FabSwingers.com mobile

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

Chagos Islands - another Labour surrender deal

Jump to newest
 

By *uffelskloof OP   Man
2 days ago

Walsall

So another day, another terrible Labour surrender deal.

This time it’s the Chagos Islands, which today Labour will give away to a Chinese and Russian ally for no reason in return for……handing over £9 billion of taxpayers’ money.

Labour is never quite so happy as when it’s acting in the interests of foreign countries, and giving away large amounts of taxpayer cash.

No doubt this will go down well with Starmer’s key constituency…..North London human rights KC’s.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *exy_HornyCouple
2 days ago

Leigh

This government is the most damaging and dangerous we have had in a long time.

And that’s saying something after the previous useless tw*ts.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uffolkcouple-bi onlyCouple
2 days ago

West Suffolk

The broad question of who owns land in foreign lands is a tough one. It’s all a line drawing exercise based “arrival” dates.

Various empires have risen and fallen over the past 6000 years or so. Some have held onto lands 1000s of miles away, some just retreated and left people to pick up the pieces.

I don’t know all the ins and outs on this one, but giving back and renting it off them seems a bit like self harm. The US control a naval base on the island of Cuba, do they pay rent? Can’t we don the same? Give them everything except the military bases and keep those parts. Surely that’s a fair deal for all if they are going to let the bases stay either way?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *roadShoulderzMan
2 days ago

East Hampshire

The lease we granted the US in 1966 ends in 2036.

Following successful challenges in the ICJ and UN it became clear that the UK could not legally grant a new lease to the US without ceding sovereignty to Mauritius.

Hence the deal which has just been signed.

The Tories negotiated the terms initially, but the new Mauritian PM revised those upwards.

Getting agreement was vital for the US base to continue. That's why Trump waved it through.

The interesting question is why both in 1966 and now in 2025 is the US unable to front the deal and needs our involvement?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *otMe66Man
2 days ago

Terra Firma

[Removed by poster at 22/05/25 17:09:13]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *otMe66Man
2 days ago

Terra Firma


"The lease we granted the US in 1966 ends in 2036.

Following successful challenges in the ICJ and UN it became clear that the UK could not legally grant a new lease to the US without ceding sovereignty to Mauritius.

Hence the deal which has just been signed.

The Tories negotiated the terms initially, but the new Mauritian PM revised those upwards.

Getting agreement was vital for the US base to continue. That's why Trump waved it through.

The interesting question is why both in 1966 and now in 2025 is the US unable to front the deal and needs our involvement?"

BIOT, the UK holds sovereignty for 50 years, 2036 that no longer exists.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *exyornotMan
2 days ago

halifax

give away something we own then lease it back for 100 million a year - FANTASTIC THINKING

LUNATICS

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *0shadesOfFilthMan
2 days ago

nearby

£100 million a year rent. Where is Reeves going to find this ?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *otMe66Man
2 days ago

Terra Firma


"give away something we own then lease it back for 100 million a year - FANTASTIC THINKING

LUNATICS"

We would have been breaking international law in 2036 if we had not done a deal.

I'm not saying the money being paid out is a good deal or not.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uddy laneMan
2 days ago

dudley

The civil service absolutely thrive implementing this kind of stuff expecially when labour are in office, take the sale of the job centers from 1998 2003 to Telereal trillium and then leased back to the dwp to this day.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *hirleyMan
2 days ago

somewhere

Not sure how labour, or any political party for that matter, have much say in a 2019 court decision

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/22/uk-suffers-crushing-defeat-un-vote-chagos-islands

But go ahead, be outraged by stuff barely anyone knows anything about.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *hirleyMan
2 days ago

somewhere


"£100 million a year rent. Where is Reeves going to find this ? "

It will probably be part of the UK defence spending. Something that is strongly encouraged by it's nato membership

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rDiscretionXXXMan
2 days ago

Gilfach

I think that Labour can't see out of that bubble where all colonialism is bad, and we must make up for the country's past sins. I think they genuinely believed that handing back the islands would be greeted by the UK population as a welcome step to a more inclusive future. I think they expected little, if any, pushback.

They're probably completely surprised at the headlines in the papers, and chalking it all up to racists, stirred up by Farage. It's this lack of understanding of the general public that is causing them so much trouble.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ssexPerv80Man
2 days ago

Essex & London

Should Starmer have gone against the overwhelming UN vote?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rDiscretionXXXMan
2 days ago

Gilfach


"Should Starmer have gone against the overwhelming UN vote?"

You mean like the last government did by refusing to give prisoners the vote when ordered to do so by international courts? A court decision that the Labour party insisted should be followed, and put in their manifesto, only to have it removed when Starmer became leader.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ssexPerv80Man
2 days ago

Essex & London


"Should Starmer have gone against the overwhelming UN vote?

You mean like the last government did by refusing to give prisoners the vote when ordered to do so by international courts? A court decision that the Labour party insisted should be followed, and put in their manifesto, only to have it removed when Starmer became leader."

Feel free to answer my question

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *exy_HornyCouple
2 days ago

Leigh


"Should Starmer have gone against the overwhelming UN vote? "

Yes

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ostindreamsMan
2 days ago

London


"Should Starmer have gone against the overwhelming UN vote? "

UN vote is not worth a toilet paper.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ssexPerv80Man
2 days ago

Essex & London


"Should Starmer have gone against the overwhelming UN vote?

UN vote is not worth a toilet paper."

I’m certain you know more than legal experts

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ostindreamsMan
2 days ago

London


"Should Starmer have gone against the overwhelming UN vote?

UN vote is not worth a toilet paper.

I’m certain you know more than legal experts "

Ok enlighten us. How are the UN resolutions enforced? How many resolutions are actually enforced today?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rDiscretionXXXMan
2 days ago

Gilfach


"Should Starmer have gone against the overwhelming UN vote?"


"You mean like the last government did by refusing to give prisoners the vote when ordered to do so by international courts? A court decision that the Labour party insisted should be followed, and put in their manifesto, only to have it removed when Starmer became leader."


"Feel free to answer my question "

I thought my previous answer was quite clear, but if you'd prefer a single word answer - yes he should.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uffolkcouple-bi onlyCouple
2 days ago

West Suffolk


"Should Starmer have gone against the overwhelming UN vote? "

Have the UN voted against the Russian invasion of Ukraine? How’s that working out?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uffelskloof OP   Man
2 days ago

Walsall

Starmer’s Chagos deal costing the UK £30 billion.

These countries Starmer keeps doing “deals” with must be laughing their heads off.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ssexPerv80Man
22 hours ago

Essex & London


"Should Starmer have gone against the overwhelming UN vote?

Have the UN voted against the Russian invasion of Ukraine? How’s that working out? "

A quick google of the impact of sanctions on Russia should be a good starter for you.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uffelskloof OP   Man
20 hours ago

Walsall


"Should Starmer have gone against the overwhelming UN vote?

Have the UN voted against the Russian invasion of Ukraine? How’s that working out?

A quick google of the impact of sanctions on Russia should be a good starter for you. "

GDP Growth 2024:

Russia 1.5%

UK 1.1%

Government debt as a percentage of GDP:

Russia 20.8%

UK 101.8%

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ssexPerv80Man
20 hours ago

Essex & London


"Should Starmer have gone against the overwhelming UN vote?

Have the UN voted against the Russian invasion of Ukraine? How’s that working out?

A quick google of the impact of sanctions on Russia should be a good starter for you.

GDP Growth 2024:

Russia 1.5%

UK 1.1%

Government debt as a percentage of GDP:

Russia 20.8%

UK 101.8%

"

Reminiscent of those who claim Brexit had no impact as we’ve seen GDP growth in the years since.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uffelskloof OP   Man
18 hours ago

Walsall


"Should Starmer have gone against the overwhelming UN vote?

Have the UN voted against the Russian invasion of Ukraine? How’s that working out?

A quick google of the impact of sanctions on Russia should be a good starter for you.

GDP Growth 2024:

Russia 1.5%

UK 1.1%

Government debt as a percentage of GDP:

Russia 20.8%

UK 101.8%

Reminiscent of those who claim Brexit had no impact as we’ve seen GDP growth in the years since."

GDP Growth 2024:

France 0.6%

Germany 0.0%

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ssexPerv80Man
17 hours ago

Essex & London

“the effect of Western sanctions on both Russia’s GDP and levels of personal disposable income has been considerable (IMF, 2025). After three years of war, Russian GDP is now 10-12% below pre-invasion trends. Personal disposable income is 20-25% below where it would have been without the conflict (Disney, 2023; Korhonen, 2023)”

https://www.economicsobservatory.com/sanctions-effectiveness-what-lessons-three-years-into-the-war-on-ukraine

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uffelskloof OP   Man
16 hours ago

Walsall


"“the effect of Western sanctions on both Russia’s GDP and levels of personal disposable income has been considerable (IMF, 2025). After three years of war, Russian GDP is now 10-12% below pre-invasion trends. Personal disposable income is 20-25% below where it would have been without the conflict (Disney, 2023; Korhonen, 2023)”

https://www.economicsobservatory.com/sanctions-effectiveness-what-lessons-three-years-into-the-war-on-ukraine"

It’s impossible to know what GDP or income “would have been” if X hadn't happened as there are too many variables to take into account.

It’s all “could have, would have, should have”.

The facts speak for themselves. Russia’s economic performance continues to outstrip UK, France, and Germany. That may be more of a comment on how badly run those countries are than any analysis on Russia.

Is it possible that Russia would have been even further out performing Europe without the impacts of the Ukraine invasion? Agreed it’s very likely.

Europe’s economic performance continues to be the worst on the planet in regional terms. I can’t see what the EU is doing that will improve that trend.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *uffolkcouple-bi onlyCouple
15 hours ago

West Suffolk


"Should Starmer have gone against the overwhelming UN vote?

Have the UN voted against the Russian invasion of Ukraine? How’s that working out?

A quick google of the impact of sanctions on Russia should be a good starter for you. "

I googled and it said they are increasing their war efforts and plan to kill as many women and children in Ukraine as they can.

So zero effect

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top