5 ms·

EU-Australia trade deal runs aground over submarine furor

31 points by nairboon 5y ago

pif 5y ago
> "Keeping one's word is the condition of trust between democracies and between allies," he said. "So it is unthinkable to move forward on trade negotiations as if nothing had happened with a country in which we no longer trust." Sad to see that Australia has taken the same path as Brexit UK (Northern Ireland anyone?) and trumpian USA (anything anyone?).
- throwawaymanbot 5y ago
  Northern Ireland voted against brexit as a Region.
- scanny 5y ago
  The French government has a selective memory when it comes to intergovernmental trust... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior
  - ElKrist 5y ago
    It's worth looking over the sections "Reparations" and "Foreign Relations" of the article you linked. "In 1987,(...) France paid $8.16m to Greenpeace in damages, (...) It also paid compensation to the Pereira family, reimbursing his life insurance company for 30,000 guilders and making reparation payments of 650,000 francs to Pereira's wife, 1.5 million francs to his two children, and 75,000 francs to each of his parents." "In June 1986, (...) France agreed to pay NZ$13 million (US$6.5 million) to New Zealand and apologise" "Although France had formally apologised to the New Zealand Government in 1986,[28] during a visit in April 1991 French Prime Minister Michel Rocard delivered a personal apology. He said it was "to turn the page in the relationship and to say, if we had known each other better, this thing never would have happened. (...) During a visit in 2016, French Prime Minister Manuel Valls reiterated that the incident had been "a serious error" France fucked up, admitted it and did gestures for reparations
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
mensetmanusman 5y ago
Since the purpose of these weapons are to raise the cost on a Chinese attempt to control the pacific… ignoring the money, I wonder if it is in France’s best interest for Australia to have nuclear subs instead of diesel subs.
- the-dude 5y ago
  If I am not mistaken, Australia insisted on the diesel subs while France would have rather supplied nuclear as it was the default design. This is also claimed to be one of the reasons of cost/timeline overrun.
  - marsouin 5y ago
    Quite right. France's expertise is definitely focused on nuclear subs, though conventional propulsion is said to be quieter.
  - WastingMyTime89 5y ago
    > They would have happily exported the nuclear subs I find that surprising. As far as I know France has never exported its nuclear subs and I think they would be very reluctant to do a transfer of technology for nuclear propulsion. The contracts with both India and Brasil were for diesel propulsion.
    - the-dude 5y ago
      I never said that, a sibling in this thread did.
    - killingtime74 5y ago
      France is building a nuclear one for Brazil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_submarine_%C3%81lvaro_Alberto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_submarine_%C3%81lvar...
- Ajef 5y ago
  If the subs being nuclear was the problem I'm sure french would have arranged for that. I can't find a source for this but the submarines in question are essentially refitted from being nuclear to diesel-electro for the export to other nations. I think the political view in Australia has changed from "we don't have nuclear infrastructure" to "we can build up nuclear infrastructure while the US builds the subs"? This is just my assumption. If I'm wrong on any of this please correct me.
rich_sasha 5y ago
Awkward. Fundamentally, a buyer can walk away from buying something. There's a contract and it surely has contingencies for these cases, no need for drama. That said, it does seem like the contract was broken in a really nasty way - apparently the French were told about it mere hours before the media announcement. So the French are very angry, and possibly over-reacting, but only a little, it seems understandable. It makes sense for them to lash out at EU-wide negotiations with Australia. But of course that affects countries that had nothing to do with the whole ordeal. The cynic in me wonders if there is an element of some kind of political point-scoring by the British; Britain is on course to sign a deal with Australia. Some kind of, "see, we can do it and they can't". Worth keeping in perspective that trade with Australia is a small slice of EU's trade overall.
- ElKrist 5y ago
  "Fundamentally, a buyer can walk away from buying something. There's a contract and it surely has contingencies for these cases, no need for drama. That said, it does seem like the contract was broken in a really nasty way - apparently the French were told about it mere hours before the media announcement." You're right on this. Handling the end of the contract is not a big issue: the whole program is actually a series of contract and Australia simply decided to not sign the next one for the next phase. Agreeing on the exact penalties amount does not seem 100% straightforward, but the first numbers seem to be ~ 250M € However, this is a substantial contract: Australia required major customization, transfer of technology, submarines must be built on the Australian territory etc. What France is the most upset about is that they've been kept deliberately in the dark by two of its "allies" (AUS and USA), until the last moment just before the press release. As an analogy, it's like getting married, making important commitments and one day your wife says out of nowhere: "I'm out and by the way I got married with your best friend today". The same day you see pictures of them with big smiles in the press. I see in many articles things like "it's just geopolitics, France should realize there's no room for sentiments". I'm unsure how the French and Australian population feel about that, considering their joint history. This seems like a very Trump/Johnson way of handling things: pure opportunism. Perhaps it's the new sad reality and France is definitely not ready for it.
- didntknowya 5y ago
g8oz 5y ago
Contracts can and do go bad all the time but the French histrionics over this affair are really quite something.
zibzab 5y ago
Ah, the Australian government is handling foreign affairs with the same delicacy it handled the pandemic...
- heigh 5y ago
  I’m curious in what way/metric you think the Australian Government handled (or mishandled) the pandemic compared to other countries? I’m Australian, living in Australia and I feel we’ve had and handled it remarkably well here compared to other nations. Worldometer aligns with this sentiment too.
  - stonith 5y ago
    Decided not to purchase Pfizer doses, choosing not to even meet with Pfizer, and instead relying on AZ which was then found to be higher risk. Decided not to build dedicated quarantine facilities, instead relying on hotel quarantine. There has been a breach on average every 44 days that the country pays the price for every time. Pay tens of billions to companies that recorded profits via Jobkeeper because the rules were poorly written. Ended Jobkeeper before the pandemic was actually over, so when the Delta wave hit the public wasn't in a financial position to actually lockdown, leading to significant outbreaks via industries that shouldn't have even been running (like construction). Conflicted messaging over the safety and efficacy of vaccines leading to increased hesitancy. The Federal Government did a terrible job that's been covered up by the states for the most part.
    - heigh 5y ago
      Completely agree with all your points. However, in terms of lockdowns overall messaging and management, while bumbling and less than perfect, we are way way better off than >75% of other nations. It helps being a sparsely populated island nation, sure, but overall our deaths and infections per million is low. Could it be better? Sure. Could it be way, way worse? Definitely.
  - zibzab 5y ago
    How did your country do compared to your kiwi neighbours?

31 points by nairboon 5y ago

pif 5y ago

> "Keeping one's word is the condition of trust between democracies and between allies," he said. "So it is unthinkable to move forward on trade negotiations as if nothing had happened with a country in which we no longer trust." Sad to see that Australia has taken the same path as Brexit UK (Northern Ireland anyone?) and trumpian USA (anything anyone?).

throwawaymanbot 5y ago
Northern Ireland voted against brexit as a Region.
scanny 5y ago
The French government has a selective memory when it comes to intergovernmental trust... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior
- ElKrist 5y ago
  It's worth looking over the sections "Reparations" and "Foreign Relations" of the article you linked. "In 1987,(...) France paid $8.16m to Greenpeace in damages, (...) It also paid compensation to the Pereira family, reimbursing his life insurance company for 30,000 guilders and making reparation payments of 650,000 francs to Pereira's wife, 1.5 million francs to his two children, and 75,000 francs to each of his parents." "In June 1986, (...) France agreed to pay NZ$13 million (US$6.5 million) to New Zealand and apologise" "Although France had formally apologised to the New Zealand Government in 1986,[28] during a visit in April 1991 French Prime Minister Michel Rocard delivered a personal apology. He said it was "to turn the page in the relationship and to say, if we had known each other better, this thing never would have happened. (...) During a visit in 2016, French Prime Minister Manuel Valls reiterated that the incident had been "a serious error" France fucked up, admitted it and did gestures for reparations
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

mensetmanusman 5y ago

Since the purpose of these weapons are to raise the cost on a Chinese attempt to control the pacific… ignoring the money, I wonder if it is in France’s best interest for Australia to have nuclear subs instead of diesel subs.

the-dude 5y ago
If I am not mistaken, Australia insisted on the diesel subs while France would have rather supplied nuclear as it was the default design. This is also claimed to be one of the reasons of cost/timeline overrun.
- marsouin 5y ago
  Quite right. France's expertise is definitely focused on nuclear subs, though conventional propulsion is said to be quieter.
- WastingMyTime89 5y ago
  > They would have happily exported the nuclear subs I find that surprising. As far as I know France has never exported its nuclear subs and I think they would be very reluctant to do a transfer of technology for nuclear propulsion. The contracts with both India and Brasil were for diesel propulsion.
  - the-dude 5y ago
    I never said that, a sibling in this thread did.
  - killingtime74 5y ago
    France is building a nuclear one for Brazil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_submarine_%C3%81lvaro_Alberto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_submarine_%C3%81lvar...
Ajef 5y ago
If the subs being nuclear was the problem I'm sure french would have arranged for that. I can't find a source for this but the submarines in question are essentially refitted from being nuclear to diesel-electro for the export to other nations. I think the political view in Australia has changed from "we don't have nuclear infrastructure" to "we can build up nuclear infrastructure while the US builds the subs"? This is just my assumption. If I'm wrong on any of this please correct me.

rich_sasha 5y ago

Awkward. Fundamentally, a buyer can walk away from buying something. There's a contract and it surely has contingencies for these cases, no need for drama. That said, it does seem like the contract was broken in a really nasty way - apparently the French were told about it mere hours before the media announcement. So the French are very angry, and possibly over-reacting, but only a little, it seems understandable. It makes sense for them to lash out at EU-wide negotiations with Australia. But of course that affects countries that had nothing to do with the whole ordeal. The cynic in me wonders if there is an element of some kind of political point-scoring by the British; Britain is on course to sign a deal with Australia. Some kind of, "see, we can do it and they can't". Worth keeping in perspective that trade with Australia is a small slice of EU's trade overall.

ElKrist 5y ago
"Fundamentally, a buyer can walk away from buying something. There's a contract and it surely has contingencies for these cases, no need for drama. That said, it does seem like the contract was broken in a really nasty way - apparently the French were told about it mere hours before the media announcement." You're right on this. Handling the end of the contract is not a big issue: the whole program is actually a series of contract and Australia simply decided to not sign the next one for the next phase. Agreeing on the exact penalties amount does not seem 100% straightforward, but the first numbers seem to be ~ 250M € However, this is a substantial contract: Australia required major customization, transfer of technology, submarines must be built on the Australian territory etc. What France is the most upset about is that they've been kept deliberately in the dark by two of its "allies" (AUS and USA), until the last moment just before the press release. As an analogy, it's like getting married, making important commitments and one day your wife says out of nowhere: "I'm out and by the way I got married with your best friend today". The same day you see pictures of them with big smiles in the press. I see in many articles things like "it's just geopolitics, France should realize there's no room for sentiments". I'm unsure how the French and Australian population feel about that, considering their joint history. This seems like a very Trump/Johnson way of handling things: pure opportunism. Perhaps it's the new sad reality and France is definitely not ready for it.
didntknowya 5y ago

g8oz 5y ago

Contracts can and do go bad all the time but the French histrionics over this affair are really quite something.

zibzab 5y ago

Ah, the Australian government is handling foreign affairs with the same delicacy it handled the pandemic...

heigh 5y ago
I’m curious in what way/metric you think the Australian Government handled (or mishandled) the pandemic compared to other countries? I’m Australian, living in Australia and I feel we’ve had and handled it remarkably well here compared to other nations. Worldometer aligns with this sentiment too.
- stonith 5y ago
  Decided not to purchase Pfizer doses, choosing not to even meet with Pfizer, and instead relying on AZ which was then found to be higher risk. Decided not to build dedicated quarantine facilities, instead relying on hotel quarantine. There has been a breach on average every 44 days that the country pays the price for every time. Pay tens of billions to companies that recorded profits via Jobkeeper because the rules were poorly written. Ended Jobkeeper before the pandemic was actually over, so when the Delta wave hit the public wasn't in a financial position to actually lockdown, leading to significant outbreaks via industries that shouldn't have even been running (like construction). Conflicted messaging over the safety and efficacy of vaccines leading to increased hesitancy. The Federal Government did a terrible job that's been covered up by the states for the most part.
  - heigh 5y ago
    Completely agree with all your points. However, in terms of lockdowns overall messaging and management, while bumbling and less than perfect, we are way way better off than >75% of other nations. It helps being a sparsely populated island nation, sure, but overall our deaths and infections per million is low. Could it be better? Sure. Could it be way, way worse? Definitely.
- zibzab 5y ago
  How did your country do compared to your kiwi neighbours?