BOB SEELY: A disastrous and self-defeating deal which proves this government is the most unpatriotic in British history

Daily Mail​

23-05-2025

Keir Starmer, the most unpopular Prime Minister of recent times, and David Lammy, the most inept Foreign Secretary of recent times, yesterday signed the most self- defeating diplomatic deal in generations.
They agreed to surrender the Chagos Islands, a strategically valuable British territory, to Mauritius, a state that has never owned it.
To do this, against the wishes of former islanders, we will end up paying Mauritian politicians as much as £30 billion.
Yes, you read that correctly: as much as £30 billion to pay another nation to take our territory.
That's almost ten times more than the promised defence uplift and 20 times the 'savings' brought by the disgraceful winter fuel cuts.
This is a pointless act of self-laceration by a Prime Minister lurching from crisis to crisis after less than a year in power.
The only other decision that comes close in its counter-productive futility was Britain's decision to relinquish control of its naval bases in Ireland in 1938 – one year before the breakout of the Second World War.
The parallels should worry us. The Chagos Islands contain the Diego Garcia airbase, a strategically important site in the Indian Ocean which is primarily used by the US.
The government agreed to surrender the Chagos Islands, a strategically valuable British territory, to Mauritius, a state that has never owned it, much to the outcry of Chagossians
In an increasingly dangerous world, you'd think it was common sense to keep long-term sovereignty over the land our military bases are on. To Labour's mind, clearly not.
Britain has held the Chagos Islands since 1814. Mauritius, meanwhile, has never had a serious claim on it.
The Chagos archipelago and Mauritius are not even close – they're 1,300 miles apart. That's farther than London is from St Petersburg.
Even former islanders, who left the archipelago only after the UK took possession to make way for the base, do not want it surrendered to Mauritius.
This week two Chagossian women, Bernadette Dugasse and Bertrice Pompe, made a valiant effort to halt the decision, arguing: 'The Government's attempt to give away the Chagossians' homeland whilst failing to hold a formal consultation with the Chagossian people is a continuation of their terrible treatment by the authorities in the past.'
Their 11th-hour legal challenge delayed the decision, but failed to overturn it. So why – against such a deafening clamour of criticism – has Labour done this disastrous deal at all?
Starmer and Lammy claim that a long-term plan for the island was needed due to the findings of the International Court of Justice in 2019.
The trouble with this claim – as with so many statements by our PM – is that it is spurious.
Britain has held the Chagos Islands since 1814 while Mauritius has never had a serious claim on it - the Chagos archipelago and Mauritius are not even close – they're 1,300 miles apart.
While the ICJ ruled that the UK should make plans to hand the archipelago to Mauritius, the ruling was in no way legally binding.
What's more, the court's then-vice president was a former Communist Chinese official who went on to back the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
That Starmer has taken heed of a 'court' with no mandate that has been stuffed by cronies of adversarial states is a parody of true justice.
We were also told that respecting the ICJ would (in the words of our buffoonish Foreign Secretary) increase our 'international standing'.
Who do you think you are kidding, Mr Lammy? Our allies will see us as a nation no longer willing to stand up for our own interests.
As for our enemies, they will see us as naive, weak and gullible. We have lost our 'standing', not regained it.
Worse, as I have previously warned in these pages, our enemies have been actively stirring in Mauritius to damage the UK.
Last year, I was handed a dispatch from a European security agency which proved that the British Government had been told Russia was seeking to manipulate the issue.
Yet, despite all this, Labour persevered. Perhaps this is what Starmer means by going 'further and faster' – working further and faster to damage our national interests.
This shameful betrayal is also representative of something worse, summed up this week by the great Cambridge historian Robert Tombs.
For the first time in three centuries, since the early Hanoverian kings made Britain serve German interests, we are led by people who do not put this nation first.
To Starmer, Labour and the posse of woke de-colonisers pushing this decision, Britain is always the bad guy.
Our great nation is a source of shame, not pride. Our history is to be denigrated, not celebrated. And lest we forget, the PM's old friend Philippe Sands is an adviser to the Mauritian government.
Let's remember that this dreadful deal comes just three days after Starmer dragged Britain back into the EU's orbit with his surrender deal on fishing, trade and youth mobility.
Who can believe a word Starmer says after this? When he claims he is a 'patriot', it is no more convincing than the litany of falsehoods he has spewed in No 10: from the £22 billion 'black hole' to his social media posts claiming jobs are up and bills are down.
With this capitulation, Starmer has shown he puts international legalese above our national interest. Is this the most unpatriotic Government in history? Its actions speak louder than words.
Dr Bob Seely MBE is a military and security expert and author of The New Total War, to be published by Biteback in July.