It would also be nice if you knock off derogatory remarks. I assume you are not white and would not like to be called a brown fella or Abbo

(a) I am white (or “Anglo-Germanic Australian” to be precise).
(b) “Blackfella” and “whitefella” are not generally considered to be derogatory terms, although intent matters. Given the context, i.e. the “uncontrolled mass invasion” of the Australian continent by people of mostly English descent, I think my use of the term was singularly appropriate in referring to the perspective of the continent’s then sole inhabitants.

Yes, the Aussies have got somethings right. They do not as yet have an uncontrolled mass invasion.

Besides the whitefellas, you mean?

The UK does allocate an unusually high proportion of its GNI to foreign aid, being amongst a mere handful of nations (the others are Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Luxembourg and the Netherlands) to meet the target for advanced nations of 0.7% of GNI allocated to Official Development Assistance (a UN classification).

By way of contrast, Australia’s ODA as percentage of GNI recently hit an all-time low of around 0.2%. But then, this is a country so bereft of anything resembling a moral sensibility that it pays people smugglers to turn their ships around and go back to Indonesia, so you have to calibrate your expectations accordingly.

Well that is a highly authoritative source isn’t it, the Australian ? really ?

First claim in what you have quoted is absolute rubbish. They can’t have any discussions on the weapons systems or integration until after the prime has been selected, now that DCNS has been selected, they can now start having ITAR’s and integration discussion with the US State Dept. Even if it was the German or Japanese design that was selected, they still would not do the integration of the combat and weapons systems, this is wholly and solely decided by US State Dept,

Would they have discussed the project in general terms ? for sure, in depth discussions, and to believe that Senior US Navy officials would dictate or try and influence ? no way in hell, they never have and never will. This is just journalistic rubbish.

Official US policy of neutrality ? you bet, have they made statements about preferences ? you bet. Do they actually influence our decisions ? no

Not sure what your issue is with The Australian. As the national Murdoch rag I would’ve thought it would be near the top of preferred mainstream media outlets for this sort of thing. They broke yesterday’s selection announcement too.

We can see the problem with your suggested timeline with a simple hypothetical: what if we had selected a Chinese or Russian design? In that case, approaching Washington regarding combat system integration, armaments, etc. would undoubtedly be a fruitless exercise. Given that we are committed to using an American combat system, we must assess the extent to which Washington is prepared to cooperate with any given “prime” and factor this into our analysis prior to selection.

When it comes to complex and multidimensional relationships that nonetheless exhibit major power imbalances, as with the relationship between the United States and Australia, there is a very thin line between “having a preference” and “exerting pressure”. Nonetheless, I am willing to grant your preferred terminology, and rephrase my own statement to surprise that Canberra did not reflexively defer to Washington’s “preference” for a Japanese solution.

Of course, we know that former Prime Minister Tony Abbott was ready to do just that as part of his vision for a world where the sun never sets on the Anglo-American Empire. The reasons his preference did not dictate the result, and instead occasioned a comprehensive and impartial review (as impartial as any review conducted entirely by ex-US Navy brass could be) were explicitly political ones: namely the pressure the Liberal Party faced regarding defence jobs and manufacturing in South Australia, and the fact that his leadership was subsequently ambushed by someone who apparently does not wake up humming Rule Brittannia. One can usefully contrast this outcome with another major acquisition program that was (a) similarly politically favoured but (b) not subsequently subjected to a rigorous analysis of alternatives. I am referring, of course, to former Prime Minister John “US Junior Sheriff” Howard and the F-35 program.

The Age — France tipped to win $50bn [Australian] submarine contract

France is tipped to win Australia’s biggest ever defence contract with Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull expected on Tuesday morning to announce the winning bid to help build the $50 billion new submarine fleet.

Reports are emerging that the hard-fought contest between France, Germany and Japan to help design and build the fleet to replace the Collins Class has been won by the French. The Australian reported that Mr Turnbull had already called French President Francois Hollande to tell him the news.

Pleasantly surprised that we didn’t bow to American pressure to take the Japanese option.

Rii,
Well done on taking advantage of a serious debate to get in one more weighted blow for your anti-western agenda. Not a cheap and opportunistic move at all.

I was responding to a laughable screed that, amongst other things, attempted to absolve Britain of responsibility for its more recent foreign policy misadventures by pointing to the “special relationship” with the United States. The simple truth, however, is that Britain entered those conflicts of its own accord and for its own reasons, and that no particular arm-twisting from Washington was required (in Libya, indeed, the UK and France LED the charge to create today’s failed state/ISIS breeding ground/international terrorist arms bazaar/mass immigration transit hub). The point is that the problems do not lie in Washington, but in London, and indeed the point holds more broadly: the real problems facing the UK, and which are animating anti-EU sentiment, do not lie in Brussels at all, but in London, with domestic configurations of political power and the interests thereby represented. Of course, I am far too much a materialist to have much faith in the ability of reason and dialogue to persuade and to effect change; as such, the convenient punching bag that is the EU will probably have to go before the British (English) people are willing to seriously question their masters at home.

I did read this online which seemed apt (I’ve cleaned parts up up for here) –
[I]Dear Mr Obama, shove your trade up where the sun doesn’t shine! We weren’t at the back of the queue when you needed us on operations, twice in Iraq, and then again in Afghanistan. I guess it’s only a ” special relationship ” when it suits America. If you need help in future, you can always call on Germany, winners of so many wars, or Italy, but only if you’re already winning before you invite them, and of course, the mighty French, but give them some notice, so they can get their military production running at full strength, by putting their white flag factories onto three shifts. Good luck with that.
Signed
BRITAIN

Oh, and just as a little P.S.
The last time you went to war without us, the Viet Cong handed you your butt on a plate

You have to laugh at sentiments like this, as if the UK was dragged into Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya against its will and better judgment as a consequence of the ‘special relationship’, rather than having been an eager participant of its own accord in order to serve venal domestic political interests and to pretend to itself and others that the UK is still relevant in global affairs.

I think James Meek captured it best:

What began at some point in the 20th century as an unsavoury means to an end – trying to use American military might to leverage the waning British military, with the end of maximising British influence – floated loose of its original aim. Preserving the means became an end in itself. The goal of the British military establishment became to ingratiate itself with its US counterpart not for the sake of British interests but for the sake of British military prestige.

I’m always reminded of that line from Alan West about the QE carriers: “the Americans are very keen for us to have them.”