During Defence Questions in Parliament, Conservative MP James Cartlidge pressed the government on its plans to expand the UK’s drone fleet, questioning how the Ministry of Defence could afford unmanned systems at the scale required.
Cartlidge argued that the Labour government had failed to outline how it would meet its ambitions for drone procurement, citing a written parliamentary answer stating that only three drones had been ordered for the British Armed Forces in its first financial year.
He said that during June’s Defence Questions he had already suggested “where Labour could find the money to buy drones at the scale we need by scrapping their crazy Chagos deal.”
“They rejected my proposal then,” he added. “But given that the Secretary of State has just failed to deny £2.6 billion of cuts at the Ministry of Defence this year, isn’t it even more urgent that they scrap their crazy £35 billion surrender and spend every penny on the uncrewed revolution for our own armed forces?”
Responding for the government, Defence Minister Al Carns insisted that the current administration had finalised the Chagos agreement after it had been initiated by the previous government.
“They started this deal, they processed this deal,” Carns said. “Labour came into government and we finished it, supported by our allies, both the US and multiple others.”
He went on to highlight other recent defence partnerships, saying: “Not only did we finish that deal, we started and finished an India deal, a US deal, a Europe deal, a Typhoon deal, a Norway deal and a Germany deal.”
Bit of a dumb question from the Tory MP. It was their deal anyway. Seems everyone, including the US, agreed it had to be done.
The posturing gets on my nerves.
Maybe you’re not aware in many ways especially where Empire or Territory is concerned the USA is not our friend. They want the UK back in the box. Why do you think Trump thinks he can have Canada and even Greenland? They cant help it, its written into their constitution.
I agree, and even Donald Trump agrees.
No one least of all James Cartilage that says we should scrap the deal seems to have an alternative. The British government acted stupidly in 1971 and now this is the only way to hold onto the base.
Now it’s a 100% recognised British base it also increases our international standing and it’s probably the most important military facility on the planet and easily the main benefit we bring to the US UK alliance.
For $100 million a year that’s not bad. Neither India or China can try and force us out.
I’m not sure what you mean by the Chagos deal increasing our international standing, please could you elaborate?
My (not superbly well informed) take is that it seems to have reinforced the global perception that if a country/individual/charity can apply the language of court cases and law to international diplomacy then European democracies will just roll over and give them what they want. For example, Argentina restarted diplomatic pressure over the Falklands explicitly because we had given away one of our other overseas territories, because they believed they had a chance to strongarm our government into complying.
The alternative to giving the islands to Mauritius, of all people, would have been to make the case openly that it is in our interests to retain sovereignty and back that up by making a genuine effort to return the Chagossians. What we have now is bad for everyone involved except the slightly corrupt Mauritian government, who will see the deal as a useful coup rather than a triumph of the international rules-based order, which it actually undermines by reducing the flexibility of a democracy to defend its interests.
I think most people can agree that Diego Garcia is one of if not the most strategic base on the planet primarily because the vast amount of energy imports to Asia, Africa and Europe have to go past it.
Our previous claim to the islands was weak because of how we handled the set up in 1971. We were on course to lose claim to the base and the US may just have ended up leasing it back from Mauritius with the UK not being involved.
However now we have an internationally recognised lease for 200 years on the most strategic piece of real-estate on the planet and complete freedom of action to use it as well as legally enforceable exclusion zone. That gives us a lot of leverage in the world until oil runs out in the Middle East.
Without this agreement Chinese and Indian warships could sail right up to the island and there was nothing we could do about it short of sinking them and starting a war because our claim to Diego Garcia was as tenuous as Chinas claim to the Spratlys and we and the US quite happily sail warships up to those Chinese controlled islands all the time.
There is reason that even Donald Trump and the Republicans supported this deal. I suggest everyone consider that before they think what minimal transformation $100 million a year would have on HM Forces.
But who was going to force us to give up the islands if we didn’t hand them away? Without the agreement, Chinese and Indian warships would have to keep out of our territorial waters, and we would have a freehold, not a lease.
It feels to me like we have jumped without checking whether or not we were going to be pushed.
They were not our territorial waters. Our claim was not recognised by the UN so there was nothing to stop Chinese vessels approaching. There was no 12 mile limit and China could start actively occupying near by islands with Mauritius consent.
Mauritius could also take legal action against companies supporting the base.
Now none of that is an issue.
We can’t go around doing Freedom of Navigation patrols in the SCS against illegal Chinese bases while simultaneously illegally occupying islands in the IO.
What would we do if a Chinese naval vessel entered the 12 mile limit, sink it? On what grounds?
We wrote the law of the sea being used against us
We were stupid enough to recognise Mauritius domain over the island in 1971 and we were the ones who kicked the Chagosians of the islands in 1971 instead of recognising them as their own territory and people.
Everything happening now is a result of our mistakes and this is the best way to rectify it.
Since the Chinese have demonstrated beyond all doubt that they only have regard for the Law of the Sea when it suits them, the supposed legal position is of little relevance. They would not sail into the territorial waters around Diego Garcia for the simple reason that the US would view doing so as an act of war
I believe you are factually incorrect. There was absolutely no doubt to the UK’s sovereignty over the islands from the early 19th century onwards. I would say our claim to the islands is stronger than the Falklands. This is entirely an unforced move.
While my sympathies are with the Chagossians I’ll play devil’s advocate here.
By international law, which we agreed to, it is illegal to carve off territories from a country when you grant it independence. This put us in the situation of essentially saying “rules for thee and not for me” which fuelled the argument that the ‘rules based order’ was just a disguise for the continuation of imperialism and undermined our legitimacy as a leader in this order. With this deal we’ve secured the future of the base, which was the important bit, whilst also resolving this contradiction.
The Falklands issue is completely separate, under current international law Argentina has no claim whatsoever.
The alternative is to repatriate all Chagoisians who want to go back. Then give them a say if they want to be part of Mauritius or to be independent. It’s the US that gets the big advantage of Diego Garcia, so why are we paying for it?
Even the UN would have a hard time telling the chagosians themselves they have to be part of Mauritius if the have a free referendum that says otherwise. Even the repatriation would be enough of a threat to Mauritius that they would waive some of the payment rather than get nothing. Former PMs have not played with a full deck on this one, and nor has Starmer.
Unfortunately that’s not possible due to how we did this in 1971. We ourselves recognised Mauritius as the owner stupidly.
There was no way to go back and recognise the Chagosians and as a transplanted population ( brought in for the plantation) they themselves never had much legal claim to the islands either. The islands were ripe with poverty as well and most of them were trying to get off.
I’d say the biggest benefit we bring to the US UK alliance is GCHQ, Cyprus, and SISs long term connections throughout the Middle East which the US lacked. Agree Diego Garcia is indeed important though.
For sure Cyprus it’s important and especially for the Middle East however in the event of world war three with China, Diego Garcia is probably the only territory the US can be sure to have access to and control of. Bases in Qatar and Bahrain would probably be closed to the US and even Australia is doubtful as is Singapore. None of these countries are likely to support the US in a military altercation with China.
Diego Garcia alone would probably be enough to win a war against China operating a distant blockade. That’s why I believe it’s the most important item we bring to the alliance.
It was Cameron needless to say who started the Give Away. No surprise then it is a massive Fail. Following his own path and not listening to the People.
Yes you are absolutely correct he and Osborne the then Chancellor who also put the UK up for sale to China.
Funny though isn’t it HE was the one in the last govt as foreign secretary to HALT the deal because he realised it damaged our strategic interests!
It was Lammy and Starmer who restarted it😡
Learning one particular lesson out of all this? All politicians are not interested in the UKs strategic interests. Uniparty are mainly all traitors to the UK, its interests and particularly it people. Yet clowns still vote for the same time and time again.
Not me. Not again.
“Not only did we finish that giveaway robbery, we started and finished an India deal (Not true, as it takes years to develop these talks, not months), a US deal (Buy our jets and we’ll renege on the deal anyway), a Europe deal (Another surrender in the vague hope that we might be included in a defence contractor scheme), a Typhoon deal (Because we’re an alternative to the New F-16s that the US has been blocking in Congress and not helped by S-400 SAM sites), a Norway deal (Is that a Labour Govt Deal or a Norwegian Govt to Private Company deal that needs permission from UK Govt) and a Germany deal (A deal so insignificant, it’s literally forgotten, only reminded because they for some reason want to talk SSBN talks, not that they need to dock there nor need to share the need to ask for German permission to launch.”
Well, that turned out a bit more than I thought.
It’s at worst shameless lies.
The previous administration were involved in those,especially the German links, but it’s all thanks to Labour of course
This has to be the worst property sale ever £35 Billion to take it off our hands and the country taking it are thousands of miles away.
£35,000,000,000 ffs.
You missed a decimal point
It’s £3.4 billion spread over 99 years not £35 billion
The French pay a similar price for Djibouti which was used as a benchmark for this deal.
No Jim, I’m seeing £35 Billion, It even says £35 Billion in the article.
£35,000,000,000 That’s what £35 Billion looks like.
Your defence of this shockingly terrible deal is admirable though. 👌
I think the point is that no country has ever willingly paid to give away their own territory to a country which is never once in history possessed said territory it is acquiring
Below is for UK Government website
Notes to editors
the cost per year is £101 million and the net present value of payments under the treaty is £3.4 billion. All costs have been verified by the Government Actuary’s Department
further details will be laid out in Parliament
Lol, ”
In my hand, I have a bit of paper”
😀
Disagree. It’s all over the media, and online after FOIA was applied. The Governments own Actuary Dept put cost closer to 35 Billion, not 3.4.
Starmer caught telling Porkies, though he’ll just say he didn’t know or was incorrectly advised.
The Social Time Preference system was used to assume inflation over the period, then HMT lowered the estimate again.
Other major projects announced at the time interestingly use a totally different methodology regards accounting, there’s a thing.
Seeming as a thousand million is a billion, and its 100 million plus a year, 163 million first 3, then reduced next 4 years, then 100 million thereafter for 99, how do you get to only 3.4 billion?
All out of the Defence budget rather than paying for kit and people.
We should have handed them lock stock and Barrel to the US, who have diverted, are diverting, a new undersea cable, Oman Australia, to Deigo Garcia so they can access it. Which, by definition, means GCHQ as well, as there are 3 GCHQ sites in Oman alone.
A murky world, which the taxpayer and our military suffer for.
AGAIN.
I got it DM, Jim’s quoting the British Billion, which as we all know is a Million x a Million hence “£3.4 Billion”.
(I never was any good at maths)
Whatever, I suspect it’s spin by HMG.
With deals like this no wonder the UK are laughing stock of not just Europe but wider a field 🙄
It is not.all xoming from the defence budget, I read somewhere that the FCO is actually meeting 80 or 90% of the bill, the def3nce share is minimal.
With this Diego Garcia deal , the local population has been completely shout , they had zero say . They may have preferred to stay with the UK. This weakens our falklands ownershio which is based on the locals right to decide . If the oil deal goes ahead which is an Israeli USA owned company , almost certain Trump and Israel will force uk to give Falklands back to jis best mate in Argentina . If the oil company gets to extract oil then USA and Israel overnight have a vote on Falklands independence . Bit of a tangent from DG but another farce in the making which is obvious for all to see .
No, never going to happen as British blood and treasure was spent to liberate the Falkland Islands from the fascist dictatorship of Argentina.
One of the worst unforced peacetime deals we have ever signed as a nation. Dreamt up by the Tories and delivered by Labour. The lunatics are running the asylum.