CP
Senior political leaders, including former Prime Minister Liz Truss, Nigel Farage, Suella Braverman, Ben Habib, and Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg, have united in urging Prime Minister Keir Starmer to abandon a controversial £9 billion agreement to cede British sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius.
In a strongly worded letter, co-signed by leading Conservatives and Reform UK figures, the group warns that rushing the deal ahead of President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration could endanger UK national security, strain the ‘special relationship’ with the US, and saddle taxpayers with an unjustifiable financial burden.
Starmer’s Last-Minute Deal
The reported deal would see the UK hand over sovereignty of the Chagos Islands, home to the strategically vital Diego Garcia military base, in exchange for a 99-year lease to retain operational control. Yesterday, Mauritius claimed the two sides had reached consensus, with a special council of ministers expected to approve the agreement this week.
Sources close to the talks suggest Starmer is pushing to finalise the pact before Trump’s return to the White House on Monday, a move seen as politically motivated to avoid clashing with the president-elect, who is reportedly strongly opposed to the deal.
.
The Open Letter
In their letter to Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Foreign Secretary David Lammy, the group criticised the timing and secrecy surrounding the negotiations. They wrote:
“This decision, if completed in haste, would undermine our national interest, jeopardise our strategic alliances, and create unnecessary economic and security risks.”
The signatories, including Labour Peer Baroness Hoey, Sir John Redwood, Lord Dan Hannan and Richard Tice, stressed the importance of Diego Garcia as a cornerstone of UK-US defence strategy in the Indo-Pacific. They cautioned against alienating Britain’s closest ally and emboldening adversaries such as China, which has increased its influence in the region.
The letter described the £9 billion cost to taxpayers as “economically indefensible” and criticised the lack of transparency, stating:
“At a time when public finances are under severe pressure… committing billions to lease back a base we already control is economically indefensible.”
The group also condemned the absence of consultation with Parliament and the Chagossian people, who were displaced from their homeland during the establishment of the military base.
Farage and Patel Criticise the Deal
Nigel Farage, a close ally of Donald Trump, labelled the agreement a “disaster waiting to happen” and predicted “outright hostility” from the incoming US administration.
Former Home Secretary Priti Patel echoed these concerns, accusing Starmer of undermining Britain’s national interest. She said:
“The surrender of our sovereignty over Chagos not only leaves us exposed to greater security threats, but it is economically illiterate… Labour ministers must urgently come clean on what exactly this surrender is going to cost us.”
Trump’s Opposition
The agreement has raised concerns in Washington, where Trump and his team reportedly fear it could compromise US security interests in the Indian Ocean. There are also worries that the deal might inadvertently strengthen China’s position in the region, as Mauritius maintains close trade ties with Beijing.
Downing Street is said to have offered a significant portion of the £9 billion payment upfront to secure the agreement before Monday’s deadline. However, details of the financial terms remain unclear.
A Call for Transparency
The signatories have called on Starmer to pause the negotiations and prioritise a full parliamentary debate, greater consultation with the Chagossian people, and alignment with US allies to ensure the deal does not undermine Britain’s security or financial stability.
“To force this deal through in a matter of days, driven by political expediency, would be reckless and short-sighted. It would undermine trust in the UK government and leave an indelible stain on Britain’s reputation as a defender of sovereignty, accountability, and strategic foresight,” the letter concluded.
What’s at Stake
The Chagos Islands have been under British control since the 1960s, with Diego Garcia serving as a critical joint UK-US military base. The base has supported operations in the Middle East and Indo-Pacific, and its strategic importance has only grown in recent years.
If approved, the deal would mark the end of British sovereignty over the islands but leave the UK footing a substantial financial bill while leasing back control.
With President Trump’s return to the Oval Office imminent, the future of the agreement remains uncertain. Critics have urged Starmer to consider the long-term consequences of a rushed decision and ensure the deal serves the best interests of Britain and its allies.
.
Main Photo: Photos licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license. Files from Wikimedia Commons.
*****
RELATED
Mauritius ‘will sign off Chagos Islands deal TOMORROW’ amid backlash at claims Labour is ready to pay £9bn sweetener to give up UK territory
Mauritius is poised to sign off a deal to take control of the Chagos Islands from the UK as early as tomorrow amid claims Labour will pay billions to cede British sovereignty.
Keir Starmer has been pushing for a quick agreement to hand over control of the archipelago – formally the British Indian Ocean Territory – with just a week to go before Donald Trump re-enters the White House.
And media reports from the Indian Ocean suggest a ‘special council of ministers’ will gather in Port Louis tomorrow to finalise a deal reportedly worth £9billion.
Britain is thought to be ready to hand Mauritius about £90million a year to keep control of the strategically important UK-US military base on Diego Garcia.
But the prospect has sparked fury from Tories and allies of Mr Trump, with ministers today urged to delay any decisions until after Trump’s inauguration next week.
Shadow foreign secretary Priti Patel said Labour had been ‘bullied’ by Mauritius into committing ‘the most shameful failure of British diplomacy this century’.
‘Billions of pounds of British taxpayers’ money is being thrown away and our national security and defence is being put at risk unnecessarily because Keir Starmer and David Lammy are unwilling or unable to defend Britain, which will also undermine our relationship with the USA and the incoming Trump administration who have signalled their opposition to this deal.
‘So desperate is Keir Starmer and David Lammy to get the deal done before President Trump returns to office they caved in and backed down. Labour cannot be trusted with the defence and security of our country.’
A joint statement from the countries yesterday said ‘good progress’ had been made during talks in London.
And Mauritian attorney general Gavin Glover told reporters in Port Louis: ‘We had a productive meeting in London and have not come empty-handed from London.’
The new PM Navin Ramgoolam is understood to have pushed for more money after restarting negotiations, arguing that the draft deal he inherited on taking office in November 2024 ‘would not produce the benefits that the nation could expect’.
There are claims the UK could pay an initial sum covering several years as a ‘sweetener’ to get the pact across the line.
But Conservative MPs urged caution from the Government and suggested ministers hold off for at least week given hostility to the proposed arrangement from Mr Trump’s allies.
The exchanges in the House of Commons came as preparations for Mr Trump’s presidency were discussed at Cabinet on Tuesday.
Sir Keir Starmer is not expected to attend the inauguration but the Prime Minister and Mr Trump have discussed meeting ‘at the earliest opportunity’ – with speculation a visit to Washington could come within weeks of the Republican’s arrival in the White House.
Shadow foreign secretary Dame Priti Patel asked in the Commons: ‘Can the Foreign Secretary explain why he’s surrendering the Chagos Islands and frontloading payments to the government of Mauritius to lease the base at Diego Garcia at a cost of £9 billion to UK taxpayers?
The Mail: continue reading
Featured image: undercoverinfo.wordpress.com
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
Leave a Reply