FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Starmers Chagos Humiliation
Starmers Chagos Humiliation
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP 4 weeks ago
|
Sir Keir Starmer has been forced to drop legislation which would give sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius after Donald Trump withdrew his support.
The latest humiliation for Sir Keir is what happens when you abandon your close friends and allies.
A national embarrassment.
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Tragic. How far Britain has fallen under this treacherous weasel Starmer.
Sadly if he goes the alternatives in Labour look worse.
I fear we will have to suffer several more years of decline and embarrassment before we can bin Labour and start rebuilding. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 4 weeks ago
|
"Great news. Starmer has potentially saved us billions in payments and shown that we won't be pushed around by Fat Donnie "
It was Starmer’s plan to make the payments
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 4 weeks ago
|
"Great news. Starmer has potentially saved us billions in payments and shown that we won't be pushed around by Fat Donnie
It was Starmer’s plan to make the payments
"
He has also ended up doing what Trump wanted, which seems like the definition of being pushed around. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Worse is that he thought it a good idea in the first instance. It shows he is no statesman and that he thinks he lives in a world where it is all love and peace. Sadly for us he doesn't understand it is far from his belief.
I still like the original pics take, Team America |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 4 weeks ago
|
"UK needs to keep the base & kick the US off due their unpredictable actions, not consulting allies before starting wars that end up hurting the global economy  "
That would certainly be an interesting confrontation. Perhaps send a few Govt DEI officers over there with a list of strong demands. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The initial "deal" never made financial sense. Why should the UK taxpayer fork out for something which primarily benefits the US? I imagine Starmer once believed that Fat Donnie would appreciate it and that it would aid US/UK relations - but that ain't how Fat Donnie rolls. Starmer, like every other world leader, is now wise to his antics. The only ones who aren't congratulating Starmer on a great outcome are are the ones who want the UK to unquestioningly take orders from Washington (whilst bleating on about sovereignty). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 4 weeks ago
|
"The initial "deal" never made financial sense. Why should the UK taxpayer fork out for something which primarily benefits the US? I imagine Starmer once believed that Fat Donnie would appreciate it and that it would aid US/UK relations - but that ain't how Fat Donnie rolls. Starmer, like every other world leader, is now wise to his antics. The only ones who aren't congratulating Starmer on a great outcome are are the ones who want the UK to unquestioningly take orders from Washington (whilst bleating on about sovereignty)."
Perhaps this should be in the Stories and Fantasies section? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I see Starmer has branched out and made his u-turns an international policy.
"
You'd prefer us to pay millions of dollars to the US when its official stance is that America now has no interest in doing anything for Europe? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 4 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"I see Starmer has branched out and made his u-turns an international policy.
You'd prefer us to pay millions of dollars to the US when its official stance is that America now has no interest in doing anything for Europe? "
My preference would have been for this government to have considered all of their decisions thoroughly enough before committing and causing pointless worry and costs to those impacted, including us the tax payers who end up footing the bill to put things right…
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 4 weeks ago
|
"The initial "deal" never made financial sense. Why should the UK taxpayer fork out for something which primarily benefits the US? I imagine Starmer once believed that Fat Donnie would appreciate it and that it would aid US/UK relations - but that ain't how Fat Donnie rolls. Starmer, like every other world leader, is now wise to his antics. The only ones who aren't congratulating Starmer on a great outcome are are the ones who want the UK to unquestioningly take orders from Washington (whilst bleating on about sovereignty)."
The initial deal was Starmers idea. You’re congratulating Starmer for Trump blocking his ludicrous plan that was going to cost the UK tax payer tens of billions of pounds.
It’s not even a U turn that Starmer has chosen, it was forced on him. And you’re congratulating Starmer?
I’ve seen so weird defences of his u turn madness posted on here but this one makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The person who has saved us money here is Trump, not Starmer.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *I TwoCouple 4 weeks ago
near enough |
"I see Starmer has branched out and made his u-turns an international policy.
"
Actually Starmer didn't U turn, it always had to be ratified by the US and Trumpy has flip flopped yes/no several times and now finally he says no because he was totally humiliated by Starmer and the EU kt allowing him to play illegal war games in their territory
Little childish brat |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *winga2Man 4 weeks ago
Stranraer |
"Sir Keir Starmer has been forced to drop legislation which would give sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius after Donald Trump withdrew his support.
The latest humiliation for Sir Keir is what happens when you abandon your close friends and allies.
A national embarrassment.
"
Did you read the news before posting that rubbish ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 4 weeks ago
|
"I see Starmer has branched out and made his u-turns an international policy.
Actually Starmer didn't U turn, it always had to be ratified by the US and Trumpy has flip flopped yes/no several times and now finally he says no because he was totally humiliated by Starmer and the EU kt allowing him to play illegal war games in their territory
Little childish brat"
Of course he didn't, its pure coincidence that he's done what Trump told him. Seems like your boy has been owned.🤭 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
On the BBC article they say they have run out of time to get it through parliament and therefore not going ahead just yet. However unless things change soon, it is not expected to be in the kings speech for the new parliament either. Sounds like kicking it into the long grass rather than saying the deal is cancelled. At the end of the day Trump didn't want this to proceed and it isn't proceeding. Starmer wanted it to proceed and it isn't proceeding. I think they have concluded it would be a lot easier after trump leaves office ( assuming labour are still in power at that time) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 4 weeks ago
|
"On the BBC article they say they have run out of time to get it through parliament and therefore not going ahead just yet. However unless things change soon, it is not expected to be in the kings speech for the new parliament either. Sounds like kicking it into the long grass rather than saying the deal is cancelled. At the end of the day Trump didn't want this to proceed and it isn't proceeding. Starmer wanted it to proceed and it isn't proceeding. I think they have concluded it would be a lot easier after trump leaves office ( assuming labour are still in power at that time)"
Very fair summary. 👏 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"On the BBC article they say they have run out of time to get it through parliament and therefore not going ahead just yet. However unless things change soon, it is not expected to be in the kings speech for the new parliament either. Sounds like kicking it into the long grass rather than saying the deal is cancelled. At the end of the day Trump didn't want this to proceed and it isn't proceeding. Starmer wanted it to proceed and it isn't proceeding. I think they have concluded it would be a lot easier after trump leaves office ( assuming labour are still in power at that time)
Very fair summary. 👏 "
So far from the sensational bullshit though 👏 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 4 weeks ago
|
"On the BBC article they say they have run out of time to get it through parliament and therefore not going ahead just yet. However unless things change soon, it is not expected to be in the kings speech for the new parliament either. Sounds like kicking it into the long grass rather than saying the deal is cancelled. At the end of the day Trump didn't want this to proceed and it isn't proceeding. Starmer wanted it to proceed and it isn't proceeding. I think they have concluded it would be a lot easier after trump leaves office ( assuming labour are still in power at that time)
Very fair summary. 👏
So far from the sensational bullshit though 👏"
I didn't expect to see you applauding a success for President Trump but fair play to you! 🫡 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"On the BBC article they say they have run out of time to get it through parliament and therefore not going ahead just yet. However unless things change soon, it is not expected to be in the kings speech for the new parliament either. Sounds like kicking it into the long grass rather than saying the deal is cancelled. At the end of the day Trump didn't want this to proceed and it isn't proceeding. Starmer wanted it to proceed and it isn't proceeding. I think they have concluded it would be a lot easier after trump leaves office ( assuming labour are still in power at that time)
Very fair summary. 👏
So far from the sensational bullshit though 👏
I didn't expect to see you applauding a success for President Trump but fair play to you! 🫡"
Success ?
Please refer to post above asking for the expected benefits for your lost 50000 after trump does a surrender deal with the old regime |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"He's an idiot. Pure and simple. So is the rest of his cabinet. Roll on 2029.
Poor Govt which follows will be clearing up his mess for years."
I know, and if it's democrats I'd expect trump to be facing criminal charges |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 4 weeks ago
|
"On the BBC article they say they have run out of time to get it through parliament and therefore not going ahead just yet. However unless things change soon, it is not expected to be in the kings speech for the new parliament either. Sounds like kicking it into the long grass rather than saying the deal is cancelled. At the end of the day Trump didn't want this to proceed and it isn't proceeding. Starmer wanted it to proceed and it isn't proceeding. I think they have concluded it would be a lot easier after trump leaves office ( assuming labour are still in power at that time)
Very fair summary. 👏
So far from the sensational bullshit though 👏
I didn't expect to see you applauding a success for President Trump but fair play to you! 🫡
Success ?
Please refer to post above asking for the expected benefits for your lost 50000 after trump does a surrender deal with the old regime "
You have possibly posted that in the wrong thread- this one is about the Chagos Island u turn by Sir Keir.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"On the BBC article they say they have run out of time to get it through parliament and therefore not going ahead just yet. However unless things change soon, it is not expected to be in the kings speech for the new parliament either. Sounds like kicking it into the long grass rather than saying the deal is cancelled. At the end of the day Trump didn't want this to proceed and it isn't proceeding. Starmer wanted it to proceed and it isn't proceeding. I think they have concluded it would be a lot easier after trump leaves office ( assuming labour are still in power at that time)
Very fair summary. 👏
So far from the sensational bullshit though 👏
I didn't expect to see you applauding a success for President Trump but fair play to you! 🫡
Success ?
Please refer to post above asking for the expected benefits for your lost 50000 after trump does a surrender deal with the old regime
You have possibly posted that in the wrong thread- this one is about the Chagos Island u turn by Sir Keir. "
It was YOU that brought trump winning into it, answer the question 🤷♂️
Or as always deflect from his surrender 😉 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 4 weeks ago
|
"On the BBC article they say they have run out of time to get it through parliament and therefore not going ahead just yet. However unless things change soon, it is not expected to be in the kings speech for the new parliament either. Sounds like kicking it into the long grass rather than saying the deal is cancelled. At the end of the day Trump didn't want this to proceed and it isn't proceeding. Starmer wanted it to proceed and it isn't proceeding. I think they have concluded it would be a lot easier after trump leaves office ( assuming labour are still in power at that time)
Very fair summary. 👏
So far from the sensational bullshit though 👏
I didn't expect to see you applauding a success for President Trump but fair play to you! 🫡
Success ?
Please refer to post above asking for the expected benefits for your lost 50000 after trump does a surrender deal with the old regime
You have possibly posted that in the wrong thread- this one is about the Chagos Island u turn by Sir Keir.
It was YOU that brought trump winning into it, answer the question 🤷♂️
Or as always deflect from his surrender 😉"
If you wish to discuss Iran H, there are several other threads on that subject. It would be nice to have at least one with that discussion so please don't derail the thread again. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The initial "deal" never made financial sense. Why should the UK taxpayer fork out for something which primarily benefits the US? I imagine Starmer once believed that Fat Donnie would appreciate it and that it would aid US/UK relations - but that ain't how Fat Donnie rolls. Starmer, like every other world leader, is now wise to his antics. The only ones who aren't congratulating Starmer on a great outcome are are the ones who want the UK to unquestioningly take orders from Washington (whilst bleating on about sovereignty).
The initial deal was Starmers idea. You’re congratulating Starmer for Trump blocking his ludicrous plan that was going to cost the UK tax payer tens of billions of pounds.
It’s not even a U turn that Starmer has chosen, it was forced on him. And you’re congratulating Starmer?
I’ve seen so weird defences of his u turn madness posted on here but this one makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The person who has saved us money here is Trump, not Starmer.
"
Careful - your SDS is showing 🤣. Starmer made exactly the right call and you know it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 4 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
His government and ultimately himself as the leader has done more future damage to left wing politics than any opposition party could ever wish to do.
What I find remarkable is the speed of the collapse, it was pretty much instantaneous with stories of him and his cabinet accepting money for clothes and gifts. Then came the endless u-turns, attacks on pensioners whilst flittering away billions to union demands.
On the surface it makes no sense at all, however glass half full makes me think this is short term pain for longterm gain. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"His government and ultimately himself as the leader has done more future damage to left wing politics than any opposition party could ever wish to do.
What I find remarkable is the speed of the collapse, it was pretty much instantaneous with stories of him and his cabinet accepting money for clothes and gifts. Then came the endless u-turns, attacks on pensioners whilst flittering away billions to union demands.
On the surface it makes no sense at all, however glass half full makes me think this is short term pain for longterm gain."
Not many left wingers see this itineration of the Labour Party as being particularly left wing.
A better assessment would be that both Labour & the Tories have destroyed the credibility of the centre ground, which is why people are turning to Reform & the Greens. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"UK needs to keep the base & kick the US off due their unpredictable actions, not consulting allies before starting wars that end up hurting the global economy "
Are you certified as mad, or just bordering on it |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"His government and ultimately himself as the leader has done more future damage to left wing politics than any opposition party could ever wish to do."
"Not many left wingers see this itineration of the Labour Party as being particularly left wing."
But voters that are centrists do see this government as left wing. They see caving in to the unions over pay demands, rising taxes, and increasing benefits - all the things that left wing parties do. Added to that is corruption, tax avoidance, and scandal cover-ups - things normally associated with right wing parties.
NotMe is right, the current Labour government has done more to destroy the appeal of the left to those that are middle ground thinkers than any other government before them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"UK needs to keep the base & kick the US off due their unpredictable actions, not consulting allies before starting wars that end up hurting the global economy
Are you certified as mad, or just bordering on it"
He just doesn't support a pedo attempting to run the world |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"His government and ultimately himself as the leader has done more future damage to left wing politics than any opposition party could ever wish to do.
Not many left wingers see this itineration of the Labour Party as being particularly left wing.
But voters that are centrists do see this government as left wing. They see caving in to the unions over pay demands, rising taxes, and increasing benefits - all the things that left wing parties do. Added to that is corruption, tax avoidance, and scandal cover-ups - things normally associated with right wing parties.
NotMe is right, the current Labour government has done more to destroy the appeal of the left to those that are middle ground thinkers than any other government before them."
Maybe, but the reality is Labour’s policies are more of a mixed bag than just being labelled ‘left wing’
Not taxing the rich
Stance on immigration
Reducing the Civil Service
Not nationalising Water & Energy
Support of Israel generally
Reducing Winter Fuel Payments
Cuts to disability benefits
etc
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"UK needs to keep the base & kick the US off due their unpredictable actions, not consulting allies before starting wars that end up hurting the global economy
Are you certified as mad, or just bordering on it"
You have made me think actually. Tell Trump we are going to lease the base to the Chinese unless the USA pay us a lot more for access than they currently do.
I’m sure he’d respect a country using leverage the way he likes to |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 4 weeks ago
|
"It would be fun to demand payment from the US for access to Chagos.
Do you think that the US get access to Diego Garcia for free?"
They pay all the operational costs. I fear the other poster is not a details person. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It would be fun to demand payment from the US for access to Chagos.
Do you think that the US get access to Diego Garcia for free?"
I have no idea. I just like the idea of humiliating Fat Donnie 🤣🤣🤣 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 4 weeks ago
|
"It would be fun to demand payment from the US for access to Chagos.
Do you think that the US get access to Diego Garcia for free?
I have no idea"
Finally we agree !  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It would be fun to demand payment from the US for access to Chagos.
Do you think that the US get access to Diego Garcia for free?
I have no idea
Finally we agree ! "
I love it when people resort to quote mining. It means they've lost and I've won. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"On the BBC article they say they have run out of time to get it through parliament and therefore not going ahead just yet. However unless things change soon, it is not expected to be in the kings speech for the new parliament either. Sounds like kicking it into the long grass rather than saying the deal is cancelled. At the end of the day Trump didn't want this to proceed and it isn't proceeding. Starmer wanted it to proceed and it isn't proceeding. I think they have concluded it would be a lot easier after trump leaves office ( assuming labour are still in power at that time)
Very fair summary. 👏 "
I think not declaring the policy as officially cancelled is important to the government at the moment due to the amount of U turns they have already performed at home. It does seem Starmer has been better internationally than at home so having a U turn on an international policy needs to be avoided. That said, I don't think it will go unnoticed that no matter how it's flowered up, one person (tangerine Trump) got his way and Starmer didn't. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Pragmatism and responsiveness do not necessarily fit into the AAAAHHH....U-TURN!! accusations that the SDS crowd obsess about. Did Churchill U-TURN when he went from appeasement of fascism to massive resistance? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *I TwoCouple 4 weeks ago
near enough |
"I see Starmer has branched out and made his u-turns an international policy.
Actually Starmer didn't U turn, it always had to be ratified by the US and Trumpy has flip flopped yes/no several times and now finally he says no because he was totally humiliated by Starmer and the EU kt allowing him to play illegal war games in their territory
Little childish brat
Of course he didn't, its pure coincidence that he's done what Trump told him. Seems like your boy has been owned.🤭"
My boy lol, we don't vote for him or his type over here 😂🤣
It was your mob that elected the useless gobshite.. he's all yours to own 😘
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 4 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"Pragmatism and responsiveness do not necessarily fit into the AAAAHHH....U-TURN!! accusations that the SDS crowd obsess about. Did Churchill U-TURN when he went from appeasement of fascism to massive resistance? "
Do you know an approximate cost of the u-turns made by Starmer to date? It is not as simple as changing his mind, and that's the end.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Pragmatism and responsiveness do not necessarily fit into the AAAAHHH....U-TURN!! accusations that the SDS crowd obsess about. Did Churchill U-TURN when he went from appeasement of fascism to massive resistance?
Do you know an approximate cost of the u-turns made by Starmer to date? It is not as simple as changing his mind, and that's the end.
"
Don't know and don't care (soz). This idea that modern politics is SIMPLY COMMON SENSE is a myth touted by Reform types who have never been in the driving seat. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *winga2Man 4 weeks ago
Stranraer |
It's likely that the Chagos islanders will win an appeal to return to THEIR island and fuck out the Brits and the yanks thus the mango cunt hasnt won anything at all.
99 years of rental would have been a good deal when you consider the legal fees and probable compensation the UK is going to become liable for. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 4 weeks ago
|
"Pragmatism and responsiveness do not necessarily fit into the AAAAHHH....U-TURN!! accusations that the SDS crowd obsess about. Did Churchill U-TURN when he went from appeasement of fascism to massive resistance?
Do you know an approximate cost of the u-turns made by Starmer to date? It is not as simple as changing his mind, and that's the end.
"
I suspect anyone who thinks Winston Chuchill 'appeased fascism' or that this U turn is a triumph for Sir Keir may not be fully in control of the facts. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *winga2Man 4 weeks ago
Stranraer |
"Pragmatism and responsiveness do not necessarily fit into the AAAAHHH....U-TURN!! accusations that the SDS crowd obsess about. Did Churchill U-TURN when he went from appeasement of fascism to massive resistance?
Do you know an approximate cost of the u-turns made by Starmer to date? It is not as simple as changing his mind, and that's the end.
"
Do you know the approximate cost of trump's enforced U turn on tarrifs ?
Someone must have a conparitive list of u turns of Trumpton and steamer, unbelievable out of the choice of billions that stupid people could pick these two |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Pragmatism and responsiveness do not necessarily fit into the AAAAHHH....U-TURN!! accusations that the SDS crowd obsess about. Did Churchill U-TURN when he went from appeasement of fascism to massive resistance?
Do you know an approximate cost of the u-turns made by Starmer to date? It is not as simple as changing his mind, and that's the end.
I suspect anyone who thinks Winston Chuchill 'appeased fascism' or that this U turn is a triumph for Sir Keir may not be fully in control of the facts."
Would you like a short history lesson in Churchill's arse-kissing statements about Mussolini and his regime as a bulwark against bolshevism?
This is like shooting fish in a barrel 🤣🤣🤣 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Pragmatism and responsiveness do not necessarily fit into the AAAAHHH....U-TURN!! accusations that the SDS crowd obsess about. Did Churchill U-TURN when he went from appeasement of fascism to massive resistance?
Do you know an approximate cost of the u-turns made by Starmer to date? It is not as simple as changing his mind, and that's the end.
I suspect anyone who thinks Winston Chuchill 'appeased fascism' or that this U turn is a triumph for Sir Keir may not be fully in control of the facts."
Weren't you educated by someone earlier about the fact it wasnt actually a U turn and the original post is just a load of nonsense ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 4 weeks ago
|
"Pragmatism and responsiveness do not necessarily fit into the AAAAHHH....U-TURN!! accusations that the SDS crowd obsess about. Did Churchill U-TURN when he went from appeasement of fascism to massive resistance?
Do you know an approximate cost of the u-turns made by Starmer to date? It is not as simple as changing his mind, and that's the end.
I suspect anyone who thinks Winston Chuchill 'appeased fascism' or that this U turn is a triumph for Sir Keir may not be fully in control of the facts.
Weren't you educated by someone earlier about the fact it wasnt actually a U turn and the original post is just a load of nonsense ? "
As I was saying. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 4 weeks ago
|
To be fair to Sir Keir he did register a unique achievement this week, being humiliated by both Trump and Putin, as a Russia tanker and warship eskort passed freely through the English Channel despite UK 'sanctions' on Russia.
Apparently Attorney General and Starmer's close friend Lord Harmer refused to allow the Royal Navy to intervene as this would breach Putin's human rights.
It is indeed a remarkable achievement to leave Britain both defenceless and free from allies in less than two years, while also travelling the Middle East as a great Statesman
Or as one journalist put it, all Hat and no Cattle. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 4 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"Pragmatism and responsiveness do not necessarily fit into the AAAAHHH....U-TURN!! accusations that the SDS crowd obsess about. Did Churchill U-TURN when he went from appeasement of fascism to massive resistance?
Do you know an approximate cost of the u-turns made by Starmer to date? It is not as simple as changing his mind, and that's the end.
Don't know and don't care (soz). This idea that modern politics is SIMPLY COMMON SENSE is a myth touted by Reform types who have never been in the driving seat."
I know you don’t care. If you did, you might recognise that these U-turns aren’t just Starmer changing his mind, they have cost us billions.
The irony is that the same people who dismiss this as a simple change of mind are the ones who complain that public services are underfunded and then go on to argue the answer is to tax billionaires or wealth.
Head scratching stuff.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 4 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"Pragmatism and responsiveness do not necessarily fit into the AAAAHHH....U-TURN!! accusations that the SDS crowd obsess about. Did Churchill U-TURN when he went from appeasement of fascism to massive resistance?
Do you know an approximate cost of the u-turns made by Starmer to date? It is not as simple as changing his mind, and that's the end.
Do you know the approximate cost of trump's enforced U turn on tarrifs ?
Someone must have a conparitive list of u turns of Trumpton and steamer, unbelievable out of the choice of billions that stupid people could pick these two "
Whataboutery at its finest. However, if the cost of reversing Trumps decisions costs bullions like Starmer's have, then he too is as foolish. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Sir Keir Starmer has been forced to drop legislation which would give sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius after Donald Trump withdrew his support.
The latest humiliation for Sir Keir is what happens when you abandon your close friends and allies.
A national embarrassment.
"
"Do you charge him rent for living in your head 24/7? Enquiring minds want to know"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 4 weeks ago
|
"Sir Keir Starmer has been forced to drop legislation which would give sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius after Donald Trump withdrew his support.
The latest humiliation for Sir Keir is what happens when you abandon your close friends and allies.
A national embarrassment.
Do you charge him rent for living in your head 24/7? Enquiring minds want to know"
I've just checked the last 3 pages of the Politics thread going back 3 weeks.
Threads started by yourself relating to President Trump: 26
Threads started by me relating to Prime Minister Starmer: 3
I hope that satisfies those enquiring minds. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 4 weeks ago
|
"Sir Keir Starmer has been forced to drop legislation which would give sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius after Donald Trump withdrew his support.
The latest humiliation for Sir Keir is what happens when you abandon your close friends and allies.
A national embarrassment.
Do you charge him rent for living in your head 24/7? Enquiring minds want to know
I've just checked the last 3 pages of the Politics thread going back 3 weeks.
Threads started by yourself relating to President Trump: 26
Threads started by me relating to Prime Minister Starmer: 3
I hope that satisfies those enquiring minds."
Apologies, 27. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Sir Keir Starmer has been forced to drop legislation which would give sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius after Donald Trump withdrew his support.
The latest humiliation for Sir Keir is what happens when you abandon your close friends and allies.
A national embarrassment.
Do you charge him rent for living in your head 24/7? Enquiring minds want to know
I've just checked the last 3 pages of the Politics thread going back 3 weeks.
Threads started by yourself relating to President Trump: 26
Threads started by me relating to Prime Minister Starmer: 3
I hope that satisfies those enquiring minds.
Apologies, 27."
Only 27?
Feels like a lot more. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 4 weeks ago
|
"Sir Keir Starmer has been forced to drop legislation which would give sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius after Donald Trump withdrew his support.
The latest humiliation for Sir Keir is what happens when you abandon your close friends and allies.
A national embarrassment.
Do you charge him rent for living in your head 24/7? Enquiring minds want to know
I've just checked the last 3 pages of the Politics thread going back 3 weeks.
Threads started by yourself relating to President Trump: 26
Threads started by me relating to Prime Minister Starmer: 3
I hope that satisfies those enquiring minds.
Apologies, 27.
Only 27?
Feels like a lot more."
I may have lost count to be fair. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *I TwoCouple 4 weeks ago
near enough |
"Sir Keir Starmer has been forced to drop legislation which would give sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius after Donald Trump withdrew his support.
The latest humiliation for Sir Keir is what happens when you abandon your close friends and allies.
A national embarrassment.
Do you charge him rent for living in your head 24/7? Enquiring minds want to know
I've just checked the last 3 pages of the Politics thread going back 3 weeks.
Threads started by yourself relating to President Trump: 26
Threads started by me relating to Prime Minister Starmer: 3
I hope that satisfies those enquiring minds.
Apologies, 27."
So trump makes more fuck ups than Starmer.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *I TwoCouple 4 weeks ago
near enough |
"Starmer's best friend Phillip Sands was paid £8million in legal fees by the Mauritian Govt to negotiate the handover. Will they be seeking a refund ?"
Sure trump will give them a refund 😂 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Sir Keir Starmer has been forced to drop legislation which would give sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius after Donald Trump withdrew his support.
The latest humiliation for Sir Keir is what happens when you abandon your close friends and allies.
A national embarrassment.
Do you charge him rent for living in your head 24/7? Enquiring minds want to know
I've just checked the last 3 pages of the Politics thread going back 3 weeks.
Threads started by yourself relating to President Trump: 26
Threads started by me relating to Prime Minister Starmer: 3
I hope that satisfies those enquiring minds.
Apologies, 27."
humble apologies, we're enjoying some sunshine in Spain so I haven't much time for posting but I promise I'll try a bit harder next week 🤣👏 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Sir Keir Starmer has been forced to drop legislation which would give sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius after Donald Trump withdrew his support.
The latest humiliation for Sir Keir is what happens when you abandon your close friends and allies.
A national embarrassment.
Do you charge him rent for living in your head 24/7? Enquiring minds want to know
I've just checked the last 3 pages of the Politics thread going back 3 weeks.
Threads started by yourself relating to President Trump: 26
Threads started by me relating to Prime Minister Starmer: 3
I hope that satisfies those enquiring minds.
Apologies, 27."
Oh .. while you were counting you might not have noticed that there were only 2 threads to be closed as comments were full in the politics section in the last 7 days.
Guess who started these "irrelevant" threads ?
😛 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 4 weeks ago
|
"Sir Keir Starmer has been forced to drop legislation which would give sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius after Donald Trump withdrew his support.
The latest humiliation for Sir Keir is what happens when you abandon your close friends and allies.
A national embarrassment.
Do you charge him rent for living in your head 24/7? Enquiring minds want to know
I've just checked the last 3 pages of the Politics thread going back 3 weeks.
Threads started by yourself relating to President Trump: 26
Threads started by me relating to Prime Minister Starmer: 3
I hope that satisfies those enquiring minds.
Apologies, 27.
Oh .. while you were counting you might not have noticed that there were only 2 threads to be closed as comments were full in the politics section in the last 7 days.
Guess who started these "irrelevant" threads ?
😛"
Good work H, sounds like a great way to spend your retirement keeping socially active.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ermbiMan 4 weeks ago
Ballyshannon |
So government decisions are now based on Trumps liking or not of a proposal such as this.
And to think 'taking back control' was the great and bold message of the last ten years. Clearly control has been surrendered to what Trump thinks. Sad state of affairs for the UK really |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 3 weeks ago
|
"So government decisions are now based on Trumps liking or not of a proposal such as this.
And to think 'taking back control' was the great and bold message of the last ten years. Clearly control has been surrendered to what Trump thinks. Sad state of affairs for the UK really"
It's a little more complicated to be fair. There's a UK-US Treaty from the 60s which requires US consent for any changes of ownership. Either Labour was unaware of this Treaty before it agreed to give the Islands away (quite possible given their general incompetence) or they assumed US agreement without getting written consent, a pretty extraordinary error. Either way this left Starmer at the mercy of Trumps who unsurprisingly has had a dim view of our PM lately. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So government decisions are now based on Trumps liking or not of a proposal such as this.
And to think 'taking back control' was the great and bold message of the last ten years. Clearly control has been surrendered to what Trump thinks. Sad state of affairs for the UK really
It's a little more complicated to be fair. There's a UK-US Treaty from the 60s which requires US consent for any changes of ownership. Either Labour was unaware of this Treaty before it agreed to give the Islands away (quite possible given their general incompetence) or they assumed US agreement without getting written consent, a pretty extraordinary error. Either way this left Starmer at the mercy of Trumps who unsurprisingly has had a dim view of our PM lately."
That’s not what the treaty says. The 1966 UK–US agreement assumes UK sovereignty and covers defence use. It doesn’t give Washington a blanket veto over “any change of ownership" - that's just something you made up because it sounded good.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Odd that the deal negotiated by the tories - who were voted out of office before signing it off completely - is now being totally disowned by them. "
Like every other mess they made in government..
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 3 weeks ago
|
"Odd that the deal negotiated by the tories - who were voted out of office before signing it off completely - is now being totally disowned by them. "
Not really as it's a completely different leadership. When Starmer took over as Labour leader he got rid of almost every Corbyn policy. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So government decisions are now based on Trumps liking or not of a proposal such as this.
And to think 'taking back control' was the great and bold message of the last ten years. Clearly control has been surrendered to what Trump thinks. Sad state of affairs for the UK really
It's a little more complicated to be fair. There's a UK-US Treaty from the 60s which requires US consent for any changes of ownership. Either Labour was unaware of this Treaty before it agreed to give the Islands away (quite possible given their general incompetence) or they assumed US agreement without getting written consent, a pretty extraordinary error. Either way this left Starmer at the mercy of Trumps who unsurprisingly has had a dim view of our PM lately."
I think youk find your childish prat agreed with the deal at the first stages now he's taking his ball and won't play
Oh and he disagreed then agreed then disagreed again , you couldn't make it up .. useless cunt |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 3 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"Odd that the deal negotiated by the tories - who were voted out of office before signing it off completely - is now being totally disowned by them. "
The key to government is to apply governance. Regardless of where this began, it fell into the hands of this government to deal with and they dealt with it poorly.
Luckily Lammy didn’t get a chance to open the coffers to reparations. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 3 weeks ago
|
"So government decisions are now based on Trumps liking or not of a proposal such as this.
And to think 'taking back control' was the great and bold message of the last ten years. Clearly control has been surrendered to what Trump thinks. Sad state of affairs for the UK really
It's a little more complicated to be fair. There's a UK-US Treaty from the 60s which requires US consent for any changes of ownership. Either Labour was unaware of this Treaty before it agreed to give the Islands away (quite possible given their general incompetence) or they assumed US agreement without getting written consent, a pretty extraordinary error. Either way this left Starmer at the mercy of Trumps who unsurprisingly has had a dim view of our PM lately.
I think youk find your childish prat agreed with the deal at the first stages now he's taking his ball and won't play
Oh and he disagreed then agreed then disagreed again , you couldn't make it up .. useless cunt "
A bit like fuel allowances, elections, digital ID, concert tickets, financial black holes, smashing the gangs, the House of Lords, 2 child benefit cap, reducing the welfare bill, increasing the welfare bill, you never know what the governments actual position on anything is.
Except breakfast clubs of course. Hopefully he can set some up in Iran. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So government decisions are now based on Trumps liking or not of a proposal such as this.
And to think 'taking back control' was the great and bold message of the last ten years. Clearly control has been surrendered to what Trump thinks. Sad state of affairs for the UK really
It's a little more complicated to be fair. There's a UK-US Treaty from the 60s which requires US consent for any changes of ownership. Either Labour was unaware of this Treaty before it agreed to give the Islands away (quite possible given their general incompetence) or they assumed US agreement without getting written consent, a pretty extraordinary error. Either way this left Starmer at the mercy of Trumps who unsurprisingly has had a dim view of our PM lately.
I think youk find your childish prat agreed with the deal at the first stages now he's taking his ball and won't play
Oh and he disagreed then agreed then disagreed again , you couldn't make it up .. useless cunt
A bit like fuel allowances, elections, digital ID, concert tickets, financial black holes, smashing the gangs, the House of Lords, 2 child benefit cap, reducing the welfare bill, increasing the welfare bill, you never know what the governments actual position on anything is.
Except breakfast clubs of course. Hopefully he can set some up in Iran. "
So you're against poverty stricken children getting a decent meal . ..wow |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Odd that the deal negotiated by the tories - who were voted out of office before signing it off completely - is now being totally disowned by them.
The key to government is to apply governance. Regardless of where this began, it fell into the hands of this government to deal with and they dealt with it poorly.
Luckily Lammy didn’t get a chance to open the coffers to reparations. "
But Badenoch is opposing a deal that one of her current shadow cabinet negotiated. Until July 2024 it was her own party's actual policy.
It's opposition for opposition's sake. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 3 weeks ago
|
"So government decisions are now based on Trumps liking or not of a proposal such as this.
And to think 'taking back control' was the great and bold message of the last ten years. Clearly control has been surrendered to what Trump thinks. Sad state of affairs for the UK really
It's a little more complicated to be fair. There's a UK-US Treaty from the 60s which requires US consent for any changes of ownership. Either Labour was unaware of this Treaty before it agreed to give the Islands away (quite possible given their general incompetence) or they assumed US agreement without getting written consent, a pretty extraordinary error. Either way this left Starmer at the mercy of Trumps who unsurprisingly has had a dim view of our PM lately.
I think youk find your childish prat agreed with the deal at the first stages now he's taking his ball and won't play
Oh and he disagreed then agreed then disagreed again , you couldn't make it up .. useless cunt
A bit like fuel allowances, elections, digital ID, concert tickets, financial black holes, smashing the gangs, the House of Lords, 2 child benefit cap, reducing the welfare bill, increasing the welfare bill, you never know what the governments actual position on anything is.
Except breakfast clubs of course. Hopefully he can set some up in Iran. "
More Labour voters in Iran to be fair. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 3 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"Odd that the deal negotiated by the tories - who were voted out of office before signing it off completely - is now being totally disowned by them.
The key to government is to apply governance. Regardless of where this began, it fell into the hands of this government to deal with and they dealt with it poorly.
Luckily Lammy didn’t get a chance to open the coffers to reparations.
But Badenoch is opposing a deal that one of her current shadow cabinet negotiated. Until July 2024 it was her own party's actual policy.
It's opposition for opposition's sake. "
Who cares what the opposition are saying, that is self promotion.
The accountability sits with the sitting government.
It didn't take labour more than 5 minutes to rip up the junior doctor deal, or throw the Rwanda scheme in the bin. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Odd that the deal negotiated by the tories - who were voted out of office before signing it off completely - is now being totally disowned by them.
The key to government is to apply governance. Regardless of where this began, it fell into the hands of this government to deal with and they dealt with it poorly.
Luckily Lammy didn’t get a chance to open the coffers to reparations. "
Poorly? They have saved us billions by not sticking the British taxpayer with a multi million pound bill in a deal that benefits the Americans almost exclusively. I'd say they played a blinder |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 3 weeks ago
|
"So you're against poverty stricken children getting a decent meal"
Starmer was against lifting the cap and actually suspended Labour MPs for being in favour of removing it. He only changed his mind to save his own arse from a leadership challenge.
But for the record, I didn’t say if I was against it or not, i said it was one of the hundreds of things that nobody has any idea how the government stands because they change their mind more often than you post in here about Trump.
I’m actually against the cap so let’s see if you can be big enough to apologise for being wrong. I wait with bated breath. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 3 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"Odd that the deal negotiated by the tories - who were voted out of office before signing it off completely - is now being totally disowned by them.
The key to government is to apply governance. Regardless of where this began, it fell into the hands of this government to deal with and they dealt with it poorly.
Luckily Lammy didn’t get a chance to open the coffers to reparations.
Poorly? They have saved us billions by not sticking the British taxpayer with a multi million pound bill in a deal that benefits the Americans almost exclusively. I'd say they played a blinder"
Wow, they were going down the path of loss and have needed to back track due to the US. Taking that as a win is certainly a unique way of looking at things. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Odd that the deal negotiated by the tories - who were voted out of office before signing it off completely - is now being totally disowned by them.
The key to government is to apply governance. Regardless of where this began, it fell into the hands of this government to deal with and they dealt with it poorly.
Luckily Lammy didn’t get a chance to open the coffers to reparations.
Poorly? They have saved us billions by not sticking the British taxpayer with a multi million pound bill in a deal that benefits the Americans almost exclusively. I'd say they played a blinder
Wow, they were going down the path of loss and have needed to back track due to the US. Taking that as a win is certainly a unique way of looking at things."
Then you agree we've saved the taxpayer millions of pounds by not following this dreadful "deal"? Great.
Oh and we let Fat Donnie think that the US losing that money was all his brilliant idea 🤣🤣🤣🤣
As I said... absolute blinder |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 3 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"Odd that the deal negotiated by the tories - who were voted out of office before signing it off completely - is now being totally disowned by them.
The key to government is to apply governance. Regardless of where this began, it fell into the hands of this government to deal with and they dealt with it poorly.
Luckily Lammy didn’t get a chance to open the coffers to reparations.
Poorly? They have saved us billions by not sticking the British taxpayer with a multi million pound bill in a deal that benefits the Americans almost exclusively. I'd say they played a blinder
Wow, they were going down the path of loss and have needed to back track due to the US. Taking that as a win is certainly a unique way of looking at things.
Then you agree we've saved the taxpayer millions of pounds by not following this dreadful "deal"? Great.
Oh and we let Fat Donnie think that the US losing that money was all his brilliant idea 🤣🤣🤣🤣
As I said... absolute blinder"
I can't understand your point, you seem to be deriding the US but it is the US who prevented the deal going through, if it was left to Lammy and Starmer we would have had this signed and be paying over 100 million a year for the privilege.
My view would not have changed by the colour of the government... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
I can't understand your point, you seem to be deriding the US but it is the US who prevented the deal going through, if it was left to Lammy and Starmer we would have had this signed and be paying over 100 million a year for the privilege.
My view would not have changed by the colour of the government... "
I've explained this already. The idea of the UK paying millions (possibly billions) for the US to keep a base that primarily benefits the US never made any financial sense. But that was back when the world thought it could horse-trade with Trump and before we all realised that Trump isn't interested in any win/win deals and only wants to shit over everyone (Greenland, NATO, tariff wars, etc). Now the "deal" has gone away, we've saved a packet and Fat Donnie is too stupid to see he's fucked up.
As I said - absolute blinder by SKS |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So government decisions are now based on Trumps liking or not of a proposal such as this.
And to think 'taking back control' was the great and bold message of the last ten years. Clearly control has been surrendered to what Trump thinks. Sad state of affairs for the UK really
It's a little more complicated to be fair. There's a UK-US Treaty from the 60s which requires US consent for any changes of ownership. Either Labour was unaware of this Treaty before it agreed to give the Islands away (quite possible given their general incompetence) or they assumed US agreement without getting written consent, a pretty extraordinary error. Either way this left Starmer at the mercy of Trumps who unsurprisingly has had a dim view of our PM lately.
That’s not what the treaty says. The 1966 UK–US agreement assumes UK sovereignty and covers defence use. It doesn’t give Washington a blanket veto over “any change of ownership" - that's just something you made up because it sounded good.
"
It's not completely without merit according to the BBC report. I'm not sure how it's described legally but it does seem that the US can effectively block or hold up the deal. The report says: It is understood the UK has still not received a formal exchange of letters from the US - a legal necessity required for the treaty to be enacted. Maybe others here know how to describe it better and know the actual implications |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So government decisions are now based on Trumps liking or not of a proposal such as this.
And to think 'taking back control' was the great and bold message of the last ten years. Clearly control has been surrendered to what Trump thinks. Sad state of affairs for the UK really
It's a little more complicated to be fair. There's a UK-US Treaty from the 60s which requires US consent for any changes of ownership. Either Labour was unaware of this Treaty before it agreed to give the Islands away (quite possible given their general incompetence) or they assumed US agreement without getting written consent, a pretty extraordinary error. Either way this left Starmer at the mercy of Trumps who unsurprisingly has had a dim view of our PM lately.
That’s not what the treaty says. The 1966 UK–US agreement assumes UK sovereignty and covers defence use. It doesn’t give Washington a blanket veto over “any change of ownership" - that's just something you made up because it sounded good.
It's not completely without merit according to the BBC report. I'm not sure how it's described legally but it does seem that the US can effectively block or hold up the deal. The report says: It is understood the UK has still not received a formal exchange of letters from the US - a legal necessity required for the treaty to be enacted. Maybe others here know how to describe it better and know the actual implications "
The handover to Mauritius is not a "deal" - it's a ruling by the ICJ. The wrinkle comes in abiding by that ruling whilst also abiding by the lease we signed with the US. Once upon a time that would be a dilemma, but now we're in the "international rules don't mean shit" era, it's hard to see what the fallout will be by Starmer saving the UK taxpayer a bundle of money |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 3 weeks ago
|
"So government decisions are now based on Trumps liking or not of a proposal such as this.
And to think 'taking back control' was the great and bold message of the last ten years. Clearly control has been surrendered to what Trump thinks. Sad state of affairs for the UK really
It's a little more complicated to be fair. There's a UK-US Treaty from the 60s which requires US consent for any changes of ownership. Either Labour was unaware of this Treaty before it agreed to give the Islands away (quite possible given their general incompetence) or they assumed US agreement without getting written consent, a pretty extraordinary error. Either way this left Starmer at the mercy of Trumps who unsurprisingly has had a dim view of our PM lately.
That’s not what the treaty says. The 1966 UK–US agreement assumes UK sovereignty and covers defence use. It doesn’t give Washington a blanket veto over “any change of ownership" - that's just something you made up because it sounded good.
It's not completely without merit according to the BBC report. I'm not sure how it's described legally but it does seem that the US can effectively block or hold up the deal. The report says: It is understood the UK has still not received a formal exchange of letters from the US - a legal necessity required for the treaty to be enacted. Maybe others here know how to describe it better and know the actual implications "
Exactly that Leroy. Its a simple principle which surprisingly confuses some. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So government decisions are now based on Trumps liking or not of a proposal such as this.
And to think 'taking back control' was the great and bold message of the last ten years. Clearly control has been surrendered to what Trump thinks. Sad state of affairs for the UK really
It's a little more complicated to be fair. There's a UK-US Treaty from the 60s which requires US consent for any changes of ownership. Either Labour was unaware of this Treaty before it agreed to give the Islands away (quite possible given their general incompetence) or they assumed US agreement without getting written consent, a pretty extraordinary error. Either way this left Starmer at the mercy of Trumps who unsurprisingly has had a dim view of our PM lately.
That’s not what the treaty says. The 1966 UK–US agreement assumes UK sovereignty and covers defence use. It doesn’t give Washington a blanket veto over “any change of ownership" - that's just something you made up because it sounded good.
It's not completely without merit according to the BBC report. I'm not sure how it's described legally but it does seem that the US can effectively block or hold up the deal. The report says: It is understood the UK has still not received a formal exchange of letters from the US - a legal necessity required for the treaty to be enacted. Maybe others here know how to describe it better and know the actual implications
The handover to Mauritius is not a "deal" - it's a ruling by the ICJ. The wrinkle comes in abiding by that ruling whilst also abiding by the lease we signed with the US. Once upon a time that would be a dilemma, but now we're in the "international rules don't mean shit" era, it's hard to see what the fallout will be by Starmer saving the UK taxpayer a bundle of money "
Quite astonishing that there are still shills who are trying to convince people that Starmer is some kind of genius international power player rather than some sad loser middle manager way out of his depth.
Just embarrassing. Have some self respect.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 3 weeks ago
|
"So government decisions are now based on Trumps liking or not of a proposal such as this.
And to think 'taking back control' was the great and bold message of the last ten years. Clearly control has been surrendered to what Trump thinks. Sad state of affairs for the UK really
It's a little more complicated to be fair. There's a UK-US Treaty from the 60s which requires US consent for any changes of ownership. Either Labour was unaware of this Treaty before it agreed to give the Islands away (quite possible given their general incompetence) or they assumed US agreement without getting written consent, a pretty extraordinary error. Either way this left Starmer at the mercy of Trumps who unsurprisingly has had a dim view of our PM lately.
That’s not what the treaty says. The 1966 UK–US agreement assumes UK sovereignty and covers defence use. It doesn’t give Washington a blanket veto over “any change of ownership" - that's just something you made up because it sounded good.
It's not completely without merit according to the BBC report. I'm not sure how it's described legally but it does seem that the US can effectively block or hold up the deal. The report says: It is understood the UK has still not received a formal exchange of letters from the US - a legal necessity required for the treaty to be enacted. Maybe others here know how to describe it better and know the actual implications
The handover to Mauritius is not a "deal" - it's a ruling by the ICJ. The wrinkle comes in abiding by that ruling whilst also abiding by the lease we signed with the US. Once upon a time that would be a dilemma, but now we're in the "international rules don't mean shit" era, it's hard to see what the fallout will be by Starmer saving the UK taxpayer a bundle of money
Quite astonishing that there are still shills who are trying to convince people that Starmer is some kind of genius international power player rather than some sad loser middle manager way out of his depth.
Just embarrassing. Have some self respect.
"
To be fair I don't think the poster is being serious. I don't think anyone could honestly adopt such a bizarre position. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So government decisions are now based on Trumps liking or not of a proposal such as this.
And to think 'taking back control' was the great and bold message of the last ten years. Clearly control has been surrendered to what Trump thinks. Sad state of affairs for the UK really
It's a little more complicated to be fair. There's a UK-US Treaty from the 60s which requires US consent for any changes of ownership. Either Labour was unaware of this Treaty before it agreed to give the Islands away (quite possible given their general incompetence) or they assumed US agreement without getting written consent, a pretty extraordinary error. Either way this left Starmer at the mercy of Trumps who unsurprisingly has had a dim view of our PM lately.
That’s not what the treaty says. The 1966 UK–US agreement assumes UK sovereignty and covers defence use. It doesn’t give Washington a blanket veto over “any change of ownership" - that's just something you made up because it sounded good.
It's not completely without merit according to the BBC report. I'm not sure how it's described legally but it does seem that the US can effectively block or hold up the deal. The report says: It is understood the UK has still not received a formal exchange of letters from the US - a legal necessity required for the treaty to be enacted. Maybe others here know how to describe it better and know the actual implications
Exactly that Leroy. Its a simple principle which surprisingly confuses some."
So Starmer wants to give the islands away and also wants to pay millions a year to lease the base back. This is apparently due to a non legally binding ICJ case. In order to make this happen he needs some sort of exchange of letters with the US but they have so far not been willing to do this. Therefore until that changes and the government get it through parliament, the islands remain British and no longer has to pay millions a year. Somehow this is calculated as Starmer saving money when he was the one trying desperately to spend it in the first place. Is that your understanding too? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 3 weeks ago
|
"So government decisions are now based on Trumps liking or not of a proposal such as this.
And to think 'taking back control' was the great and bold message of the last ten years. Clearly control has been surrendered to what Trump thinks. Sad state of affairs for the UK really
It's a little more complicated to be fair. There's a UK-US Treaty from the 60s which requires US consent for any changes of ownership. Either Labour was unaware of this Treaty before it agreed to give the Islands away (quite possible given their general incompetence) or they assumed US agreement without getting written consent, a pretty extraordinary error. Either way this left Starmer at the mercy of Trumps who unsurprisingly has had a dim view of our PM lately.
That’s not what the treaty says. The 1966 UK–US agreement assumes UK sovereignty and covers defence use. It doesn’t give Washington a blanket veto over “any change of ownership" - that's just something you made up because it sounded good.
It's not completely without merit according to the BBC report. I'm not sure how it's described legally but it does seem that the US can effectively block or hold up the deal. The report says: It is understood the UK has still not received a formal exchange of letters from the US - a legal necessity required for the treaty to be enacted. Maybe others here know how to describe it better and know the actual implications
Exactly that Leroy. Its a simple principle which surprisingly confuses some.
So Starmer wants to give the islands away and also wants to pay millions a year to lease the base back. This is apparently due to a non legally binding ICJ case. In order to make this happen he needs some sort of exchange of letters with the US but they have so far not been willing to do this. Therefore until that changes and the government get it through parliament, the islands remain British and no longer has to pay millions a year. Somehow this is calculated as Starmer saving money when he was the one trying desperately to spend it in the first place. Is that your understanding too?"
I think so. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 3 weeks ago
|
The events kinda transpired like this. And I’m paraphrasing…
ICJ - hand it over
SKS - ok but we have a base there
Thinking time…
SKS - I know, if we give you some of our land, can we leave it back for £30 billion but pay you over a few years cos we’re skint? We can, cool, I’ll ask Trump if he’s onboard
SKS - Hey Don, i wanna pay £30 billion to give away some of our land but we share a base on it so i kinda need to you sign off on it.
No reply
SKS - Hi cabinet, that far right dictator Trump hasn’t replied but I’m gonna go ahead anyway. We need to get rid of this money before someone suggests we spend it on defence
No reply
SKS - right it’s about to go through parliament, we’ve borrowed the money to give away, I’d better call that far right fascist and get him to sign off
DJT - Fuck off you trailer, not a chance.
Fab forum lefties - Starmer has saved us millions by not going ahead with this give away. Let’s spend it on benefits |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 3 weeks ago
|
James Tumbridge, the Attorney General for the Chagossian Government-in-exile, has accused Starmer of 'crimes against humanity' and asked the UN to urgently address Starmer's breaches of human rights.
To be fair anyone having to endure this plank as PM is suffering crimes against humanity. 🤣🤣🤣🤣 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"James Tumbridge, the Attorney General for the Chagossian Government-in-exile, has accused Starmer of 'crimes against humanity' and asked the UN to urgently address Starmer's breaches of human rights.
To be fair anyone having to endure this plank as PM is suffering crimes against humanity. 🤣🤣🤣🤣"
Quite right, Starmer tried to do the right thing and was fooled by the fat orange so the Chagossian Government-in-exile have to go through the correct procedure even though they know don don is the cunt here |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"James Tumbridge, the Attorney General for the Chagossian Government-in-exile, has accused Starmer of 'crimes against humanity' and asked the UN to urgently address Starmer's breaches of human rights.
To be fair anyone having to endure this plank as PM is suffering crimes against humanity. 🤣🤣🤣🤣"
Ah...so the sensationalist UN REPORTS KIER STARMER!!! is really nothing more than someone filling in a complaint form. Got it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 3 weeks ago
|
"James Tumbridge, the Attorney General for the Chagossian Government-in-exile, has accused Starmer of 'crimes against humanity' and asked the UN to urgently address Starmer's breaches of human rights.
To be fair anyone having to endure this plank as PM is suffering crimes against humanity. 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Ah...so the sensationalist UN REPORTS KIER STARMER!!! is really nothing more than someone filling in a complaint form. Got it."
Where do we get these complaint forms. Can the UN intervene in the UK to get rid of a fascist dictator who thinks his party and government are above the law? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"James Tumbridge, the Attorney General for the Chagossian Government-in-exile, has accused Starmer of 'crimes against humanity' and asked the UN to urgently address Starmer's breaches of human rights.
To be fair anyone having to endure this plank as PM is suffering crimes against humanity. 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Ah...so the sensationalist UN REPORTS KIER STARMER!!! is really nothing more than someone filling in a complaint form. Got it.
Where do we get these complaint forms. Can the UN intervene in the UK to get rid of a fascist dictator who thinks his party and government are above the law? "
Must be exhausting being as perpetually enraged as you are. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 3 weeks ago
|
"James Tumbridge, the Attorney General for the Chagossian Government-in-exile, has accused Starmer of 'crimes against humanity' and asked the UN to urgently address Starmer's breaches of human rights.
To be fair anyone having to endure this plank as PM is suffering crimes against humanity. 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Ah...so the sensationalist UN REPORTS KIER STARMER!!! is really nothing more than someone filling in a complaint form. Got it.
Where do we get these complaint forms. Can the UN intervene in the UK to get rid of a fascist dictator who thinks his party and government are above the law? "
Haha 🤣 You really should supply some ointment with that burn ! 🔥 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 3 weeks ago
|
"James Tumbridge, the Attorney General for the Chagossian Government-in-exile, has accused Starmer of 'crimes against humanity' and asked the UN to urgently address Starmer's breaches of human rights.
To be fair anyone having to endure this plank as PM is suffering crimes against humanity. 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Ah...so the sensationalist UN REPORTS KIER STARMER!!! is really nothing more than someone filling in a complaint form. Got it.
Where do we get these complaint forms. Can the UN intervene in the UK to get rid of a fascist dictator who thinks his party and government are above the law?
Must be exhausting being as perpetually enraged as you are. "
Lack of energy is not something I suffer with, but thank you for your faux concern.
But the way you worded your post was like you think nobody should be enraged by a fascist dictatorship. I can just imagine you giving advice to the Jews in the Nazi concentration camps, or to those innocent women being murdered by their own government in Iran……
“You seem very hostile towards this bloke that’s about to kill you for no reason. You really should be thankful and not so self centred” |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"James Tumbridge, the Attorney General for the Chagossian Government-in-exile, has accused Starmer of 'crimes against humanity' and asked the UN to urgently address Starmer's breaches of human rights.
To be fair anyone having to endure this plank as PM is suffering crimes against humanity. 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Ah...so the sensationalist UN REPORTS KIER STARMER!!! is really nothing more than someone filling in a complaint form. Got it.
Where do we get these complaint forms. Can the UN intervene in the UK to get rid of a fascist dictator who thinks his party and government are above the law? "
Quote the laws they have broken then 🤷♂️ |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 3 weeks ago
|
"James Tumbridge, the Attorney General for the Chagossian Government-in-exile, has accused Starmer of 'crimes against humanity' and asked the UN to urgently address Starmer's breaches of human rights.
To be fair anyone having to endure this plank as PM is suffering crimes against humanity. 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Ah...so the sensationalist UN REPORTS KIER STARMER!!! is really nothing more than someone filling in a complaint form. Got it.
Where do we get these complaint forms. Can the UN intervene in the UK to get rid of a fascist dictator who thinks his party and government are above the law?
Quote the laws they have broken then 🤷♂️"
Tax fraud and common assault for starters. False crime reports (the mobile phone). Planning laws and regulations, there’s a couple of hundred of those at least. Covering up criminal activity by their councils and police chiefs is perverting the course of justice. And any one single one of those is misconduct in public office.
There’s probably a few that sail very close to the wind with regards to treason, but they can probably create reasonable doubt. Doesn’t mean they ain’t guilty tho of course. A quick example of that is taking your own citizens to court to protect the rights of foreigners. A governments first priority is to protect its citizens, not sue them.
I’m not sure if accepting bribes in public office is criminal, but it’s certainly not acceptable. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
If this is a humiliation what is Iran for Trump?
They have the same regime, all be it one that trump has killed his mother, father and wife, but still the same family and power structure.
They kill their people for fun ....then against Minneapolis I suppose Trump does too.
What exactly have they achieved? Apart from killing a school of girls? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"James Tumbridge, the Attorney General for the Chagossian Government-in-exile, has accused Starmer of 'crimes against humanity' and asked the UN to urgently address Starmer's breaches of human rights.
To be fair anyone having to endure this plank as PM is suffering crimes against humanity. 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Ah...so the sensationalist UN REPORTS KIER STARMER!!! is really nothing more than someone filling in a complaint form. Got it.
Where do we get these complaint forms. Can the UN intervene in the UK to get rid of a fascist dictator who thinks his party and government are above the law?
Quote the laws they have broken then 🤷♂️
Tax fraud and common assault for starters. False crime reports (the mobile phone). Planning laws and regulations, there’s a couple of hundred of those at least. Covering up criminal activity by their councils and police chiefs is perverting the course of justice. And any one single one of those is misconduct in public office.
There’s probably a few that sail very close to the wind with regards to treason, but they can probably create reasonable doubt. Doesn’t mean they ain’t guilty tho of course. A quick example of that is taking your own citizens to court to protect the rights of foreigners. A governments first priority is to protect its citizens, not sue them.
I’m not sure if accepting bribes in public office is criminal, but it’s certainly not acceptable. "
Loves a whataboutery this one.
If you want to comment on some dreamed up crimes by labour start a thread |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
