Thought these lines on economic performance very enlightening. Had little idea there had been such a divergence between Europe and the US. It seems rising prosperity is no protection from political bampots.
In 1995, Germany’s nominal GDP per capita was a little higher ($32,000) than that of the United States ($29,000), with the United Kingdom lagging behind at a noticeable distance ($23,000) . . . Since then, the two continents have markedly diverged. To an extent that few people have fully internalized, an economic gulf has opened up between America and Europe. On average, Americans are now nearly twice as rich as Europeans. According to the latest available data for GDP per capita, the United States stands at $83,000, with Germany at $54,000 and the United Kingdom at $50,000.”
It’s actually been a driver of bampottery. The gains have been very concentrated in tech and even within tech have been concentrated among the top 10%
The same is true here as well, there's two or three industries that have grown massively over the last decade but probably only account for a couple of million jobs. The other 29m workers haven't seen anywhere near that kind of rise in income.
Trump and his administration has said that attacks on Tesla cars constitute domestic terrorism. Hooray! If your Tesla is vandalised, you have the full force of the FBI after whoever did it.
However… insurance coverage generally excludes acts of terrorism. If your Tesla gets vandalised now (in the US), you ain’t getting any insurance money! See Legal Eagle for more.
I'm torn over Reform. Sometimes I think: let's just get Nigel as PM and get it out of our system sooner rather than later. But then I remember that they'll probably aim to mimic Trump 2 but in an even more triumphalist, confrontational, manic and outlandish way, and I get worried again.
I don’t think Farage is as instinctively chaotic as Trump, for what it’s worth. I think he has a bit more of a clearer vision (it wouldn’t be hard). That doesn’t mean that he couldn’t cause a lot of difficulties and fallout along the way, particularly where markets are concerned, and potentially in cases of national security and European co-operation.
I don't think Farage is quite as malevolent as Trump but what the two have in common is an extremely self indulgent politics their respective countries can't afford, particularly Britain can't afford. Could Farage pivot to practical governing once he's in power? Possible but he has never given the slightest indication.
Well at some point we are going to find out how much Farage really wants power. Because as we approach an election he will need to be strategic on Reform’s positioning, particularly on the economics and the NHS. Currently, I’m not convinced he has either of those two areas fully figured out. If he wants power he will adapt and moderate somewhat in both of those areas.
Unless Farage is planning to drop the huge tax cuts he wants that means more austerity, which many of the voters he needs are sick of.
The only "austerity" there has been is in properly funding core functions of the state.
We are still spraying the cash round to people who aren't working, who aren't grateful for it and always complain there's not enough of it.
Would it help if the elderly, sick and disabled came and grovelled regularly before selected representatives of proper people, to demonstrate how humbly grateful they were for the means of staying alive?
I'm certainly waiting for Liz Kendall to start rifling through my weekly shop to make sure I'm not getting above my wretch station
If we really believe in decolonisation shouldn't we be handing the Chagos Islands back to the original settlers there, the French?
I suspect they would have been happy to lease it to the US for about $1bn a year.
You have to look at the needs and wants of all involved. In order of importance and clout:
The US needs their tenure at "Footprint of Freedom" secured without any legal complications for the long term. They want somebody else to pay for this.
The UK government needs to feel liked by the US. They also want to be perceived as the benevolent face of imperialism. The good kind of expropriation and ethnic cleansing. They also still have some regard for international law and complying with it allows them to take their preferred position of impotent sanctimony when other countries violate it like China with its island and reef acquisition spree.
The Mauritius government needs money and wants its anti-colonial credentials burnished.
The Chagoswegians need and want money.
Given all of those various motivations, it's hard to see any other course than the SKS deal. Playing for time or telling everyone to fuck off isn't a viable strategy due to inexorable and irresistible pressure from the US.
The french have been telling everyone to fuck off for decades and eventually they do.
The French are militarily independent of the U.S. We very much aren't.
It wouldn't be impossible to change that, but it might take a decade or so. And require a lot more than 2.5% of GDP.
France both did a lot worse, and a lot better than us when they disengaged from most of their empire.
Um. Algeria. French Indo-China.
France had an absolute shocker. Largely because they tried to hold on by sheer force of arms, and took the gloves off.
The only bit they got right was in the 1960s and thereafter when they incorporated the bits left into overseas departments.
De Gaulle’s basic fear was that with military victory in Algeria, (and the French did pretty much win at the military level), would come full French citizenship for Algerians, and then mass migration to France.
He lacked the foresight to realise that mass migration was inevitable anyway.
I'm torn over Reform. Sometimes I think: let's just get Nigel as PM and get it out of our system sooner rather than later. But then I remember that they'll probably aim to mimic Trump 2 but in an even more triumphalist, confrontational, manic and outlandish way, and I get worried again.
I don’t think Farage is as instinctively chaotic as Trump, for what it’s worth. I think he has a bit more of a clearer vision (it wouldn’t be hard). That doesn’t mean that he couldn’t cause a lot of difficulties and fallout along the way, particularly where markets are concerned, and potentially in cases of national security and European co-operation.
I don't think Farage is quite as malevolent as Trump but what the two have in common is an extremely self indulgent politics their respective countries can't afford, particularly Britain can't afford. Could Farage pivot to practical governing once he's in power? Possible but he has never given the slightest indication.
Well at some point we are going to find out how much Farage really wants power. Because as we approach an election he will need to be strategic on Reform’s positioning, particularly on the economics and the NHS. Currently, I’m not convinced he has either of those two areas fully figured out. If he wants power he will adapt and moderate somewhat in both of those areas.
Unless Farage is planning to drop the huge tax cuts he wants that means more austerity, which many of the voters he needs are sick of.
The only "austerity" there has been is in properly funding core functions of the state.
We are still spraying the cash round to people who aren't working, who aren't grateful for it and always complain there's not enough of it.
Would it help if the elderly, sick and disabled came and grovelled regularly before selected representatives of proper people, to demonstrate how humbly grateful they were for the means of staying alive?
Pomposity like this is precisely why we can't get a grip on the problem.
There is nothing moral about the triple lock, a UBI for those who can pass a PIP test, and the chronic welfare trap caused by UC.
We have 6 million people (of working age) not working, in an entirely separate and contrived economy, and gold-plate a benefits package for the retired that's untouchable.
It's fiscally unsustainable, a phenomenal waste of human capital, and morally indefensible.
If we really believe in decolonisation shouldn't we be handing the Chagos Islands back to the original settlers there, the French?
I suspect they would have been happy to lease it to the US for about $1bn a year.
You have to look at the needs and wants of all involved. In order of importance and clout:
The US needs their tenure at "Footprint of Freedom" secured without any legal complications for the long term. They want somebody else to pay for this.
The UK government needs to feel liked by the US. They also want to be perceived as the benevolent face of imperialism. The good kind of expropriation and ethnic cleansing. They also still have some regard for international law and complying with it allows them to take their preferred position of impotent sanctimony when other countries violate it like China with its island and reef acquisition spree.
The Mauritius government needs money and wants its anti-colonial credentials burnished.
The Chagoswegians need and want money.
Given all of those various motivations, it's hard to see any other course than the SKS deal. Playing for time or telling everyone to fuck off isn't a viable strategy due to inexorable and irresistible pressure from the US.
The french have been telling everyone to fuck off for decades and eventually they do.
The French are militarily independent of the U.S. We very much aren't.
It wouldn't be impossible to change that, but it might take a decade or so. And require a lot more than 2.5% of GDP.
France both did a lot worse, and a lot better than us when they disengaged from most of their empire.
Um. Algeria. French Indo-China.
France had an absolute shocker. Largely because they tried to hold on by sheer force of arms, and took the gloves off.
The only bit they got right was in the 1960s and thereafter when they incorporated the bits left into overseas departments.
De Gaulle’s basic fear was that with military victory in Algeria, (and the French did pretty much win at the military level), would come full French citizenship for Algerians, and then mass migration to France.
The Algerian War was doing severe damage to France's reputation and was, essentially, politically lost.
I'm torn over Reform. Sometimes I think: let's just get Nigel as PM and get it out of our system sooner rather than later. But then I remember that they'll probably aim to mimic Trump 2 but in an even more triumphalist, confrontational, manic and outlandish way, and I get worried again.
We tried BoZo as PM to "get Brexit out of our system"
How did that work out?
Yes, Boris is the big warning here. The problem is that I'm finding erstwhile admirers of Boris, who subsequently turned against the great man, are now going full-on Nigel, even though a similar phenomenon is at play. Where will it all end?
I would appreciate if Moonrabbit would answer my question as to whether the Chagos Deal makes the Falklands more or less secure.
Regarding the header, this is simply a measure of awareness. There is no such thing as being aware of this deal and liking it. It's not like welfare where some are in receipt and some are paying, or a tax increase, assisted dying, or the NHS - there are no winners and losers or ideological fault lines. There are just losers.
Those who are in favour are just being reflexively pro-Labour (it's about equal with their poll rating) and are either ignorant about the deal or are acting from partisan loyalty.
My mind is still open on your question. persuade me. 🙂
I would answer, argument it’s less secure is based on precedent has been set by this case. But has a precedent been set, if each situation is unique? Put more specifically, when inhabitants have chosen, have there been instances UN and courts ruled against the choice of inhabitants? That would set a precedent making UK sovereignty of Falklands more insecure, our enemies like Moscow, would line up to game the UN workings, throwing their weight behind a claimant.
I’m not in favour of this Governments Chagos deal. My header was sharing my understanding they chose this option wanting to be seen as a fair and responsible power, rather than simply claiming land outright without international support, on basis this approach brings more leverage to our diplomacy, more influence, friends, more security deals and trade. Which actually is not new - it’s identical reasoning in 1898 British Empire chose to sign a lease on something else. They thought they would get more of the good stuff doing it that way.
I know you disagree. the other day you fully signed up to 1 million years BC diplomacy, Raquel Welch in Faun skins and a club in her hand. Perhaps one day we should have a simple header IS IT BETTER TO BE FEARED OR LOVED? and debate it out underneath. I’m certain it’s not as open and shut as you sure it is.
My personal preference is neither sovereignty or the deal. With either sovereignty or lease, UK gets absolutely nothing in defence and security that isn’t also pooled with others. Let US and India deal and pay this time.. But is that realistic? Was it ever an option?
Two things you unrealistically dismiss Lucky. Keeping sovereignty WILL come with brickbats and loss of influence. When it went into court, no one in the world turned up for us, apart from USA and some little places slipped a backhander to vote with us. No NATO allies, no Canada, no Australia. No one in the Indian Ocean or South China Sea, as India had used our Imperial Squat to whip them all up against doing any business with us.
Secondly, when UK got into base talks back in 1960s, it came hand in hand with interlocking UK defence and security with the US catalogue of expensive kit. Are we in any position to decouple? Seriously?
I don’t mind Reform making same glib mistakes as you, but fear Conservative front bench making the same and being unrealistic about what options actually were. in government or opposition, Lab & Con have been as one in agreement being interlocked with US equipment and security since 1960s. Today in opposition Tories attacking the deal as far too favourable to the US. What exactly is Kemi saying, what exactly is her policy, on interlocked with US on security and key bits of equipment?
Thanks for the time taken to answer.
It is not about being feared or loved. It is a far simpler calculation of positive and negative consequences on the part of those whose interests clash with ours. We have sent a HUGE signal up not only that we are in giveaway mode even when there is no legal compulsion or military threat, but that we will even bankroll our own disgrace. AND that we don't give a flying fuck about the wishes of the peoples' of the islands and their democratic wishes. The positives of taking on the UK have just become massively more attractive than the perceived downsides, for anyone.
I am happy for the UK be loved - I am not in favour of flouncing around taking delight in upsetting foreign Governments. But we MUST be consistent in defence of our own legitimate interests. We are not being celebrated on the streets of Calcutta with this deal - we were already loathed for the Raj; we have simply added a layer of being despised for being weak and in terminal decline.
Time and again Labour have made the foolish error of thinking that British Governments (usually Tory ones) didn't get anywhere in negotiations with overseas powers because they weren’t being 'nice' enough. It led to Blair giving away much of our EU rebate for a non-existent reform of the CAP, it has led to Starmer giving away 12 years of fishing rights for fuck all, it now leads to this.
In the bigger picture - and if you don’t agree with this please correct me - for the last 100 years, the US has been on a relentless mission to expunge all influence UK has in the world. They usurped UK good and proper in Middle East, even drew up plans in the forties to kick us out of Hong Kong. India has joined in with glee. UK pressured into this deal by India, steering everyone in the region away from the old evil empire for not being fair to Mauritius. There’s the clearer story of being hauled into court on Chagos. Not China driving it, but India. (I put all this in the header btw)
And what’s UK been doing whilst “friends” have been burying the British Empire, expunging last traces of it, clipping away at our influence around the region like a back street vet neutering a dog? We’ve interlocked ourselves into the expensive catalogue of US weaponry. We’ve got the hit of ethnic cleansing the Chagos, and the ongoing mess from that we saw outside a court house last week. And we brought both India and US into the negotiating room to help write this lease agreement.
When PBers post “we should have kept sovereignty, simples” I put it to you - isn’t that the preferred option Washington wanted in the first place? their bitch to keep the sovereignty, carry on doing the dirty work, until India’s campaign against us made it all the more difficult?
When you look at this bigger picture, from sixties to now, what the word Chagos should mean in the English language is “the UK have been mugs” all these years doing the heavy lifting for others, and getting what back exactly? Keeping the sovereignty as you say, I say naively, thoughtlessly, glibly,, artlessly you keep insisting we should have kept the sovereignty, we would have carried on as the bitch, carried on being the mug.
In my opinion we should be trying to decouple ourselves from the donkey work for others we have got ourselves into over in Chagos.
At least a lease on an island may be far less complicated to legally transfer on at some point, than sovereignty.
I understand your arguments, and I agree with much of what you say, but the Chagos deal is not the remedy for any of it.
In my heart, I don't want the US there at all. However, I appreciate that telling them to do one is an abject impossibility. From where we are (or where we were a year ago), the sensible middle road was simply to retain sovereignty. It wouldn't have delighted anyone, but neither would it have burned bridges or badly damaged any relationships.
If this deal goes through, we will be in a new situation. From where we will be then the best course of action will be to terminate the deal. There are numerous ways this could be achieved, and providing that none of them come with a 99 year rent, I'm up for whichever one causes with least hassle - though I accept that, as with the EU deal, Labour have left us with a signficant amount of lasting hassle, cleaning up their dirty protest of a Government.
Dunno about you but I’m having a late brunch of kipper-and-egg in a bap, on the beach, in the shade of Bamburgh Castle, with my older daughter on the occasion of her 19th birthday - as I drive her dome from her first year at Uni
Dunno about you but I’m having a late brunch of kipper-and-egg in a bap, on the beach, in the shade of Bamburgh Castle, with my older daughter on the occasion of her 19th birthday - as I drive her dome from her first year at Uni
I think I’m more emotional than her
I went for kipper in a hotel a while back for my included cooked breakfast. They presented me a single fillet and a lemon wedge and a half round of brown bread. It's about the angriest I've ever been.
Edit- it might have been a whole round of brown bread in hindsight
I'm torn over Reform. Sometimes I think: let's just get Nigel as PM and get it out of our system sooner rather than later. But then I remember that they'll probably aim to mimic Trump 2 but in an even more triumphalist, confrontational, manic and outlandish way, and I get worried again.
I don’t think Farage is as instinctively chaotic as Trump, for what it’s worth. I think he has a bit more of a clearer vision (it wouldn’t be hard). That doesn’t mean that he couldn’t cause a lot of difficulties and fallout along the way, particularly where markets are concerned, and potentially in cases of national security and European co-operation.
I don't think Farage is quite as malevolent as Trump but what the two have in common is an extremely self indulgent politics their respective countries can't afford, particularly Britain can't afford. Could Farage pivot to practical governing once he's in power? Possible but he has never given the slightest indication.
Net Zero is set the cost the British economy the same in today's money as World War II. And Starmer has just given away an island and arranged to hire it back for £30bn.
Good on you for having the balls to to talk about what the country can afford though - nice try.
Can't have the UK becoming self-reliant on energy and decoupled from hydrocarbon markets. That would mean we (and the rest of Europe) could sanction Russia properly without trashing our economies.
(We're currently at 100% domestic electricity generation and 91% non-fossil fuels. We're generating so much it's actually -£5 per MWh.)
Wow. It really is tinfoil central on here today.
One of Russia's biggest subversion successes has been the funding of anti-UK oil and gas movements in case you weren't aware. They were much less successful in the case of America, which is why America doesn't give a shit about Russia's gas - that was achieved by drilling, not by putting up some stupid wind farms.
I on the other hand am in favour of getting our own oil and gas out - something that our current reliance on intermittent renewables bakes into the system. Then we will actually be free from energy blackmail.
I'm torn over Reform. Sometimes I think: let's just get Nigel as PM and get it out of our system sooner rather than later. But then I remember that they'll probably aim to mimic Trump 2 but in an even more triumphalist, confrontational, manic and outlandish way, and I get worried again.
We tried BoZo as PM to "get Brexit out of our system"
I would appreciate if Moonrabbit would answer my question as to whether the Chagos Deal makes the Falklands more or less secure.
Regarding the header, this is simply a measure of awareness. There is no such thing as being aware of this deal and liking it. It's not like welfare where some are in receipt and some are paying, or a tax increase, assisted dying, or the NHS - there are no winners and losers or ideological fault lines. There are just losers.
Those who are in favour are just being reflexively pro-Labour (it's about equal with their poll rating) and are either ignorant about the deal or are acting from partisan loyalty.
My mind is still open on your question. persuade me. 🙂
I would answer, argument it’s less secure is based on precedent has been set by this case. But has a precedent been set, if each situation is unique? Put more specifically, when inhabitants have chosen, have there been instances UN and courts ruled against the choice of inhabitants? That would set a precedent making UK sovereignty of Falklands more insecure, our enemies like Moscow, would line up to game the UN workings, throwing their weight behind a claimant.
I’m not in favour of this Governments Chagos deal. My header was sharing my understanding they chose this option wanting to be seen as a fair and responsible power, rather than simply claiming land outright without international support, on basis this approach brings more leverage to our diplomacy, more influence, friends, more security deals and trade. Which actually is not new - it’s identical reasoning in 1898 British Empire chose to sign a lease on something else. They thought they would get more of the good stuff doing it that way.
I know you disagree. the other day you fully signed up to 1 million years BC diplomacy, Raquel Welch in Faun skins and a club in her hand. Perhaps one day we should have a simple header IS IT BETTER TO BE FEARED OR LOVED? and debate it out underneath. I’m certain it’s not as open and shut as you sure it is.
My personal preference is neither sovereignty or the deal. With either sovereignty or lease, UK gets absolutely nothing in defence and security that isn’t also pooled with others. Let US and India deal and pay this time.. But is that realistic? Was it ever an option?
Two things you unrealistically dismiss Lucky. Keeping sovereignty WILL come with brickbats and loss of influence. When it went into court, no one in the world turned up for us, apart from USA and some little places slipped a backhander to vote with us. No NATO allies, no Canada, no Australia. No one in the Indian Ocean or South China Sea, as India had used our Imperial Squat to whip them all up against doing any business with us.
Secondly, when UK got into base talks back in 1960s, it came hand in hand with interlocking UK defence and security with the US catalogue of expensive kit. Are we in any position to decouple? Seriously?
I don’t mind Reform making same glib mistakes as you, but fear Conservative front bench making the same and being unrealistic about what options actually were. in government or opposition, Lab & Con have been as one in agreement being interlocked with US equipment and security since 1960s. Today in opposition Tories attacking the deal as far too favourable to the US. What exactly is Kemi saying, what exactly is her policy, on interlocked with US on security and key bits of equipment?
Thanks for the time taken to answer.
It is not about being feared or loved. It is a far simpler calculation of positive and negative consequences on the part of those whose interests clash with ours. We have sent a HUGE signal up not only that we are in giveaway mode even when there is no legal compulsion or military threat, but that we will even bankroll our own disgrace. AND that we don't give a flying fuck about the wishes of the peoples' of the islands and their democratic wishes. The positives of taking on the UK have just become massively more attractive than the perceived downsides, for anyone.
I am happy for the UK be loved - I am not in favour of flouncing around taking delight in upsetting foreign Governments. But we MUST be consistent in defence of our own legitimate interests. We are not being celebrated on the streets of Calcutta with this deal - we were already loathed for the Raj; we have simply added a layer of being despised for being weak and in terminal decline.
Time and again Labour have made the foolish error of thinking that British Governments (usually Tory ones) didn't get anywhere in negotiations with overseas powers because they weren’t being 'nice' enough. It led to Blair giving away much of our EU rebate for a non-existent reform of the CAP, it has led to Starmer giving away 12 years of fishing rights for fuck all, it now leads to this.
In the bigger picture - and if you don’t agree with this please correct me - for the last 100 years, the US has been on a relentless mission to expunge all influence UK has in the world. They usurped UK good and proper in Middle East, even drew up plans in the forties to kick us out of Hong Kong. India has joined in with glee. UK pressured into this deal by India, steering everyone in the region away from the old evil empire for not being fair to Mauritius. There’s the clearer story of being hauled into court on Chagos. Not China driving it, but India. (I put all this in the header btw)
And what’s UK been doing whilst “friends” have been burying the British Empire, expunging last traces of it, clipping away at our influence around the region like a back street vet neutering a dog? We’ve interlocked ourselves into the expensive catalogue of US weaponry. We’ve got the hit of ethnic cleansing the Chagos, and the ongoing mess from that we saw outside a court house last week. And we brought both India and US into the negotiating room to help write this lease agreement.
When PBers post “we should have kept sovereignty, simples” I put it to you - isn’t that the preferred option Washington wanted in the first place? their bitch to keep the sovereignty, carry on doing the dirty work, until India’s campaign against us made it all the more difficult?
When you look at this bigger picture, from sixties to now, what the word Chagos should mean in the English language is “the UK have been mugs” all these years doing the heavy lifting for others, and getting what back exactly? Keeping the sovereignty as you say, I say naively, thoughtlessly, glibly,, artlessly you keep insisting we should have kept the sovereignty, we would have carried on as the bitch, carried on being the mug.
In my opinion we should be trying to decouple ourselves from the donkey work for others we have got ourselves into over in Chagos.
At least a lease on an island may be far less complicated to legally transfer on at some point, than sovereignty.
I understand your arguments, and I agree with much of what you say, but the Chagos deal is not the remedy for any of it.
In my heart, I don't want the US there at all. However, I appreciate that telling them to do one is an abject impossibility. From where we are (or where we were a year ago), the sensible middle road was simply to retain sovereignty. It wouldn't have delighted anyone, but neither would it have burned bridges or badly damaged any relationships.
If this deal goes through, we will be in a new situation. From where we will be then the best course of action will be to terminate the deal. There are numerous ways this could be achieved, and providing that none of them come with a 99 year rent, I'm up for whichever one causes with least hassle - though I accept that, as with the EU deal, Labour have left us with a signficant amount of lasting hassle, cleaning up their dirty protest of a Government.
“In my heart, I don't want the US there at all. However, I appreciate that telling them to do one is an abject impossibility. ”
If the US base wasn’t there, why would you need sovereignty over the Chagos Islands?
What would you be getting out of it, to compensate for all the hassle and bad press you would be attracting?
I would appreciate if Moonrabbit would answer my question as to whether the Chagos Deal makes the Falklands more or less secure.
Regarding the header, this is simply a measure of awareness. There is no such thing as being aware of this deal and liking it. It's not like welfare where some are in receipt and some are paying, or a tax increase, assisted dying, or the NHS - there are no winners and losers or ideological fault lines. There are just losers.
Those who are in favour are just being reflexively pro-Labour (it's about equal with their poll rating) and are either ignorant about the deal or are acting from partisan loyalty.
My mind is still open on your question. persuade me. 🙂
I would answer, argument it’s less secure is based on precedent has been set by this case. But has a precedent been set, if each situation is unique? Put more specifically, when inhabitants have chosen, have there been instances UN and courts ruled against the choice of inhabitants? That would set a precedent making UK sovereignty of Falklands more insecure, our enemies like Moscow, would line up to game the UN workings, throwing their weight behind a claimant.
I’m not in favour of this Governments Chagos deal. My header was sharing my understanding they chose this option wanting to be seen as a fair and responsible power, rather than simply claiming land outright without international support, on basis this approach brings more leverage to our diplomacy, more influence, friends, more security deals and trade. Which actually is not new - it’s identical reasoning in 1898 British Empire chose to sign a lease on something else. They thought they would get more of the good stuff doing it that way.
I know you disagree. the other day you fully signed up to 1 million years BC diplomacy, Raquel Welch in Faun skins and a club in her hand. Perhaps one day we should have a simple header IS IT BETTER TO BE FEARED OR LOVED? and debate it out underneath. I’m certain it’s not as open and shut as you sure it is.
My personal preference is neither sovereignty or the deal. With either sovereignty or lease, UK gets absolutely nothing in defence and security that isn’t also pooled with others. Let US and India deal and pay this time.. But is that realistic? Was it ever an option?
Two things you unrealistically dismiss Lucky. Keeping sovereignty WILL come with brickbats and loss of influence. When it went into court, no one in the world turned up for us, apart from USA and some little places slipped a backhander to vote with us. No NATO allies, no Canada, no Australia. No one in the Indian Ocean or South China Sea, as India had used our Imperial Squat to whip them all up against doing any business with us.
Secondly, when UK got into base talks back in 1960s, it came hand in hand with interlocking UK defence and security with the US catalogue of expensive kit. Are we in any position to decouple? Seriously?
I don’t mind Reform making same glib mistakes as you, but fear Conservative front bench making the same and being unrealistic about what options actually were. in government or opposition, Lab & Con have been as one in agreement being interlocked with US equipment and security since 1960s. Today in opposition Tories attacking the deal as far too favourable to the US. What exactly is Kemi saying, what exactly is her policy, on interlocked with US on security and key bits of equipment?
Thanks for the time taken to answer.
It is not about being feared or loved. It is a far simpler calculation of positive and negative consequences on the part of those whose interests clash with ours. We have sent a HUGE signal up not only that we are in giveaway mode even when there is no legal compulsion or military threat, but that we will even bankroll our own disgrace. AND that we don't give a flying fuck about the wishes of the peoples' of the islands and their democratic wishes. The positives of taking on the UK have just become massively more attractive than the perceived downsides, for anyone.
I am happy for the UK be loved - I am not in favour of flouncing around taking delight in upsetting foreign Governments. But we MUST be consistent in defence of our own legitimate interests. We are not being celebrated on the streets of Calcutta with this deal - we were already loathed for the Raj; we have simply added a layer of being despised for being weak and in terminal decline.
Time and again Labour have made the foolish error of thinking that British Governments (usually Tory ones) didn't get anywhere in negotiations with overseas powers because they weren’t being 'nice' enough. It led to Blair giving away much of our EU rebate for a non-existent reform of the CAP, it has led to Starmer giving away 12 years of fishing rights for fuck all, it now leads to this.
In the bigger picture - and if you don’t agree with this please correct me - for the last 100 years, the US has been on a relentless mission to expunge all influence UK has in the world. They usurped UK good and proper in Middle East, even drew up plans in the forties to kick us out of Hong Kong. India has joined in with glee. UK pressured into this deal by India, steering everyone in the region away from the old evil empire for not being fair to Mauritius. There’s the clearer story of being hauled into court on Chagos. Not China driving it, but India. (I put all this in the header btw)
And what’s UK been doing whilst “friends” have been burying the British Empire, expunging last traces of it, clipping away at our influence around the region like a back street vet neutering a dog? We’ve interlocked ourselves into the expensive catalogue of US weaponry. We’ve got the hit of ethnic cleansing the Chagos, and the ongoing mess from that we saw outside a court house last week. And we brought both India and US into the negotiating room to help write this lease agreement.
When PBers post “we should have kept sovereignty, simples” I put it to you - isn’t that the preferred option Washington wanted in the first place? their bitch to keep the sovereignty, carry on doing the dirty work, until India’s campaign against us made it all the more difficult?
When you look at this bigger picture, from sixties to now, what the word Chagos should mean in the English language is “the UK have been mugs” all these years doing the heavy lifting for others, and getting what back exactly? Keeping the sovereignty as you say, I say naively, thoughtlessly, glibly,, artlessly you keep insisting we should have kept the sovereignty, we would have carried on as the bitch, carried on being the mug.
In my opinion we should be trying to decouple ourselves from the donkey work for others we have got ourselves into over in Chagos.
At least a lease on an island may be far less complicated to legally transfer on at some point, than sovereignty.
I understand your arguments, and I agree with much of what you say, but the Chagos deal is not the remedy for any of it.
In my heart, I don't want the US there at all. However, I appreciate that telling them to do one is an abject impossibility. From where we are (or where we were a year ago), the sensible middle road was simply to retain sovereignty. It wouldn't have delighted anyone, but neither would it have burned bridges or badly damaged any relationships.
If this deal goes through, we will be in a new situation. From where we will be then the best course of action will be to terminate the deal. There are numerous ways this could be achieved, and providing that none of them come with a 99 year rent, I'm up for whichever one causes with least hassle - though I accept that, as with the EU deal, Labour have left us with a signficant amount of lasting hassle, cleaning up their dirty protest of a Government.
“In my heart, I don't want the US there at all. However, I appreciate that telling them to do one is an abject impossibility. ”
If the US base wasn’t there, why would you need sovereignty over the Chagos Islands?
What would you be getting out of it, to compensate for all the hassle and bad press you would be attracting?
But, but, but...mumble...can't give away our sovereign territory...mumble...[triumphantly but a little uncertainly whistle Brittania rules the waves]... mumble....empire wasn't all bad...[splutter quietly into my Darjeeling and drift back to sleep in my armchair]
I would appreciate if Moonrabbit would answer my question as to whether the Chagos Deal makes the Falklands more or less secure.
Regarding the header, this is simply a measure of awareness. There is no such thing as being aware of this deal and liking it. It's not like welfare where some are in receipt and some are paying, or a tax increase, assisted dying, or the NHS - there are no winners and losers or ideological fault lines. There are just losers.
Those who are in favour are just being reflexively pro-Labour (it's about equal with their poll rating) and are either ignorant about the deal or are acting from partisan loyalty.
My mind is still open on your question. persuade me. 🙂
I would answer, argument it’s less secure is based on precedent has been set by this case. But has a precedent been set, if each situation is unique? Put more specifically, when inhabitants have chosen, have there been instances UN and courts ruled against the choice of inhabitants? That would set a precedent making UK sovereignty of Falklands more insecure, our enemies like Moscow, would line up to game the UN workings, throwing their weight behind a claimant.
I’m not in favour of this Governments Chagos deal. My header was sharing my understanding they chose this option wanting to be seen as a fair and responsible power, rather than simply claiming land outright without international support, on basis this approach brings more leverage to our diplomacy, more influence, friends, more security deals and trade. Which actually is not new - it’s identical reasoning in 1898 British Empire chose to sign a lease on something else. They thought they would get more of the good stuff doing it that way.
I know you disagree. the other day you fully signed up to 1 million years BC diplomacy, Raquel Welch in Faun skins and a club in her hand. Perhaps one day we should have a simple header IS IT BETTER TO BE FEARED OR LOVED? and debate it out underneath. I’m certain it’s not as open and shut as you sure it is.
My personal preference is neither sovereignty or the deal. With either sovereignty or lease, UK gets absolutely nothing in defence and security that isn’t also pooled with others. Let US and India deal and pay this time.. But is that realistic? Was it ever an option?
Two things you unrealistically dismiss Lucky. Keeping sovereignty WILL come with brickbats and loss of influence. When it went into court, no one in the world turned up for us, apart from USA and some little places slipped a backhander to vote with us. No NATO allies, no Canada, no Australia. No one in the Indian Ocean or South China Sea, as India had used our Imperial Squat to whip them all up against doing any business with us.
Secondly, when UK got into base talks back in 1960s, it came hand in hand with interlocking UK defence and security with the US catalogue of expensive kit. Are we in any position to decouple? Seriously?
I don’t mind Reform making same glib mistakes as you, but fear Conservative front bench making the same and being unrealistic about what options actually were. in government or opposition, Lab & Con have been as one in agreement being interlocked with US equipment and security since 1960s. Today in opposition Tories attacking the deal as far too favourable to the US. What exactly is Kemi saying, what exactly is her policy, on interlocked with US on security and key bits of equipment?
Thanks for the time taken to answer.
It is not about being feared or loved. It is a far simpler calculation of positive and negative consequences on the part of those whose interests clash with ours. We have sent a HUGE signal up not only that we are in giveaway mode even when there is no legal compulsion or military threat, but that we will even bankroll our own disgrace. AND that we don't give a flying fuck about the wishes of the peoples' of the islands and their democratic wishes. The positives of taking on the UK have just become massively more attractive than the perceived downsides, for anyone.
I am happy for the UK be loved - I am not in favour of flouncing around taking delight in upsetting foreign Governments. But we MUST be consistent in defence of our own legitimate interests. We are not being celebrated on the streets of Calcutta with this deal - we were already loathed for the Raj; we have simply added a layer of being despised for being weak and in terminal decline.
Time and again Labour have made the foolish error of thinking that British Governments (usually Tory ones) didn't get anywhere in negotiations with overseas powers because they weren’t being 'nice' enough. It led to Blair giving away much of our EU rebate for a non-existent reform of the CAP, it has led to Starmer giving away 12 years of fishing rights for fuck all, it now leads to this.
In the bigger picture - and if you don’t agree with this please correct me - for the last 100 years, the US has been on a relentless mission to expunge all influence UK has in the world. They usurped UK good and proper in Middle East, even drew up plans in the forties to kick us out of Hong Kong. India has joined in with glee. UK pressured into this deal by India, steering everyone in the region away from the old evil empire for not being fair to Mauritius. There’s the clearer story of being hauled into court on Chagos. Not China driving it, but India. (I put all this in the header btw)
And what’s UK been doing whilst “friends” have been burying the British Empire, expunging last traces of it, clipping away at our influence around the region like a back street vet neutering a dog? We’ve interlocked ourselves into the expensive catalogue of US weaponry. We’ve got the hit of ethnic cleansing the Chagos, and the ongoing mess from that we saw outside a court house last week. And we brought both India and US into the negotiating room to help write this lease agreement.
When PBers post “we should have kept sovereignty, simples” I put it to you - isn’t that the preferred option Washington wanted in the first place? their bitch to keep the sovereignty, carry on doing the dirty work, until India’s campaign against us made it all the more difficult?
When you look at this bigger picture, from sixties to now, what the word Chagos should mean in the English language is “the UK have been mugs” all these years doing the heavy lifting for others, and getting what back exactly? Keeping the sovereignty as you say, I say naively, thoughtlessly, glibly,, artlessly you keep insisting we should have kept the sovereignty, we would have carried on as the bitch, carried on being the mug.
In my opinion we should be trying to decouple ourselves from the donkey work for others we have got ourselves into over in Chagos.
At least a lease on an island may be far less complicated to legally transfer on at some point, than sovereignty.
I understand your arguments, and I agree with much of what you say, but the Chagos deal is not the remedy for any of it.
In my heart, I don't want the US there at all. However, I appreciate that telling them to do one is an abject impossibility. From where we are (or where we were a year ago), the sensible middle road was simply to retain sovereignty. It wouldn't have delighted anyone, but neither would it have burned bridges or badly damaged any relationships.
If this deal goes through, we will be in a new situation. From where we will be then the best course of action will be to terminate the deal. There are numerous ways this could be achieved, and providing that none of them come with a 99 year rent, I'm up for whichever one causes with least hassle - though I accept that, as with the EU deal, Labour have left us with a signficant amount of lasting hassle, cleaning up their dirty protest of a Government.
“In my heart, I don't want the US there at all. However, I appreciate that telling them to do one is an abject impossibility. ”
If the US base wasn’t there, why would you need sovereignty over the Chagos Islands?
What would you be getting out of it, to compensate for all the hassle and bad press you would be attracting?
I don't understand the point of your question. I haven't said that we would need sovereignty over the Chagos Islands if the US base was not there. I have merely said that I don't particularly like the arrangement of having a secretive US base on British soil, but that I see it as a least worst option given where we are.
Dunno about you but I’m having a late brunch of kipper-and-egg in a bap, on the beach, in the shade of Bamburgh Castle, with my older daughter on the occasion of her 19th birthday - as I drive her dome from her first year at Uni
I think I’m more emotional than her
I went for kipper in a hotel a while back for my included cooked breakfast. They presented me a single fillet and a lemon wedge and a half round of brown bread. It's about the angriest I've ever been.
Edit- it might have been a whole round of brown bread in hindsight
I really recommend this place. It’s just a shack on the beach at Bamburgh called “bait”
The kipper and egg bap is fantastic. Also good coffee
Dunno about you but I’m having a late brunch of kipper-and-egg in a bap, on the beach, in the shade of Bamburgh Castle, with my older daughter on the occasion of her 19th birthday - as I drive her dome from her first year at Uni
I'm torn over Reform. Sometimes I think: let's just get Nigel as PM and get it out of our system sooner rather than later. But then I remember that they'll probably aim to mimic Trump 2 but in an even more triumphalist, confrontational, manic and outlandish way, and I get worried again.
I don’t think Farage is as instinctively chaotic as Trump, for what it’s worth. I think he has a bit more of a clearer vision (it wouldn’t be hard). That doesn’t mean that he couldn’t cause a lot of difficulties and fallout along the way, particularly where markets are concerned, and potentially in cases of national security and European co-operation.
I don't think Farage is quite as malevolent as Trump but what the two have in common is an extremely self indulgent politics their respective countries can't afford, particularly Britain can't afford. Could Farage pivot to practical governing once he's in power? Possible but he has never given the slightest indication.
Well at some point we are going to find out how much Farage really wants power. Because as we approach an election he will need to be strategic on Reform’s positioning, particularly on the economics and the NHS. Currently, I’m not convinced he has either of those two areas fully figured out. If he wants power he will adapt and moderate somewhat in both of those areas.
Unless Farage is planning to drop the huge tax cuts he wants that means more austerity, which many of the voters he needs are sick of.
The only "austerity" there has been is in properly funding core functions of the state.
We are still spraying the cash round to people who aren't working, who aren't grateful for it and always complain there's not enough of it.
Would it help if the elderly, sick and disabled came and grovelled regularly before selected representatives of proper people, to demonstrate how humbly grateful they were for the means of staying alive?
Pomposity like this is precisely why we can't get a grip on the problem.
There is nothing moral about the triple lock, a UBI for those who can pass a PIP test, and the chronic welfare trap caused by UC.
We have 6 million people (of working age) not working, in an entirely separate and contrived economy, and gold-plate a benefits package for the retired that's untouchable.
It's fiscally unsustainable, a phenomenal waste of human capital, and morally indefensible.
We need to be a bit careful here because there are not enough jobs to go round until we can expand the economy.
Dunno about you but I’m having a late brunch of kipper-and-egg in a bap, on the beach, in the shade of Bamburgh Castle, with my older daughter on the occasion of her 19th birthday - as I drive her dome from her first year at Uni
I think I’m more emotional than her
How does Northumberland compare with Cornwall?
Not answering for Sean, obvs. When I walked the coast, I preferred Northumberland. A much under-appreciated coastline, and not too touristy. General scenery-wise, I'd probably go for Cornwall, but it's close.
Dunno about you but I’m having a late brunch of kipper-and-egg in a bap, on the beach, in the shade of Bamburgh Castle, with my older daughter on the occasion of her 19th birthday - as I drive her dome from her first year at Uni
I think I’m more emotional than her
How does Northumberland compare with Cornwall?
Not answering for Sean, obvs. When I walked the coast, I preferred Northumberland. A much under-appreciated coastline, and not too touristy. General scenery-wise, I'd probably go for Cornwall, but it's close.
Closer to Scotland too. Northumberland all the way
I'm torn over Reform. Sometimes I think: let's just get Nigel as PM and get it out of our system sooner rather than later. But then I remember that they'll probably aim to mimic Trump 2 but in an even more triumphalist, confrontational, manic and outlandish way, and I get worried again.
I don’t think Farage is as instinctively chaotic as Trump, for what it’s worth. I think he has a bit more of a clearer vision (it wouldn’t be hard). That doesn’t mean that he couldn’t cause a lot of difficulties and fallout along the way, particularly where markets are concerned, and potentially in cases of national security and European co-operation.
I don't think Farage is quite as malevolent as Trump but what the two have in common is an extremely self indulgent politics their respective countries can't afford, particularly Britain can't afford. Could Farage pivot to practical governing once he's in power? Possible but he has never given the slightest indication.
Net Zero is set the cost the British economy the same in today's money as World War II. And Starmer has just given away an island and arranged to hire it back for £30bn.
Good on you for having the balls to to talk about what the country can afford though - nice try.
Can't have the UK becoming self-reliant on energy and decoupled from hydrocarbon markets. That would mean we (and the rest of Europe) could sanction Russia properly without trashing our economies.
(We're currently at 100% domestic electricity generation and 91% non-fossil fuels. We're generating so much it's actually -£5 per MWh.)
Wow. It really is tinfoil central on here today.
One of Russia's biggest subversion successes has been the funding of anti-UK oil and gas movements in case you weren't aware. They were much less successful in the case of America, which is why America doesn't give a shit about Russia's gas - that was achieved by drilling, not by putting up some stupid wind farms.
I on the other hand am in favour of getting our own oil and gas out - something that our current reliance on intermittent renewables bakes into the system. Then we will actually be free from energy blackmail.
The naivety of youth. Wait until you are a grandad. Your world view will be glad of every single measure instigated to mitigate climate change.
Are you aware of tipping points and the precautionary principle? If the AMOC stalls for example what do you think will happen?
At the moment there is a billion dollar climate event every two weeks. What’s going to happen to industry and investment when we can’t buy insurance?
There’s a wilful blindness. And you have it.
And I know you think you are the iconoclast, bless, but .. . . what if you are being mugged by the trillions invested in the status quo, the worldviews inherent in protecting the income streams of those much richer than us?
We’ve known about climate change since the late 1890s and every year the carbon footprint has grown. Every year more.
Dunno about you but I’m having a late brunch of kipper-and-egg in a bap, on the beach, in the shade of Bamburgh Castle, with my older daughter on the occasion of her 19th birthday - as I drive her dome from her first year at Uni
I think I’m more emotional than her
I went for kipper in a hotel a while back for my included cooked breakfast. They presented me a single fillet and a lemon wedge and a half round of brown bread. It's about the angriest I've ever been.
Edit- it might have been a whole round of brown bread in hindsight
I really recommend this place. It’s just a shack on the beach at Bamburgh called “bait”
The kipper and egg bap is fantastic. Also good coffee
And Bamburgh castle!
I drive past there twice a week en route to Aberdeen from Lincolnshire and back. It really is a fantastic part of the world.
I would appreciate if Moonrabbit would answer my question as to whether the Chagos Deal makes the Falklands more or less secure.
Regarding the header, this is simply a measure of awareness. There is no such thing as being aware of this deal and liking it. It's not like welfare where some are in receipt and some are paying, or a tax increase, assisted dying, or the NHS - there are no winners and losers or ideological fault lines. There are just losers.
Those who are in favour are just being reflexively pro-Labour (it's about equal with their poll rating) and are either ignorant about the deal or are acting from partisan loyalty.
My mind is still open on your question. persuade me. 🙂
I would answer, argument it’s less secure is based on precedent has been set by this case. But has a precedent been set, if each situation is unique? Put more specifically, when inhabitants have chosen, have there been instances UN and courts ruled against the choice of inhabitants? That would set a precedent making UK sovereignty of Falklands more insecure, our enemies like Moscow, would line up to game the UN workings, throwing their weight behind a claimant.
I’m not in favour of this Governments Chagos deal. My header was sharing my understanding they chose this option wanting to be seen as a fair and responsible power, rather than simply claiming land outright without international support, on basis this approach brings more leverage to our diplomacy, more influence, friends, more security deals and trade. Which actually is not new - it’s identical reasoning in 1898 British Empire chose to sign a lease on something else. They thought they would get more of the good stuff doing it that way.
I know you disagree. the other day you fully signed up to 1 million years BC diplomacy, Raquel Welch in Faun skins and a club in her hand. Perhaps one day we should have a simple header IS IT BETTER TO BE FEARED OR LOVED? and debate it out underneath. I’m certain it’s not as open and shut as you sure it is.
My personal preference is neither sovereignty or the deal. With either sovereignty or lease, UK gets absolutely nothing in defence and security that isn’t also pooled with others. Let US and India deal and pay this time.. But is that realistic? Was it ever an option?
Two things you unrealistically dismiss Lucky. Keeping sovereignty WILL come with brickbats and loss of influence. When it went into court, no one in the world turned up for us, apart from USA and some little places slipped a backhander to vote with us. No NATO allies, no Canada, no Australia. No one in the Indian Ocean or South China Sea, as India had used our Imperial Squat to whip them all up against doing any business with us.
Secondly, when UK got into base talks back in 1960s, it came hand in hand with interlocking UK defence and security with the US catalogue of expensive kit. Are we in any position to decouple? Seriously?
I don’t mind Reform making same glib mistakes as you, but fear Conservative front bench making the same and being unrealistic about what options actually were. in government or opposition, Lab & Con have been as one in agreement being interlocked with US equipment and security since 1960s. Today in opposition Tories attacking the deal as far too favourable to the US. What exactly is Kemi saying, what exactly is her policy, on interlocked with US on security and key bits of equipment?
Thanks for the time taken to answer.
It is not about being feared or loved. It is a far simpler calculation of positive and negative consequences on the part of those whose interests clash with ours. We have sent a HUGE signal up not only that we are in giveaway mode even when there is no legal compulsion or military threat, but that we will even bankroll our own disgrace. AND that we don't give a flying fuck about the wishes of the peoples' of the islands and their democratic wishes. The positives of taking on the UK have just become massively more attractive than the perceived downsides, for anyone.
I am happy for the UK be loved - I am not in favour of flouncing around taking delight in upsetting foreign Governments. But we MUST be consistent in defence of our own legitimate interests. We are not being celebrated on the streets of Calcutta with this deal - we were already loathed for the Raj; we have simply added a layer of being despised for being weak and in terminal decline.
Time and again Labour have made the foolish error of thinking that British Governments (usually Tory ones) didn't get anywhere in negotiations with overseas powers because they weren’t being 'nice' enough. It led to Blair giving away much of our EU rebate for a non-existent reform of the CAP, it has led to Starmer giving away 12 years of fishing rights for fuck all, it now leads to this.
In the bigger picture - and if you don’t agree with this please correct me - for the last 100 years, the US has been on a relentless mission to expunge all influence UK has in the world. They usurped UK good and proper in Middle East, even drew up plans in the forties to kick us out of Hong Kong. India has joined in with glee. UK pressured into this deal by India, steering everyone in the region away from the old evil empire for not being fair to Mauritius. There’s the clearer story of being hauled into court on Chagos. Not China driving it, but India. (I put all this in the header btw)
And what’s UK been doing whilst “friends” have been burying the British Empire, expunging last traces of it, clipping away at our influence around the region like a back street vet neutering a dog? We’ve interlocked ourselves into the expensive catalogue of US weaponry. We’ve got the hit of ethnic cleansing the Chagos, and the ongoing mess from that we saw outside a court house last week. And we brought both India and US into the negotiating room to help write this lease agreement.
When PBers post “we should have kept sovereignty, simples” I put it to you - isn’t that the preferred option Washington wanted in the first place? their bitch to keep the sovereignty, carry on doing the dirty work, until India’s campaign against us made it all the more difficult?
When you look at this bigger picture, from sixties to now, what the word Chagos should mean in the English language is “the UK have been mugs” all these years doing the heavy lifting for others, and getting what back exactly? Keeping the sovereignty as you say, I say naively, thoughtlessly, glibly,, artlessly you keep insisting we should have kept the sovereignty, we would have carried on as the bitch, carried on being the mug.
In my opinion we should be trying to decouple ourselves from the donkey work for others we have got ourselves into over in Chagos.
At least a lease on an island may be far less complicated to legally transfer on at some point, than sovereignty.
I understand your arguments, and I agree with much of what you say, but the Chagos deal is not the remedy for any of it.
In my heart, I don't want the US there at all. However, I appreciate that telling them to do one is an abject impossibility. From where we are (or where we were a year ago), the sensible middle road was simply to retain sovereignty. It wouldn't have delighted anyone, but neither would it have burned bridges or badly damaged any relationships.
If this deal goes through, we will be in a new situation. From where we will be then the best course of action will be to terminate the deal. There are numerous ways this could be achieved, and providing that none of them come with a 99 year rent, I'm up for whichever one causes with least hassle - though I accept that, as with the EU deal, Labour have left us with a signficant amount of lasting hassle, cleaning up their dirty protest of a Government.
“In my heart, I don't want the US there at all. However, I appreciate that telling them to do one is an abject impossibility. ”
If the US base wasn’t there, why would you need sovereignty over the Chagos Islands?
What would you be getting out of it, to compensate for all the hassle and bad press you would be attracting?
I don't understand the point of your question. I haven't said that we would need sovereignty over the Chagos Islands if the US base was not there. I have merely said that I don't particularly like the arrangement of having a secretive US base on British soil, but that I see it as a least worst option given where we are.
The point is, surely we have to be utilitarian about these things - we can’t just have sovereignty all over there merely as a want?
“ haven't said that we would need sovereignty over the Chagos Islands if the US base was not there.”
So you preferred position - kick the yanks off, they’ve been taking the piss out of us - no yanks, no base, cede sovereignty to Mauritius? Or the ten thousand Chagouns (wherever they are and can agree to take it).
Dunno about you but I’m having a late brunch of kipper-and-egg in a bap, on the beach, in the shade of Bamburgh Castle, with my older daughter on the occasion of her 19th birthday - as I drive her dome from her first year at Uni
I think I’m more emotional than her
I went for kipper in a hotel a while back for my included cooked breakfast. They presented me a single fillet and a lemon wedge and a half round of brown bread. It's about the angriest I've ever been.
Edit- it might have been a whole round of brown bread in hindsight
Don’t work at Butlins. That’s the standard staff breakfast.
I would appreciate if Moonrabbit would answer my question as to whether the Chagos Deal makes the Falklands more or less secure.
Regarding the header, this is simply a measure of awareness. There is no such thing as being aware of this deal and liking it. It's not like welfare where some are in receipt and some are paying, or a tax increase, assisted dying, or the NHS - there are no winners and losers or ideological fault lines. There are just losers.
Those who are in favour are just being reflexively pro-Labour (it's about equal with their poll rating) and are either ignorant about the deal or are acting from partisan loyalty.
My mind is still open on your question. persuade me. 🙂
I would answer, argument it’s less secure is based on precedent has been set by this case. But has a precedent been set, if each situation is unique? Put more specifically, when inhabitants have chosen, have there been instances UN and courts ruled against the choice of inhabitants? That would set a precedent making UK sovereignty of Falklands more insecure, our enemies like Moscow, would line up to game the UN workings, throwing their weight behind a claimant.
I’m not in favour of this Governments Chagos deal. My header was sharing my understanding they chose this option wanting to be seen as a fair and responsible power, rather than simply claiming land outright without international support, on basis this approach brings more leverage to our diplomacy, more influence, friends, more security deals and trade. Which actually is not new - it’s identical reasoning in 1898 British Empire chose to sign a lease on something else. They thought they would get more of the good stuff doing it that way.
I know you disagree. the other day you fully signed up to 1 million years BC diplomacy, Raquel Welch in Faun skins and a club in her hand. Perhaps one day we should have a simple header IS IT BETTER TO BE FEARED OR LOVED? and debate it out underneath. I’m certain it’s not as open and shut as you sure it is.
My personal preference is neither sovereignty or the deal. With either sovereignty or lease, UK gets absolutely nothing in defence and security that isn’t also pooled with others. Let US and India deal and pay this time.. But is that realistic? Was it ever an option?
Two things you unrealistically dismiss Lucky. Keeping sovereignty WILL come with brickbats and loss of influence. When it went into court, no one in the world turned up for us, apart from USA and some little places slipped a backhander to vote with us. No NATO allies, no Canada, no Australia. No one in the Indian Ocean or South China Sea, as India had used our Imperial Squat to whip them all up against doing any business with us.
Secondly, when UK got into base talks back in 1960s, it came hand in hand with interlocking UK defence and security with the US catalogue of expensive kit. Are we in any position to decouple? Seriously?
I don’t mind Reform making same glib mistakes as you, but fear Conservative front bench making the same and being unrealistic about what options actually were. in government or opposition, Lab & Con have been as one in agreement being interlocked with US equipment and security since 1960s. Today in opposition Tories attacking the deal as far too favourable to the US. What exactly is Kemi saying, what exactly is her policy, on interlocked with US on security and key bits of equipment?
Thanks for the time taken to answer.
It is not about being feared or loved. It is a far simpler calculation of positive and negative consequences on the part of those whose interests clash with ours. We have sent a HUGE signal up not only that we are in giveaway mode even when there is no legal compulsion or military threat, but that we will even bankroll our own disgrace. AND that we don't give a flying fuck about the wishes of the peoples' of the islands and their democratic wishes. The positives of taking on the UK have just become massively more attractive than the perceived downsides, for anyone.
I am happy for the UK be loved - I am not in favour of flouncing around taking delight in upsetting foreign Governments. But we MUST be consistent in defence of our own legitimate interests. We are not being celebrated on the streets of Calcutta with this deal - we were already loathed for the Raj; we have simply added a layer of being despised for being weak and in terminal decline.
Time and again Labour have made the foolish error of thinking that British Governments (usually Tory ones) didn't get anywhere in negotiations with overseas powers because they weren’t being 'nice' enough. It led to Blair giving away much of our EU rebate for a non-existent reform of the CAP, it has led to Starmer giving away 12 years of fishing rights for fuck all, it now leads to this.
In the bigger picture - and if you don’t agree with this please correct me - for the last 100 years, the US has been on a relentless mission to expunge all influence UK has in the world. They usurped UK good and proper in Middle East, even drew up plans in the forties to kick us out of Hong Kong. India has joined in with glee. UK pressured into this deal by India, steering everyone in the region away from the old evil empire for not being fair to Mauritius. There’s the clearer story of being hauled into court on Chagos. Not China driving it, but India. (I put all this in the header btw)
And what’s UK been doing whilst “friends” have been burying the British Empire, expunging last traces of it, clipping away at our influence around the region like a back street vet neutering a dog? We’ve interlocked ourselves into the expensive catalogue of US weaponry. We’ve got the hit of ethnic cleansing the Chagos, and the ongoing mess from that we saw outside a court house last week. And we brought both India and US into the negotiating room to help write this lease agreement.
When PBers post “we should have kept sovereignty, simples” I put it to you - isn’t that the preferred option Washington wanted in the first place? their bitch to keep the sovereignty, carry on doing the dirty work, until India’s campaign against us made it all the more difficult?
When you look at this bigger picture, from sixties to now, what the word Chagos should mean in the English language is “the UK have been mugs” all these years doing the heavy lifting for others, and getting what back exactly? Keeping the sovereignty as you say, I say naively, thoughtlessly, glibly,, artlessly you keep insisting we should have kept the sovereignty, we would have carried on as the bitch, carried on being the mug.
In my opinion we should be trying to decouple ourselves from the donkey work for others we have got ourselves into over in Chagos.
At least a lease on an island may be far less complicated to legally transfer on at some point, than sovereignty.
I understand your arguments, and I agree with much of what you say, but the Chagos deal is not the remedy for any of it.
In my heart, I don't want the US there at all. However, I appreciate that telling them to do one is an abject impossibility. From where we are (or where we were a year ago), the sensible middle road was simply to retain sovereignty. It wouldn't have delighted anyone, but neither would it have burned bridges or badly damaged any relationships.
If this deal goes through, we will be in a new situation. From where we will be then the best course of action will be to terminate the deal. There are numerous ways this could be achieved, and providing that none of them come with a 99 year rent, I'm up for whichever one causes with least hassle - though I accept that, as with the EU deal, Labour have left us with a signficant amount of lasting hassle, cleaning up their dirty protest of a Government.
Personally I think we should have given the Chagos Islands back to the Chagosians decades ago and could have used some of that money we are using to bribe Mauritius to actually support the Chagosians rebuilding their lives.
Two things are wrong/bad about the Chagos deal (ignoring the fact that Mauritius had no claim in the first place) and I think will come back to haunt us.
Firstly we have simply ignored the prople who actually inhabited the islands and should have been the ones we were returning them to.
And secondly we are going to see the utter detrsuction of the one of the largest marine reserves in the world.
I'm torn over Reform. Sometimes I think: let's just get Nigel as PM and get it out of our system sooner rather than later. But then I remember that they'll probably aim to mimic Trump 2 but in an even more triumphalist, confrontational, manic and outlandish way, and I get worried again.
I don’t think Farage is as instinctively chaotic as Trump, for what it’s worth. I think he has a bit more of a clearer vision (it wouldn’t be hard). That doesn’t mean that he couldn’t cause a lot of difficulties and fallout along the way, particularly where markets are concerned, and potentially in cases of national security and European co-operation.
I don't think Farage is quite as malevolent as Trump but what the two have in common is an extremely self indulgent politics their respective countries can't afford, particularly Britain can't afford. Could Farage pivot to practical governing once he's in power? Possible but he has never given the slightest indication.
Net Zero is set the cost the British economy the same in today's money as World War II. (Snip)
If we really believe in decolonisation shouldn't we be handing the Chagos Islands back to the original settlers there, the French?
I suspect they would have been happy to lease it to the US for about $1bn a year.
You have to look at the needs and wants of all involved. In order of importance and clout:
The US needs their tenure at "Footprint of Freedom" secured without any legal complications for the long term. They want somebody else to pay for this.
The UK government needs to feel liked by the US. They also want to be perceived as the benevolent face of imperialism. The good kind of expropriation and ethnic cleansing. They also still have some regard for international law and complying with it allows them to take their preferred position of impotent sanctimony when other countries violate it like China with its island and reef acquisition spree.
The Mauritius government needs money and wants its anti-colonial credentials burnished.
The Chagoswegians need and want money.
Given all of those various motivations, it's hard to see any other course than the SKS deal. Playing for time or telling everyone to fuck off isn't a viable strategy due to inexorable and irresistible pressure from the US.
The french have been telling everyone to fuck off for decades and eventually they do.
The French are militarily independent of the U.S. We very much aren't.
It wouldn't be impossible to change that, but it might take a decade or so. And require a lot more than 2.5% of GDP.
France both did a lot worse, and a lot better than us when they disengaged from most of their empire.
In the sense that France has its own nuclear deterrent fully independent of the US yes.
France also withdrew from NATO under De Gaulle in 1966 and did not rejoin until Sarkozy in 2009
Errr...
France also has Europe's strongest domestic defence industry: they have their own fighter jet, CATOBAR carrier*, military jet engine manufacturer, missiles and defense electronics.
* France is the only country other than the US to have a CATOBAR carrier
Dunno about you but I’m having a late brunch of kipper-and-egg in a bap, on the beach, in the shade of Bamburgh Castle, with my older daughter on the occasion of her 19th birthday - as I drive her dome from her first year at Uni
I think I’m more emotional than her
I went for kipper in a hotel a while back for my included cooked breakfast. They presented me a single fillet and a lemon wedge and a half round of brown bread. It's about the angriest I've ever been.
Edit- it might have been a whole round of brown bread in hindsight
I really recommend this place. It’s just a shack on the beach at Bamburgh called “bait”
The kipper and egg bap is fantastic. Also good coffee
And Bamburgh castle!
I drive past there twice a week en route to Aberdeen from Lincolnshire and back. It really is a fantastic part of the world.
It is: it's extraordinarily beautiful, with some lovely towns.
I would appreciate if Moonrabbit would answer my question as to whether the Chagos Deal makes the Falklands more or less secure.
Regarding the header, this is simply a measure of awareness. There is no such thing as being aware of this deal and liking it. It's not like welfare where some are in receipt and some are paying, or a tax increase, assisted dying, or the NHS - there are no winners and losers or ideological fault lines. There are just losers.
Those who are in favour are just being reflexively pro-Labour (it's about equal with their poll rating) and are either ignorant about the deal or are acting from partisan loyalty.
My mind is still open on your question. persuade me. 🙂
I would answer, argument it’s less secure is based on precedent has been set by this case. But has a precedent been set, if each situation is unique? Put more specifically, when inhabitants have chosen, have there been instances UN and courts ruled against the choice of inhabitants? That would set a precedent making UK sovereignty of Falklands more insecure, our enemies like Moscow, would line up to game the UN workings, throwing their weight behind a claimant.
I’m not in favour of this Governments Chagos deal. My header was sharing my understanding they chose this option wanting to be seen as a fair and responsible power, rather than simply claiming land outright without international support, on basis this approach brings more leverage to our diplomacy, more influence, friends, more security deals and trade. Which actually is not new - it’s identical reasoning in 1898 British Empire chose to sign a lease on something else. They thought they would get more of the good stuff doing it that way.
I know you disagree. the other day you fully signed up to 1 million years BC diplomacy, Raquel Welch in Faun skins and a club in her hand. Perhaps one day we should have a simple header IS IT BETTER TO BE FEARED OR LOVED? and debate it out underneath. I’m certain it’s not as open and shut as you sure it is.
My personal preference is neither sovereignty or the deal. With either sovereignty or lease, UK gets absolutely nothing in defence and security that isn’t also pooled with others. Let US and India deal and pay this time.. But is that realistic? Was it ever an option?
Two things you unrealistically dismiss Lucky. Keeping sovereignty WILL come with brickbats and loss of influence. When it went into court, no one in the world turned up for us, apart from USA and some little places slipped a backhander to vote with us. No NATO allies, no Canada, no Australia. No one in the Indian Ocean or South China Sea, as India had used our Imperial Squat to whip them all up against doing any business with us.
Secondly, when UK got into base talks back in 1960s, it came hand in hand with interlocking UK defence and security with the US catalogue of expensive kit. Are we in any position to decouple? Seriously?
I don’t mind Reform making same glib mistakes as you, but fear Conservative front bench making the same and being unrealistic about what options actually were. in government or opposition, Lab & Con have been as one in agreement being interlocked with US equipment and security since 1960s. Today in opposition Tories attacking the deal as far too favourable to the US. What exactly is Kemi saying, what exactly is her policy, on interlocked with US on security and key bits of equipment?
Thanks for the time taken to answer.
It is not about being feared or loved. It is a far simpler calculation of positive and negative consequences on the part of those whose interests clash with ours. We have sent a HUGE signal up not only that we are in giveaway mode even when there is no legal compulsion or military threat, but that we will even bankroll our own disgrace. AND that we don't give a flying fuck about the wishes of the peoples' of the islands and their democratic wishes. The positives of taking on the UK have just become massively more attractive than the perceived downsides, for anyone.
I am happy for the UK be loved - I am not in favour of flouncing around taking delight in upsetting foreign Governments. But we MUST be consistent in defence of our own legitimate interests. We are not being celebrated on the streets of Calcutta with this deal - we were already loathed for the Raj; we have simply added a layer of being despised for being weak and in terminal decline.
Time and again Labour have made the foolish error of thinking that British Governments (usually Tory ones) didn't get anywhere in negotiations with overseas powers because they weren’t being 'nice' enough. It led to Blair giving away much of our EU rebate for a non-existent reform of the CAP, it has led to Starmer giving away 12 years of fishing rights for fuck all, it now leads to this.
In the bigger picture - and if you don’t agree with this please correct me - for the last 100 years, the US has been on a relentless mission to expunge all influence UK has in the world. They usurped UK good and proper in Middle East, even drew up plans in the forties to kick us out of Hong Kong. India has joined in with glee. UK pressured into this deal by India, steering everyone in the region away from the old evil empire for not being fair to Mauritius. There’s the clearer story of being hauled into court on Chagos. Not China driving it, but India. (I put all this in the header btw)
And what’s UK been doing whilst “friends” have been burying the British Empire, expunging last traces of it, clipping away at our influence around the region like a back street vet neutering a dog? We’ve interlocked ourselves into the expensive catalogue of US weaponry. We’ve got the hit of ethnic cleansing the Chagos, and the ongoing mess from that we saw outside a court house last week. And we brought both India and US into the negotiating room to help write this lease agreement.
When PBers post “we should have kept sovereignty, simples” I put it to you - isn’t that the preferred option Washington wanted in the first place? their bitch to keep the sovereignty, carry on doing the dirty work, until India’s campaign against us made it all the more difficult?
When you look at this bigger picture, from sixties to now, what the word Chagos should mean in the English language is “the UK have been mugs” all these years doing the heavy lifting for others, and getting what back exactly? Keeping the sovereignty as you say, I say naively, thoughtlessly, glibly,, artlessly you keep insisting we should have kept the sovereignty, we would have carried on as the bitch, carried on being the mug.
In my opinion we should be trying to decouple ourselves from the donkey work for others we have got ourselves into over in Chagos.
At least a lease on an island may be far less complicated to legally transfer on at some point, than sovereignty.
I understand your arguments, and I agree with much of what you say, but the Chagos deal is not the remedy for any of it.
In my heart, I don't want the US there at all. However, I appreciate that telling them to do one is an abject impossibility. From where we are (or where we were a year ago), the sensible middle road was simply to retain sovereignty. It wouldn't have delighted anyone, but neither would it have burned bridges or badly damaged any relationships.
If this deal goes through, we will be in a new situation. From where we will be then the best course of action will be to terminate the deal. There are numerous ways this could be achieved, and providing that none of them come with a 99 year rent, I'm up for whichever one causes with least hassle - though I accept that, as with the EU deal, Labour have left us with a signficant amount of lasting hassle, cleaning up their dirty protest of a Government.
Personally I think we should have given the Chagos Islands back to the Chagosians decades ago and could have used some of that money we are using to bribe Mauritius to actually support the Chagosians rebuilding their lives.
Two things are wrong/bad about the Chagos deal (ignoring the fact that Mauritius had no claim in the first place) and I think will come back to haunt us.
Firstly we have simply ignored the prople who actually inhabited the islands and should have been the ones we were returning them to.
And secondly we are going to see the utter detrsuction of the one of the largest marine reserves in the world.
These two combined make this a 'bad' decision.
Giving Chagos to the Chagosians would be Neon Fascist Racist Extremist Colonialism.
Subnational groups don’t get self determination. Thats an idea born out of European White Privilege.
The land (and money) needs to be handed to the nearest post colonial entity with a vague claim. Hence Mauritius
If we really believe in decolonisation shouldn't we be handing the Chagos Islands back to the original settlers there, the French?
I suspect they would have been happy to lease it to the US for about $1bn a year.
You have to look at the needs and wants of all involved. In order of importance and clout:
The US needs their tenure at "Footprint of Freedom" secured without any legal complications for the long term. They want somebody else to pay for this.
The UK government needs to feel liked by the US. They also want to be perceived as the benevolent face of imperialism. The good kind of expropriation and ethnic cleansing. They also still have some regard for international law and complying with it allows them to take their preferred position of impotent sanctimony when other countries violate it like China with its island and reef acquisition spree.
The Mauritius government needs money and wants its anti-colonial credentials burnished.
The Chagoswegians need and want money.
Given all of those various motivations, it's hard to see any other course than the SKS deal. Playing for time or telling everyone to fuck off isn't a viable strategy due to inexorable and irresistible pressure from the US.
The french have been telling everyone to fuck off for decades and eventually they do.
The French are militarily independent of the U.S. We very much aren't.
It wouldn't be impossible to change that, but it might take a decade or so. And require a lot more than 2.5% of GDP.
France both did a lot worse, and a lot better than us when they disengaged from most of their empire.
In the sense that France has its own nuclear deterrent fully independent of the US yes.
France also withdrew from NATO under De Gaulle in 1966 and did not rejoin until Sarkozy in 2009
Errr...
France also has Europe's strongest domestic defence industry: they have their own fighter jet, CATOBAR carrier*, military jet engine manufacturer, missiles and defense electronics.
* France is the only country other than the US to have a CATOBAR carrier
And they are extremely reliant on the US for training of their pilots for CATOBAR operations.
If we really believe in decolonisation shouldn't we be handing the Chagos Islands back to the original settlers there, the French?
I suspect they would have been happy to lease it to the US for about $1bn a year.
You have to look at the needs and wants of all involved. In order of importance and clout:
The US needs their tenure at "Footprint of Freedom" secured without any legal complications for the long term. They want somebody else to pay for this.
The UK government needs to feel liked by the US. They also want to be perceived as the benevolent face of imperialism. The good kind of expropriation and ethnic cleansing. They also still have some regard for international law and complying with it allows them to take their preferred position of impotent sanctimony when other countries violate it like China with its island and reef acquisition spree.
The Mauritius government needs money and wants its anti-colonial credentials burnished.
The Chagoswegians need and want money.
Given all of those various motivations, it's hard to see any other course than the SKS deal. Playing for time or telling everyone to fuck off isn't a viable strategy due to inexorable and irresistible pressure from the US.
The french have been telling everyone to fuck off for decades and eventually they do.
The French are militarily independent of the U.S. We very much aren't.
It wouldn't be impossible to change that, but it might take a decade or so. And require a lot more than 2.5% of GDP.
France both did a lot worse, and a lot better than us when they disengaged from most of their empire.
In the sense that France has its own nuclear deterrent fully independent of the US yes.
France also withdrew from NATO under De Gaulle in 1966 and did not rejoin until Sarkozy in 2009
Errr...
France also has Europe's strongest domestic defence industry: they have their own fighter jet, CATOBAR carrier*, military jet engine manufacturer, missiles and defense electronics.
* France is the only country other than the US to have a CATOBAR carrier
If we really believe in decolonisation shouldn't we be handing the Chagos Islands back to the original settlers there, the French?
I suspect they would have been happy to lease it to the US for about $1bn a year.
You have to look at the needs and wants of all involved. In order of importance and clout:
The US needs their tenure at "Footprint of Freedom" secured without any legal complications for the long term. They want somebody else to pay for this.
The UK government needs to feel liked by the US. They also want to be perceived as the benevolent face of imperialism. The good kind of expropriation and ethnic cleansing. They also still have some regard for international law and complying with it allows them to take their preferred position of impotent sanctimony when other countries violate it like China with its island and reef acquisition spree.
The Mauritius government needs money and wants its anti-colonial credentials burnished.
The Chagoswegians need and want money.
Given all of those various motivations, it's hard to see any other course than the SKS deal. Playing for time or telling everyone to fuck off isn't a viable strategy due to inexorable and irresistible pressure from the US.
The french have been telling everyone to fuck off for decades and eventually they do.
The French are militarily independent of the U.S. We very much aren't.
It wouldn't be impossible to change that, but it might take a decade or so. And require a lot more than 2.5% of GDP.
France both did a lot worse, and a lot better than us when they disengaged from most of their empire.
In the sense that France has its own nuclear deterrent fully independent of the US yes.
France also withdrew from NATO under De Gaulle in 1966 and did not rejoin until Sarkozy in 2009
Errr...
France also has Europe's strongest domestic defence industry: they have their own fighter jet, CATOBAR carrier*, military jet engine manufacturer, missiles and defense electronics.
* France is the only country other than the US to have a CATOBAR carrier
And they are extremely reliant on the US for training of their pilots for CATOBAR operations.
And reliant on borrowing one of our aircraft carriers when theirs is having nuclear maintenance.
I would appreciate if Moonrabbit would answer my question as to whether the Chagos Deal makes the Falklands more or less secure.
Regarding the header, this is simply a measure of awareness. There is no such thing as being aware of this deal and liking it. It's not like welfare where some are in receipt and some are paying, or a tax increase, assisted dying, or the NHS - there are no winners and losers or ideological fault lines. There are just losers.
Those who are in favour are just being reflexively pro-Labour (it's about equal with their poll rating) and are either ignorant about the deal or are acting from partisan loyalty.
My mind is still open on your question. persuade me. 🙂
I would answer, argument it’s less secure is based on precedent has been set by this case. But has a precedent been set, if each situation is unique? Put more specifically, when inhabitants have chosen, have there been instances UN and courts ruled against the choice of inhabitants? That would set a precedent making UK sovereignty of Falklands more insecure, our enemies like Moscow, would line up to game the UN workings, throwing their weight behind a claimant.
I’m not in favour of this Governments Chagos deal. My header was sharing my understanding they chose this option wanting to be seen as a fair and responsible power, rather than simply claiming land outright without international support, on basis this approach brings more leverage to our diplomacy, more influence, friends, more security deals and trade. Which actually is not new - it’s identical reasoning in 1898 British Empire chose to sign a lease on something else. They thought they would get more of the good stuff doing it that way.
I know you disagree. the other day you fully signed up to 1 million years BC diplomacy, Raquel Welch in Faun skins and a club in her hand. Perhaps one day we should have a simple header IS IT BETTER TO BE FEARED OR LOVED? and debate it out underneath. I’m certain it’s not as open and shut as you sure it is.
My personal preference is neither sovereignty or the deal. With either sovereignty or lease, UK gets absolutely nothing in defence and security that isn’t also pooled with others. Let US and India deal and pay this time.. But is that realistic? Was it ever an option?
Two things you unrealistically dismiss Lucky. Keeping sovereignty WILL come with brickbats and loss of influence. When it went into court, no one in the world turned up for us, apart from USA and some little places slipped a backhander to vote with us. No NATO allies, no Canada, no Australia. No one in the Indian Ocean or South China Sea, as India had used our Imperial Squat to whip them all up against doing any business with us.
Secondly, when UK got into base talks back in 1960s, it came hand in hand with interlocking UK defence and security with the US catalogue of expensive kit. Are we in any position to decouple? Seriously?
I don’t mind Reform making same glib mistakes as you, but fear Conservative front bench making the same and being unrealistic about what options actually were. in government or opposition, Lab & Con have been as one in agreement being interlocked with US equipment and security since 1960s. Today in opposition Tories attacking the deal as far too favourable to the US. What exactly is Kemi saying, what exactly is her policy, on interlocked with US on security and key bits of equipment?
Thanks for the time taken to answer.
It is not about being feared or loved. It is a far simpler calculation of positive and negative consequences on the part of those whose interests clash with ours. We have sent a HUGE signal up not only that we are in giveaway mode even when there is no legal compulsion or military threat, but that we will even bankroll our own disgrace. AND that we don't give a flying fuck about the wishes of the peoples' of the islands and their democratic wishes. The positives of taking on the UK have just become massively more attractive than the perceived downsides, for anyone.
I am happy for the UK be loved - I am not in favour of flouncing around taking delight in upsetting foreign Governments. But we MUST be consistent in defence of our own legitimate interests. We are not being celebrated on the streets of Calcutta with this deal - we were already loathed for the Raj; we have simply added a layer of being despised for being weak and in terminal decline.
Time and again Labour have made the foolish error of thinking that British Governments (usually Tory ones) didn't get anywhere in negotiations with overseas powers because they weren’t being 'nice' enough. It led to Blair giving away much of our EU rebate for a non-existent reform of the CAP, it has led to Starmer giving away 12 years of fishing rights for fuck all, it now leads to this.
In the bigger picture - and if you don’t agree with this please correct me - for the last 100 years, the US has been on a relentless mission to expunge all influence UK has in the world. They usurped UK good and proper in Middle East, even drew up plans in the forties to kick us out of Hong Kong. India has joined in with glee. UK pressured into this deal by India, steering everyone in the region away from the old evil empire for not being fair to Mauritius. There’s the clearer story of being hauled into court on Chagos. Not China driving it, but India. (I put all this in the header btw)
And what’s UK been doing whilst “friends” have been burying the British Empire, expunging last traces of it, clipping away at our influence around the region like a back street vet neutering a dog? We’ve interlocked ourselves into the expensive catalogue of US weaponry. We’ve got the hit of ethnic cleansing the Chagos, and the ongoing mess from that we saw outside a court house last week. And we brought both India and US into the negotiating room to help write this lease agreement.
When PBers post “we should have kept sovereignty, simples” I put it to you - isn’t that the preferred option Washington wanted in the first place? their bitch to keep the sovereignty, carry on doing the dirty work, until India’s campaign against us made it all the more difficult?
When you look at this bigger picture, from sixties to now, what the word Chagos should mean in the English language is “the UK have been mugs” all these years doing the heavy lifting for others, and getting what back exactly? Keeping the sovereignty as you say, I say naively, thoughtlessly, glibly,, artlessly you keep insisting we should have kept the sovereignty, we would have carried on as the bitch, carried on being the mug.
In my opinion we should be trying to decouple ourselves from the donkey work for others we have got ourselves into over in Chagos.
At least a lease on an island may be far less complicated to legally transfer on at some point, than sovereignty.
I understand your arguments, and I agree with much of what you say, but the Chagos deal is not the remedy for any of it.
In my heart, I don't want the US there at all. However, I appreciate that telling them to do one is an abject impossibility. From where we are (or where we were a year ago), the sensible middle road was simply to retain sovereignty. It wouldn't have delighted anyone, but neither would it have burned bridges or badly damaged any relationships.
If this deal goes through, we will be in a new situation. From where we will be then the best course of action will be to terminate the deal. There are numerous ways this could be achieved, and providing that none of them come with a 99 year rent, I'm up for whichever one causes with least hassle - though I accept that, as with the EU deal, Labour have left us with a signficant amount of lasting hassle, cleaning up their dirty protest of a Government.
Personally I think we should have given the Chagos Islands back to the Chagosians decades ago and could have used some of that money we are using to bribe Mauritius to actually support the Chagosians rebuilding their lives.
Two things are wrong/bad about the Chagos deal (ignoring the fact that Mauritius had no claim in the first place) and I think will come back to haunt us.
Firstly we have simply ignored the prople who actually inhabited the islands and should have been the ones we were returning them to.
And secondly we are going to see the utter detrsuction of the one of the largest marine reserves in the world.
These two combined make this a 'bad' decision.
I agree with this. Chagossian occupation of their own islands is incompatible with a large military base on Diego Garcia. That's the realpolitik and the fundamental choice from which everything else follows.
I'm torn over Reform. Sometimes I think: let's just get Nigel as PM and get it out of our system sooner rather than later. But then I remember that they'll probably aim to mimic Trump 2 but in an even more triumphalist, confrontational, manic and outlandish way, and I get worried again.
I don’t think Farage is as instinctively chaotic as Trump, for what it’s worth. I think he has a bit more of a clearer vision (it wouldn’t be hard). That doesn’t mean that he couldn’t cause a lot of difficulties and fallout along the way, particularly where markets are concerned, and potentially in cases of national security and European co-operation.
I don't think Farage is quite as malevolent as Trump but what the two have in common is an extremely self indulgent politics their respective countries can't afford, particularly Britain can't afford. Could Farage pivot to practical governing once he's in power? Possible but he has never given the slightest indication.
Net Zero is set the cost the British economy the same in today's money as World War II. And Starmer has just given away an island and arranged to hire it back for £30bn.
Good on you for having the balls to to talk about what the country can afford though - nice try.
Can't have the UK becoming self-reliant on energy and decoupled from hydrocarbon markets. That would mean we (and the rest of Europe) could sanction Russia properly without trashing our economies.
(We're currently at 100% domestic electricity generation and 91% non-fossil fuels. We're generating so much it's actually -£5 per MWh.)
Wow. It really is tinfoil central on here today.
One of Russia's biggest subversion successes has been the funding of anti-UK oil and gas movements in case you weren't aware. They were much less successful in the case of America, which is why America doesn't give a shit about Russia's gas - that was achieved by drilling, not by putting up some stupid wind farms.
I on the other hand am in favour of getting our own oil and gas out - something that our current reliance on intermittent renewables bakes into the system. Then we will actually be free from energy blackmail.
The naivety of youth. Wait until you are a grandad. Your world view will be glad of every single measure instigated to mitigate climate change.
Are you aware of tipping points and the precautionary principle? If the AMOC stalls for example what do you think will happen?
At the moment there is a billion dollar climate event every two weeks. What’s going to happen to industry and investment when we can’t buy insurance?
There’s a wilful blindness. And you have it.
And I know you think you are the iconoclast, bless, but .. . . what if you are being mugged by the trillions invested in the status quo, the worldviews inherent in protecting the income streams of those much richer than us?
We’ve known about climate change since the late 1890s and every year the carbon footprint has grown. Every year more.
That's your perspective - my assessment of the available information is that you are a deeply deluded individual who is acting unwittingly at the behest of organisations and individuals making vast amounts of money and removing important freedoms from individuals using an effective blank cheque called the transition. The danger to humanity lies with these bad actors, not with the world heating or cooling a few degrees.
In any case, were I to be every bit as anxious about the urgency of combatting anthropogenic global warming as you are, I would still not support the UK's Net Zero efforts, involving, as they do:
- Greater net carbon emissions via the importation of LNG from the US and Saudi in preference to the less energy intensive production of UK oil and gas - The off-shoring of industrial production to dirtier, more polluting countries like China and India - The importation of coal from Japan to run our last remaining virgin steel plant rather than getting it from Cumbria - The importation of wood pellets from the USA in preference to burning coal at Drax
I would love us to reverse these policies and therefore create less carbon. However I doubt you would, which makes me question your mindset.
I would appreciate if Moonrabbit would answer my question as to whether the Chagos Deal makes the Falklands more or less secure.
Regarding the header, this is simply a measure of awareness. There is no such thing as being aware of this deal and liking it. It's not like welfare where some are in receipt and some are paying, or a tax increase, assisted dying, or the NHS - there are no winners and losers or ideological fault lines. There are just losers.
Those who are in favour are just being reflexively pro-Labour (it's about equal with their poll rating) and are either ignorant about the deal or are acting from partisan loyalty.
My mind is still open on your question. persuade me. 🙂
I would answer, argument it’s less secure is based on precedent has been set by this case. But has a precedent been set, if each situation is unique? Put more specifically, when inhabitants have chosen, have there been instances UN and courts ruled against the choice of inhabitants? That would set a precedent making UK sovereignty of Falklands more insecure, our enemies like Moscow, would line up to game the UN workings, throwing their weight behind a claimant.
I’m not in favour of this Governments Chagos deal. My header was sharing my understanding they chose this option wanting to be seen as a fair and responsible power, rather than simply claiming land outright without international support, on basis this approach brings more leverage to our diplomacy, more influence, friends, more security deals and trade. Which actually is not new - it’s identical reasoning in 1898 British Empire chose to sign a lease on something else. They thought they would get more of the good stuff doing it that way.
I know you disagree. the other day you fully signed up to 1 million years BC diplomacy, Raquel Welch in Faun skins and a club in her hand. Perhaps one day we should have a simple header IS IT BETTER TO BE FEARED OR LOVED? and debate it out underneath. I’m certain it’s not as open and shut as you sure it is.
My personal preference is neither sovereignty or the deal. With either sovereignty or lease, UK gets absolutely nothing in defence and security that isn’t also pooled with others. Let US and India deal and pay this time.. But is that realistic? Was it ever an option?
Two things you unrealistically dismiss Lucky. Keeping sovereignty WILL come with brickbats and loss of influence. When it went into court, no one in the world turned up for us, apart from USA and some little places slipped a backhander to vote with us. No NATO allies, no Canada, no Australia. No one in the Indian Ocean or South China Sea, as India had used our Imperial Squat to whip them all up against doing any business with us.
Secondly, when UK got into base talks back in 1960s, it came hand in hand with interlocking UK defence and security with the US catalogue of expensive kit. Are we in any position to decouple? Seriously?
I don’t mind Reform making same glib mistakes as you, but fear Conservative front bench making the same and being unrealistic about what options actually were. in government or opposition, Lab & Con have been as one in agreement being interlocked with US equipment and security since 1960s. Today in opposition Tories attacking the deal as far too favourable to the US. What exactly is Kemi saying, what exactly is her policy, on interlocked with US on security and key bits of equipment?
Thanks for the time taken to answer.
It is not about being feared or loved. It is a far simpler calculation of positive and negative consequences on the part of those whose interests clash with ours. We have sent a HUGE signal up not only that we are in giveaway mode even when there is no legal compulsion or military threat, but that we will even bankroll our own disgrace. AND that we don't give a flying fuck about the wishes of the peoples' of the islands and their democratic wishes. The positives of taking on the UK have just become massively more attractive than the perceived downsides, for anyone.
I am happy for the UK be loved - I am not in favour of flouncing around taking delight in upsetting foreign Governments. But we MUST be consistent in defence of our own legitimate interests. We are not being celebrated on the streets of Calcutta with this deal - we were already loathed for the Raj; we have simply added a layer of being despised for being weak and in terminal decline.
Time and again Labour have made the foolish error of thinking that British Governments (usually Tory ones) didn't get anywhere in negotiations with overseas powers because they weren’t being 'nice' enough. It led to Blair giving away much of our EU rebate for a non-existent reform of the CAP, it has led to Starmer giving away 12 years of fishing rights for fuck all, it now leads to this.
In the bigger picture - and if you don’t agree with this please correct me - for the last 100 years, the US has been on a relentless mission to expunge all influence UK has in the world. They usurped UK good and proper in Middle East, even drew up plans in the forties to kick us out of Hong Kong. India has joined in with glee. UK pressured into this deal by India, steering everyone in the region away from the old evil empire for not being fair to Mauritius. There’s the clearer story of being hauled into court on Chagos. Not China driving it, but India. (I put all this in the header btw)
And what’s UK been doing whilst “friends” have been burying the British Empire, expunging last traces of it, clipping away at our influence around the region like a back street vet neutering a dog? We’ve interlocked ourselves into the expensive catalogue of US weaponry. We’ve got the hit of ethnic cleansing the Chagos, and the ongoing mess from that we saw outside a court house last week. And we brought both India and US into the negotiating room to help write this lease agreement.
When PBers post “we should have kept sovereignty, simples” I put it to you - isn’t that the preferred option Washington wanted in the first place? their bitch to keep the sovereignty, carry on doing the dirty work, until India’s campaign against us made it all the more difficult?
When you look at this bigger picture, from sixties to now, what the word Chagos should mean in the English language is “the UK have been mugs” all these years doing the heavy lifting for others, and getting what back exactly? Keeping the sovereignty as you say, I say naively, thoughtlessly, glibly,, artlessly you keep insisting we should have kept the sovereignty, we would have carried on as the bitch, carried on being the mug.
In my opinion we should be trying to decouple ourselves from the donkey work for others we have got ourselves into over in Chagos.
At least a lease on an island may be far less complicated to legally transfer on at some point, than sovereignty.
I understand your arguments, and I agree with much of what you say, but the Chagos deal is not the remedy for any of it.
In my heart, I don't want the US there at all. However, I appreciate that telling them to do one is an abject impossibility. From where we are (or where we were a year ago), the sensible middle road was simply to retain sovereignty. It wouldn't have delighted anyone, but neither would it have burned bridges or badly damaged any relationships.
If this deal goes through, we will be in a new situation. From where we will be then the best course of action will be to terminate the deal. There are numerous ways this could be achieved, and providing that none of them come with a 99 year rent, I'm up for whichever one causes with least hassle - though I accept that, as with the EU deal, Labour have left us with a signficant amount of lasting hassle, cleaning up their dirty protest of a Government.
Personally I think we should have given the Chagos Islands back to the Chagosians decades ago and could have used some of that money we are using to bribe Mauritius to actually support the Chagosians rebuilding their lives.
Two things are wrong/bad about the Chagos deal (ignoring the fact that Mauritius had no claim in the first place) and I think will come back to haunt us.
Firstly we have simply ignored the prople who actually inhabited the islands and should have been the ones we were returning them to.
And secondly we are going to see the utter detrsuction of the one of the largest marine reserves in the world.
These two combined make this a 'bad' decision.
I agree with this. Chagossian occupation of their own islands is incompatible with a large military base on Diego Garcia. That's the realpolitik and the fundamental choice from which everything else follows.
The point being that it is a bankrupt legalism to suggest that Mauritius is the injured party. The Chagosians are the ones who deserve respect and compensation.
Hence my suggestion would have been to negotiate a settlement with *them*.
This would have fucked off those who believe that territorial contiguity/closeness is The Truth. But, honestly, I don’t give a shit.
I'm torn over Reform. Sometimes I think: let's just get Nigel as PM and get it out of our system sooner rather than later. But then I remember that they'll probably aim to mimic Trump 2 but in an even more triumphalist, confrontational, manic and outlandish way, and I get worried again.
I don’t think Farage is as instinctively chaotic as Trump, for what it’s worth. I think he has a bit more of a clearer vision (it wouldn’t be hard). That doesn’t mean that he couldn’t cause a lot of difficulties and fallout along the way, particularly where markets are concerned, and potentially in cases of national security and European co-operation.
I don't think Farage is quite as malevolent as Trump but what the two have in common is an extremely self indulgent politics their respective countries can't afford, particularly Britain can't afford. Could Farage pivot to practical governing once he's in power? Possible but he has never given the slightest indication.
Net Zero is set the cost the British economy the same in today's money as World War II. And Starmer has just given away an island and arranged to hire it back for £30bn.
Good on you for having the balls to to talk about what the country can afford though - nice try.
Can't have the UK becoming self-reliant on energy and decoupled from hydrocarbon markets. That would mean we (and the rest of Europe) could sanction Russia properly without trashing our economies.
(We're currently at 100% domestic electricity generation and 91% non-fossil fuels. We're generating so much it's actually -£5 per MWh.)
Wow. It really is tinfoil central on here today.
One of Russia's biggest subversion successes has been the funding of anti-UK oil and gas movements in case you weren't aware. They were much less successful in the case of America, which is why America doesn't give a shit about Russia's gas - that was achieved by drilling, not by putting up some stupid wind farms.
I on the other hand am in favour of getting our own oil and gas out - something that our current reliance on intermittent renewables bakes into the system. Then we will actually be free from energy blackmail.
The naivety of youth. Wait until you are a grandad. Your world view will be glad of every single measure instigated to mitigate climate change.
Are you aware of tipping points and the precautionary principle? If the AMOC stalls for example what do you think will happen?
At the moment there is a billion dollar climate event every two weeks. What’s going to happen to industry and investment when we can’t buy insurance?
There’s a wilful blindness. And you have it.
And I know you think you are the iconoclast, bless, but .. . . what if you are being mugged by the trillions invested in the status quo, the worldviews inherent in protecting the income streams of those much richer than us?
We’ve known about climate change since the late 1890s and every year the carbon footprint has grown. Every year more.
Arguably German and Japanese reindustrialisation after the war was a great moral crime. Just think how much carbon could have been kept in the ground.
I would appreciate if Moonrabbit would answer my question as to whether the Chagos Deal makes the Falklands more or less secure.
Regarding the header, this is simply a measure of awareness. There is no such thing as being aware of this deal and liking it. It's not like welfare where some are in receipt and some are paying, or a tax increase, assisted dying, or the NHS - there are no winners and losers or ideological fault lines. There are just losers.
Those who are in favour are just being reflexively pro-Labour (it's about equal with their poll rating) and are either ignorant about the deal or are acting from partisan loyalty.
My mind is still open on your question. persuade me. 🙂
I would answer, argument it’s less secure is based on precedent has been set by this case. But has a precedent been set, if each situation is unique? Put more specifically, when inhabitants have chosen, have there been instances UN and courts ruled against the choice of inhabitants? That would set a precedent making UK sovereignty of Falklands more insecure, our enemies like Moscow, would line up to game the UN workings, throwing their weight behind a claimant.
I’m not in favour of this Governments Chagos deal. My header was sharing my understanding they chose this option wanting to be seen as a fair and responsible power, rather than simply claiming land outright without international support, on basis this approach brings more leverage to our diplomacy, more influence, friends, more security deals and trade. Which actually is not new - it’s identical reasoning in 1898 British Empire chose to sign a lease on something else. They thought they would get more of the good stuff doing it that way.
I know you disagree. the other day you fully signed up to 1 million years BC diplomacy, Raquel Welch in Faun skins and a club in her hand. Perhaps one day we should have a simple header IS IT BETTER TO BE FEARED OR LOVED? and debate it out underneath. I’m certain it’s not as open and shut as you sure it is.
My personal preference is neither sovereignty or the deal. With either sovereignty or lease, UK gets absolutely nothing in defence and security that isn’t also pooled with others. Let US and India deal and pay this time.. But is that realistic? Was it ever an option?
Two things you unrealistically dismiss Lucky. Keeping sovereignty WILL come with brickbats and loss of influence. When it went into court, no one in the world turned up for us, apart from USA and some little places slipped a backhander to vote with us. No NATO allies, no Canada, no Australia. No one in the Indian Ocean or South China Sea, as India had used our Imperial Squat to whip them all up against doing any business with us.
Secondly, when UK got into base talks back in 1960s, it came hand in hand with interlocking UK defence and security with the US catalogue of expensive kit. Are we in any position to decouple? Seriously?
I don’t mind Reform making same glib mistakes as you, but fear Conservative front bench making the same and being unrealistic about what options actually were. in government or opposition, Lab & Con have been as one in agreement being interlocked with US equipment and security since 1960s. Today in opposition Tories attacking the deal as far too favourable to the US. What exactly is Kemi saying, what exactly is her policy, on interlocked with US on security and key bits of equipment?
Thanks for the time taken to answer.
It is not about being feared or loved. It is a far simpler calculation of positive and negative consequences on the part of those whose interests clash with ours. We have sent a HUGE signal up not only that we are in giveaway mode even when there is no legal compulsion or military threat, but that we will even bankroll our own disgrace. AND that we don't give a flying fuck about the wishes of the peoples' of the islands and their democratic wishes. The positives of taking on the UK have just become massively more attractive than the perceived downsides, for anyone.
I am happy for the UK be loved - I am not in favour of flouncing around taking delight in upsetting foreign Governments. But we MUST be consistent in defence of our own legitimate interests. We are not being celebrated on the streets of Calcutta with this deal - we were already loathed for the Raj; we have simply added a layer of being despised for being weak and in terminal decline.
Time and again Labour have made the foolish error of thinking that British Governments (usually Tory ones) didn't get anywhere in negotiations with overseas powers because they weren’t being 'nice' enough. It led to Blair giving away much of our EU rebate for a non-existent reform of the CAP, it has led to Starmer giving away 12 years of fishing rights for fuck all, it now leads to this.
In the bigger picture - and if you don’t agree with this please correct me - for the last 100 years, the US has been on a relentless mission to expunge all influence UK has in the world. They usurped UK good and proper in Middle East, even drew up plans in the forties to kick us out of Hong Kong. India has joined in with glee. UK pressured into this deal by India, steering everyone in the region away from the old evil empire for not being fair to Mauritius. There’s the clearer story of being hauled into court on Chagos. Not China driving it, but India. (I put all this in the header btw)
And what’s UK been doing whilst “friends” have been burying the British Empire, expunging last traces of it, clipping away at our influence around the region like a back street vet neutering a dog? We’ve interlocked ourselves into the expensive catalogue of US weaponry. We’ve got the hit of ethnic cleansing the Chagos, and the ongoing mess from that we saw outside a court house last week. And we brought both India and US into the negotiating room to help write this lease agreement.
When PBers post “we should have kept sovereignty, simples” I put it to you - isn’t that the preferred option Washington wanted in the first place? their bitch to keep the sovereignty, carry on doing the dirty work, until India’s campaign against us made it all the more difficult?
When you look at this bigger picture, from sixties to now, what the word Chagos should mean in the English language is “the UK have been mugs” all these years doing the heavy lifting for others, and getting what back exactly? Keeping the sovereignty as you say, I say naively, thoughtlessly, glibly,, artlessly you keep insisting we should have kept the sovereignty, we would have carried on as the bitch, carried on being the mug.
In my opinion we should be trying to decouple ourselves from the donkey work for others we have got ourselves into over in Chagos.
At least a lease on an island may be far less complicated to legally transfer on at some point, than sovereignty.
I understand your arguments, and I agree with much of what you say, but the Chagos deal is not the remedy for any of it.
In my heart, I don't want the US there at all. However, I appreciate that telling them to do one is an abject impossibility. From where we are (or where we were a year ago), the sensible middle road was simply to retain sovereignty. It wouldn't have delighted anyone, but neither would it have burned bridges or badly damaged any relationships.
If this deal goes through, we will be in a new situation. From where we will be then the best course of action will be to terminate the deal. There are numerous ways this could be achieved, and providing that none of them come with a 99 year rent, I'm up for whichever one causes with least hassle - though I accept that, as with the EU deal, Labour have left us with a signficant amount of lasting hassle, cleaning up their dirty protest of a Government.
Personally I think we should have given the Chagos Islands back to the Chagosians decades ago and could have used some of that money we are using to bribe Mauritius to actually support the Chagosians rebuilding their lives.
Two things are wrong/bad about the Chagos deal (ignoring the fact that Mauritius had no claim in the first place) and I think will come back to haunt us.
Firstly we have simply ignored the prople who actually inhabited the islands and should have been the ones we were returning them to.
And secondly we are going to see the utter detrsuction of the one of the largest marine reserves in the world.
These two combined make this a 'bad' decision.
I agree with this. Chagossian occupation of their own islands is incompatible with a large military base on Diego Garcia. That's the realpolitik and the fundamental choice from which everything else follows.
The point being that it is a bankrupt legalism to suggest that Mauritius is the injured party. The Chagosians are the ones who deserve respect and compensation.
Hence my suggestion would have been to negotiate a settlement with *them*.
This would have fucked off those who believe that territorial contiguity/closeness is The Truth. But, honestly, I don’t give a shit.
It isn't a bankrupt legalism though however much we might wish it to be so. Chagos was part of the Mauritius territory right from French origins through the entire period of the British colony. It was only split from Mauritius at the time of independence, explicitly to accommodate the American base.
I would appreciate if Moonrabbit would answer my question as to whether the Chagos Deal makes the Falklands more or less secure.
Regarding the header, this is simply a measure of awareness. There is no such thing as being aware of this deal and liking it. It's not like welfare where some are in receipt and some are paying, or a tax increase, assisted dying, or the NHS - there are no winners and losers or ideological fault lines. There are just losers.
Those who are in favour are just being reflexively pro-Labour (it's about equal with their poll rating) and are either ignorant about the deal or are acting from partisan loyalty.
My mind is still open on your question. persuade me. 🙂
I would answer, argument it’s less secure is based on precedent has been set by this case. But has a precedent been set, if each situation is unique? Put more specifically, when inhabitants have chosen, have there been instances UN and courts ruled against the choice of inhabitants? That would set a precedent making UK sovereignty of Falklands more insecure, our enemies like Moscow, would line up to game the UN workings, throwing their weight behind a claimant.
I’m not in favour of this Governments Chagos deal. My header was sharing my understanding they chose this option wanting to be seen as a fair and responsible power, rather than simply claiming land outright without international support, on basis this approach brings more leverage to our diplomacy, more influence, friends, more security deals and trade. Which actually is not new - it’s identical reasoning in 1898 British Empire chose to sign a lease on something else. They thought they would get more of the good stuff doing it that way.
I know you disagree. the other day you fully signed up to 1 million years BC diplomacy, Raquel Welch in Faun skins and a club in her hand. Perhaps one day we should have a simple header IS IT BETTER TO BE FEARED OR LOVED? and debate it out underneath. I’m certain it’s not as open and shut as you sure it is.
My personal preference is neither sovereignty or the deal. With either sovereignty or lease, UK gets absolutely nothing in defence and security that isn’t also pooled with others. Let US and India deal and pay this time.. But is that realistic? Was it ever an option?
Two things you unrealistically dismiss Lucky. Keeping sovereignty WILL come with brickbats and loss of influence. When it went into court, no one in the world turned up for us, apart from USA and some little places slipped a backhander to vote with us. No NATO allies, no Canada, no Australia. No one in the Indian Ocean or South China Sea, as India had used our Imperial Squat to whip them all up against doing any business with us.
Secondly, when UK got into base talks back in 1960s, it came hand in hand with interlocking UK defence and security with the US catalogue of expensive kit. Are we in any position to decouple? Seriously?
I don’t mind Reform making same glib mistakes as you, but fear Conservative front bench making the same and being unrealistic about what options actually were. in government or opposition, Lab & Con have been as one in agreement being interlocked with US equipment and security since 1960s. Today in opposition Tories attacking the deal as far too favourable to the US. What exactly is Kemi saying, what exactly is her policy, on interlocked with US on security and key bits of equipment?
Thanks for the time taken to answer.
It is not about being feared or loved. It is a far simpler calculation of positive and negative consequences on the part of those whose interests clash with ours. We have sent a HUGE signal up not only that we are in giveaway mode even when there is no legal compulsion or military threat, but that we will even bankroll our own disgrace. AND that we don't give a flying fuck about the wishes of the peoples' of the islands and their democratic wishes. The positives of taking on the UK have just become massively more attractive than the perceived downsides, for anyone.
I am happy for the UK be loved - I am not in favour of flouncing around taking delight in upsetting foreign Governments. But we MUST be consistent in defence of our own legitimate interests. We are not being celebrated on the streets of Calcutta with this deal - we were already loathed for the Raj; we have simply added a layer of being despised for being weak and in terminal decline.
Time and again Labour have made the foolish error of thinking that British Governments (usually Tory ones) didn't get anywhere in negotiations with overseas powers because they weren’t being 'nice' enough. It led to Blair giving away much of our EU rebate for a non-existent reform of the CAP, it has led to Starmer giving away 12 years of fishing rights for fuck all, it now leads to this.
In the bigger picture - and if you don’t agree with this please correct me - for the last 100 years, the US has been on a relentless mission to expunge all influence UK has in the world. They usurped UK good and proper in Middle East, even drew up plans in the forties to kick us out of Hong Kong. India has joined in with glee. UK pressured into this deal by India, steering everyone in the region away from the old evil empire for not being fair to Mauritius. There’s the clearer story of being hauled into court on Chagos. Not China driving it, but India. (I put all this in the header btw)
And what’s UK been doing whilst “friends” have been burying the British Empire, expunging last traces of it, clipping away at our influence around the region like a back street vet neutering a dog? We’ve interlocked ourselves into the expensive catalogue of US weaponry. We’ve got the hit of ethnic cleansing the Chagos, and the ongoing mess from that we saw outside a court house last week. And we brought both India and US into the negotiating room to help write this lease agreement.
When PBers post “we should have kept sovereignty, simples” I put it to you - isn’t that the preferred option Washington wanted in the first place? their bitch to keep the sovereignty, carry on doing the dirty work, until India’s campaign against us made it all the more difficult?
When you look at this bigger picture, from sixties to now, what the word Chagos should mean in the English language is “the UK have been mugs” all these years doing the heavy lifting for others, and getting what back exactly? Keeping the sovereignty as you say, I say naively, thoughtlessly, glibly,, artlessly you keep insisting we should have kept the sovereignty, we would have carried on as the bitch, carried on being the mug.
In my opinion we should be trying to decouple ourselves from the donkey work for others we have got ourselves into over in Chagos.
At least a lease on an island may be far less complicated to legally transfer on at some point, than sovereignty.
I understand your arguments, and I agree with much of what you say, but the Chagos deal is not the remedy for any of it.
In my heart, I don't want the US there at all. However, I appreciate that telling them to do one is an abject impossibility. From where we are (or where we were a year ago), the sensible middle road was simply to retain sovereignty. It wouldn't have delighted anyone, but neither would it have burned bridges or badly damaged any relationships.
If this deal goes through, we will be in a new situation. From where we will be then the best course of action will be to terminate the deal. There are numerous ways this could be achieved, and providing that none of them come with a 99 year rent, I'm up for whichever one causes with least hassle - though I accept that, as with the EU deal, Labour have left us with a signficant amount of lasting hassle, cleaning up their dirty protest of a Government.
Personally I think we should have given the Chagos Islands back to the Chagosians decades ago and could have used some of that money we are using to bribe Mauritius to actually support the Chagosians rebuilding their lives.
Two things are wrong/bad about the Chagos deal (ignoring the fact that Mauritius had no claim in the first place) and I think will come back to haunt us.
Firstly we have simply ignored the prople who actually inhabited the islands and should have been the ones we were returning them to.
And secondly we are going to see the utter detrsuction of the one of the largest marine reserves in the world.
These two combined make this a 'bad' decision.
I agree with this. Chagossian occupation of their own islands is incompatible with a large military base on Diego Garcia. That's the realpolitik and the fundamental choice from which everything else follows.
The point being that it is a bankrupt legalism to suggest that Mauritius is the injured party. The Chagosians are the ones who deserve respect and compensation.
Hence my suggestion would have been to negotiate a settlement with *them*.
This would have fucked off those who believe that territorial contiguity/closeness is The Truth. But, honestly, I don’t give a shit.
It isn't a bankrupt legalism though however much we might wish it to be so. Chagos was part of the Mauritius territory right from French origins through the entire period of the British colony. It was only split from Mauritius at the time of independence, explicitly to accommodate the American base.
It was an administrative unit. Plenty of which split into separate states at independence. Historically, the only connection between Chagos and Mauritius was dumping a pile of the islanders in Mauritius.
I'm torn over Reform. Sometimes I think: let's just get Nigel as PM and get it out of our system sooner rather than later. But then I remember that they'll probably aim to mimic Trump 2 but in an even more triumphalist, confrontational, manic and outlandish way, and I get worried again.
I don’t think Farage is as instinctively chaotic as Trump, for what it’s worth. I think he has a bit more of a clearer vision (it wouldn’t be hard). That doesn’t mean that he couldn’t cause a lot of difficulties and fallout along the way, particularly where markets are concerned, and potentially in cases of national security and European co-operation.
I don't think Farage is quite as malevolent as Trump but what the two have in common is an extremely self indulgent politics their respective countries can't afford, particularly Britain can't afford. Could Farage pivot to practical governing once he's in power? Possible but he has never given the slightest indication.
Net Zero is set the cost the British economy the same in today's money as World War II. And Starmer has just given away an island and arranged to hire it back for £30bn.
Good on you for having the balls to to talk about what the country can afford though - nice try.
Can't have the UK becoming self-reliant on energy and decoupled from hydrocarbon markets. That would mean we (and the rest of Europe) could sanction Russia properly without trashing our economies.
(We're currently at 100% domestic electricity generation and 91% non-fossil fuels. We're generating so much it's actually -£5 per MWh.)
Wow. It really is tinfoil central on here today.
One of Russia's biggest subversion successes has been the funding of anti-UK oil and gas movements in case you weren't aware. They were much less successful in the case of America, which is why America doesn't give a shit about Russia's gas - that was achieved by drilling, not by putting up some stupid wind farms.
I on the other hand am in favour of getting our own oil and gas out - something that our current reliance on intermittent renewables bakes into the system. Then we will actually be free from energy blackmail.
The naivety of youth. Wait until you are a grandad. Your world view will be glad of every single measure instigated to mitigate climate change.
Are you aware of tipping points and the precautionary principle? If the AMOC stalls for example what do you think will happen?
At the moment there is a billion dollar climate event every two weeks. What’s going to happen to industry and investment when we can’t buy insurance?
There’s a wilful blindness. And you have it.
And I know you think you are the iconoclast, bless, but .. . . what if you are being mugged by the trillions invested in the status quo, the worldviews inherent in protecting the income streams of those much richer than us?
We’ve known about climate change since the late 1890s and every year the carbon footprint has grown. Every year more.
Arguably German and Japanese reindustrialisation after the war was a great moral crime. Just think how much carbon could have been kept in the ground.
Arguably, fighting back against Hitler was a great moral crime. Just think of all the carbon dioxide released when Dresden burned to the ground.
Dunno about you but I’m having a late brunch of kipper-and-egg in a bap, on the beach, in the shade of Bamburgh Castle, with my older daughter on the occasion of her 19th birthday - as I drive her dome from her first year at Uni
I think I’m more emotional than her
How does Northumberland compare with Cornwall?
Not answering for Sean, obvs. When I walked the coast, I preferred Northumberland. A much under-appreciated coastline, and not too touristy. General scenery-wise, I'd probably go for Cornwall, but it's close.
Closer to Scotland too. Northumberland all the way
Fewer Cornish people and Londoners, which is a positive too.
Thought these lines on economic performance very enlightening. Had little idea there had been such a divergence between Europe and the US. It seems rising prosperity is no protection from political bampots.
In 1995, Germany’s nominal GDP per capita was a little higher ($32,000) than that of the United States ($29,000), with the United Kingdom lagging behind at a noticeable distance ($23,000) . . . Since then, the two continents have markedly diverged. To an extent that few people have fully internalized, an economic gulf has opened up between America and Europe. On average, Americans are now nearly twice as rich as Europeans. According to the latest available data for GDP per capita, the United States stands at $83,000, with Germany at $54,000 and the United Kingdom at $50,000.”
Yet for some reason you are delighted that 'the two main parties' have protected us from 'extremists' - when its obvious that our state setup is absolutely inimical to prosperity.
And you imagine that Reform will improve that state of affairs ? LOL
Your LOLs are just a signal of your own ignorance at this point. Reform's front bench has vastly more business experience than Labour's (not hard as Labour's has zero). Considering Labour has 402 MPs and Reform has 5, that is a massively damning situation. Why would a party that actually knows how to make money rather than just spend it not improve the situation for businesses?
Well, Rupert Lowe certainly has some business experience. Oh, wait...
Yes, he’s a very successful businessman, but actually my assessment didn't include Lowe.
Interesting you should mention him though - that means even Reform's ex MP contingent has more business experience than the Labour front bench.
But do Reform understand that what businesses crave most is stability and predictability, not Trump-like changes of direction every week?
Dunno about you but I’m having a late brunch of kipper-and-egg in a bap, on the beach, in the shade of Bamburgh Castle, with my older daughter on the occasion of her 19th birthday - as I drive her dome from her first year at Uni
I think I’m more emotional than her
I went for kipper in a hotel a while back for my included cooked breakfast. They presented me a single fillet and a lemon wedge and a half round of brown bread. It's about the angriest I've ever been.
Edit- it might have been a whole round of brown bread in hindsight
I really recommend this place. It’s just a shack on the beach at Bamburgh called “bait”
The kipper and egg bap is fantastic. Also good coffee
And Bamburgh castle!
Nearby Dunstanburgh Castle (a pictureque ruin) and Lindisfarne Castle (Lutyens restoration) also worth a look. Go inland and your faced with Alnwick, of course. And then there's Warkworth. A very castle-ly part of the world.
Dunno about you but I’m having a late brunch of kipper-and-egg in a bap, on the beach, in the shade of Bamburgh Castle, with my older daughter on the occasion of her 19th birthday - as I drive her dome from her first year at Uni
I think I’m more emotional than her
If I'm not mistaken, she's on the spectrum, so that might also be a contributory factor
I'd have gone the other way: threaten Mauritius with trade sanctions and a blockade for their impertinence, and then followed through until they shut up.
Sometimes the double-down Trumpy approach is the way to go.
Flood their island with people called Maurice. It will cause chaos.
Especially if they sell sea shells in the Seychelles...
Dunno about you but I’m having a late brunch of kipper-and-egg in a bap, on the beach, in the shade of Bamburgh Castle, with my older daughter on the occasion of her 19th birthday - as I drive her dome from her first year at Uni
I think I’m more emotional than her
I went for kipper in a hotel a while back for my included cooked breakfast. They presented me a single fillet and a lemon wedge and a half round of brown bread. It's about the angriest I've ever been.
Edit- it might have been a whole round of brown bread in hindsight
I really recommend this place. It’s just a shack on the beach at Bamburgh called “bait”
The kipper and egg bap is fantastic. Also good coffee
And Bamburgh castle!
Nearby Dunstanburgh Castle (a pictureque ruin) and Lindisfarne Castle (Lutyens restoration) also worth a look. Go inland and your faced with Alnwick, of course. And then there's Warkworth. A very castle-ly part of the world.
Alnwick of course is home to Barter Books. One of the greatest experiences for a bibliophile in the British Isles.
Dunno about you but I’m having a late brunch of kipper-and-egg in a bap, on the beach, in the shade of Bamburgh Castle, with my older daughter on the occasion of her 19th birthday - as I drive her dome from her first year at Uni
I think I’m more emotional than her
I went for kipper in a hotel a while back for my included cooked breakfast. They presented me a single fillet and a lemon wedge and a half round of brown bread. It's about the angriest I've ever been.
Edit- it might have been a whole round of brown bread in hindsight
I really recommend this place. It’s just a shack on the beach at Bamburgh called “bait”
The kipper and egg bap is fantastic. Also good coffee
And Bamburgh castle!
I drive past there twice a week en route to Aberdeen from Lincolnshire and back. It really is a fantastic part of the world.
It is: it's extraordinarily beautiful, with some lovely towns.
Once you get past Middlesbrough and hit Durham, it is pretty much fantastic all the way to Wick...
I would appreciate if Moonrabbit would answer my question as to whether the Chagos Deal makes the Falklands more or less secure.
Regarding the header, this is simply a measure of awareness. There is no such thing as being aware of this deal and liking it. It's not like welfare where some are in receipt and some are paying, or a tax increase, assisted dying, or the NHS - there are no winners and losers or ideological fault lines. There are just losers.
Those who are in favour are just being reflexively pro-Labour (it's about equal with their poll rating) and are either ignorant about the deal or are acting from partisan loyalty.
My mind is still open on your question. persuade me. 🙂
I would answer, argument it’s less secure is based on precedent has been set by this case. But has a precedent been set, if each situation is unique? Put more specifically, when inhabitants have chosen, have there been instances UN and courts ruled against the choice of inhabitants? That would set a precedent making UK sovereignty of Falklands more insecure, our enemies like Moscow, would line up to game the UN workings, throwing their weight behind a claimant.
I’m not in favour of this Governments Chagos deal. My header was sharing my understanding they chose this option wanting to be seen as a fair and responsible power, rather than simply claiming land outright without international support, on basis this approach brings more leverage to our diplomacy, more influence, friends, more security deals and trade. Which actually is not new - it’s identical reasoning in 1898 British Empire chose to sign a lease on something else. They thought they would get more of the good stuff doing it that way.
I know you disagree. the other day you fully signed up to 1 million years BC diplomacy, Raquel Welch in Faun skins and a club in her hand. Perhaps one day we should have a simple header IS IT BETTER TO BE FEARED OR LOVED? and debate it out underneath. I’m certain it’s not as open and shut as you sure it is.
My personal preference is neither sovereignty or the deal. With either sovereignty or lease, UK gets absolutely nothing in defence and security that isn’t also pooled with others. Let US and India deal and pay this time.. But is that realistic? Was it ever an option?
Two things you unrealistically dismiss Lucky. Keeping sovereignty WILL come with brickbats and loss of influence. When it went into court, no one in the world turned up for us, apart from USA and some little places slipped a backhander to vote with us. No NATO allies, no Canada, no Australia. No one in the Indian Ocean or South China Sea, as India had used our Imperial Squat to whip them all up against doing any business with us.
Secondly, when UK got into base talks back in 1960s, it came hand in hand with interlocking UK defence and security with the US catalogue of expensive kit. Are we in any position to decouple? Seriously?
I don’t mind Reform making same glib mistakes as you, but fear Conservative front bench making the same and being unrealistic about what options actually were. in government or opposition, Lab & Con have been as one in agreement being interlocked with US equipment and security since 1960s. Today in opposition Tories attacking the deal as far too favourable to the US. What exactly is Kemi saying, what exactly is her policy, on interlocked with US on security and key bits of equipment?
Thanks for the time taken to answer.
It is not about being feared or loved. It is a far simpler calculation of positive and negative consequences on the part of those whose interests clash with ours. We have sent a HUGE signal up not only that we are in giveaway mode even when there is no legal compulsion or military threat, but that we will even bankroll our own disgrace. AND that we don't give a flying fuck about the wishes of the peoples' of the islands and their democratic wishes. The positives of taking on the UK have just become massively more attractive than the perceived downsides, for anyone.
I am happy for the UK be loved - I am not in favour of flouncing around taking delight in upsetting foreign Governments. But we MUST be consistent in defence of our own legitimate interests. We are not being celebrated on the streets of Calcutta with this deal - we were already loathed for the Raj; we have simply added a layer of being despised for being weak and in terminal decline.
Time and again Labour have made the foolish error of thinking that British Governments (usually Tory ones) didn't get anywhere in negotiations with overseas powers because they weren’t being 'nice' enough. It led to Blair giving away much of our EU rebate for a non-existent reform of the CAP, it has led to Starmer giving away 12 years of fishing rights for fuck all, it now leads to this.
In the bigger picture - and if you don’t agree with this please correct me - for the last 100 years, the US has been on a relentless mission to expunge all influence UK has in the world. They usurped UK good and proper in Middle East, even drew up plans in the forties to kick us out of Hong Kong. India has joined in with glee. UK pressured into this deal by India, steering everyone in the region away from the old evil empire for not being fair to Mauritius. There’s the clearer story of being hauled into court on Chagos. Not China driving it, but India. (I put all this in the header btw)
And what’s UK been doing whilst “friends” have been burying the British Empire, expunging last traces of it, clipping away at our influence around the region like a back street vet neutering a dog? We’ve interlocked ourselves into the expensive catalogue of US weaponry. We’ve got the hit of ethnic cleansing the Chagos, and the ongoing mess from that we saw outside a court house last week. And we brought both India and US into the negotiating room to help write this lease agreement.
When PBers post “we should have kept sovereignty, simples” I put it to you - isn’t that the preferred option Washington wanted in the first place? their bitch to keep the sovereignty, carry on doing the dirty work, until India’s campaign against us made it all the more difficult?
When you look at this bigger picture, from sixties to now, what the word Chagos should mean in the English language is “the UK have been mugs” all these years doing the heavy lifting for others, and getting what back exactly? Keeping the sovereignty as you say, I say naively, thoughtlessly, glibly,, artlessly you keep insisting we should have kept the sovereignty, we would have carried on as the bitch, carried on being the mug.
In my opinion we should be trying to decouple ourselves from the donkey work for others we have got ourselves into over in Chagos.
At least a lease on an island may be far less complicated to legally transfer on at some point, than sovereignty.
I understand your arguments, and I agree with much of what you say, but the Chagos deal is not the remedy for any of it.
In my heart, I don't want the US there at all. However, I appreciate that telling them to do one is an abject impossibility. From where we are (or where we were a year ago), the sensible middle road was simply to retain sovereignty. It wouldn't have delighted anyone, but neither would it have burned bridges or badly damaged any relationships.
If this deal goes through, we will be in a new situation. From where we will be then the best course of action will be to terminate the deal. There are numerous ways this could be achieved, and providing that none of them come with a 99 year rent, I'm up for whichever one causes with least hassle - though I accept that, as with the EU deal, Labour have left us with a signficant amount of lasting hassle, cleaning up their dirty protest of a Government.
Personally I think we should have given the Chagos Islands back to the Chagosians decades ago and could have used some of that money we are using to bribe Mauritius to actually support the Chagosians rebuilding their lives.
Two things are wrong/bad about the Chagos deal (ignoring the fact that Mauritius had no claim in the first place) and I think will come back to haunt us.
Firstly we have simply ignored the prople who actually inhabited the islands and should have been the ones we were returning them to.
And secondly we are going to see the utter detrsuction of the one of the largest marine reserves in the world.
These two combined make this a 'bad' decision.
I agree with this. Chagossian occupation of their own islands is incompatible with a large military base on Diego Garcia. That's the realpolitik and the fundamental choice from which everything else follows.
I suspect the Chagosians are just as open to a bit of rent as the next person.
They should have given it back to the Chagosians and made it part of the deal that the US and UK pay the Chagosians for renting DG. Just as we are now going to do with Mauritius.
Dunno about you but I’m having a late brunch of kipper-and-egg in a bap, on the beach, in the shade of Bamburgh Castle, with my older daughter on the occasion of her 19th birthday - as I drive her dome from her first year at Uni
I think I’m more emotional than her
How does Northumberland compare with Cornwall?
Not answering for Sean, obvs. When I walked the coast, I preferred Northumberland. A much under-appreciated coastline, and not too touristy. General scenery-wise, I'd probably go for Cornwall, but it's close.
Thought these lines on economic performance very enlightening. Had little idea there had been such a divergence between Europe and the US. It seems rising prosperity is no protection from political bampots.
In 1995, Germany’s nominal GDP per capita was a little higher ($32,000) than that of the United States ($29,000), with the United Kingdom lagging behind at a noticeable distance ($23,000) . . . Since then, the two continents have markedly diverged. To an extent that few people have fully internalized, an economic gulf has opened up between America and Europe. On average, Americans are now nearly twice as rich as Europeans. According to the latest available data for GDP per capita, the United States stands at $83,000, with Germany at $54,000 and the United Kingdom at $50,000.”
Yet for some reason you are delighted that 'the two main parties' have protected us from 'extremists' - when its obvious that our state setup is absolutely inimical to prosperity.
And you imagine that Reform will improve that state of affairs ? LOL
Your LOLs are just a signal of your own ignorance at this point. Reform's front bench has vastly more business experience than Labour's (not hard as Labour's has zero). Considering Labour has 402 MPs and Reform has 5, that is a massively damning situation. Why would a party that actually knows how to make money rather than just spend it not improve the situation for businesses?
Well, Rupert Lowe certainly has some business experience. Oh, wait...
Yes, he’s a very successful businessman, but actually my assessment didn't include Lowe.
Interesting you should mention him though - that means even Reform's ex MP contingent has more business experience than the Labour front bench.
But do Reform understand that what businesses crave most is stability and predictability, not Trump-like changes of direction every week?
Depends what you mean by "business". By the look of it, the thing uniting Farage, Tice, Lowe and McMurdock is being on the 'arranging finance' side of business, rather than the 'making things or providing services that customers want' side. I suspect (no, it's not my world) that financiers are happier with instability than doers. Especially if they think they can profit from the instability.
(Yes, we need people managing the finances, and I mostly don't object to their skimming off a bit each time. But I remain haunted by an article by that famous lefty, PJ O'Rourke. Under strict anonymity, he got various Wall Street people to admit that no, they weren't doing anything clever and no, they couldn't justify their mega salaries.)
I'm torn over Reform. Sometimes I think: let's just get Nigel as PM and get it out of our system sooner rather than later. But then I remember that they'll probably aim to mimic Trump 2 but in an even more triumphalist, confrontational, manic and outlandish way, and I get worried again.
I don’t think Farage is as instinctively chaotic as Trump, for what it’s worth. I think he has a bit more of a clearer vision (it wouldn’t be hard). That doesn’t mean that he couldn’t cause a lot of difficulties and fallout along the way, particularly where markets are concerned, and potentially in cases of national security and European co-operation.
I don't think Farage is quite as malevolent as Trump but what the two have in common is an extremely self indulgent politics their respective countries can't afford, particularly Britain can't afford. Could Farage pivot to practical governing once he's in power? Possible but he has never given the slightest indication.
Net Zero is set the cost the British economy the same in today's money as World War II. (Snip)
This website (Number 1 result on Google - I do not make claims for accuracy) estimates the UK's war spend at £1.2tn in today's dollars. That’s just under £900bn.
Dunno about you but I’m having a late brunch of kipper-and-egg in a bap, on the beach, in the shade of Bamburgh Castle, with my older daughter on the occasion of her 19th birthday - as I drive her dome from her first year at Uni
I think I’m more emotional than her
If I'm not mistaken, she's on the spectrum, so that might also be a contributory factor
It is her 19th birthday but she cannot celebrate with her student chums because she has been kidnapped by her lunatic father, no doubt singing Trelawny for the next 200 miles. Of course she is depressed.
Millions are on the move not because there’s more war and poverty, but because more people can afford to make the journey. For as long as the western world runs a system whereby he who makes landfall gets to stay (most do, even if their appeal fails) then far more will be sucked into this fatal conveyor belt. People trafficking has become the world’s new giant evil — made possible by a refusal to modernise asylum rules.
"The Swedes, having learnt the hard way, are now so tough on new claims (and better at removing failed ones) that they recently became the first country in Europe to achieve net-zero immigration. The next move is to offer £45,000 to families willing to surrender their Swedish passports and move out of Europe. In the UK, “repatriation” is seen as a far-right fantasy. In socialistic Sweden (which once welcomed my wife’s parents as refugees), “remigration” is part of protecting the social contract. If migrants fail to settle, why not pay them to leave?"
"The Swedes, having learnt the hard way, are now so tough on new claims (and better at removing failed ones) that they recently became the first country in Europe to achieve net-zero immigration. The next move is to offer £45,000 to families willing to surrender their Swedish passports and move out of Europe. In the UK, “repatriation” is seen as a far-right fantasy. In socialistic Sweden (which once welcomed my wife’s parents as refugees), “remigration” is part of protecting the social contract. If migrants fail to settle, why not pay them to leave?"
Millions are on the move not because there’s more war and poverty, but because more people can afford to make the journey. For as long as the western world runs a system whereby he who makes landfall gets to stay (most do, even if their appeal fails) then far more will be sucked into this fatal conveyor belt. People trafficking has become the world’s new giant evil — made possible by a refusal to modernise asylum rules.
"The Swedes, having learnt the hard way, are now so tough on new claims (and better at removing failed ones) that they recently became the first country in Europe to achieve net-zero immigration. The next move is to offer £45,000 to families willing to surrender their Swedish passports and move out of Europe. In the UK, “repatriation” is seen as a far-right fantasy. In socialistic Sweden (which once welcomed my wife’s parents as refugees), “remigration” is part of protecting the social contract. If migrants fail to settle, why not pay them to leave?"
I'm torn over Reform. Sometimes I think: let's just get Nigel as PM and get it out of our system sooner rather than later. But then I remember that they'll probably aim to mimic Trump 2 but in an even more triumphalist, confrontational, manic and outlandish way, and I get worried again.
I don’t think Farage is as instinctively chaotic as Trump, for what it’s worth. I think he has a bit more of a clearer vision (it wouldn’t be hard). That doesn’t mean that he couldn’t cause a lot of difficulties and fallout along the way, particularly where markets are concerned, and potentially in cases of national security and European co-operation.
I don't think Farage is quite as malevolent as Trump but what the two have in common is an extremely self indulgent politics their respective countries can't afford, particularly Britain can't afford. Could Farage pivot to practical governing once he's in power? Possible but he has never given the slightest indication.
Net Zero is set the cost the British economy the same in today's money as World War II. (Snip)
This website (Number 1 result on Google - I do not make claims for accuracy) estimates the UK's war spend at £1.2tn in today's dollars. That’s just under £900bn.
Thanks. I am *extremely* sceptical about those figures.
Also: you need to balance the costs of *not* doing Net Zero. In your world, where IIRC we would have mega-expensive North Sea oil and gas, and brain-dead stupid coal power generation.
(Incidentally, the link on the first link to the FoI disclosure does not work for me...)
Dunno about you but I’m having a late brunch of kipper-and-egg in a bap, on the beach, in the shade of Bamburgh Castle, with my older daughter on the occasion of her 19th birthday - as I drive her dome from her first year at Uni
I think I’m more emotional than her
Lovely beach Bambergh. And the Castle, on the headland. Just think, that was the capital of Northern Eng;and once.
I'm torn over Reform. Sometimes I think: let's just get Nigel as PM and get it out of our system sooner rather than later. But then I remember that they'll probably aim to mimic Trump 2 but in an even more triumphalist, confrontational, manic and outlandish way, and I get worried again.
I don’t think Farage is as instinctively chaotic as Trump, for what it’s worth. I think he has a bit more of a clearer vision (it wouldn’t be hard). That doesn’t mean that he couldn’t cause a lot of difficulties and fallout along the way, particularly where markets are concerned, and potentially in cases of national security and European co-operation.
I don't think Farage is quite as malevolent as Trump but what the two have in common is an extremely self indulgent politics their respective countries can't afford, particularly Britain can't afford. Could Farage pivot to practical governing once he's in power? Possible but he has never given the slightest indication.
Net Zero is set the cost the British economy the same in today's money as World War II. (Snip)
This website (Number 1 result on Google - I do not make claims for accuracy) estimates the UK's war spend at £1.2tn in today's dollars. That’s just under £900bn.
I would appreciate if Moonrabbit would answer my question as to whether the Chagos Deal makes the Falklands more or less secure.
Regarding the header, this is simply a measure of awareness. There is no such thing as being aware of this deal and liking it. It's not like welfare where some are in receipt and some are paying, or a tax increase, assisted dying, or the NHS - there are no winners and losers or ideological fault lines. There are just losers.
Those who are in favour are just being reflexively pro-Labour (it's about equal with their poll rating) and are either ignorant about the deal or are acting from partisan loyalty.
My mind is still open on your question. persuade me. 🙂
I would answer, argument it’s less secure is based on precedent has been set by this case. But has a precedent been set, if each situation is unique? Put more specifically, when inhabitants have chosen, have there been instances UN and courts ruled against the choice of inhabitants? That would set a precedent making UK sovereignty of Falklands more insecure, our enemies like Moscow, would line up to game the UN workings, throwing their weight behind a claimant.
I’m not in favour of this Governments Chagos deal. My header was sharing my understanding they chose this option wanting to be seen as a fair and responsible power, rather than simply claiming land outright without international support, on basis this approach brings more leverage to our diplomacy, more influence, friends, more security deals and trade. Which actually is not new - it’s identical reasoning in 1898 British Empire chose to sign a lease on something else. They thought they would get more of the good stuff doing it that way.
I know you disagree. the other day you fully signed up to 1 million years BC diplomacy, Raquel Welch in Faun skins and a club in her hand. Perhaps one day we should have a simple header IS IT BETTER TO BE FEARED OR LOVED? and debate it out underneath. I’m certain it’s not as open and shut as you sure it is.
My personal preference is neither sovereignty or the deal. With either sovereignty or lease, UK gets absolutely nothing in defence and security that isn’t also pooled with others. Let US and India deal and pay this time.. But is that realistic? Was it ever an option?
Two things you unrealistically dismiss Lucky. Keeping sovereignty WILL come with brickbats and loss of influence. When it went into court, no one in the world turned up for us, apart from USA and some little places slipped a backhander to vote with us. No NATO allies, no Canada, no Australia. No one in the Indian Ocean or South China Sea, as India had used our Imperial Squat to whip them all up against doing any business with us.
Secondly, when UK got into base talks back in 1960s, it came hand in hand with interlocking UK defence and security with the US catalogue of expensive kit. Are we in any position to decouple? Seriously?
I don’t mind Reform making same glib mistakes as you, but fear Conservative front bench making the same and being unrealistic about what options actually were. in government or opposition, Lab & Con have been as one in agreement being interlocked with US equipment and security since 1960s. Today in opposition Tories attacking the deal as far too favourable to the US. What exactly is Kemi saying, what exactly is her policy, on interlocked with US on security and key bits of equipment?
Thanks for the time taken to answer.
It is not about being feared or loved. It is a far simpler calculation of positive and negative consequences on the part of those whose interests clash with ours. We have sent a HUGE signal up not only that we are in giveaway mode even when there is no legal compulsion or military threat, but that we will even bankroll our own disgrace. AND that we don't give a flying fuck about the wishes of the peoples' of the islands and their democratic wishes. The positives of taking on the UK have just become massively more attractive than the perceived downsides, for anyone.
I am happy for the UK be loved - I am not in favour of flouncing around taking delight in upsetting foreign Governments. But we MUST be consistent in defence of our own legitimate interests. We are not being celebrated on the streets of Calcutta with this deal - we were already loathed for the Raj; we have simply added a layer of being despised for being weak and in terminal decline.
Time and again Labour have made the foolish error of thinking that British Governments (usually Tory ones) didn't get anywhere in negotiations with overseas powers because they weren’t being 'nice' enough. It led to Blair giving away much of our EU rebate for a non-existent reform of the CAP, it has led to Starmer giving away 12 years of fishing rights for fuck all, it now leads to this.
In the bigger picture - and if you don’t agree with this please correct me - for the last 100 years, the US has been on a relentless mission to expunge all influence UK has in the world. They usurped UK good and proper in Middle East, even drew up plans in the forties to kick us out of Hong Kong. India has joined in with glee. UK pressured into this deal by India, steering everyone in the region away from the old evil empire for not being fair to Mauritius. There’s the clearer story of being hauled into court on Chagos. Not China driving it, but India. (I put all this in the header btw)
And what’s UK been doing whilst “friends” have been burying the British Empire, expunging last traces of it, clipping away at our influence around the region like a back street vet neutering a dog? We’ve interlocked ourselves into the expensive catalogue of US weaponry. We’ve got the hit of ethnic cleansing the Chagos, and the ongoing mess from that we saw outside a court house last week. And we brought both India and US into the negotiating room to help write this lease agreement.
When PBers post “we should have kept sovereignty, simples” I put it to you - isn’t that the preferred option Washington wanted in the first place? their bitch to keep the sovereignty, carry on doing the dirty work, until India’s campaign against us made it all the more difficult?
When you look at this bigger picture, from sixties to now, what the word Chagos should mean in the English language is “the UK have been mugs” all these years doing the heavy lifting for others, and getting what back exactly? Keeping the sovereignty as you say, I say naively, thoughtlessly, glibly,, artlessly you keep insisting we should have kept the sovereignty, we would have carried on as the bitch, carried on being the mug.
In my opinion we should be trying to decouple ourselves from the donkey work for others we have got ourselves into over in Chagos.
At least a lease on an island may be far less complicated to legally transfer on at some point, than sovereignty.
I understand your arguments, and I agree with much of what you say, but the Chagos deal is not the remedy for any of it.
In my heart, I don't want the US there at all. However, I appreciate that telling them to do one is an abject impossibility. From where we are (or where we were a year ago), the sensible middle road was simply to retain sovereignty. It wouldn't have delighted anyone, but neither would it have burned bridges or badly damaged any relationships.
If this deal goes through, we will be in a new situation. From where we will be then the best course of action will be to terminate the deal. There are numerous ways this could be achieved, and providing that none of them come with a 99 year rent, I'm up for whichever one causes with least hassle - though I accept that, as with the EU deal, Labour have left us with a signficant amount of lasting hassle, cleaning up their dirty protest of a Government.
Personally I think we should have given the Chagos Islands back to the Chagosians decades ago and could have used some of that money we are using to bribe Mauritius to actually support the Chagosians rebuilding their lives.
Two things are wrong/bad about the Chagos deal (ignoring the fact that Mauritius had no claim in the first place) and I think will come back to haunt us.
Firstly we have simply ignored the prople who actually inhabited the islands and should have been the ones we were returning them to.
And secondly we are going to see the utter detrsuction of the one of the largest marine reserves in the world.
These two combined make this a 'bad' decision.
I agree with this. Chagossian occupation of their own islands is incompatible with a large military base on Diego Garcia. That's the realpolitik and the fundamental choice from which everything else follows.
The point being that it is a bankrupt legalism to suggest that Mauritius is the injured party. The Chagosians are the ones who deserve respect and compensation.
Hence my suggestion would have been to negotiate a settlement with *them*.
This would have fucked off those who believe that territorial contiguity/closeness is The Truth. But, honestly, I don’t give a shit.
It isn't a bankrupt legalism though however much we might wish it to be so. Chagos was part of the Mauritius territory right from French origins through the entire period of the British colony. It was only split from Mauritius at the time of independence, explicitly to accommodate the American base.
It was an administrative unit. Plenty of which split into separate states at independence. Historically, the only connection between Chagos and Mauritius was dumping a pile of the islanders in Mauritius.
Maybe but "administrative unit" is just a term. It's got legal status here. Mauritius ownership of Chagos was implicitly recognised by the UK in the independence treaty where Chagos would revert back to Mauritius should the base be closed and where they still have fishing and mineral rights on the islands.
As I say everything follows from the decision to convert the main island into a military base. No base and a different outcome might be possible.
"The Swedes, having learnt the hard way, are now so tough on new claims (and better at removing failed ones) that they recently became the first country in Europe to achieve net-zero immigration. The next move is to offer £45,000 to families willing to surrender their Swedish passports and move out of Europe. In the UK, “repatriation” is seen as a far-right fantasy. In socialistic Sweden (which once welcomed my wife’s parents as refugees), “remigration” is part of protecting the social contract. If migrants fail to settle, why not pay them to leave?"
I would appreciate if Moonrabbit would answer my question as to whether the Chagos Deal makes the Falklands more or less secure.
Regarding the header, this is simply a measure of awareness. There is no such thing as being aware of this deal and liking it. It's not like welfare where some are in receipt and some are paying, or a tax increase, assisted dying, or the NHS - there are no winners and losers or ideological fault lines. There are just losers.
Those who are in favour are just being reflexively pro-Labour (it's about equal with their poll rating) and are either ignorant about the deal or are acting from partisan loyalty.
My mind is still open on your question. persuade me. 🙂
I would answer, argument it’s less secure is based on precedent has been set by this case. But has a precedent been set, if each situation is unique? Put more specifically, when inhabitants have chosen, have there been instances UN and courts ruled against the choice of inhabitants? That would set a precedent making UK sovereignty of Falklands more insecure, our enemies like Moscow, would line up to game the UN workings, throwing their weight behind a claimant.
I’m not in favour of this Governments Chagos deal. My header was sharing my understanding they chose this option wanting to be seen as a fair and responsible power, rather than simply claiming land outright without international support, on basis this approach brings more leverage to our diplomacy, more influence, friends, more security deals and trade. Which actually is not new - it’s identical reasoning in 1898 British Empire chose to sign a lease on something else. They thought they would get more of the good stuff doing it that way.
I know you disagree. the other day you fully signed up to 1 million years BC diplomacy, Raquel Welch in Faun skins and a club in her hand. Perhaps one day we should have a simple header IS IT BETTER TO BE FEARED OR LOVED? and debate it out underneath. I’m certain it’s not as open and shut as you sure it is.
My personal preference is neither sovereignty or the deal. With either sovereignty or lease, UK gets absolutely nothing in defence and security that isn’t also pooled with others. Let US and India deal and pay this time.. But is that realistic? Was it ever an option?
Two things you unrealistically dismiss Lucky. Keeping sovereignty WILL come with brickbats and loss of influence. When it went into court, no one in the world turned up for us, apart from USA and some little places slipped a backhander to vote with us. No NATO allies, no Canada, no Australia. No one in the Indian Ocean or South China Sea, as India had used our Imperial Squat to whip them all up against doing any business with us.
Secondly, when UK got into base talks back in 1960s, it came hand in hand with interlocking UK defence and security with the US catalogue of expensive kit. Are we in any position to decouple? Seriously?
I don’t mind Reform making same glib mistakes as you, but fear Conservative front bench making the same and being unrealistic about what options actually were. in government or opposition, Lab & Con have been as one in agreement being interlocked with US equipment and security since 1960s. Today in opposition Tories attacking the deal as far too favourable to the US. What exactly is Kemi saying, what exactly is her policy, on interlocked with US on security and key bits of equipment?
Thanks for the time taken to answer.
It is not about being feared or loved. It is a far simpler calculation of positive and negative consequences on the part of those whose interests clash with ours. We have sent a HUGE signal up not only that we are in giveaway mode even when there is no legal compulsion or military threat, but that we will even bankroll our own disgrace. AND that we don't give a flying fuck about the wishes of the peoples' of the islands and their democratic wishes. The positives of taking on the UK have just become massively more attractive than the perceived downsides, for anyone.
I am happy for the UK be loved - I am not in favour of flouncing around taking delight in upsetting foreign Governments. But we MUST be consistent in defence of our own legitimate interests. We are not being celebrated on the streets of Calcutta with this deal - we were already loathed for the Raj; we have simply added a layer of being despised for being weak and in terminal decline.
Time and again Labour have made the foolish error of thinking that British Governments (usually Tory ones) didn't get anywhere in negotiations with overseas powers because they weren’t being 'nice' enough. It led to Blair giving away much of our EU rebate for a non-existent reform of the CAP, it has led to Starmer giving away 12 years of fishing rights for fuck all, it now leads to this.
In the bigger picture - and if you don’t agree with this please correct me - for the last 100 years, the US has been on a relentless mission to expunge all influence UK has in the world. They usurped UK good and proper in Middle East, even drew up plans in the forties to kick us out of Hong Kong. India has joined in with glee. UK pressured into this deal by India, steering everyone in the region away from the old evil empire for not being fair to Mauritius. There’s the clearer story of being hauled into court on Chagos. Not China driving it, but India. (I put all this in the header btw)
And what’s UK been doing whilst “friends” have been burying the British Empire, expunging last traces of it, clipping away at our influence around the region like a back street vet neutering a dog? We’ve interlocked ourselves into the expensive catalogue of US weaponry. We’ve got the hit of ethnic cleansing the Chagos, and the ongoing mess from that we saw outside a court house last week. And we brought both India and US into the negotiating room to help write this lease agreement.
When PBers post “we should have kept sovereignty, simples” I put it to you - isn’t that the preferred option Washington wanted in the first place? their bitch to keep the sovereignty, carry on doing the dirty work, until India’s campaign against us made it all the more difficult?
When you look at this bigger picture, from sixties to now, what the word Chagos should mean in the English language is “the UK have been mugs” all these years doing the heavy lifting for others, and getting what back exactly? Keeping the sovereignty as you say, I say naively, thoughtlessly, glibly,, artlessly you keep insisting we should have kept the sovereignty, we would have carried on as the bitch, carried on being the mug.
In my opinion we should be trying to decouple ourselves from the donkey work for others we have got ourselves into over in Chagos.
At least a lease on an island may be far less complicated to legally transfer on at some point, than sovereignty.
I understand your arguments, and I agree with much of what you say, but the Chagos deal is not the remedy for any of it.
In my heart, I don't want the US there at all. However, I appreciate that telling them to do one is an abject impossibility. From where we are (or where we were a year ago), the sensible middle road was simply to retain sovereignty. It wouldn't have delighted anyone, but neither would it have burned bridges or badly damaged any relationships.
If this deal goes through, we will be in a new situation. From where we will be then the best course of action will be to terminate the deal. There are numerous ways this could be achieved, and providing that none of them come with a 99 year rent, I'm up for whichever one causes with least hassle - though I accept that, as with the EU deal, Labour have left us with a signficant amount of lasting hassle, cleaning up their dirty protest of a Government.
Personally I think we should have given the Chagos Islands back to the Chagosians decades ago and could have used some of that money we are using to bribe Mauritius to actually support the Chagosians rebuilding their lives.
Two things are wrong/bad about the Chagos deal (ignoring the fact that Mauritius had no claim in the first place) and I think will come back to haunt us.
Firstly we have simply ignored the prople who actually inhabited the islands and should have been the ones we were returning them to.
And secondly we are going to see the utter detrsuction of the one of the largest marine reserves in the world.
These two combined make this a 'bad' decision.
I agree with this. Chagossian occupation of their own islands is incompatible with a large military base on Diego Garcia. That's the realpolitik and the fundamental choice from which everything else follows.
The point being that it is a bankrupt legalism to suggest that Mauritius is the injured party. The Chagosians are the ones who deserve respect and compensation.
Hence my suggestion would have been to negotiate a settlement with *them*.
This would have fucked off those who believe that territorial contiguity/closeness is The Truth. But, honestly, I don’t give a shit.
It isn't a bankrupt legalism though however much we might wish it to be so. Chagos was part of the Mauritius territory right from French origins through the entire period of the British colony. It was only split from Mauritius at the time of independence, explicitly to accommodate the American base.
It was an administrative unit. Plenty of which split into separate states at independence. Historically, the only connection between Chagos and Mauritius was dumping a pile of the islanders in Mauritius.
Maybe but "administrative unit" is just a term. It's got legal status here. Mauritius ownership of Chagos was implicitly recognised by the UK in the independence treaty where Chagos would revert back to Mauritius should the base be closed and where they still have fishing and mineral rights on the islands.
As I say everything follows from the decision to convert the main island into a military base. No base and a different outcome might be possible.
No base and we wouldn't care about the island though.
"The Swedes, having learnt the hard way, are now so tough on new claims (and better at removing failed ones) that they recently became the first country in Europe to achieve net-zero immigration. The next move is to offer £45,000 to families willing to surrender their Swedish passports and move out of Europe. In the UK, “repatriation” is seen as a far-right fantasy. In socialistic Sweden (which once welcomed my wife’s parents as refugees), “remigration” is part of protecting the social contract. If migrants fail to settle, why not pay them to leave?"
The policy of "voluntary repatriation" was first raised in the 1980s. It may have a different name now but it's basically the same. How much should we offer an Afghan, a Syrian, an Eritrean, a Romanian or whoever to go back? £1,000, £10,000, £50,000?
I remember they found a Lithuanian rough sleeper near where I live in East Ham back in the mid-noughties and he was offered free passage back to Lithuania but he refused saying he'd rather sleep rough in the UK and take his chances.
"The Swedes, having learnt the hard way, are now so tough on new claims (and better at removing failed ones) that they recently became the first country in Europe to achieve net-zero immigration. The next move is to offer £45,000 to families willing to surrender their Swedish passports and move out of Europe. In the UK, “repatriation” is seen as a far-right fantasy. In socialistic Sweden (which once welcomed my wife’s parents as refugees), “remigration” is part of protecting the social contract. If migrants fail to settle, why not pay them to leave?"
The policy of "voluntary repatriation" was first raised in the 1980s. It may have a different name now but it's basically the same. How much should we offer an Afghan, a Syrian, an Eritrean, a Romanian or whoever to go back? £1,000, £10,000, £50,000?
I remember they found a Lithuanian rough sleeper near where I live in East Ham back in the mid-noughties and he was offered free passage back to Lithuania but he refused saying he'd rather sleep rough in the UK and take his chances.
"The Swedes, having learnt the hard way, are now so tough on new claims (and better at removing failed ones) that they recently became the first country in Europe to achieve net-zero immigration. The next move is to offer £45,000 to families willing to surrender their Swedish passports and move out of Europe. In the UK, “repatriation” is seen as a far-right fantasy. In socialistic Sweden (which once welcomed my wife’s parents as refugees), “remigration” is part of protecting the social contract. If migrants fail to settle, why not pay them to leave?"
The policy of "voluntary repatriation" was first raised in the 1980s. It may have a different name now but it's basically the same. How much should we offer an Afghan, a Syrian, an Eritrean, a Romanian or whoever to go back? £1,000, £10,000, £50,000?
I remember they found a Lithuanian rough sleeper near where I live in East Ham back in the mid-noughties and he was offered free passage back to Lithuania but he refused saying he'd rather sleep rough in the UK and take his chances.
They are right it is completely unsustainable, and an EHCP probably is not necessary for many cases but no one would want to risk not doing enough, but for an already unpopular government I suspect this would go down like a lead ballon
EXC: Hundreds of thousands of children with special needs face losing legal right to extra support in schools under plans being considered by ministers.
"The Swedes, having learnt the hard way, are now so tough on new claims (and better at removing failed ones) that they recently became the first country in Europe to achieve net-zero immigration. The next move is to offer £45,000 to families willing to surrender their Swedish passports and move out of Europe. In the UK, “repatriation” is seen as a far-right fantasy. In socialistic Sweden (which once welcomed my wife’s parents as refugees), “remigration” is part of protecting the social contract. If migrants fail to settle, why not pay them to leave?"
The policy of "voluntary repatriation" was first raised in the 1980s. It may have a different name now but it's basically the same. How much should we offer an Afghan, a Syrian, an Eritrean, a Romanian or whoever to go back? £1,000, £10,000, £50,000?
I remember they found a Lithuanian rough sleeper near where I live in East Ham back in the mid-noughties and he was offered free passage back to Lithuania but he refused saying he'd rather sleep rough in the UK and take his chances.
"The Swedes, having learnt the hard way, are now so tough on new claims (and better at removing failed ones) that they recently became the first country in Europe to achieve net-zero immigration. The next move is to offer £45,000 to families willing to surrender their Swedish passports and move out of Europe. In the UK, “repatriation” is seen as a far-right fantasy. In socialistic Sweden (which once welcomed my wife’s parents as refugees), “remigration” is part of protecting the social contract. If migrants fail to settle, why not pay them to leave?"
The policy of "voluntary repatriation" was first raised in the 1980s. It may have a different name now but it's basically the same. How much should we offer an Afghan, a Syrian, an Eritrean, a Romanian or whoever to go back? £1,000, £10,000, £50,000?
I remember they found a Lithuanian rough sleeper near where I live in East Ham back in the mid-noughties and he was offered free passage back to Lithuania but he refused saying he'd rather sleep rough in the UK and take his chances.
They are right it is completely unsustainable, and an EHCP probably is not necessary for many cases but no one would want to risk not doing enough, but for an already unpopular government I suspect this would go down like a lead ballon
EXC: Hundreds of thousands of children with special needs face losing legal right to extra support in schools under plans being considered by ministers.
"The Swedes, having learnt the hard way, are now so tough on new claims (and better at removing failed ones) that they recently became the first country in Europe to achieve net-zero immigration. The next move is to offer £45,000 to families willing to surrender their Swedish passports and move out of Europe. In the UK, “repatriation” is seen as a far-right fantasy. In socialistic Sweden (which once welcomed my wife’s parents as refugees), “remigration” is part of protecting the social contract. If migrants fail to settle, why not pay them to leave?"
The policy of "voluntary repatriation" was first raised in the 1980s. It may have a different name now but it's basically the same. How much should we offer an Afghan, a Syrian, an Eritrean, a Romanian or whoever to go back? £1,000, £10,000, £50,000?
I remember they found a Lithuanian rough sleeper near where I live in East Ham back in the mid-noughties and he was offered free passage back to Lithuania but he refused saying he'd rather sleep rough in the UK and take his chances.
They are right it is completely unsustainable, and an EHCP probably is not necessary for many cases but no one would want to risk not doing enough, but for an already unpopular government I suspect this would go down like a lead ballon
EXC: Hundreds of thousands of children with special needs face losing legal right to extra support in schools under plans being considered by ministers.
Have the cabinet got some weird pecadillo for being absolute arseholes?
An EHCP is not necessarily, er, necessary, to secure the level of support someone needs, so can be overkill, so I'm far from unsympathetic to making a tough decision which is appropriately targeted. But I just don't see how they sell it.
I suspect it won't happen, and this is floating the idea, seeing it will tank with MPs and the public, and then saying of course they won't be doing it.
I'm torn over Reform. Sometimes I think: let's just get Nigel as PM and get it out of our system sooner rather than later. But then I remember that they'll probably aim to mimic Trump 2 but in an even more triumphalist, confrontational, manic and outlandish way, and I get worried again.
I don’t think Farage is as instinctively chaotic as Trump, for what it’s worth. I think he has a bit more of a clearer vision (it wouldn’t be hard). That doesn’t mean that he couldn’t cause a lot of difficulties and fallout along the way, particularly where markets are concerned, and potentially in cases of national security and European co-operation.
I don't think Farage is quite as malevolent as Trump but what the two have in common is an extremely self indulgent politics their respective countries can't afford, particularly Britain can't afford. Could Farage pivot to practical governing once he's in power? Possible but he has never given the slightest indication.
Net Zero is set the cost the British economy the same in today's money as World War II. (Snip)
This website (Number 1 result on Google - I do not make claims for accuracy) estimates the UK's war spend at £1.2tn in today's dollars. That’s just under £900bn.
Thanks. I am *extremely* sceptical about those figures.
Also: you need to balance the costs of *not* doing Net Zero. In your world, where IIRC we would have mega-expensive North Sea oil and gas, and brain-dead stupid coal power generation.
(Incidentally, the link on the first link to the FoI disclosure does not work for me...)
I remember when a Conservative government, a CONSERVATIVE government, was willing to spunk £1 billion on a new-build coal-fired power station with carbon capture.
"The Swedes, having learnt the hard way, are now so tough on new claims (and better at removing failed ones) that they recently became the first country in Europe to achieve net-zero immigration. The next move is to offer £45,000 to families willing to surrender their Swedish passports and move out of Europe. In the UK, “repatriation” is seen as a far-right fantasy. In socialistic Sweden (which once welcomed my wife’s parents as refugees), “remigration” is part of protecting the social contract. If migrants fail to settle, why not pay them to leave?"
The policy of "voluntary repatriation" was first raised in the 1980s. It may have a different name now but it's basically the same. How much should we offer an Afghan, a Syrian, an Eritrean, a Romanian or whoever to go back? £1,000, £10,000, £50,000?
I remember they found a Lithuanian rough sleeper near where I live in East Ham back in the mid-noughties and he was offered free passage back to Lithuania but he refused saying he'd rather sleep rough in the UK and take his chances.
It was Tory party policy in 1968 under Edward Heath according to Powell
Didn't do anything about it when they regained power in 1970, though. And in 1972 they welcomed those Asians expelled from Uganda.
My vague suspicion is the public don't care about precise numbers coming in, even if they are high, so long as they feel the government is generally in control of the situation.
I'm torn over Reform. Sometimes I think: let's just get Nigel as PM and get it out of our system sooner rather than later. But then I remember that they'll probably aim to mimic Trump 2 but in an even more triumphalist, confrontational, manic and outlandish way, and I get worried again.
I don’t think Farage is as instinctively chaotic as Trump, for what it’s worth. I think he has a bit more of a clearer vision (it wouldn’t be hard). That doesn’t mean that he couldn’t cause a lot of difficulties and fallout along the way, particularly where markets are concerned, and potentially in cases of national security and European co-operation.
I don't think Farage is quite as malevolent as Trump but what the two have in common is an extremely self indulgent politics their respective countries can't afford, particularly Britain can't afford. Could Farage pivot to practical governing once he's in power? Possible but he has never given the slightest indication.
Net Zero is set the cost the British economy the same in today's money as World War II. (Snip)
This website (Number 1 result on Google - I do not make claims for accuracy) estimates the UK's war spend at £1.2tn in today's dollars. That’s just under £900bn.
They are right it is completely unsustainable, and an EHCP probably is not necessary for many cases but no one would want to risk not doing enough, but for an already unpopular government I suspect this would go down like a lead ballon
EXC: Hundreds of thousands of children with special needs face losing legal right to extra support in schools under plans being considered by ministers.
Have the cabinet got some weird pecadillo for being absolute arseholes?
I've a great-nephew with special needs. Being a suitable unit has done wonders for him; looks like he'll be employable, which wasn't the case not long ago. Only problem is he lives in Lancashire, which now has a Reform-run county council.
They are right it is completely unsustainable, and an EHCP probably is not necessary for many cases but no one would want to risk not doing enough, but for an already unpopular government I suspect this would go down like a lead ballon
EXC: Hundreds of thousands of children with special needs face losing legal right to extra support in schools under plans being considered by ministers.
Have the cabinet got some weird pecadillo for being absolute arseholes?
An EHCP is not necessarily, er, necessary, to secure the level of support someone needs, so can be overkill, so I'm far from unsympathetic to making a tough decision which is appropriately targeted. But I just don't see how they sell it.
I suspect it won't happen, and this is floating the idea, seeing it will tank with MPs and the public, and then saying of course they won't be doing it.
Oh i know arguments can be made etc and lots of stuff needs reforming/changing but this lot seem to wake in a bad mood every morning and grunt 'I'm furious, who can we fucking punch down on today?', only getting angrier if it's suggested they try throwing a few punches upwards first.
I would appreciate if Moonrabbit would answer my question as to whether the Chagos Deal makes the Falklands more or less secure.
Regarding the header, this is simply a measure of awareness. There is no such thing as being aware of this deal and liking it. It's not like welfare where some are in receipt and some are paying, or a tax increase, assisted dying, or the NHS - there are no winners and losers or ideological fault lines. There are just losers.
Those who are in favour are just being reflexively pro-Labour (it's about equal with their poll rating) and are either ignorant about the deal or are acting from partisan loyalty.
My mind is still open on your question. persuade me. 🙂
I would answer, argument it’s less secure is based on precedent has been set by this case. But has a precedent been set, if each situation is unique? Put more specifically, when inhabitants have chosen, have there been instances UN and courts ruled against the choice of inhabitants? That would set a precedent making UK sovereignty of Falklands more insecure, our enemies like Moscow, would line up to game the UN workings, throwing their weight behind a claimant.
I’m not in favour of this Governments Chagos deal. My header was sharing my understanding they chose this option wanting to be seen as a fair and responsible power, rather than simply claiming land outright without international support, on basis this approach brings more leverage to our diplomacy, more influence, friends, more security deals and trade. Which actually is not new - it’s identical reasoning in 1898 British Empire chose to sign a lease on something else. They thought they would get more of the good stuff doing it that way.
I know you disagree. the other day you fully signed up to 1 million years BC diplomacy, Raquel Welch in Faun skins and a club in her hand. Perhaps one day we should have a simple header IS IT BETTER TO BE FEARED OR LOVED? and debate it out underneath. I’m certain it’s not as open and shut as you sure it is.
My personal preference is neither sovereignty or the deal. With either sovereignty or lease, UK gets absolutely nothing in defence and security that isn’t also pooled with others. Let US and India deal and pay this time.. But is that realistic? Was it ever an option?
Two things you unrealistically dismiss Lucky. Keeping sovereignty WILL come with brickbats and loss of influence. When it went into court, no one in the world turned up for us, apart from USA and some little places slipped a backhander to vote with us. No NATO allies, no Canada, no Australia. No one in the Indian Ocean or South China Sea, as India had used our Imperial Squat to whip them all up against doing any business with us.
Secondly, when UK got into base talks back in 1960s, it came hand in hand with interlocking UK defence and security with the US catalogue of expensive kit. Are we in any position to decouple? Seriously?
I don’t mind Reform making same glib mistakes as you, but fear Conservative front bench making the same and being unrealistic about what options actually were. in government or opposition, Lab & Con have been as one in agreement being interlocked with US equipment and security since 1960s. Today in opposition Tories attacking the deal as far too favourable to the US. What exactly is Kemi saying, what exactly is her policy, on interlocked with US on security and key bits of equipment?
Thanks for the time taken to answer.
It is not about being feared or loved. It is a far simpler calculation of positive and negative consequences on the part of those whose interests clash with ours. We have sent a HUGE signal up not only that we are in giveaway mode even when there is no legal compulsion or military threat, but that we will even bankroll our own disgrace. AND that we don't give a flying fuck about the wishes of the peoples' of the islands and their democratic wishes. The positives of taking on the UK have just become massively more attractive than the perceived downsides, for anyone.
I am happy for the UK be loved - I am not in favour of flouncing around taking delight in upsetting foreign Governments. But we MUST be consistent in defence of our own legitimate interests. We are not being celebrated on the streets of Calcutta with this deal - we were already loathed for the Raj; we have simply added a layer of being despised for being weak and in terminal decline.
Time and again Labour have made the foolish error of thinking that British Governments (usually Tory ones) didn't get anywhere in negotiations with overseas powers because they weren’t being 'nice' enough. It led to Blair giving away much of our EU rebate for a non-existent reform of the CAP, it has led to Starmer giving away 12 years of fishing rights for fuck all, it now leads to this.
In the bigger picture - and if you don’t agree with this please correct me - for the last 100 years, the US has been on a relentless mission to expunge all influence UK has in the world. They usurped UK good and proper in Middle East, even drew up plans in the forties to kick us out of Hong Kong. India has joined in with glee. UK pressured into this deal by India, steering everyone in the region away from the old evil empire for not being fair to Mauritius. There’s the clearer story of being hauled into court on Chagos. Not China driving it, but India. (I put all this in the header btw)
And what’s UK been doing whilst “friends” have been burying the British Empire, expunging last traces of it, clipping away at our influence around the region like a back street vet neutering a dog? We’ve interlocked ourselves into the expensive catalogue of US weaponry. We’ve got the hit of ethnic cleansing the Chagos, and the ongoing mess from that we saw outside a court house last week. And we brought both India and US into the negotiating room to help write this lease agreement.
When PBers post “we should have kept sovereignty, simples” I put it to you - isn’t that the preferred option Washington wanted in the first place? their bitch to keep the sovereignty, carry on doing the dirty work, until India’s campaign against us made it all the more difficult?
When you look at this bigger picture, from sixties to now, what the word Chagos should mean in the English language is “the UK have been mugs” all these years doing the heavy lifting for others, and getting what back exactly? Keeping the sovereignty as you say, I say naively, thoughtlessly, glibly,, artlessly you keep insisting we should have kept the sovereignty, we would have carried on as the bitch, carried on being the mug.
In my opinion we should be trying to decouple ourselves from the donkey work for others we have got ourselves into over in Chagos.
At least a lease on an island may be far less complicated to legally transfer on at some point, than sovereignty.
I understand your arguments, and I agree with much of what you say, but the Chagos deal is not the remedy for any of it.
In my heart, I don't want the US there at all. However, I appreciate that telling them to do one is an abject impossibility. From where we are (or where we were a year ago), the sensible middle road was simply to retain sovereignty. It wouldn't have delighted anyone, but neither would it have burned bridges or badly damaged any relationships.
If this deal goes through, we will be in a new situation. From where we will be then the best course of action will be to terminate the deal. There are numerous ways this could be achieved, and providing that none of them come with a 99 year rent, I'm up for whichever one causes with least hassle - though I accept that, as with the EU deal, Labour have left us with a signficant amount of lasting hassle, cleaning up their dirty protest of a Government.
Personally I think we should have given the Chagos Islands back to the Chagosians decades ago and could have used some of that money we are using to bribe Mauritius to actually support the Chagosians rebuilding their lives.
Two things are wrong/bad about the Chagos deal (ignoring the fact that Mauritius had no claim in the first place) and I think will come back to haunt us.
Firstly we have simply ignored the prople who actually inhabited the islands and should have been the ones we were returning them to.
And secondly we are going to see the utter detrsuction of the one of the largest marine reserves in the world.
These two combined make this a 'bad' decision.
I agree with this. Chagossian occupation of their own islands is incompatible with a large military base on Diego Garcia. That's the realpolitik and the fundamental choice from which everything else follows.
The point being that it is a bankrupt legalism to suggest that Mauritius is the injured party. The Chagosians are the ones who deserve respect and compensation.
Hence my suggestion would have been to negotiate a settlement with *them*.
This would have fucked off those who believe that territorial contiguity/closeness is The Truth. But, honestly, I don’t give a shit.
It isn't a bankrupt legalism though however much we might wish it to be so. Chagos was part of the Mauritius territory right from French origins through the entire period of the British colony. It was only split from Mauritius at the time of independence, explicitly to accommodate the American base.
It was an administrative unit. Plenty of which split into separate states at independence. Historically, the only connection between Chagos and Mauritius was dumping a pile of the islanders in Mauritius.
Maybe but "administrative unit" is just a term. It's got legal status here. Mauritius ownership of Chagos was implicitly recognised by the UK in the independence treaty where Chagos would revert back to Mauritius should the base be closed and where they still have fishing and mineral rights on the islands.
As I say everything follows from the decision to convert the main island into a military base. No base and a different outcome might be possible.
No base and we wouldn't care about the island though.
The whole affair is pretty obviously about strategic interests and transactional deals, which is partly why I get annoyed if any moral dimension is used as an argument about it. I don't think we, the Mauritians, or the US, have actually been operating with that in mind, so talk about worry about arcane points of international law or colonialism or whatever fall flat. If this is about the most practical deal for all concerned then it's far less emotive to talk about.
I would appreciate if Moonrabbit would answer my question as to whether the Chagos Deal makes the Falklands more or less secure.
Regarding the header, this is simply a measure of awareness. There is no such thing as being aware of this deal and liking it. It's not like welfare where some are in receipt and some are paying, or a tax increase, assisted dying, or the NHS - there are no winners and losers or ideological fault lines. There are just losers.
Those who are in favour are just being reflexively pro-Labour (it's about equal with their poll rating) and are either ignorant about the deal or are acting from partisan loyalty.
My mind is still open on your question. persuade me. 🙂
I would answer, argument it’s less secure is based on precedent has been set by this case. But has a precedent been set, if each situation is unique? Put more specifically, when inhabitants have chosen, have there been instances UN and courts ruled against the choice of inhabitants? That would set a precedent making UK sovereignty of Falklands more insecure, our enemies like Moscow, would line up to game the UN workings, throwing their weight behind a claimant.
I’m not in favour of this Governments Chagos deal. My header was sharing my understanding they chose this option wanting to be seen as a fair and responsible power, rather than simply claiming land outright without international support, on basis this approach brings more leverage to our diplomacy, more influence, friends, more security deals and trade. Which actually is not new - it’s identical reasoning in 1898 British Empire chose to sign a lease on something else. They thought they would get more of the good stuff doing it that way.
I know you disagree. the other day you fully signed up to 1 million years BC diplomacy, Raquel Welch in Faun skins and a club in her hand. Perhaps one day we should have a simple header IS IT BETTER TO BE FEARED OR LOVED? and debate it out underneath. I’m certain it’s not as open and shut as you sure it is.
My personal preference is neither sovereignty or the deal. With either sovereignty or lease, UK gets absolutely nothing in defence and security that isn’t also pooled with others. Let US and India deal and pay this time.. But is that realistic? Was it ever an option?
Two things you unrealistically dismiss Lucky. Keeping sovereignty WILL come with brickbats and loss of influence. When it went into court, no one in the world turned up for us, apart from USA and some little places slipped a backhander to vote with us. No NATO allies, no Canada, no Australia. No one in the Indian Ocean or South China Sea, as India had used our Imperial Squat to whip them all up against doing any business with us.
Secondly, when UK got into base talks back in 1960s, it came hand in hand with interlocking UK defence and security with the US catalogue of expensive kit. Are we in any position to decouple? Seriously?
I don’t mind Reform making same glib mistakes as you, but fear Conservative front bench making the same and being unrealistic about what options actually were. in government or opposition, Lab & Con have been as one in agreement being interlocked with US equipment and security since 1960s. Today in opposition Tories attacking the deal as far too favourable to the US. What exactly is Kemi saying, what exactly is her policy, on interlocked with US on security and key bits of equipment?
Thanks for the time taken to answer.
It is not about being feared or loved. It is a far simpler calculation of positive and negative consequences on the part of those whose interests clash with ours. We have sent a HUGE signal up not only that we are in giveaway mode even when there is no legal compulsion or military threat, but that we will even bankroll our own disgrace. AND that we don't give a flying fuck about the wishes of the peoples' of the islands and their democratic wishes. The positives of taking on the UK have just become massively more attractive than the perceived downsides, for anyone.
I am happy for the UK be loved - I am not in favour of flouncing around taking delight in upsetting foreign Governments. But we MUST be consistent in defence of our own legitimate interests. We are not being celebrated on the streets of Calcutta with this deal - we were already loathed for the Raj; we have simply added a layer of being despised for being weak and in terminal decline.
Time and again Labour have made the foolish error of thinking that British Governments (usually Tory ones) didn't get anywhere in negotiations with overseas powers because they weren’t being 'nice' enough. It led to Blair giving away much of our EU rebate for a non-existent reform of the CAP, it has led to Starmer giving away 12 years of fishing rights for fuck all, it now leads to this.
In the bigger picture - and if you don’t agree with this please correct me - for the last 100 years, the US has been on a relentless mission to expunge all influence UK has in the world. They usurped UK good and proper in Middle East, even drew up plans in the forties to kick us out of Hong Kong. India has joined in with glee. UK pressured into this deal by India, steering everyone in the region away from the old evil empire for not being fair to Mauritius. There’s the clearer story of being hauled into court on Chagos. Not China driving it, but India. (I put all this in the header btw)
And what’s UK been doing whilst “friends” have been burying the British Empire, expunging last traces of it, clipping away at our influence around the region like a back street vet neutering a dog? We’ve interlocked ourselves into the expensive catalogue of US weaponry. We’ve got the hit of ethnic cleansing the Chagos, and the ongoing mess from that we saw outside a court house last week. And we brought both India and US into the negotiating room to help write this lease agreement.
When PBers post “we should have kept sovereignty, simples” I put it to you - isn’t that the preferred option Washington wanted in the first place? their bitch to keep the sovereignty, carry on doing the dirty work, until India’s campaign against us made it all the more difficult?
When you look at this bigger picture, from sixties to now, what the word Chagos should mean in the English language is “the UK have been mugs” all these years doing the heavy lifting for others, and getting what back exactly? Keeping the sovereignty as you say, I say naively, thoughtlessly, glibly,, artlessly you keep insisting we should have kept the sovereignty, we would have carried on as the bitch, carried on being the mug.
In my opinion we should be trying to decouple ourselves from the donkey work for others we have got ourselves into over in Chagos.
At least a lease on an island may be far less complicated to legally transfer on at some point, than sovereignty.
I understand your arguments, and I agree with much of what you say, but the Chagos deal is not the remedy for any of it.
In my heart, I don't want the US there at all. However, I appreciate that telling them to do one is an abject impossibility. From where we are (or where we were a year ago), the sensible middle road was simply to retain sovereignty. It wouldn't have delighted anyone, but neither would it have burned bridges or badly damaged any relationships.
If this deal goes through, we will be in a new situation. From where we will be then the best course of action will be to terminate the deal. There are numerous ways this could be achieved, and providing that none of them come with a 99 year rent, I'm up for whichever one causes with least hassle - though I accept that, as with the EU deal, Labour have left us with a signficant amount of lasting hassle, cleaning up their dirty protest of a Government.
Personally I think we should have given the Chagos Islands back to the Chagosians decades ago and could have used some of that money we are using to bribe Mauritius to actually support the Chagosians rebuilding their lives.
Two things are wrong/bad about the Chagos deal (ignoring the fact that Mauritius had no claim in the first place) and I think will come back to haunt us.
Firstly we have simply ignored the prople who actually inhabited the islands and should have been the ones we were returning them to.
And secondly we are going to see the utter detrsuction of the one of the largest marine reserves in the world.
These two combined make this a 'bad' decision.
We treated the Chagossians badly. However, the problem with giving the island to them is that it’s highly questionable that they would form a viable, independent state.
I would appreciate if Moonrabbit would answer my question as to whether the Chagos Deal makes the Falklands more or less secure.
Regarding the header, this is simply a measure of awareness. There is no such thing as being aware of this deal and liking it. It's not like welfare where some are in receipt and some are paying, or a tax increase, assisted dying, or the NHS - there are no winners and losers or ideological fault lines. There are just losers.
Those who are in favour are just being reflexively pro-Labour (it's about equal with their poll rating) and are either ignorant about the deal or are acting from partisan loyalty.
My mind is still open on your question. persuade me. 🙂
I would answer, argument it’s less secure is based on precedent has been set by this case. But has a precedent been set, if each situation is unique? Put more specifically, when inhabitants have chosen, have there been instances UN and courts ruled against the choice of inhabitants? That would set a precedent making UK sovereignty of Falklands more insecure, our enemies like Moscow, would line up to game the UN workings, throwing their weight behind a claimant.
I’m not in favour of this Governments Chagos deal. My header was sharing my understanding they chose this option wanting to be seen as a fair and responsible power, rather than simply claiming land outright without international support, on basis this approach brings more leverage to our diplomacy, more influence, friends, more security deals and trade. Which actually is not new - it’s identical reasoning in 1898 British Empire chose to sign a lease on something else. They thought they would get more of the good stuff doing it that way.
I know you disagree. the other day you fully signed up to 1 million years BC diplomacy, Raquel Welch in Faun skins and a club in her hand. Perhaps one day we should have a simple header IS IT BETTER TO BE FEARED OR LOVED? and debate it out underneath. I’m certain it’s not as open and shut as you sure it is.
My personal preference is neither sovereignty or the deal. With either sovereignty or lease, UK gets absolutely nothing in defence and security that isn’t also pooled with others. Let US and India deal and pay this time.. But is that realistic? Was it ever an option?
Two things you unrealistically dismiss Lucky. Keeping sovereignty WILL come with brickbats and loss of influence. When it went into court, no one in the world turned up for us, apart from USA and some little places slipped a backhander to vote with us. No NATO allies, no Canada, no Australia. No one in the Indian Ocean or South China Sea, as India had used our Imperial Squat to whip them all up against doing any business with us.
Secondly, when UK got into base talks back in 1960s, it came hand in hand with interlocking UK defence and security with the US catalogue of expensive kit. Are we in any position to decouple? Seriously?
I don’t mind Reform making same glib mistakes as you, but fear Conservative front bench making the same and being unrealistic about what options actually were. in government or opposition, Lab & Con have been as one in agreement being interlocked with US equipment and security since 1960s. Today in opposition Tories attacking the deal as far too favourable to the US. What exactly is Kemi saying, what exactly is her policy, on interlocked with US on security and key bits of equipment?
Thanks for the time taken to answer.
It is not about being feared or loved. It is a far simpler calculation of positive and negative consequences on the part of those whose interests clash with ours. We have sent a HUGE signal up not only that we are in giveaway mode even when there is no legal compulsion or military threat, but that we will even bankroll our own disgrace. AND that we don't give a flying fuck about the wishes of the peoples' of the islands and their democratic wishes. The positives of taking on the UK have just become massively more attractive than the perceived downsides, for anyone.
I am happy for the UK be loved - I am not in favour of flouncing around taking delight in upsetting foreign Governments. But we MUST be consistent in defence of our own legitimate interests. We are not being celebrated on the streets of Calcutta with this deal - we were already loathed for the Raj; we have simply added a layer of being despised for being weak and in terminal decline.
Time and again Labour have made the foolish error of thinking that British Governments (usually Tory ones) didn't get anywhere in negotiations with overseas powers because they weren’t being 'nice' enough. It led to Blair giving away much of our EU rebate for a non-existent reform of the CAP, it has led to Starmer giving away 12 years of fishing rights for fuck all, it now leads to this.
In the bigger picture - and if you don’t agree with this please correct me - for the last 100 years, the US has been on a relentless mission to expunge all influence UK has in the world. They usurped UK good and proper in Middle East, even drew up plans in the forties to kick us out of Hong Kong. India has joined in with glee. UK pressured into this deal by India, steering everyone in the region away from the old evil empire for not being fair to Mauritius. There’s the clearer story of being hauled into court on Chagos. Not China driving it, but India. (I put all this in the header btw)
And what’s UK been doing whilst “friends” have been burying the British Empire, expunging last traces of it, clipping away at our influence around the region like a back street vet neutering a dog? We’ve interlocked ourselves into the expensive catalogue of US weaponry. We’ve got the hit of ethnic cleansing the Chagos, and the ongoing mess from that we saw outside a court house last week. And we brought both India and US into the negotiating room to help write this lease agreement.
When PBers post “we should have kept sovereignty, simples” I put it to you - isn’t that the preferred option Washington wanted in the first place? their bitch to keep the sovereignty, carry on doing the dirty work, until India’s campaign against us made it all the more difficult?
When you look at this bigger picture, from sixties to now, what the word Chagos should mean in the English language is “the UK have been mugs” all these years doing the heavy lifting for others, and getting what back exactly? Keeping the sovereignty as you say, I say naively, thoughtlessly, glibly,, artlessly you keep insisting we should have kept the sovereignty, we would have carried on as the bitch, carried on being the mug.
In my opinion we should be trying to decouple ourselves from the donkey work for others we have got ourselves into over in Chagos.
At least a lease on an island may be far less complicated to legally transfer on at some point, than sovereignty.
I understand your arguments, and I agree with much of what you say, but the Chagos deal is not the remedy for any of it.
In my heart, I don't want the US there at all. However, I appreciate that telling them to do one is an abject impossibility. From where we are (or where we were a year ago), the sensible middle road was simply to retain sovereignty. It wouldn't have delighted anyone, but neither would it have burned bridges or badly damaged any relationships.
If this deal goes through, we will be in a new situation. From where we will be then the best course of action will be to terminate the deal. There are numerous ways this could be achieved, and providing that none of them come with a 99 year rent, I'm up for whichever one causes with least hassle - though I accept that, as with the EU deal, Labour have left us with a signficant amount of lasting hassle, cleaning up their dirty protest of a Government.
Personally I think we should have given the Chagos Islands back to the Chagosians decades ago and could have used some of that money we are using to bribe Mauritius to actually support the Chagosians rebuilding their lives.
Two things are wrong/bad about the Chagos deal (ignoring the fact that Mauritius had no claim in the first place) and I think will come back to haunt us.
Firstly we have simply ignored the prople who actually inhabited the islands and should have been the ones we were returning them to.
And secondly we are going to see the utter detrsuction of the one of the largest marine reserves in the world.
These two combined make this a 'bad' decision.
I agree with this. Chagossian occupation of their own islands is incompatible with a large military base on Diego Garcia. That's the realpolitik and the fundamental choice from which everything else follows.
The point being that it is a bankrupt legalism to suggest that Mauritius is the injured party. The Chagosians are the ones who deserve respect and compensation.
Hence my suggestion would have been to negotiate a settlement with *them*.
This would have fucked off those who believe that territorial contiguity/closeness is The Truth. But, honestly, I don’t give a shit.
It isn't a bankrupt legalism though however much we might wish it to be so. Chagos was part of the Mauritius territory right from French origins through the entire period of the British colony. It was only split from Mauritius at the time of independence, explicitly to accommodate the American base.
It was an administrative unit. Plenty of which split into separate states at independence. Historically, the only connection between Chagos and Mauritius was dumping a pile of the islanders in Mauritius.
Maybe but "administrative unit" is just a term. It's got legal status here. Mauritius ownership of Chagos was implicitly recognised by the UK in the independence treaty where Chagos would revert back to Mauritius should the base be closed and where they still have fishing and mineral rights on the islands.
As I say everything follows from the decision to convert the main island into a military base. No base and a different outcome might be possible.
No base and we wouldn't care about the island though.
Yep. Given all that, it comes down to money and a haggle I believe. Mauritius, the UK and the United States all have their price. Should Starmer have settled for lots, or should he have held out for a bit less lots, because the purpose is to secure the base?
They are right it is completely unsustainable, and an EHCP probably is not necessary for many cases but no one would want to risk not doing enough, but for an already unpopular government I suspect this would go down like a lead ballon
EXC: Hundreds of thousands of children with special needs face losing legal right to extra support in schools under plans being considered by ministers.
Have the cabinet got some weird pecadillo for being absolute arseholes?
I've a great-nephew with special needs. Being a suitable unit has done wonders for him; looks like he'll be employable, which wasn't the case not long ago. Only problem is he lives in Lancashire, which now has a Reform-run county council.
I hope he can find happiness and success in whatever way he and family want to measure that. The discourse around disability, need and welfare is grim right now.
Comments
However… insurance coverage generally excludes acts of terrorism. If your Tesla gets vandalised now (in the US), you ain’t getting any insurance money! See Legal Eagle for more.
There is nothing moral about the triple lock, a UBI for those who can pass a PIP test, and the chronic welfare trap caused by UC.
We have 6 million people (of working age) not working, in an entirely separate and contrived economy, and gold-plate a benefits package for the retired that's untouchable.
It's fiscally unsustainable, a phenomenal waste of human capital, and morally indefensible.
Much like its boss...
In my heart, I don't want the US there at all. However, I appreciate that telling them to do one is an abject impossibility. From where we are (or where we were a year ago), the sensible middle road was simply to retain sovereignty. It wouldn't have delighted anyone, but neither would it have burned bridges or badly damaged any relationships.
If this deal goes through, we will be in a new situation. From where we will be then the best course of action will be to terminate the deal. There are numerous ways this could be achieved, and providing that none of them come with a 99 year rent, I'm up for whichever one causes with least hassle - though I accept that, as with the EU deal, Labour have left us with a signficant amount of lasting hassle, cleaning up their dirty protest of a Government.
I think I’m more emotional than her
Edit- it might have been a whole round of brown bread in hindsight
One of Russia's biggest subversion successes has been the funding of anti-UK oil and gas movements in case you weren't aware. They were much less successful in the case of America, which is why America doesn't give a shit about Russia's gas - that was achieved by drilling, not by putting up some stupid wind farms.
I on the other hand am in favour of getting our own oil and gas out - something that our current reliance on intermittent renewables bakes into the system. Then we will actually be free from energy blackmail.
If the US base wasn’t there, why would you need sovereignty over the Chagos Islands?
What would you be getting out of it, to compensate for all the hassle and bad press you would be attracting?
The kipper and egg bap is fantastic. Also good coffee
And Bamburgh castle!
The number of unemployed people per vacancy was 2.1 in January to March 2025, up from 1.9 in the previous quarter (October to December 2024).
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/jobsandvacanciesintheuk/may2025
The naivety of youth. Wait until you are a grandad. Your world view will be glad of every single measure instigated to mitigate climate change.
Are you aware of tipping points and the precautionary principle? If the AMOC stalls for example what do you think will happen?
At the moment there is a billion dollar climate event every two weeks. What’s going to happen to industry and investment when we can’t buy insurance?
There’s a wilful blindness. And you have it.
And I know you think you are the iconoclast, bless, but .. . . what if you are being mugged by the trillions invested in the status quo, the worldviews inherent in protecting the income streams of those much richer than us?
We’ve known about climate change since the late 1890s and every year the carbon footprint has grown. Every year more.
“ haven't said that we would need sovereignty over the Chagos Islands if the US base was not there.”
So you preferred position - kick the yanks off, they’ve been taking the piss out of us - no yanks, no base, cede sovereignty to Mauritius? Or the ten thousand Chagouns (wherever they are and can agree to take it).
Two things are wrong/bad about the Chagos deal (ignoring the fact that Mauritius had no claim in the first place) and I think will come back to haunt us.
Firstly we have simply ignored the prople who actually inhabited the islands and should have been the ones we were returning them to.
And secondly we are going to see the utter detrsuction of the one of the largest marine reserves in the world.
These two combined make this a 'bad' decision.
France also has Europe's strongest domestic defence industry: they have their own fighter jet, CATOBAR carrier*, military jet engine manufacturer, missiles and defense electronics.
* France is the only country other than the US to have a CATOBAR carrier
It's not that the bottom's dropped off my world; more that the world's dropping out of my bottom...
Subnational groups don’t get self determination. Thats an idea born out of European White Privilege.
The land (and money) needs to be handed to the nearest post colonial entity with a vague claim. Hence Mauritius
https://x.com/aaronbastani/status/1926275048639279491
Non trivial possibility Reform are, or are on the cusp of becoming, the U.K’s biggest party by membership.
Obviously rather significant. But much of the media is stuck in how they’ll address that (remember: with Corbyn a large membership was ‘bad’).
Are there any strong arguments why we shouldn’t?
In any case, were I to be every bit as anxious about the urgency of combatting anthropogenic global warming as you are, I would still not support the UK's Net Zero efforts, involving, as they do:
- Greater net carbon emissions via the importation of LNG from the US and Saudi in preference to the less energy intensive production of UK oil and gas
- The off-shoring of industrial production to dirtier, more polluting countries like China and India
- The importation of coal from Japan to run our last remaining virgin steel plant rather than getting it from Cumbria
- The importation of wood pellets from the USA in preference to burning coal at Drax
I would love us to reverse these policies and therefore create less carbon. However I doubt you would, which makes me question your mindset.
Hence my suggestion would have been to negotiate a settlement with *them*.
This would have fucked off those who believe that territorial contiguity/closeness is The Truth. But, honestly, I don’t give a shit.
Didn't we use to have wars about this kind of thing? The irony, when Starmer has just gifted them 12 years of our fish for...nothing.
I am tempted to comment that the French navy doesn't seem to be quite so effective against dinghies. It's almost as if they didn't want to catch them.
They should have given it back to the Chagosians and made it part of the deal that the US and UK pay the Chagosians for renting DG. Just as we are now going to do with Mauritius.
(Yes, we need people managing the finances, and I mostly don't object to their skimming off a bit each time. But I remain haunted by an article by that famous lefty, PJ O'Rourke. Under strict anonymity, he got various Wall Street people to admit that no, they weren't doing anything clever and no, they couldn't justify their mega salaries.)
https://www.netzerowatch.com/all-news/revealed-the-1-3-trillion-net-zero-cost-estimate-called-more-realistic-by-treasury-suppressed-by-government
This website (Number 1 result on Google - I do not make claims for accuracy) estimates the UK's war spend at £1.2tn in today's dollars. That’s just under £900bn.
https://historyandheritage.cityofparramatta.nsw.gov.au/research-topics/world-war-two/world-war-two-financial-cost
Millions are on the move not because there’s more war and poverty, but because more people can afford to make the journey. For as long as the western world runs a system whereby he who makes landfall gets to stay (most do, even if their appeal fails) then far more will be sucked into this fatal conveyor belt. People trafficking has become the world’s new giant evil — made possible by a refusal to modernise asylum rules.
NEW: Boris Johnson and Carrie have had another baby
https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/europe-ready-reset-refugees-immigration-jqt9tx578
Also: you need to balance the costs of *not* doing Net Zero. In your world, where IIRC we would have mega-expensive North Sea oil and gas, and brain-dead stupid coal power generation.
(Incidentally, the link on the first link to the FoI disclosure does not work for me...)
As I say everything follows from the decision to convert the main island into a military base. No base and a different outcome might be possible.
I remember they found a Lithuanian rough sleeper near where I live in East Ham back in the mid-noughties and he was offered free passage back to Lithuania but he refused saying he'd rather sleep rough in the UK and take his chances.
https://youtu.be/OuH8kb1u1ig
EXC: Hundreds of thousands of children with special needs face losing legal right to extra support in schools under plans being considered by ministers.
Ministers believe the growth in EHCPs is unsustainable and want to reserve access to those with “very high and complex needs”
https://nitter.poast.org/MaxKendix/status/1926209117531541509#m
I suspect it won't happen, and this is floating the idea, seeing it will tank with MPs and the public, and then saying of course they won't be doing it.
Then, George Osborne pulled the funding.
Fucking Mackems.
Only problem is he lives in Lancashire, which now has a Reform-run county council.
The discourse around disability, need and welfare is grim right now.