"Macron did not sledge Australia or Australians."

"Mr Macron, cornered by Australian journalists at the G20 summit in Rome, took aim at the Morrison government’s decision to scrap a $50 billion contract for French submarines and instead plan nuclear-powered boats with the United States and United Kingdom.

“I think this is detrimental to the reputation of your country and your Prime Minister,” the French president said."

https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/2021/11/01/great-shame-macron-morrison/

Yep. No sledge there.

Scott Morrison is an Australia - he was sledged.

"The extraordinary moment French President Emmanuel Macron accuses Prime Minister Scott Morrison of lying to him. We approached President Macron on the sidelines of the G20."

Nope no sledge there just an outright accusation of lying.

lee wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2021 at 2:21pm:


Correct.

Morrison is an Australian.  He is not Australians and he is not Australia.

Do I really have to point such banal stuff out?

from your reference -

"The Tele proposed that the text message from Macron (“Should I expect good or bad news for our joint submarines ambitions?”) somehow proved that he had been told that Australia was cancelling its submarine contract – and that the Frenchman “just didn’t want to hear it”. It proved nothing of the sort, and there was no evidence to support this contention other than the single text message and the assertions of “sources familiar with talks between the two men”. (Gee, who could they be?)"

You mean excluding the fact the Department of Defence letter expilictly states - "The matters addressed in this correspondence do not provide any authorisation to continue work or for the reimbursement of that work under CWS1 [Core Work Scope 1], other than in accordance with References A, B and C.” "


Aussie wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2021 at 4:48pm:


So you are saying that the President of the USA is not cleared to CONFIDENTIAL? What was confidential? The supplier? The work done?

What a dill you are.

lee wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2021 at 5:08pm:



there is a HUGE difference between not authorizing approval to commence the next stage, and notifying them that the contract is cancelled.

John Smith wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2021 at 6:38pm:



There was no contract to cancel. The French were well aware of this.

John Smith wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2021 at 6:38pm:


And?

"Naval Group had been aware since late last year that a decision to start the next phase of work would be subject to further government consideration."

"Canberra signaled in June it was looking for a way out of the contract, signed in 2016 with French company DCNS (now known as Naval Group) to build 12 Barracuda submarines.

Questioned by a Senate committee about issues with the project, Australia's Defense Secretary Greg Moriarty said: "It became clear to me we were having challenges ... over the last 15 to 12 months." He said his government had been considering its options, including what it could do if it was "unable to proceed" with the French deal.

Moriarty's admission came after his government in April refused to sign a contract for the next phase of the French submarine project, giving Naval Group until this month to comply with its demands. There were reports dating back to the beginning of this year that Canberra was seeking to walk away."


Naval Group is the French Connection.

Poor petal. What was it the French said again?

Oh that's right they were shocked. They had been told Australia was happy.

Aussie wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2021 at 9:31pm:


They have been in breach. I haven't seen where they were entitled to any such notice. Did the French raise it?

They were way behind on contract. What would you have them do push it out anther 6 months and hope the catch up?

lee wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2021 at 9:37pm:


In the ordinary course of Contract Law it is usual for a termination to follow a Notice to Remedy Breach.