Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To think that the Chagos deal is incredibly stupid and harmful?

96 replies

Sausagenbacon · 22/05/2025 18:18

Let's hand millions over to Mauritius (which never had a legal right to the islands).
I honestly think that Starmer is stupid not to see how the optics of this play out.

OP posts:
Clavinova · 23/05/2025 13:14

PandoraSocks · 23/05/2025 12:59

And? Sands has been counsel to Mauritius for a decade and a half. Should he have stepped down from the post when Starmer became PM?

I was commenting on his quote about Boris Johnson and Brexit. Not to mention that Sands has dual British/French nationality and campaigned for a second referendum. Although it could be argued that Starmer gave in to his friend.

PandoraSocks · 23/05/2025 13:18

Clavinova · 23/05/2025 13:14

I was commenting on his quote about Boris Johnson and Brexit. Not to mention that Sands has dual British/French nationality and campaigned for a second referendum. Although it could be argued that Starmer gave in to his friend.

Well, I am sure Farage is pleased with this unexpected Brexit bonus too.😁

Clavinova · 23/05/2025 13:19

Or at the very least Sands was able to lobby Starmer due to their close personal friendship.

Clavinova · 23/05/2025 13:22

PandoraSocks · 23/05/2025 13:18

Well, I am sure Farage is pleased with this unexpected Brexit bonus too.😁

I have a flight to catch later today so no time to check - no doubt Sands is exaggerating on that.

PandoraSocks · 23/05/2025 13:26

Clavinova · 23/05/2025 13:22

I have a flight to catch later today so no time to check - no doubt Sands is exaggerating on that.

That is a new twist on I have to go out now,Clav 🤣

Have a good flight✈️

Clavinova · 23/05/2025 13:32

PandoraSocks · 23/05/2025 13:26

That is a new twist on I have to go out now,Clav 🤣

Have a good flight✈️

Thanks! Grin

CurlewKate · 23/05/2025 15:38

In the Brexit days there was a poster who always had a cake to decorate……

DuncinToffee · 23/05/2025 15:51

PandoraSocks · 23/05/2025 12:59

And? Sands has been counsel to Mauritius for a decade and a half. Should he have stepped down from the post when Starmer became PM?

Starmer is clearly a mastermind who started planning this a decade and a half ago.

TooBored1 · 23/05/2025 16:41

Sausagenbacon · 23/05/2025 10:05

See, you guys can't keep away from Farage/Nice can you?
Could you even point out the islands on a map without googling it? Had you even heard is them 6 months ago?
No, I was ignorant. But, as people like to say, I educated myself.

Could you educate me on our right to ownership of them?

QuaintShaker · 23/05/2025 16:54

DuncinToffee · 23/05/2025 10:51

9 judges, 1 is Chinese, none is Russian

14 judges, including 1 Russian and 1 Chiense. Ruling went against the UK 13-1.

DuncinToffee · 23/05/2025 17:12

QuaintShaker · 23/05/2025 16:54

14 judges, including 1 Russian and 1 Chiense. Ruling went against the UK 13-1.

My mistake, I looked at the wrong year.

Only the USA judge voted in favour of the UK

GasPanic · 23/05/2025 17:18

If you want to be a respected member of the UN, and expect other countries to abide by UN rulings, then you have to abide by UN rulings.

I am not wholly convinced that if the US didn't pay for the uptake of a base on DG then we would step in and pay for it anyway. After all places like Asenscion Island only have runways and bases because the US is prepared to pay for them.

In 99 years the whole place will probably be under water anyway. Or technology will have moved on so much the base will be useless. People will probably be fighting on Mars or something.

The downside of the agreement I think will be if the rest of the islands start getting populated and visited, then you might get protests on the main island where the base is and all the fallout from dealing with that.

Tomikka · 23/05/2025 17:31

Sausagenbacon · 23/05/2025 09:15

So you don't think it's politically naive?
(Try and answer without bringing up Farage or any other popular hate figures).
And how effective were the UN in any recent conflict? Answer, not at all. They're a paper tiger.

What exactly has been the role of the UN in any recent conflict ?

LunaDeBallona · 23/05/2025 17:43

itsagelatineone · 23/05/2025 11:08

Mauritius is also largely made up people who were brought to the island as 'indentured servants' which is akin to slavery, so where is the distinction between the inhabitants of Mauritius and inhabitants of Chagos? Also - it is a fallacy to make claim that the Chagos Archipelago is nowhere near Mauritius because 1) it is, and 2) it is certainly many hundreds of thousands of miles closer than the UK to Mauritius.

”……..certainly many hundreds of thousands of miles closer than the UK to Mauritius”.
Since the moon is only 238,000 miles from Earth where on earth do you think the Chagos islands are??
FY I, The Chagos islands are about 1,250 miles from Mauritius so hardly close neighbours.

Zebedee999 · 23/05/2025 19:08

Tomikka · 23/05/2025 17:31

What exactly has been the role of the UN in any recent conflict ?

Well some UNRWA staff famously invaded Israel on 7th October and raped/killed 1200 people and took a load hostage. So that is one role the UN has been involved in. Nothing positive though.

CurlewKate · 23/05/2025 19:33

Zebedee999 · 23/05/2025 19:08

Well some UNRWA staff famously invaded Israel on 7th October and raped/killed 1200 people and took a load hostage. So that is one role the UN has been involved in. Nothing positive though.

Really? Not that famously. There were allegations. 20 (?) had some credibility and the people
cincerned were dismissed. Not sure whether the 1200 rapes and murders came from…

SinnerBoy · 24/05/2025 01:31

Zebedee999 · Yesterday 11:38

The Tories started the negotiations then didn't proceed with the batsht bonkers deal. Starmer did proceed however!

No they didn't, there have been legal rumblings for decades, which became concrete during the Blair Administration. The Government/s were taken to court by the Chagos Islanders.

QuaintShaker · 24/05/2025 02:50

SinnerBoy · 24/05/2025 01:31

Zebedee999 · Yesterday 11:38

The Tories started the negotiations then didn't proceed with the batsht bonkers deal. Starmer did proceed however!

No they didn't, there have been legal rumblings for decades, which became concrete during the Blair Administration. The Government/s were taken to court by the Chagos Islanders.

Zebedee999 was correct.

Mauritius has indeed been raising the issue for decades, but it was steadfastly ignored until the 2017 UN General Assembly vote and the resulting 2019 advisory opinion of the ICJ.

The government ignored that ruling initially, before agreeing to enter into negotiations in November 2022.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/03/uk-agrees-to-negotiate-with-mauritius-over-handover-of-chagos-islands

The framework of the deal was agreed under the Tories but finalizing it was delayed by changes in government in the UK, US and Mauritius.

UK agrees to negotiate with Mauritius over handover of Chagos Islands

Foreign secretary indicates major reversal of policy that could allow return of people expelled by Britain in 1970s

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/03/uk-agrees-to-negotiate-with-mauritius-over-handover-of-chagos-islands

QuaintShaker · 24/05/2025 03:22

Sausagenbacon · 23/05/2025 09:15

So you don't think it's politically naive?
(Try and answer without bringing up Farage or any other popular hate figures).
And how effective were the UN in any recent conflict? Answer, not at all. They're a paper tiger.

Farage is relevant, though.

This likely never would have happened were it not for Brexit.

If you're genuinely interested in the politics of it, there's a good summary here:

https://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/britain-and-the-geopolitics-of-the-chagos-islands/

CurlewKate · 24/05/2025 08:12

My understanding is that,under International law, Britain has no choice in this matter.

QuaintShaker · 25/05/2025 21:35

CurlewKate · 24/05/2025 08:12

My understanding is that,under International law, Britain has no choice in this matter.

It had a choice whether to respect the judgment or not, it's not as if it would likely be enforced against them.

But the UK's diminished standing in the world, and perceived need to make trade deals in the region, made that a far less likely course than it would have been were the UK still in the EU.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread