Why did the government sign the Chagos deal now?
In a fast-moving world, suffused by conflict and political uncertainty, it might seem odd for the UK government to surrender sovereign British territory in a distant sea.Indeed, the government's critics go further and say the decision to give up a key strategic foothold in the Indian Ocean is a dangerous weakening of UK security.So why has the government handed the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, a nation some thousand miles away?The answer has a legal origin and a practical conclusion.
It all focuses on the joint UK-US military base on the biggest island in the archipelago, Diego Garcia. The government felt that without ceding sovereignty to Mauritius, the operation of the base would become unworkable and that would pose a greater threat to UK security.Defence Secretary John Healey told MPs that "without this deal, within weeks, we could face losing legal rulings and within just a few years the base would become inoperable".The putative legal challenge is based on a series of judgements by various United Nations bodies that the Chagos Islands belong to Mauritius. Essentially, they argued the UK had no legal right to separate the islands from Mauritius before the former British colony became independent in the 1960s. There were votes to that effect in the UN General Assembly. But then in 2019 there was an "advisory opinion" by the UN's International Court of Justice backed up by a later ruling of the Special Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.Ministers feared these rulings and opinions would soon become a legally binding judgement by this UN tribunal.Under pressure in the House of Commons to identify the source of this legal threat, Healey said: "There's a range of international legal challenges and rulings against us. "The most proximate, the most potentially serious, is the tribunal of the International Convention of the Sea."If the government lost a case there, ministers argue, the outside world would be obliged - by law - to take decisions that would interfere in the running of the base.
So they argue Diego Garcia's satellite communications would be threatened because the UK relies on a UN authority in Geneva to get access to a particular electromagnetic spectrum. They say contractors would refuse to visit the isolated base - to make repairs or deliver supplies - for fear of being sued by Mauritius. The ability to fly aircraft in and out might be challenged by international rules that govern our skies.The government's critics – which include Conservative and Reform MPs, some foreign diplomats and even a few officials within Whitehall – challenge this argument and say the legal threat is being exaggerated. They accuse ministers of being overly submissive to international lawyers and craven to politically motivated votes at the UN. Shadow defence secretary James Cartlidge told MPs the government was "following the legal advice to act definitively to our detriment, entirely on the basis of hypothetical risk that has not yet materialised and which we could challenge".
Blocking bases
The government's second argument is that without a deal, China would get a toehold in the islands. Officials say that in the absence of an agreement, there would be no legal ban preventing Mauritius allowing a foreign power to establish a military or other presence in the islands. Under the terms of the deal, the UK can effectively veto that happening. The UK claims that without the deal, it would have no alternative but to threaten military force if China tried to set up a military facility on one of the islands. Officials also argue that Mauritius, by being paid rent for the islands, has no financial incentive to open them up to Chinese investment.The government's critics counter that for all these safeguards, the Mauritian government may well nonetheless still develop closer ties with China – and possibly even Russia.
Reputation on trial
The government's broader argument is diplomatic. For years the UK has been accused by friend and foe alike of hypocrisy; for making the case for international law on the world stage but ignoring it with regard to the Chagos islands. How could the UK criticise Russia for breaking international law in Ukraine and China in the South China Sea if it was itself breaking the rules in the Indian Ocean?Ministers also argued that at a time of geopolitical uncertainty, when old allies were less reliable and new partnerships had to be formed, the Chagos row was a diplomatic boil than needed to be lanced. It was notable the UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres issued a statement welcoming the deal, saying it demonstrated "the value of diplomacy in addressing historical grievances".Again, the government's critics dispute this conclusion, arguing the world has changed, and that we live in a time when "might is right" and close adherence to the fine print of international law is outdated and a geopolitical indulgence. Would US President Donald Trump or French President Emmanuel Macron, they ask, give up territories overseas?The government's response to that challenge is to say that the US - which largely runs and pays for Diego Garcia - now supports the deal with Mauritius, despite earlier doubts. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said "following a comprehensive inter-agency review, the Trump Administration determined that this agreement secures the long-term, stable, and effective operation of the joint US-UK military facility at Diego Garcia".Other members of the Five Eyes intelligence alliance also back the agreement; the base is a huge hub for the exchange of global signals intelligence. These issues will now be tested in Parliament as MPs consider whether to ratify the agreement. The government may win the vote because of its majority. But it has yet to win the argument.
Sign up for our Politics Essential newsletter to keep up with the inner workings of Westminster and beyond.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News
16 minutes ago
- Sky News
Rachel Reeves is about to make huge spending decisions - these could be the winners and losers
A week today, Rachel Reeves presents the spending review; how the budget is divided between government departments between 2026 and 2029 - the bulk of this parliament. It's a foundational moment for this government - and a key to determining the success of this administration. So, what's going to happen? The chancellor did boost spending significantly in her first year, and this year there was a modest rise. However, the uplift to day-to-day spending in the years ahead is more modest - and pared back further in March's spring statement because of adverse financial conditions. Plus, where will the £113bn of capital - project - spending go? So, we've done a novel experiment. We've taken Treasury documents, ministerial statements and reports from the Institute for Fiscal Studies. We put them all into AI - into the deep research function of ChatGPT - and asked it to write the spending review, calculate the winners and losers and work out what goes where, and why. It comes with a health warning. We're using experimental technology that is sometimes wrong, and while ChatGPT can access up-to-date data from across the web, it's only trained on information up to October 2023. There are no answers because discussions are still going on. Think of it like a polling projection - clues about the big picture as things move underneath. But, critically, the story it tells tallies with the narrative I'm hearing from inside government too. The winners? Defence, health and transport, with Angela Rayner's housing department up as well. Everywhere else is down, compared with this year's spending settlement. The Home Office, justice, culture, and business - facing real terms squeezes from here on in. The aid budget from the Foreign Office, slashed - the Ministry of Defence the beneficiary. You heard about that this week. Health - a Labour priority. I heard from sources a settlement of around 3%. This AI model puts it just above. Transport - a surprise winner. Rachel Reeves thinks this is where her capital budget should go. Projects in the north to help hold voters who live there. But, could this spell trouble? Education - down overall. Now this government will protect the schools budget. It will say 'per pupil' funding is up. But adult education is at risk. Is this where they find the savings? So much else - Home Office down, but is that because asylum costs are going down. Energy - they're haggling over solar panels versus home insulation. Justice should get what it wants, I am told. This isn't about exact percentages. But you can see across lots of departments - things are tight. Even though Rachel Reeves has already set the budgets for last year and this, and only needs to decide spending allocations from 2026 onwards, the graphs the Treasury will produce next week compare what will be spent to the last set of Tory plans. This means their graphs will include the big spending increases they made last year - and flatter them more.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
White Brits will be a minority in the UK within the next 40 years, report claims
White Brits will become a minority race in the UK population within the next 40 years, a new report has claimed. A study into birth rates and migration levels has predicted that white British people will make up only 33.7 per cent of the population by the end of the century. The research conducted by Professor Matt Goodwin of Buckingham University says the projected change will come in phases: first falling from the current level of 73 per cent to 57 per cent by 2050, then into the minority levels by 2063. Professor Goodwin's report also suggests significant changes for foreign-born citizens and second-generation immigrants, who currently make up less than 20 per cent of the population. These groups, the report says, will comprise 33.5 per cent of the UK's population in the next 25 years. It also predicts a near three-times increase in the number of Muslims living in the UK, suggesting that almost one in five people living in Britain will be followers of Islam by the end of the century. By the year 2100, the report expects 60 per cent of people living in the UK to have at least have one immigrant parent. Professor Goodwin said his research, which was based on Office for National Statistics and census data, will 'spark anxiety, concern and political opposition' among voters who wish to 'maintain the culture of the traditional majority'. He added: 'By the end of the current century, most of the people on these islands will not be able to trace their roots in this country back more than one or two generations. 'This raises enormous questions about the capacity of our country and leaders to unify people around a shared sense of identity, values, ways of life, and culture, and avoid the very real risk of us becoming what Sir Keir Starmer referred to in May as "an island of strangers".' In the report titled 'Demographic Change and the Future of the United Kingdom', Professor Goodwin also warned of the UK's ability to 'absorb and manage this scale of demographic change'. He said: 'What these projections show is that the UK is currently on course to experience enormous and historically unprecedented changes in the composition of its population.' Professor Goodwin's projections were based on non-white ethnic groups having a higher fertility rate until the end of the century. The UK- born fertility rate used was 1.39 for those born in the UK , 1.97 for foreign-born people, for Muslims it was 2.35, and for non-Muslims 1.54. The report comes just days after 1,200 migrants crossed the Channel to the UK in what was labelled 'a day of shame '. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer even faced criticism from one of his own ministers who said control of Britain's borders had been lost as a surge in dinghy crossings overwhelmed French and UK border patrol vessels. The latest Home Office figures show that 1,194 migrants arrived in 18 boats, bringing the provisional annual total so far to 14,811. This is 42 per cent higher than the 10,448 at the same point last year and 95 per cent up from the same point in 2023, 7,610. It is still lower than the highest daily total of 1,305 arrivals since data began in 2018, which was recorded on September 3, 2022. But the total of arrivals for the year, 14,811, is the highest ever recorded for the first five months of a year since data was first recorded on Channel crossings in 2018. It has also surpassed the highest total recorded for the first six months of the year, which was previously 13,489 on June 30 last year - and n 2024 the number of arrivals did not reach more than 14,000 until July 9, reaching 14,058. At Gravelines in northern France, more than half a dozen French police officers stood by and watched as migrants waded into the sea and scrambled on to an inflatable boat. French authorities said they rescued 184 people. One of Sir Keir's senior cabinet ministers admitted the scenes were 'pretty shocking' as he said the UK had 'lost control of its borders over the last five years'. Defence Secretary John Healey told Sky News that the latest crossings revealed a 'really big problem' - but insisted there was pressure being put on France for better co-operation and crackdowns ahead. Britain had agreed a deal in 2023 to pay France £480million over three years to stop the crossings, including £175million in the current financial year – more than £480,000 per day. Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp branded the latest Channel scenes 'a disgrace but sadly entirely expected' and 'a day of shame for the Labour Government'. He added: 'It's a shameful failure by the French to discharge their duties to stop illegal migration. The French are failing to stop these crossings by illegal immigrants. 'Over a thousand illegal immigrants in a single day, boats flooding the Channel, Border Force stretched beyond breaking point, and even fishing vessels drafted in because our maritime rescue services are overwhelmed.' And Richard Tice MP, deputy leader of Reform UK, said: 'It looks like we pay hundreds of millions to give French police officers photography lessons because they are certainly not providing any security. Frankly, the Government should be suing the French for our money back.' At least 18 migrant boats were seen leaving the French coast on Sunday, June 1, carrying more than 1,000 people - exceeding the previous daily record for 2025 of 825, set earlier last month. Mr Healey added: 'Pretty shocking, those scenes [on Sunday]. The truth is, Britain's lost control of its borders over the last five years. 'The last government last year left an asylum system in chaos and record levels of immigration. 'But I think that [Sunday] tells us a really big problem which is that you've got French police unable to intervene to intervene and intercept the boats when they are in shallow water. 'We saw the smugglers launching elsewhere and coming round like a taxi to pick them up.' Mr Healey insisted there was 'new co-operation' with the French suggesting their officials would intervene in the water. When asked whether he was 'hacked off' with France for not doing so now, Mr Healey said: 'They are not doing it, but we've got the agreement that they will change the way they work. 'Our concentration now is to push them to get that into operation so they can intercept these smugglers and stop these people in the boats, not just on the shore.'
BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
Police told of racist attack weeks before Bhim Kohli killed
An elderly man who was racially abused before being fatally attacked had told police he witnessed an assault on another Asian man yards from his home two weeks earlier, the BBC has Kohli had been walking his dog in a park in Leicestershire in September when he was punched and kicked by a 14-year-old boy while a girl, 12, filmed the BBC has learnt that Mr Kohli spoke to officers in August after he saw two white boys aged 12 and 13 racially abuse a man and throw a large rock at him near the same park where the 80-year-old encountered his own attackers. Leicestershire Police said "organisational learning" to improve logging anti-social behaviour had been identified. Mr Kohli died the day after the "intense attack" against him in Franklin Park, Braunstone Town near Leicester, for which the boy and girl, now aged 15 and 13 respectively, were both convicted of manslaughter. They are due to be sentenced on eyewitness to the attack in August, Linda Haigh, said she warned police about racially motivated problems in the area before Mr Kohli died, and believes he would still be alive had they taken her more seriously. The victim, who wishes to remain anonymous, was walking to Franklin Park on 17 August when he was targeted by the two boys, who were not involved in Mr Kohli's told the BBC: "One of the boys started picking up stones and throwing them at me... and then the same boy picked up a quite a large rock from the front garden of one of the houses there, and tried to throw it at me."The man, aged in his 40s, said they shouted at him to "go back to your village"."It was a throwback to back to the 80s, when it was quite commonplace to be racially abused," he said. "I was shocked that this kind of behaviour was still around society."I've not been in that situation for a long time, maybe 40 years." It was when one of the boys picked up a wooden fence post and tried to hit the man with it that others - including Mr Kohli and his daughter Susan, and their neighbour Ms Haigh - intervened, according to the said he was shocked by the "kind of behaviour from such a young age group"."The racist language, the violence used as well... they were trying to physically hurt me," he added."The anger, but more just the vitriol of the whole thing."Police were called but the pair were not arrested until three days after the death of Mr Kohli, according to the believes a greater police presence in the area following the assault could have prevented the attack on Mr Kohli two weeks later."They should have really looked at putting more presence there, more officers, maybe mobile police cars driving around," he said."They could have deterred them. It's obviously very tragic." During the trial of Mr Kohli's killers, the court was told about an occasion "a week or two" before his death when the girl convicted of his manslaughter was present while other children threw apples at jury was also shown a video she had filmed on her phone of another Asian man having a water balloon thrown at him and being racially BBC has also been told it was reported to police that in July Mr Kohli had stones thrown at him, was spat at and had been racially abused by a group of children after he told them to get off his neighbour's garage Supt Jonathan Starbuck, of Leicestershire Police, said: "Prior to Mr Kohli's death, police were aware of two reports of anti-social behaviour involving youths in the Franklin Park area which were being investigated. "Partnership work in the area following Mr Kohli's death did identify further incidents which had not been reported."He added an investigation conducted by the force, reviewed by the Independent Office for Police Conduct, did not identify any "misconduct or missed opportunities which could have prevented Mr Kohli's death". The attacks have left the victim of the August assault fearful for his safety and that of his elderly parents, who also live in the area. His father, like Mr Kohli, likes to go for a walk, but since being targeted, he tells him not to, especially in the dark, he told the BBC."Even my nephews... you worry about them as well because you just don't know. It's just become more violent," he two boys involved in the August assault appeared in youth court in Leicester in December charged with racially or religiously aggravated common admitted the offences but were later dealt with out of court by way of a deferred youth caution following a referral to the youth justice panel for an out-of-court process aims to divert young people away from the criminal justice system where possible, the Crown Prosecution Service said. Ms Haigh, who was friends with Mr Kohli for more than 20 years, told the BBC she called police when she saw the two boys involved in the August assault pick up the boulder from outside her neighbour's house and throw it at the said she was aware of similar attacks by young people happening last summer in Braunstone Town and told police it needed to be "nipped in the bud"."I don't think it was taken serious enough," she said."I think they should have acted on it. I feel that we've been totally let down."Ch Supt Starbuck said: "We continue to monitor the area of Franklin Park and have engaged with the community through a local survey, drop-in centres, engagement with local schools, youth work and proactive policing patrols."
