I think a good deal of us (hopefully) recognise that scuppering one deal with a preferred supplier (France), and doing the exact same thing with another contract (AUKUS) would not be a good look regardless of who was in power at the time. I mean, what are you proposing? We buy Russian subs?
Subs, for sure, shallow-water operable for defence of Australian waters, not designed to sit offshore China and blockade shipping routes or act as a forward threat. Thereafter, invest in maritime drones and missile tech for land defence. We want a military for defence, not colonial misadventures.
Exactly right
Who would we buy them from? Our EU partners have been burnt, and you're saying that US subs are unacceptable, so what country do we then buy them from? What I'm getting at is that Labor is in an unenviable position. Even you would see risk in positioning ourselves as an unreliable partner.
Sweden, Japan, Germany all manufacture subs to contract. There are others. "Even you"? That aside, are you seriously suggesting that the US might view Australia as an unreliable partner? With Trump as Prez? Us, unreliable?
Labor bought itself to this position - it had no need to follow the LNP IPA and Morrison, it chose to do so It chose to continue imposing AUKUS and leave us all in a ridiculous position. with no mandate I call that betrayal We will have no submarines at all once the Collins class subs retire
Tbf ADF is so extraordinarily one-eyed in its capacity to comprehend danger. We’re a long way down the slippery slope of white supremacy AGAIN and they are bleating about China
The poison chalice had been served and drunk from the moment the Liberals cancelled the French sub deal. From there, our fate was sealed. Breaking a second oath will just make it worse. For our reputation to be restored, Labor’s hand is forced to honour the Liberal’s deal.
'Oath'? Surely, a contract.
When it comes to security pacts with allies, then it isn’t too far of a stretch to liken it to an oath… I know, sometimes I get a bit poetic… but you get what I mean.
Labor is not forced to "honour" the LNP IPA's corrupt deal at all AUKUS has no mandate
For clarification, I too want to see an end to AUKUS... However, it would be beneficial for our reputation if the US initiated that process.
What reputation is that?
Right up until the moment we cancelled the sub deal with the French, our reputation was impeccable. The envy of the world. You do recall Macron’s accusations against our elected leader? That was a big, big deal. And you want to repeat that mistake?
Our reputation for what? Last time I checked, we awarded a VC to a war criminal.
Alas, many a country would be delighted if that was the worst accusation that could be pointed their way…
Relativism and ethics is a coupling in which only the former survives.
I get where you are coming from, and agree that ethics are important - but isn’t honouring a formal contract ethical? Is that negated by virtue of a questionable origin for that contract? Or by potentially short term political upheaval in a party to that pact? Absolutism isn’t the solution.
For us to lead from behind you mean? I've got a better idea .. why don't we have the confidence to say to ourselves that AUKUS was never mandated, it was imposed and Australians do not want nuclear-powered subs, AUKUS must not proceed?
Forgive me, but doesn’t this conflict with basic civics? The Liberals were elected, and we gave them a mandate. That’s Democracy 101. Even opposition parties have to respect that, especially when it comes to agreements with foreign nations. Rejecting these principles is crazy talk.
Nobody gave Morrison a "mandate" to act on his own without even Cabinet involvement to stick up a secret deal and impose a $1TRILLION + AUKUS on Australians and effectively kill both out defence and foreign policies Our Westminster system of democracy does not allow decisions to be made in that way
And yet, that’s exactly what happened. Yes, I’m angry about it too. Yes, I want change too. But I’m not ready to invite the chaos that comes with some of the sentiment going around here in #auspol The “rage against the duopoly” movement is no different to MAGA. Flip side of the same coin.
So far, tell me if I'm wrong, your concern is that if we cancel this AUKUS contract with the US, then the US will do us damage? Whelp. Independence, in this case at the level of national sovereignty, comes at a cost.
I’m not concerned about the US. I’m concerned that it will significantly impact our options when it comes to future defence partnerships. We burned France, and by extension the whole of the EU. Burning the AUKUS deal will ironically do the opposite of putting us in the EU’s good books.
North Korea has proved pretty handy for the Russians. We could consider them; more stable leadership than Trump, as it turns out and they haven't invaded anyone since the folly of Sth Korea.
If the US burns us though… well, that’s a different story. See where I’m going with this?
What's good about the Duopoly?
Well, it beats a lot of the alternatives (yes, I’m a fan of Winston Churchill). No, I’m not convinced that minority governments are a panacea. There are plenty of examples to back that up. Be content that we live in a functioning democracy. Save your outrage to fight for those who do not.