81–90 of 91 posts
Don't kid yourself that this is about the islander's claims. They are being used as human shields. Diego Garcia is a very strategic location. It will always be controlled by one of the great powers. Who would benefit most if the US were to leave? Who has the most to gain? Countries like China and Iran.
they are planning on putting it back with mauritius as it was before.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Err, we did actually pay for it. And what connection do the "natives" have, they weren't native to it. They'd lived there less than 200 years and were French speakers. It's not an indigenous population. It's more complicated than you claim. I'm pretty strongly anti-colonial, but this ain't that and it takes the piss to frame it like it is.
how many generations of people have to live somewhere to be considered "native" then. In this case we're talking what 4-5 generations, depending on how you count it, that sounds fairly native to me. The UK acted poorly here and the pressure that this vote applies to them is good, as if anyone has a right to the islands it's the people who lived there for hundreds of years.
They've been there well over 100 years now, settlement by the Israelis started in the 1870s. Are they now native?
It's never going to be an easy thing to resolve. Ultimately, if you settle someone else's sovereign land, don't be surprised if you don't get to just claim it unless you've got the guns, tanks and bombers to back it up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are subtle differences. Gibraltar was Spanish before The Utrech Treaty, that even included some expiration date IIRC. Ceuta and Melilla were Spanish towns before Morocco even existed. Not that it will matter in the long run...
I’m not sure there is an expiration date. Wikipedia (so pinch of salt) has the text as reading that Spain ceded to Great Britain: “the full and entire propriety of the town and castle of Gibraltar, together with the port, fortifications, and forts thereunto belonging ... for ever, without any exception or impediment whatsoever.”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
they are planning on putting it back with mauritius as it was before.
Meta: This comment is 20 000 000 item on HN.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
how many generations of people have to live somewhere to be considered "native" then. In this case we're talking what 4-5 generations, depending on how you count it, that sounds fairly native to me. The UK acted poorly here and the pressure that this vote applies to them is good, as if anyone has a right to the islands it's the people who lived there for hundreds of years.
So when do we get to stop wringing our hands about the Israelis? They've been there well over 100 years now, settlement by the Israelis started in the 1870s. Are they now native? It's never going to be an easy thing to resolve. Ultimately, if you settle someone else's sovereign land, don't be surprised if you don't get to just claim it unless you've got the guns, tanks and bombers to back it up.
Here the UK government acted unethically and (according to the UN) illegally in displacing people who had been resident on these islands for a long time.
That pressure is being brought to bear on them for this, seems like a good thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/.io
"After being questioned as a result of the interview, the British Government denied receiving any funds from the sale of .io domain names" So according to the linked article, no: .io names give nothing to Britain.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sure that Spain would vote against the UK irrespective of Brexit. If you have some territory illegally occupied by the British in your very country, it's obvious that you are going to vote against the British occupying territory elsewhere. It's coherent with Spanish foreign policy for many decades, from far before Brexit was even a talking point. I haven't noticed any will of the Spanish government to punish the…
There's an obvious reason for that. Many Spaniards from the nearby towns work in Gibraltar. I can't talk for everyone here, but most people I know couldn't care less about sovereignty. The huge problem with Gibraltar is smuggling and money laundering. Edit: also, there's a common belief that we haven't pressured about the Gibraltar status because it could trigger that Morocco will do the same with Ceuta and Melilla.…
It's Self Determination. In Gibraltar and Falklands the people living there have families stretching back centuries (over 300 years in Gibraltar's case, 150 in Falklands). Nobody is telling these people they can't become independent, or join another country. They quite simply don't want to.
When things are close in opion, like Scotland and Northern Ireland, then things are more delicate -- you can't please everyone, so you have to do what's the least danger.
In 2013, 92% of the Falklands voted, and 99.8% of those that voted, voted to stay British. In 2002, 88% of Gibraltar voted, and 99% voted to stay British.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's an obvious reason for that. Many Spaniards from the nearby towns work in Gibraltar. I can't talk for everyone here, but most people I know couldn't care less about sovereignty. The huge problem with Gibraltar is smuggling and money laundering. Edit: also, there's a common belief that we haven't pressured about the Gibraltar status because it could trigger that Morocco will do the same with Ceuta and Melilla.…
It's very simple, for Gibraltar, for Falklands, for Pitcairn, etc. It's Self Determination. In Gibraltar and Falklands the people living there have families stretching back centuries (over 300 years in Gibraltar's case, 150 in Falklands). Nobody is telling these people they can't become independent, or join another country. They quite simply don't want to. When things are close in opion, like Scotland and Northern Ir…
First, consider that nobody can be deprived of their nationality. They would still be UK citizens no matter what country owns the place.
Now Gibraltar lives mostly on smuggling and money laundering, with a little tourism and the military. The military facilities are no longer very useful for the British.
So what would they do there? There are more companies than inhabitants. Once the tax haven status disappears, all this income goes elsewhere. No more turning a blind eye for smuggling. Real state would suffer a big hit too.
No wonder they want their town to stay British. But they don't have a say really. Not because we say so, but the UK government. Taking that kind of referenda seriously would be so silly as voting if... oh, wait!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So when do we get to stop wringing our hands about the Israelis? They've been there well over 100 years now, settlement by the Israelis started in the 1870s. Are they now native? It's never going to be an easy thing to resolve. Ultimately, if you settle someone else's sovereign land, don't be surprised if you don't get to just claim it unless you've got the guns, tanks and bombers to back it up.
I'm not sure what the connection here is to the Israeli situation, an entirely different and also complex situation. Here the UK government acted unethically and (according to the UN) illegally in displacing people who had been resident on these islands for a long time. That pressure is being brought to bear on them for this, seems like a good thing.
You can't see the connection? At all?
I don't see what the point is in discussing this with you, some how you've decided that land bought and paid for should be given back to a people that didn't even come from there past a handful of generations.
And somehow this is 'ethical'.
What a load of nonsense.
I would point out that there were a huge number of abstentions. So don't think the UN were unanimous on this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure what the connection here is to the Israeli situation, an entirely different and also complex situation. Here the UK government acted unethically and (according to the UN) illegally in displacing people who had been resident on these islands for a long time. That pressure is being brought to bear on them for this, seems like a good thing.
Predominantly white colonials buying Palestinian land, forming an independent state and then kicking out all the indigenous people. You can't see the connection? At all? I don't see what the point is in discussing this with you, some how you've decided that land bought and paid for should be given back to a people that didn't even come from there past a handful of generations. And somehow this is 'ethical'. What a lo…
It's relatively clear from the wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chagos_Archipelago_sovereignty...) that the government of Mauritius were under the impression that their being granted independence from the UK depended on their agreeing to hand over the Chagos Islands
the key quote from British records being
"in theory, there were a number of possibilities. The Premier and his colleagues could return to Mauritius either with Independence or without it. On the Defence point, Diego Garcia could either be detached by order in Council or with the agreement of the Premier and his colleagues. The best solution of all might be Independence and detachment by agreement, although he could not of course commit the Colonial Secretary at this point."
To quote the BBC (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48371388) "Mauritius says it was forced to give up the Indian Ocean group"
The UK has a long history of gunboat diplomacy, this is just one example I would suggest.
As to the "huge number of abstentions", the vote was 116-6 of those that voted, not exactly a close outcome...