Categories
Options
There’s more support than opposition for Starmer giving the Chagos Islands to Mauritius
There’s more support than opposition for Starmer giving the Chagos Islands to Mauritius– politicalbetting.com
Those hoping this policy by Starmer would be unpopular will be disappointed, in the grand scheme of things voters are concerned by public services, taxes, et al, not some faraway islands, these are not the Falkland Islands.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
(Disclaimer, I don't much care about the islands themselves.
Though I appreciate the China angle could prove awkward.)
On second thoughts, maybe that's better saved for Greenland and/or Canada
1. It's an American base to all intents and purposes. The Americans call the shots. UK governments do what they're told.
2. Americans are never going to share Chagos Islands with anyone else.The Chagossians are never coming back.
The muddle now seems to be that the incoming US administration may have different instructions for the UK government from the previous administration. However this is being relayed by Nigel Farage who has his own agenda so it may not amount to much in the end.
*assuming we haven't made any other substantial payments since the formation of the UK
9%, and 14% respectively.
Suggests that it's pretty unpopular with those who give a damn.
If the £9bn cost were to be widely publicised (perhaps it won't, as the deal was originally dreamt up by our current opposition), then I suspect it would be much less popular.
The new government in Mauritius has given the UK every excuse to simply walk away. It’s not obvious why Lammy hasn’t taken the opportunity.
The only explanation that makes sense to me is that the UK and the Biden-US want to make nice to India by “decolonising”.
But the term decolonisation is an absolute nonsense when applied to Chagos. Indeed, it’s probably more relevant to India’s rule over the Andamans.
Prop 13 is so destructive to California municipal finances that wildfires actually *increase* property tax revenue
Burning a California city to the ground has minimal impact on its bond rating & only modestly negative net budget impacts from temporarily higher city spending
https://x.com/aarmlovi/status/1877504670236614919
might have been an interesting follow-up question
(Coupled with a rather lower "Don't Know" percentage than for other parties.)
Not sure what it's telling us about the wider political scene, but it's telling us something.
Survey one:
- Are you in favour of colonialism?
- Does Britain bear a responsibility for its past actions?
- Are you in favour of a deal to hand over the Chagos islands?
Survey two:
- Are you worried about the rise of authoritatian powers in the world?
- Has the West been naive in its dealings with China?
- Are you in favour of a deal to hand over the Chagos islands?
£90 million a year seems to be the going rate. The US pays Djibouti $70 million a year for a smaller base.
I've not seen any definitive story on it; do you have a link ?
The Times was reporting (not definitively) a couple of days back that Mauritius might be asking for £800m a year.
https://www.thetimes.com/comment/the-times-view/article/the-times-view-demands-mauritius-chagos-islands-9ml9rhtmv
Which just seems daft.
Incidentally the USA took the sovereignty question to an international court
It's a poll where you could quite easily fix the question to get the right answer.
1. "The UK has agreed to pay £9bn to Mauritius in addition to giving it ownership of the Chagos Archipelago. Do you support or oppose this?"
2. "The UK has agreed a sovereignty deal with Mauritius that gives the right to displaced Chagos Islanders to resettle on their native archipelago after their previous expulsion for a US naval base. Do you support or oppose this?"
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/aug/14/the-last-colony-by-philippe-sands-review-britains-chagos-islands-shame?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
The deal should perhaps be revisited if that's what the Mauritian government wants, but we should remember that Mauritius is a democratic country and part of the Commonwealth. It is perhaps the most economically successful of our former African colonies, with strong institutions and rated very highly for economic policy. It also is delightfully and harmoniously multicultural. Mauritius is not an enemy state.
What is the significance of this one way or the other.
I think they will be lucky to get it across the line in 10 days.
One big thing is protection of the ocean in the area - which is a 250k sqm MPA. The President of Mauritius had a brainstorm about it. I don't think just their signature on a Treaty would protect that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chagos_Marine_Protected_Area
https://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/feb/25/7
Riots forced the capital of the Indian Ocean island of Mauritius to close for a second successive day yesterday.
Shops, businesses, government offices, schools, the port and public transport in Port Louis were all shut due to some of the worst rioting in Mauritius for 30 years.
The death in police custody on Sunday of a local reggae singer, Joseph Reginald Topize - known as Kaya - sparked the riots, which have centred mainly on poor parts of the island inhabited by the country's African Creole minority.
Kaya had been arrested for smoking marijuana at a rally to promote legalisation of the drug.
An official said that in some areas young Creole men and members of the island's Hindu majority - which has dominated government since the island became independent from Britain in 1968 - were fighting one another.
The riots have exposed the island's underlying ethnic and economic tensions. Creoles, who make up around 30 per cent of the population of 1.1 million, are the mixed-blood descendants of slaves and are considered an underprivileged community.
The £9bn (or whatever it is) isn't an annual figure.
Though quite what the annual cost might be is pretty obscure at the moment.
The important thing, and this is neglected, is that we are entitled to expect all these matters to be handled competently and in accordance with our fundamental principles and values and in accordance with the UK's interests. And we are entitled to expect that the government ensures that there is a range of options all ready for every eventuality. That is central to the functions of the civil service.
Several recent events (Brexit, Covid, the banking crisis, Iraq, Afghanistan and others) call into question this foundational part of being a medium size rich country in a complex world.
London has issued a new proposal to pay an initial tranche covering several years’ worth of payments as a sweetener to finalise the stalled deal before Donald Trump’s inauguration on January 20.
It is seen as a compromise between the new Mauritian administration’s demand to increase the financial settlement underpinning the draft agreement, and the UK government’s refusal to increase the overall cost of the 99-year lease.
https://www.ft.com/content/f4d70560-5ae6-4450-8e2d-dab5bb1b3487
I've had some dealings with the Mauritian government. A very decent bunch and they have been trying very hard in recent years to shake off their offshore haven reputation with a series of moves on transparency and governance that now put them ahead of a lot of OECD countries.
So I view any moral arguments that come up as distractions from the question of whether this deal is positive for the UK (as I don't buy the argument we will reputationally gain anything appreciable from our actions) and our allies, or aids those who are not our allies.
If it is a net positive, then I guess it's fine. If it isn't, then it is not. Certainly I don't see what the urgency is about to close the deal.
More here:
India had multiple time zones in the past. In 1802, British astronomer John Goldingham at the East India Company established the time in Chennai as GMT+5:30.
In 1884 two time zones were used in India: Calcutta Time (UTC+5:53:28) and Bombay Time (UTC+4:51:20)—just over an hour apart. Eventually, in 1905, the meridian near Mirzapur (82°33’E) was picked as the standard time for the whole country. This time zone was declared India Standard Time (IST) in 1947, though Calcutta Time was used until 1948 and Bombay Time until 1955.
https://www.timeanddate.com/time/zone/india
I wonder whether the Mauritian deal will put it on the tourist map. For the average British punter that is probably neither here nor there, but for the country collector it's a net bonus.
Times Radio is usually excluded.
Were there any Welsh characters? I think it's Private Cheeseman.
It would be simpler if the US paid Mauritius directly.
https://youtu.be/FWKiej-zY9U
Jan
Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico
Arizona and Utah
Feb
Eritrea
Romania
Belgium
March
Italian Alps
Amsterdam
Sierra Leone and Liberia
April
Pakistan
Nevada
Malaga
May
Hawaii, Fiji and Samoa
June
Tonga and Tuvalu
July
Congo and Angola
Aug: TBA
Sept
France
Peru, Chile, Brazil, Argentina
Oct
Ethiopia (Danakil depression)
Somaliland
In this case the Americans have a choice of continuing to operate their base in breach of international law or get a rock solid treaty to allow it to continue, at no cost to them. They've gone for the rock solid treaty at no cost to them option. Trump may choose something else. The invader of Greenland clearly doesn't have much time for international law
Would he therefore like Glaswegians?
And to be honest, that is all that matters.
Newcastle to Ashington (just opened)
Milton Keynes to Bicester (hopefully open 2025!)
Whitby to 'Boro westbound
Kilmarnock to Troon westbound
and some other bits of quite rare track when available
Centrica, which owns the country's largest gas storage facility, said the UK "has less than a week of gas demand in store" due to the colder-than-usual weather.
But National Gas, which owns the UK gas network, said the UK gets its gas from "a diverse range of sources" and that storage "remains healthy".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c7vd57qzlqpo
However, I do not see the need for the rush to get the deal through with Trump likely to cancel it if he doesn't approve
So a fair chance at that time of being a Labour voter in Glasgow.
Intderestingly, though, despite including the Presbyterians of the northern part of the Long Isle, the Western Isles constituency was solid Labour for the half-century since 1918. (Not sure why: it's crofting country so you'd think LD after the Gladstonian agrarian reforms.)
But how he would vote on the neutral territory of Walmington-on-Sea is a separate question, arguably.
This deal is perhaps the polar case of Western liberal guilt being exploited, in this case by a country hundreds of miles away that never governed the islands in the first place.
Bagan was amazing, possibly the best Bhuddist site in the world. The other highlight was Mount Popa:
https://therevealer.org/reviving-burmese-nat-shrines-to-protect-myanmars-mount-popa-national-park/
Nats are an animated tradition of once human people turned into spirits, a bit like the Catholic cults of saints. They aren't entirely approved of by the Bhuddist orthodoxy, but their worship is tolerated. Shrines to most of the Nats are found on Mount Popa, including one for the Nat of heavy drinking and gunplay. Worshippers leave appropriate offerings before painting the town red.
Burma is a fascinating culture, but a weird place too. It's the only hospital that I have worked at where there were secret police spies and informer, at least I think the only one!
*a lot of the minority tribes don't like the name Myanmar as they feel it mislabelled them, rather like referring to a Scot at English.
Edit Ah it's a 99 year lease I think.
As other said, if you include the detail in the question, you'd get a completely different outcome.
I met about a dozen guys on Chatham - at least five of whom were called Bruce.
I think they are just taking the piss because they can.
"Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Republic of Korea, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom"
not sure why you're bringing the EU into it, though it does look like over half those countries are EU countries FWIW
Baffling. I'm sure I'd read, here and elsewhere, that pay rises would be virtually non-existent this year as companies struggled to absorb the rises in employers' NI and the minimum wage.
Insane.
To be honest, the poll is finely balanced either way with the difference being MoE. More are strongly opposed.
But largely people don't know much about it and it hasn't cut through.
However, there are many Companies and especially small businesses who are struggling and are seriously affected, especially in hospitality but also in the care sector
And of course this is the private sector, Reeves will not have any leeway in the public sector for above inflation wage increases
https://x.com/jakluge/status/1877751265800659367
Not good.
Let's hope you don't have a customer-facing role, eh?
I am also deeply suspicious of the plan to bung them £9bn now.