Starmer's Chagos deal reported to UN human rights chiefs
Campaigners have asked the UN's human rights committee in Geneva to examine the deal, under which the UK will give up the Chagos Islands to Mauritius and rent back a military base there.
If successful, the request could result in a UN ruling in direct contradiction to the body's International Court of Justice, which said in 2019 that the UK should hand over the islands to Mauritius.
Bernadette Dugasse and Bertrice Pompe, who are British citizens but native to the islands, launched an eleventh-hour bid to stop the deal last month, resulting in a dramatic injunction from the High Court in the middle of the night.
But their legal challenge was rejected the next day, and the deal went ahead, including a commitment for the UK to pay Mauritius up to £30 billion over the next 99 years.
Ms Dugasse and Ms Pompe are now taking their fight to the UN by writing to the committee asking for an advisory opinion that the UK should not sign the deal over human rights concerns.
They allege the deal breaches five articles of the UN's international covenant on civil and political rights, including the right to self-determination, freedom of movement and right to return, and minority rights.
The deal agreed by Sir Keir has been opposed by MPs from the Conservative and Reform parties, and Tory peers have since launched a campaign to block the deal from the House of Lords.
But the Government insists that the deal is vital for national security and will allow the military base on the archipelago's biggest island, Diego Garcia, to continue to operate legally.
It follows years of negotiations between Britain and Mauritius, which claims it should have been given sovereignty over the islands when it was given independence from the UK in 1968.
The population of the islands, between 1,400 and 1,700 people, was removed in the late 60s and early 70s to make way for the military base.
The displaced Chagossians claim that they were not consulted before the Starmer deal was signed, and complain that under the terms agreed between the UK and Mauritius, they will not be allowed to return to Diego Garcia.
Ms Pompe said: 'The fight is not over. There is nothing in that treaty for Chagossians and we will fight.'
The UN does not have the power to block the deal, but the committee could issue an advisory opinion that would inform Downing Street it could be in breach of international human rights obligations if it proceeds.
The campaigners told the committee in a letter, seen by The Telegraph, that the deal 'would amount to a definitive and irreversible endorsement of a continuing violation originally initiated by the colonial power'.
It goes on: 'By excluding the Chagossian people from the process and de facto accepting their permanent displacement, the agreement entrenches the denial of their right to return and the effective exercise of their cultural, spiritual rights.'
Toby Noskwith, who coordinated last month's legal action, said: 'I pity the poor souls in the No10 press office who are being ordered to justify Keir Starmer's betrayal of the Chagossian people.
'We're looking forward to the explanation of why the UN human rights committee doesn't matter. Not pausing the Chagos deal until the Committee rules is indefensible.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
16 minutes ago
- The Independent
Rachel Reeves says ‘I was upset but today's a new day' after Commons tears
Chancellor Rachel Reeves was visibly upset during Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday, stating the next day it was a "personal issue" she would not elaborate on. Despite the emotional moment, Ms Reeves insisted she was "cracking on with the job" when she appeared publicly on Thursday to launch the NHS 10-year plan. 'People saw I was upset, but that was yesterday. Today's a new day,' she said. Keir Starmer publicly defended Ms Reeves, acknowledging he had not fully appreciated her distress during the fast-paced PMQs. The chancellor's emotional display, alongside a £5 billion deficit in spending plans, initially unsettled financial markets, though government bonds rallied and the pound steadied after reassurances about her position. While Labour colleagues defended her, some Conservatives criticised her public show of emotion, suggesting it was inappropriate for a senior leader.
The Independent
16 minutes ago
- The Independent
Every Labour U-turn after PM reverses welfare cuts
Sir Keir Starmer has announced his latest U-turn: a £5bn change of course over his flagship welfare bill. With just minutes to go before MPs were set to vote on an already watered down welfare bill, he confirmed plans abandon a key plank of the reforms in order to get them through parliament and avoid a mass rebellion from his own MPs. The U-turn left the prime minister's authority battered and left the chancellor with a gaping hole in the public finances. As Sir Keir marks one year in office, The Independent looks at all the times he has U-turned on his promises or let voters down. Sir Keir suffered the biggest blow to his leadership since coming into power a year ago after he was forced to abandon a key plank of his controversial benefit cuts in order to get them through parliament. Just 90 minutes before voting began, ministers announced that plans to restrict eligibility for personal independence payments (PIP) – which had been the central pillar of the government's reforms – were being dropped. Sir Keir had already been forced into a U-turn the week before when more than 130 Labour MPs signed an amendment that would have effectively killed the bill off. Among the concessions announced then was a plan to impose tougher eligibility rules only on future PIP claimants, leaving existing recipients unaffected. Winter fuel payments In July, the chancellor announced that pensioners not in receipt of pension credits or other means-tested benefits would no longer receive winter fuel payments - a £300 payment to help with energy costs in the colder months. After spending months ruling out a U-turn, the prime minister in May told MPs he now wants to ensure more pensioners are eligible for the payment – something he claimed has come as a result of an improving economic picture. After weeks of speculation over what the changes would look like, it has now been confirmed that 9 million pensioners will be eligible for the payment - a huge uplift from the 1.5 million pensioners who received the payment in winter 2024-25. Grooming gangs Sir Keir spent months brushing off calls for a national inquiry with statutory powers into grooming gangs as unnecessary. As Elon Musk launched himself headlong into the debate, calling for a fresh probe into the scandal, Labour's refusal looked increasingly unlikely to hold. But Sir Keir stood firm, and even accused those calling for an inquiry, including Tory leader Kemi Badenoch, of ' jumping on the bandwagon of the far-Right '. But in yet another screeching U-turn, after months of holding out, Sir Keir in June accepted the recommendation of Baroness Casey to hold an inquiry. In a 2022 interview, Sir Keir said: 'All your working life you've got in mind the date on which you can retire and get your pension, and just as you get towards it, the goalposts are moved and you don't get it, and it's a real injustice. 'We need to do something about it. That wasn't the basis on which you paid in or the basis on which you were working.' But, in a familiar change of tune since becoming prime minister, Sir Keir last year sent his work and pensions secretary out to tell Women Against State Pension Inequality, Waspi women, they would not be getting any compensation. National insurance Labour's pre-election manifesto promised not to increase national insurance. It stated: 'Labour will not increase taxes on working people, which is why we will not increase National Insurance, the basic, higher, or additional rates of Income Tax, or VAT.' But, Sir Keir and Chancellor Ms Reeves used the ambiguity around whether they meant employer or employee national insurance contributions to steamroll the pledge at Labour's first Budget in power. The pair argue that they only promised to keep employee contributions frozen and instead landed firms with a 2 per cent increase to employer national insurance contributions. Tractor tax Farmers have also said they feel betrayed by the PM, after a 2023 National Farmers Union (NFU) speech in which he promised to have 'a new relationship with the countryside and farmers'. Sir Keir claimed to be concerned that 'each day brings a new existential risk to British farming. He added: 'Losing a farm is not like losing any other business, it can't come back.' Going even further, then shadow environment secretary Steve Reed said it was 'desperate nonsense' to suggest he would scrap tax breaks for farmers, just weeks before the July 4 poll. But, in another hugely unpopular Budget bombshell, Sir Keir slashed agricultural property relief, meaning previously exempt farms will be his with a 20 per cent levy on farming assets worth more than £1m. Critics have said it will see family farmers forced to sell up, ripping the heart out of countryside communities. And other times the PM has rowed back on his words... Two-child benefit cap Promising in 2020 to create a social security system fit for the 21st century, Sir Keir said: 'We must scrap the inhuman Work Capability Assessments and private provision of disability assessments... scrap punitive sanctions, two-child limit and benefits cap.' But before the election, Sir Keir said Labour was 'not changing' the Tory policy if Labour were to win power. He has stuck to his guns, even suspending seven Labour MPs for rebelling against his King's Speech in a bid to have the policy scrapped. And now, it looks like the prime minister is gearing up to row back on the position. While nothing has been announced, the prime minister is privately said to be in favour of lifting the cap. He has refused to commit to anything until the child poverty strategy is published in the autumn but has insisted he is 'absolutely determined' to 'drive down' child poverty and has repeatedly sidestepped questions on the issue when pressed on it. £28bn green investment pledge As shadow chancellor, Rachel Reeves announced the party's plans for an extra £28bn a year in green investment at Labour's conference in September 2021. But before the election, Sir Keir ditched the £28bn a year target and said instead that he would spend a far smaller sum on Great British Energy, a national wealth fund for clean investment and pledges on energy efficiency. Bankers' bonuses Strict regulations on bonuses, which limit annual payouts to twice a banker's salary, were introduced by the EU in 2014 in a bid to avoid excessive risk-taking after the 2008 financial crisis. Former prime minister Liz Truss and chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng scrapped the cap in 2022, in a bid to encourage more investment in the UK. Sir Keir had previously vowed to reinstate the cap, saying in 2022 that lifting it 'shows the Tories are absolutely tone deaf to what so many people are going through'. But in another major U-turn, Ms Reeves announced before the election that the party 'does not have any intention of bringing that back'.
The Guardian
29 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Reeves's fearsome challenge: to balance backbenchers and bond markets
It was Bill Clinton's political adviser James Carville, way back in the 1990s, who said that in another life he would like to 'come back as the bond market' – in preference to a president or a pope – because 'you can intimidate everybody'. Even Donald Trump, that most wilful of politicians, has been forced to retreat in the face of bond market moves in recent months, ditching the most extreme of his 'reciprocal' tariffs after US Treasury yields jumped. And despite the traditional status of US Treasuries (government bonds) as a safe haven for global investors, it is still not clear how well financial markets will be able to swallow the $3.3tn increase in debt coming down the tracks if Trump's 'big beautiful bill' is passed. So when investors dumped gilts (UK government bonds) on Wednesday, as Rachel Reeves wept in the Commons, it was an abrupt reminder that Labour backbenchers were not the only audience the government must placate. Like many other major economies hit by a succession of shocks in recent years, the UK's relatively large debt pile means policymakers have to keep one eye on the markets they are relying on to fund their borrowing. And some analysts argue that the UK appears particularly vulnerable to crises of investor confidence, after the Liz Truss debacle of 2022. Given this backdrop, Reeves's team have always said their strict fiscal rules are not 'self-imposed' but there to prevent the government running up against the real-world constraints of the bond markets. As the chancellor put it in a recent speech, 'it is not me 'imposing' borrowing limits on government. Those limits are the product of economic reality.' Wednesday bond market moves supported her point, with the yield (in effect the interest rate) on government debt ticking up, as Keir Starmer appeared to hesitate in giving the chancellor his full backing. The market move suggested that, while Reeves may have lost credibility with Labour backbenchers after what many see as catastrophic misjudgments over winter fuel and welfare cuts, she does, apparently, retain the confidence of the bond markets. That matters, because this Labour government is operating in a very different, much more constrained fiscal environment than its predecessors. Government debt in the UK was running at about 30% of GDP in the early 00s, when Tony Blair was prime minister. Then came the global financial crisis, prompting multibillion-pound bailouts and a deep recession, and more than doubling the debt-to-GDP ratio to 70% by the time Labour left office. The decade and a half since has been marked by sickly economic growth, and another two 'once in a lifetime' economic shock: Covid, and the energy crisis prompted by Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Government debt is now close to 90% of GDP and is heading higher. The interest on that has cost the taxpayer more than £100bn in the last fiscal year – as much as 8% of public spending. In other words, what appear to be tiny moves in interest rates, if sustained, can cost taxpayers billions. The fact that Reeves's 'headroom' against her fiscal rules evaporated between the autumn budget and March's spending review was caused more by rising interest rates on government debt than a slowing economy – and this was driven as much by global events, including US tariffs chaos, as by decisions at home. Reeves hopes the squeeze on the public finances will ease as economic growth picks up – but that feels challenging, given the highly uncertain international context and the unavoidably long-term nature of many of Labour's pro-growth policies. By Thursday, the jump in gilt yields had partly reversed, after Starmer made clear Reeves continued to have his backing – perhaps not surprisingly, as there is scant evidence he wants to abandon her broad approach. Some of the chancellor's allies argue that she has emerged strengthened for the internal rows ahead, because she can point to investors' jitters to show there are limits to what the markets will tolerate. But after this week's welfare climbdown, her autumn budget looks like a fearsomely difficult balancing act, between restive backbenchers and sceptical investors.
