Best Of

There is however truth in the fact that all law (international and domestic) is enforced by violence. If we want to keep the current status quo of international law then we have to be prepared to defend it, with violence.

Yes. Otherwise, it is meaningless verbiage.

Reading and listening to some people going piously on about international law, in a world whose bad leaders do not give a toss about it, drives me nuts.

If bad leaders do not give a toss about international law, does that not imply that good leaders should care about it?

No, it means good leaders should invest in defence rather than international law to protect themselves.

We need to be spending on armaments and sending them where they're most useful, like Ukraine.

So, good leaders should do exactly the same as bad leaders...???

I disagree: while we do need to invest in defence (and send armaments to Ukraine), I don't think that's a reason to give up on the idea of international law. We should champion the idea of international law and counter those who wish to ignore it.

Bad leaders should be prepared to stand up to good leaders.

Banging on piously about international law does not do that.

Sending armaments to Ukraine does.

We should champion our values like the idea of democracy more than international law. Where our values like democracy and international law conflict, then democracy etc is more important.

Trump was democratically elected, and wants to invade Greenland in contravention of international law. Is that what you mean by democracy and international law conflicting?

No. We should champion the people of Greenland, Ukraine etc being free to democratically determine their own future.

With military support where required.

Banging on about international law does Jack Shit to achieve that.

There are rumours Trump is gonna offer $100,000 per Greenlander to buy the island

As there are only 50,000 that’s just $5bn, a drop in the US military budget

I suspect that will be very very persuasive for lots of Greenlanders. In fact I reckon it would be very very persuasive for lots of Brits

Imagine a similar offer here. Everyone in your household gets $100k if they agree to become American. For a lot of families that would be close to lifetime financial security, just for changing a flag. Plus a huge surge in investment from the new owners. They would take it

Wasn’t there a poll that showed Scots could be swayed to Yes or No on Indy for about 5000 quid? Or less?

What a hypothetical parcel of scottish rogues would have taken isn't really relevant. We're talking here about a people that are so determined to live on sheet ice they used to starve their grandparents to death rather than move somewhere warmer. 100k ain't worth it, it's a stupidly expensive place to live without all the subsidies that would immediately disappear. Break your leg and need a helicopter evacuation and you've lost it (or your grandkids pretend not to have seen you). 1m would perhaps do it.

If it meant becoming part of the USA, the payment would need to factor in all the increased expenses associated with being part of a country that sees its people as customers to be ripped off at every point..

Why not cancel the Chagos transfer?

What is there to lose?

It gets a barnacle off the underside of the boat and the actual people themselves don't want the transfer iirc.

The views of the Chagossians are mixed. Some support the transfer.

Is there some value in sticking to international law at this time? Can we see any examples where ignoring international law has led a country to poor decisions?

I am happy to return the Chagos to Mauritius and aid resettlement of the Chaggossians who wish to return there.

I don't see why we should pay to rent the US base their. Let the Yanks pay Mauritius.

When were the Chagos owned by Mauritius?

Until we illegally detached them in 1968 according to the UN and International Court of Justice:

https://www.icj-cij.org/case/169

The fact that we deported the Chaggossians to Mauritius and Seychelles indicates that we recognised that they were Mauritians. We denied them UK passports until 2002.

We did this purely in order to furnish the USA with a military base.

That would be the ICJ ruling that is explicitly non-binding?

Tell them to go f*** themselves and move on, what have we got to lose?

Then everyone else ignore ICJ rulings, and the bottom of that slippery slope is Trump and Miller saying the US should own Greenland by right of force.