4 ms·

> The French arm industry is part of the government. In much the same way that the American arms industry is part of their government. https://en.wikipedia.or

> The French arm industry is part of the government. In much the same way that the American arms industry is part of their government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Group They have corporations that own corporations that have government ownership in the end. Anyway, however the ownership of these corporations goes, my point is not really any different. Of course any big corporate deal of any industry with a foreign government will attract interest and support of the host governments who are lobbied or have employees who benefit. It's normal for governments to try to lobby the other government and pressure them. But this is a contract dispute, why should the EU want to get involved with sanctions on behalf of French war industry losing face? > France uses foreign sales to fund its sovereign defence programs. If some people are getting rich in the way, they are very few. I didn't identify anybody who is getting rich, it would be interesting to know the salaries of Naval Group executives and Thales executives and owners, but in any case they are profiteering from selling weapons. If it is only to support their own state so their people don't have to pay so much for their own needs is pretty immaterial to me. That is what colonial powers did with taking oil and running guns around the world, didn't make it any better. > This is entirely a strategic and diplomatic issue not an economic one. In so far as French security strategy relies on their war industry selling weapons to be able to fund their own security it seems intertwined, but either way I won't shed a tear for France or its war industry, if they're upset by this then that's a beautiful silver lining I take with the cloud of pleasing a different war profiteer.

WastingMyTime89 5y ago
> But this is a contract dispute, why should the EU want to get involved with sanctions on behalf of French war industry losing face? Once again, this is not just a contract dispute. As previously mentioned, the French state owns 62% of Naval Group directly (APE is the French state) and more through other companies. Submarines are strategic assets and France has territories bordering Australia. It is entirely about the strategic partnership. As France remains the main if not sole military power in the EU, this obviously affects the union.
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  > Once again, this is not just a contract dispute. No but that's not really anything to do with ownership structures of the military corporations involved. Governments take an interest in all kind of large trade deals, and they also take an interest in weapons sales. Not to mention the overly cosy relationship governments like France have with their military industry. > As previously mentioned, the French state owns 62% of Naval Group directly (APE is the French state) and more through other companies. Submarines are strategic assets and France has territories bordering Australia. It is entirely about the strategic partnership. I don't think it's entirely about that at all. I think it's almost entirely about the economics of it. The profiteering. And France is just invoking the partnership as I said because they don't have much contractual recourse. I doubt Australia keeps France abreast of all other of its military goings-on around the region, nor vice versa and that has not suddenly been called a strategic problem for them. It only happens to be one when their war industry misses out on some profits, suddenly that's a problem for the strategic partnership. > As France remains the main if not sole military power in the EU, this obviously affects the union. Ah well maybe I'm completely wrong about all this and the other members feel it is a significant concern to them. I guess I will be proven wrong when they start speaking out about it strongly and pressuring the EU to take some action. Or they won't and I'll be proven right.

WastingMyTime89 5y ago

> But this is a contract dispute, why should the EU want to get involved with sanctions on behalf of French war industry losing face? Once again, this is not just a contract dispute. As previously mentioned, the French state owns 62% of Naval Group directly (APE is the French state) and more through other companies. Submarines are strategic assets and France has territories bordering Australia. It is entirely about the strategic partnership. As France remains the main if not sole military power in the EU, this obviously affects the union.

throwawaylinux 5y ago
> Once again, this is not just a contract dispute. No but that's not really anything to do with ownership structures of the military corporations involved. Governments take an interest in all kind of large trade deals, and they also take an interest in weapons sales. Not to mention the overly cosy relationship governments like France have with their military industry. > As previously mentioned, the French state owns 62% of Naval Group directly (APE is the French state) and more through other companies. Submarines are strategic assets and France has territories bordering Australia. It is entirely about the strategic partnership. I don't think it's entirely about that at all. I think it's almost entirely about the economics of it. The profiteering. And France is just invoking the partnership as I said because they don't have much contractual recourse. I doubt Australia keeps France abreast of all other of its military goings-on around the region, nor vice versa and that has not suddenly been called a strategic problem for them. It only happens to be one when their war industry misses out on some profits, suddenly that's a problem for the strategic partnership. > As France remains the main if not sole military power in the EU, this obviously affects the union. Ah well maybe I'm completely wrong about all this and the other members feel it is a significant concern to them. I guess I will be proven wrong when they start speaking out about it strongly and pressuring the EU to take some action. Or they won't and I'll be proven right.