UK will give sovereignty of Chagos Islands to Mauritius • Hacker News Board

Re: UK will give sovereignty of Chagos Islands to Mauritius

#291

Post by InsomniacL » Sat, Oct 05, 2024, 10:49 PM UTC

netc wrote: post #285

InsomniacL wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

215 years of British sovereignty? The United States of America has had sovereignty of itself for 248 years, should the USA give up it's sovereignty in North America or do you draw the line between somewhere between 215 and 248? At what point do you say, it is what it is?

215 years of sovereignty Or 215 years of colonialism? Are the displaced people able to vote for UK parliamentary elections? Are they UK citizen?

"People with roots in the Chagos Islands have criticised what they called their "exclusion" from negotiations leading to the UK government's deal to give up its sovereignty of the region."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy78ejg71exo

Re: UK will give sovereignty of Chagos Islands to Mauritius

#292

Post by Yawrehto » Sun, Oct 06, 2024, 7:15 PM UTC

N19PEDL2 wrote: post #289

Yeul wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UK was shaking down the US for this military base. The whole thing stands as a monument to the decline of the British Empire.

As someone pointed out on Reddit, for the first time in centuries the United Kingdom will no longer be the empire on which the sun never sets.

There will still be a British presence there (an overseas military base if I recall correctly), so you could argue it doesn't, but yep.

Randall got it wrong in What If (https://what-if.xkcd.com/48/). The sun's going to set on it because of the Indian Ocean territory going.

Re: UK will give sovereignty of Chagos Islands to Mauritius

#293

Post by 01jonny01 » Mon, Oct 07, 2024, 10:21 PM UTC

phyalow wrote: post #233

01jonny01 wrote: post #225

Pathetic weak UK government

I absolutely agree. Lammy’s justification about “closing a vector for illegal immigration” just shows how spineless they all are (especially the new lot Kier & Co.). No creativity, no defense of national interests. Just fear of negative tabloid headlines.

100% it makes me emotional when I see the rate of decline. The calibre of this goverment is shocking, we deserve better than TwoTierKeir and Lammy.

Personally I am suspicious about why Starmer tried to pushed this through when no one was looking. Whats behind it? Maybe China promising a good deal on carbon capture technology.

Re: UK will give sovereignty of Chagos Islands to Mauritius

#294

Post by dangus » Wed, Oct 09, 2024, 3:08 AM UTC

ethbr1 wrote: post #277

dangus wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m confused at what your video is supposed to disprove about what I said. China rammed into a Philippine ship knowing they would face zero consequences. Did they face any consequences? China’s neighbors can hem and haw all they want. China is the superpower in the Eastern Hemisphere.

Your use of "status" sounded like "people like them." If you were intending it in the sense of "people fear them," then agreed.

By status I mean geopolitical power and leverage, not fear or admiration.

Re: UK will give sovereignty of Chagos Islands to Mauritius

#295

Post by dangus » Wed, Oct 09, 2024, 3:17 AM UTC

throwawaymaths wrote: post #281

dangus wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does residence visas have to do with geopolitical power? That’s one tiny variable of many. Should I link you an article about how US immigration hit record lows after the Covid-19 pandemic?

You'll see. China just disappeared their finance minister. Which is something that, you know, successful countries do all the time.

Where do you get that information?

Liu Kun reached official retirement age, and I can still find engagements involving him after his successor was announced.

https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2023-10-24/china-...

I’m not a huge fan of China or anything but let’s stick to facts instead of conspiracy theories?

Re: UK will give sovereignty of Chagos Islands to Mauritius

#296

Post by returningfory2 » Wed, Oct 09, 2024, 8:01 PM UTC

Spooky23 wrote: post #270

returningfory2 wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not so sure. A system in which a party that wins only 34% of the vote is given a near supermajority in the legislature and control of the executive seems pretty dysfunctional to me.

In the US Senate, 80% of the votes represent 46% of the population. Wyoming has more sheep than people, but they are represented on the same basis as California, Florida, etc.

I think right now that's not as much of an issue as the 80/46 numbers suggest. If, say, the Democrats had 80/100 votes just from representing that 46% of the population, that would be bad. But that's not how the two parties distribute right now. Big states can be Democrat (California, New York) or Republican (Texas, Florida). Small states can be Democrat (Vermont, Delaware) or Republican (the Dakotas).

The Republicans do end up with a small (up to 5%) advantage in the Senate but that's it. Nothing remotely close to the Labour party getting a near supermajority in the Commons from 34% of the vote. It's simply much much worse in practice than the situation in the United States.