The UK offered residence with a path to citizenship for all BNO holders in Hong Kong, which was pretty much the limits of the UK's power. What are we going to do? Invade Hong Kong? Hold China over a barrel by refusing to sell whatever it is we sell to China (Scotch whisky?)

As for the Chagos islands, it's by far the best thing to get rid of them. There's no value at all and a lot of trouble keeping them.

▲

lostlogin 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

> What are we going to do?

I heard a Hong Kong national argue that that the end of the agreement should have seen Hong Kong go back to Taiwan, not China, because the initial agreement wasn’t made with the CCP and the Taiwanese government is closer to being the natural successor.

I can only begin to imagine the shit storm this would have caused.

▲

tomatocracy 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

One obvious problem with that is that the UK voted in favour of the UN resolution recognizing the CCP government in the 1970s.

▲

hungmung 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I would have ordered a dump truck full of popcorn for that.

In a similar vein, Russia should never have got USSR's UN security council seat.

	▲	notahacker 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		> In a similar vein, Russia should never have got USSR's UN security council seat. Now that's an interesting counterfactual. The legal case was weak, and certainly they didn't have to on account of Russia's strength. Other than nukes, which a few non-SC members have, a lot of mostly empty land area and a space programme, Russia's credentials as a superpower aren't great when it's not the same country as Ukraine and central Asia and doesn't also hold sway over Warsaw Pact countries. Not sure China necessarily saw them as a friendly counterweight to the West then either. On the other hand, they had the other CIS states all insisting Russia was the true continuation of the USSR, no objections and they probably thought that it would help Russia become friends. Does the world look vastly different if Russia goes through an application process to rejoin the UN and doesn't get a seat on the Security Council? Perhaps not, but I'm sure Mearsheimer et al would explain that every act of violence Russia undertook afterwards was a natural response to it...

▲

ksec 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>Hold China over a barrel by refusing to sell whatever it is we sell to China

China is currently the largest or 2nd largest buyer of UK Pork.

Although I won't be surprised in 2-3 years time China will use it as leverage. As they did with Denmark.

And it is not that China wants any of these either. UK is currently desperately trying to increase its export ( without success )

	▲	lostlogin 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		> China is currently the largest or 2nd largest buyer of UK Pork. If the UK had stuck with Truss, that mightn’t have been true. She was opening up new pork markets.

▲

EliRivers 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The Chagos Islands are very valuable as an unsinkable, static aircraft carrier in the middle of the Indian Ocean. Obviously valuable to a nation with the capability to actually support and operate such an aircraft carrier.

▲

random9749832 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think you are just highlighting how the UK is losing agency in the world. At this rate it will become a museum.

▲

bluerooibos 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

Last time I checked, most countries today, aside from Russia, aren't in the business of invading other countries and expanding territory or forming colonies. The UK will be just fine - it's doing as much as any other western country to keep it's relevance.

	▲	random9749832 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		A country can have leverage that goes beyond how much potential it has to invade or destroy another nation. > Last time I checked, most countries today, aside from Russia, aren't in the business of invading other countries and expanding territory How about Israel that the UK is arming? Though in the case of the UK it is contracting. > The UK will be just fine - it's doing as much as any other western country to keep it's relevance. That's reassuring.

▲

rwmj 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The UK is a mid-sized country in Europe, and that's fine. Only you seem to think this is a problem.

	▲	throawaywpg 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		with another several mid-sized countries closely connected to it

▲

andsoitis 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> how the UK is losing agency in the world

Do you mean:

a) agency

b) influence

c) something else?

▲

alwa 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I’m unfamiliar, what’s the trouble in keeping them? I thought they’d long ago evicted the natives, and more or less handed the islands over to the Americans—does this move relieve them of either of those headaches?

Is the idea that Chagossian repatriation now becomes a Mauritian problem? Had the British been taking that problem particularly seriously?

Or more to do with the British not really wanting to be caught between the Americans and increasingly assertive regional powers who may be annoyed by the Americans’ stronghold there?

▲

rwmj 6 days ago | parent [-]

It's a constant source of legal action and negative news. There's not any strategic need for the UK to keep an island in the Indian Ocean. Might as well get rid of the whole mess for someone else to sort out.

	▲	amenhotep 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		I'm sure that showing ourselves as happy to be bullied into paying to give up territory by legal action and negative news will in no way give anyone else ideas about what might be a good way to get stuff they want from us

▲

FridayoLeary 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I don't agree. The UK can still accomplish great things if has the political will, but each time they concede they lose more and more ground. Could they have done more to protect HK? perhaps but they didn't try and now we'll never know.

Again the chagos islands, I know very little about them, but I understand that the islanders themselves hate the deal. And the UK is offering a whole lot of money to keep the military bases they had for free. You can say it was a matter of international law but Mauritius claim to the island is laughable, they are more than 1000 miles away. Also the way the deal was presented as a step away from colonialism etc just feels wrong. Timid apologetics isn't a good way to advance the UKs interest, nor is it helpful for the rest of the world for the UK to be weak and ineffective. Just look at how they helped Ukraine. Again the politicians have no will or national pride to stand up for the UKs interests and it's a shame.

	▲	afavour 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		> perhaps but they didn't try Do we know that? Presumably there were negotiations. Normally both parties in a negotiation start at extreme opposites and make their way somewhere in the middle. Obviously we don’t/won’t know every detail but I don’t know you can say they didn’t try. Simple reality is that the UK wasn’t holding a lot of cards in that negotiation.