I am yet to hear a rational argument on why should the UK move forward with this
124
abfgern_2 days ago
+43
The rational argument was that if the islands fall under some kind of UN sanction (would not necessarily be veto-able, could be general assembly not security council); it would make the military base untenable as all the essential contractors (maintenance, supply, logistics etc) would not be able to work there. The base is what is important and is the priority, not theoretical sovereignty; the proposed leasing idea would have solved this potential issue.
That's the argument, I believe. I don't necessarily agree with it, but it's not just random, and was proposed and work on it began *before* Kier Starmer's government
43
ObjectiveHornet6762 days ago
+16
Base logistics is America's problem though, and I imagine that the US response to the UN trying to disrupt the operations of a critical military base would be rather curt, forceful and undiplomatic.
16
MetalBawx2 days ago
+19
The UN wouldn't even bother. The ruling is non binding thus it can be ignored and that's always been the case.
The US wanted this deal and it's the only reason the UK wasted a single second on Mauritias attempt a colonialism. Starmer's government has taken several PR blows over this and repeatedly failed to push this deal past the HoC/HoL.
Trumps actions have given him ample excuse to just throw this deal in the fire, most are surprised it's taken this long. Personally i suspect Iran was the straw that broke the camels back as the UK was completely in the dark as to what Orange McSpraytan was upto.
19
Direct-Device46852 days ago
+12
Yeah I guess “rational” is a very subjective term
12
falconfalcon72 days ago
+17
They started the deal because the US wanted them to
17
Direct-Device46852 days ago
+25
That doesn’t sound to me as a rational argument to go ahead with it
25
falconfalcon72 days ago
+13
Yes agreed, especially now Trump is using it as a political football. The US wanted a deal to be made to secure the future of the islands after a previous decision in the international courts.
13
Dont_ban_me_now2 days ago
+6
The Biden Admin was for the Chagos Islands deal, but the Orange President says another.
6
falconfalcon72 days ago
+14
Trump previously supported it. He only changed his view to try and pressure Starmer
14
Legitimate-Tip-21492 days ago
+3
Not anymore, cancelling is now the smart choice. The US can deal with any fallout.
3
Dont_ban_me_now2 days ago
+3
Yes, at Biden's admin's prodding. But the Orange Dotard did a 180° shift.
3
Ok_Schedule80951 day ago
+3
Not at the start trump thought it was a good deal and he wanted the deal.
3
SaltyW1231 day ago
+2
I think he's flip flopped on this multiple times lol
2
Submitten2 days ago
+2
Because if the international courts (who ruled against UK ownership) and the UK disagree on who has sovereignty then China and others can interfere around the shores, and it sets a precedent for China’s other island disputes that they can just squat on other peoples land.
Hence why the US and UK wanted to align with international law, and then sign agreements that gave them exclusive access.
It’s not even that the legalisation is dead, it’s just that the goverment is on holiday now.
2
MetalBawx2 days ago
+6
Horseshit. China would never build a base on those islands not with the US right next to it.
There's a world of difference what happened in the South China Sea and what happens when nuclear powers are involved. Likewise Mauritias is practically a Chinese vassal anyway given the amount of debts held by Beijing, the lease money wouldn't have scratched that black hole so the idea this would bring Mauritias into western alignment is also bunk.
6
Otherwise_Sign89642 days ago
+5
Let me tell you about a Chinese base right next to a US base - Djibouti
5
MetalBawx1 day ago
So your arguement is because Djibouti allowed two small bases the UK will allow China to setup a base within it's territorial boarder?
0
BodybuilderUpbeat7861 day ago
+1
Ok the UK won't, but Mauritius which is right next door might.
India has already built a base equipped with American Posedion submarine hunter aircraft in Mauritius.
https://interactive.aljazeera.com/aje/2021/island-of-secrets/index.html
Countries like Tajikstan have in the past allowed both India and China to build military bases on their soil. What's to stop Mauritius from agreeing to a PLAN base?
1
MetalBawx1 day ago
+2
The fact they don't control that territory because the court ruling is non binding.
The fact it is UK territory will stop any such thing.
Oh and Mauritias isn't next door to these islands either.
2
Otherwise_Sign89641 day ago
-1
The UK doesn’t have to allow it, they just have to be as they are, completely unable to do anything about it.
-1
MetalBawx1 day ago
+1
Yeah sure China is going to sail into the territory of another nuclear armed power and start building military bases without their approval sure totally believable scenario that...
What's next going to claim Armenia is going to colonize Antarctica?
1
Otherwise_Sign89641 day ago
-1
Did you know that the only use for nukes is to make sure the other nuclear power doesn’t nuke you? What’s the UK going to do? Nuke their own base? Nuke China? Have you learned nothing from all those hallow nuclear threats from Putin in the last 4 years?
-1
MetalBawx1 day ago
+1
Yes Putin threatening to nuke stuff for internal PR do you see him building bases in the UK and France? Nope.
What to try again?
The fact the UK has nukes is why China isn't stupid enough to build a base in UK territory. Unlike you they actually understand the difference between M.A.D. and impotent 'tough guy' publicity stunts.
1
Otherwise_Sign89641 day ago
-1
MAD actually implies nukes are useless you silly. Putin would have taken NATO territory long ago if they could. Who do you think NATO is preparing to go to war with now that it’s practically under 3 nuclear umbrellas?
-1
Drak_is_Right1 day ago
+1
Torpedo boats going to the island...
1
Beastofhell2 days ago
-10
The island is called Mauritius not Mauritias. At the very least respect the name.
-10
bagpulistu2 days ago
+33
Neither Mauritius, nor Chagos had a native population before European discovery and colonization. There's no other claim for Mauritius other than the British decided to administer Chagos from Mauritius. But then if they were in right to decide that, then they are also in their right to undo such a decision.
33
Outside_Break2 days ago
+60
Is the correct word ‘returning’ or ‘giving’?
60
MetalBawx2 days ago
+81
Giving.
Mauritians never lived on this island and their claim is pure garbage. Based off of the old colonial admin being run from Mauritias but a stacked non binding court ruled in their favour. So rather than tell them to f*** off our government not only offered Mauritias the islands they also planned to pay them as well.
This deal has been nothing but poison for Starmers government but he went through with it due to US pressure though now that Donny and Kier have had a falling out that "moral" duty Starmer whined about while failing to force this deal through has suddenly vanished.
81
manhothepooh2 days ago
+10
Just like "returning" Hong Kong to China. The UK has a tendency of returning things to someone who hasn't owned it before.
10
Rhauko2 days ago
+7
The lease expired
7
ZealousidealDance9902 days ago
+7
Britain couldn’t hold onto Hong Kong, and it was originally taken from China anyway.
7
Aggressive_Chuck2 days ago
+8
It wasn't taken from the PRC. The ROC in Taiwan has more of a legitimate claim, as the successor state to Qing.
8
ZealousidealDance9902 days ago
+2
The PRC and the ROC are still in a state of civil war, while Britain switched to recognizing the PRC as the representative of China decades ago. Moreover, it is now the ROC that keeps claiming it is not China.
2
Otherwise_Sign89642 days ago
+2
Technically China has owned Hong Kong, but the rights to the island and Kowloon was permanently given away, so legally Britain only had legal obligations to return New Territories. The problem is, the Iron Lady was a bit intimidated by the very small man at the Great Hall of the People
2
ZealousidealDance9901 day ago
+1
If we accept such changes made through military force, then China can also reasonably use force to take back what was lost. At that time, Britain did not have the ability to defend Hong Kong.
1
manhothepooh1 day ago
+1
It was ceded to Britian by the Qing Empire, not "China". China doesn't exist until RoC established in 1911.
1
Biochem-anon41 day ago
+1
If the continuity of the identity of China only goes back to 1911, then how far back does the continuity of the identity of Britain go? At the very least, you cannot claim that anything that existed prior to the Norman invasion was the same country, and you might argue that continuity of identity only goes back to the establishment of the current constitutional system of constitutional monarchy.
1
ZealousidealDance9901 day ago
+1
When the Qing Emperor abdicated, he explicitly stated that the ROC would inherit all of his territory.
1
manhothepooh1 day ago
+1
Ok, then the Britian should return Hong Kong to RoC (Taiwan).
1
ZealousidealDance9901 day ago
+1
If you ignore everything that happened after the fall of the Qing Dynasty.
1
manhothepooh1 day ago
+1
- RoC was formed by the KMT and inherited everything from Qing (as you have said)
- CCP was established
- Japan invaded and took Hong Kong
- WWII ended and Hong Kong was returned to the British empire
- Civil War between KMT and CCP
- CCP took most of mainland China, KMT retreated to Taiwan
and then somehow Britain "returned" Hong Kong to CCP?
1
ZealousidealDance9901 day ago
+1
The CPC was betrayed by the KMT, and during the civil war, it drove the KMT to the last one percent of the territory, thereby inheriting the legal legitimacy of China.
1
manhothepooh22 hr ago
+1
KMT was betrayed by CCP in WWII. KMT is doing all the heavy lifting in the war, while CCP is building up an army behind the front line. thats why they win in the later Civil War. and KMT never surrendered, so there is no legit transfer of territories. both still claim the whole China as their territories.
1
Ultra_Metal2 days ago
+16
Good. Ceding those islands was such a stupid move.
16
Creepy-Bell-45272 days ago
+24
Poor Keir, being forced to act rationally rather than irrationally pandering to the Chinese- I mean, UN.
24
AdSevere12742 days ago
-22
Did Americans test their nukes in Marshall Islands because of the Chinese too!.. Nope. These type of abuse of power to evict the native populations is/was routine for sake of your own supremacy doctrine. US overthrew the government of Hawaii too to annex it and run sugar planation there..
This is your own country's ugly history.. Franco-Anglo-Saxon supremacy doctrine is behind all of it.
-22
nonlawyer2 days ago
+26
These islands were uninhabited and originally settled by Europeans.
The people forcibly removed in the 1960s were descendants of imported slaves / workers.
Not saying they were treated fairly but there’s not much reason the government of the Maldives should receive the islands.
26
AdSevere12742 days ago
-19
You mean that they were imported to harvest coconuts and as people only they had no right to settle anywhere while Europeans did and Europeans had the right to bring them in, use them and exile them... What gave European those rights? Once people settled there, are they not the local population.. By that account Europeans would have no rights anywhere in North America as local population..
Franco-Anglo-Saxon supremacy is an ugly beast
-19
nonlawyer2 days ago
+10
if you actually cared about the people removed, the proposal should be to track down their descendants and pay them compensation or allow them to immigrate to the UK or something.
Not award the islands to the very Maldives government that has been mistreating them for the past 50 years.
10
AdSevere12742 days ago
-12
Maldives is in that universe and the population is favoring them and not you the war mongers. You are the foreigners and using it for your war games and you have exiled the population and not them. You had no right to exile that population, period.
Franco-Anglo-Saxon supremacy doctrine is an ugly beast. You are blind to your abuse of power..
-12
Awkward_Bag_22512 days ago
+9
Source? I'm genuinely curious because everything I've read has said that the displaced Chagossians want a vote but that it seems they support a Falklands/ St Helena solution. The only thing I can find is the Maldives staking a claim after originally supporting Mauritius but no indication over what the Chagossians may think of this.
9
AdSevere12742 days ago
-3
In my opinion it can be co-administered between 3 islands nearby for couple of decades so there is no war mongering. The distance matters.. They can self rule just the same in few years but they have to cooperate between nearby islands which have higher populations .. Maldives is the closest.. and that is why they are claiming it..
From Maldives: Approx. 500 km / 310 miles. - population \~ 0.5M
From Mauritius: Approx. 2,000 km / 1,250–1,300 mile - population \~ 1.2M
From Seychelles: Approx. 1,880 km / 1,170 miles - population \~150K
-3
MetalBawx2 days ago
+11
Your opinion is completely irrelevant.
This deal has no accomodation for the Chagosians, no return, no stolen compensation returned by Mauritias and no recognition.
Now this worthless deal is dying and Mauritias get's nothing which is all they deserve.
11
AdSevere12742 days ago
They can be accommodated once they settle back in that island. It can not be preemptive. They have to settle there and vote and until they vote, ugly conflicts can be prevented.
0
Awkward_Bag_22512 days ago
+5
Ok...? That doesn't answer my question over what the natives think.
5
AdSevere12742 days ago
-1
Your question about what they think can not be logically answered .. They have to vote once they settle.. If they don't move there, they can't vote.. there is a catch 22 there
-1
MetalBawx2 days ago
+2
But the Chagosians don't favour Mauritias after all the compensation they were paid for the eviction was stolen by the Mauritian government.
Also the Mauritians don't want the Chagosians to ever return either.
2
Creepy-Bell-45272 days ago
+9
“But what about this totally different island that has nothing to do with the British?!”
9
AdSevere12742 days ago
-3
It does, Uk also administered over Marshall Islands.. The same sh-t happened there
-3
Hopeful-Explorer-4432 days ago
-3
yup . strange hue and cry over natives gaining sovereignty on their own lands
-3
Awkward_Bag_22512 days ago
-1
The native population have been fucked over by everyone let's be honest. UK, US and Mauritius.
-1
MetalBawx1 day ago
+2
Their is no native population. The Chagosians are the only ones with a legit claim but their ancestors were shipped in.
2
BigB0ner69692 days ago
-4
Flip flop steamer strikes again
-4
Submitten2 days ago
-7
What are you talking about, the whole point of this deal was to stop the Chinese. They much prefer the UK keeping the island and going against the courts because it means they can do the same with their own island expansion.
-7
MetalBawx2 days ago
+6
Mauritias is already in China's sphere of influence and this deal wasn't going to change that.
6
ungovernable2 days ago
+2
China will undertake their island expansion regardless of what the UK does with the Chagos Islands.
It’s silly to think that China would suddenly start abiding by one international precedent of its rival unilaterally weakening itself in the name of international law.
2
AdSevere12742 days ago
-8
There you go.. why are you crying about Chinese Island expansion when you have occupied islands yourself... Only you can do it. In your universe you can do all the wrongs and it is all ok because you say so.. I mean you are armed and that makes it ok
Overthrow of Hawaii's government of Hawaii to take it over is what your country did too. It is suppose to be all washed if there is Franco-Anglo-Saxon collusion and supremacy was behind it.. ONLY..
Only you can abuse your power because the doctrine is yours.. Your supremacy doctrine is better than theirs because you believe you have the might..
-8
Valuable-Tap-61911 day ago
+2
Return is a weird word to use when referring to a country that hasn't ever owned those islands before
2
New-Conversation89831 day ago
+1
Wars a coming people
1
SliceIllustrious63262 days ago
This deal was inherited from the previous government. The government can't cancel it without a good reason, but they can't go ahead with it either because it is insanely bad and is essentially just our government paying billions of pounds so an american airbase is a bit more legal. So the government just stalled until the deal got cancelled. This was probably their plan all along.
0
MetalBawx1 day ago
+1
The Tories yes but Starmer went full bore trying to make it happen for some stupid reason. He failed to get this deal past the House of Lords and Trump started f****** about which just made Starmer look even more incompetent, it's only now that Donny has really shit the bed in Iran that Starmer is finally backing down.
1
[deleted]2 days ago
-2
[deleted]
-2
Jamuro2 days ago
+1
except rather us interests instead
1
AdSevere12742 days ago
+1
It is collusion for their own interest. UK won't take the blame by saying that they could not really convince the US.
1
[deleted]2 days ago
-30
[removed]
-30
Asleep-Ad11822 days ago
+26
You clearly know nothing about this issue.
26
ungovernable2 days ago
+10
Posted an inflammatory comment and then deleted your profile an hour later. OK.
10
whatsgoingon3502 days ago
+4
America that bombed Iran during negotiations and kidnapped a leader of a country whilst negotiating then you have the blocking of supplies going into Cuba.
And you wonder why British people act more enlightened in comparison to Americans.
4
Apprehensive-Owl8672 days ago
-13
Britan has moved on from its colonial past lmao my ass
-13
MetalBawx1 day ago
+9
You want to explain how giving land to a people who never owned or lived upon it based off of where a old office was located isn't colonialism?
Do keep in mind Mauritias doesn't want the Chagosians to return to the islands either.
82 Comments