Why do the very same British leftists who claim that Britain needs to be in the EU as it is too small to go it alone want to constantly further diminish Britain’s power by giving up Chagos and other territories?

[boltj]

These people hate their country so much. Why would you want to make it weak by giving up land when no other country would willingly give up territories for “feelgood” reasons then complain you need to be in the EU as you’re now too weak?

No need to repeat it in Parliament. We all know how to say the f word without saying the f word

God forbid someone should say fuck. That’s obviously much, much worse than racist name calling. 🙄

Exactly. It just symbolises the dumbing down of discourse. Makes people sound stupid as they are unable to say what they mean without using a swear word.

She's set a precedent now.

So you are not taking in the whole premise of the OP ? Cherry picking ?

Do you have a link that says Mauritius will lower income tax on the back of UK payments ?

I think I said yesterday, FT reports 101 million a year to be paid, for however many years. Another poster on here said it's " £30bn over 100 years, inc inflation.".

I gave no idea how the inflation is worked out.

I can't see how 100 odd million a year causes increased income tax in the UK.

As the OP statement, or premise, is a logical fallacy,, I am going to use one here if ok : a whataboutism :-)

Uk has a fair number of overseas territories.

I picked one at random. St Helena. How much does the UK pay them per year ?

35.79 million. Link here : Joint Statement by FCDO and SHG | St Helena Government (sainthelena.gov.sh)

And that is just part of the amount. Open that link and "This announcement does not relate to other funding streams which include the Economic Development Investment Programme (EDIP), the Cloud Forest and other Programmes. These programmes allow us to implement vital infrastructure projects such as the new build prison, the renewable energy programme and the Rupert’s Port project. They also allow us to continue our work on vital environmental programmes..

Lots of numbers in this document.UK aid and the overseas territories.

CBP-9758.pdf (parliament.uk)

Overseas territories cost the UK a lot per year. Pitcairn Islanders get about 100 K per person in aid per year. There are only 40 of them mind. But apart from the stamps and honey they sell, their entire economy is based on uk subsidy.

And remember this ? When the UK spent 285 million on an airport for St Helena that can't be used ?

UK lawmakers lambast new St. Helena airport in South Atlantic | Aviation Week Network

Overseas territories cost a lot of money.

Whatabout that ?

I’m sure certain people would call me leftist because I don’t take as gospel what GB News, Mail, express , telegraph tell me to suit their agenda. Whereas reality is I’m pretty much a realist and very much in the middle, have a business, am not particularly woke myself and am not of the ‘all shall have prizes’ mentality - that word irritates the pants off me, just as people with more right wing views aren’t all racist , illiterate numpties , not all with more moderate views aren’t’leftists’

Im cherry picking, yes.

We are paying for a territory that won't belong to us anymore. Which is different from your examples. We also have no money.

Just try googling the Mauritian income tax point which has been all over the papers. You said you had problems in getting information. Is that because its restricted or your WiFi is down and you can't look this up yourself? Its a little tiresome. The Mauritian government is about to fall because of the terms of the deal snd that they want even more from us so its fairly well known.

This bit here of your post, " ...Mauritius (a Chinese ally)....", can probably be linked to this part of the OP: " further diminish Britain’s power ".

I reckon it can be argued there is a connection.

Mauritius has not definitely connected itself to the PRC. As you know, India and the PRC are competing for influence, and Mauritius appear, to me anyway, to be playing them off against each other.

Seems a sensible thing to do.

And India are in the lead on that.

But the alignment does change each time there is an election. I think India has the stronger link.

But here is the thing. If Britain holds onto colonial territories, no matter the cost to anyone or anything, then it will actually diminish UK power, diplomatic power anyway.

Because when the UK does it's naval freedom of navigation through the South China Sea, the PRC points it's finger and says : " See the colonial Britain, trying to dictate the world order while it still occupies land illegally".

It takes a couple of rocks out of that big old bag of rocks, labelled hypocrisy, that our nation collectively carries around. And yup, pretty much every nation has a similar bag of rocks. We can make our's a little lighter.

And this that this in mind, does that not suggest that the UK returning the islands, will have a positive effect overall ?

Alan your posts are fun but Im going to have to duck out now. Im not really engaging and I dont want to waste your time.

In a previous post I referenced the competition for influence. I am in one of those competing countries, and Mauritius is a sort " sensitive" subject.

Google is banned here, but if I BING "Mauritian income tax point " I just get tax stuff. But if I BING "Mauritian income tax point GB News", I get this :

Chagos Islands: Mauritius Government faces collapse over 'surrender' deal - MPs warn BRITAIN is getting too much (gbnews.com)

It was a lucky guess on my part to add the GB news tag.

I see nothing about tax in that.

There is this bit though. " The treaty will see Britain fork out at least £30billion over 99 years to lease back the Diego Garcia military base."

Wait a moment.

Yes, the UK have to pay to lease the air base so the Americans can use it rent free.

Maybe your argument should be that the USA pay Mauritius to lease the base ?

It is a massive base. Takes up a substantial amount of the biggest atoll.

Fair enough.

But can I ask you, is there stuff you think might be above party politics ?

I do, and I think this is one of these issues.

I try to follow Indo-Pacific geopolitics, but my internet limits it.

No matter who is in power in the UK, the Chagos Islands are going to be difficult. But we did, as a nation, wrong the people who lived there. And we should try to fix it. Have to fix it, given the various court judgements.

National power, and influence on the world stage, needs a lot of goodwill, and goodwill can be expensive.

Compare for example the Royal Navy and the Chinese navy ( The PLAN), and where they can dock for supplies, shore leave, and general friendly stuff.

The Royal Navy can dock at many more nations than the PLAN can. Britain has to keep stuff going well with Mauritius, India, the USA, and the folk that will likely go back to Chagos.

Difficult to balance all of that I reckon.

So my premise on the subject differs from that of the OP. My premise would be, some things go beyond party politics. We must do the right thing. Or as right as we can get it.

As for GB news. The only thing they care about is hammering Labour. The actual issues don't matter to them.

Do you agree ? At least to the beyond party politics bit ?