Mr. 43, I can see the moral case for returning the island to the islanders.
I can see the pragmatic case for holding onto it.
There's no case whatsoever to hand it over to somewhere whose only link is administrative convenience during the British Empire. If that's the rationale, we might as well get Mauritius back.
Personally I don't care one way or the other about Chagos apart from a vague feeling that the islanders were shabbily treated. I do challenge the idea widely spread on here that the UK has the right to the islands under international law without a binding treaty with Mauritius. The case has been adjudicated in Mauritius favour by the Permanent Court of Arbitration, the International Court of Justice and the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea. Slam Dunk.
You might say, so what? But we rely on the same institutions when we say, for example, that China is illegally occupying the South China Sea. We can make the legal problem go away through a treaty in exchange for hard cash. Which is what we would have to do anyway if we accepted the islands weren't ours. The question is how much money is worth it, which in turn partly depends on how much respect you have for international law.
Asking the islanders what they want is clearly the most important thing but the one the Government has refused to do. Instead it is giving the islands to a different colonial power and paying for the privilege. This just seems insane.
Because this is entirely about an American base in the Indian Ocean. No-one cares about the Chagossians I'm afraid.
Indeed, not the UK, the USA, or apparently Mauritius.
So I think the moral arguments are pretty peripheral, and it is about cold practical logic and transactional benefit. I'm not sold that international condemnation or whatever is sufficiently significant to go down this route, as I doubt we would gain even one iota of goodwill for it, but I can see it being arguable at least. But I think more work needs to be done selling the deal, not on the grounds of morality, but because it is, supposedly, better for the UK.
Sure the government has maintained that and many commentators dispute it, but if it is true the government needs to hammer it home, as otherwise it looks like the UK is self-flagellating (eg reports we're so keen we got talked into more concessions) for little benefit.
More than 100,000 new homes will be built on the highest-risk flood zones in England in the next five years as part of the government’s push for 1.5m extra properties by the end of this parliament, Guardian analysis suggests.
Well if they were on stilts, it might protect against the flooding.
Always buy a house on the top of a hill IMHO.
That's my policy, and has been for a lot of years - at first unintentionally.
Engineering can often mitigate, but we are a country of gormless double think where hidebound people who want dual carriageways and traffic islands everywhere throw enormous, selfish, tantrums about "Concreting Over the Countrysode" if, say, a proposal is made to upgrade a 3m wide path railway path, which previously had trains on it, to a sealed surface so everyone can use it. Or if they are asked to park their cars on the carriageway or their drives.
On the flooding, we have cross-subsidies in place (which having made sensible decisions, I do not like), and I would prefer caveat emptor and those house to be designed appropriately and of a suitably lower price.
Well, I've been in A&E for 7 hours with a suspected blood clot in my leg. Only another 2-3 hours to go. Apparently. Sitting this long will probably have given me one by now.
Then a dentist's appointment at 11.
My choice of book to read during this dreary night was about the Hundred Years War, which with its discussions of interminable sieges seems grimly appropriate.
Now onto Joan of Arc .....
People waiting were very well behaved though, apart from one man snoring loudly. Bad enough when Husband does it. But a strange man doing it is a bit much ....
Friday at midnight probably not the best time to go to ED.
Comments
So I think the moral arguments are pretty peripheral, and it is about cold practical logic and transactional benefit. I'm not sold that international condemnation or whatever is sufficiently significant to go down this route, as I doubt we would gain even one iota of goodwill for it, but I can see it being arguable at least. But I think more work needs to be done selling the deal, not on the grounds of morality, but because it is, supposedly, better for the UK.
Sure the government has maintained that and many commentators dispute it, but if it is true the government needs to hammer it home, as otherwise it looks like the UK is self-flagellating (eg reports we're so keen we got talked into more concessions) for little benefit.
Engineering can often mitigate, but we are a country of gormless double think where hidebound people who want dual carriageways and traffic islands everywhere throw enormous, selfish, tantrums about "Concreting Over the Countrysode" if, say, a proposal is made to upgrade a 3m wide path railway path, which previously had trains on it, to a sealed surface so everyone can use it. Or if they are asked to park their cars on the carriageway or their drives.
On the flooding, we have cross-subsidies in place (which having made sensible decisions, I do not like), and I would prefer caveat emptor and those house to be designed appropriately and of a suitably lower price.