It’s obvious from the reporting that the UK suffered a diplomatic defeat at the Commonwealth.
Reparations were not even on the agenda, so the UK has been “hijacked”. And despite Starmer’s pleading, it is not obvious at all the money is not to be discussed.
Starmer said none of the discussions at the summit had concerned money.
“Well, no figure,” Frederick Mitchell, the foreign minister of the Bahamas told BBC Radio’s Today programme on Saturday. “We’ll see what happens going forward.”
He said he hoped a report on the issue would follow, which nations would discuss in the future. Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout. “I have no doubt …. that the arc of history always goes in the right direction,” he said.
The Commonwealth no longer does our bidding, and why should it? After all KC3 is Head of State for a number of the countries pursuing reparations too. Sure we could have thrown our toys out of the pram and refused to sign the declaration, but that pretty much would bang in the final nail in its coffin.
We cannot praise the democratic institutions and rule of law that we bequeathed to the Commonwealth, then refuse to respond to those governments. Either we left them something valid, or we did not.
I don’t think the Commonwealth should do the UK’s bidding. That would be bizarre.
I simply note the UK’s diplomatic defeat on this issue.
The last government created a precedent, it seems:
"Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout."
When you are in a minority you are not going to get your way. I guess the issue is whether you then walk out or just play along knowing you cannot be forced to do anything you do not want to do.
You don't walk out. You just say "No. You must be joking!" and sit there. You certainly don't sign a declaration that opens the door. You refuse to sign. Simple.
That's pretty much the same as walking out. Basically, you leave without a communique. I suspect that is what a lot of previous UK governments would have done. This one chose not to grandstand. Unlike others on here, I don't see that as an act of treason. We decide whether the door opens. It's all in our hands.
They all leave without a communique. It's not us walking out. They all walk out. Not agreeing to reparations is not grandstanding. It's resisting blackmail and I'm sure would have the support of the vast majority in the UK. No doubt there will be a poll soon.
As much as you may wish it otherwise, the UK government has not agreed to reparations.
It has agreed the following:
"Heads, noting calls for discussions on reparatory justice with regard to the trans-Atlantic trade in enslaved Africans and chattel enslavement and recognising the importance of this matter to member states of the Commonwealth, the majority of which share common historical experiences in relation to this abhorrent trade, agreed that the time has come for a meaningful, truthful and respectful conversation towards forging a common future based on equity. Heads further agreed to continue playing an active role in bringing about such inclusive conversations addressing these harms."
So Starmer has agreed to a meaningful conversation on reparations, because that's what it's about. What else?
Perhaps it is a cynical kicking of the discussion into the long grass out of politeness.
I would simply say No. People alive now had nothing to do with slavery on either side. It's a scam.
Yep, to me that looks like a kick into the very long grass. It's very clearly not the UK agreeing to pay reparations.
Starmer getting a load of abuse for this but I am pretty sure he will be doing what the FO says is policy on this one.
We have Ukraine and NATO on a knife edge as we wait for the US election. The Middle East is a tinderbox and could explode totally at any moment. The West generally is distrusted and disliked by large parts of the world. If there's no need for a row - and clearly at this stage there isn't - why have one?
And look at the cause, Western weakness. Time and again we we get slapped in the face by China, Russia etc... and instead of hitting back as hard as we can we cower in the corner and say, "please don't hurt me" as they gear up to do it again and again. We sit on the losing side because we are never confident enough to saddle up and face down the despots, it leads to the likes of Trump winning domestically because people have that feeling too. As I said the other day, Asian people think that Western liberals are soft touch idiots and on the evidence of what Starmer is doing who can blame them.
I just do not see an endless conversation that goes nowhere about "reparatory justice" as something that hurts us. Trump isn't winning because we do not stand up to the Russians. How could he be when he will do what they want?
It’s obvious from the reporting that the UK suffered a diplomatic defeat at the Commonwealth.
Reparations were not even on the agenda, so the UK has been “hijacked”. And despite Starmer’s pleading, it is not obvious at all the money is not to be discussed.
Starmer said none of the discussions at the summit had concerned money.
“Well, no figure,” Frederick Mitchell, the foreign minister of the Bahamas told BBC Radio’s Today programme on Saturday. “We’ll see what happens going forward.”
He said he hoped a report on the issue would follow, which nations would discuss in the future. Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout. “I have no doubt …. that the arc of history always goes in the right direction,” he said.
The Commonwealth no longer does our bidding, and why should it? After all KC3 is Head of State for a number of the countries pursuing reparations too. Sure we could have thrown our toys out of the pram and refused to sign the declaration, but that pretty much would bang in the final nail in its coffin.
We cannot praise the democratic institutions and rule of law that we bequeathed to the Commonwealth, then refuse to respond to those governments. Either we left them something valid, or we did not.
I don’t think the Commonwealth should do the UK’s bidding. That would be bizarre.
I simply note the UK’s diplomatic defeat on this issue.
The last government created a precedent, it seems:
"Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout."
When you are in a minority you are not going to get your way. I guess the issue is whether you then walk out or just play along knowing you cannot be forced to do anything you do not want to do.
You don't walk out. You just say "No. You must be joking!" and sit there. You certainly don't sign a declaration that opens the door. You refuse to sign. Simple.
That's pretty much the same as walking out. Basically, you leave without a communique. I suspect that is what a lot of previous UK governments would have done. This one chose not to grandstand. Unlike others on here, I don't see that as an act of treason. We decide whether the door opens. It's all in our hands.
They all leave without a communique. It's not us walking out. They all walk out. Not agreeing to reparations is not grandstanding. It's resisting blackmail and I'm sure would have the support of the vast majority in the UK. No doubt there will be a poll soon.
As much as you may wish it otherwise, the UK government has not agreed to reparations.
It has agreed the following:
"Heads, noting calls for discussions on reparatory justice with regard to the trans-Atlantic trade in enslaved Africans and chattel enslavement and recognising the importance of this matter to member states of the Commonwealth, the majority of which share common historical experiences in relation to this abhorrent trade, agreed that the time has come for a meaningful, truthful and respectful conversation towards forging a common future based on equity. Heads further agreed to continue playing an active role in bringing about such inclusive conversations addressing these harms."
So Starmer has agreed to a meaningful conversation on reparations, because that's what it's about. What else?
Perhaps it is a cynical kicking of the discussion into the long grass out of politeness.
I would simply say No. People alive now had nothing to do with slavery on either side. It's a scam.
Yep, to me that looks like a kick into the very long grass. It's very clearly not the UK agreeing to pay reparations.
Starmer getting a load of abuse for this but I am pretty sure he will be doing what the FO says is policy on this one.
We have Ukraine and NATO on a knife edge as we wait for the US election. The Middle East is a tinderbox and could explode totally at any moment. The West generally is distrusted and disliked by large parts of the world. If there's no need for a row - and clearly at this stage there isn't - why have one?
And look at the cause, Western weakness. Time and again we we get slapped in the face by China, Russia etc... and instead of hitting back as hard as we can we cower in the corner and say, "please don't hurt me" as they gear up to do it again and again. We sit on the losing side because we are never confident enough to saddle up and face down the despots, it leads to the likes of Trump winning domestically because people have that feeling too. As I said the other day, Asian people think that Western liberals are soft touch idiots and on the evidence of what Starmer is doing who can blame them.
I just do not see an endless conversation that goes nowhere about "reparatory justice" as something that hurts us. Trump isn't winning because we do not stand up to the Russians. How could he be when he will do what they want?
Why do you think it goes nowhere. Starmer has already u-turned on having a conversation about it, soon it will be the apology that gets u-turned and eventually there will be reparations paid that the next government will have to cancel.
TBF, most Caribbean countries have done pretty well, post independence, on the back of being tax havens, and tourist centres. Haiti and Cuba are the obvious exceptions.
Haiti, of course, was obliged to pay reparations to France. Their independence was rather less decorous than the British Caribbean.
It’s obvious from the reporting that the UK suffered a diplomatic defeat at the Commonwealth.
Reparations were not even on the agenda, so the UK has been “hijacked”. And despite Starmer’s pleading, it is not obvious at all the money is not to be discussed.
Starmer said none of the discussions at the summit had concerned money.
“Well, no figure,” Frederick Mitchell, the foreign minister of the Bahamas told BBC Radio’s Today programme on Saturday. “We’ll see what happens going forward.”
He said he hoped a report on the issue would follow, which nations would discuss in the future. Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout. “I have no doubt …. that the arc of history always goes in the right direction,” he said.
The Commonwealth no longer does our bidding, and why should it? After all KC3 is Head of State for a number of the countries pursuing reparations too. Sure we could have thrown our toys out of the pram and refused to sign the declaration, but that pretty much would bang in the final nail in its coffin.
We cannot praise the democratic institutions and rule of law that we bequeathed to the Commonwealth, then refuse to respond to those governments. Either we left them something valid, or we did not.
I don’t think the Commonwealth should do the UK’s bidding. That would be bizarre.
I simply note the UK’s diplomatic defeat on this issue.
The last government created a precedent, it seems:
"Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout."
When you are in a minority you are not going to get your way. I guess the issue is whether you then walk out or just play along knowing you cannot be forced to do anything you do not want to do.
You don't walk out. You just say "No. You must be joking!" and sit there. You certainly don't sign a declaration that opens the door. You refuse to sign. Simple.
That's pretty much the same as walking out. Basically, you leave without a communique. I suspect that is what a lot of previous UK governments would have done. This one chose not to grandstand. Unlike others on here, I don't see that as an act of treason. We decide whether the door opens. It's all in our hands.
They all leave without a communique. It's not us walking out. They all walk out. Not agreeing to reparations is not grandstanding. It's resisting blackmail and I'm sure would have the support of the vast majority in the UK. No doubt there will be a poll soon.
As much as you may wish it otherwise, the UK government has not agreed to reparations.
It has agreed the following:
"Heads, noting calls for discussions on reparatory justice with regard to the trans-Atlantic trade in enslaved Africans and chattel enslavement and recognising the importance of this matter to member states of the Commonwealth, the majority of which share common historical experiences in relation to this abhorrent trade, agreed that the time has come for a meaningful, truthful and respectful conversation towards forging a common future based on equity. Heads further agreed to continue playing an active role in bringing about such inclusive conversations addressing these harms."
So Starmer has agreed to a meaningful conversation on reparations, because that's what it's about. What else?
Perhaps it is a cynical kicking of the discussion into the long grass out of politeness.
I would simply say No. People alive now had nothing to do with slavery on either side. It's a scam.
Yep, to me that looks like a kick into the very long grass. It's very clearly not the UK agreeing to pay reparations.
Starmer getting a load of abuse for this but I am pretty sure he will be doing what the FO says is policy on this one.
We have Ukraine and NATO on a knife edge as we wait for the US election. The Middle East is a tinderbox and could explode totally at any moment. The West generally is distrusted and disliked by large parts of the world. If there's no need for a row - and clearly at this stage there isn't - why have one?
And look at the cause, Western weakness. Time and again we we get slapped in the face by China, Russia etc... and instead of hitting back as hard as we can we cower in the corner and say, "please don't hurt me" as they gear up to do it again and again. We sit on the losing side because we are never confident enough to saddle up and face down the despots, it leads to the likes of Trump winning domestically because people have that feeling too. As I said the other day, Asian people think that Western liberals are soft touch idiots and on the evidence of what Starmer is doing who can blame them.
Because they are, and by extension we are.
We need to man up.
They have a nickname for white western liberals " baizuo" and it definitely aint complimentary. White western liberals are a joke in china.
It’s obvious from the reporting that the UK suffered a diplomatic defeat at the Commonwealth.
Reparations were not even on the agenda, so the UK has been “hijacked”. And despite Starmer’s pleading, it is not obvious at all the money is not to be discussed.
Starmer said none of the discussions at the summit had concerned money.
“Well, no figure,” Frederick Mitchell, the foreign minister of the Bahamas told BBC Radio’s Today programme on Saturday. “We’ll see what happens going forward.”
He said he hoped a report on the issue would follow, which nations would discuss in the future. Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout. “I have no doubt …. that the arc of history always goes in the right direction,” he said.
The Commonwealth no longer does our bidding, and why should it? After all KC3 is Head of State for a number of the countries pursuing reparations too. Sure we could have thrown our toys out of the pram and refused to sign the declaration, but that pretty much would bang in the final nail in its coffin.
We cannot praise the democratic institutions and rule of law that we bequeathed to the Commonwealth, then refuse to respond to those governments. Either we left them something valid, or we did not.
Surely as democracies they have the right to ask. And as a democracy we have the right to say no.
Certainly so, but saying no doesn't guarantee either popularity or support next time we need some friends. That's just Realpolitik.
Being a pushover doesn’t guarantee popularity or support either
I just want to point out that when the Chagos Surrender happened and I went ape-shit on here, there was a lot of scoffing and “oh who cares it’s a tiny atoll you’ve never heard of before”
I responded that
1. I had definitely heard of it
2. The surrender was totally unnecessary and a strategic error of enormous proportions
And
3. One of the many reasons it was such a strategic error was that it would encourage all our enemies to take a run at us, perceiving us as weak and spineless with a stupid cowardly leader willing to yield to anything
Et voila
Indeed, there's no way that reparations or anything as stupid as that would be on the agenda had we not just paid billions to Mauritius to take the Chagos Islands off our hands. The Carribbean sense weakness and Starmer appointing reparations supporters like Lammy such high roles is another reason they know they can go for it and win. Starmer is a cuck.
Starmer should just have said “nah. Fuck off, I’m not signing that, it commits us to reparations”
But of course he’s incapable of showing backbone because he doesn’t have one, and deep down he agrees that Britain is evil and should pay
And that's the difference between him and Blair. Blair would have just laughed the whole discussion off and told the commonwealth nations to get back in their box because he fundamentally loved this country. Starmer very clearly doesn't, he sees us as part of the evil colonialist axis as so many lefties were indoctrinated to believe when they went to university by Marxist professors.
Could anyone imagine Margaret Thatcher, or even John Major signing it!
I don’t believe he’ll ever commit the UK to paying billions.
What he will do is offer some abject, and completely insincere, apology for slavery, before agreeing to pay symbolic reparations to governments who’ll stick the money in their offshore accounts.
That will set a precedent for anyone with a grudge against the UK to come calling.
One can imagine Cameron taking a similar line if he were PM now. Times have changed since the Thatcher era.
Osborne, yes. Cameron, I think not.
Impossible to imagine a British PM now suggesting, as Cameron did, that he was proud of the Empire. But that was only 2013.
The last 10 years have really been a roller coaster.
So did Blair.
FWIW, I still think the Empire was on balance a good thing - and I don't even think it's on balance, but clearly a good thing.
Why do you think the Empire was a good thing?
The modern world would be unrecognisable without the Empire.
We wouldn't have free liberal democracies like the United States, Canada, New Zealand or Australia nor large multireligious and panethnic democratic states like India and South Africa. We would not have Carribean and African states endeavouring to follow that path. We would not have free international trade, we would not have been able to fight and win WW1 or WW2, we would not have the UN, Human Rights or the rule of law as an international principle. Countries like Singapore and South Korea wouldn't exist and Japan would have taken a different path.
We'd have a world of autocracy instead, with fewer rights, more suffering, more cruelty and less human development. It'd be China, Iran and Russia writ-large. Dictators and Theocracies where might made right.
The handwringing we have now is, I think, in direct relationship to our waning power and influence and is in some sense a response to it: it's to try and keep us at the centre of ongoing geopolitical conversations - ones that our rivals absolutely don't respect and, in fact, use to hold us in contempt.
I don't agree with all these points, but I do think we have a bizarre idea that handwringing gains us something either in terms of our national progression or in geopolitical terms, and I really don't think that is the case.
And I do think handwringing is distinct from acknowledging things, but the former is what is pushed.
If one doesn't agree one has to argue from where else democracy would have spawned and how it'd have been defended and advanced at the same time.
It's not a long list. France is probably the closest and they had a decidedly jittery and mixed record.
I agree. But you also need to step back and consider why democracy spawned in UK, France and elsewhere. It's not easy to answer but in general I'd argue against British or European exceptionalism and in favour of the idea that democracy flourishes when nations create the conditions for it to flourish.
By contrast, democracy was often imposed on colonies without there being the conditions for it to flourish and hasn't always 'stuck' post-empire as a result.
No doubt other states might have experimented with proto-democracies at times but, like the Roman Republic or Ancient Greece, they wouldn't have lasted.
What made Britain different was that it was a stable, secure and wealthy polity from which it was able to project and maintain its power, and it believed in its sense of mission over multiple generations.
The Roman Republic lasted what, 500 years? Still the longest "democracy" in history. Apples and oranges but the Great Reform Act was only 190 years ago.
We couldn't even extend democracy to Ireland successfully.
It’s obvious from the reporting that the UK suffered a diplomatic defeat at the Commonwealth.
Reparations were not even on the agenda, so the UK has been “hijacked”. And despite Starmer’s pleading, it is not obvious at all the money is not to be discussed.
Starmer said none of the discussions at the summit had concerned money.
“Well, no figure,” Frederick Mitchell, the foreign minister of the Bahamas told BBC Radio’s Today programme on Saturday. “We’ll see what happens going forward.”
He said he hoped a report on the issue would follow, which nations would discuss in the future. Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout. “I have no doubt …. that the arc of history always goes in the right direction,” he said.
The Commonwealth no longer does our bidding, and why should it? After all KC3 is Head of State for a number of the countries pursuing reparations too. Sure we could have thrown our toys out of the pram and refused to sign the declaration, but that pretty much would bang in the final nail in its coffin.
We cannot praise the democratic institutions and rule of law that we bequeathed to the Commonwealth, then refuse to respond to those governments. Either we left them something valid, or we did not.
I don’t think the Commonwealth should do the UK’s bidding. That would be bizarre.
I simply note the UK’s diplomatic defeat on this issue.
The last government created a precedent, it seems:
"Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout."
When you are in a minority you are not going to get your way. I guess the issue is whether you then walk out or just play along knowing you cannot be forced to do anything you do not want to do.
You don't walk out. You just say "No. You must be joking!" and sit there. You certainly don't sign a declaration that opens the door. You refuse to sign. Simple.
That's pretty much the same as walking out. Basically, you leave without a communique. I suspect that is what a lot of previous UK governments would have done. This one chose not to grandstand. Unlike others on here, I don't see that as an act of treason. We decide whether the door opens. It's all in our hands.
They all leave without a communique. It's not us walking out. They all walk out. Not agreeing to reparations is not grandstanding. It's resisting blackmail and I'm sure would have the support of the vast majority in the UK. No doubt there will be a poll soon.
As much as you may wish it otherwise, the UK government has not agreed to reparations.
It has agreed the following:
"Heads, noting calls for discussions on reparatory justice with regard to the trans-Atlantic trade in enslaved Africans and chattel enslavement and recognising the importance of this matter to member states of the Commonwealth, the majority of which share common historical experiences in relation to this abhorrent trade, agreed that the time has come for a meaningful, truthful and respectful conversation towards forging a common future based on equity. Heads further agreed to continue playing an active role in bringing about such inclusive conversations addressing these harms."
So Starmer has agreed to a meaningful conversation on reparations, because that's what it's about. What else?
Perhaps it is a cynical kicking of the discussion into the long grass out of politeness.
I would simply say No. People alive now had nothing to do with slavery on either side. It's a scam.
Yep, to me that looks like a kick into the very long grass. It's very clearly not the UK agreeing to pay reparations.
I think Starmer's strategy was to find a way of saying no without aggravating the Caribbean nations so much they end up in China's sphere of influence. "A conversation towards forging a common future based on equity" can mean absolutely anything.
Yep, it's big, thick, sticky fudge. If you can get that instead of a big argument at a time when the geopolitical headwinds are massively difficult, why not?
You think he's avoided a big argument?
Chortle.
It's laughable isn't it. He's avoided an argument by saying yes to having one? The sky is green, war is peace and all that.
If you think that the UK is going to be spending a lot of time having huge, stand-up, international rows about "reparatory justice" over the next few years then I have a bridge to sell you. There are so many more important things to worry about.
It’s obvious from the reporting that the UK suffered a diplomatic defeat at the Commonwealth.
Reparations were not even on the agenda, so the UK has been “hijacked”. And despite Starmer’s pleading, it is not obvious at all the money is not to be discussed.
Starmer said none of the discussions at the summit had concerned money.
“Well, no figure,” Frederick Mitchell, the foreign minister of the Bahamas told BBC Radio’s Today programme on Saturday. “We’ll see what happens going forward.”
He said he hoped a report on the issue would follow, which nations would discuss in the future. Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout. “I have no doubt …. that the arc of history always goes in the right direction,” he said.
The Commonwealth no longer does our bidding, and why should it? After all KC3 is Head of State for a number of the countries pursuing reparations too. Sure we could have thrown our toys out of the pram and refused to sign the declaration, but that pretty much would bang in the final nail in its coffin.
We cannot praise the democratic institutions and rule of law that we bequeathed to the Commonwealth, then refuse to respond to those governments. Either we left them something valid, or we did not.
I don’t think the Commonwealth should do the UK’s bidding. That would be bizarre.
I simply note the UK’s diplomatic defeat on this issue.
The last government created a precedent, it seems:
"Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout."
When you are in a minority you are not going to get your way. I guess the issue is whether you then walk out or just play along knowing you cannot be forced to do anything you do not want to do.
You don't walk out. You just say "No. You must be joking!" and sit there. You certainly don't sign a declaration that opens the door. You refuse to sign. Simple.
That's pretty much the same as walking out. Basically, you leave without a communique. I suspect that is what a lot of previous UK governments would have done. This one chose not to grandstand. Unlike others on here, I don't see that as an act of treason. We decide whether the door opens. It's all in our hands.
They all leave without a communique. It's not us walking out. They all walk out. Not agreeing to reparations is not grandstanding. It's resisting blackmail and I'm sure would have the support of the vast majority in the UK. No doubt there will be a poll soon.
As much as you may wish it otherwise, the UK government has not agreed to reparations.
It has agreed the following:
"Heads, noting calls for discussions on reparatory justice with regard to the trans-Atlantic trade in enslaved Africans and chattel enslavement and recognising the importance of this matter to member states of the Commonwealth, the majority of which share common historical experiences in relation to this abhorrent trade, agreed that the time has come for a meaningful, truthful and respectful conversation towards forging a common future based on equity. Heads further agreed to continue playing an active role in bringing about such inclusive conversations addressing these harms."
So Starmer has agreed to a meaningful conversation on reparations, because that's what it's about. What else?
Perhaps it is a cynical kicking of the discussion into the long grass out of politeness.
I would simply say No. People alive now had nothing to do with slavery on either side. It's a scam.
Yep, to me that looks like a kick into the very long grass. It's very clearly not the UK agreeing to pay reparations.
I think Starmer's strategy was to find a way of saying no without aggravating the Caribbean nations so much they end up in China's sphere of influence. "A conversation towards forging a common future based on equity" can mean absolutely anything.
I think so. The resolution on reparatory justice is unwelcome and highly embarrassing for Starmer but these things happen. The UK wants warm words about how bad slavery is; the other members want lots of cash. Even if the UK does some relatively modest education or development programmes targeted at its Commonwealth it they will be seen as either extorted or tokenistic. The Commonwealth won't survive a big bust up; it just isn't important enough to anyone. So I think he will will want the discussions to go into the long grass to avoid that outcome.
🔺 NEW: Sir Keir Starmer has been forced to promise Commonwealth countries that Britain will discuss reparations for slavery next year as he failed to quash an official call for damages
As I said before, I think he's actually a traitor. He loathes this country and can't wait to destroy it.
Agreed. It can only be that.
If he’s not a traitor he is the worst politician in history who always ends up with the worst possible deal for this country. Remember he’s the guy who not only gave away the Chagos to China but AGREED A DEAL WHERE WE PAY FOR THAT
He (i.e., we) will be ripped apart by China, the EU, Spain, the Commonwealth and the USA in any trade deal or geopolitical negotiation over the next 4 years. It's going to cost us a fortune. Some of it permanently, I'm afraid.
I just hope the Tories can unpick it all when they reset and get back in office 🙏
He is a traitorous c*nt
Remember that one of the “reasons” for the Chagos Surrender was that it would “increase our influence and soft power”. Instead everyone has laughed at Starmer and Labour for being such a weak bunch of fucking cucks and now they are demanding the UK pay seven trillion quid and forcing Starmer to sign this communique
WANKERS
He's surely empowered Putin too. How long before Russian tanks are in Sevenoaks because the great big girl's blouse is too scared to use Trident?
Reading some of today’s comments, I’m worried that some on here would prefer Putin to Starmer. I’m thinking I’ve accidentally logged onto Con Home.
It's like we've turned into the cigar room in some Mayfair den in the 70s.
Chaps cussing the reds and working themselves up into a right old lather.
Do you think Harris is a good candidate.
Yes.
Did you see her performance on cnn townhall. Embarassing. Even Anderson Cooper wasnt impressed.
It's Saturday, Clark is new and Clark is pro-Trump. You don't think....
A beautiful day here in central Buchan, so busy busy delivering my election leaflets (7th November council by-election). A few of us out, but I spent all day at it on a mega 19km walk delivering 550 of them.
Beer later!
Presumably no one voting LAB there? Are they bothering to stand? Do between CON SNP and you?
It’s obvious from the reporting that the UK suffered a diplomatic defeat at the Commonwealth.
Reparations were not even on the agenda, so the UK has been “hijacked”. And despite Starmer’s pleading, it is not obvious at all the money is not to be discussed.
Starmer said none of the discussions at the summit had concerned money.
“Well, no figure,” Frederick Mitchell, the foreign minister of the Bahamas told BBC Radio’s Today programme on Saturday. “We’ll see what happens going forward.”
He said he hoped a report on the issue would follow, which nations would discuss in the future. Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout. “I have no doubt …. that the arc of history always goes in the right direction,” he said.
The Commonwealth no longer does our bidding, and why should it? After all KC3 is Head of State for a number of the countries pursuing reparations too. Sure we could have thrown our toys out of the pram and refused to sign the declaration, but that pretty much would bang in the final nail in its coffin.
We cannot praise the democratic institutions and rule of law that we bequeathed to the Commonwealth, then refuse to respond to those governments. Either we left them something valid, or we did not.
Surely as democracies they have the right to ask. And as a democracy we have the right to say no.
Certainly so, but saying no doesn't guarantee either popularity or support next time we need some friends. That's just Realpolitik.
Being a pushover doesn’t guarantee popularity or support either
No I'd say it does the opposite. Since when has the pushover at work been popular?
It’s obvious from the reporting that the UK suffered a diplomatic defeat at the Commonwealth.
Reparations were not even on the agenda, so the UK has been “hijacked”. And despite Starmer’s pleading, it is not obvious at all the money is not to be discussed.
Starmer said none of the discussions at the summit had concerned money.
“Well, no figure,” Frederick Mitchell, the foreign minister of the Bahamas told BBC Radio’s Today programme on Saturday. “We’ll see what happens going forward.”
He said he hoped a report on the issue would follow, which nations would discuss in the future. Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout. “I have no doubt …. that the arc of history always goes in the right direction,” he said.
The Commonwealth no longer does our bidding, and why should it? After all KC3 is Head of State for a number of the countries pursuing reparations too. Sure we could have thrown our toys out of the pram and refused to sign the declaration, but that pretty much would bang in the final nail in its coffin.
We cannot praise the democratic institutions and rule of law that we bequeathed to the Commonwealth, then refuse to respond to those governments. Either we left them something valid, or we did not.
Surely as democracies they have the right to ask. And as a democracy we have the right to say no.
Certainly so, but saying no doesn't guarantee either popularity or support next time we need some friends. That's just Realpolitik.
Being a pushover doesn’t guarantee popularity or support either
Just be like Trump likely was with Bezos. Threaten his company and hey presto washington post doesnt endorse Kamala. Art of the deal.
It’s obvious from the reporting that the UK suffered a diplomatic defeat at the Commonwealth.
Reparations were not even on the agenda, so the UK has been “hijacked”. And despite Starmer’s pleading, it is not obvious at all the money is not to be discussed.
Starmer said none of the discussions at the summit had concerned money.
“Well, no figure,” Frederick Mitchell, the foreign minister of the Bahamas told BBC Radio’s Today programme on Saturday. “We’ll see what happens going forward.”
He said he hoped a report on the issue would follow, which nations would discuss in the future. Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout. “I have no doubt …. that the arc of history always goes in the right direction,” he said.
The Commonwealth no longer does our bidding, and why should it? After all KC3 is Head of State for a number of the countries pursuing reparations too. Sure we could have thrown our toys out of the pram and refused to sign the declaration, but that pretty much would bang in the final nail in its coffin.
We cannot praise the democratic institutions and rule of law that we bequeathed to the Commonwealth, then refuse to respond to those governments. Either we left them something valid, or we did not.
I don’t think the Commonwealth should do the UK’s bidding. That would be bizarre.
I simply note the UK’s diplomatic defeat on this issue.
The last government created a precedent, it seems:
"Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout."
When you are in a minority you are not going to get your way. I guess the issue is whether you then walk out or just play along knowing you cannot be forced to do anything you do not want to do.
You don't walk out. You just say "No. You must be joking!" and sit there. You certainly don't sign a declaration that opens the door. You refuse to sign. Simple.
That's pretty much the same as walking out. Basically, you leave without a communique. I suspect that is what a lot of previous UK governments would have done. This one chose not to grandstand. Unlike others on here, I don't see that as an act of treason. We decide whether the door opens. It's all in our hands.
They all leave without a communique. It's not us walking out. They all walk out. Not agreeing to reparations is not grandstanding. It's resisting blackmail and I'm sure would have the support of the vast majority in the UK. No doubt there will be a poll soon.
As much as you may wish it otherwise, the UK government has not agreed to reparations.
It has agreed the following:
"Heads, noting calls for discussions on reparatory justice with regard to the trans-Atlantic trade in enslaved Africans and chattel enslavement and recognising the importance of this matter to member states of the Commonwealth, the majority of which share common historical experiences in relation to this abhorrent trade, agreed that the time has come for a meaningful, truthful and respectful conversation towards forging a common future based on equity. Heads further agreed to continue playing an active role in bringing about such inclusive conversations addressing these harms."
So Starmer has agreed to a meaningful conversation on reparations, because that's what it's about. What else?
Perhaps it is a cynical kicking of the discussion into the long grass out of politeness.
I would simply say No. People alive now had nothing to do with slavery on either side. It's a scam.
Yep, to me that looks like a kick into the very long grass. It's very clearly not the UK agreeing to pay reparations.
I think Starmer's strategy was to find a way of saying no without aggravating the Caribbean nations so much they end up in China's sphere of influence. "A conversation towards forging a common future based on equity" can mean absolutely anything.
Yep, it's big, thick, sticky fudge. If you can get that instead of a big argument at a time when the geopolitical headwinds are massively difficult, why not?
You think he's avoided a big argument?
Chortle.
It's laughable isn't it. He's avoided an argument by saying yes to having one? The sky is green, war is peace and all that.
If you think that the UK is going to be spending a lot of time having huge, stand-up, international rows about "reparatory justice" over the next few years then I have a bridge to sell you. There are so many more important things to worry about.
Which is why he's going to pay up. Paying up closes that discussion off.
It’s obvious from the reporting that the UK suffered a diplomatic defeat at the Commonwealth.
Reparations were not even on the agenda, so the UK has been “hijacked”. And despite Starmer’s pleading, it is not obvious at all the money is not to be discussed.
Starmer said none of the discussions at the summit had concerned money.
“Well, no figure,” Frederick Mitchell, the foreign minister of the Bahamas told BBC Radio’s Today programme on Saturday. “We’ll see what happens going forward.”
He said he hoped a report on the issue would follow, which nations would discuss in the future. Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout. “I have no doubt …. that the arc of history always goes in the right direction,” he said.
The Commonwealth no longer does our bidding, and why should it? After all KC3 is Head of State for a number of the countries pursuing reparations too. Sure we could have thrown our toys out of the pram and refused to sign the declaration, but that pretty much would bang in the final nail in its coffin.
We cannot praise the democratic institutions and rule of law that we bequeathed to the Commonwealth, then refuse to respond to those governments. Either we left them something valid, or we did not.
I don’t think the Commonwealth should do the UK’s bidding. That would be bizarre.
I simply note the UK’s diplomatic defeat on this issue.
The last government created a precedent, it seems:
"Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout."
When you are in a minority you are not going to get your way. I guess the issue is whether you then walk out or just play along knowing you cannot be forced to do anything you do not want to do.
You don't walk out. You just say "No. You must be joking!" and sit there. You certainly don't sign a declaration that opens the door. You refuse to sign. Simple.
That's pretty much the same as walking out. Basically, you leave without a communique. I suspect that is what a lot of previous UK governments would have done. This one chose not to grandstand. Unlike others on here, I don't see that as an act of treason. We decide whether the door opens. It's all in our hands.
They all leave without a communique. It's not us walking out. They all walk out. Not agreeing to reparations is not grandstanding. It's resisting blackmail and I'm sure would have the support of the vast majority in the UK. No doubt there will be a poll soon.
As much as you may wish it otherwise, the UK government has not agreed to reparations.
It has agreed the following:
"Heads, noting calls for discussions on reparatory justice with regard to the trans-Atlantic trade in enslaved Africans and chattel enslavement and recognising the importance of this matter to member states of the Commonwealth, the majority of which share common historical experiences in relation to this abhorrent trade, agreed that the time has come for a meaningful, truthful and respectful conversation towards forging a common future based on equity. Heads further agreed to continue playing an active role in bringing about such inclusive conversations addressing these harms."
So Starmer has agreed to a meaningful conversation on reparations, because that's what it's about. What else?
Perhaps it is a cynical kicking of the discussion into the long grass out of politeness.
I would simply say No. People alive now had nothing to do with slavery on either side. It's a scam.
Yep, to me that looks like a kick into the very long grass. It's very clearly not the UK agreeing to pay reparations.
I think Starmer's strategy was to find a way of saying no without aggravating the Caribbean nations so much they end up in China's sphere of influence. "A conversation towards forging a common future based on equity" can mean absolutely anything.
Yep, it's big, thick, sticky fudge. If you can get that instead of a big argument at a time when the geopolitical headwinds are massively difficult, why not?
You think he's avoided a big argument?
Chortle.
It's laughable isn't it. He's avoided an argument by saying yes to having one? The sky is green, war is peace and all that.
It's one of the biggest strategic missteps of recent times.
He's opened the door to potentially limitless liability, as well as showing that if you shove Britain we'll fold.
I now wonder if the best thing is if Starmer is ejected for another Labour leader for the next 4 years, even if it's Rayner.
Might be worth pointing out the government also folded to the unions for pay rise demands in double quick time giving large pay rises while throwing out any talk of modernisation...and then they organised new strikes.
I just want to point out that when the Chagos Surrender happened and I went ape-shit on here, there was a lot of scoffing and “oh who cares it’s a tiny atoll you’ve never heard of before”
I responded that
1. I had definitely heard of it
2. The surrender was totally unnecessary and a strategic error of enormous proportions
And
3. One of the many reasons it was such a strategic error was that it would encourage all our enemies to take a run at us, perceiving us as weak and spineless with a stupid cowardly leader willing to yield to anything
Et voila
Indeed, there's no way that reparations or anything as stupid as that would be on the agenda had we not just paid billions to Mauritius to take the Chagos Islands off our hands. The Carribbean sense weakness and Starmer appointing reparations supporters like Lammy such high roles is another reason they know they can go for it and win. Starmer is a cuck.
Starmer should just have said “nah. Fuck off, I’m not signing that, it commits us to reparations”
But of course he’s incapable of showing backbone because he doesn’t have one, and deep down he agrees that Britain is evil and should pay
And that's the difference between him and Blair. Blair would have just laughed the whole discussion off and told the commonwealth nations to get back in their box because he fundamentally loved this country. Starmer very clearly doesn't, he sees us as part of the evil colonialist axis as so many lefties were indoctrinated to believe when they went to university by Marxist professors.
Could anyone imagine Margaret Thatcher, or even John Major signing it!
I don’t believe he’ll ever commit the UK to paying billions.
What he will do is offer some abject, and completely insincere, apology for slavery, before agreeing to pay symbolic reparations to governments who’ll stick the money in their offshore accounts.
That will set a precedent for anyone with a grudge against the UK to come calling.
One can imagine Cameron taking a similar line if he were PM now. Times have changed since the Thatcher era.
Osborne, yes. Cameron, I think not.
Impossible to imagine a British PM now suggesting, as Cameron did, that he was proud of the Empire. But that was only 2013.
The last 10 years have really been a roller coaster.
So did Blair.
FWIW, I still think the Empire was on balance a good thing - and I don't even think it's on balance, but clearly a good thing.
Why do you think the Empire was a good thing?
The modern world would be unrecognisable without the Empire.
We wouldn't have free liberal democracies like the United States, Canada, New Zealand or Australia nor large multireligious and panethnic democratic states like India and South Africa. We would not have Carribean and African states endeavouring to follow that path. We would not have free international trade, we would not have been able to fight and win WW1 or WW2, we would not have the UN, Human Rights or the rule of law as an international principle. Countries like Singapore and South Korea wouldn't exist and Japan would have taken a different path.
We'd have a world of autocracy instead, with fewer rights, more suffering, more cruelty and less human development. It'd be China, Iran and Russia writ-large. Dictators and Theocracies where might made right.
The handwringing we have now is, I think, in direct relationship to our waning power and influence and is in some sense a response to it: it's to try and keep us at the centre of ongoing geopolitical conversations - ones that our rivals absolutely don't respect and, in fact, use to hold us in contempt.
It’s obvious from the reporting that the UK suffered a diplomatic defeat at the Commonwealth.
Reparations were not even on the agenda, so the UK has been “hijacked”. And despite Starmer’s pleading, it is not obvious at all the money is not to be discussed.
Starmer said none of the discussions at the summit had concerned money.
“Well, no figure,” Frederick Mitchell, the foreign minister of the Bahamas told BBC Radio’s Today programme on Saturday. “We’ll see what happens going forward.”
He said he hoped a report on the issue would follow, which nations would discuss in the future. Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout. “I have no doubt …. that the arc of history always goes in the right direction,” he said.
The Commonwealth no longer does our bidding, and why should it? After all KC3 is Head of State for a number of the countries pursuing reparations too. Sure we could have thrown our toys out of the pram and refused to sign the declaration, but that pretty much would bang in the final nail in its coffin.
We cannot praise the democratic institutions and rule of law that we bequeathed to the Commonwealth, then refuse to respond to those governments. Either we left them something valid, or we did not.
I don’t think the Commonwealth should do the UK’s bidding. That would be bizarre.
I simply note the UK’s diplomatic defeat on this issue.
The last government created a precedent, it seems:
"Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout."
When you are in a minority you are not going to get your way. I guess the issue is whether you then walk out or just play along knowing you cannot be forced to do anything you do not want to do.
You don't walk out. You just say "No. You must be joking!" and sit there. You certainly don't sign a declaration that opens the door. You refuse to sign. Simple.
That's pretty much the same as walking out. Basically, you leave without a communique. I suspect that is what a lot of previous UK governments would have done. This one chose not to grandstand. Unlike others on here, I don't see that as an act of treason. We decide whether the door opens. It's all in our hands.
They all leave without a communique. It's not us walking out. They all walk out. Not agreeing to reparations is not grandstanding. It's resisting blackmail and I'm sure would have the support of the vast majority in the UK. No doubt there will be a poll soon.
As much as you may wish it otherwise, the UK government has not agreed to reparations.
It has agreed the following:
"Heads, noting calls for discussions on reparatory justice with regard to the trans-Atlantic trade in enslaved Africans and chattel enslavement and recognising the importance of this matter to member states of the Commonwealth, the majority of which share common historical experiences in relation to this abhorrent trade, agreed that the time has come for a meaningful, truthful and respectful conversation towards forging a common future based on equity. Heads further agreed to continue playing an active role in bringing about such inclusive conversations addressing these harms."
So Starmer has agreed to a meaningful conversation on reparations, because that's what it's about. What else?
Perhaps it is a cynical kicking of the discussion into the long grass out of politeness.
I would simply say No. People alive now had nothing to do with slavery on either side. It's a scam.
Yep, to me that looks like a kick into the very long grass. It's very clearly not the UK agreeing to pay reparations.
Starmer getting a load of abuse for this but I am pretty sure he will be doing what the FO says is policy on this one.
We have Ukraine and NATO on a knife edge as we wait for the US election. The Middle East is a tinderbox and could explode totally at any moment. The West generally is distrusted and disliked by large parts of the world. If there's no need for a row - and clearly at this stage there isn't - why have one?
And look at the cause, Western weakness. Time and again we we get slapped in the face by China, Russia etc... and instead of hitting back as hard as we can we cower in the corner and say, "please don't hurt me" as they gear up to do it again and again. We sit on the losing side because we are never confident enough to saddle up and face down the despots, it leads to the likes of Trump winning domestically because people have that feeling too. As I said the other day, Asian people think that Western liberals are soft touch idiots and on the evidence of what Starmer is doing who can blame them.
I just do not see an endless conversation that goes nowhere about "reparatory justice" as something that hurts us. Trump isn't winning because we do not stand up to the Russians. How could he be when he will do what they want?
Why do you think it goes nowhere. Starmer has already u-turned on having a conversation about it, soon it will be the apology that gets u-turned and eventually there will be reparations paid that the next government will have to cancel.
A government that refuses to even contemplate signing up to the Single Market and Customs Union, even though it would immediately delight 85% of its support base and 95% of its party membership, as well as a much larger proportion of the country as a whole, is not going to agree to reparations that the UK cannot afford and which will immediately alienate the majority of the electorate. I know you wish it otherwise, but it's just not going to happen.
It’s obvious from the reporting that the UK suffered a diplomatic defeat at the Commonwealth.
Reparations were not even on the agenda, so the UK has been “hijacked”. And despite Starmer’s pleading, it is not obvious at all the money is not to be discussed.
Starmer said none of the discussions at the summit had concerned money.
“Well, no figure,” Frederick Mitchell, the foreign minister of the Bahamas told BBC Radio’s Today programme on Saturday. “We’ll see what happens going forward.”
He said he hoped a report on the issue would follow, which nations would discuss in the future. Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout. “I have no doubt …. that the arc of history always goes in the right direction,” he said.
The Commonwealth no longer does our bidding, and why should it? After all KC3 is Head of State for a number of the countries pursuing reparations too. Sure we could have thrown our toys out of the pram and refused to sign the declaration, but that pretty much would bang in the final nail in its coffin.
We cannot praise the democratic institutions and rule of law that we bequeathed to the Commonwealth, then refuse to respond to those governments. Either we left them something valid, or we did not.
I don’t think the Commonwealth should do the UK’s bidding. That would be bizarre.
I simply note the UK’s diplomatic defeat on this issue.
The last government created a precedent, it seems:
"Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout."
When you are in a minority you are not going to get your way. I guess the issue is whether you then walk out or just play along knowing you cannot be forced to do anything you do not want to do.
You don't walk out. You just say "No. You must be joking!" and sit there. You certainly don't sign a declaration that opens the door. You refuse to sign. Simple.
That's pretty much the same as walking out. Basically, you leave without a communique. I suspect that is what a lot of previous UK governments would have done. This one chose not to grandstand. Unlike others on here, I don't see that as an act of treason. We decide whether the door opens. It's all in our hands.
They all leave without a communique. It's not us walking out. They all walk out. Not agreeing to reparations is not grandstanding. It's resisting blackmail and I'm sure would have the support of the vast majority in the UK. No doubt there will be a poll soon.
As much as you may wish it otherwise, the UK government has not agreed to reparations.
It has agreed the following:
"Heads, noting calls for discussions on reparatory justice with regard to the trans-Atlantic trade in enslaved Africans and chattel enslavement and recognising the importance of this matter to member states of the Commonwealth, the majority of which share common historical experiences in relation to this abhorrent trade, agreed that the time has come for a meaningful, truthful and respectful conversation towards forging a common future based on equity. Heads further agreed to continue playing an active role in bringing about such inclusive conversations addressing these harms."
So Starmer has agreed to a meaningful conversation on reparations, because that's what it's about. What else?
Perhaps it is a cynical kicking of the discussion into the long grass out of politeness.
I would simply say No. People alive now had nothing to do with slavery on either side. It's a scam.
Yep, to me that looks like a kick into the very long grass. It's very clearly not the UK agreeing to pay reparations.
I think Starmer's strategy was to find a way of saying no without aggravating the Caribbean nations so much they end up in China's sphere of influence. "A conversation towards forging a common future based on equity" can mean absolutely anything.
I think so. The resolution on reparatory justice is unwelcome and highly embarrassing for Starmer but these things happen. The UK wants warm words about how bad slavery is; the other members want lots of cash. Even if the UK does some relatively modest education or development programmes targeted at its Commonwealth it they will be seen as either extorted or tokenistic. The Commonwealth won't survive a big bust up; it just isn't important enough to anyone. So I think he will will want the discussions to go into the long grass to avoid that outcome.
The battle for the Commonwealth was lost before it even met.
It was catastrophic that India and South Africa didn't even show up.
It’s obvious from the reporting that the UK suffered a diplomatic defeat at the Commonwealth.
Reparations were not even on the agenda, so the UK has been “hijacked”. And despite Starmer’s pleading, it is not obvious at all the money is not to be discussed.
Starmer said none of the discussions at the summit had concerned money.
“Well, no figure,” Frederick Mitchell, the foreign minister of the Bahamas told BBC Radio’s Today programme on Saturday. “We’ll see what happens going forward.”
He said he hoped a report on the issue would follow, which nations would discuss in the future. Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout. “I have no doubt …. that the arc of history always goes in the right direction,” he said.
The Commonwealth no longer does our bidding, and why should it? After all KC3 is Head of State for a number of the countries pursuing reparations too. Sure we could have thrown our toys out of the pram and refused to sign the declaration, but that pretty much would bang in the final nail in its coffin.
We cannot praise the democratic institutions and rule of law that we bequeathed to the Commonwealth, then refuse to respond to those governments. Either we left them something valid, or we did not.
I don’t think the Commonwealth should do the UK’s bidding. That would be bizarre.
I simply note the UK’s diplomatic defeat on this issue.
The last government created a precedent, it seems:
"Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout."
When you are in a minority you are not going to get your way. I guess the issue is whether you then walk out or just play along knowing you cannot be forced to do anything you do not want to do.
You don't walk out. You just say "No. You must be joking!" and sit there. You certainly don't sign a declaration that opens the door. You refuse to sign. Simple.
That's pretty much the same as walking out. Basically, you leave without a communique. I suspect that is what a lot of previous UK governments would have done. This one chose not to grandstand. Unlike others on here, I don't see that as an act of treason. We decide whether the door opens. It's all in our hands.
They all leave without a communique. It's not us walking out. They all walk out. Not agreeing to reparations is not grandstanding. It's resisting blackmail and I'm sure would have the support of the vast majority in the UK. No doubt there will be a poll soon.
As much as you may wish it otherwise, the UK government has not agreed to reparations.
It has agreed the following:
"Heads, noting calls for discussions on reparatory justice with regard to the trans-Atlantic trade in enslaved Africans and chattel enslavement and recognising the importance of this matter to member states of the Commonwealth, the majority of which share common historical experiences in relation to this abhorrent trade, agreed that the time has come for a meaningful, truthful and respectful conversation towards forging a common future based on equity. Heads further agreed to continue playing an active role in bringing about such inclusive conversations addressing these harms."
So Starmer has agreed to a meaningful conversation on reparations, because that's what it's about. What else?
Perhaps it is a cynical kicking of the discussion into the long grass out of politeness.
I would simply say No. People alive now had nothing to do with slavery on either side. It's a scam.
Yep, to me that looks like a kick into the very long grass. It's very clearly not the UK agreeing to pay reparations.
I think Starmer's strategy was to find a way of saying no without aggravating the Caribbean nations so much they end up in China's sphere of influence. "A conversation towards forging a common future based on equity" can mean absolutely anything.
Yep, it's big, thick, sticky fudge. If you can get that instead of a big argument at a time when the geopolitical headwinds are massively difficult, why not?
You think he's avoided a big argument?
Chortle.
It's laughable isn't it. He's avoided an argument by saying yes to having one? The sky is green, war is peace and all that.
If you think that the UK is going to be spending a lot of time having huge, stand-up, international rows about "reparatory justice" over the next few years then I have a bridge to sell you. There are so many more important things to worry about.
Which is why he's going to pay up. Paying up closes that discussion off.
Let's have a bet, I will bet whatever sum you want that the UK will pay no financial reparations during the lifetime of this government. I will take that bet with anyone. This is me handing you money, isn't it, so make the sum as big you wish.
I have some seriously disappointing news for the readers of PB. None of us are getting out of here alive. We are all going to die of something. So, hypothetically, if you use exercise and cut out alcohol you will avoid certain conditions and illnesses. But you are still going to die. And, even worse, you increase the risk of losing your marbles before you do which is a truly terrible way to go.
Claiming that we can avoid health costs by better health is a chimera. Individuals may live healthier longer and good luck to them but it simply is not the answer to the exorbitant cost of health care. It simply moves the costs from 1 pile to another. And on that cheerful note I think I am going for a drink.
David , this country is full of tossers who want you to be miserable, enjoy your drink.
Its having a happy medium. I only drink on the weekends so appreciate it more when i do.
I only drink in days with a "y" in them (or, more realistically, when the Dad taxi firm is not operating).
I just want to point out that when the Chagos Surrender happened and I went ape-shit on here, there was a lot of scoffing and “oh who cares it’s a tiny atoll you’ve never heard of before”
I responded that
1. I had definitely heard of it
2. The surrender was totally unnecessary and a strategic error of enormous proportions
And
3. One of the many reasons it was such a strategic error was that it would encourage all our enemies to take a run at us, perceiving us as weak and spineless with a stupid cowardly leader willing to yield to anything
Et voila
Indeed, there's no way that reparations or anything as stupid as that would be on the agenda had we not just paid billions to Mauritius to take the Chagos Islands off our hands. The Carribbean sense weakness and Starmer appointing reparations supporters like Lammy such high roles is another reason they know they can go for it and win. Starmer is a cuck.
Starmer should just have said “nah. Fuck off, I’m not signing that, it commits us to reparations”
But of course he’s incapable of showing backbone because he doesn’t have one, and deep down he agrees that Britain is evil and should pay
And that's the difference between him and Blair. Blair would have just laughed the whole discussion off and told the commonwealth nations to get back in their box because he fundamentally loved this country. Starmer very clearly doesn't, he sees us as part of the evil colonialist axis as so many lefties were indoctrinated to believe when they went to university by Marxist professors.
Could anyone imagine Margaret Thatcher, or even John Major signing it!
I don’t believe he’ll ever commit the UK to paying billions.
What he will do is offer some abject, and completely insincere, apology for slavery, before agreeing to pay symbolic reparations to governments who’ll stick the money in their offshore accounts.
That will set a precedent for anyone with a grudge against the UK to come calling.
One can imagine Cameron taking a similar line if he were PM now. Times have changed since the Thatcher era.
Osborne, yes. Cameron, I think not.
Impossible to imagine a British PM now suggesting, as Cameron did, that he was proud of the Empire. But that was only 2013.
The last 10 years have really been a roller coaster.
So did Blair.
FWIW, I still think the Empire was on balance a good thing - and I don't even think it's on balance, but clearly a good thing.
Why do you think the Empire was a good thing?
The modern world would be unrecognisable without the Empire.
We wouldn't have free liberal democracies like the United States, Canada, New Zealand or Australia nor large multireligious and panethnic democratic states like India and South Africa. We would not have Carribean and African states endeavouring to follow that path. We would not have free international trade, we would not have been able to fight and win WW1 or WW2, we would not have the UN, Human Rights or the rule of law as an international principle. Countries like Singapore and South Korea wouldn't exist and Japan would have taken a different path.
We'd have a world of autocracy instead, with fewer rights, more suffering, more cruelty and less human development. It'd be China, Iran and Russia writ-large. Dictators and Theocracies where might made right.
The handwringing we have now is, I think, in direct relationship to our waning power and influence and is in some sense a response to it: it's to try and keep us at the centre of ongoing geopolitical conversations - ones that our rivals absolutely don't respect and, in fact, use to hold us in contempt.
I don't agree with all these points, but I do think we have a bizarre idea that handwringing gains us something either in terms of our national progression or in geopolitical terms, and I really don't think that is the case.
And I do think handwringing is distinct from acknowledging things, but the former is what is pushed.
If one doesn't agree one has to argue from where else democracy would have spawned and how it'd have been defended and advanced at the same time.
It's not a long list. France is probably the closest and they had a decidedly jittery and mixed record.
I agree. But you also need to step back and consider why democracy spawned in UK, France and elsewhere. It's not easy to answer but in general I'd argue against British or European exceptionalism and in favour of the idea that democracy flourishes when nations create the conditions for it to flourish.
By contrast, democracy was often imposed on colonies without there being the conditions for it to flourish and hasn't always 'stuck' post-empire as a result.
No doubt other states might have experimented with proto-democracies at times but, like the Roman Republic or Ancient Greece, they wouldn't have lasted.
What made Britain different was that it was a stable, secure and wealthy polity from which it was able to project and maintain its power, and it believed in its sense of mission over multiple generations.
Again, you put the point well, and in some ways history is on your side. Democracies are really quite rare, and perhaps it was only because the UK happened to be really quite wealthy just at the time when it fervently believed in democracy that we have had a couple of centuries of democracies ruling the roost. I'm open to that idea.
But there is an alternative: democracies rise in particular periods under particular conditions, and dissipate when those conditions no longer hold. And, if you're going to argue that the Roman Republic and Ancient Greece were only proto-democracies as they didn't last, let's agree a bet: £100 to a charity of the other person's choice for the loser. I bet the UK's democracy won't outlast both those two. Let's check back in on PB in...about 2270.
It’s obvious from the reporting that the UK suffered a diplomatic defeat at the Commonwealth.
Reparations were not even on the agenda, so the UK has been “hijacked”. And despite Starmer’s pleading, it is not obvious at all the money is not to be discussed.
Starmer said none of the discussions at the summit had concerned money.
“Well, no figure,” Frederick Mitchell, the foreign minister of the Bahamas told BBC Radio’s Today programme on Saturday. “We’ll see what happens going forward.”
He said he hoped a report on the issue would follow, which nations would discuss in the future. Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout. “I have no doubt …. that the arc of history always goes in the right direction,” he said.
The Commonwealth no longer does our bidding, and why should it? After all KC3 is Head of State for a number of the countries pursuing reparations too. Sure we could have thrown our toys out of the pram and refused to sign the declaration, but that pretty much would bang in the final nail in its coffin.
We cannot praise the democratic institutions and rule of law that we bequeathed to the Commonwealth, then refuse to respond to those governments. Either we left them something valid, or we did not.
I don’t think the Commonwealth should do the UK’s bidding. That would be bizarre.
I simply note the UK’s diplomatic defeat on this issue.
The last government created a precedent, it seems:
"Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout."
When you are in a minority you are not going to get your way. I guess the issue is whether you then walk out or just play along knowing you cannot be forced to do anything you do not want to do.
You don't walk out. You just say "No. You must be joking!" and sit there. You certainly don't sign a declaration that opens the door. You refuse to sign. Simple.
That's pretty much the same as walking out. Basically, you leave without a communique. I suspect that is what a lot of previous UK governments would have done. This one chose not to grandstand. Unlike others on here, I don't see that as an act of treason. We decide whether the door opens. It's all in our hands.
They all leave without a communique. It's not us walking out. They all walk out. Not agreeing to reparations is not grandstanding. It's resisting blackmail and I'm sure would have the support of the vast majority in the UK. No doubt there will be a poll soon.
As much as you may wish it otherwise, the UK government has not agreed to reparations.
It has agreed the following:
"Heads, noting calls for discussions on reparatory justice with regard to the trans-Atlantic trade in enslaved Africans and chattel enslavement and recognising the importance of this matter to member states of the Commonwealth, the majority of which share common historical experiences in relation to this abhorrent trade, agreed that the time has come for a meaningful, truthful and respectful conversation towards forging a common future based on equity. Heads further agreed to continue playing an active role in bringing about such inclusive conversations addressing these harms."
So Starmer has agreed to a meaningful conversation on reparations, because that's what it's about. What else?
Perhaps it is a cynical kicking of the discussion into the long grass out of politeness.
I would simply say No. People alive now had nothing to do with slavery on either side. It's a scam.
Yep, to me that looks like a kick into the very long grass. It's very clearly not the UK agreeing to pay reparations.
Starmer getting a load of abuse for this but I am pretty sure he will be doing what the FO says is policy on this one.
We have Ukraine and NATO on a knife edge as we wait for the US election. The Middle East is a tinderbox and could explode totally at any moment. The West generally is distrusted and disliked by large parts of the world. If there's no need for a row - and clearly at this stage there isn't - why have one?
And look at the cause, Western weakness. Time and again we we get slapped in the face by China, Russia etc... and instead of hitting back as hard as we can we cower in the corner and say, "please don't hurt me" as they gear up to do it again and again. We sit on the losing side because we are never confident enough to saddle up and face down the despots, it leads to the likes of Trump winning domestically because people have that feeling too. As I said the other day, Asian people think that Western liberals are soft touch idiots and on the evidence of what Starmer is doing who can blame them.
Because they are, and by extension we are.
We need to man up.
They have a nickname for white western liberals " baizuo" and it definitely aint complimentary. White western liberals are a joke in china.
I like to think we shouldn’t take our cue for how to behave from Chinese nationalist bigots, thanks.
It’s obvious from the reporting that the UK suffered a diplomatic defeat at the Commonwealth.
Reparations were not even on the agenda, so the UK has been “hijacked”. And despite Starmer’s pleading, it is not obvious at all the money is not to be discussed.
Starmer said none of the discussions at the summit had concerned money.
“Well, no figure,” Frederick Mitchell, the foreign minister of the Bahamas told BBC Radio’s Today programme on Saturday. “We’ll see what happens going forward.”
He said he hoped a report on the issue would follow, which nations would discuss in the future. Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout. “I have no doubt …. that the arc of history always goes in the right direction,” he said.
The Commonwealth no longer does our bidding, and why should it? After all KC3 is Head of State for a number of the countries pursuing reparations too. Sure we could have thrown our toys out of the pram and refused to sign the declaration, but that pretty much would bang in the final nail in its coffin.
We cannot praise the democratic institutions and rule of law that we bequeathed to the Commonwealth, then refuse to respond to those governments. Either we left them something valid, or we did not.
I don’t think the Commonwealth should do the UK’s bidding. That would be bizarre.
I simply note the UK’s diplomatic defeat on this issue.
The last government created a precedent, it seems:
"Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout."
When you are in a minority you are not going to get your way. I guess the issue is whether you then walk out or just play along knowing you cannot be forced to do anything you do not want to do.
You don't walk out. You just say "No. You must be joking!" and sit there. You certainly don't sign a declaration that opens the door. You refuse to sign. Simple.
That's pretty much the same as walking out. Basically, you leave without a communique. I suspect that is what a lot of previous UK governments would have done. This one chose not to grandstand. Unlike others on here, I don't see that as an act of treason. We decide whether the door opens. It's all in our hands.
They all leave without a communique. It's not us walking out. They all walk out. Not agreeing to reparations is not grandstanding. It's resisting blackmail and I'm sure would have the support of the vast majority in the UK. No doubt there will be a poll soon.
As much as you may wish it otherwise, the UK government has not agreed to reparations.
It has agreed the following:
"Heads, noting calls for discussions on reparatory justice with regard to the trans-Atlantic trade in enslaved Africans and chattel enslavement and recognising the importance of this matter to member states of the Commonwealth, the majority of which share common historical experiences in relation to this abhorrent trade, agreed that the time has come for a meaningful, truthful and respectful conversation towards forging a common future based on equity. Heads further agreed to continue playing an active role in bringing about such inclusive conversations addressing these harms."
So Starmer has agreed to a meaningful conversation on reparations, because that's what it's about. What else?
Perhaps it is a cynical kicking of the discussion into the long grass out of politeness.
I would simply say No. People alive now had nothing to do with slavery on either side. It's a scam.
Yep, to me that looks like a kick into the very long grass. It's very clearly not the UK agreeing to pay reparations.
Starmer getting a load of abuse for this but I am pretty sure he will be doing what the FO says is policy on this one.
We have Ukraine and NATO on a knife edge as we wait for the US election. The Middle East is a tinderbox and could explode totally at any moment. The West generally is distrusted and disliked by large parts of the world. If there's no need for a row - and clearly at this stage there isn't - why have one?
And look at the cause, Western weakness. Time and again we we get slapped in the face by China, Russia etc... and instead of hitting back as hard as we can we cower in the corner and say, "please don't hurt me" as they gear up to do it again and again. We sit on the losing side because we are never confident enough to saddle up and face down the despots, it leads to the likes of Trump winning domestically because people have that feeling too. As I said the other day, Asian people think that Western liberals are soft touch idiots and on the evidence of what Starmer is doing who can blame them.
I just do not see an endless conversation that goes nowhere about "reparatory justice" as something that hurts us. Trump isn't winning because we do not stand up to the Russians. How could he be when he will do what they want?
Why do you think it goes nowhere. Starmer has already u-turned on having a conversation about it, soon it will be the apology that gets u-turned and eventually there will be reparations paid that the next government will have to cancel.
A government that refuses to even contemplate signing up to the Single Market and Customs Union, even though it would immediately delight 85% of its support base and 95% of its party membership, as well as a much larger proportion of the country as a whole, is not going to agree to reparations that the UK cannot afford and which will immediately alienate the majority of the electorate. I know you wish it otherwise, but it's just not going to happen.
Starmer knows it would destroy Labour, McSweeney definitely does, Reeves knows we can't afford it, and every Labour MP who has Reform in 2nd place would not vote for it. It isn't going to happen.
It’s obvious from the reporting that the UK suffered a diplomatic defeat at the Commonwealth.
Reparations were not even on the agenda, so the UK has been “hijacked”. And despite Starmer’s pleading, it is not obvious at all the money is not to be discussed.
Starmer said none of the discussions at the summit had concerned money.
“Well, no figure,” Frederick Mitchell, the foreign minister of the Bahamas told BBC Radio’s Today programme on Saturday. “We’ll see what happens going forward.”
He said he hoped a report on the issue would follow, which nations would discuss in the future. Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout. “I have no doubt …. that the arc of history always goes in the right direction,” he said.
The Commonwealth no longer does our bidding, and why should it? After all KC3 is Head of State for a number of the countries pursuing reparations too. Sure we could have thrown our toys out of the pram and refused to sign the declaration, but that pretty much would bang in the final nail in its coffin.
We cannot praise the democratic institutions and rule of law that we bequeathed to the Commonwealth, then refuse to respond to those governments. Either we left them something valid, or we did not.
I don’t think the Commonwealth should do the UK’s bidding. That would be bizarre.
I simply note the UK’s diplomatic defeat on this issue.
The last government created a precedent, it seems:
"Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout."
When you are in a minority you are not going to get your way. I guess the issue is whether you then walk out or just play along knowing you cannot be forced to do anything you do not want to do.
You don't walk out. You just say "No. You must be joking!" and sit there. You certainly don't sign a declaration that opens the door. You refuse to sign. Simple.
That's pretty much the same as walking out. Basically, you leave without a communique. I suspect that is what a lot of previous UK governments would have done. This one chose not to grandstand. Unlike others on here, I don't see that as an act of treason. We decide whether the door opens. It's all in our hands.
They all leave without a communique. It's not us walking out. They all walk out. Not agreeing to reparations is not grandstanding. It's resisting blackmail and I'm sure would have the support of the vast majority in the UK. No doubt there will be a poll soon.
As much as you may wish it otherwise, the UK government has not agreed to reparations.
It has agreed the following:
"Heads, noting calls for discussions on reparatory justice with regard to the trans-Atlantic trade in enslaved Africans and chattel enslavement and recognising the importance of this matter to member states of the Commonwealth, the majority of which share common historical experiences in relation to this abhorrent trade, agreed that the time has come for a meaningful, truthful and respectful conversation towards forging a common future based on equity. Heads further agreed to continue playing an active role in bringing about such inclusive conversations addressing these harms."
So Starmer has agreed to a meaningful conversation on reparations, because that's what it's about. What else?
Perhaps it is a cynical kicking of the discussion into the long grass out of politeness.
I would simply say No. People alive now had nothing to do with slavery on either side. It's a scam.
Yep, to me that looks like a kick into the very long grass. It's very clearly not the UK agreeing to pay reparations.
I think Starmer's strategy was to find a way of saying no without aggravating the Caribbean nations so much they end up in China's sphere of influence. "A conversation towards forging a common future based on equity" can mean absolutely anything.
Yep, it's big, thick, sticky fudge. If you can get that instead of a big argument at a time when the geopolitical headwinds are massively difficult, why not?
You think he's avoided a big argument?
Chortle.
It's laughable isn't it. He's avoided an argument by saying yes to having one? The sky is green, war is peace and all that.
If you think that the UK is going to be spending a lot of time having huge, stand-up, international rows about "reparatory justice" over the next few years then I have a bridge to sell you. There are so many more important things to worry about.
Which is why he's going to pay up. Paying up closes that discussion off.
Let's have a bet, I will bet whatever sum you want that the UK will pay no financial reparations during the lifetime of this government. I will take that bet with anyone. This is me handing you money, isn't it, so make the sum as big you wish.
I'll take it on the proviso that I define what reparations entail.
It’s obvious from the reporting that the UK suffered a diplomatic defeat at the Commonwealth.
Reparations were not even on the agenda, so the UK has been “hijacked”. And despite Starmer’s pleading, it is not obvious at all the money is not to be discussed.
Starmer said none of the discussions at the summit had concerned money.
“Well, no figure,” Frederick Mitchell, the foreign minister of the Bahamas told BBC Radio’s Today programme on Saturday. “We’ll see what happens going forward.”
He said he hoped a report on the issue would follow, which nations would discuss in the future. Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout. “I have no doubt …. that the arc of history always goes in the right direction,” he said.
The Commonwealth no longer does our bidding, and why should it? After all KC3 is Head of State for a number of the countries pursuing reparations too. Sure we could have thrown our toys out of the pram and refused to sign the declaration, but that pretty much would bang in the final nail in its coffin.
We cannot praise the democratic institutions and rule of law that we bequeathed to the Commonwealth, then refuse to respond to those governments. Either we left them something valid, or we did not.
I don’t think the Commonwealth should do the UK’s bidding. That would be bizarre.
I simply note the UK’s diplomatic defeat on this issue.
The last government created a precedent, it seems:
"Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout."
When you are in a minority you are not going to get your way. I guess the issue is whether you then walk out or just play along knowing you cannot be forced to do anything you do not want to do.
You don't walk out. You just say "No. You must be joking!" and sit there. You certainly don't sign a declaration that opens the door. You refuse to sign. Simple.
That's pretty much the same as walking out. Basically, you leave without a communique. I suspect that is what a lot of previous UK governments would have done. This one chose not to grandstand. Unlike others on here, I don't see that as an act of treason. We decide whether the door opens. It's all in our hands.
They all leave without a communique. It's not us walking out. They all walk out. Not agreeing to reparations is not grandstanding. It's resisting blackmail and I'm sure would have the support of the vast majority in the UK. No doubt there will be a poll soon.
As much as you may wish it otherwise, the UK government has not agreed to reparations.
It has agreed the following:
"Heads, noting calls for discussions on reparatory justice with regard to the trans-Atlantic trade in enslaved Africans and chattel enslavement and recognising the importance of this matter to member states of the Commonwealth, the majority of which share common historical experiences in relation to this abhorrent trade, agreed that the time has come for a meaningful, truthful and respectful conversation towards forging a common future based on equity. Heads further agreed to continue playing an active role in bringing about such inclusive conversations addressing these harms."
So Starmer has agreed to a meaningful conversation on reparations, because that's what it's about. What else?
Perhaps it is a cynical kicking of the discussion into the long grass out of politeness.
I would simply say No. People alive now had nothing to do with slavery on either side. It's a scam.
Yep, to me that looks like a kick into the very long grass. It's very clearly not the UK agreeing to pay reparations.
Starmer getting a load of abuse for this but I am pretty sure he will be doing what the FO says is policy on this one.
We have Ukraine and NATO on a knife edge as we wait for the US election. The Middle East is a tinderbox and could explode totally at any moment. The West generally is distrusted and disliked by large parts of the world. If there's no need for a row - and clearly at this stage there isn't - why have one?
And look at the cause, Western weakness. Time and again we we get slapped in the face by China, Russia etc... and instead of hitting back as hard as we can we cower in the corner and say, "please don't hurt me" as they gear up to do it again and again. We sit on the losing side because we are never confident enough to saddle up and face down the despots, it leads to the likes of Trump winning domestically because people have that feeling too. As I said the other day, Asian people think that Western liberals are soft touch idiots and on the evidence of what Starmer is doing who can blame them.
I just do not see an endless conversation that goes nowhere about "reparatory justice" as something that hurts us. Trump isn't winning because we do not stand up to the Russians. How could he be when he will do what they want?
Why do you think it goes nowhere. Starmer has already u-turned on having a conversation about it, soon it will be the apology that gets u-turned and eventually there will be reparations paid that the next government will have to cancel.
A government that refuses to even contemplate signing up to the Single Market and Customs Union, even though it would immediately delight 85% of its support base and 95% of its party membership, as well as a much larger proportion of the country as a whole, is not going to agree to reparations that the UK cannot afford and which will immediately alienate the majority of the electorate. I know you wish it otherwise, but it's just not going to happen.
Starmer knows it would destroy Labour, McSweeney definitely does, Reeves knows we can't afford it, and every Labour MP who has Reform in 2nd place would not vote for it. It isn't going to happen.
I just want to point out that when the Chagos Surrender happened and I went ape-shit on here, there was a lot of scoffing and “oh who cares it’s a tiny atoll you’ve never heard of before”
I responded that
1. I had definitely heard of it
2. The surrender was totally unnecessary and a strategic error of enormous proportions
And
3. One of the many reasons it was such a strategic error was that it would encourage all our enemies to take a run at us, perceiving us as weak and spineless with a stupid cowardly leader willing to yield to anything
Et voila
Indeed, there's no way that reparations or anything as stupid as that would be on the agenda had we not just paid billions to Mauritius to take the Chagos Islands off our hands. The Carribbean sense weakness and Starmer appointing reparations supporters like Lammy such high roles is another reason they know they can go for it and win. Starmer is a cuck.
Starmer should just have said “nah. Fuck off, I’m not signing that, it commits us to reparations”
But of course he’s incapable of showing backbone because he doesn’t have one, and deep down he agrees that Britain is evil and should pay
And that's the difference between him and Blair. Blair would have just laughed the whole discussion off and told the commonwealth nations to get back in their box because he fundamentally loved this country. Starmer very clearly doesn't, he sees us as part of the evil colonialist axis as so many lefties were indoctrinated to believe when they went to university by Marxist professors.
Could anyone imagine Margaret Thatcher, or even John Major signing it!
I don’t believe he’ll ever commit the UK to paying billions.
What he will do is offer some abject, and completely insincere, apology for slavery, before agreeing to pay symbolic reparations to governments who’ll stick the money in their offshore accounts.
That will set a precedent for anyone with a grudge against the UK to come calling.
One can imagine Cameron taking a similar line if he were PM now. Times have changed since the Thatcher era.
Osborne, yes. Cameron, I think not.
Impossible to imagine a British PM now suggesting, as Cameron did, that he was proud of the Empire. But that was only 2013.
The last 10 years have really been a roller coaster.
So did Blair.
FWIW, I still think the Empire was on balance a good thing - and I don't even think it's on balance, but clearly a good thing.
Why do you think the Empire was a good thing?
The modern world would be unrecognisable without the Empire.
We wouldn't have free liberal democracies like the United States, Canada, New Zealand or Australia nor large multireligious and panethnic democratic states like India and South Africa. We would not have Carribean and African states endeavouring to follow that path. We would not have free international trade, we would not have been able to fight and win WW1 or WW2, we would not have the UN, Human Rights or the rule of law as an international principle. Countries like Singapore and South Korea wouldn't exist and Japan would have taken a different path.
We'd have a world of autocracy instead, with fewer rights, more suffering, more cruelty and less human development. It'd be China, Iran and Russia writ-large. Dictators and Theocracies where might made right.
The handwringing we have now is, I think, in direct relationship to our waning power and influence and is in some sense a response to it: it's to try and keep us at the centre of ongoing geopolitical conversations - ones that our rivals absolutely don't respect and, in fact, use to hold us in contempt.
I don't agree with all these points, but I do think we have a bizarre idea that handwringing gains us something either in terms of our national progression or in geopolitical terms, and I really don't think that is the case.
And I do think handwringing is distinct from acknowledging things, but the former is what is pushed.
If one doesn't agree one has to argue from where else democracy would have spawned and how it'd have been defended and advanced at the same time.
It's not a long list. France is probably the closest and they had a decidedly jittery and mixed record.
I agree. But you also need to step back and consider why democracy spawned in UK, France and elsewhere. It's not easy to answer but in general I'd argue against British or European exceptionalism and in favour of the idea that democracy flourishes when nations create the conditions for it to flourish.
By contrast, democracy was often imposed on colonies without there being the conditions for it to flourish and hasn't always 'stuck' post-empire as a result.
No doubt other states might have experimented with proto-democracies at times but, like the Roman Republic or Ancient Greece, they wouldn't have lasted.
What made Britain different was that it was a stable, secure and wealthy polity from which it was able to project and maintain its power, and it believed in its sense of mission over multiple generations.
Again, you put the point well, and in some ways history is on your side. Democracies are really quite rare, and perhaps it was only because the UK happened to be really quite wealthy just at the time when it fervently believed in democracy that we have had a couple of centuries of democracies ruling the roost. I'm open to that idea.
But there is an alternative: democracies rise in particular periods under particular conditions, and dissipate when those conditions no longer hold. And, if you're going to argue that the Roman Republic and Ancient Greece were only proto-democracies as they didn't last, let's agree a bet: £100 to a charity of the other person's choice for the loser. I bet the UK's democracy won't outlast both those two. Let's check back in on PB in...about 2270.
Can I consult my solicitor about passing on this hereditary bet?
It’s obvious from the reporting that the UK suffered a diplomatic defeat at the Commonwealth.
Reparations were not even on the agenda, so the UK has been “hijacked”. And despite Starmer’s pleading, it is not obvious at all the money is not to be discussed.
Starmer said none of the discussions at the summit had concerned money.
“Well, no figure,” Frederick Mitchell, the foreign minister of the Bahamas told BBC Radio’s Today programme on Saturday. “We’ll see what happens going forward.”
He said he hoped a report on the issue would follow, which nations would discuss in the future. Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout. “I have no doubt …. that the arc of history always goes in the right direction,” he said.
The Commonwealth no longer does our bidding, and why should it? After all KC3 is Head of State for a number of the countries pursuing reparations too. Sure we could have thrown our toys out of the pram and refused to sign the declaration, but that pretty much would bang in the final nail in its coffin.
We cannot praise the democratic institutions and rule of law that we bequeathed to the Commonwealth, then refuse to respond to those governments. Either we left them something valid, or we did not.
I don’t think the Commonwealth should do the UK’s bidding. That would be bizarre.
I simply note the UK’s diplomatic defeat on this issue.
The last government created a precedent, it seems:
"Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout."
When you are in a minority you are not going to get your way. I guess the issue is whether you then walk out or just play along knowing you cannot be forced to do anything you do not want to do.
You don't walk out. You just say "No. You must be joking!" and sit there. You certainly don't sign a declaration that opens the door. You refuse to sign. Simple.
That's pretty much the same as walking out. Basically, you leave without a communique. I suspect that is what a lot of previous UK governments would have done. This one chose not to grandstand. Unlike others on here, I don't see that as an act of treason. We decide whether the door opens. It's all in our hands.
They all leave without a communique. It's not us walking out. They all walk out. Not agreeing to reparations is not grandstanding. It's resisting blackmail and I'm sure would have the support of the vast majority in the UK. No doubt there will be a poll soon.
As much as you may wish it otherwise, the UK government has not agreed to reparations.
It has agreed the following:
"Heads, noting calls for discussions on reparatory justice with regard to the trans-Atlantic trade in enslaved Africans and chattel enslavement and recognising the importance of this matter to member states of the Commonwealth, the majority of which share common historical experiences in relation to this abhorrent trade, agreed that the time has come for a meaningful, truthful and respectful conversation towards forging a common future based on equity. Heads further agreed to continue playing an active role in bringing about such inclusive conversations addressing these harms."
So Starmer has agreed to a meaningful conversation on reparations, because that's what it's about. What else?
Perhaps it is a cynical kicking of the discussion into the long grass out of politeness.
I would simply say No. People alive now had nothing to do with slavery on either side. It's a scam.
Yep, to me that looks like a kick into the very long grass. It's very clearly not the UK agreeing to pay reparations.
I think Starmer's strategy was to find a way of saying no without aggravating the Caribbean nations so much they end up in China's sphere of influence. "A conversation towards forging a common future based on equity" can mean absolutely anything.
Yep, it's big, thick, sticky fudge. If you can get that instead of a big argument at a time when the geopolitical headwinds are massively difficult, why not?
You think he's avoided a big argument?
Chortle.
It's laughable isn't it. He's avoided an argument by saying yes to having one? The sky is green, war is peace and all that.
If you think that the UK is going to be spending a lot of time having huge, stand-up, international rows about "reparatory justice" over the next few years then I have a bridge to sell you. There are so many more important things to worry about.
Which is why he's going to pay up. Paying up closes that discussion off.
Let's have a bet, I will bet whatever sum you want that the UK will pay no financial reparations during the lifetime of this government. I will take that bet with anyone. This is me handing you money, isn't it, so make the sum as big you wish.
I'll take it on the proviso that I define what reparations entail.
It’s obvious from the reporting that the UK suffered a diplomatic defeat at the Commonwealth.
Reparations were not even on the agenda, so the UK has been “hijacked”. And despite Starmer’s pleading, it is not obvious at all the money is not to be discussed.
Starmer said none of the discussions at the summit had concerned money.
“Well, no figure,” Frederick Mitchell, the foreign minister of the Bahamas told BBC Radio’s Today programme on Saturday. “We’ll see what happens going forward.”
He said he hoped a report on the issue would follow, which nations would discuss in the future. Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout. “I have no doubt …. that the arc of history always goes in the right direction,” he said.
The Commonwealth no longer does our bidding, and why should it? After all KC3 is Head of State for a number of the countries pursuing reparations too. Sure we could have thrown our toys out of the pram and refused to sign the declaration, but that pretty much would bang in the final nail in its coffin.
We cannot praise the democratic institutions and rule of law that we bequeathed to the Commonwealth, then refuse to respond to those governments. Either we left them something valid, or we did not.
I don’t think the Commonwealth should do the UK’s bidding. That would be bizarre.
I simply note the UK’s diplomatic defeat on this issue.
The last government created a precedent, it seems:
"Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout."
When you are in a minority you are not going to get your way. I guess the issue is whether you then walk out or just play along knowing you cannot be forced to do anything you do not want to do.
You don't walk out. You just say "No. You must be joking!" and sit there. You certainly don't sign a declaration that opens the door. You refuse to sign. Simple.
That's pretty much the same as walking out. Basically, you leave without a communique. I suspect that is what a lot of previous UK governments would have done. This one chose not to grandstand. Unlike others on here, I don't see that as an act of treason. We decide whether the door opens. It's all in our hands.
They all leave without a communique. It's not us walking out. They all walk out. Not agreeing to reparations is not grandstanding. It's resisting blackmail and I'm sure would have the support of the vast majority in the UK. No doubt there will be a poll soon.
As much as you may wish it otherwise, the UK government has not agreed to reparations.
It has agreed the following:
"Heads, noting calls for discussions on reparatory justice with regard to the trans-Atlantic trade in enslaved Africans and chattel enslavement and recognising the importance of this matter to member states of the Commonwealth, the majority of which share common historical experiences in relation to this abhorrent trade, agreed that the time has come for a meaningful, truthful and respectful conversation towards forging a common future based on equity. Heads further agreed to continue playing an active role in bringing about such inclusive conversations addressing these harms."
So Starmer has agreed to a meaningful conversation on reparations, because that's what it's about. What else?
Perhaps it is a cynical kicking of the discussion into the long grass out of politeness.
I would simply say No. People alive now had nothing to do with slavery on either side. It's a scam.
Yep, to me that looks like a kick into the very long grass. It's very clearly not the UK agreeing to pay reparations.
I think Starmer's strategy was to find a way of saying no without aggravating the Caribbean nations so much they end up in China's sphere of influence. "A conversation towards forging a common future based on equity" can mean absolutely anything.
Yep, it's big, thick, sticky fudge. If you can get that instead of a big argument at a time when the geopolitical headwinds are massively difficult, why not?
You think he's avoided a big argument?
Chortle.
It's laughable isn't it. He's avoided an argument by saying yes to having one? The sky is green, war is peace and all that.
If you think that the UK is going to be spending a lot of time having huge, stand-up, international rows about "reparatory justice" over the next few years then I have a bridge to sell you. There are so many more important things to worry about.
Which is why he's going to pay up. Paying up closes that discussion off.
Let's have a bet, I will bet whatever sum you want that the UK will pay no financial reparations during the lifetime of this government. I will take that bet with anyone. This is me handing you money, isn't it, so make the sum as big you wish.
That is some offer! Free money for Max and a substantial amount too, unless he doesn't actually believe his own narrative.
It’s obvious from the reporting that the UK suffered a diplomatic defeat at the Commonwealth.
Reparations were not even on the agenda, so the UK has been “hijacked”. And despite Starmer’s pleading, it is not obvious at all the money is not to be discussed.
Starmer said none of the discussions at the summit had concerned money.
“Well, no figure,” Frederick Mitchell, the foreign minister of the Bahamas told BBC Radio’s Today programme on Saturday. “We’ll see what happens going forward.”
He said he hoped a report on the issue would follow, which nations would discuss in the future. Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout. “I have no doubt …. that the arc of history always goes in the right direction,” he said.
The Commonwealth no longer does our bidding, and why should it? After all KC3 is Head of State for a number of the countries pursuing reparations too. Sure we could have thrown our toys out of the pram and refused to sign the declaration, but that pretty much would bang in the final nail in its coffin.
We cannot praise the democratic institutions and rule of law that we bequeathed to the Commonwealth, then refuse to respond to those governments. Either we left them something valid, or we did not.
I don’t think the Commonwealth should do the UK’s bidding. That would be bizarre.
I simply note the UK’s diplomatic defeat on this issue.
The last government created a precedent, it seems:
"Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout."
When you are in a minority you are not going to get your way. I guess the issue is whether you then walk out or just play along knowing you cannot be forced to do anything you do not want to do.
You don't walk out. You just say "No. You must be joking!" and sit there. You certainly don't sign a declaration that opens the door. You refuse to sign. Simple.
That's pretty much the same as walking out. Basically, you leave without a communique. I suspect that is what a lot of previous UK governments would have done. This one chose not to grandstand. Unlike others on here, I don't see that as an act of treason. We decide whether the door opens. It's all in our hands.
They all leave without a communique. It's not us walking out. They all walk out. Not agreeing to reparations is not grandstanding. It's resisting blackmail and I'm sure would have the support of the vast majority in the UK. No doubt there will be a poll soon.
As much as you may wish it otherwise, the UK government has not agreed to reparations.
It has agreed the following:
"Heads, noting calls for discussions on reparatory justice with regard to the trans-Atlantic trade in enslaved Africans and chattel enslavement and recognising the importance of this matter to member states of the Commonwealth, the majority of which share common historical experiences in relation to this abhorrent trade, agreed that the time has come for a meaningful, truthful and respectful conversation towards forging a common future based on equity. Heads further agreed to continue playing an active role in bringing about such inclusive conversations addressing these harms."
So Starmer has agreed to a meaningful conversation on reparations, because that's what it's about. What else?
Perhaps it is a cynical kicking of the discussion into the long grass out of politeness.
I would simply say No. People alive now had nothing to do with slavery on either side. It's a scam.
Yep, to me that looks like a kick into the very long grass. It's very clearly not the UK agreeing to pay reparations.
Starmer getting a load of abuse for this but I am pretty sure he will be doing what the FO says is policy on this one.
It’s obvious from the reporting that the UK suffered a diplomatic defeat at the Commonwealth.
Reparations were not even on the agenda, so the UK has been “hijacked”. And despite Starmer’s pleading, it is not obvious at all the money is not to be discussed.
Starmer said none of the discussions at the summit had concerned money.
“Well, no figure,” Frederick Mitchell, the foreign minister of the Bahamas told BBC Radio’s Today programme on Saturday. “We’ll see what happens going forward.”
He said he hoped a report on the issue would follow, which nations would discuss in the future. Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout. “I have no doubt …. that the arc of history always goes in the right direction,” he said.
The Commonwealth no longer does our bidding, and why should it? After all KC3 is Head of State for a number of the countries pursuing reparations too. Sure we could have thrown our toys out of the pram and refused to sign the declaration, but that pretty much would bang in the final nail in its coffin.
We cannot praise the democratic institutions and rule of law that we bequeathed to the Commonwealth, then refuse to respond to those governments. Either we left them something valid, or we did not.
I don’t think the Commonwealth should do the UK’s bidding. That would be bizarre.
I simply note the UK’s diplomatic defeat on this issue.
The last government created a precedent, it seems:
"Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout."
When you are in a minority you are not going to get your way. I guess the issue is whether you then walk out or just play along knowing you cannot be forced to do anything you do not want to do.
You don't walk out. You just say "No. You must be joking!" and sit there. You certainly don't sign a declaration that opens the door. You refuse to sign. Simple.
That's pretty much the same as walking out. Basically, you leave without a communique. I suspect that is what a lot of previous UK governments would have done. This one chose not to grandstand. Unlike others on here, I don't see that as an act of treason. We decide whether the door opens. It's all in our hands.
They all leave without a communique. It's not us walking out. They all walk out. Not agreeing to reparations is not grandstanding. It's resisting blackmail and I'm sure would have the support of the vast majority in the UK. No doubt there will be a poll soon.
As much as you may wish it otherwise, the UK government has not agreed to reparations.
It has agreed the following:
"Heads, noting calls for discussions on reparatory justice with regard to the trans-Atlantic trade in enslaved Africans and chattel enslavement and recognising the importance of this matter to member states of the Commonwealth, the majority of which share common historical experiences in relation to this abhorrent trade, agreed that the time has come for a meaningful, truthful and respectful conversation towards forging a common future based on equity. Heads further agreed to continue playing an active role in bringing about such inclusive conversations addressing these harms."
So Starmer has agreed to a meaningful conversation on reparations, because that's what it's about. What else?
Perhaps it is a cynical kicking of the discussion into the long grass out of politeness.
I would simply say No. People alive now had nothing to do with slavery on either side. It's a scam.
Yep, to me that looks like a kick into the very long grass. It's very clearly not the UK agreeing to pay reparations.
I think Starmer's strategy was to find a way of saying no without aggravating the Caribbean nations so much they end up in China's sphere of influence. "A conversation towards forging a common future based on equity" can mean absolutely anything.
I think so. The resolution on reparatory justice is unwelcome and highly embarrassing for Starmer but these things happen. The UK wants warm words about how bad slavery is; the other members want lots of cash. Even if the UK does some relatively modest education or development programmes targeted at its Commonwealth it they will be seen as either extorted or tokenistic. The Commonwealth won't survive a big bust up; it just isn't important enough to anyone. So I think he will will want the discussions to go into the long grass to avoid that outcome.
The battle for the Commonwealth was lost before it even met.
It was catastrophic that India and South Africa didn't even show up.
How did the Foreign Office let that slip?
Time to wind the Commonwealth up. It would save Glasgow a ton of cash in 2026. The pretend Olympics are even more embarrassing than the pretend United Nations.
It’s obvious from the reporting that the UK suffered a diplomatic defeat at the Commonwealth.
Reparations were not even on the agenda, so the UK has been “hijacked”. And despite Starmer’s pleading, it is not obvious at all the money is not to be discussed.
Starmer said none of the discussions at the summit had concerned money.
“Well, no figure,” Frederick Mitchell, the foreign minister of the Bahamas told BBC Radio’s Today programme on Saturday. “We’ll see what happens going forward.”
He said he hoped a report on the issue would follow, which nations would discuss in the future. Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout. “I have no doubt …. that the arc of history always goes in the right direction,” he said.
The Commonwealth no longer does our bidding, and why should it? After all KC3 is Head of State for a number of the countries pursuing reparations too. Sure we could have thrown our toys out of the pram and refused to sign the declaration, but that pretty much would bang in the final nail in its coffin.
We cannot praise the democratic institutions and rule of law that we bequeathed to the Commonwealth, then refuse to respond to those governments. Either we left them something valid, or we did not.
I don’t think the Commonwealth should do the UK’s bidding. That would be bizarre.
I simply note the UK’s diplomatic defeat on this issue.
The last government created a precedent, it seems:
"Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout."
When you are in a minority you are not going to get your way. I guess the issue is whether you then walk out or just play along knowing you cannot be forced to do anything you do not want to do.
You don't walk out. You just say "No. You must be joking!" and sit there. You certainly don't sign a declaration that opens the door. You refuse to sign. Simple.
That's pretty much the same as walking out. Basically, you leave without a communique. I suspect that is what a lot of previous UK governments would have done. This one chose not to grandstand. Unlike others on here, I don't see that as an act of treason. We decide whether the door opens. It's all in our hands.
They all leave without a communique. It's not us walking out. They all walk out. Not agreeing to reparations is not grandstanding. It's resisting blackmail and I'm sure would have the support of the vast majority in the UK. No doubt there will be a poll soon.
As much as you may wish it otherwise, the UK government has not agreed to reparations.
It has agreed the following:
"Heads, noting calls for discussions on reparatory justice with regard to the trans-Atlantic trade in enslaved Africans and chattel enslavement and recognising the importance of this matter to member states of the Commonwealth, the majority of which share common historical experiences in relation to this abhorrent trade, agreed that the time has come for a meaningful, truthful and respectful conversation towards forging a common future based on equity. Heads further agreed to continue playing an active role in bringing about such inclusive conversations addressing these harms."
So Starmer has agreed to a meaningful conversation on reparations, because that's what it's about. What else?
Perhaps it is a cynical kicking of the discussion into the long grass out of politeness.
I would simply say No. People alive now had nothing to do with slavery on either side. It's a scam.
Yep, to me that looks like a kick into the very long grass. It's very clearly not the UK agreeing to pay reparations.
I think Starmer's strategy was to find a way of saying no without aggravating the Caribbean nations so much they end up in China's sphere of influence. "A conversation towards forging a common future based on equity" can mean absolutely anything.
Yep, it's big, thick, sticky fudge. If you can get that instead of a big argument at a time when the geopolitical headwinds are massively difficult, why not?
You think he's avoided a big argument?
Chortle.
It's laughable isn't it. He's avoided an argument by saying yes to having one? The sky is green, war is peace and all that.
If you think that the UK is going to be spending a lot of time having huge, stand-up, international rows about "reparatory justice" over the next few years then I have a bridge to sell you. There are so many more important things to worry about.
Which is why he's going to pay up. Paying up closes that discussion off.
Let's have a bet, I will bet whatever sum you want that the UK will pay no financial reparations during the lifetime of this government. I will take that bet with anyone. This is me handing you money, isn't it, so make the sum as big you wish.
That is some offer! Free money for Max and a substantial amount too, unless he doesn't actually believe his own narrative.
It seems very clear that Max and others on here believe the UK is on the verge of handing over billons of pounds to a number of small, faraway countries. They will hate it but why not make some money when it happens?
It’s obvious from the reporting that the UK suffered a diplomatic defeat at the Commonwealth.
Reparations were not even on the agenda, so the UK has been “hijacked”. And despite Starmer’s pleading, it is not obvious at all the money is not to be discussed.
Starmer said none of the discussions at the summit had concerned money.
“Well, no figure,” Frederick Mitchell, the foreign minister of the Bahamas told BBC Radio’s Today programme on Saturday. “We’ll see what happens going forward.”
He said he hoped a report on the issue would follow, which nations would discuss in the future. Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout. “I have no doubt …. that the arc of history always goes in the right direction,” he said.
The Commonwealth no longer does our bidding, and why should it? After all KC3 is Head of State for a number of the countries pursuing reparations too. Sure we could have thrown our toys out of the pram and refused to sign the declaration, but that pretty much would bang in the final nail in its coffin.
We cannot praise the democratic institutions and rule of law that we bequeathed to the Commonwealth, then refuse to respond to those governments. Either we left them something valid, or we did not.
I don’t think the Commonwealth should do the UK’s bidding. That would be bizarre.
I simply note the UK’s diplomatic defeat on this issue.
The last government created a precedent, it seems:
"Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout."
When you are in a minority you are not going to get your way. I guess the issue is whether you then walk out or just play along knowing you cannot be forced to do anything you do not want to do.
You don't walk out. You just say "No. You must be joking!" and sit there. You certainly don't sign a declaration that opens the door. You refuse to sign. Simple.
That's pretty much the same as walking out. Basically, you leave without a communique. I suspect that is what a lot of previous UK governments would have done. This one chose not to grandstand. Unlike others on here, I don't see that as an act of treason. We decide whether the door opens. It's all in our hands.
They all leave without a communique. It's not us walking out. They all walk out. Not agreeing to reparations is not grandstanding. It's resisting blackmail and I'm sure would have the support of the vast majority in the UK. No doubt there will be a poll soon.
As much as you may wish it otherwise, the UK government has not agreed to reparations.
It has agreed the following:
"Heads, noting calls for discussions on reparatory justice with regard to the trans-Atlantic trade in enslaved Africans and chattel enslavement and recognising the importance of this matter to member states of the Commonwealth, the majority of which share common historical experiences in relation to this abhorrent trade, agreed that the time has come for a meaningful, truthful and respectful conversation towards forging a common future based on equity. Heads further agreed to continue playing an active role in bringing about such inclusive conversations addressing these harms."
So Starmer has agreed to a meaningful conversation on reparations, because that's what it's about. What else?
Perhaps it is a cynical kicking of the discussion into the long grass out of politeness.
I would simply say No. People alive now had nothing to do with slavery on either side. It's a scam.
Yep, to me that looks like a kick into the very long grass. It's very clearly not the UK agreeing to pay reparations.
I think Starmer's strategy was to find a way of saying no without aggravating the Caribbean nations so much they end up in China's sphere of influence. "A conversation towards forging a common future based on equity" can mean absolutely anything.
Yep, it's big, thick, sticky fudge. If you can get that instead of a big argument at a time when the geopolitical headwinds are massively difficult, why not?
You think he's avoided a big argument?
Chortle.
It's laughable isn't it. He's avoided an argument by saying yes to having one? The sky is green, war is peace and all that.
If you think that the UK is going to be spending a lot of time having huge, stand-up, international rows about "reparatory justice" over the next few years then I have a bridge to sell you. There are so many more important things to worry about.
Which is why he's going to pay up. Paying up closes that discussion off.
Let's have a bet, I will bet whatever sum you want that the UK will pay no financial reparations during the lifetime of this government. I will take that bet with anyone. This is me handing you money, isn't it, so make the sum as big you wish.
I'll take it on the proviso that I define what reparations entail.
It’s obvious from the reporting that the UK suffered a diplomatic defeat at the Commonwealth.
Reparations were not even on the agenda, so the UK has been “hijacked”. And despite Starmer’s pleading, it is not obvious at all the money is not to be discussed.
Starmer said none of the discussions at the summit had concerned money.
“Well, no figure,” Frederick Mitchell, the foreign minister of the Bahamas told BBC Radio’s Today programme on Saturday. “We’ll see what happens going forward.”
He said he hoped a report on the issue would follow, which nations would discuss in the future. Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout. “I have no doubt …. that the arc of history always goes in the right direction,” he said.
The Commonwealth no longer does our bidding, and why should it? After all KC3 is Head of State for a number of the countries pursuing reparations too. Sure we could have thrown our toys out of the pram and refused to sign the declaration, but that pretty much would bang in the final nail in its coffin.
We cannot praise the democratic institutions and rule of law that we bequeathed to the Commonwealth, then refuse to respond to those governments. Either we left them something valid, or we did not.
I don’t think the Commonwealth should do the UK’s bidding. That would be bizarre.
I simply note the UK’s diplomatic defeat on this issue.
The last government created a precedent, it seems:
"Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout."
When you are in a minority you are not going to get your way. I guess the issue is whether you then walk out or just play along knowing you cannot be forced to do anything you do not want to do.
You don't walk out. You just say "No. You must be joking!" and sit there. You certainly don't sign a declaration that opens the door. You refuse to sign. Simple.
That's pretty much the same as walking out. Basically, you leave without a communique. I suspect that is what a lot of previous UK governments would have done. This one chose not to grandstand. Unlike others on here, I don't see that as an act of treason. We decide whether the door opens. It's all in our hands.
They all leave without a communique. It's not us walking out. They all walk out. Not agreeing to reparations is not grandstanding. It's resisting blackmail and I'm sure would have the support of the vast majority in the UK. No doubt there will be a poll soon.
As much as you may wish it otherwise, the UK government has not agreed to reparations.
It has agreed the following:
"Heads, noting calls for discussions on reparatory justice with regard to the trans-Atlantic trade in enslaved Africans and chattel enslavement and recognising the importance of this matter to member states of the Commonwealth, the majority of which share common historical experiences in relation to this abhorrent trade, agreed that the time has come for a meaningful, truthful and respectful conversation towards forging a common future based on equity. Heads further agreed to continue playing an active role in bringing about such inclusive conversations addressing these harms."
So Starmer has agreed to a meaningful conversation on reparations, because that's what it's about. What else?
Perhaps it is a cynical kicking of the discussion into the long grass out of politeness.
I would simply say No. People alive now had nothing to do with slavery on either side. It's a scam.
Yep, to me that looks like a kick into the very long grass. It's very clearly not the UK agreeing to pay reparations.
I think Starmer's strategy was to find a way of saying no without aggravating the Caribbean nations so much they end up in China's sphere of influence. "A conversation towards forging a common future based on equity" can mean absolutely anything.
Yep, it's big, thick, sticky fudge. If you can get that instead of a big argument at a time when the geopolitical headwinds are massively difficult, why not?
You think he's avoided a big argument?
Chortle.
It's laughable isn't it. He's avoided an argument by saying yes to having one? The sky is green, war is peace and all that.
If you think that the UK is going to be spending a lot of time having huge, stand-up, international rows about "reparatory justice" over the next few years then I have a bridge to sell you. There are so many more important things to worry about.
Which is why he's going to pay up. Paying up closes that discussion off.
Let's have a bet, I will bet whatever sum you want that the UK will pay no financial reparations during the lifetime of this government. I will take that bet with anyone. This is me handing you money, isn't it, so make the sum as big you wish.
They may relabel some of the existing foreign aid budget. Otherwise 95% nothing paid. We may also build a statue or museum etc.
I have some seriously disappointing news for the readers of PB. None of us are getting out of here alive. We are all going to die of something. So, hypothetically, if you use exercise and cut out alcohol you will avoid certain conditions and illnesses. But you are still going to die. And, even worse, you increase the risk of losing your marbles before you do which is a truly terrible way to go.
Claiming that we can avoid health costs by better health is a chimera. Individuals may live healthier longer and good luck to them but it simply is not the answer to the exorbitant cost of health care. It simply moves the costs from 1 pile to another. And on that cheerful note I think I am going for a drink.
And yet every day I gather an additional data point showing me being alive. There have now been more than 18,000 observations in a row of me being alive, and yet doomsayers continue to pedal this story that at some point I will cease to live.
Look at the data guys. Every day brings more and more overwhelming evidence of my eternal life.
I just want to point out that when the Chagos Surrender happened and I went ape-shit on here, there was a lot of scoffing and “oh who cares it’s a tiny atoll you’ve never heard of before”
I responded that
1. I had definitely heard of it
2. The surrender was totally unnecessary and a strategic error of enormous proportions
And
3. One of the many reasons it was such a strategic error was that it would encourage all our enemies to take a run at us, perceiving us as weak and spineless with a stupid cowardly leader willing to yield to anything
Et voila
Indeed, there's no way that reparations or anything as stupid as that would be on the agenda had we not just paid billions to Mauritius to take the Chagos Islands off our hands. The Carribbean sense weakness and Starmer appointing reparations supporters like Lammy such high roles is another reason they know they can go for it and win. Starmer is a cuck.
Starmer should just have said “nah. Fuck off, I’m not signing that, it commits us to reparations”
But of course he’s incapable of showing backbone because he doesn’t have one, and deep down he agrees that Britain is evil and should pay
And that's the difference between him and Blair. Blair would have just laughed the whole discussion off and told the commonwealth nations to get back in their box because he fundamentally loved this country. Starmer very clearly doesn't, he sees us as part of the evil colonialist axis as so many lefties were indoctrinated to believe when they went to university by Marxist professors.
Could anyone imagine Margaret Thatcher, or even John Major signing it!
I don’t believe he’ll ever commit the UK to paying billions.
What he will do is offer some abject, and completely insincere, apology for slavery, before agreeing to pay symbolic reparations to governments who’ll stick the money in their offshore accounts.
That will set a precedent for anyone with a grudge against the UK to come calling.
One can imagine Cameron taking a similar line if he were PM now. Times have changed since the Thatcher era.
Osborne, yes. Cameron, I think not.
Impossible to imagine a British PM now suggesting, as Cameron did, that he was proud of the Empire. But that was only 2013.
The last 10 years have really been a roller coaster.
So did Blair.
FWIW, I still think the Empire was on balance a good thing - and I don't even think it's on balance, but clearly a good thing.
Why do you think the Empire was a good thing?
The modern world would be unrecognisable without the Empire.
We wouldn't have free liberal democracies like the United States, Canada, New Zealand or Australia nor large multireligious and panethnic democratic states like India and South Africa. We would not have Carribean and African states endeavouring to follow that path. We would not have free international trade, we would not have been able to fight and win WW1 or WW2, we would not have the UN, Human Rights or the rule of law as an international principle. Countries like Singapore and South Korea wouldn't exist and Japan would have taken a different path.
We'd have a world of autocracy instead, with fewer rights, more suffering, more cruelty and less human development. It'd be China, Iran and Russia writ-large. Dictators and Theocracies where might made right.
The handwringing we have now is, I think, in direct relationship to our waning power and influence and is in some sense a response to it: it's to try and keep us at the centre of ongoing geopolitical conversations - ones that our rivals absolutely don't respect and, in fact, use to hold us in contempt.
I don't agree with all these points, but I do think we have a bizarre idea that handwringing gains us something either in terms of our national progression or in geopolitical terms, and I really don't think that is the case.
And I do think handwringing is distinct from acknowledging things, but the former is what is pushed.
If one doesn't agree one has to argue from where else democracy would have spawned and how it'd have been defended and advanced at the same time.
It's not a long list. France is probably the closest and they had a decidedly jittery and mixed record.
I agree. But you also need to step back and consider why democracy spawned in UK, France and elsewhere. It's not easy to answer but in general I'd argue against British or European exceptionalism and in favour of the idea that democracy flourishes when nations create the conditions for it to flourish.
By contrast, democracy was often imposed on colonies without there being the conditions for it to flourish and hasn't always 'stuck' post-empire as a result.
No doubt other states might have experimented with proto-democracies at times but, like the Roman Republic or Ancient Greece, they wouldn't have lasted.
What made Britain different was that it was a stable, secure and wealthy polity from which it was able to project and maintain its power, and it believed in its sense of mission over multiple generations.
Again, you put the point well, and in some ways history is on your side. Democracies are really quite rare, and perhaps it was only because the UK happened to be really quite wealthy just at the time when it fervently believed in democracy that we have had a couple of centuries of democracies ruling the roost. I'm open to that idea.
But there is an alternative: democracies rise in particular periods under particular conditions, and dissipate when those conditions no longer hold. And, if you're going to argue that the Roman Republic and Ancient Greece were only proto-democracies as they didn't last, let's agree a bet: £100 to a charity of the other person's choice for the loser. I bet the UK's democracy won't outlast both those two. Let's check back in on PB in...about 2270.
Can I consult my solicitor about passing on this hereditary bet?
No need. No doubt between now and 2270 the Tories will return to power enough times to deliver enough Trussterfuck-style inflationary events that our bet will consist of our respective progenies reaching down the back of the sofa for their equivalent of a 2p coin.
I have some seriously disappointing news for the readers of PB. None of us are getting out of here alive. We are all going to die of something. So, hypothetically, if you use exercise and cut out alcohol you will avoid certain conditions and illnesses. But you are still going to die. And, even worse, you increase the risk of losing your marbles before you do which is a truly terrible way to go.
Claiming that we can avoid health costs by better health is a chimera. Individuals may live healthier longer and good luck to them but it simply is not the answer to the exorbitant cost of health care. It simply moves the costs from 1 pile to another. And on that cheerful note I think I am going for a drink.
And yet every day I gather an additional data point showing me being alive. There have now been more than 18,000 observations in a row of me being alive, and yet doomsayers continue to pedal this story that at some point I will cease to live.
Look at the data guys. Every day brings more and more overwhelming evidence of my eternal life.
You have lived exactly 0% of your supposed eternal life. Are you sure you’ve actually been born?
I enjoyed reading the header on the NHS, because it is a subject which gets remarkably little serious political analysis.
I wrote a book, LIFELINE, which won a prize in the 2022 BMA medical book awards, in the category, Good Medical Practice. It analyses why and how things go wrong in the NHS and why we don't seem to be able to sort it. Since then, the NHS has got itself into even more of a mess (not cause and effect, I hope).
For anyone who is seriously interested in why and how the NHS has lost its way, the book is a good starting point. And if anyone on here is a politician with a serious interest in the NHS, I am happy to talk, if you want to contact me.
You will find LIFELINE on Amazon, Waterstones on line, etc
It’s obvious from the reporting that the UK suffered a diplomatic defeat at the Commonwealth.
Reparations were not even on the agenda, so the UK has been “hijacked”. And despite Starmer’s pleading, it is not obvious at all the money is not to be discussed.
Starmer said none of the discussions at the summit had concerned money.
“Well, no figure,” Frederick Mitchell, the foreign minister of the Bahamas told BBC Radio’s Today programme on Saturday. “We’ll see what happens going forward.”
He said he hoped a report on the issue would follow, which nations would discuss in the future. Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout. “I have no doubt …. that the arc of history always goes in the right direction,” he said.
The Commonwealth no longer does our bidding, and why should it? After all KC3 is Head of State for a number of the countries pursuing reparations too. Sure we could have thrown our toys out of the pram and refused to sign the declaration, but that pretty much would bang in the final nail in its coffin.
We cannot praise the democratic institutions and rule of law that we bequeathed to the Commonwealth, then refuse to respond to those governments. Either we left them something valid, or we did not.
I don’t think the Commonwealth should do the UK’s bidding. That would be bizarre.
I simply note the UK’s diplomatic defeat on this issue.
The last government created a precedent, it seems:
"Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout."
When you are in a minority you are not going to get your way. I guess the issue is whether you then walk out or just play along knowing you cannot be forced to do anything you do not want to do.
You don't walk out. You just say "No. You must be joking!" and sit there. You certainly don't sign a declaration that opens the door. You refuse to sign. Simple.
That's pretty much the same as walking out. Basically, you leave without a communique. I suspect that is what a lot of previous UK governments would have done. This one chose not to grandstand. Unlike others on here, I don't see that as an act of treason. We decide whether the door opens. It's all in our hands.
They all leave without a communique. It's not us walking out. They all walk out. Not agreeing to reparations is not grandstanding. It's resisting blackmail and I'm sure would have the support of the vast majority in the UK. No doubt there will be a poll soon.
As much as you may wish it otherwise, the UK government has not agreed to reparations.
It has agreed the following:
"Heads, noting calls for discussions on reparatory justice with regard to the trans-Atlantic trade in enslaved Africans and chattel enslavement and recognising the importance of this matter to member states of the Commonwealth, the majority of which share common historical experiences in relation to this abhorrent trade, agreed that the time has come for a meaningful, truthful and respectful conversation towards forging a common future based on equity. Heads further agreed to continue playing an active role in bringing about such inclusive conversations addressing these harms."
So Starmer has agreed to a meaningful conversation on reparations, because that's what it's about. What else?
Perhaps it is a cynical kicking of the discussion into the long grass out of politeness.
I would simply say No. People alive now had nothing to do with slavery on either side. It's a scam.
Yep, to me that looks like a kick into the very long grass. It's very clearly not the UK agreeing to pay reparations.
I think Starmer's strategy was to find a way of saying no without aggravating the Caribbean nations so much they end up in China's sphere of influence. "A conversation towards forging a common future based on equity" can mean absolutely anything.
Yep, it's big, thick, sticky fudge. If you can get that instead of a big argument at a time when the geopolitical headwinds are massively difficult, why not?
You think he's avoided a big argument?
Chortle.
It's laughable isn't it. He's avoided an argument by saying yes to having one? The sky is green, war is peace and all that.
If you think that the UK is going to be spending a lot of time having huge, stand-up, international rows about "reparatory justice" over the next few years then I have a bridge to sell you. There are so many more important things to worry about.
Which is why he's going to pay up. Paying up closes that discussion off.
Let's have a bet, I will bet whatever sum you want that the UK will pay no financial reparations during the lifetime of this government. I will take that bet with anyone. This is me handing you money, isn't it, so make the sum as big you wish.
I'll take it on the proviso that I define what reparations entail.
I think we will need to jointly agree that.
Fair.
I would include any monetary transfer, enhanced student or work visa access for nations who have asked for reparations, any additional or sweetheart terms of trade that disadvantage the UK and results in a loss of income for the UK. Anything that is above the baseline the exists today, essentially.
A beautiful day here in central Buchan, so busy busy delivering my election leaflets (7th November council by-election). A few of us out, but I spent all day at it on a mega 19km walk delivering 550 of them.
Beer later!
Presumably no one voting LAB there? Are they bothering to stand? Do between CON SNP and you?
Labour have a paper candidate and are putting nothing out. Tories and Reform are going after each other - just had a pair of Tories (including the recently ex Tory leader of Aberdeenshire council) defect to Reform, and the Tory candidate selected has upset many local Tories.
By-election is because the SNP councillor quit, there’s LD and Con and Indy already here. Hoping that it’s us vs the SNP.
It’s obvious from the reporting that the UK suffered a diplomatic defeat at the Commonwealth.
Reparations were not even on the agenda, so the UK has been “hijacked”. And despite Starmer’s pleading, it is not obvious at all the money is not to be discussed.
Starmer said none of the discussions at the summit had concerned money.
“Well, no figure,” Frederick Mitchell, the foreign minister of the Bahamas told BBC Radio’s Today programme on Saturday. “We’ll see what happens going forward.”
He said he hoped a report on the issue would follow, which nations would discuss in the future. Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout. “I have no doubt …. that the arc of history always goes in the right direction,” he said.
The Commonwealth no longer does our bidding, and why should it? After all KC3 is Head of State for a number of the countries pursuing reparations too. Sure we could have thrown our toys out of the pram and refused to sign the declaration, but that pretty much would bang in the final nail in its coffin.
We cannot praise the democratic institutions and rule of law that we bequeathed to the Commonwealth, then refuse to respond to those governments. Either we left them something valid, or we did not.
I don’t think the Commonwealth should do the UK’s bidding. That would be bizarre.
I simply note the UK’s diplomatic defeat on this issue.
The last government created a precedent, it seems:
"Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout."
When you are in a minority you are not going to get your way. I guess the issue is whether you then walk out or just play along knowing you cannot be forced to do anything you do not want to do.
You don't walk out. You just say "No. You must be joking!" and sit there. You certainly don't sign a declaration that opens the door. You refuse to sign. Simple.
That's pretty much the same as walking out. Basically, you leave without a communique. I suspect that is what a lot of previous UK governments would have done. This one chose not to grandstand. Unlike others on here, I don't see that as an act of treason. We decide whether the door opens. It's all in our hands.
They all leave without a communique. It's not us walking out. They all walk out. Not agreeing to reparations is not grandstanding. It's resisting blackmail and I'm sure would have the support of the vast majority in the UK. No doubt there will be a poll soon.
As much as you may wish it otherwise, the UK government has not agreed to reparations.
It has agreed the following:
"Heads, noting calls for discussions on reparatory justice with regard to the trans-Atlantic trade in enslaved Africans and chattel enslavement and recognising the importance of this matter to member states of the Commonwealth, the majority of which share common historical experiences in relation to this abhorrent trade, agreed that the time has come for a meaningful, truthful and respectful conversation towards forging a common future based on equity. Heads further agreed to continue playing an active role in bringing about such inclusive conversations addressing these harms."
So Starmer has agreed to a meaningful conversation on reparations, because that's what it's about. What else?
Perhaps it is a cynical kicking of the discussion into the long grass out of politeness.
I would simply say No. People alive now had nothing to do with slavery on either side. It's a scam.
Yep, to me that looks like a kick into the very long grass. It's very clearly not the UK agreeing to pay reparations.
I think Starmer's strategy was to find a way of saying no without aggravating the Caribbean nations so much they end up in China's sphere of influence. "A conversation towards forging a common future based on equity" can mean absolutely anything.
Yep, it's big, thick, sticky fudge. If you can get that instead of a big argument at a time when the geopolitical headwinds are massively difficult, why not?
You think he's avoided a big argument?
Chortle.
It's laughable isn't it. He's avoided an argument by saying yes to having one? The sky is green, war is peace and all that.
If you think that the UK is going to be spending a lot of time having huge, stand-up, international rows about "reparatory justice" over the next few years then I have a bridge to sell you. There are so many more important things to worry about.
Which is why he's going to pay up. Paying up closes that discussion off.
Let's have a bet, I will bet whatever sum you want that the UK will pay no financial reparations during the lifetime of this government. I will take that bet with anyone. This is me handing you money, isn't it, so make the sum as big you wish.
They may relabel some of the existing foreign aid budget. Otherwise 95% nothing paid. We may also build a statue or museum etc.
That is certainly possible as a full and final settlement after a very long negotiation. However, I would not see that as any kind of significant financial reparation.
I just want to point out that when the Chagos Surrender happened and I went ape-shit on here, there was a lot of scoffing and “oh who cares it’s a tiny atoll you’ve never heard of before”
I responded that
1. I had definitely heard of it
2. The surrender was totally unnecessary and a strategic error of enormous proportions
And
3. One of the many reasons it was such a strategic error was that it would encourage all our enemies to take a run at us, perceiving us as weak and spineless with a stupid cowardly leader willing to yield to anything
Et voila
Indeed, there's no way that reparations or anything as stupid as that would be on the agenda had we not just paid billions to Mauritius to take the Chagos Islands off our hands. The Carribbean sense weakness and Starmer appointing reparations supporters like Lammy such high roles is another reason they know they can go for it and win. Starmer is a cuck.
Starmer should just have said “nah. Fuck off, I’m not signing that, it commits us to reparations”
But of course he’s incapable of showing backbone because he doesn’t have one, and deep down he agrees that Britain is evil and should pay
And that's the difference between him and Blair. Blair would have just laughed the whole discussion off and told the commonwealth nations to get back in their box because he fundamentally loved this country. Starmer very clearly doesn't, he sees us as part of the evil colonialist axis as so many lefties were indoctrinated to believe when they went to university by Marxist professors.
Could anyone imagine Margaret Thatcher, or even John Major signing it!
I don’t believe he’ll ever commit the UK to paying billions.
What he will do is offer some abject, and completely insincere, apology for slavery, before agreeing to pay symbolic reparations to governments who’ll stick the money in their offshore accounts.
That will set a precedent for anyone with a grudge against the UK to come calling.
One can imagine Cameron taking a similar line if he were PM now. Times have changed since the Thatcher era.
Osborne, yes. Cameron, I think not.
Impossible to imagine a British PM now suggesting, as Cameron did, that he was proud of the Empire. But that was only 2013.
The last 10 years have really been a roller coaster.
So did Blair.
FWIW, I still think the Empire was on balance a good thing - and I don't even think it's on balance, but clearly a good thing.
Why do you think the Empire was a good thing?
The modern world would be unrecognisable without the Empire.
We wouldn't have free liberal democracies like the United States, Canada, New Zealand or Australia nor large multireligious and panethnic democratic states like India and South Africa. We would not have Carribean and African states endeavouring to follow that path. We would not have free international trade, we would not have been able to fight and win WW1 or WW2, we would not have the UN, Human Rights or the rule of law as an international principle. Countries like Singapore and South Korea wouldn't exist and Japan would have taken a different path.
We'd have a world of autocracy instead, with fewer rights, more suffering, more cruelty and less human development. It'd be China, Iran and Russia writ-large. Dictators and Theocracies where might made right.
The handwringing we have now is, I think, in direct relationship to our waning power and influence and is in some sense a response to it: it's to try and keep us at the centre of ongoing geopolitical conversations - ones that our rivals absolutely don't respect and, in fact, use to hold us in contempt.
I don't agree with all these points, but I do think we have a bizarre idea that handwringing gains us something either in terms of our national progression or in geopolitical terms, and I really don't think that is the case.
And I do think handwringing is distinct from acknowledging things, but the former is what is pushed.
If one doesn't agree one has to argue from where else democracy would have spawned and how it'd have been defended and advanced at the same time.
It's not a long list. France is probably the closest and they had a decidedly jittery and mixed record.
Why?
There are plenty of countries that ended up as democracies without having to have been colonized.
It’s obvious from the reporting that the UK suffered a diplomatic defeat at the Commonwealth.
Reparations were not even on the agenda, so the UK has been “hijacked”. And despite Starmer’s pleading, it is not obvious at all the money is not to be discussed.
Starmer said none of the discussions at the summit had concerned money.
“Well, no figure,” Frederick Mitchell, the foreign minister of the Bahamas told BBC Radio’s Today programme on Saturday. “We’ll see what happens going forward.”
He said he hoped a report on the issue would follow, which nations would discuss in the future. Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout. “I have no doubt …. that the arc of history always goes in the right direction,” he said.
The Commonwealth no longer does our bidding, and why should it? After all KC3 is Head of State for a number of the countries pursuing reparations too. Sure we could have thrown our toys out of the pram and refused to sign the declaration, but that pretty much would bang in the final nail in its coffin.
We cannot praise the democratic institutions and rule of law that we bequeathed to the Commonwealth, then refuse to respond to those governments. Either we left them something valid, or we did not.
I don’t think the Commonwealth should do the UK’s bidding. That would be bizarre.
I simply note the UK’s diplomatic defeat on this issue.
The last government created a precedent, it seems:
"Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout."
When you are in a minority you are not going to get your way. I guess the issue is whether you then walk out or just play along knowing you cannot be forced to do anything you do not want to do.
You don't walk out. You just say "No. You must be joking!" and sit there. You certainly don't sign a declaration that opens the door. You refuse to sign. Simple.
That's pretty much the same as walking out. Basically, you leave without a communique. I suspect that is what a lot of previous UK governments would have done. This one chose not to grandstand. Unlike others on here, I don't see that as an act of treason. We decide whether the door opens. It's all in our hands.
They all leave without a communique. It's not us walking out. They all walk out. Not agreeing to reparations is not grandstanding. It's resisting blackmail and I'm sure would have the support of the vast majority in the UK. No doubt there will be a poll soon.
As much as you may wish it otherwise, the UK government has not agreed to reparations.
It has agreed the following:
"Heads, noting calls for discussions on reparatory justice with regard to the trans-Atlantic trade in enslaved Africans and chattel enslavement and recognising the importance of this matter to member states of the Commonwealth, the majority of which share common historical experiences in relation to this abhorrent trade, agreed that the time has come for a meaningful, truthful and respectful conversation towards forging a common future based on equity. Heads further agreed to continue playing an active role in bringing about such inclusive conversations addressing these harms."
So Starmer has agreed to a meaningful conversation on reparations, because that's what it's about. What else?
Perhaps it is a cynical kicking of the discussion into the long grass out of politeness.
I would simply say No. People alive now had nothing to do with slavery on either side. It's a scam.
Yep, to me that looks like a kick into the very long grass. It's very clearly not the UK agreeing to pay reparations.
I think Starmer's strategy was to find a way of saying no without aggravating the Caribbean nations so much they end up in China's sphere of influence. "A conversation towards forging a common future based on equity" can mean absolutely anything.
I think so. The resolution on reparatory justice is unwelcome and highly embarrassing for Starmer but these things happen. The UK wants warm words about how bad slavery is; the other members want lots of cash. Even if the UK does some relatively modest education or development programmes targeted at its Commonwealth it they will be seen as either extorted or tokenistic. The Commonwealth won't survive a big bust up; it just isn't important enough to anyone. So I think he will will want the discussions to go into the long grass to avoid that outcome.
The battle for the Commonwealth was lost before it even met.
It was catastrophic that India and South Africa didn't even show up.
How did the Foreign Office let that slip?
I would trim and modify the Commonwealth such that it only includes:
UK AUS CAN NZ
their overseas territories
the 11 remaining Commonwealth Realms (until they do a Barbados!)
and, ideally, hopefully, because they are also overwhelmingly English-speaking:
USA Ireland
I would rename it The Greater English Commonwealth.
It’s obvious from the reporting that the UK suffered a diplomatic defeat at the Commonwealth.
Reparations were not even on the agenda, so the UK has been “hijacked”. And despite Starmer’s pleading, it is not obvious at all the money is not to be discussed.
Starmer said none of the discussions at the summit had concerned money.
“Well, no figure,” Frederick Mitchell, the foreign minister of the Bahamas told BBC Radio’s Today programme on Saturday. “We’ll see what happens going forward.”
He said he hoped a report on the issue would follow, which nations would discuss in the future. Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout. “I have no doubt …. that the arc of history always goes in the right direction,” he said.
The Commonwealth no longer does our bidding, and why should it? After all KC3 is Head of State for a number of the countries pursuing reparations too. Sure we could have thrown our toys out of the pram and refused to sign the declaration, but that pretty much would bang in the final nail in its coffin.
We cannot praise the democratic institutions and rule of law that we bequeathed to the Commonwealth, then refuse to respond to those governments. Either we left them something valid, or we did not.
I don’t think the Commonwealth should do the UK’s bidding. That would be bizarre.
I simply note the UK’s diplomatic defeat on this issue.
The last government created a precedent, it seems:
"Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout."
When you are in a minority you are not going to get your way. I guess the issue is whether you then walk out or just play along knowing you cannot be forced to do anything you do not want to do.
You don't walk out. You just say "No. You must be joking!" and sit there. You certainly don't sign a declaration that opens the door. You refuse to sign. Simple.
That's pretty much the same as walking out. Basically, you leave without a communique. I suspect that is what a lot of previous UK governments would have done. This one chose not to grandstand. Unlike others on here, I don't see that as an act of treason. We decide whether the door opens. It's all in our hands.
They all leave without a communique. It's not us walking out. They all walk out. Not agreeing to reparations is not grandstanding. It's resisting blackmail and I'm sure would have the support of the vast majority in the UK. No doubt there will be a poll soon.
As much as you may wish it otherwise, the UK government has not agreed to reparations.
It has agreed the following:
"Heads, noting calls for discussions on reparatory justice with regard to the trans-Atlantic trade in enslaved Africans and chattel enslavement and recognising the importance of this matter to member states of the Commonwealth, the majority of which share common historical experiences in relation to this abhorrent trade, agreed that the time has come for a meaningful, truthful and respectful conversation towards forging a common future based on equity. Heads further agreed to continue playing an active role in bringing about such inclusive conversations addressing these harms."
So Starmer has agreed to a meaningful conversation on reparations, because that's what it's about. What else?
Perhaps it is a cynical kicking of the discussion into the long grass out of politeness.
I would simply say No. People alive now had nothing to do with slavery on either side. It's a scam.
Yep, to me that looks like a kick into the very long grass. It's very clearly not the UK agreeing to pay reparations.
I think Starmer's strategy was to find a way of saying no without aggravating the Caribbean nations so much they end up in China's sphere of influence. "A conversation towards forging a common future based on equity" can mean absolutely anything.
Yep, it's big, thick, sticky fudge. If you can get that instead of a big argument at a time when the geopolitical headwinds are massively difficult, why not?
You think he's avoided a big argument?
Chortle.
It's laughable isn't it. He's avoided an argument by saying yes to having one? The sky is green, war is peace and all that.
If you think that the UK is going to be spending a lot of time having huge, stand-up, international rows about "reparatory justice" over the next few years then I have a bridge to sell you. There are so many more important things to worry about.
Which is why he's going to pay up. Paying up closes that discussion off.
Let's have a bet, I will bet whatever sum you want that the UK will pay no financial reparations during the lifetime of this government. I will take that bet with anyone. This is me handing you money, isn't it, so make the sum as big you wish.
They may relabel some of the existing foreign aid budget. Otherwise 95% nothing paid. We may also build a statue or museum etc.
That is certainly possible as a full and final settlement after a very long negotiation. However, I would not see that as any kind of significant financial reparation.
It would be a transfer of wealth from the UK to nations who have asked for reparations. How is that not reparations?
I just want to point out that when the Chagos Surrender happened and I went ape-shit on here, there was a lot of scoffing and “oh who cares it’s a tiny atoll you’ve never heard of before”
I responded that
1. I had definitely heard of it
2. The surrender was totally unnecessary and a strategic error of enormous proportions
And
3. One of the many reasons it was such a strategic error was that it would encourage all our enemies to take a run at us, perceiving us as weak and spineless with a stupid cowardly leader willing to yield to anything
Et voila
Indeed, there's no way that reparations or anything as stupid as that would be on the agenda had we not just paid billions to Mauritius to take the Chagos Islands off our hands. The Carribbean sense weakness and Starmer appointing reparations supporters like Lammy such high roles is another reason they know they can go for it and win. Starmer is a cuck.
Starmer should just have said “nah. Fuck off, I’m not signing that, it commits us to reparations”
But of course he’s incapable of showing backbone because he doesn’t have one, and deep down he agrees that Britain is evil and should pay
And that's the difference between him and Blair. Blair would have just laughed the whole discussion off and told the commonwealth nations to get back in their box because he fundamentally loved this country. Starmer very clearly doesn't, he sees us as part of the evil colonialist axis as so many lefties were indoctrinated to believe when they went to university by Marxist professors.
Could anyone imagine Margaret Thatcher, or even John Major signing it!
I don’t believe he’ll ever commit the UK to paying billions.
What he will do is offer some abject, and completely insincere, apology for slavery, before agreeing to pay symbolic reparations to governments who’ll stick the money in their offshore accounts.
That will set a precedent for anyone with a grudge against the UK to come calling.
One can imagine Cameron taking a similar line if he were PM now. Times have changed since the Thatcher era.
Osborne, yes. Cameron, I think not.
Impossible to imagine a British PM now suggesting, as Cameron did, that he was proud of the Empire. But that was only 2013.
The last 10 years have really been a roller coaster.
So did Blair.
FWIW, I still think the Empire was on balance a good thing - and I don't even think it's on balance, but clearly a good thing.
Why do you think the Empire was a good thing?
The modern world would be unrecognisable without the Empire.
We wouldn't have free liberal democracies like the United States, Canada, New Zealand or Australia nor large multireligious and panethnic democratic states like India and South Africa. We would not have Carribean and African states endeavouring to follow that path. We would not have free international trade, we would not have been able to fight and win WW1 or WW2, we would not have the UN, Human Rights or the rule of law as an international principle. Countries like Singapore and South Korea wouldn't exist and Japan would have taken a different path.
We'd have a world of autocracy instead, with fewer rights, more suffering, more cruelty and less human development. It'd be China, Iran and Russia writ-large. Dictators and Theocracies where might made right.
The handwringing we have now is, I think, in direct relationship to our waning power and influence and is in some sense a response to it: it's to try and keep us at the centre of ongoing geopolitical conversations - ones that our rivals absolutely don't respect and, in fact, use to hold us in contempt.
I don't agree with all these points, but I do think we have a bizarre idea that handwringing gains us something either in terms of our national progression or in geopolitical terms, and I really don't think that is the case.
And I do think handwringing is distinct from acknowledging things, but the former is what is pushed.
If one doesn't agree one has to argue from where else democracy would have spawned and how it'd have been defended and advanced at the same time.
It's not a long list. France is probably the closest and they had a decidedly jittery and mixed record.
Why?
There are plenty of countries that ended up as democracies without having to have been colonized.
A country that hasn’t been colonised would be unpopulated.
I just want to point out that when the Chagos Surrender happened and I went ape-shit on here, there was a lot of scoffing and “oh who cares it’s a tiny atoll you’ve never heard of before”
I responded that
1. I had definitely heard of it
2. The surrender was totally unnecessary and a strategic error of enormous proportions
And
3. One of the many reasons it was such a strategic error was that it would encourage all our enemies to take a run at us, perceiving us as weak and spineless with a stupid cowardly leader willing to yield to anything
Et voila
Indeed, there's no way that reparations or anything as stupid as that would be on the agenda had we not just paid billions to Mauritius to take the Chagos Islands off our hands. The Carribbean sense weakness and Starmer appointing reparations supporters like Lammy such high roles is another reason they know they can go for it and win. Starmer is a cuck.
Starmer should just have said “nah. Fuck off, I’m not signing that, it commits us to reparations”
But of course he’s incapable of showing backbone because he doesn’t have one, and deep down he agrees that Britain is evil and should pay
And that's the difference between him and Blair. Blair would have just laughed the whole discussion off and told the commonwealth nations to get back in their box because he fundamentally loved this country. Starmer very clearly doesn't, he sees us as part of the evil colonialist axis as so many lefties were indoctrinated to believe when they went to university by Marxist professors.
Could anyone imagine Margaret Thatcher, or even John Major signing it!
I don’t believe he’ll ever commit the UK to paying billions.
What he will do is offer some abject, and completely insincere, apology for slavery, before agreeing to pay symbolic reparations to governments who’ll stick the money in their offshore accounts.
That will set a precedent for anyone with a grudge against the UK to come calling.
One can imagine Cameron taking a similar line if he were PM now. Times have changed since the Thatcher era.
Osborne, yes. Cameron, I think not.
Impossible to imagine a British PM now suggesting, as Cameron did, that he was proud of the Empire. But that was only 2013.
The last 10 years have really been a roller coaster.
So did Blair.
FWIW, I still think the Empire was on balance a good thing - and I don't even think it's on balance, but clearly a good thing.
Why do you think the Empire was a good thing?
The modern world would be unrecognisable without the Empire.
We wouldn't have free liberal democracies like the United States, Canada, New Zealand or Australia nor large multireligious and panethnic democratic states like India and South Africa. We would not have Carribean and African states endeavouring to follow that path. We would not have free international trade, we would not have been able to fight and win WW1 or WW2, we would not have the UN, Human Rights or the rule of law as an international principle. Countries like Singapore and South Korea wouldn't exist and Japan would have taken a different path.
We'd have a world of autocracy instead, with fewer rights, more suffering, more cruelty and less human development. It'd be China, Iran and Russia writ-large. Dictators and Theocracies where might made right.
The handwringing we have now is, I think, in direct relationship to our waning power and influence and is in some sense a response to it: it's to try and keep us at the centre of ongoing geopolitical conversations - ones that our rivals absolutely don't respect and, in fact, use to hold us in contempt.
I don't agree with all these points, but I do think we have a bizarre idea that handwringing gains us something either in terms of our national progression or in geopolitical terms, and I really don't think that is the case.
And I do think handwringing is distinct from acknowledging things, but the former is what is pushed.
If one doesn't agree one has to argue from where else democracy would have spawned and how it'd have been defended and advanced at the same time.
It's not a long list. France is probably the closest and they had a decidedly jittery and mixed record.
Why?
There are plenty of countries that ended up as democracies without having to have been colonized.
It’s obvious from the reporting that the UK suffered a diplomatic defeat at the Commonwealth.
Reparations were not even on the agenda, so the UK has been “hijacked”. And despite Starmer’s pleading, it is not obvious at all the money is not to be discussed.
Starmer said none of the discussions at the summit had concerned money.
“Well, no figure,” Frederick Mitchell, the foreign minister of the Bahamas told BBC Radio’s Today programme on Saturday. “We’ll see what happens going forward.”
He said he hoped a report on the issue would follow, which nations would discuss in the future. Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout. “I have no doubt …. that the arc of history always goes in the right direction,” he said.
The Commonwealth no longer does our bidding, and why should it? After all KC3 is Head of State for a number of the countries pursuing reparations too. Sure we could have thrown our toys out of the pram and refused to sign the declaration, but that pretty much would bang in the final nail in its coffin.
We cannot praise the democratic institutions and rule of law that we bequeathed to the Commonwealth, then refuse to respond to those governments. Either we left them something valid, or we did not.
I don’t think the Commonwealth should do the UK’s bidding. That would be bizarre.
I simply note the UK’s diplomatic defeat on this issue.
The last government created a precedent, it seems:
"Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout."
When you are in a minority you are not going to get your way. I guess the issue is whether you then walk out or just play along knowing you cannot be forced to do anything you do not want to do.
You don't walk out. You just say "No. You must be joking!" and sit there. You certainly don't sign a declaration that opens the door. You refuse to sign. Simple.
That's pretty much the same as walking out. Basically, you leave without a communique. I suspect that is what a lot of previous UK governments would have done. This one chose not to grandstand. Unlike others on here, I don't see that as an act of treason. We decide whether the door opens. It's all in our hands.
They all leave without a communique. It's not us walking out. They all walk out. Not agreeing to reparations is not grandstanding. It's resisting blackmail and I'm sure would have the support of the vast majority in the UK. No doubt there will be a poll soon.
As much as you may wish it otherwise, the UK government has not agreed to reparations.
It has agreed the following:
"Heads, noting calls for discussions on reparatory justice with regard to the trans-Atlantic trade in enslaved Africans and chattel enslavement and recognising the importance of this matter to member states of the Commonwealth, the majority of which share common historical experiences in relation to this abhorrent trade, agreed that the time has come for a meaningful, truthful and respectful conversation towards forging a common future based on equity. Heads further agreed to continue playing an active role in bringing about such inclusive conversations addressing these harms."
So Starmer has agreed to a meaningful conversation on reparations, because that's what it's about. What else?
Perhaps it is a cynical kicking of the discussion into the long grass out of politeness.
I would simply say No. People alive now had nothing to do with slavery on either side. It's a scam.
Yep, to me that looks like a kick into the very long grass. It's very clearly not the UK agreeing to pay reparations.
I think Starmer's strategy was to find a way of saying no without aggravating the Caribbean nations so much they end up in China's sphere of influence. "A conversation towards forging a common future based on equity" can mean absolutely anything.
Yep, it's big, thick, sticky fudge. If you can get that instead of a big argument at a time when the geopolitical headwinds are massively difficult, why not?
You think he's avoided a big argument?
Chortle.
It's laughable isn't it. He's avoided an argument by saying yes to having one? The sky is green, war is peace and all that.
If you think that the UK is going to be spending a lot of time having huge, stand-up, international rows about "reparatory justice" over the next few years then I have a bridge to sell you. There are so many more important things to worry about.
Which is why he's going to pay up. Paying up closes that discussion off.
Let's have a bet, I will bet whatever sum you want that the UK will pay no financial reparations during the lifetime of this government. I will take that bet with anyone. This is me handing you money, isn't it, so make the sum as big you wish.
I'll take it on the proviso that I define what reparations entail.
I think we will need to jointly agree that.
Fair.
I would include any monetary transfer, enhanced student or work visa access for nations who have asked for reparations, any additional or sweetheart terms of trade that disadvantage the UK and results in a loss of income for the UK. Anything that is above the baseline the exists today, essentially.
So no longer billions of pounds in financial reparation? Even some kind of low cost or no cost symbolic act would count? So let's define "disadvantage the UK" and decide over what course of time this disadvantage and loss of income has to be demonstrated. For example, I think it's very arguable that enhanced student or work visa access to qualified nationals from Commonwealth countries may actually help to boost UK GDP, especially given our aging population.
I just want to point out that when the Chagos Surrender happened and I went ape-shit on here, there was a lot of scoffing and “oh who cares it’s a tiny atoll you’ve never heard of before”
I responded that
1. I had definitely heard of it
2. The surrender was totally unnecessary and a strategic error of enormous proportions
And
3. One of the many reasons it was such a strategic error was that it would encourage all our enemies to take a run at us, perceiving us as weak and spineless with a stupid cowardly leader willing to yield to anything
Et voila
Indeed, there's no way that reparations or anything as stupid as that would be on the agenda had we not just paid billions to Mauritius to take the Chagos Islands off our hands. The Carribbean sense weakness and Starmer appointing reparations supporters like Lammy such high roles is another reason they know they can go for it and win. Starmer is a cuck.
Starmer should just have said “nah. Fuck off, I’m not signing that, it commits us to reparations”
But of course he’s incapable of showing backbone because he doesn’t have one, and deep down he agrees that Britain is evil and should pay
And that's the difference between him and Blair. Blair would have just laughed the whole discussion off and told the commonwealth nations to get back in their box because he fundamentally loved this country. Starmer very clearly doesn't, he sees us as part of the evil colonialist axis as so many lefties were indoctrinated to believe when they went to university by Marxist professors.
Could anyone imagine Margaret Thatcher, or even John Major signing it!
I don’t believe he’ll ever commit the UK to paying billions.
What he will do is offer some abject, and completely insincere, apology for slavery, before agreeing to pay symbolic reparations to governments who’ll stick the money in their offshore accounts.
That will set a precedent for anyone with a grudge against the UK to come calling.
One can imagine Cameron taking a similar line if he were PM now. Times have changed since the Thatcher era.
Osborne, yes. Cameron, I think not.
Impossible to imagine a British PM now suggesting, as Cameron did, that he was proud of the Empire. But that was only 2013.
The last 10 years have really been a roller coaster.
So did Blair.
FWIW, I still think the Empire was on balance a good thing - and I don't even think it's on balance, but clearly a good thing.
Why do you think the Empire was a good thing?
The modern world would be unrecognisable without the Empire.
We wouldn't have free liberal democracies like the United States, Canada, New Zealand or Australia nor large multireligious and panethnic democratic states like India and South Africa. We would not have Carribean and African states endeavouring to follow that path. We would not have free international trade, we would not have been able to fight and win WW1 or WW2, we would not have the UN, Human Rights or the rule of law as an international principle. Countries like Singapore and South Korea wouldn't exist and Japan would have taken a different path.
We'd have a world of autocracy instead, with fewer rights, more suffering, more cruelty and less human development. It'd be China, Iran and Russia writ-large. Dictators and Theocracies where might made right.
The handwringing we have now is, I think, in direct relationship to our waning power and influence and is in some sense a response to it: it's to try and keep us at the centre of ongoing geopolitical conversations - ones that our rivals absolutely don't respect and, in fact, use to hold us in contempt.
I don't agree with all these points, but I do think we have a bizarre idea that handwringing gains us something either in terms of our national progression or in geopolitical terms, and I really don't think that is the case.
And I do think handwringing is distinct from acknowledging things, but the former is what is pushed.
If one doesn't agree one has to argue from where else democracy would have spawned and how it'd have been defended and advanced at the same time.
It's not a long list. France is probably the closest and they had a decidedly jittery and mixed record.
Why?
There are plenty of countries that ended up as democracies without having to have been colonized.
There is also the very obvious point that Commonwealth countries only became democracies when they ceased to be part of Empire, and that we didn't go voluntarily in the main.
It’s obvious from the reporting that the UK suffered a diplomatic defeat at the Commonwealth.
Reparations were not even on the agenda, so the UK has been “hijacked”. And despite Starmer’s pleading, it is not obvious at all the money is not to be discussed.
Starmer said none of the discussions at the summit had concerned money.
“Well, no figure,” Frederick Mitchell, the foreign minister of the Bahamas told BBC Radio’s Today programme on Saturday. “We’ll see what happens going forward.”
He said he hoped a report on the issue would follow, which nations would discuss in the future. Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout. “I have no doubt …. that the arc of history always goes in the right direction,” he said.
The Commonwealth no longer does our bidding, and why should it? After all KC3 is Head of State for a number of the countries pursuing reparations too. Sure we could have thrown our toys out of the pram and refused to sign the declaration, but that pretty much would bang in the final nail in its coffin.
We cannot praise the democratic institutions and rule of law that we bequeathed to the Commonwealth, then refuse to respond to those governments. Either we left them something valid, or we did not.
I don’t think the Commonwealth should do the UK’s bidding. That would be bizarre.
I simply note the UK’s diplomatic defeat on this issue.
The last government created a precedent, it seems:
"Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout."
When you are in a minority you are not going to get your way. I guess the issue is whether you then walk out or just play along knowing you cannot be forced to do anything you do not want to do.
You don't walk out. You just say "No. You must be joking!" and sit there. You certainly don't sign a declaration that opens the door. You refuse to sign. Simple.
That's pretty much the same as walking out. Basically, you leave without a communique. I suspect that is what a lot of previous UK governments would have done. This one chose not to grandstand. Unlike others on here, I don't see that as an act of treason. We decide whether the door opens. It's all in our hands.
They all leave without a communique. It's not us walking out. They all walk out. Not agreeing to reparations is not grandstanding. It's resisting blackmail and I'm sure would have the support of the vast majority in the UK. No doubt there will be a poll soon.
As much as you may wish it otherwise, the UK government has not agreed to reparations.
It has agreed the following:
"Heads, noting calls for discussions on reparatory justice with regard to the trans-Atlantic trade in enslaved Africans and chattel enslavement and recognising the importance of this matter to member states of the Commonwealth, the majority of which share common historical experiences in relation to this abhorrent trade, agreed that the time has come for a meaningful, truthful and respectful conversation towards forging a common future based on equity. Heads further agreed to continue playing an active role in bringing about such inclusive conversations addressing these harms."
So Starmer has agreed to a meaningful conversation on reparations, because that's what it's about. What else?
Perhaps it is a cynical kicking of the discussion into the long grass out of politeness.
I would simply say No. People alive now had nothing to do with slavery on either side. It's a scam.
Yep, to me that looks like a kick into the very long grass. It's very clearly not the UK agreeing to pay reparations.
Starmer getting a load of abuse for this but I am pretty sure he will be doing what the FO says is policy on this one.
We have Ukraine and NATO on a knife edge as we wait for the US election. The Middle East is a tinderbox and could explode totally at any moment. The West generally is distrusted and disliked by large parts of the world. If there's no need for a row - and clearly at this stage there isn't - why have one?
And look at the cause, Western weakness. Time and again we we get slapped in the face by China, Russia etc... and instead of hitting back as hard as we can we cower in the corner and say, "please don't hurt me" as they gear up to do it again and again. We sit on the losing side because we are never confident enough to saddle up and face down the despots, it leads to the likes of Trump winning domestically because people have that feeling too. As I said the other day, Asian people think that Western liberals are soft touch idiots and on the evidence of what Starmer is doing who can blame them.
I just do not see an endless conversation that goes nowhere about "reparatory justice" as something that hurts us. Trump isn't winning because we do not stand up to the Russians. How could he be when he will do what they want?
Why do you think it goes nowhere. Starmer has already u-turned on having a conversation about it, soon it will be the apology that gets u-turned and eventually there will be reparations paid that the next government will have to cancel.
A government that refuses to even contemplate signing up to the Single Market and Customs Union, even though it would immediately delight 85% of its support base and 95% of its party membership, as well as a much larger proportion of the country as a whole, is not going to agree to reparations that the UK cannot afford and which will immediately alienate the majority of the electorate. I know you wish it otherwise, but it's just not going to happen.
Ignoring the crack about the EU, you are spot on that there is no way that any UK government will agree to reparations to the Caribbean because it would be electoral suicide.
Starmer's mistake, though, was thinking he could mealymouth his way out of this. Instead, he's made it harder, because the lack of a flat no, encourages people to keep pushing.
It’s obvious from the reporting that the UK suffered a diplomatic defeat at the Commonwealth.
Reparations were not even on the agenda, so the UK has been “hijacked”. And despite Starmer’s pleading, it is not obvious at all the money is not to be discussed.
Starmer said none of the discussions at the summit had concerned money.
“Well, no figure,” Frederick Mitchell, the foreign minister of the Bahamas told BBC Radio’s Today programme on Saturday. “We’ll see what happens going forward.”
He said he hoped a report on the issue would follow, which nations would discuss in the future. Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout. “I have no doubt …. that the arc of history always goes in the right direction,” he said.
The Commonwealth no longer does our bidding, and why should it? After all KC3 is Head of State for a number of the countries pursuing reparations too. Sure we could have thrown our toys out of the pram and refused to sign the declaration, but that pretty much would bang in the final nail in its coffin.
We cannot praise the democratic institutions and rule of law that we bequeathed to the Commonwealth, then refuse to respond to those governments. Either we left them something valid, or we did not.
I don’t think the Commonwealth should do the UK’s bidding. That would be bizarre.
I simply note the UK’s diplomatic defeat on this issue.
The last government created a precedent, it seems:
"Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout."
When you are in a minority you are not going to get your way. I guess the issue is whether you then walk out or just play along knowing you cannot be forced to do anything you do not want to do.
You don't walk out. You just say "No. You must be joking!" and sit there. You certainly don't sign a declaration that opens the door. You refuse to sign. Simple.
That's pretty much the same as walking out. Basically, you leave without a communique. I suspect that is what a lot of previous UK governments would have done. This one chose not to grandstand. Unlike others on here, I don't see that as an act of treason. We decide whether the door opens. It's all in our hands.
They all leave without a communique. It's not us walking out. They all walk out. Not agreeing to reparations is not grandstanding. It's resisting blackmail and I'm sure would have the support of the vast majority in the UK. No doubt there will be a poll soon.
As much as you may wish it otherwise, the UK government has not agreed to reparations.
It has agreed the following:
"Heads, noting calls for discussions on reparatory justice with regard to the trans-Atlantic trade in enslaved Africans and chattel enslavement and recognising the importance of this matter to member states of the Commonwealth, the majority of which share common historical experiences in relation to this abhorrent trade, agreed that the time has come for a meaningful, truthful and respectful conversation towards forging a common future based on equity. Heads further agreed to continue playing an active role in bringing about such inclusive conversations addressing these harms."
So Starmer has agreed to a meaningful conversation on reparations, because that's what it's about. What else?
Perhaps it is a cynical kicking of the discussion into the long grass out of politeness.
I would simply say No. People alive now had nothing to do with slavery on either side. It's a scam.
Yep, to me that looks like a kick into the very long grass. It's very clearly not the UK agreeing to pay reparations.
I think Starmer's strategy was to find a way of saying no without aggravating the Caribbean nations so much they end up in China's sphere of influence. "A conversation towards forging a common future based on equity" can mean absolutely anything.
Yep, it's big, thick, sticky fudge. If you can get that instead of a big argument at a time when the geopolitical headwinds are massively difficult, why not?
You think he's avoided a big argument?
Chortle.
It's laughable isn't it. He's avoided an argument by saying yes to having one? The sky is green, war is peace and all that.
If you think that the UK is going to be spending a lot of time having huge, stand-up, international rows about "reparatory justice" over the next few years then I have a bridge to sell you. There are so many more important things to worry about.
Which is why he's going to pay up. Paying up closes that discussion off.
It doesn't close the discussion off, because there are many British colonies, and the next government of [x] can always decide that the previous reparations are insufficient.
@SouthamObserver is correct: there will be no reparations because it is domestic political poison, which also leads to demands for reparations from 50 other former British colonies.
+++BETTING POST+++ Please be advised that today I waged another £100 on Kemi to be Con leader, this time at 1/6. This is (I think) the third bet I have placed on her. #bigboypants
It’s obvious from the reporting that the UK suffered a diplomatic defeat at the Commonwealth.
Reparations were not even on the agenda, so the UK has been “hijacked”. And despite Starmer’s pleading, it is not obvious at all the money is not to be discussed.
Starmer said none of the discussions at the summit had concerned money.
“Well, no figure,” Frederick Mitchell, the foreign minister of the Bahamas told BBC Radio’s Today programme on Saturday. “We’ll see what happens going forward.”
He said he hoped a report on the issue would follow, which nations would discuss in the future. Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout. “I have no doubt …. that the arc of history always goes in the right direction,” he said.
The Commonwealth no longer does our bidding, and why should it? After all KC3 is Head of State for a number of the countries pursuing reparations too. Sure we could have thrown our toys out of the pram and refused to sign the declaration, but that pretty much would bang in the final nail in its coffin.
We cannot praise the democratic institutions and rule of law that we bequeathed to the Commonwealth, then refuse to respond to those governments. Either we left them something valid, or we did not.
I don’t think the Commonwealth should do the UK’s bidding. That would be bizarre.
I simply note the UK’s diplomatic defeat on this issue.
The last government created a precedent, it seems:
"Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout."
When you are in a minority you are not going to get your way. I guess the issue is whether you then walk out or just play along knowing you cannot be forced to do anything you do not want to do.
You don't walk out. You just say "No. You must be joking!" and sit there. You certainly don't sign a declaration that opens the door. You refuse to sign. Simple.
That's pretty much the same as walking out. Basically, you leave without a communique. I suspect that is what a lot of previous UK governments would have done. This one chose not to grandstand. Unlike others on here, I don't see that as an act of treason. We decide whether the door opens. It's all in our hands.
They all leave without a communique. It's not us walking out. They all walk out. Not agreeing to reparations is not grandstanding. It's resisting blackmail and I'm sure would have the support of the vast majority in the UK. No doubt there will be a poll soon.
As much as you may wish it otherwise, the UK government has not agreed to reparations.
It has agreed the following:
"Heads, noting calls for discussions on reparatory justice with regard to the trans-Atlantic trade in enslaved Africans and chattel enslavement and recognising the importance of this matter to member states of the Commonwealth, the majority of which share common historical experiences in relation to this abhorrent trade, agreed that the time has come for a meaningful, truthful and respectful conversation towards forging a common future based on equity. Heads further agreed to continue playing an active role in bringing about such inclusive conversations addressing these harms."
So Starmer has agreed to a meaningful conversation on reparations, because that's what it's about. What else?
Perhaps it is a cynical kicking of the discussion into the long grass out of politeness.
I would simply say No. People alive now had nothing to do with slavery on either side. It's a scam.
Yep, to me that looks like a kick into the very long grass. It's very clearly not the UK agreeing to pay reparations.
Starmer getting a load of abuse for this but I am pretty sure he will be doing what the FO says is policy on this one.
We have Ukraine and NATO on a knife edge as we wait for the US election. The Middle East is a tinderbox and could explode totally at any moment. The West generally is distrusted and disliked by large parts of the world. If there's no need for a row - and clearly at this stage there isn't - why have one?
And look at the cause, Western weakness. Time and again we we get slapped in the face by China, Russia etc... and instead of hitting back as hard as we can we cower in the corner and say, "please don't hurt me" as they gear up to do it again and again. We sit on the losing side because we are never confident enough to saddle up and face down the despots, it leads to the likes of Trump winning domestically because people have that feeling too. As I said the other day, Asian people think that Western liberals are soft touch idiots and on the evidence of what Starmer is doing who can blame them.
I just do not see an endless conversation that goes nowhere about "reparatory justice" as something that hurts us. Trump isn't winning because we do not stand up to the Russians. How could he be when he will do what they want?
Why do you think it goes nowhere. Starmer has already u-turned on having a conversation about it, soon it will be the apology that gets u-turned and eventually there will be reparations paid that the next government will have to cancel.
A government that refuses to even contemplate signing up to the Single Market and Customs Union, even though it would immediately delight 85% of its support base and 95% of its party membership, as well as a much larger proportion of the country as a whole, is not going to agree to reparations that the UK cannot afford and which will immediately alienate the majority of the electorate. I know you wish it otherwise, but it's just not going to happen.
Ignoring the crack about the EU, you are spot on that there is no way that any UK government will agree to reparations to the Caribbean because it would be electoral suicide.
Starmer's mistake, though, was thinking he could mealymouth his way out of this. Instead, he's made it harder, because the lack of a flat no, encourages people to keep pushing.
It’s obvious from the reporting that the UK suffered a diplomatic defeat at the Commonwealth.
Reparations were not even on the agenda, so the UK has been “hijacked”. And despite Starmer’s pleading, it is not obvious at all the money is not to be discussed.
Starmer said none of the discussions at the summit had concerned money.
“Well, no figure,” Frederick Mitchell, the foreign minister of the Bahamas told BBC Radio’s Today programme on Saturday. “We’ll see what happens going forward.”
He said he hoped a report on the issue would follow, which nations would discuss in the future. Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout. “I have no doubt …. that the arc of history always goes in the right direction,” he said.
The Commonwealth no longer does our bidding, and why should it? After all KC3 is Head of State for a number of the countries pursuing reparations too. Sure we could have thrown our toys out of the pram and refused to sign the declaration, but that pretty much would bang in the final nail in its coffin.
We cannot praise the democratic institutions and rule of law that we bequeathed to the Commonwealth, then refuse to respond to those governments. Either we left them something valid, or we did not.
I don’t think the Commonwealth should do the UK’s bidding. That would be bizarre.
I simply note the UK’s diplomatic defeat on this issue.
The last government created a precedent, it seems:
"Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout."
When you are in a minority you are not going to get your way. I guess the issue is whether you then walk out or just play along knowing you cannot be forced to do anything you do not want to do.
You don't walk out. You just say "No. You must be joking!" and sit there. You certainly don't sign a declaration that opens the door. You refuse to sign. Simple.
That's pretty much the same as walking out. Basically, you leave without a communique. I suspect that is what a lot of previous UK governments would have done. This one chose not to grandstand. Unlike others on here, I don't see that as an act of treason. We decide whether the door opens. It's all in our hands.
They all leave without a communique. It's not us walking out. They all walk out. Not agreeing to reparations is not grandstanding. It's resisting blackmail and I'm sure would have the support of the vast majority in the UK. No doubt there will be a poll soon.
As much as you may wish it otherwise, the UK government has not agreed to reparations.
It has agreed the following:
"Heads, noting calls for discussions on reparatory justice with regard to the trans-Atlantic trade in enslaved Africans and chattel enslavement and recognising the importance of this matter to member states of the Commonwealth, the majority of which share common historical experiences in relation to this abhorrent trade, agreed that the time has come for a meaningful, truthful and respectful conversation towards forging a common future based on equity. Heads further agreed to continue playing an active role in bringing about such inclusive conversations addressing these harms."
So Starmer has agreed to a meaningful conversation on reparations, because that's what it's about. What else?
Perhaps it is a cynical kicking of the discussion into the long grass out of politeness.
I would simply say No. People alive now had nothing to do with slavery on either side. It's a scam.
Yep, to me that looks like a kick into the very long grass. It's very clearly not the UK agreeing to pay reparations.
Starmer getting a load of abuse for this but I am pretty sure he will be doing what the FO says is policy on this one.
We have Ukraine and NATO on a knife edge as we wait for the US election. The Middle East is a tinderbox and could explode totally at any moment. The West generally is distrusted and disliked by large parts of the world. If there's no need for a row - and clearly at this stage there isn't - why have one?
And look at the cause, Western weakness. Time and again we we get slapped in the face by China, Russia etc... and instead of hitting back as hard as we can we cower in the corner and say, "please don't hurt me" as they gear up to do it again and again. We sit on the losing side because we are never confident enough to saddle up and face down the despots, it leads to the likes of Trump winning domestically because people have that feeling too. As I said the other day, Asian people think that Western liberals are soft touch idiots and on the evidence of what Starmer is doing who can blame them.
I just do not see an endless conversation that goes nowhere about "reparatory justice" as something that hurts us. Trump isn't winning because we do not stand up to the Russians. How could he be when he will do what they want?
Why do you think it goes nowhere. Starmer has already u-turned on having a conversation about it, soon it will be the apology that gets u-turned and eventually there will be reparations paid that the next government will have to cancel.
A government that refuses to even contemplate signing up to the Single Market and Customs Union, even though it would immediately delight 85% of its support base and 95% of its party membership, as well as a much larger proportion of the country as a whole, is not going to agree to reparations that the UK cannot afford and which will immediately alienate the majority of the electorate. I know you wish it otherwise, but it's just not going to happen.
Ignoring the crack about the EU, you are spot on that there is no way that any UK government will agree to reparations to the Caribbean because it would be electoral suicide.
Starmer's mistake, though, was thinking he could mealymouth his way out of this. Instead, he's made it harder, because the lack of a flat no, encourages people to keep pushing.
What makes you think Starmer knows electoral suicide when he sees it?
I just want to point out that when the Chagos Surrender happened and I went ape-shit on here, there was a lot of scoffing and “oh who cares it’s a tiny atoll you’ve never heard of before”
I responded that
1. I had definitely heard of it
2. The surrender was totally unnecessary and a strategic error of enormous proportions
And
3. One of the many reasons it was such a strategic error was that it would encourage all our enemies to take a run at us, perceiving us as weak and spineless with a stupid cowardly leader willing to yield to anything
Et voila
Indeed, there's no way that reparations or anything as stupid as that would be on the agenda had we not just paid billions to Mauritius to take the Chagos Islands off our hands. The Carribbean sense weakness and Starmer appointing reparations supporters like Lammy such high roles is another reason they know they can go for it and win. Starmer is a cuck.
Starmer should just have said “nah. Fuck off, I’m not signing that, it commits us to reparations”
But of course he’s incapable of showing backbone because he doesn’t have one, and deep down he agrees that Britain is evil and should pay
And that's the difference between him and Blair. Blair would have just laughed the whole discussion off and told the commonwealth nations to get back in their box because he fundamentally loved this country. Starmer very clearly doesn't, he sees us as part of the evil colonialist axis as so many lefties were indoctrinated to believe when they went to university by Marxist professors.
Could anyone imagine Margaret Thatcher, or even John Major signing it!
I don’t believe he’ll ever commit the UK to paying billions.
What he will do is offer some abject, and completely insincere, apology for slavery, before agreeing to pay symbolic reparations to governments who’ll stick the money in their offshore accounts.
That will set a precedent for anyone with a grudge against the UK to come calling.
One can imagine Cameron taking a similar line if he were PM now. Times have changed since the Thatcher era.
Osborne, yes. Cameron, I think not.
Impossible to imagine a British PM now suggesting, as Cameron did, that he was proud of the Empire. But that was only 2013.
The last 10 years have really been a roller coaster.
So did Blair.
FWIW, I still think the Empire was on balance a good thing - and I don't even think it's on balance, but clearly a good thing.
Why do you think the Empire was a good thing?
The modern world would be unrecognisable without the Empire.
We wouldn't have free liberal democracies like the United States, Canada, New Zealand or Australia nor large multireligious and panethnic democratic states like India and South Africa. We would not have Carribean and African states endeavouring to follow that path. We would not have free international trade, we would not have been able to fight and win WW1 or WW2, we would not have the UN, Human Rights or the rule of law as an international principle. Countries like Singapore and South Korea wouldn't exist and Japan would have taken a different path.
We'd have a world of autocracy instead, with fewer rights, more suffering, more cruelty and less human development. It'd be China, Iran and Russia writ-large. Dictators and Theocracies where might made right.
The handwringing we have now is, I think, in direct relationship to our waning power and influence and is in some sense a response to it: it's to try and keep us at the centre of ongoing geopolitical conversations - ones that our rivals absolutely don't respect and, in fact, use to hold us in contempt.
I don't agree with all these points, but I do think we have a bizarre idea that handwringing gains us something either in terms of our national progression or in geopolitical terms, and I really don't think that is the case.
And I do think handwringing is distinct from acknowledging things, but the former is what is pushed.
If one doesn't agree one has to argue from where else democracy would have spawned and how it'd have been defended and advanced at the same time.
It's not a long list. France is probably the closest and they had a decidedly jittery and mixed record.
Why?
There are plenty of countries that ended up as democracies without having to have been colonized.
But that was in the context of a global order created and curated by the West, so that such values spread and democracies could be incubated. Remove the British Empire from the mix entirely and I don't think that's there.
I lived in the Caribbean for three years. My abiding sense was that not only did they know a lot more about their own history than we are ever taught, but they often seemed to know a lot more about our history than we do. That impression is not diminished by reading the discussion on here!
Time they stpped whinging and got over what happened hundreds of years ago. They have made a right clusterfcuk of it since they were put in charge. Still trying to grift rather than getting out and making something of themselves. How many centuries can they make excuses for.
I might be a bit late with this, but what was it said about a Scotsman with a grievance?
It’s obvious from the reporting that the UK suffered a diplomatic defeat at the Commonwealth.
Reparations were not even on the agenda, so the UK has been “hijacked”. And despite Starmer’s pleading, it is not obvious at all the money is not to be discussed.
Starmer said none of the discussions at the summit had concerned money.
“Well, no figure,” Frederick Mitchell, the foreign minister of the Bahamas told BBC Radio’s Today programme on Saturday. “We’ll see what happens going forward.”
He said he hoped a report on the issue would follow, which nations would discuss in the future. Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout. “I have no doubt …. that the arc of history always goes in the right direction,” he said.
The Commonwealth no longer does our bidding, and why should it? After all KC3 is Head of State for a number of the countries pursuing reparations too. Sure we could have thrown our toys out of the pram and refused to sign the declaration, but that pretty much would bang in the final nail in its coffin.
We cannot praise the democratic institutions and rule of law that we bequeathed to the Commonwealth, then refuse to respond to those governments. Either we left them something valid, or we did not.
I don’t think the Commonwealth should do the UK’s bidding. That would be bizarre.
I simply note the UK’s diplomatic defeat on this issue.
The last government created a precedent, it seems:
"Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout."
When you are in a minority you are not going to get your way. I guess the issue is whether you then walk out or just play along knowing you cannot be forced to do anything you do not want to do.
You don't walk out. You just say "No. You must be joking!" and sit there. You certainly don't sign a declaration that opens the door. You refuse to sign. Simple.
That's pretty much the same as walking out. Basically, you leave without a communique. I suspect that is what a lot of previous UK governments would have done. This one chose not to grandstand. Unlike others on here, I don't see that as an act of treason. We decide whether the door opens. It's all in our hands.
They all leave without a communique. It's not us walking out. They all walk out. Not agreeing to reparations is not grandstanding. It's resisting blackmail and I'm sure would have the support of the vast majority in the UK. No doubt there will be a poll soon.
As much as you may wish it otherwise, the UK government has not agreed to reparations.
It has agreed the following:
"Heads, noting calls for discussions on reparatory justice with regard to the trans-Atlantic trade in enslaved Africans and chattel enslavement and recognising the importance of this matter to member states of the Commonwealth, the majority of which share common historical experiences in relation to this abhorrent trade, agreed that the time has come for a meaningful, truthful and respectful conversation towards forging a common future based on equity. Heads further agreed to continue playing an active role in bringing about such inclusive conversations addressing these harms."
So Starmer has agreed to a meaningful conversation on reparations, because that's what it's about. What else?
Perhaps it is a cynical kicking of the discussion into the long grass out of politeness.
I would simply say No. People alive now had nothing to do with slavery on either side. It's a scam.
Yep, to me that looks like a kick into the very long grass. It's very clearly not the UK agreeing to pay reparations.
I think Starmer's strategy was to find a way of saying no without aggravating the Caribbean nations so much they end up in China's sphere of influence. "A conversation towards forging a common future based on equity" can mean absolutely anything.
Yep, it's big, thick, sticky fudge. If you can get that instead of a big argument at a time when the geopolitical headwinds are massively difficult, why not?
You think he's avoided a big argument?
Chortle.
It's laughable isn't it. He's avoided an argument by saying yes to having one? The sky is green, war is peace and all that.
If you think that the UK is going to be spending a lot of time having huge, stand-up, international rows about "reparatory justice" over the next few years then I have a bridge to sell you. There are so many more important things to worry about.
Which is why he's going to pay up. Paying up closes that discussion off.
Let's have a bet, I will bet whatever sum you want that the UK will pay no financial reparations during the lifetime of this government. I will take that bet with anyone. This is me handing you money, isn't it, so make the sum as big you wish.
I'll take it on the proviso that I define what reparations entail.
I think we will need to jointly agree that.
Fair.
I would include any monetary transfer, enhanced student or work visa access for nations who have asked for reparations, any additional or sweetheart terms of trade that disadvantage the UK and results in a loss of income for the UK. Anything that is above the baseline the exists today, essentially.
So no longer billions of pounds in financial reparation? Even some kind of low cost or no cost symbolic act would count? So let's define "disadvantage the UK" and decide over what course of time this disadvantage and loss of income has to be demonstrated. For example, I think it's very arguable that enhanced student or work visa access to qualified nationals from Commonwealth countries may actually help to boost UK GDP, especially given our aging population.
It’s obvious from the reporting that the UK suffered a diplomatic defeat at the Commonwealth.
Reparations were not even on the agenda, so the UK has been “hijacked”. And despite Starmer’s pleading, it is not obvious at all the money is not to be discussed.
Starmer said none of the discussions at the summit had concerned money.
“Well, no figure,” Frederick Mitchell, the foreign minister of the Bahamas told BBC Radio’s Today programme on Saturday. “We’ll see what happens going forward.”
He said he hoped a report on the issue would follow, which nations would discuss in the future. Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout. “I have no doubt …. that the arc of history always goes in the right direction,” he said.
The Commonwealth no longer does our bidding, and why should it? After all KC3 is Head of State for a number of the countries pursuing reparations too. Sure we could have thrown our toys out of the pram and refused to sign the declaration, but that pretty much would bang in the final nail in its coffin.
We cannot praise the democratic institutions and rule of law that we bequeathed to the Commonwealth, then refuse to respond to those governments. Either we left them something valid, or we did not.
I don’t think the Commonwealth should do the UK’s bidding. That would be bizarre.
I simply note the UK’s diplomatic defeat on this issue.
The last government created a precedent, it seems:
"Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout."
When you are in a minority you are not going to get your way. I guess the issue is whether you then walk out or just play along knowing you cannot be forced to do anything you do not want to do.
You don't walk out. You just say "No. You must be joking!" and sit there. You certainly don't sign a declaration that opens the door. You refuse to sign. Simple.
That's pretty much the same as walking out. Basically, you leave without a communique. I suspect that is what a lot of previous UK governments would have done. This one chose not to grandstand. Unlike others on here, I don't see that as an act of treason. We decide whether the door opens. It's all in our hands.
They all leave without a communique. It's not us walking out. They all walk out. Not agreeing to reparations is not grandstanding. It's resisting blackmail and I'm sure would have the support of the vast majority in the UK. No doubt there will be a poll soon.
As much as you may wish it otherwise, the UK government has not agreed to reparations.
It has agreed the following:
"Heads, noting calls for discussions on reparatory justice with regard to the trans-Atlantic trade in enslaved Africans and chattel enslavement and recognising the importance of this matter to member states of the Commonwealth, the majority of which share common historical experiences in relation to this abhorrent trade, agreed that the time has come for a meaningful, truthful and respectful conversation towards forging a common future based on equity. Heads further agreed to continue playing an active role in bringing about such inclusive conversations addressing these harms."
So Starmer has agreed to a meaningful conversation on reparations, because that's what it's about. What else?
Perhaps it is a cynical kicking of the discussion into the long grass out of politeness.
I would simply say No. People alive now had nothing to do with slavery on either side. It's a scam.
Yep, to me that looks like a kick into the very long grass. It's very clearly not the UK agreeing to pay reparations.
I think Starmer's strategy was to find a way of saying no without aggravating the Caribbean nations so much they end up in China's sphere of influence. "A conversation towards forging a common future based on equity" can mean absolutely anything.
Yep, it's big, thick, sticky fudge. If you can get that instead of a big argument at a time when the geopolitical headwinds are massively difficult, why not?
You think he's avoided a big argument?
Chortle.
It's laughable isn't it. He's avoided an argument by saying yes to having one? The sky is green, war is peace and all that.
If you think that the UK is going to be spending a lot of time having huge, stand-up, international rows about "reparatory justice" over the next few years then I have a bridge to sell you. There are so many more important things to worry about.
Which is why he's going to pay up. Paying up closes that discussion off.
It doesn't close the discussion off, because there are many British colonies, and the next government of [x] can always decide that the previous reparations are insufficient.
@SouthamObserver is correct: there will be no reparations because it is domestic political poison, which also leads to demands for reparations from 50 other former British colonies.
There may be lessons from NZ’s Waitangi Tribunal which started in the 1970s as a court available to provide redress for Maori tribes whose lands were unfairly seized in the 1800s.
It is now an entire industry in NZ, touching every part of national life, acts as a veto on much of public policy, and decided in 2014, disastrously, that Māori had never ceded sovereignty to the Crown despite all common sense and much evidence pointing to the contrary. Indeed the Tribunal itself finds its legitimacy in the powers granted to it by the Crown…
And the land claims have never ceased. It is overwhelmingly in the interests of Maori tribes to identify new and perpetual grievances.
I have some seriously disappointing news for the readers of PB. None of us are getting out of here alive. We are all going to die of something. So, hypothetically, if you use exercise and cut out alcohol you will avoid certain conditions and illnesses. But you are still going to die. And, even worse, you increase the risk of losing your marbles before you do which is a truly terrible way to go.
Claiming that we can avoid health costs by better health is a chimera. Individuals may live healthier longer and good luck to them but it simply is not the answer to the exorbitant cost of health care. It simply moves the costs from 1 pile to another. And on that cheerful note I think I am going for a drink.
And yet every day I gather an additional data point showing me being alive. There have now been more than 18,000 observations in a row of me being alive, and yet doomsayers continue to pedal this story that at some point I will cease to live.
Look at the data guys. Every day brings more and more overwhelming evidence of my eternal life.
Have you heard of the Quantum Immortality Hypothesis?
I just want to point out that when the Chagos Surrender happened and I went ape-shit on here, there was a lot of scoffing and “oh who cares it’s a tiny atoll you’ve never heard of before”
I responded that
1. I had definitely heard of it
2. The surrender was totally unnecessary and a strategic error of enormous proportions
And
3. One of the many reasons it was such a strategic error was that it would encourage all our enemies to take a run at us, perceiving us as weak and spineless with a stupid cowardly leader willing to yield to anything
Et voila
Indeed, there's no way that reparations or anything as stupid as that would be on the agenda had we not just paid billions to Mauritius to take the Chagos Islands off our hands. The Carribbean sense weakness and Starmer appointing reparations supporters like Lammy such high roles is another reason they know they can go for it and win. Starmer is a cuck.
Starmer should just have said “nah. Fuck off, I’m not signing that, it commits us to reparations”
But of course he’s incapable of showing backbone because he doesn’t have one, and deep down he agrees that Britain is evil and should pay
And that's the difference between him and Blair. Blair would have just laughed the whole discussion off and told the commonwealth nations to get back in their box because he fundamentally loved this country. Starmer very clearly doesn't, he sees us as part of the evil colonialist axis as so many lefties were indoctrinated to believe when they went to university by Marxist professors.
Could anyone imagine Margaret Thatcher, or even John Major signing it!
I don’t believe he’ll ever commit the UK to paying billions.
What he will do is offer some abject, and completely insincere, apology for slavery, before agreeing to pay symbolic reparations to governments who’ll stick the money in their offshore accounts.
That will set a precedent for anyone with a grudge against the UK to come calling.
One can imagine Cameron taking a similar line if he were PM now. Times have changed since the Thatcher era.
Osborne, yes. Cameron, I think not.
Impossible to imagine a British PM now suggesting, as Cameron did, that he was proud of the Empire. But that was only 2013.
The last 10 years have really been a roller coaster.
So did Blair.
FWIW, I still think the Empire was on balance a good thing - and I don't even think it's on balance, but clearly a good thing.
Why do you think the Empire was a good thing?
The modern world would be unrecognisable without the Empire.
We wouldn't have free liberal democracies like the United States, Canada, New Zealand or Australia nor large multireligious and panethnic democratic states like India and South Africa. We would not have Carribean and African states endeavouring to follow that path. We would not have free international trade, we would not have been able to fight and win WW1 or WW2, we would not have the UN, Human Rights or the rule of law as an international principle. Countries like Singapore and South Korea wouldn't exist and Japan would have taken a different path.
We'd have a world of autocracy instead, with fewer rights, more suffering, more cruelty and less human development. It'd be China, Iran and Russia writ-large. Dictators and Theocracies where might made right.
The handwringing we have now is, I think, in direct relationship to our waning power and influence and is in some sense a response to it: it's to try and keep us at the centre of ongoing geopolitical conversations - ones that our rivals absolutely don't respect and, in fact, use to hold us in contempt.
I don't agree with all these points, but I do think we have a bizarre idea that handwringing gains us something either in terms of our national progression or in geopolitical terms, and I really don't think that is the case.
And I do think handwringing is distinct from acknowledging things, but the former is what is pushed.
If one doesn't agree one has to argue from where else democracy would have spawned and how it'd have been defended and advanced at the same time.
It's not a long list. France is probably the closest and they had a decidedly jittery and mixed record.
Why?
There are plenty of countries that ended up as democracies without having to have been colonized.
I just want to point out that when the Chagos Surrender happened and I went ape-shit on here, there was a lot of scoffing and “oh who cares it’s a tiny atoll you’ve never heard of before”
I responded that
1. I had definitely heard of it
2. The surrender was totally unnecessary and a strategic error of enormous proportions
And
3. One of the many reasons it was such a strategic error was that it would encourage all our enemies to take a run at us, perceiving us as weak and spineless with a stupid cowardly leader willing to yield to anything
Et voila
Indeed, there's no way that reparations or anything as stupid as that would be on the agenda had we not just paid billions to Mauritius to take the Chagos Islands off our hands. The Carribbean sense weakness and Starmer appointing reparations supporters like Lammy such high roles is another reason they know they can go for it and win. Starmer is a cuck.
Starmer should just have said “nah. Fuck off, I’m not signing that, it commits us to reparations”
But of course he’s incapable of showing backbone because he doesn’t have one, and deep down he agrees that Britain is evil and should pay
And that's the difference between him and Blair. Blair would have just laughed the whole discussion off and told the commonwealth nations to get back in their box because he fundamentally loved this country. Starmer very clearly doesn't, he sees us as part of the evil colonialist axis as so many lefties were indoctrinated to believe when they went to university by Marxist professors.
Could anyone imagine Margaret Thatcher, or even John Major signing it!
I don’t believe he’ll ever commit the UK to paying billions.
What he will do is offer some abject, and completely insincere, apology for slavery, before agreeing to pay symbolic reparations to governments who’ll stick the money in their offshore accounts.
That will set a precedent for anyone with a grudge against the UK to come calling.
One can imagine Cameron taking a similar line if he were PM now. Times have changed since the Thatcher era.
Osborne, yes. Cameron, I think not.
Impossible to imagine a British PM now suggesting, as Cameron did, that he was proud of the Empire. But that was only 2013.
The last 10 years have really been a roller coaster.
So did Blair.
FWIW, I still think the Empire was on balance a good thing - and I don't even think it's on balance, but clearly a good thing.
Why do you think the Empire was a good thing?
The modern world would be unrecognisable without the Empire.
We wouldn't have free liberal democracies like the United States, Canada, New Zealand or Australia nor large multireligious and panethnic democratic states like India and South Africa. We would not have Carribean and African states endeavouring to follow that path. We would not have free international trade, we would not have been able to fight and win WW1 or WW2, we would not have the UN, Human Rights or the rule of law as an international principle. Countries like Singapore and South Korea wouldn't exist and Japan would have taken a different path.
We'd have a world of autocracy instead, with fewer rights, more suffering, more cruelty and less human development. It'd be China, Iran and Russia writ-large. Dictators and Theocracies where might made right.
The handwringing we have now is, I think, in direct relationship to our waning power and influence and is in some sense a response to it: it's to try and keep us at the centre of ongoing geopolitical conversations - ones that our rivals absolutely don't respect and, in fact, use to hold us in contempt.
I don't agree with all these points, but I do think we have a bizarre idea that handwringing gains us something either in terms of our national progression or in geopolitical terms, and I really don't think that is the case.
And I do think handwringing is distinct from acknowledging things, but the former is what is pushed.
If one doesn't agree one has to argue from where else democracy would have spawned and how it'd have been defended and advanced at the same time.
It's not a long list. France is probably the closest and they had a decidedly jittery and mixed record.
Why?
There are plenty of countries that ended up as democracies without having to have been colonized.
Greece?
Was colonised by the Ottomans
And others including the Republic of Venice and, er, us
Comments
popularity or support either
We couldn't even extend democracy to Ireland successfully.
He's opened the door to potentially limitless liability, as well as showing that if you shove Britain we'll fold.
I now wonder if the best thing is if Starmer is ejected for another Labour leader for the next 4 years, even if it's Rayner.
It was catastrophic that India and South Africa didn't even show up.
How did the Foreign Office let that slip?
But there is an alternative: democracies rise in particular periods under particular conditions, and dissipate when those conditions no longer hold. And, if you're going to argue that the Roman Republic and Ancient Greece were only proto-democracies as they didn't last, let's agree a bet: £100 to a charity of the other person's choice for the loser. I bet the UK's democracy won't outlast both those two. Let's check back in on PB in...about 2270.
It isn't going to happen.
NEW THREAD
Look at the data guys. Every day brings more and more overwhelming evidence of my eternal life.
I wrote a book, LIFELINE, which won a prize in the 2022 BMA medical book awards, in the category, Good Medical Practice. It analyses why and how things go wrong in the NHS and why we don't seem to be able to sort it. Since then, the NHS has got itself into even more of a mess (not cause and effect, I hope).
For anyone who is seriously interested in why and how the NHS has lost its way, the book is a good starting point. And if anyone on here is a politician with a serious interest in the NHS, I am happy to talk, if you want to contact me.
You will find LIFELINE on Amazon, Waterstones on line, etc
I would include any monetary transfer, enhanced student or work visa access for nations who have asked for reparations, any additional or sweetheart terms of trade that disadvantage the UK and results in a loss of income for the UK. Anything that is above the baseline the exists today, essentially.
By-election is because the SNP councillor quit, there’s LD and Con and Indy already here. Hoping that it’s us vs the SNP.
There are plenty of countries that ended up as democracies without having to have been colonized.
UK
AUS
CAN
NZ
their overseas territories
the 11 remaining Commonwealth Realms (until they do a Barbados!)
and, ideally, hopefully, because they are also overwhelmingly English-speaking:
USA
Ireland
I would rename it The Greater English Commonwealth.
Starmer's mistake, though, was thinking he could mealymouth his way out of this. Instead, he's made it harder, because the lack of a flat no, encourages people to keep pushing.
@SouthamObserver is correct: there will be no reparations because it is domestic political poison, which also leads to demands for reparations from 50 other former British colonies.
Please be advised that today I waged another £100 on Kemi to be Con leader, this time at 1/6. This is (I think) the third bet I have placed on her. #bigboypants
Unless you can show me otherwise.
It is now an entire industry in NZ, touching every part of national life, acts as a veto on much of public policy, and decided in 2014, disastrously, that Māori had never ceded sovereignty to the Crown despite all common sense and much evidence pointing to the contrary. Indeed the Tribunal itself finds its legitimacy in the powers granted to it by the Crown…
And the land claims have never ceased. It is overwhelmingly in the interests of Maori tribes to identify new and perpetual grievances.