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

Farooq said:

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

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.

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

CarlottaVance 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?

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.

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

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.

FrancisUrquhart said:

rottenborough said:

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.

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

WhisperingOracle 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.

rottenborough said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

rottenborough said:

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.

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?

Leon said:

WhisperingOracle 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.

Casino_Royale said:

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

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

Casino_Royale said:

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Leon said:

lol


A new Subway ad, trolling the French

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.

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.

Stark_Dawning said:

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.

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*

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?

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

IanB2 said:

Leon said:

HYUFD said:

Leon said:

WhisperingOracle 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

Richard_Tyndall 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?

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.

Leon said:

IanB2 said:

Leon said:

HYUFD said:

Leon said:

WhisperingOracle 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

IanB2 said:

Leon said:

IanB2 said:

Leon said:

HYUFD said:

Leon said:

WhisperingOracle 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'.

kinabalu said:

Aukus.

Stark_Dawning said:

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

CarlottaVance said:

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

Farooq said:

CarlottaVance 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.

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.

Farooq said:

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.

Ratters said:

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.