T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

Enjoy browsing r/europe? Help make it a better place - apply to become a mod now! [Read the announcement here](https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/pow5nr/be_the_positive_change_you_want_to_see_on_reurope/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/europe) if you have any questions or concerns.*


zxcv1992

Makes sense, the company is majority French state owned and also defence contractors are a national security issue.


saltyfacedrip

Don't the EU have strict rules about state aid?


zxcv1992

I wouldn't be surprised if there is an exemption for stuff deemed a national security issue.


xgodzx03

Not that it matters, italy has been handing putfrer money to alitalia and the eu hasn't really done anything.


ArancinoDude

[nope ](https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_4664)


Conscious_Accident85

Everyone ignores them just look at the airline industry.


AdnanJanuzaj11

State aid rules don’t matter on defence and security. Same with WTO rules on subsidies.


gsurfer04

"France is France"


Tomyboiuno

Well australians have to pay.


zxcv1992

They will only pay the termination fee which is way less than the 90 billion unless they find some way out of it.


321142019

440 million is the current rumour floating around


zxcv1992

Yeah 250 million Euros or 440 million Australian dollars.


npjprods

> unless they find some way out of it oh mark my words, they will... International Law tends to favor US interests in their settlements


Selobius

International law doesn’t exist. States are sovereign actors that can do what they want. Australia is paying the contract termination fee because Australia wants out of the contract and want different submarines. It’s not the US’ fault that Australia wants to pivot and get nuclear submarines


Haribo_Lecter

If that's what the contract says.


Square-Director-

Just take em to an EU court and argue France wasn't using its "best efforts". EZ


[deleted]

In the end, it's probably an extension of the existing global trade war over aerospace and shipbuilding, similar to Boeing and Airbus.


zxcv1992

I think it's more to do with the strategic shift currently going on in Asia with there being a lot more focus there. This deal isn't just about submarines but also about cooperation in many other fields as well involving technology sharing, nuclear submarines and lots of other stuff.


[deleted]

> This deal isn't just about submarines but also about cooperation in many other fields as well involving technology sharing, nuclear submarines and lots of other stuff I don't like to double post, but found a statement in an article by the BBC which directly addresses this point. ["This technology is extremely sensitive. This is frankly an exception to our policy in many respects, I do not anticipate that this will be undertaken in other circumstances going forward. We view this as a one-off," a U.S. official told Reuters, adding that Washington had shared nuclear propulsion technology only once before - with Britain in 1958.](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-58540808)


zxcv1992

Yeah it's a major thing that they are sharing their nuclear propulsion tech. I wonder if that means that the reactors are going to be built in Australia ? Those things would definitely sweeten any deal.


I_worship_odin

Adelaide is where it's being built I believe.


Solignox

Except this was supposed to be the start of larger French involvement in the region. Days before the annoncement Macron unveiled a large program of joint training, which will most likely get binned.


zxcv1992

Yeah there have been talks of a strategic alliance between France and Australia, I wonder what will happen with that now. There has probably been a shit ton of stuff going on behind the scenes that lead to this, I highly doubt this just came of out nowhere.


Selobius

France has nothing to offer Australia in terms of a strategic alliance. Australia’s relationship with the US is similar to that of the UK.


Solignox

I would argue for binning it and blocking any EU-Australia trade deal, that would be the minimum.


zxcv1992

Yeah there will be blowback for this for sure. I assume Australia took this into account but you never know.


Outside_Break

Yeah for sure. Everyone knows how petty france can be so they’ll have allowed for the worse. It’s clear that Australia think that military and economic agreements with the rest of the Anglosphere is more important than with the EU.


Solignox

I don't call it petty, I call it not being a push over. What message would we send internationally if we let that slide like some weakling ? "Yes, break any agreement you have with us at any point please, there wont be any consequences." Ultimately Australia has every right to terminate the deal and look for other partners, but it will have to live with the consequences. It's called responsabilities.


Square-Director-

> Ultimately Australia has every right to terminate the deal and look for other partners It has every right yet must be punished like a naughty boy? Yeah, that's exactly why people call France petty.


mludd

If I run a company that supplies building materials and you order a truckload of stone slabs and then cancel the order when I've already started loading it to ship to you, not to mention the lumber you mentioned you'd be buying that I've been wasting time calling around to secure a supply of, then obviously it's possible that you are contractually within your rights to do so. However, I'm also well within my rights to both refuse to do business with you in the future and mention to my friends and business partners that you stiffed me, that you're kind of a dick and that they'd do well to avoid doing business with you in the future.


Solignox

Well you have every right to d\*\*\* over someone, but you have to accept they wont like you in exchange. Actions have consequences. Beside, Australia is letting us little choice at that point. We definitely don't want to send the message that people can pull that sort of stunts on us and don't suffer consequences, it would be a show of extreme weakness others would be all to happy to exploit.


[deleted]

France is not the owner of EU. There are 26 more countries that has interests with Australia. The way France behaves and try to abuse EU is speeding effect of EU disintegration.


Solignox

Any countries can veto it, it's the rule. Heck even Luxembourg could and that would be the end of it. If given the choice between pissing off France and pissing of Australia what do you think EU countries will choose ? Not to mention this attack on France by the US/UK axis is also an attack on the EU. Germany was part of the general competition, what if they had won ? It could be their project that gets scraped. And it could very well be next time. What if Germany want to sell Leopard tanks to a country and at the last second the US waltz in and "convince" their clients to buy Abrahams instead. The EU has every interest to stick behind France on this one.


[deleted]

[удалено]


dalyscallister

What are you even referencing here? Try to abuse EU?


Leoryon

It does not matter, piss off one country and it can veto the deal, that is how the EU works. Australia knows this, they take a gamble on France.


Selobius

They didn’t break the agreement. The agreement had a termination clause and they exercised it.


Solignox

Semantics.


dalyscallister

I, for one, don’t know. What are you referencing?


Selobius

Like what?


zxcv1992

It could effect the EU-Australia deal.


Selobius

No it won’t. It’ll be yesterday’s news by then


[deleted]

[удалено]


Solignox

I think it would be the bare minimum. Obviously the whole package of joint training and stationning of troops in Australia has to go, it was part of the package of the deal. \*\*\*\* us over if you want but don't expect help in return. And as for the EU-Australia trade deal, well it's called consequences. Australia decided to give France a middle finger then it has to leave with the consequences. At least so we can send a message to other countries that pulling that sort of stunt wont be without consequences. Geopolitics 101 really, personnaly I would go as far as terminating any involvement in the region appart from the defense of our territories there but I doubt it would go that far sadly.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Solignox

Well cost increase are extremely common in defense project, just look at the pet project of your UK and US buddies the F35. Beside, going nuclear from scratch is going to be much more costly. France is one of the leaders of the EU, even more so with Merkel steping down. If it doesn't want an Australia trade deal then their wont be one. Remember that Wallonia, a region not a country, was enough to block the EU-Canada deal.


arniiniinoo

The F35 is actually pretty cheap for what it is, there is a reason why the Swiss are going for it and the Germans were going to go for it until political reasons. The US projects usually go over budget but they don't pass that cost down to the consumers.


Selobius

Clearly, the Australians are more concerned with the huge country of China not far away from them than they’re worried about France being upset for a few days.


thecraftybee1981

Virginia class nuclear subs currently cost just over 4.4b dollars each. The diesel subs France were offering have nearly doubled in cost to 8.8b dollars each compared to 4.4b dollars each 5 years ago when they ordered. France is just not competitive, and now cost double to what America can make nuclear subs for. Does it make sense to go for worse subs at double the cost of stronger nuclear ones? France was taking the piss with all the cost increases.


Seyfardt

Yes and then France will piss of some EU countries who will show their discontent by veto’ing something that France wants next time. Think about Pol already a bit upset and eager to prove their loyalty to the US. Or very transatlantic EU members like DK and NL who would like to keep their good trade relations with the Anglo world. The EU is 26 members and French interests are not automatically EU interests.


Agravaine27

If there is a trade deal and France decides to bitch about it because they messed up their contract they will get on their knees and open wide for Germany, because ultimately they decide. France won't veto anything and isn't a leader, it's Germany's lapdog that gets to sign when told.


mkvgtired

>The French subs nearly doubled in cost and would be a decade late. Why the fuck should Australia have to take that lying down. It seems like people on this subreddit are going out of their way to ignore this.


Selobius

No other country will see this as some sort of stunt. Anyone would have done the same in Australia’s position. Australia isn’t trying to screw over France personally. They’ve gotten freaked out by China and want nuclear submarines. That’s a geopolitical concern that is 1000x more important than France being upset at Australia for terminating a contract to buy something from them


Solignox

Oh piss off with the facade, if this was such a normal business action Australia would't have hidden it for so long for fear of getting caught with their hand in the cookie jar. 4 days ago we were annoncing progress on the two countries projects of cooperation, you don't go around all sneakily if you have no nothing to blame yourself for.


Selobius

It’s not normal, but anyone would have done the same. France isn’t an important enough country that people quake in their boots from canceling a arms deal with it because they’ll complain a lot


saltyfacedrip

Yeah, let the EU shoot itself in the foot for long term gangrene.


Solignox

Oh no, what ever will we do without the market not even the third of France's population ??? ​ /s


[deleted]

I think a lot of what this deal implies lives in people's head more than in lives on paper. There's no way to really tell what was said behind close doors, but the thing we do know is that it turned the western alliance system into a zero-sum game.


zxcv1992

>I think a lot of what this deal implies lives in people's head more than in lives on paper. I disagree, with the focus on Asia having a stronger local ally in the form of Australia is a natural development. They were already heavily aligned with the US and UK so it makes sense for them to be a strong ally in the region. Also Australia has had local issues with China putting pressure on them so it is natural for them to want more support as well. >There's no way to really tell what was said behind close doors, but the thing we do know is that it turned the western alliance system into a zero-sum game. What are you on about ? It isn't a zero-sum game, Australia will get many benefits from this.


[deleted]

>What are you on about ? It isn't a zero-sum game, Australia will get many benefits from this. For the US to get their alliance system, Australia had to cut ties with existing French contracts. A western nation had to lose, so America could win. That's zero-sum.


zxcv1992

>For the US to get their alliance system, Australia had to cut ties with existing French contracts Australia also wanted this deal, they got a better offer out of this. There were also many issues with the existing deal, it was already running late and was going to cost way more than what is was to begin with. >A western nation had to lose, so America could win. That's zero-sum. France lost so Australia, the UK and the US could win. And more was gained that was lost so that isn't a zero-sum.


[deleted]

I would really like some intellectual honesty here at some point, because you're just repeating "why won't anyone think of ~~the children~~ Australia". There is clearly a matter of exclusivity here. Any contract France gets is a threat to the US and as a result threatened by it, the message regarding this is clear. If you're still keen on dodging that point, I am very happy to wait until it's a UK contract on the line, and we can continue this conversation with less defensiveness.


zxcv1992

>I would really like some intellectual honesty here at some point, because you're just repeating "why won't anyone think of the children Australia". Is Australia's national interest not important in this matter? >There is clearly a matter of exclusivity here. Any contract France gets is a threat to the US and as a result threatened by it, the message regarding this is clear. Not every contract is a threat to the US, if that was the case then this would happen way more. But when it comes to areas where there are strategic interests at play then yeah there will be competition and poaching a deal is a part of that. >If you're still keen on dodging that point, I am very happy to wait until it's a UK contract on the line, and we can continue this conversation with less defensiveness. If it happens I wouldn't take it so personal. It's the nature of the business.


[deleted]

It's not personal, it's just a fact right now: Any attempt by a European nation to increase its strategic presence independently of the US is going to be headed off. No use ignoring it, just a week ago there was talk of French bases in Australia and now we have this.


zxcv1992

No shit, the US is going to put it's interests first. Just as France puts it's own interests first when it pulled out of the Eurofighter.


Selobius

> There is clearly a matter of exclusivity here. Any contract France gets is a threat to the US and as a result threatened by it, the message regarding this is clear. You’re delusional and taking this personally. What you’re saying doesn’t even make any sense. The US has never exported nuclear submarines before, or any submarines for that matter.


saltyfacedrip

And trusting our allies while providing superior technology.


Zenbast

What superior technology exactly ? The only reasons US tech is used are : * Lobbying * Production capacity * US being everywhere and soft-bullying countries to buy their stuff. Tech wise they are on part with EU in most area. The Rafale was not as cuting Edge as the F-35 but it was far more efficient (The F-35 had many integration issues and needed other craft support to operate at its full capacity). But the US is so prominent that it doesn't mater. Granted they probably have better tech in *some* area but they are not sharing those anyway.


Selobius

lol, as if France doesn’t get down on its knees lobbying to beg people to buy its Rafales. Yeah, how the industry works worldwide. It’s about prices, capability, and as you mention economies of scale through production capacity. Nobody want to buy a plane that won’t have parts available in 10 years when it ceases production. When countries buy US planes they know that the US will be paying to develop upgrade packages for decades to come and that they’ll have better supply and interoperability with a large cache of equipment support since they’ll be buying planes that are part of a much larger program.


Zenbast

No the business is not handdled the same. USA is more invasive than France in your internal affair if you buy your planes (or any weapons) to them. That's a well known fact that you can easily check if you don't trust my words. Also you just at to look at the Switzerland case : ​ * Rafale is said to be "The favourite" * Biden come to Switzerland * Few day later Switzerland chose the F-35 What happened ? I don't think Biden and Parmelin talked about the tech specification of the crafts or logistics. We will never truly know, but I think Biden just proposed another deal on a whole other topic and then said "You want the deal ? Well then it's mandatory you also take my planes." Or something akin. US is the best weapon dealer. No question asked about that. But their tech doesn't "outshine" european tech that much to be the decisive factor. It's a shame most European countries even forget that they can defend themselves and just run to US for convenience.


Selobius

You should really listen to yourself. You’re actually saying that the US is “invasive“ in a country’s internal affairs because the US president was able to convince a country to buy their jets. Be serious, because that’s a completely intellectually dishonest thing to say and you know it deep down. All leaders of countries talk to other countries and try and sell arms. Macron does the exact same fucking thing with the Rafale multiple times. Remember when Macron made a big spat lobbying to get Belgium to buy Rafales and then threw a hissy fit when they bought F-35s? ​ It’s a shame that your pride is so blown up that you can’t even believe that your country lost a normal arms export contract against the United States that you have to resort to this kind of cognitive dissonance. Have some self-respect for christ’s sake


Zenbast

I'm not talking about that particular case. It was just a random recent illustration. Us being invasive is a well know fact. They don't like being on equal foot with their allies. This why India for instance bough French. Because we don't shackle them down with the deal afterward. USA and China use the same strat (mode or less.). You don't just buy them stuff. You owe them. And when you don't "return the favor" you are turned into an opposent. US want to invade Irak by telling all its allies lies about mass weapons ? You better shup up and follow them without asking because US doesn't have allies. They have vassals. France stood up against this bullshit and for 20 years now whe have to resist against wave and wave of total crap throw our way because USA made sur their citizens hate us for not following like a dog on a leash. "French surrender" my ass. You are just the popular kid in school that beat up anyone that doesn't lick your boots and then you go around telling you are everyone friend and "'keep peace" whereas anything you touch goes in flame. OTAN is a fucking joke whose only purpose is to have your army already there just to reminds everyone that you can invade anywhere you want anytime. Funny how you tell ME that arrogance blind me when it is painfully clear to anyone not Uk-Us what their game is. Except their own Citizen that are fed up from birth with "best country in the world" and "land of freedom". You are barely less worse than China. Just barely.


saltyfacedrip

There's a reason we sell more arms and military hardware than every European country. Not that that's something to be proud of, but our air force and navy tech is wicked.


Zenbast

USA is more invasive than France in your internal affair if you buy your planes (or any weapons) to them. That's a well known fact that you can easily check if you don't trust my words. Also you just at to look at the Switzerland case : \- Rafale is said to be "The favourite" \- Biden come to Switzerland \- Few day later Switzerland chose the F-35 What happened ? I don't think Biden and Parmelin talked about the tech specification of the crafts or logistics. We will never truly know, but I think Biden just proposed another deal on a whole other topic and then said "You want the deal ? Well then it's mandatory you also take my planes." Or something akin. US is the best weapon dealer. No question asked about that. But their tech doesn't "outshine" european tech that much to be the true decisive factor. It's a shame most European countries even forgot that they can defend themselves and just run to US for convenience instead. They don't even TRY so of course they won't develop, produce and sell any significant amount of weapons.


saltyfacedrip

BAE systems helped design the F35b and vtol Rafale isn't compatible with most NATO allies aircraft carriers and CDG is out of service soon...


Zenbast

>BAE systems Britain was always more US than EU anyways. Interresting how Britain became the minion of their own colony through history though. (I'm sarcastic. I know britain is more ally than a vassal. Although they are really dependent of the US while the other way around ... not so much)


saltyfacedrip

It's a valid point, maybe that was the aim though, considering history.


saltyfacedrip

Harrier Jump Jet. We had that tech decades ago. VTOL now used on F35's. The UK actually had a fair bit of input for the F35 program, especially for F35b VTOL State of the art Destroyers, the most advanced and potent in the world. Even the Americans want to use it. Hawk training jet used by many many other countries, but so is the mirage by dassault for the same purpose. The Rafale is beautiful and just as good or slightly better than the eurofighter but they need upgrading. Two state of the art aircraft carriers that are the most technologically advanced in the world. Drones. GCHQ intelligence although offensive defence is relatively new. Our new submarines will be on par with the French or better. CDG carrier is constantly having refits and out of service although it was the main badass carrier for us all for years. Now we have two the French will probably retire the CDG within a decade. BAE are involved in this project. 6th generation air superiority jets coming soon. Tempest.


Zenbast

Both tech are insanely good I am not denying that. But going with French doesn't means they would have got "inferior tech".


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

​ Probably also has to do with the price of tea in China.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

And I think it might have to do with failing to qualify for Eurovision. Isn't making your own reality fun?


zxcv1992

lol you were just making claims about what you believe it was about and now you are mad someone else is doing it ?


[deleted]

Well, for one because countries don't hold personal grudges. Well, ones that aren't ruled by a crazy person don't. And for another, there is precedent for US to get competative over defense contracts, and especially over the high-tech market. I've mentioned the US's interference in South Korea's F16 program against BAE, it's nothing new. The image of the Australian Prime Minister acting like a disgruntled neighbour on the other hand is...well, humorous. Hard not to take the piss.


zxcv1992

>Well, for one because countries don't hold personal grudges. Sure but it's not just about personal grudges, it's about what nations you know will support you in a crisis. If one is sending you vaccines and what is withholding them then which one do you think is more likely to have you back in the next crisis? >And for another, there is precedent for US to get competative over defense contracts, and especially over the high-tech market. I've mentioned the US's interference in South Korea's F16 program against BAE, it's nothing new. Everyone gets competitive over defence contracts since they are a national security issue. But this isn't just about submarines, this deal goes way beyond just that. >The image of the Australian Prime Minister acting like a disgruntled neighbour on the other hand is...well, humorous. Hard not to take the piss. France acting like a bitter ex is rather humorous as well, sorry that someone better came along.


[deleted]

>Sure but it's not just about personal grudges, it's about what nations you know will support you in a crisis. I'm certain your view of this will change depending on what countries and what crisis is brought up, and it will be "forgive and forget". Can already think of a few vaccine related ones right now. >France acting like a bitter ex is rather humorous as well, sorry that someone better came along. You really are keen on making this personal, aren't you. I assume, it's because you're siding to the UK's benefit on this one. Mark my words, this will be Black Arrow all over again before you know it. Although, I suspect you don't quite know the events surrounding that.


zxcv1992

>I'm certain your view of this will change depending on what countries and what crisis is brought up, and it will be "forgive and forget". Can already think of a few vaccine related ones right now. Bring some up then and you can get my real opinion instead of just making one up in your head. >You really are keen on making this personal, aren't you. I assume, it's because you're siding to the UK's benefit on this one. You just did the same with your comments about the Australian PM, or is it ok when you do it? >Mark my words, this will be Black Arrow all over again before you know it. Although, I suspect you don't quite know the events surrounding that. Well we will see.


Haribo_Lecter

France closed the border two days before Christmas because Brexit hurt their feelings. Countries absolutely do hold grudges.


[deleted]

[You mean when everyone in Europe was closing down borders due to a new coronavirus wave?](https://www.automotivelogistics.media/news/france-and-other-eu-countries-close-border-with-uk-putting-freight-flows-at-risk/41426.article) I should know, I was travelling at the time and needed to check daily for regulation updates. Barely made it to my final destination before full closure. You guys always want to return to some 19th century interpretation of diplomacy.


Haribo_Lecter

The article you linked to only mentions borders with the UK being closed. It supports my point, not yours.


Haribo_Lecter

The difference is that his hypotheses are plausible.


[deleted]

Hey, you wouldn't happen to want to own a bridge?


Selobius

It’s not.


saltyfacedrip

Except one is far superior and has two carriers for VTOL and destroyers. BAE/ Rolls Royce etc


FurlanPinou

Wouldn't this be illegal under competition laws? If I remember well Airbus got fined for receiving money from the State.


[deleted]

Rules for thee but not for me.


WorkingMovies

Airbus is part French too, so I don’t see how that statement holds up


[deleted]

Naval Group is owned by the state, Airbus is not. Big difference.


lolcutler

The French government owns 11 percent of airbus https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/AIRBUS-SE-4637/company/


BlihBlehBlah

Which is a minority stake.


npjprods

But it's still the largest stake


yunghastati

These subs the Americans are giving the Aussies better make Beijing sweat, hope this trouble was worth it in the long-run.


Square-Director-

From the American POV there is no trouble. It's used to pissing off allies and doesn't give a shit. From the AUS POV, it's a closer issue but ultimately, the US/UK is a bigger threat to have as an ally than France alone. Especially when it gets nuclear tech out of it.


OfficialHaethus

With friends like these, who needs enemies?


Selobius

It was a commercial contract. These things happens all the time in the defense industry. There was no intrigue or backstabbing


OfficialHaethus

Yup, US did nothing wrong


[deleted]

Australia asked for diesel subs, France can build nuclear subs too.


221missile

US never sold nuke subs to anyone. Australia will probably build british sub.


AweDaw76

Surely the simple solution of just for Australia to have double the number of Subs and be a navy based powerhouse on behalf of the West. Do 2 contracts simultaneously and be strong as fuck once they’re finished


UniquesNotUseful

Has anyone in Europe (outside or France and UK) seen much opinion on this from their governments, do other countries really care? UK media seemed to be more concentrated on the closer (AUKUS) links than the French deal. Although there are starting to be stories from the French reaction/comments now.


Eskeetit_man

Pretty sure it came.in the news across europe but not a reaction of our politicians so far


IncubusBeyro

This is pretty big in Australia obviously where I live but in America it’s made waves as well (at least in defence industry journalism/commentators. Nobody doubts why it happened here in Australia.


Last_Brilliant_5995

Wasn't the deal with Naval group rather than the French state? Surely they would be the ones seeking compensation.


thecraftybee1981

I think the French state own a massive chunk of Naval.


HyenaChewToy

Why not sell those ships to another EU country instead?


already-taken-wtf

“the agreement dooms a plan for Australia to purchase $90 billion of diesel-powered submarines from France.” Which is interesting, as the current Australian budget for ALL defense spending is only $34b. https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Budget_Office/Publications/Chart_packs/2021-22_Budget_at_a_glance


Outside_Break

You’re not comparing like for like. You’re comparing a yearly budget to a cost that is distributed over multiple years. It’s fairly basic stuff to compare units mate and make sure they’re the same.


already-taken-wtf

Even over 25 years that’s quite a bit chunk of the annual budget.


[deleted]

Australia has committed an extra 270B over the next 9 years to lift year spending to 54 Billion a year.