The Chagos Debacle: A Monument to Starmer's Incompetence
Even by the low standards of Keir Starmer's administration, the Chagos Islands surrender has emerged as a glaring icon of governmental incompetence. This imbroglio presents a fascinating whodunnit, ripe for investigation. Given that the British handover of the islands is a policy opposed by nearly everyone outside a small cadre of ultra-Left wing Islingtonian lawyers—and one conspicuously absent from any party manifesto—why was it ever pursued? Who orchestrated it, and who stood to benefit?
A Cast from Yes Minister
The saga features a cast reminiscent of Yes Minister: a spineless and woke Whitehall establishment; human rights lawyers eagerly serving adversaries for hefty fees; and at its core, a vacillating and weak Prime Minister. As of now, the status of the deal remains shrouded in uncertainty. On Wednesday, Labour minister Hamish Falconer—son of Tony Blair's former flatmate, the verbose lawyer Charlie Falconer—rose in Parliament to announce that Labour's agreement to transfer the Chagos Islands to Mauritius was on hold pending discussions with American counterparts.
This humiliating pause was triggered when Donald Trump reversed his earlier support, branding the Prime Minister's move an act of GREAT STUPIDITY. However, no sooner had Falconer sat down than Downing Street and the Foreign Office contradicted him, insisting the deal remained active. The result is the typical Starmerite chaos that has come to define this government.
Why Pursue an Unpopular Policy?
Returning to the central question: why has Starmer expended so much of his limited political capital on this wildly unpopular and arcane sell-out? This government has executed at least 14 U-turns in just 18 months, yet the Chagos Surrender has been pursued with a rare single-mindedness—until this week's confusion.
Most Daily Mail readers are familiar with the details, but in brief: Mauritius relinquished any claim to the islands in the 1960s. The atolls have no natural or historic ties to Mauritius, lying as distant from it as London is from St Petersburg. In 2019, an international court—featuring judges from human rights havens like China, Russia, and Somalia—issued a non-binding judgment stating Britain's decolonisation of Mauritius would be incomplete without handing over the islands. Instead of dismissing this biased ruling, Britain inexplicably agreed to cede the Chagos.
False Justifications and Legal Nonsense
Subsequent government justifications have proven laughably false. Ben Judah, a former adviser to David Lammy, argued in a Sunday paper that the 2019 judgment placed Britain in legal jeopardy, echoing Whitehall's view that without a negotiated settlement, binding rulings could strip Britain of the territory. He claimed a deal securing British presence, at a cost of billions to taxpayers funding Mauritian tax cuts, was preferable to total loss via international courts.
Defence Minister John Healey echoed this in May 2025, warning MPs that without the deal, legal rulings could render the base inoperable within years. However, non-binding judgments are precisely that—non-binding—rendering these claims nonsense. The Foreign Office position blends establishment timidity, exaggerated fear of non-binding rulings, and post-colonial guilt.
Another absurd risk circulated suggests China might use the 2019 judgment as a pretext to invade, a move that could spark World War Three given the US airbase presence. This theory is delusional at best.
Starmer's Motives: Grey Characters and Pusillanimity
Two main reasons explain Starmer's persistence: influential figures egging him on and his peculiarly weak stance toward adversaries. Starmer's National Security Adviser, Jonathan Powell, dismissively called the Chagos very tiny islands where no one actually goes—a remark unbecoming of a security official.
Then there's lawyer Philippe Sands, a bosom friend of Sir Keir, who has represented Mauritius in its Chagos struggle and attended summits where the Mauritian flag was illegally raised on British soil. Did Sands discuss Chagos with Starmer before he became Prime Minister or Labour leader? It seems plausible.
Attorney General Lord Hermer, another close friend of Sir Keir, has profited from defending Britain's enemies in court on human rights grounds, from Shamima Begum to Gerry Adams. Did Hermer also pressure Starmer into this folly? Starmer is often described as oddly principle-free; a senior aide once quipped that the PM would go along with whatever I put on his desk.
The China Appeasement Theory
A second theory, outlined by Chagos campaigner and Tory peer Ross Kempsell, posits that Starmer is desperate to appease China. China likely seeks to weaken US influence in the Indian Ocean, and Starmer may have hoped the deal would secure an economic treaty with Beijing. If true, this sell-out makes France's 1803 Louisiana sale look like diplomatic genius.
Current Standoff and Chagossian Resistance
After Trump's withdrawal of support, Starmer's scheme faced further disruption on February 16, when several Chagossians landed on an atoll accompanied by former MP Adam Holloway. After 50 years in exile, largely in Britain, they aim to reclaim their right to live there and prevent the territory's transfer to Mauritius.
In response, the British Government issued expulsion orders and threatened jail—a stark contrast to its failure to stop illegal immigration at home. Chagossian leader Misley Mandarin condemned this, stating: We have paid British taxes. We have lived in British towns. If the Government of Sir Keir Starmer tries to deport us against our will, it will be committing a fresh crime against humanity.
Such language should chill self-styled human rights defenders like Sir Keir. At minimum, it should prompt him to see sense. A 15th U-turn, this time to keep the Chagos, would at least be the right one—ending this farce once and for all.
