|
AUKUS
Nov 3, 2021 10:46:26 GMT
via mobile
Post by franklin on Nov 3, 2021 10:46:26 GMT
Well my take is that Macron denied knowing that the contract may not go ahead which frankly texting "will it be good news or bad" kind of undermines. The whole affair stems from Macron's insistence that he was blindsided which is clearly not the case but yes I get it if Scomo said its good news then he's right however releasing private text messages as proof with that reply would be extremely stupid and a catastrophic error. I suspect if a message of Morrison saying it was good news, then it would have already been leaked by the French. On the other hand, if there was a message saying it was bad news then I'm fairly sure that would've been the message leaked by the Australians instead of Macron's original question. Almost certain they've both been playing silly buggers. But as I've stated the issue was Macron denying knowing the deal was in jeopardy which from the text is clearly a provable lie. I agree a reply from Scomo telling Marcon "no its all good" would have been straight into the public domain.
|
|
|
AUKUS
Nov 3, 2021 10:54:48 GMT
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Nov 3, 2021 10:54:48 GMT
I suspect if a message of Morrison saying it was good news, then it would have already been leaked by the French. On the other hand, if there was a message saying it was bad news then I'm fairly sure that would've been the message leaked by the Australians instead of Macron's original question. Almost certain they've both been playing silly buggers. But as I've stated the issue was Macron denying knowing the deal was in jeopardy which from the text is clearly a provable lie. I agree a reply from Scomo telling Marcon "no its all good" would have been straight into the public domain. It depends what "bad news" meant to Macron at the time he sent the message, which we don't know and will probably never know. If Macron didn't believe/know there was a chance of the contract being cancelled then what he meant as bad news could have been the scope of the contract being reduced, or a reduced fee from Australia's side. The leaked messages are not conclusive of much, to me at least.
|
|
|
AUKUS
Nov 3, 2021 11:04:01 GMT
via mobile
Post by franklin on Nov 3, 2021 11:04:01 GMT
But as I've stated the issue was Macron denying knowing the deal was in jeopardy which from the text is clearly a provable lie. I agree a reply from Scomo telling Marcon "no its all good" would have been straight into the public domain. It depends what "bad news" meant to Macron at the time he sent the message, which we don't know and will probably never know. If Macron didn't believe/know there was a chance of the contract being cancelled then what he meant as bad news could have been the scope of the contract being reduced, or a reduced fee from Australia's side. The leaked messages are not conclusive of much, to me at least. True but what's the point of releasing that text IF it was unrelated Macron could easily debunk it which again would embarrass Australia and Morrison. If you're going to respond to this "outrage" from Macron you would better make dam sure you have your facts right but yeah it is a mess that's for sure.
|
|
|
AUKUS
Nov 3, 2021 13:33:41 GMT
via mobile
Post by followyoudown on Nov 3, 2021 13:33:41 GMT
There's nothing in that release that proves Macron is lying - mainly because what you'd need to know is what Morrison replied back to him before knowing who is lying. It all seems a bit handbags at dawn from both sides to be honest. Probably both of them have been lying or deceiving each other at some stage, and now both are in a race to see who can be most outraged at the other party doing exactly the same. Well my take is that Macron denied knowing that the contract may not go ahead which frankly texting "will it be good news or bad" kind of undermines. The whole affair stems from Macron's insistence that he was blindsided which is clearly not the case but yes I get it if Scomo said its good news then he's right however releasing private text messages as proof with that reply would be extremely stupid and a catastrophic error. Isn't part of the problem there was no contract it seems they were really only at the advanced tender stage otherwise a contract would have remedies for a breach / breaking it.
|
|
|
AUKUS
Nov 3, 2021 14:53:28 GMT
via mobile
Post by franklin on Nov 3, 2021 14:53:28 GMT
Well my take is that Macron denied knowing that the contract may not go ahead which frankly texting "will it be good news or bad" kind of undermines. The whole affair stems from Macron's insistence that he was blindsided which is clearly not the case but yes I get it if Scomo said its good news then he's right however releasing private text messages as proof with that reply would be extremely stupid and a catastrophic error. Isn't part of the problem there was no contract it seems they were really only at the advanced tender stage otherwise a contract would have remedies for a breach / breaking it. Again that's my understanding and that the costs had raised significantly too, I just think that's how France operates when it doesn't get "its own way" so to speak. I read that Macron's approval rating had improved after his "hardline" stance with the UK and Australia but he really does need putting in his place.
|
|
|
AUKUS
Nov 3, 2021 16:48:36 GMT
Post by mrcoke on Nov 3, 2021 16:48:36 GMT
But as I've stated the issue was Macron denying knowing the deal was in jeopardy which from the text is clearly a provable lie. I agree a reply from Scomo telling Marcon "no its all good" would have been straight into the public domain. It depends what "bad news" meant to Macron at the time he sent the message, which we don't know and will probably never know. If Macron didn't believe/know there was a chance of the contract being cancelled then what he meant as bad news could have been the scope of the contract being reduced, or a reduced fee from Australia's side. The leaked messages are not conclusive of much, to me at least. May I refer you to my post on 1st October. It is not a case of Australia cancelling; it is a question of whether or not Australia were prepared to go ahead with the next phrase. "Bad news" IMO means no, Australia were not prepared to go ahead. Australia were not at liberty to notify France of its confidential agreement with USA and UK. If we are advised correctly, Morrison did try and contact Macron before the announcement, which would have been agreed to be released at a certain time, but Macron was "busy". Like Johnson was as the COP26 when Macron wanted to have a word on fishing. The announcement was a bombshell to Macron/France as diplomatic protocol dictates they they should have been forewarned about it. Circumstances meant they weren't. The Yanks will know the feeling - remember Pearl Harbour!
|
|
|
AUKUS
Feb 22, 2022 15:19:04 GMT
Post by mrcoke on Feb 22, 2022 15:19:04 GMT
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on Feb 22, 2022 18:07:32 GMT
|
|
|
Post by backintheday on Feb 22, 2022 21:37:58 GMT
Typical French attitude If it doesn’t suit what we want then I’ll take the ball home
|
|
|
Post by xchpotter on Feb 22, 2022 21:47:33 GMT
Like the Aussies give a shit. They know the UK and US are a more trustworthy and reliable partner than the French could ever be.
|
|
|
Post by andystokey on Feb 22, 2022 22:43:48 GMT
Like the Aussies give a shit. They know the UK and US are a more trustworthy and reliable partner than the French could ever be. I think there are very few countries in the world you'd want on your side in a scrap if you look back through history. Anzac always did their bit as did the Poles during WW2 out of 200 odd countries in the world kess than a dozen come to mind easily. The French not being one of them.
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on Feb 23, 2022 7:41:04 GMT
Oh well, at least the French can't sabre rattle at Tasmania like they did Jersey
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Sept 6, 2022 15:52:06 GMT
|
|
|
AUKUS
Mar 13, 2023 21:36:54 GMT
Post by mrcoke on Mar 13, 2023 21:36:54 GMT
|
|
|
AUKUS
Mar 13, 2023 22:39:50 GMT
Post by leesandfordstoupe on Mar 13, 2023 22:39:50 GMT
Should never have signed up to it. We aren't in control or soverign.
|
|
|
Post by Dutchpeter on Mar 14, 2023 7:44:00 GMT
Should never have signed up to it. We aren't in control or soverign. There is a sort of precedent to this in the 1950s with the launch of HMS Dreadnought. Effectively it was British forward and American Aft (reactor etc). Some of the technology on current British submarines is not native, so I think we have more to gain here with long term trusted partners and allies. The boats will be British designed and built whilst borrowing a significant amount from the Current American Virginia class boats. I suspect this will be weapons launch system’s and possibly technology from the nuclear plant side. I could see the RN’s spearfish torpedoes staying put and I’d be surprised if the current sonar suite is ditched. The RN and American submarine service are very close and believe it or not the Yanks really look up to and still learn from our very own Submarine Service. American constructors like Electric Boat will be significant contributors so it’ll be interesting to see who does what. The bottom line is there’ll be more Royal Navy Hunter/Killer subs because of this, which can only be good and stops the worrying shrinkage of our submarine flotilla.
|
|