Keir Starmer has had a change of ^heart^

GrannyGravy13

I didn’t read it CossyI watched the BBC News (Breakfast) this morning and that is how it was being reported.

Bottom line is it isn’t going to happen because Trump has changed his mind and withdrawn his previous approval of the deal

POTUS is acting like he is ^King of The World^

He is acting like he is, but he isn’t and please will someone, somewhere take him somewhere quiet where he can play with his toys harming no one! Remember only crayons and no scissors.

LemonJam

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?

Great post, succinctly put.

👍👏👏👏

Cossy 15.37.

Well we do seem to have moved on to discuss the deal, Trump's current veto actions, what that might mean etc so no harm lost 😊.

Trump's veto actions alongside his recent denigration of Starmer, Macron and others plus his genocidal statements earlier in the week gives the UK and the government room to reflect recalibrate what is in the UK's best interests going forward. Some reflection and careful diplomacy needed....🤞

And the rights of the Chagossian people? Do they count for nothing, bearing in mind they were forcibly and disgracefully removed? Mauritius will have to tackle Trump over D.G, and he has already said he will just take it if necessary! Why? Because realistically he can, no matter what anyone else thinks or says.

Jaberwork 16.44: "And the rights of the Chagossian people?"

Indeed not the Uk's finest hour. The UK government removed the Chagossian people between 1965 and 1973 to make way for the military base on Diego Garcia. Many came to the UK and sought citizenship. They now have until a 2027 deadline to apply for citizenship if they so wish.

As of 2026 the community is advocating for their rights as an indigenous group (recognised by the United Nations and other International Bodies) with many seeking the right to return and reparations from the UK Government (for the loss of their homes, culture and livelihood) which has largely been denied by the US and UK by way of the 2025 signed treaty as it that lacks a guarantee for their return to all islands.

UK Government officials are seeking alternatives the current treaty/ Mauritius deal on Chagos Islands. The Foreign Office is looking at an alternative plan behind the scenes to allow the Chagossians to resettle them.

The Independent has just reported it has seen a submission by the legal representatives of the Chagossioan representatives in which they have asked the United Nations to intervene over the deal the UK (and US) previously signed to prevent Starmer "creating a crime against humanity" naming Starmer specifically in the document.

As predicted, Trump has scuppered the treaty ratification but it won't stop legal claims from others. This quick legal action is a first example.

I repeat my view that Trump's about turn has enabled, emboldened, provoked and strengthened the case of both Mauritius and the Chagossians.

Predicted legal claims have already started- the Chargossian representatives first out of the block.

I’m glad it isn’t happening at the moment and hope that it won’t in the future, to pay eye watering amounts for land we already have ( since the early 1800’s I read) is madness.
What we could do is pay the Chagossians reparations and not give any to Mauritius.

Oreo

I’m glad it isn’t happening at the moment and hope that it won’t in the future, to pay eye watering amounts for land we already have ( since the early 1800’s I read) is madness.
What we could do is pay the Chagossians reparations and not give any to Mauritius.

So go against a previous agreement and the decision of The International Court Of Justice? Sounds very Trumpian to me.

There’s a lot of debate right now around the UK’s decision not to hand over the Chagos Islands, and it’s easy to frame it as simple “U.S. interference”, especially given reports that the U.S. President urged caution.

But the reality is more complex, and there is another side to this argument.

The Chagos Islands, particularly Diego Garcia, are one of the most strategically important military locations the UK and U.S. share. From a defence perspective, they’re a key hub for operations across the Middle East, Africa, and the Indo-Pacific. At a time of rising global tensions, some argue that giving up control could weaken Western security.

From that angle, if Donald Trump (or any U.S. leader) weighed in, it’s not necessarily “interference", it’s what close allies do. The UK/U.S. relationship has always involved behind-the-scenes pressure and coordination.

There’s also a legal grey area. While international bodies have supported Mauritius’ claim, those rulings aren’t strictly binding. So some see the UK’s position as defensible, not outright unlawful.

On top of that, there are longer-term concerns about stability and influence in the region, including who ultimately benefits from a transfer of control.

And finally, it’s worth remembering that reports from organisations like the BBC, while credible, are often based on partial information. Big geopolitical decisions like this rarely come down to a single conversation or source of pressure. So while one view is that this is an example of overreach by the U.S., the other is that it’s a strategic, coordinated decision shaped by security, law, and long-term global interests.

Like most foreign policy issues it’s not black and white. The framing of the OP is designed to present only one view as if it is a given truth. It isn't.

Thank you DAR Good summary.

Ive just read:

"A senior official in Mauritius’ government has vowed that the Chagos Islands will be “decolonised” after Keir Starmer was forced to shelve legislation to hand the islands back to Mauritius.

On Friday, UK government officials acknowledged that they had run out of time to pass legislation within the current parliamentary session, which ends in the coming weeks, after a lack of support from Donald Trump.

After the collapse of the plan to hand the islands over voluntarily, Dhananjay Ramful, the Mauritian foreign minister, told an Indian Ocean conference in Mauritius that his government would regain control over the territory.
“We will spare no effort to seize any diplomatic or legal avenue to complete the decolonisation process,” he said, in comments that were first reported in the Sunday Telegraph. “This is a matter of justice.”