Chagos Islands deal must be ratified to secure Diego Garcia, peers say
Mauritius is 'likely' to resume its campaign to secure a binding judgment on sovereignty against Britain unless the agreement is rubber-stamped, the House of Lords International Agreements Community (HLIAC) warned.
In a report published on Wednesday, the peers concluded that the Government 'cannot ignore' the risk of an 'adverse ruling' putting the UK's right to run a joint UK-US base in jeopardy.
The deal signed last month after long-running negotiations returns sovereignty of the archipelago to Mauritius, but will see Britain lease back the military site on Diego Garcia, the largest of the islands.
It follows a 2019 advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice which said the islands should be handed over to Mauritius.
Critics argue it comes at too high a cost to the taxpayer, which is expected to run to billions of pounds, and that the retention of the base will interfere withh Chagossians right to resettle.
Islanders were expelled from the archipelago between 1965 and 1973 to make way for the military site and have not been allowed to return.
Chairman of HLIAC Lord Goldsmith said that 'like all treaties, the agreement reflects a compromise' and highlighted that there was no guarantee it would be extended after the initial 99-year term agreed between the two countries.
'However, the UK cannot ignore the advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) which found that the Chagos Archipelago had been unlawfully detached from Mauritius at the time of its independence in the 1960s,' he said.
'If the agreement is not ratified there would be a greater risk from the adverse ruling of an international court to the future of the military base.'
As well as establishing a £40 million fund for Chagossians, the UK has agreed to pay Mauritius at least £120 million a year for 99 years in order to lease back the Diego Garcia base – a total cost of at least £13 billion in cash terms.
The deal also includes provisions preventing development on the rest of the archipelago without the UK's consent, which the Government has argued will prevent countries such as China setting up their own facilities.
The agreement has also been backed by the United States.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
14 minutes ago
- The Independent
Crackdown on social media ads promoting small boat crossings to the UK
Gangs promoting small boat Channel crossings on social media will face up to five years in prison as part of a new crackdown announced by the government. An amendment to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill – currently going through parliament – will introduce a new, UK-wide offence to criminalise the creation of material for publication online which promotes or offers services facilitating a breach of UK immigration law. This could include small boat crossings, the creation of fake travel documents like passports or visas, or explicitly promising illegal working opportunities in the UK. While facilitating illegal migration is already a crime, the government said the proposed changes would 'add another string to law enforcement's bow, better enabling them to disrupt the gangs while they are publicising people smuggling activities and provide an additional tool when building a case against those peddling this content'. Approximately 80 per cent of migrants arriving via small boats told officials that they used social media during their illegal journey to the UK, including to locate or communicate with an agent or facilitator associated with an organised crime group, according to Home Office analysis. Individuals caught by the offence could receive a prison sentence of up to five years and a fine. It comes after the number of migrants arriving in the UK after crossing the English Channel topped 25,000 in record time, after some 898 people made the journey in 13 boats on Wednesday – the third highest daily number of crossings this year. The home secretary said ministers are 'determined to do everything we can' to prevent people smuggling gangs from helping people to make the dangerous crossing. 'Selling the false promise of a safe journey to the UK and a life in this country – whether on or offline – simply to make money, is nothing short of immoral', said Yvette Cooper. 'These criminals have no issue with leading migrants to life-threatening situations using brazen tactics on social media.' She added: 'We have to stay one step ahead of the ever-evolving tactics of people-smuggling gangs and this move, part of our Plan for Change to boost border security, will empower law enforcement to disable these tactics faster and more effectively, ensuring people face proper penalties.' Rob Jones, director general of the National Crime Agency, said: 'We know many of the people-smuggling networks risking lives transporting people to the UK promote their services to migrants using social media. 'The majority of migrants arriving in the UK will have engaged with smugglers in this way. This is why we work with social media companies to target smugglers' accounts, and we've increased the pace of takedowns.' In 2025 so far, 25,436 people have made the dangerous journey across the Channel – up 51 per cent on this point last year (16,842) and 73 per cent higher than at this stage in 2023 (14,732), according to PA news agency analysis. It is the earliest point in a calendar year at which the 25,000 mark has been passed since data on Channel crossings was first reported in 2018. Last year, the figure was passed on 22 September, and in 2023, it was on 2 October. With Nigel Farage's Reform UK surging in the polls, the figures come as a fresh blow to Sir Keir Starmer, whose pledge to tackle small boat crossings is a central pledge of his mission for government. The high numbers of crossings come despite the prime minister announcing a major 'one in, one out' returns deal with France last month. While it is hoped the deal will bring the spiralling numbers under control, the crossings have so far continued at pace.
Daily Mirror
14 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
Half of Brits want another EU referendum in five years - as Brexit support slumps
A new poll of more than 2,000 people found 29% of Brits would vote to leave the EU if the Brexit vote was repeated, compared to 52% in the referendum in June 2016 Nearly half of voters want another EU referendum in the next five years, while less than a third would back Brexit in a new vote. Research by More in Common for the Sunday Times reveals public attitudes towards Europe have shifted over the past decade. The poll of more than 2,000 people found 29% would vote to leave the EU if the Brexit vote was repeated, compared to 52% in the referendum in June 2016. Now, 52% would say they would back being in the EU, with 8% unsure and 11% saying they would not vote. Nearly half (49%) thought there should be a referendum on rejoining the bloc in the next five years, with more than a third, (37%) opposed. It comes as Nigel Farage appearances on Sky News sparked thousands of complaints Keir Starmer has pursued a closer relationship with Brussels since entering Government, which includes a EU-UK deal to ease barriers to trade since Brexit. The PM has also struck up relationships with a number of European leaders, including French President Emmanuel Macron, following years of hostility from Tory PMs towards European leaders. But there is no appetite in Government for another referendum on EU membership after the last vote took years of Commons battles to enact. The poll also found a majority (58%) think the UK should remain in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), compared to 28% who think quit its membership. Nigel Farage said leaving the ECHR would be the first thing he did if he won the next election, while Kemi Badenoch has said the Tories will review it. The pact, which Winston Churchill helped to draw up after the Second World War, has been blamed by critics for making it harder to deport migrants who have come to Britain by protecting their human rights. Luke Tryl, director of More in Common, said: 'With fewer than three in ten saying they would vote to leave the EU in a referendum today and almost six in ten saying the UK should remain in the ECHR, the days of Europe as a political bogeyman may be on the wane and politicians might find themselves pushed on how they'll build a more constructive relationship with Europe. "That's especially true in the face of an erratic Trump presidency, with Brits split as to whether Starmer is being too friendly to the US president or not."
Telegraph
44 minutes ago
- Telegraph
How my beloved Green Party lost the plot
I refuse to accept that the Green Party is a lost cause. But, boy, how we have fallen from grace. I joined 23 years ago, following a stint drafting environmental briefings in the European Parliament. I was feeling positive about how Greens were able to effect change internationally. We didn't do identity politics on steroids back then. During bi-annual conferences and internal debates, we enjoyed discussion on all manner of topics, from peace in the Middle East and our future in Europe to decriminalising prostitution (bad idea). We could debate knowing that even on the most divisive issue – win or lose a conference vote – there was more that united than divided us. My party felt like a university in which impassioned debate and persuasive thinking carried the day, whether on policy or electoral strategy. How things have changed: viewpoint diversity, once embraced, has now become extinct in the Greens. I'd probably mark Autumn 2016 as the point when the identitarian turn really started to take grip of the party. This coincided with the end of my term as Deputy Leader (of course!) and Aimee Challenor (the party's equality spokesperson) successfully moving a motion on trans rights that said: 'Transwomen are women'. I missed the debate, but already sensed a determination by Challenor to win at all costs. A hallmark of authoritarian groupthink is voting a certain way because someone tells you to, not because you've reasoned your way there. That same year Challenor's father David was charged with raping a ten year old child. David Challenor, who had been Aimee's election agent, was sentenced in 2018 for 22 years for child sex offences. Aimee resigned after an investigation was launched into failures of disclosure. I was one of a few people to call out the double standards at the heart of the party's refusal to condemn or criticise the Challenors. But as a party we couldn't bring ourselves to properly reflect on how we had left ourselves so vulnerable to entryism from gender ideology extremists. Fast forward to today. Gender ideological insanity has accelerated to such a degree that, year on year, scores of gender critical activists have now been persecuted or purged out of the party for wrongthink. Four successive co-chairs of Green Party Women – Emma Bateman, Zoe Hatch, Dawn Furness and Amanda Stones – have been suspended or expelled. Darren Johnson, a London Assembly member for 16 years, was suspended. Eric Walker, a 100-year-old D-Day veteran, was suspended. Not content with unlawfully removing me as a spokesperson, the party now faces a second court case after revoking my membership. This is the first leadership bid I've been debarred from contesting. It is with sadness that I witness the descent of my party into the entrenched identity politics so typical of the hard Left. Out of the candidates for leader or deputy, not one is openly gender critical. None unequivocally supports the Supreme Court ruling on the meaning of sex in the Equality Act or commends the Cass review for safeguarding youth from 'gender affirming' medical malpractice. Zack Polanski, famed for allegedly offering a breast-enlargement hypnosis service, has been insistent on getting rid of single-sex spaces. On the LBC leadership debate, he repeatedly affirmed the right of people with penises, however they identified, to be welcomed into refuges for women seeking support and protection from abusive men. Polanski's views are abhorrent and directly contrary to any rational extension of our commitment to single-sex provision in hospital wards. It is not just over gender that the Green Party has lost its way. It has also done so over ethnicity and religion. The fear of religious fundamentalism in society is rising. Yet the Green Party are shamelessly exploiting the conflict in Gaza to court the Muslim vote. This is cynical and divisive. Like Polanski, I despair about the unconscionable war crimes being perpetrated by Israel upon Gazans, but Hamas should not escape our condemnation for their ongoing crimes committed against innocent Israeli hostages. Years after I locked horns with him on how not to define anti-Semitism, Polanski now rides roughshod over Jewish sensitivities in an effort to rebrand himself as the saviour of the Palestinians and ally of Corbyn. This is a striking development because in 2018 he tweeted that he 'was a pro-European Jew' and that these were 'two reasons I couldn't vote for Labour under Jeremy Corbyn'. His outpourings on the conflict have become so tribal that, not only would we be poorly placed to broker peace with his stated genocidal enemy; but we risk alienating the Jewish community in the UK by fuelling the rise of anti-Semitic sentiment itself. Councillor Mothin Ali, our latest Muslim poster boy and deputy candidate, has also defended his focus on Palestine after being criticised for crying 'Allahu Akbar' upon election. Mothin is no fundamentalist, but nor have his pronouncements to date given me confidence that he's a politician poised for all people. Has he nothing to say about the early morning Muslim call to prayer (Adhan) disrupting the sleep of keyworkers in Leicester? Would he defend the promotion of Zakat (charities for Muslims only), using Council-owned lampposts, along the length and breadth of Mile End Road? Does he not recognise as valid that many people are affronted by having their neighbourhoods increasingly populated by women in burkas? I despise the medieval expression of patriarchy which the burka represents in modern Britain, and find it deeply antithetical to our values. Mothin, by contrast, remains silent on these matters. To do otherwise, he would need to park his faith when doing politics and prioritise liberalism over religion. It seems that liberalism for Lefties is a one-way street with all the rights but none of the obligations.
