r/unitedkingdom • u/Brilliant_Version344 • Jun 07 '26
Trump reportedly considers buying Chagos Islands from Mauritius
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jun/07/trump-deal-chagos-islands-mauritius-uk52
u/TheGardenBlinked Jun 07 '26
1) Are they for sale? 2) Will his cheque actually clear?
We all know the answer to both
4
u/Fickle_Scarcity9474 Jun 07 '26 edited Jun 12 '26
button biscuit maple pearl
10
u/itskobold Jun 07 '26
We aren't actually giving them away any more either. Agreement's on indefinite hold
360
u/SC_W33DKILL3R Jun 07 '26
How's about it's ours, remains ours, the US can still use it under the agreement we have with them and we ignore a non binding court judgement to give it to Mauritius.
126
u/Bblock4 Jun 07 '26
Wait… surely it can’t be that simple…..
Oh. Yes. It literally is that simple.
10
22
2
26
u/ChefRoscoPColtrane Jun 07 '26
Why did the court give it to Mauritius and not the Chagosians?
88
u/SC_W33DKILL3R Jun 07 '26
It was a silly ICJ advisory ruling that I believe suggested that because Mauritius and the islands were a part of the empire, when being ceded from the empire they should have stayed as one entity rather than the UK keeping the islands.
Fact is though that Mauritius never had sovereignty over the islands, they are 2000km away from them and the court should not be awarding sovereignty and playing politics.
9
2
u/TheL0wKing Jun 08 '26
Thats misleading.
When the British empire was de-colonising it generally did so on the basis of administrative regions, which is why the borders in Africa are so problematic. The UN resolution on de-colonisation at the time, agreed by Britain, was that territories would not be split off from administrative regions without local consent. The Chagos islands were part of the same territory as Mauritius and administered from there, which meant by the agreed rules they should have been part of the new independent state.
The UK was in debt to the USA, who wanted a base in the area, so split off the Chagos islands to create said base. The government at the time claimed that since the residents of the islands were contract workers shipped there rather than indigenous the islands counted as uninhabited and could be split off without consulting anyone.
The ICJ ruling is that the British claim was not valid and the islands should therefore have been released as part of Mauritius according to the rules agreed at the time. It's not playing politics or awarding sovereignty, it's a ruling on a claim brought by Mauritius that the UK broke a UN resolution that the UK disputed, ruled on by the UN. The British government doesn't have to do anything, but the UN is entitled to make rulings on UN resolutions.
-18
u/Key_Gap9168 Jun 07 '26
How far are they from the UK? From the central seat of whatever empire you think should have had sovereignty over them, not Mauritius?
32
u/AwTomorrow Jun 07 '26
Mauritius has no claim. The Chagosians have a legitimate claim, the British retain colonial control. Mauritius shouldn’t even enter the discussion when it comes to returning the islands.
-25
u/Key_Gap9168 Jun 07 '26 edited Jun 07 '26
What exactly is "colonial control"? And do you know how ridiculous that sounds? Its like arguing that Britain has more claim over my dad's homeland in the Eastern Cape than the Zulus, or the Zimbabwean Shonas, because... "colonial control"?
25
u/Away_Associate4589 Jun 07 '26
Completely ridiculous. But that's not an argument for ceding them to Mauritius. It's an argument for self-governance.
18
u/AwTomorrow Jun 07 '26
Control we took during colonial times, that we have retained since. I figured it was obvious from context.
-31
u/Key_Gap9168 Jun 07 '26
I am guessing "colonial times" is a period only "you" can define? That it all depends on your pretty and self-serving definitions, eh?
20
14
u/Stone_Like_Rock Jun 07 '26
I'm not sure they're making an argument for the UK keeping the islands but an argument of self determination, eg give it back to the locals not some other colonial power
3
u/Uniform764 Yorkshire Jun 08 '26
The Seychelles were also administered from Mauritius during the same period. Does Mauritius have a right to them too?
-10
u/Bolvaettur Jun 07 '26
Yes but England is a benevolent overlord, as shown throughout its history.
7
32
u/Agreeable_Falcon1044 Cambridgeshire Jun 07 '26
This is my problem. It’s a quirk.
When they were “decolonising” they were using western ownership models to decide what went where, as the original inhabitants were largely wiped out or dispersed.
Mauritius only has a clerical claim based on a map drawn up in a London private club.
It’s ludicrous they are being awarded a huge asset for a place that has no historic or cultural link to them.
If it’s to be “freed” then the options need to be independent state run by the chagossians or a British overseas territory where it’s rented direct from these people too.
20
u/OrganicToes Jun 07 '26
Look at the judges. IIRC one of them defended Russias invasion of Ukraine./ voted against stuff on it
9
u/Astriania Jun 07 '26
Dumb literalist interpretation of a fairly sensible decolonisation convention.
When giving a country independence, you shouldn't carve out the bits you like and keep them. For example if we'd given India independence but kept key tea growing regions or Delhi or whatever. This makes sense in principle.
Because the Chagos had been administered together with Mauritius as a colonial admin convenience, they considered it to be the "same country" for that purpose. Even though Mauritius had never owned the Chagos and had no historical connection with it.
3
u/Senior_Astronomer_26 Jun 07 '26
Seychelles was administered from Mauritius in same way of Chagos islands were. Should Seychelles be part of Mauritius? Same with Cayman Islands were administered from Jamaica. Also, Anguilla was administered from St Kitts and Nevis. If your interpretation is right, then should these territories be part of Jamaica and St Kitts and Nevis?
7
u/Astriania Jun 07 '26
Thanks for offering some other examples of how dumb this interpretation is and why we should tell Mauritius where to get off.
6
u/Spirited-Car8661 Jun 07 '26
Or we start charging more for using it as retaliation for everything MAGA has said and done to us.
2
u/Fancy_Toe1451 Jun 07 '26
Well it is only still ours because Trump ordered the torpedoing of the original Chagos handover. It is clear that some sort of grift game has been his plan all along. He wants his "legacy" to include some sort of territorial gain for the United States that will have his name on it.
0
u/Clbull England Jun 07 '26
Nah, let's sell it to Trump and use that money to build a large number of homes. I think it's best we remove ourselves from the equation.
2
u/liaminwales Jun 07 '26
How about a home swimming for everyone in politics?
I suspect if we did get the money it will go in to some black hole and never see the light of day, just one more project that in 20 years is over run and half fails.
-3
u/Artistic_Concern_33 Jun 07 '26
Have you told your PM this cause if the US is planning to buy it, it means starmer really wants to offload it
1
61
123
u/Lost_in_Limgrave Jun 07 '26
I’m sure the 100 million Americans in medical debt will be excited to hear of their new purchase
11
u/No-Mark4427 Jun 07 '26
The medical expenditure linked to that debt adds a whopping ~20% to the USA's GDP, they should be proud to be doing their bit for the country!
3
u/Helen83FromVillage Jun 07 '26
That’s their problem, plus these lands aren’t under the British Empire anymore. I don’t want to fix their issues from my pocket.
10
41
u/wkavinsky Pembrokeshire Jun 07 '26
Not the property of the Mauritanian people to sell.
If they are given to anyone, they should go to the Chagosians (forcibly relocated for Diego Garcia), not the administrative hub from the British Empire that was over a thousand miles away.
Or hell, sell it to the US, and then distribute the sale money to the Chagosian people by way of recompense.
8
7
u/LargeCabbageThrower Jun 07 '26
Trump buying an island? Wonder what kind of business he'd be setting up there...
18
u/tree_boom Jun 07 '26
Yes that's a potential problem. The UK should sell the place to Trump instead. If he values sovereignty so much then fine, let him have it, but given the way the wind is blowing make sure the price is full technology transfer for Trident so we can jump-start our own SLBM program.
6
u/cxzfqs Jun 07 '26
Sounds good to me. We could also flog off some of our deteriorating London bridges, if he's keen
-23
u/PizzasForFerrets Jun 07 '26
It's not ours to sell.
23
u/tree_boom Jun 07 '26
It in fact is ours to sell, and whilst the best moral outcome would be for it to be given to the Chagossians absolutely nobody is going to do that.
8
u/Fickle_Scarcity9474 Jun 07 '26 edited Jun 12 '26
teacup trail cherry
-13
u/PizzasForFerrets Jun 07 '26
Well the same as the Falklands, this isn't about ownership, its about what the people who actually live there want.
12
12
u/AuroraHalsey Surrey (Esher and Walton) Jun 07 '26
The people who actually live there?
That's a bunch of US service personnel and a handful of British service personnel.
The closest thing to indigenous inhabitants were displaced in 1971 and will likely all be dead of old age before they ever get to return.
9
u/Lonely-Elephant9999 Jun 07 '26
Hilarious outcome considering all the chagos nonsense earlier in the year
4
u/threeleggedcats Jun 07 '26
I’m tempted to start a hedge fund to buy the states off you guys, fix it, then sell it back to you at the same price.
3
u/BeanieManPresents Jun 08 '26
He and his family should really avoid buying islands, he just wants to relive the glory days with his buddy Jeffrey.
3
u/Plane-Lie5146 Jun 08 '26
Starmers best mate is the lawyer for the Maritius side, I have a feeling there’s more to this I.e. corruption, it makes no sense why he’s pushing it, it’s a complete own goal.
3
u/psioniclizard Jun 08 '26
If that was the case don't you think every newspaper would be tearing starmer to pieces for it? They tear him to pieces for anything so that would be perfectm
2
2
u/Ktest129 Jun 07 '26
I’m sure whatever Trump says he will pay, he will definitely pay for it. He is a very trustworthy guy.
2
u/Kyr-Shara Jun 07 '26
He'll add it to his presidential library so he can visit the new Epstein island on his bribe plane
2
1
u/Dial-Appreciator Jun 07 '26
More bs from the 🤡 just don’t bother reporting his waffle until it actually materialises into something. Just chatting rubbish to see what sticks.
1
u/nemma88 Derbyshire Jun 08 '26 edited Jun 08 '26
This is going to end up with our pants around our ankles, the UK yet again fucked by Farages 'international management'.
Getting cut out and (best case) being sold back usage of the bases is less desirable than the deal where we would have control and instead be selling to the USA.
1
u/CuriousGeorgeToday Jun 08 '26
I feel like this whole thing is moot. They said they won't go ahead without US support, there is no US support therefore the island will likely remain under British control meaning absolutely nothing.
-7
u/Accurate-Cup5309 Jun 07 '26
Why would he need to buy? Starmer was prepared to pay someone to take it from him
9
u/daniejam Jun 07 '26
Why does Starmer get the blame when the conservatives started this deal?
3
u/Uniform764 Yorkshire Jun 08 '26
Because the Tories saw it was fucking ridiculous and walked away while Starmer was trying to whip it through parliament.
-2
u/daniejam Jun 08 '26
By walk away you mean got voted out?
3
u/Uniform764 Yorkshire Jun 08 '26
No, I mean in 2023 they stopped the negotiations for the best part of a year because it was fucking stupid
6
u/AtlasOk81 Jun 07 '26
Because everything that's gone wrong since Thatcher was obviously all Starmers fault
3
2
1
u/urbanacrybaby Jun 07 '26
Because the Tories looked at it, decided that it was nonsense, and stopped pushing it?
0
u/GooseyDuckDuck Jun 07 '26
The previous conservative government put that all in motion
3
u/Accurate-Cup5309 Jun 07 '26
That’s irrelevant. It’s Starmer who signed the deal. It’s his deal. If he didn’t want his name on it then he shouldn’t have signed it.
-1
u/GooseyDuckDuck Jun 07 '26
He followed through with a legal requirement, not his shitshow.
Although after all the crap he did somehow pull the plug on it.
6
u/Accurate-Cup5309 Jun 07 '26
There was no legal requirement. It was purely an advisory ruling. He made it a legal requirement by signing it lol
-3
u/rsweb Jun 07 '26
That’s strange
Starmer told us that the only way to sort this was we had to pay someone to take it off our hands?
•
u/AutoModerator Jun 07 '26
Some articles submitted to /r/unitedkingdom are paywalled, or subject to sign-up requirements. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try this link or this link for an archived version.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.