Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

Trump is right on Chagos - it is a bad decision for bad reasons. I think it's really unsatisfactory whether you're a long term supporter of the Chagosians or strong supporter of keeping Diego Garcia.

However the US had a veto on this and Trump endorsed the deal (much to the disappointment of Tories, Reform and many security focused commentators).

[Duque de Bragança]

Trump is right on Chagos - it is a bad decision for bad reasons. I think it's really unsatisfactory whether you're a long term supporter of the Chagosians or strong supporter of keeping Diego Garcia.

However the US had a veto on this and Trump endorsed the deal (much to the disappointment of Tories, Reform and many security focused commentators).

He's still wrong on claiming that as an argument to occupy Greenland.

[Sheilbh]

Of course but everything he says on Greenland is wrong.

[Duque de Bragança]

Trump is right on Chagos - it is a bad decision for bad reasons. I think it's really unsatisfactory whether you're a long term supporter of the Chagosians or strong supporter of keeping Diego Garcia.

However the US had a veto on this and Trump endorsed the deal (much to the disappointment of Tories, Reform and many security focused commentators).

So he is still wrong on it, because he keeps contradicting himself all the time.
Verstanden!

[Richard Hakluyt]

His dementia is getting increasingly obvious, as a consequence his statements are getting more random and so are occasionally even right 

Though the malignity and narcissism are mostly what remains of what passes as his personality.

[Richard Hakluyt]

That deal is terrible btw, Chagos Islanders let down yet again and money given to a totally undeserving Mauritius. I hope it isn't ratified.

[Duque de Bragança]

His dementia is getting increasingly obvious, as a consequence his statements are getting more random and so are occasionally even right 

Though the malignity and narcissism are mostly what remains of what passes as his personality.

So wrong nearly all the time, and if right, for the wrong reasons, at best. 

[Sheilbh]

So anyways, result of the "good" presser by Starmer where he committed not to retaliate for retarded punitive tariffs on his country: Trump called letting go of the Chavos(?) islands a "very stupid decision" and an extra excuse to take over Greenland.

Go ahead, Starmer. I am sure we are just one more carefully worded deferential semi-criticism away from swaying Trump.

I was just thinking about this with some of the other stuff coming from Davos. As I say I don't think he should have done the press conference at all because I don't think he really had anything to say and to the extent it was setting out the government's position that should have been done in the Commons.

Not for the first time Trump has screenshotted and released messages from world leaders to him (this time Macron and, for the second time I think, Rutte). The tone of those messages is, I think it's fair to say, fairly flattering and deferential.

I think Starmer's public and private diplomacy are basically the same (possibly more robust in privte) and I think that's the right approach. Clearly, repeatedly state our support for Denmark and territorial integrity, back that up by supporting whatever requests Denmark has for material support but don't make grand statements that play well domestically but are different than the private position which is trying to de-escalate. My issue with Starmer isn't his diplomacy it's the power side of international politics that getting from 2.4% of GDP on defence to 3.5% of GDP in a decade is not serious. I'd add that the FT reporting today that most of the recent UK increases in defence spending have not been spent on actual rearmament or our fighting forces, it has largely been eaten up by inflation. This is, incidentally, why I'm very dubious of a country like Britain trying to compete with the US or China or the EU on protectionism - I'm all for industrial strategy to build up key, strategic industries but I think we should actually not be getting into trade wars because we import a lot and the cost overwhelmingly would be borne by us.

That deal is terrible btw, Chagos Islanders let down yet again and money given to a totally undeserving Mauritius. I hope it isn't ratified.

Yeah it's the sort of result that could make only an international lawyer thrill. It's that Futurama line: "technically right, the best sort of right"

The result of this is the military base is still there but with weaker sovereignty, the Chagosians are still dispossessed and not getting any new compensation or rights to visit - all that has changed is that maps will now show it's Mauritius and the Mauritian government (who have not been good to the Chagosians in Mauritius) will get a payout. As I say whether you are a national security hawk who think it's an essential strategic asset or a supporter of the rights of Chagosians there's nothing to recommend the deal.

[The Minsky Moment]

Looks pretty good for the Mauritian Ministry of Finance, no?

[Sheilbh]

Looks pretty good for the Mauritian Ministry of Finance, no?

Yes

And indeed fabulous for Philippe Sands KC who was the international lawyer representing Mauritius (and a friend of Starmer's).

His book on this, The Last Colony, is really interesting - and I'm fully on board with the historical bit. And he is a good writer. I find his arguments far less convincing morally on what that means even if I think he is right on international law.

There's also a passage where he's working with the Mauritian government on a General Assembly resolution which I was not keen on. He talks about meeting with Chinese and Russian diplomats to help distinguish Mauritius' position on Chagos from, say, Tibet, Xinjiang or Crimea. He specifically calls out the Russian delegation as helpful for providing some smart drafting to help clarify how this is different from Crimea. I think it slightly gets to my abiguity around people in the West (like Sands, Lord Hermer and Starmer, I think) who believe in international law from an almost theological perspective and the reality of how states like Russia and China (very much in the Soviet tradition) ae able to weaponise it.

[Sheilbh]

And it seems like the government is going to sign off on the massive Chinese listening post wired straight into City comms just so Starmer can get a friendly visit with Xi.

It really is getting annoying.

I see that the planning requirements for the massive Chinese embassy requires them to include nesting areas for bats, Britain's true rulers