5 ms·

Some countries have constitutions that forbid giving up any parts of its territory, but apparently our government can hand over sovereignty without even a vote

Some countries have constitutions that forbid giving up any parts of its territory, but apparently our government can hand over sovereignty without even a vote in parliament

jplrssn 2y ago
The UN General Assembly and various UN courts have ruled that the UK had no sovereignty over the Chagos Islands in the first place. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-55848126 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-55848126
- matthewmorgan 2y ago
  Irrelevant.
  - Maxatar 2y ago
    Maybe to you, but not to the UK government.
    - SllX 2y ago
      The UK has a permanent seat on the UNSC including the ultimate single-member veto and on the sliding scale of fiction to non-fiction, international law is a lot closer to the fictional end. The UK choosing to transfer sovereignty to another country is not in-line with a ruling that says they don’t have sovereignty. They’ve chosen to be done with this controversy.
- BurningFrog 2y ago
  The UN General Assembly is little more than an opinion poll, legally speaking.
- 10xalphadev 2y ago
  The UN is relevant how? Anyway, UK did the right thing, though. Now get rid of that US hegemony-supporting base.
  - Maken 2y ago
    The base stays in and the people stays out. It's little more than a symbolic gesture.
rich_sasha 2y ago
Without going into the sentiment of this, I suppose Chaos Islands are not part of the United Kingdom but rather an overseas territory, so more like "property", to put it bluntly. I guess the government can just give away a building it owns, and this is more analogous than giving away "territory". And there is no current indigenous population there either. But yeah, Jersey is also an overseas territory, can the government just give that away?
- Maxatar 2y ago
  The United Kingdom has parliamentary supremacy with little to no checks or balances, so if the parliament wants to give away something, there is nothing that can really stop them.
  - tialaramex 2y ago
    Indeed. The only practical constraints on parliament are the Laws of Nature, which unlike man's laws cannot be broken, and the will of the People, in defiance of which a Parliament necessarily would fall since the Parliament is constituted from those people. If Parliament tried to ban booze (as the US Federal Government once did) that's probably not going to go well, and maybe they would (like the US government) be forced to undo that - but all they did here was give away something very few of their citizens likely even knew they had. I was surprised it made headlines.
    - kmonsen 2y ago
      Parliament can for sure overrule the will of the people, and very often do. They might get punished in the next election or they may not. More precisely only the PM can call an election I believe.
      - lmm 2y ago
        > They might get punished in the next election or they may not. If what they do is sufficiently contrary to the will of the people (or at least, those with weapons and the will to use them), they'll get punished sooner than that. Laws and constitutions are a useful abstraction but ultimately an imperfect one.
threemux 2y ago
I'm assuming all this is contingent on a treaty vote in Parliament? I'm not familiar with how it works in the UK
- mr_toad 2y ago
  It’s not part of the UK. It’s an overseas territory owned by the crown.
- Maxatar 2y ago
  Yes, of course Parliament will need to vote on this, but the Prime Minister of the UK has approved it and unlike in the US., in the UK votes are predominantly along party lines so it will pass.
  - threemux 2y ago
    And it can be approved with a bare majority?
    - SilverBirch 2y ago
      Bare majority, and with our whipping system and current parliament (massive one party domination) it will go through with ease. It has to go through the House of Lords too, and the current government don’t have a real majority there but they’re extremely reticent to oppose the democratically elected house so it’ll likely sail through there too.
  - atvrager 2y ago
    Can I visit the world you're in, where votes in US Congress aren't predominantly along party lines?
    - atq2119 2y ago
      Yeah, the real difference is that in the US, there is a separate election for president. In the UK, as in many other countries, the party that wins parliament gets to form the government (and determine the prime minister or whatever the title of the de facto head of the executive is). In some countries this is complicated by multiparty systems where coalitions are required, but the general idea of aligning the legislative and executive branches in this way is fairly common.
mr_toad 2y ago
In theory the BIOT was under the personal control of the King, and in theory he could do what he wanted with it.

Some countries have constitutions that forbid giving up any parts of its territory, but apparently our government can hand over sovereignty without even a vote in parliament

jplrssn 2y ago

The UN General Assembly and various UN courts have ruled that the UK had no sovereignty over the Chagos Islands in the first place. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-55848126 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-55848126

matthewmorgan 2y ago
Irrelevant.
- Maxatar 2y ago
  Maybe to you, but not to the UK government.
  - SllX 2y ago
    The UK has a permanent seat on the UNSC including the ultimate single-member veto and on the sliding scale of fiction to non-fiction, international law is a lot closer to the fictional end. The UK choosing to transfer sovereignty to another country is not in-line with a ruling that says they don’t have sovereignty. They’ve chosen to be done with this controversy.
BurningFrog 2y ago
The UN General Assembly is little more than an opinion poll, legally speaking.
10xalphadev 2y ago
The UN is relevant how? Anyway, UK did the right thing, though. Now get rid of that US hegemony-supporting base.
- Maken 2y ago
  The base stays in and the people stays out. It's little more than a symbolic gesture.

rich_sasha 2y ago

Without going into the sentiment of this, I suppose Chaos Islands are not part of the United Kingdom but rather an overseas territory, so more like "property", to put it bluntly. I guess the government can just give away a building it owns, and this is more analogous than giving away "territory". And there is no current indigenous population there either. But yeah, Jersey is also an overseas territory, can the government just give that away?

Maxatar 2y ago
The United Kingdom has parliamentary supremacy with little to no checks or balances, so if the parliament wants to give away something, there is nothing that can really stop them.
- tialaramex 2y ago
  Indeed. The only practical constraints on parliament are the Laws of Nature, which unlike man's laws cannot be broken, and the will of the People, in defiance of which a Parliament necessarily would fall since the Parliament is constituted from those people. If Parliament tried to ban booze (as the US Federal Government once did) that's probably not going to go well, and maybe they would (like the US government) be forced to undo that - but all they did here was give away something very few of their citizens likely even knew they had. I was surprised it made headlines.
  - kmonsen 2y ago
    Parliament can for sure overrule the will of the people, and very often do. They might get punished in the next election or they may not. More precisely only the PM can call an election I believe.
    - lmm 2y ago
      > They might get punished in the next election or they may not. If what they do is sufficiently contrary to the will of the people (or at least, those with weapons and the will to use them), they'll get punished sooner than that. Laws and constitutions are a useful abstraction but ultimately an imperfect one.

threemux 2y ago

I'm assuming all this is contingent on a treaty vote in Parliament? I'm not familiar with how it works in the UK

mr_toad 2y ago
It’s not part of the UK. It’s an overseas territory owned by the crown.
Maxatar 2y ago
Yes, of course Parliament will need to vote on this, but the Prime Minister of the UK has approved it and unlike in the US., in the UK votes are predominantly along party lines so it will pass.
- threemux 2y ago
  And it can be approved with a bare majority?
  - SilverBirch 2y ago
    Bare majority, and with our whipping system and current parliament (massive one party domination) it will go through with ease. It has to go through the House of Lords too, and the current government don’t have a real majority there but they’re extremely reticent to oppose the democratically elected house so it’ll likely sail through there too.
- atvrager 2y ago
  Can I visit the world you're in, where votes in US Congress aren't predominantly along party lines?
  - atq2119 2y ago
    Yeah, the real difference is that in the US, there is a separate election for president. In the UK, as in many other countries, the party that wins parliament gets to form the government (and determine the prime minister or whatever the title of the de facto head of the executive is). In some countries this is complicated by multiparty systems where coalitions are required, but the general idea of aligning the legislative and executive branches in this way is fairly common.

mr_toad 2y ago

In theory the BIOT was under the personal control of the King, and in theory he could do what he wanted with it.