Quizzes & Puzzles15 mins ago
Answers
1 to 16 of 16
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Atheist. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Having or not having an empire has B all to do with it. There are various world powers and alliances, some are not very nice and need containing. Giving them free reign in an area where one previously had a presence, is not a wise move. Nor, for what matter, is listening to pronunciations from a less than respected organisation these days, and deciding to give away your own territory, without even consulting the citizens, as a gift to another nation, let alone then paying them to allow an allied nation to retain it's base there. One wonders is anyone really thought about it all beforehand.
nothing will change. the only thing on the islands is a US military base and the americans aren't going to relinquish that. who in the UK was truly bothered about our in-name-only "ownership" of these distant islands? I certainly wasn't and i don't really believe anyone else was either.
it's just a bunch of cynical tories pretending to care about something because labour have done it. pathetic.
“OG, what practically, will change regarding the Chagos Islands and the UK's role in administration of them?”
I’m surprised you need to ask that, Corby.
Currently the Chagos islands are a British Overseas territory. The UK maintains control of them and in particular nobody is permitted to reside on any of them apart from Diego Garcia. Access to that island is strictly controlled.
If they are ceded to Mauritius that control (apart from over Diego Garcia) will be lost. There is nothing in the deal for Mauritius. The islands are 1,100 distant and are of little intrinsic value. They will certainly not be repatriating the Chagossians still living in Mauritius (who, incidentally, are treated appallingly there).
There is only one aim of the Mauritian authorities in his affair – to screw as much cash as possible from the UK for “atonement of their sins” and then to lease or sell the islands to the highest bidder from among their allies.
"the islands are now under the control of the US as they were before last week. there is no change in their strategic use."
That's very true. - possibly because the handover has not yet happened..
After the handover all the islands except Diego Garcia will be under the control of Mauritius. Or more importantly, since they have no real interest in them, under the control of whoever they sell or lease them to.
I think a wider point is that the UK government continues to submit to decisions of an international organisation which seems to lack the competence to understand historical information and geographical facts. Apart from failing to properly grasp the constitutional aspects of the dispute, it describes the islands as "the UK's last African colony". Not even the UN can alter the fact that they have nothing to do with Africa, being geographically part of the Indian sub-continent.
Indeed, duggie. And whilst we are about it, abandon the ridiculous "Commonwealth" malarky.
It was a pet poodle (or perhaps Corgi) of the late Queen and her departure presented the ideal opportunity to wind the whole thing up.
There is nothing "common" about the wealth that is shared as a result of it. For most of the members it's like having a joint bank accoun with Elon Musk.
1 to 16 of 16
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.