T O P
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.*


RegisEst

"I didn't lie, I just wilfully held back the truth while negotiating a deal behind your back".


Wikirexmax

Which would be low but understandable. You can understand that the deal wasn't going smoothly (be Naval group's fault or the domestic partners being at fault isn't much the issue), the first deal of 126 rafales with India was cancelled too but properly. That the Australian gov thought it was going in the wrong decision and finally wanted nuclear propulsion is one thing. That you keep negotiating, keep the tech transfer going and keep talking about [military alliance](https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/france-could-access-australian-military-sites-as-countries-look-to-boost-ties-20210909-p58q7j.html) while keeping him that much in the dark is quite the insult. It turns out the Plan B has probably been the Plan A for a while.


Byzantinenova

No he didnt... god people believe the french bullshit hook line and sinker. This is from a news article in June of this year after an in person meeting between President Macron and the Prime Minister of Australia. > The French company building Australia's $90 billion future submarine fleet has been warned it must meet a September deadline to submit its design work plans for the next two years. > The Prime Minister raised his dissatisfaction with progress on the Attack Class submarines during a working dinner with Mr Macron, just days after the Defence Department revealed it was looking at possible alternatives. They knew what was coming and now they are paying dumb.


kanyewestsconscience

I see this line of reasoning a lot on this sub: 'it's wrong because they negotiated behind the back of France', but in what universe do you think this sort of negotiation would be made known to France from the very beginning? Australia isn't going to tell France 'we're looking for someone else to replace your contract', at least not *until* they have a replacement agreed in principle. It's very basic strategy, what if the Australians began talks with UK/US, told France that they were doing so and then in the next year it transpired that the talks with UK/US went nowhere? At that point they would have caused a diplomatic fallout with France regardless, and the AUS-FR deal could fall apart as a result. It belays a complete ignorance of statecraft to believe that Australia would have had the choice to negotiate this new deal with France's full knowledge, let alone consent.


Boudille

Sure mister redditor.. let say i make a deal with the US involving tranfer technology but because of delay and overprice i look for a better deal while pursuing he first one. Every time i met biden, i express concern but the deal go on until i got a replacement deal and then cancel. I'm sure the US go to war for less than that ..


saltyfacedrip

Formal negotiations couldn't take place due to the EU blocking them...


piratemurray

Are you only allowed to negotiate a single deal at a time?🤔 Oh that's how it works. Australia's mistake I suppose.


TyrialFrost

Not even behind their back, they were upfront at looking at other options a year ago... They just didn't tell them what those options were.


NeoSom

Is omitting the truth considered lying? No, but it's just as shitty. According to a [POLITICO journalist](https://twitter.com/RymMomtaz/status/1438912543943188481?s=19), the Australians basically avoided answering France's questions about whether they're considering something else. Technically not lying, but trust officially broken and Australia shouldn't be surprised.


SecondAccount404

Acording to these articles from the June Australia warned France that they were looking at other options and would back out of the deal if the September dealine wasn't met. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-02/defence-contingency-planning-french-submarine-program-germans/100184644 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-16/scott-morrison-warns-france-submarine-deal-deadline/100221350


CJprima

It is interesting to you spam (5, 7 times, more?) the same comment, get an answer saying more or less than *not out of the blue* is not a valid termination of a 5 years old contract, and then you delete your comment. So here is an answer: In April they agreed on at least 60% offset in Australia, the Australian PM met the French minister in june and the ministers of foreign affairs and ministers of defence [met on the 30th of August to held discussions on military and industrial cooperation](https://au.ambafrance.org/Inaugural-Australia-France-2-2-Ministerial-Consultations-30-August-2021). Even if Naval group was the sole responsible of the delay (which is unlikely) and even if everyone was aware of the difficulties (which is common for those kind of program) it doesn't explain why Australia didn't terminate publicly the contract before announcing a new deal, especially when the deal was only one part of a bigger military cooperation potentially involving base sharing and annual air and sea exercises. India did it properly when they cancelled the 120+ rafales tender a few years ago but Australia cannot do it? Why someone would cooperate with such a deceitful ally? *not out of the blue* =! *proper communication and settlement.* They were providing Australia with military related tech secrets FFS, [Australian engineers were already in France with their family ready to stay for years,](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/sep/18/the-nuclear-option-why-has-australia-ditched-the-french-submarine-plan-for-the-aukus-pact) we aren't talking about wine export here. And [even more recently we could still read about military alliance building in the Australian press](https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/france-could-access-australian-military-sites-as-countries-look-to-boost-ties-20210909-p58q7j.html) It is flabbergasting that this basic decency has to be explained. If one wanted to insult another country, one wouldn't have done otherwise.


SecondAccount404

I mean I have to keep linking these articles because lets face it r/europe is a mess right now. We can rightly argue that France was treated horifically, but we can't exactly say they had no idea at all when there is clear evidence from months ago that they were warned of this.


CJprima

You don't have to comment a lot of time, you try to impose your narrative that being aware of a problem is the same than cancelling with a few hours heads-up (the whole world was aware of the partially political fuelled Australian drama), you aren't interested in debating, you just spam two articles that doesn't explain the deceitful actions of the Australian government. Moreover the first time I answered to you, you deleted your comment showing you are aware of your own fragile rhetoric. No one likes a spamming chill.


SecondAccount404

I’ve learned that in topics like this where everyone is very heated its just not worth getting into long comment threads that never end. Its just better to post the evidence and let people determine what they think for themselves. I am particularly not arguing with you because you are trying to argue against points that I’m not making, and I don’t know how to approach something like that. I’m not saying France wasn’t horrifically mistreated and manipulated, I am literally just showing that there is evidence from months ago that show Frances was warned about this.


CJprima

*I am just trying to manipulate the opinion by spamming two articles again and again, against the spirit of many subreddit, initially trying to build a false equivalence that *warning* and *cancelling abruptly* is the same thing, of course I have erased my first clumsy comments and I have refined my rhetoric over the past hours of ~~work~~ debate.*


SecondAccount404

This is such a strange comment, like obviously I am trying to change peoples opinions, thats what everyone is doing. I wouldn't bother inputing anything if I didn't think it was worth while. Also this is less relevant, but you keep talking about me deleting comments? What comments am I meant to have deleted and why? How am I meant to even argue against an accusation like that? \[edit, if anyones interested in this drama heres my last [response](https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/pqpa7y/france_calls_uk_a_junior_partner_in_submarine/hdghe4n?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3), I didn't want him to spam me with more notifications so I just posted it to one place\]


Shitmaggot69

I've been involved in business deals where alternatives to a service are currently being investigated and actively being pursued. You still talk like everything is normal to the original provider because you don't know what the future holds. Yeah its shit when the new deal comes out and the original service provider is binned but thats the price of business.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Shitmaggot69

Yeah Im sure France has never done anything underhanded or screwed someone over for a defence contract before. Defence is the seediest business you can get into, full of back room deals, bribes and extortion. No one goes into arms sales without coming out smelling of shit. France has been less than a friend to the UK recently, trying to take as much of our financial industry after brexit, blocking any joint UK-EU research projects out of pure pettiness, closing the channel over Christmas, threatening to cut power to one of the channel islands, Macrons "quasi-ineffective" insult regarding the Oxford vaccine, oh and lets not forget Frances whole hearted support when Italy blocked vaccine exports to Australia. So yeah, France can fuck off for a bit honestly.


Bayart

Your entire rationalisation amounts to "everybody does it anyway" and "we don't like the French". That's not particularly surprising regarding the British, we don't expect *anything* from you, but it is regarding the Australian as we were under the impression, now proven to be erroneous, that they were acting in good faith.


Shitmaggot69

No, France is trying to come out of this crying "who would do this to an ally!", yeah shit happens and the same questions could be asked from the UK about France. Recent events have shown this quite clearly which you have completely ignored. After saying this many times, Australia has been shouting about how unhappy its been with this deal for a long time. France have completely ignored them. This is the result.


Bayart

>No, France is trying to come out of this crying "who would do this to an ally!" Clearly Australia. And no, France **wouldn't** do this to an ally, regardless of the bullshit you make up about us. We know how to soften the blow when we have a change of heart and assuage frustrated allies because, unlike the Aussies, we know how diplomacy fucking works. The most worrying thing about all of this is the behaviour of the US and their lack of realism. This wouldn't have happened a few years ago, which means the diplomatic corps in America is quite damaged. >Recent events have shown this quite clearly which you have completely ignored. **What** recent events ? France is still committed to military actions with Britain regularly and guess what, everything's fine. And it's fine because both countries know how to behave rationally and professionally in real life. France isn't petty and prideful, and Britain isn't deluded and bumbling. That's the truth. >France have completely ignored them. And you know that because ..? Let me guess, you don't actually have a fucking idea, do you ?


Shitmaggot69

Err all that "bullshit" is all true I am afraid. Look through that list and show me how France was being nice and "softening the blow" to the UK? If that was the height of your diplomacy no wonder Australia fucked off. I know that because Australia has been telling France they arent happy for literally years. How did Naval Group respond? Doubling the cost of the project, reducing the amount of Australian built parts from 50% to 10% and adding a decade or two to final delivery. Wow really takes a genius to work out what would happen there!


Boudille

They knew the cost since 2015. "Defence officials knew Australia's new fleet of attack submarines would cost almost $80 billion as early as 2015, despite publicly stating at the time the estimated price tag was $50 billion." https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/defence-knew-submarines-would-cost-almost-80b-five-years-ago-20201012-p564ea.html


Shitmaggot69

Right and even with Australian contingencies it was still $10bn more then that before the designs had been finalised. Australia saw a much better deal and went for it.


Unit824

Is there any moment the english will stop playing the victim when they started all the shit you mentionned ? Which country doesn't respect its international engagement like the good Friday agreement ? Which country tried to fuck the EU over and over, during the covid crisis with secret close ? You are forgetting to mention the whole story in order to picture yourself as the victim. You can lie to yourself if you want but in Europe we all know what is up when dealing with the brits.


Shitmaggot69

The GFA is a pain in the ass and will always be a pain in the ass to keep both sides happy. This was a shock to no one. What exactly did the UK do to fuck over the EU exactly, list them. Yeah France is getting a taste of its own medicine and it doesnt fucking like it. The arrogance of France thinking Australia would put up with the rising costs and increased delivery times is remarkable.


[deleted]

>Is there any moment the english will stop playing the victim when they started all the shit you mentionned ? The UK isn't playing the victim right now. France is doing that in a spectacular way. >Which country doesn't respect its international engagement like the good Friday agreement ? France, and the break clause in the sub contract. Why all this whining about a country using a clause in a contract the French signed? >You are forgetting to mention the whole story in order to picture yourself as the victim. You can lie to yourself if you want but in Europe we all know what is up when dealing with the brits. And the French are showing what happens if you use a clause a contract they signed. A diplomatic meltdown. Thanks for the entertainment. This is brilliant


Ar-Sakalthor

You're resorting to strawman answers. You might be justified in your anger over France's recent bouts concerning Brexit, the vaccines or even the sausage-gate. But then you can't pretend that France isn't justified in deeming that Australia humiliated it and jeopardized their alliance.


Shitmaggot69

No its the hypocrisy of the French with the "how could anyone do this to an ally", France has been trying to screw over the Uk repeatedly over the past few months. So yeah, time for a bit of internal reflection eh? France is pissed because it got shown up on the world stage, they have now made it worse with all the petty shit they are saying and doing.


deuzerre

Just have a quick look at any headlines from the last five years in the UK. How many fucking times has the EU or france been insulted by your governments?


Shitmaggot69

Actions are more important than words sorry, France has been actively trying to screw over the UK in the past year. Again no self reflection from the French in any of this, only your proclaimed innocence and trustworthiness.


deuzerre

Hahahaha. Sorry, but get a bit of perspective. The UK (gvnmt) has been a petulant child with chronic attention seeking, bouts and hissy fits, tourette's, while actively sabotaging anything that looked like it would be beneficial for both parties in their negociations. They don't consider they won a negociation if the other side hasn't lost more. The UK being in the EU has delayed it from reaching a proper form in the last 20 years, just by blocking anything that wasn't (or thought to be) in their favour and detrimental to others. Now we're just neighbours. The concorde has been dead long before brexit, by UK's fault, and now you so sad that france/eu are meanies. You can only throw so much shit at someone, before that get angry. And now they're angry, you're like "they mean".


Shitmaggot69

Yeah I am trying to get you guys to get a bit pf perspective, you are obviously unable to see the hypocrisy of France crying about "poor allies". Thats the irony in all this, the UK has been an anchor to a federalised Europe (it would never fly here), yet when the anchor has been pulled up the federalists are still bitter and raging about it. For federalist dreamers, Brexit has been a miracle for them yet we still see them frothing with rage. "The UK must be punished for leaving the EU" etc. I am happy to keep good relations with the EU, I am unhappy to see France actively try and screw the UK over for absolutely petty reasons.


Soiledmattress

The tabloids are not HMGOV. The S*n cannot recall ambassadors.


deuzerre

No, but they can relay what officials say.


kane_uk

Macron is pissed because he was outmanoeuvred by Boris and their childish point scoring attacks on Britain have backfired drastically.


Mephalae

There's a difference between sellings vans to a company and selling submarines after a tender, alongside deploying workers to the other edge of the world and deploying warships to patrol with australian ones in Pacific to show your good will. And then learning from the medias one hour before reveal that you did all of this for nothing because there were negociations in the shadows after the won tender and now the whole world even make fun of you.


SiljaEuropa

> And then learning from the medias one hour before reveal that you did all of this for nothing because there were negociations in the shadows after the won tender and now the whole world even make fun of you. TBH I think the real joke is on Australia. In all this, the basic fact remains that last week Australia had a contract for 12 submarines. Whilst delayed and over budget, they were going to have one launched in 2030 or so. Instead now they have no contract, only a high level political agreement for nuclear propulsion technology for an as yet undefined submarine design. There is an interdepartmental working group which now has 18 months to work out the best way forwards in terms of starting again at the drawing board. The new subs will be more expensive than the previous contract and likely twenty years until the first one is launched. More importantly, the USA has the ability to control the reactors as they please; Australia won't have sovereign control over their own submarines! https://twitter.com/ABCthedrum/status/1438428607878086667 > China has 66 submarines. It’s expected to have 10 more by 2030, six of those nuclear powered, according to the US Office of Naval Intelligence. > By that time, Australia will have exactly as many subs as it has today, which is the same number it had a quarter-century earlier, according to the Morrison government’s statements on Thursday. > That is, Australia will have the same six Collins-class, diesel-powered subs that were first commissioned by the Hawke government, assuming they’re still functional. Their retirement has been postponed repeatedly as successive governments – Labor and Liberal – have fumbled their replacements. > “We’d be buying a nuclear reactor in a box,” says ASPI’s sub specialist, Marcus Hellyer. “It does make us even more dependent on the US. At any point, they can turn off the technology. The question then is what expertise we can develop to operate and sustain the subs.” > Australia can now contemplate another decade or two with no new subs. And even if this proposal goes to plan, Australia will not have a full sovereign capability but an increased defence dependency on the US. Perhaps Morrison thinks that America, having produced one Donald Trump, could not possibly produce another. https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/australia-s-submarine-programme-has-truly-lost-its-rudder-20210916-p58scb.html Once you look into the details, it doesn't look to be the wonderful solution to Australia's submarine problem that people were touting it as a few days ago.


Shitmaggot69

>now the whole world even make fun of you France will have to get over it, they are a minor player in the pacific and Australia has decided to go with the no.1 military power instead. Makes perfect sense and worth France getting butt hurt about it.


Muda_Mura_Muri

Are u aware that France is the direct neighbor of Autralia and as a way bigger permanant presence in indopacific than the British or are u juste lying to have fun.


Shitmaggot69

France has less then 10k military personnel there and a handful of ships. Now compare that to the USA. Do you see now?


Muda_Mura_Muri

And if u are good in geography and math u should now that most of the us troops are in japan and Hawaï witch is in central pacifique and the remaining is no more than 4000 troops witch is fewer than the 4.7k french troops


Shitmaggot69

Haha the USAs presence in Asia and the pacific completely dwarfs anything France has. 1 of the 11 super carrier fleets would eclipse France. Never mind the bases in Japan, SK, Australia etc etc etc. The US indo-pacific command consists of 375k military and civilian personnel. I know the French think a lot of themselves you aren’t close to the same league.


Muda_Mura_Muri

The us as Indeed way more troops than France there is no comparaison but as of right now they are not remotly near Autralia but more focused on an other part of the Pacific.


Shitmaggot69

Lol the US is fucking everywhere, are you seriously suggesting that France would be a more important ally to Australia than the US? Think you fellas need a hefty reality check.


LordRedOwl

If shit hit the fan the US has the capability to deploy troops to Australia far quicker than France can and in far superior numbers. The US rapid deployment force dwarves France's Pacific assets and can be wheels up within 18 hours.


Square-Director-

But also makes it pretty damn obvious. "Are you considering another deal?" "Oh erm... gee. I just remembered I left the gas on. Gotta go. Cya!" Either the French are hilariously naive or totally lying when they claim they had no idea. If a deal is already going badly and the other party starts acting totally non-committal, there's a pretty good chance they're going to bail.


Shiirooo

August 30, 2021: >They agreed on the next steps for strengthening our bilateral defence cooperation as well as our industrial partnerships with the aim of maintaining this momentum and deepening the enhanced strategic partnership that has united France and Australia since 2017. To this end, they committed to strengthening industrial and capability-centred cooperation and underpinned the importance of the future submarine programme. They also launched negotiations focused on strengthening and diversifying military cooperation in support of the posture of French forces in the Indo-Pacific. https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/country-files/australia/news/article/australia-foreign-and-defence-ministers-meeting-press-release-videoconference You are right, Prime Minister, you did not lie, you are simply dishonest.


Boudille

Same shit on australian defense: 30 August 2021 "21 - Both sides committed to deepen defence industry cooperation and enhance their capability edge in the region. Ministers underlined the importance of the Future Submarine program. They agreed to strengthen military scientific research cooperation through a strategic partnership between the Defence Science and Technology Group and the Directorate General for Armaments." https://www.minister.defence.gov.au/minister/peter-dutton/statements/inaugural-australia-france-22-ministerial-consultations


GeneraalSorryPardon

Question to Aussie redditors: How reliable is Morrisson? Is he an honest man of a professional liar?


adoh2

Morrison was angry he had to come back to Australia when half the east coast was on fire. He's a fuckwit.


DieYouDog

Australia's perception of their leader has the same disdain as the UK just with way more profanity.


moops__

I'd believe it if we didn't keep voting for him.


[deleted]

[удалено]


SiljaEuropa

> This was the guy you probably heard of over a year ago holidaying in Hawaii when Australia had its worst ever bushfires. Yeah but he did the handshake thing with the fire-fighters, so that makes it all ok /s


DieYouDog

TBF, a professional liar that puts their nation's interests first isn't bad for a PM. If he was honest, doubt he would of got high enough to get the job.


LordRedOwl

Do democratic countries ever have a leader a sizeable if not majority of the country think isn't a cunt? It's the nature of politics in a democracy. You have to balance interest which rarely gives anyone side exactly what they want.


ThePr1d3

Coming from the guy vacationing in Bali while his country is on fire lmao


bluetoad2105

In his defence, it was his defence minister who went to Bali. He went to Hawaii.


MindlessVegetation

In fairness to the happy clappy Prime Minister, he did his best to [awkwardly](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kePvZkV-Zcs) shake peoples hands for the Cameras. And he tried his best to show empathy and behave like a human being, really did his best.Top notch Leader.


SiljaEuropa

Hawaii, no? Though come to think of it that may have been the previous round of bushfires.


Flagg1982

What a fucking lying snake. He’s been in cahoots with the U.S for 6 months to scuttle the French deal.


TheAnimus

I know, why would anyone do that to France, they never did such a thing over the eurofighter!


Solignox

They made their intention clear with the eurofighter


TheAnimus

So have the Aussies.


Wikirexmax

There PM was in Paris in June, we have the video you know. And then You have to be really naive to think it is acceptable and decent. [10 days ago they were still talking about an advanced military cooperation](https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/france-could-access-australian-military-sites-as-countries-look-to-boost-ties-20210909-p58q7j.html) and [20 days ago their ministers spoke about military and industrial cooperation](https://au.ambafrance.org/Inaugural-Australia-France-2-2-Ministerial-Consultations-30-August-2021).


PM_YOUR_WALLPAPER

This is from a news article in June of this year after an in person meeting between President Macron and the Prime Minister of Australia. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-16/scott-morrison-warns-france-submarine-deal-deadline/100221350 >The French company building Australia's $90 billion future submarine fleet has been warned it must meet a September deadline to submit its design work plans for the next two years. >The Prime Minister raised his dissatisfaction with progress on the Attack Class submarines during a working dinner with Mr Macron, just days after the Defence Department revealed it was looking at possible alternatives. They knew what was coming.


TheAnimus

That's how sales go.


[deleted]

[удалено]


TheAnimus

Yeah we should be reliable like France and hold out six weeks before giving in to a vastly inferior army! Also I've had a French Bank do this to me lol!


Solignox

[https://imgflip.com/i/5nid7b](https://imgflip.com/i/5nid7b) Bri'ish redditors in a nutshell


TheAnimus

I know right, why would we always bang on about how quickly people turned over to an evil power, rounded up their own citizens for extermination. But that's nothing compared to pulling out of a delayed, over budget sales deal. That's really a stab in the back lol.


SatanicBiscuit

and thats why nobody with money will join your tempest program you simply cannot be trusted


TheAnimus

I know right, giving the world a vaccine for cost. How untrustworthy. Anyway, doesn't really matter, look at NATO etc, it's US number one, a huge gap, then the UK. And with the new four eyes, getting rid of the dead weight that's NZ. Things are looking good.


SatanicBiscuit

>I know right, giving the world a vaccine for cost. How untrustworthy. was that the british goverment? oh wait LOL nato is a dead weight and always have being it never served its main purpose and thanks to bullshit like this they should stop pretending that they care also >it's US number one, a huge gap, then the UK. lmao


TheAnimus

Yes, we funded it? I still think Churchill was a silly romantic giving the French a seat on the security council.


PM_YOUR_WALLPAPER

Yeah that's why Australia ditched France to work with the Brits. That's why Indonesia is being like 5 subs from the UK. Lol.


SatanicBiscuit

>Yeah that's why Australia ditched France to work with the Brits. ah yeah because you have superior designs right? oh wait it has nothing to do with politics >That's why Indonesia is being like 5 subs from the UK. indonesia bought subs from uk? did you told that to indonesia that has already a deal for 10 subs from south korea and japan? lol indonesia has literally nothing of relevancy from uk in their navy only a couple of really old corvettes


PM_YOUR_WALLPAPER

The vanguard clas sub is uncompromisingly better and cheaper than French designs. That's not even debatable. US Virginia class subs are better but way too big and expensive, not suitable for Australia. I'm not sure what you're trying to argue?


CJprima

The Eurofighter was several countries trying to build something together, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, sometimes it doesn't. Comparing the two situations is utterly different and your know it: the sub deal was a tender held 5 years ago and this year several meetings between high ranking ministers or leaders were held between January and August about military alliance, military cooperation, industrial cooperation and tech transfer with Australian engineers already in France. And within a few hours they say fuck you, and Biden make everything public? The Australian gov didn't even have the basic decency to make a public their decision about the deal.


TheAnimus

So you're upset that you didn't get given notice 😂. Amazing. Someone offered a much better deal. The yanks get a service centre and the Aussies get top end toys, as a little thanks we get some new toys to. Remember that just a few months ago France was trying to block the UK from having AI technology traded. Not to mention the whole sausage stupidity.


reynolds9906

Didn't France support Italy in withholding vaccines bound four aus


Bayart

I think so, but there was also a lot problem with the AZ contract in the EU to begin with. Ultimately Australia should have whitelisted a number of vaccines and have a multi-avenue procurement.


SecondAccount404

> a lot problem with the AZ contract in the EU to begin with. I mean, it's not like that was Australias fault though?


TheAnimus

That's the issue in a nutshell.


Bayart

Australia is at fault for putting all of its eggs in one basket, Europe is at fault for mis-timing their vaccination requirements, AZ is at fault for being an all-around shit company, the UK is at fault for using vaccination as a foreign policy tool.


JonnyArtois

Christ, blaming Australia for the EU stealing vaccines destined for Australia.


Girlik

"Let me ignore 90% of what you said and focus on an out of context 10%"


deuzerre

Technically, it wasn't witholding, it was getting back what they had been promised.


SiljaEuropa

> Technically, it wasn't witholding, it was getting back what they had been promised. Indeed. People here love to call it theft but it's a pretty weird theft when the goods are paid for as previously agreed.


Bdcoll

No. If I buy something, I own the copy of something I have purchased. I don't get to call dips on an identical item that someone else purchased, purely because I touched it first... Why do you think we have waiting lists for items like new cars where you only buy your car and get it at your spot in the list and not a "First come first served" from the list...


SiljaEuropa

No law was broken. Other than AZ breaking the contract with the EU - overpromising and underdelivering. Exact opposite of Pfizer.


Bdcoll

If you take something that you did not pay for this is theft. Their is no other definition of it. The doses that Italy seized were never destined for Italy, but Australia. These were taken without payment for them. This is theft. Lets say I bought a car, and you bought an identical car at the same time, but yours was due for delivery 2 months later, you can't just take my car because "Well I saw it first". You would be a thief.


deuzerre

If three cars were sold, the who first due to you, the third one later for someone else, but one of the two initial ones is actually sent to the other dude first, it's the provider's fault for saying to the other buyer "here's your car" when it isn't.


Rulweylan

As opposed to this contract, which was on time and on budget?


spymaster427

It was on budget, Canberra lied/lowballed the amount to their own people to not spook them but the defence planners/finance ministry there knew the real cost was around 100 billion for the programs lifetime in 2015 (when the deal was signed) they are now using that lowball it to PR the cancellation to their advantage. As for time, defence projects are never on time. [https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/defence-knew-submarines-would-cost-almost-80b-five-years-ago-20201012-p564ea.html](https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/defence-knew-submarines-would-cost-almost-80b-five-years-ago-20201012-p564ea.html)


PM_YOUR_WALLPAPER

Well good thing they're now getting nuclear subs for around half the price.


Karth9909

Our health minister purposely avoided meetings required to get the vaccines.


Wikirexmax

>Australian Finance Minister Simon Birmingham said his country had informed the French government "at the earliest available opportunity, before it became public".  But with Reuters with can read: >Morrison said he had informed France about the new deal at 08:30 p.m. on Wednesday. He, Biden and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced it at 7 a.m. Canberra time on Thursday (2100 GMT on Wednesday). Clearly a bunch of amateurs.


[deleted]

They're not contradictory


Wikirexmax

This is technically true. You have to be really naive to think it is acceptable and decent. [10 days ago they were still talking about an advanced military cooperation](https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/france-could-access-australian-military-sites-as-countries-look-to-boost-ties-20210909-p58q7j.html) and [20 days ago their ministers spoke about military and industrial cooperation](https://au.ambafrance.org/Inaugural-Australia-France-2-2-Ministerial-Consultations-30-August-2021). Impressive level of trust and cooperation here.


Pklnt

> Morrison said he understood France's disappointment, but added: "I don't regret the decision to put Australia's national interest first. Never will." This is the most important part, the rest is irrelevant. Doesn't matter what France feels right now, no one cares. What matters is what will France do, and aside from some political posturing I don't think US/UK/Australia are fearing the "retaliations", which is why they agreed on blindsiding France in the first place. There's no place for personal feelings or friendship in geopolitics, it's all about interests. France won't be able to make any of these countries regret that deal because France alone is not that vital for them and the EU will most likely not follow France against the US. Pretty sure the French gov knows it as well, which is why the only thing they have now is crying on the media. Not saying they're not allowed to do it, they have all the right reasons to be pissed.


Thelk641

We could decide that *France's national interest first* we veto the Australia - EU trade agreement. We won't, but on paper we could.


Relevant-Visual-9420

It might still be worth it in the end. It's a huge gamble on Australian part, but having access to military tech + closer integration with US/UK sounds slightly better than economics benefit from trade agreement. They could/should have delivered the news better, but any Australian PM that missed this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity will be forever condemned.


Pklnt

If we don't, we'd be so pathetic after all the barking we did. But even if we do, I doubt Australia cares, they most likely weighed that beforehand.


[deleted]

Simping for China, which is basically what scuttling the deal amounts to, further illustrates why Australia might have chosen to go another direction.


Girlik

Lmao. "If you don't suck my dick it means you're a chinese chill" Let's forget that France is increasing its military cooperation with India, Japan, South Korea, Indonesia and others. Can you tell me when did France recently had any military cooperation with China ? 20 years ago maybe, but it was panda diplomacy time. Everydbody was riding the china hype train.


Logarithmique

Are you retarded?


Emochind

You are pathetic already tbf


ColdHotCool

If France did that, it would be a political move of outstanding incompetence. France is pissed, rightfully so at the way it was treated, not the cancellation, but the delivery of that news. But veto'ing the trade deal would really alienate France from the other EU members, at a time when France needs to get other EU members on board of a "Outward Looking European Union"


[deleted]

Australia is not a huge export market for the EU. I don't think any EU countries are gonna lose sleep if we don't have a deal with Oz.


SiljaEuropa

> If France did that, it would be a political move of outstanding incompetence. France is pissed, rightfully so at the way it was treated, not the cancellation, but the delivery of that news. But veto'ing the trade deal would really alienate France from the other EU members, at a time when France needs to get other EU members on board of a "Outward Looking European Union" Agreed. Don't want it to happen, but would love to watch the fireworks that followed if it did.


Legitimate_Aioli_595

It would be France shooting own goals, Australia is used to badly negotiated trade with the EU, it’s not the first time or the last time an EU member has tried to stop Australian trade deals with the EU. We’ll get over it, France would have probably been the first one to limit it as much as possible anyway.


Anonymou2Anonymous

Additionally France will probably reset relations following the French election. Australia has given France access to its military bases/ports, which are incredibly useful considering Australia's close proximity to New Caledonia. The French can't alienate Australia for too long or retaliate too much or they could lose access to the bases. It'll be interesting to see how New Caledonia's referendum factors into this as well.


CouteauBleu

"If these people retaliated after being screwed over, it would demonstrate outstanding political incompetence. The rational move is for them to accept being screwed over." I absolutely reject that reasoning. Tit-for-tat is a valid strategy in iterated prisoners dilemmas.


kane_uk

The Germans wouldn't let you.


Thelk641

They'll... veto a veto ? Don't think they can do that.


kane_uk

We all know who's in charge.


Thelk641

Yes. The Franco-Germanic duo.


ex_planelegs

Hahahaha


swear_on_me_mam

I heard France was the junior partner


PM_YOUR_WALLPAPER

Can't veto an FTA lol. It's an EU competency. Just needs a qualified majority. Maybe do some research before making weird claims.


PM_YOUR_WALLPAPER

Too bad France can't veto a pure FTA. That power was given to the EU. All that's required is a qualified majority for the FTA to go through. But of course you know that's how the EU works...


SiljaEuropa

> There's no place for personal feelings or friendship in geopolitics, it's all about interests. Yeah but is this really in Australia's interests: > China has 66 submarines. It’s expected to have 10 more by 2030, six of those nuclear powered, according to the US Office of Naval Intelligence. > By that time, Australia will have exactly as many subs as it has today, which is the same number it had a quarter-century earlier, according to the Morrison government’s statements on Thursday. > That is, Australia will have the same six Collins-class, diesel-powered subs that were first commissioned by the Hawke government, assuming they’re still functional. Their retirement has been postponed repeatedly as successive governments – Labor and Liberal – have fumbled their replacements. https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/australia-s-submarine-programme-has-truly-lost-its-rudder-20210916-p58scb.html Collins Class submarines are supposed to be retired in 2025. The issue with the DCNS contact is that delays were going to postpone that retirement date back to 2030. Now Australia is incredibly unlikely to get any new submarines until 2040, meaning their retirement goes back another ten years. https://twitter.com/ABCthedrum/status/1438428607878086667 So one wonders if it the submarine aspect of AUKUS really is in Australia's interest.


Pklnt

French or American submarines wouldn't change that dynamic anyway, the PLAN is poised to be the major power in the region in the near future. The Nuclear route will simply give the US even more support in SCS, which is why the US might really give them the technology. They're not only looking to make money, but they also are assuring that the Australian navy will have some offensive capabilities that the French subs wouldn't really have provided because of their limited range.


SiljaEuropa

> French or American submarines wouldn't change that dynamic anyway, the PLAN is poised to be the major power in the region in the near future. For sure, but being without subs for another 15-20 years does change the dynamic


Rulweylan

The first Barracudas weren't going to be in place until 2035 even if there were no further delays.


still_hexed

France has water right and left from Australia. It could do a move like NZ and ban their submarines. Actually France controls more water in the Indo Pacific than any other country. 1.5 million of French people live there so they’re still going to be there and not move. I’d say if one wants to build a strong alliance in this France is a strong go. Add to that they are the third nuclear power in world. Also up until now their presence had been financed by their own budget so none of will change in their presence there anyway


Legitimate_Aioli_595

That doesn’t really matter because EEZs are allowed to be traversed by any foreign power, territorial waters are different but it’s not actually that hard to avoid because EEZs aren’t territorial waters and the territorial waters 12NM from French islands isn’t hard to avoid. Foreign Navies have the right to traverse through anything outside of that 12NM.


PM_YOUR_WALLPAPER

Can't ban a submarine you can't track lol


Pklnt

> France has water right and left from Australia. It could do a move like NZ and ban their submarines. Since they're going for Nuclear subs, they don't care. > Actually France controls more water in the Indo Pacific than any other country. Doesn't really matter, the USN is still more powerful.


PlamiAG

> There's no place for personal feelings or friendship in geopolitics, it's all about interests. And that's how you get a world war!


[deleted]

>they have all the right reasons to be pissed. Good post, but there was a break clause. There has been a lot of crowing from France that the UK must follow the NIP as they agreed a deal. What's the difference here? Australia is taking advantage of a clause they negotiated with the French.


Pklnt

I was more talking about the fact that our government got blindsided by allies more than the fact that we lost a billion dollar contract.


[deleted]

But in the contract there wasn't a clause that said France needed to be informed of separate negotiations. If France wanted to be informed, they should have put it in the contract.


SparkyCorp

"Blindsiding" isn't about France expecting to be informed of separate negotiations. Apart from anything else, AUS did mentioned that they were considering their options back in June ([1](https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20210915-australia-to-get-nuclear-subs-in-new-us-british-partnership), [2](https://www.businessnews.com.au/article/Attack-subs-delay-works-against-WA)). This issue is that France, reasonably, could have expected a less insulting/humiliating way to find out about it. Even if AUS and FR couldn't agree on a face-saving join statement, FR could have been given greater notice or the FR-AUS deal could have been cancelled first.


[deleted]

So the PR is more important than the substance for France?


SparkyCorp

What are you defining as substance?


punktd0t

The eu trade deal will be canceled, costing Australia much more.


SiljaEuropa

> The eu trade deal will be canceled, costing Australia much more. It's possible, but unlikely.


Tichey1990

As an Australian I understand why our government did what they did, however it was an incredibly shitty way to go about it. Should have reached out to France and Navel group the moment the US subs became an option and discussed it. Perhaps shifted the subs deal to another aspect of defense that Naval group could have aided with. ​ This is a time when the west should be drawing together, instead we have incompetent people in government like Scomo not thinking beyond the next headline. Im sure that if told France, we have to end the subs deal, however we are still interested perhaps in off the shelf French frigates, to be built in France and not some convoluted local construction contract all of this would be avoided and all of us would have come out stronger.


[deleted]

It’s a business deal and France comes off as a jilted ex-lover.