CP
Foreign Secretary, David Lammy Claimed Ongoing Consultation — But Only Met Chagossians Once, On Day Starmer Signed the Deal.
In what is quickly becoming a scandal with serious political fallout, it has emerged that Foreign Secretary David Lammy held only one meeting with Chagossian community representatives during negotiations over the future of the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT), and it occurred on the very day Keir Starmer signed away sovereignty to Mauritius.
The revelation has sparked fury among Chagossians and critics alike, with many accusing the Labour government of misleading the public and sidelining the very people most affected by the deal. The long-controversial handover of BIOT, which includes the strategically vital Diego Garcia military base, was signed on May 22, 2025. On that same day, mere hours before the deal was confirmed, Lammy met with Chagossian representatives for the first and only time since taking office.
Throughout the process, the government maintained that it was engaging with the Chagossian community. In October 2024, during a parliamentary debate, Lammy stated the government had “sought to keep the Chagossians informed along the way” and claimed it was “hard” to get a unified view from the diaspora. Those claims now appear deeply misleading.
“Absolute rubbish”
Members of the advocacy group Chagossian Voices, who attended the May 22 meeting, have described their sense of betrayal. A prominent campaigner, told the Guido Fawkes website: “I’m beyond horrified and angry right now. They [the British government] promised to look out for our best interests – absolute rubbish.” The group added that there was “nothing” in the deal that benefited them.
Many see this as a deliberate and cynical move by the Foreign Office. By only engaging with Chagossians on the day the deal was already signed, critics argue that Labour effectively rendered their voices meaningless. The meeting, they say, was little more than political theatre.
A Pattern of Deceit
Labour’s narrative of consultation has now unravelled. Accusations of “gaslighting” have emerged from activists who say the administration repeatedly gave the impression that it was listening and consulting, all while excluding those most directly impacted. The lack of transparency and engagement has been described by some observers as a modern-day echo of the Suez Crisis—an avoidable foreign policy blunder driven by arrogance and misjudgment.
Defence analysts have voiced serious concerns over the security risks posed by the handover, highlighting the strategic importance of the long-standing US-UK military base on Diego Garcia and warning of potential instability in the region. Critics also point to the staggering financial implications, with the UK now committed to maintaining defence responsibilities in a territory it no longer controls. The Labour government’s pledge of £30 billion as part of the deal has drawn particular ire, with many arguing the money would be better spent addressing urgent needs at home.
Mounting Pressure
With pressure mounting, calls are growing in Parliament for a formal inquiry into the government’s conduct throughout the negotiations. Several backbench MPs are already describing the affair as “Labour’s Suez”—a reference to the 1956 debacle that undermined British global standing and public trust in government.
Despite Labour’s repeated attempts to justify the deal, the facts are clear: Keir Starmer signed away BIOT without properly consulting the people whose lives were most affected by the decision. Labour’s promise to support Chagossians now rings hollow—and their handling of this issue may well leave a lasting stain on the party’s credibility in foreign affairs.
One meeting. On the day the deal was signed. That is the full extent of David Lammy’s engagement.
As political scandals go, this one is not just a failure of diplomacy—it’s a betrayal.
This article (THEY LIED: Labour Under Fire After Revealed Lack of Chagossian Consultation) was created and published by Conservative Post and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author CP
Featured image: x.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