EU have been rubbish, panicky and counterproductive. No question. And that is in large part because the Commission is staffed by second division politicians, because the job isn't that interesting to people who can make it to the top of a reasonably large home country.

    But.

    The lurid predictions of February and March, that vaccinated Brits would be swanning round Europe, laughing and coughing at our benighted neighbours, didn't happen. They have opened up at roughly the same rate as us- in GDP terms, it will be a wash. I don't think anyone expected that six months ago; I remember being told (on this very site!) that I was a deluded Europhile for thinking the UK's final lead would be as small as six weeks. It's the counterpart of the speedboat-oil tanker thing; a speedboat can respond quickly, but ultimately an oil tanker carries more further.

    And.

    The AZ vaccine is a remarkable piece of science, and it's been marketed in a way that shows what bloody good eggs pure scientists are. Even at Oxford. But AZ did do a shambolic job of demonstrating how remarkable it is, and it would have been wiser to listen to and work round the concerns, rather than drowning them out by singing "Land of Hope and Glory".

    And.

    There's no escaping the numbers- in most of comparable Western Europe, national governments did a better job of keeping people safe and alive until they could be vaccinated than Westminster did.

    Yes- Brussels made a hideous mess of the politics, but they did better than OK on the government. In London, the balance went the other way. I think we've all assumed that political competence is a good marker for governmental competence- but the experience of the last few years makes that harder to justify.
    I disagree with you point about other western governments doing a better job. Frankly it’s hard to compare across nations as every country does their stats in different ways. How do you define a Covid death? Is it defined the same in France, Belgium, Holland, Germany and the U.K.? I doubt it. Excess deaths can help, but that is affected by previous years data. I don’t claim our government has been great, far from it, but with the exception of Germany, I think most Western European nations have been pretty similar in outcomes.
  • xyzxyzxyz said:

    Leon said:

    Former French Ambassador to the US seems pretty chilled about the whole thing. Exuding Gallic sangfroid and a sense of "meh"


    "“The US has trampled our national interest. What the US has done to our national interest is a hostile act,” he said.

    "“What we were doing with the Australians was a strategic choice and this strategic choice has been swept away not only by the Australians but also by the Americans.”

    "He said the British involvement was immaterial because they were “poodles of the Americans, as usual”."

    https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/stab-in-the-back-europe-s-fury-with-morrison-and-biden-over-aukus-submarine-deal-20210916-p58sea.html


    AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    He’s got a point about the poodle thing, hasn’t he?

    What’s the material benefit for the U.K. here?

    Beyond, you know, deterring that risk of Taiwanese invasion that even cider-addled toddlers are aware of.
    The wider picture and prize is the Trans Pacific partnership deal which will dwarf the EU
    Breaking: China have today lodged papers with New Zealand to join the TPP.

    If the UK join the TPP and then the EU apply we are back in the EU!
    That's not going to happen, but even if it did, it wouldn't mean anything of the sort. We already have a zero-tariff, zero-quote trade deal with the EU and nobody thinks that it means we're still in the EU.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,289
    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    MrEd said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Former French Ambassador to the US seems pretty chilled about the whole thing. Exuding Gallic sangfroid and a sense of "meh"


    "“The US has trampled our national interest. What the US has done to our national interest is a hostile act,” he said.

    "“What we were doing with the Australians was a strategic choice and this strategic choice has been swept away not only by the Australians but also by the Americans.”

    "He said the British involvement was immaterial because they were “poodles of the Americans, as usual”."

    https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/stab-in-the-back-europe-s-fury-with-morrison-and-biden-over-aukus-submarine-deal-20210916-p58sea.html


    AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    Biden has single-handedly taken a wrecking ball to the western alliances. Putin and Xi must wondering why the hell they bothered with that amateur Trump.
    Biden has gone up, a lot, in my estimation. He instinctively senses that NATO is over. And it is

    Russia is not a strategic threat to the West. It just isn't. Its economy is too small and its people too drunk

    They might try another Crimea on the Baltics, but I doubt it. They export virtually nothing but conventional oil, which is increasingly worthless, as energy gets cheaper, because renewables, shale, etc.

    Xi Jinping's China, by contrast, is the greatest "threat" the West has faced in a couple of centuries. Worse than Nazi Germany

    All that matters is containing her (we cannot "defeat" her). And that means rock-solid alliances with close friends ensuring that we stand together, whatever. That is how you beat bullies




    Yes, even though I think his economic policies are turning into a disaster and he is obviously losing his capabilities, when it comes to foreign affairs I have a lot of grudging respect for the fact that Biden has turned out to be so fundamentally ruthless and willing to break the cosy consensus. I’d be interested to see how long Blinken stays around
    Yep. I think he is a bit senile, and foolish in some respects, but when it comes to foreign policy he has clear instincts and wise opinions: as to what is in America's interest, and he has a certain heartless brutality in seeing them done. If you want to boss a superpower, I guess that is important

    So this will kill 100,000 Afghans? So be it. So this will kill off our relationship with France for 3 years? So be it

    Etc. Not pretty, but maybe needed
    It won't kill the US-French relationship.

    The French are players. They are making massive scene out of this, so that the Americans throw them a bone in some other area.
    For sure. The Great French Huff will last about 6 months. 2 years max

    It won't last long for the very good reason that the Frogs don't have much choice. They would really really like the EU to become some kind of French-led military superpower... but it ain't happening. Germany is far too hesitant (even under Merkel, and who's next?). The EU contains too many neutral powers, from Ireland to Sweden, who can all veto. How many EU national leaders would send young men and women to die, for Brussels? Not one, I suspect

    What is left for Paris if they want to play a role? - not much, and they do want a role. And they have global interests and the battle with China is quite fundamental, and they recognise that

    France will eventually cleave to AUKUS, but do it in a lofty, wanky French way, showing that they are different, still. Not unlike the way the UK behaved in the EU, to be fair
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,004
    edited September 2021
    xyzxyzxyz said:

    Leon said:

    Former French Ambassador to the US seems pretty chilled about the whole thing. Exuding Gallic sangfroid and a sense of "meh"


    "“The US has trampled our national interest. What the US has done to our national interest is a hostile act,” he said.

    "“What we were doing with the Australians was a strategic choice and this strategic choice has been swept away not only by the Australians but also by the Americans.”

    "He said the British involvement was immaterial because they were “poodles of the Americans, as usual”."

    https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/stab-in-the-back-europe-s-fury-with-morrison-and-biden-over-aukus-submarine-deal-20210916-p58sea.html


    AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    He’s got a point about the poodle thing, hasn’t he?

    What’s the material benefit for the U.K. here?

    Beyond, you know, deterring that risk of Taiwanese invasion that even cider-addled toddlers are aware of.
    The wider picture and prize is the Trans Pacific partnership deal which will dwarf the EU
    Breaking: China have today lodged papers with New Zealand to join the TPP.

    If the UK join the TPP and then the EU apply we are back in the EU!
    This highlights the surreal position NZ is in having banned Australian nuclear subs and kowtowing to Beijing

    The UK is already in the process of joining the Trans Pacific partnership and if and when the EU joined, it would be perfect as they would trade with the UK and the rest of the partnership on the same terms and we would not be back in the EU as the trading would be under a different agreement

    I did mention this last night though it is some years away
  • MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Former French Ambassador to the US seems pretty chilled about the whole thing. Exuding Gallic sangfroid and a sense of "meh"


    "“The US has trampled our national interest. What the US has done to our national interest is a hostile act,” he said.

    "“What we were doing with the Australians was a strategic choice and this strategic choice has been swept away not only by the Australians but also by the Americans.”

    "He said the British involvement was immaterial because they were “poodles of the Americans, as usual”."

    https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/stab-in-the-back-europe-s-fury-with-morrison-and-biden-over-aukus-submarine-deal-20210916-p58sea.html


    AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    He’s got a point about the poodle thing, hasn’t he?

    What’s the material benefit for the U.K. here?

    Beyond, you know, deterring that risk of Taiwanese invasion that even cider-addled toddlers are aware of.
    One of the many things idiot Remainers like you told us, was this: the USA would now side with the more-important EU, and the UK would be demoted. A sideshow

    To be fair to you I think half of elite France, including Macron, believed this bullshit, even though Leavers like me said: NO, America will always, in the end, come down on the side of her English speaking family. And so it is

    We were right, you were wrong. It happens

    As for being a poodle, no. We are certainly nothing more than the support act to America. We are the drummer. America is the lead guitar and vocalist. Australia has come in to do some keyboard stuff

    The main thing is: the band is back together

    The EU is in the audience when they expected to be on stage. AUKS
    I mean, I personally never suggested or predicted that the US would “side with the EU”, simply that in the quantum of geopolitics, Brexit made the simply U.K. less relevant to the US (and everyone else).

    Which is still true, I think.
    Maybe you need to reassess that view. The evidence is all mounting that the US wants the UK on its side and is pulling the UK out of the EU's orbit.

    Yesterday the EU became much less relevant to the world. No one looks to Berlin, Brussels or Paris for leadership. The EU has become even more insular without the UK, constantly squabbling amongst itself about the minutiae of who said what and why some country is upset at another one while the rest of the world moves on without it.

    If I were to place the turning point it wasn't Brexit, it was actually Merkel getting up on stage with Xi at Davos to denounce the US as the enemy of free trade, 2017 or 2018 iirc. From that moment onwards everyone in the world knows the German vision of the EU is an organisation that has a price. The EU can be bought and both Chinese money and Russian gas are buying EU foreign policy. The world looked on as Brussels tried to pretend otherwise but ploughed on with Nordstream 2 and continued to censor itself on Chinese aggression in HK and towards its own people for fear of losing China as a customer.

    In some ways the EU is reverting to type, it is a trading bloc, not a political entity. The issue is that it now has political power but uses it terribly because the overall aim of the EU is trade and money. Sometimes foreign policy objectives are more important than trade and money. Without the UK who is reminding them of that?
    Actually I agree with a lot of this, although I think you oversell this Germany as Russian or Chinese stooge thing.

    I think the US is making the best of a bad situation. It’s most reliable ally (ie, us) is no longer inside the EU pulling against the stuff you are complaining about.

    We’re not useless to US strategy - but we’re being used here to support US policy in Asia-Pacific*. It’s not obvious what the quid pro quo is.

    *I hate the term Indo-Pacific.

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Former French Ambassador to the US seems pretty chilled about the whole thing. Exuding Gallic sangfroid and a sense of "meh"


    "“The US has trampled our national interest. What the US has done to our national interest is a hostile act,” he said.

    "“What we were doing with the Australians was a strategic choice and this strategic choice has been swept away not only by the Australians but also by the Americans.”

    "He said the British involvement was immaterial because they were “poodles of the Americans, as usual”."

    https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/stab-in-the-back-europe-s-fury-with-morrison-and-biden-over-aukus-submarine-deal-20210916-p58sea.html


    AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    He’s got a point about the poodle thing, hasn’t he?

    What’s the material benefit for the U.K. here?

    Beyond, you know, deterring that risk of Taiwanese invasion that even cider-addled toddlers are aware of.
    One of the many things idiot Remainers like you told us, was this: the USA would now side with the more-important EU, and the UK would be demoted. A sideshow

    To be fair to you I think half of elite France, including Macron, believed this bullshit, even though Leavers like me said: NO, America will always, in the end, come down on the side of her English speaking family. And so it is

    We were right, you were wrong. It happens

    As for being a poodle, no. We are certainly nothing more than the support act to America. We are the drummer. America is the lead guitar and vocalist. Australia has come in to do some keyboard stuff

    The main thing is: the band is back together

    The EU is in the audience when they expected to be on stage. AUKS
    I mean, I personally never suggested or predicted that the US would “side with the EU”, simply that in the quantum of geopolitics, Brexit made the simply U.K. less relevant to the US (and everyone else).

    Which is still true, I think.
    Maybe you need to reassess that view. The evidence is all mounting that the US wants the UK on its side and is pulling the UK out of the EU's orbit.

    Yesterday the EU became much less relevant to the world. No one looks to Berlin, Brussels or Paris for leadership. The EU has become even more insular without the UK, constantly squabbling amongst itself about the minutiae of who said what and why some country is upset at another one while the rest of the world moves on without it.

    If I were to place the turning point it wasn't Brexit, it was actually Merkel getting up on stage with Xi at Davos to denounce the US as the enemy of free trade, 2017 or 2018 iirc. From that moment onwards everyone in the world knows the German vision of the EU is an organisation that has a price. The EU can be bought and both Chinese money and Russian gas are buying EU foreign policy. The world looked on as Brussels tried to pretend otherwise but ploughed on with Nordstream 2 and continued to censor itself on Chinese aggression in HK and towards its own people for fear of losing China as a customer.

    In some ways the EU is reverting to type, it is a trading bloc, not a political entity. The issue is that it now has political power but uses it terribly because the overall aim of the EU is trade and money. Sometimes foreign policy objectives are more important than trade and money. Without the UK who is reminding them of that?
    Actually I agree with a lot of this, although I think you oversell this Germany as Russian or Chinese stooge thing.

    I think the US is making the best of a bad situation. It’s most reliable ally (ie, us) is no longer inside the EU pulling against the stuff you are complaining about.

    We’re not useless to US strategy - but we’re being used here to support US policy in Asia-Pacific*. It’s not obvious what the quid pro quo is.

    *I hate the term Indo-Pacific.
    What need is there for a quid pro quo?

    The US's interests in the Asia Pacific region, are our interests too.

    The world is interconnected. If Taiwan falls then that is chip manufacturing used across the entire planet that has fallen. We rely upon that more than we rely upon any petty squabbling in Europe.
  • glwglw Posts: 9,535
    edited September 2021

    The lurid predictions of February and March, that vaccinated Brits would be swanning round Europe, laughing and coughing at our benighted neighbours, didn't happen. They have opened up at roughly the same rate as us- in GDP terms, it will be a wash. I don't think anyone expected that six months ago; I remember being told (on this very site!) that I was a deluded Europhile for thinking the UK's final lead would be as small as six weeks. It's the counterpart of the speedboat-oil tanker thing; a speedboat can respond quickly, but ultimately an oil tanker carries more further.

    You clearly do not understand what we were doing. It was never about having the most people vaccinated at some distant date, it was always about speed. The EU can never catch up, short of inventing time travel. To be fair lots of people make the same mistake as you.

    The UK, at great expense, bought tens of millions of days of protection for the UK population long before most other countries had barely got going. A huge number of cases were prevented and many tens of thousands of lives saved.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,288

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The Commission is pushing a narrative that EU vaccine strategy has been a triumph. And how silly the media was, in spring, to point out how badly it misfired.

    I respectufully disagree

    Just because you ramp up vaccination quickly doesn't make up for a poor start.

    A short 🧵 https://t.co/ZQzQNnxYgm

    https://twitter.com/spignal/status/1438484167671549964?s=19

    Well, surely vaccination on its own is not quite the right measure. Surely it's a combination of vaccination and a return to normal life.

    And you know what, they've done fine. They were behind the US (and UK) at first, but normality returned to the EU at about the same time as the UK, and they've avoided the dreadful third wave that the US has had.

    Could they have done better? Sure. But in the general scheme of things, they've done a lot better than one would have expected six months ago, and people on the continent have not really had a noticeably better (or worse) experience than Brits or Canadians, and might even have had a better one than Americans now.

    Yes, they've really done quite well. Tho they should do "really quite well", as they have so much vax production within EU borders

    What EU bigwigs should be asking themselves is: how they managed to turn a relative triumph - THIS - into a moral disaster where they tried to reimpose a border across Ireland (without asking Ireland), interrupted vaccine shipments to friendly nations, like Oz (hence AUKUS?), and trashed an excellent, cheap, non-for-profit vaccine (AZ) which could save the world, just because Brexit (thus, probably, killing many thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands)

    The EU completely fucked up everything about the vaccine PR, because they are led by mediocre unelected fools who are sent as failures to Brussels, like Ursula.

    Hence, Brexit

    But also Government vs Politics.

    Yes, the politics and PR of the EU have been rubbish, panicky and counterproductive. No question. And that is in large part because the Commission is staffed by second division politicians, because the job isn't that interesting to people who can make it to the top of a reasonably large home country.

    But.

    The lurid predictions of February and March, that vaccinated Brits would be swanning round Europe, laughing and coughing at our benighted neighbours, didn't happen. They have opened up at roughly the same rate as us- in GDP terms, it will be a wash. I don't think anyone expected that six months ago; I remember being told (on this very site!) that I was a deluded Europhile for thinking the UK's final lead would be as small as six weeks. It's the counterpart of the speedboat-oil tanker thing; a speedboat can respond quickly, but ultimately an oil tanker carries more further.

    And.

    The AZ vaccine is a remarkable piece of science, and it's been marketed in a way that shows what bloody good eggs pure scientists are. Even at Oxford. But AZ did do a shambolic job of demonstrating how remarkable it is, and it would have been wiser to listen to and work round the concerns, rather than drowning them out by singing "Land of Hope and Glory".

    And.

    There's no escaping the numbers- in most of comparable Western Europe, national governments did a better job of keeping people safe and alive until they could be vaccinated than Westminster did.

    Yes- Brussels made a hideous mess of the politics, but they did better than OK on the government. In London, the balance went the other way. I think we've all assumed that political competence is a good marker for governmental competence- but the experience of the last few years makes that harder to justify.
    I see AZ is not going to be used for either the boost jabs or (natuarally) the 12-15 yo jabs.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775

    Leon said:

    Former French Ambassador to the US seems pretty chilled about the whole thing. Exuding Gallic sangfroid and a sense of "meh"


    "“The US has trampled our national interest. What the US has done to our national interest is a hostile act,” he said.

    "“What we were doing with the Australians was a strategic choice and this strategic choice has been swept away not only by the Australians but also by the Americans.”

    "He said the British involvement was immaterial because they were “poodles of the Americans, as usual”."

    https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/stab-in-the-back-europe-s-fury-with-morrison-and-biden-over-aukus-submarine-deal-20210916-p58sea.html


    AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    Biden has single-handedly taken a wrecking ball to the western alliances. Putin and Xi must wondering why the hell they bothered with that amateur Trump.
    The cheese eating surrender monkeys have never been critical to the western alliances. And the 21st century's threat is in the Pacific not the west anyway.

    The time for an east/west mindset is over. We need to contain China, that needs collective transpacific and transatlantic co-ordination. It means putting petty geography behind us. And anyone so obsessed with their tiny corner of the world that they can't see past that is not the ally we need right now.
    From a trade point of view, geography is still not petty. We have not yet transcended distance effects when it comes to trading efficiency.
    When it comes to cheese-eating surrender monkeys, the terms stems, I think, from France's refusal to join the Iraq calamity. If I were French I wold lean quite heavily into that label, because France was right.
  • The Dutch are still speaking to us......

    Signing on board @hms_argyll during @DSEI_event United Kingdom-Netherlands collaborative program arrangement future amphibious operatíons with @VAdmNickHine. Underlines relevance of almost (in 2023!) 50 years UK-NL amphibious cooperation! @RoyalNavy @Kon_Marine @Defensie_DMO @Defensie

    https://twitter.com/ariejandewaard/status/1438201937460092930?s=20
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    Leon said:

    Former French Ambassador to the US seems pretty chilled about the whole thing. Exuding Gallic sangfroid and a sense of "meh"


    "“The US has trampled our national interest. What the US has done to our national interest is a hostile act,” he said.

    "“What we were doing with the Australians was a strategic choice and this strategic choice has been swept away not only by the Australians but also by the Americans.”

    "He said the British involvement was immaterial because they were “poodles of the Americans, as usual”."

    https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/stab-in-the-back-europe-s-fury-with-morrison-and-biden-over-aukus-submarine-deal-20210916-p58sea.html


    AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    Biden has single-handedly taken a wrecking ball to the western alliances. Putin and Xi must wondering why the hell they bothered with that amateur Trump.
    The cheese eating surrender monkeys have never been critical to the western alliances. And the 21st century's threat is in the Pacific not the west anyway.

    The time for an east/west mindset is over. We need to contain China, that needs collective transpacific and transatlantic co-ordination. It means putting petty geography behind us. And anyone so obsessed with their tiny corner of the world that they can't see past that is not the ally we need right now.
    Dialling down the rhetoric, it's worth remembering that France hasn't always been a member of NATO, and have rarely joined US-led, but multinational forces - whether in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.

    I am sure that in time other countries will join this grouping in time. But by starting as they have done, the Americans have ensured that:

    (a) they are the top dog, and they set the strategic agenda. No need to negotiate over who gets the fancy plaque.
    and
    (b) they've stolen a (massively overbudget) arms order from France

    I also think (as I've said before), that they will really crack down on freeloading (hello Canada and Germany!). The new grouping will have treaty enforced spending on the miltary.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Leon said:

    Former French Ambassador to the US seems pretty chilled about the whole thing. Exuding Gallic sangfroid and a sense of "meh"


    "“The US has trampled our national interest. What the US has done to our national interest is a hostile act,” he said.

    "“What we were doing with the Australians was a strategic choice and this strategic choice has been swept away not only by the Australians but also by the Americans.”

    "He said the British involvement was immaterial because they were “poodles of the Americans, as usual”."

    https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/stab-in-the-back-europe-s-fury-with-morrison-and-biden-over-aukus-submarine-deal-20210916-p58sea.html


    AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    He’s got a point about the poodle thing, hasn’t he?
    If we're a poodle why did Biden check with Johnson before agreeing Morrison's request?
    Pre-existing tech sharing agreements.

    Poodle is too strong a word, maybe, but that Atlantic article you posted noted that this deal basically permanently locks U.K. into US policy in the Pacific.

    Anyway, I’m trying to listen to a podcast about it how it was Rishikesh not Yoko that created a split between Lennon and McCartney, so I’ll leave you guys to it.
    Bit hard to blame Rishi for that as well!
  • MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Former French Ambassador to the US seems pretty chilled about the whole thing. Exuding Gallic sangfroid and a sense of "meh"


    "“The US has trampled our national interest. What the US has done to our national interest is a hostile act,” he said.

    "“What we were doing with the Australians was a strategic choice and this strategic choice has been swept away not only by the Australians but also by the Americans.”

    "He said the British involvement was immaterial because they were “poodles of the Americans, as usual”."

    https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/stab-in-the-back-europe-s-fury-with-morrison-and-biden-over-aukus-submarine-deal-20210916-p58sea.html


    AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    He’s got a point about the poodle thing, hasn’t he?

    What’s the material benefit for the U.K. here?

    Beyond, you know, deterring that risk of Taiwanese invasion that even cider-addled toddlers are aware of.
    One of the many things idiot Remainers like you told us, was this: the USA would now side with the more-important EU, and the UK would be demoted. A sideshow

    To be fair to you I think half of elite France, including Macron, believed this bullshit, even though Leavers like me said: NO, America will always, in the end, come down on the side of her English speaking family. And so it is

    We were right, you were wrong. It happens

    As for being a poodle, no. We are certainly nothing more than the support act to America. We are the drummer. America is the lead guitar and vocalist. Australia has come in to do some keyboard stuff

    The main thing is: the band is back together

    The EU is in the audience when they expected to be on stage. AUKS
    I mean, I personally never suggested or predicted that the US would “side with the EU”, simply that in the quantum of geopolitics, Brexit made the simply U.K. less relevant to the US (and everyone else).

    Which is still true, I think.
    Maybe you need to reassess that view. The evidence is all mounting that the US wants the UK on its side and is pulling the UK out of the EU's orbit.

    Yesterday the EU became much less relevant to the world. No one looks to Berlin, Brussels or Paris for leadership. The EU has become even more insular without the UK, constantly squabbling amongst itself about the minutiae of who said what and why some country is upset at another one while the rest of the world moves on without it.

    If I were to place the turning point it wasn't Brexit, it was actually Merkel getting up on stage with Xi at Davos to denounce the US as the enemy of free trade, 2017 or 2018 iirc. From that moment onwards everyone in the world knows the German vision of the EU is an organisation that has a price. The EU can be bought and both Chinese money and Russian gas are buying EU foreign policy. The world looked on as Brussels tried to pretend otherwise but ploughed on with Nordstream 2 and continued to censor itself on Chinese aggression in HK and towards its own people for fear of losing China as a customer.

    In some ways the EU is reverting to type, it is a trading bloc, not a political entity. The issue is that it now has political power but uses it terribly because the overall aim of the EU is trade and money. Sometimes foreign policy objectives are more important than trade and money. Without the UK who is reminding them of that?
    Actually I agree with a lot of this, although I think you oversell this Germany as Russian or Chinese stooge thing.

    I think the US is making the best of a bad situation. It’s most reliable ally (ie, us) is no longer inside the EU pulling against the stuff you are complaining about.

    We’re not useless to US strategy - but we’re being used here to support US policy in Asia-Pacific*. It’s not obvious what the quid pro quo is.

    *I hate the term Indo-Pacific.
    This kind of negative case for being in the EU never made sense to me. What's the point of being in it just to stymie the others? Let them stymie each other if that's what you think of it.

    The 27 certainly don't all see eye to eye. The Brexit negotiations helped them for a while by giving them an artificial sense of unity while we were not clear about our strategy.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    The Dutch are still speaking to us......

    Signing on board @hms_argyll during @DSEI_event United Kingdom-Netherlands collaborative program arrangement future amphibious operatíons with @VAdmNickHine. Underlines relevance of almost (in 2023!) 50 years UK-NL amphibious cooperation! @RoyalNavy @Kon_Marine @Defensie_DMO @Defensie

    https://twitter.com/ariejandewaard/status/1438201937460092930?s=20

    Of course they are. In fact, I suspect this arrangement will actually end up improving relations between the UK and many EU countries. Why? Because if this looks like it'll have teeth, you'll want to be a part of it.
  • FossFoss Posts: 694
    edited September 2021
    Farooq said:

    Leon said:

    Former French Ambassador to the US seems pretty chilled about the whole thing. Exuding Gallic sangfroid and a sense of "meh"


    "“The US has trampled our national interest. What the US has done to our national interest is a hostile act,” he said.

    "“What we were doing with the Australians was a strategic choice and this strategic choice has been swept away not only by the Australians but also by the Americans.”

    "He said the British involvement was immaterial because they were “poodles of the Americans, as usual”."

    https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/stab-in-the-back-europe-s-fury-with-morrison-and-biden-over-aukus-submarine-deal-20210916-p58sea.html


    AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    Biden has single-handedly taken a wrecking ball to the western alliances. Putin and Xi must wondering why the hell they bothered with that amateur Trump.
    The cheese eating surrender monkeys have never been critical to the western alliances. And the 21st century's threat is in the Pacific not the west anyway.

    The time for an east/west mindset is over. We need to contain China, that needs collective transpacific and transatlantic co-ordination. It means putting petty geography behind us. And anyone so obsessed with their tiny corner of the world that they can't see past that is not the ally we need right now.
    From a trade point of view, geography is still not petty. We have not yet transcended distance effects when it comes to trading efficiency.
    When it comes to cheese-eating surrender monkeys, the terms stems, I think, from France's refusal to join the Iraq calamity. If I were French I wold lean quite heavily into that label, because France was right.
    Cheese-Eating-Surrender-Monkeys comes from The Simpsons.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812
    edited September 2021
    One last thing from me.

    NZ is not going to be “China’s client”.

    I have been a “China-skeptic” for many, many years, and it is troubling to me how well China has infiltrated certain aspects of NZ politics*, but to be honest they did pretty well the same thing to the U.K. at least in the Osborne era.

    NZ has been a semi-detached, semi-neutral member of the Western Alliance since the 80s.
    We will keep riding that bus until forced to make a choice…but if we are absolutely forced to make a choice, we are not going with China.

    *My tutor in East Asian geopolitics later joined the National (ie Conservative) Party and was unmasked as a Chinese spy by the FT.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Former French Ambassador to the US seems pretty chilled about the whole thing. Exuding Gallic sangfroid and a sense of "meh"


    "“The US has trampled our national interest. What the US has done to our national interest is a hostile act,” he said.

    "“What we were doing with the Australians was a strategic choice and this strategic choice has been swept away not only by the Australians but also by the Americans.”

    "He said the British involvement was immaterial because they were “poodles of the Americans, as usual”."

    https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/stab-in-the-back-europe-s-fury-with-morrison-and-biden-over-aukus-submarine-deal-20210916-p58sea.html


    AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    He’s got a point about the poodle thing, hasn’t he?

    What’s the material benefit for the U.K. here?

    Beyond, you know, deterring that risk of Taiwanese invasion that even cider-addled toddlers are aware of.
    One of the many things idiot Remainers like you told us, was this: the USA would now side with the more-important EU, and the UK would be demoted. A sideshow

    To be fair to you I think half of elite France, including Macron, believed this bullshit, even though Leavers like me said: NO, America will always, in the end, come down on the side of her English speaking family. And so it is

    We were right, you were wrong. It happens

    As for being a poodle, no. We are certainly nothing more than the support act to America. We are the drummer. America is the lead guitar and vocalist. Australia has come in to do some keyboard stuff

    The main thing is: the band is back together

    The EU is in the audience when they expected to be on stage. AUKS
    I mean, I personally never suggested or predicted that the US would “side with the EU”, simply that in the quantum of geopolitics, Brexit made the simply U.K. less relevant to the US (and everyone else).

    Which is still true, I think.
    Maybe you need to reassess that view. The evidence is all mounting that the US wants the UK on its side and is pulling the UK out of the EU's orbit.

    Yesterday the EU became much less relevant to the world. No one looks to Berlin, Brussels or Paris for leadership. The EU has become even more insular without the UK, constantly squabbling amongst itself about the minutiae of who said what and why some country is upset at another one while the rest of the world moves on without it.

    If I were to place the turning point it wasn't Brexit, it was actually Merkel getting up on stage with Xi at Davos to denounce the US as the enemy of free trade, 2017 or 2018 iirc. From that moment onwards everyone in the world knows the German vision of the EU is an organisation that has a price. The EU can be bought and both Chinese money and Russian gas are buying EU foreign policy. The world looked on as Brussels tried to pretend otherwise but ploughed on with Nordstream 2 and continued to censor itself on Chinese aggression in HK and towards its own people for fear of losing China as a customer.

    In some ways the EU is reverting to type, it is a trading bloc, not a political entity. The issue is that it now has political power but uses it terribly because the overall aim of the EU is trade and money. Sometimes foreign policy objectives are more important than trade and money. Without the UK who is reminding them of that?
    Actually I agree with a lot of this, although I think you oversell this Germany as Russian or Chinese stooge thing.

    I think the US is making the best of a bad situation. It’s most reliable ally (ie, us) is no longer inside the EU pulling against the stuff you are complaining about.

    We’re not useless to US strategy - but we’re being used here to support US policy in Asia-Pacific*. It’s not obvious what the quid pro quo is.

    *I hate the term Indo-Pacific.
    The last time the US and UK aligned foreign policy objectives as closely as this we consigned the USSR to the dustbin of history. That's the long term objective and pay off for this move. It may not have any immediate benefits (and like you I'm not convinced that this will have any real bearing on trade with APAC other than selling Australia £5-7bn worth of submarine parts) but I'm of the opinion that there will be tangible long term benefits to finally fighting the cold war with China, even if we're starting 8-10 years too late.
  • Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    MrEd said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Former French Ambassador to the US seems pretty chilled about the whole thing. Exuding Gallic sangfroid and a sense of "meh"


    "“The US has trampled our national interest. What the US has done to our national interest is a hostile act,” he said.

    "“What we were doing with the Australians was a strategic choice and this strategic choice has been swept away not only by the Australians but also by the Americans.”

    "He said the British involvement was immaterial because they were “poodles of the Americans, as usual”."

    https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/stab-in-the-back-europe-s-fury-with-morrison-and-biden-over-aukus-submarine-deal-20210916-p58sea.html


    AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    Biden has single-handedly taken a wrecking ball to the western alliances. Putin and Xi must wondering why the hell they bothered with that amateur Trump.
    Biden has gone up, a lot, in my estimation. He instinctively senses that NATO is over. And it is

    Russia is not a strategic threat to the West. It just isn't. Its economy is too small and its people too drunk

    They might try another Crimea on the Baltics, but I doubt it. They export virtually nothing but conventional oil, which is increasingly worthless, as energy gets cheaper, because renewables, shale, etc.

    Xi Jinping's China, by contrast, is the greatest "threat" the West has faced in a couple of centuries. Worse than Nazi Germany

    All that matters is containing her (we cannot "defeat" her). And that means rock-solid alliances with close friends ensuring that we stand together, whatever. That is how you beat bullies




    Yes, even though I think his economic policies are turning into a disaster and he is obviously losing his capabilities, when it comes to foreign affairs I have a lot of grudging respect for the fact that Biden has turned out to be so fundamentally ruthless and willing to break the cosy consensus. I’d be interested to see how long Blinken stays around
    Yep. I think he is a bit senile, and foolish in some respects, but when it comes to foreign policy he has clear instincts and wise opinions: as to what is in America's interest, and he has a certain heartless brutality in seeing them done. If you want to boss a superpower, I guess that is important

    So this will kill 100,000 Afghans? So be it. So this will kill off our relationship with France for 3 years? So be it

    Etc. Not pretty, but maybe needed
    It won't kill the US-French relationship.

    The French are players. They are making massive scene out of this, so that the Americans throw them a bone in some other area.
    For sure. The Great French Huff will last about 6 months. 2 years max

    It won't last long for the very good reason that the Frogs don't have much choice. They would really really like the EU to become some kind of French-led military superpower... but it ain't happening. Germany is far too hesitant (even under Merkel, and who's next?). The EU contains too many neutral powers, from Ireland to Sweden, who can all veto. How many EU national leaders would send young men and women to die, for Brussels? Not one, I suspect

    What is left for Paris if they want to play a role? - not much, and they do want a role. And they have global interests and the battle with China is quite fundamental, and they recognise that

    France will eventually cleave to AUKUS, but do it in a lofty, wanky French way, showing that they are different, still. Not unlike the way the UK behaved in the EU, to be fair
    You misread the French.

    The French don't want the EU to become some military superpower to send young adults to die for Brussels. That's not what Paris is about.

    The French want the EU to spend more on their military so that French companies can get the contracts for that. They want German cash to be spent in French companies to build European forces. Whether those forces ever get used or not is incidental, they're trying to get customers.

    This is a Military Industrial Complex being exported across Europe to feed the French economy, just like they were seeking to sell subs to the Aussies.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Former French Ambassador to the US seems pretty chilled about the whole thing. Exuding Gallic sangfroid and a sense of "meh"


    "“The US has trampled our national interest. What the US has done to our national interest is a hostile act,” he said.

    "“What we were doing with the Australians was a strategic choice and this strategic choice has been swept away not only by the Australians but also by the Americans.”

    "He said the British involvement was immaterial because they were “poodles of the Americans, as usual”."

    https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/stab-in-the-back-europe-s-fury-with-morrison-and-biden-over-aukus-submarine-deal-20210916-p58sea.html


    AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    He’s got a point about the poodle thing, hasn’t he?

    What’s the material benefit for the U.K. here?

    Beyond, you know, deterring that risk of Taiwanese invasion that even cider-addled toddlers are aware of.
    One of the many things idiot Remainers like you told us, was this: the USA would now side with the more-important EU, and the UK would be demoted. A sideshow

    To be fair to you I think half of elite France, including Macron, believed this bullshit, even though Leavers like me said: NO, America will always, in the end, come down on the side of her English speaking family. And so it is

    We were right, you were wrong. It happens

    As for being a poodle, no. We are certainly nothing more than the support act to America. We are the drummer. America is the lead guitar and vocalist. Australia has come in to do some keyboard stuff

    The main thing is: the band is back together

    The EU is in the audience when they expected to be on stage. AUKS
    I mean, I personally never suggested or predicted that the US would “side with the EU”, simply that in the quantum of geopolitics, Brexit made the simply U.K. less relevant to the US (and everyone else).

    Which is still true, I think.
    Maybe you need to reassess that view. The evidence is all mounting that the US wants the UK on its side and is pulling the UK out of the EU's orbit.

    Yesterday the EU became much less relevant to the world. No one looks to Berlin, Brussels or Paris for leadership. The EU has become even more insular without the UK, constantly squabbling amongst itself about the minutiae of who said what and why some country is upset at another one while the rest of the world moves on without it.

    If I were to place the turning point it wasn't Brexit, it was actually Merkel getting up on stage with Xi at Davos to denounce the US as the enemy of free trade, 2017 or 2018 iirc. From that moment onwards everyone in the world knows the German vision of the EU is an organisation that has a price. The EU can be bought and both Chinese money and Russian gas are buying EU foreign policy. The world looked on as Brussels tried to pretend otherwise but ploughed on with Nordstream 2 and continued to censor itself on Chinese aggression in HK and towards its own people for fear of losing China as a customer.

    In some ways the EU is reverting to type, it is a trading bloc, not a political entity. The issue is that it now has political power but uses it terribly because the overall aim of the EU is trade and money. Sometimes foreign policy objectives are more important than trade and money. Without the UK who is reminding them of that?
    Actually I agree with a lot of this, although I think you oversell this Germany as Russian or Chinese stooge thing.

    I think the US is making the best of a bad situation. It’s most reliable ally (ie, us) is no longer inside the EU pulling against the stuff you are complaining about.

    We’re not useless to US strategy - but we’re being used here to support US policy in Asia-Pacific*. It’s not obvious what the quid pro quo is.

    *I hate the term Indo-Pacific.
    This kind of negative case for being in the EU never made sense to me. What's the point of being in it just to stymie the others? Let them stymie each other if that's what you think of it.

    The 27 certainly don't all see eye to eye. The Brexit negotiations helped them for a while by giving them an artificial sense of unity while we were not clear about our strategy.
    That is very true.
  • RattersRatters Posts: 756
    edited September 2021
    Leon said:

    France still taking this REALLY well

    "After calling the Biden administration’s failure to include France in the national security pact with the United Kingdom and Australia a “stab in the back,” French officials on Thursday canceled a gala at their Washington embassy, a new report says.

    "French officials canceled the Friday affair, which was set to commemorate the “240th Anniversary of the Battle of the Capes” at the embassy and on a French frigate in Baltimore, Maryland, according to the New York Times.

    "The cancellation comes one day after French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian called the newly announced AUKUS nuclear submarine pact “a stab in the back” to the country. "

    https://nypost.com/2021/09/16/france-cancels-dc-gala-after-being-left-out-of-aukus-pact/?utm_source=twitter_sitebuttons&utm_medium=site buttons&utm_campaign=site buttons

    Putting aside petty rivalries, I can see why France is very irritated. It’s not just the money, it’s the fact that one of its major new independent military contracts/alliances has been pulled firmly into the Anglosphere.

    France wants a global place in the world, and does pull its weight in its spending and its activities in its former African colonies in particular. But its closest military ally remains the UK, which must be painful to admit. It would prefer Germany, Italy or Spain, but they either disinterested, useless or too closely aligned with Russia/China for France’s liking.

    It leaves France in a difficult situation. If I were Biden or Johnson, I would find a way of offering an olive branch in some other regard on the military front. We don’t want France aligning with Germany on such matters.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    Foss said:

    Farooq said:

    Leon said:

    Former French Ambassador to the US seems pretty chilled about the whole thing. Exuding Gallic sangfroid and a sense of "meh"


    "“The US has trampled our national interest. What the US has done to our national interest is a hostile act,” he said.

    "“What we were doing with the Australians was a strategic choice and this strategic choice has been swept away not only by the Australians but also by the Americans.”

    "He said the British involvement was immaterial because they were “poodles of the Americans, as usual”."

    https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/stab-in-the-back-europe-s-fury-with-morrison-and-biden-over-aukus-submarine-deal-20210916-p58sea.html


    AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    Biden has single-handedly taken a wrecking ball to the western alliances. Putin and Xi must wondering why the hell they bothered with that amateur Trump.
    The cheese eating surrender monkeys have never been critical to the western alliances. And the 21st century's threat is in the Pacific not the west anyway.

    The time for an east/west mindset is over. We need to contain China, that needs collective transpacific and transatlantic co-ordination. It means putting petty geography behind us. And anyone so obsessed with their tiny corner of the world that they can't see past that is not the ally we need right now.
    From a trade point of view, geography is still not petty. We have not yet transcended distance effects when it comes to trading efficiency.
    When it comes to cheese-eating surrender monkeys, the terms stems, I think, from France's refusal to join the Iraq calamity. If I were French I wold lean quite heavily into that label, because France was right.
    Cheese-Eating-Surrender-Monkeys comes from The Simpsons.
    Thanks. I hope it's fair to say that the phrase increased in popularity after 2003. I certainly remember hearing it a lot around then.
  • MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Former French Ambassador to the US seems pretty chilled about the whole thing. Exuding Gallic sangfroid and a sense of "meh"


    "“The US has trampled our national interest. What the US has done to our national interest is a hostile act,” he said.

    "“What we were doing with the Australians was a strategic choice and this strategic choice has been swept away not only by the Australians but also by the Americans.”

    "He said the British involvement was immaterial because they were “poodles of the Americans, as usual”."

    https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/stab-in-the-back-europe-s-fury-with-morrison-and-biden-over-aukus-submarine-deal-20210916-p58sea.html


    AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    He’s got a point about the poodle thing, hasn’t he?

    What’s the material benefit for the U.K. here?

    Beyond, you know, deterring that risk of Taiwanese invasion that even cider-addled toddlers are aware of.
    One of the many things idiot Remainers like you told us, was this: the USA would now side with the more-important EU, and the UK would be demoted. A sideshow

    To be fair to you I think half of elite France, including Macron, believed this bullshit, even though Leavers like me said: NO, America will always, in the end, come down on the side of her English speaking family. And so it is

    We were right, you were wrong. It happens

    As for being a poodle, no. We are certainly nothing more than the support act to America. We are the drummer. America is the lead guitar and vocalist. Australia has come in to do some keyboard stuff

    The main thing is: the band is back together

    The EU is in the audience when they expected to be on stage. AUKS
    I mean, I personally never suggested or predicted that the US would “side with the EU”, simply that in the quantum of geopolitics, Brexit made the simply U.K. less relevant to the US (and everyone else).

    Which is still true, I think.
    Maybe you need to reassess that view. The evidence is all mounting that the US wants the UK on its side and is pulling the UK out of the EU's orbit.

    Yesterday the EU became much less relevant to the world. No one looks to Berlin, Brussels or Paris for leadership. The EU has become even more insular without the UK, constantly squabbling amongst itself about the minutiae of who said what and why some country is upset at another one while the rest of the world moves on without it.

    If I were to place the turning point it wasn't Brexit, it was actually Merkel getting up on stage with Xi at Davos to denounce the US as the enemy of free trade, 2017 or 2018 iirc. From that moment onwards everyone in the world knows the German vision of the EU is an organisation that has a price. The EU can be bought and both Chinese money and Russian gas are buying EU foreign policy. The world looked on as Brussels tried to pretend otherwise but ploughed on with Nordstream 2 and continued to censor itself on Chinese aggression in HK and towards its own people for fear of losing China as a customer.

    In some ways the EU is reverting to type, it is a trading bloc, not a political entity. The issue is that it now has political power but uses it terribly because the overall aim of the EU is trade and money. Sometimes foreign policy objectives are more important than trade and money. Without the UK who is reminding them of that?
    Actually I agree with a lot of this, although I think you oversell this Germany as Russian or Chinese stooge thing.

    I think the US is making the best of a bad situation. It’s most reliable ally (ie, us) is no longer inside the EU pulling against the stuff you are complaining about.

    We’re not useless to US strategy - but we’re being used here to support US policy in Asia-Pacific*. It’s not obvious what the quid pro quo is.

    *I hate the term Indo-Pacific.
    This kind of negative case for being in the EU never made sense to me. What's the point of being in it just to stymie the others? Let them stymie each other if that's what you think of it.

    The 27 certainly don't all see eye to eye. The Brexit negotiations helped them for a while by giving them an artificial sense of unity while we were not clear about our strategy.
    The report on the BBC has just commented that most EU countries are content with AUKUS
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    MrEd said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Former French Ambassador to the US seems pretty chilled about the whole thing. Exuding Gallic sangfroid and a sense of "meh"


    "“The US has trampled our national interest. What the US has done to our national interest is a hostile act,” he said.

    "“What we were doing with the Australians was a strategic choice and this strategic choice has been swept away not only by the Australians but also by the Americans.”

    "He said the British involvement was immaterial because they were “poodles of the Americans, as usual”."

    https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/stab-in-the-back-europe-s-fury-with-morrison-and-biden-over-aukus-submarine-deal-20210916-p58sea.html


    AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    Biden has single-handedly taken a wrecking ball to the western alliances. Putin and Xi must wondering why the hell they bothered with that amateur Trump.
    Biden has gone up, a lot, in my estimation. He instinctively senses that NATO is over. And it is

    Russia is not a strategic threat to the West. It just isn't. Its economy is too small and its people too drunk

    They might try another Crimea on the Baltics, but I doubt it. They export virtually nothing but conventional oil, which is increasingly worthless, as energy gets cheaper, because renewables, shale, etc.

    Xi Jinping's China, by contrast, is the greatest "threat" the West has faced in a couple of centuries. Worse than Nazi Germany

    All that matters is containing her (we cannot "defeat" her). And that means rock-solid alliances with close friends ensuring that we stand together, whatever. That is how you beat bullies




    Yes, even though I think his economic policies are turning into a disaster and he is obviously losing his capabilities, when it comes to foreign affairs I have a lot of grudging respect for the fact that Biden has turned out to be so fundamentally ruthless and willing to break the cosy consensus. I’d be interested to see how long Blinken stays around
    Yep. I think he is a bit senile, and foolish in some respects, but when it comes to foreign policy he has clear instincts and wise opinions: as to what is in America's interest, and he has a certain heartless brutality in seeing them done. If you want to boss a superpower, I guess that is important

    So this will kill 100,000 Afghans? So be it. So this will kill off our relationship with France for 3 years? So be it

    Etc. Not pretty, but maybe needed
    It won't kill the US-French relationship.

    The French are players. They are making massive scene out of this, so that the Americans throw them a bone in some other area.
    I'm not so sure that will happen. The Biden administration has continually sidelined Europe. I just don't think they care and don't see any EU country as a potential ally in the looming cold war against China. I wrote out my thoughts just now, the world has realised that the EU is happy to kowtow to China for fear of losing money.
    I think you're wrong on this. For a start, I think it would be a catastrophic mistake to cleave the Western European democracies (most of whom don't really want to "kowtow" to China) off from the Anglosphere.

    Re the French, I'm thinking more of them getting US support for a French candidate to be next General Secretary of the United Nations, that kind of thing. It's the kind of quid pro quo that the French are very good at getting.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Former French Ambassador to the US seems pretty chilled about the whole thing. Exuding Gallic sangfroid and a sense of "meh"


    "“The US has trampled our national interest. What the US has done to our national interest is a hostile act,” he said.

    "“What we were doing with the Australians was a strategic choice and this strategic choice has been swept away not only by the Australians but also by the Americans.”

    "He said the British involvement was immaterial because they were “poodles of the Americans, as usual”."

    https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/stab-in-the-back-europe-s-fury-with-morrison-and-biden-over-aukus-submarine-deal-20210916-p58sea.html


    AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    He’s got a point about the poodle thing, hasn’t he?

    What’s the material benefit for the U.K. here?

    Beyond, you know, deterring that risk of Taiwanese invasion that even cider-addled toddlers are aware of.
    One of the many things idiot Remainers like you told us, was this: the USA would now side with the more-important EU, and the UK would be demoted. A sideshow

    To be fair to you I think half of elite France, including Macron, believed this bullshit, even though Leavers like me said: NO, America will always, in the end, come down on the side of her English speaking family. And so it is

    We were right, you were wrong. It happens

    As for being a poodle, no. We are certainly nothing more than the support act to America. We are the drummer. America is the lead guitar and vocalist. Australia has come in to do some keyboard stuff

    The main thing is: the band is back together

    The EU is in the audience when they expected to be on stage. AUKS
    I mean, I personally never suggested or predicted that the US would “side with the EU”, simply that in the quantum of geopolitics, Brexit made the simply U.K. less relevant to the US (and everyone else).

    Which is still true, I think.
    Not on this week's evidence
    Not really.
    One day a PB Remoaner - williamglenn apart, PBUH - will fess up and say "OK I got this totally fucking wrong"

    Brexiteers like me happily admit we were clueless on shit like the Irish border, and should have thought a lot harder

    You will grow, spiritually, when you admit your geopolitical errors. Jeez. You're not alone. Macron, not a stupid man, just made a howler for the generations. He trusted perfidious Albion, the stab-in-the-back Aussies, and the arrogant Anglo-Saxon Americans: not to band together and tell him to do one
    On the subject of getting things wrong I confess I am totally surprised by the fact that at this stage of the pandemic we have an all time job vacancies high. I would have predicted exactly the opposite.

    My powers of prediction are superb, until it comes to predicting the future.
    It’s always dangerous to make predictions, especially about the future
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    xyzxyzxyz said:

    Leon said:

    Former French Ambassador to the US seems pretty chilled about the whole thing. Exuding Gallic sangfroid and a sense of "meh"


    "“The US has trampled our national interest. What the US has done to our national interest is a hostile act,” he said.

    "“What we were doing with the Australians was a strategic choice and this strategic choice has been swept away not only by the Australians but also by the Americans.”

    "He said the British involvement was immaterial because they were “poodles of the Americans, as usual”."

    https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/stab-in-the-back-europe-s-fury-with-morrison-and-biden-over-aukus-submarine-deal-20210916-p58sea.html


    AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    He’s got a point about the poodle thing, hasn’t he?

    What’s the material benefit for the U.K. here?

    Beyond, you know, deterring that risk of Taiwanese invasion that even cider-addled toddlers are aware of.
    The wider picture and prize is the Trans Pacific partnership deal which will dwarf the EU
    Breaking: China have today lodged papers with New Zealand to join the TPP.

    If the UK join the TPP and then the EU apply we are back in the EU!
    The EU is no going to join the TPP. Indeed, your proposition makes no sense.

    Even if the EU did join the TPP (which they won't), then we wouldn't be back in the EU. All that would be the case would be that we were both members of a free trade group. (In fact, as dispute resolution would move to the TPP, this would be a win-win for the UK.)

    But the EU won't join the TPP. And as the TPP isn't a customs union, they EU won't enter into a free trade agreement with them either.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,289

    One last thing from me.

    NZ is not going to be “China’s client”.

    I have been a “China-skeptic” for many, many years, and it is troubling to me how well China has infiltrated certain aspects of NZ politics*, but to be honest they did pretty well the same thing to the U.K. at least in the Osborne era.

    NZ has been a semi-detached, semi-neutral member of the Western Alliance since the 80s.
    We will keep riding that bus until forced to make a choice…but if we are absolutely forced to make a choice, we are not going with China.

    *My tutor in East Asian geopolitics later joined the National (ie Conservative) Party and was unmasked as a Chinese spy by the FT.

    You are a Kiwi. You know your country

    My sense is that ultimately, if it came down to it, NZ would side with AUSUK and the other western liberal democracies. It is just a particularly painful choice to make, for an isolated economy so dependant on Chinese business

    But look at the way China has reacted to AUSUK. "Because you have made this choice, Australia, your soldiers will be first to die and you are the first target of our missiles"

    This is the reaction of a hideous bully. That is Xi's China. We all have to stand together and tell them to fuck off
  • CatManCatMan Posts: 2,722
    Farooq said:

    Foss said:

    Farooq said:

    Leon said:

    Former French Ambassador to the US seems pretty chilled about the whole thing. Exuding Gallic sangfroid and a sense of "meh"


    "“The US has trampled our national interest. What the US has done to our national interest is a hostile act,” he said.

    "“What we were doing with the Australians was a strategic choice and this strategic choice has been swept away not only by the Australians but also by the Americans.”

    "He said the British involvement was immaterial because they were “poodles of the Americans, as usual”."

    https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/stab-in-the-back-europe-s-fury-with-morrison-and-biden-over-aukus-submarine-deal-20210916-p58sea.html


    AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    Biden has single-handedly taken a wrecking ball to the western alliances. Putin and Xi must wondering why the hell they bothered with that amateur Trump.
    The cheese eating surrender monkeys have never been critical to the western alliances. And the 21st century's threat is in the Pacific not the west anyway.

    The time for an east/west mindset is over. We need to contain China, that needs collective transpacific and transatlantic co-ordination. It means putting petty geography behind us. And anyone so obsessed with their tiny corner of the world that they can't see past that is not the ally we need right now.
    From a trade point of view, geography is still not petty. We have not yet transcended distance effects when it comes to trading efficiency.
    When it comes to cheese-eating surrender monkeys, the terms stems, I think, from France's refusal to join the Iraq calamity. If I were French I wold lean quite heavily into that label, because France was right.
    Cheese-Eating-Surrender-Monkeys comes from The Simpsons.
    Thanks. I hope it's fair to say that the phrase increased in popularity after 2003. I certainly remember hearing it a lot around then.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_fries
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    MrEd said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Former French Ambassador to the US seems pretty chilled about the whole thing. Exuding Gallic sangfroid and a sense of "meh"


    "“The US has trampled our national interest. What the US has done to our national interest is a hostile act,” he said.

    "“What we were doing with the Australians was a strategic choice and this strategic choice has been swept away not only by the Australians but also by the Americans.”

    "He said the British involvement was immaterial because they were “poodles of the Americans, as usual”."

    https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/stab-in-the-back-europe-s-fury-with-morrison-and-biden-over-aukus-submarine-deal-20210916-p58sea.html


    AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    Biden has single-handedly taken a wrecking ball to the western alliances. Putin and Xi must wondering why the hell they bothered with that amateur Trump.
    Biden has gone up, a lot, in my estimation. He instinctively senses that NATO is over. And it is

    Russia is not a strategic threat to the West. It just isn't. Its economy is too small and its people too drunk

    They might try another Crimea on the Baltics, but I doubt it. They export virtually nothing but conventional oil, which is increasingly worthless, as energy gets cheaper, because renewables, shale, etc.

    Xi Jinping's China, by contrast, is the greatest "threat" the West has faced in a couple of centuries. Worse than Nazi Germany

    All that matters is containing her (we cannot "defeat" her). And that means rock-solid alliances with close friends ensuring that we stand together, whatever. That is how you beat bullies




    Yes, even though I think his economic policies are turning into a disaster and he is obviously losing his capabilities, when it comes to foreign affairs I have a lot of grudging respect for the fact that Biden has turned out to be so fundamentally ruthless and willing to break the cosy consensus. I’d be interested to see how long Blinken stays around
    Yep. I think he is a bit senile, and foolish in some respects, but when it comes to foreign policy he has clear instincts and wise opinions: as to what is in America's interest, and he has a certain heartless brutality in seeing them done. If you want to boss a superpower, I guess that is important

    So this will kill 100,000 Afghans? So be it. So this will kill off our relationship with France for 3 years? So be it

    Etc. Not pretty, but maybe needed
    It won't kill the US-French relationship.

    The French are players. They are making massive scene out of this, so that the Americans throw them a bone in some other area.
    I'm not so sure that will happen. The Biden administration has continually sidelined Europe. I just don't think they care and don't see any EU country as a potential ally in the looming cold war against China. I wrote out my thoughts just now, the world has realised that the EU is happy to kowtow to China for fear of losing money.
    I think you're wrong on this. For a start, I think it would be a catastrophic mistake to cleave the Western European democracies (most of whom don't really want to "kowtow" to China) off from the Anglosphere.

    Re the French, I'm thinking more of them getting US support for a French candidate to be next General Secretary of the United Nations, that kind of thing. It's the kind of quid pro quo that the French are very good at getting.
    As I've been saying for a while, I take no joy from the fracturing of the western alliance. However, we need to be realistic. Germany controls the EU and Germany is a mercantile state, it is for sale to the highest bidder. They simply don't care to whom they sell BMWs or dishwashers as long as the bill is paid and Germans get jobs out of it.

    I'm sure there will be grand words in a few months but the direction of travel has been clear for a while, even Obama was very sceptical of the "old world" as he termed it. What's changed is that with Brexit we've also become sceptical of the very same old world and now our interests are much more aligned with the US and looking towards the looming cold war with China in a way that Europe won't.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    kle4 said:

    The Commission is pushing a narrative that EU vaccine strategy has been a triumph. And how silly the media was, in spring, to point out how badly it misfired.

    I respectufully disagree

    Just because you ramp up vaccination quickly doesn't make up for a poor start.

    A short 🧵 https://t.co/ZQzQNnxYgm

    https://twitter.com/spignal/status/1438484167671549964?s=19

    One could equally argue that getting off to a good start with a vaccination programme is not much use if you allow it to drift in the latter stages.

    France, Italy, Spain, Ireland have all vaccinated a larger proportion of their population than the UK. Our great start has been squandered.
    I don't think it was squandered. All those that wanted to get vaccinated and at any risk, got vaccinated quickly.

    Now, i would have wanted kids done quicker. But JCVI want to jab the world, dragged their feet like a toddler told no sweeties in the supermarket. the government could have just said sod them I suppose.

    And in terms of the 5m hold outs, without going full vaccine passport, you will be unpersoned without, like France, i am not sure what more can be done. The government have made it trivial to get jabbed.
    I think the thing is a quick start really is extremely crucial particularly when in the midst of a wave. So the impact from slowing up at the end, when less vulnerable are getting jabbed, is less than being slower to get to the most vulnerable.

    Otherwise you're into the idea getting the highest number vaccinated is best even if it took 10 years.
    Has everyone forgotten the creative accounting that the EU uses to count numbers of vaccinated?
    I'm sorry, I think "one jab plus infection" is a perfectly sensible measure of fully vaccinated. It's not creative accounting, it's a sensible assessment that the protection you get is perfectly adequate.

    If you want to take greater issue, I'd go with the use of the Janssens vaccine - which is barely more effective than the use of a single dose of Moderna/Pfizer.
    It may be an adequate indicator of protection but they are using the statistics as a dick measuring contest. And not doing so consistently.
  • rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    MrEd said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Former French Ambassador to the US seems pretty chilled about the whole thing. Exuding Gallic sangfroid and a sense of "meh"


    "“The US has trampled our national interest. What the US has done to our national interest is a hostile act,” he said.

    "“What we were doing with the Australians was a strategic choice and this strategic choice has been swept away not only by the Australians but also by the Americans.”

    "He said the British involvement was immaterial because they were “poodles of the Americans, as usual”."

    https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/stab-in-the-back-europe-s-fury-with-morrison-and-biden-over-aukus-submarine-deal-20210916-p58sea.html


    AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    Biden has single-handedly taken a wrecking ball to the western alliances. Putin and Xi must wondering why the hell they bothered with that amateur Trump.
    Biden has gone up, a lot, in my estimation. He instinctively senses that NATO is over. And it is

    Russia is not a strategic threat to the West. It just isn't. Its economy is too small and its people too drunk

    They might try another Crimea on the Baltics, but I doubt it. They export virtually nothing but conventional oil, which is increasingly worthless, as energy gets cheaper, because renewables, shale, etc.

    Xi Jinping's China, by contrast, is the greatest "threat" the West has faced in a couple of centuries. Worse than Nazi Germany

    All that matters is containing her (we cannot "defeat" her). And that means rock-solid alliances with close friends ensuring that we stand together, whatever. That is how you beat bullies




    Yes, even though I think his economic policies are turning into a disaster and he is obviously losing his capabilities, when it comes to foreign affairs I have a lot of grudging respect for the fact that Biden has turned out to be so fundamentally ruthless and willing to break the cosy consensus. I’d be interested to see how long Blinken stays around
    Yep. I think he is a bit senile, and foolish in some respects, but when it comes to foreign policy he has clear instincts and wise opinions: as to what is in America's interest, and he has a certain heartless brutality in seeing them done. If you want to boss a superpower, I guess that is important

    So this will kill 100,000 Afghans? So be it. So this will kill off our relationship with France for 3 years? So be it

    Etc. Not pretty, but maybe needed
    It won't kill the US-French relationship.

    The French are players. They are making massive scene out of this, so that the Americans throw them a bone in some other area.
    I'm not so sure that will happen. The Biden administration has continually sidelined Europe. I just don't think they care and don't see any EU country as a potential ally in the looming cold war against China. I wrote out my thoughts just now, the world has realised that the EU is happy to kowtow to China for fear of losing money.
    I think you're wrong on this. For a start, I think it would be a catastrophic mistake to cleave the Western European democracies (most of whom don't really want to "kowtow" to China) off from the Anglosphere.

    Re the French, I'm thinking more of them getting US support for a French candidate to be next General Secretary of the United Nations, that kind of thing. It's the kind of quid pro quo that the French are very good at getting.
    Trouble is that, for some people, the cleavage, making sure that their generation's geopolitical achievement is irreversible, is the point of the exercise.
  • NEWS: The Biden administration is willing to consider an “opportunity” to negotiate entry into the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said on Thursday...

    https://twitter.com/ChadBown/status/1438609057032642565?s=20
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    The most exciting thing about the reshuffle really is Gove (and O’Brien and Badenoch) at MHCLG.

    The problem is Sunak (and Kwasi) are fiscal hawks and if Gove really wants to level up he needs money.

    Will be fascinating to see both what policy they come up with, and the result of Gove v Sunak clashes.

    And who will Cummings side with?

    Badenoch should be at education
    She's a hacker, bad role model for da kidz.
    She understands CRT and the damage it’ll do to our children
    Cathode Ray Tubes can be dangerous but shouldn't we have moved on to LCD by now?
    Critical race theory.

    I know you want to be all three monkeys about it. We upended our daughter’s education because of the damage it was doing to her
  • MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Former French Ambassador to the US seems pretty chilled about the whole thing. Exuding Gallic sangfroid and a sense of "meh"


    "“The US has trampled our national interest. What the US has done to our national interest is a hostile act,” he said.

    "“What we were doing with the Australians was a strategic choice and this strategic choice has been swept away not only by the Australians but also by the Americans.”

    "He said the British involvement was immaterial because they were “poodles of the Americans, as usual”."

    https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/stab-in-the-back-europe-s-fury-with-morrison-and-biden-over-aukus-submarine-deal-20210916-p58sea.html


    AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    He’s got a point about the poodle thing, hasn’t he?

    What’s the material benefit for the U.K. here?

    Beyond, you know, deterring that risk of Taiwanese invasion that even cider-addled toddlers are aware of.
    One of the many things idiot Remainers like you told us, was this: the USA would now side with the more-important EU, and the UK would be demoted. A sideshow

    To be fair to you I think half of elite France, including Macron, believed this bullshit, even though Leavers like me said: NO, America will always, in the end, come down on the side of her English speaking family. And so it is

    We were right, you were wrong. It happens

    As for being a poodle, no. We are certainly nothing more than the support act to America. We are the drummer. America is the lead guitar and vocalist. Australia has come in to do some keyboard stuff

    The main thing is: the band is back together

    The EU is in the audience when they expected to be on stage. AUKS
    I mean, I personally never suggested or predicted that the US would “side with the EU”, simply that in the quantum of geopolitics, Brexit made the simply U.K. less relevant to the US (and everyone else).

    Which is still true, I think.
    Maybe you need to reassess that view. The evidence is all mounting that the US wants the UK on its side and is pulling the UK out of the EU's orbit.

    Yesterday the EU became much less relevant to the world. No one looks to Berlin, Brussels or Paris for leadership. The EU has become even more insular without the UK, constantly squabbling amongst itself about the minutiae of who said what and why some country is upset at another one while the rest of the world moves on without it.

    If I were to place the turning point it wasn't Brexit, it was actually Merkel getting up on stage with Xi at Davos to denounce the US as the enemy of free trade, 2017 or 2018 iirc. From that moment onwards everyone in the world knows the German vision of the EU is an organisation that has a price. The EU can be bought and both Chinese money and Russian gas are buying EU foreign policy. The world looked on as Brussels tried to pretend otherwise but ploughed on with Nordstream 2 and continued to censor itself on Chinese aggression in HK and towards its own people for fear of losing China as a customer.

    In some ways the EU is reverting to type, it is a trading bloc, not a political entity. The issue is that it now has political power but uses it terribly because the overall aim of the EU is trade and money. Sometimes foreign policy objectives are more important than trade and money. Without the UK who is reminding them of that?
    Actually I agree with a lot of this, although I think you oversell this Germany as Russian or Chinese stooge thing.

    I think the US is making the best of a bad situation. It’s most reliable ally (ie, us) is no longer inside the EU pulling against the stuff you are complaining about.

    We’re not useless to US strategy - but we’re being used here to support US policy in Asia-Pacific*. It’s not obvious what the quid pro quo is.

    *I hate the term Indo-Pacific.
    This kind of negative case for being in the EU never made sense to me. What's the point of being in it just to stymie the others? Let them stymie each other if that's what you think of it.

    The 27 certainly don't all see eye to eye. The Brexit negotiations helped them for a while by giving them an artificial sense of unity while we were not clear about our strategy.
    The report on the BBC has just commented that most EU countries are content with AUKUS
    Of course they are. The French are upset because they just lost about a hundred billion Aussie dollars.

    The rest of Europe haven't.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,288
    Charles said:

    kle4 said:

    The Commission is pushing a narrative that EU vaccine strategy has been a triumph. And how silly the media was, in spring, to point out how badly it misfired.

    I respectufully disagree

    Just because you ramp up vaccination quickly doesn't make up for a poor start.

    A short 🧵 https://t.co/ZQzQNnxYgm

    https://twitter.com/spignal/status/1438484167671549964?s=19

    One could equally argue that getting off to a good start with a vaccination programme is not much use if you allow it to drift in the latter stages.

    France, Italy, Spain, Ireland have all vaccinated a larger proportion of their population than the UK. Our great start has been squandered.
    I don't think it was squandered. All those that wanted to get vaccinated and at any risk, got vaccinated quickly.

    Now, i would have wanted kids done quicker. But JCVI want to jab the world, dragged their feet like a toddler told no sweeties in the supermarket. the government could have just said sod them I suppose.

    And in terms of the 5m hold outs, without going full vaccine passport, you will be unpersoned without, like France, i am not sure what more can be done. The government have made it trivial to get jabbed.
    I think the thing is a quick start really is extremely crucial particularly when in the midst of a wave. So the impact from slowing up at the end, when less vulnerable are getting jabbed, is less than being slower to get to the most vulnerable.

    Otherwise you're into the idea getting the highest number vaccinated is best even if it took 10 years.
    Has everyone forgotten the creative accounting that the EU uses to count numbers of vaccinated?
    What is the creative accounting you're referring to?
  • NEWS: The Biden administration is willing to consider an “opportunity” to negotiate entry into the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said on Thursday...

    https://twitter.com/ChadBown/status/1438609057032642565?s=20

    Boom!
    image
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    Charles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    kle4 said:

    The Commission is pushing a narrative that EU vaccine strategy has been a triumph. And how silly the media was, in spring, to point out how badly it misfired.

    I respectufully disagree

    Just because you ramp up vaccination quickly doesn't make up for a poor start.

    A short 🧵 https://t.co/ZQzQNnxYgm

    https://twitter.com/spignal/status/1438484167671549964?s=19

    One could equally argue that getting off to a good start with a vaccination programme is not much use if you allow it to drift in the latter stages.

    France, Italy, Spain, Ireland have all vaccinated a larger proportion of their population than the UK. Our great start has been squandered.
    I don't think it was squandered. All those that wanted to get vaccinated and at any risk, got vaccinated quickly.

    Now, i would have wanted kids done quicker. But JCVI want to jab the world, dragged their feet like a toddler told no sweeties in the supermarket. the government could have just said sod them I suppose.

    And in terms of the 5m hold outs, without going full vaccine passport, you will be unpersoned without, like France, i am not sure what more can be done. The government have made it trivial to get jabbed.
    I think the thing is a quick start really is extremely crucial particularly when in the midst of a wave. So the impact from slowing up at the end, when less vulnerable are getting jabbed, is less than being slower to get to the most vulnerable.

    Otherwise you're into the idea getting the highest number vaccinated is best even if it took 10 years.
    Has everyone forgotten the creative accounting that the EU uses to count numbers of vaccinated?
    I'm sorry, I think "one jab plus infection" is a perfectly sensible measure of fully vaccinated. It's not creative accounting, it's a sensible assessment that the protection you get is perfectly adequate.

    If you want to take greater issue, I'd go with the use of the Janssens vaccine - which is barely more effective than the use of a single dose of Moderna/Pfizer.
    It may be an adequate indicator of protection but they are using the statistics as a dick measuring contest. And not doing so consistently.
    Hang on.

    They have made (as has Israel AIUI) a medical decision that a second dose of vaccine is not needed for those who were previously infected.

    Do you think those people (who are more protected from Covid than two shots of Pfizer) shouldn't be counted as fully vaccinated?

    My personal view is that we should taken the same decision they did. It would have allowed us to free up some vaccine supplies early on in the pandemic.
This discussion has been closed.