The UK has not suddenly alerted the US to the problems posed by the give away of Chagos. Nor has the President suddenly read a brief and got command of the issues.In his welcome condemnation of the folly of the deal he assumed the UK is being paid to surrender the islands. He will be even more stunned by the stupidity when he learns the UK is paying to give them away.
Some contributors here seem to think one word from Nigel Farage and the President is persuaded. This is clearly not true as Nigel could have told Mr Trump a long time ago and may have done do but the US went along with the folly. Presumably they did so because they did not want to disrupt their relationship with the UK government. They sought and were given assurances there would be no cost to them and they could still use the base for 99 years.
Over the last year there would have been exchanges between the 2 governments over this. It is extraordinary that the UK government,full of lawyers , missed the obvious point that the UK/US Treaty requires the UK to keep the Chagos freehold. Or maybe the lawyers thought this was a technicality the US would
agree to repeal.Strange they did not pocket that early.
There have also been many exchanges between leading UK Conservatives and Republicans, urging the US ruling party to think again. People have raised issues including Mauritius being an anti nuclear country, what would happen at the base if Mauritius issues fishing licences for the Chagos, settles people on islands close to Diego Garcia, grants rights to China etc.
The flurry of briefings had a reprise last week with the US Speaker in London. Briefings reached Rubio and Bessent in Davos. Someone half tipped off the President who came out strongly against the deal.
I was the first person to put to the media the fact that the UK signed up for the International Court with express exemptions for Commonwealth matters and defence. The ICJ could not make us give up Chagos. Someone else put out the need to get US consent to Treaty change. We do not know whose briefing got the President to change his mind. Trying to influence a President 2000 miles away takes many attempts by many people to land a key message.
We should also recognise the importance of the Chagos government in exile and the independent group who took the UK government to court over failure to consider the views of the Chagossians.
January 26, 2026
We spend many billions “defending Ukraine’s sovereignty”, and at the same time propose spending more billions giving away the Chagossisans’ homeland to foreigners. Oh the hypocrisies of our foreign policy. The two consistent things about it are it costs us a lot of money and causes a lot of misery.
January 26, 2026
I think you’re being too kind to the present administration. Starmer thinks he can ride roughshod over everyone.. like it or not, it was only after Farage explained to Bessent the absurdity of the deal that Trump intervened.
Now we have the NEC banning Burnham left by Starmer after the debacle of cancelling local elections. It’s Reform taking the government to court, not the uniparty.
The voters won’t forget.
Reply It was an independent group taking the government to court over Chagos. It was Conservative peers that got the motion against the Chagos give away through the Lords and exposed the government breaking its US Treaty so delaying the Bill. Several people got messages to Bessent and Rubio.
January 26, 2026
Good Morning,
If the above is the case, why did the US parties wait so long to intervene?
Why intervene in such a public and disrespectful way?
Why did it need the President to make the intervention rather than the Sec. of State?
January 26, 2026
Good morning.
The Chagosians (sp) have set up their own government in exile such is this Ealing Comedy farce. And just like the car in the Circus the wheels will soon be coming off with loads of custard pies being thrown around for good measure.
This government has made the UK into a laughing stock
January 26, 2026
It is indeed “extraordinary that the UK government,full of lawyers , missed the obvious point that the UK/US Treaty requires the UK to keep the Chagos freehold. Or maybe the lawyers thought this was a technicality the US would agree to repeal.Strange they did not pocket that early.
Clearly they needed this point to be accepted by the US before even thinking about any discussions. Lawyers are in theory supposed to represent the interests of their clients. So often however they are interested in their personal interests of high fees and lots of billable hours.
The public would benefits from a cost effective, quick, predictable, simple, legal system. The interest of lawyers is served a slow, expensive, multi level courts, highly unpredictable, arbitrary almost random one. As it is designed by lawyers and judges we get the latter!
If it were more predictable cases would settle before court, or appeals or the ECHR and that would not be remotely good for lawyers at all. Lots of litigants is what they want. Often with tax payers paying both sides legal costs!
January 26, 2026
Starmer has already made another U turn on the Chagos issue. It seems the Americans have a veto on this after all
Trump does not listen to his professional diplomats or ambassadors. He makes foreign policy on the fly, having surrounded himself with a small number of trusted, sycophantic yes-men/women
The markets are preparing for large foreign holders of $ assets like Treasuries to sell and buy more gold/silver. Gold hit over $5100/oz and silver $105/oz this weekend – however, parabolic moves like this often end in a blow-off top. The question is, how much further will they go?