Thread: The rise of Reform.

Two Tier has plans for Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands next.

He's on a mission!
From whomever it remains to be seen....


Answer the question Ciz.

Originally Posted by Joe 90

explain the method in Two Tiers madness Ciz?

I think Dago GarCIA is the answer if you dig a little deeper

Christ, what a fkn idiot.

Originally Posted by Joe 90

As hilarious as giving something away for free and renting it back for £10 billion over 99 years?

Please explain the method in Two Tiers madness Ciz?

There's no point in explaining it to those who won't understand anyway.

Originally Posted by cyrille

Christ, what a fkn idiot.

Typical looney left reaction when confronted with a question they can't or don't want to answer, hurl insults.

No wonder Reform is on the rise...

Reform are celebrating another election victory after winning a council-by election. The party took a seat previously held by Labour in the Shelley ward of Ongar Town Council, in the Epping Forest District in Essex.

Originally Posted by Joe 90

As hilarious as giving something away for free and renting it back for £10 billion over 99 years?

Please explain the method in Two Tiers madness Ciz?

A simple question: Do you think it would be wise for the UK to ignore ICJ decisions and then expect anyone else to adhere to them?

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

A simple question: Do you think it would be wise for the UK to ignore ICJ decisions and then expect anyone else to adhere to them?

it was an advisroy opinion

Reform and the rest of the far right promised that yesterday was a national strike and millions on the streets campaigning against Labour.

https://x.com/TheBottom_Lines/status...45502342885750



Which one is you, Chits?

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

A simple question: Do you think it would be wise for the UK to ignore ICJ decisions and then expect anyone else to adhere to them?

Like most Reform supporters Chits either doesn't know about or doesn't understand the ICJ decision and the possible ramifications for the UK had the decision not been made.

Can we just keep it at brown people = bad?

Originally Posted by hallelujah

Reform and the rest of the far right promised that yesterday was a national strike and millions on the streets campaigning against Labour.

https://x.com/TheBottom_Lines/status...45502342885750



Which one is you, Chits?

The bald guy on the right with the white t-shirt and cream coloured jacket?

Originally Posted by Neverna

The bald guy on the right with the white t-shirt and cream coloured jacket?

Good call that Nev, but - WITHOUT BEING GAY - our resident Reformer is a bit younger and more hansum man than him.

Originally Posted by malmomike77

it was an advisroy opinion

And there may well be a time we want to back one.

Dumbarse.

Originally Posted by hallelujah

esterday was a national strike and millions on the streets campaigning against Labour.

If you don't work , you don't get paid.

Do you think I'm losing £250 to stand with a load of flag waving morons, I'll vote Starmer out at the ballet box.

Originally Posted by hallelujah

is a bit younger and more hansum man than him.

Thank you for those few kind words

There was quite an in depth analysis on tut radio the other day on this subject, the takeaways were this;



The ICJ issued an advisory opinion which is non-binding.


The Mauritian claim is tenuous at best, the history is the Chagos were controlled with Mauritius by the French before they passed to the Brits under settlement post Napoleonic war.


The Brits administered the Chagos from Mauritius, its 1,300 km away from Mauritius, it was never prior to the Brits or post acknowledged as part of Mauritius.


The UK post Mauritius independence and under a Labour Govt purchased the islands for £3m with a proviso their ownership would pass to Mauritius at some future point when the UK no longer had use of them.


The Chagosians, initially settled as labour under the french and then lived there under British rule until they were forcefully relocated by a labour govt to Crawley and other locations lay claim to the Islands, being the nearest to an indigenous population.


The ICJ never once introduced the Chagosians into the proceedings, instead focussing a Mauritius claim to islands 1,300 km away, that their only historic involvement was in acting as the administrative authority under the Brits, prior to that there was never any link to Mauritius.


The Chagosians are fairly fragmented geographically but the main populations are in the UK and Mauritius and the main bodies that speak for them consider themselves British subjects under their designation as a British overseas territory. They have little rights in Mauritius and have not been consulted in this judicial process nor involved or consulted by Labour.


The ICJ judges are a disparate bunch with cloudy political affiliations and its dubious whether they are impartial.


The settlement which Labour has agreed with Mauritius of £100m annually on a 99 year lease is staggering given the other pressures the Govt is facing. Camoron when he was in office removed the UK from further discussion on this, Cleverly looked at it and ignored it both recognising the strategic importance of the Islands to our and American interests and that the UK was under no remit to do anything with a territory bought and paid for.


There is certain evidence the Labour Govt at the time pressured Mauritius over its claim when purchasing the Islands but whether the UK needed to purchase them in the first place was moot, this whole episode is likely playing upon labour and their hand wringing lefies.


So here we are with Starmer in an act of national self harm locking the UK into a lease it never needed to agree, following a non binding ICJ advisory and saddling the UK with £100m a year liabilities. Labour says the deal will cost a total of £3.4Bn although a child could work out that is wrong but this is Labour and finances here.


The "Dumbarse" here is you Hazza, you refresh that label daily, and as for your "Brown People" comment Hal, the Brown Chagosians have been sidelined by your Lefty Govt and this so called group of Court Justices.

Originally Posted by Joe 90

If you don't work , you don't get paid.

It was a fucking Saturday!

When's your next protest, Christmas Day?



(the state of that lot, btw )

Originally Posted by malmomike77

There was quite an in depth analysis on tut radio the other day on this subject, the takeaways were this;



The ICJ issued an advisory opinion which is non-binding.


The Mauritian claim is tenuous at best, the history is the Chagos were controlled with Mauritius by the French before they passed to the Brits under settlement post Napoleonic war.


The Brits administered the Chagos from Mauritius, its 1,300 km away from Mauritius, it was never prior to the Brits or post acknowledged as part of Mauritius.


The UK post Mauritius independence and under a Labour Govt purchased the islands for £3m with a proviso their ownership would pass to Mauritius at some future point when the UK no longer had use of them.


The Chagosians, initially settled as labour under the french and then lived there under British rule until they were forcefully relocated by a labour govt to Crawley and other locations lay claim to the Islands, being the nearest to an indigenous population.


The ICJ never once introduced the Chagosians into the proceedings, instead focussing a Mauritius claim to islands 1,300 km away, that their only historic involvement was in acting as the administrative authority under the Brits, prior to that there was never any link to Mauritius.


The Chagosians are fairly fragmented geographically but the main populations are in the UK and Mauritius and the main bodies that speak for them consider themselves British subjects under their designation as a British overseas territory. They have little rights in Mauritius and have not been consulted in this judicial process nor involved or consulted by Labour.


The ICJ judges are a disparate bunch with cloudy political affiliations and its dubious whether they are impartial.


The settlement which Labour has agreed with Mauritius of £100m annually on a 99 year lease is staggering given the other pressures the Govt is facing. Camoron when he was in office removed the UK from further discussion on this, Cleverly looked at it and ignored it both recognising the strategic importance of the Islands to our and American interests and that the UK was under no remit to do anything with a territory bought and paid for.


There is certain evidence the Labour Govt at the time pressured Mauritius over its claim when purchasing the Islands but whether the UK needed to purchase them in the first place was moot, this whole episode is likely playing upon labour and their hand wringing lefies.


So here we are with Starmer in an act of national self harm locking the UK into a lease it never needed to agree, following a non binding ICJ advisory and saddling the UK with £100m a year liabilities. Labour says the deal will cost a total of £3.4Bn although a child could work out that is wrong but this is Labour and finances here.


The "Dumbarse" here is you Hazza, you refresh that label daily, and as for your "Brown People" comment Hal, the Brown Chagosians have been sidelined by your Lefty Govt and this so called group of Court Justices.

Utter nonsense.

In 2019, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued an Advisory Opinion regarding the Chagos Archipelago, finding that the United Kingdom's continued administration of the islands constituted a wrongful act. The ICJ concluded that the process of decolonization for Mauritius was not fully completed when it gained independence in 1968, and that the UK was under an obligation to end its administration of the Chagos Archipelago. This obligation was affirmed by the UN General Assembly in 2021.


Had Labour sat back and it was then taken over by whoever, you gammons would have been screaming blue murder for Labour not acting when the warning signs were perfectly clear.

Originally Posted by hallelujah

Advisory Opinion

Starmer has his own agenda ...

Originally Posted by hallelujah

Had Labour sat back and it was then taken over by whoever

god you lefties are fukin ridiculous, who is going to take it over Hal?

Originally Posted by malmomike77

god you lefties are fukin ridiculous, who is going to take it over Hal?

Hmmm, well, let me guess.

* China maybe?

You know the country that has been furthering Chinese interests abroad - claiming the South China Sea up to Katy's doorstep - and would be absolutely desperate to get their hands on a strategically important military base in Diego Garcia that the US too is desperate to have access to?

Like between Africa and Asia and off the coast of the Middle East.

Just a bit important like.



Ffs, Chits. At least pretend to have a clue.



* But absolutely anyone really given its location.

Originally Posted by hallelujah

China maybe?

You know the country that has been furthering Chinese interests abroad - claiming the South China Sea up to Katy's doorstep - and would be absolutely desperate to get their hands on a strategically important military base in Diego Garcia that the US too was desperate not to lose?

Like between Africa and Asia and off the coast of the Middle East.

Just a bit important like.

so you are contending that the UK and Merca would have been forced by an ICJ advisory to leave the Chagos Is under threat of enforcement by whom exavctly ......5555555555555555555555555555555555

keep it coming Hal, you weren't advising two tier were you

I'll point you towards Hazza's earlier post, nammers:

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

A simple question: Do you think it would be wise for the UK to ignore ICJ decisions and then expect anyone else to adhere to them?

Originally Posted by hallelujah

I'll point you towards Hazza's earlier post, nammers:

really, its advisory, non-binding Hal and successive Govts up until Labour recognise national interest is more important than some tenuous link Mauriius has been persuing for a few decades via a questionable "court of justice" who judges very likely, like the UN, have been influenced by the very actor you mention.

The reason the UK had not followed the advisory is up until Labour is that anyone with half a brain could see the stupidity in it. If the chagosians arent going to get the islands back then why does a counntry 1300 kms away from it with dubious entitlement to them deserve their ownership?

you still havent addressed the chagosian side of it.......

Originally Posted by malmomike77

you still havent addressed the chagosian side of it.......

How remiss of him.


FFS - from a right wing BREXITer.

Have you 'addressed' anything about the Rwanda fiasco?