Why?
There are good reasons why we need to keep the Chagos.
1. We are bound by a US/Uk Treaty to keep the freehold of our crucial Indian Ocean joint base.
2. Giving it to Mauritius could mean Chinese fishing boats getting licences to plunder the seas near the base.
3. It could mean occupation of adjacent islands to Diego Garcia limiting use of base
4. Mauritius has signed an anti nuclear Treaty but Diego Garcia is a nuclear handling base.
5. It could lead to commercial exploitation of the seas and islands, damaging a well protected marine environment.
6 Uk taxpayers will be ripped off actually having to make large payments as well as giving the valuable freehold away for nothing.
Legal issues
1. The UK cannot be bound by an advisory opinion of the ICJ which has led to this policy.
2. Any way the UK has an opt out for Commonwealth and defence matters from any ICJ verdict.
3 The UK is bound by the US Treaty to keep the freehold of the islands.
Likely outcome
The US is being alerted to the dangers if this deal. The UK authorities now know they have to modify the US Treaty first. The US President has not yet formally endorsed the disastrous UK deal.
February 10, 2026
Indeed let us hope this disastrous, indefensible and vastly expensive deal can still be killed dead – but it is looking increasingly unlikely.
February 10, 2026
One has to wonder why so much political capital is being wasted on this disastrous policy. There is more to this than we are being told.
We know ow the Atorney general, Chief of Staff and key Foreign Adviser to the government have history when it comes to antagonising Britain but this is in another level.
I smell a whiff of corruption and some serious playoffs being promised.
We have just lost the master of dark arts due to the Epstien papers. Will this grubby deal have similar connotations.
February 10, 2026
@Ian Wragg – when legal teams get involved to create scenarios, they get paid. Then when it is UK Legal teams working for a Foreign Government against the UK, it is right to question the whole affair.
February 10, 2026
Agreed. Unfortunately all of these facts have been clear from the outset. I fear logic, common sense and national interest count for naught with this Government.
If I lived in Gibraltar or The Falklands I’d be alarmed at this precedent.
February 10, 2026
+1
February 10, 2026
LL,
Agreed. Though maybe Starmer now has preservation of his own job as his biggest concern.
Reason 6 is particularly irritating.
February 10, 2026
Indeed.
As to 6.
Perhaps some Brits can go and live in Mauritius tax free it seems with their taxes paid for by UK tax payers. Then of course Mauritius might get another huge pay off when they sell or lease off bits of the archipeligo or fishing/defence rights etc. to China or others!
February 10, 2026
…and the Chagos Islanders?
February 10, 2026
Transferring the Chagos Islands to Mauritius and paying them for the privilege was not in the Labour Party Manifesto.
The House of Lords could stop it and it should. So could Trump, and HE should if the Lords refuse/fail to do their duty.
The House of Lords could and should also demand complete transparency from Two-Tier and the Foreign Office over the process which has taken place during the “negotiations” – why the Foreign Office has pushed it so desperately after Cameron vetoed it, and focusing on the roles played by Philip Sands, Jonathan Powell ….. and Mandelson.
It stinks.
February 10, 2026
See – The guilty men: the ideologues who undermine Britain
The Spectator – (Hermer, Powell, Sands and alas so many more Mandelson, Blair, Starmer, Miliband, Reeves, Lammy, B Phillipson …)
February 10, 2026
@Lifelogic +1, follow the money
February 10, 2026
Good morning.
I have not read the Labour Party manifesto but, I would be pretty surprised if it contain a promise to give the Chagos Islands to a foreign country and pay them to do so.
Further from my comment yesterday and the worth of manifesto promises, is it now time to make these legal documents ? ie Social Contracts. Is it also time that, should a government wish to implement a policy that is either contrary to their manifesto or not in their manifesto that a legally binding referendum should be held before it becomes law.
Our system of democracy works well when everyone plays by both the written and unwritten rules. But when they act in a manner that clearly is in the Public Interest and, in this case of national security, not to mention cost, I think it is high time ‘we the little’ people had a say.
Parliaments and governments, of all colours, can no longer be trusted.
Reply The Labour Manifesto promised to protect the sovereignty of our Crown dependencies!
February 10, 2026
@Mark B. Yes, it’s high time that a Party wishing to impose a policy contrary to its manifesto has to have a referendum. The days of ignoring the little people should be over. We at the bottom should have wider powers, via referendums. Switzerland manages pretty well with such a system, proving it works. Simply relying on elections every 5 years doesn’t cut it.
February 10, 2026
To reply:- Alas they cannot even (or do not want to) police or protect the coast in Kent!
February 10, 2026
A combination of Starmer, Lammy, and FO adherence to ICJ partial edicts will at best lead to a dimunation of the relationship with our closest ally. I contend that so called globalism is a false god being used to divide the western alliance. Labour, not only a financial disaster, has become a catastrophy we can no longer indulge.
I find it ironic that Labour, constipated on human rights and DEI can be so flipant and disregarding of the human rights of the refugee Chargosians. Frankly Labour disgust me. The sooner they depart and cease inflicting us with their insanities the better.
February 10, 2026
“The sooner they depart and cease inflicting us with their insanities the better.”
Indeed we had quite enough socialist insanties under the 14 years of the green crap pushing, open borders, botched Brexit, botched Covid, tax borrow and waste “Conservatives”.
February 10, 2026
“The US is being alerted to the dangers if (of) this deal”
Well, that is down to the dreadful Nigel Farage. Farage pressed the Chagos case with the Trump at two in-person meetings late last year. One was in the Oval Office in September, the other at an event on Nov 7 at Mar-a-Lago. Over a three-course menu of beef filet, truffle dauphinoise, pan-seared scallop and a trio of desserts
Farage pressed the issue of Labour’s Chagos deal purely to embarrass the government. He never misses an opportunity to slag the UK off – to whatever foreigners he can get to listen. I doubt that either Farage or Trump would know where the Chagos islands or Diego Garcia were.
The risks of divesting responsibility for the Chagos have been overblown. It’s all pure politics
Reply various briefings have been sent or put to senior Republicans by a number of concerned MPs,by Shadow Cabinet, commentators etc,
February 10, 2026
Senator Kennedy gave an excellent speech covering the stupidity of the Chagos deal and offered to buy it.
February 10, 2026
SG: “Farage pressed the issue of Labour’s Chagos deal purely to embarrass the government.”
Yes, but why did the PM decide to proceed with this deal to give away the islands with a £35bn dowry to Mauritius and give Farage the opportunity to “embarrass” the government? Especially as it was not in the Labour manifesto, there is no legal case to do so, it breaks a treaty with the US and the Chagossians are against it?
February 10, 2026
We must again rely on President Trump to provide leadership to the West and to block Starmer & Co’s disastrous ‘deal’. Is the hand of Jonathan Powell also in this? Is it known whether he was involved in Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador?
February 10, 2026
Handing the Chagos islands over (at circa £35b to Mauritius) was not in the Labour manifesto. It was one of the surprises Starmer dropped on us. Most of his un-signalled surprises resulted in U-turns. This one needs to join the collection.
The so called human rights lawyer Starmer, might consider the human rights of the Chagosssians, who were forcibly evicted but many would like to return.
The parliamentary opposition seem very quiet on the issue ?
Reply On the contrary, continuous action in both Commons and Lords has held up the bill and made the case against surrender
February 10, 2026
Sir John,
I hope your day in the Lords goes well 👍
At some stage could you explain how your relationship with the Conservative party works in the Lords, is there a whipping system as in the Commons or some other different arrangement?
February 10, 2026
I think it likely that Trump has ddecided to defend the base regardless of Starmer’s deal. This means we now have a point of direct conflict between China and the Us/UK in the Indian Ocean which we did not have before..
I do not know whether Starmer considered this but it is clear form everything else he does that he has an intense dislike for the notion of Britain as an independent sovereign nation state. So as in the case of Mandelson’s appointment as ambasador to the USA he probably discounted the brief and advice he would doubtless have been given by the Foreign Office and MoD on the strategic importance of the base on Diego Garcia.
If Starmer is ousted it is likely his successor will be even worse. There is no way of ridding the UK of Starmer’s Gang or its successor until it chooses of its own accord to submit to the electorate. Whoever their leader is this Gang, when it realises it is running out of time for its destructive and hateful agenda, will no doubt double down to do as much damage as it can in the time it has left.
February 10, 2026
The Chagos Islands don’t belong to parliament to be given away …they belong to the people of the UK including the Chagoians
February 10, 2026
Trump has said that irrespective of what treaties and agreements are in place he’ll ignore them and secure the base by force if he needs to based on USA interests. So why are we bothering to put any new agreements with Mauritius in place at all if one involved party will ignore them ?
February 10, 2026
Only an idiot could give away the Chagos Islands! Unfortunately we have three of them, Starmer, Harmer and Sands.
February 10, 2026
Two more reasons why Mauritius should not be handed the Chagos Islands:
At the time of Independence Mauritius was paid to acknowledge they had no claim to the islands.
The displaced Chagossians prefer to stay under UK control.
The whole scheme is so mad, expensive and counterproductive you question whether there is something more we don’t know.
February 10, 2026
I am very disappointed that Trump has not exercised the USAs veto to the Chagos give away. If America says the original treaty must be maintained that effectively closes the option of giving the Islands to Mauritius.
There is simply no upside for the UK if we give the islands away. Anyone other than the USA that is. The USA might even be prepared to buy them if Senator Kennedy has any influence on matters.
February 10, 2026
I am very disappointed that Trump has not exercised the USA’s veto to the Chagos islands give away. If America says the original treaty must be maintained that effectively closes the option of giving the Islands to Mauritius.
There is simply no upside for the UK if we give the islands away. Anyone other than the USA that is. The USA might even be prepared to buy them if Senator Kennedy has any influence on matters.
February 10, 2026
This is a very important issue.
1. We need to keep the base
2 We don’t (necessarily) need to share it with USA
3. The nonmilitary areas belong to the Chagos islanders and Mauretius, which is far away, haa nothing to do with those people or their islands.
February 10, 2026
If HMG decides to modify the US treaty won’t that mean another reason for Trump to see the special relationship as a farce.
It’s hard to see what drives a UK PM to give away a valuable asset while imposing a huge cost on taxpayers. Has anybody asked him what his reasoning is/was, other that the UN told him he should?
As I understand it the bill has been removed from the Lords – No doubt it will be reintroduced when the PM is feeling a little stronger.
February 10, 2026
The PM has all the legal tools he needs to cancel this give-away of the Chagos Islands with a large dowry. So if the PM proceeds it can only be for ideological reasons. Mauritius, 2000 km from the Chagos Islands, is not even the nearest Commonwealth country to these islands. And, most importantly, despite claiming to be an HR lawyer, the PM is not willing to give the Chagossians a referendum on whether they wish to the island to remain British or be given to Mauritius. BTW, if any payment is to be made by the UK surely it should be made to the Chagossians and not the Mauritius government?
February 10, 2026
To make everyone’s day.
Latest Home Office figures confirm that more small boat migrants have crossed the Channel under Starmer than any other Prime Minister. Since Labour came to power, 65,922 migrants have landed in the UK…
Even this is spin ‘migrants’? entering a country illegally is criminal first. Each criminal steals a place from legitimate asylum seekers that is theft, another criminal event
February 10, 2026
The danger is that the Prime Minister maybe this as his lasting legacy as did May with Net Zero.
February 10, 2026
The danger is that the Prime Minister may see this as his lasting legacy as did May with Net Zero.