Fishy Business of Security

Fishy Business of Security

Fishy business could be holding up the UK-EU defence pact, and honestly, it’s fascinating how something as mundane as fishing rights can derail a vital security agreement. A pinch of salt is needed here, but Sweden’s EU affairs minister, Jessica Rosencrantz, has been refreshingly honest about the situation.

The stakes couldn’t be higher. Russia is ramping up pressure—not just with war, but through sabotage, espionage, and other indirect acts. America feels unreliable as an ally these days. Hostility towards Europe is growing, with public opinion turning sour and distancing from them. The US seems to outright hate Europe and wants to dismantle the European Union. So much for isolationist policies! This could even be an existential crisis for us. Sovereignty and security are at risk. The UK, along with France, is one of the few European nations able to project military power globally, making the UK an indispensable player in European security. If you’re wondering why Russia is keen to divide and sideline Europe, that’s precisely why. The UK and EU desperately need this pact to safeguard each other, and decoupling from America to take security into our own hands is increasingly urgent.

The war in Ukraine drags on. Europe is rearming, and Russia isn’t shy about showing its hostility towards the UK. It’s clear they see us as a major threat, and they’d love nothing more than for Britain to fall. Most voters don’t seem to notice, but the evidence is plain—murder, spying, sabotage. These acts are carefully designed to avoid provoking a formal declaration of war, but they’re war all the same. This isn’t just Britain’s problem; it’s happening all across Europe. Refugees are being weaponised to destabilise European politics, adding yet another layer to the chaos. Some might ask why we should care about Ukraine and European security, but the connection is obvious. Russia is Europe’s gas station. The war in Ukraine sent energy prices soaring, heavily impacting UK energy costs tied to natural gas. If you care about your fuel bill, you should care about this. Refugees and asylum seekers matter too—if Ukraine falls, millions will flee Russian rule. These seemingly unconnected issues are deeply linked.

Both sides want this defence pact sorted fast, and climate change adds more urgency. Arctic shipping routes are opening up, and protecting them will be crucial. Ireland is under the UK’s security umbrella, with the UK carrying the load since Ireland doesn’t have its own armed forces. Vast amounts of cargo bound for Europe travel by sea, and undersea cables connect the City of London to the continent. Britain acts as Europe’s fortress island, safeguarding the Atlantic and the Arctic alongside Nordic countries. Ireland and the Arctic are vulnerable, and the UK defence industry is eager to get involved in Europe’s rearmament. But neither the EU nor the UK is going to make this easy. Enter fishing rights—the bargaining chip.

Fishing rights have always been a contentious topic. The UK can’t sell fish into the EU market due to trade barriers we agreed to, so holding onto these rights seems pointless. Yet fishing stirs deep national sentiment. There’s a romanticism about fishermen braving the high seas that resonates emotionally. It’s similar to farmers—everyone loves them, yet we fail to pay them properly. People want cheap food but balk at the idea of paying more, having grown used to rock-bottom prices. Fishing rights always spark emotion during trade talks, even though most people don’t think about it daily. But here’s the thing—pragmatism has to win. Resolving fishing rights could rebuild trust and open the door to broader cooperation. Jessica Rosencrantz is right: fixing this issue creates space to resolve other sensitive topics, like defence.

It’s about much more than fish—it’s about security. Collaborating with European fleets to protect the North Sea from Russia, China, or even America is crucial. If sharing fishing rights helps make that happen, surely it’s worth considering? Russia and China are already eyeing undersea cables, and we don’t have enough ships to protect them. Russia is even suspected—though unproven—of tampering with these cables already. The case for increasing UK defence spending and expanding our navy and air force is strong.

Let’s face it—the UK’s economy is struggling. Stagnant growth, inflation, and poor productivity weigh us down. Undoing some of the trade barriers we created post-Brexit is common sense. Patching up the flat tyre won’t fix the whole car, but it’ll stop the wobble. The UK can’t keep trying to act as a bridge between the US, EU, and itself—it’s unsustainable. For security and economic stability, rejoining the European community isn’t just logical; it’s critical. Am I thrilled about this? Not really, but it’s where we are. Lay the blame squarely at the decision-makers who led us into this mess, and for goodness’ sake, stop voting for those peddling cakeism and false promises.

British exceptionalism needs to die. Clinging to empire fantasies holds us back, and parroting this rubbish does Britain no favours. If we’re going to rebuild, we need to make the case emotionally and clearly—not just with facts, but in a way people connect with. Denial won’t get us anywhere; it’s time for a dose of reality. I’d rather not be subject to whims and wishes of others without a say, forced to go along with it. What sovereignty is there in that? Better to pool resources with like-minded nations. Sharing the burden is cheaper.

The EU sees this differently, and understandably so. The UK hasn’t treated them well, so caution is natural. It’s like an ex suddenly wanting to share resources after years of distance—would you trust them? If your answer’s yes, I’d question your judgement. Changing your mind is fine, but the EU wants proof that we’re serious this time. Negotiations are simple: you give, they give. It’s baffling how many seem to lack a basic grasp of strategy—I’ve spent far too much time playing real-time strategy games, and even I understand.

Critical thinking is desperately needed, but unchecked sources and half-truths dominate. Politicians should be alarmed, but they seem oddly relaxed. Maybe they’re cushioned by algorithm-driven bubbles. It’s worrying. Neurodivergent thinkers like me might not fit into traditional politics, but we care deeply. I’ve considered stepping in because the problems are clear and solvable. Cleverer people than me have failed spectacularly, though. I’ve been told I should go for it, but the road’s long, and I’m unsure I’d fit the mould. Then again, doubting I’d be great at it might be what makes me suited for it.

Why do we keep electing the same people who lead us astray? Why do we listen to the rich preaching what’s best for us while dodging their responsibilities? Why aren’t we asking tougher questions and prioritising what truly matters? Spending more time choosing your underwear than questioning bin collection policies doesn’t make sense. Politics impacts every aspect of daily life, and focusing on trivialities over real issues is frustrating. Voters are messy—they want impossible things and conflicting promises. Politicians over-promise because voters demand it. Maybe it’s time for leaders who lead, not chase illusions. We need a more grounded, collaborative system. Less theatre, more substance. Voters must stay engaged beyond elections, and politicians need to sound relatable. I admit I can get overly technical, but the core issues are there if you dig past the fluff.

The UK and EU stand at a crossroads, with their futures intertwined in ways many voters barely recognise. Fishing rights might seem trivial on the surface, but they symbolise something much deeper—trust, collaboration, and a willingness to compromise. These are the building blocks for a defence pact that’s not just about protecting borders but ensuring Europe can stand united against those who would divide and conquer. It’s frustrating watching Europe move slowly, with some decisions driven by pride. Cynicism only strengthens our opponents and weakens us. Yet there’s a glimmer of hope—Europe is not weak but strong. Sovereignty isn’t about isolation; it’s about pooling resources. The world is more interconnected than ever, and pretending we can go it alone is foolish.

The glass may feel half empty right now, but it’s not empty. There’s still something worth fighting for—it’s the foundation upon which European peace was built. After the dark shadow of World War II, a better future emerged. One built on trade, cooperation, pragmatism, and a belief in security and stability. If we can stop clinging to outdated notions of exceptionalism and focus on what truly matters, there’s no reason Europe, including the UK, can’t be stronger, safer, and more resilient. We can learn from history or repeat the same mistakes of the past.

 

Chagos island: The UK Last Colony and American Colony

Chagos island: The UK Last Colony and American Colony

The Chagos Islands have been in the news a lot recently due to talks between the UK and Mauritius over control. Currently, they are a British Overseas Territory (UKOT), but the islands host a joint UK-US military base. The Americans lease the islands from the British, who, rather controversially, expelled the original inhabitants and replaced them with Americans working for the military.

Why Do the Islands Matter?

The Chagos Islands are slap bang in the middle of the Indian Ocean, with Africa to the west, the Middle East to the north, and Asia to the east. Back in the 1960s, during the Cold War, the Americans were worried about the Soviets and wanted a stable spot for a military base. The Middle East was a major focus at the time, and the 1970s were full of upheaval there. The UK kept the islands when Mauritius became independent because they were seen as vital for containing the Soviet Union. For decades, UK and US foreign policy have been closely tied, and the islands are just one example of that.

A Bit of History

For most of history, nobody lived on the islands. They were claimed by the French colony that became Mauritius, which eventually turned into a British colony. After Napoleon lost in 1815, Mauritius and the Chagos Islands were handed over to the British. The British had already redrawn maps, taking the islands away from the Maldives. Back then, there weren’t official borders or legal frameworks, but those decisions are still causing arguments today. For example, the Maldives is much closer to the Chagos Islands than Mauritius, which has led to disputes over fishing rights and sovereignty.

The first British colony on the islands was set up in 1793. Enslaved people were brought in to work on coconut plantations, and their descendants lived there until they were forcibly removed in the 1960s. Slavery was abolished in 1834, and by 1840, many of the islanders were descendants of freed slaves.

The Expulsion of the 1960s

In November 1965, the UK bought the entire Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius (which was self-governing at the time) for £3 million, creating the British Indian Ocean Territory. The plantations on the islands weren’t profitable due to competition from other oils and lubricants, making the economy unsustainable. The islands were closed to make way for military activities, and the population was forcibly removed.

Between 1967 and 1973, the UK expelled the islanders, sending them to Mauritius and the Seychelles. An agreement with the US required the islands to be uninhabited for military purposes. The Mauritian government resisted taking in more displaced islanders without compensation, so in 1973, the UK agreed to pay reparations. It’s a dark chapter in British history, adding to the country’s colonial legacy.

Legal Fights

Brexit hasn’t helped the UK’s reputation or influence, making it harder to rely on allies for diplomatic cover. For decades, no court would hear the case of the Chagos Islands. The European Court of Human Rights refused in 2012, which often gets overlooked. But in 2015, Mauritius won a case about fishing rights, with a ruling that the marine protected area around the islands was illegal. This boosted Mauritius’s claim.

In February 2019, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that the UK should return the islands to Mauritius. The ruling wasn’t legally binding, but it added pressure. International law and global opinion have shifted against the UK.

Negotiations

When Boris Johnson was PM, he started talks about returning the islands. Liz Truss continued the process, and now, after two years, Keir Starmer has reached a deal. Under the agreement, sovereignty over the islands would go to Mauritius, but the UK-US military base would remain. You can read the deal here.

Not everyone is happy. The Chagossians were left out of the decision-making process about their homeland. The Maldives isn’t thrilled either, as the deal overrides its claims. It’s another messy outcome of Britain’s map-redrawing and colonial history. But the Maldives has supported Mauritius’s claim. Why? Likely for favoured access to fishing rights or other political interests. With pressure on the UK, Mauritius is likely to take ownership. Why jeopardise relations between Mauritius and the Maldives?

The Fallout

The deal has had a mixed reaction in the UK. Critics from across the political spectrum have attacked it, and the media has jumped on it as an opportunity to bash Labour. What’s frustrating is how many commentators ignored the issue when Boris Johnson or Liz Truss were involved. A quick search shows barely any articles from those same pundits. Now, they’re using it to attack a working-class leader without offering real insights. It’s more about scoring political points than genuinely caring about the islands.

Searching Hansard’s House of Commons records shows Chagos was mentioned about four times per year for decades. Mentions only started increasing in the 2000s, with 15 in 2001, 20 in 2016, and 34 in October 2024 when the deal was announced. Similar numbers appear when searching for “Chagos Islands” or “British Indian Ocean Territory.”

Geopolitics

The world has changed. Climate change means rising sea levels threaten the Chagos Islands. Mauritius has been getting closer to China, and the US isn’t the reliable ally it once was. If the base is so vital, why hasn’t the UK strengthened it or taken control? Why has the UK done so little about climate change? Instead, defence spending has been cut, and Britain’s influence is fading. Some critics still have an imperial mindset, refusing to accept that the UK is now a middle power with limited sway. Meanwhile, Starmer, being a lawyer, followed the ICJ’s judgment on principle, even though it wasn’t binding. The deal allows the base to stay under a 50-year lease, with payments to Mauritius for resettlement. Islanders can return, but not near the base.

The Trump Factor

Donald Trump’s likely return to the White House could complicate things. Any agreement about the UK-US base will need his approval, and he’s unpredictable. With the US growing more confrontational with China, the base becomes even more important. The region has seen countries drift away from America and the West. When Trump was first elected, the UK used him as an excuse to avoid tough decisions. Now, Britain is trying to stay close to both the EU and the US, which isn’t easy. Critics complain about Britain’s declining status but don’t want to fund the military properly.

What Do We Do?

Writing this blog post has been an eye-opener. I’ve learned about a dark bit of our colonial history that I knew little about before. Honestly, I’m torn on what we should do. The main options are:

  • A: Accept the deal with Mauritius. It’s practical, closes a dark chapter, and restores the UK’s global reputation.

  • B: Offer the Maldives the islands. Politically difficult, undermines international law, and seen as bad faith.

  • C: Offer the Chagossians ownership. Legally complex, diplomatically risky, and seen as illegitimate by many.

  • D: Ignore the issue. The deal is politically toxic, and without US support, it may stall.

  • E: Seek an EU deal. Unlikely, as the EU wouldn’t bypass international law, and trust in the UK is low.

The most realistic options are A (since a deal exists) and D (due to political challenges in passing it).

Torn on What to Do

I’d love to return the islands to the Chagossians and give them a choice, but it would be costly and politically fraught. The islands have military value, and maybe the lesson here is that we should get closer to Europe. Striking a deal with the US and Europe could be beneficial. It could also help tackle issues like African migration and piracy. However, aligning more with Europe risks conflict with an independent-minded America.

Final Thoughts

The Chagos Islands debate exposes uncomfortable truths about Britain’s colonial past and declining influence. Some see the deal as a humiliation; others view it as a pragmatic step in a changing world. The real issue is that parts of the UK still haven’t come to terms with the loss of empire. The question is: can Britain adapt to its new reality, or will it keep clinging to a fantasy?

Never ending political crisis brexit

Never ending political crisis brexit

Political crisis that has no end, brexit has caused ruin. Ruining anybody once the details become clear. So far destroying two prime minsters May and Cameron. At the heart pure delusion about Britain place in the world. We can become free trade beacon by leaving biggest free trade bloc in the world. Misunderstanding about the process, with no desire to face reality. Backstop in Northern Ireland become an boggy man.  Impossible demands which undermine each other. Claims solutions can we found yet unwilling to commit to the backstop. Britain has avoided the automatic cliff edge by European goodwill. So far international markets have allowed this behavior to go unchallenged we don’t deserve it.

All options look possible, remain or revoke or deal or no deal. And only one option is certain, no deal is the default. Unstable given the current background not looking like long term solutions. Rest of world ignores British made political crisis. Europe not even talking about us, we not even talking to Europe.

Brexit time to stop it

Leaving the European Union should be stopped. Obvious the Government is unprepared.

No clear details, no reports, no analysis, parliamentary process.

Euratom issues highlight just how flawed the current process is. How many “Euratom style” issues not been considered? I want to know the answer and why. Want to know why this was allowed to happen. Any other job dismissed immediately without pay.

Euratom has real consequences for communities near me. No cheerleader wants to discuss these issues. Attacking people bringing up the problems. Not just Euratom that rubs me the wrong way. Citizen rights are not a play thing.

Leaving the European Union should be stopped period.

EU referendum day after what would you do?

EU referendum day after what would you do?

June 23rd 2016 Britain voted to leave European union.  Months later still no clue what leaving means.  Time for uninformed opinion on what politicians should have done.

  • Britain voted for change,  now in hands of politicians.
  • Leaving is complex would take decades.
  • Leaving completely is not possible.
  • Should be reviewed with politicians asking the public at every step.
  • Running commentary should happen.
  • Negotiations should be made public.
  • No fixed timetable, no sudden change in policy.
  • Can’t leave Europe due how gravity works.
  • Process should be started should not take over Government policy.