What is that "mate" of mine Sadiq Khan trying to achieve ?

 

You lost you demented little cretin, get over it and concentrate on your job you terrorist sympathiser.

8 minutes ago, miamiwhite said:

I'm teetotal after my stroke, what's your excuse for being a wanker ? 

😀😀😀I’m out. It’s Friday remember?

Edited January 16Jan 16 by mickbrown

11 minutes ago, mickbrown said:

😀😀😀I’m out. It’s Friday remember?

If you're out, how did you reply....then edit it as well ? Utterly pointless and priceless 😂 

Seriously fella, calm it down

Just now, miamiwhite said:

If you're out, how did you reply....then edit it as well ? Utterly pointless and priceless 😂 

Seriously fella, calm it down

“I’m out” in the Duncan Bannatyne sense 

Really, that’s it for now with you, toodles piss pot   

 

2 minutes ago, mickbrown said:

“I’m out” in the Duncan Bannatyne sense 

Really, that’s it for now with you, toodles piss pot   

 

Take care ...one who can't reply or more specifically expalin when he's wrong.....iconoclastic knob x 

Approving this Chinese super-embassy seems such an obviously stupid thing to do

1 hour ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

Approving this Chinese super-embassy seems such an obviously stupid thing to do

Why? , we may as well cosy up to the Chinese, as the US seem to want to go it alone

First impressions and all that. 
 

 

Yoda. 

10 hours ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

Approving this Chinese super-embassy seems such an obviously stupid thing to do

Fucking mental.

 

1 hour ago, royal white said:

First impressions and all that. 
 

 

Is this another AI inspired wind up? Can't be true, surely?

I’ve not been taking much notice at of this Chagos islands deal however Is this really what’s happening? 
 

 

Basically we've been under an obligation since the late 60s to give th islands back their sovereignty - we aquired them after the Napoleonic wars. Us and the US stuck bases on them as security in the Indian Ocean, but because we are under international law to decolonise the islands this process is finally being completed.

However, there is a complication because Maritus will take over running of the islands and they are close to China so there is nothing stopping them granting a base to China (or rather China paying them) on the Islands which wouldnt be good for western security.

So the UK after many years of discussions, decided the best thing for international security is to obey the law and decolonise the islands but maintain a presence as a base on the island so China doesnt pay Maritus and establish one. 

So we've had to lease it back - and just so there is no politicking this was established under the Tories, and Labour signed it off once they came to power - its acutally pretty cross party, more of a foreign office plan really.

 Its a pretty boring piece of international policy being weaponised by Trump, because, essentially he doesnt understand it.

18 minutes ago, Not in Crawley said:

Basically we've been under an obligation since the late 60s to give th islands back their sovereignty - we aquired them after the Napoleonic wars. Us and the US stuck bases on them as security in the Indian Ocean, but because we are under international law to decolonise the islands this process is finally being completed.

However, there is a complication because Maritus will take over running of the islands and they are close to China so there is nothing stopping them granting a base to China (or rather China paying them) on the Islands which wouldnt be good for western security.

So the UK after many years of discussions, decided the best thing for international security is to obey the law and decolonise the islands but maintain a presence as a base on the island so China doesnt pay Maritus and establish one. 

So we've had to lease it back - and just so there is no politicking this was established under the Tories, and Labour signed it off once they came to power - its acutally pretty cross party, more of a foreign office plan really.

 Its a pretty boring piece of international policy being weaponised by Trump, because, essentially he doesnt understand it.

I didn't understand it either. But having had it explained like that - I can imagine it makes pragmatic sense - and I can also understand why the Trump Administration signed off on it. 

21 minutes ago, Not in Crawley said:

Basically we've been under an obligation since the late 60s to give th islands back their sovereignty - we aquired them after the Napoleonic wars. Us and the US stuck bases on them as security in the Indian Ocean, but because we are under international law to decolonise the islands this process is finally being completed.

However, there is a complication because Maritus will take over running of the islands and they are close to China so there is nothing stopping them granting a base to China (or rather China paying them) on the Islands which wouldnt be good for western security.

So the UK after many years of discussions, decided the best thing for international security is to obey the law and decolonise the islands but maintain a presence as a base on the island so China doesnt pay Maritus and establish one. 

So we've had to lease it back - and just so there is no politicking this was established under the Tories, and Labour signed it off once they came to power - its acutally pretty cross party, more of a foreign office plan really.

 Its a pretty boring piece of international policy being weaponised by Trump, because, essentially he doesnt understand it.

Worth adding it has all happened now as we seeked an advisory ruling on what would happen if we refused to hand back and were taken to court that ruling was clear we would lose, but it was only advisory 

So the Govt (previously Cons and now Labour) decided to accept the advisory ruling rather than challenge it and make the best deal possible. It is a fair question is the deal the ‘best’ we could have ? Who knows , but at the time all our major allies praised the deal. Now the US are saying it is not a good deal, but since Greenland kicked off.

https://www.state.gov/u-s-support-for-uk-and-mauritius-agreement-on-chagos-archipelago

What Andrew Neal says is correct but also misleading, our right to use the islands was being challenged and likely to be taken away. They were never ours to ‘sell’ . But as we wanted to maintain a presence we have agreed to in essence pay rent. 

Edited January 21Jan 21 by Ani

2 minutes ago, Ani said:

Worth adding it has all happened now as we seeked an advisory ruling on what would happen if we refused to hand back and were taken to court that ruling was clear we would lose, but it was only advisory 

So the Govt (previously Cons and now Labour) decided to accept the advisory ruling rather than challenge it and make the best deal possible. It is a fair question is the deal the ‘best’ we could have ? Who knows , but at the time all our major allies praised the deal. Now the US are saying it is not a good deal, but since Greenland kicked off.

https://www.state.gov/u-s-support-for-uk-and-mauritius-agreement-on-chagos-archipelago

What Andrew Neal says is correct but also misleading, our right to use the islands was being challenged and likely to be taken away. They were never ours to ‘sell’ . But as we wanted to maintain a presence we have agreed to in essence pay rent. 

Yeah - it was pretty dull to be honest and I doubt would have made many huge headlines but for this odd colonial policy Trump is pressing ahead on.

I heard someone on the radio claiming that the legal case for the decision was possibly unlawful. Make of that what you will- I haven't seen evidence either way.

As above, any decision by a court, if we refused to "hand" it over isn't binding anyway. 

When all this kicked off, I posted in a similar way to NiC- a previous agreement that was made 60 years ago was coming to an end.

That agreement had had small changes made a couple if times within that period.

The world has changed since, and it would have been perfectly acceptable to renegotiate another agreement, rather than pay for someone else to own it.

It is right that whichever government was in power at the time, look at the situation as the deal ended.

Cameron made his feelings clear at the time, and although Cleverly had started looking at it, he essentially said "no".

Obviously more depth to it than that, that we don't know about.

Fast forward to now, and a complete lack of appreciation of the importance to our security and hiding behind convenient law to our detriment.

Also no consideration of the desire of the people to self determination- in direct contradiction to SKS comments about Greenland's people's right to self determination. 

It's a clusterfuck. 

As is the embassy decision. 

It really isnt a clusterfuck.

Honestly, so much needless drama

9 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

I heard someone on the radio claiming that the legal case for the decision was possibly unlawful. Make of that what you will- I haven't seen evidence either way.

As above, any decision by a court, if we refused to "hand" it over isn't binding anyway. 

When all this kicked off, I posted in a similar way to NiC- a previous agreement that was made 60 years ago was coming to an end.

That agreement had had small changes made a couple if times within that period.

The world has changed since, and it would have been perfectly acceptable to renegotiate another agreement, rather than pay for someone else to own it.

It is right that whichever government was in power at the time, look at the situation as the deal ended.

Cameron made his feelings clear at the time, and although Cleverly had started looking at it, he essentially said "no".

Obviously more depth to it than that, that we don't know about.

Fast forward to now, and a complete lack of appreciation of the importance to our security and hiding behind convenient law to our detriment.

Also no consideration of the desire of the people to self determination- in direct contradiction to SKS comments about Greenland's people's right to self determination. 

It's a clusterfuck. 

As is the embassy decision. 

Why did the US previously praise and welcome the deal as per the link I provided and are now saying it is stupid ? 
 

Either they did not understand the original deal so are incompetent or something else has happened say Greenland that has made them alter their opinion to fit a new narrative. 
 

The whole drama has kicked off because Trump is trying to justify wanting Greenland. Which although with some similarities ( Govts wanting access to another countries land) is fundamentally different in that no one is trying to stop the US accessing Greenland. 

We should ignore international law on matters of national security like this

I'm not sure how decolonisation is achieved by handing the islands to a country that never owned them either

22 minutes ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

We should ignore international law on matters of national security like this

I'm not sure how decolonisation is achieved by handing the islands to a country that never owned them either

Ignoring International Law when it suits is an incredibly slippery slope.

Putin can invade Ukraine due to the threat to Russian national security for instance. 

4 minutes ago, Ani said:

Ignoring International Law when it suits is an incredibly slippery slope.

Putin can invade Ukraine due to the threat to Russian national security for instance. 

Countries, including our allies in Europe, routinely ignore international law when it suits

One of the judges who sat on the ICJ panel giving the advisory opinion is an agent of the CCP - we can't afford to let hostile states use our rigid adherence to international law as a tool to manipulate us out of territorial advantages

To the extent the "rules-based international order" exists, it can only exist if it's backed up by hard power

Would boycotting the world cup in USA appeal to anyone?

It would only take 4 or 5 top European teams to pull out to make the whole razzamatazz circus seem a bit worthless.

They might sell a bit less full fat coke and chilli dawgs.

We should pull out of it because we’ve no chance of winning

13 minutes ago, Whitestar said:

Would boycotting the world cup in USA appeal to anyone?

It would only take 4 or 5 top European teams to pull out to make the whole razzamatazz circus seem a bit worthless.

They might sell a bit less full fat coke and chilli dawgs.

Our game is pretty much run by Americans now. Sponsorship, Club ownership, commercial contracts. 
 

I know that’s more premier league based, but the FA will also bend to them and won’t fancy the enormous commercial benefits of playing in a tournament. Money will always be the motivating factor 

Edited January 21Jan 21 by boltonboris

43 minutes ago, Whitestar said:

Would boycotting the world cup in USA appeal to anyone?

 

100% - I'm definitely not going