Keir Starmer has had a change of ^heart^

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.

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

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

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!!

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?"

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

GrannyGravy13

LemonJam

It is Trump that has scuppered these plans not Starmer as the US has failed to confirm its approval (a formal exchange of letters from the US is a legal necessity for the treaty to be enacted) within the time period needed to pass the legislation before Parliament is prorogued in the coming weeks.

Yes, it is, definitely POTUS who has caused the handover to be cancelled.

Which I pointed out in the OP

Perhaps I should have been more precise with my wording

Your chosen title "Keir Starmer has had a change of heart" couldn't really be further from the truth.

Thereby also disadvantage UK as a treaty partner.

There is much global animosity at the moment towards Trump as a result of his genocidal statements and actions relating to Iran.

Mauritius may well find allies to support it in any legal challenge in order to disadvantage Trump.

MT62; "I never understood why? Oh well another u-turn".

It is a u turn by Trump, NOT Starmer. Given the US is preventing the process of legalising the treaty necessary to comply with Marine Protected Area international law and the International Court of Justice September 2018 ruling this treaty must be enacted.

As now not enacted and US has made it disagreement position clear. Mauritius is in a prime position to mount a legal challenge as already set out. Very, very short sighted of Trump but then he has never been one to resist a legal challenge. Tump may pay no heed to rulings in US courts but it's a different matter on the world stage.

Doodledog

It's not about a change of heart, but a change in world politics. Even that doesn't really describe what's going on - I'm not sure Trump is being political, so much as unhinged.

Either way, the thread title is misleading, and does seem designed to blame KS for something over which he has no control.

It was how the BBC reported it Doodledog

I also said it was down to POTUS, and that he is basically pulling the strings. If my explanation is too simplistic, sorry, that’s just how I heard/saw it.

POTUS appears to be a master puppeteer at the present time, meddling across the world…

Nanna8 11.13: "Why do you want to pay to give it away ? I don’t get it …."

The constitution of Mauritius states the Republic of Mauritius includes the Lagos Archipelago. 'Chagos Archipelago sovereignty dispute' on Wikipedia is one source that may help you understand all the background Nanna8.

It's not about a change of heart, but a change in world politics. Even that doesn't really describe what's going on - I'm not sure Trump is being political, so much as unhinged.

Either way, the thread title is misleading, and does seem designed to blame KS for something over which he has no control.

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

LemonJam

It is Trump that has scuppered these plans not Starmer as the US has failed to confirm its approval (a formal exchange of letters from the US is a legal necessity for the treaty to be enacted) within the time period needed to pass the legislation before Parliament is prorogued in the coming weeks.

Yes, it is, definitely POTUS who has caused the handover to be cancelled.

Which I pointed out in the OP

Perhaps I should have been more precise with my wording

Elegran 11.11: 'It is concerned that Mauritius will mount a legal challenge granting it access to the waters around Diego Garcia, making it harder for the base to host nuclear submarines and patrol surrounding waters"

I agree with everything in your post. Trump is short sighted as access may be severely disadvantaged if Mauritius mounts such a legal challenge and is successful.

Why do you want to pay to give it away ? I don’t get it ….

It is not Starmer changing his mind, it is Trump blocking the move with legalities. I think it is being shelved for the moment because with everything else that has been going on internationally, there is not time for the formalities before the current parliamentary session ends.

The Spectator says that it is "a political question and a legal question, because what may not have been understood thus far is that American consent to the transfer of sovereignty is a legal condition, not simply a political necessity – and may not yet have been granted."
spectator.com/article/how-trump-could-block-the-chagos-deal/

Other complications are that the UK and the US share the use of the base on the island, with legal consequences. Because Mauritius is a non nuclear power there will be a restriction on nuclear Submarines and US aircraft carriers dropping in for repairs. There is also a possibility that if the UK returns the Islands, the US would use that as a lever on Greenland (sorry, I can't find the mention of those points again to post a link to them)

Le Monde says:-
"Sir Keir Starmer has been forced to drop legislation which would cede sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius in a further deterioration of relations with Donald Trump

The Times has been told that a bill underpinning the controversial deal will not be included in the King's Speech next month after the US president branded it an "act of great stupidity" and withdrew his support

The government stands by the deal and will attempt to persuade Trump to change his mind but has acknowledged that it cannot proceed without his backing

Ministers are "deeply frustrated" with Trump, who initially supported the deal after extensive discussions between intelligence agencies but changed his mind during a dispute with Nato over plans to seize Greenland

The government believes that it puts the future of Diego Garcia, the UK-US base in the islands which has been used during the Iran war, at risk

It is concerned that Mauritius will mount a legal challenge granting it access to the waters around Diego Garcia, making it harder for the base to host nuclear submarines and patrol surrounding waters"
x.com/Steven_Swinford/status/2042690699158503677
"Starmer has previously insisted that international legal rulings have put Britain's ownership of the Chagos in doubt and only a deal with Mauritius would guarantee that the base remains functional. Government officials cited by the BBC said the agreement was not being entirely abandoned.

But they said the legislation underpinning it would not pass before parliament is dissolved in coming weeks and a new Chagos bill is not expected to be put forward.

Britain kept control of the Chagos Islands after Mauritius gained independence in the 1960s. It evicted thousands of Chagos islanders who have since mounted a series of legal claims for compensation in British courts.

In 2019, the International Court of Justice recommended that Britain hand the archipelago to Mauritius. The deal would have given Britain a 99-year lease of the base, with the option to extend."
www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2026/04/11/uk-to-shelve-chagos-handover-after-trump-criticism_6752311_4.html

It is Trump that has scuppered these plans not Starmer as the US has failed to confirm its approval (a formal exchange of letters from the US is a legal necessity for the treaty to be enacted) within the time period needed to pass the legislation before Parliament is prorogued in the coming weeks.