by Callum McGoldrick, researcher
Earlier this week the Mauritian prime minister claimed that the British government had made a new offer for the Chagos islands. In this new deal, Britain will pay £18 billion (instead of £9 billion) and hand full sovereignty of the island of Diego Garcia over to Mauritius. Our government has denied making any such offer but given Labour’s less than stellar track record at negotiating, can we be so sure?
The deal seems bad on all fronts. Not only are we ceding territory, we are paying an astronomical fee to do so. Whether it’s £9 billion or £18 billion, this deal would be record-breaking in its cost. The US bought much of its current mainland in three big purchases (the Louisiana purchase, the Alaska purchase and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo) which, even combined, were almost nine times less expensive than the £9 billion deal in real terms.
The exorbitant price is further highlighted when looking at current government projects. This allows us to see what the government thinks is of equal value, in cash terms, to giving away the Chagos Islands.
Notable current projects include the Transpennine Route Upgrade, the Affordable Homes Programme and the Universal Credit Upgrade Programme which all individually cost less than the higher Chagos deal would. The Lower Thames Crossing, with a whole life cost of £8.9 billion, costs less than the lower Chagos deal would.
The government is currently undertaking hundreds of major infrastructure projects too, such as the New Hospital programme which will rebuild and maintain five hospitals that were made with RAAC, the Towns Fund which seeks to regenerate high streets, the Midlands Rail Hub which will expand national rail capacity across much of England and Wales, the Low Cost Nuclear programme which funds research and development into small nuclear reactors and the Freeports scheme which will create new freeports in the UK. Remarkably, all of the schemes mentioned combined cost the same £9 billion as the lower cost of the Chagos deal.
A more detailed comparison of the Chagos costs can be seen in our latest briefing note.
The UK has a flatlining economy, a lack of housing, is reliant on foreign energy suppliers, a shortage of teachers and an ageing infrastructure. How is it then that our current government can justify this unbelievable expenditure? A deal so expensive that it eclipses even our most ambitious and most needed major projects.
Surely the government must have a reason, unknown to all of us, that has forced their hand in some way. That is certainly the impression Starmer tried to give at PMQs this week, saying, “Without legal certainty, the base cannot operate in practical terms.” This statement leaves more questions than it answers though, so light in detail and so heavy in jargon. What legal challenge could there possibly be to Britain operating a military base on our own sovereign territory? Is Starmer really kowtowing to a nation with a little over a million people because of an advisory ruling from an international court?
On Thursday some more news broke about the deal. According to the prime minister's spokesman, the base uses a Swiss-based telecommunications system that “would not be able to operate” should the Swiss deny access to it. As ridiculous a reason as this sounds to anyone who isn’t a human rights lawyer, it may just explain why Starmer is so desperate to give away the Chagos Islands.
To go against the court's advice, to actually use Britain’s power, to lean into the US who, under Trump, are happy to once again follow pure American interests, is simply unthinkable. It is of course irrelevant what is actually best for Britain let alone what any other county would do in our situation. We can see this fatal ideology, this unyielding need to be exactly in the bounds of international law plastered all over Labour's Britain.
The proposed £8.3 billion spend on GB energy in the pursuit of Net Zero is an obvious example. It is of course practically irrelevant what our emissions are while countries like China and India continue to operate how they please.
The Chagos deal is simply the epitome of what Keir Starmer believes. There is no right to British self-interest, we are simply all a part of one large cohesive international community. To stray beyond the safety of permission from international courts is unthinkable, to risk needing to show Britain’s strength is simply beyond the pale. It is better to keep the cabal of human rights lawyers happy, even if this is to the tremendous financial, strategic and reputational cost of the country you were elected to lead.