|
|
Post by wapentake on Oct 8, 2024 21:44:39 GMT
Can ANY Prime Minister of any political persuassion absolutely rule out that there will never be any circumstances in which the UK would ever discuss sovereignty of either the Falkland Islands or Gibraltar. ? What if ? What if Spain created a hard border again between Spain and Gibraltar, which would without doubt create massive problems for Gibraltarians. What if Spain proposed a referendum in Gibraltar whereby the citizens could retain British citizenship in Spanish Gibraltar, and with guarantees on their way of life, language etc. At the end of tha day, anyone would be a fool to rule anything out, because you can't. The decisions on both the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar as to their sovereignty and nationality lie with the people who live there, its called "Self Determination". There's not a shred of evidence that the PM is going to go behind the backs of the Falkland Islanders or the Gibraltarians and hand give them away without the residents consent - and posters know that I am right. You’ve failed to address the self determination of the Chagossians |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Oct 8, 2024 21:59:42 GMT
Can ANY Prime Minister of any political persuassion absolutely rule out that there will never be any circumstances in which the UK would ever discuss sovereignty of either the Falkland Islands or Gibraltar. ? What if ? What if Spain created a hard border again between Spain and Gibraltar, which would without doubt create massive problems for Gibraltarians. What if Spain proposed a referendum in Gibraltar whereby the citizens could retain British citizenship in Spanish Gibraltar, and with guarantees on their way of life, language etc. At the end of tha day, anyone would be a fool to rule anything out, because you can't. The decisions on both the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar as to their sovereignty and nationality lie with the people who live there, its called "Self Determination". There's not a shred of evidence that the PM is going to go behind the backs of the Falkland Islanders or the Gibraltarians and hand give them away without the residents consent - and posters know that I am right. What’s up uncomfortable truths too difficult to answer. |
|
|
|
Post by witchfinder on Oct 8, 2024 22:04:55 GMT
So where did you get that idea from ? When the Chagos Islanders were evicted from the islands, they were Mauritians, they were citizens of the British colony of Mauritius. and now that the Chagos Islands are going to be returned to Mauritius, it means that the exiled Chagosians who campaigned for decades against what the UK had done, can now go back if they want to, and continue to live as Mauritians, on the Chagos Islands. Where do I get that idea from? HEREok, so I have read your link The number 1 issue is that some of the Chagosians who were evicted, come from the main island of Diego Garcia, which is now home to a huge US military base which is of massive strategic importance. The deal is between the UK, Mauritius and the United States, and the deal also fully solves the international legal dispute. The deal means that The Chagos Islands will be returned to their original and legal owners "Mauritius", and it means that the US military base has a secure future negotiated between the UK and Mauritius, and it also means that those people who lived on the islands can now go back ( excluding Diego Garcia where the US military base is located ). The deal ends the legal dispute between the UK and the UN and International Court Apart from what I have here stated, I fail to understand what other issues the Chagos Islanders resident in the UK have. This is the very best deal that could have been negotiated, and if they insist on returning to Diego Garcia, the US would reject the deal. It would seem that what you are proposing is that we ( the UK ) terminate the lease on the US base, in order that people who oncel ived on Diego Garcia can go back and live there. The Chagos Islanders can now take up any issues they have with the new, rightfull and legal owners - Mauritius |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Oct 8, 2024 22:17:24 GMT
Where do I get that idea from? HEREok, so I have read your link The number 1 issue is that some of the Chagosians who were evicted, come from the main island of Diego Garcia, which is now home to a huge US military base which is of massive strategic importance. The deal is between the UK, Mauritius and the United States, and the deal also fully solves the international legal dispute. The deal means that The Chagos Islands will be returned to their original and legal owners "Mauritius", and it means that the US military base has a secure future negotiated between the UK and Mauritius, and it also means that those people who lived on the islands can now go back ( excluding Diego Garcia where the US military base is located ). The deal ends the legal dispute between the UK and the UN and International Court Apart from what I have here stated, I fail to understand what other issues the Chagos Islanders resident in the UK have. This is the very best deal that could have been negotiated, and if they insist on returning to Diego Garcia, the US would reject the deal. It would seem that what you are proposing is that we ( the UK ) terminate the lease on the US base, in order that people who oncel ived on Diego Garcia can go back and live there. The Chagos Islanders can now take up any issues they have with the new, rightfull and legal owners - Mauritius Waffle waffle fine words that mean sweet fa so now your quoted self determination means nothing,typical blairite and steamer supporter full of fine words and the rights of others, it shows your great leader for what he is a lying **** with principles that are movable to support an argument just as yours |
|
|
|
Post by witchfinder on Oct 8, 2024 22:34:55 GMT
ok, so I have read your link The number 1 issue is that some of the Chagosians who were evicted, come from the main island of Diego Garcia, which is now home to a huge US military base which is of massive strategic importance. The deal is between the UK, Mauritius and the United States, and the deal also fully solves the international legal dispute. The deal means that The Chagos Islands will be returned to their original and legal owners "Mauritius", and it means that the US military base has a secure future negotiated between the UK and Mauritius, and it also means that those people who lived on the islands can now go back ( excluding Diego Garcia where the US military base is located ). The deal ends the legal dispute between the UK and the UN and International Court Apart from what I have here stated, I fail to understand what other issues the Chagos Islanders resident in the UK have. This is the very best deal that could have been negotiated, and if they insist on returning to Diego Garcia, the US would reject the deal. It would seem that what you are proposing is that we ( the UK ) terminate the lease on the US base, in order that people who oncel ived on Diego Garcia can go back and live there. The Chagos Islanders can now take up any issues they have with the new, rightfull and legal owners - Mauritius Waffle waffle fine words that mean sweet fa so now your quoted self determination means nothing,typical blairite and steamer supporter full of fine words and the rights of others, it shows your great leader for what he is a lying **** with principles that are movable to support an argument just as yours With the greatest of respect, you state a load of shite "Self Determination" - the Chagos Islands and the people who once lived there were Mauritiuns, part and parcel of Mauritius, they will now become what they always were "Mauritiuns", in an independent Mauritius, and they will be able to relocate to the Chagos Islands. I cannot believe that posters continue on and on with a lost cause FFS |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Oct 8, 2024 22:44:02 GMT
They are Chagosians, not Mauritians, it's like calling the Pakistanis "Indians".
They have their own identity and their lands were taken from them by force. now their lands have been stolen again.
|
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Oct 8, 2024 22:48:07 GMT
Can ANY Prime Minister of any political persuassion absolutely rule out that there will never be any circumstances in which the UK would ever discuss sovereignty of either the Falkland Islands or Gibraltar. ?What if ? What if Spain created a hard border again between Spain and Gibraltar, which would without doubt create massive problems for Gibraltarians. What if Spain proposed a referendum in Gibraltar whereby the citizens could retain British citizenship in Spanish Gibraltar, and with guarantees on their way of life, language etc. At the end of tha day, anyone would be a fool to rule anything out, because you can't. The decisions on both the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar as to their sovereignty and nationality lie with the people who live there, its called "Self Determination". There's not a shred of evidence that the PM is going to go behind the backs of the Falkland Islanders or the Gibraltarians and hand give them away without the residents consent - and posters know that I am right. Jesus wept. No probably not. However, any statesman worth his salt would rule it out on his watch. That's part of the gig he signed up to. So he should have ruled it out so as not to encourage Argentine policy even more, or heaven forbid sabre rattling. In fact after ceding Chagos islands Starmer should have categorically ruled out the same thing would be on the table for The Falklands and Gibraltar. They now see a weak so-called leader and an adversary in their territorial dispute and will no doubt smell blood. Starmer is clearly no statesman. Amateur hour here with this lot. |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Oct 8, 2024 22:49:20 GMT
Waffle waffle fine words that mean sweet fa so now your quoted self determination means nothing,typical blairite and steamer supporter full of fine words and the rights of others, it shows your great leader for what he is a lying **** with principles that are movable to support an argument just as yours With the greatest of respect, you state a load of shite "Self Determination" - the Chagos Islands and the people who once lived there were Mauritiuns, part and parcel of Mauritius, they will now become what they always were "Mauritiuns", in an independent Mauritius, and they will be able to relocate to the Chagos Islands. I cannot believe that posters continue on and on with a lost cause FFS Well as you stated it shite but all from you,so you row back on self determination because it inconveniently doesn’t fit in with your narrative that the chaggosians were entitled to self determination because it now no longer aligns with your totally flawed argument. Hypocrisy on a scale equal to steamer. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Oct 9, 2024 0:23:01 GMT
But did he actually "rule it in". Because this feels very much like a "Red Rackham refuses to seek counselling for beating his dog" type headline. Now, you ate going to say "I don't need to, I don't beat my dog". but that notional headline is already out there. He was asked a simple question and declined to answer - hence Red's post is perfectly correct. It's not as though it is a difficult question, scores of politicians from all parties have had no trouble answering it for decades. Ok, simple HYPOTHETICAL question: When will you stop raping children? NOTE: I am not suggesting you are; but the way the question is put there is no way to answer without leading to suspicion that you do. Same principle applies with Starmer. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Oct 9, 2024 1:07:25 GMT
The governmentm Minister responsible for overseas territories has categorically stated that the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar are completely different situations to the Chagos Islands, and that there are no plans to open any discussions with either Argentina or Spain. Once again, posters are attempting to create a story where there is no story and ? tomorrow they will say something else if it gets him a better suit |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Oct 9, 2024 1:08:54 GMT
Is it really that incredible though Who says labour 'won' the last election. Only an idiot can seriously think Tory grassroots hatred of the snake oiled Indian will continue to give Labour a boost once he is ejected from his position of power next month. From then on whoever takes over has 36 months to develop the strategy to unseat Two Tier Kier Hopefully they will fail miserably and accept their place in the mortuary as the victim of Sunak's antics, and another, less hostile to the areas of the UK handed to the devolved left by Blair will arise and reap the votes of said constituents.... Blair really did get under your skin with his invitation to computer 'experts' from India. Don't you realize that you are the one who is suffering from that disagreement? Not really. You should have seen his face when the select committee took down his scam |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Oct 9, 2024 1:20:32 GMT
Can ANY Prime Minister of any political persuassion absolutely rule out that there will never be any circumstances in which the UK would ever discuss sovereignty of either the Falkland Islands or Gibraltar. ? That is not really the point is it.
No chancellor can ever absolutely rule out that there will ever be any circumstances in which they will have to raise the basic rate of income tax but that does not stop the lying bullshitters SAYING that to secure the votes of the cynical without which they will remain in opposition
It is a fact that the 1980's allowed me to make a rather nice wad of loot off the back of Thatcher's seemingly less than sensible political antics that gave the Argentinian Generals, and one in particular, grounds to believe he could pull off the re-acquisition as he saw it of a seemingly unwanted piece of near barren windswept shithole in time for an anniversary of gaining it in the first place, and his actions of course led to Maggie's finest victory at te ballot box ever. at the expense of a couple of ships and a couple of parade ground's worth of military personnel plus some involved civilians one of whom was my cousin's former boss.
That debacle set in stone the principle that it doesn't matter if you're lying through your teeth if anyone asks are you giving the falklands back to the fucking argentinians you say no fucking way while a single person living there says they want to stay british because the bastards went to war to grab them and need to be kept very pointedly aware that if they really, really want a rematch well don't say we didn't warn you
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Oct 9, 2024 7:06:00 GMT
He was asked a simple question and declined to answer - hence Red's post is perfectly correct. It's not as though it is a difficult question, scores of politicians from all parties have had no trouble answering it for decades. Ok, simple HYPOTHETICAL question: When will you stop raping children? NOTE: I am not suggesting you are; but the way the question is put there is no way to answer without leading to suspicion that you do. Same principle applies with Starmer.
No - it does not. Starmer has already shown his willingness to give away British Sovereign Territory to foreign countries. It's a perfectly reasonable question to ask in respect of other British Territories around the globe. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Oct 9, 2024 7:09:16 GMT
The deal means that The Chagos Islands will be returned to their original and legal owners "Mauritius", and it means that the US military base has a secure future negotiated between the UK and Mauritius, and it also means that those people who lived on the islands can now go back ( excluding Diego Garcia where the US military base is located ). There is nothing in the deal that mandates that at all. Mauritius will decide and they could quite easily decide to keep the Chagosians living in poverty in Mauritious and do something with a greater financial return on the Territory. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Oct 9, 2024 7:57:10 GMT
Ok, simple HYPOTHETICAL question: When will you stop raping children? NOTE: I am not suggesting you are; but the way the question is put there is no way to answer without leading to suspicion that you do. Same principle applies with Starmer.
No - it does not. Starmer has already shown his willingness to give away British Sovereign Territory to foreign countries. It's a perfectly reasonable question to ask in respect of other British Territories around the globe. No he hasn't. What he has shown is that he is willing to see the United Kingdom comply with the legal requirements of the international treaties and conventions we have signed up to. I fail to see this is a bad thing. Of course, there are some who relish the fact that some nations, even ones we supply arms to, wilfully and repeatedly ignore the legal requirement of international law, and treaties and conventions they have willingly signed up to - but these people are clearly not genuine patriots if they are happy to see the UK dragged into illegality by an alleged ally who has repeatedly betrayed us. All The Best |
|
