The Brexit thing is overdone by “commentators” on here. There’s no direct Brexit angle.
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
I think the key takeaway here is the opposite. The US has lost patience with the EU being hamstrung by Germany's foreign policy objectives. France is being asked the question of whether or not they are serious about containing China in APAC. Once the noise goes away I wouldn't be surprised if tentative moves to get the French into some associate membership position aren't made.
The point if this partnership is to jettison those slow moving countries like Germany who hold back a much tougher western response to Chinese aggression. The internal EU squabbling is something we know frustrated us when we were in it trying to target Russia with sanctions or trying to get an EU-wide policy on Huawei. To an outsider like the US the process must seem interminable and with their major military power now not in the EU, they have no reason to care about it.
Why is it in France’s interests to “contain” China?
If this is the USA forcing France to pick sides, it’s a very humiliating way to go about it.
It is in everyone's interest to contain China
Why? Is China a material threat to France? In fact, China and Europe need each other.
And that is the problem
The issue is that for many they do not comprehend the concerns in the Trans Pacific about China and their need to deter Chinese aggression that could destabilise the whole vast area.
There is also a need to compete with China commercially and an expanded CPTPP including the UK and possibly the US would go a long way to providing such a market place.
I know you are a Kiwi and of course NZ has embraced China and banned Australian nuclear subs from her waters
Like Europe, NZ will have a choice to make herself in the years ahead
This has been asked before, but I still haven't seen a clear answer... what is the nature of this Chinese aggression?
My view remains that Europe as a world power or even a place of significance has had its (pretty long) day in the sun. In 1945 Europe was still such a significant part of world manufacturing that it had strategic importance to the US who could not allow the Soviet Union to dominate it. Hence NATO.
Now, the threat from Russia is massively diminished. I wouldn't be saying that if I lived in the Baltic states or Ukraine or other parts of the former Soviet Union of course. There, their aspirations and mischief making would be a major concern but from the US point of view there is no longer any strategic issue in protecting western Europe which isn't facing any real threat anyway. So NATO is redundant, even if it is politically useful to keep it going in form if not in substance.
Instead the US has strategic interests and concerns in the Pacific. This tilt in this direction has been going on for some time but accelerated considerably under Obama and continued under Trump. AUKUS is a small part of this strategic engagement but there are a host of other treaties and agreements which also play a part.
The UK could have accepted the same backwater status as the rest of Europe but has decided that it wants to play. Some of this is undoubtedly delusional, we want to still matter in world affairs, some of it is a response to Brexit, some of it is looking where economic growth is taking place and wanting a cut of the action, some of it is a bit needy in that we still want to be the US's best pal. I think it is far too early to say whether this will prove a distraction or an economic opportunity and most responses to it say more about the writer's view of UK internal politics than the actual merits. France also wanted to play too and feels left out at the moment but, frankly, who cares?
My view is that France would have done to the UK what the UK has done to France, if given half the chance - and that France probably will get the chance at some point. We are competitors and allies. We fixate far more on the former than the latter and have never trusted each other - even when fighting on the same side in actual wars!
Absolutely. And the unilateral and frankly embarrassing steps taken by Biden in Afghanistan show very clearly it is not just us and France that have that problem. Boris asked for a few more days to get a few more people to whom promises had been made out. He was turned down. Being best buds to a superpower can be a bruising experience. France, of course, are very much leading the punishment school in Brussels and deserve all they get in response.
If this treaty facilitates our membership of TPP it will have been a masterstroke. If it doesn't it may prove a rather pointless drain on our very stretched defence budget.
I think membership of the TPP is pretty much guaranteed anyway. It's just a matter of when as there are a few difficult issues that will need to be sorted out. As you say, the danger is that we now think that the US is our mate again when it is pretty clear that the Biden Administration is just as transactional as the Trump one was. That is the big takeaway here. US foreign policy has changed forever - both in focus and, crucially, in approach. We will need alliances with different groups of countries for different things - and the fact is that whether we like it or not, most of the big challenges we face are shared by the likes of France and Germany, and less so by the US. We do need to find ways to work with them.
My concern is that we do not have the weight to really influence the US. We delude ourselves with the special relationship from which we do get some intelligence benefits but those benefits are increasingly dearly bought. It is possible that the European countries as a group have that counterweight so when we are supported by or supporting France and Germany we definitely have a louder voice but the US can still go its own way if it wants and in the Pacific it is much more interested in what SK, Japan and Taiwan thinks.
The major challenges we are going to face over the next 30-50 years are in my view likely to come from Africa where an exploding, very young population is going to generate huge instability, wars and millions upon millions of refugees. How do we handle that? France in particular are a much more obvious partner for that than the US who show very little interest. How does this affect our military spend? What capabilities are we actually going to need? A blue water, nuclear powered aircraft carrier based navy seems a relatively unimportant part of the mix.
I agree. Climate change and conflicts in Africa and the Middle East will create direct challenges for the UK and other major European countries that the US just does not face - mass migration, of course, being the biggest.
Mass migration not an issue for the US? Are you sure about that?
It has been even more noticeable in the post-Brexit years that a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north.
This why we Greens are the most honest and principled political party. We despise these people, their retrograde cultural conservatism, their moronic aspirations and their banal nationalism. We don't want anything to do with them and we certainly don't want their votes. However, unlike the other parties we don't pretend otherwise.
I think the Greens would recognise themselves in that lot about as much as the tories do in HYUFD
I think Dura Ace is inspired by the Bolsheviks. The Northern Scum can play the Kulaks in his revolution, probably.
I do worry about his assumption that the Revolutionary Committee will accept his claim that he drove all those Porsches purely ironically.
LONDON — As relations between France and the United States sink to their lowest depths in decades, Britain has emerged as the unlikely winner in a maritime security alliance that has sowed anger and recrimination across three continents.
The British government played an early role in brokering the three-way alliance with the United States and Australia to deploy nuclear-powered submarines in the Pacific, according to officials in London and Washington. The landmark agreement was announced hours after Australia canceled a $66 billion deal for diesel-electric submarines with France, provoking fury in Paris and quiet satisfaction in London.
For Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who will meet this coming week with President Biden at the White House and speak at the United Nations, it is his first tangible victory in a campaign to make post-Brexit Britain a player on the global stage.
Every word typed of that piece must have been like a dagger to the heart of the writer.
It wasn't supposed to happen this way. The EU assured the world that the UK would be sidelined and turned into a backwater.
So Johnson has won your vote back in around a week.
Piss the French off and a "socialist" tax on working age Britons is forgiven and forgotten.
This hasn't shifted my vote and I'd have expected a Labour government to pursue an identical policy (well maybe not under Jez but Starmer definitely would be doing the same).
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
For a country that withdrew from NATO for no obvious reason, then rejoined, and bombed a peaceful protest boat in a friendly foreign country, to say that others can't be relied on, is beyond parody.
And that's not even to mention their behaviour to us since we exercised our right to leave the EU.
So your main proof point of French flakiness is from 1985?
The Brexit thing is overdone by “commentators” on here. There’s no direct Brexit angle.
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
I think the key takeaway here is the opposite. The US has lost patience with the EU being hamstrung by Germany's foreign policy objectives. France is being asked the question of whether or not they are serious about containing China in APAC. Once the noise goes away I wouldn't be surprised if tentative moves to get the French into some associate membership position aren't made.
The point if this partnership is to jettison those slow moving countries like Germany who hold back a much tougher western response to Chinese aggression. The internal EU squabbling is something we know frustrated us when we were in it trying to target Russia with sanctions or trying to get an EU-wide policy on Huawei. To an outsider like the US the process must seem interminable and with their major military power now not in the EU, they have no reason to care about it.
Why is it in France’s interests to “contain” China?
If this is the USA forcing France to pick sides, it’s a very humiliating way to go about it.
It is in everyone's interest to contain China
Why? Is China a material threat to France? In fact, China and Europe need each other.
And that is the problem
The issue is that for many they do not comprehend the concerns in the Trans Pacific about China and their need to deter Chinese aggression that could destabilise the whole vast area.
There is also a need to compete with China commercially and an expanded CPTPP including the UK and possibly the US would go a long way to providing such a market place.
I know you are a Kiwi and of course NZ has embraced China and banned Australian nuclear subs from her waters
Like Europe, NZ will have a choice to make herself in the years ahead
This has been asked before, but I still haven't seen a clear answer... what is the nature of this Chinese aggression? We can agree that China is a threat to Taiwan, but is there anything beyond that? I have this vague idea that America is a bigger threat to third countries than China, based on recent history. Can someone explain why I'm wrong about that?
And please note, I am not in any way saying China is better. Yes the internal repression in China is criminal and deeply wrong. I'm asking about external aggression.
The threat is not just Taiwan but the South China Sea which is a vital sea route and coincidental one which I partly sailed across from South Korea to China
I think a lot of the misunderstanding in all of this is that little attention is given in this country to anywhere beyond Europe, when in fact it is a small region when compared to the one that this threat is perceived as very real
The French can cope with being humiliated and screwed over by America. Because the USA is much bigger. A superpower. Like China. That’s life. Withdraw the ambassador. It’s a mere gesture but it might sting them
The French can cope with the Australian betrayal (tho it hurts more). The Australians are inferior. A small country with too many kangaroos. Pff! Withdraw the ambassador and try and destabilize their tiny politics
Britain? Brexit Britain? Perfidious Albion? This is their exact rival, and equal. The country next door that constantly infuriates them even as it intrigues them. This stupid foggy island has totally beaten us?? It’s the pain of Sunderland losing to Newcastle. It is a bitter local rivalry. Withdrawing the French ambassador in London would be acknowledging England’s triumph. It is too painful, so instead they resort to cooking metaphors
I think there's another layer which is that the French elite are collectively afraid of contemplating the possibility that Boris Johnson was right about the EU. They can't take him seriously, because their own worldview depends on seeing him as a clown.
This is why they didn't withdraw ambassadors from the UK. They are desperate to make this seem Australia and US driven. They can't accept Johnson is a major player.
Surely they didn't remove the ambassador to the UK, because the thing they were upset about was the loss of a €90bn contract from the Australians to the US.
As has been predicted here, it looks as though in the short term Australia will look at buying off the shelf while it builds up its own capability. That sounds to me like they're going to get a couple of Astutes. The unit price on them is small compared to what the French were charging.
It takes ten years from laying down an Astute to commissioning it and they are probably five years away from starting so that's not exactly a short term solution. They are incredibly labour intensive to build. There is no pipe section longer than 2m in any of them which means a LOT of welding, fettling, inspecting, testing.
Selling them Agamemnon and Agincourt is a short term solution. Having Australia build their own Astutes is the opposite of that.
I think if they ever get their SSNs they will be short wheelbase Virginias with no VLS and no VPM.
What do all those acronyms (no, I refuse to call them initialisms) mean?
They mean that @Dura_Ace knows more about submarines than the rest of us.
The Brexit thing is overdone by “commentators” on here. There’s no direct Brexit angle.
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
I think the key takeaway here is the opposite. The US has lost patience with the EU being hamstrung by Germany's foreign policy objectives. France is being asked the question of whether or not they are serious about containing China in APAC. Once the noise goes away I wouldn't be surprised if tentative moves to get the French into some associate membership position aren't made.
The point if this partnership is to jettison those slow moving countries like Germany who hold back a much tougher western response to Chinese aggression. The internal EU squabbling is something we know frustrated us when we were in it trying to target Russia with sanctions or trying to get an EU-wide policy on Huawei. To an outsider like the US the process must seem interminable and with their major military power now not in the EU, they have no reason to care about it.
Why is it in France’s interests to “contain” China?
If this is the USA forcing France to pick sides, it’s a very humiliating way to go about it.
It is in everyone's interest to contain China
Why? Is China a material threat to France? In fact, China and Europe need each other.
And that is the problem
The issue is that for many they do not comprehend the concerns in the Trans Pacific about China and their need to deter Chinese aggression that could destabilise the whole vast area.
There is also a need to compete with China commercially and an expanded CPTPP including the UK and possibly the US would go a long way to providing such a market place.
I know you are a Kiwi and of course NZ has embraced China and banned Australian nuclear subs from her waters
Like Europe, NZ will have a choice to make herself in the years ahead
The Brexit thing is overdone by “commentators” on here. There’s no direct Brexit angle.
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
I think the key takeaway here is the opposite. The US has lost patience with the EU being hamstrung by Germany's foreign policy objectives. France is being asked the question of whether or not they are serious about containing China in APAC. Once the noise goes away I wouldn't be surprised if tentative moves to get the French into some associate membership position aren't made.
The point if this partnership is to jettison those slow moving countries like Germany who hold back a much tougher western response to Chinese aggression. The internal EU squabbling is something we know frustrated us when we were in it trying to target Russia with sanctions or trying to get an EU-wide policy on Huawei. To an outsider like the US the process must seem interminable and with their major military power now not in the EU, they have no reason to care about it.
Why is it in France’s interests to “contain” China?
If this is the USA forcing France to pick sides, it’s a very humiliating way to go about it.
It is in everyone's interest to contain China
Why? Is China a material threat to France? In fact, China and Europe need each other.
And that is the problem
The issue is that for many they do not comprehend the concerns in the Trans Pacific about China and their need to deter Chinese aggression that could destabilise the whole vast area.
There is also a need to compete with China commercially and an expanded CPTPP including the UK and possibly the US would go a long way to providing such a market place.
I know you are a Kiwi and of course NZ has embraced China and banned Australian nuclear subs from her waters
Like Europe, NZ will have a choice to make herself in the years ahead
The Brexit thing is overdone by “commentators” on here. There’s no direct Brexit angle.
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
I think the key takeaway here is the opposite. The US has lost patience with the EU being hamstrung by Germany's foreign policy objectives. France is being asked the question of whether or not they are serious about containing China in APAC. Once the noise goes away I wouldn't be surprised if tentative moves to get the French into some associate membership position aren't made.
The point if this partnership is to jettison those slow moving countries like Germany who hold back a much tougher western response to Chinese aggression. The internal EU squabbling is something we know frustrated us when we were in it trying to target Russia with sanctions or trying to get an EU-wide policy on Huawei. To an outsider like the US the process must seem interminable and with their major military power now not in the EU, they have no reason to care about it.
Why is it in France’s interests to “contain” China?
If this is the USA forcing France to pick sides, it’s a very humiliating way to go about it.
It is in everyone's interest to contain China
Why? Is China a material threat to France? In fact, China and Europe need each other.
And that is the problem
The issue is that for many they do not comprehend the concerns in the Trans Pacific about China and their need to deter Chinese aggression that could destabilise the whole vast area.
There is also a need to compete with China commercially and an expanded CPTPP including the UK and possibly the US would go a long way to providing such a market place.
I know you are a Kiwi and of course NZ has embraced China and banned Australian nuclear subs from her waters
Like Europe, NZ will have a choice to make herself in the years ahead
The Brexit thing is overdone by “commentators” on here. There’s no direct Brexit angle.
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
I think the key takeaway here is the opposite. The US has lost patience with the EU being hamstrung by Germany's foreign policy objectives. France is being asked the question of whether or not they are serious about containing China in APAC. Once the noise goes away I wouldn't be surprised if tentative moves to get the French into some associate membership position aren't made.
The point if this partnership is to jettison those slow moving countries like Germany who hold back a much tougher western response to Chinese aggression. The internal EU squabbling is something we know frustrated us when we were in it trying to target Russia with sanctions or trying to get an EU-wide policy on Huawei. To an outsider like the US the process must seem interminable and with their major military power now not in the EU, they have no reason to care about it.
Why is it in France’s interests to “contain” China?
If this is the USA forcing France to pick sides, it’s a very humiliating way to go about it.
It is in everyone's interest to contain China
Why? Is China a material threat to France? In fact, China and Europe need each other.
And that is the problem
The issue is that for many they do not comprehend the concerns in the Trans Pacific about China and their need to deter Chinese aggression that could destabilise the whole vast area.
There is also a need to compete with China commercially and an expanded CPTPP including the UK and possibly the US would go a long way to providing such a market place.
I know you are a Kiwi and of course NZ has embraced China and banned Australian nuclear subs from her waters
Like Europe, NZ will have a choice to make herself in the years ahead
China has also applied to join the CPTPP.
Yes through NZ and it will go nowhere
Is that the same NZ you claim has “embraced China”?
It has been even more noticeable in the post-Brexit years that a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north.
This why we Greens are the most honest and principled political party. We despise these people, their retrograde cultural conservatism, their moronic aspirations and their banal nationalism. We don't want anything to do with them and we certainly don't want their votes. However, unlike the other parties we don't pretend otherwise.
Except when it comes to the banal nationalism of the SNP
The Brexit thing is overdone by “commentators” on here. There’s no direct Brexit angle.
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
I think the key takeaway here is the opposite. The US has lost patience with the EU being hamstrung by Germany's foreign policy objectives. France is being asked the question of whether or not they are serious about containing China in APAC. Once the noise goes away I wouldn't be surprised if tentative moves to get the French into some associate membership position aren't made.
The point if this partnership is to jettison those slow moving countries like Germany who hold back a much tougher western response to Chinese aggression. The internal EU squabbling is something we know frustrated us when we were in it trying to target Russia with sanctions or trying to get an EU-wide policy on Huawei. To an outsider like the US the process must seem interminable and with their major military power now not in the EU, they have no reason to care about it.
Why is it in France’s interests to “contain” China?
If this is the USA forcing France to pick sides, it’s a very humiliating way to go about it.
It is in everyone's interest to contain China
Why? Is China a material threat to France? In fact, China and Europe need each other.
And that is the problem
The issue is that for many they do not comprehend the concerns in the Trans Pacific about China and their need to deter Chinese aggression that could destabilise the whole vast area.
There is also a need to compete with China commercially and an expanded CPTPP including the UK and possibly the US would go a long way to providing such a market place.
I know you are a Kiwi and of course NZ has embraced China and banned Australian nuclear subs from her waters
Like Europe, NZ will have a choice to make herself in the years ahead
The Brexit thing is overdone by “commentators” on here. There’s no direct Brexit angle.
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
I think the key takeaway here is the opposite. The US has lost patience with the EU being hamstrung by Germany's foreign policy objectives. France is being asked the question of whether or not they are serious about containing China in APAC. Once the noise goes away I wouldn't be surprised if tentative moves to get the French into some associate membership position aren't made.
The point if this partnership is to jettison those slow moving countries like Germany who hold back a much tougher western response to Chinese aggression. The internal EU squabbling is something we know frustrated us when we were in it trying to target Russia with sanctions or trying to get an EU-wide policy on Huawei. To an outsider like the US the process must seem interminable and with their major military power now not in the EU, they have no reason to care about it.
Why is it in France’s interests to “contain” China?
If this is the USA forcing France to pick sides, it’s a very humiliating way to go about it.
It is in everyone's interest to contain China
Why? Is China a material threat to France? In fact, China and Europe need each other.
And that is the problem
The issue is that for many they do not comprehend the concerns in the Trans Pacific about China and their need to deter Chinese aggression that could destabilise the whole vast area.
There is also a need to compete with China commercially and an expanded CPTPP including the UK and possibly the US would go a long way to providing such a market place.
I know you are a Kiwi and of course NZ has embraced China and banned Australian nuclear subs from her waters
Like Europe, NZ will have a choice to make herself in the years ahead
China has also applied to join the CPTPP.
Yes through NZ and it will go nowhere
Is that the same NZ you claim has “embraced China”?
It won't go anywhere because their application will get vetoed by Japan. Though I'm not sure applying in NZ is as big of a deal as people think, you probably know better than I do but Auckland is the CPTPP depository so it's necessary to apply to NZ.
My view remains that Europe as a world power or even a place of significance has had its (pretty long) day in the sun. In 1945 Europe was still such a significant part of world manufacturing that it had strategic importance to the US who could not allow the Soviet Union to dominate it. Hence NATO.
Now, the threat from Russia is massively diminished. I wouldn't be saying that if I lived in the Baltic states or Ukraine or other parts of the former Soviet Union of course. There, their aspirations and mischief making would be a major concern but from the US point of view there is no longer any strategic issue in protecting western Europe which isn't facing any real threat anyway. So NATO is redundant, even if it is politically useful to keep it going in form if not in substance.
Instead the US has strategic interests and concerns in the Pacific. This tilt in this direction has been going on for some time but accelerated considerably under Obama and continued under Trump. AUKUS is a small part of this strategic engagement but there are a host of other treaties and agreements which also play a part.
The UK could have accepted the same backwater status as the rest of Europe but has decided that it wants to play. Some of this is undoubtedly delusional, we want to still matter in world affairs, some of it is a response to Brexit, some of it is looking where economic growth is taking place and wanting a cut of the action, some of it is a bit needy in that we still want to be the US's best pal. I think it is far too early to say whether this will prove a distraction or an economic opportunity and most responses to it say more about the writer's view of UK internal politics than the actual merits. France also wanted to play too and feels left out at the moment but, frankly, who cares?
The EU as a whole is still the 3rd largest economy in the world after the USA and China and our largest export destination, we cannot ignore it and we cannot forget that geographically we are part of Europe still even if out of the EU.
Russia is also the 3rd most powerful military in the world still after the USA and China and geographically far closer to us than China is, it is extremely complacent to dismiss Putin, we still need NATO
This is one of those weird posts where HYUFD argues pedantically against someone who agrees with him on the substantive point.
He doesn't. He said Russia is no real threat to western Europe
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
For a country that withdrew from NATO for no obvious reason, then rejoined, and bombed a peaceful protest boat in a friendly foreign country, to say that others can't be relied on, is beyond parody.
And that's not even to mention their behaviour to us since we exercised our right to leave the EU.
The whole point is that no country can be relied on. They can't. (For any value of "they".) We can't.
Countries have pragmatic interests, not eternal soulmate allies. Whatever the rights and wrongs of recent foreign policy, the idea that an Anglosphere that girdles the world is any more durable than any other arrangement is just nuts.
LONDON — As relations between France and the United States sink to their lowest depths in decades, Britain has emerged as the unlikely winner in a maritime security alliance that has sowed anger and recrimination across three continents.
The British government played an early role in brokering the three-way alliance with the United States and Australia to deploy nuclear-powered submarines in the Pacific, according to officials in London and Washington. The landmark agreement was announced hours after Australia canceled a $66 billion deal for diesel-electric submarines with France, provoking fury in Paris and quiet satisfaction in London.
For Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who will meet this coming week with President Biden at the White House and speak at the United Nations, it is his first tangible victory in a campaign to make post-Brexit Britain a player on the global stage.
Every word typed of that piece must have been like a dagger to the heart of the writer.
It wasn't supposed to happen this way. The EU assured the world that the UK would be sidelined and turned into a backwater.
So Johnson has won your vote back in around a week.
Piss the French off and a "socialist" tax on working age Britons is forgiven and forgotten.
This hasn't shifted my vote and I'd have expected a Labour government to pursue an identical policy (well maybe not under Jez but Starmer definitely would be doing the same).
It is ironic though that such a sabre rattling Brexiteer is moving to Europe to live in a country whose foreign policy is absolute neutrality, even in the face of Nazi genocide. Money trumps all I guess.
It has been even more noticeable in the post-Brexit years that a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north.
This why we Greens are the most honest and principled political party. We despise these people, their retrograde cultural conservatism, their moronic aspirations and their banal nationalism. We don't want anything to do with them and we certainly don't want their votes. However, unlike the other parties we don't pretend otherwise.
I think the Greens would recognise themselves in that lot about as much as the tories do in HYUFD
I think Dura Ace is inspired by the Bolsheviks. The Northern Scum can play the Kulaks in his revolution, probably.
I do worry about his assumption that the Revolutionary Committee will accept his claim that he drove all those Porsches purely ironically.
Well, the original Bolsheviks had this pet bank robber, who got the money in. They were all slapping themselves on the back - they would attend fashionable parties in pre-revolution Russia as the funky, cool, anarchist types and he really made them look dangerous.... Plus the piles of money he bought in. And he was 100% under their control - they had the brains after all, and all the correct theories. All he had was guns....
The Brexit thing is overdone by “commentators” on here. There’s no direct Brexit angle.
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
I think the key takeaway here is the opposite. The US has lost patience with the EU being hamstrung by Germany's foreign policy objectives. France is being asked the question of whether or not they are serious about containing China in APAC. Once the noise goes away I wouldn't be surprised if tentative moves to get the French into some associate membership position aren't made.
The point if this partnership is to jettison those slow moving countries like Germany who hold back a much tougher western response to Chinese aggression. The internal EU squabbling is something we know frustrated us when we were in it trying to target Russia with sanctions or trying to get an EU-wide policy on Huawei. To an outsider like the US the process must seem interminable and with their major military power now not in the EU, they have no reason to care about it.
Why is it in France’s interests to “contain” China?
If this is the USA forcing France to pick sides, it’s a very humiliating way to go about it.
It is in everyone's interest to contain China
Why? Is China a material threat to France? In fact, China and Europe need each other.
And that is the problem
The issue is that for many they do not comprehend the concerns in the Trans Pacific about China and their need to deter Chinese aggression that could destabilise the whole vast area.
There is also a need to compete with China commercially and an expanded CPTPP including the UK and possibly the US would go a long way to providing such a market place.
I know you are a Kiwi and of course NZ has embraced China and banned Australian nuclear subs from her waters
Like Europe, NZ will have a choice to make herself in the years ahead
This has been asked before, but I still haven't seen a clear answer... what is the nature of this Chinese aggression? We can agree that China is a threat to Taiwan, but is there anything beyond that? I have this vague idea that America is a bigger threat to third countries than China, based on recent history. Can someone explain why I'm wrong about that?
And please note, I am not in any way saying China is better. Yes the internal repression in China is criminal and deeply wrong. I'm asking about external aggression.
The threat is not just Taiwan but the South China Sea which is a vital sea route and coincidental one which I partly sailed across from South Korea to China
I think a lot of the misunderstanding in all of this is that little attention is given in this country to anywhere beyond Europe, when in fact it is a small region when compared to the one that this threat is perceived as very real
Please see my response to Carlotta on the same matter. I'm afraid my question remains.
My view remains that Europe as a world power or even a place of significance has had its (pretty long) day in the sun. In 1945 Europe was still such a significant part of world manufacturing that it had strategic importance to the US who could not allow the Soviet Union to dominate it. Hence NATO.
Now, the threat from Russia is massively diminished. I wouldn't be saying that if I lived in the Baltic states or Ukraine or other parts of the former Soviet Union of course. There, their aspirations and mischief making would be a major concern but from the US point of view there is no longer any strategic issue in protecting western Europe which isn't facing any real threat anyway. So NATO is redundant, even if it is politically useful to keep it going in form if not in substance.
Instead the US has strategic interests and concerns in the Pacific. This tilt in this direction has been going on for some time but accelerated considerably under Obama and continued under Trump. AUKUS is a small part of this strategic engagement but there are a host of other treaties and agreements which also play a part.
The UK could have accepted the same backwater status as the rest of Europe but has decided that it wants to play. Some of this is undoubtedly delusional, we want to still matter in world affairs, some of it is a response to Brexit, some of it is looking where economic growth is taking place and wanting a cut of the action, some of it is a bit needy in that we still want to be the US's best pal. I think it is far too early to say whether this will prove a distraction or an economic opportunity and most responses to it say more about the writer's view of UK internal politics than the actual merits. France also wanted to play too and feels left out at the moment but, frankly, who cares?
The EU as a whole is still the 3rd largest economy in the world after the USA and China and our largest export destination, we cannot ignore it and we cannot forget that geographically we are part of Europe still even if out of the EU.
Russia is also the 3rd most powerful military in the world still after the USA and China and geographically far closer to us than China is, it is extremely complacent to dismiss Putin, we still need NATO
This is one of those weird posts where HYUFD argues pedantically against someone who agrees with him on the substantive point.
I liked HYUFD's post because it was concise and spot on in my opinion. I hadn't read the post he was responding to.
I would have to be careful of criticising because of the last 3 humdinger arguments I have had with HYUFD I have actually agreed with him on the actual point he was making in 2 of them (I think I could be accused of pot and kettle), just not the way they were argued.
The Brexit thing is overdone by “commentators” on here. There’s no direct Brexit angle.
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
I think the key takeaway here is the opposite. The US has lost patience with the EU being hamstrung by Germany's foreign policy objectives. France is being asked the question of whether or not they are serious about containing China in APAC. Once the noise goes away I wouldn't be surprised if tentative moves to get the French into some associate membership position aren't made.
The point if this partnership is to jettison those slow moving countries like Germany who hold back a much tougher western response to Chinese aggression. The internal EU squabbling is something we know frustrated us when we were in it trying to target Russia with sanctions or trying to get an EU-wide policy on Huawei. To an outsider like the US the process must seem interminable and with their major military power now not in the EU, they have no reason to care about it.
Why is it in France’s interests to “contain” China?
If this is the USA forcing France to pick sides, it’s a very humiliating way to go about it.
It is in everyone's interest to contain China
Why? Is China a material threat to France? In fact, China and Europe need each other.
And that is the problem
The issue is that for many they do not comprehend the concerns in the Trans Pacific about China and their need to deter Chinese aggression that could destabilise the whole vast area.
There is also a need to compete with China commercially and an expanded CPTPP including the UK and possibly the US would go a long way to providing such a market place.
I know you are a Kiwi and of course NZ has embraced China and banned Australian nuclear subs from her waters
Like Europe, NZ will have a choice to make herself in the years ahead
Your posts really are complete drivel.
What does it even mean that France “do not comprehend the concerns in the Trans Pacific about China”.
And, NZ has not “embraced China”.
Australian subs are only banned inasmuch as NZ had banned all nuclear powered ships since 1987; it’s a reiteration of standing policy.
This is what happens when you get your foreign policy news via the sudoku pages of the Daily Mail.
You do know China are so supported by NZ that they have submitted an application to join CPTPP through them
And my knowledge is based on extensive travel to Australia, NZ, and also Japan, South Korea and indeed China
It has been even more noticeable in the post-Brexit years that a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north.
This why we Greens are the most honest and principled political party. We despise these people, their retrograde cultural conservatism, their moronic aspirations and their banal nationalism. We don't want anything to do with them and we certainly don't want their votes. However, unlike the other parties we don't pretend otherwise.
I think the Greens would recognise themselves in that lot about as much as the tories do in HYUFD
I think Dura Ace is inspired by the Bolsheviks. The Northern Scum can play the Kulaks in his revolution, probably.
He should stick to posting about military matters where he offers some insight.
My view remains that Europe as a world power or even a place of significance has had its (pretty long) day in the sun. In 1945 Europe was still such a significant part of world manufacturing that it had strategic importance to the US who could not allow the Soviet Union to dominate it. Hence NATO.
Now, the threat from Russia is massively diminished. I wouldn't be saying that if I lived in the Baltic states or Ukraine or other parts of the former Soviet Union of course. There, their aspirations and mischief making would be a major concern but from the US point of view there is no longer any strategic issue in protecting western Europe which isn't facing any real threat anyway. So NATO is redundant, even if it is politically useful to keep it going in form if not in substance.
Instead the US has strategic interests and concerns in the Pacific. This tilt in this direction has been going on for some time but accelerated considerably under Obama and continued under Trump. AUKUS is a small part of this strategic engagement but there are a host of other treaties and agreements which also play a part.
The UK could have accepted the same backwater status as the rest of Europe but has decided that it wants to play. Some of this is undoubtedly delusional, we want to still matter in world affairs, some of it is a response to Brexit, some of it is looking where economic growth is taking place and wanting a cut of the action, some of it is a bit needy in that we still want to be the US's best pal. I think it is far too early to say whether this will prove a distraction or an economic opportunity and most responses to it say more about the writer's view of UK internal politics than the actual merits. France also wanted to play too and feels left out at the moment but, frankly, who cares?
My view is that France would have done to the UK what the UK has done to France, if given half the chance - and that France probably will get the chance at some point. We are competitors and allies. We fixate far more on the former than the latter and have never trusted each other - even when fighting on the same side in actual wars!
Absolutely. And the unilateral and frankly embarrassing steps taken by Biden in Afghanistan show very clearly it is not just us and France that have that problem. Boris asked for a few more days to get a few more people to whom promises had been made out. He was turned down. Being best buds to a superpower can be a bruising experience. France, of course, are very much leading the punishment school in Brussels and deserve all they get in response.
If this treaty facilitates our membership of TPP it will have been a masterstroke. If it doesn't it may prove a rather pointless drain on our very stretched defence budget.
I think membership of the TPP is pretty much guaranteed anyway. It's just a matter of when as there are a few difficult issues that will need to be sorted out. As you say, the danger is that we now think that the US is our mate again when it is pretty clear that the Biden Administration is just as transactional as the Trump one was. That is the big takeaway here. US foreign policy has changed forever - both in focus and, crucially, in approach. We will need alliances with different groups of countries for different things - and the fact is that whether we like it or not, most of the big challenges we face are shared by the likes of France and Germany, and less so by the US. We do need to find ways to work with them.
My concern is that we do not have the weight to really influence the US. We delude ourselves with the special relationship from which we do get some intelligence benefits but those benefits are increasingly dearly bought. It is possible that the European countries as a group have that counterweight so when we are supported by or supporting France and Germany we definitely have a louder voice but the US can still go its own way if it wants and in the Pacific it is much more interested in what SK, Japan and Taiwan thinks.
The major challenges we are going to face over the next 30-50 years are in my view likely to come from Africa where an exploding, very young population is going to generate huge instability, wars and millions upon millions of refugees. How do we handle that? France in particular are a much more obvious partner for that than the US who show very little interest. How does this affect our military spend? What capabilities are we actually going to need? A blue water, nuclear powered aircraft carrier based navy seems a relatively unimportant part of the mix.
I agree. Climate change and conflicts in Africa and the Middle East will create direct challenges for the UK and other major European countries that the US just does not face - mass migration, of course, being the biggest.
Mass migration not an issue for the US? Are you sure about that?
The French can cope with being humiliated and screwed over by America. Because the USA is much bigger. A superpower. Like China. That’s life. Withdraw the ambassador. It’s a mere gesture but it might sting them
The French can cope with the Australian betrayal (tho it hurts more). The Australians are inferior. A small country with too many kangaroos. Pff! Withdraw the ambassador and try and destabilize their tiny politics
Britain? Brexit Britain? Perfidious Albion? This is their exact rival, and equal. The country next door that constantly infuriates them even as it intrigues them. This stupid foggy island has totally beaten us?? It’s the pain of Sunderland losing to Newcastle. It is a bitter local rivalry. Withdrawing the French ambassador in London would be acknowledging England’s triumph. It is too painful, so instead they resort to cooking metaphors
I think there's another layer which is that the French elite are collectively afraid of contemplating the possibility that Boris Johnson was right about the EU. They can't take him seriously, because their own worldview depends on seeing him as a clown.
This is why they didn't withdraw ambassadors from the UK. They are desperate to make this seem Australia and US driven. They can't accept Johnson is a major player.
Surely they didn't remove the ambassador to the UK, because the thing they were upset about was the loss of a €90bn contract from the Australians to the US.
As has been predicted here, it looks as though in the short term Australia will look at buying off the shelf while it builds up its own capability. That sounds to me like they're going to get a couple of Astutes. The unit price on them is small compared to what the French were charging.
It takes ten years from laying down an Astute to commissioning it and they are probably five years away from starting so that's not exactly a short term solution. They are incredibly labour intensive to build. There is no pipe section longer than 2m in any of them which means a LOT of welding, fettling, inspecting, testing.
Selling them Agamemnon and Agincourt is a short term solution. Having Australia build their own Astutes is the opposite of that.
I think if they ever get their SSNs they will be short wheelbase Virginias with no VLS and no VPM.
What do all those acronyms (no, I refuse to call them initialisms) mean?
If you're going to get it deliberately wrong, why not use "acrostic"?
It's similarly, but more interestingly, wrong. At least you won't sound like a BBC news bod at the TUC conference..
The Brexit thing is overdone by “commentators” on here. There’s no direct Brexit angle.
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
I think the key takeaway here is the opposite. The US has lost patience with the EU being hamstrung by Germany's foreign policy objectives. France is being asked the question of whether or not they are serious about containing China in APAC. Once the noise goes away I wouldn't be surprised if tentative moves to get the French into some associate membership position aren't made.
The point if this partnership is to jettison those slow moving countries like Germany who hold back a much tougher western response to Chinese aggression. The internal EU squabbling is something we know frustrated us when we were in it trying to target Russia with sanctions or trying to get an EU-wide policy on Huawei. To an outsider like the US the process must seem interminable and with their major military power now not in the EU, they have no reason to care about it.
Why is it in France’s interests to “contain” China?
If this is the USA forcing France to pick sides, it’s a very humiliating way to go about it.
It is in everyone's interest to contain China
Why? Is China a material threat to France? In fact, China and Europe need each other.
And that is the problem
The issue is that for many they do not comprehend the concerns in the Trans Pacific about China and their need to deter Chinese aggression that could destabilise the whole vast area.
There is also a need to compete with China commercially and an expanded CPTPP including the UK and possibly the US would go a long way to providing such a market place.
I know you are a Kiwi and of course NZ has embraced China and banned Australian nuclear subs from her waters
Like Europe, NZ will have a choice to make herself in the years ahead
The Brexit thing is overdone by “commentators” on here. There’s no direct Brexit angle.
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
I think the key takeaway here is the opposite. The US has lost patience with the EU being hamstrung by Germany's foreign policy objectives. France is being asked the question of whether or not they are serious about containing China in APAC. Once the noise goes away I wouldn't be surprised if tentative moves to get the French into some associate membership position aren't made.
The point if this partnership is to jettison those slow moving countries like Germany who hold back a much tougher western response to Chinese aggression. The internal EU squabbling is something we know frustrated us when we were in it trying to target Russia with sanctions or trying to get an EU-wide policy on Huawei. To an outsider like the US the process must seem interminable and with their major military power now not in the EU, they have no reason to care about it.
Why is it in France’s interests to “contain” China?
If this is the USA forcing France to pick sides, it’s a very humiliating way to go about it.
It is in everyone's interest to contain China
Why? Is China a material threat to France? In fact, China and Europe need each other.
And that is the problem
The issue is that for many they do not comprehend the concerns in the Trans Pacific about China and their need to deter Chinese aggression that could destabilise the whole vast area.
There is also a need to compete with China commercially and an expanded CPTPP including the UK and possibly the US would go a long way to providing such a market place.
I know you are a Kiwi and of course NZ has embraced China and banned Australian nuclear subs from her waters
Like Europe, NZ will have a choice to make herself in the years ahead
China has also applied to join the CPTPP.
Yes through NZ and it will go nowhere
Is that the same NZ you claim has “embraced China”?
CPTPP membership goes through a vote of the existing members. I believe it has to be unanimous. Japan will vote no, for a start.
NZ is the (effective) HQ for the organisation, IIRC.
The Brexit thing is overdone by “commentators” on here. There’s no direct Brexit angle.
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
I think the key takeaway here is the opposite. The US has lost patience with the EU being hamstrung by Germany's foreign policy objectives. France is being asked the question of whether or not they are serious about containing China in APAC. Once the noise goes away I wouldn't be surprised if tentative moves to get the French into some associate membership position aren't made.
The point if this partnership is to jettison those slow moving countries like Germany who hold back a much tougher western response to Chinese aggression. The internal EU squabbling is something we know frustrated us when we were in it trying to target Russia with sanctions or trying to get an EU-wide policy on Huawei. To an outsider like the US the process must seem interminable and with their major military power now not in the EU, they have no reason to care about it.
Why is it in France’s interests to “contain” China?
If this is the USA forcing France to pick sides, it’s a very humiliating way to go about it.
It is in everyone's interest to contain China
Why? Is China a material threat to France? In fact, China and Europe need each other.
And that is the problem
The issue is that for many they do not comprehend the concerns in the Trans Pacific about China and their need to deter Chinese aggression that could destabilise the whole vast area.
There is also a need to compete with China commercially and an expanded CPTPP including the UK and possibly the US would go a long way to providing such a market place.
I know you are a Kiwi and of course NZ has embraced China and banned Australian nuclear subs from her waters
Like Europe, NZ will have a choice to make herself in the years ahead
This has been asked before, but I still haven't seen a clear answer... what is the nature of this Chinese aggression? We can agree that China is a threat to Taiwan, but is there anything beyond that? I have this vague idea that America is a bigger threat to third countries than China, based on recent history. Can someone explain why I'm wrong about that?
And please note, I am not in any way saying China is better. Yes the internal repression in China is criminal and deeply wrong. I'm asking about external aggression.
The Brexit thing is overdone by “commentators” on here. There’s no direct Brexit angle.
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
I think the key takeaway here is the opposite. The US has lost patience with the EU being hamstrung by Germany's foreign policy objectives. France is being asked the question of whether or not they are serious about containing China in APAC. Once the noise goes away I wouldn't be surprised if tentative moves to get the French into some associate membership position aren't made.
The point if this partnership is to jettison those slow moving countries like Germany who hold back a much tougher western response to Chinese aggression. The internal EU squabbling is something we know frustrated us when we were in it trying to target Russia with sanctions or trying to get an EU-wide policy on Huawei. To an outsider like the US the process must seem interminable and with their major military power now not in the EU, they have no reason to care about it.
Why is it in France’s interests to “contain” China?
If this is the USA forcing France to pick sides, it’s a very humiliating way to go about it.
It is in everyone's interest to contain China
Why? Is China a material threat to France? In fact, China and Europe need each other.
And that is the problem
The issue is that for many they do not comprehend the concerns in the Trans Pacific about China and their need to deter Chinese aggression that could destabilise the whole vast area.
There is also a need to compete with China commercially and an expanded CPTPP including the UK and possibly the US would go a long way to providing such a market place.
I know you are a Kiwi and of course NZ has embraced China and banned Australian nuclear subs from her waters
Like Europe, NZ will have a choice to make herself in the years ahead
This has been asked before, but I still haven't seen a clear answer... what is the nature of this Chinese aggression? We can agree that China is a threat to Taiwan, but is there anything beyond that? I have this vague idea that America is a bigger threat to third countries than China, based on recent history. Can someone explain why I'm wrong about that?
And please note, I am not in any way saying China is better. Yes the internal repression in China is criminal and deeply wrong. I'm asking about external aggression.
I've restored my full post to your quote because the other bits are directly relevant. Chinese incursions in the South China Seas, ok, yes. It's pretty normal for large powers to do this. Russia is well known in recent years for putting planes and subs in other countries' territory. America undertakes military operations in foreign territory without permission a lot.
So your example is a fine one, but doesn't really go any distance to answering my question.
From my perspective, China is a threat on three key grounds:
1. It’s ideology is (or should be) anathema to liberal democracies.
2. It claims ownership of the South China Sea (in opposition to the claims of its neighbours) which is a critical route for global trade, and is increasingly arming up to support incursions etc.
3. It attempts to silence and/or buy-off various actors around the world in support of (1) and (2).
Since the rise of Xi - who is effectively now leader for life - it has ramped up the aggressive rhetoric and behaviour and seems increasingly willing to disturb the global order instead of maintaining it.
The Brexit thing is overdone by “commentators” on here. There’s no direct Brexit angle.
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
I think the key takeaway here is the opposite. The US has lost patience with the EU being hamstrung by Germany's foreign policy objectives. France is being asked the question of whether or not they are serious about containing China in APAC. Once the noise goes away I wouldn't be surprised if tentative moves to get the French into some associate membership position aren't made.
The point if this partnership is to jettison those slow moving countries like Germany who hold back a much tougher western response to Chinese aggression. The internal EU squabbling is something we know frustrated us when we were in it trying to target Russia with sanctions or trying to get an EU-wide policy on Huawei. To an outsider like the US the process must seem interminable and with their major military power now not in the EU, they have no reason to care about it.
Why is it in France’s interests to “contain” China?
If this is the USA forcing France to pick sides, it’s a very humiliating way to go about it.
It is in everyone's interest to contain China
Why? Is China a material threat to France? In fact, China and Europe need each other.
And that is the problem
The issue is that for many they do not comprehend the concerns in the Trans Pacific about China and their need to deter Chinese aggression that could destabilise the whole vast area.
There is also a need to compete with China commercially and an expanded CPTPP including the UK and possibly the US would go a long way to providing such a market place.
I know you are a Kiwi and of course NZ has embraced China and banned Australian nuclear subs from her waters
Like Europe, NZ will have a choice to make herself in the years ahead
This has been asked before, but I still haven't seen a clear answer... what is the nature of this Chinese aggression? We can agree that China is a threat to Taiwan, but is there anything beyond that? I have this vague idea that America is a bigger threat to third countries than China, based on recent history. Can someone explain why I'm wrong about that?
And please note, I am not in any way saying China is better. Yes the internal repression in China is criminal and deeply wrong. I'm asking about external aggression.
The threat is not just Taiwan but the South China Sea which is a vital sea route and coincidental one which I partly sailed across from South Korea to China
I think a lot of the misunderstanding in all of this is that little attention is given in this country to anywhere beyond Europe, when in fact it is a small region when compared to the one that this threat is perceived as very real
Please see my response to Carlotta on the same matter. I'm afraid my question remains.
How about this one - it's the right thing to do.
To take a stance against countries that undertake incursions into other countries' territories? You could be right, but my question is why single out China is that respect? The USA does the same (possibly to a far greater extent), but the idea of forming an alliance against America would be risible. What makes the difference?
America is (still) a democratic nation. China is a fascistic one.
The Brexit thing is overdone by “commentators” on here. There’s no direct Brexit angle.
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
I think the key takeaway here is the opposite. The US has lost patience with the EU being hamstrung by Germany's foreign policy objectives. France is being asked the question of whether or not they are serious about containing China in APAC. Once the noise goes away I wouldn't be surprised if tentative moves to get the French into some associate membership position aren't made.
The point if this partnership is to jettison those slow moving countries like Germany who hold back a much tougher western response to Chinese aggression. The internal EU squabbling is something we know frustrated us when we were in it trying to target Russia with sanctions or trying to get an EU-wide policy on Huawei. To an outsider like the US the process must seem interminable and with their major military power now not in the EU, they have no reason to care about it.
Why is it in France’s interests to “contain” China?
If this is the USA forcing France to pick sides, it’s a very humiliating way to go about it.
It is in everyone's interest to contain China
Why? Is China a material threat to France? In fact, China and Europe need each other.
And that is the problem
The issue is that for many they do not comprehend the concerns in the Trans Pacific about China and their need to deter Chinese aggression that could destabilise the whole vast area.
There is also a need to compete with China commercially and an expanded CPTPP including the UK and possibly the US would go a long way to providing such a market place.
I know you are a Kiwi and of course NZ has embraced China and banned Australian nuclear subs from her waters
Like Europe, NZ will have a choice to make herself in the years ahead
This has been asked before, but I still haven't seen a clear answer... what is the nature of this Chinese aggression? We can agree that China is a threat to Taiwan, but is there anything beyond that? I have this vague idea that America is a bigger threat to third countries than China, based on recent history. Can someone explain why I'm wrong about that?
And please note, I am not in any way saying China is better. Yes the internal repression in China is criminal and deeply wrong. I'm asking about external aggression.
The threat is not just Taiwan but the South China Sea which is a vital sea route and coincidental one which I partly sailed across from South Korea to China
I think a lot of the misunderstanding in all of this is that little attention is given in this country to anywhere beyond Europe, when in fact it is a small region when compared to the one that this threat is perceived as very real
Please see my response to Carlotta on the same matter. I'm afraid my question remains.
To be honest no matter what concerns those Trans Pacific countries have about China are going to satisfy your demands
I would however suggests you read about the South China Sea and its importance in the economies of the countries who need it as their trade routes
The Brexit thing is overdone by “commentators” on here. There’s no direct Brexit angle.
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
I think the key takeaway here is the opposite. The US has lost patience with the EU being hamstrung by Germany's foreign policy objectives. France is being asked the question of whether or not they are serious about containing China in APAC. Once the noise goes away I wouldn't be surprised if tentative moves to get the French into some associate membership position aren't made.
The point if this partnership is to jettison those slow moving countries like Germany who hold back a much tougher western response to Chinese aggression. The internal EU squabbling is something we know frustrated us when we were in it trying to target Russia with sanctions or trying to get an EU-wide policy on Huawei. To an outsider like the US the process must seem interminable and with their major military power now not in the EU, they have no reason to care about it.
Why is it in France’s interests to “contain” China?
If this is the USA forcing France to pick sides, it’s a very humiliating way to go about it.
It is in everyone's interest to contain China
Why? Is China a material threat to France? In fact, China and Europe need each other.
And that is the problem
The issue is that for many they do not comprehend the concerns in the Trans Pacific about China and their need to deter Chinese aggression that could destabilise the whole vast area.
There is also a need to compete with China commercially and an expanded CPTPP including the UK and possibly the US would go a long way to providing such a market place.
I know you are a Kiwi and of course NZ has embraced China and banned Australian nuclear subs from her waters
Like Europe, NZ will have a choice to make herself in the years ahead
This has been asked before, but I still haven't seen a clear answer... what is the nature of this Chinese aggression? We can agree that China is a threat to Taiwan, but is there anything beyond that? I have this vague idea that America is a bigger threat to third countries than China, based on recent history. Can someone explain why I'm wrong about that?
And please note, I am not in any way saying China is better. Yes the internal repression in China is criminal and deeply wrong. I'm asking about external aggression.
I've restored my full post to your quote because the other bits are directly relevant. Chinese incursions in the South China Seas, ok, yes. It's pretty normal for large powers to do this. Russia is well known in recent years for putting planes and subs in other countries' territory. America undertakes military operations in foreign territory without permission a lot.
So your example is a fine one, but doesn't really go any distance to answering my question.
From my perspective, China is a threat on three key grounds:
1. It’s ideology is (or should be) anathema to liberal democracies.
2. It claims ownership of the South China Sea (in opposition to the claims of its neighbours) which is a critical route for global trade, and is increasingly arming up to support incursions etc.
3. It attempts to silence and/or buy-off various actors around the world in support of (1) and (2).
Since the rise of Xi - who is effectively now leader for life - it has ramped up the aggressive rhetoric and behaviour and seems increasingly willing to disturb the global order instead of maintaining it.
It has also corrupted international organisations like the WHO, WTO and now World Bank from the latest news. It is a malign influence and it has been waging a cold war against the democratic world.
The Brexit thing is overdone by “commentators” on here. There’s no direct Brexit angle.
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
I think the key takeaway here is the opposite. The US has lost patience with the EU being hamstrung by Germany's foreign policy objectives. France is being asked the question of whether or not they are serious about containing China in APAC. Once the noise goes away I wouldn't be surprised if tentative moves to get the French into some associate membership position aren't made.
The point if this partnership is to jettison those slow moving countries like Germany who hold back a much tougher western response to Chinese aggression. The internal EU squabbling is something we know frustrated us when we were in it trying to target Russia with sanctions or trying to get an EU-wide policy on Huawei. To an outsider like the US the process must seem interminable and with their major military power now not in the EU, they have no reason to care about it.
Why is it in France’s interests to “contain” China?
If this is the USA forcing France to pick sides, it’s a very humiliating way to go about it.
It is in everyone's interest to contain China
Why? Is China a material threat to France? In fact, China and Europe need each other.
And that is the problem
The issue is that for many they do not comprehend the concerns in the Trans Pacific about China and their need to deter Chinese aggression that could destabilise the whole vast area.
There is also a need to compete with China commercially and an expanded CPTPP including the UK and possibly the US would go a long way to providing such a market place.
I know you are a Kiwi and of course NZ has embraced China and banned Australian nuclear subs from her waters
Like Europe, NZ will have a choice to make herself in the years ahead
Your posts really are complete drivel.
What does it even mean that France “do not comprehend the concerns in the Trans Pacific about China”.
And, NZ has not “embraced China”.
Australian subs are only banned inasmuch as NZ had banned all nuclear powered ships since 1987; it’s a reiteration of standing policy.
This is what happens when you get your foreign policy news via the sudoku pages of the Daily Mail.
You do know China are so supported by NZ that they have submitted an application to join CPTPP through them
And my knowledge is based on extensive travel to Australia, NZ, and also Japan, South Korea and indeed China
Any applicant to the CPTPP must apply via the NZ government, who act as “depositary”.
The U.K. did the same.
Please, I beg of you, stop talking utter nonsense.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
For a country that withdrew from NATO for no obvious reason, then rejoined, and bombed a peaceful protest boat in a friendly foreign country, to say that others can't be relied on, is beyond parody.
And that's not even to mention their behaviour to us since we exercised our right to leave the EU.
The reasons France withdrew from NATO are pretty obvious to me. Look it up. Rainbow Warrior v regrettable, but people shouldn't join Greenpeace if they can't take a joke.
And I'd have thought peak Frog post War perfidy was 1956. I could sit here from now to the end of time beating my brain as to why you prefer the rather anodyne events of 1966 as an exemplar, and not arrive at an answer.
The Brexit thing is overdone by “commentators” on here. There’s no direct Brexit angle.
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
I think the key takeaway here is the opposite. The US has lost patience with the EU being hamstrung by Germany's foreign policy objectives. France is being asked the question of whether or not they are serious about containing China in APAC. Once the noise goes away I wouldn't be surprised if tentative moves to get the French into some associate membership position aren't made.
The point if this partnership is to jettison those slow moving countries like Germany who hold back a much tougher western response to Chinese aggression. The internal EU squabbling is something we know frustrated us when we were in it trying to target Russia with sanctions or trying to get an EU-wide policy on Huawei. To an outsider like the US the process must seem interminable and with their major military power now not in the EU, they have no reason to care about it.
Why is it in France’s interests to “contain” China?
If this is the USA forcing France to pick sides, it’s a very humiliating way to go about it.
It is in everyone's interest to contain China
Why? Is China a material threat to France? In fact, China and Europe need each other.
And that is the problem
The issue is that for many they do not comprehend the concerns in the Trans Pacific about China and their need to deter Chinese aggression that could destabilise the whole vast area.
There is also a need to compete with China commercially and an expanded CPTPP including the UK and possibly the US would go a long way to providing such a market place.
I know you are a Kiwi and of course NZ has embraced China and banned Australian nuclear subs from her waters
Like Europe, NZ will have a choice to make herself in the years ahead
This has been asked before, but I still haven't seen a clear answer... what is the nature of this Chinese aggression? We can agree that China is a threat to Taiwan, but is there anything beyond that? I have this vague idea that America is a bigger threat to third countries than China, based on recent history. Can someone explain why I'm wrong about that?
And please note, I am not in any way saying China is better. Yes the internal repression in China is criminal and deeply wrong. I'm asking about external aggression.
I've restored my full post to your quote because the other bits are directly relevant. Chinese incursions in the South China Seas, ok, yes. It's pretty normal for large powers to do this. Russia is well known in recent years for putting planes and subs in other countries' territory. America undertakes military operations in foreign territory without permission a lot.
So your example is a fine one, but doesn't really go any distance to answering my question.
From my perspective, China is a threat on three key grounds:
1. It’s ideology is (or should be) anathema to liberal democracies.
2. It claims ownership of the South China Sea (in opposition to the claims of its neighbours) which is a critical route for global trade, and is increasingly arming up to support incursions etc.
3. It attempts to silence and/or buy-off various actors around the world in support of (1) and (2).
Since the rise of Xi - who is effectively now leader for life - it has ramped up the aggressive rhetoric and behaviour and seems increasingly willing to disturb the global order instead of maintaining it.
It has also corrupted international organisations like the WHO, WTO and now World Bank from the latest news. It is a malign influence and it has been waging a cold war against the democratic world.
The Brexit thing is overdone by “commentators” on here. There’s no direct Brexit angle.
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
I think the key takeaway here is the opposite. The US has lost patience with the EU being hamstrung by Germany's foreign policy objectives. France is being asked the question of whether or not they are serious about containing China in APAC. Once the noise goes away I wouldn't be surprised if tentative moves to get the French into some associate membership position aren't made.
The point if this partnership is to jettison those slow moving countries like Germany who hold back a much tougher western response to Chinese aggression. The internal EU squabbling is something we know frustrated us when we were in it trying to target Russia with sanctions or trying to get an EU-wide policy on Huawei. To an outsider like the US the process must seem interminable and with their major military power now not in the EU, they have no reason to care about it.
Why is it in France’s interests to “contain” China?
If this is the USA forcing France to pick sides, it’s a very humiliating way to go about it.
It is in everyone's interest to contain China
Why? Is China a material threat to France? In fact, China and Europe need each other.
And that is the problem
The issue is that for many they do not comprehend the concerns in the Trans Pacific about China and their need to deter Chinese aggression that could destabilise the whole vast area.
There is also a need to compete with China commercially and an expanded CPTPP including the UK and possibly the US would go a long way to providing such a market place.
I know you are a Kiwi and of course NZ has embraced China and banned Australian nuclear subs from her waters
Like Europe, NZ will have a choice to make herself in the years ahead
This has been asked before, but I still haven't seen a clear answer... what is the nature of this Chinese aggression? We can agree that China is a threat to Taiwan, but is there anything beyond that? I have this vague idea that America is a bigger threat to third countries than China, based on recent history. Can someone explain why I'm wrong about that?
And please note, I am not in any way saying China is better. Yes the internal repression in China is criminal and deeply wrong. I'm asking about external aggression.
I've restored my full post to your quote because the other bits are directly relevant. Chinese incursions in the South China Seas, ok, yes. It's pretty normal for large powers to do this. Russia is well known in recent years for putting planes and subs in other countries' territory. America undertakes military operations in foreign territory without permission a lot.
So your example is a fine one, but doesn't really go any distance to answering my question.
From my perspective, China is a threat on three key grounds:
1. It’s ideology is (or should be) anathema to liberal democracies.
2. It claims ownership of the South China Sea (in opposition to the claims of its neighbours) which is a critical route for global trade, and is increasingly arming up to support incursions etc.
3. It attempts to silence and/or buy-off various actors around the world in support of (1) and (2).
Since the rise of Xi - who is effectively now leader for life - it has ramped up the aggressive rhetoric and behaviour and seems increasingly willing to disturb the global order instead of maintaining it.
My mate’s Dad was high up in the NZ police in 1985 and was chosen to go to Paris to investigate the Rainbow Warrior bombing on the grounds he could speak French.
Jimmy Greaves, Englands fourth highest goalscorer, and scorer of more hat-tricks for England than anyone else, has died. 81. Must say that when I saw him at Essex Cricket a few years ago he didn't look well at all.
The Brexit thing is overdone by “commentators” on here. There’s no direct Brexit angle.
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
I think the key takeaway here is the opposite. The US has lost patience with the EU being hamstrung by Germany's foreign policy objectives. France is being asked the question of whether or not they are serious about containing China in APAC. Once the noise goes away I wouldn't be surprised if tentative moves to get the French into some associate membership position aren't made.
The point if this partnership is to jettison those slow moving countries like Germany who hold back a much tougher western response to Chinese aggression. The internal EU squabbling is something we know frustrated us when we were in it trying to target Russia with sanctions or trying to get an EU-wide policy on Huawei. To an outsider like the US the process must seem interminable and with their major military power now not in the EU, they have no reason to care about it.
Why is it in France’s interests to “contain” China?
If this is the USA forcing France to pick sides, it’s a very humiliating way to go about it.
It is in everyone's interest to contain China
Why? Is China a material threat to France? In fact, China and Europe need each other.
And that is the problem
The issue is that for many they do not comprehend the concerns in the Trans Pacific about China and their need to deter Chinese aggression that could destabilise the whole vast area.
There is also a need to compete with China commercially and an expanded CPTPP including the UK and possibly the US would go a long way to providing such a market place.
I know you are a Kiwi and of course NZ has embraced China and banned Australian nuclear subs from her waters
Like Europe, NZ will have a choice to make herself in the years ahead
This has been asked before, but I still haven't seen a clear answer... what is the nature of this Chinese aggression? We can agree that China is a threat to Taiwan, but is there anything beyond that? I have this vague idea that America is a bigger threat to third countries than China, based on recent history. Can someone explain why I'm wrong about that?
And please note, I am not in any way saying China is better. Yes the internal repression in China is criminal and deeply wrong. I'm asking about external aggression.
I've restored my full post to your quote because the other bits are directly relevant. Chinese incursions in the South China Seas, ok, yes. It's pretty normal for large powers to do this. Russia is well known in recent years for putting planes and subs in other countries' territory. America undertakes military operations in foreign territory without permission a lot.
So your example is a fine one, but doesn't really go any distance to answering my question.
From my perspective, China is a threat on three key grounds:
1. It’s ideology is (or should be) anathema to liberal democracies.
2. It claims ownership of the South China Sea (in opposition to the claims of its neighbours) which is a critical route for global trade, and is increasingly arming up to support incursions etc.
3. It attempts to silence and/or buy-off various actors around the world in support of (1) and (2).
Since the rise of Xi - who is effectively now leader for life - it has ramped up the aggressive rhetoric and behaviour and seems increasingly willing to disturb the global order instead of maintaining it.
It has also corrupted international organisations like the WHO, WTO and now World Bank from the latest news. It is a malign influence and it has been waging a cold war against the democratic world.
What’s the World Bank thing?
Same old thing, bribery, they bribed people in the World Bank to boost China's statistics, or at least not downgrade them. I'll see if I can dig up the article at some point, but it's also pizza day in casa MaxPB and I'm head pizzaiolo.
My view remains that Europe as a world power or even a place of significance has had its (pretty long) day in the sun. In 1945 Europe was still such a significant part of world manufacturing that it had strategic importance to the US who could not allow the Soviet Union to dominate it. Hence NATO.
Now, the threat from Russia is massively diminished. I wouldn't be saying that if I lived in the Baltic states or Ukraine or other parts of the former Soviet Union of course. There, their aspirations and mischief making would be a major concern but from the US point of view there is no longer any strategic issue in protecting western Europe which isn't facing any real threat anyway. So NATO is redundant, even if it is politically useful to keep it going in form if not in substance.
Instead the US has strategic interests and concerns in the Pacific. This tilt in this direction has been going on for some time but accelerated considerably under Obama and continued under Trump. AUKUS is a small part of this strategic engagement but there are a host of other treaties and agreements which also play a part.
The UK could have accepted the same backwater status as the rest of Europe but has decided that it wants to play. Some of this is undoubtedly delusional, we want to still matter in world affairs, some of it is a response to Brexit, some of it is looking where economic growth is taking place and wanting a cut of the action, some of it is a bit needy in that we still want to be the US's best pal. I think it is far too early to say whether this will prove a distraction or an economic opportunity and most responses to it say more about the writer's view of UK internal politics than the actual merits. France also wanted to play too and feels left out at the moment but, frankly, who cares?
My view is that France would have done to the UK what the UK has done to France, if given half the chance - and that France probably will get the chance at some point. We are competitors and allies. We fixate far more on the former than the latter and have never trusted each other - even when fighting on the same side in actual wars!
Absolutely. And the unilateral and frankly embarrassing steps taken by Biden in Afghanistan show very clearly it is not just us and France that have that problem. Boris asked for a few more days to get a few more people to whom promises had been made out. He was turned down. Being best buds to a superpower can be a bruising experience. France, of course, are very much leading the punishment school in Brussels and deserve all they get in response.
If this treaty facilitates our membership of TPP it will have been a masterstroke. If it doesn't it may prove a rather pointless drain on our very stretched defence budget.
I think membership of the TPP is pretty much guaranteed anyway. It's just a matter of when as there are a few difficult issues that will need to be sorted out. As you say, the danger is that we now think that the US is our mate again when it is pretty clear that the Biden Administration is just as transactional as the Trump one was. That is the big takeaway here. US foreign policy has changed forever - both in focus and, crucially, in approach. We will need alliances with different groups of countries for different things - and the fact is that whether we like it or not, most of the big challenges we face are shared by the likes of France and Germany, and less so by the US. We do need to find ways to work with them.
My concern is that we do not have the weight to really influence the US. We delude ourselves with the special relationship from which we do get some intelligence benefits but those benefits are increasingly dearly bought. It is possible that the European countries as a group have that counterweight so when we are supported by or supporting France and Germany we definitely have a louder voice but the US can still go its own way if it wants and in the Pacific it is much more interested in what SK, Japan and Taiwan thinks.
The major challenges we are going to face over the next 30-50 years are in my view likely to come from Africa where an exploding, very young population is going to generate huge instability, wars and millions upon millions of refugees. How do we handle that? France in particular are a much more obvious partner for that than the US who show very little interest. How does this affect our military spend? What capabilities are we actually going to need? A blue water, nuclear powered aircraft carrier based navy seems a relatively unimportant part of the mix.
I agree. Climate change and conflicts in Africa and the Middle East will create direct challenges for the UK and other major European countries that the US just does not face - mass migration, of course, being the biggest.
Mass migration not an issue for the US? Are you sure about that?
My view remains that Europe as a world power or even a place of significance has had its (pretty long) day in the sun. In 1945 Europe was still such a significant part of world manufacturing that it had strategic importance to the US who could not allow the Soviet Union to dominate it. Hence NATO.
Now, the threat from Russia is massively diminished. I wouldn't be saying that if I lived in the Baltic states or Ukraine or other parts of the former Soviet Union of course. There, their aspirations and mischief making would be a major concern but from the US point of view there is no longer any strategic issue in protecting western Europe which isn't facing any real threat anyway. So NATO is redundant, even if it is politically useful to keep it going in form if not in substance.
Instead the US has strategic interests and concerns in the Pacific. This tilt in this direction has been going on for some time but accelerated considerably under Obama and continued under Trump. AUKUS is a small part of this strategic engagement but there are a host of other treaties and agreements which also play a part.
The UK could have accepted the same backwater status as the rest of Europe but has decided that it wants to play. Some of this is undoubtedly delusional, we want to still matter in world affairs, some of it is a response to Brexit, some of it is looking where economic growth is taking place and wanting a cut of the action, some of it is a bit needy in that we still want to be the US's best pal. I think it is far too early to say whether this will prove a distraction or an economic opportunity and most responses to it say more about the writer's view of UK internal politics than the actual merits. France also wanted to play too and feels left out at the moment but, frankly, who cares?
My view is that France would have done to the UK what the UK has done to France, if given half the chance - and that France probably will get the chance at some point. We are competitors and allies. We fixate far more on the former than the latter and have never trusted each other - even when fighting on the same side in actual wars!
Absolutely. And the unilateral and frankly embarrassing steps taken by Biden in Afghanistan show very clearly it is not just us and France that have that problem. Boris asked for a few more days to get a few more people to whom promises had been made out. He was turned down. Being best buds to a superpower can be a bruising experience. France, of course, are very much leading the punishment school in Brussels and deserve all they get in response.
If this treaty facilitates our membership of TPP it will have been a masterstroke. If it doesn't it may prove a rather pointless drain on our very stretched defence budget.
I think membership of the TPP is pretty much guaranteed anyway. It's just a matter of when as there are a few difficult issues that will need to be sorted out. As you say, the danger is that we now think that the US is our mate again when it is pretty clear that the Biden Administration is just as transactional as the Trump one was. That is the big takeaway here. US foreign policy has changed forever - both in focus and, crucially, in approach. We will need alliances with different groups of countries for different things - and the fact is that whether we like it or not, most of the big challenges we face are shared by the likes of France and Germany, and less so by the US. We do need to find ways to work with them.
My concern is that we do not have the weight to really influence the US. We delude ourselves with the special relationship from which we do get some intelligence benefits but those benefits are increasingly dearly bought. It is possible that the European countries as a group have that counterweight so when we are supported by or supporting France and Germany we definitely have a louder voice but the US can still go its own way if it wants and in the Pacific it is much more interested in what SK, Japan and Taiwan thinks.
The major challenges we are going to face over the next 30-50 years are in my view likely to come from Africa where an exploding, very young population is going to generate huge instability, wars and millions upon millions of refugees. How do we handle that? France in particular are a much more obvious partner for that than the US who show very little interest. How does this affect our military spend? What capabilities are we actually going to need? A blue water, nuclear powered aircraft carrier based navy seems a relatively unimportant part of the mix.
I agree. Climate change and conflicts in Africa and the Middle East will create direct challenges for the UK and other major European countries that the US just does not face - mass migration, of course, being the biggest.
Er, if Global Warming does it's thing, an even bigger percentage of Central America will be heading North........
The Brexit thing is overdone by “commentators” on here. There’s no direct Brexit angle.
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
I think the key takeaway here is the opposite. The US has lost patience with the EU being hamstrung by Germany's foreign policy objectives. France is being asked the question of whether or not they are serious about containing China in APAC. Once the noise goes away I wouldn't be surprised if tentative moves to get the French into some associate membership position aren't made.
The point if this partnership is to jettison those slow moving countries like Germany who hold back a much tougher western response to Chinese aggression. The internal EU squabbling is something we know frustrated us when we were in it trying to target Russia with sanctions or trying to get an EU-wide policy on Huawei. To an outsider like the US the process must seem interminable and with their major military power now not in the EU, they have no reason to care about it.
Why is it in France’s interests to “contain” China?
If this is the USA forcing France to pick sides, it’s a very humiliating way to go about it.
It is in everyone's interest to contain China
Why? Is China a material threat to France? In fact, China and Europe need each other.
We do, we certainly do and there does seem to be some elements of Sinophobia at Play.
As for China being a threat to France, possibly its Pacific terroritirs but that’s hard to see.
Quite a hilariously contorted comment. Don’t you realise that the Chinese communist party espouses an ideology based above all else around racial supremacy? And that a great many Chinese nationals every year give up their citizenship because they’re so appalled by the anti reformist direction that Xi has taken China?
China under Xi is a mortal threat to free thinking people everywhere no matter their skin colour.
The Brexit thing is overdone by “commentators” on here. There’s no direct Brexit angle.
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
I think the key takeaway here is the opposite. The US has lost patience with the EU being hamstrung by Germany's foreign policy objectives. France is being asked the question of whether or not they are serious about containing China in APAC. Once the noise goes away I wouldn't be surprised if tentative moves to get the French into some associate membership position aren't made.
The point if this partnership is to jettison those slow moving countries like Germany who hold back a much tougher western response to Chinese aggression. The internal EU squabbling is something we know frustrated us when we were in it trying to target Russia with sanctions or trying to get an EU-wide policy on Huawei. To an outsider like the US the process must seem interminable and with their major military power now not in the EU, they have no reason to care about it.
Why is it in France’s interests to “contain” China?
If this is the USA forcing France to pick sides, it’s a very humiliating way to go about it.
It is in everyone's interest to contain China
Why? Is China a material threat to France? In fact, China and Europe need each other.
And that is the problem
The issue is that for many they do not comprehend the concerns in the Trans Pacific about China and their need to deter Chinese aggression that could destabilise the whole vast area.
There is also a need to compete with China commercially and an expanded CPTPP including the UK and possibly the US would go a long way to providing such a market place.
I know you are a Kiwi and of course NZ has embraced China and banned Australian nuclear subs from her waters
Like Europe, NZ will have a choice to make herself in the years ahead
This has been asked before, but I still haven't seen a clear answer... what is the nature of this Chinese aggression? We can agree that China is a threat to Taiwan, but is there anything beyond that? I have this vague idea that America is a bigger threat to third countries than China, based on recent history. Can someone explain why I'm wrong about that?
And please note, I am not in any way saying China is better. Yes the internal repression in China is criminal and deeply wrong. I'm asking about external aggression.
The Brexit thing is overdone by “commentators” on here. There’s no direct Brexit angle.
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
I think the key takeaway here is the opposite. The US has lost patience with the EU being hamstrung by Germany's foreign policy objectives. France is being asked the question of whether or not they are serious about containing China in APAC. Once the noise goes away I wouldn't be surprised if tentative moves to get the French into some associate membership position aren't made.
The point if this partnership is to jettison those slow moving countries like Germany who hold back a much tougher western response to Chinese aggression. The internal EU squabbling is something we know frustrated us when we were in it trying to target Russia with sanctions or trying to get an EU-wide policy on Huawei. To an outsider like the US the process must seem interminable and with their major military power now not in the EU, they have no reason to care about it.
Why is it in France’s interests to “contain” China?
If this is the USA forcing France to pick sides, it’s a very humiliating way to go about it.
It is in everyone's interest to contain China
Why? Is China a material threat to France? In fact, China and Europe need each other.
And that is the problem
The issue is that for many they do not comprehend the concerns in the Trans Pacific about China and their need to deter Chinese aggression that could destabilise the whole vast area.
There is also a need to compete with China commercially and an expanded CPTPP including the UK and possibly the US would go a long way to providing such a market place.
I know you are a Kiwi and of course NZ has embraced China and banned Australian nuclear subs from her waters
Like Europe, NZ will have a choice to make herself in the years ahead
This has been asked before, but I still haven't seen a clear answer... what is the nature of this Chinese aggression? We can agree that China is a threat to Taiwan, but is there anything beyond that? I have this vague idea that America is a bigger threat to third countries than China, based on recent history. Can someone explain why I'm wrong about that?
And please note, I am not in any way saying China is better. Yes the internal repression in China is criminal and deeply wrong. I'm asking about external aggression.
You edit down my posts and then reply as if that's all there is in them. Do you need a rundown of American interventions in the last few years, including boots on the ground. Focusing on waters is a good way to twist the question into a more favourable form, but doesn't answer a thing about why we treat China differently to others.
My concern is that we do not have the weight to really influence the US. We delude ourselves with the special relationship from which we do get some intelligence benefits but those benefits are increasingly dearly bought. It is possible that the European countries as a group have that counterweight so when we are supported by or supporting France and Germany we definitely have a louder voice but the US can still go its own way if it wants and in the Pacific it is much more interested in what SK, Japan and Taiwan thinks.
The major challenges we are going to face over the next 30-50 years are in my view likely to come from Africa where an exploding, very young population is going to generate huge instability, wars and millions upon millions of refugees. How do we handle that? France in particular are a much more obvious partner for that than the US who show very little interest. How does this affect our military spend? What capabilities are we actually going to need? A blue water, nuclear powered aircraft carrier based navy seems a relatively unimportant part of the mix.
Disagree. When distributing the finite resources that the UK, as a middle power, has available for defence, the navy seems a reasonable priority.
Of course, this also extends to a substantial flotilla of small patrol boats (whether operated by the armed forces or coastguard,) to make a concerted effort to intercept and detain all the boat people before they can get ashore. They can then all be deported, in the same fashion as the Australians have done, to one of our conveniently remote rocks in the South Atlantic, or perhaps to a friendly African country willing to play host to detention facilities (and which would appreciate a very large annual stipend in exchange for rendering assistance.)
The only way to deal with mass scale irregular migration successfully is to demonstrate that it cannot possibly succeed, and that throwing money at the smuggling gangs is therefore wasteful and futile. Do that for long enough, then people will learn not to bother to try anymore, and the problem resolves itself. Our neighbours will eventually do this for us by strengthening their own borders when the flow of migrants becomes unbearably large for them (as we've already seen happening on the far side of the continent in Greece and Turkey,) but until then it's up to Britain to look to its own defences.
And yes, that's all nasty and horrible and pity the poor tragic refugees etc, etc, etc, but this is a classic case of the irresistible force of people wanting to go wherever the Hell they like meeting the immovable object of the resident population that simply doesn't want them - not to mention the fact that England (which is where at least nine-tenths of the arrivals will inevitably end up) is already more crowded than any of the EU27 states except Malta. As you say, the numbers of migrants (most of whom will be economic rather than refugee in any event) is only going to keep increasing, and there's neither the desire nor the space to accommodate tens of thousands, let alone a future stream of hundreds of thousands, of random settlers in this country every year.
Ultimately, dealing with a flow of desperate people that's larger than your population is willing to put up with requires an approach of complete ruthlessness, which is something that voters typically don't want to think about because it makes them so uncomfortable - but the issue has to be confronted or it will simply fester and get worse and worse and worse.
The Brexit thing is overdone by “commentators” on here. There’s no direct Brexit angle.
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
I think the key takeaway here is the opposite. The US has lost patience with the EU being hamstrung by Germany's foreign policy objectives. France is being asked the question of whether or not they are serious about containing China in APAC. Once the noise goes away I wouldn't be surprised if tentative moves to get the French into some associate membership position aren't made.
The point if this partnership is to jettison those slow moving countries like Germany who hold back a much tougher western response to Chinese aggression. The internal EU squabbling is something we know frustrated us when we were in it trying to target Russia with sanctions or trying to get an EU-wide policy on Huawei. To an outsider like the US the process must seem interminable and with their major military power now not in the EU, they have no reason to care about it.
Why is it in France’s interests to “contain” China?
If this is the USA forcing France to pick sides, it’s a very humiliating way to go about it.
It is in everyone's interest to contain China
Why? Is China a material threat to France? In fact, China and Europe need each other.
And that is the problem
The issue is that for many they do not comprehend the concerns in the Trans Pacific about China and their need to deter Chinese aggression that could destabilise the whole vast area.
There is also a need to compete with China commercially and an expanded CPTPP including the UK and possibly the US would go a long way to providing such a market place.
I know you are a Kiwi and of course NZ has embraced China and banned Australian nuclear subs from her waters
Like Europe, NZ will have a choice to make herself in the years ahead
This has been asked before, but I still haven't seen a clear answer... what is the nature of this Chinese aggression? We can agree that China is a threat to Taiwan, but is there anything beyond that? I have this vague idea that America is a bigger threat to third countries than China, based on recent history. Can someone explain why I'm wrong about that?
And please note, I am not in any way saying China is better. Yes the internal repression in China is criminal and deeply wrong. I'm asking about external aggression.
I've restored my full post to your quote because the other bits are directly relevant. Chinese incursions in the South China Seas, ok, yes. It's pretty normal for large powers to do this. Russia is well known in recent years for putting planes and subs in other countries' territory. America undertakes military operations in foreign territory without permission a lot.
So your example is a fine one, but doesn't really go any distance to answering my question.
From my perspective, China is a threat on three key grounds:
1. It’s ideology is (or should be) anathema to liberal democracies.
2. It claims ownership of the South China Sea (in opposition to the claims of its neighbours) which is a critical route for global trade, and is increasingly arming up to support incursions etc.
3. It attempts to silence and/or buy-off various actors around the world in support of (1) and (2).
Since the rise of Xi - who is effectively now leader for life - it has ramped up the aggressive rhetoric and behaviour and seems increasingly willing to disturb the global order instead of maintaining it.
It has also corrupted international organisations like the WHO, WTO and now World Bank from the latest news. It is a malign influence and it has been waging a cold war against the democratic world.
What’s the World Bank thing?
Same old thing, bribery, they bribed people in the World Bank to boost China's statistics, or at least not downgrade them. I'll see if I can dig up the article at some point, but it's also pizza day in casa MaxPB and I'm head pizzaiolo.
Betting post: I don't bet but given the mess Macron has made of the reaction to AUKUS, is Barnier a snip at 25/1 for the 2022 French presidential election? He must stand a chance of winning the Republicans' nomination.
It has been even more noticeable in the post-Brexit years that a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north.
This why we Greens are the most honest and principled political party. We despise these people, their retrograde cultural conservatism, their moronic aspirations and their banal nationalism. We don't want anything to do with them and we certainly don't want their votes. However, unlike the other parties we don't pretend otherwise.
Except when it comes to the banal nationalism of the SNP
Your comment is meaningless as anyone who knows anything about Scottish politics knows that the Scottish Greens are a completely different party from the lot in rUK to which (I believe) DA belongs.
The Brexit thing is overdone by “commentators” on here. There’s no direct Brexit angle.
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
I think the key takeaway here is the opposite. The US has lost patience with the EU being hamstrung by Germany's foreign policy objectives. France is being asked the question of whether or not they are serious about containing China in APAC. Once the noise goes away I wouldn't be surprised if tentative moves to get the French into some associate membership position aren't made.
The point if this partnership is to jettison those slow moving countries like Germany who hold back a much tougher western response to Chinese aggression. The internal EU squabbling is something we know frustrated us when we were in it trying to target Russia with sanctions or trying to get an EU-wide policy on Huawei. To an outsider like the US the process must seem interminable and with their major military power now not in the EU, they have no reason to care about it.
Why is it in France’s interests to “contain” China?
If this is the USA forcing France to pick sides, it’s a very humiliating way to go about it.
It is in everyone's interest to contain China
Why? Is China a material threat to France? In fact, China and Europe need each other.
And that is the problem
The issue is that for many they do not comprehend the concerns in the Trans Pacific about China and their need to deter Chinese aggression that could destabilise the whole vast area.
There is also a need to compete with China commercially and an expanded CPTPP including the UK and possibly the US would go a long way to providing such a market place.
I know you are a Kiwi and of course NZ has embraced China and banned Australian nuclear subs from her waters
Like Europe, NZ will have a choice to make herself in the years ahead
The Brexit thing is overdone by “commentators” on here. There’s no direct Brexit angle.
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
I think the key takeaway here is the opposite. The US has lost patience with the EU being hamstrung by Germany's foreign policy objectives. France is being asked the question of whether or not they are serious about containing China in APAC. Once the noise goes away I wouldn't be surprised if tentative moves to get the French into some associate membership position aren't made.
The point if this partnership is to jettison those slow moving countries like Germany who hold back a much tougher western response to Chinese aggression. The internal EU squabbling is something we know frustrated us when we were in it trying to target Russia with sanctions or trying to get an EU-wide policy on Huawei. To an outsider like the US the process must seem interminable and with their major military power now not in the EU, they have no reason to care about it.
Why is it in France’s interests to “contain” China?
If this is the USA forcing France to pick sides, it’s a very humiliating way to go about it.
It is in everyone's interest to contain China
Why? Is China a material threat to France? In fact, China and Europe need each other.
And that is the problem
The issue is that for many they do not comprehend the concerns in the Trans Pacific about China and their need to deter Chinese aggression that could destabilise the whole vast area.
There is also a need to compete with China commercially and an expanded CPTPP including the UK and possibly the US would go a long way to providing such a market place.
I know you are a Kiwi and of course NZ has embraced China and banned Australian nuclear subs from her waters
Like Europe, NZ will have a choice to make herself in the years ahead
The Brexit thing is overdone by “commentators” on here. There’s no direct Brexit angle.
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
I think the key takeaway here is the opposite. The US has lost patience with the EU being hamstrung by Germany's foreign policy objectives. France is being asked the question of whether or not they are serious about containing China in APAC. Once the noise goes away I wouldn't be surprised if tentative moves to get the French into some associate membership position aren't made.
The point if this partnership is to jettison those slow moving countries like Germany who hold back a much tougher western response to Chinese aggression. The internal EU squabbling is something we know frustrated us when we were in it trying to target Russia with sanctions or trying to get an EU-wide policy on Huawei. To an outsider like the US the process must seem interminable and with their major military power now not in the EU, they have no reason to care about it.
Why is it in France’s interests to “contain” China?
If this is the USA forcing France to pick sides, it’s a very humiliating way to go about it.
It is in everyone's interest to contain China
Why? Is China a material threat to France? In fact, China and Europe need each other.
And that is the problem
The issue is that for many they do not comprehend the concerns in the Trans Pacific about China and their need to deter Chinese aggression that could destabilise the whole vast area.
There is also a need to compete with China commercially and an expanded CPTPP including the UK and possibly the US would go a long way to providing such a market place.
I know you are a Kiwi and of course NZ has embraced China and banned Australian nuclear subs from her waters
Like Europe, NZ will have a choice to make herself in the years ahead
This has been asked before, but I still haven't seen a clear answer... what is the nature of this Chinese aggression? We can agree that China is a threat to Taiwan, but is there anything beyond that? I have this vague idea that America is a bigger threat to third countries than China, based on recent history. Can someone explain why I'm wrong about that?
And please note, I am not in any way saying China is better. Yes the internal repression in China is criminal and deeply wrong. I'm asking about external aggression.
I've restored my full post to your quote because the other bits are directly relevant. Chinese incursions in the South China Seas, ok, yes. It's pretty normal for large powers to do this. Russia is well known in recent years for putting planes and subs in other countries' territory. America undertakes military operations in foreign territory without permission a lot.
So your example is a fine one, but doesn't really go any distance to answering my question.
From my perspective, China is a threat on three key grounds:
1. It’s ideology is (or should be) anathema to liberal democracies.
2. It claims ownership of the South China Sea (in opposition to the claims of its neighbours) which is a critical route for global trade, and is increasingly arming up to support incursions etc.
3. It attempts to silence and/or buy-off various actors around the world in support of (1) and (2).
Since the rise of Xi - who is effectively now leader for life - it has ramped up the aggressive rhetoric and behaviour and seems increasingly willing to disturb the global order instead of maintaining it.
It has also corrupted international organisations like the WHO, WTO and now World Bank from the latest news. It is a malign influence and it has been waging a cold war against the democratic world.
What’s the World Bank thing?
Same old thing, bribery, they bribed people in the World Bank to boost China's statistics, or at least not downgrade them. I'll see if I can dig up the article at some point, but it's also pizza day in casa MaxPB and I'm head pizzaiolo.
No pineapple, one hopes.
No pineapple, no sweetcorn, no chicken, no BBQ sauce. 😄
The Brexit thing is overdone by “commentators” on here. There’s no direct Brexit angle.
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
I think the key takeaway here is the opposite. The US has lost patience with the EU being hamstrung by Germany's foreign policy objectives. France is being asked the question of whether or not they are serious about containing China in APAC. Once the noise goes away I wouldn't be surprised if tentative moves to get the French into some associate membership position aren't made.
The point if this partnership is to jettison those slow moving countries like Germany who hold back a much tougher western response to Chinese aggression. The internal EU squabbling is something we know frustrated us when we were in it trying to target Russia with sanctions or trying to get an EU-wide policy on Huawei. To an outsider like the US the process must seem interminable and with their major military power now not in the EU, they have no reason to care about it.
Why is it in France’s interests to “contain” China?
If this is the USA forcing France to pick sides, it’s a very humiliating way to go about it.
It is in everyone's interest to contain China
Why? Is China a material threat to France? In fact, China and Europe need each other.
And that is the problem
The issue is that for many they do not comprehend the concerns in the Trans Pacific about China and their need to deter Chinese aggression that could destabilise the whole vast area.
There is also a need to compete with China commercially and an expanded CPTPP including the UK and possibly the US would go a long way to providing such a market place.
I know you are a Kiwi and of course NZ has embraced China and banned Australian nuclear subs from her waters
Like Europe, NZ will have a choice to make herself in the years ahead
This has been asked before, but I still haven't seen a clear answer... what is the nature of this Chinese aggression? We can agree that China is a threat to Taiwan, but is there anything beyond that? I have this vague idea that America is a bigger threat to third countries than China, based on recent history. Can someone explain why I'm wrong about that?
And please note, I am not in any way saying China is better. Yes the internal repression in China is criminal and deeply wrong. I'm asking about external aggression.
The Brexit thing is overdone by “commentators” on here. There’s no direct Brexit angle.
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
I think the key takeaway here is the opposite. The US has lost patience with the EU being hamstrung by Germany's foreign policy objectives. France is being asked the question of whether or not they are serious about containing China in APAC. Once the noise goes away I wouldn't be surprised if tentative moves to get the French into some associate membership position aren't made.
The point if this partnership is to jettison those slow moving countries like Germany who hold back a much tougher western response to Chinese aggression. The internal EU squabbling is something we know frustrated us when we were in it trying to target Russia with sanctions or trying to get an EU-wide policy on Huawei. To an outsider like the US the process must seem interminable and with their major military power now not in the EU, they have no reason to care about it.
Why is it in France’s interests to “contain” China?
If this is the USA forcing France to pick sides, it’s a very humiliating way to go about it.
It is in everyone's interest to contain China
Why? Is China a material threat to France? In fact, China and Europe need each other.
And that is the problem
The issue is that for many they do not comprehend the concerns in the Trans Pacific about China and their need to deter Chinese aggression that could destabilise the whole vast area.
There is also a need to compete with China commercially and an expanded CPTPP including the UK and possibly the US would go a long way to providing such a market place.
I know you are a Kiwi and of course NZ has embraced China and banned Australian nuclear subs from her waters
Like Europe, NZ will have a choice to make herself in the years ahead
This has been asked before, but I still haven't seen a clear answer... what is the nature of this Chinese aggression? We can agree that China is a threat to Taiwan, but is there anything beyond that? I have this vague idea that America is a bigger threat to third countries than China, based on recent history. Can someone explain why I'm wrong about that?
And please note, I am not in any way saying China is better. Yes the internal repression in China is criminal and deeply wrong. I'm asking about external aggression.
I've restored my full post to your quote because the other bits are directly relevant. Chinese incursions in the South China Seas, ok, yes. It's pretty normal for large powers to do this. Russia is well known in recent years for putting planes and subs in other countries' territory. America undertakes military operations in foreign territory without permission a lot.
So your example is a fine one, but doesn't really go any distance to answering my question.
I think the situation is a bit different here because you've got a country that's making a lot of specific territorial claims at the expense of basically every country around it. This is happening because it used to be a powerful country, then got various bits lopped off it by various colonial powers, then became a powerful country again. That's left a bunch of hot territorial disputes where in most of the world territorial borders are mostly settled. There are a few cases like that with Russia (with a more recent period of supremacy, but less of a resurgence) but I don't think there are many others; The US attacks countries all over the place in pursuit of various agendas, but it's not trying to expand the US.
The Brexit thing is overdone by “commentators” on here. There’s no direct Brexit angle.
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
I think the key takeaway here is the opposite. The US has lost patience with the EU being hamstrung by Germany's foreign policy objectives. France is being asked the question of whether or not they are serious about containing China in APAC. Once the noise goes away I wouldn't be surprised if tentative moves to get the French into some associate membership position aren't made.
The point if this partnership is to jettison those slow moving countries like Germany who hold back a much tougher western response to Chinese aggression. The internal EU squabbling is something we know frustrated us when we were in it trying to target Russia with sanctions or trying to get an EU-wide policy on Huawei. To an outsider like the US the process must seem interminable and with their major military power now not in the EU, they have no reason to care about it.
Why is it in France’s interests to “contain” China?
If this is the USA forcing France to pick sides, it’s a very humiliating way to go about it.
It is in everyone's interest to contain China
Why? Is China a material threat to France? In fact, China and Europe need each other.
And that is the problem
The issue is that for many they do not comprehend the concerns in the Trans Pacific about China and their need to deter Chinese aggression that could destabilise the whole vast area.
There is also a need to compete with China commercially and an expanded CPTPP including the UK and possibly the US would go a long way to providing such a market place.
I know you are a Kiwi and of course NZ has embraced China and banned Australian nuclear subs from her waters
Like Europe, NZ will have a choice to make herself in the years ahead
This has been asked before, but I still haven't seen a clear answer... what is the nature of this Chinese aggression? We can agree that China is a threat to Taiwan, but is there anything beyond that? I have this vague idea that America is a bigger threat to third countries than China, based on recent history. Can someone explain why I'm wrong about that?
And please note, I am not in any way saying China is better. Yes the internal repression in China is criminal and deeply wrong. I'm asking about external aggression.
I've restored my full post to your quote because the other bits are directly relevant. Chinese incursions in the South China Seas, ok, yes. It's pretty normal for large powers to do this. Russia is well known in recent years for putting planes and subs in other countries' territory. America undertakes military operations in foreign territory without permission a lot.
So your example is a fine one, but doesn't really go any distance to answering my question.
From my perspective, China is a threat on three key grounds:
1. It’s ideology is (or should be) anathema to liberal democracies.
2. It claims ownership of the South China Sea (in opposition to the claims of its neighbours) which is a critical route for global trade, and is increasingly arming up to support incursions etc.
3. It attempts to silence and/or buy-off various actors around the world in support of (1) and (2).
Since the rise of Xi - who is effectively now leader for life - it has ramped up the aggressive rhetoric and behaviour and seems increasingly willing to disturb the global order instead of maintaining it.
In that case I assume you support AUKUS
I am not instinctively unfavourable, but I am currently reserving judgment.
It’s not obvious what the U.K. is getting from this. Nor why it was necessary to humiliate France.
The Brexit thing is overdone by “commentators” on here. There’s no direct Brexit angle.
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
I think the key takeaway here is the opposite. The US has lost patience with the EU being hamstrung by Germany's foreign policy objectives. France is being asked the question of whether or not they are serious about containing China in APAC. Once the noise goes away I wouldn't be surprised if tentative moves to get the French into some associate membership position aren't made.
The point if this partnership is to jettison those slow moving countries like Germany who hold back a much tougher western response to Chinese aggression. The internal EU squabbling is something we know frustrated us when we were in it trying to target Russia with sanctions or trying to get an EU-wide policy on Huawei. To an outsider like the US the process must seem interminable and with their major military power now not in the EU, they have no reason to care about it.
Why is it in France’s interests to “contain” China?
If this is the USA forcing France to pick sides, it’s a very humiliating way to go about it.
It is in everyone's interest to contain China
Why? Is China a material threat to France? In fact, China and Europe need each other.
We do, we certainly do and there does seem to be some elements of Sinophobia at Play.
As for China being a threat to France, possibly its Pacific terroritirs but that’s hard to see.
Quite a hilariously contorted comment. Don’t you realise that the Chinese communist party espouses an ideology based above all else around racial supremacy? And that a great many Chinese nationals every year give up their citizenship because they’re so appalled by the anti reformist direction that Xi has taken China?
China under Xi is a mortal threat to free thinking people everywhere no matter their skin colour.
No, I don’t, so enlighten me. All I see is a lot of comment and invective as to how they are a threat and little substance only comments on Taiwan and the South China Sea.
The Brexit thing is overdone by “commentators” on here. There’s no direct Brexit angle.
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
I think the key takeaway here is the opposite. The US has lost patience with the EU being hamstrung by Germany's foreign policy objectives. France is being asked the question of whether or not they are serious about containing China in APAC. Once the noise goes away I wouldn't be surprised if tentative moves to get the French into some associate membership position aren't made.
The point if this partnership is to jettison those slow moving countries like Germany who hold back a much tougher western response to Chinese aggression. The internal EU squabbling is something we know frustrated us when we were in it trying to target Russia with sanctions or trying to get an EU-wide policy on Huawei. To an outsider like the US the process must seem interminable and with their major military power now not in the EU, they have no reason to care about it.
Why is it in France’s interests to “contain” China?
If this is the USA forcing France to pick sides, it’s a very humiliating way to go about it.
It is in everyone's interest to contain China
Why? Is China a material threat to France? In fact, China and Europe need each other.
And that is the problem
The issue is that for many they do not comprehend the concerns in the Trans Pacific about China and their need to deter Chinese aggression that could destabilise the whole vast area.
There is also a need to compete with China commercially and an expanded CPTPP including the UK and possibly the US would go a long way to providing such a market place.
I know you are a Kiwi and of course NZ has embraced China and banned Australian nuclear subs from her waters
Like Europe, NZ will have a choice to make herself in the years ahead
This has been asked before, but I still haven't seen a clear answer... what is the nature of this Chinese aggression? We can agree that China is a threat to Taiwan, but is there anything beyond that? I have this vague idea that America is a bigger threat to third countries than China, based on recent history. Can someone explain why I'm wrong about that?
And please note, I am not in any way saying China is better. Yes the internal repression in China is criminal and deeply wrong. I'm asking about external aggression.
The threat is not just Taiwan but the South China Sea which is a vital sea route and coincidental one which I partly sailed across from South Korea to China
I think a lot of the misunderstanding in all of this is that little attention is given in this country to anywhere beyond Europe, when in fact it is a small region when compared to the one that this threat is perceived as very real
Please see my response to Carlotta on the same matter. I'm afraid my question remains.
How about this one - it's the right thing to do.
To take a stance against countries that undertake incursions into other countries' territories? You could be right, but my question is why single out China is that respect? The USA does the same (possibly to a far greater extent), but the idea of forming an alliance against America would be risible. What makes the difference?
There’s more than an air of protecting western hegemony here.
The Brexit thing is overdone by “commentators” on here. There’s no direct Brexit angle.
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
I think the key takeaway here is the opposite. The US has lost patience with the EU being hamstrung by Germany's foreign policy objectives. France is being asked the question of whether or not they are serious about containing China in APAC. Once the noise goes away I wouldn't be surprised if tentative moves to get the French into some associate membership position aren't made.
The point if this partnership is to jettison those slow moving countries like Germany who hold back a much tougher western response to Chinese aggression. The internal EU squabbling is something we know frustrated us when we were in it trying to target Russia with sanctions or trying to get an EU-wide policy on Huawei. To an outsider like the US the process must seem interminable and with their major military power now not in the EU, they have no reason to care about it.
Why is it in France’s interests to “contain” China?
If this is the USA forcing France to pick sides, it’s a very humiliating way to go about it.
It is in everyone's interest to contain China
Why? Is China a material threat to France? In fact, China and Europe need each other.
And that is the problem
The issue is that for many they do not comprehend the concerns in the Trans Pacific about China and their need to deter Chinese aggression that could destabilise the whole vast area.
There is also a need to compete with China commercially and an expanded CPTPP including the UK and possibly the US would go a long way to providing such a market place.
I know you are a Kiwi and of course NZ has embraced China and banned Australian nuclear subs from her waters
Like Europe, NZ will have a choice to make herself in the years ahead
Your posts really are complete drivel.
What does it even mean that France “do not comprehend the concerns in the Trans Pacific about China”.
And, NZ has not “embraced China”.
Australian subs are only banned inasmuch as NZ had banned all nuclear powered ships since 1987; it’s a reiteration of standing policy.
This is what happens when you get your foreign policy news via the sudoku pages of the Daily Mail.
You do know China are so supported by NZ that they have submitted an application to join CPTPP through them
And my knowledge is based on extensive travel to Australia, NZ, and also Japan, South Korea and indeed China
Any applicant to the CPTPP must apply via the NZ government, who act as “depositary”.
The U.K. did the same.
Please, I beg of you, stop talking utter nonsense.
And as I pointed out on Friday the Chinese application seems to have been waiting for the ideal point to apply to confirm/ prove a point.
Same old thing, bribery, they bribed people in the World Bank to boost China's statistics, or at least not downgrade them. I'll see if I can dig up the article at some point, but it's also pizza day in casa MaxPB and I'm head pizzaiolo.
No pineapple, one hopes.
No pineapple, no sweetcorn, no chicken, no BBQ sauce. 😄
Have you ever tried Scamorza on pizza instead of Mozzarella?
Goes similarly stringy, but has a far more interesting flavour.
The Brexit thing is overdone by “commentators” on here. There’s no direct Brexit angle.
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
I think the key takeaway here is the opposite. The US has lost patience with the EU being hamstrung by Germany's foreign policy objectives. France is being asked the question of whether or not they are serious about containing China in APAC. Once the noise goes away I wouldn't be surprised if tentative moves to get the French into some associate membership position aren't made.
The point if this partnership is to jettison those slow moving countries like Germany who hold back a much tougher western response to Chinese aggression. The internal EU squabbling is something we know frustrated us when we were in it trying to target Russia with sanctions or trying to get an EU-wide policy on Huawei. To an outsider like the US the process must seem interminable and with their major military power now not in the EU, they have no reason to care about it.
Why is it in France’s interests to “contain” China?
If this is the USA forcing France to pick sides, it’s a very humiliating way to go about it.
It is in everyone's interest to contain China
Why? Is China a material threat to France? In fact, China and Europe need each other.
And that is the problem
The issue is that for many they do not comprehend the concerns in the Trans Pacific about China and their need to deter Chinese aggression that could destabilise the whole vast area.
There is also a need to compete with China commercially and an expanded CPTPP including the UK and possibly the US would go a long way to providing such a market place.
I know you are a Kiwi and of course NZ has embraced China and banned Australian nuclear subs from her waters
Like Europe, NZ will have a choice to make herself in the years ahead
The Brexit thing is overdone by “commentators” on here. There’s no direct Brexit angle.
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
I think the key takeaway here is the opposite. The US has lost patience with the EU being hamstrung by Germany's foreign policy objectives. France is being asked the question of whether or not they are serious about containing China in APAC. Once the noise goes away I wouldn't be surprised if tentative moves to get the French into some associate membership position aren't made.
The point if this partnership is to jettison those slow moving countries like Germany who hold back a much tougher western response to Chinese aggression. The internal EU squabbling is something we know frustrated us when we were in it trying to target Russia with sanctions or trying to get an EU-wide policy on Huawei. To an outsider like the US the process must seem interminable and with their major military power now not in the EU, they have no reason to care about it.
Why is it in France’s interests to “contain” China?
If this is the USA forcing France to pick sides, it’s a very humiliating way to go about it.
It is in everyone's interest to contain China
Why? Is China a material threat to France? In fact, China and Europe need each other.
And that is the problem
The issue is that for many they do not comprehend the concerns in the Trans Pacific about China and their need to deter Chinese aggression that could destabilise the whole vast area.
There is also a need to compete with China commercially and an expanded CPTPP including the UK and possibly the US would go a long way to providing such a market place.
I know you are a Kiwi and of course NZ has embraced China and banned Australian nuclear subs from her waters
Like Europe, NZ will have a choice to make herself in the years ahead
Same old thing, bribery, they bribed people in the World Bank to boost China's statistics, or at least not downgrade them. I'll see if I can dig up the article at some point, but it's also pizza day in casa MaxPB and I'm head pizzaiolo.
No pineapple, one hopes.
No pineapple, no sweetcorn, no chicken, no BBQ sauce. 😄
Have you ever tried Scamorza on pizza instead of Mozzarella?
Goes similarly stringy, but has a far more interesting flavour.
I have, it's good but I've got a new mozzarella to try which is half buffalo milk and half cow milk.
The Brexit thing is overdone by “commentators” on here. There’s no direct Brexit angle.
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
I think the key takeaway here is the opposite. The US has lost patience with the EU being hamstrung by Germany's foreign policy objectives. France is being asked the question of whether or not they are serious about containing China in APAC. Once the noise goes away I wouldn't be surprised if tentative moves to get the French into some associate membership position aren't made.
The point if this partnership is to jettison those slow moving countries like Germany who hold back a much tougher western response to Chinese aggression. The internal EU squabbling is something we know frustrated us when we were in it trying to target Russia with sanctions or trying to get an EU-wide policy on Huawei. To an outsider like the US the process must seem interminable and with their major military power now not in the EU, they have no reason to care about it.
Why is it in France’s interests to “contain” China?
If this is the USA forcing France to pick sides, it’s a very humiliating way to go about it.
It is in everyone's interest to contain China
Why? Is China a material threat to France? In fact, China and Europe need each other.
And that is the problem
The issue is that for many they do not comprehend the concerns in the Trans Pacific about China and their need to deter Chinese aggression that could destabilise the whole vast area.
There is also a need to compete with China commercially and an expanded CPTPP including the UK and possibly the US would go a long way to providing such a market place.
I know you are a Kiwi and of course NZ has embraced China and banned Australian nuclear subs from her waters
Like Europe, NZ will have a choice to make herself in the years ahead
This has been asked before, but I still haven't seen a clear answer... what is the nature of this Chinese aggression? We can agree that China is a threat to Taiwan, but is there anything beyond that? I have this vague idea that America is a bigger threat to third countries than China, based on recent history. Can someone explain why I'm wrong about that?
And please note, I am not in any way saying China is better. Yes the internal repression in China is criminal and deeply wrong. I'm asking about external aggression.
I've restored my full post to your quote because the other bits are directly relevant. Chinese incursions in the South China Seas, ok, yes. It's pretty normal for large powers to do this. Russia is well known in recent years for putting planes and subs in other countries' territory. America undertakes military operations in foreign territory without permission a lot.
So your example is a fine one, but doesn't really go any distance to answering my question.
From my perspective, China is a threat on three key grounds:
1. It’s ideology is (or should be) anathema to liberal democracies.
2. It claims ownership of the South China Sea (in opposition to the claims of its neighbours) which is a critical route for global trade, and is increasingly arming up to support incursions etc.
3. It attempts to silence and/or buy-off various actors around the world in support of (1) and (2).
Since the rise of Xi - who is effectively now leader for life - it has ramped up the aggressive rhetoric and behaviour and seems increasingly willing to disturb the global order instead of maintaining it.
In that case I assume you support AUKUS
I am not instinctively unfavourable, but I am currently reserving judgment.
It’s not obvious what the U.K. is getting from this. Nor why it was necessary to humiliate France.
For US and Australia, yes this makes sense.
Aligning with Australia and humiliating France cheers up and distracts the very parts of Tory support most concerned with the unfairness of the recent tax hikes and lack of progress on social care. That is what we are getting from this initially.
Keiger argues that "the need for speed" was one of the factors in sidelining the French in AUKUS:
What the three Anglosphere states in the Aukus pact have put together is a loose, flexible and nimble arrangement for managing Indo-Pacific security directly. This is something that is second nature to states of a culture that General de Gaulle always referred to as ‘Anglo-Saxon’. It is just the kind of arrangement that is anathema to the formal, rational and legalistic method of the French and their cultural offshoot the EU, whose modus operandi was best demonstrated by the glacial formalism applied to the Brexit negotiations.....
Aukus members probably wanted France in the pact. Diplomatically and militarily she has much to offer in terms of naval projection, nuclear submarines and weapons, intelligence and physical presence by dint of her overseas territories in the south Pacific. But wishing to react rapidly, they were probably anxious about her cultural proclivity to define every term, role and eventuality. The crucial problem for France is that by her own admission the Australian deal wasn’t merely about submarines. It was the keystone in a regional security edifice carefully pieced together that will now have to be remodelled completely, were that possible. This is the source of their disappointment and public outrage.
My concern is that we do not have the weight to really influence the US. We delude ourselves with the special relationship from which we do get some intelligence benefits but those benefits are increasingly dearly bought. It is possible that the European countries as a group have that counterweight so when we are supported by or supporting France and Germany we definitely have a louder voice but the US can still go its own way if it wants and in the Pacific it is much more interested in what SK, Japan and Taiwan thinks.
The major challenges we are going to face over the next 30-50 years are in my view likely to come from Africa where an exploding, very young population is going to generate huge instability, wars and millions upon millions of refugees. How do we handle that? France in particular are a much more obvious partner for that than the US who show very little interest. How does this affect our military spend? What capabilities are we actually going to need? A blue water, nuclear powered aircraft carrier based navy seems a relatively unimportant part of the mix.
Disagree. When distributing the finite resources that the UK, as a middle power, has available for defence, the navy seems a reasonable priority.
Of course, this also extends to a substantial flotilla of small patrol boats (whether operated by the armed forces or coastguard,) to make a concerted effort to intercept and detain all the boat people before they can get ashore. They can then all be deported, in the same fashion as the Australians have done, to one of our conveniently remote rocks in the South Atlantic, or perhaps to a friendly African country willing to play host to detention facilities (and which would appreciate a very large annual stipend in exchange for rendering assistance.)
The only way to deal with mass scale irregular migration successfully is to demonstrate that it cannot possibly succeed, and that throwing money at the smuggling gangs is therefore wasteful and futile. Do that for long enough, then people will learn not to bother to try anymore, and the problem resolves itself. Our neighbours will eventually do this for us by strengthening their own borders when the flow of migrants becomes unbearably large for them (as we've already seen happening on the far side of the continent in Greece and Turkey,) but until then it's up to Britain to look to its own defences.
And yes, that's all nasty and horrible and pity the poor tragic refugees etc, etc, etc, but this is a classic case of the irresistible force of people wanting to go wherever the Hell they like meeting the immovable object of the resident population that simply doesn't want them - not to mention the fact that England (which is where at least nine-tenths of the arrivals will inevitably end up) is already more crowded than any of the EU27 states except Malta. As you say, the numbers of migrants (most of whom will be economic rather than refugee in any event) is only going to keep increasing, and there's neither the desire nor the space to accommodate tens of thousands, let alone a future stream of hundreds of thousands, of random settlers in this country every year.
Ultimately, dealing with a flow of desperate people that's larger than your population is willing to put up with requires an approach of complete ruthlessness, which is something that voters typically don't want to think about because it makes them so uncomfortable - but the issue has to be confronted or it will simply fester and get worse and worse and worse.
Migration is going to be one of the biggest issues in European politics over the next 30 years, and will be directly fuelled by demographics across the African continent and climate change.
The Brexit thing is overdone by “commentators” on here. There’s no direct Brexit angle.
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
I think the key takeaway here is the opposite. The US has lost patience with the EU being hamstrung by Germany's foreign policy objectives. France is being asked the question of whether or not they are serious about containing China in APAC. Once the noise goes away I wouldn't be surprised if tentative moves to get the French into some associate membership position aren't made.
The point if this partnership is to jettison those slow moving countries like Germany who hold back a much tougher western response to Chinese aggression. The internal EU squabbling is something we know frustrated us when we were in it trying to target Russia with sanctions or trying to get an EU-wide policy on Huawei. To an outsider like the US the process must seem interminable and with their major military power now not in the EU, they have no reason to care about it.
Why is it in France’s interests to “contain” China?
If this is the USA forcing France to pick sides, it’s a very humiliating way to go about it.
It is in everyone's interest to contain China
Why? Is China a material threat to France? In fact, China and Europe need each other.
And that is the problem
The issue is that for many they do not comprehend the concerns in the Trans Pacific about China and their need to deter Chinese aggression that could destabilise the whole vast area.
There is also a need to compete with China commercially and an expanded CPTPP including the UK and possibly the US would go a long way to providing such a market place.
I know you are a Kiwi and of course NZ has embraced China and banned Australian nuclear subs from her waters
Like Europe, NZ will have a choice to make herself in the years ahead
Your posts really are complete drivel.
What does it even mean that France “do not comprehend the concerns in the Trans Pacific about China”.
And, NZ has not “embraced China”.
Australian subs are only banned inasmuch as NZ had banned all nuclear powered ships since 1987; it’s a reiteration of standing policy.
This is what happens when you get your foreign policy news via the sudoku pages of the Daily Mail.
You do know China are so supported by NZ that they have submitted an application to join CPTPP through them
And my knowledge is based on extensive travel to Australia, NZ, and also Japan, South Korea and indeed China
The Brexit thing is overdone by “commentators” on here. There’s no direct Brexit angle.
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
I think the key takeaway here is the opposite. The US has lost patience with the EU being hamstrung by Germany's foreign policy objectives. France is being asked the question of whether or not they are serious about containing China in APAC. Once the noise goes away I wouldn't be surprised if tentative moves to get the French into some associate membership position aren't made.
The point if this partnership is to jettison those slow moving countries like Germany who hold back a much tougher western response to Chinese aggression. The internal EU squabbling is something we know frustrated us when we were in it trying to target Russia with sanctions or trying to get an EU-wide policy on Huawei. To an outsider like the US the process must seem interminable and with their major military power now not in the EU, they have no reason to care about it.
Why is it in France’s interests to “contain” China?
If this is the USA forcing France to pick sides, it’s a very humiliating way to go about it.
It is in everyone's interest to contain China
Why? Is China a material threat to France? In fact, China and Europe need each other.
And that is the problem
The issue is that for many they do not comprehend the concerns in the Trans Pacific about China and their need to deter Chinese aggression that could destabilise the whole vast area.
There is also a need to compete with China commercially and an expanded CPTPP including the UK and possibly the US would go a long way to providing such a market place.
I know you are a Kiwi and of course NZ has embraced China and banned Australian nuclear subs from her waters
Like Europe, NZ will have a choice to make herself in the years ahead
This has been asked before, but I still haven't seen a clear answer... what is the nature of this Chinese aggression? We can agree that China is a threat to Taiwan, but is there anything beyond that? I have this vague idea that America is a bigger threat to third countries than China, based on recent history. Can someone explain why I'm wrong about that?
And please note, I am not in any way saying China is better. Yes the internal repression in China is criminal and deeply wrong. I'm asking about external aggression.
As an aside, I suspect one by-product of AUKUS is that Mauritius does not get its hands on the Chagos islands (not that it was likely to any time soon).
The Brexit thing is overdone by “commentators” on here. There’s no direct Brexit angle.
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
I think the key takeaway here is the opposite. The US has lost patience with the EU being hamstrung by Germany's foreign policy objectives. France is being asked the question of whether or not they are serious about containing China in APAC. Once the noise goes away I wouldn't be surprised if tentative moves to get the French into some associate membership position aren't made.
The point if this partnership is to jettison those slow moving countries like Germany who hold back a much tougher western response to Chinese aggression. The internal EU squabbling is something we know frustrated us when we were in it trying to target Russia with sanctions or trying to get an EU-wide policy on Huawei. To an outsider like the US the process must seem interminable and with their major military power now not in the EU, they have no reason to care about it.
Why is it in France’s interests to “contain” China?
If this is the USA forcing France to pick sides, it’s a very humiliating way to go about it.
It is in everyone's interest to contain China
Why? Is China a material threat to France? In fact, China and Europe need each other.
And that is the problem
The issue is that for many they do not comprehend the concerns in the Trans Pacific about China and their need to deter Chinese aggression that could destabilise the whole vast area.
There is also a need to compete with China commercially and an expanded CPTPP including the UK and possibly the US would go a long way to providing such a market place.
I know you are a Kiwi and of course NZ has embraced China and banned Australian nuclear subs from her waters
Like Europe, NZ will have a choice to make herself in the years ahead
The Brexit thing is overdone by “commentators” on here. There’s no direct Brexit angle.
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
I think the key takeaway here is the opposite. The US has lost patience with the EU being hamstrung by Germany's foreign policy objectives. France is being asked the question of whether or not they are serious about containing China in APAC. Once the noise goes away I wouldn't be surprised if tentative moves to get the French into some associate membership position aren't made.
The point if this partnership is to jettison those slow moving countries like Germany who hold back a much tougher western response to Chinese aggression. The internal EU squabbling is something we know frustrated us when we were in it trying to target Russia with sanctions or trying to get an EU-wide policy on Huawei. To an outsider like the US the process must seem interminable and with their major military power now not in the EU, they have no reason to care about it.
Why is it in France’s interests to “contain” China?
If this is the USA forcing France to pick sides, it’s a very humiliating way to go about it.
It is in everyone's interest to contain China
Why? Is China a material threat to France? In fact, China and Europe need each other.
And that is the problem
The issue is that for many they do not comprehend the concerns in the Trans Pacific about China and their need to deter Chinese aggression that could destabilise the whole vast area.
There is also a need to compete with China commercially and an expanded CPTPP including the UK and possibly the US would go a long way to providing such a market place.
I know you are a Kiwi and of course NZ has embraced China and banned Australian nuclear subs from her waters
Like Europe, NZ will have a choice to make herself in the years ahead
It has to be unanimous and Japan and others will veto it
It'll be interesting to see whether they block outright or test whether or not the Chinese are prepared to meet the standards required for membership, especially with respect to labour rights. CPTPP isn't nearly so tight a bloc with as stringent a rule set as the EU, but there are standards to be met nonetheless.
Although that said, there is exactly zero prospect of China being admitted so long as it refuses to play nice with Australia...
The theft is in "buying" the pensioners property at a discount in exchange for an overpriced flat.
The pitch is "You are living in your house. It is old, tatty and hasn't been done up in years. We'll sell it for you, and you get a nice shiny new flat with a kitchen with all the mod cons, and a lady who cleans coming in every week*. We do all the nasty paperwork and sort everything out".
They leave out the bit where they transfer the house to a subsidiary which does a rapid, low quality makeover on it and flips it into the rental market.
*For a large fee. And the cleaning is not optional.
1. is spot on: China's ideology IS anathema, but does little to answer the question I have about aggression. Still, it's always best to keep it in mind.
3. is troubling, but again I'll go into comparisons. Various countries get involved in this kind of thing. USA, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Russia are four that spring to mind.
2. is the most interesting, but is there any threat to trade? It seems to be China is very dependent on trade. Is its projection of force objectively more worrying than that which other large powers do?
The Pacific has been a US-guaranteed pond since 1945. The US’s ideology (as Britain’s was before it) is essentially to support free and open trade.
China is the only power capable of blocking the South China Seas; and cannot be relied upon by its neighbours.
In fact, a combination of territorial claims, incursions, ideology and armament, plus rhetoric under Xi makes them very unreliable.
One (state sponsored) media outlet threatened a missile strike on Australia in response to what is, after all, just a security arrangement with the U.K./U.S.
Containment is perhaps the wrong word, but essentially the liberal democracies and their allies are now in a kind of Cold War with China - and the “frontline” is both physical and ideological.
Australia pushed back Sunday against France's cries of betrayal over a canceled submarine deal, arguing Paris should have been well aware of Canberra's reservations.
"I think they would have had every reason to know that we had deep and grave concerns that the capability being delivered by the Attack Class submarine was not going to meet our strategic interests," Australia's Prime Minister Scott Morrison told reporters Sunday, according to Agence-France Presse.
"We made very clear that we would be making a decision based on our strategic national interest. I don't regret the decision to put Australia's national interest first. Never will," he added.
The Brexit thing is overdone by “commentators” on here. There’s no direct Brexit angle.
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
I think the key takeaway here is the opposite. The US has lost patience with the EU being hamstrung by Germany's foreign policy objectives. France is being asked the question of whether or not they are serious about containing China in APAC. Once the noise goes away I wouldn't be surprised if tentative moves to get the French into some associate membership position aren't made.
The point if this partnership is to jettison those slow moving countries like Germany who hold back a much tougher western response to Chinese aggression. The internal EU squabbling is something we know frustrated us when we were in it trying to target Russia with sanctions or trying to get an EU-wide policy on Huawei. To an outsider like the US the process must seem interminable and with their major military power now not in the EU, they have no reason to care about it.
Why is it in France’s interests to “contain” China?
If this is the USA forcing France to pick sides, it’s a very humiliating way to go about it.
It is in everyone's interest to contain China
Why? Is China a material threat to France? In fact, China and Europe need each other.
And that is the problem
The issue is that for many they do not comprehend the concerns in the Trans Pacific about China and their need to deter Chinese aggression that could destabilise the whole vast area.
There is also a need to compete with China commercially and an expanded CPTPP including the UK and possibly the US would go a long way to providing such a market place.
I know you are a Kiwi and of course NZ has embraced China and banned Australian nuclear subs from her waters
Like Europe, NZ will have a choice to make herself in the years ahead
This has been asked before, but I still haven't seen a clear answer... what is the nature of this Chinese aggression? We can agree that China is a threat to Taiwan, but is there anything beyond that? I have this vague idea that America is a bigger threat to third countries than China, based on recent history. Can someone explain why I'm wrong about that?
And please note, I am not in any way saying China is better. Yes the internal repression in China is criminal and deeply wrong. I'm asking about external aggression.
I've restored my full post to your quote because the other bits are directly relevant. Chinese incursions in the South China Seas, ok, yes. It's pretty normal for large powers to do this. Russia is well known in recent years for putting planes and subs in other countries' territory. America undertakes military operations in foreign territory without permission a lot.
So your example is a fine one, but doesn't really go any distance to answering my question.
From my perspective, China is a threat on three key grounds:
1. It’s ideology is (or should be) anathema to liberal democracies.
2. It claims ownership of the South China Sea (in opposition to the claims of its neighbours) which is a critical route for global trade, and is increasingly arming up to support incursions etc.
3. It attempts to silence and/or buy-off various actors around the world in support of (1) and (2).
Since the rise of Xi - who is effectively now leader for life - it has ramped up the aggressive rhetoric and behaviour and seems increasingly willing to disturb the global order instead of maintaining it.
The French can cope with being humiliated and screwed over by America. Because the USA is much bigger. A superpower. Like China. That’s life. Withdraw the ambassador. It’s a mere gesture but it might sting them
The French can cope with the Australian betrayal (tho it hurts more). The Australians are inferior. A small country with too many kangaroos. Pff! Withdraw the ambassador and try and destabilize their tiny politics
Britain? Brexit Britain? Perfidious Albion? This is their exact rival, and equal. The country next door that constantly infuriates them even as it intrigues them. This stupid foggy island has totally beaten us?? It’s the pain of Sunderland losing to Newcastle. It is a bitter local rivalry. Withdrawing the French ambassador in London would be acknowledging England’s triumph. It is too painful, so instead they resort to cooking metaphors
I think there's another layer which is that the French elite are collectively afraid of contemplating the possibility that Boris Johnson was right about the EU. They can't take him seriously, because their own worldview depends on seeing him as a clown.
The same applies to a great number of posters on this site.
The PB elite?
It has been even more noticeable in the post-Brexit years that a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north. Of course it all began with the unfortunate microphone incident with Gordon Brown. It is this above all which has riven the Labour party asunder and it's unclear that they are even on the road to recognising let alone mending this problem. The current treatment of some of their women MPs referred to above is simply the latest example of this problem.
Putting thoughts and motivations in other people's minds has also become common, no?
Have you ever read Roger's comments? Do you think the GB microphone comment was fake?
How would you feel if I attributed the views of (say) @HYUFD to broadly right wing people?
Fine - but be more specific - I referred to, quote, 'a section of the liberal left' which, without wishing to be condescending, is I think rather narrower than 'broadly right wing people', no?
I apologise if I've gotten a bit shirty. One of the things that has really annoyed me about the... shall I call it Trump era? although it's clearly a bigger issue...is this creating caricatures of our political opponents.
I see it when politicians of the Left accuse those on the Right of being racist for not signing up to the whole BLM thing.
Anyway: you're usually a pretty thoughtful and nuanced poster, but "a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north" triggered me.
The reality is that the vast, vast majority of our political opponents only want the best for the British people. They may have a slightly different view of what exactly best constitutes or the correct path to get there.
But their views, by and large, and every bit as morally valid as ours. (Albeit often not as practical, well thought out, properly costed, or recognising of the foibles of human nature.)
Yet the lack of pleasure about rising wages among the low paid from those who claim to be concerned about them is noticeable.
Instead the mentality of 'we need more low skilled immigrants to keep the wages down' appears widespread.
It’s not obvious what the U.K. is getting from this. Nor why it was necessary to humiliate France.
For US and Australia, yes this makes sense.
I found it quite surprising how people on here are prepared to cheer AUKUS to the rafters or condemn it as a load of crap when nobody seems to know what it actually entails, what it's going to cost or material difference it will make to deployed forces or equipment acquisitions. Even the pb.com tories are usually slightly more analytical than that.
I will say this for Johnson; he knows exactly how to stimulate the tories' pleasure centres. They are a fucking waterfall in the downstairs department over an announcement conspicuously devoid of all detail.
The French can cope with being humiliated and screwed over by America. Because the USA is much bigger. A superpower. Like China. That’s life. Withdraw the ambassador. It’s a mere gesture but it might sting them
The French can cope with the Australian betrayal (tho it hurts more). The Australians are inferior. A small country with too many kangaroos. Pff! Withdraw the ambassador and try and destabilize their tiny politics
Britain? Brexit Britain? Perfidious Albion? This is their exact rival, and equal. The country next door that constantly infuriates them even as it intrigues them. This stupid foggy island has totally beaten us?? It’s the pain of Sunderland losing to Newcastle. It is a bitter local rivalry. Withdrawing the French ambassador in London would be acknowledging England’s triumph. It is too painful, so instead they resort to cooking metaphors
I think there's another layer which is that the French elite are collectively afraid of contemplating the possibility that Boris Johnson was right about the EU. They can't take him seriously, because their own worldview depends on seeing him as a clown.
The same applies to a great number of posters on this site.
The PB elite?
It has been even more noticeable in the post-Brexit years that a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north. Of course it all began with the unfortunate microphone incident with Gordon Brown. It is this above all which has riven the Labour party asunder and it's unclear that they are even on the road to recognising let alone mending this problem. The current treatment of some of their women MPs referred to above is simply the latest example of this problem.
Putting thoughts and motivations in other people's minds has also become common, no?
Have you ever read Roger's comments? Do you think the GB microphone comment was fake?
How would you feel if I attributed the views of (say) @HYUFD to broadly right wing people?
Fine - but be more specific - I referred to, quote, 'a section of the liberal left' which, without wishing to be condescending, is I think rather narrower than 'broadly right wing people', no?
I apologise if I've gotten a bit shirty. One of the things that has really annoyed me about the... shall I call it Trump era? although it's clearly a bigger issue...is this creating caricatures of our political opponents.
I see it when politicians of the Left accuse those on the Right of being racist for not signing up to the whole BLM thing.
Anyway: you're usually a pretty thoughtful and nuanced poster, but "a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north" triggered me.
The reality is that the vast, vast majority of our political opponents only want the best for the British people. They may have a slightly different view of what exactly best constitutes or the correct path to get there.
But their views, by and large, and every bit as morally valid as ours. (Albeit often not as practical, well thought out, properly costed, or recognising of the foibles of human nature.)
Yet the lack of pleasure about rising wages among the low paid from those who claim to be concerned about them is noticeable.
Instead the mentality of 'we need more low skilled immigrants to keep the wages down' appears widespread.
The French can cope with being humiliated and screwed over by America. Because the USA is much bigger. A superpower. Like China. That’s life. Withdraw the ambassador. It’s a mere gesture but it might sting them
The French can cope with the Australian betrayal (tho it hurts more). The Australians are inferior. A small country with too many kangaroos. Pff! Withdraw the ambassador and try and destabilize their tiny politics
Britain? Brexit Britain? Perfidious Albion? This is their exact rival, and equal. The country next door that constantly infuriates them even as it intrigues them. This stupid foggy island has totally beaten us?? It’s the pain of Sunderland losing to Newcastle. It is a bitter local rivalry. Withdrawing the French ambassador in London would be acknowledging England’s triumph. It is too painful, so instead they resort to cooking metaphors
I think there's another layer which is that the French elite are collectively afraid of contemplating the possibility that Boris Johnson was right about the EU. They can't take him seriously, because their own worldview depends on seeing him as a clown.
The same applies to a great number of posters on this site.
The PB elite?
It has been even more noticeable in the post-Brexit years that a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north. Of course it all began with the unfortunate microphone incident with Gordon Brown. It is this above all which has riven the Labour party asunder and it's unclear that they are even on the road to recognising let alone mending this problem. The current treatment of some of their women MPs referred to above is simply the latest example of this problem.
Putting thoughts and motivations in other people's minds has also become common, no?
Have you ever read Roger's comments? Do you think the GB microphone comment was fake?
How would you feel if I attributed the views of (say) @HYUFD to broadly right wing people?
Fine - but be more specific - I referred to, quote, 'a section of the liberal left' which, without wishing to be condescending, is I think rather narrower than 'broadly right wing people', no?
I apologise if I've gotten a bit shirty. One of the things that has really annoyed me about the... shall I call it Trump era? although it's clearly a bigger issue...is this creating caricatures of our political opponents.
I see it when politicians of the Left accuse those on the Right of being racist for not signing up to the whole BLM thing.
Anyway: you're usually a pretty thoughtful and nuanced poster, but "a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north" triggered me.
The reality is that the vast, vast majority of our political opponents only want the best for the British people. They may have a slightly different view of what exactly best constitutes or the correct path to get there.
But their views, by and large, and every bit as morally valid as ours. (Albeit often not as practical, well thought out, properly costed, or recognising of the foibles of human nature.)
Yet the lack of pleasure about rising wages among the low paid from those who claim to be concerned about them is noticeable.
Instead the mentality of 'we need more low skilled immigrants to keep the wages down' appears widespread.
This meme has become holy writ among the more retarded (ie all of them) Brexiters.
Can’t we have one day off from it? It’s a Sunday after all.
The problem for the U.K. in China’s CPTPP application is that some members may not be willing to appear to favour the U.K. application over China’s.
Since China’s application looks unlikely to proceed very quickly, that could leave the UK’s application in limbo.
The Japanese leadership candidates are mostly saying things like "we will have to see if China can satisfy the high standards required". I don't know what everybody thinks of the UK joining but I think it's very easy to find a justification to let the UK in but not China. If any particular country wants to avoid pissing off China they can just let another country be the bad guy since you only need the one veto, they won't be short of volunteers.
The French can cope with being humiliated and screwed over by America. Because the USA is much bigger. A superpower. Like China. That’s life. Withdraw the ambassador. It’s a mere gesture but it might sting them
The French can cope with the Australian betrayal (tho it hurts more). The Australians are inferior. A small country with too many kangaroos. Pff! Withdraw the ambassador and try and destabilize their tiny politics
Britain? Brexit Britain? Perfidious Albion? This is their exact rival, and equal. The country next door that constantly infuriates them even as it intrigues them. This stupid foggy island has totally beaten us?? It’s the pain of Sunderland losing to Newcastle. It is a bitter local rivalry. Withdrawing the French ambassador in London would be acknowledging England’s triumph. It is too painful, so instead they resort to cooking metaphors
I think there's another layer which is that the French elite are collectively afraid of contemplating the possibility that Boris Johnson was right about the EU. They can't take him seriously, because their own worldview depends on seeing him as a clown.
The same applies to a great number of posters on this site.
The PB elite?
It has been even more noticeable in the post-Brexit years that a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north. Of course it all began with the unfortunate microphone incident with Gordon Brown. It is this above all which has riven the Labour party asunder and it's unclear that they are even on the road to recognising let alone mending this problem. The current treatment of some of their women MPs referred to above is simply the latest example of this problem.
Putting thoughts and motivations in other people's minds has also become common, no?
Have you ever read Roger's comments? Do you think the GB microphone comment was fake?
How would you feel if I attributed the views of (say) @HYUFD to broadly right wing people?
Fine - but be more specific - I referred to, quote, 'a section of the liberal left' which, without wishing to be condescending, is I think rather narrower than 'broadly right wing people', no?
I apologise if I've gotten a bit shirty. One of the things that has really annoyed me about the... shall I call it Trump era? although it's clearly a bigger issue...is this creating caricatures of our political opponents.
I see it when politicians of the Left accuse those on the Right of being racist for not signing up to the whole BLM thing.
Anyway: you're usually a pretty thoughtful and nuanced poster, but "a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north" triggered me.
The reality is that the vast, vast majority of our political opponents only want the best for the British people. They may have a slightly different view of what exactly best constitutes or the correct path to get there.
But their views, by and large, and every bit as morally valid as ours. (Albeit often not as practical, well thought out, properly costed, or recognising of the foibles of human nature.)
But "a section of the liberal left elite" who keep proposing the same remedy to the nation's ills - namely, piling unsustainable levels of tax and borrowing onto the shoulders of the private sector to the benefit of the public sector - is wilfully NOT wanting the best for the British people. It is looking out for a narrow section of its own self-interest, whilst ignoring that every time they implement it, the economy goes tits up. And the poorest inevitably suffer the most.
At what point is it safe to heap moral opprobrium on them for that?
I do not doubt for one minute the original analysis concerning an element of the “liberal left elite” having utter contempt for people who live in areas like mine, in the north and predominantly white working class. We have seen it over a variety of issues be it brexit, voting Tory or whatever. It goes along way to explain why labour is still dislocated from many of its former working class strongholds. It’s very noticeable, especially in the online activists posts.
It’s something labour has still failed to address and has not made any proper effort to re engage these communities. It just expects them to drift back.
One thing springs to mind - an aquaintance works in the care/protection world.
He told me, that at the time of the Rotherham revelations, there were numbers of senior people, who believed with utter sincerity that there was going to be a pogrom launched against the Muslim community. Not a few demos or spray painting insults - mobs murdering people by the hundred. There were memos flying around demanding that the Army be sent in...
What struck him was that the people involved seemed to be competing for who could hate.... *the locals* more.
SOUTH Yorkshire Police officers who ignored calls for help from the parents of a grooming victim for fear of causing racial tensions, bribed their schoolgirl daughter with shopping vouchers and failed to act after she was trafficked will not face prosecution.
An investigation by the police watchdog also revealed a chief inspector referred to the organised child abuse in Rotherham by British Pakistani men as “P*** shagging” during a conversation with the girl’s distraught dad and told him that; “With it being Asians, we can’t afford for this to be coming out as Rotherham would erupt."
An unnamed chief constable also admitted to the girl’s father “it had been going on for 30 years and the police could do nothing because of racial tensions”.
The French can cope with being humiliated and screwed over by America. Because the USA is much bigger. A superpower. Like China. That’s life. Withdraw the ambassador. It’s a mere gesture but it might sting them
The French can cope with the Australian betrayal (tho it hurts more). The Australians are inferior. A small country with too many kangaroos. Pff! Withdraw the ambassador and try and destabilize their tiny politics
Britain? Brexit Britain? Perfidious Albion? This is their exact rival, and equal. The country next door that constantly infuriates them even as it intrigues them. This stupid foggy island has totally beaten us?? It’s the pain of Sunderland losing to Newcastle. It is a bitter local rivalry. Withdrawing the French ambassador in London would be acknowledging England’s triumph. It is too painful, so instead they resort to cooking metaphors
I think there's another layer which is that the French elite are collectively afraid of contemplating the possibility that Boris Johnson was right about the EU. They can't take him seriously, because their own worldview depends on seeing him as a clown.
The same applies to a great number of posters on this site.
The PB elite?
It has been even more noticeable in the post-Brexit years that a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north. Of course it all began with the unfortunate microphone incident with Gordon Brown. It is this above all which has riven the Labour party asunder and it's unclear that they are even on the road to recognising let alone mending this problem. The current treatment of some of their women MPs referred to above is simply the latest example of this problem.
Putting thoughts and motivations in other people's minds has also become common, no?
Have you ever read Roger's comments? Do you think the GB microphone comment was fake?
How would you feel if I attributed the views of (say) @HYUFD to broadly right wing people?
Fine - but be more specific - I referred to, quote, 'a section of the liberal left' which, without wishing to be condescending, is I think rather narrower than 'broadly right wing people', no?
I apologise if I've gotten a bit shirty. One of the things that has really annoyed me about the... shall I call it Trump era? although it's clearly a bigger issue...is this creating caricatures of our political opponents.
I see it when politicians of the Left accuse those on the Right of being racist for not signing up to the whole BLM thing.
Anyway: you're usually a pretty thoughtful and nuanced poster, but "a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north" triggered me.
The reality is that the vast, vast majority of our political opponents only want the best for the British people. They may have a slightly different view of what exactly best constitutes or the correct path to get there.
But their views, by and large, and every bit as morally valid as ours. (Albeit often not as practical, well thought out, properly costed, or recognising of the foibles of human nature.)
Yet the lack of pleasure about rising wages among the low paid from those who claim to be concerned about them is noticeable.
Instead the mentality of 'we need more low skilled immigrants to keep the wages down' appears widespread.
This meme has become holy writ among the more retarded (ie all of them) Brexiters.
Can’t we have one day off from it? It’s a Sunday after all.
The French can cope with being humiliated and screwed over by America. Because the USA is much bigger. A superpower. Like China. That’s life. Withdraw the ambassador. It’s a mere gesture but it might sting them
The French can cope with the Australian betrayal (tho it hurts more). The Australians are inferior. A small country with too many kangaroos. Pff! Withdraw the ambassador and try and destabilize their tiny politics
Britain? Brexit Britain? Perfidious Albion? This is their exact rival, and equal. The country next door that constantly infuriates them even as it intrigues them. This stupid foggy island has totally beaten us?? It’s the pain of Sunderland losing to Newcastle. It is a bitter local rivalry. Withdrawing the French ambassador in London would be acknowledging England’s triumph. It is too painful, so instead they resort to cooking metaphors
I think there's another layer which is that the French elite are collectively afraid of contemplating the possibility that Boris Johnson was right about the EU. They can't take him seriously, because their own worldview depends on seeing him as a clown.
The same applies to a great number of posters on this site.
The PB elite?
It has been even more noticeable in the post-Brexit years that a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north. Of course it all began with the unfortunate microphone incident with Gordon Brown. It is this above all which has riven the Labour party asunder and it's unclear that they are even on the road to recognising let alone mending this problem. The current treatment of some of their women MPs referred to above is simply the latest example of this problem.
Putting thoughts and motivations in other people's minds has also become common, no?
Have you ever read Roger's comments? Do you think the GB microphone comment was fake?
How would you feel if I attributed the views of (say) @HYUFD to broadly right wing people?
Fine - but be more specific - I referred to, quote, 'a section of the liberal left' which, without wishing to be condescending, is I think rather narrower than 'broadly right wing people', no?
I apologise if I've gotten a bit shirty. One of the things that has really annoyed me about the... shall I call it Trump era? although it's clearly a bigger issue...is this creating caricatures of our political opponents.
I see it when politicians of the Left accuse those on the Right of being racist for not signing up to the whole BLM thing.
Anyway: you're usually a pretty thoughtful and nuanced poster, but "a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north" triggered me.
The reality is that the vast, vast majority of our political opponents only want the best for the British people. They may have a slightly different view of what exactly best constitutes or the correct path to get there.
But their views, by and large, and every bit as morally valid as ours. (Albeit often not as practical, well thought out, properly costed, or recognising of the foibles of human nature.)
Yet the lack of pleasure about rising wages among the low paid from those who claim to be concerned about them is noticeable.
Instead the mentality of 'we need more low skilled immigrants to keep the wages down' appears widespread.
This meme has become holy writ among the more retarded (ie all of them) Brexiters.
Can’t we have one day off from it? It’s a Sunday after all.
The reality hurts too much does it ?
No, it’s just deeply boring. And, as far as all the academic research suggests, just false.
The Brexit thing is overdone by “commentators” on here. There’s no direct Brexit angle.
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
I think the key takeaway here is the opposite. The US has lost patience with the EU being hamstrung by Germany's foreign policy objectives. France is being asked the question of whether or not they are serious about containing China in APAC. Once the noise goes away I wouldn't be surprised if tentative moves to get the French into some associate membership position aren't made.
The point if this partnership is to jettison those slow moving countries like Germany who hold back a much tougher western response to Chinese aggression. The internal EU squabbling is something we know frustrated us when we were in it trying to target Russia with sanctions or trying to get an EU-wide policy on Huawei. To an outsider like the US the process must seem interminable and with their major military power now not in the EU, they have no reason to care about it.
Why is it in France’s interests to “contain” China?
If this is the USA forcing France to pick sides, it’s a very humiliating way to go about it.
It is in everyone's interest to contain China
Why? Is China a material threat to France? In fact, China and Europe need each other.
And that is the problem
The issue is that for many they do not comprehend the concerns in the Trans Pacific about China and their need to deter Chinese aggression that could destabilise the whole vast area.
There is also a need to compete with China commercially and an expanded CPTPP including the UK and possibly the US would go a long way to providing such a market place.
I know you are a Kiwi and of course NZ has embraced China and banned Australian nuclear subs from her waters
Like Europe, NZ will have a choice to make herself in the years ahead
This has been asked before, but I still haven't seen a clear answer... what is the nature of this Chinese aggression? We can agree that China is a threat to Taiwan, but is there anything beyond that? I have this vague idea that America is a bigger threat to third countries than China, based on recent history. Can someone explain why I'm wrong about that?
And please note, I am not in any way saying China is better. Yes the internal repression in China is criminal and deeply wrong. I'm asking about external aggression.
I've restored my full post to your quote because the other bits are directly relevant. Chinese incursions in the South China Seas, ok, yes. It's pretty normal for large powers to do this. Russia is well known in recent years for putting planes and subs in other countries' territory. America undertakes military operations in foreign territory without permission a lot.
So your example is a fine one, but doesn't really go any distance to answering my question.
From my perspective, China is a threat on three key grounds:
1. It’s ideology is (or should be) anathema to liberal democracies.
2. It claims ownership of the South China Sea (in opposition to the claims of its neighbours) which is a critical route for global trade, and is increasingly arming up to support incursions etc.
3. It attempts to silence and/or buy-off various actors around the world in support of (1) and (2).
Since the rise of Xi - who is effectively now leader for life - it has ramped up the aggressive rhetoric and behaviour and seems increasingly willing to disturb the global order instead of maintaining it.
It has also corrupted international organisations like the WHO, WTO and now World Bank from the latest news. It is a malign influence and it has been waging a cold war against the democratic world.
What’s the World Bank thing?
Same old thing, bribery, they bribed people in the World Bank to boost China's statistics, or at least not downgrade them. I'll see if I can dig up the article at some point, but it's also pizza day in casa MaxPB and I'm head pizzaiolo.
No pineapple, one hopes.
No pineapple, no sweetcorn, no chicken, no BBQ sauce. 😄
Swetcorn on pizza is a far greater crime than pineapple IMHO. pineapple has a tangy, juicy quality that works quite nicely with the cheese - not something the purists will agree with but it can be quite tasty, especially if paired with something spicy. Sweetcorn on the other hand brings nothing to the table, no flavour, carb-heavy and a cloying sweetness. When I worked in a (not at all authentic) pizza restaurant the chicken and sweetcorn pizza was always popular with a certain kind of bland, forgettable, customer, too. Ham and pineapple attracted a more varied crowd.
The Brexit thing is overdone by “commentators” on here. There’s no direct Brexit angle.
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
I think the key takeaway here is the opposite. The US has lost patience with the EU being hamstrung by Germany's foreign policy objectives. France is being asked the question of whether or not they are serious about containing China in APAC. Once the noise goes away I wouldn't be surprised if tentative moves to get the French into some associate membership position aren't made.
The point if this partnership is to jettison those slow moving countries like Germany who hold back a much tougher western response to Chinese aggression. The internal EU squabbling is something we know frustrated us when we were in it trying to target Russia with sanctions or trying to get an EU-wide policy on Huawei. To an outsider like the US the process must seem interminable and with their major military power now not in the EU, they have no reason to care about it.
Why is it in France’s interests to “contain” China?
If this is the USA forcing France to pick sides, it’s a very humiliating way to go about it.
It is in everyone's interest to contain China
Why? Is China a material threat to France? In fact, China and Europe need each other.
And that is the problem
The issue is that for many they do not comprehend the concerns in the Trans Pacific about China and their need to deter Chinese aggression that could destabilise the whole vast area.
There is also a need to compete with China commercially and an expanded CPTPP including the UK and possibly the US would go a long way to providing such a market place.
I know you are a Kiwi and of course NZ has embraced China and banned Australian nuclear subs from her waters
Like Europe, NZ will have a choice to make herself in the years ahead
This has been asked before, but I still haven't seen a clear answer... what is the nature of this Chinese aggression? We can agree that China is a threat to Taiwan, but is there anything beyond that? I have this vague idea that America is a bigger threat to third countries than China, based on recent history. Can someone explain why I'm wrong about that?
And please note, I am not in any way saying China is better. Yes the internal repression in China is criminal and deeply wrong. I'm asking about external aggression.
The threat is not just Taiwan but the South China Sea which is a vital sea route and coincidental one which I partly sailed across from South Korea to China
I think a lot of the misunderstanding in all of this is that little attention is given in this country to anywhere beyond Europe, when in fact it is a small region when compared to the one that this threat is perceived as very real
Please see my response to Carlotta on the same matter. I'm afraid my question remains.
How about this one - it's the right thing to do.
To take a stance against countries that undertake incursions into other countries' territories? You could be right, but my question is why single out China is that respect? The USA does the same (possibly to a far greater extent), but the idea of forming an alliance against America would be risible. What makes the difference?
America is a democracy and history shows that mature democracies are not a threat to other democracies.
The problem for the U.K. in China’s CPTPP application is that some members may not be willing to appear to favour the U.K. application over China’s.
Since China’s application looks unlikely to proceed very quickly, that could leave the UK’s application in limbo.
The Japanese leadership candidates are mostly saying things like "we will have to see if China can satisfy the high standards required". I don't know what everybody thinks of the UK joining but I think it's very easy to find a justification to let the UK in but not China. If any particular country wants to avoid pissing off China they can just let another country be the bad guy, they won't be short of volunteers.
It's also worth remembering that the UK is no threat to the balance of power in the organisation. We would be the second largest economy in the bloc, but well behind Japan, and will be expected to obey the rules that have already been devised by the other members. If China gets a seat around the table it will want to dictate everything. This is also why I think that the US won't accede either: Congress will expect to rewrite the rules to its own advantage; the club will tell Congress to take a hike.
After all, we all know from the experience of our own country the endless, miserable arguments that arise when one member of the collective is vastly larger and stronger than the others.
In the respective upcoming elections in France and Australia, the effect of the spat between them will be more favourable to Scott Morrison than to Emmanuel Macron in my opinion.
The French can cope with being humiliated and screwed over by America. Because the USA is much bigger. A superpower. Like China. That’s life. Withdraw the ambassador. It’s a mere gesture but it might sting them
The French can cope with the Australian betrayal (tho it hurts more). The Australians are inferior. A small country with too many kangaroos. Pff! Withdraw the ambassador and try and destabilize their tiny politics
Britain? Brexit Britain? Perfidious Albion? This is their exact rival, and equal. The country next door that constantly infuriates them even as it intrigues them. This stupid foggy island has totally beaten us?? It’s the pain of Sunderland losing to Newcastle. It is a bitter local rivalry. Withdrawing the French ambassador in London would be acknowledging England’s triumph. It is too painful, so instead they resort to cooking metaphors
I think there's another layer which is that the French elite are collectively afraid of contemplating the possibility that Boris Johnson was right about the EU. They can't take him seriously, because their own worldview depends on seeing him as a clown.
The same applies to a great number of posters on this site.
The PB elite?
It has been even more noticeable in the post-Brexit years that a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north. Of course it all began with the unfortunate microphone incident with Gordon Brown. It is this above all which has riven the Labour party asunder and it's unclear that they are even on the road to recognising let alone mending this problem. The current treatment of some of their women MPs referred to above is simply the latest example of this problem.
Putting thoughts and motivations in other people's minds has also become common, no?
Have you ever read Roger's comments? Do you think the GB microphone comment was fake?
How would you feel if I attributed the views of (say) @HYUFD to broadly right wing people?
Fine - but be more specific - I referred to, quote, 'a section of the liberal left' which, without wishing to be condescending, is I think rather narrower than 'broadly right wing people', no?
I apologise if I've gotten a bit shirty. One of the things that has really annoyed me about the... shall I call it Trump era? although it's clearly a bigger issue...is this creating caricatures of our political opponents.
I see it when politicians of the Left accuse those on the Right of being racist for not signing up to the whole BLM thing.
Anyway: you're usually a pretty thoughtful and nuanced poster, but "a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north" triggered me.
The reality is that the vast, vast majority of our political opponents only want the best for the British people. They may have a slightly different view of what exactly best constitutes or the correct path to get there.
But their views, by and large, and every bit as morally valid as ours. (Albeit often not as practical, well thought out, properly costed, or recognising of the foibles of human nature.)
Yet the lack of pleasure about rising wages among the low paid from those who claim to be concerned about them is noticeable.
Instead the mentality of 'we need more low skilled immigrants to keep the wages down' appears widespread.
This meme has become holy writ among the more retarded (ie all of them) Brexiters.
Can’t we have one day off from it? It’s a Sunday after all.
The reality hurts too much does it ?
No, it’s just deeply boring. And, as far as all the academic research suggests, just false.
That's right, a complete denial of reality.
But who cares, the people getting the pay rises and the job opportunities will be happy with their reality.
It’s not obvious what the U.K. is getting from this. Nor why it was necessary to humiliate France.
For US and Australia, yes this makes sense.
I found it quite surprising how people on here are prepared to cheer AUKUS to the rafters or condemn it as a load of crap when nobody seems to know what it actually entails, what it's going to cost or material difference it will make to deployed forces or equipment acquisitions. Even the pb.com tories are usually slightly more analytical than that.
I will say this for Johnson; he knows exactly how to stimulate the tories' pleasure centres. They are a fucking waterfall in the downstairs department over an announcement conspicuously devoid of all detail.
No-one really bothers with details anymore, everything is either brilliant or a disaster before it even begins, let alone its impacts become understood. It is just another rehash of our internal culture war, when people hear the words Australia and EU are on different sides, it triggers them, positively or negatively.
Johnson is both a reflection of that, declaring May's 600 page deal the worst deal in history ten minutes after it was published propelling him to overthrow her, and a master at exploiting our weakness in not reserving judgment until it is deserved.
1. is spot on: China's ideology IS anathema, but does little to answer the question I have about aggression. Still, it's always best to keep it in mind.
3. is troubling, but again I'll go into comparisons. Various countries get involved in this kind of thing. USA, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Russia are four that spring to mind.
2. is the most interesting, but is there any threat to trade? It seems to be China is very dependent on trade. Is its projection of force objectively more worrying than that which other large powers do?
The Pacific has been a US-guaranteed pond since 1945. The US’s ideology (as Britain’s was before it) is essentially to support free and open trade.
China is the only power capable of blocking the South China Seas; and cannot be relied upon by its neighbours.
In fact, a combination of territorial claims, incursions, ideology and armament, plus rhetoric under Xi makes them very unreliable.
One (state sponsored) media outlet threatened a missile strike on Australia in response to what is, after all, just a security arrangement with the U.K./U.S.
Containment is perhaps the wrong word, but essentially the liberal democracies and their allies are now in a kind of Cold War with China - and the “frontline” is both physical and ideological.
I really am getting the most out of your posts, so thanks. The cold war aspect is the one that interests me the most. I think there's a lot more we could be doing in terms of soft power. My sense is that China is doing really rather well at that at the moment. It has a major image problem with Muslims around the world, rightly so, but then again so does the West.
Having said all the above, it does not follow to me that countries must pick a side between China and the US.
So far, NZ has not, judging that trade with China is too valuable to risk unnecessarily. I think most of the smaller powers are in that position.
Only the US and Australia, and Japan, and now the UK are fully in the “anti-China” camp.
Even India is I think more circumspect, not willing yet to fully commit to a US-dominated alliance because of its own ambitions to “strategic autonomy”.
France can be thought of as analogous to India in that way, and may have more to lose too at taking an overtly anti-China approach. I’d need to look at India v France trade flows with respect to China.
The Brexit thing is overdone by “commentators” on here. There’s no direct Brexit angle.
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
I think the key takeaway here is the opposite. The US has lost patience with the EU being hamstrung by Germany's foreign policy objectives. France is being asked the question of whether or not they are serious about containing China in APAC. Once the noise goes away I wouldn't be surprised if tentative moves to get the French into some associate membership position aren't made.
The point if this partnership is to jettison those slow moving countries like Germany who hold back a much tougher western response to Chinese aggression. The internal EU squabbling is something we know frustrated us when we were in it trying to target Russia with sanctions or trying to get an EU-wide policy on Huawei. To an outsider like the US the process must seem interminable and with their major military power now not in the EU, they have no reason to care about it.
Why is it in France’s interests to “contain” China?
If this is the USA forcing France to pick sides, it’s a very humiliating way to go about it.
It is in everyone's interest to contain China
Why? Is China a material threat to France? In fact, China and Europe need each other.
And that is the problem
The issue is that for many they do not comprehend the concerns in the Trans Pacific about China and their need to deter Chinese aggression that could destabilise the whole vast area.
There is also a need to compete with China commercially and an expanded CPTPP including the UK and possibly the US would go a long way to providing such a market place.
I know you are a Kiwi and of course NZ has embraced China and banned Australian nuclear subs from her waters
Like Europe, NZ will have a choice to make herself in the years ahead
This has been asked before, but I still haven't seen a clear answer... what is the nature of this Chinese aggression? We can agree that China is a threat to Taiwan, but is there anything beyond that? I have this vague idea that America is a bigger threat to third countries than China, based on recent history. Can someone explain why I'm wrong about that?
And please note, I am not in any way saying China is better. Yes the internal repression in China is criminal and deeply wrong. I'm asking about external aggression.
The threat is not just Taiwan but the South China Sea which is a vital sea route and coincidental one which I partly sailed across from South Korea to China
I think a lot of the misunderstanding in all of this is that little attention is given in this country to anywhere beyond Europe, when in fact it is a small region when compared to the one that this threat is perceived as very real
Please see my response to Carlotta on the same matter. I'm afraid my question remains.
How about this one - it's the right thing to do.
To take a stance against countries that undertake incursions into other countries' territories? You could be right, but my question is why single out China is that respect? The USA does the same (possibly to a far greater extent), but the idea of forming an alliance against America would be risible. What makes the difference?
America is a democracy and history shows that mature democracies are not a threat to other democracies.
Chile, 1973. US-supported coup over-throws democratically elected government. I wonder how that fits into your theory?
The French can cope with being humiliated and screwed over by America. Because the USA is much bigger. A superpower. Like China. That’s life. Withdraw the ambassador. It’s a mere gesture but it might sting them
The French can cope with the Australian betrayal (tho it hurts more). The Australians are inferior. A small country with too many kangaroos. Pff! Withdraw the ambassador and try and destabilize their tiny politics
Britain? Brexit Britain? Perfidious Albion? This is their exact rival, and equal. The country next door that constantly infuriates them even as it intrigues them. This stupid foggy island has totally beaten us?? It’s the pain of Sunderland losing to Newcastle. It is a bitter local rivalry. Withdrawing the French ambassador in London would be acknowledging England’s triumph. It is too painful, so instead they resort to cooking metaphors
I think there's another layer which is that the French elite are collectively afraid of contemplating the possibility that Boris Johnson was right about the EU. They can't take him seriously, because their own worldview depends on seeing him as a clown.
The same applies to a great number of posters on this site.
The PB elite?
It has been even more noticeable in the post-Brexit years that a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north. Of course it all began with the unfortunate microphone incident with Gordon Brown. It is this above all which has riven the Labour party asunder and it's unclear that they are even on the road to recognising let alone mending this problem. The current treatment of some of their women MPs referred to above is simply the latest example of this problem.
Putting thoughts and motivations in other people's minds has also become common, no?
Have you ever read Roger's comments? Do you think the GB microphone comment was fake?
How would you feel if I attributed the views of (say) @HYUFD to broadly right wing people?
Fine - but be more specific - I referred to, quote, 'a section of the liberal left' which, without wishing to be condescending, is I think rather narrower than 'broadly right wing people', no?
I apologise if I've gotten a bit shirty. One of the things that has really annoyed me about the... shall I call it Trump era? although it's clearly a bigger issue...is this creating caricatures of our political opponents.
I see it when politicians of the Left accuse those on the Right of being racist for not signing up to the whole BLM thing.
Anyway: you're usually a pretty thoughtful and nuanced poster, but "a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north" triggered me.
The reality is that the vast, vast majority of our political opponents only want the best for the British people. They may have a slightly different view of what exactly best constitutes or the correct path to get there.
But their views, by and large, and every bit as morally valid as ours. (Albeit often not as practical, well thought out, properly costed, or recognising of the foibles of human nature.)
But "a section of the liberal left elite" who keep proposing the same remedy to the nation's ills - namely, piling unsustainable levels of tax and borrowing onto the shoulders of the private sector to the benefit of the public sector - is wilfully NOT wanting the best for the British people. It is looking out for a narrow section of its own self-interest, whilst ignoring that every time they implement it, the economy goes tits up. And the poorest inevitably suffer the most.
At what point is it safe to heap moral opprobrium on them for that?
I do not doubt for one minute the original analysis concerning an element of the “liberal left elite” having utter contempt for people who live in areas like mine, in the north and predominantly white working class. We have seen it over a variety of issues be it brexit, voting Tory or whatever. It goes along way to explain why labour is still dislocated from many of its former working class strongholds. It’s very noticeable, especially in the online activists posts.
It’s something labour has still failed to address and has not made any proper effort to re engage these communities. It just expects them to drift back.
One thing springs to mind - an aquaintance works in the care/protection world.
He told me, that at the time of the Rotherham revelations, there were numbers of senior people, who believed with utter sincerity that there was going to be a pogrom launched against the Muslim community. Not a few demos or spray painting insults - mobs murdering people by the hundred. There were memos flying around demanding that the Army be sent in...
What struck him was that the people involved seemed to be competing for who could hate.... *the locals* more.
SOUTH Yorkshire Police officers who ignored calls for help from the parents of a grooming victim for fear of causing racial tensions, bribed their schoolgirl daughter with shopping vouchers and failed to act after she was trafficked will not face prosecution.
An investigation by the police watchdog also revealed a chief inspector referred to the organised child abuse in Rotherham by British Pakistani men as “P*** shagging” during a conversation with the girl’s distraught dad and told him that; “With it being Asians, we can’t afford for this to be coming out as Rotherham would erupt."
An unnamed chief constable also admitted to the girl’s father “it had been going on for 30 years and the police could do nothing because of racial tensions”.
It’s not obvious what the U.K. is getting from this. Nor why it was necessary to humiliate France.
For US and Australia, yes this makes sense.
I found it quite surprising how people on here are prepared to cheer AUKUS to the rafters or condemn it as a load of crap when nobody seems to know what it actually entails, what it's going to cost or material difference it will make to deployed forces or equipment acquisitions. Even the pb.com tories are usually slightly more analytical than that.
I will say this for Johnson; he knows exactly how to stimulate the tories' pleasure centres. They are a fucking waterfall in the downstairs department over an announcement conspicuously devoid of all detail.
Johnson's Law, PB Tory frenzied elation expands so as to fill the space empty of facts below an EU/Lib/Remoan bashing headline.
The Brexit thing is overdone by “commentators” on here. There’s no direct Brexit angle.
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
I think the key takeaway here is the opposite. The US has lost patience with the EU being hamstrung by Germany's foreign policy objectives. France is being asked the question of whether or not they are serious about containing China in APAC. Once the noise goes away I wouldn't be surprised if tentative moves to get the French into some associate membership position aren't made.
The point if this partnership is to jettison those slow moving countries like Germany who hold back a much tougher western response to Chinese aggression. The internal EU squabbling is something we know frustrated us when we were in it trying to target Russia with sanctions or trying to get an EU-wide policy on Huawei. To an outsider like the US the process must seem interminable and with their major military power now not in the EU, they have no reason to care about it.
Why is it in France’s interests to “contain” China?
If this is the USA forcing France to pick sides, it’s a very humiliating way to go about it.
It is in everyone's interest to contain China
Why? Is China a material threat to France? In fact, China and Europe need each other.
And that is the problem
The issue is that for many they do not comprehend the concerns in the Trans Pacific about China and their need to deter Chinese aggression that could destabilise the whole vast area.
There is also a need to compete with China commercially and an expanded CPTPP including the UK and possibly the US would go a long way to providing such a market place.
I know you are a Kiwi and of course NZ has embraced China and banned Australian nuclear subs from her waters
Like Europe, NZ will have a choice to make herself in the years ahead
This has been asked before, but I still haven't seen a clear answer... what is the nature of this Chinese aggression? We can agree that China is a threat to Taiwan, but is there anything beyond that? I have this vague idea that America is a bigger threat to third countries than China, based on recent history. Can someone explain why I'm wrong about that?
And please note, I am not in any way saying China is better. Yes the internal repression in China is criminal and deeply wrong. I'm asking about external aggression.
I've restored my full post to your quote because the other bits are directly relevant. Chinese incursions in the South China Seas, ok, yes. It's pretty normal for large powers to do this. Russia is well known in recent years for putting planes and subs in other countries' territory. America undertakes military operations in foreign territory without permission a lot.
So your example is a fine one, but doesn't really go any distance to answering my question.
From my perspective, China is a threat on three key grounds:
1. It’s ideology is (or should be) anathema to liberal democracies.
2. It claims ownership of the South China Sea (in opposition to the claims of its neighbours) which is a critical route for global trade, and is increasingly arming up to support incursions etc.
3. It attempts to silence and/or buy-off various actors around the world in support of (1) and (2).
Since the rise of Xi - who is effectively now leader for life - it has ramped up the aggressive rhetoric and behaviour and seems increasingly willing to disturb the global order instead of maintaining it.
It has also corrupted international organisations like the WHO, WTO and now World Bank from the latest news. It is a malign influence and it has been waging a cold war against the democratic world.
What’s the World Bank thing?
Same old thing, bribery, they bribed people in the World Bank to boost China's statistics, or at least not downgrade them. I'll see if I can dig up the article at some point, but it's also pizza day in casa MaxPB and I'm head pizzaiolo.
No pineapple, one hopes.
No pineapple, no sweetcorn, no chicken, no BBQ sauce. 😄
Swetcorn on pizza is a far greater crime than pineapple IMHO. pineapple has a tangy, juicy quality that works quite nicely with the cheese - not something the purists will agree with but it can be quite tasty, especially if paired with something spicy. Sweetcorn on the other hand brings nothing to the table, no flavour, carb-heavy and a cloying sweetness. When I worked in a (not at all authentic) pizza restaurant the chicken and sweetcorn pizza was always popular with a certain kind of bland, forgettable, customer, too. Ham and pineapple attracted a more varied crowd.
I agree - time for some push-back on this issue. Pineapple and cheese pair well in general of course - but on a pizza need to be accompanied with chilli pepper IMO.
Personally, I'm not a fan of meat on pizza. (Except anchovies of course (not with pineapple though).)
The Brexit thing is overdone by “commentators” on here. There’s no direct Brexit angle.
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
I think the key takeaway here is the opposite. The US has lost patience with the EU being hamstrung by Germany's foreign policy objectives. France is being asked the question of whether or not they are serious about containing China in APAC. Once the noise goes away I wouldn't be surprised if tentative moves to get the French into some associate membership position aren't made.
The point if this partnership is to jettison those slow moving countries like Germany who hold back a much tougher western response to Chinese aggression. The internal EU squabbling is something we know frustrated us when we were in it trying to target Russia with sanctions or trying to get an EU-wide policy on Huawei. To an outsider like the US the process must seem interminable and with their major military power now not in the EU, they have no reason to care about it.
Why is it in France’s interests to “contain” China?
If this is the USA forcing France to pick sides, it’s a very humiliating way to go about it.
It is in everyone's interest to contain China
Why? Is China a material threat to France? In fact, China and Europe need each other.
And that is the problem
The issue is that for many they do not comprehend the concerns in the Trans Pacific about China and their need to deter Chinese aggression that could destabilise the whole vast area.
There is also a need to compete with China commercially and an expanded CPTPP including the UK and possibly the US would go a long way to providing such a market place.
I know you are a Kiwi and of course NZ has embraced China and banned Australian nuclear subs from her waters
Like Europe, NZ will have a choice to make herself in the years ahead
This has been asked before, but I still haven't seen a clear answer... what is the nature of this Chinese aggression? We can agree that China is a threat to Taiwan, but is there anything beyond that? I have this vague idea that America is a bigger threat to third countries than China, based on recent history. Can someone explain why I'm wrong about that?
And please note, I am not in any way saying China is better. Yes the internal repression in China is criminal and deeply wrong. I'm asking about external aggression.
I've restored my full post to your quote because the other bits are directly relevant. Chinese incursions in the South China Seas, ok, yes. It's pretty normal for large powers to do this. Russia is well known in recent years for putting planes and subs in other countries' territory. America undertakes military operations in foreign territory without permission a lot.
So your example is a fine one, but doesn't really go any distance to answering my question.
I think the situation is a bit different here because you've got a country that's making a lot of specific territorial claims at the expense of basically every country around it. This is happening because it used to be a powerful country, then got various bits lopped off it by various colonial powers, then became a powerful country again. That's left a bunch of hot territorial disputes where in most of the world territorial borders are mostly settled. There are a few cases like that with Russia (with a more recent period of supremacy, but less of a resurgence) but I don't think there are many others; The US attacks countries all over the place in pursuit of various agendas, but it's not trying to expand the US.
Not just that, but we have a determination under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea that China's claim to essentially the whole caboodle cannot be justified.
Yet China occupies (or creates extensions to) islands and turns them into essentially military bases, overruling the right of other countries essentially by threat of force of arms.
One implication for example is that the Chinese airbases on the Spratly Islands bring places like Singapore within range of PAAF strike aircraft.
Even if we are US -skeptics, neither they, nor (slightly) arguably Russia, establish bases without consent.
Personally, I would see a number of the countries as places which may develop into mature & developed democracies in their own style within the next (say) half-century, and make an analogy with some of the countries of former Eastern Europe. Using the metric that a human lifetime is needed to establish and root such a culture.
On a serious note listening to Marr interview with Ed Davey on trans issues, which I admit I do not normally comment on, it does seem this issue is going to cause considerable controversy for them and also Labour with Rosie Duffield scared of attending their conference
The Brexit thing is overdone by “commentators” on here. There’s no direct Brexit angle.
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
I think the key takeaway here is the opposite. The US has lost patience with the EU being hamstrung by Germany's foreign policy objectives. France is being asked the question of whether or not they are serious about containing China in APAC. Once the noise goes away I wouldn't be surprised if tentative moves to get the French into some associate membership position aren't made.
The point if this partnership is to jettison those slow moving countries like Germany who hold back a much tougher western response to Chinese aggression. The internal EU squabbling is something we know frustrated us when we were in it trying to target Russia with sanctions or trying to get an EU-wide policy on Huawei. To an outsider like the US the process must seem interminable and with their major military power now not in the EU, they have no reason to care about it.
Why is it in France’s interests to “contain” China?
If this is the USA forcing France to pick sides, it’s a very humiliating way to go about it.
It is in everyone's interest to contain China
Why? Is China a material threat to France? In fact, China and Europe need each other.
And that is the problem
The issue is that for many they do not comprehend the concerns in the Trans Pacific about China and their need to deter Chinese aggression that could destabilise the whole vast area.
There is also a need to compete with China commercially and an expanded CPTPP including the UK and possibly the US would go a long way to providing such a market place.
I know you are a Kiwi and of course NZ has embraced China and banned Australian nuclear subs from her waters
Like Europe, NZ will have a choice to make herself in the years ahead
This has been asked before, but I still haven't seen a clear answer... what is the nature of this Chinese aggression? We can agree that China is a threat to Taiwan, but is there anything beyond that? I have this vague idea that America is a bigger threat to third countries than China, based on recent history. Can someone explain why I'm wrong about that?
And please note, I am not in any way saying China is better. Yes the internal repression in China is criminal and deeply wrong. I'm asking about external aggression.
I've restored my full post to your quote because the other bits are directly relevant. Chinese incursions in the South China Seas, ok, yes. It's pretty normal for large powers to do this. Russia is well known in recent years for putting planes and subs in other countries' territory. America undertakes military operations in foreign territory without permission a lot.
So your example is a fine one, but doesn't really go any distance to answering my question.
From my perspective, China is a threat on three key grounds:
1. It’s ideology is (or should be) anathema to liberal democracies.
2. It claims ownership of the South China Sea (in opposition to the claims of its neighbours) which is a critical route for global trade, and is increasingly arming up to support incursions etc.
3. It attempts to silence and/or buy-off various actors around the world in support of (1) and (2).
Since the rise of Xi - who is effectively now leader for life - it has ramped up the aggressive rhetoric and behaviour and seems increasingly willing to disturb the global order instead of maintaining it.
It has also corrupted international organisations like the WHO, WTO and now World Bank from the latest news. It is a malign influence and it has been waging a cold war against the democratic world.
What’s the World Bank thing?
Same old thing, bribery, they bribed people in the World Bank to boost China's statistics, or at least not downgrade them. I'll see if I can dig up the article at some point, but it's also pizza day in casa MaxPB and I'm head pizzaiolo.
No pineapple, one hopes.
No pineapple, no sweetcorn, no chicken, no BBQ sauce. 😄
Swetcorn on pizza is a far greater crime than pineapple IMHO. pineapple has a tangy, juicy quality that works quite nicely with the cheese - not something the purists will agree with but it can be quite tasty, especially if paired with something spicy. Sweetcorn on the other hand brings nothing to the table, no flavour, carb-heavy and a cloying sweetness. When I worked in a (not at all authentic) pizza restaurant the chicken and sweetcorn pizza was always popular with a certain kind of bland, forgettable, customer, too. Ham and pineapple attracted a more varied crowd.
I agree - time for some push-back on this issue. Pineapple and cheese pair well in general of course - but on a pizza need to be accompanied with chilli pepper IMO.
Personally, I'm not a fan of meat on pizza. (Except anchovies of course (not with pineapple though).)
According to an Italian I worked with (grew up working in his parents pizzeria) bacon on pizza is a worse crime than pineapple.
When he said this, it provoked a torrent of abuse from another Italian we worked with.
BC is historically quite strong/resilient for the NDP so I can see most of their seat gains concentrated there while they will struggle to pick up seats elsewhere in Canada . They are also profiting from the weakness of the Greens.
The liberals topping the poll in BC in 2015 was also seen as a real upset at the time.
I have no idea how the marginals will play out in Ontario and quebec although its seemingly hard to see the Conservatives being the largest party if they are struggling to break 33% and it will be interesting to see if PPC has any effect there.
The Brexit thing is overdone by “commentators” on here. There’s no direct Brexit angle.
The key question is why is the US willing to humiliate France, a key ally, “live via satellite”?
By all means, Australia, cancel what looks to have been an awful deal, but it’s the *way* this has played out which is such a kick up the arse to France.
France, and hence the EU, will take the message that the US cannot be relied on.
I think the key takeaway here is the opposite. The US has lost patience with the EU being hamstrung by Germany's foreign policy objectives. France is being asked the question of whether or not they are serious about containing China in APAC. Once the noise goes away I wouldn't be surprised if tentative moves to get the French into some associate membership position aren't made.
The point if this partnership is to jettison those slow moving countries like Germany who hold back a much tougher western response to Chinese aggression. The internal EU squabbling is something we know frustrated us when we were in it trying to target Russia with sanctions or trying to get an EU-wide policy on Huawei. To an outsider like the US the process must seem interminable and with their major military power now not in the EU, they have no reason to care about it.
Why is it in France’s interests to “contain” China?
If this is the USA forcing France to pick sides, it’s a very humiliating way to go about it.
It is in everyone's interest to contain China
Why? Is China a material threat to France? In fact, China and Europe need each other.
And that is the problem
The issue is that for many they do not comprehend the concerns in the Trans Pacific about China and their need to deter Chinese aggression that could destabilise the whole vast area.
There is also a need to compete with China commercially and an expanded CPTPP including the UK and possibly the US would go a long way to providing such a market place.
I know you are a Kiwi and of course NZ has embraced China and banned Australian nuclear subs from her waters
Like Europe, NZ will have a choice to make herself in the years ahead
This has been asked before, but I still haven't seen a clear answer... what is the nature of this Chinese aggression? We can agree that China is a threat to Taiwan, but is there anything beyond that? I have this vague idea that America is a bigger threat to third countries than China, based on recent history. Can someone explain why I'm wrong about that?
And please note, I am not in any way saying China is better. Yes the internal repression in China is criminal and deeply wrong. I'm asking about external aggression.
The threat is not just Taiwan but the South China Sea which is a vital sea route and coincidental one which I partly sailed across from South Korea to China
I think a lot of the misunderstanding in all of this is that little attention is given in this country to anywhere beyond Europe, when in fact it is a small region when compared to the one that this threat is perceived as very real
Please see my response to Carlotta on the same matter. I'm afraid my question remains.
How about this one - it's the right thing to do.
To take a stance against countries that undertake incursions into other countries' territories? You could be right, but my question is why single out China is that respect? The USA does the same (possibly to a far greater extent), but the idea of forming an alliance against America would be risible. What makes the difference?
America is a democracy and history shows that mature democracies are not a threat to other democracies.
Chile, 1973. US-supported coup over-throws democratically elected government. I wonder how that fits into your theory?
Grenada? I don't think US-Haiti or US-Cuba fit particularly well, either.
It’s not obvious what the U.K. is getting from this. Nor why it was necessary to humiliate France.
For US and Australia, yes this makes sense.
I found it quite surprising how people on here are prepared to cheer AUKUS to the rafters or condemn it as a load of crap when nobody seems to know what it actually entails, what it's going to cost or material difference it will make to deployed forces or equipment acquisitions. Even the pb.com tories are usually slightly more analytical than that.
I will say this for Johnson; he knows exactly how to stimulate the tories' pleasure centres. They are a fucking waterfall in the downstairs department over an announcement conspicuously devoid of all detail.
Comments
https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/Indo-Pacific/Indonesia-looks-to-triple-submarine-fleet-after-Chinese-incursions
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-58593632
Ok.
I think a lot of the misunderstanding in all of this is that little attention is given in this country to anywhere beyond Europe, when in fact it is a small region when compared to the one that this threat is perceived as very real
They can't. (For any value of "they".)
We can't.
Countries have pragmatic interests, not eternal soulmate allies. Whatever the rights and wrongs of recent foreign policy, the idea that an Anglosphere that girdles the world is any more durable than any other arrangement is just nuts.
He had them all shot, in the end....
I would have to be careful of criticising because of the last 3 humdinger arguments I have had with HYUFD I have actually agreed with him on the actual point he was making in 2 of them (I think I could be accused of pot and kettle), just not the way they were argued.
And my knowledge is based on extensive travel to Australia, NZ, and also Japan, South Korea and indeed China
RIP Jimmy
It's similarly, but more interestingly, wrong. At least you won't sound like a BBC news bod at the TUC conference..
NZ is the (effective) HQ for the organisation, IIRC.
Which other big powers have built bases in other countries waters?
At all, let alone on anything remotely approaching the scale of the Chinese?
https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/territorial-disputes-south-china-sea
1. It’s ideology is (or should be) anathema to liberal democracies.
2. It claims ownership of the South China Sea (in opposition to the claims of its neighbours) which is a critical route for global trade, and is increasingly arming up to support incursions etc.
3. It attempts to silence and/or buy-off various actors around the world in support of (1) and (2).
Since the rise of Xi - who is effectively now leader for life - it has ramped up the aggressive rhetoric and behaviour and seems increasingly willing to disturb the global order instead of maintaining it.
I would however suggests you read about the South China Sea and its importance in the economies of the countries who need it as their trade routes
The U.K. did the same.
Please, I beg of you, stop talking utter nonsense.
And I'd have thought peak Frog post War perfidy was 1956. I could sit here from now to the end of time beating my brain as to why you prefer the rather anodyne events of 1966 as an exemplar, and not arrive at an answer.
I’m not sure he actually spoke any French.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/investigation-finds-world-bank-leaders-pushed-staffers-to-boost-rankings-for-china-and-saudi-arabia-in-high-profile-reports/ar-AAOykBC?ocid=BingNewsSearch
81. Must say that when I saw him at Essex Cricket a few years ago he didn't look well at all.
China under Xi is a mortal threat to free thinking people everywhere no matter their skin colour.
Now China launches as many warships a year as we have in our entire Navy.
Of course, this also extends to a substantial flotilla of small patrol boats (whether operated by the armed forces or coastguard,) to make a concerted effort to intercept and detain all the boat people before they can get ashore. They can then all be deported, in the same fashion as the Australians have done, to one of our conveniently remote rocks in the South Atlantic, or perhaps to a friendly African country willing to play host to detention facilities (and which would appreciate a very large annual stipend in exchange for rendering assistance.)
The only way to deal with mass scale irregular migration successfully is to demonstrate that it cannot possibly succeed, and that throwing money at the smuggling gangs is therefore wasteful and futile. Do that for long enough, then people will learn not to bother to try anymore, and the problem resolves itself. Our neighbours will eventually do this for us by strengthening their own borders when the flow of migrants becomes unbearably large for them (as we've already seen happening on the far side of the continent in Greece and Turkey,) but until then it's up to Britain to look to its own defences.
And yes, that's all nasty and horrible and pity the poor tragic refugees etc, etc, etc, but this is a classic case of the irresistible force of people wanting to go wherever the Hell they like meeting the immovable object of the resident population that simply doesn't want them - not to mention the fact that England (which is where at least nine-tenths of the arrivals will inevitably end up) is already more crowded than any of the EU27 states except Malta. As you say, the numbers of migrants (most of whom will be economic rather than refugee in any event) is only going to keep increasing, and there's neither the desire nor the space to accommodate tens of thousands, let alone a future stream of hundreds of thousands, of random settlers in this country every year.
Ultimately, dealing with a flow of desperate people that's larger than your population is willing to put up with requires an approach of complete ruthlessness, which is something that voters typically don't want to think about because it makes them so uncomfortable - but the issue has to be confronted or it will simply fester and get worse and worse and worse.
I don't bet but given the mess Macron has made of the reaction to AUKUS, is Barnier a snip at 25/1 for the 2022 French presidential election? He must stand a chance of winning the Republicans' nomination.
https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2021/09/19/miti-malaysia-looking-forward-to-welcoming-china-in-cptpp-as-early-as-next/2006765
It’s not obvious what the U.K. is getting from this.
Nor why it was necessary to humiliate France.
For US and Australia, yes this makes sense.
Goes similarly stringy, but has a far more interesting flavour.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2021/sep/18/are-retirement-properties-sound-investments-or-inheritance-headaches
The problem is that France *is* France.
We ain't seen nothing yet.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/57846996-red-roulette
Although that said, there is exactly zero prospect of China being admitted so long as it refuses to play nice with Australia...
The pitch is "You are living in your house. It is old, tatty and hasn't been done up in years. We'll sell it for you, and you get a nice shiny new flat with a kitchen with all the mod cons, and a lady who cleans coming in every week*. We do all the nasty paperwork and sort everything out".
They leave out the bit where they transfer the house to a subsidiary which does a rapid, low quality makeover on it and flips it into the rental market.
*For a large fee. And the cleaning is not optional.
China is the only power capable of blocking the South China Seas; and cannot be relied upon by its neighbours.
In fact, a combination of territorial claims, incursions, ideology and armament, plus rhetoric under Xi makes them very unreliable.
One (state sponsored) media outlet threatened a missile strike on Australia in response to what is, after all, just a security arrangement with the U.K./U.S.
Containment is perhaps the wrong word, but essentially the liberal democracies and their allies are now in a kind of Cold War with China - and the “frontline” is both physical and ideological.
"I think they would have had every reason to know that we had deep and grave concerns that the capability being delivered by the Attack Class submarine was not going to meet our strategic interests," Australia's Prime Minister Scott Morrison told reporters Sunday, according to Agence-France Presse.
"We made very clear that we would be making a decision based on our strategic national interest. I don't regret the decision to put Australia's national interest first. Never will," he added.
https://www.politico.eu/article/australia-france-scott-morrison-submarine-contract-national-interest/
Instead the mentality of 'we need more low skilled immigrants to keep the wages down' appears widespread.
Since China’s application looks unlikely to proceed very quickly, that could leave the UK’s application in limbo.
I will say this for Johnson; he knows exactly how to stimulate the tories' pleasure centres. They are a fucking waterfall in the downstairs department over an announcement conspicuously devoid of all detail.
Interesting, the levels of achievement vs hype, compared to the Bezos and Branson efforts...
Can’t we have one day off from it? It’s a Sunday after all.
An investigation by the police watchdog also revealed a chief inspector referred to the organised child abuse in Rotherham by British Pakistani men as “P*** shagging” during a conversation with the girl’s distraught dad and told him that; “With it being Asians, we can’t afford for this to be coming out as Rotherham would erupt."
An unnamed chief constable also admitted to the girl’s father “it had been going on for 30 years and the police could do nothing because of racial tensions”.
https://www.rotherhamadvertiser.co.uk/news/view,police-knew-about-rotherham-cse-but-will-not-be-prosecuted-report_34843.htm
The investigation into the South Yorkshire plods has still not been completed after over seven years.
And, as far as all the academic research suggests, just false.
After all, we all know from the experience of our own country the endless, miserable arguments that arise when one member of the collective is vastly larger and stronger than the others.
But who cares, the people getting the pay rises and the job opportunities will be happy with their reality.
Johnson is both a reflection of that, declaring May's 600 page deal the worst deal in history ten minutes after it was published propelling him to overthrow her, and a master at exploiting our weakness in not reserving judgment until it is deserved.
So far, NZ has not, judging that trade with China is too valuable to risk unnecessarily. I think most of the smaller powers are in that position.
Only the US and Australia, and Japan, and now the UK are fully in the “anti-China” camp.
Even India is I think more circumspect, not willing yet to fully commit to a US-dominated alliance because of its own ambitions to “strategic autonomy”.
France can be thought of as analogous to India in that way, and may have more to lose too at taking an overtly anti-China approach. I’d need to look at India v France trade flows with respect to China.
Which is why, when I met the Home Sec. at a garden party, I suggested placing the officials involved on the Sex Offenders register.
Personally, I'm not a fan of meat on pizza. (Except anchovies of course (not with pineapple though).)
Yet China occupies (or creates extensions to) islands and turns them into essentially military bases, overruling the right of other countries essentially by threat of force of arms.
One implication for example is that the Chinese airbases on the Spratly Islands bring places like Singapore within range of PAAF strike aircraft.
Even if we are US -skeptics, neither they, nor (slightly) arguably Russia, establish bases without consent.
Personally, I would see a number of the countries as places which may develop into mature & developed democracies in their own style within the next (say) half-century, and make an analogy with some of the countries of former Eastern Europe. Using the metric that a human lifetime is needed to establish and root such a culture.
When he said this, it provoked a torrent of abuse from another Italian we worked with.
BC is historically quite strong/resilient for the NDP so I can see most of their seat gains concentrated there while they will struggle to pick up seats elsewhere in Canada . They are also profiting from the weakness of the Greens.
The liberals topping the poll in BC in 2015 was also seen as a real upset at the time.
I have no idea how the marginals will play out in Ontario and quebec although its seemingly hard to see the Conservatives being the largest party if they are struggling to break 33% and it will be interesting to see if PPC has any effect there.