Forum menu
So when the UK next asks for favours from france as they have been doing for years do you think the French will be more or less likely to be co operative after this?
tjagain
Full Member
So when the UK next asks for favours from france as they have been doing for years do you think the French will be more or less likely to be co operative after this?
You'll have to tell me what favours we've asked for or will require, from my understanding, we import more from France than they do from us, especially in defence, we have many good relationships with the French, some i've witnessed with my job and trips to France.
The French government just now are struggling to gain support with an upcoming election next year, this decision by Australia undermines them in the press and gives the opposition more ammunition to hit them with in the run up to the election, i'd say it's more political as usual.
The UK would not be getting anything from Macron anyway with an election next year. he knows that the French would vote for Frexit given the opportunity, look how Barnier is positioning himself for a run at the Elysee.
The Australians have been questioing the deal since 2017, probably met with a gallic shrug.
The deal also includes Tomahawk cruise missiles.
The French yards have 20 years of orders from other countries so unemployment is not an issue apart from the Australians alredy working there.
Oh dear
Patel was just a week or two ago asking them to do more on the boat migrants.
Thats just one example
AS France are one of the major influences on the EU and we keep on wanting to "renegotiate" tbhe brexit treaty we need their good will
Most of our EU trade comes thru France - both ways. We keep asking them for help with our own created eff ups
Thats just 3 examples off the top of my head
Do you really think the french government will be more likely to co operate now? they have bent over backwards to accomodate us. No longer
Its clear from the snub they have altered their attitude from trying to be co operative and helpful to " sod 'em, not worth worrying about
BTW - they do NOT need us more than we need them
Living in France, I can assure you that the French have absalutly no interest in stopping the boat migrants.
You think the UK is racist? they are on a completely different level.
Can you give an example of the French bending over backwards to accomodate the UK?
But the snub was the Australians not the uk! We’re we supposed to turn them down! Jobs, investment, security. If it turned out Boris had said jog in Australia get your subs elsewhere he would have been thanked by the unions for his strong moral compass and thoughtful insight in EU politics?
Can you give an example of the French bending over backwards to accomodate the UK?
spending huge sums on all the infrastructure to allow cross channel trade to continue. they have all the stuff in place, we have none. they worked really hard to streamline trade across the channel.
The DTs - we will not get significant jobs out of this - we have very little to contribute. Reactors are US, etc etc and its going to be built in Aus
Where is that, I haven't seen it whilst crossing at calais?
Where is that, I haven’t seen it whilst crossing at calais?
https://www.portboulognecalais.fr/en/brexit-the-port-of-calais-will-be-ready-will-you
Jeepers you guys have really bought the brexit / tory lies on all this
Or just a different view to you TJ.
To say that the french have not worked hard and got all the facilities in place for cross channel trade while we have not is simply wrong. We cannot put the checks in place because we do not have the facilities. they have them all in place
to say we are not asking for french co operation over migrants is again - simply wrong
Patel was just a week or two ago asking them to do more on the boat migrants.
Yep, Patels requests for help will be laughed off
The French are pissed off that this deal was set up behind their backs, I'm sure they'll calm down and relations will be reset, but they'll be wondering what else we're (& usa, aus) not telling them.
UK is also desperate to get NIP rewritten, with years of delicate brexit negotiations still to go on services, finance, energy markets, fishing....
AUSUK is the absolute right move, no ifs or buts.
For those of you that objects you live in a fantasy world. You will find no amount of media from that region about Chinese involvement (influence in regional politics in a commies way and massive bribery) as the information are generally kept secret by corrupted politicians. Guess why forest the size of Belgium is being destroy to cultivate oil palm? Who are consuming them?
The way Chinese commies are going sooner or later there will be no more forest in Asia. Yes, you lot talking big about carbon emission etc or going green, you can talk green until your face turn blue it makes little impact if there is no more forest left in Asia. In the far east the race is to deforest as fast as they can to feed Chinese commies demand in palm oil. China will then boost about their green credentials of using environmental friendly oil and the you lot in the west will lap it up in an instant.
As a person coming from that region France's influence in Asia is negligible or even laughable, but the respect for UK is there even when UK just a tiny island by comparison to France or EU.
As for France and EU, their action is rather predictable acting like the U-boat wolf pack trying to encircle UK or to create as much troubles as they could etc ...
I think you'll find brexit Britain has done a brilliant job of isolating itself from its neighbours
acting like the U-boat wolf pack
I might get a ban for making this personal, but you are stain on this forum that drives people away.
Guess why forest the size of Belgium is being destroy to cultivate oil palm? Who are consuming them?
You tell me? In order of consumption in metric tonnes: Indonesia, India, China, EU27, the World…? That doesn’t change the fact that up to 50% of all products in UK and US supermarkets contain palm oil. I can only assume it’s a global issue and related to pricing and population, ignorance and couldn’t-care-less rather than to some peculiarly Indonesian nationalistic fervour for burning rain forests and orang-utans?
So answer me this, is maths your strong point?
Palm oil consumption in the countries of the EU-27 amounted to approximately 7.1 million metric tons in 2020. 447.7 million people.
Palm oil imports to China amounted to approximately 6.2 million metric tons in 2020. 1.4 billion people.
(Source: Statista)
Can you tell me how much palm oil China consumed per head vs the EU?
So the Nutella in my cupboard contains palm oil, coz...... communist China? 😳
At least palm free peanut butter is easy to get now. And it’s tastier. Not the big USA brands though. Is that because of China?
I might get a ban for making this personal, but you are stain on this forum that drives people away.
Seconded.
So the Nutella in my cupboard contains palm oil
Switch…
Sorry for joining in the irrelevant side step. Someone please get the thread back on track if they can…
Good God, Pauline Hanson is a bit of a thicko isn’t she.
Indeed she is, being seen on a high profile committee is more important to Hanson's career than bothering to read her brief properly, even after eight minutes of having the difference between propulsion and power generation being carefully explained, she still doesn't know what a pump-jet is.
Hanson makes Nadine Dorries look intellectually competent. Xenophobia and weapons grade stupidity seems to go hand in glove.
At least palm free peanut butter is easy to get now. And it’s tastier.
And I thought the argument was Crunchy ?, or Smooth ?.
How naive I have been 🙁
Can you tell me how much palm oil China consumed per head vs the EU?
Careful, when confronted with fact based questioning that might throw light on this particular forumite's selective opinion, the usual response is some form of non-sequitur.
the usual response is some form of non-sequitur.
I’m quite happy for anyone else to do the maths should chewkw not show honour. Mine was not a rhetorical question.
These are the figures I got? Would be pleased for someone to check them (and, if so pleased, also convert to a more legible weight 😎)
Palm oil consumption per capita (in million metric tonnes) in 2020 was:
China: 0.00442857142
EU27: 0.01585883404
Can you tell me how much palm oil China consumed per head vs the EU?
This one has graph ... https://www.indexmundi.com/agriculture/?commodity=palm-oil&graph=domestic-consumption
LOL! I knew you lot were going to use that line of argument.
Let's look at the statistic as you wish ... not sure whose statistic is right but here you go.
Look at the increase in consumption of palm oil ...
Notice the steady increase of palm oil consumption?
Plenty of other information here so read until your heart content
https://ourworldindata.org/palm-oil
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/feb/19/palm-oil-ingredient-biscuits-shampoo-environmental
Delete (was trying to insert link but did not work)
LOL! I knew you lot were going to use that line of argument.
Please don’t be rude. So far only I responded to/addressed your claim. I’m me. Not a ‘you lot’. I’m not part of a collective.
Let’s look at the statistic as you wish
But you’re not looking at statistics ‘as I wish’. You’re avoiding my argument. I won’t guess why, maybe you can tell me?
I ‘wished’ that you would tell me the per capita palm oil consumption of China in 2020 vs EU27 in 2020?
So please tell me
I think we (Aus) have been told we need nuclear powered subs.
Which will take years to complete.
At great cost.
For the "China War"
We currently have no nuclear weapons, and no military nuclear program.
So we need silent nuclear subs with no nuclear capability. Sounds legit.
I think we (Aus) have been told
I think that's exactly what happened as well.
... not that the whole French deal wasn't a merde-show since the get-go apparently.
I think we (Aus) have been told we need nuclear powered subs.
Which will take years to complete.
At great cost.
For the “China War”
We currently have no nuclear weapons, and no military nuclear program.
I don't think that's what happened at all. As I understand it, Australia already has a fleet of diesel subs that are aging and need replacement. Projects like this take 10 to 20 years and are always expensive. At the time, they decided to stick with non-nuclear propulsion and the contract was awarded to France. The French contractor was behind schedule and not meeting specifications and the RAN was unhappy. They decided to cancel the French contract. Things have moved on since the original tender and the U.S. agreed to technology sharing for nuclear propulsion (which is required for British or American built nuclear subs). The advantage of nuclear propulsion is that the sub has effectively unlimited range and can cruise at high speed submerged, whereas a diesel sub has to cruise at lower speed at snorkel depth, which makes it much easier to track. The Pacific Ocean is enormous so having subs that can easily reach the South China sea and Northern Pacific without surfacing was seen as important given how badly most countries in the region are getting on with China. Australia wasn't pressured into this, the French ****ed it up and the U.S. came in with an offer that is more suited to the current situation.
The nuclear propulsion issue is completely unrelated to nuclear weapons. A conventionally powered sub can fire nuclear weapons and a nuclear powered sub can fire conventional weapons. The Argentinian cruiser that was sunk during the Falklands conflict was hit by a conventional torpedo fired by a nuclear powered submarine. Nuclear propulsion gives higher sustained underwater speed and unlimited range, that's a huge benefit for a conventionally armed sub, it has no relationship to what weapons the sub carries.
If that was indeed what happened then why didn't the Australians inform the French of their new requirements and launch a new tender exercise? Instead of sneaking around behind the French backs.
So we need silent nuclear subs with no nuclear capability. Sounds legit.
The ones being discussed are hunter killer subs not ballistic missile subs
The purpose is to sneak up on naval task forces and sink the carriers and other key ships rather than wipe out cities although with tomahawks they would have limited anti ground force capability as well.
A good example of the usage was the Falklands war when after the Belgrano was sunk the Argentinians withdrew their aircraft carrier for fear it was next on the release which reduced their ability to launch air raids.
Of course the Chinese will have been working hard to get rather better anti sub warfare equipment.
I think that is the biggest issue, someone massively dropped a bollock on comms there
The discussion I've seen is that the Australians specifically asked for diesel-powered rather than nuclear-powered subs from the French.
I think that is the biggest issue, someone massively dropped a bollock on comms there
Yeah. Comms issue. That's what I told my wife when she found me shagging the au pair.
If that was indeed what happened then why didn’t the Australians inform the French of their new requirements and launch a new tender exercise? Instead of sneaking around behind the French backs.
Breaking a contract like this could end up quite expensive, the French will be seeking damages. So it's not a decision lightly entered into.
The likely scenario is that the assessment of the RAN is that the French would delay any retender process, any process would add more years to the program even if smooth, the French might not be able to meet performance requirements and Aus build %, etc
As for the secrecy it would have been absolute, you can't make the decision to terminate until you have your ducks in a line and the French finding out early would have disrupted this. Contingency planning like this is perfectly normal in the commercial world.
You mean shafting partners is normal? I am glad I do not have your ethics
If that was indeed what happened then why didn’t the Australians inform the French of their new requirements and launch a new tender exercise?
I gather that they had been unhappy with the progress for some time. I don't know why they didn't give a bit more warning that the contract was being cancelled. They haven't actually signed a new contract, just cancelled the existing one. I assume they will ask for tenders before signing a new contract, with the subs being built in Oz and the reactors and weapons systems supplied by U.S. or U.K. suppliers.
Yeah comms is a mild way of putting it, but ultimately the aussies should have been clearer with the French team rather than pulling the carpet out from under their feet.
I assume they will ask for tenders before signing a new contract, with the subs being built in Oz and the reactors and weapons systems supplied by U.S. or U.K. suppliers.
A tender where you've pre-selected one applicant is not very good procurement practice. The admiral in the video describes the criteria used in selecting the French sub. Those criteria are now out of the window because what is now being chosen is a new strategic partnership, not just a new piece of kit. The French believed the Australians to be long term partners not a short term transactional relationship.
Just like my wife. For some reason she was upset when I told her I had new requirements for someone with longer legs and firmer tits.
It's more like you telling your wife you like long hair, her spending ages growing it down to her waist, just for you, and then you sneaking off with a women with cropped hair.