> 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. Gov

> 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.