|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Oct 9, 2024 8:28:41 GMT
Starmer has absolutely no legal right to sign these islands away, who the fuck does he think he is? Since when has any decision as major as this been left in the hands of one man and one party, issues like this have to go to the vote, this utter lunatic needs stopping in tracks, he'll be flogging off Buckingham Palace to foreigners next, I hope King Charles has all the sovereign valuable artifacts and paintings nailed to the floor with this lunatic on the loose. Wrong - Starmer has every right The Chagos Islands do not legally belong to the United Kingdom, this fact has been ascertained by both the United Nations and The International Court Of Justice. The government is merely abiding by their rulings, but also putting right a shamefull wrong committed by the British government. The government have absolutely no plans what so ever to open negotiations with Spain on the sovereignty of Gibraltar, or to discuss the Falkland Islands with Argentina. The right wing press are ( as usual ) full of shite Actually, and not for the first time, it is in fact you who is bullshitting. The entire area was unoccupied until the French took it over and set up copra plantations using slave labour. The French ceded the islands to Britain under the Treaty of Paris. Contrary to your statement the Islands DO in fact quite legally belong to us The British government set about making it illegal for anyone not in receipt of written permission from the government to be there, and making it legal to remove all persons in residence. The army did the same thing to large chunks of England and Wales when they wanted it for purposes connected with putting a stop to world war two. There are numerous places they did not return There is no such thing as 'international law' There are merely statements made by countries with guns. Compare and contrast the US treatment of North Korea which has the capacity to nuke people the US cares about, and Iran and Afghanistan which we are told do not (yet) There is an ADVISORY Uzn declaration that the UK should return the territory to Mauritius once there is no further need for it to be occupied for defence purposes. The UK has stated for some time that this was it's intent. There is no conflict here. What is clearly in dispute between lefty's who think this country should be run by either Brussels or Moscow and the rest of us who think otherwise is the need for the west to maintain a military presence there |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Oct 9, 2024 8:38:56 GMT
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.
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 Then I would ask you the same I put to witchfinder,because the Chaggosians are unhappy. Starmers administration says that they were consulted on the return of the Islands every step of the way the Islanders say not that they were never consulted and the Islands have been given to Mauritius against their wishes. Do you think that complies with the letter or more likely spirit of the law? |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Oct 9, 2024 10:05:13 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. All The Best Nope . An equivalent question would be ‘ do you intend to rape children ‘ and I think you know it . Top tip …try to ditch the subject of child rape unless that’s the subject of debate . It’s not a good look. You’re welcome. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Oct 9, 2024 10:27:39 GMT
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. What international treaties? - which one specifically says we have to hand over territory to another country? Does this Treaty also apply to the other overseas territories? |
|
|
|
Post by witchfinder on Oct 9, 2024 10:33:41 GMT
The world has become a better place as nations have gradually agreed to, and adopted acceptable conventions, rules and acceptable ways of conduct.
Amongst the more important treaties which has made the world a better place have been The Geneva Convention and The League of Nations which became the United Nations.
The Chagosians had lived on those islands for almost 300 years, and no person or authority in their right minds would conclude that because they did not originate from there, we therefore had a legal right to enforce their removal.
To hold up such an argument is to give legitimacy to the Argentine argument that the people of The Falkland Islands do not originate from those islands, they are mostly from the UK and are not indigenous.
International rules take into consideration more than anything else - any human effects on the actions of nations, which is why we often hear the term "Human Rights", a term often ridiculed by the populist Right.
There is only one better possible outcome to what Keir Starmer had negotiated between the UK and Mauritius, and that would have been for the UK to terminate the lease to the United States, close down the US base so that the exiled islanders from that particular island go return.
As things stand, this is the best possible outcome that could have possibly been achieved
|
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Oct 9, 2024 10:40:05 GMT
The world has become a better place as nations have gradually agreed to, and adopted acceptable conventions, rules and acceptable ways of conduct. Amongst the more important treaties which has made the world a better place have been The Geneva Convention and The League of Nations which became the United Nations. The Chagosians had lived on those islands for almost 300 years, and no person or authority in their right minds would conclude that because they did not originate from there, we therefore had a legal right to enforce their removal. To hold up such an argument is to give legitimacy to the Argentine argument that the people of The Falkland Islands do not originate from those islands, they are mostly from the UK and are not indigenous. International rules take into consideration more than anything else - any human effects on the actions of nations, which is why we often hear the term "Human Rights", a term often ridiculed by the populist Right. There is only one better possible outcome to what Keir Starmer had negotiated between the UK and Mauritius, and that would have been for the UK to terminate the lease to the United States, close down the US base so that the exiled islanders from that particular island go return. As things stand, this is the best possible outcome that could have possibly been achieved What a load of lefty crap fiddles... |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Oct 9, 2024 12:27:48 GMT
The world has become a better place as nations have gradually agreed to, and adopted acceptable conventions, rules and acceptable ways of conduct. Amongst the more important treaties which has made the world a better place have been The Geneva Convention and The League of Nations which became the United Nations. The Chagosians had lived on those islands for almost 300 years, and no person or authority in their right minds would conclude that because they did not originate from there, we therefore had a legal right to enforce their removal. To hold up such an argument is to give legitimacy to the Argentine argument that the people of The Falkland Islands do not originate from those islands, they are mostly from the UK and are not indigenous. International rules take into consideration more than anything else - any human effects on the actions of nations, which is why we often hear the term "Human Rights", a term often ridiculed by the populist Right. There is only one better possible outcome to what Keir Starmer had negotiated between the UK and Mauritius, and that would have been for the UK to terminate the lease to the United States, close down the US base so that the exiled islanders from that particular island go return. As things stand, this is the best possible outcome that could have possibly been achieved You think the United Nations have made the world a better and more peaceful place and you think the left care about human rights ? Have you been drinking the bath water ? |
|
|
|
Post by witchfinder on Oct 9, 2024 13:18:21 GMT
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. What international treaties? - which one specifically says we have to hand over territory to another country? Does this Treaty also apply to the other overseas territories? The United Nations convention on Decolonization for one Secondly, the legal facts - That the UK deliberately took away the Chagos Islands from Mauritius immediately prior to granting independence to Mauritius, this legal fact alone is indisputable evidence that the UK acted dishonourably and against the interests of Mauritius. and heres another fact - the International Court ruling was for the time been, only an advisory, in the hope that the UK would do the right thing. If the ruling became "binding" it could have resulted in a whole lot of trouble for the UK, including boycotts of British goods and companies by organisations such as The African Union, South Africa, Madagascar, The Common Market for Eastern & Southern Africa and The Sothern African Development Community. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Oct 9, 2024 13:38:45 GMT
What international treaties? - which one specifically says we have to hand over territory to another country? Does this Treaty also apply to the other overseas territories? The United Nations convention on Decolonization for one Secondly, the legal facts - That the UK deliberately took away the Chagos Islands from Mauritius immediately prior to granting independence to Mauritius, this legal fact alone is indisputable evidence that the UK acted dishonourably and against the interests of Mauritius. and heres another fact - the International Court ruling was for the time been, only an advisory, in the hope that the UK would do the right thing. If the ruling became "binding" it could have resulted in a whole lot of trouble for the UK, including boycotts of British goods and companies by organisations such as The African Union, South Africa, Madagascar, The Common Market for Eastern & Southern Africa and The Sothern African Development Community. The UN are a corrupt self serving bunch of arseholes fiddles...And while we are at it they never gave blair a mandate for his illegal war either, but hey ho. It don't take much to fool a lefty does it? |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Oct 9, 2024 13:46:58 GMT
The UN is a joke .
The US, USSR/ Russia and China couldn’t give a shit about it and can veto anything they don’t like.
The UN hasn’t created a post war peaceful world because it hasn’t been peaceful .
The West has been relatively peaceful because it’s aligned with the US and the US has effectively enjoyed world hegemony since 1945.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Oct 9, 2024 15:48:50 GMT
What international treaties? - which one specifically says we have to hand over territory to another country? Does this Treaty also apply to the other overseas territories? The United Nations convention on Decolonization for one Well that specifically calls for 'the right of all people to self-determination' - in this deal the people of the Chagos Islands were not consulted at all. How are you going to comply with the Convention when you swap one foreign power for another? The only way a judgement of the ICJ can become binding is if both parties to a dispute decide to allow the ICJ to arbitrate on that dispute - the UK has never agreed to that. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Oct 9, 2024 16:00:10 GMT
The United Nations convention on Decolonization for one Secondly, the legal facts - That the UK deliberately took away the Chagos Islands from Mauritius immediately prior to granting independence to Mauritius, this legal fact alone is indisputable evidence that the UK acted dishonourably and against the interests of Mauritius. and heres another fact - the International Court ruling was for the time been, only an advisory, in the hope that the UK would do the right thing. If the ruling became "binding" it could have resulted in a whole lot of trouble for the UK, including boycotts of British goods and companies by organisations such as The African Union, South Africa, Madagascar, The Common Market for Eastern & Southern Africa and The Sothern African Development Community. fiddles...And while we are at it they never gave blair a mandate for his illegal war either, but hey ho. It don't take much to fool a lefty does it? Says the man who fawns over Farage and Trump. What an irony. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Oct 9, 2024 16:02:18 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 Starmer was asked a direct question about the future of the Falklands and Gibraltar, at that time he refused to answer which obviously set alarm bells ringing. Perhaps before committing one way or the other he had to get instructions from the Whitehouse. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Oct 9, 2024 16:04:57 GMT
The UN are a corrupt self serving bunch of arseholes fiddles...And while we are at it they never gave blair a mandate for his illegal war either, but hey ho. It don't take much to fool a lefty does it? Says the man who fawns over Farage and Trump. What an irony. All The Best Strange the two people you mention have never presided in office Farage and Trump while a war has been raging.
Unlike Blair/Bush/Biden who appear to insight wars.
All The Best you daft cunt.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Oct 9, 2024 16:28:50 GMT
The UN are a corrupt self serving bunch of arseholes fiddles...And while we are at it they never gave blair a mandate for his illegal war either, but hey ho. It don't take much to fool a lefty does it? Says the man who fawns over Farage and Trump. What an irony. All The BestCare to prove where Farage is corrupt Would you care to prove that Farage is corrupt? |
|
