AUSUK

[11101]

Thank you.
Just out of interest, what was meant by 'fix up'.

Lots of things. Stop increasing the cost, get delays under control, and mostly stop trying to build it all in France.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Thank you.
Just out of interest, what was meant by 'fix up'.

France said they will be releasing documents this week that will show this is not true. Basically Australia decided to change his mind and go for nuclear instead and discussions with the US and UK have been going on for 6 months .
The loss is also part Australian as people were employed in Australia; the US submarine is too complicated and time consuming to be constructed in Australia so would be contructed in Newport News and they've still got 17 to build for the US navy.

Anyway the UN security council meeting on Tuesday should be interesting. US, UK v France and China furious and Russia laughing their socks off probably. Liz Truss's first task and shouts 'Pork Markets!'
France will probably pull out of NATO; EU army gets ever closer.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

I seem to remember people saying the EU army idea was a Brexiteer fantasy, it would never happen? I think it would turn out to be be an army full of generals with loads of ribbons and no soldiers willing to fight for it. Bit like the Afghan army.

It might be an idea to decide which strategic interests it would go to war to protect before creating it just because the French are upset about being put down by the US.

Most of the east European EU countries would sooner stay with NATO than trust a new Franco Brussels abomination anyway.

 

[VorZakone]

"We have no reason to believe that France is not capable of designing submarines to meet our requirements"

That aged well.

 

[JPRouve]

I seem to remember people saying the EU army idea was a Brexiteer fantasy, it would never happen? I think it would turn out to be be an army full of generals with loads of ribbons and no soldiers willing to fight for it. Bit like the Afghan army.

It might be an idea to decide which strategic interests it would go to war to protect before creating it just because the French are upset about being put down by the US.

Most of the east European EU countries would sooner stay with NATO than trust a new Franco Brussels abomination anyway.

I don't know what the EU has to do with it, it's french problem and France has never been a strong defender of NATO or someone that asked anyone to leave it. France has mainly stayed out of NATO business and everyone was happy with it.

 

[Buster15]

France said they will be releasing documents this week that will show this is not true. Basically Australia decided to change his mind and go for nuclear instead and discussions with the US and UK have been going on for 6 months .
The loss is also part Australian as people were employed in Australia; the US submarine is too complicated and time consuming to be constructed in Australia so would be contructed in Newport News and they've still got 17 to build for the US navy.

Anyway the UN security council meeting on Tuesday should be interesting. US, UK v France and China furious and Russia laughing their socks off probably. Liz Truss's first task and shouts 'Pork Markets!'
France will probably pull out of NATO; EU army gets ever closer.

Paul. I admire your belief in all things French....
But unless you are involved in the programme with the necessary security clearance, you will probably be relying on information in the media. And why would China be furious if the proposed security pact and submarines were not going to counter their threats to the area.
And as for France leaving NATO, lets wait and see about that.

It is increasing that you mentioned the EU Army when sometime ago I raised this during the Brexit discussion only to be told that France had no intention of being involved and it was definitely not going to happen. We will see about that as well.

 

[Buster15]

I seem to remember people saying the EU army idea was a Brexiteer fantasy, it would never happen? I think it would turn out to be be an army full of generals with loads of ribbons and no soldiers willing to fight for it. Bit like the Afghan army.

It might be an idea to decide which strategic interests it would go to war to protect before creating it just because the French are upset about being put down by the US.

Most of the east European EU countries would sooner stay with NATO than trust a new Franco Brussels abomination anyway.

Exactly that.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Paul. I admire your belief in all things French....
But unless you are involved in the programme with the necessary security clearance, you will probably be relying on information in the media. And why would China be furious if the proposed security pact and submarines were not going to counter their threats to the area.
And as for France leaving NATO, lets wait and see about that.

It is increasing that you mentioned the EU Army when sometime ago I raised this during the Brexit discussion only to be told that France had no intention of being involved and it was definitely not going to happen. We will see about that as well.

It's clear the US, UK and Australia have been working behind the scenes. The reality will come out. France left NATO before and are not interested really.
The EU army was a throwaway comment but if you can't trust your allies, you work with other allies. China will be furious , nothing to do with the French sub deal.

There were no unelected bureaucrats until Brexit and the UK introduced Cummings and Frost among others.
There was no Project Fear until Brexit and it became Project Reality and much more to come.

What I mean is those things that are being provoked by the actions of the UK. Cause and effect.

Biden just wants the submarine contract.

What happens if the UK break the NI protocol, what does Biden do then.

 

[JPRouve]

It's clear the US, UK and Australia have been working behind the scenes. The reality will come out. France left NATO before and are not interested really.
The EU army was a throwaway comment but if you can't trust your allies, you work with other allies. China will be furious , nothing to do with the French sub deal.

There were no unelected bureaucrats until Brexit and the UK introduced Cummings and Frost among others.
There was no Project Fear until Brexit and it became Project Reality and much more to come.

What I mean is those things that are being provoked by the actions of the UK. Cause and effect.

Biden just wants the submarine contract.

What happens if the UK break the NI protocol, what does Biden do then.

I don't know what the UK or the EU have to do with this. The way I see it, it's simply a US vs France arm selling competition and the US won that one, there will be no big consequences outside of bruised egos and money lost. If there is a consequence, I could see it concerning non-proliferation treaties being followed by France, if the US sell HEU to Australia then I don't see the point in following rules when you are one of the major arm sellers.

 

[Buster15]

I don't know what the UK or the EU have to do with this. The way I see it, it's simply a US vs France arm selling competition and the US won that one, there will be no big consequences outside of bruised egos and money lost. If there is a consequence, I could see it concerning non-proliferation treaties being followed by France, if the US sell HEU to Australia then I don't see the point in following rules when you are one of the major arm sellers.

As I understand it, the agreement is initially for the 18 month concept definition phase. But it would be wrong to term it just an arms selling competition. It is significantly broader than that, being a security pact between the participants.
Something that has not previously existed in that theatre.
As you say, nothing to do with the EU.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

I don't know what the UK or the EU have to do with this. The way I see it, it's simply a US vs France arm selling competition and the US won that one, there will be no big consequences outside of bruised egos and money lost. If there is a consequence, I could see it concerning non-proliferation treaties being followed by France, if the US sell HEU to Australia then I don't see the point in following rules when you are one of the major arm sellers.

As I said Biden was only interested in the submarine contract.The AUSUK not involving France and not keeping them in the loop is another matter. The trust, I'm not talking about the sub contract. Australia have no idea how much the subs will cost or when they will get them and have penalties to pay plus what they've already paid.
Yesterday I was being told the sub deal was brokered by the UK.

 

[JPRouve]

As I understand it, the agreement is initially for the 18 month concept definition phase. But it would be wrong to term it just an arms selling competition. It is significantly broader than that, being a security pact between the participants.
Something that has not previously existed in that theatre.
As you say, nothing to do with the EU.

I have a hard time buying that because France is also an Indo-Pacific country with constant military presence and the same is true for the US, neither are moving and both are somewhat hostile to China. That's why I think that for the US and France it's about money and nothing else while Australia logically picked the deal that they deemed the more appealing.

 

[Buster15]

There is already an agreement between Australia and the UK to produce a significant number of Frigates based upon the BAE/RN Type 26. These will be powered by RR Gas Turbine engines. So the UK already has a strong military presence with Australia.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

I don't know what the EU has to do with it, it's french problem and France has never been a strong defender of NATO or someone that asked anyone to leave it. France has mainly stayed out of NATO business and everyone was happy with it.

I was answering the post above mine which raised an EU defence pact as the potential outcome from this.

The lack of French influence in NATO isn't because of French indifference but rather the indifference for the most part of its long standing members to French involvement or not.

 

[Paxi]

I know for a fact that Aussies are fecking exceptional soldiers so slackers in UK military are getting a boost.

When I mean exceptional: I mean; the best in the world. Toughest sons of bitches you will ever meet.

 

[JPRouve]

I was answering the post above mine which raised an EU defence pact as the potential outcome from this.

The lack of French influence in NATO isn't because of French indifference but rather the indifference for the most part of its long standing members to French involvement or not.

I know why you wrote that post, I simply chose to interact with you. And I'm sorry but I don't understand your second sentence.

 

[11101]

France said they will be releasing documents this week that will show this is not true. Basically Australia decided to change his mind and go for nuclear instead and discussions with the US and UK have been going on for 6 months .
The loss is also part Australian as people were employed in Australia; the US submarine is too complicated and time consuming to be constructed in Australia so would be contructed in Newport News and they've still got 17 to build for the US navy.

Anyway the UN security council meeting on Tuesday should be interesting. US, UK v France and China furious and Russia laughing their socks off probably. Liz Truss's first task and shouts 'Pork Markets!'
France will probably pull out of NATO; EU army gets ever closer.

It was public at the time that France had been told to come up with a plan to address concerns.

Part of that was that Australia would make sure there were alternative options, though most people thought that meant Japanese subs.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

France tries to delay EU-Australia trade deal

Another toy ejected from Macron's pram.

 

[UnofficialDevil]

France said they will be releasing documents this week that will show this is not true. Basically Australia decided to change his mind and go for nuclear instead and discussions with the US and UK have been going on for 6 months .
The loss is also part Australian as people were employed in Australia; the US submarine is too complicated and time consuming to be constructed in Australia so would be contructed in Newport News and they've still got 17 to build for the US navy.

Anyway the UN security council meeting on Tuesday should be interesting. US, UK v France and China furious and Russia laughing their socks off probably. Liz Truss's first task and shouts 'Pork Markets!'
France will probably pull out of NATO; EU army gets ever closer.

EU army? What would that be France and Greece? I mean Germany doesnt have an army to speak of.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

France tries to delay EU-Australia trade deal

Another toy ejected from Macron's pram.

If you read the Guardian article it's an invented headline.
Quote: "Macron, facing re-election next year, was remaining silent "

Another quote:
Ben Wallace, speaking in the Commons, also sought to soothe the French, saying: “There is no absolutely no intent here by the UK government to slight upset or drive a wedge between us and France. There was no sneakiness behind the back. It was fundamentally Australia’s right to choose a different capability and it did.”

And if you believe that you believe anything.

Anyway Johnson's got the flag wavers going.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

EU army? What would that be France and Greece? I mean Germany doesnt have an army to speak of.

You missed the point.

 

[Buster15]

If you read the Guardian article it's an invented headline.
Quote: "Macron, facing re-election next year, was remaining silent "

Another quote:
Ben Wallace, speaking in the Commons, also sought to soothe the French, saying: “There is no absolutely no intent here by the UK government to slight upset or drive a wedge between us and France. There was no sneakiness behind the back. It was fundamentally Australia’s right to choose a different capability and it did.”

And if you believe that you believe anything.

Anyway Johnson's got the flag wavers going.

In a changing world, it was fundamentally Australia right to choose a different capability in light of the latest scenario.
And not just Australia. That same thing applies to all nations.

And having worked on a number of major European collaborative programmes including - Concorde, Tornado and Typhoon, the partner nations requirements were in a constant state of change, with resulting schedule and cost implications.

 

[JPRouve]

If you read the Guardian article it's an invented headline.
Quote: "Macron, facing re-election next year, was remaining silent "

Another quote:
Ben Wallace, speaking in the Commons, also sought to soothe the French, saying: “There is no absolutely no intent here by the UK government to slight upset or drive a wedge between us and France. There was no sneakiness behind the back. It was fundamentally Australia’s right to choose a different capability and it did.”

And if you believe that you believe anything.

Anyway Johnson's got the flag wavers going.

And from what I see from France, it's the US that France are targetting, not the UK and not really Australia. Thinking about what I wrote yesterday, my mind changed on the no long term repercussion because there is an accumulation of actions from the US in the last decade that is starting to grate.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

In a changing world, it was fundamentally Australia right to choose a different capability in light of the latest scenario.
And not just Australia. That same thing applies to all nations.

And having worked on a number of major European collaborative programmes including - Concorde, Tornado and Typhoon, the partner nations requirements were in a constant state of change, with resulting schedule and cost implications.

I don't think that's the problem from France's point of view.

And from what I see from France, it's the US that France are targetting, not the UK and not really Australia. Thinking about what I wrote yesterday, my mind changed on the no long term repercussion because there is an accumulation of actions from the US in the last decade that is starting to grate.

Agreed.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

If you read the Guardian article it's an invented headline.
Quote: "Macron, facing re-election next year, was remaining silent "

Another quote:
Ben Wallace, speaking in the Commons, also sought to soothe the French, saying: “There is no absolutely no intent here by the UK government to slight upset or drive a wedge between us and France. There was no sneakiness behind the back. It was fundamentally Australia’s right to choose a different capability and it did.”

And if you believe that you believe anything.

Anyway Johnson's got the flag wavers going.

Confirmed by other sources:

"Keeping one's word is the condition of trust between democracies and between allies," France's European affairs secretary Clément Beaune told Politico. His remarks were confirmed on Monday by a spokesperson. "So it is unthinkable to move forward on trade negotiations as if nothing had happened with a country in which we no longer trust," Beaune added.

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/09/20/business/france-australia-europe-trade-deal/index.html

You’re so predictable, Paul. Now you’ll be saying “yes, the story appears true, but France is right to do so.”

 

[Buster15]

And from what I see from France, it's the US that France are targetting, not the UK and not really Australia. Thinking about what I wrote yesterday, my mind changed on the no long term repercussion because there is an accumulation of actions from the US in the last decade that is starting to grate.

Such as ?

 

[JPRouve]

In a changing world, it was fundamentally Australia right to choose a different capability in light of the latest scenario.
And not just Australia. That same thing applies to all nations.

And having worked on a number of major European collaborative programmes including - Concorde, Tornado and Typhoon, the partner nations requirements were in a constant state of change, with resulting schedule and cost implications.

As I said, it's early but my understanding is that France don't have an issue with Australia changing their mind, they seemingly have an issue with Australia not being as honest as they claim but it's seemingly not the actual issue. France has an issue with the US, that's the backstabbing they are referring to and to be honest I could see France go back to the De Gaulle doctrine and do what they want and care significantly less about NATO, the UN, the EU and everyone else, particularly when Macron was the most likely to not go down that road.

 

[JPRouve]

Such as ?

You mean actions? The spying malarkeys, the absence of communication regarding Syria and Afghanistan even though France have been heavily involved alongside the US, the ignorance of Turkey's actions with France being the only NATO member doing something regarding the Turkey-Cyprus recent incidents and now this. You would swear that the US are not allies and there is a point where it's futile to pretend.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

In a changing world, it was fundamentally Australia right to choose a different capability in light of the latest scenario.
And not just Australia. That same thing applies to all nations.

And having worked on a number of major European collaborative programmes including - Concorde, Tornado and Typhoon, the partner nations requirements were in a constant state of change, with resulting schedule and cost implications.

Sorry, I pressed 'post' before I had finished.

If Australia had come straight and said "We've changed our minds" then the backlash wouldn't be so great.
It all started with Australia sepcifically asking France to reconfigure their nuclear submarine to a diesel-electric spec.

It's a bit like someone ordering and electric car and asking them to change it to a diesel for their purpose.
Then during the construction they add different wheels and other different specs and it is delayed.

Fine if you then want to cancel it, say so, not have secret discussions behind the scenes and pretend it's not true.
It seems a bit off that you cancel a car that you've ordered and then decide to buy a car that you have no idea what spec it will be, when it will be built and how much it will cost. But not only that the constructor of the car finds out second hand; I think nyone would be slightly miffed.

But it's Biden who wants and will get the contract.

 

[Buster15]

As I said, it's early but my understanding is that France don't have an issue with Australia changing their mind, they seemingly have an issue with Australia not being as honest as they claim but it's seemingly not the actual issue. France has an issue with the US, that's the backstabbing they are referring to and to be honest I could see France go back to the De Gaulle doctrine and do what they want and care significantly less about NATO, the UN, the EU and everyone else, particularly when Macron was the most likely to not go down that road.

Didn't realise that they weren't already doing that.... because that is a pretty widely held perception.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Confirmed by other sources:


https://edition.cnn.com/2021/09/20/business/france-australia-europe-trade-deal/index.html

You’re so predictable, Paul. Now you’ll be saying “yes, the story appears true, but France is right to do so.”

You now quote another source not in the original. If it was me I'd be absolutely furious too but lies and underhand practice seem the norm in Johnson's Britain.
But it's the USA who will benefit.

By the way why isn't the EU allowed to stick up for one of its members.

 

[Buster15]

Sorry, I pressed 'post' before I had finished.

If Australia had come straight and said "We've changed our minds" then the backlash wouldn't be so great.
It all started with Australia sepcifically asking France to reconfigure their nuclear submarine to a diesel-electric spec.

It's a bit like someone ordering and electric car and asking them to change it to a diesel for their purpose.
Then during the construction they add different wheels and other different specs and it is delayed.

Fine if you then want to cancel it, say so, not have secret discussions behind the scenes and pretend it's not true.
It seems a bit off that you cancel a car that you've ordered and then decide to buy a car that you have no idea what spec it will be, when it will be built and how much it will cost. But not only that the constructor of the car finds out second hand; I think nyone would be slightly miffed.

But it's Biden who wants and will get the contract.

Ok. And that is perfectly understandable.
But like all these things, it is difficult to ascertain the real facts unless you are actually close enough to both sides.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

You now quote another source not in the original.

You seem to think on-the-record quotes are the only form of journalism. I’m sure the Guardian have plenty of sources within the EU, hence the story.

If it was me I'd be absolutely furious too but lies and underhand practice seem the norm in Johnson's Britain.
But it's the USA who will benefit.

By the way why isn't the EU allowed to stick up for one of its members.

“Yes, the story appears to be true, but France/EU is right to do so.”

 

[JPRouve]

@Paul the Wolf if you want a potential source for the Guardian article:

"I guess this will not lead to stopping negotiations and talks with Australia, but they will be much more complicated," Bernd Lange told a briefing.

Lange said the willingness of EU countries and France in particular to compromise in trade talks, notably on agriculture, was likely to be "quite limited"

 

[Paul the Wolf]

You seem to think on-the-record quotes are the only form of journalism. I’m sure the Guardian have plenty of sources within the EU, hence the story.

“Yes, the story appears to be true, but France/EU is right to do so.”

If the truth comes out that Australia were duplicitous he'll probably veto the deal, not delay it.

From a personal POV, the Australia deal with the UK is bad for the UK without this. Do we want the same? If Australia lose their trade with China, deep sh!t.

Let's see how this plays out.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

France now pushing for the EU to suspend planned talks with the US.

An EU diplomat said France had made the request to postpone EU-US talks before a meeting on Monday of EU foreign ministers in New York at the UN general assembly. The request has sparked resistance from other member states who are wary of souring transatlantic relations over French grievances.

“The French are actively looking at all channels for support in the EU after Aukus. We want to help France but it is in the EU’s interest to conduct talks with the US,” the person said.

https://www.ft.com/content/b336fac8-ce36-44b8-8a30-022c5d20a926

 

[11101]

France now pushing for the EU to suspend planned talks with the US.


https://www.ft.com/content/b336fac8-ce36-44b8-8a30-022c5d20a926

It will be an interesting test. The EU is not in a position of strength right now and Macron and France are not that well liked within Europe, but then again neither is the UK and the US has greatly soured its own relations with just about everybody over the last few years.


I think it will all blow over soon as its mostly sour grapes from the French defence industry. Australia selected them because they were the best option at that time, but that changed. The US unexpectedly made far superior technology available and all that comes with that, and at the same time France was failing to meet its own commitments.

 

[Maticmaker]

It would be interesting to hear views on here about the perceived state of NATO, not just because of this latest move with the 'Anglo-Saxon pact' as some are referring to the nuclear-sub debacle, but because its been clear for a long time that NATO's usefulness and/or 'mission-creep' as some refer to its enlargement after the cold war, is diminishing.
Does anyone seriously believe after the Kremlin's annexation of the Crimea in 2014, NATO did, or could have done, anything to prevent it? Do not the Baltic states now live in fear of such moves against them, and wonder just what NATO would do if their Russian populations called for help from their mother country?
Hasn't NATO outlived it usefulness, grown too large, hasn't the strength or the will to 'repel boarders' such as the Kremlin, and increasingly it would seem many member countries just don't believe anymore and certainly seem reluctant to put up their money to save the organisation.
Or is this all just Putin's propaganda? Or the EU's wish to form its own Army (and presumably its own nuclear deterrent)

NB If there is another NATO thread elsewhere I apologise

 

[Abizzz]

It would be interesting to hear views on here about the perceived state of NATO, not just because of this latest move with the 'Anglo-Saxon pact' as some are referring to the nuclear-sub debacle, but because its been clear for a long time that NATO's usefulness and/or 'mission-creep' as some refer to its enlargement after the cold war, is diminishing.
Does anyone seriously believe after the Kremlin's annexation of the Crimea in 2014, NATO did, or could have done, anything to prevent it? Do not the Baltic states now live in fear of such moves against them, and wonder just what NATO would do if their Russian populations called for help from their mother country?
Hasn't NATO outlived it usefulness, grown too large, hasn't the strength or the will to 'repel boarders' such as the Kremlin, and increasingly it would seem many member countries just don't believe anymore and certainly seem reluctant to put up their money to save the organisation.
Or is this all just Putin's propaganda? Or the EU's wish to form its own Army (and presumably its own nuclear deterrent)

NB If there is another NATO thread elsewhere I apologise

For all the banging on about the capabilities of the strongest NATO members they just lost to some stone age folks in toyotas. The Krim is hardly the baltic and concerning Aukus those countries are free to go into confrontation with China without the rest of us. Just don't come around telling us how to spend our money again please, that would be grand.

 

[Buster15]

It would be interesting to hear views on here about the perceived state of NATO, not just because of this latest move with the 'Anglo-Saxon pact' as some are referring to the nuclear-sub debacle, but because its been clear for a long time that NATO's usefulness and/or 'mission-creep' as some refer to its enlargement after the cold war, is diminishing.
Does anyone seriously believe after the Kremlin's annexation of the Crimea in 2014, NATO did, or could have done, anything to prevent it? Do not the Baltic states now live in fear of such moves against them, and wonder just what NATO would do if their Russian populations called for help from their mother country?
Hasn't NATO outlived it usefulness, grown too large, hasn't the strength or the will to 'repel boarders' such as the Kremlin, and increasingly it would seem many member countries just don't believe anymore and certainly seem reluctant to put up their money to save the organisation.
Or is this all just Putin's propaganda? Or the EU's wish to form its own Army (and presumably its own nuclear deterrent)

NB If there is another NATO thread elsewhere I apologise

You raise a number of interesting and relevant points here.
Regarding NATO, there are very strong arguments that it has successfully deterred the possibility of a further major outbreak of war between the traditional East and West.
And it is somewhat inevitable that after all its time in existence, questions will grow about its future relevance.
But in the absence of any realistic alternative, it is vital that it remains strong and capable to meet potential challenges.

Subsequent to the annexing of Crimea by Russia, NATO has provided a very strong air power presence in and around the adjacent states and regularly deters any potential incursions by Russian military jets.
And there is no reason to suppose this will deminish in the medium term.
And the vast majority of this is provided by the European air forces who take turns policing the borders.

Had that not been the case, Russia may well have made significant further gains.