211–220 of 296 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
in 99 years, most of the island probably will be underwater due to climate change.
And in 299 years the climate may have changed again, as it is wont to do (and has always done).
And timespans are like that for climate too, millions of years not 299
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Yes, of course Parliament will need to vote on this Not the case. The executive makes treaties. Parliament can scrutinise them but has no general ratification or veto role. See https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-... .
It has a veto role in the text you cite (I mean, its described as an infinitely renewable 21-day delay, but that's functionally a veto, especially since the government is subordinate to and can be dismissed by Parliament during the delay, and replaced by a more cooperative government; treating the UK as if it had coequal executive, legislative, and judicial branches like the US is an error; in the UK, Parliament is s…
Yes, it can delay a treaty. It could even pass legislation preventing a treaty from having legal effect. But that would require a extraordinary breakdown in parliamentary party discipline.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the treaty is UK law, they can take the case to UK courts. It's not guaranteed to work, it depends on the legal technicalities, but the government has no say in the findings of UK courts. A lot can happen in 99 years, but as Hong Kong shows, the UK has a decent track record on long term legal continuity.
The UK government never wanted to keep Hong Kong. (It may have wanted to pantomime trying to keep it to placate some voters). While the UK did have a long history of legal continuity, it's made a lot of dramatic changes in recent years - the switch to the Supreme Court which has then made some legally bizarre decisions, the complete demolition of the House of Lords over a pretty short period, the efforts to entrench…
How so? UK was instrumental in creating the European Court of Human rights? Surely they did not believe at the time that they are just creating it for everyone else?
I'm a citizen of the Republic of Mauritius and, when this news was announced today, there was a general sense of relief. Mauritius has been fighting for its sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago (with Diego Garcia being the largest island) for 56 years. Today, the Chagos Archipelago is part of Mauritius again and a treaty will (hopefully) soon be signed between the UK and Mauritius. From there, Mauritius will sign…
So basically nothing of essence will change, this is just a Panama-fication of those islands.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably not. In 1997 they were happy to court the $$ associated with opening up this huge new market of 1b+ "middle class" consumers. Id argue they still aren't sufficiently butthurt about it. The UK has sufficient grounds to reclaim HK since china has very much failed to uphold its agreement to keep hong kong democratic for at least 50 years. I guess that's why the CPC goes on gaslighting rants about "whole process…
Based on the UKs failure to retake HK despite the broken agreement, how long do you think that base will be there? They could take it back whenever they wanted and we’d do nothing.
I don’t think the UK law works that way. There may be compensation or other consequences, but it’s unlikely the whole agreement is null and void.
Real life example: I rented a house in UK, paying monthly rent. The heating system and hot water broke down in winter, and it took them three months to fix. It was clear breach of contract, landlord is responsible for the heating system and must fix withing 48 hours.
I was not allowed to break up the contract and leave, and I even went to court over it - my compensation was really pathetic.
France needs to give back sovereignty of so many islands around Madagascar. It's galling that they still act like a colonial state.
I'm a citizen of the Republic of Mauritius and, when this news was announced today, there was a general sense of relief. Mauritius has been fighting for its sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago (with Diego Garcia being the largest island) for 56 years. Today, the Chagos Archipelago is part of Mauritius again and a treaty will (hopefully) soon be signed between the UK and Mauritius. From there, Mauritius will sign…
What exactly is the Mauritian connection to the Chagos Archipelago? Is it just because a lot of Chagossians went to Mauritius after getting kicked out? Obviously Mauritius and Chagos were ruled by the same people previous (French, then British), but is there a deeper history there? I ask this because the Chagos archipelago is like 1500 miles away from Mauritius - the Maldives, Seychelles, and even Sri Lanka and India…
I can see where this line of questioning is going but what's the connection between Britain and Chagos or the US and Chagos for that matter?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What exactly is the Mauritian connection to the Chagos Archipelago? Is it just because a lot of Chagossians went to Mauritius after getting kicked out? Obviously Mauritius and Chagos were ruled by the same people previous (French, then British), but is there a deeper history there? I ask this because the Chagos archipelago is like 1500 miles away from Mauritius - the Maldives, Seychelles, and even Sri Lanka and India…
>What exactly is the Mauritian connection to the Chagos Archipelago? I can see where this line of questioning is going but what's the connection between Britain and Chagos or the US and Chagos for that matter?
I'm a citizen of the Republic of Mauritius and, when this news was announced today, there was a general sense of relief. Mauritius has been fighting for its sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago (with Diego Garcia being the largest island) for 56 years. Today, the Chagos Archipelago is part of Mauritius again and a treaty will (hopefully) soon be signed between the UK and Mauritius. From there, Mauritius will sign…
> From there, Mauritius will sign a lease agreement of 99 years with the USA so that the military base there can continue to operate. Seems to be a lease with the UK (which then 'sub-leases' to the US?): * https://www.reuters.com/world/britain-agrees-chagos-island-s... Curious to know if there will be extension provisions: people think 99 years is a long time (which isn't wrong), but Hong Kong went back to China afte…
> There, the UK will ensure operation of the military base for "an initial period" of 99 years.