FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Chagos Islands - another Labour surrender deal
Chagos Islands - another Labour surrender deal
Jump to: Newest in thread
So another day, another terrible Labour surrender deal.
This time it’s the Chagos Islands, which today Labour will give away to a Chinese and Russian ally for no reason in return for……handing over £9 billion of taxpayers’ money.
Labour is never quite so happy as when it’s acting in the interests of foreign countries, and giving away large amounts of taxpayer cash.
No doubt this will go down well with Starmer’s key constituency…..North London human rights KC’s. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The broad question of who owns land in foreign lands is a tough one. It’s all a line drawing exercise based “arrival” dates.
Various empires have risen and fallen over the past 6000 years or so. Some have held onto lands 1000s of miles away, some just retreated and left people to pick up the pieces.
I don’t know all the ins and outs on this one, but giving back and renting it off them seems a bit like self harm. The US control a naval base on the island of Cuba, do they pay rent? Can’t we don the same? Give them everything except the military bases and keep those parts. Surely that’s a fair deal for all if they are going to let the bases stay either way?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The lease we granted the US in 1966 ends in 2036.
Following successful challenges in the ICJ and UN it became clear that the UK could not legally grant a new lease to the US without ceding sovereignty to Mauritius.
Hence the deal which has just been signed.
The Tories negotiated the terms initially, but the new Mauritian PM revised those upwards.
Getting agreement was vital for the US base to continue. That's why Trump waved it through.
The interesting question is why both in 1966 and now in 2025 is the US unable to front the deal and needs our involvement? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By *otMe66Man 1 week ago
Terra Firma |
"The lease we granted the US in 1966 ends in 2036.
Following successful challenges in the ICJ and UN it became clear that the UK could not legally grant a new lease to the US without ceding sovereignty to Mauritius.
Hence the deal which has just been signed.
The Tories negotiated the terms initially, but the new Mauritian PM revised those upwards.
Getting agreement was vital for the US base to continue. That's why Trump waved it through.
The interesting question is why both in 1966 and now in 2025 is the US unable to front the deal and needs our involvement?"
BIOT, the UK holds sovereignty for 50 years, 2036 that no longer exists. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 1 week ago
Terra Firma |
"give away something we own then lease it back for 100 million a year - FANTASTIC THINKING
LUNATICS"
We would have been breaking international law in 2036 if we had not done a deal.
I'm not saying the money being paid out is a good deal or not. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The civil service absolutely thrive implementing this kind of stuff expecially when labour are in office, take the sale of the job centers from 1998 2003 to Telereal trillium and then leased back to the dwp to this day.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Not sure how labour, or any political party for that matter, have much say in a 2019 court decision
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/22/uk-suffers-crushing-defeat-un-vote-chagos-islands
But go ahead, be outraged by stuff barely anyone knows anything about. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I think that Labour can't see out of that bubble where all colonialism is bad, and we must make up for the country's past sins. I think they genuinely believed that handing back the islands would be greeted by the UK population as a welcome step to a more inclusive future. I think they expected little, if any, pushback.
They're probably completely surprised at the headlines in the papers, and chalking it all up to racists, stirred up by Farage. It's this lack of understanding of the general public that is causing them so much trouble. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Should Starmer have gone against the overwhelming UN vote?"
You mean like the last government did by refusing to give prisoners the vote when ordered to do so by international courts? A court decision that the Labour party insisted should be followed, and put in their manifesto, only to have it removed when Starmer became leader. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Should Starmer have gone against the overwhelming UN vote?
You mean like the last government did by refusing to give prisoners the vote when ordered to do so by international courts? A court decision that the Labour party insisted should be followed, and put in their manifesto, only to have it removed when Starmer became leader."
Feel free to answer my question |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Should Starmer have gone against the overwhelming UN vote?
UN vote is not worth a toilet paper.
I’m certain you know more than legal experts "
Ok enlighten us. How are the UN resolutions enforced? How many resolutions are actually enforced today? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Should Starmer have gone against the overwhelming UN vote?"
"You mean like the last government did by refusing to give prisoners the vote when ordered to do so by international courts? A court decision that the Labour party insisted should be followed, and put in their manifesto, only to have it removed when Starmer became leader."
"Feel free to answer my question "
I thought my previous answer was quite clear, but if you'd prefer a single word answer - yes he should. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Should Starmer have gone against the overwhelming UN vote?
Have the UN voted against the Russian invasion of Ukraine? How’s that working out? "
A quick google of the impact of sanctions on Russia should be a good starter for you. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Should Starmer have gone against the overwhelming UN vote?
Have the UN voted against the Russian invasion of Ukraine? How’s that working out?
A quick google of the impact of sanctions on Russia should be a good starter for you. "
GDP Growth 2024:
Russia 1.5%
UK 1.1%
Government debt as a percentage of GDP:
Russia 20.8%
UK 101.8%
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Should Starmer have gone against the overwhelming UN vote?
Have the UN voted against the Russian invasion of Ukraine? How’s that working out?
A quick google of the impact of sanctions on Russia should be a good starter for you.
GDP Growth 2024:
Russia 1.5%
UK 1.1%
Government debt as a percentage of GDP:
Russia 20.8%
UK 101.8%
"
Reminiscent of those who claim Brexit had no impact as we’ve seen GDP growth in the years since. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Should Starmer have gone against the overwhelming UN vote?
Have the UN voted against the Russian invasion of Ukraine? How’s that working out?
A quick google of the impact of sanctions on Russia should be a good starter for you.
GDP Growth 2024:
Russia 1.5%
UK 1.1%
Government debt as a percentage of GDP:
Russia 20.8%
UK 101.8%
Reminiscent of those who claim Brexit had no impact as we’ve seen GDP growth in the years since."
GDP Growth 2024:
France 0.6%
Germany 0.0% |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
“the effect of Western sanctions on both Russia’s GDP and levels of personal disposable income has been considerable (IMF, 2025). After three years of war, Russian GDP is now 10-12% below pre-invasion trends. Personal disposable income is 20-25% below where it would have been without the conflict (Disney, 2023; Korhonen, 2023)”
https://www.economicsobservatory.com/sanctions-effectiveness-what-lessons-three-years-into-the-war-on-ukraine |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"“the effect of Western sanctions on both Russia’s GDP and levels of personal disposable income has been considerable (IMF, 2025). After three years of war, Russian GDP is now 10-12% below pre-invasion trends. Personal disposable income is 20-25% below where it would have been without the conflict (Disney, 2023; Korhonen, 2023)”
https://www.economicsobservatory.com/sanctions-effectiveness-what-lessons-three-years-into-the-war-on-ukraine"
It’s impossible to know what GDP or income “would have been” if X hadn't happened as there are too many variables to take into account.
It’s all “could have, would have, should have”.
The facts speak for themselves. Russia’s economic performance continues to outstrip UK, France, and Germany. That may be more of a comment on how badly run those countries are than any analysis on Russia.
Is it possible that Russia would have been even further out performing Europe without the impacts of the Ukraine invasion? Agreed it’s very likely.
Europe’s economic performance continues to be the worst on the planet in regional terms. I can’t see what the EU is doing that will improve that trend. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Should Starmer have gone against the overwhelming UN vote?
Have the UN voted against the Russian invasion of Ukraine? How’s that working out?
A quick google of the impact of sanctions on Russia should be a good starter for you. "
I googled and it said they are increasing their war efforts and plan to kill as many women and children in Ukraine as they can.
So zero effect |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The lease we granted the US in 1966 ends in 2036.
Following successful challenges in the ICJ and UN it became clear that the UK could not legally grant a new lease to the US without ceding sovereignty to Mauritius.
Hence the deal which has just been signed.
The Tories negotiated the terms initially, but the new Mauritian PM revised those upwards.
Getting agreement was vital for the US base to continue. That's why Trump waved it through.
The interesting question is why both in 1966 and now in 2025 is the US unable to front the deal and needs our involvement?
BIOT, the UK holds sovereignty for 50 years, 2036 that no longer exists."
Incorrect. The lease on the US base would have run out in 2036. As another has posted how can you grant a new lease when your legal entitlement to do so is considered to be void under international law?
That is why Trump and the US backed the deal involving Mauritius so that the new 99 year lease couldn't be challenged.
Have you ever thought that the guys doing these deals aren't fools? Or do you judge everyone by your own standards? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
