The Times is BREAKING the news that the USA "privately" warned Starmer AGAINST doing this
If that is the case, it gets worse for Skyr Toolmakersson
To be fair there might be something to be said for the government finally refusing to do what USA tells them to do...
Except, in this case the Labour PM has ignored the USA and instead decided to make the worst geopolitical deal in British history, delivering British territory into foreign hands, and we have to pay for it, and all for a group of people who - it turns out- will not benefit and were excluded from the talks
Have I missed anything?
Labour have mightily fucked up, here
They've freed up some Foreign Office brainpower to f*ck something else up. So there's that on the upside.
"One official said of the US position "They were saying that we would rather you didn't do this"
Also Whitehall itself is perplexed:
"British officials are also said to have "actively warned against the deal", citing strategic need.... "it's baffling that this has happened given that we're effectively in a cold war with China", a Whitehall source said"
So, the USA didn't want this The MoD didn't want this Whitehall didn't want this The Chagossians didn't want this
Nonetheless Starmer went ahead and handed over sovereign British territory to China, sorry, Mauritius and he asked if we could pay for the privilege, and so it is, we are paying
Apparently Israel targeted Iranian and Syrian ammo near the main Russian base in Syria and the Russians tried shooting down the Israeli missiles. Given their flagging support in the west could I suggest it would be quite magnificent for Israel to destroy the Russian base in Syria. I'd pay good money to watch the video.
If they take out all the Russian munitions around Ukraine for good measure - it'd keep geopolitics peeps busy for years.
This is causing such a storm, and it is headline news, and his hands are also on this appalling deal, which benefits mainly China, not the Chagossians, and which costs you and me money coz we have to pay Mauritius to take the territory
The Times is BREAKING the news that the USA "privately" warned Starmer AGAINST doing this
If that is the case, it gets worse for Skyr Toolmakersson
To be fair there might be something to be said for the government finally refusing to do what USA tells them to do...
Given the extent to which we depend on them for security in the West, I'm struggling to think of a dumber thing to do than to give away the land underneath a US military base to a Chinese proxy without the approval of the US...
"One official said of the US position "They were saying that we would rather you didn't do this"
Also Whitehall itself is perplexed:
"British officials are also said to have "actively warned against the deal", citing strategic need.... "it's baffling that this has happened given that we're effectively in a cold war with China", a Whitehall source said"
So, the USA didn't want this The MoD didn't want this Whitehall didn't want this The Chagossians didn't want this
Nonetheless Starmer went ahead and handed over sovereign British territory to China, sorry, Mautitius and he asked if we could pay for the privilege, and so it is, we are paying
Stone cold treachery?
When then did the last government want to do it too? I agree that it's very odd; the only explanation I can think of is that the ICJ judgment was going to cause HMG some serious ongoing issues.
The Times is BREAKING the news that the USA "privately" warned Starmer AGAINST doing this
If that is the case, it gets worse for Skyr Toolmakersson
To be fair there might be something to be said for the government finally refusing to do what USA tells them to do...
Except, in this case the Labour PM has ignored the USA and instead decided to make the worst geopolitical deal in British history, delivering British territory into foreign hands, and we have to pay for it, and all for a group of people who - it turns out- will not benefit and were excluded from the talks
Have I missed anything?
Labour have mightily fucked up, here
Well you've missed the fact that all of the benefits of this are not even going to land on Mauritius but on the f****** Chinese.
If I was India I would be tempted to invade to stop this stupidity and the inevitable creation of a Chinese base in the Indian ocean.
Can someone tell me why I should give a fig about the Chagos Islands ? Or is all the pearl clutching by some just another excuse to have a moan about Starmer.
There is that - there's definitely that - but also with many on the right of politics (both traditional and populist variety) there is a strong instinctive fondness for the notion of us still having far-flung colonial possessions. Hence much effort is expended to come up with justifications for it. More than you'd have thought it merited.
Doesn't this fall under the category of 'selling the family silver' - which the left are normally fairly critical of? Or is it ok because we're not actually selling it, we're just giving it away to someone who'll give it to the Chinese?
It's not that I particularly like the Chagos Islands. I'd just rather see a good deal for 1) Britain, and 2) the Chagos Islanders than a bad one. This seems to fit neither criterion.
That's Macmillan on privatisation iirc?
As for this being a 'bad' deal - I have no great opinion on that. I was just commenting on why a certain type of brain chemistry will have a strong (and adverse) opinion on it. It won't be because they've run the rule over the detail. It'll be their attachment to the idea of residual Empire Britannica.
People are forever coming out with their little diagnoses of the leftist mindset. Just returning the favour. I try not to make a habit of it - analysing why people say things rather than what they say - because I know it irritates and it's also a bit of a conversational dead end. But the aroma is particularly strong on this one.
Not unreasonable, but I'd say the mirror image is also true - there's a certain type of British left wing brain chemistry that is triggered by Britain having overseas territories, which Really Ought To Be Given To Someone Else. Because Empire, or something. David Lammy is certainly one of these, it looks like SKS is too. It's certainly not clear what the advantage to Britain is of this deal, nor whether this was a consideration. I'd rather the British government tried to do diplomacy in the British interest. I don't think that's a right-wing view. I think that would be the view of most people in most countries.
I'd rather the British government tried to do diplomacy in the British interest.
Out of interest, why?
Don't get me wrong, I agree yours is not a right wing view but a very common one.
But what makes you care more about, say, a Cornish fishermen than a Breton fisherman? What makes you want the British government to prioritise British interests per se rather than e.g. seek to reduce global inequality?
Genuine question - I find you often talk sense and am interested in how you (or others) justify nationalism.
Politicians represent their voters. They don’t represent humanity in general.
Think of it as being like a trustee. You’re there to advance the interests of the beneficiaries. You can’t hand out the trust’s assets to people who are not beneficiaries.
Good analogy, thanks.
But, to extend it, how do you feel about donkey sanctuaries?
ETA: Oops, posted too quickly! My point is that, if I were a trustee of a donkey sanctuary, I'd be arguing strongly that we should try to encourage our donors to look elsewhere.
The UK is like a donkey sanctuary where, if we were willing to forego the gold plated hooves, we could ensure everyone who needs malaria drugs gets them.
That’s straightforward. You can’t fulfil your ethical and legal obligations to The Donkey Sanctuary, so you ought not accept the role of Trustee.
Since we were discussing fantasy series yesterday, I’ll give the example of Tyrion, in Game of Thrones. He gives consistently dreadful military advice to Daenerys, costing thousands of her soldiers’ lives, because he’s desperate to protect his siblings, who are her enemies. But, he had no business taking the role of chief military adviser, to her, if he was so conflicted.
If you face a conflict of interest, you either decline to take the role that produces that conflict or you resign. Failing to do so makes you a traitor to the person or body that you are meant to be serving.
I think that only works if you are convinced that the particular model (trusteeship in this case) is sacrosanct.
I can absolutely understand a belief that might underlie your point of view along the lines of: moving away from the current model of nationalism (or, in the analogy, trustees whose only job is to advocate for their charity) risks unintended negative consequences and so whilst our current model isn't perfect we should defend it to the death.
Is that your view?
My view is that you can’t easily promote the interests of multiple competing parties.
So, you must promote the interests of those parties who have appointed/elected you to your position.
And, if you have an ethical objection to that, then you find another role, such as working for an NGO
Okay thanks. I guess I'm trying to ask whether you think that are any limits either to the idea of promoting only the interests of those you represent, or limits to the applicability of the analogy to nationalism.
To my mind it doesn't need to be the absolute you're suggesting.
"One official said of the US position "They were saying that we would rather you didn't do this"
Also Whitehall itself is perplexed:
"British officials are also said to have "actively warned against the deal", citing strategic need.... "it's baffling that this has happened given that we're effectively in a cold war with China", a Whitehall source said"
So, the USA didn't want this The MoD didn't want this Whitehall didn't want this The Chagossians didn't want this
Nonetheless Starmer went ahead and handed over sovereign British territory to China, sorry, Mautitius and he asked if we could pay for the privilege, and so it is, we are paying
Stone cold treachery?
When then did the last government want to do it too? I agree that it's very odd; the only explanation I can think of is that the ICJ judgment was going to cause HMG some serious ongoing issues.
Maybe this is just one part of some other deal?
No, they are just very stupid, and they despise "the British national interest" as a relic of Empire, or whatever
Caribbean leaders hope that Britain under its new Labour government might shift its long-standing position on slavery reparations and agree to discuss how to address past wrongs and their current day legacy.
Consecutive British governments have rejected calls for reparations but the chairman of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) reparations commission, Hilary Beckles, said this stance might change under the new Labour administration.
Britain's new foreign minister David Lammy is of Caribbean descent and often refers to himself as a descendant of enslaved people. In an interview, opens new tab with The Guardian newspaper before the election, Lammy said his family history would inform his work.
"(Lammy) has been a supporter of the (reparations) discourse while he was in opposition," Beckles said. "The question is whether he would be given a free hand in his government... to take the matter to a higher level."
A Farage, Reform and Jenrick wet dream if Starmer and Lammy were stupid enough to do that. You can imagine the posters and ads 'Labour take money from our NHS and your granny's heating in winter to fund woke reparations for sunny Jamaica and Barbados for something which happened before even your great granddad was born!'
What next, do we ask for reparations from Denmark for the Viking raids?
I think we should demand reparations from the Italians, Austrians, Germans, Russians and Turks for the Roman Empire.
As all five states have claimed descent from the Roman Empire at one time or another, at least one of them should stump up.
I still think the Beaker People owe us a shilling or two. Or a beaker at least. A good one, mind.
"One official said of the US position "They were saying that we would rather you didn't do this"
Also Whitehall itself is perplexed:
"British officials are also said to have "actively warned against the deal", citing strategic need.... "it's baffling that this has happened given that we're effectively in a cold war with China", a Whitehall source said"
So, the USA didn't want this The MoD didn't want this Whitehall didn't want this The Chagossians didn't want this
Nonetheless Starmer went ahead and handed over sovereign British territory to China, sorry, Mautitius and he asked if we could pay for the privilege, and so it is, we are paying
Stone cold treachery?
When then did the last government want to do it too? I agree that it's very odd; the only explanation I can think of is that the ICJ judgment was going to cause HMG some serious ongoing issues.
Maybe this is just one part of some other deal?
The last government under Cameron stopped the talks as the ICJ judgment made no sense in terms of decolonisation. For it to make sense the deal had to be done with the displaced islanders, not a country that only has a tangential link to the territory.
"One official said of the US position "They were saying that we would rather you didn't do this"
Also Whitehall itself is perplexed:
"British officials are also said to have "actively warned against the deal", citing strategic need.... "it's baffling that this has happened given that we're effectively in a cold war with China", a Whitehall source said"
So, the USA didn't want this The MoD didn't want this Whitehall didn't want this The Chagossians didn't want this
Nonetheless Starmer went ahead and handed over sovereign British territory to China, sorry, Mautitius and he asked if we could pay for the privilege, and so it is, we are paying
Stone cold treachery?
When then did the last government want to do it too? I agree that it's very odd; the only explanation I can think of is that the ICJ judgment was going to cause HMG some serious ongoing issues.
Maybe this is just one part of some other deal?
No, they are just very stupid, and they despise "the British national interest" as a relic of Empire, or whatever
They are dumb and treacherous. That's it
Sunak too? Say what you like about him but I don't think it's in his, or Johnson's or May's or even Truss' character to give up a UK interest that easily.
"One official said of the US position "They were saying that we would rather you didn't do this"
Also Whitehall itself is perplexed:
"British officials are also said to have "actively warned against the deal", citing strategic need.... "it's baffling that this has happened given that we're effectively in a cold war with China", a Whitehall source said"
So, the USA didn't want this The MoD didn't want this Whitehall didn't want this The Chagossians didn't want this
Nonetheless Starmer went ahead and handed over sovereign British territory to China, sorry, Mauritius and he asked if we could pay for the privilege, and so it is, we are paying
Stone cold treachery?
His pal who was acting for the Mauritians wanted it. Is that not enough?
"One official said of the US position "They were saying that we would rather you didn't do this"
Also Whitehall itself is perplexed:
"British officials are also said to have "actively warned against the deal", citing strategic need.... "it's baffling that this has happened given that we're effectively in a cold war with China", a Whitehall source said"
So, the USA didn't want this The MoD didn't want this Whitehall didn't want this The Chagossians didn't want this
Nonetheless Starmer went ahead and handed over sovereign British territory to China, sorry, Mautitius and he asked if we could pay for the privilege, and so it is, we are paying
Stone cold treachery?
When then did the last government want to do it too? I agree that it's very odd; the only explanation I can think of is that the ICJ judgment was going to cause HMG some serious ongoing issues.
Maybe this is just one part of some other deal?
The last government under Cameron stopped the talks as the ICJ judgment made no sense in terms of decolonisation. For it to make sense the deal had to be done with the displaced islanders, not a country that only has a tangential link to the territory.
Maybe Cameron is only the person who actually gets it on these kind of issues.
This is causing such a storm, and it is headline news, and his hands are also on this appalling deal, which benefits mainly China, not the Chagossians, and which costs you and me money coz we have to pay Mauritius to take the territory
It's fucking stupefying
Perhaps in Starmer, we’ve got our equivalent of Gerhard Schroder.
Can someone tell me why I should give a fig about the Chagos Islands ? Or is all the pearl clutching by some just another excuse to have a moan about Starmer.
There is that - there's definitely that - but also with many on the right of politics (both traditional and populist variety) there is a strong instinctive fondness for the notion of us still having far-flung colonial possessions. Hence much effort is expended to come up with justifications for it. More than you'd have thought it merited.
Doesn't this fall under the category of 'selling the family silver' - which the left are normally fairly critical of? Or is it ok because we're not actually selling it, we're just giving it away to someone who'll give it to the Chinese?
It's not that I particularly like the Chagos Islands. I'd just rather see a good deal for 1) Britain, and 2) the Chagos Islanders than a bad one. This seems to fit neither criterion.
That's Macmillan on privatisation iirc?
As for this being a 'bad' deal - I have no great opinion on that. I was just commenting on why a certain type of brain chemistry will have a strong (and adverse) opinion on it. It won't be because they've run the rule over the detail. It'll be their attachment to the idea of residual Empire Britannica.
People are forever coming out with their little diagnoses of the leftist mindset. Just returning the favour. I try not to make a habit of it - analysing why people say things rather than what they say - because I know it irritates and it's also a bit of a conversational dead end. But the aroma is particularly strong on this one.
Not unreasonable, but I'd say the mirror image is also true - there's a certain type of British left wing brain chemistry that is triggered by Britain having overseas territories, which Really Ought To Be Given To Someone Else. Because Empire, or something. David Lammy is certainly one of these, it looks like SKS is too. It's certainly not clear what the advantage to Britain is of this deal, nor whether this was a consideration. I'd rather the British government tried to do diplomacy in the British interest. I don't think that's a right-wing view. I think that would be the view of most people in most countries.
I'd rather the British government tried to do diplomacy in the British interest.
Out of interest, why?
Don't get me wrong, I agree yours is not a right wing view but a very common one.
But what makes you care more about, say, a Cornish fishermen than a Breton fisherman? What makes you want the British government to prioritise British interests per se rather than e.g. seek to reduce global inequality?
Genuine question - I find you often talk sense and am interested in how you (or others) justify nationalism.
Politicians represent their voters. They don’t represent humanity in general.
Think of it as being like a trustee. You’re there to advance the interests of the beneficiaries. You can’t hand out the trust’s assets to people who are not beneficiaries.
Good analogy, thanks.
But, to extend it, how do you feel about donkey sanctuaries?
ETA: Oops, posted too quickly! My point is that, if I were a trustee of a donkey sanctuary, I'd be arguing strongly that we should try to encourage our donors to look elsewhere.
The UK is like a donkey sanctuary where, if we were willing to forego the gold plated hooves, we could ensure everyone who needs malaria drugs gets them.
That’s straightforward. You can’t fulfil your ethical and legal obligations to The Donkey Sanctuary, so you ought not accept the role of Trustee.
Since we were discussing fantasy series yesterday, I’ll give the example of Tyrion, in Game of Thrones. He gives consistently dreadful military advice to Daenerys, costing thousands of her soldiers’ lives, because he’s desperate to protect his siblings, who are her enemies. But, he had no business taking the role of chief military adviser, to her, if he was so conflicted.
If you face a conflict of interest, you either decline to take the role that produces that conflict or you resign. Failing to do so makes you a traitor to the person or body that you are meant to be serving.
Isn't one point here, to extend the analogy, that while the primary aim maybe to ensure the wellbeing of the main beneficiaries, if there's a surfeit of cash to meet plausible needs, it may make sense to direct some of that funding to partner charities with similar interests? As long as it's agreed. It may also be in your long-term interest, as your PR spiel to donors will be much stronger than the alternative option of the gold-plated hooves.
And that's how it can work with diplomacy and aid. The difficulty is in judging when there's a mutual benefit or longer term interest that may override immediate self-interest. Or when you're just chucking money or influence away.
"One official said of the US position "They were saying that we would rather you didn't do this"
Also Whitehall itself is perplexed:
"British officials are also said to have "actively warned against the deal", citing strategic need.... "it's baffling that this has happened given that we're effectively in a cold war with China", a Whitehall source said"
So, the USA didn't want this The MoD didn't want this Whitehall didn't want this The Chagossians didn't want this
Nonetheless Starmer went ahead and handed over sovereign British territory to China, sorry, Mauritius and he asked if we could pay for the privilege, and so it is, we are paying
Stone cold treachery?
His pal who was acting for the Mauritians wanted it. Is that not enough?
This is causing such a storm, and it is headline news, and his hands are also on this appalling deal, which benefits mainly China, not the Chagossians, and which costs you and me money coz we have to pay Mauritius to take the territory
It's fucking stupefying
Perhaps in Starmer, we’ve got our equivalent of Gerhard Schroder.
"One official said of the US position "They were saying that we would rather you didn't do this"
Also Whitehall itself is perplexed:
"British officials are also said to have "actively warned against the deal", citing strategic need.... "it's baffling that this has happened given that we're effectively in a cold war with China", a Whitehall source said"
So, the USA didn't want this The MoD didn't want this Whitehall didn't want this The Chagossians didn't want this
Nonetheless Starmer went ahead and handed over sovereign British territory to China, sorry, Mauritius and he asked if we could pay for the privilege, and so it is, we are paying
Stone cold treachery?
His pal who was acting for the Mauritians wanted it. Is that not enough?
Now that's an allegation. I had some thoughts of my own but in this cynical age I think it is sometimes best to withhold them.
This is causing such a storm, and it is headline news, and his hands are also on this appalling deal, which benefits mainly China, not the Chagossians, and which costs you and me money coz we have to pay Mauritius to take the territory
It's fucking stupefying
James Cleverly's total supine attitude to the threat of China has been well-documented and discussed here, by me amongst others, repeatedly.
Blithely ignoring all that, 'PB-shrewdies' have relentlessly ramped Cleverly as 'the only half-sensible choice' - the sole qualification for this honour seemingly being that he's wetter than an otter's pocket(tm) - a disposition that apparently instantly qualifies you as sensible, efficient, showing excellent judgement and being born to rule - even if you're a complete f****g idiot like this Prime Minister and the last.
Today the UK has reached an agreement with Mauritius, securing the vital military base on Diego Garcia.
Our deal, supported by our US partners, will protect international security, close a potential illegal migration route, and avert threats to peace and prosperity in the Indian Ocean. https://x.com/DavidLammy/status/1841792390719271406
Can someone tell me why I should give a fig about the Chagos Islands ? Or is all the pearl clutching by some just another excuse to have a moan about Starmer.
There is that - there's definitely that - but also with many on the right of politics (both traditional and populist variety) there is a strong instinctive fondness for the notion of us still having far-flung colonial possessions. Hence much effort is expended to come up with justifications for it. More than you'd have thought it merited.
Doesn't this fall under the category of 'selling the family silver' - which the left are normally fairly critical of? Or is it ok because we're not actually selling it, we're just giving it away to someone who'll give it to the Chinese?
It's not that I particularly like the Chagos Islands. I'd just rather see a good deal for 1) Britain, and 2) the Chagos Islanders than a bad one. This seems to fit neither criterion.
That's Macmillan on privatisation iirc?
As for this being a 'bad' deal - I have no great opinion on that. I was just commenting on why a certain type of brain chemistry will have a strong (and adverse) opinion on it. It won't be because they've run the rule over the detail. It'll be their attachment to the idea of residual Empire Britannica.
People are forever coming out with their little diagnoses of the leftist mindset. Just returning the favour. I try not to make a habit of it - analysing why people say things rather than what they say - because I know it irritates and it's also a bit of a conversational dead end. But the aroma is particularly strong on this one.
Not unreasonable, but I'd say the mirror image is also true - there's a certain type of British left wing brain chemistry that is triggered by Britain having overseas territories, which Really Ought To Be Given To Someone Else. Because Empire, or something. David Lammy is certainly one of these, it looks like SKS is too. It's certainly not clear what the advantage to Britain is of this deal, nor whether this was a consideration. I'd rather the British government tried to do diplomacy in the British interest. I don't think that's a right-wing view. I think that would be the view of most people in most countries.
I'd rather the British government tried to do diplomacy in the British interest.
Out of interest, why?
Don't get me wrong, I agree yours is not a right wing view but a very common one.
But what makes you care more about, say, a Cornish fishermen than a Breton fisherman? What makes you want the British government to prioritise British interests per se rather than e.g. seek to reduce global inequality?
Genuine question - I find you often talk sense and am interested in how you (or others) justify nationalism.
Politicians represent their voters. They don’t represent humanity in general.
Think of it as being like a trustee. You’re there to advance the interests of the beneficiaries. You can’t hand out the trust’s assets to people who are not beneficiaries.
Good analogy, thanks.
But, to extend it, how do you feel about donkey sanctuaries?
ETA: Oops, posted too quickly! My point is that, if I were a trustee of a donkey sanctuary, I'd be arguing strongly that we should try to encourage our donors to look elsewhere.
The UK is like a donkey sanctuary where, if we were willing to forego the gold plated hooves, we could ensure everyone who needs malaria drugs gets them.
That’s straightforward. You can’t fulfil your ethical and legal obligations to The Donkey Sanctuary, so you ought not accept the role of Trustee.
Since we were discussing fantasy series yesterday, I’ll give the example of Tyrion, in Game of Thrones. He gives consistently dreadful military advice to Daenerys, costing thousands of her soldiers’ lives, because he’s desperate to protect his siblings, who are her enemies. But, he had no business taking the role of chief military adviser, to her, if he was so conflicted.
If you face a conflict of interest, you either decline to take the role that produces that conflict or you resign. Failing to do so makes you a traitor to the person or body that you are meant to be serving.
Isn't one point here, to extend the analogy, that while the primary aim maybe to ensure the wellbeing of the main beneficiaries, if there's a surfeit of cash to meet plausible needs, it may make sense to direct some of that funding to partner charities with similar interests? As long as it's agreed. It may also be in your long-term interest, as your PR spiel to donors will be much stronger than the alternative option of the gold-plated hooves.
And that's how it can work with diplomacy and aid. The difficulty is in judging when there's a mutual benefit or longer term interest that may override immediate self-interest. Or when you're just chucking money or influence away.
Enlightened self-interest is a very different thing. That may be entirely sensible.
The Times is BREAKING the news that the USA "privately" warned Starmer AGAINST doing this
If that is the case, it gets worse for Skyr Toolmakersson
To be fair there might be something to be said for the government finally refusing to do what USA tells them to do...
Except, in this case the Labour PM has ignored the USA and instead decided to make the worst geopolitical deal in British history, delivering British territory into foreign hands, and we have to pay for it, and all for a group of people who - it turns out- will not benefit and were excluded from the talks
Have I missed anything?
Labour have mightily fucked up, here
When Starmer went to see Biden, it was heavily trailed that he was seeking permission to let Ukraine use long-range missiles, but Biden refused. It would be bizarre if this were a way to spite him.
US port strike update: Further to my post of a couple of days’ back, CNN is now running a piece reassuring people there isn’t going to be a shortage of toilet paper. This is going to end well….
This is causing such a storm, and it is headline news, and his hands are also on this appalling deal, which benefits mainly China, not the Chagossians, and which costs you and me money coz we have to pay Mauritius to take the territory
It's fucking stupefying
Perhaps in Starmer, we’ve got our equivalent of Gerhard Schroder.
Now steady on. My own feeling was that ultimately the man wants to be able to walk around north London with his head held high.
BREAKING NEWS: Sir Sheer Wanker agrees to give the Spanish Gibraltar in exchange for their recipe for paella, a prime place at the Tomatina next year, and €5million per annum for the next 73 years.
Typo, we're paying the 5 mil
Well, it's not, because it's we agree to give this, this, and this.
Admittedly the sentence is long, but you can only blame SSW for that.
I think that is in reference to the fact that for some reason the UK is paying Mauritius to take the islands.
It does seem to be a rather bad deal. Mauritius has played a blinder presenting something pretty transactional as something more moral.
Can we get their negotiating team to help us with future deals with others?
And done by clever lefty lawyers in London. The UK evinces quite exceptional levels of self harm
While you're indulging in your usual hyperbole (and possibly letting of some missed flight steam ?), we do seem to have made a fairly shit job of the transaction.
Well, yes
Apparently we have agreed to pay Mauritius for the entire 99 year lease - we will be paying for our own humiliation for a century
I think this could damage Labour badly. Not because many people care about Diego Garcia (tho actually I do for reasons cited) but because it’s so obviously a terrible deal - and anyone can see that. Adds to the notion of Labour as bungling fools with a hint of treachery
Inside their limited minds, they'll view that as social justice and reparations.
As Hollywood is currently finding out the audience for that kind of mindset is actually tiny, just because they turn out to protest for BLM or Palestine it doesn't mean you can build a big voter coalition on policies that appeal only to them.
I expect as this gets digested it will be seen as an extremely unpopular move and it also opens the door to Argentina asking for the Falklands which Labour will end up opening talks on now when the UN make some bullshit ruling or other.
Seems like it was Truss who opened negotiations after meeting the Mauritian PM at a UN meeting. Any other unexploded bombs from her tenure as PM?
Following the meeting between the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), and Prime Minister Jugnauth at the UN General Assembly, the UK and Mauritius have decided to begin negotiations on the exercise of sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT)/Chagos archipelago.
"One official said of the US position "They were saying that we would rather you didn't do this"
Also Whitehall itself is perplexed:
"British officials are also said to have "actively warned against the deal", citing strategic need.... "it's baffling that this has happened given that we're effectively in a cold war with China", a Whitehall source said"
So, the USA didn't want this The MoD didn't want this Whitehall didn't want this The Chagossians didn't want this
Nonetheless Starmer went ahead and handed over sovereign British territory to China, sorry, Mauritius and he asked if we could pay for the privilege, and so it is, we are paying
Stone cold treachery?
His pal who was acting for the Mauritians wanted it. Is that not enough?
Now that's an allegation. I had some thoughts of my own but in this cynical age I think it is sometimes best to withhold them.
Well who the hell else talked this plonker into this? It appears everyone else he should have been listening to was saying no.
"One official said of the US position "They were saying that we would rather you didn't do this"
Also Whitehall itself is perplexed:
"British officials are also said to have "actively warned against the deal", citing strategic need.... "it's baffling that this has happened given that we're effectively in a cold war with China", a Whitehall source said"
So, the USA didn't want this The MoD didn't want this Whitehall didn't want this The Chagossians didn't want this
Nonetheless Starmer went ahead and handed over sovereign British territory to China, sorry, Mauritius and he asked if we could pay for the privilege, and so it is, we are paying
Stone cold treachery?
His pal who was acting for the Mauritians wanted it. Is that not enough?
Now that's an allegation. I had some thoughts of my own but in this cynical age I think it is sometimes best to withhold them.
Free holidays in Mauritius for life for the Starmers?
Interesting to see Nigel was right on the US view after an afternoon of the clever people pointing to the boiler plate PR statements released on Biden's behalf
The Times is BREAKING the news that the USA "privately" warned Starmer AGAINST doing this
If that is the case, it gets worse for Skyr Toolmakersson
To be fair there might be something to be said for the government finally refusing to do what USA tells them to do...
Except, in this case the Labour PM has ignored the USA and instead decided to make the worst geopolitical deal in British history, delivering British territory into foreign hands, and we have to pay for it, and all for a group of people who - it turns out- will not benefit and were excluded from the talks
Have I missed anything?
Labour have mightily fucked up, here
When Starmer went to see Biden, it was heavily trailed that he was seeking permission to let Ukraine use long-range missiles, but Biden refused. It would be bizarre if this were a way to spite him.
They’ve still got their base there . Maybe Starmer can jettison the sponging Falklanders next and put the money towards new attire for Labour MPs . We could have uniforms for the parties like airlines have !
"One official said of the US position "They were saying that we would rather you didn't do this"
Also Whitehall itself is perplexed:
"British officials are also said to have "actively warned against the deal", citing strategic need.... "it's baffling that this has happened given that we're effectively in a cold war with China", a Whitehall source said"
So, the USA didn't want this The MoD didn't want this Whitehall didn't want this The Chagossians didn't want this
Nonetheless Starmer went ahead and handed over sovereign British territory to China, sorry, Mauritius and he asked if we could pay for the privilege, and so it is, we are paying
Stone cold treachery?
His pal who was acting for the Mauritians wanted it. Is that not enough?
Now that's an allegation. I had some thoughts of my own but in this cynical age I think it is sometimes best to withhold them.
Free holidays in Mauritius for life for the Starmers?
Seems like it was Truss who opened negotiations after meeting the Mauritian PM at a UN meeting. Any other unexploded bombs from her tenure as PM?
Following the meeting between the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), and Prime Minister Jugnauth at the UN General Assembly, the UK and Mauritius have decided to begin negotiations on the exercise of sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT)/Chagos archipelago.
The Times is BREAKING the news that the USA "privately" warned Starmer AGAINST doing this
If that is the case, it gets worse for Skyr Toolmakersson
To be fair there might be something to be said for the government finally refusing to do what USA tells them to do...
Except, in this case the Labour PM has ignored the USA and instead decided to make the worst geopolitical deal in British history, delivering British territory into foreign hands, and we have to pay for it, and all for a group of people who - it turns out- will not benefit and were excluded from the talks
Have I missed anything?
Labour have mightily fucked up, here
When Starmer went to see Biden, it was heavily trailed that he was seeking permission to let Ukraine use long-range missiles, but Biden refused. It would be bizarre if this were a way to spite him.
"One official said of the US position "They were saying that we would rather you didn't do this"
Also Whitehall itself is perplexed:
"British officials are also said to have "actively warned against the deal", citing strategic need.... "it's baffling that this has happened given that we're effectively in a cold war with China", a Whitehall source said"
So, the USA didn't want this The MoD didn't want this Whitehall didn't want this The Chagossians didn't want this
Nonetheless Starmer went ahead and handed over sovereign British territory to China, sorry, Mauritius and he asked if we could pay for the privilege, and so it is, we are paying
Stone cold treachery?
His pal who was acting for the Mauritians wanted it. Is that not enough?
Now that's an allegation. I had some thoughts of my own but in this cynical age I think it is sometimes best to withhold them.
Free holidays in Mauritius for life for the Starmers?
Seems like it was Truss who opened negotiations after meeting the Mauritian PM at a UN meeting. Any other unexploded bombs from her tenure as PM?
Following the meeting between the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), and Prime Minister Jugnauth at the UN General Assembly, the UK and Mauritius have decided to begin negotiations on the exercise of sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT)/Chagos archipelago.
Seems like it was Truss who opened negotiations after meeting the Mauritian PM at a UN meeting. Any other unexploded bombs from her tenure as PM?
Following the meeting between the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), and Prime Minister Jugnauth at the UN General Assembly, the UK and Mauritius have decided to begin negotiations on the exercise of sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT)/Chagos archipelago.
That is not what that sentence says.
It says that negotiations were agreed to at the UN General Assembly meeting, otherwise why else would it have been mentioned in the context of the negotiations starting?
Seems like it was Truss who opened negotiations after meeting the Mauritian PM at a UN meeting. Any other unexploded bombs from her tenure as PM?
Following the meeting between the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), and Prime Minister Jugnauth at the UN General Assembly, the UK and Mauritius have decided to begin negotiations on the exercise of sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT)/Chagos archipelago.
Perhaps she thought there was a trade deal in it?
The sentence doesn't say that Truss opened negotiations. It is quite explicit that the decision to open negotiations happens after Truss has left power.
"One official said of the US position "They were saying that we would rather you didn't do this"
Also Whitehall itself is perplexed:
"British officials are also said to have "actively warned against the deal", citing strategic need.... "it's baffling that this has happened given that we're effectively in a cold war with China", a Whitehall source said"
So, the USA didn't want this The MoD didn't want this Whitehall didn't want this The Chagossians didn't want this
Nonetheless Starmer went ahead and handed over sovereign British territory to China, sorry, Mauritius and he asked if we could pay for the privilege, and so it is, we are paying
Stone cold treachery?
His pal who was acting for the Mauritians wanted it. Is that not enough?
Now that's an allegation. I had some thoughts of my own but in this cynical age I think it is sometimes best to withhold them.
Free holidays in Mauritius for life for the Starmers?
A job on the Chinese government’s payroll?
Now come on. One minute you're comparing him to Gerhard Schroder, the next it's Danny Alexander.
Seems like it was Truss who opened negotiations after meeting the Mauritian PM at a UN meeting. Any other unexploded bombs from her tenure as PM?
Following the meeting between the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), and Prime Minister Jugnauth at the UN General Assembly, the UK and Mauritius have decided to begin negotiations on the exercise of sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT)/Chagos archipelago.
Tina Peters, former Colorado county clerk, was sentenced to nine years behind bars for leading a voting system data breach scheme as part of a pro-Trump plot to steal the 2020 election
Seems like it was Truss who opened negotiations after meeting the Mauritian PM at a UN meeting. Any other unexploded bombs from her tenure as PM?
Following the meeting between the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), and Prime Minister Jugnauth at the UN General Assembly, the UK and Mauritius have decided to begin negotiations on the exercise of sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT)/Chagos archipelago.
That is not what that sentence says.
It says that negotiations were agreed to at the UN General Assembly meeting, otherwise why else would it have been mentioned in the context of the negotiations starting?
But as you have now realised, it doesn't say that, it does just mention the two things together. It is actually quite clear that the decision taken to open negotiations is taking place after Truss has left office.
Can someone tell me why I should give a fig about the Chagos Islands ? Or is all the pearl clutching by some just another excuse to have a moan about Starmer.
There is that - there's definitely that - but also with many on the right of politics (both traditional and populist variety) there is a strong instinctive fondness for the notion of us still having far-flung colonial possessions. Hence much effort is expended to come up with justifications for it. More than you'd have thought it merited.
Doesn't this fall under the category of 'selling the family silver' - which the left are normally fairly critical of? Or is it ok because we're not actually selling it, we're just giving it away to someone who'll give it to the Chinese?
It's not that I particularly like the Chagos Islands. I'd just rather see a good deal for 1) Britain, and 2) the Chagos Islanders than a bad one. This seems to fit neither criterion.
That's Macmillan on privatisation iirc?
As for this being a 'bad' deal - I have no great opinion on that. I was just commenting on why a certain type of brain chemistry will have a strong (and adverse) opinion on it. It won't be because they've run the rule over the detail. It'll be their attachment to the idea of residual Empire Britannica.
People are forever coming out with their little diagnoses of the leftist mindset. Just returning the favour. I try not to make a habit of it - analysing why people say things rather than what they say - because I know it irritates and it's also a bit of a conversational dead end. But the aroma is particularly strong on this one.
Not unreasonable, but I'd say the mirror image is also true - there's a certain type of British left wing brain chemistry that is triggered by Britain having overseas territories, which Really Ought To Be Given To Someone Else. Because Empire, or something. David Lammy is certainly one of these, it looks like SKS is too. It's certainly not clear what the advantage to Britain is of this deal, nor whether this was a consideration. I'd rather the British government tried to do diplomacy in the British interest. I don't think that's a right-wing view. I think that would be the view of most people in most countries.
I'd rather the British government tried to do diplomacy in the British interest.
Out of interest, why?
Don't get me wrong, I agree yours is not a right wing view but a very common one.
But what makes you care more about, say, a Cornish fishermen than a Breton fisherman? What makes you want the British government to prioritise British interests per se rather than e.g. seek to reduce global inequality?
Genuine question - I find you often talk sense and am interested in how you (or others) justify nationalism.
Politicians represent their voters. They don’t represent humanity in general.
Think of it as being like a trustee. You’re there to advance the interests of the beneficiaries. You can’t hand out the trust’s assets to people who are not beneficiaries.
Good analogy, thanks.
But, to extend it, how do you feel about donkey sanctuaries?
Seems like it was Truss who opened negotiations after meeting the Mauritian PM at a UN meeting. Any other unexploded bombs from her tenure as PM?
Following the meeting between the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), and Prime Minister Jugnauth at the UN General Assembly, the UK and Mauritius have decided to begin negotiations on the exercise of sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT)/Chagos archipelago.
That is not what that sentence says.
It says that negotiations were agreed to at the UN General Assembly meeting, otherwise why else would it have been mentioned in the context of the negotiations starting?
But as you have now realised, it doesn't say that, it does just mention the two things together. It is actually quite clear that the decision taken to open negotiations is taking place after Truss has left office.
It causally links them together with the word "following", otherwise they would have been irrelevant to the formal opening of negotiations.
To add to the national humiliation I have just missed my fucking flight
Feel sorry for the guy at the other end who will be aimlessly hanging around an emptying airport forlornly holding a droopy piece of card with "Sean Twat" written on it.
On the other hand a good night for airport bartenders mixing pink Gins for our very own Colonel Blimp, albeit one who despises his own country.
Not sure I despise Britain. Too strong
Underneath my normal hyperbole my attitude to Britain is uncannily similar - and increasingly so - to my attitude to my poor demented Mum
I mean, I love her. She’s my mum. Britain is my motherland. But I don’t exactly seek out her company, it’s all a bit depressing and I don’t call that often TBF
Also if someone actually nuked my mum I’d probably say “ah well that’s sad, at least it was swift and she had a good run. Lunch?”
You're good at coining words - there should be a word for this. Putting aside strong emotion, and just getting on with normality. (I've no suggestions)
Try this
Grelief. A mixture of grief and relief.
Well done. Feels poignant, that.
Traditionally it would be "stiff upper lip". Perhaps obdurate or dogged is close, but misses the ignoring of strong emotion.
Can someone tell me why I should give a fig about the Chagos Islands ? Or is all the pearl clutching by some just another excuse to have a moan about Starmer.
There is that - there's definitely that - but also with many on the right of politics (both traditional and populist variety) there is a strong instinctive fondness for the notion of us still having far-flung colonial possessions. Hence much effort is expended to come up with justifications for it. More than you'd have thought it merited.
Doesn't this fall under the category of 'selling the family silver' - which the left are normally fairly critical of? Or is it ok because we're not actually selling it, we're just giving it away to someone who'll give it to the Chinese?
It's not that I particularly like the Chagos Islands. I'd just rather see a good deal for 1) Britain, and 2) the Chagos Islanders than a bad one. This seems to fit neither criterion.
That's Macmillan on privatisation iirc?
As for this being a 'bad' deal - I have no great opinion on that. I was just commenting on why a certain type of brain chemistry will have a strong (and adverse) opinion on it. It won't be because they've run the rule over the detail. It'll be their attachment to the idea of residual Empire Britannica.
People are forever coming out with their little diagnoses of the leftist mindset. Just returning the favour. I try not to make a habit of it - analysing why people say things rather than what they say - because I know it irritates and it's also a bit of a conversational dead end. But the aroma is particularly strong on this one.
Not unreasonable, but I'd say the mirror image is also true - there's a certain type of British left wing brain chemistry that is triggered by Britain having overseas territories, which Really Ought To Be Given To Someone Else. Because Empire, or something. David Lammy is certainly one of these, it looks like SKS is too. It's certainly not clear what the advantage to Britain is of this deal, nor whether this was a consideration. I'd rather the British government tried to do diplomacy in the British interest. I don't think that's a right-wing view. I think that would be the view of most people in most countries.
I'd rather the British government tried to do diplomacy in the British interest.
Out of interest, why?
Don't get me wrong, I agree yours is not a right wing view but a very common one.
But what makes you care more about, say, a Cornish fishermen than a Breton fisherman? What makes you want the British government to prioritise British interests per se rather than e.g. seek to reduce global inequality?
Genuine question - I find you often talk sense and am interested in how you (or others) justify nationalism.
Politicians represent their voters. They don’t represent humanity in general.
Think of it as being like a trustee. You’re there to advance the interests of the beneficiaries. You can’t hand out the trust’s assets to people who are not beneficiaries.
Good analogy, thanks.
But, to extend it, how do you feel about donkey sanctuaries?
To add to the national humiliation I have just missed my fucking flight
Feel sorry for the guy at the other end who will be aimlessly hanging around an emptying airport forlornly holding a droopy piece of card with "Sean Twat" written on it.
On the other hand a good night for airport bartenders mixing pink Gins for our very own Colonel Blimp, albeit one who despises his own country.
Not sure I despise Britain. Too strong
Underneath my normal hyperbole my attitude to Britain is uncannily similar - and increasingly so - to my attitude to my poor demented Mum
I mean, I love her. She’s my mum. Britain is my motherland. But I don’t exactly seek out her company, it’s all a bit depressing and I don’t call that often TBF
Also if someone actually nuked my mum I’d probably say “ah well that’s sad, at least it was swift and she had a good run. Lunch?”
You're good at coining words - there should be a word for this. Putting aside strong emotion, and just getting on with normality. (I've no suggestions)
Seems like it was Truss who opened negotiations after meeting the Mauritian PM at a UN meeting. Any other unexploded bombs from her tenure as PM?
Following the meeting between the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), and Prime Minister Jugnauth at the UN General Assembly, the UK and Mauritius have decided to begin negotiations on the exercise of sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT)/Chagos archipelago.
Perhaps she thought there was a trade deal in it?
The sentence doesn't say that Truss opened negotiations. It is quite explicit that the decision to open negotiations happens after Truss has left power.
Ms Truss was Foreign Sec at the time. The PM referred to is Mauritian.
Can someone tell me why I should give a fig about the Chagos Islands ? Or is all the pearl clutching by some just another excuse to have a moan about Starmer.
There is that - there's definitely that - but also with many on the right of politics (both traditional and populist variety) there is a strong instinctive fondness for the notion of us still having far-flung colonial possessions. Hence much effort is expended to come up with justifications for it. More than you'd have thought it merited.
Doesn't this fall under the category of 'selling the family silver' - which the left are normally fairly critical of? Or is it ok because we're not actually selling it, we're just giving it away to someone who'll give it to the Chinese?
It's not that I particularly like the Chagos Islands. I'd just rather see a good deal for 1) Britain, and 2) the Chagos Islanders than a bad one. This seems to fit neither criterion.
That's Macmillan on privatisation iirc?
As for this being a 'bad' deal - I have no great opinion on that. I was just commenting on why a certain type of brain chemistry will have a strong (and adverse) opinion on it. It won't be because they've run the rule over the detail. It'll be their attachment to the idea of residual Empire Britannica.
People are forever coming out with their little diagnoses of the leftist mindset. Just returning the favour. I try not to make a habit of it - analysing why people say things rather than what they say - because I know it irritates and it's also a bit of a conversational dead end. But the aroma is particularly strong on this one.
Not unreasonable, but I'd say the mirror image is also true - there's a certain type of British left wing brain chemistry that is triggered by Britain having overseas territories, which Really Ought To Be Given To Someone Else. Because Empire, or something. David Lammy is certainly one of these, it looks like SKS is too. It's certainly not clear what the advantage to Britain is of this deal, nor whether this was a consideration. I'd rather the British government tried to do diplomacy in the British interest. I don't think that's a right-wing view. I think that would be the view of most people in most countries.
I'd rather the British government tried to do diplomacy in the British interest.
Out of interest, why?
Don't get me wrong, I agree yours is not a right wing view but a very common one.
But what makes you care more about, say, a Cornish fishermen than a Breton fisherman? What makes you want the British government to prioritise British interests per se rather than e.g. seek to reduce global inequality?
Genuine question - I find you often talk sense and am interested in how you (or others) justify nationalism.
Politicians represent their voters. They don’t represent humanity in general.
Think of it as being like a trustee. You’re there to advance the interests of the beneficiaries. You can’t hand out the trust’s assets to people who are not beneficiaries.
Good analogy, thanks.
But, to extend it, how do you feel about donkey sanctuaries?
Seems like it was Truss who opened negotiations after meeting the Mauritian PM at a UN meeting. Any other unexploded bombs from her tenure as PM?
Following the meeting between the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), and Prime Minister Jugnauth at the UN General Assembly, the UK and Mauritius have decided to begin negotiations on the exercise of sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT)/Chagos archipelago.
That is not what that sentence says.
It says that negotiations were agreed to at the UN General Assembly meeting, otherwise why else would it have been mentioned in the context of the negotiations starting?
But as you have now realised, it doesn't say that, it does just mention the two things together. It is actually quite clear that the decision taken to open negotiations is taking place after Truss has left office.
It causally links them together with the word "following", otherwise they would have been irrelevant to the formal opening of negotiations.
No it doesn't, "following" is not an indication of causality, though it is an attempt to indicate continuity. How could it possibly indicate causality anyway? Truss was out of office, so who the fuck was going to give Mauritius the Chagos Islands on her say so?
Tina Peters, former Colorado county clerk, was sentenced to nine years behind bars for leading a voting system data breach scheme as part of a pro-Trump plot to steal the 2020 election
Seems like it was Truss who opened negotiations after meeting the Mauritian PM at a UN meeting. Any other unexploded bombs from her tenure as PM?
Following the meeting between the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), and Prime Minister Jugnauth at the UN General Assembly, the UK and Mauritius have decided to begin negotiations on the exercise of sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT)/Chagos archipelago.
Perhaps she thought there was a trade deal in it?
The sentence doesn't say that Truss opened negotiations. It is quite explicit that the decision to open negotiations happens after Truss has left power.
Ms Truss was Foreign Sec at the time. The PM referred to is Mauritian.
No, she met with the Mauritian PM at the UN General Assembly during her momentary tenure as PM.
Seems like it was Truss who opened negotiations after meeting the Mauritian PM at a UN meeting. Any other unexploded bombs from her tenure as PM?
Following the meeting between the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), and Prime Minister Jugnauth at the UN General Assembly, the UK and Mauritius have decided to begin negotiations on the exercise of sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT)/Chagos archipelago.
Perhaps she thought there was a trade deal in it?
The sentence doesn't say that Truss opened negotiations. It is quite explicit that the decision to open negotiations happens after Truss has left power.
Ms Truss was Foreign Sec at the time. The PM referred to is Mauritian.
No, she met with the Mauritian PM at the UN General Assembly during her momentary tenure as PM.
Seems like it was Truss who opened negotiations after meeting the Mauritian PM at a UN meeting. Any other unexploded bombs from her tenure as PM?
Following the meeting between the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), and Prime Minister Jugnauth at the UN General Assembly, the UK and Mauritius have decided to begin negotiations on the exercise of sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT)/Chagos archipelago.
Perhaps she thought there was a trade deal in it?
The sentence doesn't say that Truss opened negotiations. It is quite explicit that the decision to open negotiations happens after Truss has left power.
Ms Truss was Foreign Sec at the time. The PM referred to is Mauritian.
No, she met with the Mauritian PM at the UN General Assembly during her momentary tenure as PM.
The negotiations started in 2022.
Yes, "following" a discussion between Truss and Jugnauth at the UN General Assembly in October 2022, when she was PM.
This announcement followed bilateral talks between the UK Prime Minister, Liz Truss, and Prime Minister Jugnauth at the UN General Assembly earlier in 2022.
Come on, did anyone think Labour would be THIS bad after just 3 months?
Literally handing over chunks of British territory to China in a deal where WE pay? And thereby angering the USA?
As far as I can see the only British politician applauding this (outside starmer & co) is… Jeremy Corbyn
I'm wondering if Sir Keir pencilled in the Chagos stuff for now because he assumed he'd still be basking in honeymoon sunshine - there'd be some grumbles but it would generally go unnoticed. Unfortunately, such has been the explosion of his reputation that everything he does is now being put under the most intense scrutiny with no one giving him any leeway whatsoever. So it's just one PR disaster after another. He desperately needs to do something no one actively dislikes to claw back a bit of good will. But what?
Seems like it was Truss who opened negotiations after meeting the Mauritian PM at a UN meeting. Any other unexploded bombs from her tenure as PM?
Following the meeting between the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), and Prime Minister Jugnauth at the UN General Assembly, the UK and Mauritius have decided to begin negotiations on the exercise of sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT)/Chagos archipelago.
Perhaps she thought there was a trade deal in it?
The sentence doesn't say that Truss opened negotiations. It is quite explicit that the decision to open negotiations happens after Truss has left power.
Ms Truss was Foreign Sec at the time. The PM referred to is Mauritian.
No, she met with the Mauritian PM at the UN General Assembly during her momentary tenure as PM.
The negotiations started in 2022.
Yes, "following" a discussion between Truss and Jugnauth at the UN General Assembly in October 2022, when she was PM.
This announcement followed bilateral talks between the UK Prime Minister, Liz Truss, and Prime Minister Jugnauth at the UN General Assembly earlier in 2022.
Yes, good move by her.
Returning the islands is righting a historical wrong.
Come on, did anyone think Labour would be THIS bad after just 3 months?
Literally handing over chunks of British territory to China in a deal where WE pay? And thereby angering the USA?
As far as I can see the only British politician applauding this (outside starmer & co) is… Jeremy Corbyn
I'm wondering if Sir Keir pencilled in the Chagos stuff for now because he assumed he'd still be basking in honeymoon sunshine - there'd be some grumbles but it would generally go unnoticed. Unfortunately, such has been the explosion of his reputation that everything he does is now being put under the most intense scrutiny with no one giving him any leeway whatsoever. So it's just one PR disaster after another. He desperately needs to do something no one actively dislikes to claw back a bit of good will. But what?
So.... Jenrick odds on, Cleverly under 4 and likely to be runner up, Harris / Trump evens and too close to call. Are there any value punts left or is it sit tight and pick the moment to cash out?
Seems like it was Truss who opened negotiations after meeting the Mauritian PM at a UN meeting. Any other unexploded bombs from her tenure as PM?
Following the meeting between the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), and Prime Minister Jugnauth at the UN General Assembly, the UK and Mauritius have decided to begin negotiations on the exercise of sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT)/Chagos archipelago.
Perhaps she thought there was a trade deal in it?
The sentence doesn't say that Truss opened negotiations. It is quite explicit that the decision to open negotiations happens after Truss has left power.
Ms Truss was Foreign Sec at the time. The PM referred to is Mauritian.
No, she met with the Mauritian PM at the UN General Assembly during her momentary tenure as PM.
Quite. And the decision to open negotiations on the future of the Chagos Islands was, the evidence for which you unfortunately provided us with in your quote, taken after she left office.
I've never met anyone like Truss for attracting strange accusations. I'm sure we had a Tweet here the other day saying she blamed transgender conspirators for her downfall. Before that it was 'storming off the stage instead of making a concession speech' when the losers don't make speeches in that constituency.
Caribbean leaders hope that Britain under its new Labour government might shift its long-standing position on slavery reparations and agree to discuss how to address past wrongs and their current day legacy.
Consecutive British governments have rejected calls for reparations but the chairman of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) reparations commission, Hilary Beckles, said this stance might change under the new Labour administration.
Britain's new foreign minister David Lammy is of Caribbean descent and often refers to himself as a descendant of enslaved people. In an interview, opens new tab with The Guardian newspaper before the election, Lammy said his family history would inform his work.
"(Lammy) has been a supporter of the (reparations) discourse while he was in opposition," Beckles said. "The question is whether he would be given a free hand in his government... to take the matter to a higher level."
A Farage, Reform and Jenrick wet dream if Starmer and Lammy were stupid enough to do that. You can imagine the posters and ads 'Labour take money from our NHS and your granny's heating in winter to fund woke reparations for sunny Jamaica and Barbados for something which happened before even your great granddad was born!'
What next, do we ask for reparations from Denmark for the Viking raids?
I think we should demand reparations from the Italians, Austrians, Germans, Russians and Turks for the Roman Empire.
As all five states have claimed descent from the Roman Empire at one time or another, at least one of them should stump up.
I still think the Beaker People owe us a shilling or two. Or a beaker at least. A good one, mind.
Seems like it was Truss who opened negotiations after meeting the Mauritian PM at a UN meeting. Any other unexploded bombs from her tenure as PM?
Following the meeting between the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), and Prime Minister Jugnauth at the UN General Assembly, the UK and Mauritius have decided to begin negotiations on the exercise of sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT)/Chagos archipelago.
Perhaps she thought there was a trade deal in it?
The sentence doesn't say that Truss opened negotiations. It is quite explicit that the decision to open negotiations happens after Truss has left power.
Ms Truss was Foreign Sec at the time. The PM referred to is Mauritian.
No, she met with the Mauritian PM at the UN General Assembly during her momentary tenure as PM.
The negotiations started in 2022.
Yes, "following" a discussion between Truss and Jugnauth at the UN General Assembly in October 2022, when she was PM.
This announcement followed bilateral talks between the UK Prime Minister, Liz Truss, and Prime Minister Jugnauth at the UN General Assembly earlier in 2022.
Yes, good move by her.
Returning the islands is righting a historical wrong.
Except those who have been wronged were not involved in the discussion, and are not actually getting anything back. Instead, the islands are passing to a third party.
So.... Jenrick odds on, Cleverly under 4 and likely to be runner up, Harris / Trump evens and too close to call. Are there any value punts left or is it sit tight and pick the moment to cash out?
Come on, did anyone think Labour would be THIS bad after just 3 months?
Literally handing over chunks of British territory to China in a deal where WE pay? And thereby angering the USA?
As far as I can see the only British politician applauding this (outside starmer & co) is… Jeremy Corbyn
I'm wondering if Sir Keir pencilled in the Chagos stuff for now because he assumed he'd still be basking in honeymoon sunshine - there'd be some grumbles but it would generally go unnoticed. Unfortunately, such has been the explosion of his reputation that everything he does is now being put under the most intense scrutiny with no one giving him any leeway whatsoever. So it's just one PR disaster after another. He desperately needs to do something no one actively dislikes to claw back a bit of good will. But what?
Calais.
Get us Calais back.
Then we can have British bobbies on the beach beat.
Seems like it was Truss who opened negotiations after meeting the Mauritian PM at a UN meeting. Any other unexploded bombs from her tenure as PM?
Following the meeting between the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), and Prime Minister Jugnauth at the UN General Assembly, the UK and Mauritius have decided to begin negotiations on the exercise of sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT)/Chagos archipelago.
Perhaps she thought there was a trade deal in it?
The sentence doesn't say that Truss opened negotiations. It is quite explicit that the decision to open negotiations happens after Truss has left power.
Ms Truss was Foreign Sec at the time. The PM referred to is Mauritian.
No, she met with the Mauritian PM at the UN General Assembly during her momentary tenure as PM.
The negotiations started in 2022.
Yes, "following" a discussion between Truss and Jugnauth at the UN General Assembly in October 2022, when she was PM.
This announcement followed bilateral talks between the UK Prime Minister, Liz Truss, and Prime Minister Jugnauth at the UN General Assembly earlier in 2022.
Yes, good move by her.
Returning the islands is righting a historical wrong.
Returning to who? People who have no claim to them. Certainly not the people who used to live there.
So.... Jenrick odds on, Cleverly under 4 and likely to be runner up, Harris / Trump evens and too close to call. Are there any value punts left or is it sit tight and pick the moment to cash out?
So.... Jenrick odds on, Cleverly under 4 and likely to be runner up, Harris / Trump evens and too close to call. Are there any value punts left or is it sit tight and pick the moment to cash out?
Indie to win Nebraska senate race.
Cruz to lose in Texas.
Debbie Mucarsel-Powell to win for the Dems in the Florida Senate race.
'This is very disappointing. The decision over the future of the islands belongs the Chagossian people, it's not for the UK to bargain away. 60 years on from their exile, they've been let down again.
Along with the money WE are paying, this is the other inexplicable fatuity of this terrible terrible deal. Its not good for the Chagossians
All we’ve done is sign a truly shite deal handing over sovereign uk territory to a country chancing its arm from 1,300 miles away and all at the obvious behest of China. I imagine they cannot believe that we have so spinelessly agreed
And of course now every other tiny nation will have a go at ludicrous cowardly Britain under Labour
Although doesn’t it set a precedent that Crimea belongs to Ukraine? Most recent sovereign power.
Seems like it was Truss who opened negotiations after meeting the Mauritian PM at a UN meeting. Any other unexploded bombs from her tenure as PM?
Following the meeting between the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), and Prime Minister Jugnauth at the UN General Assembly, the UK and Mauritius have decided to begin negotiations on the exercise of sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT)/Chagos archipelago.
Perhaps she thought there was a trade deal in it?
The sentence doesn't say that Truss opened negotiations. It is quite explicit that the decision to open negotiations happens after Truss has left power.
Ms Truss was Foreign Sec at the time. The PM referred to is Mauritian.
No, she met with the Mauritian PM at the UN General Assembly during her momentary tenure as PM.
The negotiations started in 2022.
Yes, "following" a discussion between Truss and Jugnauth at the UN General Assembly in October 2022, when she was PM.
This announcement followed bilateral talks between the UK Prime Minister, Liz Truss, and Prime Minister Jugnauth at the UN General Assembly earlier in 2022.
Yes, good move by her.
Returning the islands is righting a historical wrong.
Returning to who? People who have no claim to them. Certainly not the people who used to live there.
Seems like it was Truss who opened negotiations after meeting the Mauritian PM at a UN meeting. Any other unexploded bombs from her tenure as PM?
Following the meeting between the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), and Prime Minister Jugnauth at the UN General Assembly, the UK and Mauritius have decided to begin negotiations on the exercise of sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT)/Chagos archipelago.
Perhaps she thought there was a trade deal in it?
The sentence doesn't say that Truss opened negotiations. It is quite explicit that the decision to open negotiations happens after Truss has left power.
Ms Truss was Foreign Sec at the time. The PM referred to is Mauritian.
No, she met with the Mauritian PM at the UN General Assembly during her momentary tenure as PM.
The negotiations started in 2022.
Yes, "following" a discussion between Truss and Jugnauth at the UN General Assembly in October 2022, when she was PM.
This announcement followed bilateral talks between the UK Prime Minister, Liz Truss, and Prime Minister Jugnauth at the UN General Assembly earlier in 2022.
Yes, good move by her.
Returning the islands is righting a historical wrong.
Those who were wronged were not allowed to participate in the negotiations.
Caribbean leaders hope that Britain under its new Labour government might shift its long-standing position on slavery reparations and agree to discuss how to address past wrongs and their current day legacy.
Consecutive British governments have rejected calls for reparations but the chairman of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) reparations commission, Hilary Beckles, said this stance might change under the new Labour administration.
Britain's new foreign minister David Lammy is of Caribbean descent and often refers to himself as a descendant of enslaved people. In an interview, opens new tab with The Guardian newspaper before the election, Lammy said his family history would inform his work.
"(Lammy) has been a supporter of the (reparations) discourse while he was in opposition," Beckles said. "The question is whether he would be given a free hand in his government... to take the matter to a higher level."
A Farage, Reform and Jenrick wet dream if Starmer and Lammy were stupid enough to do that. You can imagine the posters and ads 'Labour take money from our NHS and your granny's heating in winter to fund woke reparations for sunny Jamaica and Barbados for something which happened before even your great granddad was born!'
What next, do we ask for reparations from Denmark for the Viking raids?
I think we should demand reparations from the Italians, Austrians, Germans, Russians and Turks for the Roman Empire.
As all five states have claimed descent from the Roman Empire at one time or another, at least one of them should stump up.
I still think the Beaker People owe us a shilling or two. Or a beaker at least. A good one, mind.
Seems like it was Truss who opened negotiations after meeting the Mauritian PM at a UN meeting. Any other unexploded bombs from her tenure as PM?
Following the meeting between the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), and Prime Minister Jugnauth at the UN General Assembly, the UK and Mauritius have decided to begin negotiations on the exercise of sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT)/Chagos archipelago.
Perhaps she thought there was a trade deal in it?
The sentence doesn't say that Truss opened negotiations. It is quite explicit that the decision to open negotiations happens after Truss has left power.
Ms Truss was Foreign Sec at the time. The PM referred to is Mauritian.
No, she met with the Mauritian PM at the UN General Assembly during her momentary tenure as PM.
The negotiations started in 2022.
Yes, "following" a discussion between Truss and Jugnauth at the UN General Assembly in October 2022, when she was PM.
This announcement followed bilateral talks between the UK Prime Minister, Liz Truss, and Prime Minister Jugnauth at the UN General Assembly earlier in 2022.
Yes, good move by her.
Returning the islands is righting a historical wrong.
Returning to who? People who have no claim to them. Certainly not the people who used to live there.
Lord Ashcroft @LordAshcroft I believe I’m one of the few visitors who have been to the Chagos Islands which the uk has just agreed to transfer sovereignty to Mauritius. I doubt more than a handful of Parliamentarians have ever visited let alone any current Foreign Minister. This transfer is a strategic mistake. Next will be Pitcairn to New Zealand which the last Labour Government was considering when last in office. Will our sovereign base in Cyprus also be returned…and so on …
Seems like it was Truss who opened negotiations after meeting the Mauritian PM at a UN meeting. Any other unexploded bombs from her tenure as PM?
Following the meeting between the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), and Prime Minister Jugnauth at the UN General Assembly, the UK and Mauritius have decided to begin negotiations on the exercise of sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT)/Chagos archipelago.
Perhaps she thought there was a trade deal in it?
The sentence doesn't say that Truss opened negotiations. It is quite explicit that the decision to open negotiations happens after Truss has left power.
Ms Truss was Foreign Sec at the time. The PM referred to is Mauritian.
No, she met with the Mauritian PM at the UN General Assembly during her momentary tenure as PM.
The negotiations started in 2022.
Yes, "following" a discussion between Truss and Jugnauth at the UN General Assembly in October 2022, when she was PM.
This announcement followed bilateral talks between the UK Prime Minister, Liz Truss, and Prime Minister Jugnauth at the UN General Assembly earlier in 2022.
Yes, good move by her.
Returning the islands is righting a historical wrong.
Those who were wronged were not allowed to participate in the negotiations.
And those it has been "returned" to never owned it.
So.... Jenrick odds on, Cleverly under 4 and likely to be runner up, Harris / Trump evens and too close to call. Are there any value punts left or is it sit tight and pick the moment to cash out?
Seems like it was Truss who opened negotiations after meeting the Mauritian PM at a UN meeting. Any other unexploded bombs from her tenure as PM?
Following the meeting between the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), and Prime Minister Jugnauth at the UN General Assembly, the UK and Mauritius have decided to begin negotiations on the exercise of sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT)/Chagos archipelago.
Perhaps she thought there was a trade deal in it?
The sentence doesn't say that Truss opened negotiations. It is quite explicit that the decision to open negotiations happens after Truss has left power.
Ms Truss was Foreign Sec at the time. The PM referred to is Mauritian.
No, she met with the Mauritian PM at the UN General Assembly during her momentary tenure as PM.
The negotiations started in 2022.
Yes, "following" a discussion between Truss and Jugnauth at the UN General Assembly in October 2022, when she was PM.
This announcement followed bilateral talks between the UK Prime Minister, Liz Truss, and Prime Minister Jugnauth at the UN General Assembly earlier in 2022.
Yes, good move by her.
Returning the islands is righting a historical wrong.
Returning to who? People who have no claim to them. Certainly not the people who used to live there.
The Chagos were part of Mauritius territory, illegally removed. Indeed that's why we deported the Chaggossians to Mauritius rather than anywhere else.
Mauritius is one of the most democratic countries in the world and a member of the Commonwealth, not some despotic dictatorship.
But will the actual remaining Chagossians benefit? Or is this just like switching out the name of the owner and switching around who gets paid for rent eventually?
I'm not really seeing the high morality at play here regardless of the rights or wrongs of the decision, support or oppose it seems to have little to do with those removed, as far as we, the USA, or Mauritius are concerned.
Come on, did anyone think Labour would be THIS bad after just 3 months?
Literally handing over chunks of British territory to China in a deal where WE pay? And thereby angering the USA?
As far as I can see the only British politician applauding this (outside starmer & co) is… Jeremy Corbyn
I'm wondering if Sir Keir pencilled in the Chagos stuff for now because he assumed he'd still be basking in honeymoon sunshine - there'd be some grumbles but it would generally go unnoticed. Unfortunately, such has been the explosion of his reputation that everything he does is now being put under the most intense scrutiny with no one giving him any leeway whatsoever. So it's just one PR disaster after another. He desperately needs to do something no one actively dislikes to claw back a bit of good will. But what?
That occurred to me
I don't think they expected the brutal backlash over Winter Fuel, ditto Freebiegate, and ditto this -
And all entirely unforced errors, with the forced choices - the Budget - yet to come
The particular problem here is that the TV news is not pictures of cheering Chagossians going home to their stolen islands, they are not happy. It's Jeremy Corbyn tweeting his pious approval as the West suffers a strategic blow
Seems like it was Truss who opened negotiations after meeting the Mauritian PM at a UN meeting. Any other unexploded bombs from her tenure as PM?
Following the meeting between the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), and Prime Minister Jugnauth at the UN General Assembly, the UK and Mauritius have decided to begin negotiations on the exercise of sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT)/Chagos archipelago.
Perhaps she thought there was a trade deal in it?
The sentence doesn't say that Truss opened negotiations. It is quite explicit that the decision to open negotiations happens after Truss has left power.
Ms Truss was Foreign Sec at the time. The PM referred to is Mauritian.
No, she met with the Mauritian PM at the UN General Assembly during her momentary tenure as PM.
The negotiations started in 2022.
Yes, "following" a discussion between Truss and Jugnauth at the UN General Assembly in October 2022, when she was PM.
This announcement followed bilateral talks between the UK Prime Minister, Liz Truss, and Prime Minister Jugnauth at the UN General Assembly earlier in 2022.
Yes, good move by her.
Returning the islands is righting a historical wrong.
Returning to who? People who have no claim to them. Certainly not the people who used to live there.
The Chagos were part of Mauritius territory, illegally removed. Indeed that's why we deported the Chaggossians to Mauritius rather than anywhere else.
Mauritius is one of the most democratic countries in the world and a member of the Commonwealth, not some despotic dictatorship.
Yes a moronic decision that gives no care to the people who lived there and all the weight to the fact someone decided for a brief period of time the islands should be for some purposes, not all, be administered as a grouping.
Seems like it was Truss who opened negotiations after meeting the Mauritian PM at a UN meeting. Any other unexploded bombs from her tenure as PM?
Following the meeting between the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), and Prime Minister Jugnauth at the UN General Assembly, the UK and Mauritius have decided to begin negotiations on the exercise of sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT)/Chagos archipelago.
Perhaps she thought there was a trade deal in it?
The sentence doesn't say that Truss opened negotiations. It is quite explicit that the decision to open negotiations happens after Truss has left power.
Ms Truss was Foreign Sec at the time. The PM referred to is Mauritian.
No, she met with the Mauritian PM at the UN General Assembly during her momentary tenure as PM.
The negotiations started in 2022.
Yes, "following" a discussion between Truss and Jugnauth at the UN General Assembly in October 2022, when she was PM.
This announcement followed bilateral talks between the UK Prime Minister, Liz Truss, and Prime Minister Jugnauth at the UN General Assembly earlier in 2022.
Yes, good move by her.
Returning the islands is righting a historical wrong.
Except those who have been wronged were not involved in the discussion, and are not actually getting anything back. Instead, the islands are passing to a third party.
Chagosians now have the right of return (except Diego Garcia) for the first time in a half century. The Chagossians and their descendents in Mauritius seem to support the deal.
Seems like it was Truss who opened negotiations after meeting the Mauritian PM at a UN meeting. Any other unexploded bombs from her tenure as PM?
Following the meeting between the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), and Prime Minister Jugnauth at the UN General Assembly, the UK and Mauritius have decided to begin negotiations on the exercise of sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT)/Chagos archipelago.
Perhaps she thought there was a trade deal in it?
The sentence doesn't say that Truss opened negotiations. It is quite explicit that the decision to open negotiations happens after Truss has left power.
Ms Truss was Foreign Sec at the time. The PM referred to is Mauritian.
No, she met with the Mauritian PM at the UN General Assembly during her momentary tenure as PM.
The negotiations started in 2022.
Yes, "following" a discussion between Truss and Jugnauth at the UN General Assembly in October 2022, when she was PM.
This announcement followed bilateral talks between the UK Prime Minister, Liz Truss, and Prime Minister Jugnauth at the UN General Assembly earlier in 2022.
Yes, good move by her.
Returning the islands is righting a historical wrong.
Except those who have been wronged were not involved in the discussion, and are not actually getting anything back. Instead, the islands are passing to a third party.
Chagosians now have the right of return (except Diego Garcia) for the first time in a half century. The Chagossians and their descendents in Mauritius seem to support the deal.
No they don't. Their LABOUR MP in Crawley is up in arms
Seems like it was Truss who opened negotiations after meeting the Mauritian PM at a UN meeting. Any other unexploded bombs from her tenure as PM?
Following the meeting between the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), and Prime Minister Jugnauth at the UN General Assembly, the UK and Mauritius have decided to begin negotiations on the exercise of sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT)/Chagos archipelago.
Perhaps she thought there was a trade deal in it?
The sentence doesn't say that Truss opened negotiations. It is quite explicit that the decision to open negotiations happens after Truss has left power.
Ms Truss was Foreign Sec at the time. The PM referred to is Mauritian.
No, she met with the Mauritian PM at the UN General Assembly during her momentary tenure as PM.
The negotiations started in 2022.
Yes, "following" a discussion between Truss and Jugnauth at the UN General Assembly in October 2022, when she was PM.
This announcement followed bilateral talks between the UK Prime Minister, Liz Truss, and Prime Minister Jugnauth at the UN General Assembly earlier in 2022.
Yes, good move by her.
Returning the islands is righting a historical wrong.
Those who were wronged were not allowed to participate in the negotiations.
And those it has been "returned" to never owned it.
Comments
"One official said of the US position "They were saying that we would rather you didn't do this"
Also Whitehall itself is perplexed:
"British officials are also said to have "actively warned against the deal", citing strategic need.... "it's baffling that this has happened given that we're effectively in a cold war with China", a Whitehall source said"
So, the USA didn't want this
The MoD didn't want this
Whitehall didn't want this
The Chagossians didn't want this
Nonetheless Starmer went ahead and handed over sovereign British territory to China, sorry, Mauritius and he asked if we could pay for the privilege, and so it is, we are paying
Stone cold treachery?
This is causing such a storm, and it is headline news, and his hands are also on this appalling deal, which benefits mainly China, not the Chagossians, and which costs you and me money coz we have to pay Mauritius to take the territory
It's fucking stupefying
Maybe this is just one part of some other deal?
If I was India I would be tempted to invade to stop this stupidity and the inevitable creation of a Chinese base in the Indian ocean.
To my mind it doesn't need to be the absolute you're suggesting.
They are dumb and treacherous. That's it
And that's how it can work with diplomacy and aid. The difficulty is in judging when there's a mutual benefit or longer term interest that may override immediate self-interest. Or when you're just chucking money or influence away.
Blithely ignoring all that, 'PB-shrewdies' have relentlessly ramped Cleverly as 'the only half-sensible choice' - the sole qualification for this honour seemingly being that he's wetter than an otter's pocket(tm) - a disposition that apparently instantly qualifies you as sensible, efficient, showing excellent judgement and being born to rule - even if you're a complete f****g idiot like this Prime Minister and the last.
Our deal, supported by our US partners, will protect international security, close a potential illegal migration route, and avert threats to peace and prosperity in the Indian Ocean.
https://x.com/DavidLammy/status/1841792390719271406
None of those claims would seem to be true as near as I can tell.
https://x.com/MarkGaleotti/status/1841861195260633437
I expect as this gets digested it will be seen as an extremely unpopular move and it also opens the door to Argentina asking for the Falklands which Labour will end up opening talks on now when the UN make some bullshit ruling or other.
Following the meeting between the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), and Prime Minister Jugnauth at the UN General Assembly, the UK and Mauritius have decided to begin negotiations on the exercise of sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT)/Chagos archipelago.
The man is a lunatic.
T
R
[MODERATED]
Tina Peters, former Colorado county clerk, was sentenced to nine years behind bars for leading a voting system data breach scheme as part of a pro-Trump plot to steal the 2020 election
LAW & ORDER!
https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1841925889975844926
That place gets £50m+ per annum. It's a tax on British sentimentality around animals.
Like the Dogs from Kabul nonsense.
Literally handing over chunks of British territory to China in a deal where WE pay? And thereby angering the USA?
As far as I can see the only British politician applauding this (outside starmer & co) is… Jeremy Corbyn
Paralysed through being demoralised.
Get in!!!
"I am convinced you would do it all again. You are as defiant a defendant as this court has ever seen..."
e.g. https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-9673/CBP-9673.pdf
This announcement followed bilateral talks between the UK Prime Minister, Liz Truss, and Prime Minister Jugnauth at the UN General Assembly earlier in 2022.
Returning the islands is righting a historical wrong.
I'll get my coat.
Jenrick odds on, Cleverly under 4 and likely to be runner up, Harris / Trump evens and too close to call.
Are there any value punts left or is it sit tight and pick the moment to cash out?
I've never met anyone like Truss for attracting strange accusations. I'm sure we had a Tweet here the other day saying she blamed transgender conspirators for her downfall. Before that it was 'storming off the stage instead of making a concession speech' when the losers don't make speeches in that constituency.
Get us Calais back.
Then we can have British bobbies on the beach beat.
Cruz to lose in Texas.
https://www.icj-cij.org/case/169
The Chagos were part of Mauritius territory, illegally removed. Indeed that's why we deported the Chaggossians to Mauritius rather than anywhere else.
Mauritius is one of the most democratic countries in the world and a member of the Commonwealth, not some despotic dictatorship.
The opinion of the ICJ is … of interest, but in no sense binding.
Lord Ashcroft
@LordAshcroft
I believe I’m one of the few visitors who have been to the Chagos Islands which the uk has just agreed to transfer sovereignty to Mauritius. I doubt more than a handful of Parliamentarians have ever visited let alone any current Foreign Minister. This transfer is a strategic mistake. Next will be Pitcairn to New Zealand which the last Labour Government was considering when last in office. Will our sovereign base in Cyprus also be returned…and so on …
But, apart from that....genius.
I'm not really seeing the high morality at play here regardless of the rights or wrongs of the decision, support or oppose it seems to have little to do with those removed, as far as we, the USA, or Mauritius are concerned.
I don't think they expected the brutal backlash over Winter Fuel, ditto Freebiegate, and ditto this -
And all entirely unforced errors, with the forced choices - the Budget - yet to come
The particular problem here is that the TV news is not pictures of cheering Chagossians going home to their stolen islands, they are not happy. It's Jeremy Corbyn tweeting his pious approval as the West suffers a strategic blow
https://x.com/davidlammy/status/1841882604556943635