RugbyRebels

Zhivago wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 7:19 pm I don't see why we are just giving this up. The world is becoming less safe. Not really the right time to be giving up strategically located islands.

Idealism is mendacity in the face of what is necessary.

Not necessary at all. It was only an advisory opinion - i.e. worthless.

Chagos islanders should be allowed to return though.

The fact that Truss started this process should be enough evidence that it's an idiotic decision.

Puja wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 9:06 pm

Zhivago wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 7:19 pm I don't see why we are just giving this up. The world is becoming less safe. Not really the right time to be giving up strategically located islands.

Idealism is mendacity in the face of what is necessary.

Not necessary at all. It was only an advisory opinion - i.e. worthless.

Chagos islanders should be allowed to return though.

The fact that Truss started this process should be enough evidence that it's an idiotic decision.

1) We stole them and evicted the inhabitants. Not even as though it was generations ago either - it was 1973. It was morally wrong to do so and morally wrong to keep them.

2) If we're not caring about morals, then the international opprobrium of fighting decolonisation and being completely isolated at the UN causes us reputational damage with countries that we very much need to deal with and gives ammunition to our enemies. Aside from anything else, how can we protest someone else annexing another nation's sovereign territory with this blot on our record.

3) We've kept the damned military base anyway (demonstrating how little of a shit we actually give about the Chagossians), so all the whinging about us "compromising our security" is a bit moot considering very little has practically changed from a military standpoint.

It's about the only decent thing Truss did, which makes me wonder whether she was trying to return something to Argos and autocorrect accidentally ended up with her sending messages about returning Chagos instead.

Puja

Zhivago wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2024 12:20 pm

Puja wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 9:06 pm

Zhivago wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 7:19 pm I don't see why we are just giving this up. The world is becoming less safe. Not really the right time to be giving up strategically located islands.

Idealism is mendacity in the face of what is necessary.

Not necessary at all. It was only an advisory opinion - i.e. worthless.

Chagos islanders should be allowed to return though.

The fact that Truss started this process should be enough evidence that it's an idiotic decision.

1) We stole them and evicted the inhabitants. Not even as though it was generations ago either - it was 1973. It was morally wrong to do so and morally wrong to keep them.

2) If we're not caring about morals, then the international opprobrium of fighting decolonisation and being completely isolated at the UN causes us reputational damage with countries that we very much need to deal with and gives ammunition to our enemies. Aside from anything else, how can we protest someone else annexing another nation's sovereign territory with this blot on our record.

3) We've kept the damned military base anyway (demonstrating how little of a shit we actually give about the Chagossians), so all the whinging about us "compromising our security" is a bit moot considering very little has practically changed from a military standpoint.

It's about the only decent thing Truss did, which makes me wonder whether she was trying to return something to Argos and autocorrect accidentally ended up with her sending messages about returning Chagos instead.

Puja

1) We received them when we defeated Napoleon. That isn't stealing.

2) I think we are being a little naive about what sovereignty is. I don't think it's sensible to see it as a black and white concept, but rather as shades. They will just come under the control of another suzerain. I don't see what that has to do with morals.

I am not convinced that it helps our reputation. I think it makes us look stupid and weak.

3) We have enemies. Scary ones. Our possession of this strategic territory denied them control over it.

Puja wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2024 12:40 pm

Zhivago wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2024 12:20 pm

Puja wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 9:06 pm

1) We stole them and evicted the inhabitants. Not even as though it was generations ago either - it was 1973. It was morally wrong to do so and morally wrong to keep them.

2) If we're not caring about morals, then the international opprobrium of fighting decolonisation and being completely isolated at the UN causes us reputational damage with countries that we very much need to deal with and gives ammunition to our enemies. Aside from anything else, how can we protest someone else annexing another nation's sovereign territory with this blot on our record.

3) We've kept the damned military base anyway (demonstrating how little of a shit we actually give about the Chagossians), so all the whinging about us "compromising our security" is a bit moot considering very little has practically changed from a military standpoint.

It's about the only decent thing Truss did, which makes me wonder whether she was trying to return something to Argos and autocorrect accidentally ended up with her sending messages about returning Chagos instead.

Puja

1) We received them when we defeated Napoleon. That isn't stealing.

2) I think we are being a little naive about what sovereignty is. I don't think it's sensible to see it as a black and white concept, but rather as shades. They will just come under the control of another suzerain. I don't see what that has to do with morals.

I am not convinced that it helps our reputation. I think it makes us look stupid and weak.

3) We have enemies. Scary ones. Our possession of this strategic territory denied them control over it.

Six nations stood with us at the UN over this. That would be the USA (who have a vested interest in the military base), Australia (who have a vested interest in the military base), Maldives (who had a vested interest in the maritime boundaries not changing), and the delightful company of Israel and Hungary. Incidentally, the Maldives pulled their support shortly after the vote, having seen which way the wind was blowing and deciding it would be better to strike a deal with Mauritius rather than stay on the losing side, so we are down to 5 countries in the world supporting us (and given Hungary probably voted that way just to troll us about our high-handed opinions of other countries, I'm not sure of the worth of their support)

It may only have been an 'advisory' opinion with no enforcement possible, but the whole point of our moral superiority in foreign affairs is that we are *not* a pariah state that disregards the international community. We could have kept a lot of our empire on the basis of "We received them when we defeated Napoleon", "It'd be really good for us to still have this", and "Who's going to stop us?"

And the fact that we've kept the military base regardless means that there is no real impact on our ability to deal with "Scary enemies".

Puja