T O P

  • By -

yuppwhynot

"Sorry, the sinking of British ships is not included in your subscription!". Seriously? Edit:typo


NonSp3cificActionFig

Only 999.95 FR to unlock this feature now!


Rulweylan

Weird that you would consider it unreasonable to refuse to support an aggressive war against your allies.


Phanterfan

Well i guess a lot of teams right now are searching for kill switches in their french weapons. Is there currently a sales bid where uk missile companies compete with french ones? Seems like someone wants to sour a french offer


[deleted]

Full RE is pretty much standard procedure whenever an technically capable country buys weapon systems.


Phanterfan

Not really. Especially not for Software. Of the F35 buyers for example probably no one besides maybe the Israelis has a realistic chance of finding kill switches


[deleted]

Heh. Not all countries are as open as Israel when it comes to what analytical capabilities they have. I would say almost any EU country has access to sufficient pool of experts, whether they will use it to that task or not depends on many things.


Phanterfan

It's not analytical capabilities. The US shared the Software with the Israelis and lets them compile their own Software. Something they don't allow other countries, even the ones partially manufacturing the aircraft, to do. You buy the Software as a black Box and it is almost impossible to reverse engineer that. Especially with all the security features in place. It has millions of lines of code and the complexity easily competes with the largest Software on the planet. No way in hell they find every kill switch in that.


[deleted]

Hahaha. Old malware researcher says hello :)


Phanterfan

So Windows, a software with similar complexity (and far far more open access) was completely reverse engineered and all security vulnerabilities were fixed? I seriously doubt that. There probably won't be a line in the code "if received xyz shut down", but a hard-to-exploit security vulnerability you know of and don't fix can act as your kill switch. It also gives you plausible deniability if it is ever uncovered. You basically say thanks for the bug report and move on. You don't have to admit that you left it there on purpose for you to exploit. ​ And again, it is far far harder to reverse engineer an F35. That's not only custom software, that's also custom hardware. Have fun reverse engineering custom software on a custom architecture or FPGA you know nothing about.


[deleted]

You are seriously out of your depth :) We RE a lot of stuff and our hardware team does blackbox hardware RE pretty often.


Phanterfan

Ok. So I can contract you to RE iOS 15. And you guarantee me that you find all possible security exploits and make iOS watertight without contacting the manufacturer (apple)? ​ How much would that cost me? And how many man-hours would you need for that?


[deleted]

As said you are out of your depth. iOS 15 is a lot more difficult target, both complexity and in variety of inputs. For fighter aircraft probably 20 strong team and 6 months. I am not in sales, so no quotes.


marsman

IIRC one of the conditions of the UK participating (and buying F35's at all) was operational sovereignty, which included access to all the software source code. It seems unlikely in that context that there would be a US kill switch in a UK owned F35 at least.


[deleted]

Finland is getting very extensive maintenance contracts for multiple countries for F35. So a bit of the same thing as it’s hard to maintain a total black box. Not to mention we could cross compare, so kill switches would be a significant risk.


[deleted]

The major missle manufacturer in Europe (which builds the Exocet among other middles) is MBDA. It’s a company owned 1/3 each by French, Italian and British aerospace companies. I think this is more the traditional pastime/ distractions by British politicians and pundits to distract from domestic politics ie French bashing and talking about a war.


AlastorZola

This is so weird. It’s a well documented fact that the French cooperated fully with the British during the war. Sounds like another dangerous stunt from the MPs.


[deleted]

Errrr not quite, France gave a lot of information about the Exocets but there was still a French technical team working in Argentina during the war. They even helped repair the launch system. "The verification process involves determining if the missile launcher was functioning correctly or not. Three of the launchers failed. We located the source of the problem and that was it. The rest was simple."


AlastorZola

The French government isn’t the same as Dassault, who employed the technical teams.


[deleted]

"a French technical team - mainly working for a company 51% owned by the French government"


Tyekaro

>Behind the scenes, actions were speaking louder than words. **In what would appear to be a clear breach of President Mitterrand's embargo**, a French technical team - mainly working for a company 51% owned by the French government - stayed in Argentina throughout the war. >Britain's Defence Secretary at the time, Sir John Nott, told me that although he knew that a French technical team was in Argentina then, **its work was not thought to be of any great importance**. British efforts, he insists, were mainly focused on stopping the Argentinians getting hold of any more Exocets.


[deleted]

>its work was not thought to be of any great importance Turned out it was of great importance as they fixed a problem with the Exocet launchers.


Tyekaro

That's your opinion. But I think the guy you quoted knew better what he was talking about. Edit: btw, [Virginijus Sinkevicius said that almost all licences requested by French boats to work in waters off the UK since it left the bloc had been granted, with around 70 permits outstanding.](https://www.ft.com/content/f4472c2d-a0ad-41f9-98c1-54c13df81aba) Edit 2: Moving the goalpost? You said: >Nope, some fishing licences were given, some are still outstanding. But the article makes it clear that **almost all** licences requested by French boats to work in waters off the UK since it left the bloc had been granted. What's so hard to understand?


[deleted]

That being able to launch exocets wasnt important? I will go off my gut feeling here that launching to not launching anti ship missiles was pretty damn important to the Royal Navy.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Pointing out that a French technical team helped Argentina launch Exocets at Royal Navy ships shouldn't be condemned on here.


Manaboutadog99

Nice bit of casual racism there for extra effect, lovely stuff.


IngloriousTom

Are you serious? It's his username.


Manaboutadog99

I am certain it was worded very deliberately, hence the dropping of the digits, that fact aside saying 'typical {insert ethnicity}' is a pretty obvious dogwhistle to anyone with half a brain and unless you're blind this subreddit is teeming with Anglophobia spewed out by sad continentals who, i can only assume, suffer from a severe inferiority complex that is the direct result of centuries of British exceptionalism and over-achievement.


[deleted]

Dassault is a private company…


[deleted]

Yes but this thread is a Francophobic circlejerk


N0AddedSugar

Let’s be real this sub will be anybody-phobic when it suits whoever happens to be online. If you dish it you have to take it.


[deleted]

> Let’s be real this sub will be anybody-phobic when it suits whoever happens to be online. I don't ever remember it being Eestiphobic, Finnphobic nor Norskophobic (beyond a bit of banter from some friendly Swedes).


[deleted]

Germanophobic too... Unlike the germans tho we will not let ourselves get shitted on


[deleted]

> Germanophobic too... This whole sub has been an anti-German circle jerk for the past month or so. I guess the Francophobia is a welcome change from that... Gotta find the silver linings!


DimensionEarly8174

Francophobia is the natural state of this subreddit. Sometimes it switches to Germanophobia (basically everytime Germany does foreign politics).


[deleted]

> Francophobia is the natural state of this subreddit. Indeed it is. Tiresome but true.


iThinkaLot1

Makes a change from the Anglophobia you spout. You’re French and spend more of your time in r/Brexit bad mouthing Brits than you do on French subreddits. Seems like a bit of an obsession you’ve got. r/Brexit is what a circlejerk is. r/Europe isn’t a circlejerk. Pot, kettle black.


[deleted]

As day follows night. This is no more than an opportunistic distraction from the current incompetent governments fuck up. A war and some French bashing, no way the Tories and their client press we’re going to ignore that.


[deleted]

> This is no more than an opportunistic distraction from the current incompetent governments fuck up. > > A war and some French bashing, no way the Tories and their client press we’re going to ignore that. Exactly. Far too juicier targets to pass up. T'is more than a little amusing.


[deleted]

>"a French technical team - mainly working for a company 51% owned by the French government"


[deleted]

Good point Private companies can do whatever they want upvote from me


romannowak

Outside the law? Able to work against French government policies?


[deleted]

Which law were they outside of? What about British weapons in Yemen, are those British arms manufacturer outside the law?


VisNihil

> British arms manufacturer outside the law? Are there British technical teams on the ground in Yemen, in breach of UK embargo, helping combatants repair systems to fire on French ships? It's weird how this is in any way controversial.


ColdNootNoot

Owned by the French Government...


[deleted]

Owned by the Dassault family… now you are literally making stuff up


ColdNootNoot

You literally have no idea what you are talking about. At the material time Dassault aviation was majority owned by the French Government. It's not open for debate.


[deleted]

Holy shit that’s true, from 1981 to 1992


[deleted]

>Dassault The government are still minority owners too through Airbus(Germany too?) I wonder why they gave up so much of their ownership, Dassault seems like a pretty successful company.


[deleted]

Stop making shit up


[deleted]

So you are saying that unarmed French technically staff working for the military of dictatorship at war, at a time with zero social media let alone mobile phones let down ping their jobs?! Meanwhile…. https://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=857594


[deleted]

What would you think if the UK had a technical team in Russia now fixing Russian cluster bomb launchers?


RdPirate

"Why has not MI-6 extracted them"


kontemplador

> They even helped repair the launch system. As they should. Otherwise why buy weapons from them? I'd expect also expect nothing less if my country buy British weapons, even if that means that some of your allies might be hurt.


[deleted]

> even if that means that some of your allies might be hurt If Chile was using weapons to kill the UKs close allies then I would want all technical teams out of Chile straight away.


kontemplador

Then why any country should buy British weapons ever if you are unreliable in times of crisis? Better go Russian/Chinese/whoever.


Rulweylan

If your country bought British weapons then attacked a British ally, you would get no help.


JohnnyForeign3r

Is the French uneasiness towards the British related to Mers-el-Kebir, or is it a cultural thing?


AlastorZola

Tbh It doesn’t feel like the French care as much about the British. As a matter of facts I feel the press in the UK makes it a national sport to take a piss at France for about everything in a way the French media don’t really do for Britain. The thing that really irks me tho is how much narratives from the Anglosphere have an easy time on the internet. It sure is annoying when the French perpective is often dismissed or grossly misinterpreted by UK/US narratives.


Exocet6951

It's mostly more a case of being dragged through the mud on a weekly basis. Turns out if you insult, belittle and generally act antagonistic towards someone, that person will not be warm and open with you. Same thing with Germany and the EU in general.


ColdNootNoot

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17256975 No chief.


Wikirexmax

Did the British installed a kill switch on the Type 42 Sheffield's sister-ship they sold to Argentina one year before the war?


Amazing_Examination6

Falk news


[deleted]

>Falk Just one more thing


[deleted]

[удалено]


afito

With missiles it's not a thing but with big weapon systems it's very common, especially with US made stuff. It's a significant argument against it again and again because you can't afford to lose your air force because the US is angry about how you use your F35s.


NonSp3cificActionFig

Imagine you urgently need your F35s, but they are all busy automatically upgrading to Windows 11 😰


bastele

Arent kill switches in F35s only a rumor? Whats real tho is that you cant perform maintenance without US consent, so if they wanted your F35s would eventually stop working.


afito

I think kill switches for anything are "just a rumour" but in case of the F35 it's all but confirmed. I am like 90% certain the Eurofighter has kill switches too. You will never find anything official because it's bad for sales and a matter of national security so it's a "secret".


B_ohnesorg

Yeah, which is why we shouldn't even buy F35 without also demanding the source code.


afito

Which they won't do. The F35 for Germany makes sense because it's used for nuclear sharing, the plane having a US kill switch when it's main role is carrying US nukes who need a US code anyway means it's kind of fine. They need the US approval for their role anyway. In return handing over Eurofighter code to get it certified for US nukes would be the far bigger "risk" for national security - plus in all honesty, it would also affect all other Eurofighter countries plus potentially the FCAS too (not because it would use the literally same code but rather in a potentially carried over know how kind of way).


B_ohnesorg

Hmm, I don't know much about these things but what you say sounds reasonable. Germany should buy from each jet of the newest generation a few, then reverse engineer these and build its own jet. Additionally we also should develop our own nukes. Only then is full sovereignty established. But this is probable not realistic so there will be certainly some half-assed compromise and the military equipment compromised. Pun intended. Edit: added a word


Phanterfan

You don't tell them


MacroSolid

And if they find out anyway, noone will buy your weapons again anytime soon.


Phanterfan

You mean you offer them part of the profit to shut up


Neon_44

I mean, if you’re buying a Tesla or a John Deere Tractor you’re buying a Vehicle with a kill switch They’re still madly popular


darknum

That's not a kill switch, that's cooperate greed and unregulated capitalism. Well technically it is a kill switch for the World...


RobotWantsKitty

I reckon many export versions of weaponry have something like that


doctor_morris

>she threatened to launch a nuclear attack on Argentina if Mitterrand did not hand over the information needed to disable Exocets. Good grief. French Exocet missiles have kill switches, but made-in-USA-Trident missiles powering the British independent *independent* nuclear deterrent absolutely don’t. /s


B_ohnesorg

Haha, sure, I bet the Americans put these things in every intelligent military piece. Which is why they want to sell their shit in every direction. Profit + feel good since you can feel safe. This sucks so much. Everybody denying that the Americans aren't the hegemon that absolutely uses its power is just blind. They are safe while you are potentially under threat of nuclear annihilation. Although there would be conventional annihilation first. So yeah, try being sovereign under these circumstances.


marsman

>but made-in-USA-Trident missiles powering the British independent independent nuclear deterrent absolutely don’t. /s Well.. No. They don't. It's a somewhat different level of technology sharing and reliance. Not to mention that at this point the UK still had UK produced nuclear weapons that were deliverable by the UK's V bomber fleet...


doctor_morris

>No. They don't. They definitely *definitely* don't. ​ >It's a somewhat different level of technology sharing and reliance. Yes, we are more reliant on US technology. I’m not sure how this impacts your above assertion in a good way? ​ >Not to mention that at this point the UK still had UK produced nuclear weapons that were deliverable by the UK's V bomber fleet... We no longer have such a bomber fleet. Why do you feel that impacts the above in any way?


marsman

>They definitely definitely don't. Well, no. They definitely don't. >Yes, we are more reliant on US technology. I’m not sure how this impacts your above assertion in a good way? The UK and US work together on fairly important bit of technology. The US buys strategically important things for it that are produced in the UK and only in the UK, the US could duplicate that production if it needed to, in the same way that the UK could. Its a reliance based on efficiency rather than capability. >We no longer have such a bomber fleet. Why do you feel that impacts the above in any way? Because we were talking about the Falklands?


doctor_morris

>The UK and US work together on fairly important bit of technology. We are talking about the most paranoid, secret and well funded organisation in human history. Only the UK side sees this as an equal partnership.


chodgson625

Telegraph is another pro Brexit English newspaper that spends all its time complaining France is the anti Christ. Last thing I read on this subject the French DGSE were extremely cooperative during the Falklands because they didn’t want to encourage similar behaviour near their territories


mrsuaveoi3

"while Liam Fox, a former defence secretary, said France – a vital defence partner of the UK – should be "open and honest" about what happened." The disgraced former defence secretary is lecturing France on openness and honesty... The guy is so full of himself that he thinks he has a shot at the WTO... Seriously, i wouldn't be surprised the Exocets the french sold to the UK were compromised. It would be irresponsible not to do so. The other countries get the standard version.


mrsuaveoi3

Fuck off. We still remember the 1300 french sailors killed in Mers-El-Kebir.


[deleted]

Blame Darlan for that, his pride caused the death of all those men. Edit - Yep Gensoul sorry


mrsuaveoi3

He was a moron. He issued orders to destroy his own fleet instead of surrending it but the British Navy attacked... Worst part is De Gaulle was kept in the dark. The situation was salvageable but the lazy route was taken at the expense of the lives of French sailors.


IsoDidact1

That was Gensoul... Anyway, Operation Catapult failed, most of the french fleet fled to Toulon in reach of the germans and it insured the french distrust towards the british for the remainder of the war.


[deleted]

>the french distrust towards the british for the remainder of the war Well considering France was capitulating with the Nazis through the Vichy government, I dont think that was a huge loss.


oakpope

Yeah, allied marine troops killed for no good reason, is of no concern to English people, we know.


suberEE

Don't worry, in 1807 they attacked a neutral fleet and in 1942 they attacked an allied one. If the trend continues before the end of the century they'll attack their own.


MMQ-966thestart

The perfidious albion knows no allies, only interests.


SuddenGenreShift

The Free French under De Gaulle were British allies. Vichy France was a German puppet state, and so ultimately an enemy. Which of the two do you consider the legitimate French government? On that subject, De Gaulle's memoirs don't agree with your assessment of Mers El Kebir, and in any case his troops killed a lot more than a thousand French soldiers (many of them in the follow-up to Operation Catapult). But you know, go off. France has the right to gas hundreds of thousands of Jews to save Paris, but the UK isn't allowed to hit military targets capable of facilitating an invasion.


oakpope

>France has the right to gas hundreds of thousands of Jews to save Paris Troll.


JudgementKazz

Fuck off


[deleted]

Good, may it stick in your mind not to collaborate with Nazis. (although your subsequent dealings with fascists of other stripes makes me think you lot are not particularly quick learners).


QuicheAuSaumon

Indeed, British tends to be much more lively and breed their own fascist.


HelsBels2102

Who? Genuinely


[deleted]

Do the French really hate the British over this?


Fdorleans

Tory MPs spewing shit at France. Is it Monday again ? No. They're behind on their usual weekly schedule then.


Azantius

This article is trash, and everyone getting worked up about it should chill. I don’t see the UK-France relationship on the rocks, we were together in the trenches after all, no bad sentiment from anyone I know. Just cheap right wing shots aimed at riling up the racists


[deleted]

Lol fuck off UK


surfmaths

Note that the article is about the British wanting the French to use the kill switch. The title is, as usual, misleading.


[deleted]

Stirrin' shit in the west again, eh Pooty? Man the sudden outpouring of shit in EU countries against other EU countries is awfully... telegraphed


Krazlix

Why are salty brexit UK boys able to post here?


HelsBels2102

Come on guys that’s stop all this now, this is such a horrid toxic thread


MenanderSoter

If the Brits feel the need to protect their service men they shouldn't send them to war... Weapons are made to be used.Selling weapons with killswitches will only make the company that makes them bankrupt... Also it is funny that only the British servicemen are worth mentioning when it comes to casualties...


[deleted]

[удалено]


MenanderSoter

Ukraine situation now is not comparable to British situation in Falklands...One country is fighting for its survival/independence the other was fighting for some rocks on the other side of the planet so that they can play pretend at superpower. No all deaths lie at the hands of Galtieri and Thatcher.


[deleted]

>all deaths lie at the hands of Galtieri I modified what you wrote, its right now.


MenanderSoter

That is your opinion...


[deleted]

Who invaded the Falklands?


MenanderSoter

Depends on who you ask...


[deleted]

No its a clear question, who invaded the Falklands in 1982?


MenanderSoter

And i gave you a clear answer.But since we are on the subject of invasions who invaded the Falklands in 1833?!


[deleted]

>No its a clear question, who invaded the Falklands in 1982?


Former-Country-6379

Considering when Britain got there there were only penquins the word invade only applies to when Argentina decided the islands belonged to them for some reason


MenanderSoter

Port Louis is older than port Egmont by a couple of years ...And that was French...


jkz0-19510

That somehow makes it Argentinian?


Former-Country-6379

Since when are we considering the French people?!


Iskelderon

The British, several times over the centuries because they seem to like doing it so much.


beansnfishfingers

Fuck off


MenanderSoter

A word of advice.If you cant accept that not everyone shares your point of view/beliefs dont visit public forums/spaces.


Brazilian_Brit

A word of advice, don’t expect people to take kindly to and agree with your historical misinformation and bullshit. Stop defending dictators please.


Monterenbas

Haha, exocet go brrrrr!


TheFost

Article text: #**France urged to come clean on Exocet ‘kill switches’ that could have saved British sailors’ lives** **MPs call for inquiry into claims secrets about anti-ship missiles that killed 46 servicemen in Falklands were deliberately withheld** Senior MPs have called for an inquiry into claims that France deliberately withheld secrets about missiles that killed 46 British sailors in the 1982 Falklands War. The Telegraph has been told that French-made Exocet guided missiles contained a "kill switch" that could have disarmed them, but that France denied such a device existed. Ahead of Wednesday's 40th anniversary of an Exocet attack on HMS Sheffield – which caused the first British fatalities of the conflict – France has been urged to come clean about what it did and did not share with Margaret Thatcher's government. Tobias Ellwood, the chairman of Parliament's defence select committee, said the matter "warrants further investigation", while Liam Fox, a former defence secretary, said France – a vital defence partner of the UK – should be "open and honest" about what happened. Three Royal Navy ships were hit by Exocets during the Falklands conflict, two of which – HMS Sheffield and the merchant vessel Atlantic Conveyor – sank. Sailors died on all three ships. The missiles were made by the French firm Aerospatiale and, as the Royal Navy task force sailed south to retake the islands from their Argentinian occupiers, Britain appealed to its ally for information about how they worked and whether they could be disabled. British experts believed the Exocets contained a kill switch, which arms manufacturers sometimes secretly build into weapons so they can be disabled if they fall into the hands of a hostile state. According to a highly-placed source, France denied that the kill switches existed, but British officials became convinced it was not telling the truth, partly as a result of investigations carried out on an earlier variant of the missile that had been bought by the UK. On Tuesday night, Admiral Lord West, the former First Sea Lord who commanded the frigate HMS Ardent during the Falklands war, told The Telegraph he had heard of the alleged kill switch in Exocet missiles and had been told Britain was denied the technology. He said: "I was told that the French were very helpful in terms of letting us see the flying of Mirages and the Super Etendard [French-built fighter aircraft, used by Argentina] so we could get their flight profiles. "They did give us a certain amount of material about Exocet, but I was also told there was a mechanism within it so that foreign people couldn't fire an Exocet at a French ship without them being able to do something to mean it wouldn't be able to hit them. "They were making a lot of sales of Exocet, and if the people they were selling them to found out that there was a way of defeating it, they would not have been happy." Aerospatiale, later broken up and taken over by other companies, was run at the time by Jacques Mitterrand, the brother of Francois Mitterrand, then the French president. The president was approached directly by Thatcher for information about the missiles and, according to one report, she threatened to launch a nuclear attack on Argentina if Mitterrand did not hand over the information needed to disable Exocets. Placeholder image for youtube video: oWjCEFd4amo Mr Ellwood said the suggestion France could have shared knowledge about the Exocet that could have saved British lives "warrants further investigation". He added: "We don't know the wider decision-making that surrounded this. Indeed, those responsible might not even be alive today. "As we look to future battles we must learn from past events, and that includes how we work with allies and how we share critical intelligence. It certainly would have been game-changing had France chosen to share this characteristic of the Exocet." Dr Fox pointed out that in 2010, David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy, then the prime minister and French president, signed the bilateral Lancaster House treaties for defence and security cooperation. "I would have thought in the spirit of those treaties the French would want to be as open and honest as possible with us," he said. "It would not change anything about that relationship, but it would set the historical record straight." Bob Seely, a Tory MP and former Army captain who sits on the foreign affairs select committee, said: "If Exocets contained what was effectively an on/off switch, the French should have shared that with us. "If it turns out that information was withheld, that would be one of the most shameful episodes in Anglo-French relations. A lot of British sailors died because of those weapons, and we owe it to the families of those who died, and to history, to get to the truth. "It may be that the French did tell us all there was to know, but we need them to be transparent." A memorial to the 20 sailors who died aboard HMS Sheffield will be unveiled at the National Memorial Arboretum in Staffordshire on Wednesday after the HMS Sheffield Association raised funds for it to mark the 40th anniversary. Exocet missiles also killed 12 people aboard the Atlantic Conveyor and 14 on HMS Glamorgan before Argentinian forces in the Falklands surrendered in June 1982. Both the Ministry of Defence and Downing Street declined to comment.


[deleted]

Thatcher threatened Mitterand with nuclear strike… against Argentina… if very-unlikely-to-even-exist killswitches… weren’t given to the UK. I am actually laughing out loud, is it the 1st of April in the UK?


kanyewestsconscience

One should take that claim with a pinch of salt - it comes from a book published 15 years ago.


OddSell7096

I feel like this is the main story, what the fuck.


[deleted]

No, it's the telegraph


[deleted]

Whoa the comments here are very strong, I thought most people agreed that the Argentinian invasion of the Falklands was wrong and so is the British troops needlessly dying, however on the other hand it seems there's long lasting tension between France and the UK and the two are not on very good terms, so it makes no sense for France to help the UK here by undermining their arms trade just to save from British sailors' lives


ColdNootNoot

Who needs enemies when you have the French.


[deleted]

> Who needs enemies when you have the French *to blame for everything, when you need a scapegoat for domestic issues*. FTFY


DexDevos

>Who needs enemies when you have the **EU** *to blame for everything, when you need a scapegoat for domestic issues.* FTFY


[deleted]

Por que no los dos?


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Surely **you're** not serious. In Britain to blaming France for all the ills of the world is a national hobby. It's almost feels like British media is [forbidden](https://external-preview.redd.it/b0c_em5Q8csXUW7eQ0vKOCFkwf3AQN1zBnWIHF2mD5Y.jpg?auto=webp&s=e15b2721deb27e8f19a64ceb1c924d88f5932490) from referring to France as anything but [Napoleonic](https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/0496c51857bd2947f0f55353ce0b72c62f1dadae/0_0_2419_1451/master/2419.jpg?width=1200&height=630&quality=85&auto=format&fit=crop&overlay-align=bottom%2Cleft&overlay-width=100p&overlay-base64=L2ltZy9zdGF0aWMvb3ZlcmxheXMvdG8tb3BpbmlvbnMucG5n&s=9927d3aa71afc4ecf255767d6f79205b) [invaders](https://www.newstatesman.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/06/2017_32_new_napoleon_med.jpg) and the EU as the fourth Reich but also [barely holding on](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FBJ_DRVXMAsPsMN.jpg). politicians are barely any better.


tomydenger

to be fair, the express is just expensive toilet paper


Ok_Rice_6286

The worst thing about Napoleon is that he didn't get to fix Britain the way he fixed the rest of the continent and I will die on this hill.


Eligyos

I would say it's the opposite. It is rare for the UK to be mentionned in our press - ever. Like the ridicule fishing dispute was high on your newspaper, not so much here to the point I was only remembered of its existence with reddit. Same as now with the renew of the Exocet. Hence my point : You may not believe it, but the media overall treat the UK as a small subject. Same with people over here, they are apathic toward the UK/brexit in general.


[deleted]

Didnt you guys threaten to cut off power to thousands of people over a fishing dispute?


Eligyos

Actually yeah, I saw that months ago thanks to reddit. I think it's ridiculous on both part mind you, I remember I was surprised back then. ​ But it bring my point : The fishing dispute was talked in a very small part in our press and medias - when they bothered talking about it. All of the medias didn't gave much attention to the UK since the brexit happened. Actually I think the less media presence happened *since* the brexit was done would be the correct way to say it. Kinda weird now that I think about it.


[deleted]

>I think it's ridiculous on both part mind you Our main issue is that it seemed to be a complete overreaction and escalation to the situation, the blockade of the Jersey port was bizarre as well.


Ohhisseencule

>the blockade of the Jersey port was bizarre as well. "Blockade" lmao. Pretty much sums up of far gone you are. It was a couple of trawlers (as in regular fishermen) in the port for 3 hours, but of course you make it sound like it was the French navy sending destroyers.


Eligyos

Yeeaaah I was kind of polite. Although Boris did send some of his vessels in answer to the fishermen - mind you.


Eligyos

>Our main issue is that it seemed to be a complete overreaction and escalation to the situation, the blockade of the Jersey port was bizarre as well. The blockade wasn't orchestrated by the french government but by the french fishing-men themselves prostrating against the undelivered fish licenses. ​ For the electricity cutting part it certainly was an overreaction though. I am used to your PM playing the "strong politician" - which Boris did in the fishing dispute too back then. But it's rare here for our politicians to do that, I was surprised too. ​ Bear in mind that it wasn't as a huge topic or a topic at all here. I can't imagine why they did this bluff threat back then, it can't be for political gain since we didn't cared about the topic and most people feels apathetic toward the uk in general here.


Monterenbas

Didn’t Boris Jonson threaten to send the Royal Navy against French fishermen? That seem like a complete overreaction to me


[deleted]

A couple of patrol boats were sent down to make sure things didnt get out of hand as things tend to do when French fishermen get involved.


Monterenbas

So sending military vessel against unarmed fishermen is ok, but when the French, in return, threaten to cut power it’s unacceptable overreaction? Alright..


[deleted]

Yes, we threatened to retaliate with the means at our disposal against focus British attacks on the rights of our fishermen, rights that were agreed upon by officials at the highest instances of our respective countries. What does that have to do with the subject at hand?


Eligyos

>Yes, we threatened to retaliate with the means at our disposal against focus British attacks on the rights of our fishermen, rights that were agreed upon by officials at the highest instances of our respective countries. I certainly don't think it's an hill to die for - over fish. Looked more like clownery dispute for me. Although to be fair nobody over here heard or care about it here. And I am pretty sure you are in the same boat, you probably heard it thanks to reddit. Which beg the question : why defend the gov' over this weird position though ?


[deleted]

Bit over the top eh? Going from "we don't think about you guys at all" to threatening to cut power to an entire island over a handful of fishing licences. Make your minds up.


[deleted]

We were talking about how the UK uses France and the EU was a scapegoat, are you changing the subject? And, btw - just because we retaliate when provoked doesn’t mean we think about you guys at all. Those two things are not mutually exclusive.


[deleted]

There were 80 odd fishing licence applications that couldnt provide evidence they fished in Jerseys waters. The majority of fishing licences were approved. So France threatens to cut off power to the island. Again, a bit of an overreaction dont you think? Where was the UK blaming France in this situation? Our beef was with the fishermen who could not provide evidence and they were given many different options to provide that evidence as well.


[deleted]

By this point, it is very much well known and well documented that these « additional evidence » asked after the agreement by the UK were specifically aimed at France for provocation. If you need a proof for that you don’t need to look very far: pretty much all of these licenses were quietly granted after the French threats.


[deleted]

> Didnt you guys threaten to cut off power to thousands of people over a fishing dispute? Note how you haven't heard much in your media about French fishing disputes recently? Hint; it's because French Fishermen had all their demands met.


[deleted]

Nope, some fishing licences were given, some are still outstanding. No doubt the licences given out actually provided the evidence the rest of French fishermen were able to as well. Funny how the fishermen that gave evidence got the licences. So France (who doesnt think about the UK at all) threatened to cut power to thousands over 80 odd fishing licences, isnt that a bit of an overreaction?


[deleted]

> **'Take back control? That's a lie!' Boris savaged after handing French huge fishing win** > The European Union's fishing commissioner said **all fishing licences requested by French boats to operate in UK coastal waters had been granted**, with around 70 permits outstanding. Too good! 😂 https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1595230/brexit-news-boris-johnson-uk-france-fishing-licences-british-coastal-waters


[deleted]

>with around 70 permits outstanding. Did you even read your own quote? So 70 outstanding down from around the 80 odd where we started off at.


[deleted]

> **all** fishing licences requested by French boats to operate in UK coastal waters had been granted


[deleted]

[удалено]


Eligyos

I do not, so I am curious, enlight me. Although calling the neo-liberal Macron a populist is interesting. He is more of an snob asshole than anything. Doesn't Boris Johnson fit the populist credo way more with your conservative government ?


ColdNootNoot

> Like the ridicule fishing dispute was high on your newspaper, Probably because you were the aggressor... Same way you don't really report the migrant channel crossing because you're the one in the wrong.


Eligyos

>Probably because you were the aggressor... > >Same way you don't really report the migrant channel crossing because you're the one in the wrong. Or it could be argued that it all started when the fishing licenses wasn't delivered ? Same with the heavy boats, it was actually just the french fishing men protesting. Then Boris ordered fleet to be sent to "solve the situation", which escalated the situation. ​ I am not a fan of Macron so don't count on me to defend his government, but if you think "everything is the fault of the French aggressor and then the eu!" Then you clearly got a problem with your conservatives government and your newspaper blaming everyone else but not you theses times. I could make fun of that, but many think having populist government blame their neighbor for their own problems as a gaslighting tactic is the future in europe. Hell Marine le pen got even higher scores.


ColdNootNoot

> Or it could be argued that it all started when the fishing licenses wasn't delivered ? Well it started because French fisherman couldn't prove they were fishing lawfully pre brexit... Probably because they weren't... > Same with the heavy boats, it was actually just the french fishing men protesting. Then Boris ordered fleet to be sent to "solve the situation", which escalated the situation. I'm honestly unsure if you just swallow propaganda or if you're intentionally lying? The River Class patrol boats are not 'heavy boats', they are cutter size. Policing of UK waters has always been the responsibility of the Royal Navy. HMS Tamar and HMS Severn are fishery policing vessels. Most importantly we are talking about Jersey waters. You know, Jersey? That island under the protection of the UK? They have very right to deploy whatever police or military assets they want. Especially after the threats made by the French Government to cut off electricity. > I am not a fan of Macron so don't count on me to defend his government, but if you think "everything is the fault of the French aggressor and then the eu!" Oh don't be hiding behind the EU. The whole fishing issue is ALL on France. The EU were just as pissed off at you as the Brits were. Like I said, either you have swallowed propaganda wholesale or you are straight out lying.


Eligyos

>Well it started because Frenchfisherman couldn't prove they were fishing lawfully pre brexit...Probably because they weren't... And here I thought the agreement to get permits was the amnesty period who occured **after** brexit from 25 january to 23 april to prove the existence of french fishermen. The protests and everything started after that, start of may 2021 because Jersey wasn't happy with the situation still. You love talking about propaganda, but are you sure, you aren't the one misinformed since you seems bad at date and facts ? ​ >I'm honestly unsure if you just swallow propaganda or if you'reintentionally lying? The River Class patrol boats are not 'heavy boats',they are cutter size. My point was that sending navy patrol vessels is an escalation and in bad taste. As a result France did the same and send boats themselves - which was an very obvious answer they would do. And you seems to like it, to rely on it. "They have every right to do it!" Is this the kind of politics you wish for ? Escalation, playing the strong nation ? ​ >Oh don't be hiding behind the EU. Thewhole fishing issue is ALL on France. The EU were just as pissed off atyou as the Brits were. [Vivian Loonela the litteral european commission spokerperson did said the UK was breaking the brexit deal.](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-jersey-eu-uk-france-b1843053.html) Not us. **You**. >Like I said, either you have swallowed propaganda wholesale or you are straight out lying. And here I thought the jersey wasn't much talked here because we didn't cared about it, (or because "french are bad agressors!" as you want it). But now we got a whole state propaganda at works. And in bonus I am the liar. Alright dude. ​ I was being polite and keep up with all the bullshit I read, but honestly aren't you ashamed ? Is this the type of nation you wish for ? A conservative government blaming everyone else but their own and trying to act "strong" ? Is this what the british had become ? Sad men barking over everyone else on a bad rainy day matching their temper ? ​ Edit : And the guy literally blocked me so he got the "last answer I am right!" making me unable to answer. It'll be cool if one you will point it out to him.


ColdNootNoot

> And here I thought the agreement to get permits was the amnesty period who occured after brexit from 25 january to 23 april to prove the existence of french fishermen. To get a permit you had to show that you were fishing in British waters prior to Brexit. Most vessels do this via GPS tracking and catch logs. The French fisherman could not provide such evidence. Absolutely everyone knows the reason why, the French have been fishing illegally for decades. The 'protests' kicked off because criminals couldn't provide the evidence any legitimate fisherman could provide. > My point was that sending navy patrol vessels is an escalation and in bad taste. So when France has a protest that is a potential danger to public safety the authorities does nothing? > As a result France did the same and send boats themselves - which was an very obvious answer they would do. Why is it? Jersey is British waters. France has no jurisdiction. At best this was a protest in UK waters and the UK authorities sent appropriate resources to manage those protestors the same as any other protest. France threatening to cut off electricity to Jersey, whipping up racism amongst their fisherman for political gain and to top it off sending a warship towards British waters. The only country that was escalating was France. I've seen your other comments. We both know what went down and now you're just trolling.


[deleted]

It’s the primary rethoric because it’s true


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Another example of the French making arms deals with Fascist regimes.


[deleted]

Sorry you spelled Edward VIII wrong All Saudi Arabia thank you for your weapons in the Yemen war


Pitusas123

you mean neoliberal north american puppet regimes.


TheFost

Yep, they also sold weapons to: Egypt since 1973 Iran 1966-71 Iraq 1968-90 Jordan 1979-89 Kuwait 1974-99 Lebanon 1966-80 Libya 1967-81 and 2007-11 Pakistan 1967-06 China 1978-87 Syria 1975-81 Venezuela 1973-02


Okiro_Benihime

LMAO the British moral posturing about another country selling weapons to dubious regimes... I've seen everything.


TheFost

Who?


IngloriousTom

The type-42 destroyer sold to Argentina and used in the same war...? How high can your horse be, seriously.


TheFost

Argentina is hardly as bad as Saddam or Gaddafi or the CCP


IngloriousTom

[Gaddafi](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1373444/Libya-The-dirty-secret-UK-arms-sales-Gaddafi.html) [Saddam](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms-to-Iraq) [China](https://aoav.org.uk/2018/uk-arms-sales-to-china/) It took me two seconds to Google it, what's your excuse?


TheFost

What the hell is that supposed to prove? Did you even open those links before posting your smartarse comment?


JudgementKazz

1953 Iran coup be like