Howdy, Stranger!

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

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

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited September 18 in General
imageSunak back again as favourite in the next PM betting – politicalbetting.com

Having bet on Sunak for next PM in November 2019 at 250/1 Ladbrokes this is a market I follow closely and if it comes up my £20 wager will be my biggest ever political betting win. It will outdo the £4,300 I made on the LDs in the June Chesham & Amersham by-election.

Read the full story here

«134

Comments

  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 2,292
    edited September 18
    Next PM odds tracking the VI polling ups and downs. An overreaction at this stage?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,221
    edited September 18
    Farooq said:

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

    History is no guide either. Only six times since 1902 has somebody other than the Foreign Secretary or Chancellor become PM in an in-office leadership struggle, but the last two occasions were two of those six times (the others being Lloyd George in 1916, Bonar Law in 1922, Baldwin in 1935 and Churchill in 1940).
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,861
    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    lol. I approve of Aukus but this Spanish journalist goes a bit far, even for me

    "Prime Minister Johnson finds in this new, more flexible and open environment an opportunity to continue in the leading group of the West thanks to Brexit and not depending on a European Union that was strategically lost decades ago and unable to make a single decision in time.

    "For Australia, it means ensuring its regional leadership based on its membership in the Anglo world, which will lead the world against China for the remainder of the century. Continental Europe languishes, once again, while the world created by Elizabeth I of England rises from its ashes and Churchill's ideal scenario regains all its political, ideological and military strength and power."

    https://twitter.com/Pedro_F_MM/status/1439258533401436166?s=20

    Good to see satire isn't dead in Spain.
    Yes, a touch hyperbolic

    However, put it with that Italian politician yearning to join Five Eyes and it is obvious the EU is not going to meekly follow France's lead, either in their strop against the Anglo-Saxons, nor in their desires for a French-led combined EU military

    France is in a pickle. In fact, post Brexit and post Aukus it is France that looks, suddenly, like a nation without a foreign policy and, in hard military terms, rather friendless
    Yes it very much looks like France is isolated. Eventually being a sub to Germany was going to catch up to them, living within the bounds of German foreign policy wrt China means they're not in the race.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,378
    edited September 18
    There are two obvious routes to Sunak being next Tory leader/PM: he gets it before the next election in place of Boris, or he gets it after.

    The most likely chance after an election is if the Tories lose or come first so badly they can't form a government, or (unlikely) can only form one if anyone but Boris is the leader and Sunak is acceptable to some currently non existent friends.

    The odds (IMHO) of a Tory win under Boris and NOM after the next election are fairly close - about 47% each. If NOM wins the likelihood of Sunak being PM is slight, as SKS will be PM instead and Tories have no friends.

    There is no reason really to think Sunak will become leader before the next election. Boris is not a quitter, and a debacle which sees Boris off could see off the whole team.

    So the figure which is egregiously wrong is SKS's chances of being next PM. All he has to do is stick around - which he will - and his chance of being next PM is 47% minus what you take off for him being replaced meanwhile, what you take off for Boris being replaced meanwhile, and what you take off for SKS not being PM after a NOM election. None of those figures are large.

    SKS's chance of being next PM is more like 35%, not 19%.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,016
    algarkirk said:

    There are two obvious routes to Sunak being next Tory leader/PM: he gets it before the next election in place of Boris, or he gets it after.

    The most likely chance after an election is if the Tories lose or come first so badly they can't form a government, or (unlikely) can only form one if anyone but Boris is the leader and Sunak is acceptable to some currently non existent friends.

    The odds (IMHO) of a Tory win under Boris and NOM after the next election are fairly close - about 47% each. If NOM wins the likelihood of Sunak being PM is slight, as SKS will be PM instead and Tories have no friends.

    There is no reason really to think Sunak will become leader before the next election. Boris is not a quitter, and a debacle which sees Boris off could see off the whole team.

    So the figure which is egregiously wrong is SKS's chances of being next PM. All he has to do is stick around - which he will - and his chance of being next PM is 47% minus what you take off for him being replaced meanwhile, what you take off for Boris being replaced meanwhile, and what you take off for SKS not being PM after a NOM election. None of those figures are large.

    SKS's chance of being next PM is more like 35%, not 19%.

    Doesn’t that depend on SKS surviving another election defeat as Labour Leader?

    If we end up with “5 more years of Boris” on top of the 2/3 already in the bank, isn’t that a tad unlikely?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 13,061
    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    lol. I approve of Aukus but this Spanish journalist goes a bit far, even for me

    "Prime Minister Johnson finds in this new, more flexible and open environment an opportunity to continue in the leading group of the West thanks to Brexit and not depending on a European Union that was strategically lost decades ago and unable to make a single decision in time.

    "For Australia, it means ensuring its regional leadership based on its membership in the Anglo world, which will lead the world against China for the remainder of the century. Continental Europe languishes, once again, while the world created by Elizabeth I of England rises from its ashes and Churchill's ideal scenario regains all its political, ideological and military strength and power."

    https://twitter.com/Pedro_F_MM/status/1439258533401436166?s=20

    Good to see satire isn't dead in Spain.
    Yes, a touch hyperbolic

    However, put it with that Italian politician yearning to join Five Eyes and it is obvious the EU is not going to meekly follow France's lead, either in their strop against the Anglo-Saxons, nor in their desires for a French-led combined EU military

    France is in a pickle. In fact, post Brexit and post Aukus it is France that looks, suddenly, like a nation without a foreign policy and, in hard military terms, rather friendless
    Yes it very much looks like France is isolated. Eventually being a sub to Germany was going to catch up to them, living within the bounds of German foreign policy wrt China means they're not in the race.
    In 5 years the French will probably be a semi-detached member of AUKUS with special status (to salve wounded French pride)

    It will suit all sides. France has possessions there, and power to project.

    Whither the Germans? God knows.

    At some point the EU nations are either gonna create a combined military, or (much more likely) admit that No, it ain't ever happening, in any real way
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,623
    Interesting that Mail top headline online clearly identifying Brexit as one of the causes of shortages and price rises.
  • While most of the value has gone from Sunak there's still probably some value there.

    A fifth of all Chancellors in recent decades have gone on to become PM and Sunak is clearly ambitious to go for it.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,534

    algarkirk said:

    There are two obvious routes to Sunak being next Tory leader/PM: he gets it before the next election in place of Boris, or he gets it after.

    The most likely chance after an election is if the Tories lose or come first so badly they can't form a government, or (unlikely) can only form one if anyone but Boris is the leader and Sunak is acceptable to some currently non existent friends.

    The odds (IMHO) of a Tory win under Boris and NOM after the next election are fairly close - about 47% each. If NOM wins the likelihood of Sunak being PM is slight, as SKS will be PM instead and Tories have no friends.

    There is no reason really to think Sunak will become leader before the next election. Boris is not a quitter, and a debacle which sees Boris off could see off the whole team.

    So the figure which is egregiously wrong is SKS's chances of being next PM. All he has to do is stick around - which he will - and his chance of being next PM is 47% minus what you take off for him being replaced meanwhile, what you take off for Boris being replaced meanwhile, and what you take off for SKS not being PM after a NOM election. None of those figures are large.

    SKS's chance of being next PM is more like 35%, not 19%.

    Doesn’t that depend on SKS surviving another election defeat as Labour Leader?

    If we end up with “5 more years of Boris” on top of the 2/3 already in the bank, isn’t that a tad unlikely?
    No, because @algarkirk is estimating 47% of NOM, and Sir Keir being PM a 75% chance should that be the GE result
  • LeonLeon Posts: 13,061
    This is the best argument AGAINST Aukus

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

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


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

    Hooking up with the Yanks is our only real option, even if they are bit psycho, at the moment
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 2,292

    algarkirk said:

    There are two obvious routes to Sunak being next Tory leader/PM: he gets it before the next election in place of Boris, or he gets it after.

    The most likely chance after an election is if the Tories lose or come first so badly they can't form a government, or (unlikely) can only form one if anyone but Boris is the leader and Sunak is acceptable to some currently non existent friends.

    The odds (IMHO) of a Tory win under Boris and NOM after the next election are fairly close - about 47% each. If NOM wins the likelihood of Sunak being PM is slight, as SKS will be PM instead and Tories have no friends.

    There is no reason really to think Sunak will become leader before the next election. Boris is not a quitter, and a debacle which sees Boris off could see off the whole team.

    So the figure which is egregiously wrong is SKS's chances of being next PM. All he has to do is stick around - which he will - and his chance of being next PM is 47% minus what you take off for him being replaced meanwhile, what you take off for Boris being replaced meanwhile, and what you take off for SKS not being PM after a NOM election. None of those figures are large.

    SKS's chance of being next PM is more like 35%, not 19%.

    Doesn’t that depend on SKS surviving another election defeat as Labour Leader?

    If we end up with “5 more years of Boris” on top of the 2/3 already in the bank, isn’t that a tad unlikely?
    eh?
  • stodgestodge Posts: 9,366
    Leon said:


    In 5 years the French will probably be a semi-detached member of AUKUS with special status (to salve wounded French pride)

    It will suit all sides. France has possessions there, and power to project.

    Whither the Germans? God knows.

    At some point the EU nations are either gonna create a combined military, or (much more likely) admit that No, it ain't ever happening, in any real way

    The "death" of NATO has been widely predicted since the fall of the Berlin Wall.

    As I recall, Trump was going to abandon Europe in favour of America First though he did have an entirely valid point about levels of defence spending among some of the NATO countries.

    And yet NATO endures - AUKUS makes no real difference.

    The European Union countries (not all in NATO) and those NATO countries not in the EU won't need to create a pan-European Army or anything like that. As long as America remains committed to Europe's defence, NATO will continue to exist.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,221

    Got to say I'm impressed with Lord Botham's first month as UK AUS trade envoy - I certainly wasn't expecting him to have Macron caught and bowled with his first delivery!

    Next thing he’ll be taking the Germans for eight an over…
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,378

    algarkirk said:

    There are two obvious routes to Sunak being next Tory leader/PM: he gets it before the next election in place of Boris, or he gets it after.

    The most likely chance after an election is if the Tories lose or come first so badly they can't form a government, or (unlikely) can only form one if anyone but Boris is the leader and Sunak is acceptable to some currently non existent friends.

    The odds (IMHO) of a Tory win under Boris and NOM after the next election are fairly close - about 47% each. If NOM wins the likelihood of Sunak being PM is slight, as SKS will be PM instead and Tories have no friends.

    There is no reason really to think Sunak will become leader before the next election. Boris is not a quitter, and a debacle which sees Boris off could see off the whole team.

    So the figure which is egregiously wrong is SKS's chances of being next PM. All he has to do is stick around - which he will - and his chance of being next PM is 47% minus what you take off for him being replaced meanwhile, what you take off for Boris being replaced meanwhile, and what you take off for SKS not being PM after a NOM election. None of those figures are large.

    SKS's chance of being next PM is more like 35%, not 19%.

    Doesn’t that depend on SKS surviving another election defeat as Labour Leader?

    If we end up with “5 more years of Boris” on top of the 2/3 already in the bank, isn’t that a tad unlikely?
    Everyone agrees that Labour can't win (326 seats) the next election barring a black swan.

    The maximum that will be expected of SKS will be to lead the party that is the largest group in the next government. For that the Tories need to lose 45-50 seats or more to Lab, LD, Green and SNP combined. That is not remotely unlikely.

    If SKS does well enough that Labour lead a government after an election in 2023/4, however unstable, he will be next PM even if only for a short time. That is the basis of my suggestion that he has a much better than 19% chance of being next PM.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 65,144
    edited September 18

    Interesting that Mail top headline online clearly identifying Brexit as one of the causes of shortages and price rises.

    Not really, it is well known the editor of the Mail hates Brexit. During Covid, i don't think there has been a paper that has bashed the government more than the Mail...well the Star, if you call it a newspaper.

    When the editor was doing the same job for MoS, it was regular headlines of how awful Brexit would be.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 13,061
    stodge said:

    Leon said:


    In 5 years the French will probably be a semi-detached member of AUKUS with special status (to salve wounded French pride)

    It will suit all sides. France has possessions there, and power to project.

    Whither the Germans? God knows.

    At some point the EU nations are either gonna create a combined military, or (much more likely) admit that No, it ain't ever happening, in any real way

    The "death" of NATO has been widely predicted since the fall of the Berlin Wall.

    As I recall, Trump was going to abandon Europe in favour of America First though he did have an entirely valid point about levels of defence spending among some of the NATO countries.

    And yet NATO endures - AUKUS makes no real difference.

    The European Union countries (not all in NATO) and those NATO countries not in the EU won't need to create a pan-European Army or anything like that. As long as America remains committed to Europe's defence, NATO will continue to exist.
    But that's the point. America is, clearly, edging towards the sobering moment when it pulls out of NATO, or, at least, withdraws that total commitment

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

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

    It's an inarguable point. America is not going to defend wealthy Germany forever
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,861
    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    lol. I approve of Aukus but this Spanish journalist goes a bit far, even for me

    "Prime Minister Johnson finds in this new, more flexible and open environment an opportunity to continue in the leading group of the West thanks to Brexit and not depending on a European Union that was strategically lost decades ago and unable to make a single decision in time.

    "For Australia, it means ensuring its regional leadership based on its membership in the Anglo world, which will lead the world against China for the remainder of the century. Continental Europe languishes, once again, while the world created by Elizabeth I of England rises from its ashes and Churchill's ideal scenario regains all its political, ideological and military strength and power."

    https://twitter.com/Pedro_F_MM/status/1439258533401436166?s=20

    Good to see satire isn't dead in Spain.
    Yes, a touch hyperbolic

    However, put it with that Italian politician yearning to join Five Eyes and it is obvious the EU is not going to meekly follow France's lead, either in their strop against the Anglo-Saxons, nor in their desires for a French-led combined EU military

    France is in a pickle. In fact, post Brexit and post Aukus it is France that looks, suddenly, like a nation without a foreign policy and, in hard military terms, rather friendless
    Yes it very much looks like France is isolated. Eventually being a sub to Germany was going to catch up to them, living within the bounds of German foreign policy wrt China means they're not in the race.
    In 5 years the French will probably be a semi-detached member of AUKUS with special status (to salve wounded French pride)

    It will suit all sides. France has possessions there, and power to project.

    Whither the Germans? God knows.

    At some point the EU nations are either gonna create a combined military, or (much more likely) admit that No, it ain't ever happening, in any real way
    Yeah, I don't see any new country joining the alliance because of the nuclear secrets being shared. Associate membership of some sort will definitely be on the table for France, Japan, India and others but what was important was setting the terms beforehand rather than having France dick about for months negotiating the minutiae of which jobs go where and what proportion of research funding will be spent in France etc...
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,378
    Leon said:

    stodge said:

    Leon said:


    In 5 years the French will probably be a semi-detached member of AUKUS with special status (to salve wounded French pride)

    It will suit all sides. France has possessions there, and power to project.

    Whither the Germans? God knows.

    At some point the EU nations are either gonna create a combined military, or (much more likely) admit that No, it ain't ever happening, in any real way

    The "death" of NATO has been widely predicted since the fall of the Berlin Wall.

    As I recall, Trump was going to abandon Europe in favour of America First though he did have an entirely valid point about levels of defence spending among some of the NATO countries.

    And yet NATO endures - AUKUS makes no real difference.

    The European Union countries (not all in NATO) and those NATO countries not in the EU won't need to create a pan-European Army or anything like that. As long as America remains committed to Europe's defence, NATO will continue to exist.
    But that's the point. America is, clearly, edging towards the sobering moment when it pulls out of NATO, or, at least, withdraws that total commitment

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

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

    It's an inarguable point. America is not going to defend wealthy Germany forever
    If that did happen - which it won't in the foreseeable future - Brexit will be a sideshow and UK and France will suddenly be best friends and the joint Head Boys of the European Academy; and everyone will hope we have remembered to change the batteries in the nuclear remote.

  • LeonLeon Posts: 13,061
    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    lol. I approve of Aukus but this Spanish journalist goes a bit far, even for me

    "Prime Minister Johnson finds in this new, more flexible and open environment an opportunity to continue in the leading group of the West thanks to Brexit and not depending on a European Union that was strategically lost decades ago and unable to make a single decision in time.

    "For Australia, it means ensuring its regional leadership based on its membership in the Anglo world, which will lead the world against China for the remainder of the century. Continental Europe languishes, once again, while the world created by Elizabeth I of England rises from its ashes and Churchill's ideal scenario regains all its political, ideological and military strength and power."

    https://twitter.com/Pedro_F_MM/status/1439258533401436166?s=20

    Good to see satire isn't dead in Spain.
    Yes, a touch hyperbolic

    However, put it with that Italian politician yearning to join Five Eyes and it is obvious the EU is not going to meekly follow France's lead, either in their strop against the Anglo-Saxons, nor in their desires for a French-led combined EU military

    France is in a pickle. In fact, post Brexit and post Aukus it is France that looks, suddenly, like a nation without a foreign policy and, in hard military terms, rather friendless
    Yes it very much looks like France is isolated. Eventually being a sub to Germany was going to catch up to them, living within the bounds of German foreign policy wrt China means they're not in the race.
    In 5 years the French will probably be a semi-detached member of AUKUS with special status (to salve wounded French pride)

    It will suit all sides. France has possessions there, and power to project.

    Whither the Germans? God knows.

    At some point the EU nations are either gonna create a combined military, or (much more likely) admit that No, it ain't ever happening, in any real way
    Yeah, I don't see any new country joining the alliance because of the nuclear secrets being shared. Associate membership of some sort will definitely be on the table for France, Japan, India and others but what was important was setting the terms beforehand rather than having France dick about for months negotiating the minutiae of which jobs go where and what proportion of research funding will be spent in France etc...
    Several journals - the Times, the NYT, the Economist - have said that one reason for the total secrecy was the certainty that France would not only object, but seriously try to sabotage the entire project. It had to be presented as a fait accompli, which was always going to sting Macron severely
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,623
    edited September 18
    Right wing American FL GOP "politician", Laura Loomer, who thought covid was a hoax gets, erm... covid.

    She is planning to get the horse worm tablets apparently.

    "Loomer also claimed the virus to be the 'biggest hoax of our lives besides the 2020 election' "
    (D Mail)
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,231

    Interesting that Mail top headline online clearly identifying Brexit as one of the causes of shortages and price rises.

    Mail or ‘Mail on Sunday’? They might be in the same stable, but they had different views.

    Unless the Mail has realised how much damage it has done to the country!
  • LeonLeon Posts: 13,061
    algarkirk said:

    Leon said:

    stodge said:

    Leon said:


    In 5 years the French will probably be a semi-detached member of AUKUS with special status (to salve wounded French pride)

    It will suit all sides. France has possessions there, and power to project.

    Whither the Germans? God knows.

    At some point the EU nations are either gonna create a combined military, or (much more likely) admit that No, it ain't ever happening, in any real way

    The "death" of NATO has been widely predicted since the fall of the Berlin Wall.

    As I recall, Trump was going to abandon Europe in favour of America First though he did have an entirely valid point about levels of defence spending among some of the NATO countries.

    And yet NATO endures - AUKUS makes no real difference.

    The European Union countries (not all in NATO) and those NATO countries not in the EU won't need to create a pan-European Army or anything like that. As long as America remains committed to Europe's defence, NATO will continue to exist.
    But that's the point. America is, clearly, edging towards the sobering moment when it pulls out of NATO, or, at least, withdraws that total commitment

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

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

    It's an inarguable point. America is not going to defend wealthy Germany forever
    If that did happen - which it won't in the foreseeable future - Brexit will be a sideshow and UK and France will suddenly be best friends and the joint Head Boys of the European Academy; and everyone will hope we have remembered to change the batteries in the nuclear remote.

    If Russian went into Lithuania, or Bulgaria, would America fly in Marines, to shoot it out with Putin?

    I really wonder

  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 65,144
    edited September 18

    Interesting that Mail top headline online clearly identifying Brexit as one of the causes of shortages and price rises.

    Mail or ‘Mail on Sunday’? They might be in the same stable, but they had different views.

    Unless the Mail has realised how much damage it has done to the country!
    No not now....the editor of the Mail is the remain supporter who used to edit the MoS i.e. George Greig

    I am not sure how people are struggling to notice that Dacre isn't there anymore and new management has a different take. This changed several years ago.

    Edit - Greig took over in 2018.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,623

    Interesting that Mail top headline online clearly identifying Brexit as one of the causes of shortages and price rises.

    Not really, it is well known the editor of the Mail hates Brexit. During Covid, i don't think there has been a paper that has bashed the government more than the Mail...well the Star, if you call it a newspaper.

    When the editor was doing the same job for MoS, it was regular headlines of how awful Brexit would be.
    Ah, yes, I had forgotten the MoS guy, has the Mail job now.

    Still interesting I think that the paper of record for Jonathon Coe's Middle England is putting the blame on Brexit.

    All too late now of course.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 4,836
    edited September 18
    Leon said:

    This is the best argument AGAINST Aukus

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

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


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

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

    Being a more equal military and diplomatic partner in Europe, and maintaining a more dignified rather than subordinate stance, has always been an option for us, and, just down to the facts of our own unavoidable geography, will probably always remain so I think.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,512
    At the moment if Boris leaves before the next general election then the Tory leadership will likely be contested between Sunak and Truss as to who becomes PM. If Boris is re elected the same applies when he steps down.

    If however Boris loses the next general election then Patel would certainly come into the fray too as the party would likely shift further right in opposition. In which case Sunak, like David Miliband, may find he missed his best chance to become PM when his party was still in power and ends up missing out on even becoming party leader when the party goes into opposition
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,231

    Right wing American FL GOP "politician", Laura Loomer, who thought covid was a hoax gets, erm... covid.

    She is planning to get the horse worm tablets apparently.

    "Loomer also claimed the virus to be the 'biggest hoax of our lives besides the 2020 election' "
    (D Mail)

    Aint half hot, Mum, applies, I think!
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 38,755
    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    lol. I approve of Aukus but this Spanish journalist goes a bit far, even for me

    "Prime Minister Johnson finds in this new, more flexible and open environment an opportunity to continue in the leading group of the West thanks to Brexit and not depending on a European Union that was strategically lost decades ago and unable to make a single decision in time.

    "For Australia, it means ensuring its regional leadership based on its membership in the Anglo world, which will lead the world against China for the remainder of the century. Continental Europe languishes, once again, while the world created by Elizabeth I of England rises from its ashes and Churchill's ideal scenario regains all its political, ideological and military strength and power."

    https://twitter.com/Pedro_F_MM/status/1439258533401436166?s=20

    Good to see satire isn't dead in Spain.
    Yes, a touch hyperbolic

    However, put it with that Italian politician yearning to join Five Eyes and it is obvious the EU is not going to meekly follow France's lead, either in their strop against the Anglo-Saxons, nor in their desires for a French-led combined EU military

    France is in a pickle. In fact, post Brexit and post Aukus it is France that looks, suddenly, like a nation without a foreign policy and, in hard military terms, rather friendless
    Yes it very much looks like France is isolated. Eventually being a sub to Germany was going to catch up to them, living within the bounds of German foreign policy wrt China means they're not in the race.
    In 5 years the French will probably be a semi-detached member of AUKUS with special status (to salve wounded French pride)

    It will suit all sides. France has possessions there, and power to project.

    Whither the Germans? God knows.

    At some point the EU nations are either gonna create a combined military, or (much more likely) admit that No, it ain't ever happening, in any real way
    Yeah, I don't see any new country joining the alliance because of the nuclear secrets being shared. Associate membership of some sort will definitely be on the table for France, Japan, India and others but what was important was setting the terms beforehand rather than having France dick about for months negotiating the minutiae of which jobs go where and what proportion of research funding will be spent in France etc...
    Several journals - the Times, the NYT, the Economist - have said that one reason for the total secrecy was the certainty that France would not only object, but seriously try to sabotage the entire project. It had to be presented as a fait accompli, which was always going to sting Macron severely
    It will probably be a while before the French ambassador makes another joke about ‘Britain Alone’.

    https://twitter.com/ambcolonna/status/1378024545865580545
  • stodgestodge Posts: 9,366
    Leon said:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    30 years on and the inevitable movement of American interest from the Atlantic to the Pacific has moved another step. If Europe is now having to defend itself, some sharp questions need to be asked - should the British and French nuclear deterrents be extended to the defence of Riga and Tallinn? Are they our concern or should we tell them they will need to reach some form of accommodation with Putin?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 13,061

    Leon said:

    This is the best argument AGAINST Aukus

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

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


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

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

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

    Not any more, I don't think

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

    We are hooked into the Anglosphere for good now. We've chosen our team. We are a senior member, 2nd in command, but not the captain. Other members will come along.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,861
    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    lol. I approve of Aukus but this Spanish journalist goes a bit far, even for me

    "Prime Minister Johnson finds in this new, more flexible and open environment an opportunity to continue in the leading group of the West thanks to Brexit and not depending on a European Union that was strategically lost decades ago and unable to make a single decision in time.

    "For Australia, it means ensuring its regional leadership based on its membership in the Anglo world, which will lead the world against China for the remainder of the century. Continental Europe languishes, once again, while the world created by Elizabeth I of England rises from its ashes and Churchill's ideal scenario regains all its political, ideological and military strength and power."

    https://twitter.com/Pedro_F_MM/status/1439258533401436166?s=20

    Good to see satire isn't dead in Spain.
    Yes, a touch hyperbolic

    However, put it with that Italian politician yearning to join Five Eyes and it is obvious the EU is not going to meekly follow France's lead, either in their strop against the Anglo-Saxons, nor in their desires for a French-led combined EU military

    France is in a pickle. In fact, post Brexit and post Aukus it is France that looks, suddenly, like a nation without a foreign policy and, in hard military terms, rather friendless
    Yes it very much looks like France is isolated. Eventually being a sub to Germany was going to catch up to them, living within the bounds of German foreign policy wrt China means they're not in the race.
    In 5 years the French will probably be a semi-detached member of AUKUS with special status (to salve wounded French pride)

    It will suit all sides. France has possessions there, and power to project.

    Whither the Germans? God knows.

    At some point the EU nations are either gonna create a combined military, or (much more likely) admit that No, it ain't ever happening, in any real way
    Yeah, I don't see any new country joining the alliance because of the nuclear secrets being shared. Associate membership of some sort will definitely be on the table for France, Japan, India and others but what was important was setting the terms beforehand rather than having France dick about for months negotiating the minutiae of which jobs go where and what proportion of research funding will be spent in France etc...
    Several journals - the Times, the NYT, the Economist - have said that one reason for the total secrecy was the certainty that France would not only object, but seriously try to sabotage the entire project. It had to be presented as a fait accompli, which was always going to sting Macron severely
    Yeah absolutely, they would try and funnel any new partnership to the wider EU context of what the Dutch just invited us to join and try and ensure that EU/French foreign policy objectives are driving force of what the pact will work towards. That would have been a deal breaker for the US because moving at the rate of the slowest member will mean nothing will ever actually happen.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 65,144
    edited September 18

    Interesting that Mail top headline online clearly identifying Brexit as one of the causes of shortages and price rises.

    Not really, it is well known the editor of the Mail hates Brexit. During Covid, i don't think there has been a paper that has bashed the government more than the Mail...well the Star, if you call it a newspaper.

    When the editor was doing the same job for MoS, it was regular headlines of how awful Brexit would be.
    Ah, yes, I had forgotten the MoS guy, has the Mail job now.

    Still interesting I think that the paper of record for Jonathon Coe's Middle England is putting the blame on Brexit.

    All too late now of course.
    Not really....Greig is hugely pro remain and really doesn't like Boris or the Tories much. As I say, COVID they lay into the government every day, every which way, too slow, too fast, too much lockdown, not enough lockdown, etc etc etc. Sometimes they got so carried away they had contridicting headlines at the same time.

    At least the guardian are vaguely consistent and actually really focused more of their fire on things like the dodgy contracts, with some acknowledgement its a tough gig this covid lark.

    The Mail it has literally been government wrong about everything ever. Greig was never worried about the readership views when he MoS.editor, where it was Brexit end of the world stuff most weeks. This is just a continuation.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,512
    edited September 18
    algarkirk said:

    algarkirk said:

    There are two obvious routes to Sunak being next Tory leader/PM: he gets it before the next election in place of Boris, or he gets it after.

    The most likely chance after an election is if the Tories lose or come first so badly they can't form a government, or (unlikely) can only form one if anyone but Boris is the leader and Sunak is acceptable to some currently non existent friends.

    The odds (IMHO) of a Tory win under Boris and NOM after the next election are fairly close - about 47% each. If NOM wins the likelihood of Sunak being PM is slight, as SKS will be PM instead and Tories have no friends.

    There is no reason really to think Sunak will become leader before the next election. Boris is not a quitter, and a debacle which sees Boris off could see off the whole team.

    So the figure which is egregiously wrong is SKS's chances of being next PM. All he has to do is stick around - which he will - and his chance of being next PM is 47% minus what you take off for him being replaced meanwhile, what you take off for Boris being replaced meanwhile, and what you take off for SKS not being PM after a NOM election. None of those figures are large.

    SKS's chance of being next PM is more like 35%, not 19%.

    Doesn’t that depend on SKS surviving another election defeat as Labour Leader?

    If we end up with “5 more years of Boris” on top of the 2/3 already in the bank, isn’t that a tad unlikely?
    Everyone agrees that Labour can't win (326 seats) the next election barring a black swan.

    The maximum that will be expected of SKS will be to lead the party that is the largest group in the next government. For that the Tories need to lose 45-50 seats or more to Lab, LD, Green and SNP combined. That is not remotely unlikely.

    If SKS does well enough that Labour lead a government after an election in 2023/4, however unstable, he will be next PM even if only for a short time. That is the basis of my suggestion that he has a much better than 19% chance of being next PM.
    Yes there is near zero chance of Starmer winning a Labour majority at the next general election, there is however about a 50% chance of a hung parliament and Starmer becoming the first PM not to have won most seats since Macdonald as the SNP and LDs would prop him up
  • LeonLeon Posts: 13,061
    stodge said:

    Leon said:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Perhaps, if and when NATO collapses, they will finally grow the nads to do it
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,972
    I think the odds on Sunak are crazy, but what do I know.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,512
    edited September 18
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    This is the best argument AGAINST Aukus

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

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


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

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

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

    Not any more, I don't think

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

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

    Germany runs the EU economy and France may end up running EU military, security and foreign policy
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,526
    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    lol. I approve of Aukus but this Spanish journalist goes a bit far, even for me

    "Prime Minister Johnson finds in this new, more flexible and open environment an opportunity to continue in the leading group of the West thanks to Brexit and not depending on a European Union that was strategically lost decades ago and unable to make a single decision in time.

    "For Australia, it means ensuring its regional leadership based on its membership in the Anglo world, which will lead the world against China for the remainder of the century. Continental Europe languishes, once again, while the world created by Elizabeth I of England rises from its ashes and Churchill's ideal scenario regains all its political, ideological and military strength and power."

    https://twitter.com/Pedro_F_MM/status/1439258533401436166?s=20

    Good to see satire isn't dead in Spain.
    Yes, a touch hyperbolic

    However, put it with that Italian politician yearning to join Five Eyes and it is obvious the EU is not going to meekly follow France's lead, either in their strop against the Anglo-Saxons, nor in their desires for a French-led combined EU military

    France is in a pickle. In fact, post Brexit and post Aukus it is France that looks, suddenly, like a nation without a foreign policy and, in hard military terms, rather friendless
    Yes it very much looks like France is isolated. Eventually being a sub to Germany was going to catch up to them, living within the bounds of German foreign policy wrt China means they're not in the race.
    Don't say sub....touchy subject with the French.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,623

    I think the odds on Sunak are crazy, but what do I know.

    Looks like Truss to me rather than Sunak. I have topped up on the new Foreign Sec in last few days.

    But a huge amount depends on when this contest takes place. Johnson has apparently been musing about ten more years, in which case, who the feck knows? Could be someone who is not even in Parliament.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,576
    Leon said:

    stodge said:

    Leon said:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Perhaps, if and when NATO collapses, they will finally grow the nads to do it
    Albeit with the proviso that we might suddenly find ourselves a bit uncomfortable if our near neighbor is a heavily armed ally of China.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,861
    Leon said:

    stodge said:

    Leon said:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Perhaps, if and when NATO collapses, they will finally grow the nads to do it
    Yes, I think out of the EU our outlook has got to reflect the new reality. If, as seems the case, the US is no longer going to stump up for the defence of Europe against Russia or China then I don't see why we should either. The EU is rich enough to pay for its own defence. If Germany doesn't want to double their defence budget then that's not something we should have to cover.

    There was a period of time when it was a absolutely in our interest to ensure Europe was protected from Soviet/Russian aggression. Now it should be up to them.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    ydoethur said:

    Farooq said:

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

    History is no guide either. Only six times since 1902 has somebody other than the Foreign Secretary or Chancellor become PM in an in-office leadership struggle, but the last two occasions were two of those six times (the others being Lloyd George in 1916, Bonar Law in 1922, Baldwin in 1935 and Churchill in 1940).
    Baldwin in 1923 surely!
  • I think the odds on Sunak are crazy, but what do I know.

    Why?

    Historically a fifth of Chancellors have gone on to become PM so his odds are basically bang on the historical average.

    In my view Sunak should be a touch more likely than that average, he's clearly ambitious and interested in the job and the Tories don't look like losing to Labour any time soon. I don't see why he should be rated below the historical average.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,972

    I think the odds on Sunak are crazy, but what do I know.

    Looks like Truss to me rather than Sunak. I have topped up on the new Foreign Sec in last few days.

    But a huge amount depends on when this contest takes place. Johnson has apparently been musing about ten more years, in which case, who the feck knows? Could be someone who is not even in Parliament.
    Johnson won't be PM in 10 years.

    I'd take that bet now.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,378
    Leon said:

    algarkirk said:

    Leon said:

    stodge said:

    Leon said:


    In 5 years the French will probably be a semi-detached member of AUKUS with special status (to salve wounded French pride)

    It will suit all sides. France has possessions there, and power to project.

    Whither the Germans? God knows.

    At some point the EU nations are either gonna create a combined military, or (much more likely) admit that No, it ain't ever happening, in any real way

    The "death" of NATO has been widely predicted since the fall of the Berlin Wall.

    As I recall, Trump was going to abandon Europe in favour of America First though he did have an entirely valid point about levels of defence spending among some of the NATO countries.

    And yet NATO endures - AUKUS makes no real difference.

    The European Union countries (not all in NATO) and those NATO countries not in the EU won't need to create a pan-European Army or anything like that. As long as America remains committed to Europe's defence, NATO will continue to exist.
    But that's the point. America is, clearly, edging towards the sobering moment when it pulls out of NATO, or, at least, withdraws that total commitment

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

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

    It's an inarguable point. America is not going to defend wealthy Germany forever
    If that did happen - which it won't in the foreseeable future - Brexit will be a sideshow and UK and France will suddenly be best friends and the joint Head Boys of the European Academy; and everyone will hope we have remembered to change the batteries in the nuclear remote.

    If Russian went into Lithuania, or Bulgaria, would America fly in Marines, to shoot it out with Putin?

    I really wonder

    Anyone is bound to wonder. The agreement is clear enough, and my answer would be yes. others will say no. The important thing is not what any member of the general public think. It's what top Russians etc think. You can spot a clue as to what they think by whether any NATO protected territory has been attacked by another state in NATO's history so far. I doubt if any better evidence will be forthcoming.

    FWIW I think that a serious attack on NATO territory by a nuclear power would soon descend into a nuclear exchange, rather than some endless ground and air war. Again, this is something no-one at all can know. NATO exists to preserve peace in its territory. So far it has. No-one can prove cause and effect, but I wouldn't chance it.

  • LeonLeon Posts: 13,061
    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    This is the best argument AGAINST Aukus

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

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


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

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

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

    Not any more, I don't think

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

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

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

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

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

    A couple of nations might straddle both: France, possibly the UK
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,972
    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    stodge said:

    Leon said:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Perhaps, if and when NATO collapses, they will finally grow the nads to do it
    Yes, I think out of the EU our outlook has got to reflect the new reality. If, as seems the case, the US is no longer going to stump up for the defence of Europe against Russia or China then I don't see why we should either. The EU is rich enough to pay for its own defence. If Germany doesn't want to double their defence budget then that's not something we should have to cover.

    There was a period of time when it was a absolutely in our interest to ensure Europe was protected from Soviet/Russian aggression. Now it should be up to them.
    The EU haven't worked out yet that their defence really does depend on our co-operation and it won't be done solely on their terms.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,817
    edited September 18
    Mike's previous cars seem to have been far less expensive that I have occasionally imagined.

    OGH Mr Ford Focus !

    Thanks for the header.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,861
    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    stodge said:

    Leon said:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Perhaps, if and when NATO collapses, they will finally grow the nads to do it
    Albeit with the proviso that we might suddenly find ourselves a bit uncomfortable if our near neighbor is a heavily armed ally of China.
    I guess if the EU aligns itself with China against us it would make life interesting.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,378

    Got to say I'm impressed with Lord Botham's first month as UK AUS trade envoy - I certainly wasn't expecting him to have Macron caught and bowled with his first delivery!

    Maybe Shane Warne is his Australian counterpart.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,512
    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    stodge said:

    Leon said:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Perhaps, if and when NATO collapses, they will finally grow the nads to do it
    Albeit with the proviso that we might suddenly find ourselves a bit uncomfortable if our near neighbor is a heavily armed ally of China.
    I guess if the EU aligns itself with China against us it would make life interesting.
    They won't do that but will likely take a more neutral stance, NATO was set up to contain Russia anyway not China and the EU does a lot of business with China
  • LeonLeon Posts: 13,061
    lol


    A new Subway ad, trolling the French


  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 13,831
    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    lol. I approve of Aukus but this Spanish journalist goes a bit far, even for me

    "Prime Minister Johnson finds in this new, more flexible and open environment an opportunity to continue in the leading group of the West thanks to Brexit and not depending on a European Union that was strategically lost decades ago and unable to make a single decision in time.

    "For Australia, it means ensuring its regional leadership based on its membership in the Anglo world, which will lead the world against China for the remainder of the century. Continental Europe languishes, once again, while the world created by Elizabeth I of England rises from its ashes and Churchill's ideal scenario regains all its political, ideological and military strength and power."

    https://twitter.com/Pedro_F_MM/status/1439258533401436166?s=20

    Good to see satire isn't dead in Spain.
    Yes, a touch hyperbolic

    However, put it with that Italian politician yearning to join Five Eyes and it is obvious the EU is not going to meekly follow France's lead, either in their strop against the Anglo-Saxons, nor in their desires for a French-led combined EU military

    France is in a pickle. In fact, post Brexit and post Aukus it is France that looks, suddenly, like a nation without a foreign policy and, in hard military terms, rather friendless
    Yes it very much looks like France is isolated. Eventually being a sub to Germany was going to catch up to them, living within the bounds of German foreign policy wrt China means they're not in the race.
    In 5 years the French will probably be a semi-detached member of AUKUS with special status (to salve wounded French pride)

    It will suit all sides. France has possessions there, and power to project.

    Whither the Germans? God knows.

    At some point the EU nations are either gonna create a combined military, or (much more likely) admit that No, it ain't ever happening, in any real way
    Yeah, I don't see any new country joining the alliance because of the nuclear secrets being shared. Associate membership of some sort will definitely be on the table for France, Japan, India and others but what was important was setting the terms beforehand rather than having France dick about for months negotiating the minutiae of which jobs go where and what proportion of research funding will be spent in France etc...
    Several journals - the Times, the NYT, the Economist - have said that one reason for the total secrecy was the certainty that France would not only object, but seriously try to sabotage the entire project. It had to be presented as a fait accompli, which was always going to sting Macron severely
    Yeah absolutely, they would try and funnel any new partnership to the wider EU context of what the Dutch just invited us to join and try and ensure that EU/French foreign policy objectives are driving force of what the pact will work towards. That would have been a deal breaker for the US because moving at the rate of the slowest member will mean nothing will ever actually happen.
    What the French seem to struggle to understand is that the concept of "honour" in international affairs doesn't really exist in English-speaking countries. Decisions are made based on a hard-nosed practical assessment of the situation. The Americans for instance quite often take decisions that are pretty rude and obnoxious towards the UK, like refusing to cooperate with regard to the Anne Sacoolas accident, when you'd expect them to be more helpful if they're one of our closest allies.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,221
    edited September 18
    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Farooq said:

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

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

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

    Which is why the last two failures to be Chancellor or FS taking over is a sign that historical precedent has broken down.
  • TazTaz Posts: 2,476
    Leon said:

    lol


    A new Subway ad, trolling the French


    You’re over the dolphins then ?
  • Andy_JS said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    lol. I approve of Aukus but this Spanish journalist goes a bit far, even for me

    "Prime Minister Johnson finds in this new, more flexible and open environment an opportunity to continue in the leading group of the West thanks to Brexit and not depending on a European Union that was strategically lost decades ago and unable to make a single decision in time.

    "For Australia, it means ensuring its regional leadership based on its membership in the Anglo world, which will lead the world against China for the remainder of the century. Continental Europe languishes, once again, while the world created by Elizabeth I of England rises from its ashes and Churchill's ideal scenario regains all its political, ideological and military strength and power."

    https://twitter.com/Pedro_F_MM/status/1439258533401436166?s=20

    Good to see satire isn't dead in Spain.
    Yes, a touch hyperbolic

    However, put it with that Italian politician yearning to join Five Eyes and it is obvious the EU is not going to meekly follow France's lead, either in their strop against the Anglo-Saxons, nor in their desires for a French-led combined EU military

    France is in a pickle. In fact, post Brexit and post Aukus it is France that looks, suddenly, like a nation without a foreign policy and, in hard military terms, rather friendless
    Yes it very much looks like France is isolated. Eventually being a sub to Germany was going to catch up to them, living within the bounds of German foreign policy wrt China means they're not in the race.
    In 5 years the French will probably be a semi-detached member of AUKUS with special status (to salve wounded French pride)

    It will suit all sides. France has possessions there, and power to project.

    Whither the Germans? God knows.

    At some point the EU nations are either gonna create a combined military, or (much more likely) admit that No, it ain't ever happening, in any real way
    Yeah, I don't see any new country joining the alliance because of the nuclear secrets being shared. Associate membership of some sort will definitely be on the table for France, Japan, India and others but what was important was setting the terms beforehand rather than having France dick about for months negotiating the minutiae of which jobs go where and what proportion of research funding will be spent in France etc...
    Several journals - the Times, the NYT, the Economist - have said that one reason for the total secrecy was the certainty that France would not only object, but seriously try to sabotage the entire project. It had to be presented as a fait accompli, which was always going to sting Macron severely
    Yeah absolutely, they would try and funnel any new partnership to the wider EU context of what the Dutch just invited us to join and try and ensure that EU/French foreign policy objectives are driving force of what the pact will work towards. That would have been a deal breaker for the US because moving at the rate of the slowest member will mean nothing will ever actually happen.
    What the French seem to struggle to understand is that the concept of "honour" in international affairs doesn't really exist in English-speaking countries. Decisions are made based on a hard-nosed practical assessment of the situation. The Americans for instance quite often take decisions that are pretty rude and obnoxious towards the UK, like refusing to cooperate with regard to the Anne Sacoolas accident, when you'd expect them to be more helpful if they're one of our closest allies.
    I think the French understand the concept quite well and if the shoe was on the other foot they wouldn't hesitate to do the same.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 13,061
    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    stodge said:

    Leon said:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 4,836
    edited September 18
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    This is the best argument AGAINST Aukus

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

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


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

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

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

    Not any more, I don't think

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

    We are hooked into the Anglosphere for good now. We've chosen our team. We are a senior member, 2nd in command, but not the captain. Other members will come along.
    These are obviously much more long-term issues now, so the realignment and re-entry would have to be over decades, rather than realistically any time too soon.
  • Boris has played a blinder and scuppered Rishi's ambition. Rishi is left holding the NI rise, while Boris has got the Tories loving him again over foreign affairs and stuffing the French. The recent appointment of the Truss is also revealing in that regard. She's now in a position to benefit from Boris's reflected foreign-policy glory, so is clearly Boris's number-one preference as successor.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 13,061
    Andy_JS said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    lol. I approve of Aukus but this Spanish journalist goes a bit far, even for me

    "Prime Minister Johnson finds in this new, more flexible and open environment an opportunity to continue in the leading group of the West thanks to Brexit and not depending on a European Union that was strategically lost decades ago and unable to make a single decision in time.

    "For Australia, it means ensuring its regional leadership based on its membership in the Anglo world, which will lead the world against China for the remainder of the century. Continental Europe languishes, once again, while the world created by Elizabeth I of England rises from its ashes and Churchill's ideal scenario regains all its political, ideological and military strength and power."

    https://twitter.com/Pedro_F_MM/status/1439258533401436166?s=20

    Good to see satire isn't dead in Spain.
    Yes, a touch hyperbolic

    However, put it with that Italian politician yearning to join Five Eyes and it is obvious the EU is not going to meekly follow France's lead, either in their strop against the Anglo-Saxons, nor in their desires for a French-led combined EU military

    France is in a pickle. In fact, post Brexit and post Aukus it is France that looks, suddenly, like a nation without a foreign policy and, in hard military terms, rather friendless
    Yes it very much looks like France is isolated. Eventually being a sub to Germany was going to catch up to them, living within the bounds of German foreign policy wrt China means they're not in the race.
    In 5 years the French will probably be a semi-detached member of AUKUS with special status (to salve wounded French pride)

    It will suit all sides. France has possessions there, and power to project.

    Whither the Germans? God knows.

    At some point the EU nations are either gonna create a combined military, or (much more likely) admit that No, it ain't ever happening, in any real way
    Yeah, I don't see any new country joining the alliance because of the nuclear secrets being shared. Associate membership of some sort will definitely be on the table for France, Japan, India and others but what was important was setting the terms beforehand rather than having France dick about for months negotiating the minutiae of which jobs go where and what proportion of research funding will be spent in France etc...
    Several journals - the Times, the NYT, the Economist - have said that one reason for the total secrecy was the certainty that France would not only object, but seriously try to sabotage the entire project. It had to be presented as a fait accompli, which was always going to sting Macron severely
    Yeah absolutely, they would try and funnel any new partnership to the wider EU context of what the Dutch just invited us to join and try and ensure that EU/French foreign policy objectives are driving force of what the pact will work towards. That would have been a deal breaker for the US because moving at the rate of the slowest member will mean nothing will ever actually happen.
    What the French seem to struggle to understand is that the concept of "honour" in international affairs doesn't really exist in English-speaking countries. Decisions are made based on a hard-nosed practical assessment of the situation. The Americans for instance quite often take decisions that are pretty rude and obnoxious towards the UK, like refusing to cooperate with regard to the Anne Sacoolas accident, when you'd expect them to be more helpful if they're one of our closest allies.
    Of all the nations in all the world, I would expect France to be in the first rank of "nations that understand betrayal and duplicity". France has been doing this to "friends" for centuries. Often very well.

    They're just hacked off and globally embarrassed that it's been done, spectacularly, to them. Like having your trousers pulled down in a crowded pub. Awks.
  • Andy_JS said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    lol. I approve of Aukus but this Spanish journalist goes a bit far, even for me

    "Prime Minister Johnson finds in this new, more flexible and open environment an opportunity to continue in the leading group of the West thanks to Brexit and not depending on a European Union that was strategically lost decades ago and unable to make a single decision in time.

    "For Australia, it means ensuring its regional leadership based on its membership in the Anglo world, which will lead the world against China for the remainder of the century. Continental Europe languishes, once again, while the world created by Elizabeth I of England rises from its ashes and Churchill's ideal scenario regains all its political, ideological and military strength and power."

    https://twitter.com/Pedro_F_MM/status/1439258533401436166?s=20

    Good to see satire isn't dead in Spain.
    Yes, a touch hyperbolic

    However, put it with that Italian politician yearning to join Five Eyes and it is obvious the EU is not going to meekly follow France's lead, either in their strop against the Anglo-Saxons, nor in their desires for a French-led combined EU military

    France is in a pickle. In fact, post Brexit and post Aukus it is France that looks, suddenly, like a nation without a foreign policy and, in hard military terms, rather friendless
    Yes it very much looks like France is isolated. Eventually being a sub to Germany was going to catch up to them, living within the bounds of German foreign policy wrt China means they're not in the race.
    In 5 years the French will probably be a semi-detached member of AUKUS with special status (to salve wounded French pride)

    It will suit all sides. France has possessions there, and power to project.

    Whither the Germans? God knows.

    At some point the EU nations are either gonna create a combined military, or (much more likely) admit that No, it ain't ever happening, in any real way
    Yeah, I don't see any new country joining the alliance because of the nuclear secrets being shared. Associate membership of some sort will definitely be on the table for France, Japan, India and others but what was important was setting the terms beforehand rather than having France dick about for months negotiating the minutiae of which jobs go where and what proportion of research funding will be spent in France etc...
    Several journals - the Times, the NYT, the Economist - have said that one reason for the total secrecy was the certainty that France would not only object, but seriously try to sabotage the entire project. It had to be presented as a fait accompli, which was always going to sting Macron severely
    Yeah absolutely, they would try and funnel any new partnership to the wider EU context of what the Dutch just invited us to join and try and ensure that EU/French foreign policy objectives are driving force of what the pact will work towards. That would have been a deal breaker for the US because moving at the rate of the slowest member will mean nothing will ever actually happen.
    What the French seem to struggle to understand is that the concept of "honour" in international affairs doesn't really exist in English-speaking countries. Decisions are made based on a hard-nosed practical assessment of the situation. The Americans for instance quite often take decisions that are pretty rude and obnoxious towards the UK, like refusing to cooperate with regard to the Anne Sacoolas accident, when you'd expect them to be more helpful if they're one of our closest allies.
    I’m sure I recall much recent screeching about the ‘dishonour’ of our withdrawal from Afghanistan..
    A lot of the blame was being pinned to Biden and the Yanks of course.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 13,061
    Taz said:

    Leon said:

    lol


    A new Subway ad, trolling the French


    You’re over the dolphins then ?
    Stupid cetacean wankers, quite frankly
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,623

    Boris has played a blinder and scuppered Rishi's ambition. Rishi is left holding the NI rise, while Boris has got the Tories loving him again over foreign affairs and stuffing the French. The recent appointment of the Truss is also revealing in that regard. She's now in a position to benefit from Boris's reflected foreign-policy glory, so is clearly Boris's number-one preference as successor.

    Or... she is now away most weeks on Foreign business and so cannot organize at Commons or speak at the constituency dinners needed to run.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,861
    Leon said:

    Andy_JS said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    lol. I approve of Aukus but this Spanish journalist goes a bit far, even for me

    "Prime Minister Johnson finds in this new, more flexible and open environment an opportunity to continue in the leading group of the West thanks to Brexit and not depending on a European Union that was strategically lost decades ago and unable to make a single decision in time.

    "For Australia, it means ensuring its regional leadership based on its membership in the Anglo world, which will lead the world against China for the remainder of the century. Continental Europe languishes, once again, while the world created by Elizabeth I of England rises from its ashes and Churchill's ideal scenario regains all its political, ideological and military strength and power."

    https://twitter.com/Pedro_F_MM/status/1439258533401436166?s=20

    Good to see satire isn't dead in Spain.
    Yes, a touch hyperbolic

    However, put it with that Italian politician yearning to join Five Eyes and it is obvious the EU is not going to meekly follow France's lead, either in their strop against the Anglo-Saxons, nor in their desires for a French-led combined EU military

    France is in a pickle. In fact, post Brexit and post Aukus it is France that looks, suddenly, like a nation without a foreign policy and, in hard military terms, rather friendless
    Yes it very much looks like France is isolated. Eventually being a sub to Germany was going to catch up to them, living within the bounds of German foreign policy wrt China means they're not in the race.
    In 5 years the French will probably be a semi-detached member of AUKUS with special status (to salve wounded French pride)

    It will suit all sides. France has possessions there, and power to project.

    Whither the Germans? God knows.

    At some point the EU nations are either gonna create a combined military, or (much more likely) admit that No, it ain't ever happening, in any real way
    Yeah, I don't see any new country joining the alliance because of the nuclear secrets being shared. Associate membership of some sort will definitely be on the table for France, Japan, India and others but what was important was setting the terms beforehand rather than having France dick about for months negotiating the minutiae of which jobs go where and what proportion of research funding will be spent in France etc...
    Several journals - the Times, the NYT, the Economist - have said that one reason for the total secrecy was the certainty that France would not only object, but seriously try to sabotage the entire project. It had to be presented as a fait accompli, which was always going to sting Macron severely
    Yeah absolutely, they would try and funnel any new partnership to the wider EU context of what the Dutch just invited us to join and try and ensure that EU/French foreign policy objectives are driving force of what the pact will work towards. That would have been a deal breaker for the US because moving at the rate of the slowest member will mean nothing will ever actually happen.
    What the French seem to struggle to understand is that the concept of "honour" in international affairs doesn't really exist in English-speaking countries. Decisions are made based on a hard-nosed practical assessment of the situation. The Americans for instance quite often take decisions that are pretty rude and obnoxious towards the UK, like refusing to cooperate with regard to the Anne Sacoolas accident, when you'd expect them to be more helpful if they're one of our closest allies.
    Of all the nations in all the world, I would expect France to be in the first rank of "nations that understand betrayal and duplicity". France has been doing this to "friends" for centuries. Often very well.

    They're just hacked off and globally embarrassed that it's been done, spectacularly, to them. Like having your trousers pulled down in a crowded pub. Awks.
    Auks*
  • LeonLeon Posts: 13,061
    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    Andy_JS said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    lol. I approve of Aukus but this Spanish journalist goes a bit far, even for me

    "Prime Minister Johnson finds in this new, more flexible and open environment an opportunity to continue in the leading group of the West thanks to Brexit and not depending on a European Union that was strategically lost decades ago and unable to make a single decision in time.

    "For Australia, it means ensuring its regional leadership based on its membership in the Anglo world, which will lead the world against China for the remainder of the century. Continental Europe languishes, once again, while the world created by Elizabeth I of England rises from its ashes and Churchill's ideal scenario regains all its political, ideological and military strength and power."

    https://twitter.com/Pedro_F_MM/status/1439258533401436166?s=20

    Good to see satire isn't dead in Spain.
    Yes, a touch hyperbolic

    However, put it with that Italian politician yearning to join Five Eyes and it is obvious the EU is not going to meekly follow France's lead, either in their strop against the Anglo-Saxons, nor in their desires for a French-led combined EU military

    France is in a pickle. In fact, post Brexit and post Aukus it is France that looks, suddenly, like a nation without a foreign policy and, in hard military terms, rather friendless
    Yes it very much looks like France is isolated. Eventually being a sub to Germany was going to catch up to them, living within the bounds of German foreign policy wrt China means they're not in the race.
    In 5 years the French will probably be a semi-detached member of AUKUS with special status (to salve wounded French pride)

    It will suit all sides. France has possessions there, and power to project.

    Whither the Germans? God knows.

    At some point the EU nations are either gonna create a combined military, or (much more likely) admit that No, it ain't ever happening, in any real way
    Yeah, I don't see any new country joining the alliance because of the nuclear secrets being shared. Associate membership of some sort will definitely be on the table for France, Japan, India and others but what was important was setting the terms beforehand rather than having France dick about for months negotiating the minutiae of which jobs go where and what proportion of research funding will be spent in France etc...
    Several journals - the Times, the NYT, the Economist - have said that one reason for the total secrecy was the certainty that France would not only object, but seriously try to sabotage the entire project. It had to be presented as a fait accompli, which was always going to sting Macron severely
    Yeah absolutely, they would try and funnel any new partnership to the wider EU context of what the Dutch just invited us to join and try and ensure that EU/French foreign policy objectives are driving force of what the pact will work towards. That would have been a deal breaker for the US because moving at the rate of the slowest member will mean nothing will ever actually happen.
    What the French seem to struggle to understand is that the concept of "honour" in international affairs doesn't really exist in English-speaking countries. Decisions are made based on a hard-nosed practical assessment of the situation. The Americans for instance quite often take decisions that are pretty rude and obnoxious towards the UK, like refusing to cooperate with regard to the Anne Sacoolas accident, when you'd expect them to be more helpful if they're one of our closest allies.
    Of all the nations in all the world, I would expect France to be in the first rank of "nations that understand betrayal and duplicity". France has been doing this to "friends" for centuries. Often very well.

    They're just hacked off and globally embarrassed that it's been done, spectacularly, to them. Like having your trousers pulled down in a crowded pub. Awks.
    Auks*
    Giant Auks
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Farooq said:

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

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

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

    Which is why the last two failures to be Chancellor or FS taking over is a sign that historical precedent has broken down.
    I misread your previous comment and assumed you were referring to those who had held the office of Chancellor or Foreign Secretary.
  • stodge said:

    Leon said:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    30 years on and the inevitable movement of American interest from the Atlantic to the Pacific has moved another step. If Europe is now having to defend itself, some sharp questions need to be asked - should the British and French nuclear deterrents be extended to the defence of Riga and Tallinn? Are they our concern or should we tell them they will need to reach some form of accommodation with Putin?
    As far as US troops in Germany are concerned the US pays for them. The Germans defray a small amount of the cost by waiving taxes and allowing rent free occupation of some West German facilities. But whereas Japan pays the US several billion a year Germany does not pay the US directly.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,221
    edited September 18
    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Farooq said:

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

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

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

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

    From that point of view Baldwin is an awkward one because he had more than one term - one of three to do so since 1902 if memory serves, along with Macdonald and Wilson. So he was Chancellor, Leader of the Opposition and Lord President at different tImes.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,817
    edited September 18
    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Leon said:

    lol


    A new Subway ad, trolling the French


    You’re over the dolphins then ?
    Stupid cetacean wankers, quite frankly
    You do know that the dolphin is the emblem of the submarine services of the US, the UK, and AUS?

    Whilst the French use the Sword.

    (For what it matters. Of course you do, being a man of the world interested in subs. :smile: )
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,554
    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    This is the best argument AGAINST Aukus

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

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


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

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

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

    Not any more, I don't think

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

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

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

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

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

    A couple of nations might straddle both: France, possibly the UK
    If only the complexity of world affairs could always be magicked away by a bottle of wine and huge dollop of gratuitous generalisation
  • LeonLeon Posts: 13,061
    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    This is the best argument AGAINST Aukus

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

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


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

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

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

    Not any more, I don't think

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

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

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

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

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

    A couple of nations might straddle both: France, possibly the UK
    If only the complexity of world affairs could always be magicked away by a bottle of wine and huge dollop of gratuitous generalisation
    Churchill did OK with the very same method
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Farooq said:

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

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

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

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

    From that point of view Baldwin is an awkward one because he had more than one term - one of three to do so since 1902 if memory serves, along with Macdonald and Wilson. So he was Chancellor, Leader of the Opposition and Lord President at different tImes.
    And Churchill.
  • NATO is definitely finished. Boris has destroyed it. The bitter irony is that the hapless Sir Keir can't even hold Boris to account over that, owing to the fact that he campaigned for the anti-NATO Corbyn only a short time ago - something Boris gleefully mentioned in the HoC last week. Boris is master of all he surveys and Sir Keir is impotent.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,221
    edited September 18
    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Farooq said:

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

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

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

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

    From that point of view Baldwin is an awkward one because he had more than one term - one of three to do so since 1902 if memory serves, along with Macdonald and Wilson. So he was Chancellor, Leader of the Opposition and Lord President at different tImes.
    And Churchill.
    Yes - but he was only once Prime Minister *in peacetime*. The entirety of his first spell in office was during the Second World War when democracy was in effect suspended.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,554

    stodge said:

    Leon said:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    30 years on and the inevitable movement of American interest from the Atlantic to the Pacific has moved another step. If Europe is now having to defend itself, some sharp questions need to be asked - should the British and French nuclear deterrents be extended to the defence of Riga and Tallinn? Are they our concern or should we tell them they will need to reach some form of accommodation with Putin?
    As far as US troops in Germany are concerned the US pays for them. The Germans defray a small amount of the cost by waiving taxes and allowing rent free occupation of some West German facilities. But whereas Japan pays the US several billion a year Germany does not pay the US directly.
    I drove past a big US base near Ansbach last week, complete with its own radio station
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,016
    The message to Europe from AUKUS is that the U.S. is serious about resisting Chinese hegemony in the Asia-Pacific. Europe can’t play China’s game of divide-and-conquer on economic and strategic issues without consequences for its U.S. relationship’. Spot on
    @WSJ


    https://twitter.com/stefanauer_hku/status/1439130464569024523?s=20
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,554
    Leon said:

    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    This is the best argument AGAINST Aukus

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

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


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

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

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

    Not any more, I don't think

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

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

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

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

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

    A couple of nations might straddle both: France, possibly the UK
    If only the complexity of world affairs could always be magicked away by a bottle of wine and huge dollop of gratuitous generalisation
    Churchill did OK with the very same method
    He got one (arguably two) very big questions right and otherwise was almost invariably wrong. And had to be 'managed'.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,801

    Andy_JS said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    lol. I approve of Aukus but this Spanish journalist goes a bit far, even for me

    "Prime Minister Johnson finds in this new, more flexible and open environment an opportunity to continue in the leading group of the West thanks to Brexit and not depending on a European Union that was strategically lost decades ago and unable to make a single decision in time.

    "For Australia, it means ensuring its regional leadership based on its membership in the Anglo world, which will lead the world against China for the remainder of the century. Continental Europe languishes, once again, while the world created by Elizabeth I of England rises from its ashes and Churchill's ideal scenario regains all its political, ideological and military strength and power."

    https://twitter.com/Pedro_F_MM/status/1439258533401436166?s=20

    Good to see satire isn't dead in Spain.
    Yes, a touch hyperbolic

    However, put it with that Italian politician yearning to join Five Eyes and it is obvious the EU is not going to meekly follow France's lead, either in their strop against the Anglo-Saxons, nor in their desires for a French-led combined EU military

    France is in a pickle. In fact, post Brexit and post Aukus it is France that looks, suddenly, like a nation without a foreign policy and, in hard military terms, rather friendless
    Yes it very much looks like France is isolated. Eventually being a sub to Germany was going to catch up to them, living within the bounds of German foreign policy wrt China means they're not in the race.
    In 5 years the French will probably be a semi-detached member of AUKUS with special status (to salve wounded French pride)

    It will suit all sides. France has possessions there, and power to project.

    Whither the Germans? God knows.

    At some point the EU nations are either gonna create a combined military, or (much more likely) admit that No, it ain't ever happening, in any real way
    Yeah, I don't see any new country joining the alliance because of the nuclear secrets being shared. Associate membership of some sort will definitely be on the table for France, Japan, India and others but what was important was setting the terms beforehand rather than having France dick about for months negotiating the minutiae of which jobs go where and what proportion of research funding will be spent in France etc...
    Several journals - the Times, the NYT, the Economist - have said that one reason for the total secrecy was the certainty that France would not only object, but seriously try to sabotage the entire project. It had to be presented as a fait accompli, which was always going to sting Macron severely
    Yeah absolutely, they would try and funnel any new partnership to the wider EU context of what the Dutch just invited us to join and try and ensure that EU/French foreign policy objectives are driving force of what the pact will work towards. That would have been a deal breaker for the US because moving at the rate of the slowest member will mean nothing will ever actually happen.
    What the French seem to struggle to understand is that the concept of "honour" in international affairs doesn't really exist in English-speaking countries. Decisions are made based on a hard-nosed practical assessment of the situation. The Americans for instance quite often take decisions that are pretty rude and obnoxious towards the UK, like refusing to cooperate with regard to the Anne Sacoolas accident, when you'd expect them to be more helpful if they're one of our closest allies.
    I’m sure I recall much recent screeching about the ‘dishonour’ of our withdrawal from Afghanistan..
    A lot of the blame was being pinned to Biden and the Yanks of course.
    UK defence secretary suggests US is no longer a superpower - grauniad 2 weeks ago Thursday (it really is that recent).
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,221
    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    This is the best argument AGAINST Aukus

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

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


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

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

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

    Not any more, I don't think

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

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

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

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

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

    A couple of nations might straddle both: France, possibly the UK
    If only the complexity of world affairs could always be magicked away by a bottle of wine and huge dollop of gratuitous generalisation
    Churchill did OK with the very same method
    He got one (arguably two) very big questions right and otherwise was almost invariably wrong. And had to be 'managed'.
    What was the second one?!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,221
    IshmaelZ said:

    Andy_JS said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    lol. I approve of Aukus but this Spanish journalist goes a bit far, even for me

    "Prime Minister Johnson finds in this new, more flexible and open environment an opportunity to continue in the leading group of the West thanks to Brexit and not depending on a European Union that was strategically lost decades ago and unable to make a single decision in time.

    "For Australia, it means ensuring its regional leadership based on its membership in the Anglo world, which will lead the world against China for the remainder of the century. Continental Europe languishes, once again, while the world created by Elizabeth I of England rises from its ashes and Churchill's ideal scenario regains all its political, ideological and military strength and power."

    https://twitter.com/Pedro_F_MM/status/1439258533401436166?s=20

    Good to see satire isn't dead in Spain.
    Yes, a touch hyperbolic

    However, put it with that Italian politician yearning to join Five Eyes and it is obvious the EU is not going to meekly follow France's lead, either in their strop against the Anglo-Saxons, nor in their desires for a French-led combined EU military

    France is in a pickle. In fact, post Brexit and post Aukus it is France that looks, suddenly, like a nation without a foreign policy and, in hard military terms, rather friendless
    Yes it very much looks like France is isolated. Eventually being a sub to Germany was going to catch up to them, living within the bounds of German foreign policy wrt China means they're not in the race.
    In 5 years the French will probably be a semi-detached member of AUKUS with special status (to salve wounded French pride)

    It will suit all sides. France has possessions there, and power to project.

    Whither the Germans? God knows.

    At some point the EU nations are either gonna create a combined military, or (much more likely) admit that No, it ain't ever happening, in any real way
    Yeah, I don't see any new country joining the alliance because of the nuclear secrets being shared. Associate membership of some sort will definitely be on the table for France, Japan, India and others but what was important was setting the terms beforehand rather than having France dick about for months negotiating the minutiae of which jobs go where and what proportion of research funding will be spent in France etc...
    Several journals - the Times, the NYT, the Economist - have said that one reason for the total secrecy was the certainty that France would not only object, but seriously try to sabotage the entire project. It had to be presented as a fait accompli, which was always going to sting Macron severely
    Yeah absolutely, they would try and funnel any new partnership to the wider EU context of what the Dutch just invited us to join and try and ensure that EU/French foreign policy objectives are driving force of what the pact will work towards. That would have been a deal breaker for the US because moving at the rate of the slowest member will mean nothing will ever actually happen.
    What the French seem to struggle to understand is that the concept of "honour" in international affairs doesn't really exist in English-speaking countries. Decisions are made based on a hard-nosed practical assessment of the situation. The Americans for instance quite often take decisions that are pretty rude and obnoxious towards the UK, like refusing to cooperate with regard to the Anne Sacoolas accident, when you'd expect them to be more helpful if they're one of our closest allies.
    I’m sure I recall much recent screeching about the ‘dishonour’ of our withdrawal from Afghanistan..
    A lot of the blame was being pinned to Biden and the Yanks of course.
    UK defence secretary suggests US is no longer a superpower - grauniad 2 weeks ago Thursday (it really is that recent).
    But they’ve always thought it was a shit power rather than a superpower.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,493
    Aukus.
  • ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    This is the best argument AGAINST Aukus

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

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


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

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

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

    Not any more, I don't think

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

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

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

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

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

    A couple of nations might straddle both: France, possibly the UK
    If only the complexity of world affairs could always be magicked away by a bottle of wine and huge dollop of gratuitous generalisation
    Churchill did OK with the very same method
    He got one (arguably two) very big questions right and otherwise was almost invariably wrong. And had to be 'managed'.
    What was the second one?!
    European integration.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 2,292
    HYUFD said:

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

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

    Don't agree there. If Boris loses the election, it would be bad news for the likes of Patel. Patel isn't well-liked in the party, and, I believe, in the country. There's no logic to her being chosen as the leader. Patel would be on the back benches.
  • RattersRatters Posts: 196
    The big questions for me are will continental Europe be neutral with respect to China (‘not our fight’)? And will Russia increase its provocations in non-NATO Eastern Europe with the US firmly facing towards the Pacific?

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

    It all feels to me like one step closer to Cold War II.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,801
    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Andy_JS said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    lol. I approve of Aukus but this Spanish journalist goes a bit far, even for me

    "Prime Minister Johnson finds in this new, more flexible and open environment an opportunity to continue in the leading group of the West thanks to Brexit and not depending on a European Union that was strategically lost decades ago and unable to make a single decision in time.

    "For Australia, it means ensuring its regional leadership based on its membership in the Anglo world, which will lead the world against China for the remainder of the century. Continental Europe languishes, once again, while the world created by Elizabeth I of England rises from its ashes and Churchill's ideal scenario regains all its political, ideological and military strength and power."

    https://twitter.com/Pedro_F_MM/status/1439258533401436166?s=20

    Good to see satire isn't dead in Spain.
    Yes, a touch hyperbolic

    However, put it with that Italian politician yearning to join Five Eyes and it is obvious the EU is not going to meekly follow France's lead, either in their strop against the Anglo-Saxons, nor in their desires for a French-led combined EU military

    France is in a pickle. In fact, post Brexit and post Aukus it is France that looks, suddenly, like a nation without a foreign policy and, in hard military terms, rather friendless
    Yes it very much looks like France is isolated. Eventually being a sub to Germany was going to catch up to them, living within the bounds of German foreign policy wrt China means they're not in the race.
    In 5 years the French will probably be a semi-detached member of AUKUS with special status (to salve wounded French pride)

    It will suit all sides. France has possessions there, and power to project.

    Whither the Germans? God knows.

    At some point the EU nations are either gonna create a combined military, or (much more likely) admit that No, it ain't ever happening, in any real way
    Yeah, I don't see any new country joining the alliance because of the nuclear secrets being shared. Associate membership of some sort will definitely be on the table for France, Japan, India and others but what was important was setting the terms beforehand rather than having France dick about for months negotiating the minutiae of which jobs go where and what proportion of research funding will be spent in France etc...
    Several journals - the Times, the NYT, the Economist - have said that one reason for the total secrecy was the certainty that France would not only object, but seriously try to sabotage the entire project. It had to be presented as a fait accompli, which was always going to sting Macron severely
    Yeah absolutely, they would try and funnel any new partnership to the wider EU context of what the Dutch just invited us to join and try and ensure that EU/French foreign policy objectives are driving force of what the pact will work towards. That would have been a deal breaker for the US because moving at the rate of the slowest member will mean nothing will ever actually happen.
    What the French seem to struggle to understand is that the concept of "honour" in international affairs doesn't really exist in English-speaking countries. Decisions are made based on a hard-nosed practical assessment of the situation. The Americans for instance quite often take decisions that are pretty rude and obnoxious towards the UK, like refusing to cooperate with regard to the Anne Sacoolas accident, when you'd expect them to be more helpful if they're one of our closest allies.
    I’m sure I recall much recent screeching about the ‘dishonour’ of our withdrawal from Afghanistan..
    A lot of the blame was being pinned to Biden and the Yanks of course.
    UK defence secretary suggests US is no longer a superpower - grauniad 2 weeks ago Thursday (it really is that recent).
    But they’ve always thought it was a shit power rather than a superpower.
    Yes, but the def sec is meant to pretend not to agree with them.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 26,220
    kinabalu said:

    Aukus.

    U suuk A
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,623
    Some of the anti-vax protesters in London today were actually wearing tin foil hats.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,512

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

    Rubbish, NATO was set up to contain Russia not China and the EU Baltic States are as threatened by Putin as ever
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,221

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    This is the best argument AGAINST Aukus

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

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


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

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

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

    Not any more, I don't think

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

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

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

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

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

    A couple of nations might straddle both: France, possibly the UK
    If only the complexity of world affairs could always be magicked away by a bottle of wine and huge dollop of gratuitous generalisation
    Churchill did OK with the very same method
    He got one (arguably two) very big questions right and otherwise was almost invariably wrong. And had to be 'managed'.
    What was the second one?!
    European integration.
    I’m surprised you’re happy about his ambivalence on whether or not Britain should be involved…
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,861

    The message to Europe from AUKUS is that the U.S. is serious about resisting Chinese hegemony in the Asia-Pacific. Europe can’t play China’s game of divide-and-conquer on economic and strategic issues without consequences for its U.S. relationship’. Spot on
    @WSJ


    https://twitter.com/stefanauer_hku/status/1439130464569024523?s=20

    This is my takeaway from this too.

    German whining about fracturing of western unity today is laughable. They fractured it by bowing to the mighty Chinese yuan.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,016
    England’s deputy chief medical officer asked ministers to withhold all UK clinical trial data from the EU if European countries continued to deny entry to British vaccine trial volunteers, the Observer can reveal.

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

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


    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/sep/18/ministers-told-bar-eu-uk-trial-data-vaccines-row-england-deputy-chief-medical-guinea-pigs
  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,817
    Brains Trust:

    Does someone with a handle on these thing know when is the next G7 summit is and who will be hosting it? Trying to get my head round it.

    Last time UK did it before 2021 was 2013, and 2014 was hosted by .. er .. the European Union. Though there was some complexity with Russia's presence just having caused the G8 to finish.

  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,554
    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    This is the best argument AGAINST Aukus

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

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


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

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

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

    Not any more, I don't think

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

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

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

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

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

    A couple of nations might straddle both: France, possibly the UK
    If only the complexity of world affairs could always be magicked away by a bottle of wine and huge dollop of gratuitous generalisation
    Churchill did OK with the very same method
    He got one (arguably two) very big questions right and otherwise was almost invariably wrong. And had to be 'managed'.
    What was the second one?!
    I was reading about his commentary on the Versailles negotiations, and he seems to have been prescient about the evil superpower the Soviets would become back when most informed opinion was in the 'wait and see' camp. He seems to have had a particular prescience when it came to the threat of totalitarianism to compensate for his appalling judgement on almost all other matters both political and military
  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,817
    edited September 18
    ..

    Misread question.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,512
    edited September 18

    Andy_JS said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    lol. I approve of Aukus but this Spanish journalist goes a bit far, even for me

    "Prime Minister Johnson finds in this new, more flexible and open environment an opportunity to continue in the leading group of the West thanks to Brexit and not depending on a European Union that was strategically lost decades ago and unable to make a single decision in time.

    "For Australia, it means ensuring its regional leadership based on its membership in the Anglo world, which will lead the world against China for the remainder of the century. Continental Europe languishes, once again, while the world created by Elizabeth I of England rises from its ashes and Churchill's ideal scenario regains all its political, ideological and military strength and power."

    https://twitter.com/Pedro_F_MM/status/1439258533401436166?s=20

    Good to see satire isn't dead in Spain.
    Yes, a touch hyperbolic

    However, put it with that Italian politician yearning to join Five Eyes and it is obvious the EU is not going to meekly follow France's lead, either in their strop against the Anglo-Saxons, nor in their desires for a French-led combined EU military

    France is in a pickle. In fact, post Brexit and post Aukus it is France that looks, suddenly, like a nation without a foreign policy and, in hard military terms, rather friendless
    Yes it very much looks like France is isolated. Eventually being a sub to Germany was going to catch up to them, living within the bounds of German foreign policy wrt China means they're not in the race.
    In 5 years the French will probably be a semi-detached member of AUKUS with special status (to salve wounded French pride)

    It will suit all sides. France has possessions there, and power to project.

    Whither the Germans? God knows.

    At some point the EU nations are either gonna create a combined military, or (much more likely) admit that No, it ain't ever happening, in any real way
    Yeah, I don't see any new country joining the alliance because of the nuclear secrets being shared. Associate membership of some sort will definitely be on the table for France, Japan, India and others but what was important was setting the terms beforehand rather than having France dick about for months negotiating the minutiae of which jobs go where and what proportion of research funding will be spent in France etc...
    Several journals - the Times, the NYT, the Economist - have said that one reason for the total secrecy was the certainty that France would not only object, but seriously try to sabotage the entire project. It had to be presented as a fait accompli, which was always going to sting Macron severely
    Yeah absolutely, they would try and funnel any new partnership to the wider EU context of what the Dutch just invited us to join and try and ensure that EU/French foreign policy objectives are driving force of what the pact will work towards. That would have been a deal breaker for the US because moving at the rate of the slowest member will mean nothing will ever actually happen.
    What the French seem to struggle to understand is that the concept of "honour" in international affairs doesn't really exist in English-speaking countries. Decisions are made based on a hard-nosed practical assessment of the situation. The Americans for instance quite often take decisions that are pretty rude and obnoxious towards the UK, like refusing to cooperate with regard to the Anne Sacoolas accident, when you'd expect them to be more helpful if they're one of our closest allies.
    I’m sure I recall much recent screeching about the ‘dishonour’ of our withdrawal from Afghanistan..
    A lot of the blame was being pinned to Biden and the Yanks of course.
    I thought Biden's Afghanistan withdrawal was chaotic but he is right to build an Anglosphere alliance to contain China.

    Tory PMs have often got on well with Democratic Presidents eg Churchill and FDR, Macmillan and JFK, Cameron and Obama and now it seems Boris and Biden. Sometimes better than Tory PMs have got on with GOP Presidents eg Eden and IKE. The only Tory PMs who had a really close relationship with a GOP President were Thatcher and Reagan and Major and Bush 41 and of course it was Labour PM Blair who had the close relationship with GOP President George W Bush
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 2,292

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

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

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


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

    Is there any obstacle to just vaccinating them. Sounds like our rules are the problem here.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,861
    Farooq said:

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

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

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


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

    Is there any obstacle to just vaccinating them. Sounds like our rules are the problem here.
    It would mess up the trial data.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 15,482
    MattW said:

    Brains Trust:

    Does someone with a handle on these thing know when is the next G7 summit is and who will be hosting it? Trying to get my head round it.

    Last time UK did it before 2021 was 2013, and 2014 was hosted by .. er .. the European Union. Though there was some complexity with Russia's presence just having caused the G8 to finish.

    It's Germany.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,016
    MattW said:

    Brains Trust:

    Does someone with a handle on these thing know when is the next G7 summit is and who will be hosting it? Trying to get my head round it.

    Last time UK did it before 2021 was 2013, and 2014 was hosted by .. er .. the European Union. Though there was some complexity with Russia's presence just having caused the G8 to finish.

    Germany next:

    The role as host, also known as the G7 presidency, rotates annually among member countries in the following order: France, United States, United Kingdom, Germany, Japan, Italy and Canada. The European Union is not part of the rotation.

    https://www.international.gc.ca/world-monde/international_relations-relations_internationales/g7/index.aspx?lang=eng

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,221
    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Farooq said:

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

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

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

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

    From that point of view Baldwin is an awkward one because he had more than one term - one of three to do so since 1902 if memory serves, along with Macdonald and Wilson. So he was Chancellor, Leader of the Opposition and Lord President at different tImes.
    And Churchill.
    Yes - but he was only once Prime Minister *in peacetime*. The entirety of his first spell in office was during the Second World War when democracy was in effect suspended.
    Ah - I see I forgot to say ‘in peacetime’ in my original comment as I meant to. Which makes the follow up comment something of a bizarre non-sequitur. Yes, on the terms as I accidentally wrote them, Churchill should have been included. My apologies.
This discussion has been closed.