5 comments

  • rich_sasha 920 days 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 920 days 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 920 days ago
      also more because these aren't things you buy on a whim. there would've been whole teams on either side negotiating the deal. imagine doing that then realizing the buyer was also negotiating in bad faith with another seller behind your back.
  • mensetmanusman 920 days 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.
    • Ajef 920 days 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 920 days ago
        Indeed, the subs are a "downgrade" from nuclear to diesel.

        I suspect the core of the issue is some kind of aux deal that comes with US-UK supplied nukes, possibly leading down the line to Australia handling nuclear weapons for one of those, or equivalent. E.g. maybe the nuclear bases will be made "compatible" with US or UK nuclear subs, which will then be stationed there, blah blah blah.

        Otherwise I don't understand the haste in ditching the French, and in bad style, since France definitely produces nuclear subs - surely no worse than their already-accepted diesels.

        • shsbdncudx 920 days ago
          France won’t export their nuclear subs.

          That, plus the French nuclear subs need to be refuelled, and it’s a big ask for Australia to build the infrastructure to do that. The US/UK subs never need refuelled in their service life.

          • stefan_ 920 days ago
            They would have happily exported the nuclear subs, except the US intervened. What need do you think they have for diesel subs? They spent years retrofitting them. Do you now see the absurdity of the situation from the french PoV?
    • the-dude 920 days 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.

      • WastingMyTime89 920 days 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.

      • marsouin 920 days ago
        Quite right. France's expertise is definitely focused on nuclear subs, though conventional propulsion is said to be quieter.
  • pif 920 days 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?).

    • scanny 920 days ago
      The French government has a selective memory when it comes to intergovernmental trust... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior
      • ElKrist 920 days 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

    • throwawaymanbot 920 days ago
      Northern Ireland voted against brexit as a Region.
  • zibzab 920 days ago
    Ah, the Australian government is handling foreign affairs with the same delicacy it handled the pandemic...
    • heigh 920 days 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 920 days 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 919 days 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 919 days ago
        How did your country do compared to your kiwi neighbours?
        • heigh 919 days ago
          I agree, not as well, but how did we compare to all other nations?
          • zibzab 918 days ago
            New Zealand vs Belgium, which one would be a more relevant comparison?
  • g8oz 920 days ago
    Contracts can and do go bad all the time but the French histrionics over this affair are really quite something.