Meanwhile, in "anyone got a DLR train, we've got someone to throw under it" news,
Conspiracist take, but - the fact these stories are appearing is in itself a sign of McSweeney's weakening position. Someone is, quite reasonably, trying to fuck him.
Listening to Starmer on his signing the Chagos deal I do not see it a problem and certainly nothing for reform or the conservatives to get all het up about
I would expect Starmer to know the law on this. Also he's expending political capital on a deal with Mauritius, which I'm pretty sure he wouldn't do unless he thought it was necessary. Put together that suggests he's is correct on his points.
I listened to his 'live' press conference with his defence secretary and the army commander who looks after the base, and I think those critising the deal would have benefitted from listening to it as well
Apparently it will cost approx 100 million per year for a 99 year lease with an option to renew for 40 more years
The US pays all the operational costs and the deal is backed by the US, NATO, all our allies but apparently opposed by Russia, China and Iran
I am no fan of Starmer, but on this and having heard the details I have no problem with it
It’s quite complicated looking at the details . The actual tv headlines don’t have time to go through all the detail .
It's also more than a touch confusing that the 'breakdown' that keeps getting reported, mentioned inflation.
But then Downing Street have come out and said the £3.4b figure is in 'today's money' because the yearly payments will gradually be eroded due to inflation.
Made up figures like the 22 billion imaginary hole
That's interesting because the black hole absolutely wasn't imaginary and no-one serious thought it was. In fact the biggest problem this administration has in governing is not increasing taxes enough. The political calculation may be different however - raising taxes doesn't play well generally.
It was imaginary in that the figures were garbage and some of it self inflicted by Labour. The finances were and are in a poor state but there was no 22 billion black hole they didn't know about and 'discovered' like it was a turd left on the carpet. They absolutely should raise taxes. Start with the big companies, then hit the wealthy. Tax the arse out of private jet flight then if they still need to look at PAYE and corporation taxes, VAT etc. Anything but 'i had to freeze granny and tip you out of your wheelchair into the pit to graft'
The Chagos deal has to be voted on so the costs will have to be shown clearly. It’s somewhat confusing at the moment as to how the 3.4 billion pound figure was reached .
I hope Starmer has not misled the public at the conference as that would be unforgiveable
He clearly said the annual cost would be no more than an aircraft carrier at sea for a year excluding the planes, and repeated this claim
He surely couldn’t be that stupid . I’ve looked at the figures again and again and just can’t work out how they got to 3.4 billion pounds .
He did compare the costs to the annual costs of an aircraft carrier and also said it would cost £3.5 billion
If this is untrue then he has made a huge mistake as it is all on camera
Lol, he's losing the party. We know what happens next
"...Aubrey Allegretti @breeallegretti Exc: Labour MP Peter Lamb goes studs up in a WhatsApp group after Keir Starmer's Chagos deal announcement: "Getting real tired of this 'the courts have settled it' line of argument being wheeled out by the PM. They interpret current law, MPs make the law. You can't hide behind a judgement and claim it gives you cover from questions over what is right or proper."..." 4:17 pm · 22 May 2025
It's a personality flaw. He's a lawyer and has great respect for the law. He sees his role as playing the game as best he can within the rules. He misses the point that the PM can, and in certain cases must, change the rules or throw over the entire board if it's in the best interest of the UK. It never occurred to him to tell the Court to eff off.
Sorry but that's nonsense. The 'ruling' had no legal force - our entire participation in the court is predicated on the principle that its rulings concerning our territories are advisory in nature.
Starmer's old legal firm is representing Mauritius, and stands to earn a packet. It would of course be entirely right, proper and above board that in the course of time, they may make a sizable charitable donation to the 'Keir Starmer foundation' which will fund Sir Keir's vital humanitarian work (and vital swimming pool) in the future.
There are very few barristers' chambers so complaining about the whole "represented by the same firm" thing is nonsense. It is like having the same bank as your local supermarket.
According to AI, the following is true:
According to the General Council of the Bar's report in 2006, there were 355 practising chambers in the United Kingdom, with 210 of them based in London.
Meanwhile, in "anyone got a DLR train, we've got someone to throw under it" news,
Conspiracist take, but - the fact these stories are appearing is in itself a sign of McSweeney's weakening position. Someone is, quite reasonably, trying to fuck him.
(count the months before it effectively becomes Chinese Indian Ocean Territory)
“Base is a 'unique asset' for Britain, senior officer says We're now hearing from senior British Army officer Gen James Hockenhull. He says that the base's location provides "immense global reach", making it a "unique asset" for British security. "I welcome the long-term certainty that this treaty brings. It will help the British Armed Forces in our efforts to support stability abroad and security at home," Hockenhull says.
What’s the actual detail on that which would require actual ongoing UK ownership, and not that ownership passed on to India and USA, who sat at the table with us negotiating this?
Is the bottom line of UK continuing Garcia on a lease, and not someone else holding same lease, continued UK interoperability with US weapons and nuclear weapons?
General Hockenhull comments in the press conference provided credence for Starmer
However, if Starmer misled about the costs then that is riduculous and will cause an issue for him
This from Sky news
Confusion over true cost of Chagos deal
Earlier today, Sir Keir Starmer said the net cost of the Chagos deal was £3.4bn, with an average cost of £101m a year over the 99-year deal.
There was confusion at the time as to why the total cost was not £10bn.
And things were only made murkier when the full agreement between the UK and Mauritius was published.
It revealed the UK will pay:
£165m a year for the first three years; £120m for years four to 13; £120m plus inflation for every year after to year 99; £40m as a one-off to a fund for Chagossians; £45m a year for 25 years for Mauritian development. If inflation were to remain zero for the next century, this would work out to around £10bn over 99 years.
Assuming an average of 2% inflation, Sky News analysis suggests costs could rise as high as £30bn.
However, the government is insisting the cost is still just £3.4bn as the long term financing is accounted with a social time preference rate.
This is "standard" practice and adjusts the value of high spends over the long term as part of cost-benefit analysis and is Treasury sanctioned, the government claims.
It's a murky area and doesn't help with allegations the government is not being entirely transparent with this issue.
(count the months before it effectively becomes Chinese Indian Ocean Territory)
“Base is a 'unique asset' for Britain, senior officer says We're now hearing from senior British Army officer Gen James Hockenhull. He says that the base's location provides "immense global reach", making it a "unique asset" for British security. "I welcome the long-term certainty that this treaty brings. It will help the British Armed Forces in our efforts to support stability abroad and security at home," Hockenhull says.
What’s the actual detail on that which would require actual ongoing UK ownership, and not that ownership passed on to India and USA, who sat at the table with us negotiating this?
Is the bottom line of UK continuing Garcia on a lease, and not someone else holding same lease, continued UK interoperability with US weapons and nuclear weapons?
General Hockenhull comments in the press conference provided credence for Starmer
However, if Starmer misled about the costs then that is riduculous and will cause an issue for him
This from Sky news
Confusion over true cost of Chagos deal
Earlier today, Sir Keir Starmer said the net cost of the Chagos deal was £3.4bn, with an average cost of £101m a year over the 99-year deal.
There was confusion at the time as to why the total cost was not £10bn.
And things were only made murkier when the full agreement between the UK and Mauritius was published.
It revealed the UK will pay:
£165m a year for the first three years; £120m for years four to 13; £120m plus inflation for every year after to year 99; £40m as a one-off to a fund for Chagossians; £45m a year for 25 years for Mauritian development. If inflation were to remain zero for the next century, this would work out to around £10bn over 99 years.
Assuming an average of 2% inflation, Sky News analysis suggests costs could rise as high as £30bn.
However, the government is insisting the cost is still just £3.4bn as the long term financing is accounted with a social time preference rate.
This is "standard" practice and adjusts the value of high spends over the long term as part of cost-benefit analysis and is Treasury sanctioned, the government claims.
It's a murky area and doesn't help with allegations the government is not being entirely transparent with this issue.
Seems like a bargain compared to brexit.
All this concern about £££ from Leavers suddenly. Go figure.
Its not the £££ that worry me more has Starmer misled the public on the costs ?
There is a vast difference between the £3.5 billion he quoted and £30 billion now suggested
Effect of inflation over the hundred years of the deal isn't it?
Even at three percent inflation, that's a halving in the value of money in a bit less than 25 years, so a bit more than a tenthhing in a century.
TLDR, both the £30 billion and the £3 billion are misleading as numbers, and the true impression is somewhere between the two- but it will feel more like 3 than 30. But even thirty billion over a century is peanuts on a governmental scale.
I think we can agree the Chagossians have been treated very shabbily throughout. However any arrangement that doesn't result in the base being closed and the islands handed back in their entirety is disingenuous if we claim to support the Chagossians. So it is all about the base. It literally, and rather sadly, has nothing to do with the Chagossians.
So it boils entirely down to money. Do the legal certainty and the conditions in the enforceable treaty justify the payments contracted, which are in line with other military bases in Djibouti etc? At a certain point the amount becomes too much. Where you draw the line is a judgement.
The Chagos deal has to be voted on so the costs will have to be shown clearly. It’s somewhat confusing at the moment as to how the 3.4 billion pound figure was reached .
I hope Starmer has not misled the public at the conference as that would be unforgiveable
He clearly said the annual cost would be no more than an aircraft carrier at sea for a year excluding the planes, and repeated this claim
He surely couldn’t be that stupid . I’ve looked at the figures again and again and just can’t work out how they got to 3.4 billion pounds .
He did compare the costs to the annual costs of an aircraft carrier and also said it would cost £3.5 billion
If this is untrue then he has made a huge mistake as it is all on camera
What’s more bizarre it says payments will be index linked after year 13 to the end of the 99 years. Once the legislation gets published they’ll have to state the costs clearly and not released in a way that seems suspicious.
Meanwhile, in "anyone got a DLR train, we've got someone to throw under it" news,
Conspiracist take, but - the fact these stories are appearing is in itself a sign of McSweeney's weakening position. Someone is, quite reasonably, trying to fuck him.
Tice confirms Reform will 'rip up the deal'. Which will mean we would lose the right to use the base per the (by then legally binding) agreement and will have to take it/hold it by force. The great Indian Ocean war of 2029
Tice confirms Reform will 'rip up the deal'. Which will mean we would lose the right to use the base per the (by then legally binding) agreement and will have to take it/hold it by force. The great Indian Ocean war of 2029
We wouldn't have to do anything of the sort. The Americans would have to decide how much they wanted it and pay the bills.
Meanwhile, in "anyone got a DLR train, we've got someone to throw under it" news,
Conspiracist take, but - the fact these stories are appearing is in itself a sign of McSweeney's weakening position. Someone is, quite reasonably, trying to fuck him.
Listening to Starmer on his signing the Chagos deal I do not see it a problem and certainly nothing for reform or the conservatives to get all het up about
I would expect Starmer to know the law on this. Also he's expending political capital on a deal with Mauritius, which I'm pretty sure he wouldn't do unless he thought it was necessary. Put together that suggests he's is correct on his points.
I listened to his 'live' press conference with his defence secretary and the army commander who looks after the base, and I think those critising the deal would have benefitted from listening to it as well
Apparently it will cost approx 100 million per year for a 99 year lease with an option to renew for 40 more years
The US pays all the operational costs and the deal is backed by the US, NATO, all our allies but apparently opposed by Russia, China and Iran
I am no fan of Starmer, but on this and having heard the details I have no problem with it
It’s quite complicated looking at the details . The actual tv headlines don’t have time to go through all the detail .
It's also more than a touch confusing that the 'breakdown' that keeps getting reported, mentioned inflation.
But then Downing Street have come out and said the £3.4b figure is in 'today's money' because the yearly payments will gradually be eroded due to inflation.
Made up figures like the 22 billion imaginary hole
That's interesting because the black hole absolutely wasn't imaginary and no-one serious thought it was. In fact the biggest problem this administration has in governing is not increasing taxes enough. The political calculation may be different however - raising taxes doesn't play well generally.
It was imaginary in that the figures were garbage and some of it self inflicted by Labour. The finances were and are in a poor state but there was no 22 billion black hole they didn't know about and 'discovered' like it was a turd left on the carpet. They absolutely should raise taxes. Start with the big companies, then hit the wealthy. Tax the arse out of private jet flight then if they still need to look at PAYE and corporation taxes, VAT etc. Anything but 'i had to freeze granny and tip you out of your wheelchair into the pit to graft'
Fair enough, the £22 billion number was imaginary and invented to suit the government's political purpose.
Tice confirms Reform will 'rip up the deal'. Which will mean we would lose the right to use the base per the (by then legally binding) agreement and will have to take it/hold it by force. The great Indian Ocean war of 2029
Tice is an arsehole . He turned up today to get his ugly face on tv and rip up a piece of paper .
Tice confirms Reform will 'rip up the deal'. Which will mean we would lose the right to use the base per the (by then legally binding) agreement and will have to take it/hold it by force. The great Indian Ocean war of 2029
We wouldn't have to do anything of the sort. The Americans would have to decide how much they wanted it and pay the bills.
If we wanted to continue using it we would. The deal includes payments to Mauritius for 'development' from us - no payment, no base. If America takes over they'll kick our arses straight off for making them have to do something
Tice confirms Reform will 'rip up the deal'. Which will mean we would lose the right to use the base per the (by then legally binding) agreement and will have to take it/hold it by force. The great Indian Ocean war of 2029
We wouldn't have to do anything of the sort. The Americans would have to decide how much they wanted it and pay the bills.
If we wanted to continue using it we would. The deal includes payments to Mauritius for 'development' from us - no payment, no base. If America takes over they'll kick our arses straight off for making them have to do something
Tice confirms Reform will 'rip up the deal'. Which will mean we would lose the right to use the base per the (by then legally binding) agreement and will have to take it/hold it by force. The great Indian Ocean war of 2029
Tice is an arsehole . He turned up today to get his ugly face on tv and rip up a piece of paper .
Tice is a pudding faced fancy boy dilletante. He needs to retire and open a museum of blokes with waspish, annoying partners in Skeggy.
(count the months before it effectively becomes Chinese Indian Ocean Territory)
“Base is a 'unique asset' for Britain, senior officer says We're now hearing from senior British Army officer Gen James Hockenhull. He says that the base's location provides "immense global reach", making it a "unique asset" for British security. "I welcome the long-term certainty that this treaty brings. It will help the British Armed Forces in our efforts to support stability abroad and security at home," Hockenhull says.
What’s the actual detail on that which would require actual ongoing UK ownership, and not that ownership passed on to India and USA, who sat at the table with us negotiating this?
Is the bottom line of UK continuing Garcia on a lease, and not someone else holding same lease, continued UK interoperability with US weapons and nuclear weapons?
General Hockenhull comments in the press conference provided credence for Starmer
However, if Starmer misled about the costs then that is riduculous and will cause an issue for him
This from Sky news
Confusion over true cost of Chagos deal
Earlier today, Sir Keir Starmer said the net cost of the Chagos deal was £3.4bn, with an average cost of £101m a year over the 99-year deal.
There was confusion at the time as to why the total cost was not £10bn.
And things were only made murkier when the full agreement between the UK and Mauritius was published.
It revealed the UK will pay:
£165m a year for the first three years; £120m for years four to 13; £120m plus inflation for every year after to year 99; £40m as a one-off to a fund for Chagossians; £45m a year for 25 years for Mauritian development. If inflation were to remain zero for the next century, this would work out to around £10bn over 99 years.
Assuming an average of 2% inflation, Sky News analysis suggests costs could rise as high as £30bn.
However, the government is insisting the cost is still just £3.4bn as the long term financing is accounted with a social time preference rate.
This is "standard" practice and adjusts the value of high spends over the long term as part of cost-benefit analysis and is Treasury sanctioned, the government claims.
It's a murky area and doesn't help with allegations the government is not being entirely transparent with this issue.
Seems like a bargain compared to brexit.
All this concern about £££ from Leavers suddenly. Go figure.
Its not the £££ that worry me more has Starmer misled the public on the costs ?
There is a vast difference between the £3.5 billion he quoted and £30 billion now suggested
Let's see where it settles. My money's on Starmer over X.
Tice confirms Reform will 'rip up the deal'. Which will mean we would lose the right to use the base per the (by then legally binding) agreement and will have to take it/hold it by force. The great Indian Ocean war of 2029
We wouldn't have to do anything of the sort. The Americans would have to decide how much they wanted it and pay the bills.
If we wanted to continue using it we would. The deal includes payments to Mauritius for 'development' from us - no payment, no base. If America takes over they'll kick our arses straight off for making them have to do something
I missed that discussion yesterday. What were the main points/conclusions?
This was about the EU e-gates agreement (and the weakness thereof). We got into the reality or otherwise of post-Brexit queues at passport control, and from there on to whether checked luggage is a thing these days or not.
Roughly half the group insisted they wouldn’t dream of checking in luggage to a flight, it was carry on all the way. The other half were like “wat?! We always check in our bags”.
It just so happens that all the cabin baggers were of a left-liberal bent, and all the checkers were right wing.
Either pure coincidence, or an interesting correlation. Something about rootedness, solidity, tradition vs globalism, treading lightly, citizens of nowhere?
People who like to dress for dinner. Whereas I tend to travel in a smart pair of jeans (jeans are heavy and bulky to pack) and take a couple of polo shirts.
I did put luggage in the hold for my SEA trip last year, but then I was given it free by the airlines.
I find it easier to have a fully stocked residence in each country. Means I can travel light.
(count the months before it effectively becomes Chinese Indian Ocean Territory)
“Base is a 'unique asset' for Britain, senior officer says We're now hearing from senior British Army officer Gen James Hockenhull. He says that the base's location provides "immense global reach", making it a "unique asset" for British security. "I welcome the long-term certainty that this treaty brings. It will help the British Armed Forces in our efforts to support stability abroad and security at home," Hockenhull says.
What’s the actual detail on that which would require actual ongoing UK ownership, and not that ownership passed on to India and USA, who sat at the table with us negotiating this?
Is the bottom line of UK continuing Garcia on a lease, and not someone else holding same lease, continued UK interoperability with US weapons and nuclear weapons?
General Hockenhull comments in the press conference provided credence for Starmer
However, if Starmer misled about the costs then that is riduculous and will cause an issue for him
This from Sky news
Confusion over true cost of Chagos deal
Earlier today, Sir Keir Starmer said the net cost of the Chagos deal was £3.4bn, with an average cost of £101m a year over the 99-year deal.
There was confusion at the time as to why the total cost was not £10bn.
And things were only made murkier when the full agreement between the UK and Mauritius was published.
It revealed the UK will pay:
£165m a year for the first three years; £120m for years four to 13; £120m plus inflation for every year after to year 99; £40m as a one-off to a fund for Chagossians; £45m a year for 25 years for Mauritian development. If inflation were to remain zero for the next century, this would work out to around £10bn over 99 years.
Assuming an average of 2% inflation, Sky News analysis suggests costs could rise as high as £30bn.
However, the government is insisting the cost is still just £3.4bn as the long term financing is accounted with a social time preference rate.
This is "standard" practice and adjusts the value of high spends over the long term as part of cost-benefit analysis and is Treasury sanctioned, the government claims.
It's a murky area and doesn't help with allegations the government is not being entirely transparent with this issue.
Seems like a bargain compared to brexit.
All this concern about £££ from Leavers suddenly. Go figure.
Its not the £££ that worry me more has Starmer misled the public on the costs ?
There is a vast difference between the £3.5 billion he quoted and £30 billion now suggested
Let's see where it settles. My money's on Starmer over X.
Sky is not x by the way and they are reporting the discrepancies in the figures
I really hope Starmer has not misled us over the cost
Meanwhile, in "anyone got a DLR train, we've got someone to throw under it" news,
Conspiracist take, but - the fact these stories are appearing is in itself a sign of McSweeney's weakening position. Someone is, quite reasonably, trying to fuck him.
Tice confirms Reform will 'rip up the deal'. Which will mean we would lose the right to use the base per the (by then legally binding) agreement and will have to take it/hold it by force. The great Indian Ocean war of 2029
We wouldn't have to do anything of the sort. The Americans would have to decide how much they wanted it and pay the bills.
If we wanted to continue using it we would. The deal includes payments to Mauritius for 'development' from us - no payment, no base. If America takes over they'll kick our arses straight off for making them have to do something
And?
And therefore Tices bloviating was pointless.
How was it pointless? Clearly we don't need a base on Diego Garcia - if we needed it we would not be proposing to give it away and rent it back. You don't do that with something you need. What capability do we have there that we need to operate?
It is an American base, and it should be paid for by America. It would be a grossly irresponsible, wasteful and unpatriotic Government that didn't rip up the deal. Kemi will propose something similar, and it's a shame for her that Tice has beaten her to it.
I think we can agree the Chagossians have been treated very shabbily throughout. However any arrangement that doesn't result in the base being closed and the islands handed back in their entirety is disingenuous if we claim to support the Chagossians. So it is all about the base. It literally, and rather sadly, has nothing to do with the Chagossians.
So it boils entirely down to money. Do the legal certainty and the conditions in the enforceable treaty justify the payments contracted, which are in line with other military bases in Djibouti etc? At a certain point the amount becomes too much. Where you draw the line is a judgement.
Yes, the true purity route of handback and disengage wasn't deemed feasible. So it's about compliance and money and geopolitics with the US.
Meanwhile, in "anyone got a DLR train, we've got someone to throw under it" news,
Conspiracist take, but - the fact these stories are appearing is in itself a sign of McSweeney's weakening position. Someone is, quite reasonably, trying to fuck him.
Tice confirms Reform will 'rip up the deal'. Which will mean we would lose the right to use the base per the (by then legally binding) agreement and will have to take it/hold it by force. The great Indian Ocean war of 2029
We wouldn't have to do anything of the sort. The Americans would have to decide how much they wanted it and pay the bills.
If we wanted to continue using it we would. The deal includes payments to Mauritius for 'development' from us - no payment, no base. If America takes over they'll kick our arses straight off for making them have to do something
And?
And therefore Tices bloviating was pointless.
How was it pointless? Clearly we don't need a base on Diego Garcia - if we needed it we would not be proposing to give it away and rent it back. You don't do that with something you need. What capability do we have there that we need to operate?
It is an American base, and it should be paid for by America. It would be a grossly irresponsible, wasteful and unpatriotic Government that didn't rip up the deal. Kemi will propose something similar, and it's a shame for her that Tice has beaten her to it.
It broadly will be paid for by America. But yes, it's an opaque quid, pro a quo with a clear £££ price label on it
Could all those Starmer supporters who insisted that the US alliance was dead, and that we needed to throw our lot in with the EU defence fund and defend Canada against Trump, please explain the wisdom of paying billions of pounds a year renting a base so the Americans don't have to put their hand in their pocket?
Tice confirms Reform will 'rip up the deal'. Which will mean we would lose the right to use the base per the (by then legally binding) agreement and will have to take it/hold it by force. The great Indian Ocean war of 2029
We wouldn't have to do anything of the sort. The Americans would have to decide how much they wanted it and pay the bills.
If we wanted to continue using it we would. The deal includes payments to Mauritius for 'development' from us - no payment, no base. If America takes over they'll kick our arses straight off for making them have to do something
And?
And therefore Tices bloviating was pointless.
How was it pointless? Clearly we don't need a base on Diego Garcia - if we needed it we would not be proposing to give it away and rent it back. You don't do that with something you need. What capability do we have there that we need to operate?
It is an American base, and it should be paid for by America. It would be a grossly irresponsible, wasteful and unpatriotic Government that didn't rip up the deal. Kemi will propose something similar, and it's a shame for her that Tice has beaten her to it.
It broadly will be paid for by America. But yes, it's an opaque quid, pro a quo with a clear £££ price label on it
No it won't, that's utter bollocks.
It will be paid for by them when the deal is pulped, as it will be.
(count the months before it effectively becomes Chinese Indian Ocean Territory)
“Base is a 'unique asset' for Britain, senior officer says We're now hearing from senior British Army officer Gen James Hockenhull. He says that the base's location provides "immense global reach", making it a "unique asset" for British security. "I welcome the long-term certainty that this treaty brings. It will help the British Armed Forces in our efforts to support stability abroad and security at home," Hockenhull says.
What’s the actual detail on that which would require actual ongoing UK ownership, and not that ownership passed on to India and USA, who sat at the table with us negotiating this?
Is the bottom line of UK continuing Garcia on a lease, and not someone else holding same lease, continued UK interoperability with US weapons and nuclear weapons?
General Hockenhull comments in the press conference provided credence for Starmer
However, if Starmer misled about the costs then that is riduculous and will cause an issue for him
This from Sky news
Confusion over true cost of Chagos deal
Earlier today, Sir Keir Starmer said the net cost of the Chagos deal was £3.4bn, with an average cost of £101m a year over the 99-year deal.
There was confusion at the time as to why the total cost was not £10bn.
And things were only made murkier when the full agreement between the UK and Mauritius was published.
It revealed the UK will pay:
£165m a year for the first three years; £120m for years four to 13; £120m plus inflation for every year after to year 99; £40m as a one-off to a fund for Chagossians; £45m a year for 25 years for Mauritian development. If inflation were to remain zero for the next century, this would work out to around £10bn over 99 years.
Assuming an average of 2% inflation, Sky News analysis suggests costs could rise as high as £30bn.
However, the government is insisting the cost is still just £3.4bn as the long term financing is accounted with a social time preference rate.
This is "standard" practice and adjusts the value of high spends over the long term as part of cost-benefit analysis and is Treasury sanctioned, the government claims.
It's a murky area and doesn't help with allegations the government is not being entirely transparent with this issue.
Seems like a bargain compared to brexit.
All this concern about £££ from Leavers suddenly. Go figure.
The Chagos deal has to be voted on so the costs will have to be shown clearly. It’s somewhat confusing at the moment as to how the 3.4 billion pound figure was reached .
I hope Starmer has not misled the public at the conference as that would be unforgiveable
He clearly said the annual cost would be no more than an aircraft carrier at sea for a year excluding the planes, and repeated this claim
He surely couldn’t be that stupid . I’ve looked at the figures again and again and just can’t work out how they got to 3.4 billion pounds .
Tice confirms Reform will 'rip up the deal'. Which will mean we would lose the right to use the base per the (by then legally binding) agreement and will have to take it/hold it by force. The great Indian Ocean war of 2029
We wouldn't have to do anything of the sort. The Americans would have to decide how much they wanted it and pay the bills.
If we wanted to continue using it we would. The deal includes payments to Mauritius for 'development' from us - no payment, no base. If America takes over they'll kick our arses straight off for making them have to do something
And?
And therefore Tices bloviating was pointless.
How was it pointless? Clearly we don't need a base on Diego Garcia - if we needed it we would not be proposing to give it away and rent it back. You don't do that with something you need. What capability do we have there that we need to operate?
It is an American base, and it should be paid for by America. It would be a grossly irresponsible, wasteful and unpatriotic Government that didn't rip up the deal. Kemi will propose something similar, and it's a shame for her that Tice has beaten her to it.
If we don't need the base then we walk away, if we need it we are stuck with the deal once it goes into effect or we have to take it by force after reneging (or let the yanks). Talk of 'ripping up the deal' is pointless, once it's happened it becomes a fact. I can't rip up my mortgage halfway because the deal was shit, stop paying and keep my house
Edit - if your meaning is that we should rip up the deal later and walk away leaving the US to deal with Mauritius then sure, we could, but it would make the rest of the world wary of dealing with us
(count the months before it effectively becomes Chinese Indian Ocean Territory)
“Base is a 'unique asset' for Britain, senior officer says We're now hearing from senior British Army officer Gen James Hockenhull. He says that the base's location provides "immense global reach", making it a "unique asset" for British security. "I welcome the long-term certainty that this treaty brings. It will help the British Armed Forces in our efforts to support stability abroad and security at home," Hockenhull says.
What’s the actual detail on that which would require actual ongoing UK ownership, and not that ownership passed on to India and USA, who sat at the table with us negotiating this?
Is the bottom line of UK continuing Garcia on a lease, and not someone else holding same lease, continued UK interoperability with US weapons and nuclear weapons?
General Hockenhull comments in the press conference provided credence for Starmer
However, if Starmer misled about the costs then that is riduculous and will cause an issue for him
This from Sky news
Confusion over true cost of Chagos deal
Earlier today, Sir Keir Starmer said the net cost of the Chagos deal was £3.4bn, with an average cost of £101m a year over the 99-year deal.
There was confusion at the time as to why the total cost was not £10bn.
And things were only made murkier when the full agreement between the UK and Mauritius was published.
It revealed the UK will pay:
£165m a year for the first three years; £120m for years four to 13; £120m plus inflation for every year after to year 99; £40m as a one-off to a fund for Chagossians; £45m a year for 25 years for Mauritian development. If inflation were to remain zero for the next century, this would work out to around £10bn over 99 years.
Assuming an average of 2% inflation, Sky News analysis suggests costs could rise as high as £30bn.
However, the government is insisting the cost is still just £3.4bn as the long term financing is accounted with a social time preference rate.
This is "standard" practice and adjusts the value of high spends over the long term as part of cost-benefit analysis and is Treasury sanctioned, the government claims.
It's a murky area and doesn't help with allegations the government is not being entirely transparent with this issue.
Tice confirms Reform will 'rip up the deal'. Which will mean we would lose the right to use the base per the (by then legally binding) agreement and will have to take it/hold it by force. The great Indian Ocean war of 2029
We wouldn't have to do anything of the sort. The Americans would have to decide how much they wanted it and pay the bills.
If we wanted to continue using it we would. The deal includes payments to Mauritius for 'development' from us - no payment, no base. If America takes over they'll kick our arses straight off for making them have to do something
And?
And therefore Tices bloviating was pointless.
How was it pointless? Clearly we don't need a base on Diego Garcia - if we needed it we would not be proposing to give it away and rent it back. You don't do that with something you need. What capability do we have there that we need to operate?
It is an American base, and it should be paid for by America. It would be a grossly irresponsible, wasteful and unpatriotic Government that didn't rip up the deal. Kemi will propose something similar, and it's a shame for her that Tice has beaten her to it.
If we don't need the base then we walk away, if we need it we are stuck with the deal once it goes into effect or we have to take it by force after reneging (or let the yanks). Talk of 'ripping up the deal' is pointless, once it's happened it becomes a fact. I can't rip up my mortgage halfway because the deal was shit, stop paying and keep my house
No UK Government can bind its successor. We can and will repudiate the deal, and the next Government has clearly signalled in advance of its signing that it will do so.
As for the base, you have failed to enumerate a single capability we have there that we need. We don't need it. I don't want us to 'keep the house'. It was presumably quite useful for the US to have a base where stuff wasn't within the reach of prying US eyes, which is why the previous arrangement worked - they must now make the same arrangement with Mauritius if they wish to continue it. It has nothing to do with us, not should it.
The Chagos deal has to be voted on so the costs will have to be shown clearly. It’s somewhat confusing at the moment as to how the 3.4 billion pound figure was reached .
I hope Starmer has not misled the public at the conference as that would be unforgiveable
He clearly said the annual cost would be no more than an aircraft carrier at sea for a year excluding the planes, and repeated this claim
He surely couldn’t be that stupid . I’ve looked at the figures again and again and just can’t work out how they got to 3.4 billion pounds .
What is the trend growth rate of the UK economy ?
But years 14 to 99 are being index linked to inflation .
Tice confirms Reform will 'rip up the deal'. Which will mean we would lose the right to use the base per the (by then legally binding) agreement and will have to take it/hold it by force. The great Indian Ocean war of 2029
We wouldn't have to do anything of the sort. The Americans would have to decide how much they wanted it and pay the bills.
If we wanted to continue using it we would. The deal includes payments to Mauritius for 'development' from us - no payment, no base. If America takes over they'll kick our arses straight off for making them have to do something
And?
So which way are you leaning Lucky?
“If ownership of this base is in Britain's vital strategic interests, then we must ignore the 'ruling' and retain sovereignty as the only guarantee.”
Or
“If the base is no longer an important strategic possession for Britain, we should let those to whom it is a vital strategic possession, the USA, take on the base and its financial liabilities - because anything else at this time is recklessly unnecessary and unaffordable spending, and given that it will probably come out of our defence budget, will make British people less secure in sum.”
Tice confirms Reform will 'rip up the deal'. Which will mean we would lose the right to use the base per the (by then legally binding) agreement and will have to take it/hold it by force. The great Indian Ocean war of 2029
We wouldn't have to do anything of the sort. The Americans would have to decide how much they wanted it and pay the bills.
If we wanted to continue using it we would. The deal includes payments to Mauritius for 'development' from us - no payment, no base. If America takes over they'll kick our arses straight off for making them have to do something
And?
And therefore Tices bloviating was pointless.
How was it pointless? Clearly we don't need a base on Diego Garcia - if we needed it we would not be proposing to give it away and rent it back. You don't do that with something you need. What capability do we have there that we need to operate?
It is an American base, and it should be paid for by America. It would be a grossly irresponsible, wasteful and unpatriotic Government that didn't rip up the deal. Kemi will propose something similar, and it's a shame for her that Tice has beaten her to it.
If we don't need the base then we walk away, if we need it we are stuck with the deal once it goes into effect or we have to take it by force after reneging (or let the yanks). Talk of 'ripping up the deal' is pointless, once it's happened it becomes a fact. I can't rip up my mortgage halfway because the deal was shit, stop paying and keep my house
No UK Government can bind its successor. We can and will repudiate the deal, and the next Government has clearly signalled in advance of its signing that it will do so.
As for the base, you have failed to enumerate a single capability we have there that we need. We don't need it. I don't want us to 'keep the house'. It was presumably quite useful for the US to have a base where stuff wasn't within the reach of prying US eyes, which is why the previous arrangement worked - they must now make the same arrangement with Mauritius if they wish to continue it. It has nothing to do with us, not should it.
Tice confirms Reform will 'rip up the deal'. Which will mean we would lose the right to use the base per the (by then legally binding) agreement and will have to take it/hold it by force. The great Indian Ocean war of 2029
We wouldn't have to do anything of the sort. The Americans would have to decide how much they wanted it and pay the bills.
If we wanted to continue using it we would. The deal includes payments to Mauritius for 'development' from us - no payment, no base. If America takes over they'll kick our arses straight off for making them have to do something
And?
So which way are you leaning Lucky?
“If ownership of this base is in Britain's vital strategic interests, then we must ignore the 'ruling' and retain sovereignty as the only guarantee.”
Or
“If the base is no longer an important strategic possession for Britain, we should let those to whom it is a vital strategic possession, the USA, take on the base and its financial liabilities - because anything else at this time is recklessly unnecessary and unaffordable spending, and given that it will probably come out of our defence budget, will make British people less secure in sum.”
I would have kept the present arrangement in place and not negotiated on the sovereignty of the islands.
However, barring very unusual events, we will not have that option. So all we can do is cut our losses and stop sending the cheques.
The Chagos deal has to be voted on so the costs will have to be shown clearly. It’s somewhat confusing at the moment as to how the 3.4 billion pound figure was reached .
I hope Starmer has not misled the public at the conference as that would be unforgiveable
He clearly said the annual cost would be no more than an aircraft carrier at sea for a year excluding the planes, and repeated this claim
He surely couldn’t be that stupid . I’ve looked at the figures again and again and just can’t work out how they got to 3.4 billion pounds .
What is the trend growth rate of the UK economy ?
But years 14 to 99 are being index linked to inflation .
I'm asking about the growth rate, allowing for inflation.
Tice confirms Reform will 'rip up the deal'. Which will mean we would lose the right to use the base per the (by then legally binding) agreement and will have to take it/hold it by force. The great Indian Ocean war of 2029
We wouldn't have to do anything of the sort. The Americans would have to decide how much they wanted it and pay the bills.
If we wanted to continue using it we would. The deal includes payments to Mauritius for 'development' from us - no payment, no base. If America takes over they'll kick our arses straight off for making them have to do something
And?
And therefore Tices bloviating was pointless.
How was it pointless? Clearly we don't need a base on Diego Garcia - if we needed it we would not be proposing to give it away and rent it back. You don't do that with something you need. What capability do we have there that we need to operate?
It is an American base, and it should be paid for by America. It would be a grossly irresponsible, wasteful and unpatriotic Government that didn't rip up the deal. Kemi will propose something similar, and it's a shame for her that Tice has beaten her to it.
If we don't need the base then we walk away, if we need it we are stuck with the deal once it goes into effect or we have to take it by force after reneging (or let the yanks). Talk of 'ripping up the deal' is pointless, once it's happened it becomes a fact. I can't rip up my mortgage halfway because the deal was shit, stop paying and keep my house
No UK Government can bind its successor. We can and will repudiate the deal, and the next Government has clearly signalled in advance of its signing that it will do so.
As for the base, you have failed to enumerate a single capability we have there that we need. We don't need it. I don't want us to 'keep the house'. It was presumably quite useful for the US to have a base where stuff wasn't within the reach of prying US eyes, which is why the previous arrangement worked - they must now make the same arrangement with Mauritius if they wish to continue it. It has nothing to do with us, not should it.
What is this future government of which you speak?
Why the Lib Dem majority government of 2029-2034, of course.
Tice confirms Reform will 'rip up the deal'. Which will mean we would lose the right to use the base per the (by then legally binding) agreement and will have to take it/hold it by force. The great Indian Ocean war of 2029
We wouldn't have to do anything of the sort. The Americans would have to decide how much they wanted it and pay the bills.
If we wanted to continue using it we would. The deal includes payments to Mauritius for 'development' from us - no payment, no base. If America takes over they'll kick our arses straight off for making them have to do something
And?
And therefore Tices bloviating was pointless.
How was it pointless? Clearly we don't need a base on Diego Garcia - if we needed it we would not be proposing to give it away and rent it back. You don't do that with something you need. What capability do we have there that we need to operate?
It is an American base, and it should be paid for by America. It would be a grossly irresponsible, wasteful and unpatriotic Government that didn't rip up the deal. Kemi will propose something similar, and it's a shame for her that Tice has beaten her to it.
It broadly will be paid for by America. But yes, it's an opaque quid, pro a quo with a clear £££ price label on it
I've not seen anything suggesting the US will pay Mauritius a penny.
Tice confirms Reform will 'rip up the deal'. Which will mean we would lose the right to use the base per the (by then legally binding) agreement and will have to take it/hold it by force. The great Indian Ocean war of 2029
We wouldn't have to do anything of the sort. The Americans would have to decide how much they wanted it and pay the bills.
If we wanted to continue using it we would. The deal includes payments to Mauritius for 'development' from us - no payment, no base. If America takes over they'll kick our arses straight off for making them have to do something
And?
And therefore Tices bloviating was pointless.
How was it pointless? Clearly we don't need a base on Diego Garcia - if we needed it we would not be proposing to give it away and rent it back. You don't do that with something you need. What capability do we have there that we need to operate?
It is an American base, and it should be paid for by America. It would be a grossly irresponsible, wasteful and unpatriotic Government that didn't rip up the deal. Kemi will propose something similar, and it's a shame for her that Tice has beaten her to it.
If we don't need the base then we walk away, if we need it we are stuck with the deal once it goes into effect or we have to take it by force after reneging (or let the yanks). Talk of 'ripping up the deal' is pointless, once it's happened it becomes a fact. I can't rip up my mortgage halfway because the deal was shit, stop paying and keep my house
No UK Government can bind its successor. We can and will repudiate the deal, and the next Government has clearly signalled in advance of its signing that it will do so.
As for the base, you have failed to enumerate a single capability we have there that we need. We don't need it. I don't want us to 'keep the house'. It was presumably quite useful for the US to have a base where stuff wasn't within the reach of prying US eyes, which is why the previous arrangement worked - they must now make the same arrangement with Mauritius if they wish to continue it. It has nothing to do with us, not should it.
Tice confirms Reform will 'rip up the deal'. Which will mean we would lose the right to use the base per the (by then legally binding) agreement and will have to take it/hold it by force. The great Indian Ocean war of 2029
We wouldn't have to do anything of the sort. The Americans would have to decide how much they wanted it and pay the bills.
If we wanted to continue using it we would. The deal includes payments to Mauritius for 'development' from us - no payment, no base. If America takes over they'll kick our arses straight off for making them have to do something
And?
And therefore Tices bloviating was pointless.
How was it pointless? Clearly we don't need a base on Diego Garcia - if we needed it we would not be proposing to give it away and rent it back. You don't do that with something you need. What capability do we have there that we need to operate?
It is an American base, and it should be paid for by America. It would be a grossly irresponsible, wasteful and unpatriotic Government that didn't rip up the deal. Kemi will propose something similar, and it's a shame for her that Tice has beaten her to it.
If we don't need the base then we walk away, if we need it we are stuck with the deal once it goes into effect or we have to take it by force after reneging (or let the yanks). Talk of 'ripping up the deal' is pointless, once it's happened it becomes a fact. I can't rip up my mortgage halfway because the deal was shit, stop paying and keep my house
No UK Government can bind its successor. We can and will repudiate the deal, and the next Government has clearly signalled in advance of its signing that it will do so.
As for the base, you have failed to enumerate a single capability we have there that we need. We don't need it. I don't want us to 'keep the house'. It was presumably quite useful for the US to have a base where stuff wasn't within the reach of prying US eyes, which is why the previous arrangement worked - they must now make the same arrangement with Mauritius if they wish to continue it. It has nothing to do with us, not should it.
What is this next government of which you speak?
That's the point, isn't it ? The deal is effectively a punt on the US remaining a liberal democracy. Or something approximating one.
Could all those Starmer supporters who insisted that the US alliance was dead, and that we needed to throw our lot in with the EU defence fund and defend Canada against Trump, please explain the wisdom of paying billions of pounds a year renting a base so the Americans don't have to put their hand in their pocket?
We wouldn't save any money because we get a discount on Trident for letting them rent the base.
Tice confirms Reform will 'rip up the deal'. Which will mean we would lose the right to use the base per the (by then legally binding) agreement and will have to take it/hold it by force. The great Indian Ocean war of 2029
We wouldn't have to do anything of the sort. The Americans would have to decide how much they wanted it and pay the bills.
If we wanted to continue using it we would. The deal includes payments to Mauritius for 'development' from us - no payment, no base. If America takes over they'll kick our arses straight off for making them have to do something
And?
And therefore Tices bloviating was pointless.
How was it pointless? Clearly we don't need a base on Diego Garcia - if we needed it we would not be proposing to give it away and rent it back. You don't do that with something you need. What capability do we have there that we need to operate?
It is an American base, and it should be paid for by America. It would be a grossly irresponsible, wasteful and unpatriotic Government that didn't rip up the deal. Kemi will propose something similar, and it's a shame for her that Tice has beaten her to it.
If we don't need the base then we walk away, if we need it we are stuck with the deal once it goes into effect or we have to take it by force after reneging (or let the yanks). Talk of 'ripping up the deal' is pointless, once it's happened it becomes a fact. I can't rip up my mortgage halfway because the deal was shit, stop paying and keep my house
No UK Government can bind its successor. We can and will repudiate the deal, and the next Government has clearly signalled in advance of its signing that it will do so.
As for the base, you have failed to enumerate a single capability we have there that we need. We don't need it. I don't want us to 'keep the house'. It was presumably quite useful for the US to have a base where stuff wasn't within the reach of prying US eyes, which is why the previous arrangement worked - they must now make the same arrangement with Mauritius if they wish to continue it. It has nothing to do with us, not should it.
What is this next government of which you speak?
I believe Reform will lead the next Government. Perhaps with the Tories, perhaps without.
Tice confirms Reform will 'rip up the deal'. Which will mean we would lose the right to use the base per the (by then legally binding) agreement and will have to take it/hold it by force. The great Indian Ocean war of 2029
We wouldn't have to do anything of the sort. The Americans would have to decide how much they wanted it and pay the bills.
If we wanted to continue using it we would. The deal includes payments to Mauritius for 'development' from us - no payment, no base. If America takes over they'll kick our arses straight off for making them have to do something
And?
And therefore Tices bloviating was pointless.
How was it pointless? Clearly we don't need a base on Diego Garcia - if we needed it we would not be proposing to give it away and rent it back. You don't do that with something you need. What capability do we have there that we need to operate?
It is an American base, and it should be paid for by America. It would be a grossly irresponsible, wasteful and unpatriotic Government that didn't rip up the deal. Kemi will propose something similar, and it's a shame for her that Tice has beaten her to it.
If we don't need the base then we walk away, if we need it we are stuck with the deal once it goes into effect or we have to take it by force after reneging (or let the yanks). Talk of 'ripping up the deal' is pointless, once it's happened it becomes a fact. I can't rip up my mortgage halfway because the deal was shit, stop paying and keep my house
No UK Government can bind its successor. We can and will repudiate the deal, and the next Government has clearly signalled in advance of its signing that it will do so.
As for the base, you have failed to enumerate a single capability we have there that we need. We don't need it. I don't want us to 'keep the house'. It was presumably quite useful for the US to have a base where stuff wasn't within the reach of prying US eyes, which is why the previous arrangement worked - they must now make the same arrangement with Mauritius if they wish to continue it. It has nothing to do with us, not should it.
I assume the key advantage the government sees is control over the electromagnetic spectrum/satellite stuff. Which we are also now sharing with the Mauritian Empire.
Could all those Starmer supporters who insisted that the US alliance was dead, and that we needed to throw our lot in with the EU defence fund and defend Canada against Trump, please explain the wisdom of paying billions of pounds a year renting a base so the Americans don't have to put their hand in their pocket?
We wouldn't save any money because we get a discount on Trident for letting them rent the base.
Yes financially it’s all a wash. But it leaves us just as dependent on the crazies across the Atlantic as ever.
Tice confirms Reform will 'rip up the deal'. Which will mean we would lose the right to use the base per the (by then legally binding) agreement and will have to take it/hold it by force. The great Indian Ocean war of 2029
We wouldn't have to do anything of the sort. The Americans would have to decide how much they wanted it and pay the bills.
If we wanted to continue using it we would. The deal includes payments to Mauritius for 'development' from us - no payment, no base. If America takes over they'll kick our arses straight off for making them have to do something
And?
And therefore Tices bloviating was pointless.
How was it pointless? Clearly we don't need a base on Diego Garcia - if we needed it we would not be proposing to give it away and rent it back. You don't do that with something you need. What capability do we have there that we need to operate?
It is an American base, and it should be paid for by America. It would be a grossly irresponsible, wasteful and unpatriotic Government that didn't rip up the deal. Kemi will propose something similar, and it's a shame for her that Tice has beaten her to it.
If we don't need the base then we walk away, if we need it we are stuck with the deal once it goes into effect or we have to take it by force after reneging (or let the yanks). Talk of 'ripping up the deal' is pointless, once it's happened it becomes a fact. I can't rip up my mortgage halfway because the deal was shit, stop paying and keep my house
No UK Government can bind its successor. We can and will repudiate the deal, and the next Government has clearly signalled in advance of its signing that it will do so.
As for the base, you have failed to enumerate a single capability we have there that we need. We don't need it. I don't want us to 'keep the house'. It was presumably quite useful for the US to have a base where stuff wasn't within the reach of prying US eyes, which is why the previous arrangement worked - they must now make the same arrangement with Mauritius if they wish to continue it. It has nothing to do with us, not should it.
I assume the key advantage the government sees is control over the electromagnetic spectrum/satellite stuff. Which we are also now sharing with the Mauritian Empire.
I don't think Starmer had a clue what an electromagnetic spectrum was before someone told him it might be an excuse for this daft giveaway. And even then it disintegrated quicker than a leper in a wind tunnel.
Tice confirms Reform will 'rip up the deal'. Which will mean we would lose the right to use the base per the (by then legally binding) agreement and will have to take it/hold it by force. The great Indian Ocean war of 2029
We wouldn't have to do anything of the sort. The Americans would have to decide how much they wanted it and pay the bills.
If we wanted to continue using it we would. The deal includes payments to Mauritius for 'development' from us - no payment, no base. If America takes over they'll kick our arses straight off for making them have to do something
And?
And therefore Tices bloviating was pointless.
How was it pointless? Clearly we don't need a base on Diego Garcia - if we needed it we would not be proposing to give it away and rent it back. You don't do that with something you need. What capability do we have there that we need to operate?
It is an American base, and it should be paid for by America. It would be a grossly irresponsible, wasteful and unpatriotic Government that didn't rip up the deal. Kemi will propose something similar, and it's a shame for her that Tice has beaten her to it.
It broadly will be paid for by America. But yes, it's an opaque quid, pro a quo with a clear £££ price label on it
I've not seen anything suggesting the US will pay Mauritius a penny.
No. As @kinabalu says this deal is about money, governance and the UK's place in US geopolitics. The last part, which is entirely why the UK government is doing this, isn't completely transactional.
X Rt. Hon Ben Wallace@BenWallace70 Italy now talking about going to 3.5% - 5% GDP on defence spending. This follows Germany, Poland and a growing number. We on the other hand are handing out £££ from the defence budget to the Chagos Islands. That’ll deter our enemies….NOT! https://x.com/BenWallace70/status/1925617491889250637
Tice confirms Reform will 'rip up the deal'. Which will mean we would lose the right to use the base per the (by then legally binding) agreement and will have to take it/hold it by force. The great Indian Ocean war of 2029
We wouldn't have to do anything of the sort. The Americans would have to decide how much they wanted it and pay the bills.
If we wanted to continue using it we would. The deal includes payments to Mauritius for 'development' from us - no payment, no base. If America takes over they'll kick our arses straight off for making them have to do something
And?
And therefore Tices bloviating was pointless.
How was it pointless? Clearly we don't need a base on Diego Garcia - if we needed it we would not be proposing to give it away and rent it back. You don't do that with something you need. What capability do we have there that we need to operate?
It is an American base, and it should be paid for by America. It would be a grossly irresponsible, wasteful and unpatriotic Government that didn't rip up the deal. Kemi will propose something similar, and it's a shame for her that Tice has beaten her to it.
If we don't need the base then we walk away, if we need it we are stuck with the deal once it goes into effect or we have to take it by force after reneging (or let the yanks). Talk of 'ripping up the deal' is pointless, once it's happened it becomes a fact. I can't rip up my mortgage halfway because the deal was shit, stop paying and keep my house
No UK Government can bind its successor. We can and will repudiate the deal, and the next Government has clearly signalled in advance of its signing that it will do so.
As for the base, you have failed to enumerate a single capability we have there that we need. We don't need it. I don't want us to 'keep the house'. It was presumably quite useful for the US to have a base where stuff wasn't within the reach of prying US eyes, which is why the previous arrangement worked - they must now make the same arrangement with Mauritius if they wish to continue it. It has nothing to do with us, not should it.
What is this next government of which you speak?
Reform. God willing. It is our only hope now
I ADORE the fact people are so snowflakey on here they flag comments that merely suggest a Reform government
Tice confirms Reform will 'rip up the deal'. Which will mean we would lose the right to use the base per the (by then legally binding) agreement and will have to take it/hold it by force. The great Indian Ocean war of 2029
We wouldn't have to do anything of the sort. The Americans would have to decide how much they wanted it and pay the bills.
If we wanted to continue using it we would. The deal includes payments to Mauritius for 'development' from us - no payment, no base. If America takes over they'll kick our arses straight off for making them have to do something
And?
And therefore Tices bloviating was pointless.
How was it pointless? Clearly we don't need a base on Diego Garcia - if we needed it we would not be proposing to give it away and rent it back. You don't do that with something you need. What capability do we have there that we need to operate?
It is an American base, and it should be paid for by America. It would be a grossly irresponsible, wasteful and unpatriotic Government that didn't rip up the deal. Kemi will propose something similar, and it's a shame for her that Tice has beaten her to it.
It broadly will be paid for by America. But yes, it's an opaque quid, pro a quo with a clear £££ price label on it
I've not seen anything suggesting the US will pay Mauritius a penny.
No. As @kinabalu says this deal is about money, governance and the UK's place in US geopolitics. The last part, which is entirely why the UK government is doing this, isn't completely transactional.
No - that's why they're paying for it. It's not why Starmer is doing it. See William's link - there is a very long history with Mauritius.
I believe its just Starmer, Powell, Hermer and cronies. And he will absolutely sacrifice the Labour Party's shot at governing for more than a term for this.
Tice confirms Reform will 'rip up the deal'. Which will mean we would lose the right to use the base per the (by then legally binding) agreement and will have to take it/hold it by force. The great Indian Ocean war of 2029
We wouldn't have to do anything of the sort. The Americans would have to decide how much they wanted it and pay the bills.
If we wanted to continue using it we would. The deal includes payments to Mauritius for 'development' from us - no payment, no base. If America takes over they'll kick our arses straight off for making them have to do something
And?
And therefore Tices bloviating was pointless.
How was it pointless? Clearly we don't need a base on Diego Garcia - if we needed it we would not be proposing to give it away and rent it back. You don't do that with something you need. What capability do we have there that we need to operate?
It is an American base, and it should be paid for by America. It would be a grossly irresponsible, wasteful and unpatriotic Government that didn't rip up the deal. Kemi will propose something similar, and it's a shame for her that Tice has beaten her to it.
If we don't need the base then we walk away, if we need it we are stuck with the deal once it goes into effect or we have to take it by force after reneging (or let the yanks). Talk of 'ripping up the deal' is pointless, once it's happened it becomes a fact. I can't rip up my mortgage halfway because the deal was shit, stop paying and keep my house
No UK Government can bind its successor. We can and will repudiate the deal, and the next Government has clearly signalled in advance of its signing that it will do so.
As for the base, you have failed to enumerate a single capability we have there that we need. We don't need it. I don't want us to 'keep the house'. It was presumably quite useful for the US to have a base where stuff wasn't within the reach of prying US eyes, which is why the previous arrangement worked - they must now make the same arrangement with Mauritius if they wish to continue it. It has nothing to do with us, not should it.
What is this next government of which you speak?
I believe Reform will lead the next Government. Perhaps with the Tories, perhaps without.
I preferred your original pre-edit post “by the grace of God the magnificent and all powerful it must be our brother Farage, may the peace be upon him. For he is our only hope, alhamdlilah”. More poetic.
X Rt. Hon Ben Wallace@BenWallace70 Italy now talking about going to 3.5% - 5% GDP on defence spending. This follows Germany, Poland and a growing number. We on the other hand are handing out £££ from the defence budget to the Chagos Islands. That’ll deter our enemies….NOT! https://x.com/BenWallace70/status/1925617491889250637
X Andrew Neil@afneil 7m PM struggles with concept of net present value (NPV). Seems to think it’s net cost. It isn’t. Strip away the technical accounting and the cost of ‘giving away’ the Chagos Islands is £10 billion for the first 99 years, much of it front-loaded I understand. And coming from the defence budget. https://x.com/afneil/status/1925625592956817455
Tice confirms Reform will 'rip up the deal'. Which will mean we would lose the right to use the base per the (by then legally binding) agreement and will have to take it/hold it by force. The great Indian Ocean war of 2029
We wouldn't have to do anything of the sort. The Americans would have to decide how much they wanted it and pay the bills.
If we wanted to continue using it we would. The deal includes payments to Mauritius for 'development' from us - no payment, no base. If America takes over they'll kick our arses straight off for making them have to do something
And?
And therefore Tices bloviating was pointless.
How was it pointless? Clearly we don't need a base on Diego Garcia - if we needed it we would not be proposing to give it away and rent it back. You don't do that with something you need. What capability do we have there that we need to operate?
It is an American base, and it should be paid for by America. It would be a grossly irresponsible, wasteful and unpatriotic Government that didn't rip up the deal. Kemi will propose something similar, and it's a shame for her that Tice has beaten her to it.
It broadly will be paid for by America. But yes, it's an opaque quid, pro a quo with a clear £££ price label on it
I've not seen anything suggesting the US will pay Mauritius a penny.
No. As @kinabalu says this deal is about money, governance and the UK's place in US geopolitics. The last part, which is entirely why the UK government is doing this, isn't completely transactional.
No - that's why they're paying for it. It's not why Starmer is doing it. See William's link - there is a very long history with Mauritius.
I believe its just Starmer, Powell, Hermer and cronies. And he will absolutely sacrifice the Labour Party's shot at governing for more than a term for this.
Labour will be judged on immigration , public services especially the NHS and growth at the next election not this Chagos deal .
Could all those Starmer supporters who insisted that the US alliance was dead, and that we needed to throw our lot in with the EU defence fund and defend Canada against Trump, please explain the wisdom of paying billions of pounds a year renting a base so the Americans don't have to put their hand in their pocket?
We wouldn't save any money because we get a discount on Trident for letting them rent the base.
Bollocks. There is no 'market price' for a useless non-working nuclear deterrent to even apply a 'discount' to because nobody else wants it.
Tice confirms Reform will 'rip up the deal'. Which will mean we would lose the right to use the base per the (by then legally binding) agreement and will have to take it/hold it by force. The great Indian Ocean war of 2029
We wouldn't have to do anything of the sort. The Americans would have to decide how much they wanted it and pay the bills.
If we wanted to continue using it we would. The deal includes payments to Mauritius for 'development' from us - no payment, no base. If America takes over they'll kick our arses straight off for making them have to do something
And?
So which way are you leaning Lucky?
“If ownership of this base is in Britain's vital strategic interests, then we must ignore the 'ruling' and retain sovereignty as the only guarantee.”
Or
“If the base is no longer an important strategic possession for Britain, we should let those to whom it is a vital strategic possession, the USA, take on the base and its financial liabilities - because anything else at this time is recklessly unnecessary and unaffordable spending, and given that it will probably come out of our defence budget, will make British people less secure in sum.”
I would have kept the present arrangement in place and not negotiated on the sovereignty of the islands.
However, barring very unusual events, we will not have that option. So all we can do is cut our losses and stop sending the cheques.
There’s two factors that make both your two forced choices more complicated, perhaps more than complicated, just impossible.
From the start, UK’s Garcia partnership with US got us cheaper nuclear weapons, its ties us into UK buying into military equipment from the US at a “friends of Garcia” discount, that has very much interlocked UK with US systems. Unlike others I am not attacking your sentiment on this, but the practicality we can remotely stand alone from tomorrow, quit the deal leaving either Chagos ownership or the new lease, on the US desk as we walk out. That part is not as simple as you may have made out?
On your actual preference, “ kept the present arrangement in place and not negotiated on the sovereignty of the islands” so we ignore the UN rulings and maintain sovereignty, do you accept that position comes with at least some cost, rather than pretend no cost? Russia and China want us to take that route, as UK doing that is in their interests. India was using UK Imperial Sovereignty to shred our reputation in the region, actively harming other security arrangements, diplomatic influence and trade. Do you deny we can weaken ourselves by losing diplomatic support across an international community, which overwhelmingly thought the islands belonged to Mauritius?
Lol Harvard has been blocked from enrolling foreign students.
If so, that is bad for us, isn't it? Certainly for the British students who would have gone there.
It's bad for anyone non US who might have been planning to go, yeah. Sometimes you just have to chuckle at the goings on or, you know, life would be sad
It's the petty vindictiveness of it the American government that is so baffling.
Tice confirms Reform will 'rip up the deal'. Which will mean we would lose the right to use the base per the (by then legally binding) agreement and will have to take it/hold it by force. The great Indian Ocean war of 2029
We wouldn't have to do anything of the sort. The Americans would have to decide how much they wanted it and pay the bills.
If we wanted to continue using it we would. The deal includes payments to Mauritius for 'development' from us - no payment, no base. If America takes over they'll kick our arses straight off for making them have to do something
And?
And therefore Tices bloviating was pointless.
How was it pointless? Clearly we don't need a base on Diego Garcia - if we needed it we would not be proposing to give it away and rent it back. You don't do that with something you need. What capability do we have there that we need to operate?
It is an American base, and it should be paid for by America. It would be a grossly irresponsible, wasteful and unpatriotic Government that didn't rip up the deal. Kemi will propose something similar, and it's a shame for her that Tice has beaten her to it.
It broadly will be paid for by America. But yes, it's an opaque quid, pro a quo with a clear £££ price label on it
I've not seen anything suggesting the US will pay Mauritius a penny.
No. As @kinabalu says this deal is about money, governance and the UK's place in US geopolitics. The last part, which is entirely why the UK government is doing this, isn't completely transactional.
No - that's why they're paying for it. It's not why Starmer is doing it. See William's link - there is a very long history with Mauritius.
I believe its just Starmer, Powell, Hermer and cronies. And he will absolutely sacrifice the Labour Party's shot at governing for more than a term for this.
Labour will be judged on immigration , public services especially the NHS and growth at the next election not this Chagos deal .
But Starmer WILL be judged partly on this. It adds to the perception he is clueless and useless and quite plausibly treacherous. It feeds into Two Tier Keir - he hates Britain and Britishness and White people and anything to do with Whiteness or British history, to the extent he will do insanely bad deals which cost us billions just so he can repudiate Britain a bit more
Lol Harvard has been blocked from enrolling foreign students.
If so, that is bad for us, isn't it? Certainly for the British students who would have gone there.
It's bad for anyone non US who might have been planning to go, yeah. Sometimes you just have to chuckle at the goings on or, you know, life would be sad
It's the petty vindictiveness of it the American government that is so baffling.
Tice confirms Reform will 'rip up the deal'. Which will mean we would lose the right to use the base per the (by then legally binding) agreement and will have to take it/hold it by force. The great Indian Ocean war of 2029
We wouldn't have to do anything of the sort. The Americans would have to decide how much they wanted it and pay the bills.
If we wanted to continue using it we would. The deal includes payments to Mauritius for 'development' from us - no payment, no base. If America takes over they'll kick our arses straight off for making them have to do something
And?
And therefore Tices bloviating was pointless.
How was it pointless? Clearly we don't need a base on Diego Garcia - if we needed it we would not be proposing to give it away and rent it back. You don't do that with something you need. What capability do we have there that we need to operate?
It is an American base, and it should be paid for by America. It would be a grossly irresponsible, wasteful and unpatriotic Government that didn't rip up the deal. Kemi will propose something similar, and it's a shame for her that Tice has beaten her to it.
It broadly will be paid for by America. But yes, it's an opaque quid, pro a quo with a clear £££ price label on it
I've not seen anything suggesting the US will pay Mauritius a penny.
No. As @kinabalu says this deal is about money, governance and the UK's place in US geopolitics. The last part, which is entirely why the UK government is doing this, isn't completely transactional.
No - that's why they're paying for it. It's not why Starmer is doing it. See William's link - there is a very long history with Mauritius.
I believe its just Starmer, Powell, Hermer and cronies. And he will absolutely sacrifice the Labour Party's shot at governing for more than a term for this.
Labour will be judged on immigration , public services especially the NHS and growth at the next election not this Chagos deal .
Every cut they make or tax they hike will be seen in the light of these payments. It is utterly insupportable on every level. You should be in open revolt if you remotely care about your 'team'.
He's going to destroy rejoin too you know. For the long term gain of the right in British politics, Starmer couldn't be better if they were paying him.
Tice confirms Reform will 'rip up the deal'. Which will mean we would lose the right to use the base per the (by then legally binding) agreement and will have to take it/hold it by force. The great Indian Ocean war of 2029
We wouldn't have to do anything of the sort. The Americans would have to decide how much they wanted it and pay the bills.
If we wanted to continue using it we would. The deal includes payments to Mauritius for 'development' from us - no payment, no base. If America takes over they'll kick our arses straight off for making them have to do something
And?
And therefore Tices bloviating was pointless.
How was it pointless? Clearly we don't need a base on Diego Garcia - if we needed it we would not be proposing to give it away and rent it back. You don't do that with something you need. What capability do we have there that we need to operate?
It is an American base, and it should be paid for by America. It would be a grossly irresponsible, wasteful and unpatriotic Government that didn't rip up the deal. Kemi will propose something similar, and it's a shame for her that Tice has beaten her to it.
If we don't need the base then we walk away, if we need it we are stuck with the deal once it goes into effect or we have to take it by force after reneging (or let the yanks). Talk of 'ripping up the deal' is pointless, once it's happened it becomes a fact. I can't rip up my mortgage halfway because the deal was shit, stop paying and keep my house
No UK Government can bind its successor. We can and will repudiate the deal, and the next Government has clearly signalled in advance of its signing that it will do so.
As for the base, you have failed to enumerate a single capability we have there that we need. We don't need it. I don't want us to 'keep the house'. It was presumably quite useful for the US to have a base where stuff wasn't within the reach of prying US eyes, which is why the previous arrangement worked - they must now make the same arrangement with Mauritius if they wish to continue it. It has nothing to do with us, not should it.
Tice confirms Reform will 'rip up the deal'. Which will mean we would lose the right to use the base per the (by then legally binding) agreement and will have to take it/hold it by force. The great Indian Ocean war of 2029
We wouldn't have to do anything of the sort. The Americans would have to decide how much they wanted it and pay the bills.
If we wanted to continue using it we would. The deal includes payments to Mauritius for 'development' from us - no payment, no base. If America takes over they'll kick our arses straight off for making them have to do something
And?
And therefore Tices bloviating was pointless.
How was it pointless? Clearly we don't need a base on Diego Garcia - if we needed it we would not be proposing to give it away and rent it back. You don't do that with something you need. What capability do we have there that we need to operate?
It is an American base, and it should be paid for by America. It would be a grossly irresponsible, wasteful and unpatriotic Government that didn't rip up the deal. Kemi will propose something similar, and it's a shame for her that Tice has beaten her to it.
It broadly will be paid for by America. But yes, it's an opaque quid, pro a quo with a clear £££ price label on it
I've not seen anything suggesting the US will pay Mauritius a penny.
No. As @kinabalu says this deal is about money, governance and the UK's place in US geopolitics. The last part, which is entirely why the UK government is doing this, isn't completely transactional.
No - that's why they're paying for it. It's not why Starmer is doing it. See William's link - there is a very long history with Mauritius.
I believe its just Starmer, Powell, Hermer and cronies. And he will absolutely sacrifice the Labour Party's shot at governing for more than a term for this.
Labour will be judged on immigration , public services especially the NHS and growth at the next election not this Chagos deal .
But Starmer WILL be judged partly on this. It adds to the perception he is clueless and useless and quite plausibly treacherous. It feeds into Two Tier Keir - he hates Britain and Britishness and White people and anything to do with Whiteness or British history, to the extent he will do insanely bad deals which cost us billions just so he can repudiate Britain a bit more
Starmer will be 'othered'. The feeling he's not on our side grows. That he doesn't like us, indeed despises us. He surrounds himself with hateful people like Kendall and Phillipson. Even when he's giving (fake, fraudulent) good news like e gates he snickers and guffaws like it's awesome he, the great toolmakers son made good is doing something for the wretched filth. He's repugnant.
Tice confirms Reform will 'rip up the deal'. Which will mean we would lose the right to use the base per the (by then legally binding) agreement and will have to take it/hold it by force. The great Indian Ocean war of 2029
We wouldn't have to do anything of the sort. The Americans would have to decide how much they wanted it and pay the bills.
If we wanted to continue using it we would. The deal includes payments to Mauritius for 'development' from us - no payment, no base. If America takes over they'll kick our arses straight off for making them have to do something
And?
And therefore Tices bloviating was pointless.
How was it pointless? Clearly we don't need a base on Diego Garcia - if we needed it we would not be proposing to give it away and rent it back. You don't do that with something you need. What capability do we have there that we need to operate?
It is an American base, and it should be paid for by America. It would be a grossly irresponsible, wasteful and unpatriotic Government that didn't rip up the deal. Kemi will propose something similar, and it's a shame for her that Tice has beaten her to it.
If we don't need the base then we walk away, if we need it we are stuck with the deal once it goes into effect or we have to take it by force after reneging (or let the yanks). Talk of 'ripping up the deal' is pointless, once it's happened it becomes a fact. I can't rip up my mortgage halfway because the deal was shit, stop paying and keep my house
No UK Government can bind its successor. We can and will repudiate the deal, and the next Government has clearly signalled in advance of its signing that it will do so.
As for the base, you have failed to enumerate a single capability we have there that we need. We don't need it. I don't want us to 'keep the house'. It was presumably quite useful for the US to have a base where stuff wasn't within the reach of prying US eyes, which is why the previous arrangement worked - they must now make the same arrangement with Mauritius if they wish to continue it. It has nothing to do with us, not should it.
What is this next government of which you speak?
Reform. God willing. It is our only hope now
I ADORE the fact people are so snowflakey on here they flag comments that merely suggest a Reform government
The tragedy of the gesture is magnificent
Despite calling me a stupid berk I agree with you about flagging your comments
I really do not like seeing fellow posters flag anyone
Listening to Starmer on his signing the Chagos deal I do not see it a problem and certainly nothing for reform or the conservatives to get all het up about
I would expect Starmer to know the law on this. Also he's expending political capital on a deal with Mauritius, which I'm pretty sure he wouldn't do unless he thought it was necessary. Put together that suggests he's is correct on his points.
I listened to his 'live' press conference with his defence secretary and the army commander who looks after the base, and I think those critising the deal would have benefitted from listening to it as well
Apparently it will cost approx 100 million per year for a 99 year lease with an option to renew for 40 more years
The US pays all the operational costs and the deal is backed by the US, NATO, all our allies but apparently opposed by Russia, China and Iran
I am no fan of Starmer, but on this and having heard the details I have no problem with it
You stupid berk
This is how much it costs. It’s been added up - by an expert
🚨NEW: Chagos deal will cost £30bn
RENT: - £165m a year for the first 3 years - £120m a year for years 4-13 - Then £120m+inflation for years 14-99
PLUS: - £45m a year for 25 years for development - £40m one-off for Chagossian fund
Tice confirms Reform will 'rip up the deal'. Which will mean we would lose the right to use the base per the (by then legally binding) agreement and will have to take it/hold it by force. The great Indian Ocean war of 2029
We wouldn't have to do anything of the sort. The Americans would have to decide how much they wanted it and pay the bills.
If we wanted to continue using it we would. The deal includes payments to Mauritius for 'development' from us - no payment, no base. If America takes over they'll kick our arses straight off for making them have to do something
And?
And therefore Tices bloviating was pointless.
How was it pointless? Clearly we don't need a base on Diego Garcia - if we needed it we would not be proposing to give it away and rent it back. You don't do that with something you need. What capability do we have there that we need to operate?
It is an American base, and it should be paid for by America. It would be a grossly irresponsible, wasteful and unpatriotic Government that didn't rip up the deal. Kemi will propose something similar, and it's a shame for her that Tice has beaten her to it.
It broadly will be paid for by America. But yes, it's an opaque quid, pro a quo with a clear £££ price label on it
I've not seen anything suggesting the US will pay Mauritius a penny.
No. As @kinabalu says this deal is about money, governance and the UK's place in US geopolitics. The last part, which is entirely why the UK government is doing this, isn't completely transactional.
No - that's why they're paying for it. It's not why Starmer is doing it. See William's link - there is a very long history with Mauritius.
I believe its just Starmer, Powell, Hermer and cronies. And he will absolutely sacrifice the Labour Party's shot at governing for more than a term for this.
Labour will be judged on immigration , public services especially the NHS and growth at the next election not this Chagos deal .
But Starmer WILL be judged partly on this. It adds to the perception he is clueless and useless and quite plausibly treacherous. It feeds into Two Tier Keir - he hates Britain and Britishness and White people and anything to do with Whiteness or British history, to the extent he will do insanely bad deals which cost us billions just so he can repudiate Britain a bit more
It's all a bit East of Aden. The papers won't like it, of course. It might depend on which side can explain the arithmetic because few voters can find it on a map and so far there are a lot of Opposition dogs who have not barked in the night time.
Ship me somewheres east of Suez, where the best is like the worst, Where there aren't no Ten Commandments an' a man can raise a thirst;
Tice confirms Reform will 'rip up the deal'. Which will mean we would lose the right to use the base per the (by then legally binding) agreement and will have to take it/hold it by force. The great Indian Ocean war of 2029
We wouldn't have to do anything of the sort. The Americans would have to decide how much they wanted it and pay the bills.
If we wanted to continue using it we would. The deal includes payments to Mauritius for 'development' from us - no payment, no base. If America takes over they'll kick our arses straight off for making them have to do something
And?
So which way are you leaning Lucky?
“If ownership of this base is in Britain's vital strategic interests, then we must ignore the 'ruling' and retain sovereignty as the only guarantee.”
Or
“If the base is no longer an important strategic possession for Britain, we should let those to whom it is a vital strategic possession, the USA, take on the base and its financial liabilities - because anything else at this time is recklessly unnecessary and unaffordable spending, and given that it will probably come out of our defence budget, will make British people less secure in sum.”
I would have kept the present arrangement in place and not negotiated on the sovereignty of the islands.
However, barring very unusual events, we will not have that option. So all we can do is cut our losses and stop sending the cheques.
There’s two factors that make both your two forced choices more complicated, perhaps more than complicated, just impossible.
From the start, UK’s Garcia partnership with US got us cheaper nuclear weapons, its ties us into UK buying into military equipment from the US at a “friends of Garcia” discount, that has very much interlocked UK with US systems. Unlike others I am not attacking your sentiment on this, but the practicality we can remotely stand alone from tomorrow, quit the deal leaving either Chagos ownership or the new lease, on the US desk as we walk out. That part is not as simple as you may have made out?
On your actual preference, “ kept the present arrangement in place and not negotiated on the sovereignty of the islands” so we ignore the UN rulings and maintain sovereignty, do you accept that position comes with at least some cost, rather than pretend no cost? Russia and China want us to take that route, as UK doing that is in their interests. India was using UK Imperial Sovereignty to shred our reputation in the region, actively harming other security arrangements, diplomatic influence and trade. Do you deny we can weaken ourselves by losing diplomatic support across an international community, which overwhelmingly thought the islands belonged to Mauritius?
1. No. If it ever really existed, the nuclear discount is moribund now. What we pay is massively profitable for the US, and our obliging continued payments for what is essentially a pup, are as much as the US can command - any Government with enough fortitude to stop paying the Diego Garcia rent would clearly have the fortitude not even to entertain a 'Trident price hike'.
2. I don't accept that there would have been any damage. The damage lies in being seen as the weakest and most pathetic first world nation in existence. That perceived weakness will endanger Britain's interests elsewhere far more than ignoring an advisory ruling. We will be held to ransom by others who see how weak we are.
George Dobell's take on Zak Crawley and Olly Pope scoring runs today:
in terms of preparation for series against India and Australia, this was like training for a channel swim by drinking quite a large glass of water. For most of the day - all of it bar the lunch and tea intervals, really - Zimbabwe played the role of clay pigeons in the sport of shooting.
Tice confirms Reform will 'rip up the deal'. Which will mean we would lose the right to use the base per the (by then legally binding) agreement and will have to take it/hold it by force. The great Indian Ocean war of 2029
We wouldn't have to do anything of the sort. The Americans would have to decide how much they wanted it and pay the bills.
If we wanted to continue using it we would. The deal includes payments to Mauritius for 'development' from us - no payment, no base. If America takes over they'll kick our arses straight off for making them have to do something
And?
And therefore Tices bloviating was pointless.
How was it pointless? Clearly we don't need a base on Diego Garcia - if we needed it we would not be proposing to give it away and rent it back. You don't do that with something you need. What capability do we have there that we need to operate?
It is an American base, and it should be paid for by America. It would be a grossly irresponsible, wasteful and unpatriotic Government that didn't rip up the deal. Kemi will propose something similar, and it's a shame for her that Tice has beaten her to it.
It broadly will be paid for by America. But yes, it's an opaque quid, pro a quo with a clear £££ price label on it
I've not seen anything suggesting the US will pay Mauritius a penny.
No. As @kinabalu says this deal is about money, governance and the UK's place in US geopolitics. The last part, which is entirely why the UK government is doing this, isn't completely transactional.
No - that's why they're paying for it. It's not why Starmer is doing it. See William's link - there is a very long history with Mauritius.
I believe its just Starmer, Powell, Hermer and cronies. And he will absolutely sacrifice the Labour Party's shot at governing for more than a term for this.
We might think Starmer incompetent or dishonest but I think we should credit him with being rational. There's no personal benefit for him to this deal and nothing he claims suggests he thinks there is one.
Which suggests he is doing this because he thinks it's necessary
Tice confirms Reform will 'rip up the deal'. Which will mean we would lose the right to use the base per the (by then legally binding) agreement and will have to take it/hold it by force. The great Indian Ocean war of 2029
We wouldn't have to do anything of the sort. The Americans would have to decide how much they wanted it and pay the bills.
If we wanted to continue using it we would. The deal includes payments to Mauritius for 'development' from us - no payment, no base. If America takes over they'll kick our arses straight off for making them have to do something
And?
And therefore Tices bloviating was pointless.
How was it pointless? Clearly we don't need a base on Diego Garcia - if we needed it we would not be proposing to give it away and rent it back. You don't do that with something you need. What capability do we have there that we need to operate?
It is an American base, and it should be paid for by America. It would be a grossly irresponsible, wasteful and unpatriotic Government that didn't rip up the deal. Kemi will propose something similar, and it's a shame for her that Tice has beaten her to it.
It broadly will be paid for by America. But yes, it's an opaque quid, pro a quo with a clear £££ price label on it
I've not seen anything suggesting the US will pay Mauritius a penny.
No. As @kinabalu says this deal is about money, governance and the UK's place in US geopolitics. The last part, which is entirely why the UK government is doing this, isn't completely transactional.
No - that's why they're paying for it. It's not why Starmer is doing it. See William's link - there is a very long history with Mauritius.
I believe its just Starmer, Powell, Hermer and cronies. And he will absolutely sacrifice the Labour Party's shot at governing for more than a term for this.
Labour will be judged on immigration , public services especially the NHS and growth at the next election not this Chagos deal .
Every cut they make or tax they hike will be seen in the light of these payments. It is utterly insupportable on every level. You should be in open revolt if you remotely care about your 'team'.
He's going to destroy rejoin too you know. For the long term gain of the right in British politics, Starmer couldn't be better if they were paying him.
We’re not rejoining anytime soon and it will take a huge change in the UK to get to that point . I’m going to read up much more about this deal and will deliver my verdict later !
George Dobell's take on Zak Crawley and Olly Pope scoring runs today:
in terms of preparation for series against India and Australia, this was like training for a channel swim by drinking quite a large glass of water. For most of the day - all of it bar the lunch and tea intervals, really - Zimbabwe played the role of clay pigeons in the sport of shooting.
George Dobell's take on Zak Crawley and Olly Pope scoring runs today:
in terms of preparation for series against India and Australia, this was like training for a channel swim by drinking quite a large glass of water. For most of the day - all of it bar the lunch and tea intervals, really - Zimbabwe played the role of clay pigeons in the sport of shooting.
Tice confirms Reform will 'rip up the deal'. Which will mean we would lose the right to use the base per the (by then legally binding) agreement and will have to take it/hold it by force. The great Indian Ocean war of 2029
We wouldn't have to do anything of the sort. The Americans would have to decide how much they wanted it and pay the bills.
If we wanted to continue using it we would. The deal includes payments to Mauritius for 'development' from us - no payment, no base. If America takes over they'll kick our arses straight off for making them have to do something
And?
And therefore Tices bloviating was pointless.
How was it pointless? Clearly we don't need a base on Diego Garcia - if we needed it we would not be proposing to give it away and rent it back. You don't do that with something you need. What capability do we have there that we need to operate?
It is an American base, and it should be paid for by America. It would be a grossly irresponsible, wasteful and unpatriotic Government that didn't rip up the deal. Kemi will propose something similar, and it's a shame for her that Tice has beaten her to it.
It broadly will be paid for by America. But yes, it's an opaque quid, pro a quo with a clear £££ price label on it
I've not seen anything suggesting the US will pay Mauritius a penny.
No. As @kinabalu says this deal is about money, governance and the UK's place in US geopolitics. The last part, which is entirely why the UK government is doing this, isn't completely transactional.
No - that's why they're paying for it. It's not why Starmer is doing it. See William's link - there is a very long history with Mauritius.
I believe its just Starmer, Powell, Hermer and cronies. And he will absolutely sacrifice the Labour Party's shot at governing for more than a term for this.
We might think Starmer incompetent or dishonest but I think we should credit him with being rational. There's no personal benefit for him to this deal and nothing he claims suggests he thinks there is one.
Which suggests he is doing this because he thinks it's necessary
There is never any personal gain for Prime Ministers, however, there are very big endowments into foundations like the Tony Blair's foundation, from the likes of Laurence Ellison, whose company benefitted massively from Blair's time in office. All very British and above board.
Meanwhile, in "anyone got a DLR train, we've got someone to throw under it" news,
Conspiracist take, but - the fact these stories are appearing is in itself a sign of McSweeney's weakening position. Someone is, quite reasonably, trying to fuck him.
There is a subtle political trap in the benefit cap but the bigger picture is the hired help is always expendable, especially when the boss's job depends on it. Ask #ClassicDom or Nick & Fiona or Sir Alan Walters or Kwasi Kwarteng.
I am in Shap in the Lake District. It’s a sublime evening
Perfect for taking my mind off Sir Quisling Starmer
Farage is very cross with you. Posting the deal only costs mere £30B according to experts, when Farage insists its £52B.
Nigel is busy sunbathing. He will get back to us ingrates in his own good time. In the meantime all correspondence goes via Pudding Face Tice or Biffer Anderson (quick before he joins another party).
Tice confirms Reform will 'rip up the deal'. Which will mean we would lose the right to use the base per the (by then legally binding) agreement and will have to take it/hold it by force. The great Indian Ocean war of 2029
We wouldn't have to do anything of the sort. The Americans would have to decide how much they wanted it and pay the bills.
If we wanted to continue using it we would. The deal includes payments to Mauritius for 'development' from us - no payment, no base. If America takes over they'll kick our arses straight off for making them have to do something
And?
And therefore Tices bloviating was pointless.
How was it pointless? Clearly we don't need a base on Diego Garcia - if we needed it we would not be proposing to give it away and rent it back. You don't do that with something you need. What capability do we have there that we need to operate?
It is an American base, and it should be paid for by America. It would be a grossly irresponsible, wasteful and unpatriotic Government that didn't rip up the deal. Kemi will propose something similar, and it's a shame for her that Tice has beaten her to it.
It broadly will be paid for by America. But yes, it's an opaque quid, pro a quo with a clear £££ price label on it
I've not seen anything suggesting the US will pay Mauritius a penny.
No. As @kinabalu says this deal is about money, governance and the UK's place in US geopolitics. The last part, which is entirely why the UK government is doing this, isn't completely transactional.
No - that's why they're paying for it. It's not why Starmer is doing it. See William's link - there is a very long history with Mauritius.
I believe its just Starmer, Powell, Hermer and cronies. And he will absolutely sacrifice the Labour Party's shot at governing for more than a term for this.
Labour will be judged on immigration , public services especially the NHS and growth at the next election not this Chagos deal .
But Starmer WILL be judged partly on this. It adds to the perception he is clueless and useless and quite plausibly treacherous. It feeds into Two Tier Keir - he hates Britain and Britishness and White people and anything to do with Whiteness or British history, to the extent he will do insanely bad deals which cost us billions just so he can repudiate Britain a bit more
I'm struggling to believe it's not somehow benefitting him personally. It's his old firm working for Mauritius. It looks dodgy as fuck. Not least because a) he's clearly a fucking grifter, and b) there's no way this deal was done to benefit either Britain or the Chagossians. If it's down to Lab vs Ref in Wythenshawe and Sale East - and it is - there's no way I'm holding my nose and voting Labour for the sake of this dodgy prick.
Tice confirms Reform will 'rip up the deal'. Which will mean we would lose the right to use the base per the (by then legally binding) agreement and will have to take it/hold it by force. The great Indian Ocean war of 2029
We wouldn't have to do anything of the sort. The Americans would have to decide how much they wanted it and pay the bills.
If we wanted to continue using it we would. The deal includes payments to Mauritius for 'development' from us - no payment, no base. If America takes over they'll kick our arses straight off for making them have to do something
And?
And therefore Tices bloviating was pointless.
How was it pointless? Clearly we don't need a base on Diego Garcia - if we needed it we would not be proposing to give it away and rent it back. You don't do that with something you need. What capability do we have there that we need to operate?
It is an American base, and it should be paid for by America. It would be a grossly irresponsible, wasteful and unpatriotic Government that didn't rip up the deal. Kemi will propose something similar, and it's a shame for her that Tice has beaten her to it.
It broadly will be paid for by America. But yes, it's an opaque quid, pro a quo with a clear £££ price label on it
I've not seen anything suggesting the US will pay Mauritius a penny.
No. As @kinabalu says this deal is about money, governance and the UK's place in US geopolitics. The last part, which is entirely why the UK government is doing this, isn't completely transactional.
No - that's why they're paying for it. It's not why Starmer is doing it. See William's link - there is a very long history with Mauritius.
I believe its just Starmer, Powell, Hermer and cronies. And he will absolutely sacrifice the Labour Party's shot at governing for more than a term for this.
Labour will be judged on immigration , public services especially the NHS and growth at the next election not this Chagos deal .
But Starmer WILL be judged partly on this. It adds to the perception he is clueless and useless and quite plausibly treacherous. It feeds into Two Tier Keir - he hates Britain and Britishness and White people and anything to do with Whiteness or British history, to the extent he will do insanely bad deals which cost us billions just so he can repudiate Britain a bit more
I'm struggling to believe it's not somehow benefitting him personally. It's his old firm working for Mauritius. It looks dodgy as fuck. Not least because a) he's clearly a fucking grifter, and b) there's no way this deal was done to benefit either Britain or the Chagossians. If it's down to Lab vs Ref in Wythenshawe and Sale East - and it is - there's no way I'm holding my nose and voting Labour for the sake of this dodgy prick.
Yes, this is one of the most plausible explanation for the madness. He personally gains, alongside several friends
I have to say I'm enjoying the generational banter that Man United are getting today. Literally banter FC.
Can't wait for the parade tomorrow, I'm going to take my daughter at about 2ish in her mini Spurs kit and it's going to be amazing. First trophy parade we've had for which I've been old enough to go.
Also loving Arsenal fans trying to pretend that they didn't try and win the Europa League for 5 years in a row and get knocked out or beaten in the final.
Lastly, I've had a smile on my face all day, I genuinely never thought this day would come as a Spurs fan. I've been waiting basically my whole life because I don't remember 1991 when we last won a major trophy as I was only 3 years old. I hope my kids don't have to wait as long as I have had to for this day. Levy needs to kick on and back the manager with a big transfer budget and Ange needs to bring that park the bus playing style to league matches, especially when we're in front. We need to buy 4 or 5 quality players because we're competing in 4 trophies next season and we can't afford for another season of relegation form in the league. We got lucky this year that the three promoted teams were so shite. Next season we need to be looking at the top of the table, not behind us.
Absolutely amazing day for all football fans. Spurs break the trophy drought, Man United in the mud and Arsenal in the mud. The two worst and loudest fanbases getting their humble pie today, served up by my team.
Tice confirms Reform will 'rip up the deal'. Which will mean we would lose the right to use the base per the (by then legally binding) agreement and will have to take it/hold it by force. The great Indian Ocean war of 2029
We wouldn't have to do anything of the sort. The Americans would have to decide how much they wanted it and pay the bills.
If we wanted to continue using it we would. The deal includes payments to Mauritius for 'development' from us - no payment, no base. If America takes over they'll kick our arses straight off for making them have to do something
And?
So which way are you leaning Lucky?
“If ownership of this base is in Britain's vital strategic interests, then we must ignore the 'ruling' and retain sovereignty as the only guarantee.”
Or
“If the base is no longer an important strategic possession for Britain, we should let those to whom it is a vital strategic possession, the USA, take on the base and its financial liabilities - because anything else at this time is recklessly unnecessary and unaffordable spending, and given that it will probably come out of our defence budget, will make British people less secure in sum.”
I would have kept the present arrangement in place and not negotiated on the sovereignty of the islands.
However, barring very unusual events, we will not have that option. So all we can do is cut our losses and stop sending the cheques.
There’s two factors that make both your two forced choices more complicated, perhaps more than complicated, just impossible.
From the start, UK’s Garcia partnership with US got us cheaper nuclear weapons, its ties us into UK buying into military equipment from the US at a “friends of Garcia” discount, that has very much interlocked UK with US systems. Unlike others I am not attacking your sentiment on this, but the practicality we can remotely stand alone from tomorrow, quit the deal leaving either Chagos ownership or the new lease, on the US desk as we walk out. That part is not as simple as you may have made out?
On your actual preference, “ kept the present arrangement in place and not negotiated on the sovereignty of the islands” so we ignore the UN rulings and maintain sovereignty, do you accept that position comes with at least some cost, rather than pretend no cost? Russia and China want us to take that route, as UK doing that is in their interests. India was using UK Imperial Sovereignty to shred our reputation in the region, actively harming other security arrangements, diplomatic influence and trade. Do you deny we can weaken ourselves by losing diplomatic support across an international community, which overwhelmingly thought the islands belonged to Mauritius?
1. No. If it ever really existed, the nuclear discount is moribund now. What we pay is massively profitable for the US, and our obliging continued payments for what is essentially a pup, are as much as the US can command - any Government with enough fortitude to stop paying the Diego Garcia rent would clearly have the fortitude not even to entertain a 'Trident price hike'.
2. I don't accept that there would have been any damage. The damage lies in being seen as the weakest and most pathetic first world nation in existence. That perceived weakness will endanger Britain's interests elsewhere far more than ignoring an advisory ruling. We will be held to ransom by others who see how weak we are.
1. Good luck selling that UK security position to the voters.
2. You cut and pasted straight from Lucky83 And The Fine Art Of Diplomacy. Again, good luck selling that view of winning diplomacy to voters.
Tice confirms Reform will 'rip up the deal'. Which will mean we would lose the right to use the base per the (by then legally binding) agreement and will have to take it/hold it by force. The great Indian Ocean war of 2029
We wouldn't have to do anything of the sort. The Americans would have to decide how much they wanted it and pay the bills.
If we wanted to continue using it we would. The deal includes payments to Mauritius for 'development' from us - no payment, no base. If America takes over they'll kick our arses straight off for making them have to do something
And?
And therefore Tices bloviating was pointless.
How was it pointless? Clearly we don't need a base on Diego Garcia - if we needed it we would not be proposing to give it away and rent it back. You don't do that with something you need. What capability do we have there that we need to operate?
It is an American base, and it should be paid for by America. It would be a grossly irresponsible, wasteful and unpatriotic Government that didn't rip up the deal. Kemi will propose something similar, and it's a shame for her that Tice has beaten her to it.
If we don't need the base then we walk away, if we need it we are stuck with the deal once it goes into effect or we have to take it by force after reneging (or let the yanks). Talk of 'ripping up the deal' is pointless, once it's happened it becomes a fact. I can't rip up my mortgage halfway because the deal was shit, stop paying and keep my house
No UK Government can bind its successor. We can and will repudiate the deal, and the next Government has clearly signalled in advance of its signing that it will do so.
As for the base, you have failed to enumerate a single capability we have there that we need. We don't need it. I don't want us to 'keep the house'. It was presumably quite useful for the US to have a base where stuff wasn't within the reach of prying US eyes, which is why the previous arrangement worked - they must now make the same arrangement with Mauritius if they wish to continue it. It has nothing to do with us, not should it.
What is this next government of which you speak?
Reform. God willing. It is our only hope now
I ADORE the fact people are so snowflakey on here they flag comments that merely suggest a Reform government
The tragedy of the gesture is magnificent
Despite calling me a stupid berk I agree with you about flagging your comments
I really do not like seeing fellow posters flag anyone
It took every ounce of self control I have not to flag that
Tice confirms Reform will 'rip up the deal'. Which will mean we would lose the right to use the base per the (by then legally binding) agreement and will have to take it/hold it by force. The great Indian Ocean war of 2029
We wouldn't have to do anything of the sort. The Americans would have to decide how much they wanted it and pay the bills.
If we wanted to continue using it we would. The deal includes payments to Mauritius for 'development' from us - no payment, no base. If America takes over they'll kick our arses straight off for making them have to do something
And?
And therefore Tices bloviating was pointless.
How was it pointless? Clearly we don't need a base on Diego Garcia - if we needed it we would not be proposing to give it away and rent it back. You don't do that with something you need. What capability do we have there that we need to operate?
It is an American base, and it should be paid for by America. It would be a grossly irresponsible, wasteful and unpatriotic Government that didn't rip up the deal. Kemi will propose something similar, and it's a shame for her that Tice has beaten her to it.
It broadly will be paid for by America. But yes, it's an opaque quid, pro a quo with a clear £££ price label on it
I've not seen anything suggesting the US will pay Mauritius a penny.
No. As @kinabalu says this deal is about money, governance and the UK's place in US geopolitics. The last part, which is entirely why the UK government is doing this, isn't completely transactional.
No - that's why they're paying for it. It's not why Starmer is doing it. See William's link - there is a very long history with Mauritius.
I believe its just Starmer, Powell, Hermer and cronies. And he will absolutely sacrifice the Labour Party's shot at governing for more than a term for this.
We might think Starmer incompetent or dishonest but I think we should credit him with being rational. There's no personal benefit for him to this deal and nothing he claims suggests he thinks there is one.
Which suggests he is doing this because he thinks it's necessary
You’ve literally just been shown some very dodgy connections, yet you are determined not to see them
Clearly there was an issue otherwise the Tories wouldn’t have started negotiations themselves regarding Chagos .
So some deal might have had to be done if they were still in government. What I can’t understand is why Starmer decided to act before a binding court ruling .
We had a non binding ruling which may or may not have become binding later . Starmer hasn’t properly explained why this base is so important for national security .
As with many things this government has done , their communications are poor .
I have to say I'm enjoying the generational banter that Man United are getting today. Literally banter FC.
Can't wait for the parade tomorrow, I'm going to take my daughter at about 2ish in her mini Spurs kit and it's going to be amazing. First trophy parade we've had for which I've been old enough to go.
Also loving Arsenal fans trying to pretend that they didn't try and win the Europa League for 5 years in a row and get knocked out or beaten in the final.
Lastly, I've had a smile on my face all day, I genuinely never thought this day would come as a Spurs fan. I've been waiting basically my whole life because I don't remember 1991 when we last won a major trophy as I was only 3 years old. I hope my kids don't have to wait as long as I have had to for this day. Levy needs to kick on and back the manager with a big transfer budget and Ange needs to bring that park the bus playing style to league matches, especially when we're in front. We need to buy 4 or 5 quality players because we're competing in 4 trophies next season and we can't afford for another season of relegation form in the league. We got lucky this year that the three promoted teams were so shite. Next season we need to be looking at the top of the table, not behind us.
Absolutely amazing day for all football fans. Spurs break the trophy drought, Man United in the mud and Arsenal in the mud. The two worst and loudest fanbases getting their humble pie today, served up by my team.
I understand when you say ManU(re) are in the mud. But how exactly are Arsenal in the mud?
X Rt. Hon Ben Wallace@BenWallace70 Italy now talking about going to 3.5% - 5% GDP on defence spending. This follows Germany, Poland and a growing number. We on the other hand are handing out £££ from the defence budget to the Chagos Islands. That’ll deter our enemies….NOT! https://x.com/BenWallace70/status/1925617491889250637
And what percentage of our GDP does the Chagos deal represent annually ?
(If you can't be bothered to do the math, it's sweet FA.)
Tice confirms Reform will 'rip up the deal'. Which will mean we would lose the right to use the base per the (by then legally binding) agreement and will have to take it/hold it by force. The great Indian Ocean war of 2029
We wouldn't have to do anything of the sort. The Americans would have to decide how much they wanted it and pay the bills.
If we wanted to continue using it we would. The deal includes payments to Mauritius for 'development' from us - no payment, no base. If America takes over they'll kick our arses straight off for making them have to do something
And?
And therefore Tices bloviating was pointless.
How was it pointless? Clearly we don't need a base on Diego Garcia - if we needed it we would not be proposing to give it away and rent it back. You don't do that with something you need. What capability do we have there that we need to operate?
It is an American base, and it should be paid for by America. It would be a grossly irresponsible, wasteful and unpatriotic Government that didn't rip up the deal. Kemi will propose something similar, and it's a shame for her that Tice has beaten her to it.
It broadly will be paid for by America. But yes, it's an opaque quid, pro a quo with a clear £££ price label on it
I've not seen anything suggesting the US will pay Mauritius a penny.
No. As @kinabalu says this deal is about money, governance and the UK's place in US geopolitics. The last part, which is entirely why the UK government is doing this, isn't completely transactional.
No - that's why they're paying for it. It's not why Starmer is doing it. See William's link - there is a very long history with Mauritius.
I believe its just Starmer, Powell, Hermer and cronies. And he will absolutely sacrifice the Labour Party's shot at governing for more than a term for this.
Labour will be judged on immigration , public services especially the NHS and growth at the next election not this Chagos deal .
But Starmer WILL be judged partly on this. It adds to the perception he is clueless and useless and quite plausibly treacherous. It feeds into Two Tier Keir - he hates Britain and Britishness and White people and anything to do with Whiteness or British history, to the extent he will do insanely bad deals which cost us billions just so he can repudiate Britain a bit more
I'm struggling to believe it's not somehow benefitting him personally. It's his old firm working for Mauritius. It looks dodgy as fuck. Not least because a) he's clearly a fucking grifter, and b) there's no way this deal was done to benefit either Britain or the Chagossians. If it's down to Lab vs Ref in Wythenshawe and Sale East - and it is - there's no way I'm holding my nose and voting Labour for the sake of this dodgy prick.
Yes, this is one of the most plausible explanation for the madness. He personally gains, alongside several friends
I hope Reform put him on trial
This is sounding unhinged even by your standards .
George Dobell's take on Zak Crawley and Olly Pope scoring runs today:
in terms of preparation for series against India and Australia, this was like training for a channel swim by drinking quite a large glass of water. For most of the day - all of it bar the lunch and tea intervals, really - Zimbabwe played the role of clay pigeons in the sport of shooting.
Tice confirms Reform will 'rip up the deal'. Which will mean we would lose the right to use the base per the (by then legally binding) agreement and will have to take it/hold it by force. The great Indian Ocean war of 2029
We wouldn't have to do anything of the sort. The Americans would have to decide how much they wanted it and pay the bills.
If we wanted to continue using it we would. The deal includes payments to Mauritius for 'development' from us - no payment, no base. If America takes over they'll kick our arses straight off for making them have to do something
And?
And therefore Tices bloviating was pointless.
How was it pointless? Clearly we don't need a base on Diego Garcia - if we needed it we would not be proposing to give it away and rent it back. You don't do that with something you need. What capability do we have there that we need to operate?
It is an American base, and it should be paid for by America. It would be a grossly irresponsible, wasteful and unpatriotic Government that didn't rip up the deal. Kemi will propose something similar, and it's a shame for her that Tice has beaten her to it.
It broadly will be paid for by America. But yes, it's an opaque quid, pro a quo with a clear £££ price label on it
I've not seen anything suggesting the US will pay Mauritius a penny.
No. As @kinabalu says this deal is about money, governance and the UK's place in US geopolitics. The last part, which is entirely why the UK government is doing this, isn't completely transactional.
No - that's why they're paying for it. It's not why Starmer is doing it. See William's link - there is a very long history with Mauritius.
I believe its just Starmer, Powell, Hermer and cronies. And he will absolutely sacrifice the Labour Party's shot at governing for more than a term for this.
Labour will be judged on immigration , public services especially the NHS and growth at the next election not this Chagos deal .
Every cut they make or tax they hike will be seen in the light of these payments. It is utterly insupportable on every level. You should be in open revolt if you remotely care about your 'team'.
He's going to destroy rejoin too you know. For the long term gain of the right in British politics, Starmer couldn't be better if they were paying him.
Yes, quite
Starmer is a disaster for the Left, for Labour and - ultimately - the pro European cause; everything he does taints those causes
Comments
Conspiracist take, but - the fact these stories are appearing is in itself a sign of McSweeney's weakening position. Someone is, quite reasonably, trying to fuck him.
https://bsky.app/profile/jonnelledge.bsky.social/post/3lprnv7bhmc2u
They absolutely should raise taxes. Start with the big companies, then hit the wealthy. Tax the arse out of private jet flight then if they still need to look at PAYE and corporation taxes, VAT etc.
Anything but 'i had to freeze granny and tip you out of your wheelchair into the pit to graft'
If this is untrue then he has made a huge mistake as it is all on camera
According to the General Council of the Bar's report in 2006, there were 355 practising chambers in the United Kingdom, with 210 of them based in London.
So you're spouting nonsense, aren't you?
Even at three percent inflation, that's a halving in the value of money in a bit less than 25 years, so a bit more than a tenthhing in a century.
TLDR, both the £30 billion and the £3 billion are misleading as numbers, and the true impression is somewhere between the two- but it will feel more like 3 than 30. But even thirty billion over a century is peanuts on a governmental scale.
So it boils entirely down to money. Do the legal certainty and the conditions in the enforceable treaty justify the payments contracted, which are in line with other military bases in Djibouti etc? At a certain point the amount becomes too much. Where you draw the line is a judgement.
Joe Biden suggests he had cancer in latest speech gaffe 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wK49IlNLfU
Did Biden know about his cancer before the election?
It should have been calculated a lot higher.
The deal includes payments to Mauritius for 'development' from us - no payment, no base.
If America takes over they'll kick our arses straight off for making them have to do something
I really hope Starmer has not misled us over the cost
It is an American base, and it should be paid for by America. It would be a grossly irresponsible, wasteful and unpatriotic Government that didn't rip up the deal. Kemi will propose something similar, and it's a shame for her that Tice has beaten her to it.
It will be paid for by them when the deal is pulped, as it will be.
Leon having his usual innumerate rant.
I can't rip up my mortgage halfway because the deal was shit, stop paying and keep my house
Edit - if your meaning is that we should rip up the deal later and walk away leaving the US to deal with Mauritius then sure, we could, but it would make the rest of the world wary of dealing with us
As for the base, you have failed to enumerate a single capability we have there that we need. We don't need it. I don't want us to 'keep the house'. It was presumably quite useful for the US to have a base where stuff wasn't within the reach of prying US eyes, which is why the previous arrangement worked - they must now make the same arrangement with Mauritius if they wish to continue it. It has nothing to do with us, not should it.
“If ownership of this base is in Britain's vital strategic interests, then we must ignore the 'ruling' and retain sovereignty as the only guarantee.”
Or
“If the base is no longer an important strategic possession for Britain, we should let those to whom it is a vital strategic possession, the USA, take on the base and its financial liabilities - because anything else at this time is recklessly unnecessary and unaffordable spending, and given that it will probably come out of our defence budget, will make British people less secure in sum.”
However, barring very unusual events, we will not have that option. So all we can do is cut our losses and stop sending the cheques.
The deal is effectively a punt on the US remaining a liberal democracy. Or something approximating one.
Perfect for taking my mind off Sir Quisling Starmer
Rt. Hon Ben Wallace@BenWallace70
Italy now talking about going to 3.5% - 5% GDP on defence spending. This follows Germany, Poland and a growing number. We on the other hand are handing out £££ from the defence budget to the Chagos Islands. That’ll deter our enemies….NOT!
https://x.com/BenWallace70/status/1925617491889250637
The tragedy of the gesture is magnificent
I believe its just Starmer, Powell, Hermer and cronies. And he will absolutely sacrifice the Labour Party's shot at governing for more than a term for this.
Andrew Neil@afneil
7m
PM struggles with concept of net present value (NPV). Seems to think it’s net cost. It isn’t. Strip away the technical accounting and the cost of ‘giving away’ the Chagos Islands is £10 billion for the first 99 years, much of it front-loaded I understand. And coming from the defence budget.
https://x.com/afneil/status/1925625592956817455
From the start, UK’s Garcia partnership with US got us cheaper nuclear weapons, its ties us into UK buying into military equipment from the US at a “friends of Garcia” discount, that has very much interlocked UK with US systems. Unlike others I am not attacking your sentiment on this, but the practicality we can remotely stand alone from tomorrow, quit the deal leaving either Chagos ownership or the new lease, on the US desk as we walk out. That part is not as simple as you may have made out?
On your actual preference, “ kept the present arrangement in place and not negotiated on the sovereignty of the islands” so we ignore the UN rulings and maintain sovereignty, do you accept that position comes with at least some cost, rather than pretend no cost?
Russia and China want us to take that route, as UK doing that is in their interests. India was using UK Imperial Sovereignty to shred our reputation in the region, actively harming other security arrangements, diplomatic influence and trade. Do you deny we can weaken ourselves by losing diplomatic support across an international community, which overwhelmingly thought the islands belonged to Mauritius?
He's going to destroy rejoin too you know. For the long term gain of the right in British politics, Starmer couldn't be better if they were paying him.
The feeling he's not on our side grows. That he doesn't like us, indeed despises us.
He surrounds himself with hateful people like Kendall and Phillipson.
Even when he's giving (fake, fraudulent) good news like e gates he snickers and guffaws like it's awesome he, the great toolmakers son made good is doing something for the wretched filth.
He's repugnant.
I really do not like seeing fellow posters flag anyone
Ship me somewheres east of Suez, where the best is like the worst,
Where there aren't no Ten Commandments an' a man can raise a thirst;
2. I don't accept that there would have been any damage. The damage lies in being seen as the weakest and most pathetic first world nation in existence. That perceived weakness will endanger Britain's interests elsewhere far more than ignoring an advisory ruling. We will be held to ransom by others who see how weak we are.
in terms of preparation for series against India and Australia, this was like training for a channel swim by drinking quite a large glass of water. For most of the day - all of it bar the lunch and tea intervals, really - Zimbabwe played the role of clay pigeons in the sport of shooting.
https://www.thecricketer.com/Topics/england-v-zimbabwe-men-premium/england_batting_greed_admirable_not_good_entertainment.html?t=638835417823423152 (£)
Which suggests he is doing this because he thinks it's necessary
If it's down to Lab vs Ref in Wythenshawe and Sale East - and it is - there's no way I'm holding my nose and voting Labour for the sake of this dodgy prick.
I hope Reform put him on trial
Can't wait for the parade tomorrow, I'm going to take my daughter at about 2ish in her mini Spurs kit and it's going to be amazing. First trophy parade we've had for which I've been old enough to go.
Also loving Arsenal fans trying to pretend that they didn't try and win the Europa League for 5 years in a row and get knocked out or beaten in the final.
Lastly, I've had a smile on my face all day, I genuinely never thought this day would come as a Spurs fan. I've been waiting basically my whole life because I don't remember 1991 when we last won a major trophy as I was only 3 years old. I hope my kids don't have to wait as long as I have had to for this day. Levy needs to kick on and back the manager with a big transfer budget and Ange needs to bring that park the bus playing style to league matches, especially when we're in front. We need to buy 4 or 5 quality players because we're competing in 4 trophies next season and we can't afford for another season of relegation form in the league. We got lucky this year that the three promoted teams were so shite. Next season we need to be looking at the top of the table, not behind us.
Absolutely amazing day for all football fans. Spurs break the trophy drought, Man United in the mud and Arsenal in the mud. The two worst and loudest fanbases getting their humble pie today, served up by my team.
2. You cut and pasted straight from Lucky83 And The Fine Art Of Diplomacy. Again, good luck selling that view of winning diplomacy to voters.
Without looking at the details, it appears to be more tempting
So some deal might have had to be done if they were still in government. What I can’t understand is why Starmer decided to act before a binding court ruling .
We had a non binding ruling which may or may not have become binding later . Starmer hasn’t properly explained why this base is so important for national security .
As with many things this government has done , their communications are poor .
(If you can't be bothered to do the math, it's sweet FA.)
Red Queen uprising and a Cleverly coup in tandem??
Starmer is a disaster for the Left, for Labour and - ultimately - the pro European cause; everything he does taints those causes
Labour need to get rid of him ASAFP