Is David Cameron being somewhat disingenuous.......

I've just read an article about them in the Guardian and yes, I agree with you. There has been astonishing duplicity on the part of governments of both parties and it will be interesting to hear the verdict of the ECHR.

www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/21/conservationists-exile-chagos-marine-reserve

What happened to the Chagos Islanders was wrong - but surely you are not suggesting that just because they were denied their democratic rights then the Falkland Islanders should also be denied theirs. We are living in different times now and if the Chagos Island incident were to happen today then I doubt their rights would have been denied them.

The Falkland Islanders want to remain British - as no doubt the upcoming referendum will show.

I think the point is that the Chagos Islanders were never given any choice in the matter. Why should they not have the right to return to their ancestral home and practise sustainable fishing which should not be impossible.

The fact that the Falkland Islands belong to the UK is clearly nonsense and is the result of unacceptable empire-building on the part of the British. But this all happened 100+ years ago and the islands are now populated by people who wish to remain British - I think we should respect their wishes, however unacceptably the situation has arisen.

It gave me the creeps to see Cameron trying to "out-Thatcher Thatcher." I would have been happier to see him dealing with it in a more measured way.

It was never about the democratic rights of the islanders was it. it was about having a strategically placed base in the S. Atlantic. Britannia (or is in Nato) rule the waves...
Democratic rights to the channel islanders didn't' inspire Churchill to defend them I recall!
PMs never want to be seen to be weak and nation states rarely if ever cede territory to another. Antler waving diplomacy (to put it politely) goes with this territory. Gibralter is a a similar example.

I agree with Annobel - if Chagos Islanders want to return then they should be allowed to. However, after 40 years there would be few left who would want to return and become fishermen.

Don't forget the recent finding of oil in the South Atlantic. By the way, thinking about colonialism, why do you think that the language spoken in Argentina is Spanish? [wooden spoon emoticon]

Isn't there a similar story for an island in the Indian ocean ...we removed the inhabitants so that the USA could have a naval base?

Did any one else pick up on this in the recent 'Indian Ocean' series? He spoke to a woman who left the island to have a baby and then wasn't allowed back ...don't even to get her possessions??

There will be an ulterior motive & not just the needs of the current residents!