R49 – Ministerial Report from the Secretary of State for FCO Watch

This discussion is closed.
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#21
Report 1 month ago
#21
(Original post by 04MR17)
Do you not consider people living in Britain 200 years ago to be British?
Their descendants have (largely) lived in Britain for the 200 years since though - the primitive natives of the Indian Ocean territory completely vacated their land.

Perhaps I should’ve worded it better and said that “the descendants of the primitives who lived there 200 years ago and vacated the islands have no claim.”

Much like how if someone left the UK to live in Australia 200 years ago and their descendants have all been Australian since, those descendants don’t really have any claim to British citizenship.
Last edited by Connor27; 1 month ago
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#22
Report 1 month ago
#22
(Original post by Connor27)
Their descendants have (largely) lived in Britain for the 200 years since though - the primitive natives of the Indian Ocean territory completely vacated their land.
That doesn't answer my question, and could you provide some evidence to the claim that the descendants are British?
0
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#23
Report 1 month ago
#23
(Original post by 04MR17)
That doesn't answer my question, and could you provide some evidence to the claim that the descendants are British?
I have edited my original post
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#24
Report 1 month ago
#24
(Original post by Connor27)
Their descendants have (largely) lived in Britain for the 200 years since though - the primitive natives of the Indian Ocean territory completely vacated their land.

Perhaps I should’ve worded it better and said that “the descendants of the primitives who lived there 200 years ago and vacated the islands have no claim.”

Much like how if someone left the UK to live in Australia 200 years ago and their descendants have all been Australian since, those descendants don’t really have any claim to British citizenship.
Can I ask where 200 years is coming from? The best I can see is that the inhabitants were kicked out 50-60 years ago...
0
Baron of Sealand
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#25
Report 1 month ago
#25
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
And?
The islanders who were only there because the Empire ruled both places...Mauritius had no connection to these islands (which are geographically very far) before they all became European colonies.
0
Baron of Sealand
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#26
Report 1 month ago
#26
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
I can't tell whether this is a report or just a statement.

Why do we even have these islands? What's the importance of having a military base there?
It's good that it's published as a report, because Andrew97 I'd like to send this to a vote after discussion concludes.
0
Baron of Sealand
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#27
Report 1 month ago
#27
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
If the islands are of no use, then just hand them back to the evicted islanders and have done.
They're of strategic importance. Why else did you think Britain pay Mauritius for them?

Mauritius will not be able to use these islands to fight piracy, protect shipping routes, or maintain peace in the region.
Last edited by Baron of Sealand; 1 month ago
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#28
Report 1 month ago
#28
(Original post by Connor27)
I have edited my original post
Okay, could you still respond answering my 2 questions tho because you still haven't?
0
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#29
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#29
(Original post by Baron of Sealand)
It's good that it's published as a report, because Andrew97 I'd like to send this to a vote after discussion concludes.
Ok.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#30
Report 1 month ago
#30
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
If the islands are of no use, then just hand them back to the evicted islanders and have done.
There's only a 4000 man military base there...
We bought it for £3m in the 60s specifically to put a base there, the Mauritian claim is wholly based on the fact that the archipelago was administered from Mauritius instead of setting up an administration on the islands for a few hundred people the French put there

It is also worth noting that Mauritius is not the sole claimant, the Maldives also supported us in the UN last year due to their own claim

As an aside, the base was one of the emergency landing sites for the Space Shuttle and can be used as an ETOPS site for commercial aviation which opens up a number of routes that have to cross the Indian Ocean.
0
Miss Maddie
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#31
Report 1 month ago
#31
Why is the Maldivian claim wrong and Mauritian claim right?

Is it really a good idea to damage UK-Maldives relations by supporting the Mauritian claim to the islands over the Maldivian claim? The Maldives is a closer ally to the UK. By holding the islands we are also preventing a possible Mauritius-Maldives war.

BosslyGaming
Last edited by Miss Maddie; 1 month ago
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#32
Report 1 month ago
#32
(Original post by BosslyGaming)
I chose to submit this as a report under the view that it is outlining a government policy, which is to engage in meaningful discussion with the relevant parties, and for that reason would be better suited than a simple statement.


The Shadow Foreign Secretary will note that at no point in the report does the government say that our position is to hand over the islands, there is actually a specific mention to the strategic importance of the islands. This report is before the house to discuss the point of entering discussion with those involved. You may have an opinion on who should have control of the islands and that would be a discussion to take place once discussion has occurred and there is a clear picture of the situation which we can debate.
The fact that you are even entertaining the Mauritian claim as legitimate, and the general view of the government that Britain's place in the world is curled up in the corner doing whatever anybody tells us to do, the one exception being the US, there we must do the opposite coz orange man bad.

The only relevant party for discussions over the BIOT is the US, and that isn't needed for another decade given their lease does not expire until 2036.

Will the government continue this trend and enter into discussions with Argentina over their illegitimate claim over the Falklands and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands; Spain over their illegitimate claim over Gibraltar; discussions with Chile and Argentina over their Antarctic claims; and whoever takes issue with our claim over Rockall
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#33
Report 1 month ago
#33
(Original post by Miss Maddie)
Why is the Maldivian claim right and Mauritian claim wrong?

Is it really a good idea to damage UK-Maldives relations by supporting the Mauritian claim to the islands over the Maldivian claim? The Maldives is a closer ally to the UK. By holding the islands we are also preventing a possible Mauritius-Maldives war.

BosslyGaming
Might want to flip those round

The reason the Mauritian claim is legitimate is coz non-binding (as if any UN resolution is actually binding) UN resolution says it's theirs, I would guess
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#34
Report 1 month ago
#34
(Original post by Connor27)
They’re not of no use; they are used for military purposes with an incredibly strategically important base located there.
(Original post by LiberOfLondon)
We have a military base there. It isn't of no use if we have a base there.

Since none of HM subjects pay Council Tax on the island or are residents there, there is no mandate for independence and so the Chagos Islands shall remain British.
(Original post by SoggyCabbages)
We should be keeping these islands at all costs they are of big military importance.

We have held them for centuries so any several hundreds year old claims are redundant.
You all keep asserting they're important without explaining why.
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
There's only a 4000 man military base there...
We bought it for £3m in the 60s specifically to put a base there, the Mauritian claim is wholly based on the fact that the archipelago was administered from Mauritius instead of setting up an administration on the islands for a few hundred people the French put there

It is also worth noting that Mauritius is not the sole claimant, the Maldives also supported us in the UN last year due to their own claim

As an aside, the base was one of the emergency landing sites for the Space Shuttle and can be used as an ETOPS site for commercial aviation which opens up a number of routes that have to cross the Indian Ocean.
Thank you Jammy, you're the first person to begin to explain their use and significance.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#35
Report 1 month ago
#35
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
You all keep asserting they're important without explaining why.

Thank you Jammy, you're the first person to begin to explain their use and significance.
And to put into context the airbase side of things here are the areas that, without mid air refuelling, are in range of the B-52H and B-1, B-52 being the larger radius
B-52H B1 Lancer.PNG

It is also the only US Naval or Air Base in the vicinity that the US can be confident it has long term control over given the other bases are in the Middle East, other than a small base in Djibouti there isn't anything else in the Indian Ocean vicinity. Due to other events in the 70s it became a major base as other resources in the area were lost due to Communist victories in SE Asia. The actions of Iran 40 years ago has also resulted in the base becoming more important given its role in seeking to stop Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz.

Being in the middle of nowhere also makes it highly defensible, which was an important factor in it being put there in the first place, given its thousands of miles away from any credible potential threat and there is no domestic population so the space can be highly controlled.

While not particularly heavily used for active military purposes at the moment, understandable given the US currently has bases in the Middle East they can use which are far more practical for their current operations, the Facility was heavily used in both Gulf Wars and the invasion of Afghanistan with Marines deployed to the Gulf from there for Gulf I along with 730,000 MT of ordinance and the base was involved in Operation Enduring Freedom from day 1
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#36
Report 1 month ago
#36
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
And to put into context the airbase side of things here are the areas that, without mid air refuelling, are in range of the B-52H and B-1, B-52 being the larger radius
B-52H B1 Lancer.PNG

It is also the only US Naval or Air Base in the vicinity that the US can be confident it has long term control over given the other bases are in the Middle East, other than a small base in Djibouti there isn't anything else in the Indian Ocean vicinity. Due to other events in the 70s it became a major base as other resources in the area were lost due to Communist victories in SE Asia. The actions of Iran 40 years ago has also resulted in the base becoming more important given its role in seeking to stop Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz.

Being in the middle of nowhere also makes it highly defensible, which was an important factor in it being put there in the first place, given its thousands of miles away from any credible potential threat and there is no domestic population so the space can be highly controlled.

While not particularly heavily used for active military purposes at the moment, understandable given the US currently has bases in the Middle East they can use which are far more practical for their current operations, the Facility was heavily used in both Gulf Wars and the invasion of Afghanistan with Marines deployed to the Gulf from there for Gulf I along with 730,000 MT of ordinance and the base was involved in Operation Enduring Freedom from day 1
So hang on - is this a British or American military base? If the latter, why do we own an island that the US is using?
0
Miss Maddie
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#37
Report 1 month ago
#37
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
So hang on - is this a British or American military base? If the latter, why do we own an island that the US is using?
Both! Americans wanted a strategic base there. The catch was they needed to pay for it and allow us to use it. We contributed the land, them the money.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#38
Report 1 month ago
#38
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
So hang on - is this a British or American military base? If the latter, why do we own an island that the US is using?
Why do we own RAF Mildenhall, RAF Alconbury, RAF Molesworth, etc? Because it is our land and the Americans are leasing it

It is a UK base leased to the Americans jointly operated by the Royal Navy and US Navy
0
LiberOfLondon
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#39
Report 1 month ago
#39
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
And to put into context the airbase side of things here are the areas that, without mid air refuelling, are in range of the B-52H and B-1, B-52 being the larger radius
B-52H B1 Lancer.PNG

It is also the only US Naval or Air Base in the vicinity that the US can be confident it has long term control over given the other bases are in the Middle East, other than a small base in Djibouti there isn't anything else in the Indian Ocean vicinity. Due to other events in the 70s it became a major base as other resources in the area were lost due to Communist victories in SE Asia. The actions of Iran 40 years ago has also resulted in the base becoming more important given its role in seeking to stop Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz.

Being in the middle of nowhere also makes it highly defensible, which was an important factor in it being put there in the first place, given its thousands of miles away from any credible potential threat and there is no domestic population so the space can be highly controlled.

While not particularly heavily used for active military purposes at the moment, understandable given the US currently has bases in the Middle East they can use which are far more practical for their current operations, the Facility was heavily used in both Gulf Wars and the invasion of Afghanistan with Marines deployed to the Gulf from there for Gulf I along with 730,000 MT of ordinance and the base was involved in Operation Enduring Freedom from day 1
PRSOM
0
SoggyCabbages
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#40
Report 1 month ago
#40
Can't believe why people ask what is the point of Britian having the Chagos Islands and the BIOT overall. It is important for the United States of America and the United Kingdom to have a military prescence in the Indian Ocean, it really isn't hard.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

People at uni: do initiations (like heavy drinking) put you off joining sports societies?

Yes (479)
66.53%
No (241)
33.47%

Watched Threads

View All