Keir Starmer has had a change of ^heart^

GrannyGravy 11.20- you decided to title your post "Keir Starmer has had a change of heart" Not sure why as KS has not had a change of heart. You then went on to open your post discussion:

"The BBC are reporting that the PM has decided not to surrender control of the Chagos Islands. Their reporter went on to say it was after POTUS had put pressure on him saying it was not a good idea strategically. (I cain inky assume that the BBC is correct in this and has had inside information)"

Posters responded it was not only factually incorrect to post that Starmer "has had a change of heart" but was also not the case that the BBC was reporting that "the PM has decided not to surrender control of the Chagos Islands".

The BBC article stated in its opening paragraph " Sir Keith Starmer has shelved his Chagos islands deal amid worsening relations with Donald Trump after the US failed to formally confirm the approval".

I guess if your wording had been less misleading and more accurate the focus of replies would then focus on the Chagos island deal itself, Trump's actions in prevent the treaty agreement being ratified and the implications of that not happening rather than focussing on the claim Starmer had had a change of heart?

All this talk of legalities is nonsense in reality, if the US said we are taking over the base it would just happen, there is no local population and nobody is going to start a war over Diego Garcia

Compared to Trumps threat about taking Greenland over it's a total non issue

Maybe the OP could ask for a change of thread title by reporting it and asking?

I admit, as it stands, I think it's misleading at least - and really, just wrong.

There is a small matter of the MPA area which would almost certainly have been compromised had this deal gone through. The EU have already made noises about fishing deals with Mauritius, opening the way not only for the Chinese but also enormous EU vessels to completely wreck the eco and protection this reserve has enjoyed for the past 16 years. This area apparently is one of very few areas left in the world that remains even remotely pristine, so to lose it would an absolute disaster. Thank goodness President Trump has at least for the time being saved this reserve from certain destruction.

OK folks!

I have not read any articles on this today.

I started the thread after watching BBC Breakfast News.

The thread title? I didn’t want to use the phrase U-turn as this is always met with howls of protests on GN.

Thread titles are a way to get GN members attention. Which this definitely has!

Our PM is not going through with the Chagos deal due to TRUMP which is what I wrote in my opening post.

I was never in favour of the deal in the first place, and will be delighted if this turns out to be its death knell. Mauritius never 'owned' the Chagos Islands; the French original colonisers and then the British merely administered the Islands from Mauritius. The deal does nothing for the native Chagossians. Mauritius plans to develop the region economically. I reckon that will see China pouring investment and infrastructure (including military hardware) into the islands, effectively controlling the area and posing a threat to the Diego Garcia base.

I just think the whole idea of paying people to take it away is absolutely crazy. For once I think Trump is right. Starmer won’t be paying - you will through taxes and higher prices. Nuts.

Nanna8 13.15 "I just think the whole idea of paying people to take it away is absolutely crazy".

Who is paying who to take what away? What do you think US and UK "would be taking away?"

We would have given the islands away to Mauritius, and have been paying Mauritius to rent back Diego Garcia in order to retain the Anglo/U.S base nanna8. A totally unnecessary situation. No real thought, let alone inclusion of the Chagossian people was ever seriously discussed in the negotiations with Mauritius, never mind the MPA. The whole deal was done virtually behind closed doors probably in the hopes that any challenges wouldn't have had time to materialise before it was done and dusted. If it ever rears up again, all concerns from all interested parties will have to be properly addressed in full public view. Mauritius cannot sue us for non completion, as it is the Americans who have refused to comply. They could try suing them, but forlorn hope comes to mind!!

I’m with Bodach on this
Mauritius has never owned the Chagis islands.

Perhaps a few posters might want to read the following, unbiased, factual article, explaining the actual situation (not opinion) about the Chagos Islands:

www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/20/what-are-chagos-islands-uk-mauritius-explainer

MT62

I never understood why? Oh well another u-turn.

The negotiations to hand over The Chagos Islands were started by the Tory government in 2022 as a result of a decision by The International Court Of Justice that the UK’s control of The Chagos Islands was wrongful and that control be given to Mauritius. Negotiations were carried on by the present government, at first Trump endorsed the deal then he had a change of heart, then he endorsed it again and now he has had yet another change of heart. It is multiple changes of direction by Trump rather than a U turn by this government.

FriedGreenTomatoes2

I’m with Bodach on this
Mauritius has never owned the Chagis islands.

This is the situation, it dates back to a deal made in 1968.

“What are the Chagos Islands?
They are an archipelago in the Indian Ocean, located about 5,800 miles south-east of the UK and 1,250 miles north-east of Mauritius. They became British territory along with Mauritius in 1814 as part of the treaty of Paris after the defeat of Napoleon. The group of islands were designated as British Indian Ocean Territory in 1965 and detached from Mauritius, which became independent in 1968. The deal then was that the islands would return to Mauritius once they were no longer needed for Britain’s defence. A joint UK-US military base was built on the largest of the islands, Diego Garcia. Displaced residents were resettled in Mauritius and Seychelles, while some were relocated to the UK in 2002.”

I think the waters are somewhat muddied.

If the agreement as laid down by the ICJ is between the U.K. and Mauritius, why has POTUS got so much sway?

I thought the deal included the continuation of the US’s base on Diego Garcia?

David49

All this talk of legalities is nonsense in reality, if the US said we are taking over the base it would just happen, there is no local population and nobody is going to start a war over Diego Garcia

Compared to Trumps threat about taking Greenland over it's a total non issue

You think it is OK for the US (or Trump alone) to break a treaty when the other parties are not in a position to obstruct him? Or when it suits them/him to misunderstand the terms and ignore them, as they/he did over the NATO treaty? It seems that all international agreements are now mere scrap paper to be torn up, because it is not convenient or profitable for the US to comply.

Which will be the next to go? Which ally will find themselves classed as an enemy?

GrannyGravy13

I think the waters are somewhat muddied.

If the agreement as laid down by the ICJ is between the U.K. and Mauritius, why has POTUS got so much sway?

I thought the deal included the continuation of the US’s base on Diego Garcia?

If the US are officially sharing the base, there must be a signed agreement setting out the terms. The US is being more pernickety over their rights in this than they were over the agreed requirements of their NATO treaty membership.

The first treaty of Paris in May 1814 was after the abdication and exile of Napoleon to Elba and ended the war between France and the Sixth Coalition. The defeat of Napoleon was in June 1815 after the battle of Waterloo and his subsequent surrender to the British, leading to the second treaty of Paris in November 1815.

The previous "owner" of Mauritius Islands was France from the early 19th century until ceded to Britain in 1014 after Britain captured them during the Napoleonic wars through the Treaty of Paris. Ie this territory became part of the British Empire. The Chagos islands were a part of that Mauritius territory.

However the UK decided and took action to separate the Chagos islands from Mauritius (for military base advantage) in 1965 when Mauritius became independent in 1965 but the International Court of Justice found that move to be invalid/illegal in 2019.

The previous Conservative government decided it was in Britons best interests to comply with international law but wanted to maintain Diego Garcia as a key strategic military asset for the UK and secondly to reinforce its relationship with the US. So the Conservative government began negotiations for a treaty to hand the islands back to Mauritius. The Labour government continued the negotiations when it came to office. A deal was agreed (with a lease payment for a designated period for the UK and US to maintain a military base) and the treaty was SIGNED in May 2025 with US support and US treaty terms agreement. The treaty has yet be ratified but Trump has now changed his mind and refuses to sign the treaty off.

The UK declares it respects and upholds international law but maybe some posters don't share that previous Conservative and now Labour government view.

A ruling by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea-ITLOA- strengthened Mauritius claims to the Chagos islands in 2023 by endorsing the opinion issued by the International Court of Justice-ICJ- in 2019. There is nothing in law to evidence the UK has a legal right to continue to lay claim to "own" the Chagos Islands. The UN General Assembly resolution on sovereignty also supports Mauritius sovereignty.

How many posters believe that the UK should ignore these legal rulings and continue to "own and administer" the Chagos islands. How many believe If the UK takes that stance there most likely will be adverse consequences whcih merit some consideration.

It is less likely that Mauritius will "sue the UK" for failing to finalise and ratify the already signed treaty. It is more likely that Mauritius will simply take legal action to finalise its full independence and sovereignty right to claim ownership of the Chagos island, with likelihood of success due to previous rulings as set out plus the evidence of the signed treaty 2025.

In such circumstances the UK will then be on the back foot. It will need to begin a new round of negotiations with Mauritius seeking its permission to have a military base and have access to Maritime waters around the Chagos islands. It will be for the UK, in such circumstances to determine in the new world order whether it wishes to do that in partnership with the US or not. The US after all has/never had any territorial rights.

France ceded Mauritius in 1814 not 1014- typo

Thanks for explaining that Jane43.
Sounds like DT is a bigger flip-flopper than KS 🤣

For example- when you buy a house in the UK- there is the stage of Exchanging Contracts ( after all terms have been agreed) then next stage Completion when funds are transferred and ownership officially handed over.

The UK and US signed the treaty, agreed lease terms and payments thus deemed to have completed exchange of contracts stage. Completion not taken place due to Trump changing his mind.

Mauritius, supported by the evidence of UN, ICJ and ITLOA rulings alongside the evidence of UK's declared accepted position it wants to hand over the islands to Mauritius that strengthens to a very high degree the Mauritius legal claim to sovereignty. Once it ratifies this legally- with or without the UK it has the upper hand to charge whatever it likes- for any country in the world to set up a military base and access its maritime waters should it so choose. That may or not be the UK in or without partnership of the US.

There is an agreement between the U.S and UK signed in 1966 concerning Deigo Garcia. Valid for 50 years, with a 20 year automatic extension , unless terminated with two years notice. Part of the deal is that the UK retains sovereignty over the Island. So if we want to transfer sovereignty to Mauritius we have to have a new signed agreement with the US allowing us to do this. President Trump is not prepared to allow this deal to be altered so obviously isn't signing anything. Without this new agreement, the deal can't be ratified and so is now dead in the water until such time as the 'President ' agrees, if one ever does?! Hopefully they won't.

Jaberwork 15.10.

The US and UK in 1966 Agreement was an exchange of notes between US and UK for the Chagos islands as part of the British Indian Ocean Territory available for joint defence purposes. It was for 50 year term initially.

However the rulings as set out above change the sovereignty situation. The 1966 agreement was controversial from the outset and violated UN resolution that warns against the dismemberment of Mauritius before independence.

The UK currently has no legal right to sovereignty, to the contrary it has rulings against that.

The US has vetoed this treaty deal going through. This US veto however will not stop Mauritius taking legal action to claim.

This year Mauritius maintains its sovereignty of C islands, already has significant international rulings in its favour. It said it expected the transfer treaty to proceed despite opposition for Trump. If I was a betting person I would put money on Mauritius continuing with its legal actions to finalise this handover independently.