UK Government Thread

The only island which is actually inhabited Britain is keeping. I bet the Chagossian are grateful!

It was a Mauritanian proposal that the Air Base stays. Jagdish Koonjul (the Mauritanian UN representative) said that Mauritius has “no objection whatsoever to the U.S. base in Diego Garcia. … The importance of the base cannot be underestimated.” He stressed the endurance of an agreement between the U.S. and Mauritius in that all Mauritian political parties support the base in Diego Garcia.

Yep, the only definite in all this was the US base staying put, Diego Garcia will have no incoming Chagossians any time soon, it’s a strategically important base for the US, and it cost, and still costs them an absolute fortune.

I’m not sure what Mauritius get for it though, at a guess they’ll get the US to pay them i guess.

Come to think of it, why don’t Prime Ministers (and Ch. Ex.) pay BIK on the Downing

Benefits of writing the rulez 🙂

I doubt if anyone who actually holds down a job as an employee is allowed to accept gifts or tickets to things other than calendars or pens 🙂

I get that the PM getting invites to things or the Lord Mayor going to London things but other than them I don’t see why any MP should be allowed freebies unless it’s something they were involved with.

It’s not like the basic salary’s bad £91,346 and well expenses.

Mauritius should charge the “money printing machine” 100 times more with contract renewal every 3 years (adding another 50%)

Even with 100 times rental it is peanut to the money printing machine to have an air base there.

In the event of war, Mauritius will need whatever they can to sustain themselves and by being accommodating now they are they are selling their lives cheap.

With a population of 1.263 million (2022), they would be fool to not take this opportunity to charge as much as they wish.  In fact, the entire population could just received salary every month without needing to work.

I’m a bit surprised no-one in the press has brought up Reeves once having her parliamentary credit card suspended for spaffing it up the wall. Seemingly fiscal rules are only for the plebs.

they would be fool to not take this opportunity to charge as much as they wish.

My very first reaction when I heard that Britain was handing back the Chagos Island to  Mauritius was  “the Chagossians are going to be pleased to be eventually going home. Then I hear that the Chagossians are furious with the deal because the United States airbase is staying, so my next thought was “Mauritius is going to make a fortune out of the Americans”.

Then I discover that Britain isn’t handing back Diego Gracia. I can’t see how this complies with UN Resolutions on decolonisation when you are relinquishing sovereignty on uninhabited Islands, ie islands without any colonies, but keeping the one island which actually has a colony.

It’s like some sort of comedy sketch. I bet they had a good laugh in the Foreign Office…….and then we told them, you can have these islands, we don’t want them anymore”

I can’t see how this complies with UN Resolutions on decolonisation when you are relinquishing sovereignty on uninhabited Islands, ie islands without any colonies, but keeping the one island which actually has a colony.

AIUI all have been handed back but then Diego Garcia is leased back on a long lease, and with Mauritius’s consent. It’s quite complex – there’s two risks; that a new Mauritian government may not honour that lease, and secondly that if the base doesn’t remain then quickly China will move onto it – so the long lease is apparently a means to protect that (depends how well they adhere to international law – ironic coming from us, I know!!)

The deal to transfer the Indian Ocean archipelago to Mauritius includes the tropical atoll of Diego Garcia, home to a military base used by the UK and the US that plays a crucial role in the region’s stability and international security.

Under the agreement, the base will remain under UK and US jurisdiction for at least the next 99 years.

https://news.sky.com/story/uk-to-hand-over-sovereignty-of-chagos-islands-to-mauritius-after-decades-long-dispute-13227089

According to the Guardian link Mauritius will not have sovereignty of the Diego Garcia. The Chagossians are apparently not happy at all, unsurprisingly – it’s their home.

It would be interesting to hear what the United Nations Special Committee on Decolonization has to say on the “deal”

Justifying Americans staying there because otherwise the Chinese will quickly move in is nonsense. First of all it is for Mauritius to decide which, if any, foreign power should have a military base on their sovereign territory, not the US president.

And secondly if you use that as an excuse then the United States could expropriate any bit of land they fancy. There are loads of places throughout the world that China could have military bases on.

The solution is simply. The United States could build huge  aircraft carriers, maybe another half a dozen on top of the 11 they already have. Very expensive I know but relying on the legacy of the British Empire and driving indigenous peoples off their lands is not acceptable post 19th Century.

and according to the BBC, it’s – basically the same as the Sky article.

Guardian link doesn’t say Mauritius won’t have sovereignty of Diego Garcia, it says it “will remain under UK control”

Complicated, with different news outlets reporting differently. The actual Gov statement is definitive that

“Under the terms of this treaty the United Kingdom will agree that Mauritius is sovereign over the Chagos Archipelago, including Diego Garcia. At the same time, both our countries are committed to the need, and will agree in the treaty, to ensure the long-term, secure and effective operation of the existing base on Diego Garcia which plays a vital role in regional and global security.  For an initial period of 99 years, the United Kingdom will be authorised to exercise with respect to Diego Garcia the sovereign rights and authorities of Mauritius required to ensure the continued operation of the base well into the next century”

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/joint-statement-between-uk-and-mauritius-3-october-2024

To other points:

One assumes the UN is OK with that; they are reporting the news without any complaint although they also note as you do that (not all) Chagossians are happy with the deal their government has agreed.

https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/10/1155326#:~:text=Under%20Thursday’s%20agreement%2C%20the%20UK,%2C%20a%20close%20Commonwealth%20partner%E2%80%9D.

Lastly – not sure if your comment is aimed at me or not – I’m just reporting what press is saying, but given the Mauritian Gov has signed to a deal (OK, not signed but agreed with treaty to follow) in which

“both our countries are committed to the need, and will agree in the treaty, to ensure the long-term, secure and effective operation of the existing base on Diego Garcia which plays a vital role in regional and global security

I don’t think it’s correct to say that US president is deciding where to put bases and expropriating the land, it’s an agreement. The issue reported in the Sky article is that a future Gov may decide not to respect that agreement – and then what happens.

relying on the legacy of the British Empire and driving indigenous peoples off their lands is not acceptable post 19th Century.

agree – but caveat that the Mauritian Gov has decided to agree to it in spite of what the Chagossian Islanders wanted, and also that

Mauritius will now be free to implement a programme of resettlement on the islands of the Chagos Archipelago, other than Diego Garcia, and the UK will capitalise a new trust fund, as well as separately provide other support, for the benefit of Chagossians,

and separately there’s a hope that even if D-G can’t be resettled, Chagossians and their descendants will be prioritised for jobs there.

Guardian link doesn’t say Mauritius won’t have sovereignty of Diego Garcia, it says it “will remain under UK control”

Well the Guardian describes it as Britain retaining “delegated sovereignty”, let’s see what the United Nations Special Committee on Decolonization has to say about the deal. I guess they will have to accept it because the former complainant has accepted it.

The UN website link is just the UN news service, and that article is actually quite scathing of Britain’s treatment of the Chagossians.

As I said, the Chagossians were shamefully screwed by a Labour government (which in many ways was an excellent government) and now 50 years later they are being screwed by another (not quite so excellent imo) Labour government.

and the UK will capitalise a new trust fund, as well as separately provide other support, for the benefit of Chagossians,

Save’s me looking at the Daily Mail’s headlines in a day or twos time. 😉

Id like to think the only reason that the UK just didn’t walk away from the issue and say, “Come on everyone, this isn’t really UK territory, the US are calling the shots here, not us” is to try and take a bit of responsibility for an historic wrong but I’m likely being naive.

I’m going to guess that a lot of the Chagos islands and those of Mauritius itself, are going to be mainly under water in a few decades which is bloody sad to think about. Also inconvenient for the US… though they can always “do a China” and build the island up to outpace a rise in sea levels. They have the luxury of having the money to do so, unlike these tiny islands states.

I’m wondering what India thinks of this? I know they are getting worried about China’s increasing influence in the Indian Ocean. I suspect they are glad to see the US maintain a base there.

Just thinking aloud really.

Can’t help but think that the UK, US, and the west will regret this one day.

bikesandboots
Full Member
Can’t help but think that the UK, US, and the west will regret this one day.

Very different in so many ways but it does make me think of the deal we had over HK, 99 years sounds like a long time. Till it isn’t.

Yeah and by then China will totally dominate the world anyway so it will be a moot point.

This much fabled return to UK stability (which is a bit of a red herring ) as current world stability tends control where private wealth flows.

(See the recent dip in the pound as money moves away from risk-on assets towards the dollar again due to concern about the middle-east.  Most likely temporarily as world events tend to be faded by the market.)

However the unnecessary doom and gloom from the Labour party has been cited the reason for UK investment funds to have had outflows of 666million in September.

Striking that while Labour promised a wall of investment when they got in, UK-focused funds actually saw net withdrawals of £666 million in September while other areas saw inflows, according to Calastone, a global fund network.

The fund put this down to the government’s…

— Sam Coates Sky (@SamCoatesSky) October 3, 2024

Ultimately I don’t care so much about this stuff as it’s pretty obvious everyone needs the UK government to invest a whole load of money themselves – and the markets will just behave how they want to. (Usually positive when there is a net flow from government.) But it’s clear that the vagueness of what Labour call stability is not likely to be the leading factor of private investment.

Can you help me with that Rone – I have no idea if that £666m is either significant or ‘normal’ so clicked through the link to see if the article said how much is actually invested. In turn it goes through to a Times article

https://www.thetimes.com/article/c5ee1500-1a9c-4981-873e-48fb0af50933?shareToken=c4df8f6ba7ec20d400ca4bf7215b160d

which then says “According to Calastone data, UK-focused equity funds have not registered a positive net inflow of capital since 2021”

and show a graph that has this as roughly an average outflow. The times article does say it shows a halt to a recovery and indeed the outflows in Jul/Aug were lower, but it doesn’t really show enough for me to view it as a trend.

And, to put this in context, look at the outflow since the beginning of 2022. Care to explain why you only focus on the Labour Government rather than the fuller picture, Sam? pic.twitter.com/eZSzBa1Xm8

— TallyCat ?? ? (@TallyCat8) October 3, 2024

I also note that if money is flowing out at that rate, and has been for three years, and the funds haven’t crashed then the funds must be pretty big. IANAFE so don’t know if this is the right number as context, but a google says the total value of UK equity funds is 2.6tn. If that’s what the outflow is against, that’s 0.02%

Have I got that right?

Come to think of it, why don’t Prime Ministers (and Ch. Ex.) pay BIK on the Downing Street flats?

They pay for the council tax, and the (10%) tax on services and utilities. Other than that (and the fact that they don’t get an allowance to pay the costs) the flat comes with the job.

and now 50 years later they are being screwed by another (not quite so excellent imo) Labour government.

Nope, they’ve been screwed over by their own govt who made the 99 year lease deal.

Come to think of it, why don’t Prime Ministers (and Ch. Ex.) pay BIK on the Downing Street flats?

Law of unintended consequences – be a lot of agricultural workers rather pissed off if accommodation provided with work became a BIK.

However the unnecessary doom and gloom from the Labour party has been cited the reason for UK investment funds to have had outflows of 666million in September.

Like everyone here I am not an economist but I do know someone who has been trying to raise a £3-5b UK based fund over the last couple of years and it has been slower than on previous years to get to this target long before the GE.

Lolz at all the tub-thumpers who think the UK still has any influence in the world. In this case the only reason anyone really cares in a geopolitical sense is because of the US airbase.

Even the US is having a hard time now it is being shown up by Israel.

Biden: Please stop committing genocide. We do not approve.

Netanyahu: No. And what are you going to do about it anyway?

Biden: Disapprove more. But continue selling you weapons.

The solution is simply. The United States could build huge  aircraft carriers, maybe another half a dozen on top of the 11 they already have. Very expensive I know but relying on the legacy of the British Empire and driving indigenous peoples off their lands is not acceptable post 19th Century.

When you say indigenous, you do know that Diego Garcia had none, the population were ‘freed’ slaves, or descendants of them who were there working on the plantation that were created by the french. Also noting Mauritius is over 1300 miles away from these islands, and hasn’t really got the infrastructure to support them in any real way as well, it’s basically just a bun fight over some small islands that only the US has any real use for.

What happened in the 70s was wrong, but i doubt many, or any, would want to move back to Diego Garcia even if it was demilitarised, those who lived there, or their children have been living in Mauritius or the UK for two generations, so not sure if anything other than the potential plan stated by the UK, US and Mauritius is viable, as for the UN, what are they going to do but do their usual principled speeches with absolutely no action behind them.

When you say indigenous, you do know that Diego Garcia had none

I am aware that the Chagossians didn’t evolve in Diego Garcia, and that humans are not indigenous anywhere outside Africa.

However despite the fact that the subject is British imperialism I didn’t think that the old much loved colonial term  “the natives” was appropriate and I used the more modern and generally acceptable indigenous.

But whatever term you want to use it doesn’t change point I was making – that the Chagossians have been screwed twice by Labour governments. Nick seems to think that only Mauritius is responsible this time but they are only one party in the deal.

But whatever term you want to use it doesn’t change point I was making – that the Chagossians have been screwed twice by Labour governments. Nick seems to think that only Mauritius is responsible this time but they are only one party in the deal.

You do know both times it’s been at the bequest of the US, firstly so they could build their base, and now, with Mauritius sovereignty, the US are leasing it for 99 years and so on, the UK are able to back out of this whole fiasco now and leave it to those who actually want the Chagos Islands for something.

As for screwed, the Chagossians have had that their entire time, finally freed slaves, dumped in a French colony to work the plantations, then in the 70s they get dumped in the UK and Mauritius, but again, in 2024, i honestly don’t see how you repopulate Diego Garcia anytime soon, Mauritius has no logistic ability to do this, or probably the will to spend the billions required to make it habitable again once the US leaves.

Nick seems to think that only Mauritius is responsible this time but they are only one party in the deal.

Ultimately, the Chaggosians don’t have any political representation that supports their claim. The UK aren’t going to (obviously) which leaves Mauritius, and as I linked to yesterday, all the political parties support the continuing presence of the US Air Base, so in the sense that after the UK was told to give back the islands, their hand could’ve been forced by Mauritius had any of their political representatives sought to do so, they didn’t. While you’ll lay the blame at the feet of the UK, I’d say the UK acted in it’s own interests, (how else would it act)  and the islanders have been let down by their own government in this instance.

As for screwed, the Chagossians have had that their entire time

I can see the thinking behind that…….why stop now, eh? A Labour government proper shafted them 50 years ago why stop now? Especially as all the Chagossians who lived in Diego Gracia will be dead in not too long.

On a side note/QI related fact did you know that New Zealand was the last “landmass” on which humans settled? About 400 years before Europeans arrived

FFS after all the we have no money bollocks Reeves and Starmer have now found 22bn (coincidence?) down the back of the sofa to spend on fantasy greenwash nonsense. Unless of course they’re planning on spending all that money on planting trees – which is still the only proven CCS technology – but I doubt those are the skilled jobs they’re prattling on about.

Who the hell is running the labour PR machine? It’s like they’re trying to be the most unpopular government in history. “Sorry we can’t afford to help you heat your homes or help you get a doctor’s appointment, but we’ve got loads of cash to spend on pie in the sky technologies which don’t do anything”. F***** clueless!

LOL…….how much are you willing to pay for breakfast?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/oct/04/dont-do-it-again-miliband-tells-labour-over-30000-breakfast-with-minister

It should be seen appallingly depressing that the current Labour leadership is on Tory level sleaze, but it’s so sleazy it’s actually funny.

What a way to start a new government.

FFS after all the we have no money bollocks Reeves and Starmer have now found 22bn (coincidence?) down the back of the sofa to spend on fantasy greenwash nonsense.

Erm – you do realise that’s an investment of 22bn over 25 years. Comparing it to a 22bn deficit of Dept spending in year is incorrect. In fact spending on investment vs day to day spending is also incorrect.

Unless of course they’re planning on spending all that money on planting trees – which is still the only proven CCS technology

Fortunately the investment is in developing CC technology, so that planting trees isn’t the only proven technology. If there aren’t investments, then planting trees will be the only proven technology ever?

Sorry we can’t afford to help you heat your homes or help you get a doctor’s appointment, but we’ve got loads of cash to spend on pie in the sky technologies which don’t do anything

Targeted but speculative long term research isn’t pie in the sky. It’s essential. And as before – investment spending isn’t the same as day to day departmental budgets. Indeed, didn’t Rone just say earlier

it’s pretty obvious everyone needs the UK government to invest a whole load of money themselves

Anyone would think that anything they do will be criticised!

“Sorry we can’t afford to help you heat your homes “

A policy change that only a couple of days ago on this thread, you supported.

you do realise that’s an investment of 22bn over 25 years.

Yes of course I do. I’m not talking about whether it’s a good thing or not*, I’m talking about the optics and the politics of it. The voting public won’t make the distiction you have, they will do a simple sum in their heads of no 22bn for WFP and other stuff (along with higher taxes) versus a 22bn handout to fossil fuel companies and others to ‘do research’ into technology that doesn’t exist yet that has no perceived benefit for them. Their conclusion will then be that the labour govt is on the side of big business and not the working man/woman struggling to make ends meet. I have no real problem with labour spending 22bn on research, but announcing it with a massive fanfare like it’s going to save everyone is going to massively backfire. I wonder how many votes went to reform this morning?

*Although 22bn would be far better spent on proven tech like planting trees and restoring and extending peat bogs, something we are uniquely able to do given our geography. But that’s not as shiny and impressive is it? Far better to pretend we’re all going to be saved by fantasy technology of the future.

Fortunately the investment is in developing CC technology,

What’s fortunate about it? CCS has been talked up for decades now to little effect, and continues to draw public investment away from stuff that actually works.

CCS has been talked up for decades now to little effect, and continues to draw public investment away from stuff that actually works.

CCS is the new nuclear fusion. By the time they figure out how to make it work we’ll all be long gone and the world will be in a 4 degree of warming hellscape. Still though, it gives the PM an opportunity for a nice speech which makes him look like he’s doing something useful. Won’t be long before he’s making speeches about mirrors in space. :-/

All this simply vindicates the idea that there’s money when they want to spend it.

It’s amazing how one minute there’s a black hole in finances, the next they find the money.  It’s brazen.

(Same with Biden – billions for Ukraine but the victims of the recent Hurricane disaster have been more or less told there’s no more money for whatever made up Federal v State reason.)

The final piece of the puzzle will be whether Reeves all of sudden rewrites the definition of government ‘debt’ and/or changes the fiscal rules. Absolute proof that they make up a budgeting restriction to suit the politics of the day or so they believe because the austerity argument will not wash this time.

Labour have got there work cut out to even begin to straighten this out.

Starmer appears to be just terrible at politics. That’s reality.

Jonathan Ashworth still doing the rounds. This man knows no limit to his expertise on various subjects.

Well, I’ve just asked one of our experts on CCUS and he’s going to send me a primer that I’ll share.

Perhaps you can do the same for your assertions that it’s no good, and then we can read both sides.

And good that @rone’s here – I asked a couple of questions on your post about investment flow, maybe you’d have a look.

Well, I’ve just asked one of our experts on CCUS and he’s going to send me a primer that I’ll share.

I work for a leading sustainable development consultancy, and whilst its not my field I don’t know of a single project we’re working on which involves CCS. Given we’re all over wind, solar, hydro, nuclear, habitat restoration and a multitude of other things in the sustainability space that tells me CCS isn’t taken very seriously, because if it was I’d be reading all about it in our internal bulletins and other comms.

It’s greenwash. A convenient way to funnel billions to fossil fuel companies who can use it as an excuse to carry on extracting oil and gas with the promise of a magical technology to be introduced at some uspecified time in the future that will undo all the damage they cause.

Perhaps you can do the same for your assertions that it’s no good, and then we can read both sides.

I’m not going to try and prove a negative. Some of the questions that need answering, in my view, are as follows:

1. Where does it work commercially, at scale?

2. What guarantees do we have that storage is secure in the very long term?

3. How do we square carbon capture with utilising that CO2 to extract more fossil fuel? How is this accounted for in a carbon balance?

4. What is the opportunity cost of public subsidy, were it to be allocated instead to proven renewable technology?

5. Who are the commercial entities pushing this technology and what is their motivation?

6. If it were deployed commercially at scale, what % contribution would it make to carbon reduction and what is its marginal abatement cost?

Like dazh, CCS is not my field but I’ve worked in environmental management, renewable energy and clean tech in the public and private sector, for 25 years. I know of no-one who thinks that it’s anything other than an expensive distraction.

£30k for a breakfast? We have the best government money can buy.