r/europe • u/AlfredsChild England • 2d ago

News Reform takes shock 15-point lead over Labour as Farage dreams of winning power

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/reform-shock-15-point-lead-labour-farage-power-3887857
2.2k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

53

u/StuartMcNight 2d ago

What are you on about? Both the ICJ and ITLOS have ruled in favor of Mauritius in the territorial dispute by really large majorities.

Negotiations started and were almost finalized before Labour took power.

34

u/grumpsaboy 2d ago

The ICJ was non binding and one of the judges a Chinese judge who has previously stated Russia is not the aggressor in the Ukraine war. That sounds like a perfectly unbiased court case.

Whether or not they were almost finalized which they weren't doesn't matter because Labour had the ability to stop if they wanted, particularly after Mauritius got a new prime minister who started demanding the world.

9

u/StuartMcNight 1d ago edited 1d ago

The ICJ voted 13 to 1. Even if your lame “Chinese judge” excuse was a valid one.

Of course the negotiations were almost finalized. Negotiations started in 2022. Labour took office in July 2024. The announcement of the transfer was done in October 2024. If you think international agreements are done in 3 months. I have a nice bridge for sale.

2

u/grumpsaboy 1d ago

Conservatives halted negotiations. Labour restarted them and then agreed with the massive increases in demands from. The new Mauritiuan PM.

As for the ICJ. It's breaking its own laws of self determination in its ruling by not consulting the actual Chargosians, who under UN law are the de facto indigenous population due to being an imported population into a territory with no natives.

0

u/StuartMcNight 1d ago

Bullshit. You just made that up. 🤣

-1

u/nippydart 2d ago

I really recommend that you watch this documentary to see how we ended up in this position.

https://youtu.be/RbORUXzKvzI

I don't know how anyone can watch this and not change their view.

1

u/grumpsaboy 1d ago

They belong to whomever the Chargosians want to be part of. Going on polls that's currently the UK, but a proper referendum should have been given to the Chargosians.

All this current deal does is give the islands to a country that's never owned them, is a different ethnicity to the Chargosians and is VERY racist to Chargosians.

And to top it off provides zero benefit to the UK and many negatives.

0

u/nippydart 1d ago

Agree that they should be the ones that decide.

Any source showing that they prefer UK to continue to control the islands? I haven't seen anything indicating that.

And yeah we currently have a racist, trump-ass-licking cunt leading in the polls and more cunts drawing flags on private households and calling passers by 'ragheads' so I don't think we can really complain about racism.

1

u/Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho 2d ago

Mauritius has made it clear they aren’t going to let the Chagosians resettle the islands.

0

u/nippydart 2d ago

1) source for this claim 2) any comment to make on what the British have done with regards to the islands indigenous population and what they should have done instead?

2

u/Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho 2d ago

1) Mauritius had leased the only even semi inhabitable island back to the UK for 99 years.

2) There is no indigenous population of the Chagos islands.

3) The UK should pay monetary damages to Chagosians, and offer them citizenship.

1

u/nippydart 2d ago

I mean 3 seems reasonable, 2 is not true (watch the documentary) and 1 not really sure what point you're trying to make.

Also if you could help me with that source it would be great, I've tried looking it up and found nothing.

0

u/Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho 1d ago

1) The documentary does not dispute my claim on the chagoseans. They do not predate European arrival.

2) The 99 year lease is discussed here.

2

u/nippydart 1d ago

1) since when does indigenous = pre-dating European arrival?

2) that is not a source for your claim that Mauritius will not allow them to return. Do you have any source for that claim (now 3rd time of asking)

19

u/Ill_Refrigerator_593 2d ago

Apparently this remote group of islands in the Indian Ocean with no permanent inhabitants that British people are not even allowed to visit without US permission is a key historical part of the UK.

6

u/Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho 2d ago

Not having them has already lost the British tax payer more than 10 billion pounds, in promised payment to Mauritius, to rent their own land back. There is a reason countries will hold onto even remote uninhabited rocks, even if for the EEZ around them alone.

And I don’t see why base security in Diego Garcia is an issue. They are there as long as the UK gives them permission to be, and as long as they are, it’s in both of their interests to keep the area secure.

9

u/Ill_Refrigerator_593 2d ago

Not having them has already lost the British tax payer more than 10 billion pounds, in promised payment to Mauritius

Isn't the cost to rent the islands £3.4 billion over 99 years? Unless you're using the value of 2124 billions.

There is a reason countries will hold onto even remote uninhabited rocks, even if for the EEZ around them alone.

Rarely on the other side of the planet. You do realise what we did with the rest of the Empire right, including the valuble parts, not tiny atolls in the middle of nowhere. How much do you think we lost over Singapore or Hong Kong for example?

Most often without the perfomative outrage.

And I don’t see why base security in Diego Garcia is an issue.

You don't see what the issue is of a foreign power needing to give Brits permission to enter our "own land"?

1

u/Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho 2d ago

Isn't the cost to rent the islands £3.4 billion over 99 years? Unless you're using the value of 2124 billions.

It’s over £100 million per year, inflation adjusted, for 99 years, putting the total payments the PM has agreed to over 10 billion (there are other fees he’s agreed to as well). The figure you are giving are net present value, of the total payments the UK is on the hook for.

Rarely on the other side of the planet. You do realise what we did with the rest of the Empire right, including the valuble parts, not tiny atolls in the middle of nowhere. How much do you think we lost over Singapore or Hong Kong for example?

These islands had no native population. By this logic the UK should pay Argentina to take the Falklands from them. You might have an argument I could agree with if Mauritius was promising to return the islands to the Chagosians, but they aren’t.

You don't see what the issue is of a foreign power needing to give Brits permission to enter our "own land"?

What is the alternative you are proposing? All base security stands down the moment any plane claiming to be British shows up? As with all secure areas of this type, access has to be arranged ahead of time. The UK has final say on operations at the base, because they have the authority to unilaterally close it.

5

u/Ill_Refrigerator_593 2d ago

The figure you are giving are net present value, of the total payments the UK is on the hook for.

What's wrong with using the present value? Gives a better indication of how much the money is worth.

These islands had no native population. By this logic the UK should pay Argentina to take the Falklands from them.

You've got your "logic" backwards. You're saying its perfectly fine to overrule the population of an islands right to self-determination, which is a pillar of Argentina's argument for the Falklands.

Do you really not see the issue of the UK saying the Falkland Islanders have a right to self-determination when the Argentinians can just point to another island we own where we deported the entire population?

What is the alternative you are proposing?

Give the the islands back to Mauritius as per our own system of decolonisation, while continuing to rent the base instead. It's not ideal but cleaning up messes rarely is.

Your argument is like saying we should have kept the former Empire land our overseas embassies & consulates are built on rather than paying rent in a cost saving exercise.

Although in these examples we're freely able to use these premises without permission from the US...

2

u/Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho 2d ago edited 2d ago

Give the the islands back to Mauritius

The islands never had any historic tie to Mauritius in the first place. The islands are nowhere near them, and have no pre-European inhabitants.

What's wrong with using the present value? Gives a better indication of how much the money is worth.

Because it doesn’t represent how the UK will pay it. They aren’t setting aside three billion and letting it collect interest. The net present value you are referring to is mostly used by private companies, that don’t run deficit budgets, and benefit from compound interest over time. Something not directly applicable to the UK.

Do you really not see the issue of the UK saying the Falkland Islanders have a right to self-determination when the Argentinians can just point to another island we own where we deported the entire population?

You are conflating Mauritius and the Chagosians. Mauritius has no intention of allowing Chagosians back to the islands. If this was about giving the islands to them, I’d agree, but it’s not. Resettling the islands is probably never going to happen, even if for economic and infrastructure reasons alone. The best course here would be to pay monetary damages to decedents of the chagosians directly, not gift that money to Mauritius’s political elite, a third party.

1

u/Ill_Refrigerator_593 2d ago

The islands never had any historic tie to Mauritius in the first place. The islands are nowhere near them, and have no pre-European inhabitants.

During de-colonisation the standard arrangement was to draw up borders around administrative capitals. The Chagos Islands were transferred from (the closer) Seychelles to Mauritius around 1900 I believe.

The claim of "no historic ties" would make thousands of territories across dozens of countries illegitimate if consistenly applied.

Because it doesn’t represent how the UK will pay it. They aren’t setting aside three billion and letting it collect interest. The net present value you are referring to is mostly used by private companies, that don’t run deficit budgets, and benefit from compound interest over time. Something not directly applicable to the UK.

You could make that argument about any government expense, if it were invested instead of spent it would be worth more in future. As far as I know the costings for the Chagos Islands expenses have been consistently calculated along with other similar government expenses.

You are conflating Mauritius and the Chagosians. Mauritius has no intention of allowing Chagosians back to the islands. If this was about giving the islands to them, I’d agree, but it’s not.

But that is an issue between Mauritius & the Chagossians, not us. We allowed arbitration by the international community over this issue & followed their recommendations.

It's not ideal but we've managed to extract ourselves from an historical mess. This blanket refusal to compromise is why so many historical disputes continue indefinitely. Sometimes these disputes have to be resolved for good, no matter the hysterical outrage from the Daily Telegraph et al.

2

u/Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho 2d ago

During de-colonisation the standard arrangement was to draw up borders around administrative capitals. The Chagos Islands were transferred from (the closer) Seychelles to Mauritius around 1900 I believe.

Except that was never a fixed rule. Just north of here (to the Chagos islands, far to the north of Mauritius), India didn’t get all of the former British raj. Administrative boundaries were usually used because they were convenient, they were not a fixed legal mandate.

But that is an issue between Mauritius & the Chagossians, not us. We allowed arbitration by the international community over this issue & followed their recommendations

This has nothing to do with the chagosians for any party here. The matter is not between them and anyone. This is a matter of money from the middle class in the UK flowing to the rich of Mauritius.

It's not ideal but we've managed to extract ourselves from an historical mess.

A non binding opinion statement is not a historical mess. The UK can and has ignored similar decrees, nobody is regretting not having given Gibraltar to Spain. And Spain has a far better claim to it than Mauritius does to the Chagos islands.

1

u/Ill_Refrigerator_593 1d ago

Except that was never a fixed rule. Just north of here (to the Chagos islands, far to the north of Mauritius), India didn’t get all of the former British raj. Administrative boundaries were usually used because they were convenient, they were not a fixed legal mandate.

That's your view, there's also the view of the multinational panel of expert judges of the ICJ which in contrary to this.

This has nothing to do with the chagosians for any party here. The matter is not between them and anyone. This is a matter of money from the middle class in the UK flowing to the rich of Mauritius.

This seems to be a general complaint about any payment the UK (or any country) makes to other states. It's not really relevant unless you believe countries shouldn't be able to transfer money to others at all.

A non binding opinion statement is not a historical mess. The UK can and has ignored similar decrees, nobody is regretting not having given Gibraltar to Spain. And Spain has a far better claim to it than Mauritius does to the Chagos islands.

This isn't a statement, it is actions the UK government is taking. Gibraltar is populated, there would be rather less of a case for keeping it if we had previously forcibly removed all its inhabitants.

If Spain has a claim to the Chagos Islands (along with all their other extensive overseas territories outside North Africa/Atlantic/the Med they own due to their "better claims) they can take it up with Mauritius & the ICJ.

0

u/Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho 2d ago

No resolution to that effect existed. The ICJ issued a non binding statement. The UK has no obligation, legal or otherwise, to give a single pound or square meter of land to Mauritius.