Brexit, for once some facts.

[oyster]

Two fuel observations:

First: Until recently, I think every single petrol forecourt in the area priced their fuel ending in .99 - e.g. 134.9. (The exception is Asda.)

In the past few weeks, I think most now price ending .7. (A few, such as Tesco, do still end .9)

Second: BP ain't got enough drivers and are cuttting forecourt deliveries.

 

[Danidl]

Yep, suspect NATO is fatally wounded..
Danidl
That takes nothing into account about the Geography, Politics, Alegiencies, and wether French would actually help in the region. How many Nuclear Subs does France own let alone patrol in Pacific with.
How many times do I have to repeat, the way its been handled is wrong but understandable. And yet again Danidl seems to know more about specification of US subs versus French subs than Australians do.
They have made the choice for a reason and its not without cost. (half a billion dollars thrown away)
Nobody on here has a clue what either the French subs or the US ones are and aren't capable of. Or I suppose they chose US ones because they don't like Macron or Boris persuaded them.
Or I suppose Danidl has a direct line to US classified military info.. I can feel disdain coming on. Sorry Jonathon.
I think Danidl you are doing yourself a disservice. Your assumed knowledge of the submarines in question throws into doubt any actual knowledge you might (or might not) have. We all know nothing about US Nuclear Subs on a technical /choice level,well we could perhaps draw one in red crayon, like my 5 year old grandson could.

As I have said I am assuming nothing other than in the public domain. The French have at least 7 nuclear powered hunterkiller types ,including this latest Barracuda class, which went into service a year ago. I did not bother to check on other models. In addition they have 4 of the boomer type ballistic missile submarines ,each equipped with 16 nuclear war heads, which is not under any USA, Russian, UK ,Chinese, Korean ,Indian, Pakistani or even Israeli control. Can the same be said about the Royal Navy deterrent. ?
Now The fact that the French Offering to the Aussies was the Barracuda class is in the public domain. The armaments and ordnance are in general known, but what is unknown in regard to any of these is how stealthy they really are, and how they achieve that, at at what range they can acquire targets
According to websites, there are some 30 countries with submarine fleets, with China at 79 ahead of the US at 68. Both UK and France at the 10 /11 mark, are sitting in the middle rank. One might assume,..but I cannot, that their machines are superior to other powers with 17 or 18 subs, generally purchased second hand.

 

[oldgroaner]

I said from start that was wrong but understandable. And you confuse the issues. France can not feel any annoyance towards USA, or shouldn't, they are supplier. Its like you grumbling at another bike supplier for supplying a bike that actually suits customer rather better than yours. The fault lies with the customer, not the supplier. And even more the case when you actually examine French (entire Europe actually) are totally reliant on US for their defence. US defence budget, even just the portion allocated to NATO simply dwarfs the entire contribution from European countries, even including what those countries allocate to their own Independant defence.
EU needs to wake up, why the hell should US defend Europe from Russia, China or whoever. You can't moan on the one hand about US and then accept their cash to keep NATO operational.
We either need defending or we don't. Either send Yanks home and start a European Army. (an EU one? ) or just stop spending on defence.
Seems France, Germany and most, Europeans want best of both worlds. They want to be seen as pacifist. (EU no army at all) but want all the benefits going with been protected by arguably strongest nation on earth.

Hardly the strongest nation on Earth with their record

 

[flecc]

Two fuel observations:

First: Until recently, I think every single petrol forecourt in the area priced their fuel ending in .99 - e.g. 134.9. (The exception is Asda.)

In the past few weeks, I think most now price ending .7. (A few, such as Tesco, do still end .9)

Second: BP ain't got enough drivers and are cuttting forecourt deliveries.

All good for our e-cars.

And BP own Chargemaster, one of the largest charger companies, and are installing rapid charge points in all their garages.

The world is inexorably changing.
.

 

[oldgroaner]

It's intentionally both at present, with the intention of becoming entirely political, something I know you've never accepted.

I'm forecasting that if Germany shifts toward Russia and China, it will bring the EU with it politically as the head of Europe, with Germany dominant.
.

The very thing the political aim here was to prevent for the last 500 years
Hegemony in Europe
And we shot ourselves in both feet there with Brexit

 

[Zlatan]

those countries are current members of NATO. What makes you think that they would handle control to NATO more than they would to the EU?

I don't think that. I think NATO is part of problem. It's allowed Europe to exist and be defended without EU bureaucracy having to think about it. Yes, I agree its suited the US, promoting Russia as enemy etc... But without NATO all these disparate EU countries would have had to have a united, unified stance. Perhaps NATO's existence has all being superfluous, but its served a second purpose. EU (actually Europe) has not needed any defensive capability... Consequently it has no offensive one either. It would have been superb had Australia (and India) to be able to lean on Europe /EU rather than US.. But they can't. India has requested repeatedly for the very deal Australia has just been given. US turned them down..
Europe could have taken its place at table of superpowers. It simply isn't one, so... Its ignored. Individual European countries are simply too small. (Germany/France/UK are on a par militarily, Italy a little smaller)
Its becoming clearer by the year Europe needs a credible United military force, without one we will always be on shirt tails of US and only involved in minor conflicts (eg Iraq/Afghanistan etc)... As Europe is it has zero influence over China.. Its exactly why Chinese are against Aukus.
An Autralian/US/UK alliance is powerful.
An Australian /French one?? Let's put it this way. China wouldn't care.

 

[Zlatan]

The very thing the political aim here was to prevent for the last 500 years
Hegemony in Europe
And we shot ourselves in both feet there with Brexit

Brexit is a minor sideshow in scheme of things. Without Brexit it would have been AUS agreement. Had we been in EU no doubt we would not have been involved, in fact we, d probably be supporting France but secretly laughing.. As it is we can laugh out loud... We gave up trying not to upset Macron months ago..

Subscribe to read | Financial Times

News, analysis and comment from the Financial Times, the worldʼs leading global business publication

www.ft.com

If this happens what would EU stance be...? Would it want to do anything? But ultimately it couldn't do a thing.
(for those that don't subscribe or have used up their free FT articles... Basically many "experts" think China and Russia could step into vacuum left by US leaving... (can't see Russians making that mistake again but???)

 

[oyster]

All good for our e-cars.

And BP own Chargemaster, one of the largest charger companies, and are installing rapid charge points in all their garages.

The world is inexorably changing.
.

Tesco in Pembroke Dock now has the VW chargers they have been advertising. And I think they are being installed right now in our local branch. So I agree. And EVs do reduce the need for HGV fuel tanker drivers.

The world is inexorably charging.

 

[flecc]

Europe could have taken its place at table of superpowers. It simply isn't one, so... Its ignored. Individual European countries are simply too small. (Germany/France/UK are on a par militarily, Italy a little smaller)

The EU target was for the countries of Europe to unite as one country of Europe, and thus to be a superpower.

The member countries have chosen not to so far, the democratic choice and their loss. That will change over time for some of them, due to developing circumstances as NATO fades and there's greater European alignment with Russia.
.

 

[Zlatan]

What’s next for the Russia-Germany relationship after Merkel?

Angela Merkel’s successor will take over with relations between both countries at their lowest point in years.

www.aljazeera.com

Can't see any EU /Russian alignment any time soon. Think relationship has deteriorated... Crimea, Novichok, internal repression, external aggression. Not quite EU policies.

 

[flecc]

What’s next for the Russia-Germany relationship after Merkel?

Angela Merkel’s successor will take over with relations between both countries at their lowest point in years.

www.aljazeera.com

Can't see any EU /Russian alignment any time soon. Think relationship has deteriorated... Crimea, Novichok, internal repression, external aggression. Not quite EU policies.

As Woosh posted, over decades. It will be a result of the deterioration of NATO and the declining US power relative to China. The European hostility to Russia will diminish as it has on similar previous occasions. It doesn't help either side and is largely inspired by the USA anyway.
.

 

[oldgroaner]

What’s next for the Russia-Germany relationship after Merkel?

Angela Merkel’s successor will take over with relations between both countries at their lowest point in years.

www.aljazeera.com

Can't see any EU /Russian alignment any time soon. Think relationship has deteriorated... Crimea, Novichok, internal repression, external aggression. Not quite EU policies.

Putin's aim was to separate us and in the process the USA from influence in Europe, his money was well spent on Brexit.
The next step is unification with the EU a long slow process but inevitable and the result will be the most powerful military bloc in the world

 

[Zlatan]

As Woosh posted, over decades. It will be a result of the deterioration of NATO and the declining US power relative to China. The European hostility to Russia will diminish as it has on similar previous occasions. It doesn't help either side and is largely inspired by the USA anyway.
.

Well years and years down line won't really affect any of us and who knows but at moment Russia is under EU sanctions put forward by Germany over formers behavior in Ukraine, is still looked on as invading Crimea by many in Europe both without any US encouragment...
Think an awful lot has got to change before Germany and Russia are once again allies. -(look what happened last time)
But, could be, an Alien from some far away Galaxy could start invading Earth tomorrow... Could see China, Russia and US all forced to cooperate. Macron would still not join in.

 

[guerney]

Knew there'd be (at least) one smart arse...

Looking at the contentious Covid thread, my arse is smarter than some brains

 

[Zlatan]

Putin's aim was to separate us and in the process the USA from influence in Europe, his money was well spent on Brexit.
The next step is unification with the EU a long slow process but inevitable and the result will be the most powerful military bloc in the world

What difference does our contribution make to the World power known as EU? Putin holds us and the EU in complete contempt. He couldn't careless whether we are in or out of EU, it makes no difference at all to him. He might interfere for sheer devilment but as for strategic goals to get us out the EU? Why? What for? EU with or without us in no world power and us in or out EU the same.

 

[Zlatan]

Looking at the contentious Covid thread, my arse is smarter than some brains

You, ve been reading my posts. Stop it.

 

[Danidl]

I don't think that. I think NATO is part of problem. It's allowed Europe to exist and be defended without EU bureaucracy having to think about it. Yes, I agree its suited the US, promoting Russia as enemy etc... But without NATO all these disparate EU countries would have had to have a united, unified stance. Perhaps NATO's existence has all being superfluous, but its served a second purpose. EU (actually Europe) has not needed any defensive capability... Consequently it has no offensive one either. It would have been superb had Australia (and India) to be able to lean on Europe /EU rather than US.. But they can't. India has requested repeatedly for the very deal Australia has just been given. US turned them down..
Europe could have taken its place at table of superpowers. It simply isn't one, so... Its ignored. Individual European countries are simply too small. (Germany/France/UK are on a par militarily, Italy a little smaller)
Its becoming clearer by the year Europe needs a credible United military force, without one we will always be on shirt tails of US and only involved in minor conflicts (eg Iraq/Afghanistan etc)... As Europe is it has zero influence over China.. Its exactly why Chinese are against Aukus.
An Autralian/US/UK alliance is powerful.
An Australian /French one?? Let's put it this way. China wouldn't care.

No I don't actually think so. The power of the EU has been that it is not a military power broker. It is an economic and cultural entity. Nearly everyone of the major EU Nations has a dirty colonial history, sometime back in the last 1000 years , and many a lot a lot more recent than that. By ignoring that military history and concentrating on increasing cultural ties ,, we are able to transcend that . The legitimate military power on Earth is the UNO, and it is the failure of ,in particular the USA to respect and support it ,that leads to the current impasse. It suited and perhaps still suits the USA to wave their flag, refuse to pay dues to the UN, refuse to allow their actions under the International Courts be scrutinized.
NATO or OTAN should have been scrapped with the 1990 reforms in Russia.
. The statement that " As Europe it had zero influence over China" displays an unfortunate mindset . Why SHOULD Europe have influence OVER China?. Why would a population of 500 million in anyway control the behaviour of 1200 million. It is utter undemocratic.
The Globe has moved on since Suez, and Europe ,along with India, South American and African have the manpower and resources to contain a Russia, A China, A USA , or any two of them.

 

[flecc]

Russia - - - - - - - - - -, is still looked on as invading Crimea by many in Europe both without any US encouragment...

This is not true. The USA in the form of the CIA created the Euromaiden project to destabilise the Ukraine and get the pro Russian government overthrown. The project succeeded with Euromaiden becoming the Orange Revolution, when with the support of only a quarter of the country the parliament was invaded and the president fled to Moscow.

The background to this was the US desire to isolate the Russians from their southern fleet based in the Crimea, their northern fleet being iced up in winter of course.

As happens every time, the USA has created chaos. The predominantly Russian population of the eastern Ukraine have gone to war with their country, a war that continues to this day, backed by Russia. Russia has used the fact that almost the whole population of the Crimea is Russian to give them a choice of home rule which they've overwhelmingly voted for, so it's wholly Russian now. The Orange Revolution's new president, a businessman, turned out to be a worthless crook stashing the countries cash for himself, shades of the American backed drunken Boris Yeltsin again. The replacement president they've got now, an actor and comedian, has appeased Russia to the degree the west cannot trust him

The Russian southern fleet has been strengthened and Russia now has direct access all the way to the Middle East, having made Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, president of Turkey, a close ally. Turkey, a NATO member, has now bought a Russian missile defence system infuriating the USA, illustrating just how pathetically weak NATO is as a defence body.

Where strategy is concerned, the USA always loses in the end. Defeated in Korea, Vietnam, even little Somalia, now effectively losing in Iraq and Afghanistan and leaving a trail of chaos in the Middle East, we shouldn't put any trust in them. From 1900 on they declared themselves an enemy of Europe, determined to destroy all of Europe's empires which they've succeeded in doing, largely by post WW2 blackmail and bribery.

They act at all times only in their own self interest, with a total disregard for all others.
.

 

[Zlatan]

This is not true. The USA in the form of the CIA created the Euromaiden project to destabilise the Ukraine and get the pro Russian government overthrown. The project succeeded with Euromaiden becoming the Orange Revolution, when with the support of only a quarter of the country the parliament was invaded and the president fled to Moscow.

The background to this was the US desire to isolate the Russians from their southern fleet based in the Crimea, their northern fleet being iced up in winter of course.

As happens every time, the USA has created chaos. The predominantly Russian population of the eastern Ukraine have gone to war with their country, a war that continues to this day, backed by Russia. Russia has used the fact that almost the whole population of the Ukraine is Russian to give them a choice of home rule which they've overwhelmingly voted for, so it's wholly Russian now. The Orange Revolution's new president, a businessman, turned out to be a worthless crook stashing the countries cash for himself, shades of the American backed drunken Boris Yeltsin again. The replacement president they've got now, an actor and comedian, has appeased Russia to the degree the west cannot trust him

The Russian southern fleet has been strengthened and Russia now has direct access all the way to the Middle East, having made Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, president of Turkey, a close ally. Turkey, a NATO member, has now bought a Russian missile defence system infuriating the USA, illustrating just how pathetically weak NATO is as a defence body.

Where strategy is concerned, the USA always loses in the end. Defeated in Korea, Vietnam, even little Somalia, now effectively losing in Iraq and Afghanistan and leaving a trail of chaos in the Middle East, we shouldn't put any trust in them. From 1900 on they declared themselves an enemy of Europe, determined to destroy all of Europe's empires which they've succeeded in doing, largely by post WW2 blackmail and bribery.

They act at all times only in their own self interest, with a total disregard for all others.
.

So why has EU walked into a situation of being totally dependant on NATO?. No doubt much of your post is correct but whichever way you interpret it EU just doesn't have the world wide influence it should.
And of course Danidl I, m not talking about influencing or changing what's happening in China I, m talking about influencing their pressure on other countries.
In effect providing an alternative for such as Australia, India and the likes, to chose over them choosing Big Macs.
What will EU do when China occupies Taiwan? Nothing, it can't do anything, even if it wanted. If the policy was to do nothing, that's fine but fact is EU has neither the will or capability to do anything, either militarily or by political means, and that's 40 years after it came into being and represents perhaps 5 in the top 10 of the planets richest nations. Its actually a disgrace.

 

[oyster]

phobic hatred of communism

Always seem a bit ironic of a country which seemingly proudly proclaims "We the people..."