Paying to lease back a strategic base already under UK control became the organising complaint, and No won by nearly three to one. The respected end of the chamber treated the proposal less as a settlement than as a bill for surrendering something voters believed was already Britain’s.
The floor’s most-respected No case asked whether Chagossians “Have indicated they want to remain as they are”, then pressed the financial contradiction: “Why on earth would we give our own territory away and pay for the privilege.” That combination — consent and cost — gave the opposition its hard edge, with sovereignty, China and the future of other territories gathering behind it.
Yes voters offered a different starting point: “Chagosians need to be allowed to decide from themselves what they want.” Their other serious case was strategic, arguing that “Securing a 99-year lease gives our armed forces the stability it needs”; but the two sides largely talked past each other, with Yes defending a durable arrangement and No insisting the people concerned had not consented to this one.
The wider argument was about whether an old imperial wrong is best addressed through negotiated sovereignty, or whether the treaty sacrifices territory and leverage while weakening an ally relationship. Even among No voices, the concern was not uniform: one warned that “This could alienate our ally and embolden adversarial powers”, alongside the louder demand to stop paying for access to what voters regard as their own.
On this self-selected page, the treaty was heard not as a settled act of repair, but as an expensive bargain whose legitimacy had not been secured.
23 Opinions
Chagosians ? Have indicated they want to remain as they are. What is behind given a strategic airbase away,then pay billions to rent it back?. Labour economics. What's next Gibraltar, Falklands,N Ireland English Channel.!!
The idea that we cede a strategic asset, shared with our most important ally, to a nation that has never had sovereignty over it and then pay billions to lease it back is, frankly, bonkers. Possibly the most absurd initiative of the Starmer government. The proposal should be killed off.
Why on earth would we give our own territory away and pay for the privilege. Billions of pounds that are needed here, paying for something that we already own. Please make it makes sense!
It’s quite simple. The Chagos citizens do not want it. Mauritius never owned them. The idea of giving them to China via Mauritius is treasonous.
If the Chagosians wanted this, then sure, I wouldn't mind. But they don't! They've explicitly said they don't want to be ruled by Mauritius! It's ridiculous really that we're doing this.
Billions from the British taxpayer for something we already control? It’s a bad deal.
Mauritius never had claim & UK has opt out from corrupt ‘International Law’ rulings conjured up by China et al. Socialists stitched up Chagossians originally & are doing it again. Treason by Starmer Hermer Lammy & now Burnham & Miliband acting on China’s orders. We are paying to rent something we own whilst giving away a pristine marine environment, a mineral rich archipelago including oil & an important base. Labour giving our wealth & security away on UNs / China’s orders.
It’s British territory & islanders wish to stay British and return. That should be the end of it The UK’s involvement with that court is always subject to the proviso that the UK does not accept judgements about current or former commonwealth countries The idea that in keeping to that position the UK and USA could be bullied out of the base, and the Chinese move in, is ridiculous Britain should do the right thing and facilitate the return of islanders under UK control
We are paying for our own demise.
I seriously don't understand who could be for this! It's the worst deal in history and I have no idea why Keir/Andy seem to be the only people for it. Explain to me ANY benefit of this.