Because Sunak has cancelled a meeting with Mitsotakis (Greek PM) at short notice.
Did any other British PM behave in the same way? I rather doubt it.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.
- Thread starter Cowley
- Start date
- Status
Because Sunak has cancelled a meeting with Mitsotakis (Greek PM) at short notice.
Did any other British PM behave in the same way? I rather doubt it.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
renegademaster
Established Member
Given how packed the British museum is every day I don't think they are too worried about opinions of this sort
Yes, that's what they want. But "Possession is 9/10 of the law" and all that. The pragmatic approach for them to might be to agree ownership first and then discuss custody second.
Purple Train
Established Member
By sheer coincidence, the Saturday before this blew up was the date of a particular art history conference in London, at which there was a talk by Jacques Schumacher (who is the Provenance Curator at the V&A) which discussed the state of affairs around restituting looted objects.
The key obstacle Mr Schumacher highlighted in his talk was, basically, the law. The law that covers disposal of objects in a museum's collection (including restitution) is the Heritage Act 1983, which effectively states that no item can be given away unless the item is an exact duplicate of another in the museum's collection (so a modern 3D copy wouldn't count), or the item is unsuitable for exhibition (which means that the museum has to be legally certain that nobody, student or teacher, present or future, will ever have even the slightest interest, for research or any other purpose, in that object. Obviously this is a very high threshold), or some kind of exchange is involved (he didn't go into much detail on this, but I think the items have to be vaguely equivalent), or the item is rendered useless due to damage. This means that a restitution request, or the fact that the item was looted, is not enough, under the terms of the Heritage Act, for the item to be returned.
There is one exception to this - art that was looted by the Nazis can be freely returned to its country of origin.
The reason that the fact that the item was looted is not in itself enough for the item to be restituted. Mr Schumacher explained that, during the war in Ethiopia in 1868, the British troops brought a dedicated art curator to steal or buy culturally significant pieces at a knock-down rate, to be sold for a much greater price at auction. Over 60 pieces were bought by the V&A museum to educate the public on Ethiopian metalwork. A restitution request from the Ethiopian government has been made, but only in relation to two of the pieces.
Mr Schumacher concluded his talk by talking about a recent resolved restitution request from the Turkish government in relation to a small sculpture of the Head of Eros. This broke off a sarcophagus discovered in what is now Turkey, and was stolen by a British collector and presented to the V&A. In the 1930s, a visitor to the museum recognised it as being similar to the several almost identically carved heads that were still on the sarcophagus, which was by then being displayed in Turkey. This prompted a restitution request from the Turkish government, but then WW2 started and the restitution row was forgotten about.
In 2010, the Turkish government made another restitution request in relation to the piece. By this stage it had been in storage for 40 years, as it was a tiny little carved head off a much larger object that it made very little sense to display out of context. However, because of the very restrictive nature of the Heritage Act, it still couldn't be transferred. The only legal option was sending it over on long-term loan, which was refused by the Turkish government.
The impasse was eventually broken by the Director of the V&A, Tristram Hunt (the former MP), who had the idea of transferring it over as what he called a "renewable cultural research partnership" - i.e. it wasn't legally a restitution, so the head could be reunited - properly - with the sarcophagus without issue. However, the eventual transfer and partnership was conducted during what Mr Schumacher called a "very turbulent time in UK politics" - i.e. Liz Truss. He stressed that the unusual thing about this state of affairs was that it was an open-and-shut case - the looted piece was in storage, there were no plans to take it out, and it made little to no sense without the sarcophagus. The Elgin Marbles are less of an open-and-shut case simply because they aren't in storage!
In terms of whether the law can be changed, Mr Schumacher added that the Tories have no interest in changing the law to make restitution less of a perpetual stand-off, and that he saw little to no likelihood of the situation changing under Labour - bigger fish and all that. Whether the rekindling of the Elgin Marbles row will change this, I don't know.
I hope this helps to clarify the situation surrounding the Elgin Marbles - I'm no expert on this, but I do have my notes from this talk by an expert and I thought it might make a useful addition to this discussion. I don't think the talk is available online if anyone does have any further questions, but I will have another look.
The key obstacle Mr Schumacher highlighted in his talk was, basically, the law. The law that covers disposal of objects in a museum's collection (including restitution) is the Heritage Act 1983, which effectively states that no item can be given away unless the item is an exact duplicate of another in the museum's collection (so a modern 3D copy wouldn't count), or the item is unsuitable for exhibition (which means that the museum has to be legally certain that nobody, student or teacher, present or future, will ever have even the slightest interest, for research or any other purpose, in that object. Obviously this is a very high threshold), or some kind of exchange is involved (he didn't go into much detail on this, but I think the items have to be vaguely equivalent), or the item is rendered useless due to damage. This means that a restitution request, or the fact that the item was looted, is not enough, under the terms of the Heritage Act, for the item to be returned.
There is one exception to this - art that was looted by the Nazis can be freely returned to its country of origin.
The reason that the fact that the item was looted is not in itself enough for the item to be restituted. Mr Schumacher explained that, during the war in Ethiopia in 1868, the British troops brought a dedicated art curator to steal or buy culturally significant pieces at a knock-down rate, to be sold for a much greater price at auction. Over 60 pieces were bought by the V&A museum to educate the public on Ethiopian metalwork. A restitution request from the Ethiopian government has been made, but only in relation to two of the pieces.
Mr Schumacher concluded his talk by talking about a recent resolved restitution request from the Turkish government in relation to a small sculpture of the Head of Eros. This broke off a sarcophagus discovered in what is now Turkey, and was stolen by a British collector and presented to the V&A. In the 1930s, a visitor to the museum recognised it as being similar to the several almost identically carved heads that were still on the sarcophagus, which was by then being displayed in Turkey. This prompted a restitution request from the Turkish government, but then WW2 started and the restitution row was forgotten about.
In 2010, the Turkish government made another restitution request in relation to the piece. By this stage it had been in storage for 40 years, as it was a tiny little carved head off a much larger object that it made very little sense to display out of context. However, because of the very restrictive nature of the Heritage Act, it still couldn't be transferred. The only legal option was sending it over on long-term loan, which was refused by the Turkish government.
The impasse was eventually broken by the Director of the V&A, Tristram Hunt (the former MP), who had the idea of transferring it over as what he called a "renewable cultural research partnership" - i.e. it wasn't legally a restitution, so the head could be reunited - properly - with the sarcophagus without issue. However, the eventual transfer and partnership was conducted during what Mr Schumacher called a "very turbulent time in UK politics" - i.e. Liz Truss. He stressed that the unusual thing about this state of affairs was that it was an open-and-shut case - the looted piece was in storage, there were no plans to take it out, and it made little to no sense without the sarcophagus. The Elgin Marbles are less of an open-and-shut case simply because they aren't in storage!
In terms of whether the law can be changed, Mr Schumacher added that the Tories have no interest in changing the law to make restitution less of a perpetual stand-off, and that he saw little to no likelihood of the situation changing under Labour - bigger fish and all that. Whether the rekindling of the Elgin Marbles row will change this, I don't know.
I hope this helps to clarify the situation surrounding the Elgin Marbles - I'm no expert on this, but I do have my notes from this talk by an expert and I thought it might make a useful addition to this discussion. I don't think the talk is available online if anyone does have any further questions, but I will have another look.
Not just us! Paris, Berlin, St Petersburg, New York ... Those with the power and money in the nineteenth and earlier part of the twentieth centuries collected from all over by various more or less legal practices rangine from pure theft (Napoleon or Göring, for example) through some sort of forced sale/purchase through to the perfectly legal sell-offs of items of national heritage of more modern times. In the case of the Elgin Marbles, the Greek PMs analogy with a divided Mona Lisa is a good one (however far-fetched it may sound!). But it does raise the question of how far back we go with all this and how all-embracing it is — does just one country (i.e. GB) have to give back its "loot", or do the various other receiving countries have to join in? Should the Codex Amiatinus and the Leningrad Bede come back to Monkwearmouth/Jarrow, should the various items of British literary heritage now in US libraries come back here? And should it even go so far as having the Lindisfarne Gospels back in the North of England, at least in Durham if not on Lindisfarne?
Why does other countries' reluctance to return stolen goods prevent the UK from doing the same. That's just a 'do nothing' strategy.
dangie
On Moderation
I suspect many in the UK who think the Elgin Marbles should stay at the British Museum have either never been to see them or never will go to see them.
I also suspect that many in Greece who think the Elgin Marbles should be returned to Greece will probably never go to see them either.
I also suspect that many from either country don’t care one way or the other.
I think I saw them about 40+ years ago so I’m one of the don’t care one way or the other. Much rather have the South Kensington Museums if I’m honest. Far more interesting.
I also suspect that many in Greece who think the Elgin Marbles should be returned to Greece will probably never go to see them either.
I also suspect that many from either country don’t care one way or the other.
I think I saw them about 40+ years ago so I’m one of the don’t care one way or the other. Much rather have the South Kensington Museums if I’m honest. Far more interesting.
Last edited:
Indeed, however it's still rather childish not to have the meeting because the other party may ask you a question you'd rather not hear.
It would have still been childish (but less so) to continue to have the meeting but say that the meeting would be over if the subject came up. It could still allow him to show that he was going to be "strong" but wouldn't have needed to upset the Greek PM if the subject had been brought up.
It would have been far better to have had the meeting and discussed the subject like grown ups if it had come up.
dangie
On Moderation
Yup easy. And yet instead he done a minor diplomatic incident. The king should probably send the petulant manchild to bed with no supper
Quite, and then either the Greek PM storms out and you make him look silly, the meeting then goes ahead as normal as you'd hope, or he continues to go on about it and you can give a post meeting readout that says words to the effect of "I had hoped to discuss important issues like the migration crisis on the Mediterranean however they were more focused on the Elgin Marbles so in the time available we were unable to make any progress".
Anyway you slice it those would be far better outcomes than just appearing petulant. I suspect its another case of the Government doing something that is designed entirely for narrow domestic consumption without any regard for how it might appear internationally (the old "yes yes we said that but you weren't supposed to be listening to what we said").
He's probably left an easier path for Kier Starmer to 'apologise' for the previous PM's poor behaviour and then have an adult discussion on the matter.
Though Sunak claims there was already an agreement that the Greek PM wouldn't talk about the Marbles.
Is it petulant to cancel a meeting with someone who apparently can't stick to an agreement? And who is probably making a fuss about it for his domestic audience?
Purple Train
Established Member
"Claims" is the key word in that sentence - whether there was an agreement has, if I recall correctly, not yet been verified. While it is true that the positions of both sides are very clear, there is still room for a solution, as I said in post 5,855.
And yes, it is quite petulant to cancel a meeting with someone who can't stick to an agreement (again, assuming that Sunak's claims are correct), in my opinion - you are not sticking to the agreement you made to hold a meeting. Two wrongs do not make a right.
If you believe Sunak rather than the Greek PM.
And why should Mitsotakis listen to Sunak's silly requests anyway? If Mitsotakis wants to bring up the issue, why shouldn't he?
Either way, Sunak is, to me, coming across like an overgrown schoolboy. "Yah, boo, I'm not listening to you"; it's as if he's still 16 and still at Winchester College. I've heard it said that Conservative MPs have been emailing Mitsotakis apologising for their "leader"'s behaviour.
I suspect Sunak just got the hump after the "Mona Lisa" conversation.
The main conclusion that I'm drawing from this and other recent incidents is that Sunak is supremely incompetent and not up to the job.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Exactly, hence my comment about sheer incompetence. A spectacular own goal which has done nothing for his personal standing and has opened up lines of attack for the opposition. He's made himself look an idiot; I find it hard to understand why he acted the way he did. Supremely unprofessional and remember it's not just himself that he's embarrassing on the international stage, but the UK as a whole. Which is why this national embarrassment needs to go, and go soon - to be replaced by a proper grown-up PM who can represent the country appropriately.
Last edited:
Can you think of one? I can't. None of the current crop of politicians have much to recommend them. The choice in the next election will be between Sunak and Starmer, and both of them are broadly the same. It's a case of voting for the "least worst". Starmer is talking the talk now because he wants people to vote for him, but just like every other politician, once he gets some real power he certainly won't be walking the walk. Two years from now we'll all be on here whining about Starmer, the Labour party and broken election promises.
I don't doubt for a second that we'll be whining about broken election promises. It's in the nature of running the country that you have to make compromises and not do exactly what you want the whole time.
We are less likely to be whining about Starmer regularly making idiotic decisions on a completely arbitrary basis, and we are extremely unlikely to see him damaging relations with our allies by treating diplomacy like it's an optional lunchtime General Studies class.
Sunak and Starmer are both flawed characters, as is everybody, and it's probably fair to say that neither of them match up to the best most memorable PMs from history. It's a mistake to think that this makes them "broadly the same" though. There are massive and hugely important differences between them.
SteveP29
Member
Has any party, when it comes to power, ever stuck studiously to their manifesto promises/ pledges?
I don't think I could name one if I tried.
Besides the 'just saying it to get elected' there do tend to be things that crop up that can't be envisaged, like Covid etc that throws priorities in another direction.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
Worth noting that Starmer had an apparently amicable meeting with the Greek PM, and used it to needle Sunak at PM questions.
between that and Starmer's appearance at COP and meetings lined up with other heads of government - it seems the world has simply decided he's the prime minister now and whatever Sunak says is irrelevant as he'll be gone within a year anyway.
I'm glad the Greek gov can display the maturity that is apparently lacking within our own corridors of power at present.
King Charles wore a tie with the Greek flag in his meeting with Sunak - A subtle message? Greek City Times
"A picture is worth a thousand words," says an old Chinese proverb, and as much as it is now considered a cliché in journalism, only this can describe the
greekcitytimes.com
The king is wearing a tie with the Greek flag.
His father was Greek so it's not surprising he has some sympathy to the Greek cause.has this picture of King Charles and Rishi Sunak at the COP 28 meeting.King Charles wore a tie with the Greek flag in his meeting with Sunak - A subtle message? Greek City Times
"A picture is worth a thousand words," says an old Chinese proverb, and as much as it is now considered a cliché in journalism, only this can describe the
The king is wearing a tie with the Greek flag.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
Do the Greeks want him back too?
Busaholic
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Jun 2014
- Messages
- 14,671
The locals might take it as a reverse of the old saying 'beware of Greeks bearing gifts.'
Weren’t they only borrowing their royals from the Danes?
To me, that look (and angle of face) says 'This is serious'. Whether it is about 'Cop 28' or 'The Elgin Marbles' I don't know, but it gives the impression that HRH has no problem making his feelings known.has this picture of King Charles and Rishi Sunak at the COP 28 meeting.King Charles wore a tie with the Greek flag in his meeting with Sunak - A subtle message? Greek City Times
"A picture is worth a thousand words," says an old Chinese proverb, and as much as it is now considered a cliché in journalism, only this can describe the
The king is wearing a tie with the Greek flag.
brad465
Veteran Member
The amount of breeding between the different members of the different royal families that went on in European history, they were practically all one family.
I see the government is, from my understanding, wanting to completely block all immigration to the UK (other than students etc) if you are earning less than £38,700.
www.bbc.co.uk
Seems incredibly harsh. That's really quite a generous salary. What about all the foreign nurses, carers etc? Will they be blocked out? A lot of professional jobs attract a salary of less than £38,700.
This government really is seemingly turning the UK into an unfriendly and unwelcoming place, and has a strong desire to keep foreigners out. Come here - but only if you have a well-paid job, by my interpretation of this. Have I understood it correctly?
Everything this government does just makes me mad. Its hardline anti-immigration stance. Its petulant and petty picking fights with the leaders of countries which are our allies. Its (IMO) slanderous labelling of pro-Palestinian demonstrators. Its anti-woke attitude.
What if the NHS has yet more problems because the Government have blocked foreigners getting <£38,700 NHS jobs? What if there are delays and cancellations to operations caused by this Government's pathological dislike of immigration?
I just hope Starmer is better. I do think he will be significantly better than the Tories (and hence I desperately want them to win), but even Labour are seemingly chasing the same pool of right-wing voters with some of their pronouncements, including on this matter. What about the rest of us? The left, the liberals? Do we matter? Apparently not.
Tougher visa rules unveiled in plan to cut migration
The UK government says its five-point plan will curb legal migration, which has hit record levels.
www.bbc.co.uk
Seems incredibly harsh. That's really quite a generous salary. What about all the foreign nurses, carers etc? Will they be blocked out? A lot of professional jobs attract a salary of less than £38,700.
This government really is seemingly turning the UK into an unfriendly and unwelcoming place, and has a strong desire to keep foreigners out. Come here - but only if you have a well-paid job, by my interpretation of this. Have I understood it correctly?
Everything this government does just makes me mad. Its hardline anti-immigration stance. Its petulant and petty picking fights with the leaders of countries which are our allies. Its (IMO) slanderous labelling of pro-Palestinian demonstrators. Its anti-woke attitude.
What if the NHS has yet more problems because the Government have blocked foreigners getting <£38,700 NHS jobs? What if there are delays and cancellations to operations caused by this Government's pathological dislike of immigration?
I just hope Starmer is better. I do think he will be significantly better than the Tories (and hence I desperately want them to win), but even Labour are seemingly chasing the same pool of right-wing voters with some of their pronouncements, including on this matter. What about the rest of us? The left, the liberals? Do we matter? Apparently not.
Last edited:
The increase only brings the level set in 2019 (and actually reduced in 2020) up in line with inflation.I see the government is, from my understanding, wanting to completely block all immigration to the UK (other than students etc) if you are earning less than £38,700.
Seems incredibly harsh. That's really quite a generous salary. What about all the foreign nurses, carers etc? Will they be blocked out?Tougher visa rules unveiled in plan to cut migration
The UK government says its five-point plan will curb legal migration, which has hit record levels.
What hardline anti-immigration stance? Legal immigration is at an all time high.
Telling people that they can't come if they earn less than £38,700. That to me makes it almost impossible for many, many people - from all over the world including our so-called allies (if we have any anymore) - to come here.
As I said, from my reading of this: no more foreign nurses, no more foreign carers. No foreigners allowed to apply for entry-level professional jobs. Have I misunderstood something?
Last edited:
- Status