Best Of

I hope Trump vetoes the Mauritius deal its a real dog.

If Starmer cant face up to owning some real estate in the Indian Ocean, he shpuld hand it over to the US

US gets permanence for a key base
US can offer citizenship to Chagossians whereas UK treats them like shit
UK taxpayer saves £100million a year rent.

Starmer really is a dimwit.

I thought it was a Tory scheme..... in particular, Cleverly's ....... originally.

And there will be one major objection, in Trump's 'mind' to offering the Chagossiams citizenship.

This is the standard drivel coming from the Left.

You spend 14 years saying everything the Tories did was wrong and then you accelerate the fk ups they have made instead of killing them dead and saying they were wrong.

Cleverly was wrong and so is Starmer.

I didn't say that the scheme, was "right". However it does seem to me that if we, or anyone else, have military bases on someone else's territory, there should a quid pro quo of some kind.
I do think that the Chagossians should have the choice of whether they become citizens of Mauritius or independent. Or, perchance, Sri Lankans.

We don’t realistically have the capability to defend our own home island never mind the Chagos islands. The level of self delusion is off the charts from a defence perspective. I agree that it should be the Chagossians who decide what they want to do but that’s a moral reason not a defence reason.

Air defence of the UK and army numbers should be the priority.

We're the 5th strongest economy/military on the planet and have our allies (like it or not) the USA stationed on the island.

Of course we do have the ability to defend it, from Mauritius.

It is delusional to say we don't.

The issue is apparently not Mauritius, but China. In any event I don’t really care about an island in the pacific but rather our home island in the Atlantic.

I don’t think we do have the 5th strongest military, at all.

Is surrendering sovereignty, without a fight, for a geo-strategically island that we and our allies have a major base on good or bad for our defence versus China?

Be realistic.

I hope Trump vetoes the Mauritius deal its a real dog.

If Starmer cant face up to owning some real estate in the Indian Ocean, he shpuld hand it over to the US

US gets permanence for a key base
US can offer citizenship to Chagossians whereas UK treats them like shit
UK taxpayer saves £100million a year rent.

Starmer really is a dimwit.

I thought it was a Tory scheme..... in particular, Cleverly's ....... originally.

And there will be one major objection, in Trump's 'mind' to offering the Chagossiams citizenship.

This is the standard drivel coming from the Left.

You spend 14 years saying everything the Tories did was wrong and then you accelerate the fk ups they have made instead of killing them dead and saying they were wrong.

Cleverly was wrong and so is Starmer.

I didn't say that the scheme, was "right". However it does seem to me that if we, or anyone else, have military bases on someone else's territory, there should a quid pro quo of some kind.
I do think that the Chagossians should have the choice of whether they become citizens of Mauritius or independent. Or, perchance, Sri Lankans.

We don’t realistically have the capability to defend our own home island never mind the Chagos islands. The level of self delusion is off the charts from a defence perspective. I agree that it should be the Chagossians who decide what they want to do but that’s a moral reason not a defence reason.

Air defence of the UK and army numbers should be the priority.

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?

I hope Trump vetoes the Mauritius deal its a real dog.

If Starmer cant face up to owning some real estate in the Indian Ocean, he shpuld hand it over to the US

US gets permanence for a key base
US can offer citizenship to Chagossians whereas UK treats them like shit
UK taxpayer saves £100million a year rent.

Starmer really is a dimwit.

I thought it was a Tory scheme..... in particular, Cleverly's ....... originally.

And there will be one major objection, in Trump's 'mind' to offering the Chagossiams citizenship.

This is the standard drivel coming from the Left.

You spend 14 years saying everything the Tories did was wrong and then you accelerate the fk ups they have made instead of killing them dead and saying they were wrong.

Cleverly was wrong and so is Starmer.

I didn't say that the scheme, was "right". However it does seem to me that if we, or anyone else, have military bases on someone else's territory, there should a quid pro quo of some kind.
I do think that the Chagossians should have the choice of whether they become citizens of Mauritius or independent. Or, perchance, Sri Lankans.

https://www.youtube.com/live/miM4ur5WH3Y?si=lTkVzEqTS7axzVlC

Carney's speech yesterday. Watch from 11 minutes in. Extraordinarily powerful stuff, a must watch.

I just watched the whole thing and would recommend it.

It's the most clear sighted account of the changing world we are facing and how countries like the UK should be responding.

Would recommend watching it all.

Agree. Fabulous and let's await Starmer following the lead.

However the speech resolves in outline every middle ranking nation's strategy except for one question: What precisely does Canada do if, having annexed Greenland in 2026, the USA armed forces enter Canada in 2027 and seek to take over?

It was delusional to ask, but now it isn't. We know why Carney didn't touch on it, but it is still a question. Is he in fact accidentally saying to Trump: If you want to take over Canada you had better do it quickly because we are getting ready?

Canadian defence spending is growing very quickly, albeit from a low base. It was up by 39% above inflation last year. (UK defence spending rose by 4.4% above inflation last year)

I guess it's the sort of thing that you would want to do in private as much as possible, but Britain really ought to be working hard to make sure that the nuclear deterrent can be sustained with US obstructionism. One of the benefits of an Anglo-Canadian Union would be extending Britain's nuclear deterrent to cover Canada, but that's no good if the US can put it out of action.

The latest figures from NATO on defence spending is interesting to look at. There are obviously some countries that are responding with an appropriate level of seriousness in terms of rapidly increasing their spending on defence, particularly if you look at countries that are already above the old 2% target that are still increasing their spending rapidly:
Denmark +45%
Finland +17%
Latvia +13%
Lithuania +34%
Netherlands +26%
Norway +50%
Poland +22%
Sweden +11%
Turkiye +12%

The UK sticks out as a country already above the 2% target that is doing very little to increase spending further. Britain has a self-image of being stronger on defence then the continental Europeans, but we're starting to become a laggard now.

Britain's defence spending has some problems, like all economic statistics. First, Cameron/Osborne boosted the figures but not the spending by adding in pensions and other costs that don't go bang. Second, it includes the nuclear deterrent which we can't actually fire at an enemy. Third, Labour actually used the army which is more expensive and runs down stocks faster than sitting around in Catterick. Fourth, decades of Tory cuts. Fifth, Labour spent the lot on two new carriers with not enough planes to fill one.

Meanwhile, it’s clear that the next major territorial battle will be fought with mostly small autonomous vehicles on land, sea, and air.

The best defence spending possible right now, is buying shares in the Ukranian startups currently powering their war that lets them expand their investment.