|
Re: Starmer’s chronicles
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth
As I understand Starmer's explanation for the Chagos deal, had we ignored the advisory ruling that Chagos belongs to Mauritius, then it would be further litigated until the UN formally declares Chagos as Mauritian. If that happens, then any assertion to the contrary by the UK would result in charges under international law. Starmer also said that we could be banned from using the military radio frequencies that would then belong to Mauritius.
I suppose I can accept that evaluation (as in beyond my ken to challenge it from the legal side).
But it just goes to show how stacked the UN is and maybe something new needs to emerge - though I can't think what. It also comes to mind that countries such as USA, China, India, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey are not members of the ICC and thus beyond its reach. Could the UK not have withdrawn from the ICC? Or isn't it as simple as that?
|
would it not just get vetoed by the uk at that point
---------- Post added at 18:21 ---------- Previous post was at 18:19 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1
I don't think we want to aspire to be down on the same list as those countries when it comes to human rights!
|
well Starmers just pissed on the chagossians human rights
__________________
To be or not to be, woke is the question Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer. The slings and arrows of outrageous wokedome, Or to take arms against a sea of wokies. And by opposing end them.
|