The Politics Thread

[Lord Kangana]

I don't doubt that. I'm sure they're probably dealing with this same argument on Marrakech FC's own fans General Banter forum as we speak.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

I don't doubt that. I'm sure they're probably dealing with this same argument on Marrakech FC's own fans General Banter forum as we speak.

I might go and have a look.

[Lord Kangana]

Well we abolished selection in education in the last thirty years.

That's a significant(ly detrimental) reform that amounts to more than rearranging the deckchairs.

Then why not, as a first move, repeal that piece of legislation?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Well we abolished selection in education in the last thirty years.

That's a significant(ly detrimental) reform that amounts to more than rearranging the deckchairs.

Then why not, as a first move, repeal that piece of legislation?

Good question. Sadly I'm not holding the reins.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

And that's sort of my point - there's been such a comprehensive shift on consensus on that, it isn't even a live issue any more.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Appreciating that as a thoroughly decent consideration Bruce, but its not like we haven't created this problem ourselves like we did with Northern Island. At the moment I suspect they'd stick with their loose-ties-to-Britain-and-low-taxation. i suspect in a couple of generations the mood will have mellowed (both from those living there, and our Government). Strategically its worth very little to us these days. Once it was (just like Hong Kong, Singapore, Suez, the Falklands etc etc etc...).

Anyway, lets cut the crap, there's no oil under it, and I'm pretty sure there'll be no exploitable shale gas, so our Governments (of whatever stripe) probably won't really give a shit.

I wouldn't say ownership of the Suez Canal would be worth very little economically or strategically, but I take your point. These things are largely symbols (except for potential oil fields near the Falklands). Who cares which country has sovereignty over the real estate if the residents are happy with the situation? France owns the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon which are 12 miles off the coast of Newfoundland and nearly 2500 miles from Brest (by contrast the Falklands are over 300 miles from Argentina). In LK's modern age Canada should demand these islands and France should hand them over. But the population seems contented enough and no one really cares. Why? Because Canada has no axe to grind with France so has no need of symbols. The UN makes Bermuda a target in its decolonialization initiatives, overlooking the fact that the people voted in a referendum to retain their status rather than become independent. Screw the symbols and let the inhabitants decide.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Appreciating that as a thoroughly decent consideration Bruce, but its not like we haven't created this problem ourselves like we did with Northern Island. At the moment I suspect they'd stick with their loose-ties-to-Britain-and-low-taxation. i suspect in a couple of generations the mood will have mellowed (both from those living there, and our Government). Strategically its worth very little to us these days. Once it was (just like Hong Kong, Singapore, Suez, the Falklands etc etc etc...).

Anyway, lets cut the crap, there's no oil under it, and I'm pretty sure there'll be no exploitable shale gas, so our Governments (of whatever stripe) probably won't really give a shit.

I wouldn't say ownership of the Suez Canal would be worth very little economically or strategically, but I take your point. These things are largely symbols (except for potential oil fields near the Falklands). Who cares which country has sovereignty over the real estate if the residents are happy with the situation? France owns the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon which are 12 miles off the coast of Newfoundland and nearly 2500 miles from Brest (by contrast the Falklands are over 300 miles from Argentina). In LK's modern age Canada should demand these islands and France should hand them over. But the population seems contented enough and no one really cares. Why? Because Canada has no axe to grind with France so has no need of symbols. The UN makes Bermuda a target in its decolonialization initiatives, overlooking the fact that the people voted in a referendum to retain their status rather than become independent. Screw the symbols and let the inhabitants decide.

That'd be easier said than done though in the case of the most disputed property on Earth - the Spratly Islands - population 0

[Montreal Wanderer]

Appreciating that as a thoroughly decent consideration Bruce, but its not like we haven't created this problem ourselves like we did with Northern Island. At the moment I suspect they'd stick with their loose-ties-to-Britain-and-low-taxation. i suspect in a couple of generations the mood will have mellowed (both from those living there, and our Government). Strategically its worth very little to us these days. Once it was (just like Hong Kong, Singapore, Suez, the Falklands etc etc etc...).

Anyway, lets cut the crap, there's no oil under it, and I'm pretty sure there'll be no exploitable shale gas, so our Governments (of whatever stripe) probably won't really give a shit.

I wouldn't say ownership of the Suez Canal would be worth very little economically or strategically, but I take your point. These things are largely symbols (except for potential oil fields near the Falklands). Who cares which country has sovereignty over the real estate if the residents are happy with the situation? France owns the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon which are 12 miles off the coast of Newfoundland and nearly 2500 miles from Brest (by contrast the Falklands are over 300 miles from Argentina). In LK's modern age Canada should demand these islands and France should hand them over. But the population seems contented enough and no one really cares. Why? Because Canada has no axe to grind with France so has no need of symbols. The UN makes Bermuda a target in its decolonialization initiatives, overlooking the fact that the people voted in a referendum to retain their status rather than become independent. Screw the symbols and let the inhabitants decide.

That'd be easier said than done though in the case of the most disputed property on Earth - the Spratly Islands - population 0

You'd think with over 750 of them they could be shared out along with the presumed resources, but no. Perhaps we should claim them too, since Spratly was British. Maybe not - we are having enough trouble with Iceland, Denmark and Ireland over Rockall.

[Lord Kangana]

Does Darren have an historical claim at all?

[Lord Kangana]

Appreciating that as a thoroughly decent consideration Bruce, but its not like we haven't created this problem ourselves like we did with Northern Island. At the moment I suspect they'd stick with their loose-ties-to-Britain-and-low-taxation. i suspect in a couple of generations the mood will have mellowed (both from those living there, and our Government). Strategically its worth very little to us these days. Once it was (just like Hong Kong, Singapore, Suez, the Falklands etc etc etc...).

Anyway, lets cut the crap, there's no oil under it, and I'm pretty sure there'll be no exploitable shale gas, so our Governments (of whatever stripe) probably won't really give a shit.

I wouldn't say ownership of the Suez Canal would be worth very little economically or strategically, but I take your point. These things are largely symbols (except for potential oil fields near the Falklands). Who cares which country has sovereignty over the real estate if the residents are happy with the situation? France owns the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon which are 12 miles off the coast of Newfoundland and nearly 2500 miles from Brest (by contrast the Falklands are over 300 miles from Argentina). In LK's modern age Canada should demand these islands and France should hand them over. But the population seems contented enough and no one really cares. Why? Because Canada has no axe to grind with France so has no need of symbols. The UN makes Bermuda a target in its decolonialization initiatives, overlooking the fact that the people voted in a referendum to retain their status rather than become independent. Screw the symbols and let the inhabitants decide.

I think its a bit disingenuous of you to make out that I've said anywhere we should be giving anything back to anyone. I think its unarguable that these "possessions" are an Imperialistic throwback. And beyond that, if its not in our interests to keep them, why should we? Eventually, and inevitably (because things change over time, believe it or not) i suspect the people of The Rock itself will probably want to be part of Spain. But further to that, just like Hong Kong, their wishes will not matter a jot if our government sees them as an expensive and embarrassing anachronism in the future.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Appreciating that as a thoroughly decent consideration Bruce, but its not like we haven't created this problem ourselves like we did with Northern Island. At the moment I suspect they'd stick with their loose-ties-to-Britain-and-low-taxation. i suspect in a couple of generations the mood will have mellowed (both from those living there, and our Government). Strategically its worth very little to us these days. Once it was (just like Hong Kong, Singapore, Suez, the Falklands etc etc etc...).

Anyway, lets cut the crap, there's no oil under it, and I'm pretty sure there'll be no exploitable shale gas, so our Governments (of whatever stripe) probably won't really give a shit.

I wouldn't say ownership of the Suez Canal would be worth very little economically or strategically, but I take your point. These things are largely symbols (except for potential oil fields near the Falklands). Who cares which country has sovereignty over the real estate if the residents are happy with the situation? France owns the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon which are 12 miles off the coast of Newfoundland and nearly 2500 miles from Brest (by contrast the Falklands are over 300 miles from Argentina). In LK's modern age Canada should demand these islands and France should hand them over. But the population seems contented enough and no one really cares. Why? Because Canada has no axe to grind with France so has no need of symbols. The UN makes Bermuda a target in its decolonialization initiatives, overlooking the fact that the people voted in a referendum to retain their status rather than become independent. Screw the symbols and let the inhabitants decide.

I think its a bit disingenuous of you to make out that I've said anywhere we should be giving anything back to anyone. I think its unarguable that these "possessions" are an Imperialistic throwback. And beyond that, if its not in our interests to keep them, why should we? Eventually, and inevitably (because things change over time, believe it or not) i suspect the people of The Rock itself will probably want to be part of Spain. But further to that, just like Hong Kong, their wishes will not matter a jot if our government sees them as an expensive and embarrassing anachronism in the future.

Sorry, I thought you implied that these possession had little value and had associated costs so the UK should cede them to the local national authority which was claiming them regardless of the wishes of the population. Hong Kong, btw, was somewhat different since a large part of the territory was leased and the lease was running out. If the residents of the Rock wish to be part of Spain then let them, says I.

[Prufrock]

Appreciating that as a thoroughly decent consideration Bruce, but its not like we haven't created this problem ourselves like we did with Northern Island. At the moment I suspect they'd stick with their loose-ties-to-Britain-and-low-taxation. i suspect in a couple of generations the mood will have mellowed (both from those living there, and our Government). Strategically its worth very little to us these days. Once it was (just like Hong Kong, Singapore, Suez, the Falklands etc etc etc...).

Anyway, lets cut the crap, there's no oil under it, and I'm pretty sure there'll be no exploitable shale gas, so our Governments (of whatever stripe) probably won't really give a shit.

I wouldn't say ownership of the Suez Canal would be worth very little economically or strategically, but I take your point. These things are largely symbols (except for potential oil fields near the Falklands). Who cares which country has sovereignty over the real estate if the residents are happy with the situation? France owns the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon which are 12 miles off the coast of Newfoundland and nearly 2500 miles from Brest (by contrast the Falklands are over 300 miles from Argentina). In LK's modern age Canada should demand these islands and France should hand them over. But the population seems contented enough and no one really cares. Why? Because Canada has no axe to grind with France so has no need of symbols. The UN makes Bermuda a target in its decolonialization initiatives, overlooking the fact that the people voted in a referendum to retain their status rather than become independent. Screw the symbols and let the inhabitants decide.

I think its a bit disingenuous of you to make out that I've said anywhere we should be giving anything back to anyone. I think its unarguable that these "possessions" are an Imperialistic throwback. And beyond that, if its not in our interests to keep them, why should we? Eventually, and inevitably (because things change over time, believe it or not) i suspect the people of The Rock itself will probably want to be part of Spain. But further to that, just like Hong Kong, their wishes will not matter a jot if our government sees them as an expensive and embarrassing anachronism in the future.

They stay British until such a point that the residents no longer want that, surely?

[Lord Kangana]

You tell me. I couldn't say in the murky world of international politics what will happen.

[Harry Genshaw]

Since we were able to uproot the Chagossian Islanders and dump em across the atlantic, it should be easy enough for us to say to the Gibraltarians - "sorry, you aint British anymore. You can vote to be truly independent or become part of Spain. Its up to you"

[Prufrock]

But why the feck would we want to do that? Unless we didn't want it, which we do. They want to be British, Britain wants them to be British. End of IMO.

[Lord Kangana]

Why do we want it to be British, and who's we?

[Prufrock]

I dunno, the people in charge. The powers that be. The man.

I'm under no illusions that it'd still be British if 'we' didn't want it.

[Lord Kangana]

For now, maybe. As time goes by I'm not sure what's keeping us together to be honest.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Since we were able to uproot the Chagossian Islanders and dump em across the atlantic, it should be easy enough for us to say to the Gibraltarians - "sorry, you aint British anymore. You can vote to be truly independent or become part of Spain. Its up to you"

I'm embarrassed to confess that I had never heard of the Chagossian Island business. So I looked it up. To my horror HMG won its appeal basing its arguments on Canada's treatment of Japanese Canadians in WW2. Basically we rounded up all the Canadians of Japanese extraction on the West Coast for national security reasons and moved them to Saskatchewan for the duration. This is a terrible precedent for the UK to use as this has been a source of great national shame to us. These people never got any kind of compensation at the time. It is only recently that the Canadian government has apologized and paid more compensation. It is almost universally agreed that there was never any justification for moving an entire people simply because of their racial background. In WW1 I believe we rounded up and interned Italians and Ukrainians but no one cared back then.

[Prufrock]

For now, maybe. As time goes by I'm not sure what's keeping us together to be honest.

I don't disagree, and the same with the Falklands (there were stories last time it flared up that despite all this 'they love Britain' thing, actually, the Falklanders just hate the Argies more). Once the time comes that either 'we' don't want them, or they don't want us, time to say nice bye-byes. Until then, they stay British, for me (and I do have a massive say).