Keir Starmer’s case for surrendering Chagos is built on sand. I can prove it in under 10 seconds – John Redwood
GB News has done a great job helping expose the bad legal advice behind the Government’s mad wish to give away the Chagos Islands.
They have revealed that the latest Government legal reason to give away this crucial military hub is based on a misreading of the Law of the Sea.
The Government says we have to give it away for fear of an adverse finding, when Clause 298 of the relevant Treaty gives us an opt-out for military purposes. The UK has made clear in the past that it exercises that opt-out.
This is not the first time the government has made a legal case for the giveaway that has been badly researched. They told us the International Court of Justice would find against the UK and order us to give the islands to Mauritius. I looked up the Treaty that took us into the ICJ jurisdiction.
That Treaty clearly exempted anything to do with the Commonwealth or with defence, so it meant the ICJ cannot bind us with any of its future judgements on the subject of the Chagos Islands.
GB News let me take a copy of the Treaty onto tv and show all interested that the Treaty meant the Government was wrong to say it had to give them away.
So why does the Government want to do this? Why give £35billion away to Mauritius that we cannot afford? Will this come out of the inadequate defence budget or mean higher taxes over the years ahead? Why tell the US we have to accept a friend of China owning our base, when it would be better to keep the freehold?
Why run the risk of damaging fishing and other commercial exploitation of this well-protected marine habitat? Why leave open the possibility that Mauritius, as owner, would ban the use of the Diego Garcia base for any nuclear-propelled or armed ship or plane?
The fact that we do not have to do this has led the Government to pause its Bill in Parliament. It now needs first to negotiate an amendment to the US/UK Treaty, which established the Diego Garcia base, and put the amendment through Parliament.
It needs to reassure our US ally about what would happen under different ownership, and should not do the deal if, as I expect, they cannot guarantee full use of the base as required.
Keir Starmer’s case for surrendering Chagos is built on sand. I can prove it under 10 seconds – John Redwood | Getty Images
This is such a bad policy; it will lead to more good questions about who wants this and why. What role did Mandelson play in trying to persuade the US Administration that this makes any sense?
What did the National Security Adviser say, as he should have been alarmed by the Chinese connections, the loss of control over the freehold, the possible change of status regarding nuclear, and the possible commercial development of the islands adjacent to the base?
The Government should quietly drop its expensive bad Bill. It promised in its Manifesto to protect the Crown dependencies, not give them away. It should be ashamed that it did not properly consult the Chagossians, who do not want their islands surrendered to Mauritius. It should not want to add to an overstrained defence budget, and should not want another dispute with our US allies.
Well done, GB News so far. There is more work to do to get to the bottom of why the Government wants this bad deal and who is behind the poor advice so far. It looks as if the Government needs better lawyers who are on the UK’s side when it comes to any international negotiation.
