Im no fan of Starmer but …

Excuse me. Where did he say that?

Can you say more about the voting, are you talking about Mauritius bringing it to the UNGA? Which years are you talking about?

On India deal they and China may be happy but the Labour were still prioritising US as Lammy said ‘The Chagos Islands deal will not go forward without the support of US President Donald Trump, the foreign secretary has said.’ BBC

They’re up against it now that the support has gone.

Yes, of course.

But I think people are ignoring why the UK did the deal at all - its not out of altruism, its geopolitics (and largely can be traced back to Brexit).

Pre-Brexit our largest trading partner was the EU (obviously). One of the theoretical benefits of Brexit was a heightened ability to negotiate better trade deals with non-EU countries.

One of the major deals the UK was trying to secure, post-Brexit, was with India (given its rising as an economic powerhouse).

India, though, had long been the primary champion of Mauritius in its dispute with the UK (India being strongly anti-colonialism, and viewing Chagos as a one of the last remaining holdovers of British colonialism in the region).

The continued dispute was considered a point of contention in trade negotiations with India. A trade deal was ultimately formalized in July 2025 (shortly after the Chagos deal was formalized in May of the same year).

Worth adding, too, that pre-Brexit, other EU countries voted with the UK to prevent the dispute with Mauritius from being referred to the International Court of Justice. After the Brexit referendum, EU countries stopped blocking the referral, which ultimately led to the (advisory) ruling against the UK, which increased diplomatic pressure on the UK generally, just as it was emerging into the post-Brexit world.

That seems to be what the Chagossian people would prefer.

And surely for anyone opposing it the alternative is to just not do the deal. Keep as is.

She isn't the PM, she is leader of the opposition. Her job is to oppose the government.

What is Badenoch proposing instead?

I don’t think this line helps you much but I take it you still support the deal?

Er, no. He’s criticised for having terrible judgement and being supine in the face of his backbenchers.

You took the words right out of my mouth - or off my keyboard.

Fair play to Starmer, he has consistently handled trump extremely well. I'm mortified at the state of the economy and could not ve more relieved that he's dropped digital id (for now...) but he does well at this.

Of course it is. Not long ago they and their supporters were defending it. What happened?

It’s that inability to hold to a line that sees them lose more each week.

Labour are not blaming the Tories for the deal, they are agreeing with it.

Independence for Chagos has never been on the cards.

The comparisson with Greenland is neither here or there.

No, I'm referring to the political opportunism trying to paint Kemi as backing Trump. Its the other way round. Kemi has been making noise about Chagos since the deal was signed.

Labour agreed to the Chagos deal, they should defend it's merits. They can't, so are trying to blame the tories for it instead, which is ridiculous imo.

It really is unfair on the Chagossians. And has been for decades. But the reason they arent being given the right to return to Diego Garcia/and independant country is BECAUSE of respect for American interests. Specifically the strategic place the Chagos Islands occupy that is the reason for the Americans to have a military base there. Its important for the Pacific strategy (because not all US American spending is NATO despite their deeply held grievances).

If the UK gave Chagos Islands independance that very small independant country would be vulnerable to Chinese influence which America doesn't want. If the Chagos Islanders were allowed to return to Diego Garcia it would mean no US base. There is just no way America would agree to leave so there we are.

It really sucks. It does show up pre-existing weaknesses in international criminal law in that it will always be subject,.to an extent, to the existential security needs of great powers. So this is the best compromise the UK is able to find in the face of it. Its like the use of Iraq to justify Venezuela. I fail to see how "we let American interests ride roughshod over some aspects of international law therefore we should let them destroy all of it" is a convincing argument.

If anything I would love to see the UK respond to American griping re Diego Garcia by saying fine, your right the whole islands go back to Chagos Islanders directly. But I know that won't happen for lots of reasons. The real lesson is the more you give the current US administration the more they will take so everyone needs to draw a line now.

How Badenoch’s meeting with Mike Johnson led to Trump’s Chagos deal rant | Chagos Islands | The Guardian

All that can be done with Trump is getting through the next year and hoping the midterms blunt him, or a heart attack. Then it's a case of getting through the two after that and hoping that there is a free and fair election. It would be great if at the end of that the democrats get enough seats to make DC and Purto Rico states, and with it tilt Congress and the Senete.

She was party to 2 years of talks on Chagos, with the same aims as was signed off on

I assume this is what you are referring to?
This is not "pinning the deal on Badenoch" . It is just noting that she knew about it. Which she presumably did, even though she expressed precisely zero interest in the matter as far as I can tell.

Yep, this.
Also the hypocritical stance of defending Greenlanders right to self determination, but not Chagossians.

I think the rent we will continue to pay Mauritius sounds like a waste of money and could easily be spun so people see it as a terrible deal. You could definitely phrase a poll.question that generates a strong negative response. But the rent is so that America can continue to use a military base even as the "ownership" changes hands. It is an odd thing to have to explain why the UK needs to pay rent on behalf of the US. But even though it's tempting to argue that we shouldn't have to pay it, after all America breaks agreements all the time etc, in practical terms this is the best outcome.
It's odd how apparently we should be responding to the changing world by ignoring the ICJ/leaving the EHCR etc. But the same people that argue that aren't arguing for breaking agreements with America even though it's America that is leading the charge in breaking agreements/the "international order". I don't think we should respond in kind. But if we did some consistency would be good.

Really? Posts above say otherwise.
She's been opposing it since the deal was signed. What a daft statement.

I agree.

I think it’s this. Yes it’s great from Labour last year, no it’s not better try to dismiss. He and Labour generally really do need to take responsibility, he really is bad on that score.

Plus the what do people know about the place in pp it’s not a rebuttal.

For most it’s about where money is spent and whether Starmer has got that right. It’s also not in his favour to go from using the ‘bridge’ line not long ago and now to this. Apart from a few it seems the majority can see through it.

No-one has tried to pin the Chagos deal on Badenoch personally. 🤣 What a daft statement. She had zero interest in it until recently.

As Streeting said, better to get it right first time.