Can Someone Tell Me Why Are Giving Money With The Chagos Islands?

[ToraToraTora]

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/2058534/keir-starmer-chagos-cost

I just don't understand. When I give something away I don't also give a wad of cash.

Perhaps the fans of this government can explain.

[New Judge]

In order to lease back a small part of what we'd given away.

[ToraToraTora]

so why are we giving it away? I mean Rachel from accounts is trashing the economy but Tool is splurging £9bn on something we already own. Can any of our Labour supporters make any sense out of this idiocy for me, I'd love to understand properly without the political spin.

[Canary42]

The Tory plant (see my earlier posts when he was appointed) is just carrying out his role.

[ToraToraTora]

usual stupid answer from canary, he's your man, it's your party, you voted for them, have you no idea why this is being done? I don't care about party politics I'm just trying to understand what is going on.

[New Judge]

"..so why are we giving it away?"

Because apparenly the UN decided that the UK had no right to separate the Chagos from Mauritius when that country gained independence in 1968. The fact that they were never actually associated with each other seemed to have passed them by and we did little to put them straight (or, as a more appropriate alternative, tell them to go and do one).

[ToraToraTora]

why has it come up now?

[Hymie]

Back in the late 1960s/early 1970s the British government expelled the indigenous population from the islands (at the request of the USA) – I take it TTT that if someone forcibly removed you from the UK (for an extended period) you would not expect any compensation.

[ToraToraTora]

just trying to comprehend what is happening and why hymie.

[ToraToraTora]

....and why now?

[Hymie]

Why has it come up now?

 

A: The British government has been in negotiation over the sovereignty of the islands for some time; with the US military base on Diego Garcia, the UK wanted buy-in from the new Trump administration before signing off on the deal.

[davebro3]

If it's a US base & strategically important to them why aren't they paying the "rent"? The UK doesn't need to be involved at all.

[Old_Geezer]

Been discussed ages ago. It is because a traitorous government likes to spend public money and get a mention in the history books.

 

One may as well as why another government paid the EU money to extract out nation from the clutches of EU captivity, and even now the present one is giving everything it can think of to the EU too.

 

We are desperate for a sane, responsible government as we seem to have had nothing but dodgy ones for ages.

[Old_Geezer]

What has expelling got to do with anything ?

This money isn't going to anyone expelled.  It is going to an island who already expects further islands as a gift from a PM who doesn't own the islands in question.  (I don't recall the PM holding a referendum on his plan.)

[bednobs]

good, referenda must be the daftest way to decide something as non-important as this.

didn't this goverment inherit this debacle from the last lot?

[Old_Geezer]

Something only the people can decide but asking them is the daftest way to find out their opinion ?  Unsure that follows.

[New Judge]

"– I take it TTT that if someone forcibly removed you from the UK (for an extended period) you would not expect any compensation."

Probably. However:

"This money isn't going to anyone expelled."

It certainly isn't. The Chagossians (who were expelled) have no role in this whatsoever. The Mauritian government  (a close ally of China) will be the recipients of UK taxpayers' largesse.

I don't know why any UK government got themselves involved with this. The UN made a non-binding decision that the UK acted unlawfully when it separated the Chagos from Mauritius in 1968. The government believed that the UK would face a hearing in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) where the non-binding decision would lead to a binding one.

Leaving aside the fact that the two territories were never formally associated with each other, when the UK signed up to be bound by the ICJ it was on the condition that the UK “…accepts the jurisdiction [of the ICJ] other than in any dispute with the government of any country which has or has been a member of the commonwealth”. Mauritius is such a country.

But of course the UN has history when it comes to interpreting  Treaties and Conventions contrary to what they say (e.g. Article 31 of their own Convention on the Treatment of Refugees). So it’s no surprise. But there’s no reason why a UK government should indulge them in their charades.

Interestingly, a High Court judge, sitting at 2am this morning, issued an injunction preventing the government concluding an agreement (which they had planned to do with the usual hugs, handshakes and photographs today):

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9914ndy82po

"The defendant shall take no conclusive or legally binding step to conclude its negotiations concerning the possible transfer of the British Indian Ocean Territory, also known as the Chagos Archipelago, to a foreign government or bind itself as to the particular terms of any such transfer."

"The defendant is to maintain the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom over the British Indian Ocean Territory until further order."

This action was taken by two Chagossian ladies who were unhappy that the Chagossians had no been involved in teh process. The idea of them receiving compensation is about as far removed from reality as can be possible.

So it's no over 'til the fat lady sings.

[Clone]

https://www.radionewshub.com/_media/images/news/categories/31DCC0B9-C703-4F69-BC9D-A04946E73B2B-COLLAGE-e13ea8.jpeg

[Khandro]

Breaking news:

A High Court judge has temporarily blocked Sir Keir Starmer from handing the Chagos Islands to Mauritius.

The Prime Minister was set to attend a “virtual signing ceremony” with representatives from the Mauritian government to confirm the controversial handover deal.

But a court ruling just before 2.30am on Thursday has now barred the Government from proceeding with the deal pending a further hearing later in the day.

Opponents to the deal branded the delay a “humiliation” for Labour.

Telegraph

[Clone]

Starmer has overridden the courts...or summat.

[DDIL]

1252 - that is an incorrect statement

From BBC breaking news

"A high court judge has lifted an injunction that blocked the government from concluding its negotiations over the Chagos Islands.