Sunak back again as favourite in the next PM betting – politicalbetting.com
Options
Comments
-
I also wonder if the explicitly humiliating timing for Macron, France and the EU was deliberate. Just as the EU is about to announce its own (silly, formless) Indo-Pac policy? Just two weeks after ScoMo met Macron and said all is well?MaxPB said:
Bitter. You're the jilted ex right now. Boris has, for the first time in a while, played an absolute blinder in making what started as Australia asking us for nuclear subs into a new Anglosphere alliance to take on China. Even the American press has been surprised as to the depth and ambition of what is being proposed.Stark_Dawning said:
If the deal really did need to be terminated there were surely better ways of going about it. Publicly humiliating Macron on live TV was rather unseemly. Morrison just looked like the lesser bully who can suddenly throw his weight about because he's teamed up with a bigger bully. (Boris just looked like the fag of both of them, holding their coats.)Big_G_NorthWales said:
The deal you refer to started in 2016 and when Australia recently sought nuclear rather than diesel subs and France would not supply them then the deal was terminatedStuartDickson said:
How can one have “prejudices” against an online press conference? It’s all trappings. Australia welched on a deal and everybody is supposed to be impressed. Sneaks deserve each other.Big_G_NorthWales said:
You really are putting forward your prejudices against AUKUS here, and really do not seem to understand the strategic interest of Australia and the US in the Trans PacificStuartDickson said:Philip_Thompson said:
LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?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.
The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
Australia is as reliable as Putin. They’ve just shafted one strategic partner and are just as likely to shaft the next dopes.dixiedean said:
One or two are finding it difficult to disguise their tumescence at the prospect of Putin rolling through the EU.Farooq said:
So that's one view. Malmsbury says the area of operations are different so implying there's no impact, and Leon says NATO is over.MaxPB said:
It's not finished, it will just have to adjust to the US and UK being much less interested in defending the eastern border of Europe.Farooq said:
But is he wrong or right on his first point? Is NATO finished? I'm getting really mixed messages from the Aukus fans on here.Philip_Thompson said:
LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?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.
The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
That wouldn't be a hassle for us, no.
The first boat would be in service in about two decades. Considering that the Australian government has just buggered up Covid, they aren’t going to last beyond the next GE.
Furthermore, it has been suggested the US may base a nuclear sub in Perth in the meantime or even one or two of our own subs from Barrow could be assigned to AUKUS
Whenever it was announced it was going to be shocking and hurtful. For France, most of all. Why not make a virtue of necessity and make it so stinging the French and Europeans are forced to look at themselves and decide: where do we stand? Are we with China or the West? Is it time for an EU army?
Forcing the EU to face these questions is a good thing1 -
Gas supply not an "immediate" cause for concern this winter?
Well that's reassuring (not)
https://news.sky.com/story/gas-supply-this-winter-not-a-cause-for-immediate-concern-business-secretary-says-after-meeting-with-energy-companies-124115450 -
Even if they were it would be the TUV taking most of their votes on that poll and thus most of their seats, the TUV are even more hardline Unionists.Benpointer said:
Always assuming the DUP don't get wiped out in the next GE.HYUFD said:
Electoral calculus gives a hung parliament with Conservatives 318 and Labour 248 on the new Opinium figures, so the DUP would again have the balance of powerBig_G_NorthWales said:Opinium
@OpiniumResearch
Latest numbers:
Con 40% (+2)
Lab 37% (-1)
Lib Dem 7% (-1)
Green 6% (NC)
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=40&LAB=37&LIB=7&Reform=2&Green=6&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=23.6&SCOTLAB=19.2&SCOTLIB=6&SCOTReform=0.3&SCOTGreen=1.5&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=47.5&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2019base
https://www.rte.ie/news/ulster/2021/0828/1243348-dup-support-drops-poll/
If the UUP pick up a few seats as that poll suggests that would also help the Tories for as Justin has correctly stated they are closer aligned to the Tories than the DUP, even running joint candidates with the Tories in 20100 -
Incredible scenes in the cricket, never seen anything like that.
Outfielder makes a catch, but runs into another player who is touching the boundary rope.....result SIX....0 -
One wonders what would be an immediate cause for concern? A lack of tea, perhaps? Or Truss and Johnson caught in a clinch?GIN1138 said:Gas supply not an "immediate" cause for concern this winter?
Well that's reassuring (not)
https://news.sky.com/story/gas-supply-this-winter-not-a-cause-for-immediate-concern-business-secretary-says-after-meeting-with-energy-companies-124115450 -
Curiously enough Boris, never the details man, has seen the bigger picture.MaxPB said:
Bitter. You're the jilted ex right now. Boris has, for the first time in a while, played an absolute blinder in making what started as Australia asking us for nuclear subs into a new Anglosphere alliance to take on China. Even the American press has been surprised as to the depth and ambition of what is being proposed.Stark_Dawning said:
If the deal really did need to be terminated there were surely better ways of going about it. Publicly humiliating Macron on live TV was rather unseemly. Morrison just looked like the lesser bully who can suddenly throw his weight about because he's teamed up with a bigger bully. (Boris just looked like the fag of both of them, holding their coats.)Big_G_NorthWales said:
The deal you refer to started in 2016 and when Australia recently sought nuclear rather than diesel subs and France would not supply them then the deal was terminatedStuartDickson said:
How can one have “prejudices” against an online press conference? It’s all trappings. Australia welched on a deal and everybody is supposed to be impressed. Sneaks deserve each other.Big_G_NorthWales said:
You really are putting forward your prejudices against AUKUS here, and really do not seem to understand the strategic interest of Australia and the US in the Trans PacificStuartDickson said:Philip_Thompson said:
LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?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.
The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
Australia is as reliable as Putin. They’ve just shafted one strategic partner and are just as likely to shaft the next dopes.dixiedean said:
One or two are finding it difficult to disguise their tumescence at the prospect of Putin rolling through the EU.Farooq said:
So that's one view. Malmsbury says the area of operations are different so implying there's no impact, and Leon says NATO is over.MaxPB said:
It's not finished, it will just have to adjust to the US and UK being much less interested in defending the eastern border of Europe.Farooq said:
But is he wrong or right on his first point? Is NATO finished? I'm getting really mixed messages from the Aukus fans on here.Philip_Thompson said:
LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?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.
The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
That wouldn't be a hassle for us, no.
The first boat would be in service in about two decades. Considering that the Australian government has just buggered up Covid, they aren’t going to last beyond the next GE.
Furthermore, it has been suggested the US may base a nuclear sub in Perth in the meantime or even one or two of our own subs from Barrow could be assigned to AUKUS1 -
One thing that might help the Conservatives in Canada is that their share in Alberta and Saskatchewan is predicted to drop by a mammoth 20 percentage points or so, but because they were so high before they'll only lose a small number of seats, as few as 5. That drop may be affecting their national share in the opinion polls, but doesn't mean they'll do badly in other parts of Canada.0
-
Oops.FrancisUrquhart said:Incredible scenes in the cricket, never seen anything like that.
Outfielder makes a catch, but runs into another player who is touching the boundary rope.
This touching just shows they’re all oversixed.0 -
You're answering a point I haven't made. I'm delighted folk have woken up to the PRC.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I would just pose simple questiondixiedean said:
And why didn't you and your Party of troughers notice before?Philip_Thompson said:
Have you missed what's happened in Hong Kong?dixiedean said:
What precisely is China threatening to do? That it didn't before?Philip_Thompson said:.
The threat is in a word China.dixiedean said:
Yes. But what exacrly is the "threat" that folk have recently identified? And when did it become manifest?Philip_Thompson said:
Yes we are but that's the wrong way to look at it. Another way to say it is we're on Planet Earth and a global threat is a threat to all of us; an extra couple of thousands miles doesn't make us safer in the 21st century from global threats.dixiedean said:
Correct me if I'm wrong. We are in the Atlantic not the Pacific still, aren't we?Philip_Thompson said:
Probably not, though of course Macron said it was years ago, but then again the French have always only ever been half-engaged with NATO.Farooq said:
But is he wrong or right on his first point? Is NATO finished? I'm getting really mixed messages from the Aukus fans on here.Philip_Thompson said:
LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?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.
The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
The reality is that while NATO exists its not the priority anymore, because the threats of the 21st century are in the Pacific not the Atlantic.
We may be in the Atlantic. The threat we're facing is in the Pacific.
What precisely has changed? Is what I am trying to understand.
When did it manifest? Over the past decade since Xi Jinping took charge.
What changed is that Xi Jining ended China's liberalisations and took a much more sinister and aggressive path with the world.
And why has it taken nearly a decade for our Tory government to notice Xi is not a benign bloke?
Have you missed what's happened in Xinjiang?
Have you missed the escalating conflicts and militarisation of the South China Sea in the Pacific? Which despite the name is international not Chinese waters.
Potentially have you missed Covid19?
It takes time to realise what others are up to, it doesn't happen immediately. But it has been realised.
Have you not noticed that precisely none of the examples you note were much different when pockets were gleefully being lined.
HK had no democracy.
Xinjiang was being persecuted.
And PRC claimed many islands and waters in the S China Sea.
Those all go back decades.
So spare me the moral outrage for asking questions when you've just woken up.
Fact is. There was much rejoicing when folk thought the PRC would be a haven for international capitalism. And a brutal, repressive dictatorship.
Why has Starmer and Blackford endorsed AUKUS and as far as I am aware nobody in the HOC, outside Corbyn has objected to it
Trying to make this all about Boris ignores the fact he has cross party support for AUKUS
I am questioning why they have luxuriated in it for decades.
And wondering what exactly has changed? So far not a thing has been forthcoming other than stuff which was already going on.
And fully known to be going on.0 -
I think the maths is this:ydoethur said:
And of course every seat Sinn Fein win is one less they need to win for a majority…justin124 said:
On the other hand the UUP would be more natural Tory allies than the DUP.Benpointer said:
Always assuming the DUP don't get wiped out in the next GE.HYUFD said:
Electoral calculus gives a hung parliament with Conservatives 318 and Labour 248 on the new Opinium figures, so the DUP would again have the balance of powerBig_G_NorthWales said:Opinium
@OpiniumResearch
Latest numbers:
Con 40% (+2)
Lab 37% (-1)
Lib Dem 7% (-1)
Green 6% (NC)
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=40&LAB=37&LIB=7&Reform=2&Green=6&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=23.6&SCOTLAB=19.2&SCOTLIB=6&SCOTReform=0.3&SCOTGreen=1.5&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=47.5&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2019base
https://www.rte.ie/news/ulster/2021/0828/1243348-dup-support-drops-poll/
650 seats, 1 speaker so 325 gives a majority of 1
Say SF win 7 seats that is effectively 643 seats including 1 speaker
To have a majority you need 322 seats, with 1 speaker and 320 other parties = 643.
(If you have 321 seats, 1 speaker and 321 other parties, 7 SF, no idea.)
So each SF seat reduces the target by about .5
-1 -
Nah - I suspect it has more to do with the Quad meeting in Washington next week and the UN General Assembly with Johnson, Morrison and Biden all in the US. If anything I suspect they underestimated the French reaction.Leon said:
I also wonder if the explicitly humiliating timing for Macron, France and the EU was deliberate. Just as the EU is about to announce its own (silly, formless) Indo-Pac policy? Just two weeks after ScoMo met Macron and said all is well?MaxPB said:
Bitter. You're the jilted ex right now. Boris has, for the first time in a while, played an absolute blinder in making what started as Australia asking us for nuclear subs into a new Anglosphere alliance to take on China. Even the American press has been surprised as to the depth and ambition of what is being proposed.Stark_Dawning said:
If the deal really did need to be terminated there were surely better ways of going about it. Publicly humiliating Macron on live TV was rather unseemly. Morrison just looked like the lesser bully who can suddenly throw his weight about because he's teamed up with a bigger bully. (Boris just looked like the fag of both of them, holding their coats.)Big_G_NorthWales said:
The deal you refer to started in 2016 and when Australia recently sought nuclear rather than diesel subs and France would not supply them then the deal was terminatedStuartDickson said:
How can one have “prejudices” against an online press conference? It’s all trappings. Australia welched on a deal and everybody is supposed to be impressed. Sneaks deserve each other.Big_G_NorthWales said:
You really are putting forward your prejudices against AUKUS here, and really do not seem to understand the strategic interest of Australia and the US in the Trans PacificStuartDickson said:Philip_Thompson said:
LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?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.
The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
Australia is as reliable as Putin. They’ve just shafted one strategic partner and are just as likely to shaft the next dopes.dixiedean said:
One or two are finding it difficult to disguise their tumescence at the prospect of Putin rolling through the EU.Farooq said:
So that's one view. Malmsbury says the area of operations are different so implying there's no impact, and Leon says NATO is over.MaxPB said:
It's not finished, it will just have to adjust to the US and UK being much less interested in defending the eastern border of Europe.Farooq said:
But is he wrong or right on his first point? Is NATO finished? I'm getting really mixed messages from the Aukus fans on here.Philip_Thompson said:
LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?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.
The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
That wouldn't be a hassle for us, no.
The first boat would be in service in about two decades. Considering that the Australian government has just buggered up Covid, they aren’t going to last beyond the next GE.
Furthermore, it has been suggested the US may base a nuclear sub in Perth in the meantime or even one or two of our own subs from Barrow could be assigned to AUKUS
Whenever it was announced it was going to be shocking and hurtful. For France, most of all. Why not make a virtue of necessity and make it so stinging the French and Europeans are forced to look at themselves and decide: where do we stand? Are we with China or the West? Is it time for an EU army?
Forcing the EU to face these questions is a good thing0 -
Mainstreet today however still has the Liberals ahead in Ontario by 34.6% to 32.3% for the Conservatives and in Quebec with the BQ second and Conservatives third. Nationally the Liberals also narrowly lead 31% to 30.8%.Andy_JS said:One thing that might help the Conservatives in Canada is that their share in Alberta and Saskatchewan is predicted to drop by a mammoth 20 percentage points or so, but because they were so high before they'll only lose a small number of seats, as few as 5. That drop may be affecting their national share in the opinion polls, but doesn't mean they'll do badly in other parts of Canada.
If that holds Trudeau will be re elected on Monday with the Liberals getting most seats, albeit without the majority he wanted
https://archive.ph/qTvVJ0 -
Australian PM Curtain on Dec 27th 1941:
"Without any inhibitions of any kind, I make it quite clear that Australia looks to America, free of any pangs as to our traditional links or kinship with the United Kingdom"
From: https://www.pacificwar.org.au/battaust/Britain_betrays_Australia.html
1 -
They could have scrapped the deal first then announced AUUKUS a few weeks later. That might have spared some French dignity by making it look slightly less obvious that they were connected. Quite possible that Boris insisted on doing it all at once - he knows that bashing the French will play well with the base after the NI hike.Leon said:
I also wonder if the explicitly humiliating timing for Macron, France and the EU was deliberate. Just as the EU is about to announce its own (silly, formless) Indo-Pac policy? Just two weeks after ScoMo met Macron and said all is well?MaxPB said:
Bitter. You're the jilted ex right now. Boris has, for the first time in a while, played an absolute blinder in making what started as Australia asking us for nuclear subs into a new Anglosphere alliance to take on China. Even the American press has been surprised as to the depth and ambition of what is being proposed.Stark_Dawning said:
If the deal really did need to be terminated there were surely better ways of going about it. Publicly humiliating Macron on live TV was rather unseemly. Morrison just looked like the lesser bully who can suddenly throw his weight about because he's teamed up with a bigger bully. (Boris just looked like the fag of both of them, holding their coats.)Big_G_NorthWales said:
The deal you refer to started in 2016 and when Australia recently sought nuclear rather than diesel subs and France would not supply them then the deal was terminatedStuartDickson said:
How can one have “prejudices” against an online press conference? It’s all trappings. Australia welched on a deal and everybody is supposed to be impressed. Sneaks deserve each other.Big_G_NorthWales said:
You really are putting forward your prejudices against AUKUS here, and really do not seem to understand the strategic interest of Australia and the US in the Trans PacificStuartDickson said:Philip_Thompson said:
LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?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.
The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
Australia is as reliable as Putin. They’ve just shafted one strategic partner and are just as likely to shaft the next dopes.dixiedean said:
One or two are finding it difficult to disguise their tumescence at the prospect of Putin rolling through the EU.Farooq said:
So that's one view. Malmsbury says the area of operations are different so implying there's no impact, and Leon says NATO is over.MaxPB said:
It's not finished, it will just have to adjust to the US and UK being much less interested in defending the eastern border of Europe.Farooq said:
But is he wrong or right on his first point? Is NATO finished? I'm getting really mixed messages from the Aukus fans on here.Philip_Thompson said:
LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?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.
The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
That wouldn't be a hassle for us, no.
The first boat would be in service in about two decades. Considering that the Australian government has just buggered up Covid, they aren’t going to last beyond the next GE.
Furthermore, it has been suggested the US may base a nuclear sub in Perth in the meantime or even one or two of our own subs from Barrow could be assigned to AUKUS
Whenever it was announced it was going to be shocking and hurtful. For France, most of all. Why not make a virtue of necessity and make it so stinging the French and Europeans are forced to look at themselves and decide: where do we stand? Are we with China or the West? Is it time for an EU army?
Forcing the EU to face these questions is a good thing0 -
That's not quite true. China was a member of the Allies during two world wars. Not a perfect one, of course (who was?) but under its more progressive, western-oriented governments it wasn't too bad.Leon said:
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 presentsrcs1000 said:
Albeit with the proviso that we might suddenly find ourselves a bit uncomfortable if our near neighbor is a heavily armed ally of China.Leon said:
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 EUstodge said:
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.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
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?
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
But under Imperial rule, whether dynastic or Communist, you're right, it is a monster.0 -
utter bollocks. Until early last year we weren't facing a global pandemic, killing millions, which probably "leaked" from a Chinese lab, which was engineered to be nasty, which the Chinese tried to cover up, and which the Chinese then happily seeded around the world, by keeping open Chinese air-routes even as they sealed China internallydixiedean said:
You're answering a point I haven't made. I'm delighted folk have woken up to the PRC.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I would just pose simple questiondixiedean said:
And why didn't you and your Party of troughers notice before?Philip_Thompson said:
Have you missed what's happened in Hong Kong?dixiedean said:
What precisely is China threatening to do? That it didn't before?Philip_Thompson said:.
The threat is in a word China.dixiedean said:
Yes. But what exacrly is the "threat" that folk have recently identified? And when did it become manifest?Philip_Thompson said:
Yes we are but that's the wrong way to look at it. Another way to say it is we're on Planet Earth and a global threat is a threat to all of us; an extra couple of thousands miles doesn't make us safer in the 21st century from global threats.dixiedean said:
Correct me if I'm wrong. We are in the Atlantic not the Pacific still, aren't we?Philip_Thompson said:
Probably not, though of course Macron said it was years ago, but then again the French have always only ever been half-engaged with NATO.Farooq said:
But is he wrong or right on his first point? Is NATO finished? I'm getting really mixed messages from the Aukus fans on here.Philip_Thompson said:
LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?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.
The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
The reality is that while NATO exists its not the priority anymore, because the threats of the 21st century are in the Pacific not the Atlantic.
We may be in the Atlantic. The threat we're facing is in the Pacific.
What precisely has changed? Is what I am trying to understand.
When did it manifest? Over the past decade since Xi Jinping took charge.
What changed is that Xi Jining ended China's liberalisations and took a much more sinister and aggressive path with the world.
And why has it taken nearly a decade for our Tory government to notice Xi is not a benign bloke?
Have you missed what's happened in Xinjiang?
Have you missed the escalating conflicts and militarisation of the South China Sea in the Pacific? Which despite the name is international not Chinese waters.
Potentially have you missed Covid19?
It takes time to realise what others are up to, it doesn't happen immediately. But it has been realised.
Have you not noticed that precisely none of the examples you note were much different when pockets were gleefully being lined.
HK had no democracy.
Xinjiang was being persecuted.
And PRC claimed many islands and waters in the S China Sea.
Those all go back decades.
So spare me the moral outrage for asking questions when you've just woken up.
Fact is. There was much rejoicing when folk thought the PRC would be a haven for international capitalism. And a brutal, repressive dictatorship.
Why has Starmer and Blackford endorsed AUKUS and as far as I am aware nobody in the HOC, outside Corbyn has objected to it
Trying to make this all about Boris ignores the fact he has cross party support for AUKUS
I am questioning why they have luxuriated in it for decades.
And wondering what exactly has changed? So far not a thing has been forthcoming other than stuff which was already going on.
And fully known to be going on.
Note that this whole Aukus thing stems from China bullying Australia, and embargoing Australian produce, after Australia dared to request a global investigation into the origins of Covid-19
This made Australia realise it was becoming a feudal underling, in the new Chinese Empire, not allowed an independent opinion, so they sought greater alliances than that offered by France
China is behaving like a terrible global bully, Aukus is the reaction. That's it. China over-reached. Xi made an error. The West is wising up
2 -
God they have made a second season..
The Queen And Piers Morgan Congratulate Emma Raducanu | Spitting Image
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42h4y1zKa8E
Its really not funny and just lazy writing. Also, you don't need a spitting image version of Piers Moron now there is all his tweets.1 -
Boris's 'opportunism' has been deplored along with his 'perfidy' and 'treachery'. However, that opportunism shows a sure-footedness in international relations that we could not expect from the likes of Theresa May or most EU leaders. Much to be applauded, that opportunism.6
-
The issue the US has with the EU is they just want to do it with cheap words rather than tangible action. Giving Australia nuclear sub capability is a huge, huge step for the nuclear nations in the deal. This is stuff that is considered incredibly valuable and kept top secret for a reason. We would never countenance sharing the information with any single EU country but we've just done it with Australia.Leon said:
I also wonder if the explicitly humiliating timing for Macron, France and the EU was deliberate. Just as the EU is about to announce its own (silly, formless) Indo-Pac policy? Just two weeks after ScoMo met Macron and said all is well?MaxPB said:
Bitter. You're the jilted ex right now. Boris has, for the first time in a while, played an absolute blinder in making what started as Australia asking us for nuclear subs into a new Anglosphere alliance to take on China. Even the American press has been surprised as to the depth and ambition of what is being proposed.Stark_Dawning said:
If the deal really did need to be terminated there were surely better ways of going about it. Publicly humiliating Macron on live TV was rather unseemly. Morrison just looked like the lesser bully who can suddenly throw his weight about because he's teamed up with a bigger bully. (Boris just looked like the fag of both of them, holding their coats.)Big_G_NorthWales said:
The deal you refer to started in 2016 and when Australia recently sought nuclear rather than diesel subs and France would not supply them then the deal was terminatedStuartDickson said:
How can one have “prejudices” against an online press conference? It’s all trappings. Australia welched on a deal and everybody is supposed to be impressed. Sneaks deserve each other.Big_G_NorthWales said:
You really are putting forward your prejudices against AUKUS here, and really do not seem to understand the strategic interest of Australia and the US in the Trans PacificStuartDickson said:Philip_Thompson said:
LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?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.
The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
Australia is as reliable as Putin. They’ve just shafted one strategic partner and are just as likely to shaft the next dopes.dixiedean said:
One or two are finding it difficult to disguise their tumescence at the prospect of Putin rolling through the EU.Farooq said:
So that's one view. Malmsbury says the area of operations are different so implying there's no impact, and Leon says NATO is over.MaxPB said:
It's not finished, it will just have to adjust to the US and UK being much less interested in defending the eastern border of Europe.Farooq said:
But is he wrong or right on his first point? Is NATO finished? I'm getting really mixed messages from the Aukus fans on here.Philip_Thompson said:
LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?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.
The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
That wouldn't be a hassle for us, no.
The first boat would be in service in about two decades. Considering that the Australian government has just buggered up Covid, they aren’t going to last beyond the next GE.
Furthermore, it has been suggested the US may base a nuclear sub in Perth in the meantime or even one or two of our own subs from Barrow could be assigned to AUKUS
Whenever it was announced it was going to be shocking and hurtful. For France, most of all. Why not make a virtue of necessity and make it so stinging the French and Europeans are forced to look at themselves and decide: where do we stand? Are we with China or the West? Is it time for an EU army?
Forcing the EU to face these questions is a good thing
All the EU will do is make some bold statement about how preserving the peace in APAC is of utmost importance but commit no resources to achieving it. They'll leave it to France but hamstring them with German policy objectives of being able sell China BMWs and dishwashers.
The timing does seem to have been picked to pre-empt whatever nonsense the EU will come out with from their summit.3 -
I think people have increasingly noticed over the past decade. For years now more and more people have been raisingdixiedean said:
And why didn't you and your Party of troughers notice before?Philip_Thompson said:
Have you missed what's happened in Hong Kong?dixiedean said:
What precisely is China threatening to do? That it didn't before?Philip_Thompson said:.
The threat is in a word China.dixiedean said:
Yes. But what exacrly is the "threat" that folk have recently identified? And when did it become manifest?Philip_Thompson said:
Yes we are but that's the wrong way to look at it. Another way to say it is we're on Planet Earth and a global threat is a threat to all of us; an extra couple of thousands miles doesn't make us safer in the 21st century from global threats.dixiedean said:
Correct me if I'm wrong. We are in the Atlantic not the Pacific still, aren't we?Philip_Thompson said:
Probably not, though of course Macron said it was years ago, but then again the French have always only ever been half-engaged with NATO.Farooq said:
But is he wrong or right on his first point? Is NATO finished? I'm getting really mixed messages from the Aukus fans on here.Philip_Thompson said:
LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?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.
The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
The reality is that while NATO exists its not the priority anymore, because the threats of the 21st century are in the Pacific not the Atlantic.
We may be in the Atlantic. The threat we're facing is in the Pacific.
What precisely has changed? Is what I am trying to understand.
When did it manifest? Over the past decade since Xi Jinping took charge.
What changed is that Xi Jining ended China's liberalisations and took a much more sinister and aggressive path with the world.
And why has it taken nearly a decade for our Tory government to notice Xi is not a benign bloke?
Have you missed what's happened in Xinjiang?
Have you missed the escalating conflicts and militarisation of the South China Sea in the Pacific? Which despite the name is international not Chinese waters.
Potentially have you missed Covid19?
It takes time to realise what others are up to, it doesn't happen immediately. But it has been realised.
Have you not noticed that precisely none of the examples you note were much different when pockets were gleefully being lined.
HK had no democracy.
Xinjiang was being persecuted.
And PRC claimed many islands and waters in the S China Sea.
Those all go back decades.
So spare me the moral outrage for asking questions when you've just woken up.
Fact is. There was much rejoicing when folk thought the PRC would be a haven for international capitalism. And a brutal, repressive dictatorship.
All of them were quite different a decade ago.
HK did have democracy. There were some issues with the 2016 elections but they were relatively free. Since then there's been a massive deterioration.
The atrocities in Xinjiang have become much more public in recent years.
The militarisation of the S China Sea has again escalated a lot in the past few years.
Yes there were red flags but there were reasons to be hopeful that economic liberalisation would lead to political liberalisation too. Spoiler: It didn't.2 -
Pitcairn says hello!dixiedean said:
Correct me if I'm wrong. We are in the Atlantic not the Pacific still, aren't we?Philip_Thompson said:
Probably not, though of course Macron said it was years ago, but then again the French have always only ever been half-engaged with NATO.Farooq said:
But is he wrong or right on his first point? Is NATO finished? I'm getting really mixed messages from the Aukus fans on here.Philip_Thompson said:
LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?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.
The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
The reality is that while NATO exists its not the priority anymore, because the threats of the 21st century are in the Pacific not the Atlantic.0 -
The change is the threat felt across the Trans Pacific and the need to counter that threat by a relevant and strong enough defence forcedixiedean said:
You're answering a point I haven't made. I'm delighted folk have woken up to the PRC.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I would just pose simple questiondixiedean said:
And why didn't you and your Party of troughers notice before?Philip_Thompson said:
Have you missed what's happened in Hong Kong?dixiedean said:
What precisely is China threatening to do? That it didn't before?Philip_Thompson said:.
The threat is in a word China.dixiedean said:
Yes. But what exacrly is the "threat" that folk have recently identified? And when did it become manifest?Philip_Thompson said:
Yes we are but that's the wrong way to look at it. Another way to say it is we're on Planet Earth and a global threat is a threat to all of us; an extra couple of thousands miles doesn't make us safer in the 21st century from global threats.dixiedean said:
Correct me if I'm wrong. We are in the Atlantic not the Pacific still, aren't we?Philip_Thompson said:
Probably not, though of course Macron said it was years ago, but then again the French have always only ever been half-engaged with NATO.Farooq said:
But is he wrong or right on his first point? Is NATO finished? I'm getting really mixed messages from the Aukus fans on here.Philip_Thompson said:
LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?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.
The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
The reality is that while NATO exists its not the priority anymore, because the threats of the 21st century are in the Pacific not the Atlantic.
We may be in the Atlantic. The threat we're facing is in the Pacific.
What precisely has changed? Is what I am trying to understand.
When did it manifest? Over the past decade since Xi Jinping took charge.
What changed is that Xi Jining ended China's liberalisations and took a much more sinister and aggressive path with the world.
And why has it taken nearly a decade for our Tory government to notice Xi is not a benign bloke?
Have you missed what's happened in Xinjiang?
Have you missed the escalating conflicts and militarisation of the South China Sea in the Pacific? Which despite the name is international not Chinese waters.
Potentially have you missed Covid19?
It takes time to realise what others are up to, it doesn't happen immediately. But it has been realised.
Have you not noticed that precisely none of the examples you note were much different when pockets were gleefully being lined.
HK had no democracy.
Xinjiang was being persecuted.
And PRC claimed many islands and waters in the S China Sea.
Those all go back decades.
So spare me the moral outrage for asking questions when you've just woken up.
Fact is. There was much rejoicing when folk thought the PRC would be a haven for international capitalism. And a brutal, repressive dictatorship.
Why has Starmer and Blackford endorsed AUKUS and as far as I am aware nobody in the HOC, outside Corbyn has objected to it
Trying to make this all about Boris ignores the fact he has cross party support for AUKUS
I am questioning why they have luxuriated in it for decades.
And wondering what exactly has changed? So far not a thing has been forthcoming other than stuff which was already going on.
I sometimes wonder, and I am not being critical, but that we tend to look on Europe as the most important region to ourselves, but when you travel extensively as I have done to Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, Eastern Russia, the South China Sea and China itself you realise just how expansive it is and vast compared to Europe1 -
So Boris has done a great job getting the UK aligned to the US and Australian alliance post Brexit then.Foxy said:Australian PM Curtain on Dec 27th 1941:
"Without any inhibitions of any kind, I make it quite clear that Australia looks to America, free of any pangs as to our traditional links or kinship with the United Kingdom"
From: https://www.pacificwar.org.au/battaust/Britain_betrays_Australia.html
Australia has always been the US' closest ally not us, fighting in every US war since WW1, including Vietnam unlike us.0 -
The core of this is that Biden-Morrison - Boris did not trust France nor the 27 EU countries not to leak to China and RussiaStark_Dawning said:
They could have scrapped the deal first then announced AUUKUS a few weeks later. That might have spared some French dignity by making it look slightly less obvious that they were connected. Quite possible that Boris insisted on doing it all at once - he knows that bashing the French will play well with the base after the NI hike.Leon said:
I also wonder if the explicitly humiliating timing for Macron, France and the EU was deliberate. Just as the EU is about to announce its own (silly, formless) Indo-Pac policy? Just two weeks after ScoMo met Macron and said all is well?MaxPB said:
Bitter. You're the jilted ex right now. Boris has, for the first time in a while, played an absolute blinder in making what started as Australia asking us for nuclear subs into a new Anglosphere alliance to take on China. Even the American press has been surprised as to the depth and ambition of what is being proposed.Stark_Dawning said:
If the deal really did need to be terminated there were surely better ways of going about it. Publicly humiliating Macron on live TV was rather unseemly. Morrison just looked like the lesser bully who can suddenly throw his weight about because he's teamed up with a bigger bully. (Boris just looked like the fag of both of them, holding their coats.)Big_G_NorthWales said:
The deal you refer to started in 2016 and when Australia recently sought nuclear rather than diesel subs and France would not supply them then the deal was terminatedStuartDickson said:
How can one have “prejudices” against an online press conference? It’s all trappings. Australia welched on a deal and everybody is supposed to be impressed. Sneaks deserve each other.Big_G_NorthWales said:
You really are putting forward your prejudices against AUKUS here, and really do not seem to understand the strategic interest of Australia and the US in the Trans PacificStuartDickson said:Philip_Thompson said:
LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?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.
The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
Australia is as reliable as Putin. They’ve just shafted one strategic partner and are just as likely to shaft the next dopes.dixiedean said:
One or two are finding it difficult to disguise their tumescence at the prospect of Putin rolling through the EU.Farooq said:
So that's one view. Malmsbury says the area of operations are different so implying there's no impact, and Leon says NATO is over.MaxPB said:
It's not finished, it will just have to adjust to the US and UK being much less interested in defending the eastern border of Europe.Farooq said:
But is he wrong or right on his first point? Is NATO finished? I'm getting really mixed messages from the Aukus fans on here.Philip_Thompson said:
LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?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.
The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
That wouldn't be a hassle for us, no.
The first boat would be in service in about two decades. Considering that the Australian government has just buggered up Covid, they aren’t going to last beyond the next GE.
Furthermore, it has been suggested the US may base a nuclear sub in Perth in the meantime or even one or two of our own subs from Barrow could be assigned to AUKUS
Whenever it was announced it was going to be shocking and hurtful. For France, most of all. Why not make a virtue of necessity and make it so stinging the French and Europeans are forced to look at themselves and decide: where do we stand? Are we with China or the West? Is it time for an EU army?
Forcing the EU to face these questions is a good thing3 -
England is substantially closer to China than Pitcairn...Sunil_Prasannan said:
Pitcairn says hello!dixiedean said:
Correct me if I'm wrong. We are in the Atlantic not the Pacific still, aren't we?Philip_Thompson said:
Probably not, though of course Macron said it was years ago, but then again the French have always only ever been half-engaged with NATO.Farooq said:
But is he wrong or right on his first point? Is NATO finished? I'm getting really mixed messages from the Aukus fans on here.Philip_Thompson said:
LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?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.
The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
The reality is that while NATO exists its not the priority anymore, because the threats of the 21st century are in the Pacific not the Atlantic.0 -
Why no ability to use hawkeye for the T20 finals?
Final might well have just been determined by a terrible umpire decision.0 -
There's even a direct freight train from China to London.Foxy said:
England is substantially closer to China than Pitcairn...Sunil_Prasannan said:
Pitcairn says hello!dixiedean said:
Correct me if I'm wrong. We are in the Atlantic not the Pacific still, aren't we?Philip_Thompson said:
Probably not, though of course Macron said it was years ago, but then again the French have always only ever been half-engaged with NATO.Farooq said:
But is he wrong or right on his first point? Is NATO finished? I'm getting really mixed messages from the Aukus fans on here.Philip_Thompson said:
LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?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.
The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
The reality is that while NATO exists its not the priority anymore, because the threats of the 21st century are in the Pacific not the Atlantic.0 -
Ooh. If only they would put on a sleeper car...Sunil_Prasannan said:
There's even a direct freight train from China to London.Foxy said:
England is substantially closer to China than Pitcairn...Sunil_Prasannan said:
Pitcairn says hello!dixiedean said:
Correct me if I'm wrong. We are in the Atlantic not the Pacific still, aren't we?Philip_Thompson said:
Probably not, though of course Macron said it was years ago, but then again the French have always only ever been half-engaged with NATO.Farooq said:
But is he wrong or right on his first point? Is NATO finished? I'm getting really mixed messages from the Aukus fans on here.Philip_Thompson said:
LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?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.
The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
The reality is that while NATO exists its not the priority anymore, because the threats of the 21st century are in the Pacific not the Atlantic.1 -
Alternatively Biden/Morrison/Johnson had higher priorities to deal with than saving French face.Stark_Dawning said:
They could have scrapped the deal first then announced AUUKUS a few weeks later. That might have spared some French dignity by making it look slightly less obvious that they were connected. Quite possible that Boris insisted on doing it all at once - he knows that bashing the French will play well with the base after the NI hike.Leon said:
I also wonder if the explicitly humiliating timing for Macron, France and the EU was deliberate. Just as the EU is about to announce its own (silly, formless) Indo-Pac policy? Just two weeks after ScoMo met Macron and said all is well?MaxPB said:
Bitter. You're the jilted ex right now. Boris has, for the first time in a while, played an absolute blinder in making what started as Australia asking us for nuclear subs into a new Anglosphere alliance to take on China. Even the American press has been surprised as to the depth and ambition of what is being proposed.Stark_Dawning said:
If the deal really did need to be terminated there were surely better ways of going about it. Publicly humiliating Macron on live TV was rather unseemly. Morrison just looked like the lesser bully who can suddenly throw his weight about because he's teamed up with a bigger bully. (Boris just looked like the fag of both of them, holding their coats.)Big_G_NorthWales said:
The deal you refer to started in 2016 and when Australia recently sought nuclear rather than diesel subs and France would not supply them then the deal was terminatedStuartDickson said:
How can one have “prejudices” against an online press conference? It’s all trappings. Australia welched on a deal and everybody is supposed to be impressed. Sneaks deserve each other.Big_G_NorthWales said:
You really are putting forward your prejudices against AUKUS here, and really do not seem to understand the strategic interest of Australia and the US in the Trans PacificStuartDickson said:Philip_Thompson said:
LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?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.
The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
Australia is as reliable as Putin. They’ve just shafted one strategic partner and are just as likely to shaft the next dopes.dixiedean said:
One or two are finding it difficult to disguise their tumescence at the prospect of Putin rolling through the EU.Farooq said:
So that's one view. Malmsbury says the area of operations are different so implying there's no impact, and Leon says NATO is over.MaxPB said:
It's not finished, it will just have to adjust to the US and UK being much less interested in defending the eastern border of Europe.Farooq said:
But is he wrong or right on his first point? Is NATO finished? I'm getting really mixed messages from the Aukus fans on here.Philip_Thompson said:
LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?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.
The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
That wouldn't be a hassle for us, no.
The first boat would be in service in about two decades. Considering that the Australian government has just buggered up Covid, they aren’t going to last beyond the next GE.
Furthermore, it has been suggested the US may base a nuclear sub in Perth in the meantime or even one or two of our own subs from Barrow could be assigned to AUKUS
Whenever it was announced it was going to be shocking and hurtful. For France, most of all. Why not make a virtue of necessity and make it so stinging the French and Europeans are forced to look at themselves and decide: where do we stand? Are we with China or the West? Is it time for an EU army?
Forcing the EU to face these questions is a good thing5 -
The Chinese made a similar miscalculation. They welcomed us leaving the EU because they thought it would lead us to be isolated and hence more pliable. Whereas, since the referendum, we have largely banned Huawei, offered to take in 5 million Hong Kongers, and now helped in a small way to arm Australia against them.MaxPB said:
Gosh they really are very bitter about this aren't they. Incredibly insecure as well, unsurprising given that their expectations of Britain being sidelined by Brexit are being shattered time and again. What's still completely insane is that they paved the way for their own doom by being so intractable during Brexit negotiations. Their insistence on "Brexit means Brexit" has cleaved the UK away from the EU sphere. Whatever the remainers want to believe the reality is that Brexit has irrevocably taken Britain out of the EU's influence and stuff like this will embolden the government on holding firm on continued trade issues with them.williamglenn said:French foreign minister says France didn't recall the British ambassador over the AUKUS row because France is familiar with the UK's "permanent opportunism" and said Boris Johnson was the "fifth wheel on the carriage".
https://twitter.com/kimwillsher1/status/1439294035357749257
4 -
I think one undoubted benefit of Brexit has been a more agile and effective foreign policy.MaxPB said:
The issue the US has with the EU is they just want to do it with cheap words rather than tangible action. Giving Australia nuclear sub capability is a huge, huge step for the nuclear nations in the deal. This is stuff that is considered incredibly valuable and kept top secret for a reason. We would never countenance sharing the information with any single EU country but we've just done it with Australia.Leon said:
I also wonder if the explicitly humiliating timing for Macron, France and the EU was deliberate. Just as the EU is about to announce its own (silly, formless) Indo-Pac policy? Just two weeks after ScoMo met Macron and said all is well?MaxPB said:
Bitter. You're the jilted ex right now. Boris has, for the first time in a while, played an absolute blinder in making what started as Australia asking us for nuclear subs into a new Anglosphere alliance to take on China. Even the American press has been surprised as to the depth and ambition of what is being proposed.Stark_Dawning said:
If the deal really did need to be terminated there were surely better ways of going about it. Publicly humiliating Macron on live TV was rather unseemly. Morrison just looked like the lesser bully who can suddenly throw his weight about because he's teamed up with a bigger bully. (Boris just looked like the fag of both of them, holding their coats.)Big_G_NorthWales said:
The deal you refer to started in 2016 and when Australia recently sought nuclear rather than diesel subs and France would not supply them then the deal was terminatedStuartDickson said:
How can one have “prejudices” against an online press conference? It’s all trappings. Australia welched on a deal and everybody is supposed to be impressed. Sneaks deserve each other.Big_G_NorthWales said:
You really are putting forward your prejudices against AUKUS here, and really do not seem to understand the strategic interest of Australia and the US in the Trans PacificStuartDickson said:Philip_Thompson said:
LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?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.
The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
Australia is as reliable as Putin. They’ve just shafted one strategic partner and are just as likely to shaft the next dopes.dixiedean said:
One or two are finding it difficult to disguise their tumescence at the prospect of Putin rolling through the EU.Farooq said:
So that's one view. Malmsbury says the area of operations are different so implying there's no impact, and Leon says NATO is over.MaxPB said:
It's not finished, it will just have to adjust to the US and UK being much less interested in defending the eastern border of Europe.Farooq said:
But is he wrong or right on his first point? Is NATO finished? I'm getting really mixed messages from the Aukus fans on here.Philip_Thompson said:
LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?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.
The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
That wouldn't be a hassle for us, no.
The first boat would be in service in about two decades. Considering that the Australian government has just buggered up Covid, they aren’t going to last beyond the next GE.
Furthermore, it has been suggested the US may base a nuclear sub in Perth in the meantime or even one or two of our own subs from Barrow could be assigned to AUKUS
Whenever it was announced it was going to be shocking and hurtful. For France, most of all. Why not make a virtue of necessity and make it so stinging the French and Europeans are forced to look at themselves and decide: where do we stand? Are we with China or the West? Is it time for an EU army?
Forcing the EU to face these questions is a good thing
All the EU will do is make some bold statement about how preserving the peace in APAC is of utmost importance but commit no resources to achieving it. They'll leave it to France but hamstring them with German policy objectives of being able sell China BMWs and dishwashers.
The timing does seem to have been picked to pre-empt whatever nonsense the EU will come out with from their summit.
Be it on Hong Kong, sanctions against Putin or alliance action against China we can move far more quickly and robustly outside the CFSP, and put pressure on others more effectively too.
In the EU we took a long time to agree rather bland and insipid statements that we only succeeded in tacking our way a tad after exhaustive and prolonged effort.3 -
I like the way the Spectator described Arden's policy as New Xi-land.Leon said:
I also wonder if the explicitly humiliating timing for Macron, France and the EU was deliberate. Just as the EU is about to announce its own (silly, formless) Indo-Pac policy? Just two weeks after ScoMo met Macron and said all is well?MaxPB said:
Bitter. You're the jilted ex right now. Boris has, for the first time in a while, played an absolute blinder in making what started as Australia asking us for nuclear subs into a new Anglosphere alliance to take on China. Even the American press has been surprised as to the depth and ambition of what is being proposed.Stark_Dawning said:
If the deal really did need to be terminated there were surely better ways of going about it. Publicly humiliating Macron on live TV was rather unseemly. Morrison just looked like the lesser bully who can suddenly throw his weight about because he's teamed up with a bigger bully. (Boris just looked like the fag of both of them, holding their coats.)Big_G_NorthWales said:
The deal you refer to started in 2016 and when Australia recently sought nuclear rather than diesel subs and France would not supply them then the deal was terminatedStuartDickson said:
How can one have “prejudices” against an online press conference? It’s all trappings. Australia welched on a deal and everybody is supposed to be impressed. Sneaks deserve each other.Big_G_NorthWales said:
You really are putting forward your prejudices against AUKUS here, and really do not seem to understand the strategic interest of Australia and the US in the Trans PacificStuartDickson said:Philip_Thompson said:
LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?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.
The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
Australia is as reliable as Putin. They’ve just shafted one strategic partner and are just as likely to shaft the next dopes.dixiedean said:
One or two are finding it difficult to disguise their tumescence at the prospect of Putin rolling through the EU.Farooq said:
So that's one view. Malmsbury says the area of operations are different so implying there's no impact, and Leon says NATO is over.MaxPB said:
It's not finished, it will just have to adjust to the US and UK being much less interested in defending the eastern border of Europe.Farooq said:
But is he wrong or right on his first point? Is NATO finished? I'm getting really mixed messages from the Aukus fans on here.Philip_Thompson said:
LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?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.
The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
That wouldn't be a hassle for us, no.
The first boat would be in service in about two decades. Considering that the Australian government has just buggered up Covid, they aren’t going to last beyond the next GE.
Furthermore, it has been suggested the US may base a nuclear sub in Perth in the meantime or even one or two of our own subs from Barrow could be assigned to AUKUS
Whenever it was announced it was going to be shocking and hurtful. For France, most of all. Why not make a virtue of necessity and make it so stinging the French and Europeans are forced to look at themselves and decide: where do we stand? Are we with China or the West? Is it time for an EU army?
Forcing the EU to face these questions is a good thing6 -
Also, "political opportunism" is the absolute definition of a good, clever foreign policy. The kind of thing France has sometimes exhibited, over the centuries. What nation ever acts selflessly and without an eye to advantage?!geoffw said:Boris's 'opportunism' has been deplored along with his 'perfidy' and 'treachery'. However, that opportunism shows a sure-footedness in international relations that we could not expect from the likes of Theresa May or most EU leaders. Much to be applauded, that opportunism.
There are sometimes opportunities in foreign policy. Not often, but sometimes. Clear ways to advance your nation's interests quickly and significantly. It seems like Boris spotted one, and seized it. Good for him. All else is French spluttering and weird Remoaner bleating1 -
I'm disappointed Morrison didn't announce he was cancelling the order for quasi-ineffective French submarines, and remind Macron why he should be thoroughly shame-faced for eternity.Philip_Thompson said:
Alternatively Biden/Morrison/Johnson had higher priorities to deal with than saving French face.Stark_Dawning said:
They could have scrapped the deal first then announced AUUKUS a few weeks later. That might have spared some French dignity by making it look slightly less obvious that they were connected. Quite possible that Boris insisted on doing it all at once - he knows that bashing the French will play well with the base after the NI hike.Leon said:
I also wonder if the explicitly humiliating timing for Macron, France and the EU was deliberate. Just as the EU is about to announce its own (silly, formless) Indo-Pac policy? Just two weeks after ScoMo met Macron and said all is well?MaxPB said:
Bitter. You're the jilted ex right now. Boris has, for the first time in a while, played an absolute blinder in making what started as Australia asking us for nuclear subs into a new Anglosphere alliance to take on China. Even the American press has been surprised as to the depth and ambition of what is being proposed.Stark_Dawning said:
If the deal really did need to be terminated there were surely better ways of going about it. Publicly humiliating Macron on live TV was rather unseemly. Morrison just looked like the lesser bully who can suddenly throw his weight about because he's teamed up with a bigger bully. (Boris just looked like the fag of both of them, holding their coats.)Big_G_NorthWales said:
The deal you refer to started in 2016 and when Australia recently sought nuclear rather than diesel subs and France would not supply them then the deal was terminatedStuartDickson said:
How can one have “prejudices” against an online press conference? It’s all trappings. Australia welched on a deal and everybody is supposed to be impressed. Sneaks deserve each other.Big_G_NorthWales said:
You really are putting forward your prejudices against AUKUS here, and really do not seem to understand the strategic interest of Australia and the US in the Trans PacificStuartDickson said:Philip_Thompson said:
LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?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.
The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
Australia is as reliable as Putin. They’ve just shafted one strategic partner and are just as likely to shaft the next dopes.dixiedean said:
One or two are finding it difficult to disguise their tumescence at the prospect of Putin rolling through the EU.Farooq said:
So that's one view. Malmsbury says the area of operations are different so implying there's no impact, and Leon says NATO is over.MaxPB said:
It's not finished, it will just have to adjust to the US and UK being much less interested in defending the eastern border of Europe.Farooq said:
But is he wrong or right on his first point? Is NATO finished? I'm getting really mixed messages from the Aukus fans on here.Philip_Thompson said:
LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?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.
The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
That wouldn't be a hassle for us, no.
The first boat would be in service in about two decades. Considering that the Australian government has just buggered up Covid, they aren’t going to last beyond the next GE.
Furthermore, it has been suggested the US may base a nuclear sub in Perth in the meantime or even one or two of our own subs from Barrow could be assigned to AUKUS
Whenever it was announced it was going to be shocking and hurtful. For France, most of all. Why not make a virtue of necessity and make it so stinging the French and Europeans are forced to look at themselves and decide: where do we stand? Are we with China or the West? Is it time for an EU army?
Forcing the EU to face these questions is a good thing4 -
At heart, the French are furious that they've been outwitted at their own game.Leon said:
Also, "political opportunism" is the absolute definition of a good, clever foreign policy. The kind of thing France has sometimes exhibited, over the centuries. What nation ever acts selflessly and without an eye to advantage?!geoffw said:Boris's 'opportunism' has been deplored along with his 'perfidy' and 'treachery'. However, that opportunism shows a sure-footedness in international relations that we could not expect from the likes of Theresa May or most EU leaders. Much to be applauded, that opportunism.
There are sometimes opportunities in foreign policy. Not often, but sometimes. Clear ways to advance your nation's interests quickly and significantly. It seems like Boris spotted one, and seized it. Good for him. All else is French spluttering and weird Remoaner bleating2 -
Is there a word to describe the eminently human practice of trying to use a fact or facts to tenuously justify a hidden agenda?0
-
Jesus, you're still the only person in the world calling it AUUKUS. Just because?Stark_Dawning said:
They could have scrapped the deal first then announced AUUKUS a few weeks later. That might have spared some French dignity by making it look slightly less obvious that they were connected. Quite possible that Boris insisted on doing it all at once - he knows that bashing the French will play well with the base after the NI hike.Leon said:
I also wonder if the explicitly humiliating timing for Macron, France and the EU was deliberate. Just as the EU is about to announce its own (silly, formless) Indo-Pac policy? Just two weeks after ScoMo met Macron and said all is well?MaxPB said:
Bitter. You're the jilted ex right now. Boris has, for the first time in a while, played an absolute blinder in making what started as Australia asking us for nuclear subs into a new Anglosphere alliance to take on China. Even the American press has been surprised as to the depth and ambition of what is being proposed.Stark_Dawning said:
If the deal really did need to be terminated there were surely better ways of going about it. Publicly humiliating Macron on live TV was rather unseemly. Morrison just looked like the lesser bully who can suddenly throw his weight about because he's teamed up with a bigger bully. (Boris just looked like the fag of both of them, holding their coats.)Big_G_NorthWales said:
The deal you refer to started in 2016 and when Australia recently sought nuclear rather than diesel subs and France would not supply them then the deal was terminatedStuartDickson said:
How can one have “prejudices” against an online press conference? It’s all trappings. Australia welched on a deal and everybody is supposed to be impressed. Sneaks deserve each other.Big_G_NorthWales said:
You really are putting forward your prejudices against AUKUS here, and really do not seem to understand the strategic interest of Australia and the US in the Trans PacificStuartDickson said:Philip_Thompson said:
LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?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.
The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
Australia is as reliable as Putin. They’ve just shafted one strategic partner and are just as likely to shaft the next dopes.dixiedean said:
One or two are finding it difficult to disguise their tumescence at the prospect of Putin rolling through the EU.Farooq said:
So that's one view. Malmsbury says the area of operations are different so implying there's no impact, and Leon says NATO is over.MaxPB said:
It's not finished, it will just have to adjust to the US and UK being much less interested in defending the eastern border of Europe.Farooq said:
But is he wrong or right on his first point? Is NATO finished? I'm getting really mixed messages from the Aukus fans on here.Philip_Thompson said:
LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?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.
The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
That wouldn't be a hassle for us, no.
The first boat would be in service in about two decades. Considering that the Australian government has just buggered up Covid, they aren’t going to last beyond the next GE.
Furthermore, it has been suggested the US may base a nuclear sub in Perth in the meantime or even one or two of our own subs from Barrow could be assigned to AUKUS
Whenever it was announced it was going to be shocking and hurtful. For France, most of all. Why not make a virtue of necessity and make it so stinging the French and Europeans are forced to look at themselves and decide: where do we stand? Are we with China or the West? Is it time for an EU army?
Forcing the EU to face these questions is a good thing
Anyway, no. You couldn't scrap the deal and then announce Aukus two months after. Politically impossible for the Aussie govt. They would have endured weeks of very damaging critique, so what's your foreign policy then, where do we get our submarines, blah blah, meanwhile the French would still be shrieking betrayal
It had to be done in one go. It's obvious. Like ripping off a huge plaster. Painful but necessary5 -
I think that's not a rounded report.Foxy said:Australian PM Curtain on Dec 27th 1941:
"Without any inhibitions of any kind, I make it quite clear that Australia looks to America, free of any pangs as to our traditional links or kinship with the United Kingdom"
From: https://www.pacificwar.org.au/battaust/Britain_betrays_Australia.html
It didn't take him long to change his tune and tilt away from the USA again. Which suggests that the attitude was pretty tactical.
By 1943, when the threat of Japanese invasion had passed, Curtin increasingly returned to a commitment to the British Empire. Downplaying nationalism, he said that Australia comprised "seven million Britishers". He saw the United States as a predatory economic and military power that would threaten Australia's own ambitions in the Pacific. Australia moved closer to New Zealand, and suggested a lesser role for the United States after the war. Washington was annoyed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Curtin
(I'll leave aside that your source pulls one sentence out of the middle of a para in a longer speech. A longer quote is on my wiki link above.)4 -
One person will be very pleased tonight : Vladimir Putin.0
-
Indeed its a completely different meaning to the sentence in its full paragraph. Certainly no talk of betrayal.MattW said:
It didn't take him long to change his tune and tilt away from the USA again. Which suggests that the attitude was pretty tactical.Foxy said:Australian PM Curtain on Dec 27th 1941:
"Without any inhibitions of any kind, I make it quite clear that Australia looks to America, free of any pangs as to our traditional links or kinship with the United Kingdom"
From: https://www.pacificwar.org.au/battaust/Britain_betrays_Australia.html
By 1943, when the threat of Japanese invasion had passed, Curtin increasingly returned to a commitment to the British Empire. Downplaying nationalism, he said that Australia comprised "seven million Britishers". He saw the United States as a predatory economic and military power that would threaten Australia's own ambitions in the Pacific. Australia moved closer to New Zealand, and suggested a lesser role for the United States after the war. Washington was annoyed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Curtin
(I'll leave aside that your source pulls one sentence out of the middle of a para in a longer speech. A longer quote is on my wiki link above.)2 -
Quite the opposite. The US, UK and allies working closely together is not in Putin's interests.WhisperingOracle said:One person will be very pleased tonight : Vladimir Putin.
4 -
I think the sentence is representative of the longer speech. Certainly Churchill is seen not to have been a friend of Australia in either war.Philip_Thompson said:
Indeed its a completely different meaning to the sentence in its full paragraph. Certainly no talk of betrayal.MattW said:
It didn't take him long to change his tune and tilt away from the USA again. Which suggests that the attitude was pretty tactical.Foxy said:Australian PM Curtain on Dec 27th 1941:
"Without any inhibitions of any kind, I make it quite clear that Australia looks to America, free of any pangs as to our traditional links or kinship with the United Kingdom"
From: https://www.pacificwar.org.au/battaust/Britain_betrays_Australia.html
By 1943, when the threat of Japanese invasion had passed, Curtin increasingly returned to a commitment to the British Empire. Downplaying nationalism, he said that Australia comprised "seven million Britishers". He saw the United States as a predatory economic and military power that would threaten Australia's own ambitions in the Pacific. Australia moved closer to New Zealand, and suggested a lesser role for the United States after the war. Washington was annoyed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Curtin
(I'll leave aside that your source pulls one sentence out of the middle of a para in a longer speech. A longer quote is on my wiki link above.)0 -
NATO looks more disunited than it almost ever has. Perfect for him.Philip_Thompson said:
Quite the opposite. The US, UK and allies working closely together is not in Putin's interests.WhisperingOracle said:One person will be very pleased tonight : Vladimir Putin.
0 -
Yes, this is the opposite of what he wants. If the Anglosphere really unites, militarily, that is a strong deterrent to him and China. He can rely on the EU to be pathetically divided and inert. Not this new alliance.Philip_Thompson said:
Quite the opposite. The US, UK and allies working closely together is not in Putin's interests.WhisperingOracle said:One person will be very pleased tonight : Vladimir Putin.
2 -
The Indo-Pacific isn't really the key for Russia, and never has been historically, I wouldn't say. What he will be interested in is any NATO incoherence in Eurasia, from central and eastern europe to the caucuses.0
-
No doubt you’ll like this one too:kinabalu said:
"Fifth wheel on the carriage" - yes exactly. Nicely put. In his second language too.williamglenn said:French foreign minister says France didn't recall the British ambassador over the AUKUS row because France is familiar with the UK's "permanent opportunism" and said Boris Johnson was the "fifth wheel on the carriage".
https://twitter.com/kimwillsher1/status/1439294035357749257
Macron did not recall the UK ambassador, apparently, according to sources close to the Elysee, "for the same reason that when the cooking in a restaurant is not first class, you sack the chef, not the guy who washes the dishes."
https://twitter.com/t0nyyates/status/14393210917685616712 -
Looks on twitter....Robert Webb trending....wonders why...oh he is on the dance programme....oh no wait....the twatterati are wishing all sorts of shit on him, because he once said he agreed with an article that was critical about Mermaids (the trans kid organisation)....so he is instantly a massive transphobe who shouldn't on Strictly.0
-
Exactly, excluding appeaser nations like Germany gives this teeth. Both China and Russia have benefited from internal EU squabbling hamstringing any serious western response to their aggression. By jettisoning those nations the world became a less easy place for Putin and Xi to peddle their malign influence.Leon said:
Yes, this is the opposite of what he wants. If the Anglosphere really unites, militarily, that is a strong deterrent to him and China. He can rely on the EU to be pathetically divided and inert. Not this new alliance.Philip_Thompson said:
Quite the opposite. The US, UK and allies working closely together is not in Putin's interests.WhisperingOracle said:One person will be very pleased tonight : Vladimir Putin.
3 -
Wait, Australia’s going to help out against Putin? How will that work?Leon said:
Yes, this is the opposite of what he wants. If the Anglosphere really unites, militarily, that is a strong deterrent to him and China. He can rely on the EU to be pathetically divided and inert. Not this new alliance.Philip_Thompson said:
Quite the opposite. The US, UK and allies working closely together is not in Putin's interests.WhisperingOracle said:One person will be very pleased tonight : Vladimir Putin.
1 -
Yes but the context of the sentence is that he's saying he doesn't think the UK is capable of defending Australia because of being preoccupied with Germany - not as that weird website tries to spin it that Aus is being betrayed.Foxy said:
I think the sentence is representative of the longer speech. Certainly Churchill is seen not to have been a friend of Australia in either war.Philip_Thompson said:
Indeed its a completely different meaning to the sentence in its full paragraph. Certainly no talk of betrayal.MattW said:
It didn't take him long to change his tune and tilt away from the USA again. Which suggests that the attitude was pretty tactical.Foxy said:Australian PM Curtain on Dec 27th 1941:
"Without any inhibitions of any kind, I make it quite clear that Australia looks to America, free of any pangs as to our traditional links or kinship with the United Kingdom"
From: https://www.pacificwar.org.au/battaust/Britain_betrays_Australia.html
By 1943, when the threat of Japanese invasion had passed, Curtin increasingly returned to a commitment to the British Empire. Downplaying nationalism, he said that Australia comprised "seven million Britishers". He saw the United States as a predatory economic and military power that would threaten Australia's own ambitions in the Pacific. Australia moved closer to New Zealand, and suggested a lesser role for the United States after the war. Washington was annoyed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Curtin
(I'll leave aside that your source pulls one sentence out of the middle of a para in a longer speech. A longer quote is on my wiki link above.)0 -
What's changed in NATO other than that the French are peeved? They're still in NATO as are the US and the UK, and for that matter most Eastern European countries in Russia's 'near abroad'.WhisperingOracle said:The Indo-Pacific isn't really the key for Russia, and has never been historically. What he will be interested in is any NATO incoherence in Eurasia, from eastern europe to the caucuses.
0 -
TUV don't have any seats at Westminster.HYUFD said:
Even if they were it would be the TUV taking most of their votes on that poll and thus most of their seats, the TUV are even more hardline Unionists.Benpointer said:
Always assuming the DUP don't get wiped out in the next GE.HYUFD said:
Electoral calculus gives a hung parliament with Conservatives 318 and Labour 248 on the new Opinium figures, so the DUP would again have the balance of powerBig_G_NorthWales said:Opinium
@OpiniumResearch
Latest numbers:
Con 40% (+2)
Lab 37% (-1)
Lib Dem 7% (-1)
Green 6% (NC)
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=40&LAB=37&LIB=7&Reform=2&Green=6&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=23.6&SCOTLAB=19.2&SCOTLIB=6&SCOTReform=0.3&SCOTGreen=1.5&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=47.5&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2019base
https://www.rte.ie/news/ulster/2021/0828/1243348-dup-support-drops-poll/
If the UUP pick up a few seats as that poll suggests that would also help the Tories for as Justin has correctly stated they are closer aligned to the Tories than the DUP, even running joint candidates with the Tories in 20100 -
If the Frogs are upset, who cares. They have behaved abominably towards us since Brexit. As ye sow....1
-
We need to get the Canadians involved once Trudeau is gone, though.Leon said:
Yes, this is the opposite of what he wants. If the Anglosphere really unites, militarily, that is a strong deterrent to him and China. He can rely on the EU to be pathetically divided and inert. Not this new alliance.Philip_Thompson said:
Quite the opposite. The US, UK and allies working closely together is not in Putin's interests.WhisperingOracle said:One person will be very pleased tonight : Vladimir Putin.
We can live without New Zealand, frankly.0 -
Unless the guy who washes the dishes came up with the recipe. Oopswilliamglenn said:
No doubt you’ll like this one too:kinabalu said:
"Fifth wheel on the carriage" - yes exactly. Nicely put. In his second language too.williamglenn said:French foreign minister says France didn't recall the British ambassador over the AUKUS row because France is familiar with the UK's "permanent opportunism" and said Boris Johnson was the "fifth wheel on the carriage".
https://twitter.com/kimwillsher1/status/1439294035357749257
Macron did not recall the UK ambassador, apparently, according to sources close to the Elysee, "for the same reason that when the cooking in a restaurant is not first class, you sack the chef, not the guy who washes the dishes."
https://twitter.com/t0nyyates/status/1439321091768561671
Jesus the French are making a tragic spectacle of themselves. Admittedly it's a bad situation for them (and if this was the UK we'd be equally furious) but entire weeks of trantruming? Eeesh. It's not going to make it better. It just prolongs the humiliation2 -
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.williamglenn said:
No doubt you’ll like this one too:kinabalu said:
"Fifth wheel on the carriage" - yes exactly. Nicely put. In his second language too.williamglenn said:French foreign minister says France didn't recall the British ambassador over the AUKUS row because France is familiar with the UK's "permanent opportunism" and said Boris Johnson was the "fifth wheel on the carriage".
https://twitter.com/kimwillsher1/status/1439294035357749257
Macron did not recall the UK ambassador, apparently, according to sources close to the Elysee, "for the same reason that when the cooking in a restaurant is not first class, you sack the chef, not the guy who washes the dishes."
https://twitter.com/t0nyyates/status/14393210917685616710 -
Kiwis are Chinese Gooseberries as is well known.Fishing said:
We need to get the Canadians involved once Trudeau is gone, though.Leon said:
Yes, this is the opposite of what he wants. If the Anglosphere really unites, militarily, that is a strong deterrent to him and China. He can rely on the EU to be pathetically divided and inert. Not this new alliance.Philip_Thompson said:
Quite the opposite. The US, UK and allies working closely together is not in Putin's interests.WhisperingOracle said:One person will be very pleased tonight : Vladimir Putin.
We can live without New Zealand, frankly.
2 -
That depends on the French and then subsequently European response. If France regards it a statement against military co-operation, trust and resource-sharing, you can be sure it will affect NATO.geoffw said:
What's changed in NATO other than that the French are peeved? They're still in NATO as are the US and the UK, and for that matter most Eastern European countries in Russia's 'near abroad'.WhisperingOracle said:The Indo-Pacific isn't really the key for Russia, and has never been historically. What he will be interested in is any NATO incoherence in Eurasia, from eastern europe to the caucuses.
0 -
This continued shifting of alliances has a very pre WW1 feel to it. Makes me very uneasy.1
-
So come on, own up, which PBers are which...
SCOTLAND ON SUNDAY: Revealed: COP26 ‘sustainability’ advisor’s ties to fossil fuel firms
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1439330213045886979?s=200 -
It causes problems for us too.Leon said:
Unless the guy who washes the dishes came up with the recipe. Oopswilliamglenn said:
No doubt you’ll like this one too:kinabalu said:
"Fifth wheel on the carriage" - yes exactly. Nicely put. In his second language too.williamglenn said:French foreign minister says France didn't recall the British ambassador over the AUKUS row because France is familiar with the UK's "permanent opportunism" and said Boris Johnson was the "fifth wheel on the carriage".
https://twitter.com/kimwillsher1/status/1439294035357749257
Macron did not recall the UK ambassador, apparently, according to sources close to the Elysee, "for the same reason that when the cooking in a restaurant is not first class, you sack the chef, not the guy who washes the dishes."
https://twitter.com/t0nyyates/status/1439321091768561671
Jesus the French are making a tragic spectacle of themselves. Admittedly it's a bad situation for them (and if this was the UK we'd be equally furious) but entire weeks of trantruming? Eeesh. It's not going to make it better. It just prolongs the humiliation
Think of the pressure on global popcorn supplies ...0 -
Because the Conservatives want to be in, while Trudeau can't be bothered.Farooq said:
Why "once Trudeau is gone"?Fishing said:
We need to get the Canadians involved once Trudeau is gone, though.Leon said:
Yes, this is the opposite of what he wants. If the Anglosphere really unites, militarily, that is a strong deterrent to him and China. He can rely on the EU to be pathetically divided and inert. Not this new alliance.Philip_Thompson said:
Quite the opposite. The US, UK and allies working closely together is not in Putin's interests.WhisperingOracle said:One person will be very pleased tonight : Vladimir Putin.
We can live without New Zealand, frankly.0 -
On the nail!williamglenn said:
No doubt you’ll like this one too:kinabalu said:
"Fifth wheel on the carriage" - yes exactly. Nicely put. In his second language too.williamglenn said:French foreign minister says France didn't recall the British ambassador over the AUKUS row because France is familiar with the UK's "permanent opportunism" and said Boris Johnson was the "fifth wheel on the carriage".
https://twitter.com/kimwillsher1/status/1439294035357749257
Macron did not recall the UK ambassador, apparently, according to sources close to the Elysee, "for the same reason that when the cooking in a restaurant is not first class, you sack the chef, not the guy who washes the dishes."
https://twitter.com/t0nyyates/status/14393210917685616711 -
Don't forget IrelandFishing said:
We need to get the Canadians involved once Trudeau is gone, though.Leon said:
Yes, this is the opposite of what he wants. If the Anglosphere really unites, militarily, that is a strong deterrent to him and China. He can rely on the EU to be pathetically divided and inert. Not this new alliance.Philip_Thompson said:
Quite the opposite. The US, UK and allies working closely together is not in Putin's interests.WhisperingOracle said:One person will be very pleased tonight : Vladimir Putin.
We can live without New Zealand, frankly.
3 -
Our troops haven't played football with the heads of dead babies in the recent past, which is more than a token difference. Or not while anyone's been watching.Farooq said:
The satire got a bit too close to home there eh?Big_G_NorthWales said:
You really do not add to the debate with nonsense like thatFarooq said:
We took Japan? About time too! That'll show them. Stupid monolingual islanders with their culture of deference and their history of imperial aggression...Big_G_NorthWales said:
We are actually in bothdixiedean said:
Correct me if I'm wrong. We are in the Atlantic not the Pacific still, aren't we?Philip_Thompson said:
Probably not, though of course Macron said it was years ago, but then again the French have always only ever been half-engaged with NATO.Farooq said:
But is he wrong or right on his first point? Is NATO finished? I'm getting really mixed messages from the Aukus fans on here.Philip_Thompson said:
LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?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.
The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
The reality is that while NATO exists its not the priority anymore, because the threats of the 21st century are in the Pacific not the Atlantic.
On the 6th September Aircraft carrier Queen Elizabeth was at a naval base near Tokyo entertaining Japan's Defence Minister and military commanders1 -
Or macaque peaches, in Chinesegeoffw said:
Kiwis are Chinese Gooseberries as is well known.Fishing said:
We need to get the Canadians involved once Trudeau is gone, though.Leon said:
Yes, this is the opposite of what he wants. If the Anglosphere really unites, militarily, that is a strong deterrent to him and China. He can rely on the EU to be pathetically divided and inert. Not this new alliance.Philip_Thompson said:
Quite the opposite. The US, UK and allies working closely together is not in Putin's interests.WhisperingOracle said:One person will be very pleased tonight : Vladimir Putin.
We can live without New Zealand, frankly.0 -
The 💪 in NATO is in AUKUS.WhisperingOracle said:
That depends on the French and then subsequently European response. If France regards it a statement against military co-operation, trust and resource-sharing, you can be sure it will affect NATO.geoffw said:
What's changed in NATO other than that the French are peeved? They're still in NATO as are the US and the UK, and for that matter most Eastern European countries in Russia's 'near abroad'.WhisperingOracle said:The Indo-Pacific isn't really the key for Russia, and has never been historically. What he will be interested in is any NATO incoherence in Eurasia, from eastern europe to the caucuses.
What floppy discs do you think will be lost from NATO? The frogs have had a hokey-cokey relationship with NATO all along and most of the rest of Europe is shielding behind us and US not contributing.0 -
Italy was a paid up member of the Central Powers - but joined the Allies in 1915.darkage said:This continued shifting of alliances has a very pre WW1 feel to it. Makes me very uneasy.
0 -
You only invite someone to something like this when you are pretty sure they'll accept.Farooq said:
"Can't be bothered"? Yesterday everyone was saying Canada wasn't invited.Fishing said:
Because the Conservatives want to be in, while Trudeau can't be bothered.Farooq said:
Why "once Trudeau is gone"?Fishing said:
We need to get the Canadians involved once Trudeau is gone, though.Leon said:
Yes, this is the opposite of what he wants. If the Anglosphere really unites, militarily, that is a strong deterrent to him and China. He can rely on the EU to be pathetically divided and inert. Not this new alliance.Philip_Thompson said:
Quite the opposite. The US, UK and allies working closely together is not in Putin's interests.WhisperingOracle said:One person will be very pleased tonight : Vladimir Putin.
We can live without New Zealand, frankly.
I don't actually know which it was. If Canada wants to join, I'd be glad to be wrong and happy to have them in, under Trudeau or O'Toole.0 -
Philip_Thompson said:
The 💪 in NATO is in AUKUS.WhisperingOracle said:
That depends on the French and then subsequently European response. If France regards it a statement against military co-operation, trust and resource-sharing, you can be sure it will affect NATO.geoffw said:
What's changed in NATO other than that the French are peeved? They're still in NATO as are the US and the UK, and for that matter most Eastern European countries in Russia's 'near abroad'.WhisperingOracle said:The Indo-Pacific isn't really the key for Russia, and has never been historically. What he will be interested in is any NATO incoherence in Eurasia, from eastern europe to the caucuses.
What floppy discs do you think will be lost from NATO? The frogs have had a hokey-cokey relationship with NATO all along and most of the rest of Europe is shielding behind us and US not contributing.
Because of German reticence, France is still the key organising European military, bureaucratic and diplomatic power, just not economic or financial. It matters largely because of France's role in both the EU and NATO.0 -
They already do, yes.Theuniondivvie said:
Wait, Australia’s going to help out against Putin? How will that work?Leon said:
Yes, this is the opposite of what he wants. If the Anglosphere really unites, militarily, that is a strong deterrent to him and China. He can rely on the EU to be pathetically divided and inert. Not this new alliance.Philip_Thompson said:
Quite the opposite. The US, UK and allies working closely together is not in Putin's interests.WhisperingOracle said:One person will be very pleased tonight : Vladimir Putin.
Intelligence and Five Eyes is considerable. The Australians have their expertise.0 -
So the same hysterics who took five seconds to whip up a whole ‘Taliban will be the new Khmer Rouge and it’s all Biden’s fault’ narrative have now moved on to ‘this new Anglosphere alliance is a triumph and will put a stopper on both Vlad & Xi, with Biden leading the way’ in an even shorter time.
This is an unexpected turn of events I must say, but these people have a great predictive record so fingers crossed.3 -
According to reports, the Canadians were entirely ignored, and were as surprised and blind-sided as France and the EUFishing said:
You only invite someone to something like this when you are pretty sure they'll accept.Farooq said:
"Can't be bothered"? Yesterday everyone was saying Canada wasn't invited.Fishing said:
Because the Conservatives want to be in, while Trudeau can't be bothered.Farooq said:
Why "once Trudeau is gone"?Fishing said:
We need to get the Canadians involved once Trudeau is gone, though.Leon said:
Yes, this is the opposite of what he wants. If the Anglosphere really unites, militarily, that is a strong deterrent to him and China. He can rely on the EU to be pathetically divided and inert. Not this new alliance.Philip_Thompson said:
Quite the opposite. The US, UK and allies working closely together is not in Putin's interests.WhisperingOracle said:One person will be very pleased tonight : Vladimir Putin.
We can live without New Zealand, frankly.
I don't actually know which it was. If Canada wants to join, I'd be glad to be wrong and happy to have them in, under Trudeau or O'Toole.
I've no idea why0 -
And do you need me to tell you it was too laboured to be worth the effort?Farooq said:
I'm not really sure what you're talking about. Do you need me to explain my joke was meant to sound like I was referring to Japan but was actually referring to the UK?IshmaelZ said:
Our troops haven't played football with the heads of dead babies in the recent past, which is more than a token difference. Or not while anyone's been watching.Farooq said:
The satire got a bit too close to home there eh?Big_G_NorthWales said:
You really do not add to the debate with nonsense like thatFarooq said:
We took Japan? About time too! That'll show them. Stupid monolingual islanders with their culture of deference and their history of imperial aggression...Big_G_NorthWales said:
We are actually in bothdixiedean said:
Correct me if I'm wrong. We are in the Atlantic not the Pacific still, aren't we?Philip_Thompson said:
Probably not, though of course Macron said it was years ago, but then again the French have always only ever been half-engaged with NATO.Farooq said:
But is he wrong or right on his first point? Is NATO finished? I'm getting really mixed messages from the Aukus fans on here.Philip_Thompson said:
LOL you're so bitter and twisted. You've really invested all your hopes and dreams into that silly circle star flag you fly in your avatar haven't you?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.
The notion that the PM of the UK should be "held to account" for signing a major new agreement with our most important allies is beyond farcical.
The reality is that while NATO exists its not the priority anymore, because the threats of the 21st century are in the Pacific not the Atlantic.
On the 6th September Aircraft carrier Queen Elizabeth was at a naval base near Tokyo entertaining Japan's Defence Minister and military commanders0 -
French Foreign Policy falling apart, hour by hour
Jakub Janda
@_JakubJanda
Why Central Europe does not trust Paris?
1) Macron conducts appeasement policy to Russia without caring about CEE
2) Macron pushes anti US moves for domestic electoral reasons, while US is only real security provider against Russia
3) France doesnt care about Eastern Europe
https://twitter.com/_JakubJanda/status/1439237084330463236?s=201 -
It's the nature of what is being proposed. We're sharing our nuclear secrets with a third nation. It's a lot closer the MDA between the US and UK which Canada is also not party to. When associate membership becomes an option I'm sure Canada and others will be invited but the nature of what is in the pact is why it is very narrow.Leon said:
According to reports, the Canadians were entirely ignored, and were as surprised and blind-sided as France and the EUFishing said:
You only invite someone to something like this when you are pretty sure they'll accept.Farooq said:
"Can't be bothered"? Yesterday everyone was saying Canada wasn't invited.Fishing said:
Because the Conservatives want to be in, while Trudeau can't be bothered.Farooq said:
Why "once Trudeau is gone"?Fishing said:
We need to get the Canadians involved once Trudeau is gone, though.Leon said:
Yes, this is the opposite of what he wants. If the Anglosphere really unites, militarily, that is a strong deterrent to him and China. He can rely on the EU to be pathetically divided and inert. Not this new alliance.Philip_Thompson said:
Quite the opposite. The US, UK and allies working closely together is not in Putin's interests.WhisperingOracle said:One person will be very pleased tonight : Vladimir Putin.
We can live without New Zealand, frankly.
I don't actually know which it was. If Canada wants to join, I'd be glad to be wrong and happy to have them in, under Trudeau or O'Toole.
I've no idea why0 -
It really isn't. I yield to nobody in my dislike of Johnson, but the word petulant might have been invented to describe that pathetic fail of an insult.Roger said:
On the nail!williamglenn said:
No doubt you’ll like this one too:kinabalu said:
"Fifth wheel on the carriage" - yes exactly. Nicely put. In his second language too.williamglenn said:French foreign minister says France didn't recall the British ambassador over the AUKUS row because France is familiar with the UK's "permanent opportunism" and said Boris Johnson was the "fifth wheel on the carriage".
https://twitter.com/kimwillsher1/status/1439294035357749257
Macron did not recall the UK ambassador, apparently, according to sources close to the Elysee, "for the same reason that when the cooking in a restaurant is not first class, you sack the chef, not the guy who washes the dishes."
https://twitter.com/t0nyyates/status/14393210917685616710 -
They already do? So what does that consist of, what’s the extra special stuff that they’ll be providing from now on, and which geographical flash points will it be taking place in?Philip_Thompson said:
They already do, yes.Theuniondivvie said:
Wait, Australia’s going to help out against Putin? How will that work?Leon said:
Yes, this is the opposite of what he wants. If the Anglosphere really unites, militarily, that is a strong deterrent to him and China. He can rely on the EU to be pathetically divided and inert. Not this new alliance.Philip_Thompson said:
Quite the opposite. The US, UK and allies working closely together is not in Putin's interests.WhisperingOracle said:One person will be very pleased tonight : Vladimir Putin.
Intelligence and Five Eyes is considerable. The Australians have their expertise.
0 -
Captain Underpants has spoken:
The AUKUS deal seems to have been a big mistake. Someone seems to have forgotten that France is central to NATO and the Pacific.
https://twitter.com/RhonddaBryant/status/1439335093768794116?s=200 -
France have always been semi-detached from NATO, this is nothing new. Plenty of history with de Gaulle and "Jupiter" loves to tread in his footsteps.WhisperingOracle said:
Because of German reticence, France is the still key organising European military and diplomatic power. It matters largely because of France's role in both the EU and NATO.Philip_Thompson said:
The 💪 in NATO is in AUKUS.WhisperingOracle said:
That depends on the French and then subsequently European response. If France regards it a statement against military co-operation, trust and resource-sharing, you can be sure it will affect NATO.geoffw said:
What's changed in NATO other than that the French are peeved? They're still in NATO as are the US and the UK, and for that matter most Eastern European countries in Russia's 'near abroad'.WhisperingOracle said:The Indo-Pacific isn't really the key for Russia, and has never been historically. What he will be interested in is any NATO incoherence in Eurasia, from eastern europe to the caucuses.
What floppy discs do you think will be lost from NATO? The frogs have had a hokey-cokey relationship with NATO all along and most of the rest of Europe is shielding behind us and US not contributing.
France may be the main European military within the EU, but not the main European figure in NATO. There is a reason the President of the United States knows to call London before Paris - and a close alignment between Washington and London is the last thing either Moscow or Beijing wants.0 -
Well they say they have no interest in nuclear subs which could be true, or could be making the best of a bad job.Leon said:
According to reports, the Canadians were entirely ignored, and were as surprised and blind-sided as France and the EUFishing said:
You only invite someone to something like this when you are pretty sure they'll accept.Farooq said:
"Can't be bothered"? Yesterday everyone was saying Canada wasn't invited.Fishing said:
Because the Conservatives want to be in, while Trudeau can't be bothered.Farooq said:
Why "once Trudeau is gone"?Fishing said:
We need to get the Canadians involved once Trudeau is gone, though.Leon said:
Yes, this is the opposite of what he wants. If the Anglosphere really unites, militarily, that is a strong deterrent to him and China. He can rely on the EU to be pathetically divided and inert. Not this new alliance.Philip_Thompson said:
Quite the opposite. The US, UK and allies working closely together is not in Putin's interests.WhisperingOracle said:One person will be very pleased tonight : Vladimir Putin.
We can live without New Zealand, frankly.
I don't actually know which it was. If Canada wants to join, I'd be glad to be wrong and happy to have them in, under Trudeau or O'Toole.
I've no idea why0 -
…..0
-
They already provide a lot of espionage and intelligence via Five Eyes and will be able to perform that role even better with nuclear submarines via this deal.Theuniondivvie said:
They already do? So what does that consist of, what’s the extra special stuff that they’ll be providing from now on, and which geographical flash points will it be taking place in?Philip_Thompson said:
They already do, yes.Theuniondivvie said:
Wait, Australia’s going to help out against Putin? How will that work?Leon said:
Yes, this is the opposite of what he wants. If the Anglosphere really unites, militarily, that is a strong deterrent to him and China. He can rely on the EU to be pathetically divided and inert. Not this new alliance.Philip_Thompson said:
Quite the opposite. The US, UK and allies working closely together is not in Putin's interests.WhisperingOracle said:One person will be very pleased tonight : Vladimir Putin.
Intelligence and Five Eyes is considerable. The Australians have their expertise.0 -
The main thing that they want is disunity between different parts of the West. Britain is now marginalised from the Continent, and if France wants to alter the architecture, it will have the ear of Germany and its nascent Mediterranean Union, EU-Med, which met again yesterday, too.Philip_Thompson said:
France have always been semi-detached from NATO, this is nothing new. Plenty of history with de Gaulle and "Jupiter" loves to tread in his footsteps.WhisperingOracle said:
Because of German reticence, France is the still key organising European military and diplomatic power. It matters largely because of France's role in both the EU and NATO.Philip_Thompson said:
The 💪 in NATO is in AUKUS.WhisperingOracle said:
That depends on the French and then subsequently European response. If France regards it a statement against military co-operation, trust and resource-sharing, you can be sure it will affect NATO.geoffw said:
What's changed in NATO other than that the French are peeved? They're still in NATO as are the US and the UK, and for that matter most Eastern European countries in Russia's 'near abroad'.WhisperingOracle said:The Indo-Pacific isn't really the key for Russia, and has never been historically. What he will be interested in is any NATO incoherence in Eurasia, from eastern europe to the caucuses.
What floppy discs do you think will be lost from NATO? The frogs have had a hokey-cokey relationship with NATO all along and most of the rest of Europe is shielding behind us and US not contributing.
France may be the main European military within the EU, but not the main European figure in NATO. There is a reason the President of the United States knows to call London before Paris - and a close alignment between Washington and London is the last thing either Moscow or Beijing wants.0 -
0
-
@warlockwraith
flotte de sous-marins à vendre, tout neuf avec du fromage gratuit. Vente rapide nécessaire.
https://twitter.com/warlockwraith/status/14392756935489658930 -
John Keiger:
What the three Anglosphere states in the Aukus pact have put together is a loose, flexible and nimble arrangement for managing Indo-Pacific security directly. This is something that is second nature to states of a culture that General de Gaulle always referred to as ‘Anglo-Saxon’. It is just the kind of arrangement that is anathema to the formal, rational and legalistic method of the French and their cultural offshoot the EU, whose modus operandi was best demonstrated by the glacial formalism applied to the Brexit negotiations.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-real-reason-france-was-excluded-from-aukus2 -
The thing I'm trying to get at is this.
Folk have woken up to the nature of the PRC regime. About time too.
But there is ludicrous hyperbole on here about Chinese "threats". These haven't suddenly appeared.
So China has Australia and the Pacific by the economic goolies, and is using its muscle for foreign policy gain?
That's capitalism folks. We did it, the US does it.
They are, first and foremost, interested in the unity of China, and avoidance of domestic chaos. Sure, their idea of China is bigger than most people's. I wouldn't be confident if I were Mongolia. But they aren't going to be invading and annnexing anywhere else any time soon.
Not putting troops overseas is one of the things they learned from the Soviet Union. It is a pointless squandering of lives and treasure.
To avoid unrest, they need to keep the money rolling in, and the people enriched.
That is their aim.
They aren't trying to impose any political system on their neighbours.
They don't want a Greater Pacific Empire. If that were so, why haven't they annexed N Korea? They could have. And they would have got away with it too.2 -
Sorry, maybe I wasn’t clear, I meant specific Putin/Russia related stuff. Is there anything you can point to or is this a tapping the side of your nose thing?Philip_Thompson said:
They already provide a lot of espionage and intelligence via Five Eyes and will be able to perform that role even better with nuclear submarines via this deal.Theuniondivvie said:
They already do? So what does that consist of, what’s the extra special stuff that they’ll be providing from now on, and which geographical flash points will it be taking place in?Philip_Thompson said:
They already do, yes.Theuniondivvie said:
Wait, Australia’s going to help out against Putin? How will that work?Leon said:
Yes, this is the opposite of what he wants. If the Anglosphere really unites, militarily, that is a strong deterrent to him and China. He can rely on the EU to be pathetically divided and inert. Not this new alliance.Philip_Thompson said:
Quite the opposite. The US, UK and allies working closely together is not in Putin's interests.WhisperingOracle said:One person will be very pleased tonight : Vladimir Putin.
Intelligence and Five Eyes is considerable. The Australians have their expertise.
It’ll be great when those nuclear subs come online in 15-20 years to fight the good fight against Putin.0 -
It is not difficultFarooq said:
I'm glad you said this, because it's obvious that an awful lot of people on here are winging it, some to ridiculous effect. I wish more people on here admitted that they don't have the complete picture. Edit: because none of us do.Fishing said:
You only invite someone to something like this when you are pretty sure they'll accept.Farooq said:
"Can't be bothered"? Yesterday everyone was saying Canada wasn't invited.Fishing said:
Because the Conservatives want to be in, while Trudeau can't be bothered.Farooq said:
Why "once Trudeau is gone"?Fishing said:
We need to get the Canadians involved once Trudeau is gone, though.Leon said:
Yes, this is the opposite of what he wants. If the Anglosphere really unites, militarily, that is a strong deterrent to him and China. He can rely on the EU to be pathetically divided and inert. Not this new alliance.Philip_Thompson said:
Quite the opposite. The US, UK and allies working closely together is not in Putin's interests.WhisperingOracle said:One person will be very pleased tonight : Vladimir Putin.
We can live without New Zealand, frankly.
I don't actually know which it was. If Canada wants to join, I'd be glad to be wrong and happy to have them in, under Trudeau or O'Toole.
AUKUS came about as Australia wants nuclear subs and France would not supply them
In March AU - US - UK started to negotiate a deal to supply Australia with top secret US/UK technology and at the G7 the talks turned into AUKUS
It is top secret as AUKUS does not trust France or the EU to leak nuclear secrets to Russia or China
AUKUS is a tripartite military and security agreement and no country will be able to join AUKUS due to the secrecy, but others will become associated members and expect Japan and Canada to be involved fairly soon
Of course this is a bombshell to France, but it is not at all clear that France even has the support of other EU members1 -
I remember visiting West Edmonton Mall.Fishing said:
Well they say they have no interest in nuclear subs which could be true, or could be making the best of a bad job.Leon said:
According to reports, the Canadians were entirely ignored, and were as surprised and blind-sided as France and the EUFishing said:
You only invite someone to something like this when you are pretty sure they'll accept.Farooq said:
"Can't be bothered"? Yesterday everyone was saying Canada wasn't invited.Fishing said:
Because the Conservatives want to be in, while Trudeau can't be bothered.Farooq said:
Why "once Trudeau is gone"?Fishing said:
We need to get the Canadians involved once Trudeau is gone, though.Leon said:
Yes, this is the opposite of what he wants. If the Anglosphere really unites, militarily, that is a strong deterrent to him and China. He can rely on the EU to be pathetically divided and inert. Not this new alliance.Philip_Thompson said:
Quite the opposite. The US, UK and allies working closely together is not in Putin's interests.WhisperingOracle said:One person will be very pleased tonight : Vladimir Putin.
We can live without New Zealand, frankly.
I don't actually know which it was. If Canada wants to join, I'd be glad to be wrong and happy to have them in, under Trudeau or O'Toole.
I've no idea why
They proudly told us that their indoor pool had more submarines than the Canadian Navy.1 -
New thread0
-
Even Johnny Redwood’s worried!Farooq said:
Ok, this is starting to worry me a little bit. Can someone reassure me that the lights are going to stay on this winter? It gets fucking cold up here and there's more than a few old folk around.Theuniondivvie said:Can anyone explain?
https://twitter.com/1wilsonm/status/1439262522310336514?s=21
Though it’s bound to be someone else’s fault.
https://twitter.com/johnredwood/status/1439102401219280900?s=21
0 -
He's a Kent supporter?WhisperingOracle said:One person will be very pleased tonight : Vladimir Putin.
0
This discussion has been closed.