Starmer ‘running out of excuses' as legal case for handing over Chagos Islands unravels
Keir Starmer has been told he is 'running out of excuses' to press ahead with the controversial deal to hand over the Chagos Islands to Mauritius.
It comes after a minister admitted that Britain actually has a protection in international law against one of the major reasons senior politicians have been briefed that the UK has no choice but to hand over the islands.
The government is closing in on a deal to hand over the Chagos Islands on the back of an International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling that the archipelago belongs to Mauritius. The agreement would see the UK lease back the Diego Garcia airbase for 140 years at an expected cost of £18bn. Donald Trump has indicated he backs the deal but critics point out that the ICJ ruling is only advisory.
The Independent has learned that senior politicians have been briefed that one of the main reasons to go ahead with the deal is that the UK would fall foul of the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), preventing ships going to and from the base.
But a written answer has revealed that the UK is protected under international law against UNCLOS challenges.
It is the second major part of the legal case to fall apart after it was revealed claims that telecommunications could be stopped on the islands were also shown to be false.
The row has blown up again over the deal which is expected to cost the British taxpayer £18 billion after Mr Trump appeared to give it his blessing when he met Sir Keir in the Oval Office.
But in a speech on Monday night, Kemi Badenoch noted that the same pressure had been put on the UK government to give away the Falkland Islands to Argentina by the United Nations.
She said: 'Labour is negotiating the Chagos Islands away, and paying billions for the privilege. The excuses we hear about a UN court ruling and electromagnetic spectrum are nonsense.'
Opposition politicians hope that if they can demonstrate the legal case for handing the islands over has collapsed then they could persuade the president to exercise his veto at the last minute.
The Indian Ocean islands represent an important part of UK-US security plans because of the strategically crucial Diego Garcia airbase.
Critics of Sir Keir's policy to press ahead with the expensive deal claim that he has wrongly persuaded the US president that a deal has to go ahead to end the legal uncertainty.
There are also questions over whether Mr Trump is aware of a potential problem in taking nuclear weapons to Diego Garcia after the transfer of ownership because Mauritius is signed up to a nuclear free treaty.
The Independent understands that one of the main reasons given to senior politicians in private briefings on why the UK has 'no choice' but to give the islands to Mauritius is because the UK and US would fall foul of a legal challenge via the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in using the Diego Garcia airbase.
The reason for this is because UN agencies are obliged to follow rulings by the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
The ICJ has ruled that the islands belong to Mauritius and while that only has 'advisory' status for the UK and could be ignored, it has a binding status for the UN and its role in international law.
However, a written answer has blown apart this reasoning after the government itself revealed that the UK has a separate legal carve out on UNCLOS, which protects its current control of the crucial Indian Ocean islands.
Responding to a written question by Tory shadow armed forces minister Mark Francois, foreign office minister Stephen Doughty said: 'By Declaration dated 7 April 2003 the UK exercised the right to exclude from compulsory dispute settlement procedures in UNCLOS 'disputes concerning military activities, including military activities by government vessels and aircraft engaged in non-commercial service and disputes concerning law enforcement activities in regard to the exercise of sovereign rights and jurisdiction excluded from the jurisdiction of a court or tribunal under article 297 paragraph 2 or 3'.
'Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 297 address disputes related to marine scientific research and fisheries respectively.'
He added: 'While these exclusions remain in place, they do not prevent all possible legal challenges. It is worth noting that in the event that parties to a dispute concerning the interpretation or application of UNCLOS have chosen different procedures for the settlement of disputes, the dispute must be submitted to an arbitral tribunal unless the parties otherwise agree. Such rulings are binding on the parties.'
But Mr Francois, accused the government of running out of excuses.
He said: 'The government is rapidly running out of excuses for spending £18 billion of taxpayers money, to rent back a vital strategic base which we already own. We have a crystal-clear opt-out from any UNCLOS decision affecting military facilities - a point which our American allies will hopefully realise too. The government should now end this Chagos chaos once and for all; just drop this bonkers plan and move on.'
But this is the second time one of the major planks in the legal case on the necessity of a deal has fallen apart.
Previously, official sources the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) which controls the network of satellite communications could sever the links 'if an international court was to rule in future that the US and UK were using Diego Garcia to run satellite communications in breach of international law.'
But Labour's communications minister Sir Christopher Bryant dismissed this concern altogether in another written answer.
An FCDO spokesperson told The Independent: 'The Chagos Islands deal is paramount for our national security. The deal secures the joint UK-US base on Diego Garcia and without it, the operation of the base is at risk.
'Without legal certainty, the base cannot operate in practical terms as it should. That is bad for our national security and a gift to our adversaries.
'Finalising a deal means that we can secure strong protections, including from malign influence, which means the base can operate as it has done well into the next century.'
A source added:'There are numerous avenues through which Mauritius could pursue a legally binding judgment, including relevant provisions of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea or under dispute provisions of treaties to which both states are parties.
'Such cases could be brought rapidly and include seeking provisional measures, themselves legally binding, which could be introduced within weeks. This would have had serious implications for base operations. Ignoring these issues is not a responsible approach for a government serious about protecting the UK's national security.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
25 minutes ago
- NBC News
Transgender troops face a deadline and a difficult decision: Stay or go?
WASHINGTON — As transgender service members face a deadline to leave the U.S. military, hundreds are taking the financial bonus to depart voluntarily. But others say they will stay and fight. For many, it is a wrenching decision to end a career they love, and leave units they have led or worked with for years. And they are angry they are being forced out by the Trump administration's renewed ban on transgender troops. Active duty service members had until Friday to identify themselves and begin to leave the military voluntarily, while the National Guard and Reserve have until July 7. Then the military will begin involuntary separations. Friday's deadline comes during Pride Month and as the Trump administration targets diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, saying it's aiming to scrub the military of "wokeness" and reestablishing a "warrior ethos." "They're tired of the rollercoaster. They just want to go," said one transgender service member, who plans to retire. "It's exhausting." For others, it's a call to arms. "I'm choosing to stay in and fight," a noncommissioned officer in the Air Force said. "My service is based on merit, and I've earned that merit." The troops, who mainly spoke on condition of anonymity because they fear reprisals, said being forced to decide is frustrating. They say it's a personal choice based on individual and family situations, including whether they would get an infusion of cash or possibly wind up owing the government money. "I'm very disappointed," a transgender Marine said. "I've outperformed, I have a spotless record. I'm at the top of every fitness report. I'm being pushed out while I know others are barely scraping by." Some transgender troops decide to leave based on finances Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has said this is President Donald Trump's directive and what America voted for. The Pentagon, he said, is "leaving wokeness & weakness behind" and that includes "no more dudes in dresses." Sen. Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, a veteran, and 22 other Democratic senators have written to Hegseth urging him to allow transgender troops to keep serving honorably. Already, more than 1,000 service members have voluntarily identified themselves as transgender and are slated to begin leaving, according to rough Defense Department estimates. Defense officials say there are about 4,240 active duty transgender troops but acknowledge the numbers are fuzzy. For many, the decision is financial. Those who voluntarily leave will get double the amount of separation pay they would normally receive and won't have to return bonuses or tuition costs. Those who refuse to go could be forced to repay reenlistment or other bonuses as high as $50,000. That was the tipping point for Roni Ferrell, an Army specialist at Joint Base Lewis-McChord near Tacoma, Washington. Ferrell, 28, lives on base with her wife and two children and had planned to stay in the Army for at least another decade. But she said she felt "backed into a corner" to sign the voluntary separation agreement, fearing she would have to repay an $18,500 reenlistment bonus. "My commander basically said it was my only option in order to make sure my kids are taken care of," Ferrell said. The Marine, who has served for more than 25 years, said she had planned to stay and fight, but changed her mind. Lawyers, she said, told her an involuntary separation would put a code in her record saying she was forced to leave "in the interests of national security." That designation, she said, could mean those involuntarily separated could lose their security clearances, hurting future job prospects. In a statement Friday, a defense official said the code "is not intended" to trigger clearance revocations and that gender dysphoria is not a security reporting requirement, according to the director of national intelligence. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. Cynthia Cheng-Wun Weaver, senior director of litigation for Human Rights Campaign, said it's important for troops to talk with judge advocates general in their services to ensure they understand the different procedures being implemented. Other transgender troops plan to stay despite the ban The Air Force service member and a transgender officer in the Army National Guard both said they plan to stay and fight. Lawsuits over the ban continue and could change or block the policy. For troops involved in the court battles as plaintiffs, leaving voluntarily now would likely hurt their standing in the case. For others, it's simply dedication to their career. "I've really embraced military culture, and it's embraced me," the Air Force member said. "It's not about money. It's the career that I love." The Guard soldier echoed that sentiment, saying he will stay on "because it is important to me to serve. Frankly, I'm good at it, I'm well trained so I want to continue." Others without bonuses to repay or who have been in the military only a short while and won't get much in separation bonus pay may opt to stay and see what happens. National Guard troops face a particular problem National Guard members who are heading to their monthly drill weekend or annual two-week drill in June could be required to go but serve as the gender they were assigned at birth. That means they would have to wear uniforms and haircuts of that gender, use that bathroom and be referred to as "sir" or "ma'am" based on that gender. For many, that could be close to impossible and create uncomfortable situations. "If I were to show up to drill this weekend, I'd be expected to use all female facilities, I would be expected to wear a woman's uniform," said the Army Guard officer, who transitioned to male about five years ago and says others in his unit know him as a man. "I don't look like a woman. I don't feel like a woman. It would be disruptive to good order and discipline for me to show up and to tell my soldiers, you have to call me 'ma'am' now." It's not clear if Guard units are handling it all the same way, and it could be up to individual states or commanders. Some may allow troops to postpone the drill or go on administrative leave. What happens next for transgender troops? The service members interviewed by The Associated Press said they don't know what will happen once the deadline passes to leave voluntarily. Some believe that unit commanders will quickly single people out and start involuntary separations. Others say the process is vague, may involve medical review boards and could take months. The defense official said Friday that as the Pentagon takes these steps, it "will treat our service members with dignity and respect." Under Hegseth's directive, military commanders will be told to identify troops with gender dysphoria — when a person's biological sex does not match their gender identity — and send them to get medical checks to force them out of the service, defense officials have said. The order relies on routine annual health checks — so it could be months before that evaluation is scheduled. "My real big sticking point is that this administration's whole push is to reform this country based around merit, and that gender, race, etc., should have no factor in hiring," the Air Force service member said. "If that's true, I'm solely being removed for my gender, and merit is no longer a factor."
Telegraph
27 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Our politicians are the least serious in history – and that includes you, Nigel
This week an appalling case reminded us just how broken Britain is. We learnt that a 15-year-old boy killed elderly dogwalker Bhim Kohli while a female friend, aged 12, filmed it on her mobile phone. Both were laughing as the beloved grandfather lay dying in the street. How on earth can it have come to this? The case is emblematic of everything that has gone wrong – and continues to go wrong – in our fragmented, seemingly lawless society. We are led by complete incompetents: from police administering two-tier justice right the way up to our Prime Minister. It is little wonder there is a university course running in France on why the UK is such a failure. And Mayor of London Sadiq Khan's answer to our capital's woes, despite knife and other crimes soaring? Decriminalising cannabis. We knew Labour were not fit for purpose before they even took office, but this latest example of idiocy from City Hall really does sum up the problem with having hapless, careerist socialists anywhere near the levers of power. And now Reform UK appears to have imploded. Having abandoned the Conservative Party after an inept 14 years of governance, which left us with higher bills, higher taxes, higher NHS waiting lists and higher immigration, voters had hoped that Nigel Farage and his motley crew might bring the salvation Britain so desperately needs. Reform was meant to represent the alternative to 'uniparty' politics by ripping up the political rule book and restoring good old fashioned common sense. What we have learnt in the past 24 hours, however, is that the one thing uniting all four major parties in the UK (and I'm including the ludicrous Liberal Democrats in this, with their clown of a leader Sir Ed Davey) is just how thoroughly unserious they all are. Westminster currently resembles a cross-party circus act; what has the electorate done to deserve this? Let's take them one by one. We currently cannot believe a word slippery Starmer says after a string of Labour lies on tax, winter fuel, defence spending, relations with the EU, the Chagos Islands, immigration – you name it. They promised 6,500 more teachers with their vindictive VAT raid on private school fees and this week it was revealed teacher numbers are actually down since they took office. Millionaires are leaving, businesses are folding, more tax rises are on the way. We've got an Attorney General who wants to defend terrorists like Osama bin Laden's right-hand man while the justice system imprisons mothers like Lucy Connolly for 'hurty words' on the internet. The Left accuses Reform of being amateurs – and then run the country as if it's a university student union staffed by drop-outs. Yet the Right-wing opposition appears equally as childish. This week, we have had the shadow chancellor Mel Stride denouncing Liz Truss's premiership with some weasel words about the Tories 'never again undermining fiscal credibility by making promises we cannot afford'. The former prime minister – once famously compared to a lettuce – hit back with an excoriating statement on the political playground that is X, accusing Sir Mel of being a 'creature of the system' by siding with 'failed Treasury orthodoxy'. In what world does this blue-on-blue infighting help Kemi Badenoch as she struggles to cut through? Equally infantile was the typically boyish intervention of her former leadership rival Sir James Cleverly with a demand that the Conservatives stick to net zero – despite it being among the main reasons the party is now facing its own climate emergency. He's been invisible for months and then emerges with this sort of unhelpful Ed Milibandesque claptrap? Read the room, for pity's sake. All credit to Robert Jenrick for trying to find some grown-up solutions to some of the country's problems – like fare dodging, notwithstanding the self-serving nature of his attention-grabbing social media endeavours. Badenoch is trying her best to be a serious politician, with thoughtful rather than knee-jerk interventions on issues like our membership of the ECHR – only to have MPs in her ranks like Kit Malthouse spreading anti-Israel slanders like his declaration this week that Gaza is 'an abattoir where starving people are lured out through combat zones to be shot at'. Along with other Tories, he's also been calling for the Prime Minister to recognise a Palestinian state. Harebrained student politics are clearly not just confined to the Labour Party. We had hoped Reform, led by streetwise Nigel Farage, a man of political wisdom and experience, might rise above all this. But even he has been dogged by infantilism. If Rupert Lowe's 'more people watch my X videos than Nigel's' bravado wasn't bad enough, Reform now has been badly damaged by the similarly petulant flouncing out of party chairman Zia Yusuf. I like Zia and think he deserves credit for all the hard work he has put into professionalising the party over the past 11 months. But what on earth was there to be gained from such a public tantrum? Just leave quietly, don't blow the whole thing up with spiteful talk of working to get the party elected 'no longer being a good use of my time'. Similarly juvenile was the language he used to describe Reform MP Sarah Pochin's Commons call to ban the burka (which provoked laughter from the front bench: that's the state of public discourse in this country, folks). Responding to Katie Hopkins, of all people, on X, he wrote: 'Nothing to do with me. Had no idea about the question nor that it wasn't policy. Busy with other stuff. I do think it's dumb for a party to ask the PM if they would do something the party itself wouldn't do.' At the age of 38 and having worked at Goldman Sachs and established his own hugely successful business, he should know this is not the way to behave in the public eye. Reform remains a party that cannot even govern itself, let alone the country. This simply isn't good enough. The Government is useless, the Tories are a busted flush; if Reform seriously wants to break the doom loom of despair then it cannot be part of the problem. The party must get its act together – and fast.
Daily Mail
33 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
The bombers Ukraine destroyed with their brilliantly audacious Operation Spiderweb helped Putin blow up babies in their cots. So why hasn't Labour issued one word of celebration or congratulation?
It is now a week since the Ukrainians launched the most audacious raid since The Dambusters – an operation that was all the more stunning for being completely unassisted by the UK or any other western power. The Ukrainians have spent the last 18 months preparing Operation Spiderweb in total secrecy, and it has taken a few days to grasp the sheer brilliance of what they did. We now know that they mysteriously assembled the 117 drones in Russia itself, and then packed them in specially designed lorries.
