Quick market update: As forced liquidations continue and new margin calls are issued, Bitcoin prices have now plummeted 25% this week alone. The scale and disorderly nature of the sell-off are spilling to crypto-adjacent assets and also beyond. #markets #crypto #bitcoin
Interesting question what the correct value is of an asset whose primary use case is money laundering.
It is worth noting that the old 'main use' for Bitcoin - i.e. buying illegal drugs off the dark web - is now almost entirely done with Monero.
Monero, it should also be noted: (1) does not require vast energy to mine (because it was designed around avoiding the issues that plagued BTC), and (2) has much greater throughput too - transactions clear in minutes, not hours.
In other words, if I were to pick one Crypto, it would be Monero, with Ethereum as my number two.
Note though that it doesn't make a great deal of sense to buy Monero speculatively because there's not a finite supply. Essentially a fixed amount is minted continually. With decreasing global population growth and relatively stable drug consumption (both of these in order of magnitude terms), as well as like you say it already being the standard for dark web usage atm it's hard to see why it should change significantly. This may well make it a nice thing to be a trader of, idk.
The number of Monero is circulation this year will increase by... 0.8%. That's tiny compared to regular currencies.
And it's about half the rate of gold, which is about 1.6%.
"The PB Factor: On Political Betting, users often employ a "High Victorian" or "disgruntled colonel" tone. Your phrase fits that aesthetic so perfectly that it feels like it should have been said a thousand times before, even if it hasn't."
How dare you, my tone is always 'slightly peeved smug bureaucrat'.
British officials braced for the release of Mandelson's messages as ambassador, which they fear could torpedo Starmer's relationship with Trump
One said there is “lots which could be damaging” and “he used to download his thoughts in real time.”
In a memo seen by @POLITICOEurope FCDO permanent secretary Oliver Robbins wrote to all departmental staff Wednesday night to reassure them over the “anxiety” caused by the whole affair.
He asked civil servants approached about communications to refer all requests to his office.
Officials believe the Intelligence and Security Committee will only sift out information that could jeopardise national security, rather than cause embarrassment.
It’s like the contagion of the Great Financial Crisis, but for politics. The whole thing has to come down, but watch them patch together the rescue operation instead.
If the French fought wars like they do this rugby they might actually get somewhere.
I loved being a rugby fan in the south of France. Their fandom is on another level. I got asked about Le Crunch as soon as some people realised that I was English
Tbf, the way they sing La Marseillaise is incredible.
Like any True Brit it Gauls me. The French have the worlds best national anthem.
Russia must be a contender, and Germany too but the old words were better. But GSTK can be rescued. The problem is it is played as a durge. Played slightly faster, it's not a bad tune. Here is a 40-second video with five anthems to the tune of GSTK. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/FM-UZh4Dhnw
The other problem with GSTK is the most significant line is buried in the second verse which is hardly ever sung: May he defend our laws / And ever give us cause...
This is our equivalent of the American constitution's We, the people. May he defend our laws – not God's laws or the King's laws, but our laws – the common law and laws past by our representatives in parliament.
Ah, the old national anthem discussion. Has to be Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau.
In a pointless act of school boy rebellion, I learnt all the words of the Lichtenstein national anthem so I could sing it in chapel when it came time for the national anthem.
I tried to do the same with the Tsarist Russian national anthem but that's harder to learn phonetically.
On the other side of the coin (sorry) there's also illicit/stolen computing time where the costs fall on someone else.
This was briefly a thing but it's not any more. You can't mine bitcoins with stolen computing time because you need specialized hardware to do anything meaningful, and the other minor proof-of-work coins are pretty much dead (because proof-of-work is fucking stupid).
Some people are stuck in the days when crypto was mined using CPUs. That's hasn't been viable for a very long time, even using GPUs isn't useful any more. Mining needs specific ASICs that do nothing but mine one particular coin. That's going to be a killer for the mining operators, because they can't even liquidate some of their hardware to stay afloat. It's only value is as e-waste.
If this is the final plunge of BTC I'm personally a bit sad. I made useful money mining BTC at a time when I really needed the funds. I had a mining rig with four GPUs whirring away for months, heating the house and topping up my bank account.
On the other side of the coin (sorry) there's also illicit/stolen computing time where the costs fall on someone else.
This was briefly a thing but it's not any more. You can't mine bitcoins with stolen computing time because you need specialized hardware to do anything meaningful, and the other minor proof-of-work coins are pretty much dead (because proof-of-work is fucking stupid).
Oddly - there has been a big uptick in crypto-mining exploit attempts over the past few weeks. No seeming pattern to it apart from 'get crypto shell account on a server which can't compete with a $10 consumer gfx card'.
A good way to hole Starmer below the high tide line if it went ahead?
How many holed below the waterline events does one Prime Minister need to experience before he sinks?
I think he needs to go now.
One interesting snippet from my Chagos research. One example of what happened under the Conservative 14 years in power, exploring and negotiating the inherent problems in the Chagos situation throughout those 14 years, the resettlement of Chagossians had finally been agreed in 2023 in the 11 rounds of top level negotiations the Conservative Party had negotiating this deal, but in January 2024 UK went back on that agreement. This manoeuvre in January 2024 from Cameron is interesting - because Cameron had, what they call in cop shows, “previous” on blocking return of Chagossians.
In a key earlier attempt to keep this dispute out of the international courts, Prime Minister Cameron purchased an independent report if return of Chagossians was feasible and could be done. The report said yes, return of Chagossians is feasible. But the moment Cameron decided in 2016 not to go further with this, is the moment it created certainty of UK being taken into the courts.
Although surrender of sovereignty stands out as most controversial in the deal, the arguments around the of return of Chagossians has played a crucial role over more than half a century, in getting us to where it is today. And on this particular element of it all, I’m not at all convinced it’s all over.
Right, so after some 'research' you now acknowledge that Cameron parked the deal, which is exactly what I said happened - a statement that you were posting infantile rolleyes smilies about earlier.
No. Cameron’s DID NOT PARK THE DEAL. Quite the opposite.
There was never a freeze on negotiating, never a pause on negotiating, there was a slowing of momentum on reaching a deal before General Election, but rounds of negotiating actually carried on right up to the 2024 General Election, 11 rounds under the Conservatives leaving so much of the deal we see today already agreed, so much plan and agreement already in place, the incoming government only needed two further rounds of talks before everything was settled by 3rd Oct 2024.
Apart from issue of resettlement, that had been agreed, but in 2024 Cameron ripped that agreement up. I don’t know if the chapter was simply un-ripped up, or re-negotiated final deal.
The key bit of my argument, an agreement ceding Chagos sovereignty in exchange for a long-term lease of the military base, this was an agreed part of the plan the incoming UK government INHERITED.
Until you prove me wrong, Labour inherited a plan agreed from the 11 rounds of negotiation under the Conservatives, for a 99-year lease of Diego Garcia after ceding sovereignty. What Labour inherited was called Established "Plan A": containing and describing the agreement for a 99-year lease of Diego Garcia while ceding sovereignty.
There was never a freeze on negotiating, never a pause on negotiating, there was a slowing of momentum
Right OK, glad we got that straightened out.
It’s good we are back on the same page. 🙂
Cameron never put a freeze on negotiating, never a pause on negotiating. Cameron presided over rounds of negotiating right up to the 2024 General Election, 11 rounds under the Conservatives in all. Labour inherited a plan agreed from the 11 rounds of negotiation under the Conservatives, for a 99-year lease of Diego Garcia after ceding sovereignty. What Labour inherited was called Established "Plan A": containing and describing the agreement for a 99-year lease of Diego Garcia while ceding sovereignty. It was basically done, two months later it was on Biden’s desk.
Which makes the Conservative Party position now all the more bizarre. When this truth is more widely known, all the Conservatives can say is - we didn’t sign anything! We did not surrender the Chagos!
What was actually going on under Cameron’s time as Foreign Sec, a general election was coming and transferring sovereignty for a lease, and allowing return of Chagossians, was going to be a difficult sell - hence, certainly with the tacit approval of the US and India, carry on negotiating rather than walk away from negotiation table {in eyes of world}, but tactically slow the negotiations down, so it becomes a matter for other side of the election.
In negotiating reality, the deal we have today, or something almost like this, could have been signed by the UK government in 2023. Cameron may have rowed back the agreed bit of plan for resettlement, but he didn’t rip up the planned lease back, he bequeathed it to the next government still in the plan.
You have all the freedom to say you don’t believe a word of this account, because this sounds so outlandish - the Conservative Party certainly don’t explain it like I do for sure. Apart from me, who does?
But if you want to to say - as someone said yesterday - my argument is not coherent, just a collection of tangential to irrelevant facts and suppositions, you have to take that up with my resources, referencing across all them gave me the insight. Here are some links, starting with an actual written statement in Parliament, and finishing with exactly where it’s at today.
Sorry, we're not on the same page, that was sarcasm highlighting your rhetorical contortions - I suppose I should have used a rolleyes smilie.
Most of the sources you've provided are indeed irrelevant, they contain things that I've never disputed.
Where you've come really unstuck is that more or less all of your punchier claims come from a single article by 'Charlie Bealby' (must be an established journalist - he has 42 Twitter followers), whose 'Factual Breakdown' (always a bit of a red flag that you're getting an opinion piece when the word 'factual' begins the headline) seems to be a work of his own imagination.
The "11 rounds of negotiations" piece comes from an unnamed Labour briefing to the London Economic that is totally unverifiable but also calls them 'failed' negotiations' - which doesn't really support your notion that the final deal was a Tory one - it supports my argument that Starmer was prepared to pony up the cash when the Tories, even Cleverly, were not. I think most sensible British people would have liked them to carry on failing.
For this part:
These talks were continued and refined under Lord Cameron’s tenure as Foreign Secretary. The final round of Tory-led negotiations took place just weeks before the 2024 general election. By the time the government changed hands, the framework for ceding sovereignty in exchange for a long-term lease of the military base was already the established “Plan A” for the British state.
Ben doesn't offer any form of back up at all. He links to the October 2024 announcement, presumably expecting (rightly in your case) that most would not enquire further.
Easy to get taken in by a semi professional opinion piece with lots of links and stuff - we have all been there.
Okay. Returning if we may, to your assertion my understanding of 11 rounds of talks between Oct 22 and Spring 24 was because I have been naive enough to be duped by just the one source, an unreliable fantasist, and should rightly feel embarrassed.
I now have some back up support on this from several other sources, that you may, by all means also call these unreliable fantasists, out to dupe and embarrass us, if we should believe what they are telling us
Rounds of negotiation held November 22, January and February 23,
And what better than from Lord Cameron - who apparently froze all this so none of this is happening - himself in 2024 this Negotiation thing still going on throughout 2023 and into 2024 in questions 691, 692, 693 and 694? “You will be aware that negotiations on future sovereignty have been going on between London and Port Louis for just over a year now” “Yes. There is a negotiation ongoing.”
Lucky, dear friend - are you still saying I’m wrong? Or are you saying yes - the Conservatives spent 2 years negotiating the frame work agreement “Plan A” and left it for Labour to sign and own? Why would the Tories do that? It’s that it’s the most hugely unpopular impossible to sell treaty ever, is it?
If you think this isn't someone hoofing something into the long grass, much less someone willing to sign up to tens of billions of pounds for the privilege, I really don't know what to tell you.
Henry Smith: Foreign Secretary, thank you for appearing before us. I want to turn to a different part of the globe: the British Indian Ocean Territory. You will be aware that negotiations on future sovereignty have been going on between London and Port Louis for just over a year now. Diego Garcia has been extremely strategically important, both in various actions in the Cold War, Iraq and Afghanistan and now with a new Cold War and, indeed, the Chinese belt and road initiative. What is your view on the strategic security and military importance of British sovereignty remaining over Diego Garcia?
Lord Cameron: I started this session by saying that I think we face a very insecure, dangerous and difficult world with conflicts and that we need to maintain our security, strengthen our alliances, hold our friends close and protect ourselves as well as we can, and we should think about this issue in that context. Diego Garcia is an important national asset, the use of which we share with the Americans. In any negotiation we have with the Mauritians, the overriding question must be the safety, security and usability of this base. That is it; that is the thing that matters more than anything. We must look at all the risks and dangers that there could be in any change of circumstance. That is the way we will proceed.
Q692 Henry Smith: There is a precedent in terms of negotiations over the future of British overseas territories. The Anglo-Sino agreement on Hong Kong was very much lauded at the time. It is now not worth the paper it is written on. Are you concerned that, with growing Chinese influence in the Indian ocean and in many former Commonwealth countries around the world, from the Caribbean to the Pacific, a treaty on the future of the British Indian Ocean Territory—the Chagos islands—would be vulnerable in the future to the Chinese and potentially other states abusing that and us then surrendering a very important security situation, including for the Americans, of course?
Lord Cameron: That is absolutely the right question, and it is the question that I am asking. With any negotiated outcome, it has to be beyond doubt that there is no danger to this vital national US-UK asset of not being able to function and operate properly. Whether that is Chinese influence or what might happen in the future to Mauritius, or what might happen with other states and the outer islands, all those questions are absolutely front and centre in my mind in looking at this issue.
Q693 Henry Smith: Are you concerned that the negotiations might be setting a dangerous precedent for other British overseas territories that are either uninhabited or sparsely populated? I am not talking about Gibraltar, which has a functioning democracy and a clear will, or even the Falkland Islands, but perhaps South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands.
Lord Cameron: Again, that is great question. What has happened is an advisory judgment by the International Court of Justice—it is an advisory judgment, not a final judgment. We have to think very carefully about the effect of concluding a negotiation that changed the nature of our arrangements with Diego Garcia that could be used as a precedent in other cases. I do not think it is necessary just about the less-inhabited overseas territories; there will be other situations and assets that we have that are particularly important. The questions that you are asking are the questions that I am asking, and I will not be happy unless we have very good answers to those questions.
Q694 Henry Smith: Finally, I am very pleased to hear you talk about the judgment as an advisory judgment. This is not like a domestic court of law, as you know, where a jury decides. It is often where countries that, historically, are not allies or friends of the UK use the opportunity to make a statement against British interests around the world. Are you concerned that this may also set a dangerous precedent for the sovereign base areas in Cyprus?
Lord Cameron: Again, I feel that we are positively joined at the hip over these questions. I have come into the Department and have checked the progress that we are making on this issue. When I was Prime Minister, it was all about trying to see if we could relocate Chagossians back on to the outer islands; lots of work was done, and it was not possible. It is exactly what I am asking. As I say, there is a negotiation ongoing. The absolutely crucial thing is the safety, security and long-term viability of this base in a difficult and dangerous world. Anything that gets in the way of that is a major problem that we have to consider. Also, as a country that has other overseas possessions and territories, some of which have very important intelligence and security assets on them, we have to think of the effect on those. If all of those questions can be resolved, that would be good. If they cannot, obviously we will have to think very carefully about this.
Quick market update: As forced liquidations continue and new margin calls are issued, Bitcoin prices have now plummeted 25% this week alone. The scale and disorderly nature of the sell-off are spilling to crypto-adjacent assets and also beyond. #markets #crypto #bitcoin
Interesting question what the correct value is of an asset whose primary use case is money laundering.
It is worth noting that the old 'main use' for Bitcoin - i.e. buying illegal drugs off the dark web - is now almost entirely done with Monero.
Monero, it should also be noted: (1) does not require vast energy to mine (because it was designed around avoiding the issues that plagued BTC), and (2) has much greater throughput too - transactions clear in minutes, not hours.
In other words, if I were to pick one Crypto, it would be Monero, with Ethereum as my number two.
Note though that it doesn't make a great deal of sense to buy Monero speculatively because there's not a finite supply. Essentially a fixed amount is minted continually. With decreasing global population growth and relatively stable drug consumption (both of these in order of magnitude terms), as well as like you say it already being the standard for dark web usage atm it's hard to see why it should change significantly. This may well make it a nice thing to be a trader of, idk.
The number of Monero is circulation this year will increase by... 0.8%. That's tiny compared to regular currencies.
And it's about half the rate of gold, which is about 1.6%.
Right, but regular currencies and gold are both terrible long term investments? Or are you suggesting a relatively short term punt? I've no view on that other than I suspect crypto correlations approach 1 in a rout...
If this is the final plunge of BTC I'm personally a bit sad.
I don't really see why people are panicking about this, although it's easy for me to say so when I've no skin in the game at all other than a theoretical one if some stolen BTC are ever recovered*. It's had plenty of collapses.
I'm happy with any outcome really, it's all amusing to me.
*and some ZEC I bought to get someone to shut up who kept nagging me to buy it, at more or less its all time high, but not a great deal.
I haven't seen that mentioned before. It's interesting because the one thing all other opinion polls tend to consistently overestimate is turnout - explained by reference to the non-response bias and that politically engaged people are much more likely to respond, and so opinion poll samples tend to have over-representation of politically-engaged people.
Perhaps FoN have too few politically-engaged people, but it's definitely useful to have a poll with a different error in the mix.
Reform got 9% in Ynys Mon in 2024 at the general election but 16% in Wales overall, so if Reform are now winning even in Ynys Mon then Reform for most seats in the Senedd is back on
Reform got 9% in Ynys Mon in 2024 at the general election but 16% in Wales overall, so if Reform are now winning even in Ynys Mon then Reform for most seats in the Senedd is back on
A good way to hole Starmer below the high tide line if it went ahead?
How many holed below the waterline events does one Prime Minister need to experience before he sinks?
I think he needs to go now.
One interesting snippet from my Chagos research. One example of what happened under the Conservative 14 years in power, exploring and negotiating the inherent problems in the Chagos situation throughout those 14 years, the resettlement of Chagossians had finally been agreed in 2023 in the 11 rounds of top level negotiations the Conservative Party had negotiating this deal, but in January 2024 UK went back on that agreement. This manoeuvre in January 2024 from Cameron is interesting - because Cameron had, what they call in cop shows, “previous” on blocking return of Chagossians.
In a key earlier attempt to keep this dispute out of the international courts, Prime Minister Cameron purchased an independent report if return of Chagossians was feasible and could be done. The report said yes, return of Chagossians is feasible. But the moment Cameron decided in 2016 not to go further with this, is the moment it created certainty of UK being taken into the courts.
Although surrender of sovereignty stands out as most controversial in the deal, the arguments around the of return of Chagossians has played a crucial role over more than half a century, in getting us to where it is today. And on this particular element of it all, I’m not at all convinced it’s all over.
Right, so after some 'research' you now acknowledge that Cameron parked the deal, which is exactly what I said happened - a statement that you were posting infantile rolleyes smilies about earlier.
No. Cameron’s DID NOT PARK THE DEAL. Quite the opposite.
There was never a freeze on negotiating, never a pause on negotiating, there was a slowing of momentum on reaching a deal before General Election, but rounds of negotiating actually carried on right up to the 2024 General Election, 11 rounds under the Conservatives leaving so much of the deal we see today already agreed, so much plan and agreement already in place, the incoming government only needed two further rounds of talks before everything was settled by 3rd Oct 2024.
Apart from issue of resettlement, that had been agreed, but in 2024 Cameron ripped that agreement up. I don’t know if the chapter was simply un-ripped up, or re-negotiated final deal.
The key bit of my argument, an agreement ceding Chagos sovereignty in exchange for a long-term lease of the military base, this was an agreed part of the plan the incoming UK government INHERITED.
Until you prove me wrong, Labour inherited a plan agreed from the 11 rounds of negotiation under the Conservatives, for a 99-year lease of Diego Garcia after ceding sovereignty. What Labour inherited was called Established "Plan A": containing and describing the agreement for a 99-year lease of Diego Garcia while ceding sovereignty.
There was never a freeze on negotiating, never a pause on negotiating, there was a slowing of momentum
Right OK, glad we got that straightened out.
It’s good we are back on the same page. 🙂
Cameron never put a freeze on negotiating, never a pause on negotiating. Cameron presided over rounds of negotiating right up to the 2024 General Election, 11 rounds under the Conservatives in all. Labour inherited a plan agreed from the 11 rounds of negotiation under the Conservatives, for a 99-year lease of Diego Garcia after ceding sovereignty. What Labour inherited was called Established "Plan A": containing and describing the agreement for a 99-year lease of Diego Garcia while ceding sovereignty. It was basically done, two months later it was on Biden’s desk.
Which makes the Conservative Party position now all the more bizarre. When this truth is more widely known, all the Conservatives can say is - we didn’t sign anything! We did not surrender the Chagos!
What was actually going on under Cameron’s time as Foreign Sec, a general election was coming and transferring sovereignty for a lease, and allowing return of Chagossians, was going to be a difficult sell - hence, certainly with the tacit approval of the US and India, carry on negotiating rather than walk away from negotiation table {in eyes of world}, but tactically slow the negotiations down, so it becomes a matter for other side of the election.
In negotiating reality, the deal we have today, or something almost like this, could have been signed by the UK government in 2023. Cameron may have rowed back the agreed bit of plan for resettlement, but he didn’t rip up the planned lease back, he bequeathed it to the next government still in the plan.
You have all the freedom to say you don’t believe a word of this account, because this sounds so outlandish - the Conservative Party certainly don’t explain it like I do for sure. Apart from me, who does?
But if you want to to say - as someone said yesterday - my argument is not coherent, just a collection of tangential to irrelevant facts and suppositions, you have to take that up with my resources, referencing across all them gave me the insight. Here are some links, starting with an actual written statement in Parliament, and finishing with exactly where it’s at today.
Sorry, we're not on the same page, that was sarcasm highlighting your rhetorical contortions - I suppose I should have used a rolleyes smilie.
Most of the sources you've provided are indeed irrelevant, they contain things that I've never disputed.
Where you've come really unstuck is that more or less all of your punchier claims come from a single article by 'Charlie Bealby' (must be an established journalist - he has 42 Twitter followers), whose 'Factual Breakdown' (always a bit of a red flag that you're getting an opinion piece when the word 'factual' begins the headline) seems to be a work of his own imagination.
The "11 rounds of negotiations" piece comes from an unnamed Labour briefing to the London Economic that is totally unverifiable but also calls them 'failed' negotiations' - which doesn't really support your notion that the final deal was a Tory one - it supports my argument that Starmer was prepared to pony up the cash when the Tories, even Cleverly, were not. I think most sensible British people would have liked them to carry on failing.
For this part:
These talks were continued and refined under Lord Cameron’s tenure as Foreign Secretary. The final round of Tory-led negotiations took place just weeks before the 2024 general election. By the time the government changed hands, the framework for ceding sovereignty in exchange for a long-term lease of the military base was already the established “Plan A” for the British state.
Ben doesn't offer any form of back up at all. He links to the October 2024 announcement, presumably expecting (rightly in your case) that most would not enquire further.
Easy to get taken in by a semi professional opinion piece with lots of links and stuff - we have all been there.
Okay. Returning if we may, to your assertion my understanding of 11 rounds of talks between Oct 22 and Spring 24 was because I have been naive enough to be duped by just the one source, an unreliable fantasist, and should rightly feel embarrassed.
I now have some back up support on this from several other sources, that you may, by all means also call these unreliable fantasists, out to dupe and embarrass us, if we should believe what they are telling us
Rounds of negotiation held November 22, January and February 23,
And what better than from Lord Cameron - who apparently froze all this so none of this is happening - himself in 2024 this Negotiation thing still going on throughout 2023 and into 2024 in questions 691, 692, 693 and 694? “You will be aware that negotiations on future sovereignty have been going on between London and Port Louis for just over a year now” “Yes. There is a negotiation ongoing.”
Lucky, dear friend - are you still saying I’m wrong? Or are you saying yes - the Conservatives spent 2 years negotiating the frame work agreement “Plan A” and left it for Labour to sign and own? Why would the Tories do that? It’s that it’s the most hugely unpopular impossible to sell treaty ever, is it?
If you think this isn't someone hoofing something into the long grass, much less someone willing to sign up to tens of billions of pounds for the privilege, I really don't know what to tell you.
Henry Smith: Foreign Secretary, thank you for appearing before us. I want to turn to a different part of the globe: the British Indian Ocean Territory. You will be aware that negotiations on future sovereignty have been going on between London and Port Louis for just over a year now. Diego Garcia has been extremely strategically important, both in various actions in the Cold War, Iraq and Afghanistan and now with a new Cold War and, indeed, the Chinese belt and road initiative. What is your view on the strategic security and military importance of British sovereignty remaining over Diego Garcia?
Lord Cameron: I started this session by saying that I think we face a very insecure, dangerous and difficult world with conflicts and that we need to maintain our security, strengthen our alliances, hold our friends close and protect ourselves as well as we can, and we should think about this issue in that context. Diego Garcia is an important national asset, the use of which we share with the Americans. In any negotiation we have with the Mauritians, the overriding question must be the safety, security and usability of this base. That is it; that is the thing that matters more than anything. We must look at all the risks and dangers that there could be in any change of circumstance. That is the way we will proceed.
Q692 Henry Smith: There is a precedent in terms of negotiations over the future of British overseas territories. The Anglo-Sino agreement on Hong Kong was very much lauded at the time. It is now not worth the paper it is written on. Are you concerned that, with growing Chinese influence in the Indian ocean and in many former Commonwealth countries around the world, from the Caribbean to the Pacific, a treaty on the future of the British Indian Ocean Territory—the Chagos islands—would be vulnerable in the future to the Chinese and potentially other states abusing that and us then surrendering a very important security situation, including for the Americans, of course?
Lord Cameron: That is absolutely the right question, and it is the question that I am asking. With any negotiated outcome, it has to be beyond doubt that there is no danger to this vital national US-UK asset of not being able to function and operate properly. Whether that is Chinese influence or what might happen in the future to Mauritius, or what might happen with other states and the outer islands, all those questions are absolutely front and centre in my mind in looking at this issue.
Q693 Henry Smith: Are you concerned that the negotiations might be setting a dangerous precedent for other British overseas territories that are either uninhabited or sparsely populated? I am not talking about Gibraltar, which has a functioning democracy and a clear will, or even the Falkland Islands, but perhaps South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands.
Lord Cameron: Again, that is great question. What has happened is an advisory judgment by the International Court of Justice—it is an advisory judgment, not a final judgment. We have to think very carefully about the effect of concluding a negotiation that changed the nature of our arrangements with Diego Garcia that could be used as a precedent in other cases. I do not think it is necessary just about the less-inhabited overseas territories; there will be other situations and assets that we have that are particularly important. The questions that you are asking are the questions that I am asking, and I will not be happy unless we have very good answers to those questions.
Q694 Henry Smith: Finally, I am very pleased to hear you talk about the judgment as an advisory judgment. This is not like a domestic court of law, as you know, where a jury decides. It is often where countries that, historically, are not allies or friends of the UK use the opportunity to make a statement against British interests around the world. Are you concerned that this may also set a dangerous precedent for the sovereign base areas in Cyprus?
Lord Cameron: Again, I feel that we are positively joined at the hip over these questions. I have come into the Department and have checked the progress that we are making on this issue. When I was Prime Minister, it was all about trying to see if we could relocate Chagossians back on to the outer islands; lots of work was done, and it was not possible. It is exactly what I am asking. As I say, there is a negotiation ongoing. The absolutely crucial thing is the safety, security and long-term viability of this base in a difficult and dangerous world. Anything that gets in the way of that is a major problem that we have to consider. Also, as a country that has other overseas possessions and territories, some of which have very important intelligence and security assets on them, we have to think of the effect on those. If all of those questions can be resolved, that would be good. If they cannot, obviously we will have to think very carefully about this.
Well he’s fooled you hasn’t he 😄
Then what did they do in 11 rounds of talks? Cultivate coconuts?
So we established 11 rounds of negotiations did happen before Labour came to power Let’s move onto what we know from the documents released in late 24 and 25 by both governments after conclusion of talks, about what was discussed and agreed at which round of talks. In particular The UKs Explanatory Memorandum (2025) acts as a "negotiation history" of the 11 rounds held between November 2022 and June 2024, what was discussed, agreed, and added to the Framework at each round of talks.
According to all official briefings and retrospectively published documents, the following was already "on paper" established as the working framework BEFORE Labour came to power. * The "Plan A" Framework: The core trade-off—transferring full sovereignty of the archipelago to Mauritius in exchange for a long-term lease of the Diego Garcia military base—was already the established before the change in government. it was at the September 23 negotiation the framework for ceding sovereignty, the lease, and the substantial payments were all drawn up and put into the existing ongoing Framework document. It also makes Yes Minister sense to me, a Prime Minister about to meet counterpart in backround G20 will always be in want of something to take into the room with him! * The 99-Year Lease Principle: The concept of a 99-year lease to ensure the "continued effective operation" of the base was a foundational element of the early Conservative-led talks. But 99yr Lease started life in 2019 as a Mauritius offer, not to us, but to the US! * Security & Veto Clauses: Technical provisions, such as the 24-nautical-mile buffer zone around Diego Garcia and a veto over foreign military presence on the outer islands, were largely hashed out during these early rounds to secure UK/US strategic interests. * The Financial Baseline: While the final £3.4 billion figure was formalised later, UK government has stated that the financial settlement was "acceptable to both sides" and built upon calculations reviewed during those 11 rounds. It was also the Conservatives in the 2023 technical sessions who indexed the £101M annual payments, to ensure the value of the lease remains stable against inflation. It was also established in early rounds that while the UK would provide the "Resettlement Trust Fund," the actual implementation and management of resettlement on the outer islands would be a Mauritian sovereign right.
These are the specific agreements already in place inherited by Labour, which allowed them to finalise everything and own the Chagos Deal in just 8 weeks from coming to power! And for a moment Labour were all full of themselves “We get to own this! And tell the world how Tories let down National Security by failing to do this!” Gullible idiots.
Hope this helps. I’m now going to get some sleep and go back to my sheep.
Where can you get this stuff? I need to... compete in a ski jumping competition
The World Anti-Doping Agency could investigate if evidence emerges that male ski jumpers are injecting their penises in a bid to improve sporting performance.
In January, German newspaper Bild, external reported that jumpers were injecting their penises with hyaluronic acid before being measured for their suits.
Hyaluronic acid, which is not banned in sport, can be used to increase penis circumference by one or two centimetres.
This would increase the surface area of their suits during competition, which, according to FIS, the international ski and snowboard federation, could increase their flight in the air.
"Every extra centimetre on a suit counts. If your suit has a 5% bigger surface area, you fly further," said FIS ski jumping men's race director Sandro Pertile.
It is the same stuff used for the fashionable "trout pout" lips. Any dodgy cosmetic filler place on the High st should be able to do it.
How did the trout lips ever become fashionable?
Do any men find that look in any way attractive?
I think it's used to denote wealth and leisure (since those who work cannot afford it and would be mocked) and hence status. Remember the rule that men do not compete with women, but men compete with other men to attract women, and women compete with other women to attract/survive men.
If this is the final plunge of BTC I'm personally a bit sad.
I don't really see why people are panicking about this, although it's easy for me to say so when I've no skin in the game at all other than a theoretical one if some stolen BTC are ever recovered*. It's had plenty of collapses.
I'm happy with any outcome really, it's all amusing to me.
*and some ZEC I bought to get someone to shut up who kept nagging me to buy it, at more or less its all time high, but not a great deal.
Presumably those panicking either have skin in the game (more fool them), or are worrying about contagion into the world of banks and "real" money.
Where can you get this stuff? I need to... compete in a ski jumping competition
The World Anti-Doping Agency could investigate if evidence emerges that male ski jumpers are injecting their penises in a bid to improve sporting performance.
In January, German newspaper Bild, external reported that jumpers were injecting their penises with hyaluronic acid before being measured for their suits.
Hyaluronic acid, which is not banned in sport, can be used to increase penis circumference by one or two centimetres.
This would increase the surface area of their suits during competition, which, according to FIS, the international ski and snowboard federation, could increase their flight in the air.
"Every extra centimetre on a suit counts. If your suit has a 5% bigger surface area, you fly further," said FIS ski jumping men's race director Sandro Pertile.
It is the same stuff used for the fashionable "trout pout" lips. Any dodgy cosmetic filler place on the High st should be able to do it.
How did the trout lips ever become fashionable?
Do any men find that look in any way attractive?
Universal pornography for teenagers setting aspirations and expectations, "lubberlips" influencers, Michelin Man Ts & As, and a continued "Whooaaarrr !! Grab a bit of that !!!" tabloid media (see most of it), and an empty-headed life.
Some do, but they have probably also been programmed by having no values of their own.
Where can you get this stuff? I need to... compete in a ski jumping competition
The World Anti-Doping Agency could investigate if evidence emerges that male ski jumpers are injecting their penises in a bid to improve sporting performance.
In January, German newspaper Bild, external reported that jumpers were injecting their penises with hyaluronic acid before being measured for their suits.
Hyaluronic acid, which is not banned in sport, can be used to increase penis circumference by one or two centimetres.
This would increase the surface area of their suits during competition, which, according to FIS, the international ski and snowboard federation, could increase their flight in the air.
"Every extra centimetre on a suit counts. If your suit has a 5% bigger surface area, you fly further," said FIS ski jumping men's race director Sandro Pertile.
It is the same stuff used for the fashionable "trout pout" lips. Any dodgy cosmetic filler place on the High st should be able to do it.
How did the trout lips ever become fashionable?
Do any men find that look in any way attractive?
Universal pornography for teenagers setting aspirations and expectations, "lubberlips" influencers, Michelin Man Ts & As, and a continued "Whooaaarrr !! Grab a bit of that !!!" tabloid media (see most of it), and an empty-headed life.
Some do, but they have probably also been programmed by having no values of their own.
I only understand about half of what you just said, but it may shock some PBers to learn that women are generally not going along with stupid shit like trout lips and most of the other recent trends because they think it'll look attractive to men (on a conscious level anyway).
If this is the final plunge of BTC I'm personally a bit sad.
I don't really see why people are panicking about this, although it's easy for me to say so when I've no skin in the game at all other than a theoretical one if some stolen BTC are ever recovered*. It's had plenty of collapses.
I'm happy with any outcome really, it's all amusing to me.
*and some ZEC I bought to get someone to shut up who kept nagging me to buy it, at more or less its all time high, but not a great deal.
Presumably those panicking either have skin in the game (more fool them), or are worrying about contagion into the world of banks and "real" money.
On the former point, if they're true believers then they should know to HODL (aka, keep hanging on to the bag). If they're cynical "greater fool" players (as I would be in my hypothetical <10k buying scenario), then my heart bleeds.
On the latter point they really don't need to; any contagion will be deeply hilarious, not a systemic problem, surely? Obviously e.g. MSTR will go boom but it's hardly going to be the great depression.
"The PB Factor: On Political Betting, users often employ a "High Victorian" or "disgruntled colonel" tone. Your phrase fits that aesthetic so perfectly that it feels like it should have been said a thousand times before, even if it hasn't."
How dare you, my tone is always 'slightly peeved smug bureaucrat'.
Reform got 9% in Ynys Mon in 2024 at the general election but 16% in Wales overall, so if Reform are now winning even in Ynys Mon then Reform for most seats in the Senedd is back on
Let's hope not.
I still expect Plaid to hoover up Labour votes including my own.
Although I still know plenty of ex Labour and Tories who have barely seen a dark skinned person in their septegenarian lives but believe there is too much immigration. Reform scratch that itch. No one is telling them that Nathan Gill batted for Putin and Team Nigel will sell their free at the point of delivery NHS provision to Cedars Sinae Healthcare for the cost of a pint.
Where can you get this stuff? I need to... compete in a ski jumping competition
The World Anti-Doping Agency could investigate if evidence emerges that male ski jumpers are injecting their penises in a bid to improve sporting performance.
In January, German newspaper Bild, external reported that jumpers were injecting their penises with hyaluronic acid before being measured for their suits.
Hyaluronic acid, which is not banned in sport, can be used to increase penis circumference by one or two centimetres.
This would increase the surface area of their suits during competition, which, according to FIS, the international ski and snowboard federation, could increase their flight in the air.
"Every extra centimetre on a suit counts. If your suit has a 5% bigger surface area, you fly further," said FIS ski jumping men's race director Sandro Pertile.
It is the same stuff used for the fashionable "trout pout" lips. Any dodgy cosmetic filler place on the High st should be able to do it.
How did the trout lips ever become fashionable?
Do any men find that look in any way attractive?
Universal pornography for teenagers setting aspirations and expectations, "lubberlips" influencers, Michelin Man Ts & As, and a continued "Whooaaarrr !! Grab a bit of that !!!" tabloid media (see most of it), and an empty-headed life.
Some do, but they have probably also been programmed by having no values of their own.
I only understand about half of what you just said, but it may shock some PBers to learn that women are generally not going along with stupid shit like trout lips and most of the other recent trends because they think it'll look attractive to men (on a conscious level anyway).
Thank you for the reply.
I think it depends on the women, and on the groups of women, and we know that many develop their own values decades later. Epstein managed to get what he wanted, and his co-abusers are being resolutely shielded by the whole swathe of rich and connected USA society. It took their victims decades to recover and assert their own values.
Equally Andrew Tate is on record as saying he likes his women young enough that he can "imprint" on them (one example of my para 2 in action - create and assert your own values or be manipulated). And Farage and Laila Cunningham are both on record as saying Tate is a good role model for young men, Cunningham on GB News just before Christmas 2025 (with an implied "except for the rapey bits").
But the Andrew Tate etc admiration by young men also shows that they are also vulnerable to having dangerous values imposed. Look equally at the far right attempt to assert what they call "Masculine Christianity", which is a distorted version of "Muscular Christianity" (see for example the images in Chariots of Fire or Victorian Public Schools), but also an attempt to pretend that they can base their xenophobia on the Bible, which involves excising chunks of it.
So my second claim is that if we do not form our own values, someone will form them for us and we may not notice what is happening.
Comments
And it's about half the rate of gold, which is about 1.6%.
https://x.com/joecguinan/status/2019417051060994441
It’s like the contagion of the Great Financial Crisis, but for politics. The whole thing has to come down, but watch them patch together the rescue operation instead.
I tried to do the same with the Tsarist Russian national anthem but that's harder to learn phonetically.
If this is the final plunge of BTC I'm personally a bit sad. I made useful money mining BTC at a time when I really needed the funds. I had a mining rig with four GPUs whirring away for months, heating the house and topping up my bank account.
Lord Cameron: I started this session by saying that I think we face a very insecure, dangerous and difficult world with conflicts and that we need to maintain our security, strengthen our alliances, hold our friends close and protect ourselves as well as we can, and we should think about this issue in that context. Diego Garcia is an important national asset, the use of which we share with the Americans. In any negotiation we have with the Mauritians, the overriding question must be the safety, security and usability of this base. That is it; that is the thing that matters more than anything. We must look at all the risks and dangers that there could be in any change of circumstance. That is the way we will proceed.
Q692 Henry Smith: There is a precedent in terms of negotiations over the future of British overseas territories. The Anglo-Sino agreement on Hong Kong was very much lauded at the time. It is now not worth the paper it is written on. Are you concerned that, with growing Chinese influence in the Indian ocean and in many former Commonwealth countries around the world, from the Caribbean to the Pacific, a treaty on the future of the British Indian Ocean Territory—the Chagos islands—would be vulnerable in the future to the Chinese and potentially other states abusing that and us then surrendering a very important security situation, including for the Americans, of course?
Lord Cameron: That is absolutely the right question, and it is the question that I am asking. With any negotiated outcome, it has to be beyond doubt that there is no danger to this vital national US-UK asset of not being able to function and operate properly. Whether that is Chinese influence or what might happen in the future to Mauritius, or what might happen with other states and the outer islands, all those questions are absolutely front and centre in my mind in looking at this issue.
Q693 Henry Smith: Are you concerned that the negotiations might be setting a dangerous precedent for other British overseas territories that are either uninhabited or sparsely populated? I am not talking about Gibraltar, which has a functioning democracy and a clear will, or even the Falkland Islands, but perhaps South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands.
Lord Cameron: Again, that is great question. What has happened is an advisory judgment by the International Court of Justice—it is an advisory judgment, not a final judgment. We have to think very carefully about the effect of concluding a negotiation that changed the nature of our arrangements with Diego Garcia that could be used as a precedent in other cases. I do not think it is necessary just about the less-inhabited overseas territories; there will be other situations and assets that we have that are particularly important. The questions that you are asking are the questions that I am asking, and I will not be happy unless we have very good answers to those questions.
Q694 Henry Smith: Finally, I am very pleased to hear you talk about the judgment as an advisory judgment. This is not like a domestic court of law, as you know, where a jury decides. It is often where countries that, historically, are not allies or friends of the UK use the opportunity to make a statement against British interests around the world. Are you concerned that this may also set a dangerous precedent for the sovereign base areas in Cyprus?
Lord Cameron: Again, I feel that we are positively joined at the hip over these questions. I have come into the Department and have checked the progress that we are making on this issue. When I was Prime Minister, it was all about trying to see if we could relocate Chagossians back on to the outer islands; lots of work was done, and it was not possible. It is exactly what I am asking. As I say, there is a negotiation ongoing. The absolutely crucial thing is the safety, security and long-term viability of this base in a difficult and dangerous world. Anything that gets in the way of that is a major problem that we have to consider. Also, as a country that has other overseas possessions and territories, some of which have very important intelligence and security assets on them, we have to think of the effect on those. If all of those questions can be resolved, that would be good. If they cannot, obviously we will have to think very carefully about this.
It would be nice if it actually stopped raining long enough for me to use the bloody thing to wash the car.
I'm happy with any outcome really, it's all amusing to me.
*and some ZEC I bought to get someone to shut up who kept nagging me to buy it, at more or less its all time high, but not a great deal.
@hoffman_noa
At this evening’s Chequers starm-offensive…
Around half the Cabinet attended. MPs were fed chilli and rice (standing).
Drinks included white and red wine, peroni in bottles, abbott ale in cans and soft drinks.
https://x.com/hoffman_noa/status/2019542734005207052?s=46
Were the other half of the cabinet washing their hair / at a Big Ange do?
Perhaps FoN have too few politically-engaged people, but it's definitely useful to have a poll with a different error in the mix.
https://x.com/MattCartoonist/status/2019461535907639576?s=20
Then what did they do in 11 rounds of talks? Cultivate coconuts?
So we established 11 rounds of negotiations did happen before Labour came to power
Let’s move onto what we know from the documents released in late 24 and 25 by both governments after conclusion of talks, about what was discussed and agreed at which round of talks. In particular The UKs Explanatory Memorandum (2025) acts as a "negotiation history" of the 11 rounds held between November 2022 and June 2024, what was discussed, agreed, and added to the Framework at each round of talks.
According to all official briefings and retrospectively published documents, the following was already "on paper" established as the working framework BEFORE Labour came to power.
* The "Plan A" Framework: The core trade-off—transferring full sovereignty of the archipelago to Mauritius in exchange for a long-term lease of the Diego Garcia military base—was already the established before the change in government. it was at the September 23 negotiation the framework for ceding sovereignty, the lease, and the substantial payments were all drawn up and put into the existing ongoing Framework document. It also makes Yes Minister sense to me, a Prime Minister about to meet counterpart in backround G20 will always be in want of something to take into the room with him!
* The 99-Year Lease Principle: The concept of a 99-year lease to ensure the "continued effective operation" of the base was a foundational element of the early Conservative-led talks. But 99yr Lease started life in 2019 as a Mauritius offer, not to us, but to the US!
* Security & Veto Clauses: Technical provisions, such as the 24-nautical-mile buffer zone around Diego Garcia and a veto over foreign military presence on the outer islands, were largely hashed out during these early rounds to secure UK/US strategic interests.
* The Financial Baseline: While the final £3.4 billion figure was formalised later, UK government has stated that the financial settlement was "acceptable to both sides" and built upon calculations reviewed during those 11 rounds. It was also the Conservatives in the 2023 technical sessions who indexed the £101M annual payments, to ensure the value of the lease remains stable against inflation. It was also established in early rounds that while the UK would provide the "Resettlement Trust Fund," the actual implementation and management of resettlement on the outer islands would be a Mauritian sovereign right.
These are the specific agreements already in place inherited by Labour, which allowed them to finalise everything and own the Chagos Deal in just 8 weeks from coming to power!
And for a moment Labour were all full of themselves “We get to own this! And tell the world how Tories let down National Security by failing to do this!”
Gullible idiots.
Hope this helps.
I’m now going to get some sleep and go back to my sheep.
Some do, but they have probably also been programmed by having no values of their own.
On the latter point they really don't need to; any contagion will be deeply hilarious, not a systemic problem, surely? Obviously e.g. MSTR will go boom but it's hardly going to be the great depression.
Stop demoting rabbits, Rabbit.
Global Counsel: founders Peter Mandelson and Benjamin Wegg-Prosser.
Chairman: Archie Norman.
https://www.global-counsel.com/about/our-people
I still expect Plaid to hoover up Labour votes including my own.
Although I still know plenty of ex Labour and Tories who have barely seen a dark skinned person in their septegenarian lives but believe there is too much immigration. Reform scratch that itch. No one is telling them that Nathan Gill batted for Putin and Team Nigel will sell their free at the point of delivery NHS provision to Cedars Sinae Healthcare for the cost of a pint.
I think it depends on the women, and on the groups of women, and we know that many develop their own values decades later. Epstein managed to get what he wanted, and his co-abusers are being resolutely shielded by the whole swathe of rich and connected USA society. It took their victims decades to recover and assert their own values.
Equally Andrew Tate is on record as saying he likes his women young enough that he can "imprint" on them (one example of my para 2 in action - create and assert your own values or be manipulated). And Farage and Laila Cunningham are both on record as saying Tate is a good role model for young men, Cunningham on GB News just before Christmas 2025 (with an implied "except for the rapey bits").
But the Andrew Tate etc admiration by young men also shows that they are also vulnerable to having dangerous values imposed. Look equally at the far right attempt to assert what they call "Masculine Christianity", which is a distorted version of "Muscular Christianity" (see for example the images in Chariots of Fire or Victorian Public Schools), but also an attempt to pretend that they can base their xenophobia on the Bible, which involves excising chunks of it.
So my second claim is that if we do not form our own values, someone will form them for us and we may not notice what is happening.