British Politics

From about 8:00 onwards this vid basically lays out how the same neo-colonial practices by the British elites and financial institutions that ostensibly are bringing in all these profits for Britain, are at the same time driving income inequality at home in Britain and pricing ordinary people out of property and leading to declining social services. Pretty interesting

This gent seems to be pretty spooked about the imminent threat of conflict between Russia and NATO. He's a UKIP candidate and quite well known in British nationalist circles.



Now I think he's yet being a little premature, although we're certainly getting there fast. However he does seem to have some interesting info, such as that Rishi Sunak doesn't want to be a 'wartime PM' and that this may be the primary reason why he called the elections in Britain. Would also make sense considering that Sunak is planning to move to America as soon as he's out. And from there off to the doomsday bunker I suppose

Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn is now standing as an independent in his constituency for these general elections



He's been regaining some political capital over the past year due to his strong stance on Palestine.

He's not the name he once was, and won't be, but he is someone who can compete for labour's votes head on and win; while Nigel Farage's Reform party will primarily be stealing votes from the conservatives and drawing in formerly apolitical people who are concerned about immigration.

So we're starting to see a situation where the establishment 2-party consensus is being challenged both from the left and the right.

For what concerns the left, it is as yet weak. There is George Galloway's seat, Corbyn's if he maintains his, and there are some small parties such as the Revolutionary Communist Party who have made some inroads with candidacies but whether they will win any seats is another question.

Labour won ? I think people who work for a living " won . " Not Labour , not the ideology of Labour , not socialism . I think the working class has arrived in body but not spirit . I think the hunter - gatherers spirit has arrived , but it's body departed !

How else do we explain the huge number of Dogs on the streets of the UK ? And no it is more than a favourite aristocratic practice , repeated by the poor proles now ! It is because the European population arrived quickly from hunter-gatherers economy into industrial economy . In the middle East , there was a long agricultural phase , where Dogs became useless and Cats gained importance as Rat catchers to protect the grain .


And why should this concern me ? Because I know that for humanity to survive , it needs to achieve a symbiotic relationship within and without itself . A kind of communism if you like . But I also know that it is the time for Dogs on the street . The body is willing , but lacks spirit . And , I ,  becoming now a mere " progressive , " is neither going to save my children or yours ! Or the Ducks in the pond !  It is not enough !!



So is it Dog eat Dog or a Rat race ? Is there a difference ?

Nigel Farage is ‘coming for Labour’ after ‘the end’ of the Tories, 07.05.2024.

The Reform UK leader has been elected as a member of parliament on his eighth attempt.

Eurosceptic firebrand Nigel Farage won a seat in the UK parliament for the first time in Thursday's general election, defeating his Conservative challenger in the Essex constituency of Clacton, and promising to mount a strong opposition to Labour.

Farage called his victory “the first step of something that is going to stun all of you,” pledging to turn his Reform UK party into the main opposition. The former Brexit Party, created in 2018, is projected to win 13 out of 650 seats.

“There is a massive gap on the centre-right of British politics and my job is to fill it,” he said, claiming: “this is the beginning of the end of the Conservative Party.”

The Tories have suffered their worst-ever election defeat, securing only 131 seats, according to exit polls and early results. Before Prime Minister Rishi Sunak dissolved parliament and called a general election, the ruling party held 344 constituencies.

Farage proclaimed that his party would “now be targeting Labour votes,” and cited polls suggesting the centre-left landslide was motivated by resentment against the Conservatives, rather than confidence in the incoming prime minister, Keir Starmer.

What is interesting is, there’s no enthusiasm for Labour, there’s no enthusiasm for Starmer whatsoever. In fact, about half of the vote is simply an anti-Conservative vote,” he said. “We’re coming for Labour, be in no doubt about that.”

Farage served as a member of the European Parliament (MEP) from 1999 until the UK’s withdrawal from the EU in 2020, but had never previously been elected to the British parliament.

Ahead of the election, Farage was accused of being a Moscow sympathizer after he blamed NATO expansion in Europe for the Ukraine conflict. During a BBC interview last month he claimed the US-led bloc gave the Russian government an excuse to rally domestic support for the military operation.

Russian Ambassador to the UK Andrey Kelin said he expected accusations of election interference, but that the change of government was unlikely to alter Britain’s policy towards Russia.

https://www.rt.com/news/600466-nigel-farage-uk-election/

From a comment on YouCrap

Reform UK got 4,076,645 votes but only 4 seats in Parliament, Liberal Democrat got 3,451,969 votes and 70 seats, what a great system we have in the UK, truly the envy of the world.

First past the post is a corrupt electoral system. The German mixed model where half the representatives are selected based on the popular vote is much more representative.
But this is not a panacea for the retardation of the voters. Bipolar chimps who vote for only two parties that are effectively one. Memory retention and awareness capacity of
a flea.

The leader of the Labour Party, Keir Starmer, becomes the new British Prime Minister, 07.05.2024.

The leader of the Labour Party, Keir Starmer, officially became the 58th prime minister of the United Kingdom after an audience with King Charles III, Sky News reported. Within a day, Starmer will announce the new composition of the British government. His predecessor Rishi Sunak led the Government from 25 October 2022 till date.

"Sir Keir Starmer has become prime minister following an audience with the King [Charles III] at Buckingham Palace. The king has asked Sir Keir to become prime minister and form a new government following the convincing election victory," the outlet reported.

With the preliminary counting completed in 621 of the 650 constituencies, Labour wins 403 seats (+204). The Conservatives, after 14 years in government, remain with 111 (-239); the Liberal Democrats achieve 68 (+60); the Scottish National Party (SNP), seven (-38); and the other parties, 32 (+13).

According to the electoral system in force in the United Kingdom (single-name majority voting, or first-past-the-post, for its name in English), the person with the most votes in each constituency is elected and leaves the candidates of the other parties without representation. The political formation that gets more deputies than the rest forms a government and its leader automatically becomes prime minister.

Yandex Translate from Spanish.

https://latamnews.lat/20240705/el-lider-del-partido-laborista-keir-starmer-se-convierte-en-el-nuevo-primer-ministro-britanico-1155939873.html

kvs wrote:From a comment on YouCrap

First past the post is a corrupt electoral system.    The German mixed model where half the representatives are selected based on the popular vote is much more representative.
But this is not a panacea for the retardation of the voters.   Bipolar chimps who vote for only two parties that are effectively one.   Memory retention and awareness capacity of
a flea.

It's a fair system at least in this regard, it's simply all or nothing. The candidate/party which wins the constituency wins the seat in the House of Commons. The ones who come in 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc... place get nothing.

Reform only actually won in 4 places in the UK, despite millions of votes cast and plenty of strong showings elsewhere too.

Regardless I think this result was about expected. Farage will be in the Commons now. Corbyn too by the way. Galloway actually lost his seat.

In Kanada we have 30% popular vote parties getting absolute parliamentary majorities.   This is utter BS.   At least in U-rope the
"losing" parties can form a coalition.   For example two left of centre parties who have most of the popular vote getting a parliamentary
coalition majority against the real minority right of centre party.    First past the post prevents fair coalitions.

Ultimately, it is the sheeple who are to blame since they don't have the awareness and intellectual fortitude to vote real alternatives.
But the first past the post system is designed to keep "fringe" alternatives out of office and create an entry barrier.    It leverages the
sheeple mentality to consolidate the same two (plus one in Kanada) parties in power forever.

The first past the post system also creates something called gerrymandering where electoral district boundaries are changed to facilitate
the desired number of seats to the incumbent party. I am sure that gerrymandering is not a thing in Germany.

kvs wrote:Ultimately, it is the sheeple who are to blame since they don't have the awareness and intellectual fortitude to vote real alternatives.
But the first past the post system is designed to keep "fringe" alternatives out of office and create an entry barrier.    It leverages the
sheeple mentality to consolidate the same two (plus one in Kanada) parties in power forever.

The first past the post system also creates something called gerrymandering where electoral district boundaries are changed to facilitate
the desired number of seats to the incumbent party.   I am sure that gerrymandering is not a thing in Germany.

Exactly, it's the British public themselves that are voting for establishment parties. If not one then the other. Hence the results. And I'm being a touch strict with my label of 'establishment party' as of course Reform has also secured the support and funding of part of the British elite, and is not straying from the prevailing Orthodoxy on needing to support Ukraine, stand up to the Chinese and so on - Farage has injected a touch of nuance to the discussion, but nothing more than that. Reform represent their own part of the establishment.

The all or nothing regional election system itself is not to blame. In fact it encourages regional interests and local democracy more than a system which will simply elect the amount of MPs of a party to parliament dependent on how many raw votes it got around the country. Instead political parties have to contest each constituency fiercely and pay attention to all specific local issues.

Now of course if the criticism is that it takes money and the support of the elites to even form a viable political party in the first place, and the largest establishment parties are able to use their funding and their connections to get more media coverage, buy the loyalties of the more talented politicians, conspire against lesser parties together to maintain a duopoly, and so on - then yes, quite right, but that's what all plutocracies have in common. It's always the rule of the rich. And Reform's subsequent success will depend on them securing more funding and assuring Britain's monied classes that they will defend their interests.

It's quite possible that Reform will eventually advocate for a more pragmatic approach to Russia, and to China, emphasising trade ties and the new realities in the world. Sure. They have the flexibility to do that where the older political parties with their tired old rhetoric and thinking simply do not. But don't expect anything like that until Reform gets a larger amount of seats and Trump is re-elected and sets the trajectory of the US too.

The more I think on it, actually, the more I realize that Reform has achieved the exact result that they themselves were hoping for. They weren't angling for some sort of voting bloc or legislative influence in the House of Commons. Britain is at present and will be for a while, a sinking ship, no matter what policies are enacted. It will take years to set the country right, and some things are simply outside of its control, such as the energy prices or the emergence of an alternative financial order and overseas clients repatriating their wealth from Britain.
Under such a circumstance, Reform wouldn't want to have any real power, as then they would be held responsible for the deterioration of the country. Instead Labour will be held responsible, while Reform can take the cushy position of being a kind of opposition in the wings, able to broadcast its voice and criticize the incumbent leadership at every junction, steadily building up their own profile.

So Keir Starmer seems to have some history with British intelligence, as well as the judiciary



It's funny as the new Dutch PM, Dick Schauf, also had a role in Dutch intelligence and the Dutch judiciary too

Two is too early to tell a trend, but maybe there are other European candidates with similar histories too. Seems the US and the establishment in Europe are shoring up their positions by installing more trusted and tightly controlled candidates into power.

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/russia-fuelling-southport-riots-mi6-chief-richard-dearlove/


So it is Russia again to blame for knife crime ( racist or otherwise ) in the UK ? Funny how the BBC broadcasts sensational news about child molester , TV presenter instead of the riots in the UK over this killing incidents of children in Southport England ! Funny how the media was stopped from filming the moment the attacker was exiting the police van to go to court . This is usually allowed , but with blanket covering the face of accused . But sometimes their hands are not covered , and reveal the racial identity of accused ! But not in this case !

So the English blame the disorder in the streets on foreigners or immigrants or Russia ! But not in themselves or their politics or Royalty ! Oh yes the English king did support Israel , while Genocide was going on ! And suddenly he and the other female Royal , contracted cancer ! Necessitating absence from public view ! I wonder why they have to be hidden ? Removed from public view ? If I am right , then both will miraculously recover from cancer ! You Mark my words .

The westerners never take the blame for the consequences of their own actions . Netanyahu got 57 standing ovation in America ! I have never seen anything as wonderful and beautiful as this in my life ! Any wonder why  a 17 year old be driven mad ? They can no longer hide the truth , hide the Royals , hide the accused and blame Russia ! It is not Russia , it is F*****ing England !

Think this is called being up shit creek without a paddle. The UK is fucked on many fronts, putting it mildly.

Everything borrowed comes with a 'must' pay interest charge sting in the tail. Whilst at the same time inflation may respond to the increased money printing, due in part to public sector pay rises. This is just like borrowing more money to pay credit card interest. The economics of a political madhouse.

The Labour Government will be wishing they hadn't won within a few months if not weeks.

S p r i n t e r
@SprinterFamily

The UK will have to raise taxes after UK government borrowing exceeded forecasts in the first 4 months of the financial year. The government borrowed £4.7bn more than forecast. Treasury chief Reeves points to "difficult" decisions in the budget. Millionaires are already fleeing the country to the US and tax havens.

Give Starmer the fishing rights plus the winter gas under the table as part of the negotiations that should be taking place!

Boris Johnson has suggested Putin take Russia down the British path[/b], by Pëtr Akopov for RiaNovosti. 09.21.2024.

Boris Johnson, of course, did not know that on Friday Vladimir Putin would hold a meeting of the Russian Security Council on the subject of an objective interpretation of history, but he did a great job of updating its agenda. Johnson's article in The Spectator is dated Saturday, but it was published in advance, so if the Russian president wanted to illustrate his thesis that "in recent years history has very often been used in modern politics as a means of achieving certain political goals in relation to our country, and this is often done in a very dishonest way", he could have read out some passages from the article by the former British prime minister. And this is despite the fact that the text by Johnson, who generally loves historical parallels and, for example, has already compared Russia to Sparta, is not about the past, but about the future. The future of the West, Ukraine and Russia, which will come when everyone understands that "It is time to allow Ukraine to join NATO" (that is the title of Johnson's article).

This is not just about Ukraine’s immediate admission to NATO, but about consistent actions, three steps:

"We need to give the Ukrainians the right to use the weapons they already have. <...>

Secondly, we need to provide a package of loans on the scale of Lend-Lease - half a trillion dollars or even a trillion. <...>

Third, and most importantly, we need to bring Ukraine into NATO now, and I mean right now. We could invite Ukraine to join before the war is over. We could extend the Article 5 security guarantee to all Ukrainian territory currently controlled by Ukraine, while affirming the Ukrainians' right to their entire 1991 border."

Johnson is afraid of nothing - "stop this tired nonsense about 'escalation' and the so-called fear of provoking Putin" because "Putin's public statements and sabre-rattling have proven to be nonsense, because it is he who is really afraid of escalation". No concessions because "there is no decent compromise with Putin" and pushing Ukraine to concessions will end very badly: "We must abandon any idea that the Ukrainians will make a deal. They will not. They will not trade land for peace. Their will to fight has not weakened, and I think the country would collapse into anarchy and civil war rather than submit to partition."

But the defeat of Ukraine is categorically unacceptable for the West, because “it would mean a global collapse of Western authority” and “a catastrophic defeat for NATO, an explosion of the aura of the alliance’s invincibility.”

So Johnson is hyping things up as much as possible – and rushing things. How quickly should Ukraine be accepted into NATO, because otherwise it will lose? Johnson doesn’t say this directly, but essentially this is what is meant. Hence the call to “end the ambiguity that has dogged Ukraine since the end of the Cold War and give final institutional expression to the destiny that the Ukrainian people have chosen,” that is, with the help of NATO, to make Ukraine part of Europe , the West. Moreover, Johnson assures that the very act of NATO acceptance will end the war, because in this way they will “send the Kremlin a decisive message that the Russians really need to hear”:

"Our message to Russia is: that's it. It's over. You no longer have an empire. You no longer have a 'near abroad' or a 'sphere of influence'. You have no right to tell the Ukrainians what to do, any more than we Britons have the right to tell our former colonies what to do. It's time for Putin to understand that Russia can have a happy and glorious future, but like Rome and like Britain, the Russians must join the ranks of the post-imperial powers."

Is this Johnson's main argument for the Russians? Yes, and this is a great example of manipulating history to achieve specific geopolitical goals. That is, what Putin spoke about on Friday at the Security Council. It is clear that the president had in mind both the demonization of Russia's image and history in the eyes of the world community and the creation of an image in our people of their state as an eternal "oppressor, aggressor and murderer", but there is also more subtle work. And Johnson's statements in his "address to the Russians" (or personally to Putin, it is not important) are precisely from this series.

Johnson equates Russia with Great Britain and says that it is time to say goodbye to the great imperial past and live for oneself, "join the ranks of the post-imperial powers." But this is a double lie.

Firstly, there was and is nothing in common between the Russian and British empires – Russia as an empire is much closer to China (which is also an imperial formation) or even to India , but not to the European colonial empires. The Europeans mercilessly exploited overseas territories, and the British Empire generally grew out of a financial and trading organization called the East India Company. Moreover, it was the alliance of power (elites) and capital that not only brought Britain to the position of the strongest world power in the 19th century, but also made it the main (and in fact, the only) contender for world domination. The global empire began to be built precisely then, and only in the 20th century did a redistribution of roles in the Anglo-Saxon project of globalization occur. The USA moved forward, and Great Britain retreated into the shadows.

However, the claims to world domination have not disappeared - moreover, after 1991, when the "imperial" Soviet Union collapsed, the Anglo-Saxons became dizzy with success: they believed that they had finally won and the construction of a "united humanity" was just a matter of time. The excessive strengthening of China and the rebellion of Russia were initially perceived as annoying but solvable problems, but now they are causing quiet hysteria on the Atlantic ship. How else to explain the fact that Johnson is seriously trying to convince the Russians that Britain has become a post-imperial state and does not tell its former colonies what to do? We can forget about the British Commonwealth (from Canada to Australia ) and the Five Eyes network, which unites the intelligence services of five Anglo-Saxon countries, but what about supranational capital and its capital London , with the personnel and ideological globalist vertical, directed by the Anglo-Saxons, with the Anglo-Saxon model of globalization itself? Within the framework of which they are trying to dictate what to do, not only to former colonies, but to the whole world.

That is, the main initiator and center of globalization is a post-imperial country, and Russia and Ukraine will again become a colonial empire (and even an "evil empire", as Johnson recalls Reagan's words in his article)? But Russia and Ukraine are not even England and Scotland , they are parts of a single whole. In order not to understand this, you need to be an alien or a conscious manipulator, trying to fool the heads of Russians and Ukrainians and move the borders of the West to the East. Under the discussions about the "Russian colony of Ukraine", which sound like an outright mockery of history, especially when they come from London.

https://ria.ru/20240921/dzhonson-1973912386.html

Russia cannot help but influence the world, by Igor Karaulov poet, publicist for VZGLYAD. 09.25.2024.

One of the motives of modern European Russophobia is elementary envy. While Western empires have collapsed, these Russians stubbornly refuse to follow their example. They want to bring Russia to a common denominator - that's the whole "rules-based order".

Former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, via The Spectator magazine, sent the Kyiv regime another package of motivational spells. For some reason, Western politicians believe that such packages, in addition to military aid packages for Ukraine and anti-Russian sanctions packages, should also be sent periodically.

The contents of this package are nothing new: Ukrainians will never give up, the West will help, Russia will lose, etc. But still, this text contains an interesting thesis that I would like to dwell on in more detail.

Johnson says: “Our message to Russia is: That’s it. It’s over. You no longer have an empire. You no longer have a ‘near abroad’ or a ‘sphere of influence’. You have no right to tell the Ukrainians what to do, any more than we in Britain have the right to tell our former colonies what to do. It’s time for Putin to understand that Russia can have a happy and glorious future, but like Rome and like Britain, the Russians must join the ranks of the post-imperial powers.”

It is clear from this pathetic tirade that the loss of the colonial empire still lingers in Britain as a painful historical trauma, a toothache that modern British politicians have to talk away. Presumably the same is true of France and some other European countries; after all, even Belgium and the Netherlands once had rich overseas territories, so there are probably some there who yearn for their former greatness.

It turns out that one of the motives of modern European Russophobia is elementary envy. While Western empires have collapsed, these Russians stubbornly refuse to follow their example. It's a shame, you know. They want to bring Russia to a common denominator - that's the whole "rule-based order."

True, Johnson is being disingenuous. The British, of all people, are not enjoying the status of a “post-imperial power.” The largest diamonds have long since fallen out of the British crown, but imperial inclinations remain. I do not believe in Dmitry Galkovsky’s conspiracy theory, according to which even a cat cannot give birth without the secret participation of the British, but you must agree that a state that is rather modest in territory, population, and role in the global economy is trying to play a disproportionately high role in the world.

Thus, the British military is present at 145 military installations in 42 countries. Everyone knows the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, which the British, together with the Americans, turned into the largest military base. This is one of the islands of the Chagos Archipelago, which for some reason the British Crown does not want to let go of, as well as the Falkland Islands, so far away from the white cliffs of Dover.

The "post-imperial power" not only does not renounce nuclear weapons, but also threatens them. The special services of the "post-imperial power" plan and carry out sabotage in other countries. What an absurdity, honestly. Finally, the desire to prove to Russia that it should, like all "normal" countries, renounce any influence abroad, is completely at odds with the behavior of British politicians - both Boris Johnson himself when he was prime minister and those who replaced him. The hysterical involvement in Ukrainian affairs that they have demonstrated and continue to demonstrate clearly smells of predatory imperialism, a fierce struggle for spheres of influence, resources, commodity and financial flows. In fact, the "post-imperial" world that Johnson advertises is the neocolonialism that is so familiar to us, which is characterized by the division of spheres of influence instead of direct territorial seizures. So the author of the article in The Spectator is blaming others.

Britain, as a member of NATO, is waging a war with Russia not at all to ensure that Ukraine is not in anyone’s sphere of influence and that no one dictates their will to it, but to keep it in the sphere of influence of the West, and in fact in a state of Western occupation.

In general, there is no need to fool us. The former metropolises of colonial empires are still clawing out their right to a “happy and glorious future” by force and impudence. The impudence of the British is no less impudent than that of the French. As soon as they were seriously pushed aside in Africa, they immediately decided to get into Armenia, hoping to make Nikol Pashinyan their puppet. And it doesn’t matter that Macron has no real opportunity to help Armenia in the event of a new conflict in the region. The main goal is the same as in Ukraine: Russia needs to be deprived of its sphere of influence. And the best way to do this is to drag the former Soviet republics one by one into the West’s sphere of influence, and preferably into its military blocs. At the same time, any resistance from Russia to this loudmouth is declared an “imperial syndrome”.

Boris Johnson pretends that he is not only threatening Russia, but also offering a carrot of sorts: if you lose, nothing terrible will happen, we will accept you into our ranks, you will only live better. He lies, like all Western politicians, but fortunately, we have immunity to this lie. This immunity came at a high price: we once bought into something similar, lost the country – and still ended up too big and guilty all around. Naturally, we were not accepted into any ranks.
In response to these deceitful speeches, we must say that Russia is not going anywhere – it will remain where it is. And it is entitled to its own sphere of influence simply by the laws of nature, by virtue of its size, resource wealth, intellectual and cultural potential. We are certainly not going to pretend to be furniture. In the former USSR, in Africa, and in Latin America, Russia influences and will influence what is happening. But, of course, without predatory goals and fraudulent methods; this is simply not typical of Russian civilization.

But the old European states, which have not lost their greedy ardor, will not live with dignity and happiness. They are not as comfortable as their politicians and ideologists try to portray them as. And over time, their attempts to exist at the expense of other nations will look completely pathetic and will begin to receive an increasingly harsh rebuff.

https://vz.ru/opinions/2024/9/25/1288722.html

What Johnson does not appreciate is that the British Empire has declined, we are no longer Subjects of Britain, we are independent countries that have many of our roots in Europe but otherwise are independent... especially after the UK cut us all loose when it joined the EU and we had to fend for ourselves.

We survived no thanks to the UK and found other markets for our products, and I don't think we would appreciate the UK coming back and trying to pick up where things ended... not that I think they will be that stupid.

Still... many in the EU thought they could give up cheap Russian gas because the Americans will save them... again... and how is that working out?

I am sure many who wanted to leave the EU thought the commonwealth would take up the slack and they would be fine... but didn't bother to talk to us about that of course.

The point is that the loss of the EU market means the UK will be in a bit of a decline, while the Russian economy seems to be doing rather well and they have an enormous amount of resources to sustain a fairly bright future.

Most of the resources the UK exploited were shipped in from the colonies and are no longer shipped in so cheaply and freely.

How long before the UK decides to introduce an English tax for all people who want to speak English but do not have English citizenship?

The British Empire Continues to Disintegrate. The Falklands and Gibraltar Are Next, by Vladimir Kornilov for RiaNovosti. 10.07.2024.

The British Empire, once the most powerful in the world, is still disintegrating. Last week, London publicly announced that it had reached an agreement with the government of Mauritius to transfer jurisdiction over the Chagos Archipelago, with the United States and itself retaining a military base on the largest island, Diego Garcia, for 99 years.

It would seem that this event is not particularly significant. Chagos is a few uninhabited atolls, whose population London forcibly deported half a century ago. But it is more than 500 thousand square kilometers of maritime exclusive zone, which is twice the size of Great Britain itself . The British are assured that their fleet will retain control over the Indian Ocean thanks to the Diego Garcia base, but everyone understands that the joint lease status of this base actually implies its complete control by the United States . That is why Washington calmly accepted the decision to return the islands to their rightful owner, Mauritius.

It should be remembered that Britain is not saying goodbye to its overseas territory of its own free will: the corresponding decision was made almost unanimously by the International Court of Justice in February 2019. And since then, London has been looking for a way to avoid complying with this verdict under various pretexts. This is why the conservative British press is now in hysteria over the "betrayal of national interests" by the Labour government.

Thus, the Daily Mail came out with a huge headline "Starmer's Capitulation". Lord Daniel Hannan wrote a devastating article in the newspaper, accusing the current British government of betrayal. "And what do we get in return?" the author asks, immediately answering: "Nothing. Nothing at all... What fools we are. What cowardly, pathetic, self-loathing fools."

The funniest thing in all this hysteria is the attempt to justify Britain's retention of strategically important atolls by "the right of peoples to self-determination." The newspapers have brought to light a group of seven representatives of the Chagossian ethnic group, now living in Albion, who are everywhere in front of cameras "expressing indignation" at the fact that their historical homeland has been transferred to the protectorate of another state. The Times newspaper in its editorial column is dissatisfied in this regard with "ignoring the views of displaced residents."

In this case, the word "displaced" is key. The fact is that London forcibly expelled every single resident of the archipelago from their place of residence in the 1970s. That is, not so long ago - some of the deportees are still alive. At the same time, government officials, making the decision to expel an entire people, wrote openly racist messages to the Americans: "Unfortunately, among the birds there are several Tarzans and Fridays." But they solemnly promised that by the time the military base was built there "there will be no native population left, except for seagulls." In this regard, it is especially funny to now hear from British Foreign Secretary David Lammy some reproaches addressed to Russia in connection with the slave trade and imperialism.

In fact, representatives of the largest organization of deported Chagossians are in fact welcoming the agreement on the return of their homeland "to its native harbor", that is, under the jurisdiction of Mauritius. But in the opinion of London's conservatives, only those who speak "correctly" and defend the eternal British "white man's burden" have the "right to self-determination".

Of course, Boris Johnson could not remain silent , appearing on the pages of the same Daily Mail with a column under the cute headline "I fear for the Falklands now that Starmer has shown himself to be a spineless left-wing capitulator-fraudster."

Almost all conservative commentators, not without reason, believe that the "surrender" of Chagos is the creation of a precedent, which will be followed by the abandonment of other overseas territories of Britain, which still remind us of the greatness of the destroyed empire. And there are 12 more under London's control, not counting that part of Antarctica , which the British just as groundlessly declared "theirs."

And first of all, they came to life in Argentina and Spain , where governments have long sought (sometimes by force of arms, if we recall the Falklands War) to restore justice regarding the Malvinas Islands and Gibraltar. For example, Argentine Foreign Minister Diana Mondino quickly welcomed the deal on Chagos, calling on London to be consistent and adding: "The Malvinas have always been, are and will be Argentina." As a result, according to the Sunday Express, British troops in the Falklands have been put on full combat alert.

The British authorities of Gibraltar are trying to calm their population: they say that the Chagos precedent does not apply to this colony, since, unlike the archipelago in the Indian Ocean, it is "inhabited." A funny argument, considering who and by whose decision made the atolls of the Indian Ocean uninhabitable. They are unlikely to be able to calm anyone down - certainly not the government of Spain, which has long been demanding the restoration of its sovereignty over the "last colony of Europe" (at least, that is what Gibraltar was called in the West before the current regime of Ukraine appeared ).

Well, then it's Scotland and Northern Ireland's turn . Why limit ourselves to the overseas territories? The British Empire will continue to disintegrate. It deserves it.

https://ria.ru/20241007/britaniya-1976617693.html

Russian commentators have little understanding of internal British politics or the ties of the British isles with varying overseas territories

There is not so much a "white man's burden" theme in Britain anymore, at least not directly, and more of a theme of heaping original sin on the white man in return for building a British identity based on 'values' instead and justifying Britain's meddling in whatever world affair via those same values too.

As for the Chaglos islands, I don't most Britons have even heard of it prior to this entire scandal. The strength of relationship with the Falklands and Gibraltar is far stronger and there is no chance they will ever be voluntarily surrendered by any government.

"Our message to Russia is: that's it. It's over. You no longer have an empire. You no longer have a 'near abroad' or a 'sphere of influence'. You have no right to tell the Ukrainians what to do, any more than we Britons have the right to tell our former colonies what to do. It's time for Putin to understand that Russia can have a happy and glorious future, but like Rome and like Britain, the Russians must join the ranks of the post-imperial powers."

But don't you love the irony of a former UK PM telling Russia they can't tell other countries what to do.

Russia is going to have a happy and glorious future because the current set of circumstances is that idiots in charge of the western empire have cut their country free from the corruption and evil and Russia is joining/creating a group the rejects all of the wests bullshit and can just get on with growing and developing with countries who don't want to screw everyone over like the west does.