Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As the world drifts towards WW3 we give away our most strategic overseas base to a country under the thumb of China. So, in the near future there is likely to be at least Chinese spy stations on adjacent islands. Also Mauritius opposed the creation of the marine protection zone surrounding the islands. Again the likelihood is that the marine life flourishing there will end up on Chinese dinner plates. I thought that this government would be bad however their first few months in power shows that they are beyond dangerous." You do know the told the UK that they should give up sovereignty of these islands? Doesn't matter which party was in power but you choose to use this to have a go at the Labour Party. Nice hidden bias, well done. Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As the world drifts towards WW3 we give away our most strategic overseas base to a country under the thumb of China. So, in the near future there is likely to be at least Chinese spy stations on adjacent islands. Also Mauritius opposed the creation of the marine protection zone surrounding the islands. Again the likelihood is that the marine life flourishing there will end up on Chinese dinner plates. I thought that this government would be bad however their first few months in power shows that they are beyond dangerous.You do know the told the UK that they should give up sovereignty of these islands? Doesn't matter which party was in power but you choose to use this to have a go at the Labour Party. Nice hidden bias, well done. Mrs x" Sorry missed out it was the UN that told the UK this, too many pain killing meds this morning haha, Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As the world drifts towards WW3 we give away our most strategic overseas base to a country under the thumb of China. So, in the near future there is likely to be at least Chinese spy stations on adjacent islands. Also Mauritius opposed the creation of the marine protection zone surrounding the islands. Again the likelihood is that the marine life flourishing there will end up on Chinese dinner plates. I thought that this government would be bad however their first few months in power shows that they are beyond dangerous.You do know the told the UK that they should give up sovereignty of these islands? Doesn't matter which party was in power but you choose to use this to have a go at the Labour Party. Nice hidden bias, well done. Mrs xSorry missed out it was the UN that told the UK this, too many pain killing meds this morning haha, Mrs x" No bias. The ruling was advisory. The previous government has been ignoring it for a while. In the current political climate, this government should have also ignored it. But no, they roll over and capitulate straight away. It is no coincidence that the legal advisor to Mauritius is one of Starmer’s mates. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You do know the UN told the UK that they should give up sovereignty of these islands? Doesn't matter which party was in power but you choose to use this to have a go at the Labour Party." The UN made that ruling in May 2019, and set a deadline of December 2019. It was ignored. Since then, the only change in the situation has been a change of the party in government. Why do you think that the island is being handed back now? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As the world drifts towards WW3 we give away our most strategic overseas base to a country under the thumb of China. So, in the near future there is likely to be at least Chinese spy stations on adjacent islands. Also Mauritius opposed the creation of the marine protection zone surrounding the islands. Again the likelihood is that the marine life flourishing there will end up on Chinese dinner plates. I thought that this government would be bad however their first few months in power shows that they are beyond dangerous.You do know the told the UK that they should give up sovereignty of these islands? Doesn't matter which party was in power but you choose to use this to have a go at the Labour Party. Nice hidden bias, well done. Mrs xSorry missed out it was the UN that told the UK this, too many pain killing meds this morning haha, Mrs x No bias. The ruling was advisory. The previous government has been ignoring it for a while. In the current political climate, this government should have also ignored it. But no, they roll over and capitulate straight away. It is no coincidence that the legal advisor to Mauritius is one of Starmer’s mates." We are still going to have control over it for at least 99 years, it's a non story right now, Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You do know the UN told the UK that they should give up sovereignty of these islands? Doesn't matter which party was in power but you choose to use this to have a go at the Labour Party. The UN made that ruling in May 2019, and set a deadline of December 2019. It was ignored. Since then, the only change in the situation has been a change of the party in government. Why do you think that the island is being handed back now?" Can I ask you a question, do you believe ICJ rulings should be ignored? Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You do know the UN told the UK that they should give up sovereignty of these islands? Doesn't matter which party was in power but you choose to use this to have a go at the Labour Party. The UN made that ruling in May 2019, and set a deadline of December 2019. It was ignored. Since then, the only change in the situation has been a change of the party in government. Why do you think that the island is being handed back now?" This process was started by the Tories. BBC reported 2 days ago: "The negotiations that brought about Thursday's deal began under the previous UK government." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c98ynejg4l5o "...negotiations with Mauritius eventually began during the UK prime ministership of Liz Truss in 2022. She may have been keen on removing a diplomatic obstacle to post-Brexit British trading relations in Asia." The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/oct/03/chagos-islanders-long-and-determined-campaign-for-right-to-return So it wasn't this government that started this process, it was the Tories. Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As the world drifts towards WW3 we give away our most strategic overseas base to a country under the thumb of China. So, in the near future there is likely to be at least Chinese spy stations on adjacent islands. Also Mauritius opposed the creation of the marine protection zone surrounding the islands. Again the likelihood is that the marine life flourishing there will end up on Chinese dinner plates. I thought that this government would be bad however their first few months in power shows that they are beyond dangerous.You do know the told the UK that they should give up sovereignty of these islands? Doesn't matter which party was in power but you choose to use this to have a go at the Labour Party. Nice hidden bias, well done. Mrs xSorry missed out it was the UN that told the UK this, too many pain killing meds this morning haha, Mrs x No bias. The ruling was advisory. The previous government has been ignoring it for a while. In the current political climate, this government should have also ignored it. But no, they roll over and capitulate straight away. It is no coincidence that the legal advisor to Mauritius is one of Starmer’s mates." Another bit of bias about Starmer and his mate, you are on a roll now. But remember it started under Liz Truss, kind of makes your statement that the previous government ignored this, issue, a bit silly really. Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You do know the UN told the UK that they should give up sovereignty of these islands? Doesn't matter which party was in power but you choose to use this to have a go at the Labour Party. The UN made that ruling in May 2019, and set a deadline of December 2019. It was ignored. Since then, the only change in the situation has been a change of the party in government. Why do you think that the island is being handed back now?This process was started by the Tories. BBC reported 2 days ago: "The negotiations that brought about Thursday's deal began under the previous UK government." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c98ynejg4l5o "...negotiations with Mauritius eventually began during the UK prime ministership of Liz Truss in 2022. She may have been keen on removing a diplomatic obstacle to post-Brexit British trading relations in Asia." The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/oct/03/chagos-islanders-long-and-determined-campaign-for-right-to-return So it wasn't this government that started this process, it was the Tories. Mrs x" You know you shouldn't post facts to a story wherein labour is being condemned  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As the world drifts towards WW3 we give away our most strategic overseas base to a country under the thumb of China. So, in the near future there is likely to be at least Chinese spy stations on adjacent islands. Also Mauritius opposed the creation of the marine protection zone surrounding the islands. Again the likelihood is that the marine life flourishing there will end up on Chinese dinner plates. I thought that this government would be bad however their first few months in power shows that they are beyond dangerous.You do know the told the UK that they should give up sovereignty of these islands? Doesn't matter which party was in power but you choose to use this to have a go at the Labour Party. Nice hidden bias, well done. Mrs xSorry missed out it was the UN that told the UK this, too many pain killing meds this morning haha, Mrs x No bias. The ruling was advisory. The previous government has been ignoring it for a while. In the current political climate, this government should have also ignored it. But no, they roll over and capitulate straight away. It is no coincidence that the legal advisor to Mauritius is one of Starmer’s mates.We are still going to have control over it for at least 99 years, it's a non story right now, Mrs x" Wrong. We can lease the base for 99 years. No control over the rest of the area hence my comments about the Chinese spy bases and fishing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As the world drifts towards WW3 we give away our most strategic overseas base to a country under the thumb of China. So, in the near future there is likely to be at least Chinese spy stations on adjacent islands. Also Mauritius opposed the creation of the marine protection zone surrounding the islands. Again the likelihood is that the marine life flourishing there will end up on Chinese dinner plates. I thought that this government would be bad however their first few months in power shows that they are beyond dangerous.You do know the told the UK that they should give up sovereignty of these islands? Doesn't matter which party was in power but you choose to use this to have a go at the Labour Party. Nice hidden bias, well done. Mrs xSorry missed out it was the UN that told the UK this, too many pain killing meds this morning haha, Mrs x No bias. The ruling was advisory. The previous government has been ignoring it for a while. In the current political climate, this government should have also ignored it. But no, they roll over and capitulate straight away. It is no coincidence that the legal advisor to Mauritius is one of Starmer’s mates.Another bit of bias about Starmer and his mate, you are on a roll now. But remember it started under Liz Truss, kind of makes your statement that the previous government ignored this, issue, a bit silly really. Mrs x" Slam Dunk ⛹️♀️🏀🗑️ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As the world drifts towards WW3 we give away our most strategic overseas base to a country under the thumb of China. So, in the near future there is likely to be at least Chinese spy stations on adjacent islands. Also Mauritius opposed the creation of the marine protection zone surrounding the islands. Again the likelihood is that the marine life flourishing there will end up on Chinese dinner plates. I thought that this government would be bad however their first few months in power shows that they are beyond dangerous.You do know the told the UK that they should give up sovereignty of these islands? Doesn't matter which party was in power but you choose to use this to have a go at the Labour Party. Nice hidden bias, well done. Mrs xSorry missed out it was the UN that told the UK this, too many pain killing meds this morning haha, Mrs x No bias. The ruling was advisory. The previous government has been ignoring it for a while. In the current political climate, this government should have also ignored it. But no, they roll over and capitulate straight away. It is no coincidence that the legal advisor to Mauritius is one of Starmer’s mates.We are still going to have control over it for at least 99 years, it's a non story right now, Mrs x Wrong. We can lease the base for 99 years. No control over the rest of the area hence my comments about the Chinese spy bases and fishing. " Your comments are purely speculative, well apart from the fishing. The order 'prohibits' fishing, so surely that will prevent the Chinese from eating them, I think that's how it works. Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We're saying because the Tories open talks it's all their fault. Even though we have no idea what was being discussed. " Not said anything about fault, so I'm not saying Tories are at fault, why would I? And I never said what was discussed either, I said the process was started by the Tories, they started the 'negotiations' the media I quoted said. I only pointed this out when the OP stated the Tories were not concerned with this issue when they plainly were. Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Gibraltar and The Falklands will be next now the genie's out the bottle." Just thought I'd mention but the Tories had looked at, and we're considering giving the Falklands back before the war started. Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We're saying because the Tories open talks it's all their fault. Even though we have no idea what was being discussed. Not said anything about fault, so I'm not saying Tories are at fault, why would I? And I never said what was discussed either, I said the process was started by the Tories, they started the 'negotiations' the media I quoted said. I only pointed this out when the OP stated the Tories were not concerned with this issue when they plainly were. Mrs x" That's not quite true, you're free to read above. Besides, it's really not worth arguing with you when it comes to Labour. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We're saying because the Tories open talks it's all their fault. Even though we have no idea what was being discussed. Not said anything about fault, so I'm not saying Tories are at fault, why would I? And I never said what was discussed either, I said the process was started by the Tories, they started the 'negotiations' the media I quoted said. I only pointed this out when the OP stated the Tories were not concerned with this issue when they plainly were. Mrs x That's not quite true, you're free to read above. Besides, it's really not worth arguing with you when it comes to Labour. " Just reread the thread and I don’t see reference to fault. I see assertions Labour have capitulated and that the Tory govt ignored the UN but then @Norty pointed out negotiations started under Truss complete with link to evidence. Another poster said this… " The previous government has been ignoring it for a while. In the current political climate, this government should have also ignored it. But no, they roll over and capitulate straight away. It is no coincidence that the legal advisor to Mauritius is one of Starmer’s mates." Which does sound like fault or blame being levelled at the Labour govt and also in the Starmer’s mate point a bit conspiratorial. So I’d say Norty’s point was well made as it wasn’t, as far as I could see, commenting on the right fate for the islands, it was focused on an attempt to level blame (for something) at Labour. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We're saying because the Tories open talks it's all their fault. Even though we have no idea what was being discussed. Not said anything about fault, so I'm not saying Tories are at fault, why would I? And I never said what was discussed either, I said the process was started by the Tories, they started the 'negotiations' the media I quoted said. I only pointed this out when the OP stated the Tories were not concerned with this issue when they plainly were. Mrs x That's not quite true, you're free to read above. Besides, it's really not worth arguing with you when it comes to Labour. Just reread the thread and I don’t see reference to fault. I see assertions Labour have capitulated and that the Tory govt ignored the UN but then @Norty pointed out negotiations started under Truss complete with link to evidence. Another poster said this… The previous government has been ignoring it for a while. In the current political climate, this government should have also ignored it. But no, they roll over and capitulate straight away. It is no coincidence that the legal advisor to Mauritius is one of Starmer’s mates. Which does sound like fault or blame being levelled at the Labour govt and also in the Starmer’s mate point a bit conspiratorial. So I’d say Norty’s point was well made as it wasn’t, as far as I could see, commenting on the right fate for the islands, it was focused on an attempt to level blame (for something) at Labour." The blame can be levelled at Labour, they are the Governing party who have signed off on this. Regardless of any previous discussions (which we don't know the content of). By saying 'the Tories started it', is clearly an assertion that it's their fault. I've seen numerous quotes from Tory MPs or advisors saying they were not going to give up control. Whether that's true or not, we'll never know. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We're saying because the Tories open talks it's all their fault. Even though we have no idea what was being discussed. Not said anything about fault, so I'm not saying Tories are at fault, why would I? And I never said what was discussed either, I said the process was started by the Tories, they started the 'negotiations' the media I quoted said. I only pointed this out when the OP stated the Tories were not concerned with this issue when they plainly were. Mrs x That's not quite true, you're free to read above. Besides, it's really not worth arguing with you when it comes to Labour. Just reread the thread and I don’t see reference to fault. I see assertions Labour have capitulated and that the Tory govt ignored the UN but then @Norty pointed out negotiations started under Truss complete with link to evidence. Another poster said this… The previous government has been ignoring it for a while. In the current political climate, this government should have also ignored it. But no, they roll over and capitulate straight away. It is no coincidence that the legal advisor to Mauritius is one of Starmer’s mates. Which does sound like fault or blame being levelled at the Labour govt and also in the Starmer’s mate point a bit conspiratorial. So I’d say Norty’s point was well made as it wasn’t, as far as I could see, commenting on the right fate for the islands, it was focused on an attempt to level blame (for something) at Labour. The blame can be levelled at Labour, they are the Governing party who have signed off on this. Regardless of any previous discussions (which we don't know the content of). By saying 'the Tories started it', is clearly an assertion that it's their fault. I've seen numerous quotes from Tory MPs or advisors saying they were not going to give up control. Whether that's true or not, we'll never know. " I don’t think Norty was saying that though (she’ll have to tell us). I think she pointed out that negotiations started under Truss. And (being cheeky here) let’s remember that many on here believe the Civil Service run everything anyway so the negotiation team likely remained substantively the same! So are you saying any new govt should ignore commitments or intentions of previous govts when it comes to international negotiations? Also there seems to be an assumption that this is a bad thing? Is it? Why? Do we know those reasons will come to fruition? Do we need an airbase in the middle of the Indian Ocean? Apparently we still will have. Do we know China will set up a spying post? Do we honestly think their satellites are not already watching it 24/7? All seems rather hyperbolic to me! A different question: Why are these islands considered part of Mauritius anyway? Doubt there is any historical connection due to their remote nature? I should look it up but is it anthropological? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We're saying because the Tories open talks it's all their fault. Even though we have no idea what was being discussed. Not said anything about fault, so I'm not saying Tories are at fault, why would I? And I never said what was discussed either, I said the process was started by the Tories, they started the 'negotiations' the media I quoted said. I only pointed this out when the OP stated the Tories were not concerned with this issue when they plainly were. Mrs x That's not quite true, you're free to read above. Besides, it's really not worth arguing with you when it comes to Labour. " I have read it and I'm sure it's true what I've said, if you can point out where I've not been truthful that would help me out. Thanks. As for Labour, I will call them out for things I don't agree with, the same as other parties. Think they are discussing Disabikity tomorrow and if they go a certain way then you'll see me disagree strongly with it. Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
The UK government under the conservative party dating back to Cameron and May rejected calls for surrendering sovereignty. Johnson and Truss, also rejected the 2019 ICJ ruling and the united nations general assembly resolution to handover the island.
The labour government has now given away the UK's sovereignty of an island that contains the strategically important military base Diego Garcia. The consequences of this decision are now out of the hands of the UK and will provide countries such as China and Russia an opportunity to disrupt and end the usr of that base.
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm always surprised at the use partial facts being presented as full statements of facts.
The UK government under the conservative party dating back to Cameron and May rejected calls for surrendering sovereignty. Johnson and Truss, also rejected the 2019 ICJ ruling and the united nations general assembly resolution to handover the island.
The labour government has now given away the UK's sovereignty of an island that contains the strategically important military base Diego Garcia. The consequences of this decision are now out of the hands of the UK and will provide countries such as China and Russia an opportunity to disrupt and end the usr of that base.
"What partial facts are you talking about? Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm always surprised at the use partial facts being presented as full statements of facts.
The UK government under the conservative party dating back to Cameron and May rejected calls for surrendering sovereignty. Johnson and Truss, also rejected the 2019 ICJ ruling and the united nations general assembly resolution to handover the island.
The labour government has now given away the UK's sovereignty of an island that contains the strategically important military base Diego Garcia. The consequences of this decision are now out of the hands of the UK and will provide countries such as China and Russia an opportunity to disrupt and end the usr of that base.
What partial facts are you talking about? Mrs x"do you agree or disagree with what I have written? The conservative decisions was to reject the handover and the labour decision to handover the sovereignty? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We're saying because the Tories open talks it's all their fault. Even though we have no idea what was being discussed. Not said anything about fault, so I'm not saying Tories are at fault, why would I? And I never said what was discussed either, I said the process was started by the Tories, they started the 'negotiations' the media I quoted said. I only pointed this out when the OP stated the Tories were not concerned with this issue when they plainly were. Mrs x That's not quite true, you're free to read above. Besides, it's really not worth arguing with you when it comes to Labour. I have read it and I'm sure it's true what I've said, if you can point out where I've not been truthful that would help me out. Thanks. As for Labour, I will call them out for things I don't agree with, the same as other parties. Think they are discussing Disabikity tomorrow and if they go a certain way then you'll see me disagree strongly with it. Mrs x" What you've said is true. What you haven't said is it's only partly true  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We're saying because the Tories open talks it's all their fault. Even though we have no idea what was being discussed. Not said anything about fault, so I'm not saying Tories are at fault, why would I? And I never said what was discussed either, I said the process was started by the Tories, they started the 'negotiations' the media I quoted said. I only pointed this out when the OP stated the Tories were not concerned with this issue when they plainly were. Mrs x That's not quite true, you're free to read above. Besides, it's really not worth arguing with you when it comes to Labour. Just reread the thread and I don’t see reference to fault. I see assertions Labour have capitulated and that the Tory govt ignored the UN but then @Norty pointed out negotiations started under Truss complete with link to evidence. Another poster said this… The previous government has been ignoring it for a while. In the current political climate, this government should have also ignored it. But no, they roll over and capitulate straight away. It is no coincidence that the legal advisor to Mauritius is one of Starmer’s mates. Which does sound like fault or blame being levelled at the Labour govt and also in the Starmer’s mate point a bit conspiratorial. So I’d say Norty’s point was well made as it wasn’t, as far as I could see, commenting on the right fate for the islands, it was focused on an attempt to level blame (for something) at Labour. The blame can be levelled at Labour, they are the Governing party who have signed off on this. Regardless of any previous discussions (which we don't know the content of). By saying 'the Tories started it', is clearly an assertion that it's their fault. I've seen numerous quotes from Tory MPs or advisors saying they were not going to give up control. Whether that's true or not, we'll never know. I don’t think Norty was saying that though (she’ll have to tell us). I think she pointed out that negotiations started under Truss. And (being cheeky here) let’s remember that many on here believe the Civil Service run everything anyway so the negotiation team likely remained substantively the same! So are you saying any new govt should ignore commitments or intentions of previous govts when it comes to international negotiations? Also there seems to be an assumption that this is a bad thing? Is it? Why? Do we know those reasons will come to fruition? Do we need an airbase in the middle of the Indian Ocean? Apparently we still will have. Do we know China will set up a spying post? Do we honestly think their satellites are not already watching it 24/7? All seems rather hyperbolic to me! A different question: Why are these islands considered part of Mauritius anyway? Doubt there is any historical connection due to their remote nature? I should look it up but is it anthropological? " As far as dealing with previous Govts commitments or intentions... Everything I've read leads me to believe the Tories had zero intention of giving up the islands. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We're saying because the Tories open talks it's all their fault. Even though we have no idea what was being discussed. Not said anything about fault, so I'm not saying Tories are at fault, why would I? And I never said what was discussed either, I said the process was started by the Tories, they started the 'negotiations' the media I quoted said. I only pointed this out when the OP stated the Tories were not concerned with this issue when they plainly were. Mrs x That's not quite true, you're free to read above. Besides, it's really not worth arguing with you when it comes to Labour. I have read it and I'm sure it's true what I've said, if you can point out where I've not been truthful that would help me out. Thanks. As for Labour, I will call them out for things I don't agree with, the same as other parties. Think they are discussing Disabikity tomorrow and if they go a certain way then you'll see me disagree strongly with it. Mrs x What you've said is true. What you haven't said is it's only partly true "If I haven't said something it neither the true or untrue, it's just silence. Anything you assume from that is up to you, surely or do I have something wrong here? Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We're saying because the Tories open talks it's all their fault. Even though we have no idea what was being discussed. Not said anything about fault, so I'm not saying Tories are at fault, why would I? And I never said what was discussed either, I said the process was started by the Tories, they started the 'negotiations' the media I quoted said. I only pointed this out when the OP stated the Tories were not concerned with this issue when they plainly were. Mrs x That's not quite true, you're free to read above. Besides, it's really not worth arguing with you when it comes to Labour. I have read it and I'm sure it's true what I've said, if you can point out where I've not been truthful that would help me out. Thanks. As for Labour, I will call them out for things I don't agree with, the same as other parties. Think they are discussing Disabikity tomorrow and if they go a certain way then you'll see me disagree strongly with it. Mrs x What you've said is true. What you haven't said is it's only partly true If I haven't said something it neither the true or untrue, it's just silence. Anything you assume from that is up to you, surely or do I have something wrong here?
Mrs x"It is just silence, h3nce me picking up on it. I like the truth but the whole truth is better, not just choosing the truth that suits. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm always surprised at the use partial facts being presented as full statements of facts.
The UK government under the conservative party dating back to Cameron and May rejected calls for surrendering sovereignty. Johnson and Truss, also rejected the 2019 ICJ ruling and the united nations general assembly resolution to handover the island.
The labour government has now given away the UK's sovereignty of an island that contains the strategically important military base Diego Garcia. The consequences of this decision are now out of the hands of the UK and will provide countries such as China and Russia an opportunity to disrupt and end the usr of that base.
"in you "full facts", I am only saying this due to your statement about the use of partial facts, you quote Truss and Johnson, ignoring this issue. You are not aware of them not only ignoring this issue but of the part they played in this. You do know they are arguing amongst themselves about this. In fact other Tories are using this for their own narrative against fellow Tories. So when the news broke over this issue, "...former foreign secretary now leadership candidate James Cleverly tweeted “weak, weak, weak” about the deal. But it quickly emerged he had initiated the talks which led to the agreement when he was in the Foreign Office. Shortly after leadership rival and former security minister Tom Tugendhat tweeted it was “disgraceful” that a Tory government had started the talks in what was seen as a pointed remark against Mr Cleverly. However, the Cleverly camp then responded with a briefing claiming it was Liz Truss who ordered the talks to start when she was prime minister... But now Ms Truss, who is currently in Australia, has responded and claimed it was Boris Johnson when he was prime minister who ordered her to initiate the process with pre-talks with the then prime minister of Mauritius. Her spokesman said: "It was Boris Johnson who asked Liz to talk to prime minister Jugnauth about this at COP26, which she did. But she was absolutely clear that we would and should never cede the territory. Meanwhile, Labour told The Independent they had no choice but to sign the deal because of the legal mess left by the Tories. The source said: “Labour inherited a legal car crash that could have left this vital military base in the hands of the court, damaging UK and US national security. James Cleverly and the Tories tried and failed in 11 rounds of negotiations, putting our national security interests at risk. The new government did the deal to secure the base and shut off a potential illegal migration route. You wouldn’t get the US president applauding the deal if it put US interests at risk.” The Independant. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/diego-garcia-airbase-liz-truss-boris-johnson-b2623626.html So it's clear Truss, Johnson and others weren't ignoring it. There were 11 rounds of negotiation, that doesn't sound like they were ignoring it. As for fault or blame, I've not said either about this issue. In fact I think it's fine and a good thing to decolonising. As for the security issue, we have 99 years before that even raises its head and then it might not be an issue given the speed of technological advances. Even the US agrees with the decision, Biden putting out a statement to this end. So I cannot say these are the 'full facts' but they seem to contradict some of the things you've said. Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm always surprised at the use partial facts being presented as full statements of facts.
The UK government under the conservative party dating back to Cameron and May rejected calls for surrendering sovereignty. Johnson and Truss, also rejected the 2019 ICJ ruling and the united nations general assembly resolution to handover the island.
The labour government has now given away the UK's sovereignty of an island that contains the strategically important military base Diego Garcia. The consequences of this decision are now out of the hands of the UK and will provide countries such as China and Russia an opportunity to disrupt and end the usr of that base.
in you "full facts", I am only saying this due to your statement about the use of partial facts, you quote Truss and Johnson, ignoring this issue.
You are not aware of them not only ignoring this issue but of the part they played in this. You do know they are arguing amongst themselves about this. In fact other Tories are using this for their own narrative against fellow Tories.
So when the news broke over this issue, "...former foreign secretary now leadership candidate James Cleverly tweeted “weak, weak, weak” about the deal. But it quickly emerged he had initiated the talks which led to the agreement when he was in the Foreign Office.
Shortly after leadership rival and former security minister Tom Tugendhat tweeted it was “disgraceful” that a Tory government had started the talks in what was seen as a pointed remark against Mr Cleverly.
However, the Cleverly camp then responded with a briefing claiming it was Liz Truss who ordered the talks to start when she was prime minister...
But now Ms Truss, who is currently in Australia, has responded and claimed it was Boris Johnson when he was prime minister who ordered her to initiate the process with pre-talks with the then prime minister of Mauritius.
Her spokesman said: "It was Boris Johnson who asked Liz to talk to prime minister Jugnauth about this at COP26, which she did. But she was absolutely clear that we would and should never cede the territory.
Meanwhile, Labour told The Independent they had no choice but to sign the deal because of the legal mess left by the Tories.
The source said: “Labour inherited a legal car crash that could have left this vital military base in the hands of the court, damaging UK and US national security. James Cleverly and the Tories tried and failed in 11 rounds of negotiations, putting our national security interests at risk.
The new government did the deal to secure the base and shut off a potential illegal migration route. You wouldn’t get the US president applauding the deal if it put US interests at risk.”
The Independant.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/diego-garcia-airbase-liz-truss-boris-johnson-b2623626.html
So it's clear Truss, Johnson and others weren't ignoring it.
There were 11 rounds of negotiation, that doesn't sound like they were ignoring it.
As for fault or blame, I've not said either about this issue. In fact I think it's fine and a good thing to decolonising. As for the security issue, we have 99 years before that even raises its head and then it might not be an issue given the speed of technological advances.
Even the US agrees with the decision, Biden putting out a statement to this end.
So I cannot say these are the 'full facts' but they seem to contradict some of the things you've said.
Mrs x
"The talks Johnson and Truss were having was not about surrendering the sovereignty, it was rejected as soon as the 2019 ICJ ruling was declared, which was advisory... They were talking about allowing people back on the island but again rejected it, Johnson also started talks around compensation and aa right to UK passports. They did not give up or were ever going to give up the island, it held far to much strategic importance. You will notice the word "held" and you should also go look for Starmer's reaction when questioned about Falklands and Gibraltar, I despair of him. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not really sure what the issue actually is. Feels a bit like hyperbole! The world’s most unsecret secret base will carry on being a base for 99 years and…?????" The base is not secure now, that is the problem..... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not really sure what the issue actually is. Feels a bit like hyperbole! The world’s most unsecret secret base will carry on being a base for 99 years and…????? The base is not secure now, that is the problem....." Why? In what way is it not secure? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We're saying because the Tories open talks it's all their fault. Even though we have no idea what was being discussed. Not said anything about fault, so I'm not saying Tories are at fault, why would I? And I never said what was discussed either, I said the process was started by the Tories, they started the 'negotiations' the media I quoted said. I only pointed this out when the OP stated the Tories were not concerned with this issue when they plainly were. Mrs x That's not quite true, you're free to read above. Besides, it's really not worth arguing with you when it comes to Labour. I have read it and I'm sure it's true what I've said, if you can point out where I've not been truthful that would help me out. Thanks. As for Labour, I will call them out for things I don't agree with, the same as other parties. Think they are discussing Disabikity tomorrow and if they go a certain way then you'll see me disagree strongly with it. Mrs x What you've said is true. What you haven't said is it's only partly true If I haven't said something it neither the true or untrue, it's just silence. Anything you assume from that is up to you, surely or do I have something wrong here?
Mrs x
It is just silence, h3nce me picking up on it.
I like the truth but the whole truth is better, not just choosing the truth that suits. "Read below, I actually think the Tories started off a correct decision and if they'd have still been in power and enacted this I would say so. I just pointed out the fact that the process, because someone else said they didn't. In absence of saying anything else I'm accused of not telling the whole truth, to suit a narrative i never spoke about. If i wasn't such a nice person I could take as you saying I'm a liar. I've also said I'd agree if this had been enacted by the previous government in a post above. Hope this clears things up. Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Biden statement about this issue: "I applaud the historic agreement and conclusion of the negotiations between the Republic of Mauritius and the United Kingdom on the status of the Chagos Archipelago. It is a clear demonstration that through diplomacy and partnership, countries can overcome long-standing historical challenges to reach peaceful and mutually beneficial outcomes. This agreement affirms Mauritian sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago, while granting the United Kingdom the authority to exercise the sovereign rights of Mauritius with respect to Diego Garcia. Diego Garcia is the site of a joint U.S.-UK military facility that plays a vital role in national, regional, and global security. It enables the United States to support operations that demonstrate our shared commitment to regional stability, provide rapid response to crises, and counter some of the most challenging security threats we face. The agreement secures the effective operation of the joint facility on Diego Garcia into the next century. We look forward to continuing our strong partnership with Mauritius and the United Kingdom in upholding a free and open Indo-Pacific." US doesn't appear to have an issue with this. Mrs x" Anything from the Republicans? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We're saying because the Tories open talks it's all their fault. Even though we have no idea what was being discussed. Not said anything about fault, so I'm not saying Tories are at fault, why would I? And I never said what was discussed either, I said the process was started by the Tories, they started the 'negotiations' the media I quoted said. I only pointed this out when the OP stated the Tories were not concerned with this issue when they plainly were. Mrs x That's not quite true, you're free to read above. Besides, it's really not worth arguing with you when it comes to Labour. I have read it and I'm sure it's true what I've said, if you can point out where I've not been truthful that would help me out. Thanks. As for Labour, I will call them out for things I don't agree with, the same as other parties. Think they are discussing Disabikity tomorrow and if they go a certain way then you'll see me disagree strongly with it. Mrs x What you've said is true. What you haven't said is it's only partly true If I haven't said something it neither the true or untrue, it's just silence. Anything you assume from that is up to you, surely or do I have something wrong here?
Mrs x
It is just silence, h3nce me picking up on it.
I like the truth but the whole truth is better, not just choosing the truth that suits. Read below, I actually think the Tories started off a correct decision and if they'd have still been in power and enacted this I would say so.
I just pointed out the fact that the process, because someone else said they didn't.
In absence of saying anything else I'm accused of not telling the whole truth, to suit a narrative i never spoke about. If i wasn't such a nice person I could take as you saying I'm a liar.
I've also said I'd agree if this had been enacted by the previous government in a post above.
Hope this clears things up.
Mrs x"Where did you get me calling you a liar from? If you notice my first post on this subject, it wasn't aimed at anyone, it was also tongue in cheek, you chose to respond to that. Don't then play the victim when the discussion doesn't go exactly your way. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not really sure what the issue actually is. Feels a bit like hyperbole! The world’s most unsecret secret base will carry on being a base for 99 years and…????? The base is not secure now, that is the problem..... Why? In what way is it not secure?" It is less secure as we now no longer control what happens in the immediate vicinity. In the current world political climate this is madness. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not really sure what the issue actually is. Feels a bit like hyperbole! The world’s most unsecret secret base will carry on being a base for 99 years and…????? The base is not secure now, that is the problem..... Why? In what way is it not secure? It is less secure as we now no longer control what happens in the immediate vicinity. In the current world political climate this is madness." Still feels like hyperbole. It’s not as if we are talking about the Isle of Wight or something! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We're saying because the Tories open talks it's all their fault. Even though we have no idea what was being discussed. Not said anything about fault, so I'm not saying Tories are at fault, why would I? And I never said what was discussed either, I said the process was started by the Tories, they started the 'negotiations' the media I quoted said. I only pointed this out when the OP stated the Tories were not concerned with this issue when they plainly were. Mrs x That's not quite true, you're free to read above. Besides, it's really not worth arguing with you when it comes to Labour. I have read it and I'm sure it's true what I've said, if you can point out where I've not been truthful that would help me out. Thanks. As for Labour, I will call them out for things I don't agree with, the same as other parties. Think they are discussing Disabikity tomorrow and if they go a certain way then you'll see me disagree strongly with it. Mrs x What you've said is true. What you haven't said is it's only partly true If I haven't said something it neither the true or untrue, it's just silence. Anything you assume from that is up to you, surely or do I have something wrong here?
Mrs x
It is just silence, h3nce me picking up on it.
I like the truth but the whole truth is better, not just choosing the truth that suits. Read below, I actually think the Tories started off a correct decision and if they'd have still been in power and enacted this I would say so.
I just pointed out the fact that the process, because someone else said they didn't.
In absence of saying anything else I'm accused of not telling the whole truth, to suit a narrative i never spoke about. If i wasn't such a nice person I could take as you saying I'm a liar.
I've also said I'd agree if this had been enacted by the previous government in a post above.
Hope this clears things up.
Mrs x
Where did you get me calling you a liar from?
If you notice my first post on this subject, it wasn't aimed at anyone, it was also tongue in cheek, you chose to respond to that.
Don't then play the victim when the discussion doesn't go exactly your way. "You're not reading what I've written, you respond to my silence statement, finishing off by saying... 'the whole truth is better, not just choosing the truth that suits' I responded to this saying "In absence of saying anything else I'm accused of not telling the whole truth, to suit a narrative i never spoke about." I said this because I believe you are making assumptions about what I'm thinking. You cannot use my thoughts against me in an argument that's ridiculous. "If i wasn't such a nice person I could take as you saying I'm a liar,,,' was my next statement based upon your comments that I'm somehow 'withokding' saying something. I never said you called me a liar, it was illustrative of the kind of thing that could be assumed in a conversation. And you know what assumption makes us. At least my example was based up a statement you made, yours was based upon nothing I said, silence. As for telling me to not play the victim. I'm not playing anything. I will take someone's response for what I've said. I'll agree or disagree and respond myself. However to be challenged on a matter for not saying something is just a bit silly. Thought you were much better than that. Can you tell me what I'm thinking about now? We can chat about it. Oh it OK I already know.... haha. Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not really sure what the issue actually is. Feels a bit like hyperbole! The world’s most unsecret secret base will carry on being a base for 99 years and…????? The base is not secure now, that is the problem..... Why? In what way is it not secure? It is less secure as we now no longer control what happens in the immediate vicinity. In the current world political climate this is madness." We are there for at least 99 years, what's physically changed? Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We're saying because the Tories open talks it's all their fault. Even though we have no idea what was being discussed. Not said anything about fault, so I'm not saying Tories are at fault, why would I? And I never said what was discussed either, I said the process was started by the Tories, they started the 'negotiations' the media I quoted said. I only pointed this out when the OP stated the Tories were not concerned with this issue when they plainly were. Mrs x That's not quite true, you're free to read above. Besides, it's really not worth arguing with you when it comes to Labour. I have read it and I'm sure it's true what I've said, if you can point out where I've not been truthful that would help me out. Thanks. As for Labour, I will call them out for things I don't agree with, the same as other parties. Think they are discussing Disabikity tomorrow and if they go a certain way then you'll see me disagree strongly with it. Mrs x What you've said is true. What you haven't said is it's only partly true If I haven't said something it neither the true or untrue, it's just silence. Anything you assume from that is up to you, surely or do I have something wrong here?
Mrs x
It is just silence, h3nce me picking up on it.
I like the truth but the whole truth is better, not just choosing the truth that suits. Read below, I actually think the Tories started off a correct decision and if they'd have still been in power and enacted this I would say so.
I just pointed out the fact that the process, because someone else said they didn't.
In absence of saying anything else I'm accused of not telling the whole truth, to suit a narrative i never spoke about. If i wasn't such a nice person I could take as you saying I'm a liar.
I've also said I'd agree if this had been enacted by the previous government in a post above.
Hope this clears things up.
Mrs x
Where did you get me calling you a liar from?
If you notice my first post on this subject, it wasn't aimed at anyone, it was also tongue in cheek, you chose to respond to that.
Don't then play the victim when the discussion doesn't go exactly your way. You're not reading what I've written, you respond to my silence statement, finishing off by saying... 'the whole truth is better, not just choosing the truth that suits'
I responded to this saying "In absence of saying anything else I'm accused of not telling the whole truth, to suit a narrative i never spoke about."
I said this because I believe you are making assumptions about what I'm thinking. You cannot use my thoughts against me in an argument that's ridiculous.
"If i wasn't such a nice person I could take as you saying I'm a liar,,,' was my next statement based upon your comments that I'm somehow 'withokding' saying something. I never said you called me a liar, it was illustrative of the kind of thing that could be assumed in a conversation. And you know what assumption makes us. At least my example was based up a statement you made, yours was based upon nothing I said, silence.
As for telling me to not play the victim. I'm not playing anything.
I will take someone's response for what I've said. I'll agree or disagree and respond myself. However to be challenged on a matter for not saying something is just a bit silly. Thought you were much better than that.
Can you tell me what I'm thinking about now? We can chat about it.
Oh it OK I already know.... haha.
Mrs x"You believe I'm making assumptions? In other words you're assuming what I'm thinking, only to go on and rant about not thinking what you're thinking 
Saying someone is selective in the quotes they choose is not the same as saying someone is a liar. If I wanted to call you a liar, I would.
And yes, you're definitely playing the victim.
Finally, if I wish to challenge you on facts that you omit, I will do. It tells me that you only choose ones which you think suit your argument. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not really sure what the issue actually is. Feels a bit like hyperbole! The world’s most unsecret secret base will carry on being a base for 99 years and…????? The base is not secure now, that is the problem..... Why? In what way is it not secure? It is less secure as we now no longer control what happens in the immediate vicinity. In the current world political climate this is madness.We are there for at least 99 years, what's physically changed? Mrs x" "we now no longer control what happens in the immediate vicinity" It's not hard to read what's written. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As the world drifts towards WW3 we give away our most strategic overseas base to a country under the thumb of China. So, in the near future there is likely to be at least Chinese spy stations on adjacent islands. Also Mauritius opposed the creation of the marine protection zone surrounding the islands. Again the likelihood is that the marine life flourishing there will end up on Chinese dinner plates. I thought that this government would be bad however their first few months in power shows that they are beyond dangerous.You do know the told the UK that they should give up sovereignty of these islands? Doesn't matter which party was in power but you choose to use this to have a go at the Labour Party. Nice hidden bias, well done. Mrs xSorry missed out it was the UN that told the UK this, too many pain killing meds this morning haha, Mrs x No bias. The ruling was advisory. The previous government has been ignoring it for a while. In the current political climate, this government should have also ignored it. But no, they roll over and capitulate straight away. It is no coincidence that the legal advisor to Mauritius is one of Starmer’s mates.We are still going to have control over it for at least 99 years, it's a non story right now, Mrs x" Should ignore the UN as everyone else does because they are useless and out of date. Apparantly we might be paying to lease the islands - if so it really is a stupid idea | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We're saying because the Tories open talks it's all their fault. Even though we have no idea what was being discussed. Not said anything about fault, so I'm not saying Tories are at fault, why would I? And I never said what was discussed either, I said the process was started by the Tories, they started the 'negotiations' the media I quoted said. I only pointed this out when the OP stated the Tories were not concerned with this issue when they plainly were. Mrs x That's not quite true, you're free to read above. Besides, it's really not worth arguing with you when it comes to Labour. I have read it and I'm sure it's true what I've said, if you can point out where I've not been truthful that would help me out. Thanks. As for Labour, I will call them out for things I don't agree with, the same as other parties. Think they are discussing Disabikity tomorrow and if they go a certain way then you'll see me disagree strongly with it. Mrs x What you've said is true. What you haven't said is it's only partly true If I haven't said something it neither the true or untrue, it's just silence. Anything you assume from that is up to you, surely or do I have something wrong here?
Mrs x
It is just silence, h3nce me picking up on it.
I like the truth but the whole truth is better, not just choosing the truth that suits. Read below, I actually think the Tories started off a correct decision and if they'd have still been in power and enacted this I would say so.
I just pointed out the fact that the process, because someone else said they didn't.
In absence of saying anything else I'm accused of not telling the whole truth, to suit a narrative i never spoke about. If i wasn't such a nice person I could take as you saying I'm a liar.
I've also said I'd agree if this had been enacted by the previous government in a post above.
Hope this clears things up.
Mrs x
Where did you get me calling you a liar from?
If you notice my first post on this subject, it wasn't aimed at anyone, it was also tongue in cheek, you chose to respond to that.
Don't then play the victim when the discussion doesn't go exactly your way. You're not reading what I've written, you respond to my silence statement, finishing off by saying... 'the whole truth is better, not just choosing the truth that suits'
I responded to this saying "In absence of saying anything else I'm accused of not telling the whole truth, to suit a narrative i never spoke about."
I said this because I believe you are making assumptions about what I'm thinking. You cannot use my thoughts against me in an argument that's ridiculous.
"If i wasn't such a nice person I could take as you saying I'm a liar,,,' was my next statement based upon your comments that I'm somehow 'withokding' saying something. I never said you called me a liar, it was illustrative of the kind of thing that could be assumed in a conversation. And you know what assumption makes us. At least my example was based up a statement you made, yours was based upon nothing I said, silence.
As for telling me to not play the victim. I'm not playing anything.
I will take someone's response for what I've said. I'll agree or disagree and respond myself. However to be challenged on a matter for not saying something is just a bit silly. Thought you were much better than that.
Can you tell me what I'm thinking about now? We can chat about it.
Oh it OK I already know.... haha.
Mrs x
You believe I'm making assumptions? In other words you're assuming what I'm thinking, only to go on and rant about not thinking what you're thinking
Saying someone is selective in the quotes they choose is not the same as saying someone is a liar. If I wanted to call you a liar, I would.
And yes, you're definitely playing the victim.
Finally, if I wish to challenge you on facts that you omit, I will do. It tells me that you only choose ones which you think suit your argument. "Like not mentioning 2022 in your statement? It was Truss who instigated this process. She wasn't refusing, ignoring or not negotiating for this because she did start this process that is a fact. "In a ministerial statement in November 2022, Cleverly said the aim was to reach an agreement with Mauritius by early 2023. The apparently “weak, weak, weak!” move announced today, therefore, is essentially a continuation of the policy he himself set into motion." https://www.newstatesman.com/thestaggers/2024/10/the-politics-behind-james-cleverlys-chagos-islands-bluster So the Tories did start the process off. Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not really sure what the issue actually is. Feels a bit like hyperbole! The world’s most unsecret secret base will carry on being a base for 99 years and…????? The base is not secure now, that is the problem..... Why? In what way is it not secure? It is less secure as we now no longer control what happens in the immediate vicinity. In the current world political climate this is madness.We are there for at least 99 years, what's physically changed? Mrs x "we now no longer control what happens in the immediate vicinity" It's not hard to read what's written. " It's an American base isn't it, surely they should control it. They seem very happy with the idea too. Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As the world drifts towards WW3 we give away our most strategic overseas base to a country under the thumb of China. So, in the near future there is likely to be at least Chinese spy stations on adjacent islands. Also Mauritius opposed the creation of the marine protection zone surrounding the islands. Again the likelihood is that the marine life flourishing there will end up on Chinese dinner plates. I thought that this government would be bad however their first few months in power shows that they are beyond dangerous.You do know the told the UK that they should give up sovereignty of these islands? Doesn't matter which party was in power but you choose to use this to have a go at the Labour Party. Nice hidden bias, well done. Mrs xSorry missed out it was the UN that told the UK this, too many pain killing meds this morning haha, Mrs x No bias. The ruling was advisory. The previous government has been ignoring it for a while. In the current political climate, this government should have also ignored it. But no, they roll over and capitulate straight away. It is no coincidence that the legal advisor to Mauritius is one of Starmer’s mates.We are still going to have control over it for at least 99 years, it's a non story right now, Mrs x Should ignore the UN as everyone else does because they are useless and out of date. Apparantly we might be paying to lease the islands - if so it really is a stupid idea " We might but the US are paying us to have their base there. So no cost to us now and when we hand it back no cost to us then haha 
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not really sure what the issue actually is. Feels a bit like hyperbole! The world’s most unsecret secret base will carry on being a base for 99 years and…????? The base is not secure now, that is the problem..... Why? In what way is it not secure? It is less secure as we now no longer control what happens in the immediate vicinity. In the current world political climate this is madness.We are there for at least 99 years, what's physically changed? Mrs x "we now no longer control what happens in the immediate vicinity" It's not hard to read what's written. It's an American base isn't it, surely they should control it. They seem very happy with the idea too. Mrs x" It is not the actual base that is the problem. It is the surrounding sea and islands. It is a big area, the marine protection zone is about the same size as France. Given the Chinese expansionist policies in other areas (including building new islands as military bases) don't you think they will be all too happy to take advantage of their connections to Mauritius? As for the American statement, they can say anything publicly to appease the new owners while silently seething. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We're saying because the Tories open talks it's all their fault. Even though we have no idea what was being discussed. Not said anything about fault, so I'm not saying Tories are at fault, why would I? And I never said what was discussed either, I said the process was started by the Tories, they started the 'negotiations' the media I quoted said. I only pointed this out when the OP stated the Tories were not concerned with this issue when they plainly were. Mrs x That's not quite true, you're free to read above. Besides, it's really not worth arguing with you when it comes to Labour. I have read it and I'm sure it's true what I've said, if you can point out where I've not been truthful that would help me out. Thanks. As for Labour, I will call them out for things I don't agree with, the same as other parties. Think they are discussing Disabikity tomorrow and if they go a certain way then you'll see me disagree strongly with it. Mrs x What you've said is true. What you haven't said is it's only partly true If I haven't said something it neither the true or untrue, it's just silence. Anything you assume from that is up to you, surely or do I have something wrong here?
Mrs x
It is just silence, h3nce me picking up on it.
I like the truth but the whole truth is better, not just choosing the truth that suits. Read below, I actually think the Tories started off a correct decision and if they'd have still been in power and enacted this I would say so.
I just pointed out the fact that the process, because someone else said they didn't.
In absence of saying anything else I'm accused of not telling the whole truth, to suit a narrative i never spoke about. If i wasn't such a nice person I could take as you saying I'm a liar.
I've also said I'd agree if this had been enacted by the previous government in a post above.
Hope this clears things up.
Mrs x
Where did you get me calling you a liar from?
If you notice my first post on this subject, it wasn't aimed at anyone, it was also tongue in cheek, you chose to respond to that.
Don't then play the victim when the discussion doesn't go exactly your way. You're not reading what I've written, you respond to my silence statement, finishing off by saying... 'the whole truth is better, not just choosing the truth that suits'
I responded to this saying "In absence of saying anything else I'm accused of not telling the whole truth, to suit a narrative i never spoke about."
I said this because I believe you are making assumptions about what I'm thinking. You cannot use my thoughts against me in an argument that's ridiculous.
"If i wasn't such a nice person I could take as you saying I'm a liar,,,' was my next statement based upon your comments that I'm somehow 'withokding' saying something. I never said you called me a liar, it was illustrative of the kind of thing that could be assumed in a conversation. And you know what assumption makes us. At least my example was based up a statement you made, yours was based upon nothing I said, silence.
As for telling me to not play the victim. I'm not playing anything.
I will take someone's response for what I've said. I'll agree or disagree and respond myself. However to be challenged on a matter for not saying something is just a bit silly. Thought you were much better than that.
Can you tell me what I'm thinking about now? We can chat about it.
Oh it OK I already know.... haha.
Mrs x
You believe I'm making assumptions? In other words you're assuming what I'm thinking, only to go on and rant about not thinking what you're thinking
Saying someone is selective in the quotes they choose is not the same as saying someone is a liar. If I wanted to call you a liar, I would.
And yes, you're definitely playing the victim.
Finally, if I wish to challenge you on facts that you omit, I will do. It tells me that you only choose ones which you think suit your argument. "You didn't need to say any of this, you know I already knew what you'd say, not going to write anything else because.... well you know 
Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not really sure what the issue actually is. Feels a bit like hyperbole! The world’s most unsecret secret base will carry on being a base for 99 years and…????? The base is not secure now, that is the problem..... Why? In what way is it not secure? It is less secure as we now no longer control what happens in the immediate vicinity. In the current world political climate this is madness.We are there for at least 99 years, what's physically changed? Mrs x "we now no longer control what happens in the immediate vicinity" It's not hard to read what's written. It's an American base isn't it, surely they should control it. They seem very happy with the idea too. Mrs x It is not the actual base that is the problem. It is the surrounding sea and islands. It is a big area, the marine protection zone is about the same size as France. Given the Chinese expansionist policies in other areas (including building new islands as military bases) don't you think they will be all too happy to take advantage of their connections to Mauritius? As for the American statement, they can say anything publicly to appease the new owners while silently seething." Or they could genuinely have no issue with it. Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We're saying because the Tories open talks it's all their fault. Even though we have no idea what was being discussed. Not said anything about fault, so I'm not saying Tories are at fault, why would I? And I never said what was discussed either, I said the process was started by the Tories, they started the 'negotiations' the media I quoted said. I only pointed this out when the OP stated the Tories were not concerned with this issue when they plainly were. Mrs x That's not quite true, you're free to read above. Besides, it's really not worth arguing with you when it comes to Labour. I have read it and I'm sure it's true what I've said, if you can point out where I've not been truthful that would help me out. Thanks. As for Labour, I will call them out for things I don't agree with, the same as other parties. Think they are discussing Disabikity tomorrow and if they go a certain way then you'll see me disagree strongly with it. Mrs x What you've said is true. What you haven't said is it's only partly true If I haven't said something it neither the true or untrue, it's just silence. Anything you assume from that is up to you, surely or do I have something wrong here?
Mrs x
It is just silence, h3nce me picking up on it.
I like the truth but the whole truth is better, not just choosing the truth that suits. Read below, I actually think the Tories started off a correct decision and if they'd have still been in power and enacted this I would say so.
I just pointed out the fact that the process, because someone else said they didn't.
In absence of saying anything else I'm accused of not telling the whole truth, to suit a narrative i never spoke about. If i wasn't such a nice person I could take as you saying I'm a liar.
I've also said I'd agree if this had been enacted by the previous government in a post above.
Hope this clears things up.
Mrs x
Where did you get me calling you a liar from?
If you notice my first post on this subject, it wasn't aimed at anyone, it was also tongue in cheek, you chose to respond to that.
Don't then play the victim when the discussion doesn't go exactly your way. You're not reading what I've written, you respond to my silence statement, finishing off by saying... 'the whole truth is better, not just choosing the truth that suits'
I responded to this saying "In absence of saying anything else I'm accused of not telling the whole truth, to suit a narrative i never spoke about."
I said this because I believe you are making assumptions about what I'm thinking. You cannot use my thoughts against me in an argument that's ridiculous.
"If i wasn't such a nice person I could take as you saying I'm a liar,,,' was my next statement based upon your comments that I'm somehow 'withokding' saying something. I never said you called me a liar, it was illustrative of the kind of thing that could be assumed in a conversation. And you know what assumption makes us. At least my example was based up a statement you made, yours was based upon nothing I said, silence.
As for telling me to not play the victim. I'm not playing anything.
I will take someone's response for what I've said. I'll agree or disagree and respond myself. However to be challenged on a matter for not saying something is just a bit silly. Thought you were much better than that.
Can you tell me what I'm thinking about now? We can chat about it.
Oh it OK I already know.... haha.
Mrs x
You believe I'm making assumptions? In other words you're assuming what I'm thinking, only to go on and rant about not thinking what you're thinking
Saying someone is selective in the quotes they choose is not the same as saying someone is a liar. If I wanted to call you a liar, I would.
And yes, you're definitely playing the victim.
Finally, if I wish to challenge you on facts that you omit, I will do. It tells me that you only choose ones which you think suit your argument. Like not mentioning 2022 in your statement?
It was Truss who instigated this process. She wasn't refusing, ignoring or not negotiating for this because she did start this process that is a fact.
"In a ministerial statement in November 2022, Cleverly said the aim was to reach an agreement with Mauritius by early 2023. The apparently “weak, weak, weak!” move announced today, therefore, is essentially a continuation of the policy he himself set into motion."
https://www.newstatesman.com/thestaggers/2024/10/the-politics-behind-james-cleverlys-chagos-islands-bluster
So the Tories did start the process off.
Mrs x"2022 in what statement exactly?? Can you quote for me please.. The Tories did start negotiations, that much I haven't disagreed with. As I said to another poster, if this is a bad thing, it can be laid at the feet of THIS Government as they are the ones who have signed off on it. That isn't Labour bashing, nor Tory defending, it's just plain facts. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We're saying because the Tories open talks it's all their fault. Even though we have no idea what was being discussed. Not said anything about fault, so I'm not saying Tories are at fault, why would I? And I never said what was discussed either, I said the process was started by the Tories, they started the 'negotiations' the media I quoted said. I only pointed this out when the OP stated the Tories were not concerned with this issue when they plainly were. Mrs x That's not quite true, you're free to read above. Besides, it's really not worth arguing with you when it comes to Labour. I have read it and I'm sure it's true what I've said, if you can point out where I've not been truthful that would help me out. Thanks. As for Labour, I will call them out for things I don't agree with, the same as other parties. Think they are discussing Disabikity tomorrow and if they go a certain way then you'll see me disagree strongly with it. Mrs x What you've said is true. What you haven't said is it's only partly true If I haven't said something it neither the true or untrue, it's just silence. Anything you assume from that is up to you, surely or do I have something wrong here?
Mrs x
It is just silence, h3nce me picking up on it.
I like the truth but the whole truth is better, not just choosing the truth that suits. Read below, I actually think the Tories started off a correct decision and if they'd have still been in power and enacted this I would say so.
I just pointed out the fact that the process, because someone else said they didn't.
In absence of saying anything else I'm accused of not telling the whole truth, to suit a narrative i never spoke about. If i wasn't such a nice person I could take as you saying I'm a liar.
I've also said I'd agree if this had been enacted by the previous government in a post above.
Hope this clears things up.
Mrs x
Where did you get me calling you a liar from?
If you notice my first post on this subject, it wasn't aimed at anyone, it was also tongue in cheek, you chose to respond to that.
Don't then play the victim when the discussion doesn't go exactly your way. You're not reading what I've written, you respond to my silence statement, finishing off by saying... 'the whole truth is better, not just choosing the truth that suits'
I responded to this saying "In absence of saying anything else I'm accused of not telling the whole truth, to suit a narrative i never spoke about."
I said this because I believe you are making assumptions about what I'm thinking. You cannot use my thoughts against me in an argument that's ridiculous.
"If i wasn't such a nice person I could take as you saying I'm a liar,,,' was my next statement based upon your comments that I'm somehow 'withokding' saying something. I never said you called me a liar, it was illustrative of the kind of thing that could be assumed in a conversation. And you know what assumption makes us. At least my example was based up a statement you made, yours was based upon nothing I said, silence.
As for telling me to not play the victim. I'm not playing anything.
I will take someone's response for what I've said. I'll agree or disagree and respond myself. However to be challenged on a matter for not saying something is just a bit silly. Thought you were much better than that.
Can you tell me what I'm thinking about now? We can chat about it.
Oh it OK I already know.... haha.
Mrs x
You believe I'm making assumptions? In other words you're assuming what I'm thinking, only to go on and rant about not thinking what you're thinking
Saying someone is selective in the quotes they choose is not the same as saying someone is a liar. If I wanted to call you a liar, I would.
And yes, you're definitely playing the victim.
Finally, if I wish to challenge you on facts that you omit, I will do. It tells me that you only choose ones which you think suit your argument. Like not mentioning 2022 in your statement?
It was Truss who instigated this process. She wasn't refusing, ignoring or not negotiating for this because she did start this process that is a fact.
"In a ministerial statement in November 2022, Cleverly said the aim was to reach an agreement with Mauritius by early 2023. The apparently “weak, weak, weak!” move announced today, therefore, is essentially a continuation of the policy he himself set into motion."
https://www.newstatesman.com/thestaggers/2024/10/the-politics-behind-james-cleverlys-chagos-islands-bluster
So the Tories did start the process off.
Mrs x
2022 in what statement exactly?? Can you quote for me please..
The Tories did start negotiations, that much I haven't disagreed with. As I said to another poster, if this is a bad thing, it can be laid at the feet of THIS Government as they are the ones who have signed off on it.
That isn't Labour bashing, nor Tory defending, it's just plain facts. "I quoted the New Statesman and The Guardian it's in both. The fact that the Tories started the process is all I've said and only in response to the OP saying the Tories ignore this, which they obviously didn't. I'm not bashing either side, I've not commentated on my opinions on the impact of this. I even think it's a good idea due to decolonisation. Well done Liz.... Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It was Truss who instigated this process." You mean 'it was Truss who was in position when the Mauritian government started discussions'. She said "no", as did Sunak. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It was Truss who instigated this process. You mean 'it was Truss who was in position when the Mauritian government started discussions'. She said "no", as did Sunak." She didn't, see Birldn above. Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"On 3 November 2022, the British Foreign Secretary James Cleverly announced that the UK and Mauritius had decided to begin negotiations on sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory, taking into account the recent international legal proceedings. Both states had agreed to ensure the continued operation of the joint UK/US military base on Diego Garcia. Whereas these talks included the resettlement of expelled Chagossians, Cleverly's successor as British foreign secretary, David Cameron, later ruled out a return of the islanders. On 3 October 2024, the UK Government made a joint statement with the Mauritian government that they had negotiated for the sovereignty of the Chagos Islands following two years of negotiation whilst still enabling the running of the American military base on occupied Diego Garcia, thereby ruling out the right of return of the Chagossians to that specific island. The deal has come under criticism as Chagossians weren’t involved in the negotiations." Spot on. Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It was Truss who instigated this process." "You mean 'it was Truss who was in position when the Mauritian government started discussions'. She said "no", as did Sunak." "She didn't, see Birldn above." Well OK, Jake Cleverley said it on her behalf, but the point was that the UK government refused to hand the island back. Until Labour took charge. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It was Truss who instigated this process. You mean 'it was Truss who was in position when the Mauritian government started discussions'. She said "no", as did Sunak. She didn't, see Birldn above. Well OK, Jake Cleverley said it on her behalf, but the point was that the UK government refused to hand the island back. Until Labour took charge." Not true, Cleverly is actually blaming Truss for starting this process, they were negotiating to hand the islands over. It was Cameron who stopped it when he was brought back, due to reports written by 3 academics. So yes, the Tories were planning to hand these islands back. Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It was Truss who instigated this process. You mean 'it was Truss who was in position when the Mauritian government started discussions'. She said "no", as did Sunak. She didn't, see Birldn above. Well OK, Jake Cleverley said it on her behalf, but the point was that the UK government refused to hand the island back. Until Labour took charge. Not true, Cleverly is actually blaming Truss for starting this process, they were negotiating to hand the islands over. It was Cameron who stopped it when he was brought back, due to reports written by 3 academics. So yes, the Tories were planning to hand these islands back. Mrs x" There is a difference between starting negotiations years ago in more peaceful times and giving them away in the current period of instability. The first may have been correct at the time. The second is stupid and incompetent. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It was Truss who instigated this process. You mean 'it was Truss who was in position when the Mauritian government started discussions'. She said "no", as did Sunak. She didn't, see Birldn above. Well OK, Jake Cleverley said it on her behalf, but the point was that the UK government refused to hand the island back. Until Labour took charge. Not true, Cleverly is actually blaming Truss for starting this process, they were negotiating to hand the islands over. It was Cameron who stopped it when he was brought back, due to reports written by 3 academics. So yes, the Tories were planning to hand these islands back. Mrs x There is a difference between starting negotiations years ago in more peaceful times and giving them away in the current period of instability. The first may have been correct at the time. The second is stupid and incompetent." What peaceful time are you referring too? 2022 Truss started this and 2024 Labour completed this. Less than two years from start to finish. Think that's about right for complex negotiations such as these. And why are we in a period of instability now? Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It was Truss who instigated this process." "You mean 'it was Truss who was in position when the Mauritian government started discussions'. She said "no", as did Sunak." "She didn't, see Birldn above." "Well OK, Jake Cleverley said it on her behalf, but the point was that the UK government refused to hand the island back. Until Labour took charge." "Not true, Cleverly is actually blaming Truss for starting this process, they were negotiating to hand the islands over. It was Cameron who stopped it when he was brought back, due to reports written by 3 academics. So yes, the Tories were planning to hand these islands back." Good grief you can be obtuse. Liz Truss was in charge when discussions started. No one is denying that. James Cleverley was Foreign Secretary at the time, so he would have been doing the discussing. No one is arguing about that. The issue is this. Everything I can find describes these as discussions, not negotiations. It's clear that they were started by Mauritius, in the wake of the UN resolution. The discussions didn't go anywhere. Where do you get the idea that Liz Truss started negotiating, and that she definitely wanted to hand the island back? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It was Truss who instigated this process. You mean 'it was Truss who was in position when the Mauritian government started discussions'. She said "no", as did Sunak. She didn't, see Birldn above. Well OK, Jake Cleverley said it on her behalf, but the point was that the UK government refused to hand the island back. Until Labour took charge. Not true, Cleverly is actually blaming Truss for starting this process, they were negotiating to hand the islands over. It was Cameron who stopped it when he was brought back, due to reports written by 3 academics. So yes, the Tories were planning to hand these islands back. Good grief you can be obtuse. Liz Truss was in charge when discussions started. No one is denying that. James Cleverley was Foreign Secretary at the time, so he would have been doing the discussing. No one is arguing about that. The issue is this. Everything I can find describes these as discussions, not negotiations. It's clear that they were started by Mauritius, in the wake of the UN resolution. The discussions didn't go anywhere. Where do you get the idea that Liz Truss started negotiating, and that she definitely wanted to hand the island back?" "James Cleverly has come out hard against Keir Starmer’s government, calling the decision to hand sovereignty of the Chagos Islands in the Indian Ocean back to Mauritius “weak, weak, weak!” This is all very convenient for reminding MPs and Tory party members, who are in the midst of deciding who they want to be the next Conservative leader, of his credentials as a former foreign secretary. (He’s the only one out of the four current candidates to have held not just one but two of the four great offices of state – a fact he repeated at length during this week’s conference). It is slightly less convenient given that The apparently “weak, weak, weak!” move announced today, therefore, is essentially a continuation of the policy he himself set into motion." This is from the articlei posted a link to from the New Statesman. As you can see it states that when Cleverly was Foreign Minister and... "while he was holding that role, the UK announced that it would open negotiations with Mauritius over that very issue. In a ministerial statement in November 2022, Cleverly said the aim was to reach an agreement with Mauritius by early 2023." So this article clearly states that negotiations took place. It also goes on to state the 'aim' of the negotiations was to reach an agreement with Mauritius by earl 2023. So negotiation took place, in fact 11 of them took place. And the aim was to come to an agreement with Mauritious about handing the islands to Mauritius. You obviously didn't read this article. What you couldn't be bothered or because you didn't 'find it" it doesn't count. So stop being obtuse, read the article and stop asking me why I'm saying these things because you seem genuinely upset you couldn't find them. My advice is read more, even if it is given to you on a plate and don't believe your own ego that you are so important that if you cannot find something it obviously doesn't exist. Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It was Truss who instigated this process. You mean 'it was Truss who was in position when the Mauritian government started discussions'. She said "no", as did Sunak. She didn't, see Birldn above. Well OK, Jake Cleverley said it on her behalf, but the point was that the UK government refused to hand the island back. Until Labour took charge. Not true, Cleverly is actually blaming Truss for starting this process, they were negotiating to hand the islands over. It was Cameron who stopped it when he was brought back, due to reports written by 3 academics. So yes, the Tories were planning to hand these islands back. Good grief you can be obtuse. Liz Truss was in charge when discussions started. No one is denying that. James Cleverley was Foreign Secretary at the time, so he would have been doing the discussing. No one is arguing about that. The issue is this. Everything I can find describes these as discussions, not negotiations. It's clear that they were started by Mauritius, in the wake of the UN resolution. The discussions didn't go anywhere. Where do you get the idea that Liz Truss started negotiating, and that she definitely wanted to hand the island back?" As for where I get the idea it was started by Truss, I've just realised that you not only do not read any links posted to support an argument you don't actually read the thread. I posted this earlier on the thread. "...[F]ormer foreign secretary now leadership candidate James Cleverly tweeted “weak, weak, weak” about the deal. But it quickly emerged he had initiated the talks which led to the agreement when he was in the Foreign Office. Shortly after leadership rival and former security minister Tom Tugendhat tweeted it was “disgraceful” that a Tory government had started the talks in what was seen as a pointed remark against Mr Cleverly. However, the Cleverly camp then responded with a briefing claiming it was Liz Truss who ordered the talks to start when she was prime minister... But now Ms Truss, who is currently in Australia, has responded and claimed it was Boris Johnson when he was prime minister who ordered her to initiate the process with pre-talks with the then prime minister of Mauritius. Her spokesman said: "It was Boris Johnson who asked Liz to talk to prime minister Jugnauth about this at COP26, which she did. But she was absolutely clear that we would and should never cede the territory. Meanwhile, Labour told The Independent they had no choice but to sign the deal because of the legal mess left by the Tories The source said: “Labour inherited a legal car crash that could have left this vital military base in the hands of the court, damaging UK and US national security. James Cleverly and the Tories tried and failed in 11 rounds of negotiations, putting our national security interests at risk. The new government did the deal to secure the base and shut off a potential illegal migration route. You wouldn’t get the US president applauding the deal if it put US interests at risk.” The Independant. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/diego-garcia-airbase-liz-truss-boris-johnson-b2623626.html So you have a bunch of high ranking Tories blaming each other and trying to distance themselves from the issue of what has been described as "disgraceful that a Tory government had started the talks" After reading this, and my ptevious post, can we agree there is substance to my assertion that the Tories started the negotiations here. Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As the world drifts towards WW3 we give away our most strategic overseas base to a country under the thumb of China. So, in the near future there is likely to be at least Chinese spy stations on adjacent islands. Also Mauritius opposed the creation of the marine protection zone surrounding the islands. Again the likelihood is that the marine life flourishing there will end up on Chinese dinner plates. I thought that this government would be bad however their first few months in power shows that they are beyond dangerous." You ever thought they might be working against us? Working to destroy the west? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As the world drifts towards WW3 we give away our most strategic overseas base to a country under the thumb of China. So, in the near future there is likely to be at least Chinese spy stations on adjacent islands. Also Mauritius opposed the creation of the marine protection zone surrounding the islands. Again the likelihood is that the marine life flourishing there will end up on Chinese dinner plates. I thought that this government would be bad however their first few months in power shows that they are beyond dangerous.You do know the told the UK that they should give up sovereignty of these islands? Doesn't matter which party was in power but you choose to use this to have a go at the Labour Party. Nice hidden bias, well done. Mrs xSorry missed out it was the UN that told the UK this, too many pain killing meds this morning haha, Mrs x" Since when did the UN have the authority to tell us what to do? Unelected officials. If that's true any PM worth their salt should have told the UN to fuk off. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Used by the British colonisation and previously French for plantation sla*ery apparently Reap what you sow. " So what? Wgaf? How many other countries have used sl*ves for longer and still do yet people always focus on us? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So negotiation took place, in fact 11 of them took place. And the aim was to come to an agreement with Mauritious about handing the islands to Mauritius." Here's the actual ministerial statement: https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2022-11-03/hcws354 Read it carefully and see how many references you can find to handing the island back. Does that statement sound like an enthusiasm for handing the island over to Mauritius? Or does it sound like a weasely worded agreement to enter negotiations as long as they achieve what we want from them? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So negotiation took place, in fact 11 of them took place. And the aim was to come to an agreement with Mauritious about handing the islands to Mauritius. Here's the actual ministerial statement: https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2022-11-03/hcws354 Read it carefully and see how many references you can find to handing the island back. Does that statement sound like an enthusiasm for handing the island over to Mauritius? Or does it sound like a weasely worded agreement to enter negotiations as long as they achieve what we want from them?" The fact that it talks about sovereignty doesn't indicate that they are handing over these islands? This was definitely about handing back the islands, just like all the sources I've quoted on this thread. Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There's none so blind ..." You've literally been given three different sources all saying the same thing.... you can lead a horse to water and all that. .instead of being vague just point out exactly what you are trying to say. Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is it now Lammy The Liar... "We will be writing to @DavidLammy and The Speaker of HOC. It was claimed in Parliament today that he and his team had met Chagossian groups to discuss the sovereignty negotiations. Neither we, nor any other groups we know have met him or his team to discuss this since the election. We learned about the announcement at 9.00am last Thursday in an email from the BBC." Say Chagossian Voices. " You couldn’t make it up
I honestly think he thought he was going to get a pat on the back when he spoke about in parliament…. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"seems those who still suffer delusions of empire are getting upset at the country handing back what they stole. tuff" To some extent i agree with this except… the only reason BIOT was considered part of Mauritius was because the British Empire administered the islands from Mauritius. Otherwise they have no historical connection to Mauritius. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"seems those who still suffer delusions of empire are getting upset at the country handing back what they stole. tuff" You could be more accurate and say, the people who can see yet more evidence of incompetence from this government are getting frustrated. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"seems those who still suffer delusions of empire are getting upset at the country handing back what they stole. tuff You could be more accurate and say, the people who can see yet more evidence of incompetence from this government are getting frustrated." i nailed it first time thanks  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"seems those who still suffer delusions of empire are getting upset at the country handing back what they stole. tuff You could be more accurate and say, the people who can see yet more evidence of incompetence from this government are getting frustrated." Never seemed to think the other bunch were incompetent. Also don't remember you calling them liars either. Yet someone must be lying because they are all lying about their roles in starting this process off. Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Some utter nonsense on this thread. The forum is becoming like American politics - just say anything, claim it’s true and get angry and pass the blame around to agitate the room. Facts matter. These negotiations were started by the last Government, concluded by the current Government and the result was applauded by our biggest world ally. Everything else is bollocks." Absolutely true, said much better than me
Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"seems those who still suffer delusions of empire are getting upset at the country handing back what they stole. tuff You could be more accurate and say, the people who can see yet more evidence of incompetence from this government are getting frustrated.Never seemed to think the other bunch were incompetent. Also don't remember you calling them liars either. Yet someone must be lying because they are all lying about their roles in starting this process off. Mrs x" Who have I called liars? We have had many rounds of discussions over the years, that never led to nothing, and nothing was where this would have ended up, and did end up until labour took power | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Why does everyone care so much? The US military use the base. They will continue to use the base. And…what else is there?" This has been explained | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Some utter nonsense on this thread. The forum is becoming like American politics - just say anything, claim it’s true and get angry and pass the blame around to agitate the room. Facts matter. These negotiations were started by the last Government, concluded by the current Government and the result was applauded by our biggest world ally. Everything else is bollocks." Nothing wrong with a bit of nostalgia. Just as long as you aren't wanting to send other people's children to die for it. If you have that much skin in the game go yourself. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Why does everyone care so much? The US military use the base. They will continue to use the base. And…what else is there? This has been explained " I know and it sounds like a lot of hyperbole. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"seems those who still suffer delusions of empire are getting upset at the country handing back what they stole. tuff To some extent i agree with this except… the only reason BIOT was considered part of Mauritius was because the British Empire administered the islands from Mauritius. Otherwise they have no historical connection to Mauritius." So is it squatters rights claim.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Why does everyone care so much? The US military use the base. They will continue to use the base. And…what else is there?" Don't we always seem to need to have a bogeyman. Don't know if it's unique to Britain or a human nature thing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"seems those who still suffer delusions of empire are getting upset at the country handing back what they stole. tuff You could be more accurate and say, the people who can see yet more evidence of incompetence from this government are getting frustrated.Never seemed to think the other bunch were incompetent. Also don't remember you calling them liars either. Yet someone must be lying because they are all lying about their roles in starting this process off. Mrs x Who have I called liars? We have had many rounds of discussions over the years, that never led to nothing, and nothing was where this would have ended up, and did end up until labour took power " Lammy the Liar, you had a positive opinion on this part of the thread... And you don't have 11 rounds of negotiations just to say 'no'. Also Cleverly stated they were planning to hand over the islands. Even leadership contenders called out other Tories for doing this but you continue to ignore this, don't know why just seems silly. Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"seems those who still suffer delusions of empire are getting upset at the country handing back what they stole. tuff You could be more accurate and say, the people who can see yet more evidence of incompetence from this government are getting frustrated.Never seemed to think the other bunch were incompetent. Also don't remember you calling them liars either. Yet someone must be lying because they are all lying about their roles in starting this process off. Mrs x Who have I called liars? We have had many rounds of discussions over the years, that never led to nothing, and nothing was where this would have ended up, and did end up until labour took power Lammy the Liar, you had a positive opinion on this part of the thread... And you don't have 11 rounds of negotiations just to say 'no'. Also Cleverly stated they were planning to hand over the islands. Even leadership contenders called out other Tories for doing this but you continue to ignore this, don't know why just seems silly. Mrs x" People see politicians blatantly lie and for some reason choose to reproduce that same behaviour on social media. It’s weird behaviour and lacks self awareness. They either don't know, or don’t care that they are lying and/or misrepresenting facts. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"seems those who still suffer delusions of empire are getting upset at the country handing back what they stole. tuff You could be more accurate and say, the people who can see yet more evidence of incompetence from this government are getting frustrated.Never seemed to think the other bunch were incompetent. Also don't remember you calling them liars either. Yet someone must be lying because they are all lying about their roles in starting this process off. Mrs x Who have I called liars? We have had many rounds of discussions over the years, that never led to nothing, and nothing was where this would have ended up, and did end up until labour took power Lammy the Liar, you had a positive opinion on this part of the thread... And you don't have 11 rounds of negotiations just to say 'no'. Also Cleverly stated they were planning to hand over the islands. Even leadership contenders called out other Tories for doing this but you continue to ignore this, don't know why just seems silly. Mrs x" Isn't this a bit like when Margaret Thatcher was telling the public " we don't negotiate with terrorists". When in reality she did. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"seems those who still suffer delusions of empire are getting upset at the country handing back what they stole. tuff You could be more accurate and say, the people who can see yet more evidence of incompetence from this government are getting frustrated.Never seemed to think the other bunch were incompetent. Also don't remember you calling them liars either. Yet someone must be lying because they are all lying about their roles in starting this process off. Mrs x Who have I called liars? We have had many rounds of discussions over the years, that never led to nothing, and nothing was where this would have ended up, and did end up until labour took power Lammy the Liar, you had a positive opinion on this part of the thread... And you don't have 11 rounds of negotiations just to say 'no'. Also Cleverly stated they were planning to hand over the islands. Even leadership contenders called out other Tories for doing this but you continue to ignore this, don't know why just seems silly. Mrs x Isn't this a bit like when Margaret Thatcher was telling the public " we don't negotiate with terrorists". When in reality she did." Don't haha, someone may have a heart attack, Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
