MalcSB
Well-Known Member
Why did the government sign the Chagos deal now?
A deal to hand Mauritius the Chagos Islands and lease back a key military base has been months in the making.
so just making sure I get this, UN etc. orders us to hand it back. Process of doing that starts in 2022 so in conclusion, "F*cking Starmer!" What am I missing?
so just making sure I get this, UN etc. orders us to hand it back. Process of doing that starts in 2022 so in conclusion, "F*cking Starmer!" What am I missing?
You’re missing the Tories losing an election and it driving 60% of the country insane.
That the UN does not have jurisdiction to order the UK to do anything relating to a country which was part of the commonwealth. Starmer et al have just rolled over.so just making sure I get this, UN etc. orders us to hand it back. Process of doing that starts in 2022 so in conclusion, "F*cking Starmer!" What am I missing?
That the UN does not have jurisdiction to order the UK to do anything relating to a country which was part of the commonwealth. Starmer et al have just rolled over.
the UN can’t order a nation to do anything
Yeah, I get that, but when the wheels were in motion for this to happen since 2022 and the US will cover running costs for the base, I'm trying to get my head around how this is being held against Starmer in the way that it is. Is there a going rate for leasing an island for military use that we've decided to pay in excess of? Don't get it.
How can Labour winning an election leave the majority of the country insane?You’re missing the Tories losing an election and it driving 60% of the country insane.
It is a relatively large issue in this contextIt’s hardly a huge issue but the UN can’t order a nation to do anything
Are you sure about that?That the UN does not have jurisdiction to order the UK to do anything relating to a country which was part of the commonwealth. Starmer et al have just rolled over.
The UK leases land at huge costs all around the world and mainly in former colonies for military bases. The Chagos was an unusual case because we basically annexed it like a dictatorship and then because of the legal process we actually know what this is costing unlike other leases which aren’t disclosed due to national security. For all we know this might be the going rate for leasing land for military bases around the world.No issue with the return of the islands but surely we could have negotiated that we retain the area of the military base or at least only pay a peppercorn rent.
Comes across as very weak.
On what basis are they due any payment...?
How can Labour winning an election leave the majority of the country insane?
Or do they not have the mandate they like to suggest they have?
The UK leases land at huge costs all around the world and mainly in former colonies for military bases. The Chagos was an unusual case because we basically annexed it like a dictatorship and then because of the legal process we actually know what this is costing unlike other leases which aren’t disclosed due to national security. For all we know this might be the going rate for leasing land for military bases around the world.
Interestingly as one Labour MP pointed out that aside from Russia, China and Iran the only people who oppose the deal are the Tories and Reform. Seems to me that Labour are on the right side of history on this. An injustice has been reversed and we’ve maintained a crucial military presence in an important part of the world for the security of our country and former colonies. That’s strength not weakness, diplomacy over dictatorship. The right people don’t like it either because they’re dictators or chances try to make a mountain out of a molehill.
Do they fit in to the dictators or chancers categories?Labour MPs oppose it
If they havent got mental capacity, should their votes be disallowed?Half the insane people voted Labour.
Don't know. It's a shaky argument to say it's our land in the first place with it being something we probably just took by force and forced people to leave etc. but I don't know enough to have an informed opinion on that bit of the fine print.
If people's issue is how much we're paying and there's precedent(s) that show we're paying more than we should, fair enough. Doesn't seem like that's the issue people are making, though.
Badenoch and co. are saying vague things about Mauritian ties to China which seems to ignore that we're doing this with the US and there's a bunch of detail in the deal that covers security concerns, at least as far as I can see.
Thank goodness we have an international security consultant among the forum membership.
Wait till you lads discover how big the empire used to be and how much land we gave back, you're going to be furious!
I'm well aware the sun never set on the Empire, which included America at one point.
I think the key term in your post is how much land we GAVE back, not how much land we needed, gave back and then leased back for £3.5bn p.a. - at whoever's expense. Pretty well painted in to a corner post two world wars when much of the empire had been occupied by different sets of imperialistic countries. Exceedingly hard to justify not doing it in those circumstances. Completely different to the current situation.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?