Aukus

[patman post]

Just a sample:-
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/law/press_en.htm

20/02/2014: Commission takes action against UK for persistent air pollution problems

06/04/2011: Commission takes UK to court over excessive cost of challenging decisions

03/06/2010: Air quality: Commission sends final warning to UK over levels of fine particle pollution

18/03/2010: Commission warns UK about unfair cost of challenging decisions

I bet those were failing-to-meet and/or challenging rather than deliberately flouting. Many would have been eventually settled — as in fish from uncertified clean waters — by negotiation and agreement. Be interesting to know if the UK was better or worse than other EU states in abiding by directives, rules and regulation...

[Nick]

Part of the problem is that whilst we and the USA have adopted an economic model based entirely upon everything being up for sale to the highest bidders everywhere, China recognises the need to prevent foreign domimance of it's essential industries and concerns. So as the Chinese buy up some of our essential services, they'll never let us buy up theirs. Our neo-liberal economic model is not fit for purpose in the face of a Chinese model that can best be described as economic and capitalist nationalism.

Whilst we allow anyone anywhere to buy anything on the assumption that this makes us stronger by maximising our prosperity, what we actually get is rip off prices for consumers, money flowing out of the country, and much of our most essential infrastructure owned and run by foreigners, including potential enemies. The Chinese on the other hand, whilst doing as much as they can to stimulate their economy, ensures that all essential businesses and infrastructure remains in Chinese hands and is more than ready to intervene to ensure that Chinese capitalism serves the economic and political and strategic interests of China. Theirs is in fact a better economic model and until or unless we take steps to ensure that British capitalism serves the interests of Britain first, and take steps to ensure that all the essential infrastructure companies remain in British hands by law, we are increasingly placing ourselves at the mercy of foreigners, friendly or not.

Railways, postal services, internet service providers, telephone companies, water suppliers, energy companies, health services and educational establishments here should all ultimately be at least majority controlled either by the British state itself or by British shareholders resident here. The Chinese wouldn't have it any other way in their country.

It never stopped Italy and Spain from propping up failing football teams if I remember right. As John said, it only applied to the U.K. When the city took other EU financial institutes to the ECJ for breaking the rules they always lost even though they were in the right.

[johnofgwent]

To be fair the man in the street of every colour stripe has questioned the sense of our utilities being sold off. It makes us too easy a target to be held to ransom which has been used several times in recent years.  If a serious argument were to really kick off, far from us having influence, we would be at the mercy of any and every foreign power with ownership here. It has always been a blinkered policy. It's at the back of my mind but didn't EU rules ban Government money being used to save failing businesses or is that another home grown myth?

Those rules only applied to the UK.


They were supposed to apply to the others but most had no money to use to subsidise their basket cases, which is why they rigged it to use other people's, while France and Germany knew the rules didn't apply to them.


In fact, Gerry is the Europhile that got shafted. Shortly after Maastricht the Irish were told rein in your economy or be nuked from orbit by the French and Germans, so they took measures to cool their growth down. Six months later France and Germany were equally overheated, did sod all and what happened ? Sod all.


Even the guardian was outraged.

[T00ts]

Part of the problem is that whilst we and the USA have adopted an economic model based entirely upon everything being up for sale to the highest bidders everywhere, China recognises the need to prevent foreign domimance of it's essential industries and concerns. So as the Chinese buy up some of our essential services, they'll never let us buy up theirs. Our neo-liberal economic model is not fit for purpose in the face of a Chinese model that can best be described as economic and capitalist nationalism.

Whilst we allow anyone anywhere to buy anything on the assumption that this makes us stronger by maximising our prosperity, what we actually get is rip off prices for consumers, money flowing out of the country, and much of our most essential infrastructure owned and run by foreigners, including potential enemies. The Chinese on the other hand, whilst doing as much as they can to stimulate their economy, ensures that all essential businesses and infrastructure remains in Chinese hands and is more than ready to intervene to ensure that Chinese capitalism serves the economic and political and strategic interests of China. Theirs is in fact a better economic model and until or unless we take steps to ensure that British capitalism serves the interests of Britain first, and take steps to ensure that all the essential infrastructure companies remain in British hands by law, we are increasingly placing ourselves at the mercy of foreigners, friendly or not.

Railways, postal services, internet service providers, telephone companies, water suppliers, energy companies, health services and educational establishments here should all ultimately be at least majority controlled either by the British state itself or by British shareholders resident here. The Chinese wouldn't have it any other way in their country.

To be fair the man in the street of every colour stripe has questioned the sense of our utilities being sold off. It makes us too easy a target to be held to ransom which has been used several times in recent years.  If a serious argument were to really kick off, far from us having influence, we would be at the mercy of any and every foreign power with ownership here. It has always been a blinkered policy. It's at the back of my mind but didn't EU rules ban Government money being used to save failing businesses or is that another home grown myth?

It never stopped Italy and Spain from propping up failing football teams if I remember right. As John said, it only applied to the U.K. When the city took other EU financial institutes to the ECJ for breaking the rules they always lost even though they were in the right.

[cromwell]

Just looking at the Beeb and they say US UK face international backlash

When you read it though it boils down to the Chinese are not happy,Really? what a surprise.
And the French cancelled a party for the yanks and are sulking,they didn't mention Gerry was unhappy too but I expect they put that right soon

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-58592613

[srb7677]

Let's hope we're not to late to spoil China's party.

Part of the problem is that whilst we and the USA have adopted an economic model based entirely upon everything being up for sale to the highest bidders everywhere, China recognises the need to prevent foreign domimance of it's essential industries and concerns. So as the Chinese buy up some of our essential services, they'll never let us buy up theirs. Our neo-liberal economic model is not fit for purpose in the face of a Chinese model that can best be described as economic and capitalist nationalism.

Whilst we allow anyone anywhere to buy anything on the assumption that this makes us stronger by maximising our prosperity, what we actually get is rip off prices for consumers, money flowing out of the country, and much of our most essential infrastructure owned and run by foreigners, including potential enemies. The Chinese on the other hand, whilst doing as much as they can to stimulate their economy, ensures that all essential businesses and infrastructure remains in Chinese hands and is more than ready to intervene to ensure that Chinese capitalism serves the economic and political and strategic interests of China. Theirs is in fact a better economic model and until or unless we take steps to ensure that British capitalism serves the interests of Britain first, and take steps to ensure that all the essential infrastructure companies remain in British hands by law, we are increasingly placing ourselves at the mercy of foreigners, friendly or not.

Railways, postal services, internet service providers, telephone companies, water suppliers, energy companies, health services and educational establishments here should all ultimately be at least majority controlled either by the British state itself or by British shareholders resident here. The Chinese wouldn't have it any other way in their country.

[johnofgwent]

To give the French their due, they did manage to kid the Strines into buying diesel driven subs, which rather suggests that there is a service station on every other atoll. The deal may well have fallen through, but you have to give the Frogs an A for salesmanship.

I suspect only because the existing cartel restricts the ownership of nuclear powered ones.


Charles Dassault and his pals would be well pissed at that.

[Borchester]

The precedent is now set, it has been reaffirmed that dealing with the French is an awkward business and the U.K. is now well and truly back on the world stage.

To give the French their due, they did manage to kid the Strines into buying diesel driven subs, which rather suggests that there is a service station on every other atoll. The deal may well have fallen through, but you have to give the Frogs an A for salesmanship.

[Nick]

The interesting thing I take from the press coverage regarding the French deal is what it (publicly) foundered on, the Australian demand that materials for their diesel boat upgrade be sourced from Australia and the French dragging their heels


I'm a bit bemused by that, what were they talking about really. The materials for the hull ? That would mean building mg the boats in the outback rather than building them in Europe, surely, and similarly the other way round. You can't play Airbus and fly materials by Beluga half way round the planet ....


No, clearly the French kicked their heels in hope of getting a better deal for the French, and now a deal for far nicer (look, have you ever stood in one of these bloody things, trust me on this ***FAR*** nicer) to have to live in vessels has come along and the French are out of it. Well, serve them right.

The precedent is now set, it has been reaffirmed that dealing with the French is an awkward business and the U.K. is now well and truly back on the world stage.

[johnofgwent]

It's strange, as you said, all the minion countries think everyone is equal within the EU. Regardless of what Gerry thinks Germany is clearly sitting at the top table and having paid the most is going to have their voice heard above the rest, this is how the real world operates. The EU is going to be modelled to suit Germany and to an extent France, if it wasn't then there would be little point in them being in the union, and as you've said Germany would walk away leaving the EU in free fall. The U.K. has walked away and with it has gone about 15% of its budget, regardless of what the Europhiles on here think that is going to smart.

The one think Gerry has got right is that the more the EU suffers the happier I am, and AUKUS has kicked France square in the privates so I'm delighted.

The interesting thing I take from the press coverage regarding the French deal is what it (publicly) foundered on, the Australian demand that materials for their diesel boat upgrade be sourced from Australia and the French dragging their heels


I'm a bit bemused by that, what were they talking about really. The materials for the hull ? That would mean building mg the boats in the outback rather than building them in Europe, surely, and similarly the other way round. You can't play Airbus and fly materials by Beluga half way round the planet ....


No, clearly the French kicked their heels in hope of getting a better deal for the French, and now a deal for far nicer (look, have you ever stood in one of these bloody things, trust me on this ***FAR*** nicer) to have to live in vessels has come along and the French are out of it. Well, serve them right.

[Nick]

It does seem that since the UK walked away and is still walking that the EU appears a bit tetchy as is evidenced by them throwing their toys out of the pram over Aukus. They still seem to think that we have them on speed-dial for all our dealings.
We were a big contributor so it is inevitable that our exit will have impacted them overall but perhaps it isn't truly felt yet. In this discussion of who is most dominant in the EU perhaps it would be worth considering which country's departure would have the most affect of the EU's future.

For my mind it has to be Germany. It seems that Germany has probably benefitted the most from the EU organisation and if there was a Germexit (that's a bit unfortunate) then I am not sure that the EU would survive many months. If nothing else the body language of the German leader suggests that she is only too aware of her importance to the bloc. Compare that to Macron's and it seems to me that he is only too aware of where tomorrow's meal ticket hides. In the past it has always seemed that the EU holds it's breath until Germany and Merkel in particular voices her opinion on any given subject before important decisions are made. There are of course times when it is convenient for her to claim equality with all other members but she holds all the money and most of the cards.

It's strange, as you said, all the minion countries think everyone is equal within the EU. Regardless of what Gerry thinks Germany is clearly sitting at the top table and having paid the most is going to have their voice heard above the rest, this is how the real world operates. The EU is going to be modelled to suit Germany and to an extent France, if it wasn't then there would be little point in them being in the union, and as you've said Germany would walk away leaving the EU in free fall. The U.K. has walked away and with it has gone about 15% of its budget, regardless of what the Europhiles on here think that is going to smart.

The one think Gerry has got right is that the more the EU suffers the happier I am, and AUKUS has kicked France square in the privates so I'm delighted.

[T00ts]

It does seem that since the UK walked away and is still walking that the EU appears a bit tetchy as is evidenced by them throwing their toys out of the pram over Aukus. They still seem to think that we have them on speed-dial for all our dealings.
We were a big contributor so it is inevitable that our exit will have impacted them overall but perhaps it isn't truly felt yet. In this discussion of who is most dominant in the EU perhaps it would be worth considering which country's departure would have the most affect of the EU's future.

For my mind it has to be Germany. It seems that Germany has probably benefitted the most from the EU organisation and if there was a Germexit (that's a bit unfortunate) then I am not sure that the EU would survive many months. If nothing else the body language of the German leader suggests that she is only too aware of her importance to the bloc. Compare that to Macron's and it seems to me that he is only too aware of where tomorrow's meal ticket hides. In the past it has always seemed that the EU holds it's breath until Germany and Merkel in particular voices her opinion on any given subject before important decisions are made. There are of course times when it is convenient for her to claim equality with all other members but she holds all the money and most of the cards.

[Nick]

something

You said that Germany rules the EU, you have given Zero examples of how Germany does this. I have now asked you many times for proof and now you say that Germany does what it wants. You don't even understand the question. Again. HOW DOES GERMANY RULE THE EU, tell me how Germany controls the other EU states ? what's that, you can't, is that what you said ?

Your example of Germany doing what it wants is Germany taking in refugees, any country can do that. No country in the EU needs to ask permission to take in Refugees. Your scrambling and scrapping the bottom of the barrel.

Remember, lets focus now, you tell me how Germany rules the EU and tells the other countries what to do. Tell me how Germany can do this. And lets forget about that pathetic photo theory you had a couple of days back, embarrassing.
If you put something to me I'll consider it. But so far it's photos, who in their right mind would accept that mad theory.

Anyone who denies money controls the world is a Buffoon.

As Barry has said, your grammar is that of a buffoon.

Sort those 2 elements out Gerry and you may become debatable.

To be clear:

In English, that makes sense and is spelt correctly, explain how any country in the world that pays 3 times more than any one else, and exerts more power than any other country doesn't have a bigger sway on proceedings.

[GerryT]

I've given you plenty of examples of where Germany does what it wants with no regard for what the EU states want.

You said that Germany rules the EU, you have given Zero examples of how Germany does this. I have now asked you many times for proof and now you say that Germany does what it wants. You don't even understand the question. Again. HOW DOES GERMANY RULE THE EU, tell me how Germany controls the other EU states ? what's that, you can't, is that what you said ?

Your example of Germany doing what it wants is Germany taking in refugees, any country can do that. No country in the EU needs to ask permission to take in Refugees. Your scrambling and scrapping the bottom of the barrel.

Remember, lets focus now, you tell me how Germany rules the EU and tells the other countries what to do. Tell me how Germany can do this. And lets forget about that pathetic photo theory you had a couple of days back, embarrassing.

In fact, why am I bothering? You're so far up the EU's arse you won't accept anything.

As for me slagging off everyone on here? Another one of your fantasies.

If you put something to me I'll consider it. But so far it's photos, who in their right mind would accept that mad theory.

[Barry]

I can't see anything since 2019, perhaps they have more to worry about now.

Don't worry T00ts, it is not about Japan. It is more about the Chinese sabre rattling over Taiwan.
Although they did threaten to nuke Japan if they attempted to help out Taiwan.

If the Chinese try to take Taiwan, there could well be a war, which could spread, as they often do.
Australia have nailed their colours to the mast.