Starmer hands Diego Garcia “back to” Mauritius (they never owned it)
But of course he does. Next the Elgin Marbles, the Benin Bronzes, he will probably try and hand over Stonehenge to Norway
Is that the same Diego Garcia ethnically cleansed of Mauritians back in the 1960s?
"Ethnic cleansing is the systematic forced removal of ethnic, racial, or religious groups from a given area, with the intent of making the society ethnically homogeneous."
So, no. There are no permanent residents now, and I doubt the temporary residents of the US navy are ethnically, racially, or religiously homogeneous.
I think I’m only going to get through the next five years if I accept that I am governed by a bunch of venal and idiotic traitors with less brains than a frozen potato, who actively despise the people and nation they “govern”, especially its history and culture
Well we've put up with it for eight years so your turn now.
You think you’ll be spared the disaster? Dream on
Pretty sure they will be no worse than their predecessors. And I'm fortunate enough to be largely insulated from it all as are you.
The scary part is looking at my wife's friends, just added them up and between 7 of them there's only 4 kids so far and 3 of them aren't married/engaged or in serious relationships and they're all about 30-35 and in good careers etc...
My headline view is that the very big problems of demographic decline are rather smaller than the very big problems of untramelled demographic growth. So on a global scale there's that to be cheery about. But there's no doubt they are big problems. The wikipedia page on Chinese demographics has a little animation of their projected age/sex pyramid, which is quite startling.
The interesting thing is that demographic decline seems to happen everywhere in the developed or almost-developed world, regardless of local culture and politics. It's easy to blame housing costs, and housing costs are certainly a problem, but globally, poverty clearly doesn't stop people having children - all the really high birth rates are in really poor places. It's easy to blame the choices people make, but this seems to hold true across all cultures - and in any case, I think it's the case that people continue to want children in the same numbers they always did. The number of childless women who get to their mid-40s and wish they'd had children is about 90% of the number of childless women who get to their mid-40s. The number of people who wish they'd had more children is almost infinitely higher than the proportion who wish they'd had fewer.
There are all sorts of reasons why children don't happen, but my theory is that they have a common root: across all developed and almost-developed societies, there are many more old people than there used to be, and the more old people you have, the more resources you have to put into looking after that generation, so the less you have for the next generation. Low birth rates are to a large extent a feature of high birth rates a generation or two ago: the steeper the population growth a generation or two ago (e.g. East Asia), the steeper the decline now. This doesn't hold for sub-Saharan Africa because so few people make it to old age. But when they start doing so, we'll see the same pattern there.
Even in Africa, birthrates are falling very rapidly. I'd say that a very big driver of high birthrates was (as you say) few people surviving to old age, but also very high infant mortality, and high rates of deaths in childbirth. Child mortality rates are now much lower, everywhere, as are deaths in childbirth. Famine is also much less common too, and children always suffer the worst in famines.
In Africa most women have four to six children so birthrates are still much higher there compared to the far East and West now where most women have one child now if they have children at all
Yes. But that's changing, just as its changing, or has already changed, everywhere else.
My wife grew up in West Cork as one of four children, which was an unusually small family for the time (80s) in rural Ireland. Families with 6-10 children were common. So far her parents have four grandchildren, and my best guess is that they will end up with five.
This will happen in Africa too.
It isn't changing that much in relative terms, the world is becoming more African and less European and American and Chinese population wise and that trend will continue further this century and next
It is not just down to housing costs, as they reduce as the population falls and houses become empty. Eastern Europe has many empty homes and still a falling population. It is down to social trends and the impact of social media.
In the longer term falling populations will cause industries to shut down as markets get smaller and the labour force dwindles. This will include the computer chip industry, so computers will eventually disappear and the internet and mobile phones too. Mankind will revert to a pre-technological world, but we will be very poorly prepared to live in it. Not many people know how to butcher a rabbit, plant crops etc. Thus the population will continue to fall. However, eventually some groups will survive and grow and things will stabilise. Evolution will also play a part. Homo Sapiens thinks it rules the world, but it too is subject to the laws of nature and is not exempt from them.
Starmer hands Diego Garcia “back to” Mauritius (they never owned it)
But of course he does. Next the Elgin Marbles, the Benin Bronzes, he will probably try and hand over Stonehenge to Norway
Is that the same Diego Garcia ethnically cleansed of Mauritians back in the 1960s?
"Ethnic cleansing is the systematic forced removal of ethnic, racial, or religious groups from a given area, with the intent of making the society ethnically homogeneous."
So, no. There are no permanent residents now, and I doubt the temporary residents of the US navy are ethnically, racially, or religiously homogeneous.
I think I’m only going to get through the next five years if I accept that I am governed by a bunch of venal and idiotic traitors with less brains than a frozen potato, who actively despise the people and nation they “govern”, especially its history and culture
Whilst that is true, it's probably just as true of the Conservatives and Lib Dems.
The scary part is looking at my wife's friends, just added them up and between 7 of them there's only 4 kids so far and 3 of them aren't married/engaged or in serious relationships and they're all about 30-35 and in good careers etc...
"In 2019, the International Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion stating that the United Kingdom did not have sovereignty over the Chagos Islands and that the administration of the archipelago should be handed over "as rapidly as possible" to Mauritius.[10] The United Nations General Assembly then voted to give Britain a six-month deadline to begin the process of handing over the islands.[11]"
Why is everyone making out they have loads of friends?
I only have four proper ones - two male and two female. They have 3 kids between them. So with my one that's 4 between 5.
Why is the birth-rate falling? Numerous reasons, obviously, but I'd highlight female emancipation. Women know it's a bum deal for them and with more empowerment are freer to turn it down.
The scary part is looking at my wife's friends, just added them up and between 7 of them there's only 4 kids so far and 3 of them aren't married/engaged or in serious relationships and they're all about 30-35 and in good careers etc...
Not many of the student friends of my girls seem likely to have children - but their primary school friends have more than made up for it...
"In 2019, the International Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion stating that the United Kingdom did not have sovereignty over the Chagos Islands and that the administration of the archipelago should be handed over "as rapidly as possible" to Mauritius.[10] The United Nations General Assembly then voted to give Britain a six-month deadline to begin the process of handing over the islands.[11]"
Do you think the French would simply roll over and yield territory and possessions, because the UN has got the huff? No. Because their governments have pride and backbone - and also better strategic sense than to hand a victory to China
This is a monumental blunder as well as emblematic of Labour’s spineless moral vanity
I think I’m only going to get through the next five years if I accept that I am governed by a bunch of venal and idiotic traitors with less brains than a frozen potato, who actively despise the people and nation they “govern”, especially its history and culture
I'm waiting around for the budget to see if leaving the UK makes financial sense. Turned down a bit of work recently on the basis "I'm not sure if I'm going to be around after April next year." Similarly I keep an eye on data.indeed.com as a proxy for the economy and noticed a sharp drop in jobs posted in August - data that backs MaxPB's talk of hiring freezes. The damage to the economy is already being done, and we're just getting started.
With all your travel experience you should consider doing a "five unusual spots to wait out the next five years" piece. Everyone buggers off to Dubai or Monaco or Jersey. Do something on Malta, Malaysia, or Vietnam... heck, there was a particularly prodigious German investor a few years ago who single handedly got 100 people to move to Sark (if I recall, Sark has a population of about 200 at the best of times).
Starmer hands Diego Garcia “back to” Mauritius (they never owned it)
But of course he does. Next the Elgin Marbles, the Benin Bronzes, he will probably try and hand over Stonehenge to Norway
Absolutely insane
Here is the official statement on Diego Garcia: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/joint-statement-between-uk-and-mauritius-3-october-2024 (You will notice the word "back" is not used anywhere.) It looks like a deal has been reached between different parties that will help solve the longstanding problem of people having been expelled from their homes. Is that not good news?
A 99-year lease for Diego Garcia. By which point the Chinese population may be less than half its current number.
Rumours of the demise of the base have been greatly exaggerated, and Britain has again asserted its respect for the international rule of law.
And yet again the PB Tory hot takes have proven... embarrassing.
A diplomatic and humane act by Sir Keir, that may go some way to assuaging a historical wrong.
"In 2019, the International Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion stating that the United Kingdom did not have sovereignty over the Chagos Islands and that the administration of the archipelago should be handed over "as rapidly as possible" to Mauritius.[10] The United Nations General Assembly then voted to give Britain a six-month deadline to begin the process of handing over the islands.[11]"
Do you think the French would simply roll over and yield territory and possessions, because the UN has got the huff? No. Because their governments have pride and backbone - and also better strategic sense than to hand a victory to China
This is a monumental blunder as well as emblematic of Labour’s spineless moral vanity
Yup, other countries would just tell the UN to get fucked.
Why is everyone making out they have loads of friends?
I only have four proper ones - two male and two female. They have 3 kids between them. So with my one that's 4 between 5.
Why is the birth-rate falling? Numerous reasons, obviously, but I'd highlight female emancipation. Women know it's a bum deal for them and with more empowerment are freer to turn it down.
I have lots of good friends. I count good friends as “people I can discuss anything with”. Sorry if that upends your view of the world
I think I’m only going to get through the next five years if I accept that I am governed by a bunch of venal and idiotic traitors with less brains than a frozen potato, who actively despise the people and nation they “govern”, especially its history and culture
Or you could wake up every morning, look in the bathroom mirror, and ask yourself, "What have I done ??!!"
Starmer hands Diego Garcia “back to” Mauritius (they never owned it)
But of course he does. Next the Elgin Marbles, the Benin Bronzes, he will probably try and hand over Stonehenge to Norway
Absolutely insane
Here is the official statement on Diego Garcia: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/joint-statement-between-uk-and-mauritius-3-october-2024 (You will notice the word "back" is not used anywhere.) It looks like a deal has been reached between different parties that will help solve the longstanding problem of people having been expelled from their homes. Is that not good news?
A 99-year lease for Diego Garcia. By which point the Chinese population may be less than half its current number.
Rumours of the demise of the base have been greatly exaggerated, and Britain has again asserted its respect for the international rule of law.
And yet again the PB Tory hot takes have proven... embarrassing.
A diplomatic and humane act by Sir Keir, that may go some way to assuaging a historical wrong.
He was more likely told what to do by the Americans and it will do nothing to assuage any historical wrongs.
I think I’m only going to get through the next five years if I accept that I am governed by a bunch of venal and idiotic traitors with less brains than a frozen potato, who actively despise the people and nation they “govern”, especially its history and culture
Or you could wake up every morning, look in the bathroom mirror, and ask yourself, "What have I done ??!!"
"In 2019, the International Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion stating that the United Kingdom did not have sovereignty over the Chagos Islands and that the administration of the archipelago should be handed over "as rapidly as possible" to Mauritius.[10] The United Nations General Assembly then voted to give Britain a six-month deadline to begin the process of handing over the islands.[11]"
Do you think the French would simply roll over and yield territory and possessions, because the UN has got the huff? No. Because their governments have pride and backbone - and also better strategic sense than to hand a victory to China
This is a monumental blunder as well as emblematic of Labour’s spineless moral vanity
Do you understand the history of this territory? Any idea whatsoever? Any grasp of international law or the recent ruling?
Or are you just drunk and angry again...? at 11.45am. In Camden Town.
"In 2019, the International Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion stating that the United Kingdom did not have sovereignty over the Chagos Islands and that the administration of the archipelago should be handed over "as rapidly as possible" to Mauritius.[10] The United Nations General Assembly then voted to give Britain a six-month deadline to begin the process of handing over the islands.[11]"
Do you think the French would simply roll over and yield territory and possessions, because the UN has got the huff? No. Because their governments have pride and backbone - and also better strategic sense than to hand a victory to China
This is a monumental blunder as well as emblematic of Labour’s spineless moral vanity
How would the hand-over of the Chagos affect your Speccie-funded globetrotting?
Aside from the loss of sovereignty of the Indian Ocean Territory and the unknown consequences that will have in the future. A very direct consequence of this will be the loss of protection some of the most biodiverse sea-life on the planet. 640,000 km² was protected by the BIOT Marine protection area and given that one of the reasons Mauritius wanted the islands was to exploit the economic zone they provide, I doubt that protection will be in place much longer. Not as joyous and progressive a move as some may be led to believe.
Mr. Password, aye. The UN as-is is better than no UN, but it's a long way from what it might be. Mind you that might be due to countries not being what they might be.
My headline view is that the very big problems of demographic decline are rather smaller than the very big problems of untramelled demographic growth. So on a global scale there's that to be cheery about. But there's no doubt they are big problems. The wikipedia page on Chinese demographics has a little animation of their projected age/sex pyramid, which is quite startling.
The interesting thing is that demographic decline seems to happen everywhere in the developed or almost-developed world, regardless of local culture and politics. It's easy to blame housing costs, and housing costs are certainly a problem, but globally, poverty clearly doesn't stop people having children - all the really high birth rates are in really poor places. It's easy to blame the choices people make, but this seems to hold true across all cultures - and in any case, I think it's the case that people continue to want children in the same numbers they always did. The number of childless women who get to their mid-40s and wish they'd had children is about 90% of the number of childless women who get to their mid-40s. The number of people who wish they'd had more children is almost infinitely higher than the proportion who wish they'd had fewer.
There are all sorts of reasons why children don't happen, but my theory is that they have a common root: across all developed and almost-developed societies, there are many more old people than there used to be, and the more old people you have, the more resources you have to put into looking after that generation, so the less you have for the next generation. Low birth rates are to a large extent a feature of high birth rates a generation or two ago: the steeper the population growth a generation or two ago (e.g. East Asia), the steeper the decline now. This doesn't hold for sub-Saharan Africa because so few people make it to old age. But when they start doing so, we'll see the same pattern there.
At least you’ve done your bit!
I’ve managed two but without going into details it could/should have been several more
When I count my acquaintances it is striking how many are childless (and now going to stay that way). Sadly, I do think most of them regret it
Thanks! If I've achieved nothing else in my 49 years on the planet - and it's arguable that I haven't - I can at least take comfort that I've slightly repopulated the planet (sorry @SandyRentool !)
I have a group of friends from school with whom I am reasonably close - 11 of us: an unusually high 7 have gone down the straightforward married+2 kids (or 3, in or case) route, while the other four don't have kids of their own. There are some stepchildren in there and a shedload of dogs, but also a few regrets. Fertility rate of 1.36 (I know you're supposed to do it per mother and most of us are male, but I think it still works for comparison purposes). And we're the lucky middle class ones from unchaotic backgrounds who have made stable lives for ourselves and who can afford the choices we make.
I just crunched my numbers
My closest ten male friends (using their initials):
C: 2 H: 0 L: 0 T: 1 P: 1 P: 0 B: 0 G: 2 C: 0 P: 1
Me: 2
So 11 men have produced 9 kids. We are a bohemian bunch with a lot of chaos. But also fairly rich
We’re dying out!
In the next ten friends there’s one guy with 5 (doing his bit) but also several more childless - so the pattern holds
Doing the same exercise:
D - 2 J - 1 M - 2 A - 0 J - 0 A - 1 W - 0 B - 0 R - 1 Me - 2
So that's 9 kids for 10 blokes, I think there's probably 3 or 4 more left though as J with 0 and A with zero have only recently bought their own houses and W is getting married next summer and had said he wants to have at least one kid. Even with that as a group we're below the replacement rate because all but one of us are married or engaged.
My closest male friends
J - 2 C - 1 S - 0 A - 0 A -2 M - 0 Jc - 0 Jd - 0 Me - 0
"In 2019, the International Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion stating that the United Kingdom did not have sovereignty over the Chagos Islands and that the administration of the archipelago should be handed over "as rapidly as possible" to Mauritius.[10] The United Nations General Assembly then voted to give Britain a six-month deadline to begin the process of handing over the islands.[11]"
Do you think the French would simply roll over and yield territory and possessions, because the UN has got the huff? No. Because their governments have pride and backbone - and also better strategic sense than to hand a victory to China
This is a monumental blunder as well as emblematic of Labour’s spineless moral vanity
Yup, other countries would just tell the UN to get fucked.
Unless we wanted rid anyway provided we could keep the airbase - which was all we cared about..
I think I’m only going to get through the next five years if I accept that I am governed by a bunch of venal and idiotic traitors with less brains than a frozen potato, who actively despise the people and nation they “govern”, especially its history and culture
Or you could wake up every morning, look in the bathroom mirror, and ask yourself, "What have I done ??!!"
Starmer hands Diego Garcia “back to” Mauritius (they never owned it)
But of course he does. Next the Elgin Marbles, the Benin Bronzes, he will probably try and hand over Stonehenge to Norway
Absolutely insane
Here is the official statement on Diego Garcia: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/joint-statement-between-uk-and-mauritius-3-october-2024 (You will notice the word "back" is not used anywhere.) It looks like a deal has been reached between different parties that will help solve the longstanding problem of people having been expelled from their homes. Is that not good news?
The absolute horror that UK are obeying the decisions of the International Court of Justice, the UN and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.
Would be completely uncontroversial if the US didn't have a base there.
Still, Billy Brexit probably thinks we should send the gun boats over.
Aside from the loss of sovereignty of the Indian Ocean Territory and the unknown consequences that will have in he future. A very direct consequence of this will be the loss of protection some of the most biodiverse sea-life on the planet. 640,000 km² was protected by the BIOT Marine protection area and given that one of the reasons Mauritius wanted the islands was to exploit the economic zone they provide, I doubt that protection will be in place much longer. Not as joyous and progressive a move as some may be led to believe.
The left have never really given many fucks about the environment.
Starmer hands Diego Garcia “back to” Mauritius (they never owned it)
But of course he does. Next the Elgin Marbles, the Benin Bronzes, he will probably try and hand over Stonehenge to Norway
Absolutely insane
Here is the official statement on Diego Garcia: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/joint-statement-between-uk-and-mauritius-3-october-2024 (You will notice the word "back" is not used anywhere.) It looks like a deal has been reached between different parties that will help solve the longstanding problem of people having been expelled from their homes. Is that not good news?
A 99-year lease for Diego Garcia. By which point the Chinese population may be less than half its current number.
Rumours of the demise of the base have been greatly exaggerated, and Britain has again asserted its respect for the international rule of law.
And yet again the PB Tory hot takes have proven... embarrassing.
A diplomatic and humane act by Sir Keir, that may go some way to assuaging a historical wrong.
He was more likely told what to do by the Americans and it will do nothing to assuage any historical wrongs.
Starmer hands Diego Garcia “back to” Mauritius (they never owned it)
But of course he does. Next the Elgin Marbles, the Benin Bronzes, he will probably try and hand over Stonehenge to Norway
Absolutely insane
Here is the official statement on Diego Garcia: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/joint-statement-between-uk-and-mauritius-3-october-2024 (You will notice the word "back" is not used anywhere.) It looks like a deal has been reached between different parties that will help solve the longstanding problem of people having been expelled from their homes. Is that not good news?
A 99-year lease for Diego Garcia. By which point the Chinese population may be less than half its current number.
Rumours of the demise of the base have been greatly exaggerated, and Britain has again asserted its respect for the international rule of law.
And yet again the PB Tory hot takes have proven... embarrassing.
A diplomatic and humane act by Sir Keir, that may go some way to assuaging a historical wrong.
I wonder how many suits or football tickets it cost the Mauritians or their Chinese paymasters.
"In 2019, the International Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion stating that the United Kingdom did not have sovereignty over the Chagos Islands and that the administration of the archipelago should be handed over "as rapidly as possible" to Mauritius.[10] The United Nations General Assembly then voted to give Britain a six-month deadline to begin the process of handing over the islands.[11]"
Do you think the French would simply roll over and yield territory and possessions, because the UN has got the huff? No. Because their governments have pride and backbone - and also better strategic sense than to hand a victory to China
This is a monumental blunder as well as emblematic of Labour’s spineless moral vanity
Do you understand the history of this territory? Any idea whatsoever? Any grasp of international law or the recent ruling?
Or are you just drunk and angry again...? at 11.45am. In Camden Town.
I’m perfectly chilled and gently packing for a trip abroad. I’ve accepted that Labour are a genuine catastrophe - I’m amused they are so greedy, clueless and unpopular
The scary part is looking at my wife's friends, just added them up and between 7 of them there's only 4 kids so far and 3 of them aren't married/engaged or in serious relationships and they're all about 30-35 and in good careers etc...
Its alright, the robots are coming.
"There are girls your age who are just like me. We are the guiltless pleasures of the lonely human being. You're not gonna get us pregnant or have us to supper with Mommy and Daddy. We work under you, we work on you and we work for you. Man made us better at what we do than was ever humanly possible."
I think I’m only going to get through the next five years if I accept that I am governed by a bunch of venal and idiotic traitors with less brains than a frozen potato, who actively despise the people and nation they “govern”, especially its history and culture
Or you could wake up every morning, look in the bathroom mirror, and ask yourself, "What have I done ??!!"
Starmer hands Diego Garcia “back to” Mauritius (they never owned it)
But of course he does. Next the Elgin Marbles, the Benin Bronzes, he will probably try and hand over Stonehenge to Norway
Absolutely insane
Here is the official statement on Diego Garcia: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/joint-statement-between-uk-and-mauritius-3-october-2024 (You will notice the word "back" is not used anywhere.) It looks like a deal has been reached between different parties that will help solve the longstanding problem of people having been expelled from their homes. Is that not good news?
A 99-year lease for Diego Garcia. By which point the Chinese population may be less than half its current number.
Rumours of the demise of the base have been greatly exaggerated, and Britain has again asserted its respect for the international rule of law.
And yet again the PB Tory hot takes have proven... embarrassing.
A diplomatic and humane act by Sir Keir, that may go some way to assuaging a historical wrong.
He was more likely told what to do by the Americans and it will do nothing to assuage any historical wrongs.
So says Billy Glenn, the expert on the internet.
LOL.
Are they planning to give up the base so that the island population can return?
Why is everyone making out they have loads of friends?
I only have four proper ones - two male and two female. They have 3 kids between them. So with my one that's 4 between 5.
Why is the birth-rate falling? Numerous reasons, obviously, but I'd highlight female emancipation. Women know it's a bum deal for them and with more empowerment are freer to turn it down.
I have lots of good friends. I count good friends as “people I can discuss anything with”. Sorry if that upends your view of the world
Ah ok. That includes me then, I suppose (although I didn't spot my initial on the list). One child - hardly shifting the dial, I know.
Starmer hands Diego Garcia “back to” Mauritius (they never owned it)
But of course he does. Next the Elgin Marbles, the Benin Bronzes, he will probably try and hand over Stonehenge to Norway
Absolutely insane
Here is the official statement on Diego Garcia: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/joint-statement-between-uk-and-mauritius-3-october-2024 (You will notice the word "back" is not used anywhere.) It looks like a deal has been reached between different parties that will help solve the longstanding problem of people having been expelled from their homes. Is that not good news?
A 99-year lease for Diego Garcia. By which point the Chinese population may be less than half its current number.
Rumours of the demise of the base have been greatly exaggerated, and Britain has again asserted its respect for the international rule of law.
And yet again the PB Tory hot takes have proven... embarrassing.
A diplomatic and humane act by Sir Keir, that may go some way to assuaging a historical wrong.
He was more likely told what to do by the Americans and it will do nothing to assuage any historical wrongs.
So says Billy Glenn, the expert on the internet.
LOL.
Are they planning to give up the base so that the island population can return?
The only winner here is Mauritius, which never “owned” the islands, and China. I doubt the Chagossians will benefit at all
But Starmer will get a pat on the back from smirking Chinese-funded diplomats at the UN
Starmer hands Diego Garcia “back to” Mauritius (they never owned it)
But of course he does. Next the Elgin Marbles, the Benin Bronzes, he will probably try and hand over Stonehenge to Norway
Absolutely insane
Here is the official statement on Diego Garcia: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/joint-statement-between-uk-and-mauritius-3-october-2024 (You will notice the word "back" is not used anywhere.) It looks like a deal has been reached between different parties that will help solve the longstanding problem of people having been expelled from their homes. Is that not good news?
A 99-year lease for Diego Garcia. By which point the Chinese population may be less than half its current number.
Rumours of the demise of the base have been greatly exaggerated, and Britain has again asserted its respect for the international rule of law.
And yet again the PB Tory hot takes have proven... embarrassing.
A diplomatic and humane act by Sir Keir, that may go some way to assuaging a historical wrong.
I wonder how many suits or football tickets it cost the Mauritians or their Chinese paymasters.
So Sir Keir is BAD for getting frocks for his wife that were voluntarily gifted to her and...
also BAD for relinquishing sovereignty on a island on which he has no legal claim?
"In 2019, the International Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion stating that the United Kingdom did not have sovereignty over the Chagos Islands and that the administration of the archipelago should be handed over "as rapidly as possible" to Mauritius.[10] The United Nations General Assembly then voted to give Britain a six-month deadline to begin the process of handing over the islands.[11]"
Do you think the French would simply roll over and yield territory and possessions, because the UN has got the huff? No. Because their governments have pride and backbone - and also better strategic sense than to hand a victory to China
This is a monumental blunder as well as emblematic of Labour’s spineless moral vanity
Do you understand the history of this territory? Any idea whatsoever? Any grasp of international law or the recent ruling?
Or are you just drunk and angry again...? at 11.45am. In Camden Town.
Governments obey international law, and they ignore international law, as it suits them.
The protection of our strategic interests is of vastly greater importance than a ruling of the International Court of Justice. Provided that the military base is secure, then it's not a problem. The issue that matters is whether this gives the Chinese leverage to remove the base completely.
Why is everyone making out they have loads of friends?
I only have four proper ones - two male and two female. They have 3 kids between them. So with my one that's 4 between 5.
Why is the birth-rate falling? Numerous reasons, obviously, but I'd highlight female emancipation. Women know it's a bum deal for them and with more empowerment are freer to turn it down.
I have lots of good friends. I count good friends as “people I can discuss anything with”. Sorry if that upends your view of the world
Ah ok. That includes me then, I suppose (although I didn't spot my initial on the list). One child - hardly shifting the dial, I know.
Starmer hands Diego Garcia “back to” Mauritius (they never owned it)
But of course he does. Next the Elgin Marbles, the Benin Bronzes, he will probably try and hand over Stonehenge to Norway
Absolutely insane
Here is the official statement on Diego Garcia: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/joint-statement-between-uk-and-mauritius-3-october-2024 (You will notice the word "back" is not used anywhere.) It looks like a deal has been reached between different parties that will help solve the longstanding problem of people having been expelled from their homes. Is that not good news?
A 99-year lease for Diego Garcia. By which point the Chinese population may be less than half its current number.
Rumours of the demise of the base have been greatly exaggerated, and Britain has again asserted its respect for the international rule of law.
And yet again the PB Tory hot takes have proven... embarrassing.
A diplomatic and humane act by Sir Keir, that may go some way to assuaging a historical wrong.
He was more likely told what to do by the Americans and it will do nothing to assuage any historical wrongs.
So says Billy Glenn, the expert on the internet.
LOL.
Are they planning to give up the base so that the island population can return?
The only winner here is Mauritius, which never “owned” the islands, and China. I doubt the Chagossians will benefit at all
But Starmer will get a pat on the back from smirking Chinese-funded diplomats at the UN
Starmer hands Diego Garcia “back to” Mauritius (they never owned it)
But of course he does. Next the Elgin Marbles, the Benin Bronzes, he will probably try and hand over Stonehenge to Norway
Absolutely insane
Here is the official statement on Diego Garcia: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/joint-statement-between-uk-and-mauritius-3-october-2024 (You will notice the word "back" is not used anywhere.) It looks like a deal has been reached between different parties that will help solve the longstanding problem of people having been expelled from their homes. Is that not good news?
A 99-year lease for Diego Garcia. By which point the Chinese population may be less than half its current number.
Rumours of the demise of the base have been greatly exaggerated, and Britain has again asserted its respect for the international rule of law.
And yet again the PB Tory hot takes have proven... embarrassing.
A diplomatic and humane act by Sir Keir, that may go some way to assuaging a historical wrong.
He was more likely told what to do by the Americans and it will do nothing to assuage any historical wrongs.
So says Billy Glenn, the expert on the internet.
LOL.
Are they planning to give up the base so that the island population can return?
The only winner here is Mauritius, which never “owned” the islands, and China. I doubt the Chagossians will benefit at all
But Starmer will get a pat on the back from smirking Chinese-funded diplomats at the UN
Mauritius never "owned" the Chagos islands because Britain detached them prior to Independence. And to cap it all Britain then proceeded to ethnically cleanse the islands between 1968 and 1973.
Starmer hands Diego Garcia “back to” Mauritius (they never owned it)
But of course he does. Next the Elgin Marbles, the Benin Bronzes, he will probably try and hand over Stonehenge to Norway
Absolutely insane
Here is the official statement on Diego Garcia: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/joint-statement-between-uk-and-mauritius-3-october-2024 (You will notice the word "back" is not used anywhere.) It looks like a deal has been reached between different parties that will help solve the longstanding problem of people having been expelled from their homes. Is that not good news?
A 99-year lease for Diego Garcia. By which point the Chinese population may be less than half its current number.
Rumours of the demise of the base have been greatly exaggerated, and Britain has again asserted its respect for the international rule of law.
And yet again the PB Tory hot takes have proven... embarrassing.
A diplomatic and humane act by Sir Keir, that may go some way to assuaging a historical wrong.
Are you missing the part where the negotiations have been going for years? But no, it's a Starmer masterstroke!
Aside from the loss of sovereignty of the Indian Ocean Territory and the unknown consequences that will have in he future. A very direct consequence of this will be the loss of protection some of the most biodiverse sea-life on the planet. 640,000 km² was protected by the BIOT Marine protection area and given that one of the reasons Mauritius wanted the islands was to exploit the economic zone they provide, I doubt that protection will be in place much longer. Not as joyous and progressive a move as some may be led to believe.
The left have never really given many fucks about the environment.
A point regarding South Georgia and the Falklands - the reason why the Argentinians invaded South Georgia (which they had no claim to) was to attempt to extinguish the UK sovereignty claim in Antarctica. At the moment, Antarctica is divided up like a pie between those with claims.
The UK policy is no development or anything Antartica beyond scientific exploration. Because it has been decided (by international treaty) that changes to the status of Antarctica must be agreed between those with claims, this meant that the UK is a block on any development in Antarctica. Argentina has been trying for decades to change this.
Starmer hands Diego Garcia “back to” Mauritius (they never owned it)
But of course he does. Next the Elgin Marbles, the Benin Bronzes, he will probably try and hand over Stonehenge to Norway
Absolutely insane
Here is the official statement on Diego Garcia: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/joint-statement-between-uk-and-mauritius-3-october-2024 (You will notice the word "back" is not used anywhere.) It looks like a deal has been reached between different parties that will help solve the longstanding problem of people having been expelled from their homes. Is that not good news?
A 99-year lease for Diego Garcia. By which point the Chinese population may be less than half its current number.
Rumours of the demise of the base have been greatly exaggerated, and Britain has again asserted its respect for the international rule of law.
And yet again the PB Tory hot takes have proven... embarrassing.
A diplomatic and humane act by Sir Keir, that may go some way to assuaging a historical wrong.
He was more likely told what to do by the Americans and it will do nothing to assuage any historical wrongs.
So says Billy Glenn, the expert on the internet.
LOL.
Are they planning to give up the base so that the island population can return?
The only winner here is Mauritius, which never “owned” the islands, and China. I doubt the Chagossians will benefit at all
But Starmer will get a pat on the back from smirking Chinese-funded diplomats at the UN
"In 2019, the International Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion stating that the United Kingdom did not have sovereignty over the Chagos Islands and that the administration of the archipelago should be handed over "as rapidly as possible" to Mauritius.[10] The United Nations General Assembly then voted to give Britain a six-month deadline to begin the process of handing over the islands.[11]"
Do you think the French would simply roll over and yield territory and possessions, because the UN has got the huff? No. Because their governments have pride and backbone - and also better strategic sense than to hand a victory to China
This is a monumental blunder as well as emblematic of Labour’s spineless moral vanity
Do you understand the history of this territory? Any idea whatsoever? Any grasp of international law or the recent ruling?
Or are you just drunk and angry again...? at 11.45am. In Camden Town.
Governments obey international law, and they ignore international law, as it suits them.
The protection of our strategic interests is of vastly greater importance than a ruling of the International Court of Justice. Provided that the military base is secure, then it's not a problem. The issue that matters is whether this gives the Chinese leverage to remove the base completely.
The 99 year lease does have a certain Hong Kong ring about it.
"In 2019, the International Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion stating that the United Kingdom did not have sovereignty over the Chagos Islands and that the administration of the archipelago should be handed over "as rapidly as possible" to Mauritius.[10] The United Nations General Assembly then voted to give Britain a six-month deadline to begin the process of handing over the islands.[11]"
Do you think the French would simply roll over and yield territory and possessions, because the UN has got the huff? No. Because their governments have pride and backbone - and also better strategic sense than to hand a victory to China
This is a monumental blunder as well as emblematic of Labour’s spineless moral vanity
Do you understand the history of this territory? Any idea whatsoever? Any grasp of international law or the recent ruling?
Or are you just drunk and angry again...? at 11.45am. In Camden Town.
Governments obey international law, and they ignore international law, as it suits them.
The protection of our strategic interests is of vastly greater importance than a ruling of the International Court of Justice. Provided that the military base is secure, then it's not a problem. The issue that matters is whether this gives the Chinese leverage to remove the base completely.
My headline view is that the very big problems of demographic decline are rather smaller than the very big problems of untramelled demographic growth. So on a global scale there's that to be cheery about. But there's no doubt they are big problems. The wikipedia page on Chinese demographics has a little animation of their projected age/sex pyramid, which is quite startling.
The interesting thing is that demographic decline seems to happen everywhere in the developed or almost-developed world, regardless of local culture and politics. It's easy to blame housing costs, and housing costs are certainly a problem, but globally, poverty clearly doesn't stop people having children - all the really high birth rates are in really poor places. It's easy to blame the choices people make, but this seems to hold true across all cultures - and in any case, I think it's the case that people continue to want children in the same numbers they always did. The number of childless women who get to their mid-40s and wish they'd had children is about 90% of the number of childless women who get to their mid-40s. The number of people who wish they'd had more children is almost infinitely higher than the proportion who wish they'd had fewer.
There are all sorts of reasons why children don't happen, but my theory is that they have a common root: across all developed and almost-developed societies, there are many more old people than there used to be, and the more old people you have, the more resources you have to put into looking after that generation, so the less you have for the next generation. Low birth rates are to a large extent a feature of high birth rates a generation or two ago: the steeper the population growth a generation or two ago (e.g. East Asia), the steeper the decline now. This doesn't hold for sub-Saharan Africa because so few people make it to old age. But when they start doing so, we'll see the same pattern there.
At least you’ve done your bit!
I’ve managed two but without going into details it could/should have been several more
When I count my acquaintances it is striking how many are childless (and now going to stay that way). Sadly, I do think most of them regret it
Thanks! If I've achieved nothing else in my 49 years on the planet - and it's arguable that I haven't - I can at least take comfort that I've slightly repopulated the planet (sorry @SandyRentool !)
I have a group of friends from school with whom I am reasonably close - 11 of us: an unusually high 7 have gone down the straightforward married+2 kids (or 3, in or case) route, while the other four don't have kids of their own. There are some stepchildren in there and a shedload of dogs, but also a few regrets. Fertility rate of 1.36 (I know you're supposed to do it per mother and most of us are male, but I think it still works for comparison purposes). And we're the lucky middle class ones from unchaotic backgrounds who have made stable lives for ourselves and who can afford the choices we make.
I just crunched my numbers
My closest ten male friends (using their initials):
C: 2 H: 0 L: 0 T: 1 P: 1 P: 0 B: 0 G: 2 C: 0 P: 1
Me: 2
So 11 men have produced 9 kids. We are a bohemian bunch with a lot of chaos. But also fairly rich
We’re dying out!
In the next ten friends there’s one guy with 5 (doing his bit) but also several more childless - so the pattern holds
Doing the same exercise:
D - 2 J - 1 M - 2 A - 0 J - 0 A - 1 W - 0 B - 0 R - 1 Me - 2
So that's 9 kids for 10 blokes, I think there's probably 3 or 4 more left though as J with 0 and A with zero have only recently bought their own houses and W is getting married next summer and had said he wants to have at least one kid. Even with that as a group we're below the replacement rate because all but one of us are married or engaged.
My closest male friends
J - 2 C - 1 S - 0 A - 0 A -2 M - 0 Jc - 0 Jd - 0 Me - 0
So 9 have produced 5 kids.
Hmmmmm
"Why you shouldn’t read too much into small unweighted subsamples"
Ironic we're discussing the problem of a declining population when the UK's population has been increasing rapidly in recent years.
Population is one of those fascinating subjects where it is perfectly possible to have overpopulation and underpopulation at the same time, sometimes in the same state.
Scotland is hugely underpopulated, while many would argue that London/south east is the reverse. Russia has a population (slightly reduced each day by war deaths) of 144m in a more or less unlimited space. Despite the image, Africa as a whole is very thinly populated.
Scotland is not hugely underpopulated
It has a pretty grim climate and very high latitude - it is arguably OVER populated compared to similar latitudes elsewhere which are basically empty
Yes, in the UK relative house prices show when regions are underpopulated and overpopulated to what they should be. As house prices are at 10x incomes in the south-east, more people clearly want to live there than can, so it's underpopulated relative to what it should be. Whereas ratios of 3-4x in much of the north and Scotland show that people would love to escape but can't because of the huge differential in house prices.
And those ratios hold despite the huge subsidies that London and its surrounds give to the rest of the country.
"The backdrop to every single thing that the Labour party has done in government has been its first action to take them into fuel allowance away from 10 million pensioners. That has set the tone for everything, and it’s the backdrop for for how actions are seen.
People see that you’ve taken this from 10 million people, and taking that for free from businesses.
That’s the truth. There’s anger out there, and behaviour has to change."
"In 2019, the International Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion stating that the United Kingdom did not have sovereignty over the Chagos Islands and that the administration of the archipelago should be handed over "as rapidly as possible" to Mauritius.[10] The United Nations General Assembly then voted to give Britain a six-month deadline to begin the process of handing over the islands.[11]"
Do you think the French would simply roll over and yield territory and possessions, because the UN has got the huff? No. Because their governments have pride and backbone - and also better strategic sense than to hand a victory to China
This is a monumental blunder as well as emblematic of Labour’s spineless moral vanity
Do you understand the history of this territory? Any idea whatsoever? Any grasp of international law or the recent ruling?
Or are you just drunk and angry again...? at 11.45am. In Camden Town.
Governments obey international law, and they ignore international law, as it suits them.
The protection of our strategic interests is of vastly greater importance than a ruling of the International Court of Justice. Provided that the military base is secure, then it's not a problem. The issue that matters is whether this gives the Chinese leverage to remove the base completely.
My headline view is that the very big problems of demographic decline are rather smaller than the very big problems of untramelled demographic growth. So on a global scale there's that to be cheery about. But there's no doubt they are big problems. The wikipedia page on Chinese demographics has a little animation of their projected age/sex pyramid, which is quite startling.
The interesting thing is that demographic decline seems to happen everywhere in the developed or almost-developed world, regardless of local culture and politics. It's easy to blame housing costs, and housing costs are certainly a problem, but globally, poverty clearly doesn't stop people having children - all the really high birth rates are in really poor places. It's easy to blame the choices people make, but this seems to hold true across all cultures - and in any case, I think it's the case that people continue to want children in the same numbers they always did. The number of childless women who get to their mid-40s and wish they'd had children is about 90% of the number of childless women who get to their mid-40s. The number of people who wish they'd had more children is almost infinitely higher than the proportion who wish they'd had fewer.
There are all sorts of reasons why children don't happen, but my theory is that they have a common root: across all developed and almost-developed societies, there are many more old people than there used to be, and the more old people you have, the more resources you have to put into looking after that generation, so the less you have for the next generation. Low birth rates are to a large extent a feature of high birth rates a generation or two ago: the steeper the population growth a generation or two ago (e.g. East Asia), the steeper the decline now. This doesn't hold for sub-Saharan Africa because so few people make it to old age. But when they start doing so, we'll see the same pattern there.
At least you’ve done your bit!
I’ve managed two but without going into details it could/should have been several more
When I count my acquaintances it is striking how many are childless (and now going to stay that way). Sadly, I do think most of them regret it
Thanks! If I've achieved nothing else in my 49 years on the planet - and it's arguable that I haven't - I can at least take comfort that I've slightly repopulated the planet (sorry @SandyRentool !)
I have a group of friends from school with whom I am reasonably close - 11 of us: an unusually high 7 have gone down the straightforward married+2 kids (or 3, in or case) route, while the other four don't have kids of their own. There are some stepchildren in there and a shedload of dogs, but also a few regrets. Fertility rate of 1.36 (I know you're supposed to do it per mother and most of us are male, but I think it still works for comparison purposes). And we're the lucky middle class ones from unchaotic backgrounds who have made stable lives for ourselves and who can afford the choices we make.
I just crunched my numbers
My closest ten male friends (using their initials):
C: 2 H: 0 L: 0 T: 1 P: 1 P: 0 B: 0 G: 2 C: 0 P: 1
Me: 2
So 11 men have produced 9 kids. We are a bohemian bunch with a lot of chaos. But also fairly rich
We’re dying out!
In the next ten friends there’s one guy with 5 (doing his bit) but also several more childless - so the pattern holds
Doing the same exercise:
D - 2 J - 1 M - 2 A - 0 J - 0 A - 1 W - 0 B - 0 R - 1 Me - 2
So that's 9 kids for 10 blokes, I think there's probably 3 or 4 more left though as J with 0 and A with zero have only recently bought their own houses and W is getting married next summer and had said he wants to have at least one kid. Even with that as a group we're below the replacement rate because all but one of us are married or engaged.
My closest male friends
J - 2 C - 1 S - 0 A - 0 A -2 M - 0 Jc - 0 Jd - 0 Me - 0
So 9 have produced 5 kids.
I have several friends who are only children, with no children of their own. And now well past the child rearing years....
Aside from the loss of sovereignty of the Indian Ocean Territory and the unknown consequences that will have in he future. A very direct consequence of this will be the loss of protection some of the most biodiverse sea-life on the planet. 640,000 km² was protected by the BIOT Marine protection area and given that one of the reasons Mauritius wanted the islands was to exploit the economic zone they provide, I doubt that protection will be in place much longer. Not as joyous and progressive a move as some may be led to believe.
The left have never really given many fucks about the environment.
A point regarding South Georgia and the Falklands - the reason why the Argentinians invaded South Georgia (which they had no claim to) was to attempt to extinguish the UK sovereignty claim in Antarctica. At the moment, Antarctica is divided up like a pie between those with claims.
The UK policy is no development or anything Antartica beyond scientific exploration. Because it has been decided (by international treaty) that changes to the status of Antarctica must be agreed between those with claims, this meant that the UK is a block on any development in Antarctica. Argentina has been trying for decades to change this.
Personally, I think Antarctica should be one massive neutral zone, with no country's claim being entertained.
Starmer hands Diego Garcia “back to” Mauritius (they never owned it)
But of course he does. Next the Elgin Marbles, the Benin Bronzes, he will probably try and hand over Stonehenge to Norway
Absolutely insane
Here is the official statement on Diego Garcia: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/joint-statement-between-uk-and-mauritius-3-october-2024 (You will notice the word "back" is not used anywhere.) It looks like a deal has been reached between different parties that will help solve the longstanding problem of people having been expelled from their homes. Is that not good news?
A 99-year lease for Diego Garcia. By which point the Chinese population may be less than half its current number.
Rumours of the demise of the base have been greatly exaggerated, and Britain has again asserted its respect for the international rule of law.
And yet again the PB Tory hot takes have proven... embarrassing.
A diplomatic and humane act by Sir Keir, that may go some way to assuaging a historical wrong.
He was more likely told what to do by the Americans and it will do nothing to assuage any historical wrongs.
So says Billy Glenn, the expert on the internet.
LOL.
Are they planning to give up the base so that the island population can return?
The only winner here is Mauritius, which never “owned” the islands, and China. I doubt the Chagossians will benefit at all
But Starmer will get a pat on the back from smirking Chinese-funded diplomats at the UN
Gibraltar next
I think Spain has a bigger claim than Mauritius!
Lammy will get mixed up again and cede it to Argentina
Starmer hands Diego Garcia “back to” Mauritius (they never owned it)
But of course he does. Next the Elgin Marbles, the Benin Bronzes, he will probably try and hand over Stonehenge to Norway
Absolutely insane
Here is the official statement on Diego Garcia: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/joint-statement-between-uk-and-mauritius-3-october-2024 (You will notice the word "back" is not used anywhere.) It looks like a deal has been reached between different parties that will help solve the longstanding problem of people having been expelled from their homes. Is that not good news?
A 99-year lease for Diego Garcia. By which point the Chinese population may be less than half its current number.
Rumours of the demise of the base have been greatly exaggerated, and Britain has again asserted its respect for the international rule of law.
And yet again the PB Tory hot takes have proven... embarrassing.
A diplomatic and humane act by Sir Keir, that may go some way to assuaging a historical wrong.
He was more likely told what to do by the Americans and it will do nothing to assuage any historical wrongs.
So says Billy Glenn, the expert on the internet.
LOL.
Are they planning to give up the base so that the island population can return?
The only winner here is Mauritius, which never “owned” the islands, and China. I doubt the Chagossians will benefit at all
But Starmer will get a pat on the back from smirking Chinese-funded diplomats at the UN
My headline view is that the very big problems of demographic decline are rather smaller than the very big problems of untramelled demographic growth. So on a global scale there's that to be cheery about. But there's no doubt they are big problems. The wikipedia page on Chinese demographics has a little animation of their projected age/sex pyramid, which is quite startling.
The interesting thing is that demographic decline seems to happen everywhere in the developed or almost-developed world, regardless of local culture and politics. It's easy to blame housing costs, and housing costs are certainly a problem, but globally, poverty clearly doesn't stop people having children - all the really high birth rates are in really poor places. It's easy to blame the choices people make, but this seems to hold true across all cultures - and in any case, I think it's the case that people continue to want children in the same numbers they always did. The number of childless women who get to their mid-40s and wish they'd had children is about 90% of the number of childless women who get to their mid-40s. The number of people who wish they'd had more children is almost infinitely higher than the proportion who wish they'd had fewer.
There are all sorts of reasons why children don't happen, but my theory is that they have a common root: across all developed and almost-developed societies, there are many more old people than there used to be, and the more old people you have, the more resources you have to put into looking after that generation, so the less you have for the next generation. Low birth rates are to a large extent a feature of high birth rates a generation or two ago: the steeper the population growth a generation or two ago (e.g. East Asia), the steeper the decline now. This doesn't hold for sub-Saharan Africa because so few people make it to old age. But when they start doing so, we'll see the same pattern there.
At least you’ve done your bit!
I’ve managed two but without going into details it could/should have been several more
When I count my acquaintances it is striking how many are childless (and now going to stay that way). Sadly, I do think most of them regret it
Thanks! If I've achieved nothing else in my 49 years on the planet - and it's arguable that I haven't - I can at least take comfort that I've slightly repopulated the planet (sorry @SandyRentool !)
I have a group of friends from school with whom I am reasonably close - 11 of us: an unusually high 7 have gone down the straightforward married+2 kids (or 3, in or case) route, while the other four don't have kids of their own. There are some stepchildren in there and a shedload of dogs, but also a few regrets. Fertility rate of 1.36 (I know you're supposed to do it per mother and most of us are male, but I think it still works for comparison purposes). And we're the lucky middle class ones from unchaotic backgrounds who have made stable lives for ourselves and who can afford the choices we make.
I just crunched my numbers
My closest ten male friends (using their initials):
C: 2 H: 0 L: 0 T: 1 P: 1 P: 0 B: 0 G: 2 C: 0 P: 1
Me: 2
So 11 men have produced 9 kids. We are a bohemian bunch with a lot of chaos. But also fairly rich
We’re dying out!
In the next ten friends there’s one guy with 5 (doing his bit) but also several more childless - so the pattern holds
Doing the same exercise:
D - 2 J - 1 M - 2 A - 0 J - 0 A - 1 W - 0 B - 0 R - 1 Me - 2
So that's 9 kids for 10 blokes, I think there's probably 3 or 4 more left though as J with 0 and A with zero have only recently bought their own houses and W is getting married next summer and had said he wants to have at least one kid. Even with that as a group we're below the replacement rate because all but one of us are married or engaged.
My closest male friends
J - 2 C - 1 S - 0 A - 0 A -2 M - 0 Jc - 0 Jd - 0 Me - 0
So 9 have produced 5 kids.
Hmmmmm
"Why you shouldn’t read too much into small unweighted subsamples"
No, no relevance here.
Of course, it is micro v macro.
But our birthrate is declining.
Meanwhile the forecast for the most populous cities in the world at 2100 shows rapid growth in Africa.
After his Chagos triumph, Sir Keir will surely have his sights next on the Falklands. It would be hugely demoralizing for the Tories, destroying the last unquestionable success of the Thatcher legacy. Would Sir Keir be above such gamesmanship?
No mention in that press release about who the US pays rent to for the 99 years. Us or Mauritius? If we still get the rent from the US, the "support package" pays for itself.
Aside from the loss of sovereignty of the Indian Ocean Territory and the unknown consequences that will have in he future. A very direct consequence of this will be the loss of protection some of the most biodiverse sea-life on the planet. 640,000 km² was protected by the BIOT Marine protection area and given that one of the reasons Mauritius wanted the islands was to exploit the economic zone they provide, I doubt that protection will be in place much longer. Not as joyous and progressive a move as some may be led to believe.
The left have never really given many fucks about the environment.
A point regarding South Georgia and the Falklands - the reason why the Argentinians invaded South Georgia (which they had no claim to) was to attempt to extinguish the UK sovereignty claim in Antarctica. At the moment, Antarctica is divided up like a pie between those with claims.
The UK policy is no development or anything Antartica beyond scientific exploration. Because it has been decided (by international treaty) that changes to the status of Antarctica must be agreed between those with claims, this meant that the UK is a block on any development in Antarctica. Argentina has been trying for decades to change this.
Personally, I think Antartica should be one massive neutral zone, with no country's claim being entertained.
That's not far off the legal situation at the moment. The worry was that claims might lead to friction, in the Cold War. So the treaty that was signed forbids development, but specifically caters for scientific research. There's a fair bit of cooperation built in as well.
"In 2019, the International Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion stating that the United Kingdom did not have sovereignty over the Chagos Islands and that the administration of the archipelago should be handed over "as rapidly as possible" to Mauritius.[10] The United Nations General Assembly then voted to give Britain a six-month deadline to begin the process of handing over the islands.[11]"
Do you think the French would simply roll over and yield territory and possessions, because the UN has got the huff? No. Because their governments have pride and backbone - and also better strategic sense than to hand a victory to China
This is a monumental blunder as well as emblematic of Labour’s spineless moral vanity
Do you understand the history of this territory? Any idea whatsoever? Any grasp of international law or the recent ruling?
Or are you just drunk and angry again...? at 11.45am. In Camden Town.
Governments obey international law, and they ignore international law, as it suits them.
The protection of our strategic interests is of vastly greater importance than a ruling of the International Court of Justice. Provided that the military base is secure, then it's not a problem. The issue that matters is whether this gives the Chinese leverage to remove the base completely.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico Let's think a little about population decline. I'm going to give you some graphs. They are based on overly-simplistic demographic models. But they should help you to grasp certain important point. Let's go... 🧵
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 1h However, I do think the above is relevant to the immigration debate. We may well want less immigration than we've had recently. But an under-discussed by-product of immigration is that in a world of collapsing population, ours may collapse by less. We may not regret that...
Starmer hands Diego Garcia “back to” Mauritius (they never owned it)
But of course he does. Next the Elgin Marbles, the Benin Bronzes, he will probably try and hand over Stonehenge to Norway
Absolutely insane
Here is the official statement on Diego Garcia: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/joint-statement-between-uk-and-mauritius-3-october-2024 (You will notice the word "back" is not used anywhere.) It looks like a deal has been reached between different parties that will help solve the longstanding problem of people having been expelled from their homes. Is that not good news?
A 99-year lease for Diego Garcia. By which point the Chinese population may be less than half its current number.
Rumours of the demise of the base have been greatly exaggerated, and Britain has again asserted its respect for the international rule of law.
And yet again the PB Tory hot takes have proven... embarrassing.
A diplomatic and humane act by Sir Keir, that may go some way to assuaging a historical wrong.
Are you missing the part where the negotiations have been going for years? But no, it's a Starmer masterstroke!
He is the guy that has delivered it. Good for him.
The EU project was built against the idea of power. But faced by multiple threats, the EU is obliged to rethink itself. To prevent the EU from a declining, we cannot afford to stay out of the fray of power politics. And this is new.
After his Chagos triumph, Sir Keir will surely have his sights next on the Falklands. It would be hugely demoralizing for the Tories, destroying the last unquestionable success of the Thatcher legacy. Would Sir Keir be above such gamesmanship?
He can't. Under UN rules (which is what Chagos is about), the islanders have to consulted on a change in nationality for the islands.
They are unanimous in not wanting to be Argentine.
"The backdrop to every single thing that the Labour party has done in government has been its first action to take them into fuel allowance away from 10 million pensioners. That has set the tone for everything, and it’s the backdrop for for how actions are seen.
People see that you’ve taken this from 10 million people, and taking that for free from businesses.
That’s the truth. There’s anger out there, and behaviour has to change."
Why is everyone making out they have loads of friends?
I only have four proper ones - two male and two female. They have 3 kids between them. So with my one that's 4 between 5.
Why is the birth-rate falling? Numerous reasons, obviously, but I'd highlight female emancipation. Women know it's a bum deal for them and with more empowerment are freer to turn it down.
I have lots of good friends. I count good friends as “people I can discuss anything with”. Sorry if that upends your view of the world
Ah ok. That includes me then, I suppose (although I didn't spot my initial on the list). One child - hardly shifting the dial, I know.
Certainly doesn’t include you
Oh. No soft-soaping there. Fair enough.
Well good luck with the next trip. It will hopefully take your mind off Keir Starmer for a short while anyway.
After his Chagos triumph, Sir Keir will surely have his sights next on the Falklands. It would be hugely demoralizing for the Tories, destroying the last unquestionable success of the Thatcher legacy. Would Sir Keir be above such gamesmanship?
He can't. Under UN rules (which is what Chagos is about), the islanders have to consulted on a change in nationality for the islands.
They are unanimous in not wanting to be Argentine.
After his Chagos triumph, Sir Keir will surely have his sights next on the Falklands. It would be hugely demoralizing for the Tories, destroying the last unquestionable success of the Thatcher legacy. Would Sir Keir be above such gamesmanship?
He can't. Under UN rules (which is what Chagos is about), the islanders have to consulted on a change in nationality for the islands.
They are unanimous in not wanting to be Argentine.
Falklands Referendum 2013:
Yes to remain UK Overseas Territory: 1,513 (99.8%) No to remain UK Overseas Territory: 3 (0.2%)
"The backdrop to every single thing that the Labour party has done in government has been its first action to take them into fuel allowance away from 10 million pensioners. That has set the tone for everything, and it’s the backdrop for for how actions are seen.
People see that you’ve taken this from 10 million people, and taking that for free from businesses.
That’s the truth. There’s anger out there, and behaviour has to change."
Guardian live blog
People angry for the removal of freebie shocker.
I was SHOCKED to find KEIR STARMER TOOK OVER £100000 of gifts.
After his Chagos triumph, Sir Keir will surely have his sights next on the Falklands. It would be hugely demoralizing for the Tories, destroying the last unquestionable success of the Thatcher legacy. Would Sir Keir be above such gamesmanship?
He can't. Under UN rules (which is what Chagos is about), the islanders have to consulted on a change in nationality for the islands.
They are unanimous in not wanting to be Argentine.
SKS says "hold my beer."
It seems almost forgotten that Blair very nearly agreed shared sovereignty over Gibraltar just to suck up to the EU:
Why is everyone making out they have loads of friends?
I only have four proper ones - two male and two female. They have 3 kids between them. So with my one that's 4 between 5.
Why is the birth-rate falling? Numerous reasons, obviously, but I'd highlight female emancipation. Women know it's a bum deal for them and with more empowerment are freer to turn it down.
I have lots of good friends. I count good friends as “people I can discuss anything with”. Sorry if that upends your view of the world
Ah ok. That includes me then, I suppose (although I didn't spot my initial on the list). One child - hardly shifting the dial, I know.
Certainly doesn’t include you
Oh. No soft-soaping there. Fair enough.
Well good luck with the next trip. It will hopefully take your mind off Keir Starmer for a short while anyway.
Why do I envisage that it won't? I expect he'll be in somewhere gorgeous, like the French Caribbean, being served wonderful rum cocktails by a beautiful hostess, yet thumbing his laptop furiously to tell PB about the latest thing Sir Keir has done deliberately to irritate him.
"The backdrop to every single thing that the Labour party has done in government has been its first action to take them into fuel allowance away from 10 million pensioners. That has set the tone for everything, and it’s the backdrop for for how actions are seen.
People see that you’ve taken this from 10 million people, and taking that for free from businesses.
That’s the truth. There’s anger out there, and behaviour has to change."
Guardian live blog
People angry for the removal of freebie shocker.
I was SHOCKED to find KEIR STARMER TOOK OVER £100000 of gifts.
Is PB aware of this ?
You certainly weren't aware that politicians of all parties accept and declare gifts and have done for decades. Only that ignorance could explain your daily performative pearl-clutching on here.
Aside from the loss of sovereignty of the Indian Ocean Territory and the unknown consequences that will have in he future. A very direct consequence of this will be the loss of protection some of the most biodiverse sea-life on the planet. 640,000 km² was protected by the BIOT Marine protection area and given that one of the reasons Mauritius wanted the islands was to exploit the economic zone they provide, I doubt that protection will be in place much longer. Not as joyous and progressive a move as some may be led to believe.
The left have never really given many fucks about the environment.
A point regarding South Georgia and the Falklands - the reason why the Argentinians invaded South Georgia (which they had no claim to) was to attempt to extinguish the UK sovereignty claim in Antarctica. At the moment, Antarctica is divided up like a pie between those with claims.
The UK policy is no development or anything Antartica beyond scientific exploration. Because it has been decided (by international treaty) that changes to the status of Antarctica must be agreed between those with claims, this meant that the UK is a block on any development in Antarctica. Argentina has been trying for decades to change this.
Personally, I think Antarctica should be one massive neutral zone, with no country's claim being entertained.
Our efforts to date in exploiting the resources of that part of the world have been horrific. Whales slaughtered in such numbers that their bones form a mound under the fjords. And as if the oil from whales wasn't enough, they processed seals and then penguins. I've been to Macquarie Island and seen the remains of the 17-cubic-metre steam-pressure digestor for their whaling industry that could extract oil not just from blubber, but from meat and bone.
Macquarie Islan would be an interesting destination for Leon. Drenched in blood, the workers there became so desensitized to violence that they eventually became violent towards each other at very little provocation. Just a brutal murder-fest. It actually caused outrage among the public in the UK, triggering one of the first environmental conservation movements in modern history.
After his Chagos triumph, Sir Keir will surely have his sights next on the Falklands. It would be hugely demoralizing for the Tories, destroying the last unquestionable success of the Thatcher legacy. Would Sir Keir be above such gamesmanship?
If Sir Keir gave the Falklands to Argentina white working class and lower middle class voters who voted for him in July would rush to the Tories and Reform so fast he wouldn't know what had hit him. Labour would lose every single redwall seat it won back in July and more. Not to mention the Sun and Mail would pour the biggest pile of shit over his head too.
Indeed the Argentine President Milei is not even focused on the Falklands now but growing the Argentine economy.
I disagree with the Chagos Islands decision on the risk it could become a Chinese military base but the population there has far less desire to stay a British overseas territory than the Falklands does
Why is everyone making out they have loads of friends?
I only have four proper ones - two male and two female. They have 3 kids between them. So with my one that's 4 between 5.
Why is the birth-rate falling? Numerous reasons, obviously, but I'd highlight female emancipation. Women know it's a bum deal for them and with more empowerment are freer to turn it down.
I have lots of good friends. I count good friends as “people I can discuss anything with”. Sorry if that upends your view of the world
Ah ok. That includes me then, I suppose (although I didn't spot my initial on the list). One child - hardly shifting the dial, I know.
Certainly doesn’t include you
Oh. No soft-soaping there. Fair enough.
Well good luck with the next trip. It will hopefully take your mind off Keir Starmer for a short while anyway.
That wasn’t meant meanly or personally, I just don’t count people I’ve met only online as “friends”
Indeed I’ve long thought there should be a new word for people like us. Internet personae you get to know well but never that well, and never for real
“Acquaintances” is too cold, and also doesn’t capture the internet aspect. “Friends” is too warm and intimate
A good friend is someone you can discuss anything with: sex, politics, health, love
A mere friend is someone whose company is enjoyable and you regularly - weekly or yearly - seek it out (and vice versa) but topics might be restricted
An acquaintance is “someone you have met more than once” but you’ve never had more than one head-to-head for the sake of it
What are we on here? “Locals” perhaps. In the pb pub. Regulars
After his Chagos triumph, Sir Keir will surely have his sights next on the Falklands. It would be hugely demoralizing for the Tories, destroying the last unquestionable success of the Thatcher legacy. Would Sir Keir be above such gamesmanship?
If Sir Keir gave the Falklands to Argentina white working class and lower middle class voters who voted for him in July would rush to the Tories and Reform so fast he wouldn't know what had hit him. Labour would lose every single redwall seat it won back in July and more. Not to mention the Sun and Mail would pour the biggest pile of shit over his head too.
Indeed the Argentine President Milei is not even focused on the Falklands now but growing the Argentine economy.
I disagree with the Chagos Islands decision on the risk it could become a Chinese military base but the population there has far less desire to stay a British overseas territory than the Falklands does
I think you may be a wee bit over the top there but for all his faults, and we seem to see more each day, Starmer is not going to reopen the Falklands debate, not least because he has far too many other issues to face
"The backdrop to every single thing that the Labour party has done in government has been its first action to take them into fuel allowance away from 10 million pensioners. That has set the tone for everything, and it’s the backdrop for for how actions are seen.
People see that you’ve taken this from 10 million people, and taking that for free from businesses.
That’s the truth. There’s anger out there, and behaviour has to change."
Guardian live blog
People angry for the removal of freebie shocker.
I was SHOCKED to find KEIR STARMER TOOK OVER £100000 of gifts.
Is PB aware of this ?
I'd love to see the list of gift totals that all MPs received, not just Labour. What about the ministers last year?
Starmer hands Diego Garcia “back to” Mauritius (they never owned it)
But of course he does. Next the Elgin Marbles, the Benin Bronzes, he will probably try and hand over Stonehenge to Norway
Absolutely insane
Here is the official statement on Diego Garcia: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/joint-statement-between-uk-and-mauritius-3-october-2024 (You will notice the word "back" is not used anywhere.) It looks like a deal has been reached between different parties that will help solve the longstanding problem of people having been expelled from their homes. Is that not good news?
A 99-year lease for Diego Garcia. By which point the Chinese population may be less than half its current number.
Rumours of the demise of the base have been greatly exaggerated, and Britain has again asserted its respect for the international rule of law.
And yet again the PB Tory hot takes have proven... embarrassing.
A diplomatic and humane act by Sir Keir, that may go some way to assuaging a historical wrong.
Are you missing the part where the negotiations have been going for years? But no, it's a Starmer masterstroke!
It wouldn't surprise me if the agreement was essentially done before the election, but that Sunak & co stalled on it because they didn't want to be the people to announce it and upset the right-wing press.
"The backdrop to every single thing that the Labour party has done in government has been its first action to take them into fuel allowance away from 10 million pensioners. That has set the tone for everything, and it’s the backdrop for for how actions are seen.
People see that you’ve taken this from 10 million people, and taking that for free from businesses.
That’s the truth. There’s anger out there, and behaviour has to change."
Guardian live blog
People angry for the removal of freebie shocker.
I was SHOCKED to find KEIR STARMER TOOK OVER £100000 of gifts.
Is PB aware of this ?
You certainly weren't aware that politicians of all parties accept and declare gifts and have done for decades. Only that ignorance could explain your daily performative pearl-clutching on here.
My father was a toolmaker so I expected much more from KEIR STARMER not that he TOOK OVER £100000. It seems his push for clean government is nonsense and KEIR STARMER IS A MASSIVE HYPOCRITE
Why is everyone making out they have loads of friends?
I only have four proper ones - two male and two female. They have 3 kids between them. So with my one that's 4 between 5.
Why is the birth-rate falling? Numerous reasons, obviously, but I'd highlight female emancipation. Women know it's a bum deal for them and with more empowerment are freer to turn it down.
I have lots of good friends. I count good friends as “people I can discuss anything with”. Sorry if that upends your view of the world
Ah ok. That includes me then, I suppose (although I didn't spot my initial on the list). One child - hardly shifting the dial, I know.
Certainly doesn’t include you
Oh. No soft-soaping there. Fair enough.
Well good luck with the next trip. It will hopefully take your mind off Keir Starmer for a short while anyway.
That wasn’t meant meanly or personally, I just don’t count people I’ve met only online as “friends”
Indeed I’ve long thought there should be a new word for people like us. Internet personae you get to know well but never that well, and never for real
“Acquaintances” is too cold, and also doesn’t capture the internet aspect. “Friends” is too warm and intimate
A good friend is someone you can discuss anything with: sex, politics, health, love
A mere friend is someone whose company is enjoyable and you regularly - weekly or yearly - seek it out (and vice versa) but topics might be restricted
An acquaintance is “someone you have met more than once” but you’ve never had more than one head-to-head for the sake of it
What are we on here? “Locals” perhaps. In the pb pub. Regulars
Comments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_the_Chagossians
https://fotbot.org/why-is-the-uk-negotiating-biot-sovereignty-with-mauritius
Truss!
I only have four proper ones - two male and two female. They have 3 kids between them. So with my one that's 4 between 5.
Why is the birth-rate falling? Numerous reasons, obviously, but I'd highlight female emancipation. Women know it's a bum deal for them and with more empowerment are freer to turn it down.
Which is why Russia and China are permanent members of the Security Council.
Seriously, congrats.
This is a monumental blunder as well as emblematic of Labour’s spineless moral vanity
With all your travel experience you should consider doing a "five unusual spots to wait out the next five years" piece. Everyone buggers off to Dubai or Monaco or Jersey. Do something on Malta, Malaysia, or Vietnam... heck, there was a particularly prodigious German investor a few years ago who single handedly got 100 people to move to Sark (if I recall, Sark has a population of about 200 at the best of times).
A diplomatic and humane act by Sir Keir, that may go some way to assuaging a historical wrong.
But it's imperfect and a work-in-progress, yes.
Early democracy was the same. Some people might argue that modern democracy is still an unfinished project and could do with a few improvements.
That would be reasonable penance.
Or are you just drunk and angry again...? at 11.45am. In Camden Town.
J - 2
C - 1
S - 0
A - 0
A -2
M - 0
Jc - 0
Jd - 0
Me - 0
So 9 have produced 5 kids.
Possibly the most PB thread header ever.
Would be completely uncontroversial if the US didn't have a base there.
Still, Billy Brexit probably thinks we should send the gun boats over.
LOL.
But we should weather the storm.
But Starmer will get a pat on the back from smirking Chinese-funded diplomats at the UN
also BAD for relinquishing sovereignty on a island on which he has no legal claim?
Only from the PB Tories.
Only on PB.
The protection of our strategic interests is of vastly greater importance than a ruling of the International Court of Justice. Provided that the military base is secure, then it's not a problem. The issue that matters is whether this gives the Chinese leverage to remove the base completely.
https://x.com/acnewsitics/status/1841616045607358577
The UK policy is no development or anything Antartica beyond scientific exploration. Because it has been decided (by international treaty) that changes to the status of Antarctica must be agreed between those with claims, this meant that the UK is a block on any development in Antarctica. Argentina has been trying for decades to change this.
https://news.sky.com/story/uk-to-hand-over-sovereignty-of-chagos-islands-to-mauritius-after-decades-long-dispute-13227089
"Why you shouldn’t read too much into small unweighted subsamples"
No, no relevance here.
And those ratios hold despite the huge subsidies that London and its surrounds give to the rest of the country.
"The backdrop to every single thing that the Labour party has done in government has been its first action to take them into fuel allowance away from 10 million pensioners. That has set the tone for everything, and it’s the backdrop for for how actions are seen.
People see that you’ve taken this from 10 million people, and taking that for free from businesses.
That’s the truth. There’s anger out there, and behaviour has to change."
Guardian live blog
https://x.com/grantshapps/status/1841782919494238527
We're paying them to take it off us.
But our birthrate is declining.
Meanwhile the forecast for the most populous cities in the world at 2100 shows rapid growth in Africa.
https://sites.ontariotechu.ca/sustainabilitytoday/urban-and-energy-systems/Worlds-largest-cities/population-projections/city-population-2100.php#:~:text=City population projections for the world's 200 largest cities in
Frankly I see no issue here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Treaty_System
I’ve been to Mauritius. They’re not poor
Andrew Lilico
@andrew_lilico
Let's think a little about population decline. I'm going to give you some graphs. They are based on overly-simplistic demographic models. But they should help you to grasp certain important point. Let's go... 🧵
Andrew Lilico
@andrew_lilico
·
1h
However, I do think the above is relevant to the immigration debate. We may well want less immigration than we've had recently. But an under-discussed by-product of immigration is that in a world of collapsing population, ours may collapse by less. We may not regret that...
https://x.com/andrew_lilico/status/1841769716462899417
https://x.com/josepborrellf/status/1841149827859824788
The EU project was built against the idea of power. But faced by multiple threats, the EU is obliged to rethink itself. To prevent the EU from a declining, we cannot afford to stay out of the fray of power politics. And this is new.
They are unanimous in not wanting to be Argentine.
Another donor scandal ?
Dale Vince accused of paying £5million to Labour and thus paying his wife less in their divorce.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/10/03/labour-donor-dale-vince-honour-estranged-wife/
Well good luck with the next trip. It will hopefully take your mind off Keir Starmer for a short while anyway.
Yes to remain UK Overseas Territory: 1,513 (99.8%)
No to remain UK Overseas Territory: 3 (0.2%)
Is PB aware of this ?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/may/01/gibraltar.gilestremlett
I could be wrong, though.
Macquarie Islan would be an interesting destination for Leon. Drenched in blood, the workers there became so desensitized to violence that they eventually became violent towards each other at very little provocation. Just a brutal murder-fest. It actually caused outrage among the public in the UK, triggering one of the first environmental conservation movements in modern history.
Indeed the Argentine President Milei is not even focused on the Falklands now but growing the Argentine economy.
I disagree with the Chagos Islands decision on the risk it could become a Chinese military base but the population there has far less desire to stay a British overseas territory than the Falklands does
Indeed I’ve long thought there should be a new word for people like us. Internet personae you get to know well but never that well, and never for real
“Acquaintances” is too cold, and also doesn’t capture the internet aspect. “Friends” is too warm and intimate
A good friend is someone you can discuss anything with: sex, politics, health, love
A mere friend is someone whose company is enjoyable and you regularly - weekly or yearly - seek it out (and vice versa) but topics might be restricted
An acquaintance is “someone you have met more than once” but you’ve never had more than one head-to-head for the sake of it
What are we on here? “Locals” perhaps. In the pb pub. Regulars