Starmer is determined to let the sun set on Britain, regardless of what we think

Yahoo

23-05-2025

In October last year I was trying not to cut myself shaving when Tony Blair's former Chief of Staff, Jonathan Powell, popped onto the radio to talk about the Chagos Islands and why the UK should surrender them to Mauritius. That is, just why the British taxpayer should pay billions to give their own territory away to a third country thousands of miles away from the strategic archipelago (not even its neighbour), and which – in all the complex and intriguing history of those islands – had never ruled over them for so much as half an hour.
Refashioned by the Blairite recycling facility as Keir Starmer's National Security Adviser, Powell had been appointed 'Special Envoy' to negotiate with the Mauritius Government: an ominous early warning from the Labour administration. With the world on fire, were there not more pressing matters to resolve in the foreign policy file?
Asked whether such a giveaway would make Britain 'smaller', Powell – the man responsible for advising on the United Kingdom's national security – replied with patrician disdain: 'These are very tiny islands in the middle of the Indian Ocean where no one actually goes, so I don't think we should be too worried about losing that bit of territory we're probably losing more to tidal erosion on the east coast'.
This most sophisticated of Starmer's political operatives had let the mask slip (not to mention my razor). That comment – and the Chagos giveaway in general – reveals the government's real agenda in foreign and defence policy: Starmer is determined to use his enormous power to shrink the UK's influence and global reach.
It's the same old self-limiting – even self-harming – policy all too often promoted by the British elite (of any party). Confusing our allies, and letting down those – like the Chagossians – who honestly seek British protection. How revealing that Powell chose coastal erosion as his metaphor. Isn't that precisely how Starmer and his ilk sees British power and influence: pre-destined to an endless, unstoppable erosion, like the disappearance of a coastal shelf? A Britain forever gradually shrinking in global affairs.
In a literal sense, of course, Powell was correct. These are a group of very tiny islands – but the most significant is Diego Garcia, which houses a joint US-UK military base – for the use of which we now must pay billions. A base bristling with vital surveillance equipment, a place to park bombers and submarines in range of the Indo-Pacific; until yesterday, a little piece of Britain in the most contested strategic domain on earth. Yes it's true that not many people actually go – you were very unlikely to have met anyone who had ever visited British Indian Ocean Territory – most of them are at the more secret end of the UK's armed forces. Wasn't that the point?
You could not visit the islands without a permit also because the territory was an almost unspoilt conservation zone, with one of the largest protected marine science areas in the world, unique stocks of coral reefs, and some very endangered turtles. Under the strict bylaws, drawn up by world-class ecological experts in the Foreign Office – you couldn't take so much as a can of fizzy drink onto one of the islands without properly accounting for it. Starmer has spoiled all that. Why?
No country thinks the value of its territory has anything to do with its size or population density. No Prime Minister approaches sovereignty according to the Powell doctrine. And notwithstanding the Government's vile treatment of the Chagossians – who have legitimate grievances but have been excluded from its process – I'm not sure it's really about that either. Starmer's deal is simply a deliberate choice to lessen the UK's global reach. Deep down, Starmer is not concerned with the intricacies of the Chagossian story, access to the electromagnetic spectrum, or the threat of international courts. He simply believes in creating a smaller, less globally assertive United Kingdom.
This deal is a signal to the closely watching world that under his leadership Britain is likely to pull out of its commitments – and can be forced out of deeply historic ones. It is a sign to every international negotiator that the British taxpayer can be taken to the cleaners, and to every international lawyer that they need only raise the threat of a spurious claim and Britain might blink. The only positive I can find is that younger British leaders coming through on the Right all hate it – and many of them are working on reversing the erosion.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.