Blow for Starmer as Mauritian PM rejects Chagos deal again
Shadow foreign secretary Dame Priti Patel said ‘Starmer and Lammy need to come to their senses and ditch the deal’
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Mauritius has rejected Sir Keir Starmer’s deal to hand the Chagos Islands over to the country, in a humiliating blow for the prime minister.
A day after the country’s deputy prime minister said Britain was “quibbling over a small amount” of money in last minute talks to save the deal, Mauritian PM Navinchandra Ramgoolam said there were still parts of the deal he “did not agree” with.
Sir Keir negotiated the deal, which would cede sovereignty over the islands – also known as the British Indian Ocean Territory – but lease back the strategically important UK-US military base on Diego Garcia, with Mr Ramgoolam’s predecessor.
But after taking power, Mr Ramgoolam said he would not finalise the agreement as it “would not produce the benefits the nation could expect”.
He said the new Mauritian administration has submitted its own suggestions to the UK, which has now responded with its counter-proposals.
But, in a blow to Sir Keir, who has been accused of attempting to rush the deal through before Donald Trump’s return to the White House in January, Mr Ramgoolam joined his deputy in saying Britain is arguing over small amounts of money in the deal.
Speaking to Mauritian MPs after a call with US secretary of state Antony Blinken, Mr Ramgoolam said: “I made him understand that we do not agree with certain things contained in the agreement concluded on October 3 by the former Mauritian prime minister and informed him that we have made a counter-proposal which will be transmitted to him.”
UK shadow foreign secretary Priti Patel said: “While Labour ministers refuse to answer straight-forward questions in parliament about the Chagos surrender, the Mauritian government have let the cat out the bag.
“They’ve confirmed that Labour wants the deal done before President Trump returns to office, and they want more British taxpayers’ cash!
“Starmer and Lammy need to come to their senses and ditch the deal.”
Sir Keir and foreign secretary David Lammy have insisted their agreement was “a good deal” which guaranteed the use of the airbase for at least 99 years.
But senior figures in the incoming Trump administration have voiced doubts over the agreement, which is aimed at securing the legal basis for the Diego Garcia facility.
The president-elect’s pick for secretary of state, Marco Rubio, warned in October that the agreement posed “a serious threat” to US national security by handing over the islands to a country allied with China.
But Downing Street has insisted the deal was necessary to resolve a long-standing legal dispute over sovereignty.
Any further delays mean that Mr Trump will be in a much stronger position to block any deal going through.
A UK government spokesperson said: “We do not recognise these reports. The Mauritian Prime Minister has repeatedly been clear that he remains willing to conclude a deal and we are working to finalise this agreement, which is in both sides’ shared interests.
“The long-term protection of the base on Diego Garcia has been the shared UK and US objective throughout and this agreement secures its future.”
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments