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

This discussion is closed.
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#41
Report 1 month ago
#41
(Original post by SoggyCabbages)
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.
But why do we need a military presence in the Indian Ocean when we are in Europe and the TSR government and the other wet towels want us to be ultra isolationist? And the fact we are leasing to the US is doubly reason to let it go, how dare we help the Americans in any way!
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#42
Report 1 month ago
#42
Here's the deal then: I back this decision to enter into discussions and acknowledge that we have an interest in sorting this out properly since we have a base we'd like to keep there. Plus it gives us some nice leverage over the Americans to keep it.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#43
Report 1 month ago
#43
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
Here's the deal then: I back this decision to enter into discussions and acknowledge that we have an interest in sorting this out properly since we have a base we'd like to keep there. Plus it gives us some nice leverage over the Americans to keep it.
The status quo involves handing BIOT over to Mauritius when the base is no longer needed, in other words you're going for the status quo with extra steps
0
SankaraInBloom
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#44
Report 1 month ago
#44
The idea that the Chagos Islands have suddenly became some inhabitable hellscape under British command is complete fallacy. Indeed, there's absolutely no consequential merit to relinquishing the Islands without referenda. The United Nations have made a series of frankly useless declarations regarding the status of the Chagos Islands, based upon the fact that they are partially used as a US military base.

As far as I can see, that's not a breach of the conditions we operate under there - instead, it is the Commonwealth exercising its conditional right to implement NATO policy via supranational cooperation. I've absolutely no faith in any relinquishing of territory without referenda, the situation in Hong Kong at the moment proves what happens when we let British overseas territories slip away from us too easily and I can't see what good this empty statement does.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#45
Report 1 month ago
#45
(Original post by SankaraInBloom)
The idea that the Chagos Islands have suddenly became some inhabitable hellscape under British command is complete fallacy. Indeed, there's absolutely no consequential merit to relinquishing the Islands without referenda. The United Nations have made a series of frankly useless declarations regarding the status of the Chagos Islands, based upon the fact that they are partially used as a US military base.

As far as I can see, that's not a breach of the conditions we operate under there - instead, it is the Commonwealth exercising its conditional right to implement NATO policy via supranational cooperation. I've absolutely no faith in any relinquishing of territory without referenda, the situation in Hong Kong at the moment proves what happens when we let British overseas territories slip away from us too easily and I can't see what good this empty statement does.
Referenda? I can think of one question you could ask but not multiple, and I also k ow what the result will be I'd you only open it to those in the archipelago given they're basically all military personnel deployed to the base

I also wonder how many "chagosians" would actually return if given the opportunity
Last edited by Jammy Duel; 1 month ago
0
SankaraInBloom
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#46
Report 1 month ago
#46
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Referenda? I can think of one question you could ask but not multiple, and I also k ow what the result will be I'd you only open it to those in the archipelago given they're basically all military personnel deployed to the base

I also wonder how many "chagosians" would actually return if given the opportunity
Oh without a doubt, I don't think it's necessarily feasible in this instance. I'm more discussing existing precedent as we've seen how badly it goes when British overseas territories either UDI or are negotiated away into oblivion. If it did become a pressing matter, rather than the United Nations trying to throw its weight around the US to try and pacify explicitly anti-western UN members, then some sort of plebiscite on the future of the Islands as a BOT would likely be the way to do it, regardless of how obviously far gone a conclusion it would be.

Ultimately, the Chagos Islands barely have any more feasible access to sovereignty than the Isle of Rockall (population: 1 seagull and 6000 years of bird excrement).
0
BosslyGaming
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#47
Report 1 month ago
#47
(Original post by Miss Maddie)
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
The reason for discussion is recognising and upholding the importance to lead the example for peace inside the UN. The UN have ruled that Mauritius have a credible claim and for that reason we propose engaging in the discussion. They haven't ruled that the Maldives have a claim, however an important part of this discussion is involving all parties and we will continue discussion with the Maldives and seek to create a suitable way forward for both sides. The government isn't at this stage affirming or denying either claim to be right or wrong.
0
Miss Maddie
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#48
Report 1 month ago
#48
(Original post by BosslyGaming)
The reason for discussion is recognising and upholding the importance to lead the example for peace inside the UN. The UN have ruled that Mauritius have a credible claim and for that reason we propose engaging in the discussion. They haven't ruled that the Maldives have a claim, however an important part of this discussion is involving all parties and we will continue discussion with the Maldives and seek to create a suitable way forward for both sides. The government isn't at this stage affirming or denying either claim to be right or wrong.
I would have thought a cabinet member would want to engage with all respondents. You are ignoring six honourable members.
Last edited by Miss Maddie; 1 month ago
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#49
Report 1 month ago
#49
(Original post by BosslyGaming)
The reason for discussion is recognising and upholding the importance to lead the example for peace inside the UN. The UN have ruled that Mauritius have a credible claim and for that reason we propose engaging in the discussion. They haven't ruled that the Maldives have a claim, however an important part of this discussion is involving all parties and we will continue discussion with the Maldives and seek to create a suitable way forward for both sides. The government isn't at this stage affirming or denying either claim to be right or wrong.
Mr Speaker, The UN gives a voice to Russia, Iran and North Korea and allows them to make excuses for aggression. If that is the body this government believes will bring peace then I despair.
0
BosslyGaming
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#50
Report 1 month ago
#50
(Original post by Miss Maddie)
I would have thought a cabinet member would want to engage with all respondents. You are ignoring six honourable members.
I will respond to any members who have asked a question when I get the chance.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#51
Report 1 month ago
#51
(Original post by BosslyGaming)
The reason for discussion is recognising and upholding the importance to lead the example for peace inside the UN. The UN have ruled that Mauritius have a credible claim and for that reason we propose engaging in the discussion. They haven't ruled that the Maldives have a claim, however an important part of this discussion is involving all parties and we will continue discussion with the Maldives and seek to create a suitable way forward for both sides. The government isn't at this stage affirming or denying either claim to be right or wrong.
What are you on? Are you suggesting that if we do not engage in dialogue to hand over a bunch of rocks Mauritius will do nothing with war will break out? The UN is an impotent body anyway, it is League of Nations 2.0

It is a simple question to ask: what is the government's position? Hand over the islands? simple reassertion of the status quo? Roll back even on the status quo?

If it is to hand over, say so
If it is reassertion it is a waste of time
If to solidify our position say so
0
BosslyGaming
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#52
Report 1 month ago
#52
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
What are you on? Are you suggesting that if we do not engage in dialogue to hand over a bunch of rocks Mauritius will do nothing with war will break out? The UN is an impotent body anyway, it is League of Nations 2.0

It is a simple question to ask: what is the government's position? Hand over the islands? simple reassertion of the status quo? Roll back even on the status quo?

If it is to hand over, say so
If it is reassertion it is a waste of time
If to solidify our position say so
Of course I'm not saying that. My point was that we have reiterated our concerns with world tensions (namely Iran crisis) and we have clearly supported the position of dialogue in those scenarios. It would then be wrong, in my opinion, for us to ignore that ourselves and completely shut ourselves out from a dialogue by saying "They're ours, you can't have them" and curling into a ball. If that's the only viable approach for us after we've had a discussion then so be it - but there's no point in saying that before dialogue.

It's impossible to have a definitive position at this stage. We don't know how any dialogue could pan out and if there would be a possibility of giving the Islands back and maintaining the US military presence there. If the presence must cease and there is a clear consensus between ourselves and our allies that the base is vital for the protection of ourselves and our allies then obviously losing complete control of the Islands is not viable. So I suppose that there is a reassertion of the status quo in the fact that we will not cease control of the Islands if it would damage our security - however that is not a reason to say that discussion is pointless. The point is to discover any possible alternatives which could leave both sides satisfied.
0
SankaraInBloom
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#53
Report 1 month ago
#53
(Original post by BosslyGaming)
Of course I'm not saying that. My point was that we have reiterated our concerns with world tensions (namely Iran crisis) and we have clearly supported the position of dialogue in those scenarios. It would then be wrong, in my opinion, for us to ignore that ourselves and completely shut ourselves out from a dialogue by saying "They're ours, you can't have them" and curling into a ball. If that's the only viable approach for us after we've had a discussion then so be it - but there's no point in saying that before dialogue.

It's impossible to have a definitive position at this stage. We don't know how any dialogue could pan out and if there would be a possibility of giving the Islands back and maintaining the US military presence there. If the presence must cease and there is a clear consensus between ourselves and our allies that the base is vital for the protection of ourselves and our allies then obviously losing complete control of the Islands is not viable. So I suppose that there is a reassertion of the status quo in the fact that we will not cease control of the Islands if it would damage our security - however that is not a reason to say that discussion is pointless. The point is to discover any possible alternatives which could leave both sides satisfied.
There's a clear difference between the situation in Iran and the United Nations making anti-western calls to pacify crytypers in the PRC and elsewhere in the East.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#54
Report 1 month ago
#54
(Original post by BosslyGaming)
Of course I'm not saying that. My point was that we have reiterated our concerns with world tensions (namely Iran crisis) and we have clearly supported the position of dialogue in those scenarios. It would then be wrong, in my opinion, for us to ignore that ourselves and completely shut ourselves out from a dialogue by saying "They're ours, you can't have them" and curling into a ball. If that's the only viable approach for us after we've had a discussion then so be it - but there's no point in saying that before dialogue.

It's impossible to have a definitive position at this stage. We don't know how any dialogue could pan out and if there would be a possibility of giving the Islands back and maintaining the US military presence there. If the presence must cease and there is a clear consensus between ourselves and our allies that the base is vital for the protection of ourselves and our allies then obviously losing complete control of the Islands is not viable. So I suppose that there is a reassertion of the status quo in the fact that we will not cease control of the Islands if it would damage our security - however that is not a reason to say that discussion is pointless. The point is to discover any possible alternatives which could leave both sides satisfied.
This has nothing to do with Iran though, you also seem to have no clue what the status quo is, hint: it is not "they're ours, you can't have them", the discussions have already been held several times by the Mauritian government, including when we bought the islands in the first place

Holding a position is very much possible at this stage, I suspect most members of the house will have a definite position at this time:
myself and most of the Tories - Either stick with the status quo, or state that BIOT is ours forevermore
Several in the government - hand them over no questions asked
Most of the remainder - idgaf

The idea that there are realistically any alternatives that keep all parties happy is rather naive, the US won't be happy with us handing over, they won't trust the Mauritians to allow them to keep extending the lease; the Mauritians won't be happy unless they get the islands back now, even though their claim amounts to "they were lumped with us for administrative purposes" because otherwise they wouldn't make a fuss, keeping us happy is something I cannot comment on given I have no idea what government policy is, and I'm not sure you do either.

There is a simple reality: we either walk out of the discussions with the status quo maintained, the impotent UN being pissed off and all, or this government changes policy and either completely rejects the Mauritian claim or hands the islands over.

And if it really is about dialogue then why nothing on any of the other sovereignty disputes, your beloved UN has on multiple occasions stated that there should be dialogue on the Falklands, and the Spanish are constantly complaining over Gibraltar and we have a history of war with Spain. What is special about the BIOT?
0
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#55
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#55
(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.
At the request of the Leder of the Opposition, this has been sent to Division.

Division! Clear the Lobbies!
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 (477)
66.43%
No (241)
33.57%

Watched Threads

View All