Define the Nth prime without calling it the Nth prime
If that's your one to to relationship then it's an undefinable one, so prime numbers can only be recorded, not counted
The 8th prime is 17. I can count the primes.
You can count the recorded primes
You can count primes infinitely. There is no end to the number of primes you can count, even if we don't know what they all are.
I said that there are infinity primes
I just said that was a smaller infinity than the integers
The fractions (rational numbers) is a bigger infinity than the integers; there are as many one over n fractions as there are n, then there's everything else to infinity over n
Then there's an absolutely undefinable, unrecordable and uncountable number of irrational numbers between all of those
I've learned nothing from this maths discussion other than confirming the depths of my ignorance and lack of comprehension of the subject.
Infinity is really weird. Infinity isn’t like a normal number. Cantor found a way of talking about infinities by thinking of them as sets and showing that you can show a one to one relationship between every member of one set and every member of another set even when both sets are infinite… but also that sometimes you *can’t* do that, showing one infinity is, in a special sort of way, bigger than the other. This is weird and difficult to think about.
The sort of weird results you get are: there is an infinite number of whole numbers (1, 2, 3…) and there is an infinite number of even numbers (2, 4, 6…). Clearly, there are more whole numbers than even numbers. And yet the “size” of the infinity is the same.
IANAE on the Chagos Islands but the facts I have gleaned are that:
They once belonged to the French. We took them off the French in 1814 after Waterloo. For most of the 18th and 19th centuries we controlled them from Mauritius, a place that had no historical connection with them whatsoever. In the 1960s the Americans wanted a mid Indian Ocean base and chose Diego Garcia. In 1965 we, somewhat shamefully, kicked the remnants of the French, some African slaves and sundry others off the islands so the Americans could have that base without interference. Most of their descendants now live in the UK. At the same time we broke the administrative link between Mauritius and the Chagos islands. In 1968 Mauritius became independent of the UK. In 2021 the UN International Tribunal for the law of the Sea said that we should hand them back to Mauritius and that we had no sovereignty over them, despite controlling them since 1814. We are now trying to come to a "deal" by which we pay Mauritius money to take them off our hands without upsetting the Americans.
To describe the UN Tribunal decision as bizarre is to understate matters by several orders of magnitude. Mauritius never had any control of the Chagos when it was independent, either before we conquered it or at the time of their independence in 1968. If the UN is not going to recognise sovereignty after 210 years we are going to need a lot of new maps. The idea that we should pay anything to anybody for this is...words fail me.
The only real surprise, here, is that the UN is still perceived as a pure neutral arbiter.
It's about as clean as FIFA.
Nah, they make FIFA look good.
The UN Tribunal laid out their legal reasoning. If you think their answer is wrong, can you explain why with respect to the legal precedents?
See DavidL's post at 20:27
We should be invoking the legal precedence of Arkell v Pressdram to the Tribunal.
We could, as nation, make a political choice to do that. One can argue for or against that. My point is that the decision was not weird or biased or unprecedented. It concords with international law.
International law is a bad joke.
We should say piss off and move on.
That kind of behaviour is not without consequence. The question is whether doing so in this instance would have practical consequences we do not want to face. The government have done a poor job communicating those practical consequences, being a bit vague or advancing some scenarios which don't seem very likely, though a case is capable of being made at least, and the sheer rapid persistance to get it over the line has caused even some opponents to wonder if there is something to it (even if they are not yet convinced).
What's the consequence?
Countries tell "international law" to piss off all the time. As they bloody well should, its domestic law we should respect.
Sounds like anybody with the experience won't work in Aberdeen unless they are paid big bucks.
Well you have to compensate for the extra tax you pay in Scotland for a start.
And the smell of fish. And the shortened life due to excessive buttery consumption.
Though butteries are really quite nice.
Mildly interesting fact, Aberdeen butteries, the city's take on croissants, aren't in fact called butteries in Aberdeen.
Aberdeen is a fine city by the way, despite being definitively the coldest place on earth.
I grew up near Aberdeen and they were always called butteries. What... are they called in Aberdeen?
Rowies as Carnyx mentioned in a subsequent post. Afaicr both terms were used in my Aberdeen childhood though I wasn’t really a fan until I left. I think Aldi where I get them from call them butteries.
IANAE on the Chagos Islands but the facts I have gleaned are that:
They once belonged to the French. We took them off the French in 1814 after Waterloo. For most of the 18th and 19th centuries we controlled them from Mauritius, a place that had no historical connection with them whatsoever. In the 1960s the Americans wanted a mid Indian Ocean base and chose Diego Garcia. In 1965 we, somewhat shamefully, kicked the remnants of the French, some African slaves and sundry others off the islands so the Americans could have that base without interference. Most of their descendants now live in the UK. At the same time we broke the administrative link between Mauritius and the Chagos islands. In 1968 Mauritius became independent of the UK. In 2021 the UN International Tribunal for the law of the Sea said that we should hand them back to Mauritius and that we had no sovereignty over them, despite controlling them since 1814. We are now trying to come to a "deal" by which we pay Mauritius money to take them off our hands without upsetting the Americans.
To describe the UN Tribunal decision as bizarre is to understate matters by several orders of magnitude. Mauritius never had any control of the Chagos when it was independent, either before we conquered it or at the time of their independence in 1968. If the UN is not going to recognise sovereignty after 210 years we are going to need a lot of new maps. The idea that we should pay anything to anybody for this is...words fail me.
The only real surprise, here, is that the UN is still perceived as a pure neutral arbiter.
It's about as clean as FIFA.
Nah, they make FIFA look good.
The UN Tribunal laid out their legal reasoning. If you think their answer is wrong, can you explain why with respect to the legal precedents?
See DavidL's post at 20:27
We should be invoking the legal precedence of Arkell v Pressdram to the Tribunal.
We could, as nation, make a political choice to do that. One can argue for or against that. My point is that the decision was not weird or biased or unprecedented. It concords with international law.
International law is a bad joke.
We should say piss off and move on.
International law has worked fairly well over the last three quarters of a century to minimise the scale of warfare seen in the first half of the twentieth century or most of the nineteenth century. It has also supported a huge increase in global trade that has greatly added to prosperity for all.
It is perhaps a work in progress and often contentious, but I don’t think it’s a joke.
I think we are at a potentially dangerous moment where due to some ridiculous attempts at overreach (your average disaffected citizen loves to cite supremacy of international law and reports of random rappoteur no.165 on basically anything) and a new confidence among authoritarian states (both the rising and declining ones), as well as slippage of standards among democracies, that there is a danger of us not realising the benefits of the rather unusual state of affairs in the last decades, where conflicts have mostly been more minor affairs, and states at least attempt or pretend to get along.
I've learned nothing from this maths discussion other than confirming the depths of my ignorance and lack of comprehension of the subject.
Infinity is really weird. Infinity isn’t like a normal number. Cantor found a way of talking about infinities by thinking of them as sets and showing that you can show a one to one relationship between every member of one set and every member of another set even when both sets are infinite… but also that sometimes you *can’t* do that, showing one infinity is, in a special sort of way, bigger than the other. This is weird and difficult to think about.
The sort of weird results you get are: there is an infinite number of whole numbers (1, 2, 3…) and there is an infinite number of even numbers (2, 4, 6…). Clearly, there are more whole numbers than even numbers. And yet the “size” of the infinity is the same.
Nope, didn't get any of that. But thanks for the effort!
IANAE on the Chagos Islands but the facts I have gleaned are that:
They once belonged to the French. We took them off the French in 1814 after Waterloo. For most of the 18th and 19th centuries we controlled them from Mauritius, a place that had no historical connection with them whatsoever. In the 1960s the Americans wanted a mid Indian Ocean base and chose Diego Garcia. In 1965 we, somewhat shamefully, kicked the remnants of the French, some African slaves and sundry others off the islands so the Americans could have that base without interference. Most of their descendants now live in the UK. At the same time we broke the administrative link between Mauritius and the Chagos islands. In 1968 Mauritius became independent of the UK. In 2021 the UN International Tribunal for the law of the Sea said that we should hand them back to Mauritius and that we had no sovereignty over them, despite controlling them since 1814. We are now trying to come to a "deal" by which we pay Mauritius money to take them off our hands without upsetting the Americans.
To describe the UN Tribunal decision as bizarre is to understate matters by several orders of magnitude. Mauritius never had any control of the Chagos when it was independent, either before we conquered it or at the time of their independence in 1968. If the UN is not going to recognise sovereignty after 210 years we are going to need a lot of new maps. The idea that we should pay anything to anybody for this is...words fail me.
The only real surprise, here, is that the UN is still perceived as a pure neutral arbiter.
It's about as clean as FIFA.
Nah, they make FIFA look good.
The UN Tribunal laid out their legal reasoning. If you think their answer is wrong, can you explain why with respect to the legal precedents?
See DavidL's post at 20:27
We should be invoking the legal precedence of Arkell v Pressdram to the Tribunal.
We could, as nation, make a political choice to do that. One can argue for or against that. My point is that the decision was not weird or biased or unprecedented. It concords with international law.
International law is a bad joke.
We should say piss off and move on.
That kind of behaviour is not without consequence. The question is whether doing so in this instance would have practical consequences we do not want to face. The government have done a poor job communicating those practical consequences, being a bit vague or advancing some scenarios which don't seem very likely, though a case is capable of being made at least, and the sheer rapid persistance to get it over the line has caused even some opponents to wonder if there is something to it (even if they are not yet convinced).
What's the consequence?
Countries tell "international law" to piss off all the time. As they bloody well should, its domestic law we should respect.
Sounds like anybody with the experience won't work in Aberdeen unless they are paid big bucks.
Well you have to compensate for the extra tax you pay in Scotland for a start.
And the smell of fish. And the shortened life due to excessive buttery consumption.
Though butteries are really quite nice.
Mildly interesting fact, Aberdeen butteries, the city's take on croissants, aren't in fact called butteries in Aberdeen.
Aberdeen is a fine city by the way, despite being definitively the coldest place on earth.
I grew up near Aberdeen and they were always called butteries. What... are they called in Aberdeen?
Rowies as Carnyx mentioned in a subsequent post. Afaicr both terms were used in my Aberdeen childhood though I wasn’t really a fan until I left. I think Aldi where I get them from call them butteries.
I never heard the term 'Rowies' until decades later.
Must have been the next village over. The heathens. Burn them!
Sounds like anybody with the experience won't work in Aberdeen unless they are paid big bucks.
Well you have to compensate for the extra tax you pay in Scotland for a start.
And the smell of fish. And the shortened life due to excessive buttery consumption.
Though butteries are really quite nice.
Mildly interesting fact, Aberdeen butteries, the city's take on croissants, aren't in fact called butteries in Aberdeen.
Aberdeen is a fine city by the way, despite being definitively the coldest place on earth.
I grew up near Aberdeen and they were always called butteries. What... are they called in Aberdeen?
Rowies as Carnyx mentioned in a subsequent post. Afaicr both terms were used in my Aberdeen childhood though I wasn’t really a fan until I left. I think Aldi where I get them from call them butteries.
Another school day for me on PB. Never heard of them until now.
IANAE on the Chagos Islands but the facts I have gleaned are that:
They once belonged to the French. We took them off the French in 1814 after Waterloo. For most of the 18th and 19th centuries we controlled them from Mauritius, a place that had no historical connection with them whatsoever. In the 1960s the Americans wanted a mid Indian Ocean base and chose Diego Garcia. In 1965 we, somewhat shamefully, kicked the remnants of the French, some African slaves and sundry others off the islands so the Americans could have that base without interference. Most of their descendants now live in the UK. At the same time we broke the administrative link between Mauritius and the Chagos islands. In 1968 Mauritius became independent of the UK. In 2021 the UN International Tribunal for the law of the Sea said that we should hand them back to Mauritius and that we had no sovereignty over them, despite controlling them since 1814. We are now trying to come to a "deal" by which we pay Mauritius money to take them off our hands without upsetting the Americans.
To describe the UN Tribunal decision as bizarre is to understate matters by several orders of magnitude. Mauritius never had any control of the Chagos when it was independent, either before we conquered it or at the time of their independence in 1968. If the UN is not going to recognise sovereignty after 210 years we are going to need a lot of new maps. The idea that we should pay anything to anybody for this is...words fail me.
The only real surprise, here, is that the UN is still perceived as a pure neutral arbiter.
It's about as clean as FIFA.
Nah, they make FIFA look good.
The UN Tribunal laid out their legal reasoning. If you think their answer is wrong, can you explain why with respect to the legal precedents?
See DavidL's post at 20:27
We should be invoking the legal precedence of Arkell v Pressdram to the Tribunal.
We could, as nation, make a political choice to do that. One can argue for or against that. My point is that the decision was not weird or biased or unprecedented. It concords with international law.
International law is a bad joke.
We should say piss off and move on.
International law has worked fairly well over the last three quarters of a century to minimise the scale of warfare seen in the first half of the twentieth century or most of the nineteenth century. It has also supported a huge increase in global trade that has greatly added to prosperity for all.
It is perhaps a work in progress and often contentious, but I don’t think it’s a joke.
Since we've been having mathematical conversations then you may consider this a radical opinion but international law has had √(eff all) to do with minimising warfare.
War has been minimised by the threat of nuclear weapons and the fact modern economics and militaries makes it unviable, not due to the law - international or otherwise.
Hence why there's been an abundance of war where nations can get away with it still.
And tonight on PB it's a choice between discussion of a lard-based snack used by Aberdeen fishermen and debate over countable infinities and the question of Cantor's insanity.
Just a normal Sunday evening while we await more polls...
It's the plot of "V". It's the plot of "V". Stigmatise the scientists...
Soy beans are a very problematical food. Phytoestrogens etc. Their prevalence in diets in the Far East is the reason they are regarded as healthy, but in the Far East they're eating fermented soy, which is different. I don’t particularly want the US learning how to grow more soy more profitably, so I'm glad about this development, though I appreciate it will come as a blow to some.
Trump during his Super Bowl interview: "I think Canada would be much better off being a 51st state because we lose $200 billion a year with Canada, and I'm not gonna let that happen."
IANAE on the Chagos Islands but the facts I have gleaned are that:
They once belonged to the French. We took them off the French in 1814 after Waterloo. For most of the 18th and 19th centuries we controlled them from Mauritius, a place that had no historical connection with them whatsoever. In the 1960s the Americans wanted a mid Indian Ocean base and chose Diego Garcia. In 1965 we, somewhat shamefully, kicked the remnants of the French, some African slaves and sundry others off the islands so the Americans could have that base without interference. Most of their descendants now live in the UK. At the same time we broke the administrative link between Mauritius and the Chagos islands. In 1968 Mauritius became independent of the UK. In 2021 the UN International Tribunal for the law of the Sea said that we should hand them back to Mauritius and that we had no sovereignty over them, despite controlling them since 1814. We are now trying to come to a "deal" by which we pay Mauritius money to take them off our hands without upsetting the Americans.
To describe the UN Tribunal decision as bizarre is to understate matters by several orders of magnitude. Mauritius never had any control of the Chagos when it was independent, either before we conquered it or at the time of their independence in 1968. If the UN is not going to recognise sovereignty after 210 years we are going to need a lot of new maps. The idea that we should pay anything to anybody for this is...words fail me.
The only real surprise, here, is that the UN is still perceived as a pure neutral arbiter.
It's about as clean as FIFA.
Nah, they make FIFA look good.
The UN Tribunal laid out their legal reasoning. If you think their answer is wrong, can you explain why with respect to the legal precedents?
See DavidL's post at 20:27
We should be invoking the legal precedence of Arkell v Pressdram to the Tribunal.
We could, as nation, make a political choice to do that. One can argue for or against that. My point is that the decision was not weird or biased or unprecedented. It concords with international law.
International law is a bad joke.
We should say piss off and move on.
That kind of behaviour is not without consequence. The question is whether doing so in this instance would have practical consequences we do not want to face. The government have done a poor job communicating those practical consequences, being a bit vague or advancing some scenarios which don't seem very likely, though a case is capable of being made at least, and the sheer rapid persistance to get it over the line has caused even some opponents to wonder if there is something to it (even if they are not yet convinced).
I know what you are saying. There’s something else. Something changed the last governments mind, to set this deal making up. Something solid and persuasive enough.
My theory is, it’s not international law or the UN, but India.
The demands of India, and their influence on this, is what led to UK and US going down the deal route. Chagos is closer to India than Mauritius, yet India is right behind Mauritius campaign.
In this India Today (last year) report it says “In the agreement between Mauritius and the UK, India played a quiet but important role in the background…It firmly backed the principled Mauritian position, supporting its stance on the need to do away with the last vestiges of decolonisation.”
India were definitely a player in all this. They might have said to Cleverley and Truss “No Deal, No…” insert your own blank - curry - tiffin - hot water in the changing rooms when England visit - security cooperation.
Also, where it says in reports, “the deal was achieved last October after 2 years of negotiations”, Labour hadn’t been in power 2 years last October. Only about 12 weeks. This wasn’t negotiated in 12 weeks - reports say 2 years of negotiations since UK u-turn in 2022.
After being set up in 2022, had negotiating been continuing quietly in the background all that time under Cameron and Rishi? It must have been. Was the negotiation outcome too contentious to announce pre election campaign, whoever won would have to announce it afterwards? 🤔
President Trump has arrived at the Caesars Superdrome for tonight's Superbowl as the teams come out onto the pitch ahead of the anthem introduced by Bradley Cooper
Trump during his Super Bowl interview: "I think Canada would be much better off being a 51st state because we lose $200 billion a year with Canada, and I'm not gonna let that happen."
Damn right. I am sure he can manage to make it to a loss of $400 billion before his term ends.
Trump during his Super Bowl interview: "I think Canada would be much better off being a 51st state because we lose $200 billion a year with Canada, and I'm not gonna let that happen."
Near-Octogenarian reveals yet again he doesn’t understand how and why trade deficits work.
IANAE on the Chagos Islands but the facts I have gleaned are that:
They once belonged to the French. We took them off the French in 1814 after Waterloo. For most of the 18th and 19th centuries we controlled them from Mauritius, a place that had no historical connection with them whatsoever. In the 1960s the Americans wanted a mid Indian Ocean base and chose Diego Garcia. In 1965 we, somewhat shamefully, kicked the remnants of the French, some African slaves and sundry others off the islands so the Americans could have that base without interference. Most of their descendants now live in the UK. At the same time we broke the administrative link between Mauritius and the Chagos islands. In 1968 Mauritius became independent of the UK. In 2021 the UN International Tribunal for the law of the Sea said that we should hand them back to Mauritius and that we had no sovereignty over them, despite controlling them since 1814. We are now trying to come to a "deal" by which we pay Mauritius money to take them off our hands without upsetting the Americans.
To describe the UN Tribunal decision as bizarre is to understate matters by several orders of magnitude. Mauritius never had any control of the Chagos when it was independent, either before we conquered it or at the time of their independence in 1968. If the UN is not going to recognise sovereignty after 210 years we are going to need a lot of new maps. The idea that we should pay anything to anybody for this is...words fail me.
The only real surprise, here, is that the UN is still perceived as a pure neutral arbiter.
It's about as clean as FIFA.
Nah, they make FIFA look good.
The UN Tribunal laid out their legal reasoning. If you think their answer is wrong, can you explain why with respect to the legal precedents?
See DavidL's post at 20:27
We should be invoking the legal precedence of Arkell v Pressdram to the Tribunal.
We could, as nation, make a political choice to do that. One can argue for or against that. My point is that the decision was not weird or biased or unprecedented. It concords with international law.
International law is a bad joke.
We should say piss off and move on.
That kind of behaviour is not without consequence. The question is whether doing so in this instance would have practical consequences we do not want to face. The government have done a poor job communicating those practical consequences, being a bit vague or advancing some scenarios which don't seem very likely, though a case is capable of being made at least, and the sheer rapid persistance to get it over the line has caused even some opponents to wonder if there is something to it (even if they are not yet convinced).
I know what you are saying. There’s something else. Something changed the last governments mind, to set this deal making up. Something solid and persuasive enough.
My theory is, it’s not international law or the UN, but India.
The demands of India, and their influence on this, is what led to UK and US going down the deal route. Chagos is closer to India than Mauritius, yet India is right behind Mauritius campaign.
In this India Today (last year) report it says “In the agreement between Mauritius and the UK, India played a quiet but important role in the background…It firmly backed the principled Mauritian position, supporting its stance on the need to do away with the last vestiges of decolonisation.”
India were definitely a player in all this. They might have said to Cleverley and Truss “No Deal, No…” insert your own blank - curry - tiffin - hot water in the changing rooms when England visit - security cooperation.
Also, where it says in reports, “the deal was achieved last October after 2 years of negotiations”, Labour hadn’t been in power 2 years last October. Only about 12 weeks. This wasn’t negotiated in 12 weeks - reports say 2 years of negotiations since UK u-turn in 2022.
After being set up in 2022, had negotiating been continuing quietly in the background all that time under Cameron and Rishi? It must have been. Was the negotiation outcome too contentious to announce pre election campaign, whoever won would have to announce it afterwards? 🤔
I agree that India probably played a significant role. We persist in regarding India as a friend on the global stage, when in-fact, it sees itself as a geopolitical adversary to the UK.
IANAE on the Chagos Islands but the facts I have gleaned are that:
They once belonged to the French. We took them off the French in 1814 after Waterloo. For most of the 18th and 19th centuries we controlled them from Mauritius, a place that had no historical connection with them whatsoever. In the 1960s the Americans wanted a mid Indian Ocean base and chose Diego Garcia. In 1965 we, somewhat shamefully, kicked the remnants of the French, some African slaves and sundry others off the islands so the Americans could have that base without interference. Most of their descendants now live in the UK. At the same time we broke the administrative link between Mauritius and the Chagos islands. In 1968 Mauritius became independent of the UK. In 2021 the UN International Tribunal for the law of the Sea said that we should hand them back to Mauritius and that we had no sovereignty over them, despite controlling them since 1814. We are now trying to come to a "deal" by which we pay Mauritius money to take them off our hands without upsetting the Americans.
To describe the UN Tribunal decision as bizarre is to understate matters by several orders of magnitude. Mauritius never had any control of the Chagos when it was independent, either before we conquered it or at the time of their independence in 1968. If the UN is not going to recognise sovereignty after 210 years we are going to need a lot of new maps. The idea that we should pay anything to anybody for this is...words fail me.
The only real surprise, here, is that the UN is still perceived as a pure neutral arbiter.
It's about as clean as FIFA.
Nah, they make FIFA look good.
The UN Tribunal laid out their legal reasoning. If you think their answer is wrong, can you explain why with respect to the legal precedents?
See DavidL's post at 20:27
We should be invoking the legal precedence of Arkell v Pressdram to the Tribunal.
We could, as nation, make a political choice to do that. One can argue for or against that. My point is that the decision was not weird or biased or unprecedented. It concords with international law.
International law is a bad joke.
We should say piss off and move on.
That kind of behaviour is not without consequence. The question is whether doing so in this instance would have practical consequences we do not want to face. The government have done a poor job communicating those practical consequences, being a bit vague or advancing some scenarios which don't seem very likely, though a case is capable of being made at least, and the sheer rapid persistance to get it over the line has caused even some opponents to wonder if there is something to it (even if they are not yet convinced).
I know what you are saying. There’s something else. Something changed the last governments mind, to set this deal making up. Something solid and persuasive enough.
My theory is, it’s not international law or the UN, but India.
The demands of India, and their influence on this, is what led to UK and US going down the deal route. Chagos is closer to India than Mauritius, yet India is right behind Mauritius campaign.
In this India Today (last year) report it says “In the agreement between Mauritius and the UK, India played a quiet but important role in the background…It firmly backed the principled Mauritian position, supporting its stance on the need to do away with the last vestiges of decolonisation.”
India were definitely a player in all this. They might have said to Cleverley and Truss “No Deal, No…” insert your own blank - curry - tiffin - hot water in the changing rooms when England visit - security cooperation.
Also, where it says in reports, “the deal was achieved last October after 2 years of negotiations”, Labour hadn’t been in power 2 years last October. Only about 12 weeks. This wasn’t negotiated in 12 weeks - reports say 2 years of negotiations since UK u-turn in 2022.
After being set up in 2022, had negotiating been continuing quietly in the background all that time under Cameron and Rishi? It must have been. Was the negotiation outcome too contentious to announce pre election campaign, whoever won would have to announce it afterwards? 🤔
I agree that India probably played a significant role. We persist in regarding India as a friend on the global stage, when in-fact, it sees itself as a geopolitical adversary to the UK.
India isn't our closest ally as this proves but on no definition is it an adversary either
Trump during his Super Bowl interview: "I think Canada would be much better off being a 51st state because we lose $200 billion a year with Canada, and I'm not gonna let that happen."
Trump during his Super Bowl interview: "I think Canada would be much better off being a 51st state because we lose $200 billion a year with Canada, and I'm not gonna let that happen."
Canada's trade surplus with the US is not $200bn.
So what?
It's sad to think this is what the world has come to... but so what?
Trump during his Super Bowl interview: "I think Canada would be much better off being a 51st state because we lose $200 billion a year with Canada, and I'm not gonna let that happen."
Canada's trade surplus with the US is not $200bn.
Believing in facts is pretty sub-optimal in Trump 2.0 America I fear.
And tonight on PB it's a choice between discussion of a lard-based snack used by Aberdeen fishermen and debate over countable infinities and the question of Cantor's insanity.
Just a normal Sunday evening while we await more polls...
Back from NW Scotland and what a weekend. Scarcely a cloud in the sky the whole time, in fact so few clouds that it was starting to frustrate my spouse who had been hoping to Timelapse some cloud shadows for her art.
But still, that region is incredible. Stark, otherworldly, extremely exotic. Under blue skies it looks nothing like any other mountain range in Britain and pretty unlike most of the rest of the world. There are parts of Scandinavia or Iceland with similar ancient glacially scoured sandstone and metamorphic inselbergs, but these are few enough and recognisable enough with their strange names - Canisp, Suilven, Quinag - to feel more like a film set: more like monument valley or Zion than another European mountain range.
The light and colours made the coast look just like Corsica and the interior like Utah. I recommend you go, outside the summer, but when the sun is going to be shining under an Easterly wind.
IANAE on the Chagos Islands but the facts I have gleaned are that:
They once belonged to the French. We took them off the French in 1814 after Waterloo. For most of the 18th and 19th centuries we controlled them from Mauritius, a place that had no historical connection with them whatsoever. In the 1960s the Americans wanted a mid Indian Ocean base and chose Diego Garcia. In 1965 we, somewhat shamefully, kicked the remnants of the French, some African slaves and sundry others off the islands so the Americans could have that base without interference. Most of their descendants now live in the UK. At the same time we broke the administrative link between Mauritius and the Chagos islands. In 1968 Mauritius became independent of the UK. In 2021 the UN International Tribunal for the law of the Sea said that we should hand them back to Mauritius and that we had no sovereignty over them, despite controlling them since 1814. We are now trying to come to a "deal" by which we pay Mauritius money to take them off our hands without upsetting the Americans.
To describe the UN Tribunal decision as bizarre is to understate matters by several orders of magnitude. Mauritius never had any control of the Chagos when it was independent, either before we conquered it or at the time of their independence in 1968. If the UN is not going to recognise sovereignty after 210 years we are going to need a lot of new maps. The idea that we should pay anything to anybody for this is...words fail me.
The only real surprise, here, is that the UN is still perceived as a pure neutral arbiter.
It's about as clean as FIFA.
Nah, they make FIFA look good.
The UN Tribunal laid out their legal reasoning. If you think their answer is wrong, can you explain why with respect to the legal precedents?
See DavidL's post at 20:27
We should be invoking the legal precedence of Arkell v Pressdram to the Tribunal.
We could, as nation, make a political choice to do that. One can argue for or against that. My point is that the decision was not weird or biased or unprecedented. It concords with international law.
International law is a bad joke.
We should say piss off and move on.
That kind of behaviour is not without consequence. The question is whether doing so in this instance would have practical consequences we do not want to face. The government have done a poor job communicating those practical consequences, being a bit vague or advancing some scenarios which don't seem very likely, though a case is capable of being made at least, and the sheer rapid persistance to get it over the line has caused even some opponents to wonder if there is something to it (even if they are not yet convinced).
I know what you are saying. There’s something else. Something changed the last governments mind, to set this deal making up. Something solid and persuasive enough.
My theory is, it’s not international law or the UN, but India.
The demands of India, and their influence on this, is what led to UK and US going down the deal route. Chagos is closer to India than Mauritius, yet India is right behind Mauritius campaign.
In this India Today (last year) report it says “In the agreement between Mauritius and the UK, India played a quiet but important role in the background…It firmly backed the principled Mauritian position, supporting its stance on the need to do away with the last vestiges of decolonisation.”
India were definitely a player in all this. They might have said to Cleverley and Truss “No Deal, No…” insert your own blank - curry - tiffin - hot water in the changing rooms when England visit - security cooperation.
Also, where it says in reports, “the deal was achieved last October after 2 years of negotiations”, Labour hadn’t been in power 2 years last October. Only about 12 weeks. This wasn’t negotiated in 12 weeks - reports say 2 years of negotiations since UK u-turn in 2022.
After being set up in 2022, had negotiating been continuing quietly in the background all that time under Cameron and Rishi? It must have been. Was the negotiation outcome too contentious to announce pre election campaign, whoever won would have to announce it afterwards? 🤔
I agree that India probably played a significant role. We persist in regarding India as a friend on the global stage, when in-fact, it sees itself as a geopolitical adversary to the UK.
India isn't our closest ally as this proves but on no definition is it an adversary either
HY - what do you make of “the deal was achieved last October after 2 years of negotiations” reports. After being set up in 2022, negotiating been continuing quietly in the background all that time under Cameron and Rishi, just too contentious with elections coming up to let anyone know?
No way it was negotiated in only 12 weeks is it - the 1965 negotiations I posted earlier in thread went on for years.
Trump during his Super Bowl interview: "I think Canada would be much better off being a 51st state because we lose $200 billion a year with Canada, and I'm not gonna let that happen."
Canada's trade surplus with the US is not $200bn.
Believing in facts is pretty sub-optimal in Trump 2.0 America I fear.
They're firing the scientists. THEY'RE FIRING THE SCIENTISTS.
IANAE on the Chagos Islands but the facts I have gleaned are that:
They once belonged to the French. We took them off the French in 1814 after Waterloo. For most of the 18th and 19th centuries we controlled them from Mauritius, a place that had no historical connection with them whatsoever. In the 1960s the Americans wanted a mid Indian Ocean base and chose Diego Garcia. In 1965 we, somewhat shamefully, kicked the remnants of the French, some African slaves and sundry others off the islands so the Americans could have that base without interference. Most of their descendants now live in the UK. At the same time we broke the administrative link between Mauritius and the Chagos islands. In 1968 Mauritius became independent of the UK. In 2021 the UN International Tribunal for the law of the Sea said that we should hand them back to Mauritius and that we had no sovereignty over them, despite controlling them since 1814. We are now trying to come to a "deal" by which we pay Mauritius money to take them off our hands without upsetting the Americans.
To describe the UN Tribunal decision as bizarre is to understate matters by several orders of magnitude. Mauritius never had any control of the Chagos when it was independent, either before we conquered it or at the time of their independence in 1968. If the UN is not going to recognise sovereignty after 210 years we are going to need a lot of new maps. The idea that we should pay anything to anybody for this is...words fail me.
The only real surprise, here, is that the UN is still perceived as a pure neutral arbiter.
It's about as clean as FIFA.
Nah, they make FIFA look good.
The UN Tribunal laid out their legal reasoning. If you think their answer is wrong, can you explain why with respect to the legal precedents?
See DavidL's post at 20:27
We should be invoking the legal precedence of Arkell v Pressdram to the Tribunal.
We could, as nation, make a political choice to do that. One can argue for or against that. My point is that the decision was not weird or biased or unprecedented. It concords with international law.
International law is a bad joke.
We should say piss off and move on.
That kind of behaviour is not without consequence. The question is whether doing so in this instance would have practical consequences we do not want to face. The government have done a poor job communicating those practical consequences, being a bit vague or advancing some scenarios which don't seem very likely, though a case is capable of being made at least, and the sheer rapid persistance to get it over the line has caused even some opponents to wonder if there is something to it (even if they are not yet convinced).
I know what you are saying. There’s something else. Something changed the last governments mind, to set this deal making up. Something solid and persuasive enough.
My theory is, it’s not international law or the UN, but India.
The demands of India, and their influence on this, is what led to UK and US going down the deal route. Chagos is closer to India than Mauritius, yet India is right behind Mauritius campaign.
In this India Today (last year) report it says “In the agreement between Mauritius and the UK, India played a quiet but important role in the background…It firmly backed the principled Mauritian position, supporting its stance on the need to do away with the last vestiges of decolonisation.”
India were definitely a player in all this. They might have said to Cleverley and Truss “No Deal, No…” insert your own blank - curry - tiffin - hot water in the changing rooms when England visit - security cooperation.
Also, where it says in reports, “the deal was achieved last October after 2 years of negotiations”, Labour hadn’t been in power 2 years last October. Only about 12 weeks. This wasn’t negotiated in 12 weeks - reports say 2 years of negotiations since UK u-turn in 2022.
After being set up in 2022, had negotiating been continuing quietly in the background all that time under Cameron and Rishi? It must have been. Was the negotiation outcome too contentious to announce pre election campaign, whoever won would have to announce it afterwards? 🤔
I agree that India probably played a significant role. We persist in regarding India as a friend on the global stage, when in-fact, it sees itself as a geopolitical adversary to the UK.
India isn't our closest ally as this proves but on no definition is it an adversary either
HY - what do you make of “the deal was achieved last October after 2 years of negotiations” reports. After being set up in 2022, negotiating been continuing quietly in the background all that time under Cameron and Rishi, just too contentious with elections coming up to let anyone know?
No way it was negotiated in only 12 weeks is it - the 1965 negotiations I posted earlier in thread went on for years.
The background discussions have been ongoing for years and of course it was the UN Tribunal which supported the handover, not just India, though it was Starmer who agreed the funds for handover
Trump during his Super Bowl interview: "I think Canada would be much better off being a 51st state because we lose $200 billion a year with Canada, and I'm not gonna let that happen."
Canada's trade surplus with the US is not $200bn.
Believing in facts is pretty sub-optimal in Trump 2.0 America I fear.
They're firing the scientists. THEY'RE FIRING THE SCIENTISTS.
"A Young Labour MP can be revealed as the second Westminster member of a WhatsApp group in which racist, sexist and anti-Semitic messages were exchanged.
The vile posts led to the dramatic sacking of health minister Andrew Gwynne after The Mail on Sunday brought them to the attention of Downing Street on Saturday.
Now it can be revealed that Oliver Ryan, the 29-year-old MP for Burnley, was another leading member of the group, where he has posted more than 2,000 messages."
One thing that history will record about Trump: he was the first president to truly understand what can be done with social media and the importance of short clips on tv news.
GOP senators starting to wake from their slumber and notice that huge sums are suddenly being cut off from their areas by Elon Musk.
As example, Katie Britt of Alabama just realised the local uni is one of the state's biggest employers and it just got it up the arse from Musk on funding.
As she wasn't Jenrick or Cleverly. Same as Major got it as he wasn't Heseltine or Thatcher and IDS got it as he wasn't Portillo or Clarke.
As the article suggests though she is more policy wonk than party leader. I remain of the view Tugendhat would have been the best pick, could put some clear blue water with Farage and squeeze Labour and the LDs more and also has some patrician gravitas and comes across OK on TV
One thing the MAGA cult yelling Musk on is that one person's "bloated pork tax $ scandal" is another person's transfer of federal funds to a poor red state providing employment or growth opportunities.
Still they have reaped and boy are they gonna sow.
As she wasn't Jenrick or Cleverly. Same as Major got it as he wasn't Heseltine or Thatcher and IDS got it as he wasn't Portillo or Clarke.
As the article suggests though she is more policy wonk than party leader. I remain of the view Tugendhat would have been the best pick, could put some clear blue water with Farage and squeeze Labour and the LDs more and also has some patrician gravitas and comes across OK on TV
Still time - fours years to next election.
I say again, as I have said many times, Badenoch was a fool for running too soon. She is not ready for prime time.
But she may surprise. I do not underestimate her.
She needs to study Thatch. Another underestimated person. Not the Tory boy wet dream Thatch but actually how she went about winning.
Key for Thatch was a) the lab government imploded which with Starmer/Reeves current trajectory is a given b) she had a story to tell - a very real and visceral story and she had thinkers like Joseph behind her. The story made sense to a tired and desperate country.
Trump during his Super Bowl interview: "I think Canada would be much better off being a 51st state because we lose $200 billion a year with Canada, and I'm not gonna let that happen."
Canada's trade surplus with the US is not $200bn.
It's about $100bn I understand.
What he might mean if he knows any economics is studies that I dimly recall from my university days that said that trade between Canadian provinces and US states is an order of magnitude lower than trade between similar US states, because of the international boundary between them, and associated factors like different currency, regulatory regimes, etc. These studies were often cited by advocates of the Single Market in Europe. The implication is that removing that boundary would cause trade to flourish.
But it's Trump, so he's almost certainly pulling facts and numbers out of his fundament, which often prove the exact opposite of what he thinks they do, if you have the time and knowledge to drill down.
As she wasn't Jenrick or Cleverly. Same as Major got it as he wasn't Heseltine or Thatcher and IDS got it as he wasn't Portillo or Clarke.
As the article suggests though she is more policy wonk than party leader. I remain of the view Tugendhat would have been the best pick, could put some clear blue water with Farage and squeeze Labour and the LDs more and also has some patrician gravitas and comes across OK on TV
Still time - fours years to next election.
I say again, as I have said many times, Badenoch was a fool for running too soon. She is not ready for prime time.
But she may surprise. I do not underestimate her.
She needs to study Thatch. Another underestimated person. Not the Tory boy wet dream Thatch but actually how she went about winning.
Key for Thatch was a) the lab government imploded which with Starmer/Reeves current trajectory is a given b) she had a story to tell - a very real and visceral story and she had thinkers like Joseph behind her. The story made sense to a tired and desperate country.
badenoch doesn't strike me as a story teller.
Trump is a story teller.
That is who they need.
As was Boris. Trump can't run for election again though and once he goes the GOP may well have similar problems to those the Tories have had post Boris. Love them or loathe them Boris and Trump had charisma and an ability to craft a message and win elections
As she wasn't Jenrick or Cleverly. Same as Major got it as he wasn't Heseltine or Thatcher and IDS got it as he wasn't Portillo or Clarke.
As the article suggests though she is more policy wonk than party leader. I remain of the view Tugendhat would have been the best pick, could put some clear blue water with Farage and squeeze Labour and the LDs more and also has some patrician gravitas and comes across OK on TV
Still time - fours years to next election.
I say again, as I have said many times, Badenoch was a fool for running too soon. She is not ready for prime time.
She'd been an MP for 7 years. Not an uncommonly brief period to rise to be leader these days. Times are tough, you have to be ready for primetime instantly now.
Starmer - 5 years Sunak - 7 years Truss - 12 years Boris - 11 years (with a gap) May - 19 years Cameron - 4 years Brown - 24 years Blair - 11 years Major - 11 years Thatcher - 20 years
Sunak really stands out, as he's condensed what used to be 3 decades of a parliamentary career into just 10 years - and that will only be artifically extended by his sticking it out part time for the rest of this term.
IANAE on the Chagos Islands but the facts I have gleaned are that:
They once belonged to the French. We took them off the French in 1814 after Waterloo. For most of the 18th and 19th centuries we controlled them from Mauritius, a place that had no historical connection with them whatsoever. In the 1960s the Americans wanted a mid Indian Ocean base and chose Diego Garcia. In 1965 we, somewhat shamefully, kicked the remnants of the French, some African slaves and sundry others off the islands so the Americans could have that base without interference. Most of their descendants now live in the UK. At the same time we broke the administrative link between Mauritius and the Chagos islands. In 1968 Mauritius became independent of the UK. In 2021 the UN International Tribunal for the law of the Sea said that we should hand them back to Mauritius and that we had no sovereignty over them, despite controlling them since 1814. We are now trying to come to a "deal" by which we pay Mauritius money to take them off our hands without upsetting the Americans.
To describe the UN Tribunal decision as bizarre is to understate matters by several orders of magnitude. Mauritius never had any control of the Chagos when it was independent, either before we conquered it or at the time of their independence in 1968. If the UN is not going to recognise sovereignty after 210 years we are going to need a lot of new maps. The idea that we should pay anything to anybody for this is...words fail me.
The only real surprise, here, is that the UN is still perceived as a pure neutral arbiter.
It's about as clean as FIFA.
Nah, they make FIFA look good.
The UN Tribunal laid out their legal reasoning. If you think their answer is wrong, can you explain why with respect to the legal precedents?
See DavidL's post at 20:27
We should be invoking the legal precedence of Arkell v Pressdram to the Tribunal.
We could, as nation, make a political choice to do that. One can argue for or against that. My point is that the decision was not weird or biased or unprecedented. It concords with international law.
International law is a bad joke.
We should say piss off and move on.
That kind of behaviour is not without consequence. The question is whether doing so in this instance would have practical consequences we do not want to face. The government have done a poor job communicating those practical consequences, being a bit vague or advancing some scenarios which don't seem very likely, though a case is capable of being made at least, and the sheer rapid persistance to get it over the line has caused even some opponents to wonder if there is something to it (even if they are not yet convinced).
I know what you are saying. There’s something else. Something changed the last governments mind, to set this deal making up. Something solid and persuasive enough.
My theory is, it’s not international law or the UN, but India.
The demands of India, and their influence on this, is what led to UK and US going down the deal route. Chagos is closer to India than Mauritius, yet India is right behind Mauritius campaign.
In this India Today (last year) report it says “In the agreement between Mauritius and the UK, India played a quiet but important role in the background…It firmly backed the principled Mauritian position, supporting its stance on the need to do away with the last vestiges of decolonisation.”
India were definitely a player in all this. They might have said to Cleverley and Truss “No Deal, No…” insert your own blank - curry - tiffin - hot water in the changing rooms when England visit - security cooperation.
Also, where it says in reports, “the deal was achieved last October after 2 years of negotiations”, Labour hadn’t been in power 2 years last October. Only about 12 weeks. This wasn’t negotiated in 12 weeks - reports say 2 years of negotiations since UK u-turn in 2022.
After being set up in 2022, had negotiating been continuing quietly in the background all that time under Cameron and Rishi? It must have been. Was the negotiation outcome too contentious to announce pre election campaign, whoever won would have to announce it afterwards? 🤔
I agree that India probably played a significant role. We persist in regarding India as a friend on the global stage, when in-fact, it sees itself as a geopolitical adversary to the UK.
India isn't our closest ally as this proves but on no definition is it an adversary either
HY - what do you make of “the deal was achieved last October after 2 years of negotiations” reports. After being set up in 2022, negotiating been continuing quietly in the background all that time under Cameron and Rishi, just too contentious with elections coming up to let anyone know?
No way it was negotiated in only 12 weeks is it - the 1965 negotiations I posted earlier in thread went on for years.
The background discussions have been ongoing for years and of course it was the UN Tribunal which supported the handover, not just India, though it was Starmer who agreed the funds for handover
Yeah I agree. Whoever was in power would have hidden these negotiations with an election coming up. Maybe negotiations reaching conclusion that summer, feeds in as a further reason Sunak called GE so early and when far behind, that still baffles many why he did - even though PB knew why he did even before he did it.
However, it is becoming much clearer now though, the big UK u-turn to go for a Chagos deal actually occurred in 2022 - wether it was persistent International Law pressure having influence repercussions, like India not cooperating without colonial justice for its Mauritius friend, a mixture of both (and with pressure from Biden wanting it settled) - that forced UKs U-turn.
The next big question, when does Starmer and Lammy bring this to Parliament, so the precedent applying to Chagos and also now applies to Cyprus and the Falklands and all our colonies - can be properly scrutinised and exposed - along with how the control of fishing has been surrendered in this deal, meaning Chinese spy vessels will be everywhere! Those are my 2 big red flags.
"A Young Labour MP can be revealed as the second Westminster member of a WhatsApp group in which racist, sexist and anti-Semitic messages were exchanged.
The vile posts led to the dramatic sacking of health minister Andrew Gwynne after The Mail on Sunday brought them to the attention of Downing Street on Saturday.
Now it can be revealed that Oliver Ryan, the 29-year-old MP for Burnley, was another leading member of the group, where he has posted more than 2,000 messages."
I know I’m not the target demographic, but that was an incredibly borrrring half time show.
Think it's the first one where I haven't known a single song.
You have a liberal definition of "song".
It seems it wasn't just me, the tw@tterati don't seem very impressed, compared to when they did the medley of the greats of modern rap a couple of years ago that seemed to go down very well.
Both the extended interviews with the interviews with Rupert Lowe and Zia Yusuf I linked last week both included thorough floccinaucinihilipilifications of Boris Johnson, as I pointed out.
They are far much kinder to Suella Braverman, but I think she's adopting BNP and nativist talking points too thoroughly to be very comfortable for Reform at present, given their subliminal racist dog whistle use whilst trying to sound mainstream strategy.
IANAE on the Chagos Islands but the facts I have gleaned are that:
They once belonged to the French. We took them off the French in 1814 after Waterloo. For most of the 18th and 19th centuries we controlled them from Mauritius, a place that had no historical connection with them whatsoever. In the 1960s the Americans wanted a mid Indian Ocean base and chose Diego Garcia. In 1965 we, somewhat shamefully, kicked the remnants of the French, some African slaves and sundry others off the islands so the Americans could have that base without interference. Most of their descendants now live in the UK. At the same time we broke the administrative link between Mauritius and the Chagos islands. In 1968 Mauritius became independent of the UK. In 2021 the UN International Tribunal for the law of the Sea said that we should hand them back to Mauritius and that we had no sovereignty over them, despite controlling them since 1814. We are now trying to come to a "deal" by which we pay Mauritius money to take them off our hands without upsetting the Americans.
To describe the UN Tribunal decision as bizarre is to understate matters by several orders of magnitude. Mauritius never had any control of the Chagos when it was independent, either before we conquered it or at the time of their independence in 1968. If the UN is not going to recognise sovereignty after 210 years we are going to need a lot of new maps. The idea that we should pay anything to anybody for this is...words fail me.
The only real surprise, here, is that the UN is still perceived as a pure neutral arbiter.
It's about as clean as FIFA.
Nah, they make FIFA look good.
The UN Tribunal laid out their legal reasoning. If you think their answer is wrong, can you explain why with respect to the legal precedents?
See DavidL's post at 20:27
We should be invoking the legal precedence of Arkell v Pressdram to the Tribunal.
We could, as nation, make a political choice to do that. One can argue for or against that. My point is that the decision was not weird or biased or unprecedented. It concords with international law.
International law is a bad joke.
We should say piss off and move on.
That kind of behaviour is not without consequence. The question is whether doing so in this instance would have practical consequences we do not want to face. The government have done a poor job communicating those practical consequences, being a bit vague or advancing some scenarios which don't seem very likely, though a case is capable of being made at least, and the sheer rapid persistance to get it over the line has caused even some opponents to wonder if there is something to it (even if they are not yet convinced).
I know what you are saying. There’s something else. Something changed the last governments mind, to set this deal making up. Something solid and persuasive enough.
My theory is, it’s not international law or the UN, but India.
The demands of India, and their influence on this, is what led to UK and US going down the deal route. Chagos is closer to India than Mauritius, yet India is right behind Mauritius campaign.
In this India Today (last year) report it says “In the agreement between Mauritius and the UK, India played a quiet but important role in the background…It firmly backed the principled Mauritian position, supporting its stance on the need to do away with the last vestiges of decolonisation.”
India were definitely a player in all this. They might have said to Cleverley and Truss “No Deal, No…” insert your own blank - curry - tiffin - hot water in the changing rooms when England visit - security cooperation.
Also, where it says in reports, “the deal was achieved last October after 2 years of negotiations”, Labour hadn’t been in power 2 years last October. Only about 12 weeks. This wasn’t negotiated in 12 weeks - reports say 2 years of negotiations since UK u-turn in 2022.
After being set up in 2022, had negotiating been continuing quietly in the background all that time under Cameron and Rishi? It must have been. Was the negotiation outcome too contentious to announce pre election campaign, whoever won would have to announce it afterwards? 🤔
I agree that India probably played a significant role. We persist in regarding India as a friend on the global stage, when in-fact, it sees itself as a geopolitical adversary to the UK.
Does anyone remember the "£300 off your energy bills" promise having a date beyond the end of this government - ie 2030?
Ed Millstone now says that that was what they meant
Channel 4 Factcheck remember the promise being 2030:
"The department told FactCheck in an email on 1 August: “We stand by our commitment to lower bills. And we stand by the fact that independent modelling said that savings could be up to £300 when comparing prices before the election to a 2030 clean power system.”"
IANAE on the Chagos Islands but the facts I have gleaned are that:
They once belonged to the French. We took them off the French in 1814 after Waterloo. For most of the 18th and 19th centuries we controlled them from Mauritius, a place that had no historical connection with them whatsoever. In the 1960s the Americans wanted a mid Indian Ocean base and chose Diego Garcia. In 1965 we, somewhat shamefully, kicked the remnants of the French, some African slaves and sundry others off the islands so the Americans could have that base without interference. Most of their descendants now live in the UK. At the same time we broke the administrative link between Mauritius and the Chagos islands. In 1968 Mauritius became independent of the UK. In 2021 the UN International Tribunal for the law of the Sea said that we should hand them back to Mauritius and that we had no sovereignty over them, despite controlling them since 1814. We are now trying to come to a "deal" by which we pay Mauritius money to take them off our hands without upsetting the Americans.
To describe the UN Tribunal decision as bizarre is to understate matters by several orders of magnitude. Mauritius never had any control of the Chagos when it was independent, either before we conquered it or at the time of their independence in 1968. If the UN is not going to recognise sovereignty after 210 years we are going to need a lot of new maps. The idea that we should pay anything to anybody for this is...words fail me.
The only real surprise, here, is that the UN is still perceived as a pure neutral arbiter.
It's about as clean as FIFA.
Nah, they make FIFA look good.
The UN Tribunal laid out their legal reasoning. If you think their answer is wrong, can you explain why with respect to the legal precedents?
See DavidL's post at 20:27
We should be invoking the legal precedence of Arkell v Pressdram to the Tribunal.
We could, as nation, make a political choice to do that. One can argue for or against that. My point is that the decision was not weird or biased or unprecedented. It concords with international law.
International law is a bad joke.
We should say piss off and move on.
That kind of behaviour is not without consequence. The question is whether doing so in this instance would have practical consequences we do not want to face. The government have done a poor job communicating those practical consequences, being a bit vague or advancing some scenarios which don't seem very likely, though a case is capable of being made at least, and the sheer rapid persistance to get it over the line has caused even some opponents to wonder if there is something to it (even if they are not yet convinced).
I know what you are saying. There’s something else. Something changed the last governments mind, to set this deal making up. Something solid and persuasive enough.
My theory is, it’s not international law or the UN, but India.
The demands of India, and their influence on this, is what led to UK and US going down the deal route. Chagos is closer to India than Mauritius, yet India is right behind Mauritius campaign.
In this India Today (last year) report it says “In the agreement between Mauritius and the UK, India played a quiet but important role in the background…It firmly backed the principled Mauritian position, supporting its stance on the need to do away with the last vestiges of decolonisation.”
India were definitely a player in all this. They might have said to Cleverley and Truss “No Deal, No…” insert your own blank - curry - tiffin - hot water in the changing rooms when England visit - security cooperation.
Also, where it says in reports, “the deal was achieved last October after 2 years of negotiations”, Labour hadn’t been in power 2 years last October. Only about 12 weeks. This wasn’t negotiated in 12 weeks - reports say 2 years of negotiations since UK u-turn in 2022.
After being set up in 2022, had negotiating been continuing quietly in the background all that time under Cameron and Rishi? It must have been. Was the negotiation outcome too contentious to announce pre election campaign, whoever won would have to announce it afterwards? 🤔
I agree that India probably played a significant role. We persist in regarding India as a friend on the global stage, when in-fact, it sees itself as a geopolitical adversary to the UK.
Because there are so many people of India descent in the UK, British people think India is an ally, but it never has been. An example is Salisbury, where India failed to condemn Russia and some Indian politicians blamed the UK. India was big in the non-aligned movement and during the Cold War bought Russian aircraft not British. India is the regional power in its region (ouch) and clashes with China in its region, even down to disputed areas in India's North. It doesn't act with Britain and given our ability to exert force in the region is minimal there's no need to do so.
IANAE on the Chagos Islands but the facts I have gleaned are that:
They once belonged to the French. We took them off the French in 1814 after Waterloo. For most of the 18th and 19th centuries we controlled them from Mauritius, a place that had no historical connection with them whatsoever. In the 1960s the Americans wanted a mid Indian Ocean base and chose Diego Garcia. In 1965 we, somewhat shamefully, kicked the remnants of the French, some African slaves and sundry others off the islands so the Americans could have that base without interference. Most of their descendants now live in the UK. At the same time we broke the administrative link between Mauritius and the Chagos islands. In 1968 Mauritius became independent of the UK. In 2021 the UN International Tribunal for the law of the Sea said that we should hand them back to Mauritius and that we had no sovereignty over them, despite controlling them since 1814. We are now trying to come to a "deal" by which we pay Mauritius money to take them off our hands without upsetting the Americans.
To describe the UN Tribunal decision as bizarre is to understate matters by several orders of magnitude. Mauritius never had any control of the Chagos when it was independent, either before we conquered it or at the time of their independence in 1968. If the UN is not going to recognise sovereignty after 210 years we are going to need a lot of new maps. The idea that we should pay anything to anybody for this is...words fail me.
The only real surprise, here, is that the UN is still perceived as a pure neutral arbiter.
It's about as clean as FIFA.
Nah, they make FIFA look good.
The UN Tribunal laid out their legal reasoning. If you think their answer is wrong, can you explain why with respect to the legal precedents?
See DavidL's post at 20:27
We should be invoking the legal precedence of Arkell v Pressdram to the Tribunal.
We could, as nation, make a political choice to do that. One can argue for or against that. My point is that the decision was not weird or biased or unprecedented. It concords with international law.
International law is a bad joke.
We should say piss off and move on.
That kind of behaviour is not without consequence. The question is whether doing so in this instance would have practical consequences we do not want to face. The government have done a poor job communicating those practical consequences, being a bit vague or advancing some scenarios which don't seem very likely, though a case is capable of being made at least, and the sheer rapid persistance to get it over the line has caused even some opponents to wonder if there is something to it (even if they are not yet convinced).
I know what you are saying. There’s something else. Something changed the last governments mind, to set this deal making up. Something solid and persuasive enough.
My theory is, it’s not international law or the UN, but India.
The demands of India, and their influence on this, is what led to UK and US going down the deal route. Chagos is closer to India than Mauritius, yet India is right behind Mauritius campaign.
In this India Today (last year) report it says “In the agreement between Mauritius and the UK, India played a quiet but important role in the background…It firmly backed the principled Mauritian position, supporting its stance on the need to do away with the last vestiges of decolonisation.”
India were definitely a player in all this. They might have said to Cleverley and Truss “No Deal, No…” insert your own blank - curry - tiffin - hot water in the changing rooms when England visit - security cooperation.
Also, where it says in reports, “the deal was achieved last October after 2 years of negotiations”, Labour hadn’t been in power 2 years last October. Only about 12 weeks. This wasn’t negotiated in 12 weeks - reports say 2 years of negotiations since UK u-turn in 2022.
After being set up in 2022, had negotiating been continuing quietly in the background all that time under Cameron and Rishi? It must have been. Was the negotiation outcome too contentious to announce pre election campaign, whoever won would have to announce it afterwards? 🤔
I agree that India probably played a significant role. We persist in regarding India as a friend on the global stage, when in-fact, it sees itself as a geopolitical adversary to the UK.
I think that is also true of the USA.
It's always been true to a degree. Adam Tooze's Deluge was good on this, talking about the US's strategic aims at the end of the First World War in pushing for disarmament. It wasn't because Wilson was a bleeding heart pacifist but because it would allow the US to achieve parity with geopolitical rivals much more easily.
The President Must vs the rule of law clash is coming to a head more quickly than I expected.
He has 2 court rulings stopping allegedly illegal access to state records in in its tracks whilst the Courts consider - one from an Obama appointed judge, and one from a Regan appointee. His GOGEy setup is getting a its wings clipped.
MAGA peeps are going for the the Obama appointee, and demanded that he be impeached, and that he be allowed to do whatever he wants. But not the other one.
He's going to get his wings and his balls clipped if he does not watch it.
Back from NW Scotland and what a weekend. Scarcely a cloud in the sky the whole time, in fact so few clouds that it was starting to frustrate my spouse who had been hoping to Timelapse some cloud shadows for her art.
But still, that region is incredible. Stark, otherworldly, extremely exotic. Under blue skies it looks nothing like any other mountain range in Britain and pretty unlike most of the rest of the world. There are parts of Scandinavia or Iceland with similar ancient glacially scoured sandstone and metamorphic inselbergs, but these are few enough and recognisable enough with their strange names - Canisp, Suilven, Quinag - to feel more like a film set: more like monument valley or Zion than another European mountain range.
The light and colours made the coast look just like Corsica and the interior like Utah. I recommend you go, outside the summer, but when the sun is going to be shining under an Easterly wind.
I mean look at it.
There's a coral beach near Applecross and that whole region, if you get the weather right, feels downright tropical. Midges included!
GOP senators starting to wake from their slumber and notice that huge sums are suddenly being cut off from their areas by Elon Musk.
As example, Katie Britt of Alabama just realised the local uni is one of the state's biggest employers and it just got it up the arse from Musk on funding.
Poor Republican politicians. A small enough violin has yet to be made.
The President Must vs the rule of law clash is coming to a head more quickly than I expected.
He has 2 court rulings stopping allegedly illegal access to state records in in its tracks whilst the Courts consider - one from an Obama appointed judge, and one from a Regan appointee. His GOGEy setup is getting a its wings clipped.
MAGA peeps are going for the the Obama appointee, and demanded that he be impeached, and that he be allowed to do whatever he wants. But not the other one.
He's going to get his wings and his balls clipped if he does not watch it.
Back from NW Scotland and what a weekend. Scarcely a cloud in the sky the whole time, in fact so few clouds that it was starting to frustrate my spouse who had been hoping to Timelapse some cloud shadows for her art.
But still, that region is incredible. Stark, otherworldly, extremely exotic. Under blue skies it looks nothing like any other mountain range in Britain and pretty unlike most of the rest of the world. There are parts of Scandinavia or Iceland with similar ancient glacially scoured sandstone and metamorphic inselbergs, but these are few enough and recognisable enough with their strange names - Canisp, Suilven, Quinag - to feel more like a film set: more like monument valley or Zion than another European mountain range.
The light and colours made the coast look just like Corsica and the interior like Utah. I recommend you go, outside the summer, but when the sun is going to be shining under an Easterly wind.
I mean look at it.
Apart from the water it puts me in mind of the surface of Mars.
GOP senators starting to wake from their slumber and notice that huge sums are suddenly being cut off from their areas by Elon Musk.
As example, Katie Britt of Alabama just realised the local uni is one of the state's biggest employers and it just got it up the arse from Musk on funding.
Poor Republican politicians. A small enough violin has yet to be made.
They are extremely poor, both as politicians and as people.
But if Musk has upset so loyal a Trump acolyte as Katie Britt, we must assume his days are strictly numbered.
Trump: We’re making our country larger, we’re making our country stronger. And in the case of Canada—if this should happen—I don’t know how they can do it without us. Because without the U.S., Canada really doesn’t have a country.
They do almost all of their business with us, and if we say we want our cars to be made in Detroit, with a stroke of a pen, I can make that happen. And other things, in addition to that, would not allow Canada to be a viable country.
Back from NW Scotland and what a weekend. Scarcely a cloud in the sky the whole time, in fact so few clouds that it was starting to frustrate my spouse who had been hoping to Timelapse some cloud shadows for her art.
But still, that region is incredible. Stark, otherworldly, extremely exotic. Under blue skies it looks nothing like any other mountain range in Britain and pretty unlike most of the rest of the world. There are parts of Scandinavia or Iceland with similar ancient glacially scoured sandstone and metamorphic inselbergs, but these are few enough and recognisable enough with their strange names - Canisp, Suilven, Quinag - to feel more like a film set: more like monument valley or Zion than another European mountain range.
The light and colours made the coast look just like Corsica and the interior like Utah. I recommend you go, outside the summer, but when the sun is going to be shining under an Easterly wind.
I mean look at it.
There's a coral beach near Applecross and that whole region, if you get the weather right, feels downright tropical. Midges included!
As a teenager my brother went on a hiking trip to Skye. Blazing hot sunshine the entire fortnight, and the worst sunburn I've seen on him. Sheets of skin were peeling off his back.
When Scotland gets sunny, it can catch you out...
As an aside, I was walking around Scotland during the very hot summer of 2003. I only got a tiny patch of sunburn on my nose, perhaps because as I had been out walking every day in all weathers, my skin was somewhat akin to leather.
Trump: We’re making our country larger, we’re making our country stronger. And in the case of Canada—if this should happen—I don’t know how they can do it without us. Because without the U.S., Canada really doesn’t have a country.
They do almost all of their business with us, and if we say we want our cars to be made in Detroit, with a stroke of a pen, I can make that happen. And other things, in addition to that, would not allow Canada to be a viable country.
Would everyone who said Trump doesn’t have dementia please explain this?
Trump: We’re making our country larger, we’re making our country stronger. And in the case of Canada—if this should happen—I don’t know how they can do it without us. Because without the U.S., Canada really doesn’t have a country.
They do almost all of their business with us, and if we say we want our cars to be made in Detroit, with a stroke of a pen, I can make that happen. And other things, in addition to that, would not allow Canada to be a viable country.
Would everyone who said Trump doesn’t have dementia please explain this?
It's all fine. Trump's mental infirmities are a sign of a great mind that cannot contain all the brilliance that is within; whilst Biden's evil, hideous and - dare I say it - communist mental infirmities threatened the continued existence of the United States and its relationships around the world...
Sitting in a posh-ish Bangkok restaurant having lunch. Overheard two older businessmen discussing global politics - one Israeli (judging by the accent) - one Singaporean Chinese (I think)
They did a quick resume of the world
America - still powerful, Trump is mad China - scary France - perhaps the most beautiful country, really poor politicians Russia - scary Britain - “it just gets worse and worse every year, Boris was bad enough, this new guy is terrible. Brits aren’t the brightest”
Oh dear. However they did then spend 10 minutes discussing British cultural references - from the royals to piers Morgan - so at least we’re still talked about
Sitting in a posh-ish Bangkok restaurant having lunch. Overheard two older businessmen discussing the world - one Israeli (judging by the accent) - one Singaporean Chinese (I think)
They did a quick resume of the world
America - still powerful, Trump is mad China - scary France - perhaps the most beautiful country, really poor politicians Russia - scary Britain - “it just gets worse and worse every year, Boris was bad enough, this new guy is terrible. Brits aren’t the brightest”
Oh dear. However they did then spend 10 minutes discussing British cultural references - from the royals to piers Morgan - so at least we’re still talked about
I love it when you tell us about conversations you have in your own head with your many multiple personalities...
The worst thing is I couldn’t really object to anything they said. It DOES get worse and worse every year. And Boris WAS bad enough but the new guy IS terrible
And given that we - including me - vote for this shit, maybe we aren’t the brightest
The worst thing is I couldn’t really object to anything they said. It DOES get worse and worse every year. And Boris WAS bad enough but the new guy IS terrible
And given that we - including me - vote for this shit, maybe we aren’t the brightest
Sitting in a posh-ish Bangkok restaurant having lunch. Overheard two older businessmen discussing the world - one Israeli (judging by the accent) - one Singaporean Chinese (I think)
They did a quick resume of the world
America - still powerful, Trump is mad China - scary France - perhaps the most beautiful country, really poor politicians Russia - scary Britain - “it just gets worse and worse every year, Boris was bad enough, this new guy is terrible. Brits aren’t the brightest”
Oh dear. However they did then spend 10 minutes discussing British cultural references - from the royals to piers Morgan - so at least we’re still talked about
I love it when you tell us about conversations you have in your own head with your many multiple personalities...
Novotel brasserie. Soi 4, khlong toei. 10 minutes ago
They’re probably still there if you hurry. Try the pasta
Trump: We’re making our country larger, we’re making our country stronger. And in the case of Canada—if this should happen—I don’t know how they can do it without us. Because without the U.S., Canada really doesn’t have a country.
They do almost all of their business with us, and if we say we want our cars to be made in Detroit, with a stroke of a pen, I can make that happen. And other things, in addition to that, would not allow Canada to be a viable country.
Hundreds of millions of americans - this guy is a super strong genius, and also handsome and chosen by god.
I hope he just puts it on so he can criticise libs and foreigners who mock him.
Sounds like a load of pork barrel shite that should be scrapped.
Perhaps its possible Musk can do a good job, afterall?
Why is it pork barrel ? Soy beans are one of the world’s - and America’s - most important food crops.
Are you expert in this area. or just guessing ?
Our man Barty is on a carnivore diet. He don't like the veggies.
The majority of soybean demand is as a feedstock for the livestock industries. It’s the US’s most valuable crop.
Not conducting research into it would be phenomenally stupid.
(Though the most valuable ag research ever conducted was paid for by Mexico, which employed Norman Borlaug.)
I'm eighteen years old and have spent my entire teenage years in a cupboard playing computer games and doing maths puzzles but I know how to run and entire country.
Was the computer game Civilisation?
Valuble lessons to be learned from that series. Such as that it doesn't matter if you are up against Gandhi, he might still nuke you, so be careful.
I am both nervous and excited about Civ 7 being released tomorrow.
Another takeaway from my eavesdropping - is “Boris” the only world leader commonly known by his first name? The Israeli guy used it but the Chinese guy nodded along without perplexity. He understood who “Boris” is
I can’t think of any other major politicians worldwide who have that first name thing going on
I guess it’s partly because his surname - Johnson - is so common - yet the forename is so distinct. Also perhaps the powerful influence of Anglo media
Sitting in a posh-ish Bangkok restaurant having lunch. Overheard two older businessmen discussing the world - one Israeli (judging by the accent) - one Singaporean Chinese (I think)
They did a quick resume of the world
America - still powerful, Trump is mad China - scary France - perhaps the most beautiful country, really poor politicians Russia - scary Britain - “it just gets worse and worse every year, Boris was bad enough, this new guy is terrible. Brits aren’t the brightest”
Oh dear. However they did then spend 10 minutes discussing British cultural references - from the royals to piers Morgan - so at least we’re still talked about
I love it when you tell us about conversations you have in your own head with your many multiple personalities...
Novotel brasserie. Soi 4, khlong toei. 10 minutes ago
They’re probably still there if you hurry. Try the pasta
That in no way negates my original comment.
Besides, why would I want to be there? I'm at home, having just enjoyed breakfast with my wife and son. Having real conversations with real people, and not relying on 'overhearing' conversations on nearby tables for my stimulation.
It's also amazing how those 'overheard' conversations mirror your own current worldview...
Sitting in a posh-ish Bangkok restaurant having lunch. Overheard two older businessmen discussing the world - one Israeli (judging by the accent) - one Singaporean Chinese (I think)
They did a quick resume of the world
America - still powerful, Trump is mad China - scary France - perhaps the most beautiful country, really poor politicians Russia - scary Britain - “it just gets worse and worse every year, Boris was bad enough, this new guy is terrible. Brits aren’t the brightest”
Oh dear. However they did then spend 10 minutes discussing British cultural references - from the royals to piers Morgan - so at least we’re still talked about
I love it when you tell us about conversations you have in your own head with your many multiple personalities...
Novotel brasserie. Soi 4, khlong toei. 10 minutes ago
They’re probably still there if you hurry. Try the pasta
In what world is a “Novotel brasserie” defined as a “posh-ish restaurant”!?
Sitting in a posh-ish Bangkok restaurant having lunch. Overheard two older businessmen discussing the world - one Israeli (judging by the accent) - one Singaporean Chinese (I think)
They did a quick resume of the world
America - still powerful, Trump is mad China - scary France - perhaps the most beautiful country, really poor politicians Russia - scary Britain - “it just gets worse and worse every year, Boris was bad enough, this new guy is terrible. Brits aren’t the brightest”
Oh dear. However they did then spend 10 minutes discussing British cultural references - from the royals to piers Morgan - so at least we’re still talked about
I love it when you tell us about conversations you have in your own head with your many multiple personalities...
Novotel brasserie. Soi 4, khlong toei. 10 minutes ago
They’re probably still there if you hurry. Try the pasta
In what world is a “Novotel brasserie” defined as a “posh-ish restaurant”!?
Sounds like a load of pork barrel shite that should be scrapped.
Perhaps its possible Musk can do a good job, afterall?
Why is it pork barrel ? Soy beans are one of the world’s - and America’s - most important food crops.
Are you expert in this area. or just guessing ?
Our man Barty is on a carnivore diet. He don't like the veggies.
The majority of soybean demand is as a feedstock for the livestock industries. It’s the US’s most valuable crop.
Not conducting research into it would be phenomenally stupid.
(Though the most valuable ag research ever conducted was paid for by Mexico, which employed Norman Borlaug.)
I'm eighteen years old and have spent my entire teenage years in a cupboard playing computer games and doing maths puzzles but I know how to run and entire country.
Was the computer game Civilisation?
Valuble lessons to be learned from that series. Such as that it doesn't matter if you are up against Gandhi, he might still nuke you, so be careful.
I am both nervous and excited about Civ 7 being released tomorrow.
Sitting in a posh-ish Bangkok restaurant having lunch. Overheard two older businessmen discussing the world - one Israeli (judging by the accent) - one Singaporean Chinese (I think)
They did a quick resume of the world
America - still powerful, Trump is mad China - scary France - perhaps the most beautiful country, really poor politicians Russia - scary Britain - “it just gets worse and worse every year, Boris was bad enough, this new guy is terrible. Brits aren’t the brightest”
Oh dear. However they did then spend 10 minutes discussing British cultural references - from the royals to piers Morgan - so at least we’re still talked about
I love it when you tell us about conversations you have in your own head with your many multiple personalities...
Novotel brasserie. Soi 4, khlong toei. 10 minutes ago
They’re probably still there if you hurry. Try the pasta
That in no way negates my original comment.
Besides, why would I want to be there? I'm at home, having just enjoyed breakfast with my wife and son. Having real conversations with real people, and not relying on 'overhearing' conversations on nearby tables for my stimulation.
It's also amazing how those 'overheard' conversations mirror your own current worldview...
The worst thing is I couldn’t really object to anything they said. It DOES get worse and worse every year. And Boris WAS bad enough but the new guy IS terrible
And given that we - including me - vote for this shit, maybe we aren’t the brightest
We, as a society, deserve everything we are getting for voting for these incompetents.
Sitting in a posh-ish Bangkok restaurant having lunch. Overheard two older businessmen discussing the world - one Israeli (judging by the accent) - one Singaporean Chinese (I think)
They did a quick resume of the world
America - still powerful, Trump is mad China - scary France - perhaps the most beautiful country, really poor politicians Russia - scary Britain - “it just gets worse and worse every year, Boris was bad enough, this new guy is terrible. Brits aren’t the brightest”
Oh dear. However they did then spend 10 minutes discussing British cultural references - from the royals to piers Morgan - so at least we’re still talked about
I love it when you tell us about conversations you have in your own head with your many multiple personalities...
Novotel brasserie. Soi 4, khlong toei. 10 minutes ago
They’re probably still there if you hurry. Try the pasta
Sitting in a posh-ish Bangkok restaurant having lunch. Overheard two older businessmen discussing the world - one Israeli (judging by the accent) - one Singaporean Chinese (I think)
They did a quick resume of the world
America - still powerful, Trump is mad China - scary France - perhaps the most beautiful country, really poor politicians Russia - scary Britain - “it just gets worse and worse every year, Boris was bad enough, this new guy is terrible. Brits aren’t the brightest”
Oh dear. However they did then spend 10 minutes discussing British cultural references - from the royals to piers Morgan - so at least we’re still talked about
I love it when you tell us about conversations you have in your own head with your many multiple personalities...
Novotel brasserie. Soi 4, khlong toei. 10 minutes ago
They’re probably still there if you hurry. Try the pasta
That in no way negates my original comment.
Besides, why would I want to be there? I'm at home, having just enjoyed breakfast with my wife and son. Having real conversations with real people, and not relying on 'overhearing' conversations on nearby tables for my stimulation.
It's also amazing how those 'overheard' conversations mirror your own current worldview...
I doubted the Piers Morgan reference, but apparently he's been in the news in Israel because Tucker Carlson claims Morgan
admitted to "hating Israel with every fiber of his body" during an unrecorded off-camera moment.
Trump: We’re making our country larger, we’re making our country stronger. And in the case of Canada—if this should happen—I don’t know how they can do it without us. Because without the U.S., Canada really doesn’t have a country.
They do almost all of their business with us, and if we say we want our cars to be made in Detroit, with a stroke of a pen, I can make that happen. And other things, in addition to that, would not allow Canada to be a viable country.
Would everyone who said Trump doesn’t have dementia please explain this?
I seem to recall him twatting in this stream-of-semi-consciousness style during his first Presidency.
What an absolute joke this country has become. An Albanian career criminal, who came to the U.K. and lied about being from the former Yugoslavia cannot be deported in part due to his sons taste in food.
Sounds like a load of pork barrel shite that should be scrapped.
Perhaps its possible Musk can do a good job, afterall?
Why is it pork barrel ? Soy beans are one of the world’s - and America’s - most important food crops.
Are you expert in this area. or just guessing ?
Our man Barty is on a carnivore diet. He don't like the veggies.
The majority of soybean demand is as a feedstock for the livestock industries. It’s the US’s most valuable crop.
Not conducting research into it would be phenomenally stupid.
(Though the most valuable ag research ever conducted was paid for by Mexico, which employed Norman Borlaug.)
I'm eighteen years old and have spent my entire teenage years in a cupboard playing computer games and doing maths puzzles but I know how to run and entire country.
Was the computer game Civilisation?
Valuble lessons to be learned from that series. Such as that it doesn't matter if you are up against Gandhi, he might still nuke you, so be careful.
I am both nervous and excited about Civ 7 being released tomorrow.
Incidentally (and possibly of interest to no-one): a couple of weeks ago I mentioned that friends of ours were having problems with their new solar panel/battery supply system. It would work for a while whilst the engineers were present, then fail.
Well, the fault was discovered (*). One of the engineers had used the wrong length screws when attaching the front/lid of one of the switch units in the garage. The screws were too long, which meant that whilst the front/lid felt secure to the touch, it was actually a fraction loose, meaning electrical contacts from the lid into the interior were inconsistent. Over time the lid would move slightly away from the box's body (I assume a rubber seal would do this?), stopping the unit from working.
It's amazing how something as simple as the wrong screws can be an embuggerance.
IANAE on the Chagos Islands but the facts I have gleaned are that:
They once belonged to the French. We took them off the French in 1814 after Waterloo. For most of the 18th and 19th centuries we controlled them from Mauritius, a place that had no historical connection with them whatsoever. In the 1960s the Americans wanted a mid Indian Ocean base and chose Diego Garcia. In 1965 we, somewhat shamefully, kicked the remnants of the French, some African slaves and sundry others off the islands so the Americans could have that base without interference. Most of their descendants now live in the UK. At the same time we broke the administrative link between Mauritius and the Chagos islands. In 1968 Mauritius became independent of the UK. In 2021 the UN International Tribunal for the law of the Sea said that we should hand them back to Mauritius and that we had no sovereignty over them, despite controlling them since 1814. We are now trying to come to a "deal" by which we pay Mauritius money to take them off our hands without upsetting the Americans.
To describe the UN Tribunal decision as bizarre is to understate matters by several orders of magnitude. Mauritius never had any control of the Chagos when it was independent, either before we conquered it or at the time of their independence in 1968. If the UN is not going to recognise sovereignty after 210 years we are going to need a lot of new maps. The idea that we should pay anything to anybody for this is...words fail me.
The only real surprise, here, is that the UN is still perceived as a pure neutral arbiter.
It's about as clean as FIFA.
Nah, they make FIFA look good.
The UN Tribunal laid out their legal reasoning. If you think their answer is wrong, can you explain why with respect to the legal precedents?
See DavidL's post at 20:27
We should be invoking the legal precedence of Arkell v Pressdram to the Tribunal.
We could, as nation, make a political choice to do that. One can argue for or against that. My point is that the decision was not weird or biased or unprecedented. It concords with international law.
International law is a bad joke.
We should say piss off and move on.
That kind of behaviour is not without consequence. The question is whether doing so in this instance would have practical consequences we do not want to face. The government have done a poor job communicating those practical consequences, being a bit vague or advancing some scenarios which don't seem very likely, though a case is capable of being made at least, and the sheer rapid persistance to get it over the line has caused even some opponents to wonder if there is something to it (even if they are not yet convinced).
What's the consequence?
Countries tell "international law" to piss off all the time. As they bloody well should, its domestic law we should respect.
Russia's invasion was wrong because it was wrong to invade another country, not because it was illegal to do so.
Your example of Germany is about EU law rather than general international law, I believe.
We agree it is wrong to invade another country. Therefore, we have a rule that should govern how countries relate to each other: don’t invade another country. Great, so we’ve just re-invented international law. You are splitting hairs in your refusal to call that a law.
Comments
It's a research programme you numpty. We do the same to prevent another potato famine: https://www.sasa.gov.uk/diagnostics/potato-pathology
I just said that was a smaller infinity than the integers
The fractions (rational numbers) is a bigger infinity than the integers; there are as many one over n fractions as there are n, then there's everything else to infinity over n
Then there's an absolutely undefinable, unrecordable and uncountable number of irrational numbers between all of those
The sort of weird results you get are: there is an infinite number of whole numbers (1, 2, 3…) and there is an infinite number of even numbers (2, 4, 6…). Clearly, there are more whole numbers than even numbers. And yet the “size” of the infinity is the same.
There are cases of countries telling international law to piss off, like Russia invading Ukraine, but maybe we don’t want to emulate those examples.
Stop telling me his tired theories
They may not be countable in your own definition of countable.
95,676,260,903,887,607 primes have been identified but they weren't stored.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/how-germany-s-law-breaking-undermined-the-eu/
Something all countries are entitled to do.
Russia's invasion was wrong because it was wrong to invade another country, not because it was illegal to do so.
Must have been the next village over. The heathens. Burn them!
Never change PB. Never change.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNmxddPMU8Y
Joshua Idehen - Learn To Swim
War has been minimised by the threat of nuclear weapons and the fact modern economics and militaries makes it unviable, not due to the law - international or otherwise.
Hence why there's been an abundance of war where nations can get away with it still.
Just a normal Sunday evening while we await more polls...
It can all be Knight Rider, Automan, whatever.
Trump during his Super Bowl interview: "I think Canada would be much better off being a 51st state because we lose $200 billion a year with Canada, and I'm not gonna let that happen."
My theory is, it’s not international law or the UN, but India.
The demands of India, and their influence on this, is what led to UK and US going down the deal route. Chagos is closer to India than Mauritius, yet India is right behind Mauritius campaign.
In this India Today (last year) report it says
“In the agreement between Mauritius and the UK, India played a quiet but important role in the background…It firmly backed the principled Mauritian position, supporting its stance on the need to do away with the last vestiges of decolonisation.”
India were definitely a player in all this. They might have said to Cleverley and Truss “No Deal, No…” insert your own blank - curry - tiffin - hot water in the changing rooms when England visit - security cooperation.
https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/india-welcomes-chagos-islands-agreement-uk-mauritius-2610844-2024-10-03
Also, where it says in reports, “the deal was achieved last October after 2 years of negotiations”, Labour hadn’t been in power 2 years last October. Only about 12 weeks. This wasn’t negotiated in 12 weeks - reports say 2 years of negotiations since UK u-turn in 2022.
After being set up in 2022, had negotiating been continuing quietly in the background all that time under Cameron and Rishi? It must have been. Was the negotiation outcome too contentious to announce pre election campaign, whoever won would have to announce it afterwards? 🤔
To infinity and beyond!
Goodnight all you Cantor cultists (be careful saying that!)
X
https://thehill.com/homenews/nexstar_media_wire/5135339-has-president-trump-arrived-at-the-super-bowl/
Margo Martin
@MargoMartin47
·
2h
President @realDonaldTrump signs a Proclamation declaring February 9, 2025 as the first ever Gulf of America Day 🇺🇸
https://x.com/MargoMartin47/status/1888699739509817590
It's sad to think this is what the world has come to... but so what?
Nice
But still, that region is incredible. Stark, otherworldly, extremely exotic. Under blue skies it looks nothing like any other mountain range in Britain and pretty unlike most of the rest of the world. There are parts of Scandinavia or Iceland with similar ancient glacially scoured sandstone and metamorphic inselbergs, but these are few enough and recognisable enough with their strange names - Canisp, Suilven, Quinag - to feel more like a film set: more like monument valley or Zion than another European mountain range.
The light and colours made the coast look just like Corsica and the interior like Utah. I recommend you go, outside the summer, but when the sun is going to be shining under an Easterly wind.
I mean look at it.
No way it was negotiated in only 12 weeks is it - the 1965 negotiations I posted earlier in thread went on for years.
(gibbers madly, runs around room)
The vile posts led to the dramatic sacking of health minister Andrew Gwynne after The Mail on Sunday brought them to the attention of Downing Street on Saturday.
Now it can be revealed that Oliver Ryan, the 29-year-old MP for Burnley, was another leading member of the group, where he has posted more than 2,000 messages."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14378583/Young-Labour-MP-unmasked-second-Westminster-member-vile-WhatsApp-group-racist-sexist-anti-Semitic-messages-exchanged.html
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/feb/09/kemi-badenoch-100-days-leader-conservative-party-tory-mps
How did she get into this job ?
As example, Katie Britt of Alabama just realised the local uni is one of the state's biggest employers and it just got it up the arse from Musk on funding.
As the article suggests though she is more policy wonk than party leader. I remain of the view Tugendhat would have been the best pick, could put some clear blue water with Farage and squeeze Labour and the LDs more and also has some patrician gravitas and comes across OK on TV
Still they have reaped and boy are they gonna sow.
I say again, as I have said many times, Badenoch was a fool for running too soon. She is not ready for prime time.
But she may surprise. I do not underestimate her.
She needs to study Thatch. Another underestimated person. Not the Tory boy wet dream Thatch but actually how she went about winning.
Key for Thatch was a) the lab government imploded which with Starmer/Reeves current trajectory is a given b) she had a story to tell - a very real and visceral story and she had thinkers like Joseph behind her. The story made sense to a tired and desperate country.
badenoch doesn't strike me as a story teller.
Trump is a story teller.
That is who they need.
What he might mean if he knows any economics is studies that I dimly recall from my university days that said that trade between Canadian provinces and US states is an order of magnitude lower than trade between similar US states, because of the international boundary between them, and associated factors like different currency, regulatory regimes, etc. These studies were often cited by advocates of the Single Market in Europe. The implication is that removing that boundary would cause trade to flourish.
But it's Trump, so he's almost certainly pulling facts and numbers out of his fundament, which often prove the exact opposite of what he thinks they do, if you have the time and knowledge to drill down.
Starmer - 5 years
Sunak - 7 years
Truss - 12 years
Boris - 11 years (with a gap)
May - 19 years
Cameron - 4 years
Brown - 24 years
Blair - 11 years
Major - 11 years
Thatcher - 20 years
Sunak really stands out, as he's condensed what used to be 3 decades of a parliamentary career into just 10 years - and that will only be artifically extended by his sticking it out part time for the rest of this term.
However, it is becoming much clearer now though, the big UK u-turn to go for a Chagos deal actually occurred in 2022 - wether it was persistent International Law pressure having influence repercussions, like India not cooperating without colonial justice for its Mauritius friend, a mixture of both (and with pressure from Biden wanting it settled) - that forced UKs U-turn.
The next big question, when does Starmer and Lammy bring this to Parliament, so the precedent applying to Chagos and also now applies to Cyprus and the Falklands and all our colonies - can be properly scrutinised and exposed - along with how the control of fishing has been surrendered in this deal, meaning Chinese spy vessels will be everywhere! Those are my 2 big red flags.
Con 42%
Lib 26%
NDP 16%
BQ 8%
Grn 4%
https://338canada.com/federal.htm
Reminder: Those who follow the Loser risk losing their money, their health, and even their freedom. And now the Super Bowl?
It seems it wasn't just me, the tw@tterati don't seem very impressed, compared to when they did the medley of the greats of modern rap a couple of years ago that seemed to go down very well.
Both the extended interviews with the interviews with Rupert Lowe and Zia Yusuf I linked last week both included thorough floccinaucinihilipilifications of Boris Johnson, as I pointed out.
They are far much kinder to Suella Braverman, but I think she's adopting BNP and nativist talking points too thoroughly to be very comfortable for Reform at present, given their subliminal racist dog whistle use whilst trying to sound mainstream strategy.
"The department told FactCheck in an email on 1 August: “We stand by our commitment to lower bills. And we stand by the fact that independent modelling said that savings could be up to £300 when comparing prices before the election to a 2030 clean power system.”"
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-government-fails-to-confirm-300-energy-promise
It's not in the maniifesto, though.
He has 2 court rulings stopping allegedly illegal access to state records in in its tracks whilst the Courts consider - one from an Obama appointed judge, and one from a Regan appointee. His GOGEy setup is getting a its wings clipped.
MAGA peeps are going for the the Obama appointee, and demanded that he be impeached, and that he be allowed to do whatever he wants. But not the other one.
He's going to get his wings and his balls clipped if he does not watch it.
Otherworldly indeed.
But if Musk has upset so loyal a Trump acolyte as Katie Britt, we must assume his days are strictly numbered.
How Did An Angry Letter To A Newspaper In 1935 Save Millions Of Lives Today?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKwIZjGjUjg
Lots of interesting little factoids I knew nothing about in that video (on how the 999 emergency number came about).
Trump: We’re making our country larger, we’re making our country stronger. And in the case of Canada—if this should happen—I don’t know how they can do it without us. Because without the U.S., Canada really doesn’t have a country.
They do almost all of their business with us, and if we say we want our cars to be made in Detroit, with a stroke of a pen, I can make that happen. And other things, in addition to that, would not allow Canada to be a viable country.
When Scotland gets sunny, it can catch you out...
As an aside, I was walking around Scotland during the very hot summer of 2003. I only got a tiny patch of sunburn on my nose, perhaps because as I had been out walking every day in all weathers, my skin was somewhat akin to leather.
Or something like that.
They did a quick resume of the world
America - still powerful, Trump is mad
China - scary
France - perhaps the most beautiful country, really poor politicians
Russia - scary
Britain - “it just gets worse and worse every year, Boris was bad enough, this new guy is terrible. Brits aren’t the brightest”
Oh dear. However they did then spend 10 minutes discussing British cultural references - from the royals to piers Morgan - so at least we’re still talked about
And given that we - including me - vote for this shit, maybe we aren’t the brightest
They’re probably still there if you hurry. Try the pasta
I hope he just puts it on so he can criticise libs and foreigners who mock him.
I can’t think of any other major politicians worldwide who have that first name thing going on
I guess it’s partly because his surname - Johnson - is so common - yet the forename is so distinct. Also perhaps the powerful influence of Anglo media
Besides, why would I want to be there? I'm at home, having just enjoyed breakfast with my wife and son. Having real conversations with real people, and not relying on 'overhearing' conversations on nearby tables for my stimulation.
It's also amazing how those 'overheard' conversations mirror your own current worldview...
Your standards are slipping
Bit defensive much?!
admitted to "hating Israel with every fiber of his body" during an unrecorded off-camera moment.
https://m.jpost.com/international/article-840891
Difficult to know who to disbelieve.
https://x.com/telegraph/status/1888689740171416056?s=61
The evidence surrounding this seems tenuous in the least.
https://x.com/anglopjdst/status/1888700762093461674?s=61
Well, the fault was discovered (*). One of the engineers had used the wrong length screws when attaching the front/lid of one of the switch units in the garage. The screws were too long, which meant that whilst the front/lid felt secure to the touch, it was actually a fraction loose, meaning electrical contacts from the lid into the interior were inconsistent. Over time the lid would move slightly away from the box's body (I assume a rubber seal would do this?), stopping the unit from working.
It's amazing how something as simple as the wrong screws can be an embuggerance.
(BA flight 5390 waves hello from over Didcot...)
(*) Hopefully I've got this right.
We agree it is wrong to invade another country. Therefore, we have a rule that should govern how countries relate to each other: don’t invade another country. Great, so we’ve just re-invented international law. You are splitting hairs in your refusal to call that a law.