EU-Australia trade deal runs aground over submarine furor
politico.eu
politico.eu
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.
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.
This is also claimed to be one of the reasons of cost/timeline overrun.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sad to see that Australia has taken the same path as Brexit UK (Northern Ireland anyone?) and trumpian USA (anything anyone?).
"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
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.
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.
Could it be better? Sure. Could it be way, way worse? Definitely.