It should never have been offered to Mauritius anyway or the Maldives for that matter. Those grubby politicians from both those Islands should not be entertained in any way. The money should be given to any people who have been displaced from the Island - and them alone. The rest is just nonsense like the reparations grifters.
306
[deleted]2 days ago
+16
[deleted]
16
edelweiss_pirates_no1 day ago
+9
They are only after the fishing rights.
9
BodybuilderUpbeat7862 days ago
+29
Mauritius and the Maldives aren't anywhere close to each other.
Mauritius can kinda claim the Islands as they have a native Creole population that was settled by colonial powers in a manner similar to Chagos. There are a lot of South Asians brought in from North India's Bhojpur region, along with a large African population.
Maldives has an indigenous South Asian population and was a proper medieval civilisation with its own language, culture, and literature going back millenia. They were first Hindu and later adopted Islam and benefitted immensely from oceanic trade.
29
pembrokesalad2 days ago
+56
I think framing it as Mauritius has a claim misses the point. Under any reasonable considerations Chagos would be independent or remain British, but there is a law that prohibits breaking apart colonies prior to granting independence. As Chagos was administered by Mauritius the law dictates that it should be returned to them. Chagos was uninhabited prior to colonisation so there is no historic claim from any demographic.
56
Ricoh061 day ago
+4
Again just proving the incompetence at the heart of the British government over the last20 years. Sure, Starmer was willing to hand the keys over, but why were the Conservatives (who love to pretend this is nothing they’d never do) even initiate these conservations to begin with?
Incompetence from top to bottom in Westminister.
4
BodybuilderUpbeat7861 day ago
+1
There's very little disagreement between Labour and Conservatives these days, it seems.
1
flatbrokeoldguy1 day ago
+1
It was just ineptitude in Westminster, the Tory party ministers were not competent to understand the facts being twisted and perverted by dodgy lawyers and civil servants.
Have you never seen the English television programme’s ‘ yes minister and yes prime minister ‘
1
flatbrokeoldguy1 day ago
+2
You don’t have a complete grasp of the historical facts. The Chagos Archipelago has NEVER been owned by Mauritius it was Administered from there by people employed by our government.
The ‘ International Law ruling ‘ was based on flawed evidence, it has been suggested that the whole thing was a fraudulent scam put together by dodgy lawyers purely aimed at profiting from double dealing.
2
[deleted]2 days ago
+25
[deleted]
25
shortymcsteve2 days ago
+49
You say all this like the previous conservative government didn’t cause all this in the first place. The current government are just trying to close the deal. The whole thing is stupid, but let’s not forget who masterminded it.
49
[deleted]2 days ago
-12
[deleted]
-12
Mitchverr2 days ago
+19
Is that the case? AFAIK Cleverly literally went out in 2022 stating that the Tories were making the deal with Mauritius, then the agreement was generally finalised in mid-late 2024 and then reviewed by the new Mauritius government. The Labour government only came into being a few months prior to the agreement being dealt with.
So... we had 2 years of the tories in charge while this happened, and a couple of months of Labour in charge.... Were the tories that incompetent that it only took the labour party a couple of months to deal with it? Or was it that these kinds of things take years and labour finished the job?
Kinda tired with this right wing positioning of the all powerful yet also all incompetent/weak labour party trope.
edit: Before anyone asks the Q about now we in 2026 and if it was done by end of 2024 why it didnt go through... Trump won in the US and the UK chose to hold off on progress/finishing it due to this.
19
vipros422 days ago
+3
I don't think Labour are doing a good job on that front, but the Tories have gone from nearly semi competent (at best) and hateful, to completely f****** useless and despicable. It's a fairly safe bet they would have fucked up just as badly but probably worse.
3
Common-Method22021 day ago
+1
Maldives is only claiming them because of how far away Mauritius is vs them.
1
falconfalcon72 days ago
+142
What they are forgetting is that the UK only did this for the US. Due to the court international court judgements the US were worried that this could threaten the long term future of the base so will have pushed the UK to make this deal. Trump then went against this and used it as a tool to try and humiliate Starmer to force him to support him on Iran. Starmer is calling the US's bluff by pausing the deal.
142
External-Praline-4511 day ago
+26
Ding ding ding. Starmer has heavily implied that there are classified reasons for the deal. In a speech in 2025:
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pms-remarks-at-press-conference-on-diego-garcia-22-may-2025
A few moments ago…
I signed a deal…
To secure the joint UK-US base on Diego Garcia.
This is absolutely vital…
For our defence and intelligence…
And therefore –
For the safety and security of the British people.
The full assessment of why this is so important is highly classified.
But I want to speak as frankly as I can.
The strategic location of this base is of the utmost significance to Britain.
From deploying aircraft to defeat terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan…
To anticipating threats in the Red Sea and the Indo-Pacific…
The base is right at the foundation of our security and safety at home.
It has helped us to…
Disrupt threats to the UK…
Support counter terror operations against Islamic State…
And to reduce the risk to brave British and American servicemen and servicewomen.
The base will help protect the safe passage of our Carrier Strike Group as it goes through the Middle East.
It enables rapid deployment across the Middle East, East Africa, and South Asia…
It helps combat some of the most challenging threats we face,
Including from terrorism and hostile states…
And its location creates real military advantage across the Indo-Pacific.
The base gives the UK and the US access to unique and vital capabilities – which benefit us directly.
Many of these capabilities are secret, but they include…
Airfield and deep-water port facilities…
Facilities that support the worldwide operation of GPS…
And the monitoring of objects in the earth’s orbit…
And equipment to monitor the nuclear test ban treaty.
The base is one of the most significant contributions we make to our security relationship with the United States –
Which is critical for keeping Britain safe.
Almost everything we do from the base is in partnership with the US.
President Trump has welcomed the deal
26
dystopianartlover1 day ago
+1
"Facilities that support the worldwide operation of GPS"
Any idea what hes referencing?
1
Tunggall2 days ago
+84
Apart from US, the Chagossians themselves also opposed the move. It was extremely silly to reduce the strategic footprint of the UK and Starmer should have made a vital but tough call early in his premiership.
84
MegaLemonCola2 days ago
+29
> tough call
It wouldn’t even have been tough. He deliberately went out of his way to fish the deal out from the bin the tories had previously chucked it in. He could’ve just said no, later, the time is not ripe, this ministry is still young, or any other creative inertia lines he could come up with.
29
SpongeBazSquirtPants1 day ago
+4
At the start of this run in government Labour were literally handed the ball in front of an open goal and told to kick it into the back of the net. Somehow they’ve not only missed, they’ve scored multiple own goals and several of their players also managed to get themselves injured for absolutely zero reason. It is mind-boggling how poorly they’ve managed to handle even basic situations, I despair for the future.
4
Tunggall2 days ago
+2
I see, in that case he rightfully stuffed it up.
2
Ripest_Golden_Kiwi1 day ago
+1
I thought the process began under Sunak?
1
MegaLemonCola1 day ago
+7
Yes, they started negotiations after The Hague advised us to do so. Then they shelved it after a while because The Hague’s ruling was merely advisory and we don’t actually have to follow through.
7
CptES1 day ago
+5
It did but in the UK no previous government can bind a future one. Starmer could have thrown the whole deal out on day one and it would have been perfectly legal. In fact, nobody would have even blinked if he did.
5
t8ne1 day ago
+2
They walked away when Mauritius were playing silly buggers over what they wanted. Kiers friend Phillipe Sands is advising Mauritius and due to make a fair sum, obviously with none being donated to Kiers future Institute.
2
flatbrokeoldguy1 day ago
+10
The Chagos archipelago was jointly occupied by both French and English settlers from the first discovery of the various uninhabited islands in the region, when defeated in the later Napoleonic wars the French ceded total control and ownership of the area to England, and thus its continued as a UK overseas territory until the present day.
There has been for decades administrative rule of the archipelago from the Maldives whilst still ALWAYS Actual ownership by the English nation, at NO time has there been any legitimate rights to ownership by Mauritius.
The whole international judgment was based entirely on false assumptions and never had any justification.
10
zapreon2 days ago
+62
One of the most deranged attempted foreign policy actions of any Western government in many years. Paying many billions to give away highly strategic sovereign territory all because of a non-binding resolution and votes in the UN, which the UK can easily ignore. And even if it goes to the ICJ, they can easily just ignore it. What are they going to do?
I mean, one of the supposed reasons to do was that not transferring threatened the ability to land planes there. What is Mauritius gonna do? Shoot down RAF or USAF jets?
If the UK really wants to get rid of it, just sell it to the US. They won't be as sensitive to random votes in the UNGA and probably won't demand the UK pays them many billiona for it.
The UK managed to have Trump look like the sane, reasonable decision-maker. That's impressive
62
LilaLaLina2 days ago
+5
But this gives us soft power! So much of it!
5
pleasereadthecomment2 days ago
+59
I despise Trump with all my heart, and yet he still made more sense in this regard than Starmer.
Terrible idea from the UK to give up Chagos.
59
lNFORMATlVE2 days ago
+67
Worth noting that it was not Starmer nor Labour who started the whole process to hand it over, it was the previous conservative government under Rishi Sunak and Foreign Sec. James Cleverly. And the US originally endorsed the plan too. https://www.war.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3926592/statement-from-secretary-of-defense-lloyd-j-austin-iii-on-an-agreement-between/
Of course, Starmer did have the power to stop it in its tracks way earlier, but I feel like they were really just trying to see something through that had already been rolling, while trying to focus on more significant domestic matters like rebuilding our languishing economy.
67
spud83852 days ago
+19
I mean, if that's the case use the £100m we were going to pay to keep using the base for something more useful domestically. Hell, we displaced 1.5-2k Chagos islanders, pay each of them a million quid to say sorry and you're all done for less than 4 years worth of what we were going to pay for a 100 year lease. Just absolutely braindead weak politics from whatever party was involved.
19
lNFORMATlVE2 days ago
+6
Agreed there. There’s an opportunity here to right some wrongs for the *actually* wronged (forcibly removed) native people in this situation. Mauritius has nothing to do with it. Also, it was gonna be £100m *per year*.
6
spud83852 days ago
+2
Yeah exactly, like I said that's £1.5-2b total to give them £1m each so less than four years instead of 100 paying that amount (and I think the money was going to ramp up as well iirc). Honestly if this had gone through what next? £250m per year to Argentina for the Falklands? £80m per year to some random Polynesian country for Pitcairn? Craziness.
2
tree_boom1 day ago
+10
This is one of those weird things that's deeply misunderstood. The UK gives not one single shit about the Chagos islands nor Diego Garcia. We get no direct benefit from the place whatever. It's value to us lies exclusively in the fact that we trade the lease for access to strategic missiles systems - it is part of the package which allowed us to acquire Trident on such ridiculously favourable terms.
With the lease up for renewal soon and Trident due out of service in 2042, the decision to make this deal was predicated on the belief that there was a danger of our ability to trade access to the base to the Americans in future negotiations being reduced to the extent that we'd end up paying more money for the strategic missiles we want. In the worst potential case of the US simply negotiating with Mauritius instead we'd be paying vastly more money. That's the sole reason the UK was willing to pay Mauritius for this deal; it's a cost limitation exercise.
What will happen now? Who f****** knows. The US has always preferred that the UK retain sovereignty, but Trump seems to really value it. It might be that we can offer to sell the place **to the US instead** in return for something suitable more valuable than previous arrangements.
EDIT: or maybe be hilarious and try to sell it back to the original owners - France - in exchange for SLBMs :D
10
Ultra_Metal1 day ago
+6
Trying to cede those islands was such a stupid move by the UK.
6
ken-doh2 days ago
+2
Best news ever. 35 billion saved.
2
Past_Hunt_82221 day ago
+1
Terrible decisions by Labour. Never understood why people weren’t protesting about this…
1
gucciloafer_2 days ago
-14
utter idiocy on starmers part in the first place
-14
Financial_Weather_352 days ago
+17
its from the prev govt
17
Tunggall2 days ago
+16
Should have been scrapped the minute Starmer took office. Take the political heat and move on.
16
Kitchen-Assist-66452 days ago
+3
You buy a house, the previous owners have put in place a plan to radically alter it, and you carry out their plans. How are the previous owners to blame for your actions?
3
[deleted]2 days ago
-5
[deleted]
-5
asmiggs2 days ago
+16
The UK reasoning for doing this deal was that the US would do their own deal and cut the UK out of the base, given the current state of the relationship between the two governments this may now be a real possibility.
16
andoryu1232 days ago
-1
US isn't giving up Diego Garcia if UK does.
-1
Madbrad2001 day ago
+2
Nobody was giving up Diego Garcia. The US did however want the base there to have a legal basis for existing, which is why they wanted and supported the UK ceding sovereignty of the islands. Until Starmer and Trump fell out
2
Royal-Hunter38922 days ago
-41
So Chagos island is basically a British occupied territory which belongs to mauritius, which the British forcefully depopulated and kicked the local population and allowed US to build its naval bases to do US things using this base . And if iam not wrong in return UK recieved something big from US .
-41
ad7272722 days ago
+28
Thankfully you are wrong
28
CandidContract20302 days ago
+25
It seems you bought your educational books from Temu.
25
Awkward_Bag_22512 days ago
+14
No, it belongs to the Chagossians who are still fighting for the right to have a say on the islands.
14
Royal-Hunter38922 days ago
-24
So why is UK making a deal with mauritius if the island doesn't belongs to them .
-24
FeeHot58762 days ago
+31
That’s exactly why everyone was against the deal lol
31
Royal-Hunter38922 days ago
-20
The chaggosians can have the same relation with mauritius what UK has with Isle of man .
-20
FeeHot58762 days ago
+19
But they don’t want that lol
19
Wgh5552 days ago
+6
The Chagosians that ended up moving to Mauritius HATE the Mauritian government who haven’t treated them well. The portion that live there and the portion that were moved to the UK are happy for it to remain a British territory provided they can move back there. This is despite the British kicking them out in 1965. But it’s what they want so their wishes and not Mauritius’s should be respected.
6
Creepy-Bell-45271 day ago
+1
Starmer can always be trusted to do the right thing once he's exhausted all other options.
1
flatbrokeoldguy1 day ago
-1
The imbecile Starmer is just working with a completely farcical advisory international judgement relating to the Chagos Archipelago that was based on totally flawed data.
A bunch of his pals in the legal profession have been pushing for an irrational deal claiming to secure the security of the Diago Garcia military base when there’s little that could be more secure than a functional military facility.
There’s a growing suspicion that there’s a fraudulent multi million pound payout being screwed out of the Labour Party scheme by at least one if not several lawyers.
-1
Independent_Zone_2342 days ago
-35
Cowards
-35
YesTesco2 days ago
+10
Considering the current defence position the UK is in, It isn’t cowardice, it’s cost cutting and Defence boosting.
Giving over sovereignty for a lease of 100M when that 100M could be spent on defence is a no brainer.
60 Comments