Frantic cross-Atlantic discussions have taken place over the past week between right-wing Tory and Reform politicians and Donald Trump’s team to try to ensure that Sir Keir Starmer did not complete a deal with the Chagos Islands before the US president-elect’s inauguration on Monday.

With Mr Trump seeking to block or even veto the deal to hand over the British Indian Ocean colony to Mauritius, the hope had been that Sir Keir would be prevented from landing an agreement before the new president is sworn into office.

The revelation came as Tory leader Kemi Badenoch branded the agreement “a dumb deal” at Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday, asking: “Why does the prime minister think the British people should pay for something they already own?”

Sir Keir said: “We inherited the situation where the long-term operation of a vital military base was under threat because of legal challenges.”

He pointed out that negotiations began under the last Tory government, adding that his deal had provided for “effective continued operation of the base”.

Foreign secretary David Lammy had agreed a deal with Mauritius, but following a change of government there, the new Mauritian prime minister Navin Ramgoolam rejected it as “not good enough” and demanded more concessions from the UK.

The British organisers of the efforts to prevent a handover to Mauritius broke cover on Wednesday with the publication of an open letter signed by 23 leading figures on the right, including Nigel Farage (along with a number of other Reform MPs), former Tory PM Liz Truss, former Tory home secretary Suella Braverman, and former Reform leader Ben Habib.

It is understood that the letter was also backed by Ms Badenoch, though she did not sign it.

Conservative Post editor Claire Bullivant, one of the letter’s organisers and signatories, told The Independent that the campaign had wider significance beyond the row over the Chagos Islands.

She said: “This has laid the groundwork for potential cooperation between Reform and the Conservative Party.”

Another source involved in organising the letter and talks across the Atlantic said that Brexiteer Martin Howe KC, another signatory, had been giving more advice to the Trump administration on the issue in the last few weeks alongside wider talks on preventing the deal.

On the topic of Mr Trump, the signatories warned: “President Trump has reportedly expressed strong opposition to this agreement, citing concerns about its implications for US security and the potential benefit it would grant to China, which has expanded its influence in the region. It is unthinkable to alienate our closest ally by finalising this deal without their support.”

  • intelisense@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    5 hours ago

    If I recall correctly, mauritius won’t actually get the islands for another 50 years if the deal goes through. The islands are barely a meter above sea level… what exactly are they even going to get? A submerged reef is not of any value or even inhabitable…

  • flamingos-cant@feddit.ukM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    22 hours ago

    The letter made four demands: that a full debate is held in parliament; that proper consultation take place with the Chagossians, who have so far been ignored; that alignment is reached with the US; and that a detailed and transparent breakdown of costs is provided.

    Involving the Chagossians and wanting a cost breakdown honestly doesn’t seem that unreasonable. They’re obviously being opportunistic here, the Tories are the ones who’ve been negotiating this deal over the past few years and chose not to involve the Chagossians.

    It is unthinkable to alienate our closest ally by finalising this deal without their support.

    Glad to see the Brexit party Reform want to take full advantage of our regained sovereignty.

    • FarceOfWill@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 hours ago

      The strong implication on this originally was that we were doing it because the US told us to.

      Not quite sure why the Mauritius leader wants more concessions before accepting it but if he won’t take it now surely the whole deal is dead anyway? Doubly so if the US that forced us to do it also doesn’t want it.

      The whole letter looks like a scam to take credit for something that’s already happening.