UK's deal to hand over Chagos Islands to Mauritius can go ahead, court rules
Date: 13:01 BST
Title: Government lawyer says 'everybody is standing by' to sign deal
Content: Responding to the High Court judge, Sir James Eadie - the lawyer for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office - says: "My instructions from Number 10 are that we need a decision by 1pm today if we are to sign today, and everybody is standing by."
Update:
Date: 12:58 BST
Title: Agreement can be concluded today, says High Court judge
Content: As we just reported, the UK's Chagos deal has been allowed to continue after a judge discharged an eleventh-hour injunction to block it.
Addressing the High Court, Mr Justice Chamberlain says: "I have concluded that the stay granted by Mr Justice Goose should be discharged and there should be no further interim relief.
"The agreement can be concluded today and it does not necessarily have to be at 9:00."
Update:
Date: 12:49 BST
Title: Court says UK deal to hand over Chagos Islands can go ahead
Content: A High Court judge has lifted an injunction that blocked the government from concluding its negotiations over the Chagos Islands.
We'll bring you more on this shortly.
Update:
Date: 12:43 BST
Title: Judge begins giving judgement on injunction
Content: At the High Court in London, Mr Justice Chamberlain has returned to the courtroom.
He is now giving his judgement over whether to continue the injunction that's blocking the UK from concluding its negotiations over the Chagos Islands.
Update:
Date: 12:40 BST
Title: Conservatives say Chagos deal should be 'ripped up'
Content: As we just reported, the Conservative government began negotiations on the Chagos Islands in 2022.
But the party now opposes the deal to hand over sovereignty to Mauritius.
This morning, shadow home secretary Chris Philp said: "The government should tear up its plans to surrender the Chagos Islands.
"This is a disgraceful surrender of British sovereignty."
Update:
Date: 12:36 BST
Title: How did we get here?
Content: The Chagos Islands were separated from Mauritius in 1965, when Mauritius was still a British colony.
Britain purchased the islands for £3m, but Mauritius says it was illegally forced to give them away, as part of the deal to get independence from Britain.
In the late 1960s, Britain invited the US to build a military base on Diego Garcia, the largest island. It removed thousands of people from their homes.
The UK has come under growing pressure to return the islands to Mauritius, with both the United Nations' top court and general assembly siding with Mauritius over sovereignty claims.
In late 2022, the Conservative government began negotiations, but did not reach an agreement by the time it lost power in 2024.
Update:
Date: 12:33 BST
Title: What is the last-minute legal action?
Content: Chagossians Bertice Pomp (centre, left) and Bernadette Dugasse (centre, right) arriving at the High Court this morning
The legal action was brought by two Chagossian women, Bernadette Dugasse and Bertrice Pompe, who want to return to live on the islands.
Under both the current arrangement, and the proposed new deal, Chagossians are prevented from returning to Diego Garcia - the largest of the islands, and home to the UK-US military base.
Earlier this year, their lawyer Michael Polak said: "The government's attempt to give away the Chagossians' homeland whilst failing to hold a formal consultation with the Chagossian people is a continuation of their terrible treatment by the authorities in the past.
"They remain the people with the closest connection to the islands, but their needs and wishes are being ignored."
A hearing on the case began shortly after 10:30 BST. As reported, the deal was halted at 02:25 this morning.
Update:
Date: 12:21 BST
Title: Welcome to our live coverage of the UK's Chagos Islands deal
Content: Owen AmosLive editor
Chagossian protesters outside the High Court earlier today
The UK wants to hand over control of the Chagos Islands - a British island group in the Indian Ocean - to Mauritius, before leasing back a UK-US military base on the islands.
The deal was expected to be signed today. But at 02:25 BST, Mr Justice Goose granted "interim relief" to two Chagossian women who had brought a case against the Foreign Office.
We'll bring you any updates from the court on this page - so stay with us.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
2 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Swinney meets with family of teen killed in gang stabbing
The 16-year-old was stabbed in the heart at Greenfield Park in the city's east end in May last year following a feud with a member of a rival gang. The High Court in Glasgow heard that the pair had fallen out over £50 which led to an argument and threads over social media. The killer, who was 13 at the time, was sentenced in May to five years after being found guilty of culpable homicide while acting under provocation. READ MORE: Dozens of children caught with knives across Scotland Swinney criticised over surge in youth violence in Scotland On Wednesday, the First Minister and Justice Secretary Angela Constance met with the teenager's family to discuss youth knife crime. The McCrimmon family called for the meeting to ask the First Minister what could be done to tackle the issue of knife crime, especially amongst young people, and what preventative measures could be put in place. During the meeting, the First Minister promised the family, who were joined by Victim Support Scotland, a follow-up meeting to look into the potential solutions in more detail. The family said in a statement: 'The main purpose of this meeting was to do everything possible so that Kory's death was not in vain. 'We really appreciated the chance to meet with the First Minister and Justice Secretary yesterday to talk about their plans to tackle youth knife crime. The First Minister has met with the family of a teenager killed by a gang rival in Glasgow (Image: PA) 'They really listened to our concerns and ideas, and the First Minister suggested having another meeting soon to look at possible solutions in more detail. 'We will hold the First Minister to this promise and to hearing in more detail about what the Scottish Government plans to do to stop more needless deaths caused by knife crime. 'Lasting positive change is our goal.' Kate Wallace, chief executive of Victim Support Scotland, added: 'We welcome the First Minister's commitment to a follow-up meeting with the McCrimmon family. 'This will be vital for solidifying the Scottish Government's commitment to addressing knife crime, especially amongst young people. 'The McCrimmon family took the opportunity yesterday to question the First Minister and Justice Secretary about this issue and what they are doing to stop more preventable deaths. 'We look forward to a swift response from the First Minister in regards to a follow-up meeting with the family. 'It is crucial that action focuses on a joined-up approach to preventing young people from being involved with this type of crime in the first place. 'Everyone has a right to feel safe in their communities. 'We will continue to advocate on the McCrimmon family's behalf, and on behalf of everyone impacted by knife crime in Scotland.' The Scottish Government has been approached for comment.
Telegraph
3 hours ago
- Telegraph
Record number of farms shut in wake of inheritance tax raid
A record number of farms were forced to close for good this year after Rachel Reeves's tax raid made the future of thousands of rural businesses unviable. A total of 6,365 agriculture, forestry and fishing businesses have closed over the past year, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS), the highest since quarterly data was first published in 2017. The majority of these closures took place during the first six months of the year after Ms Reeves, the Chancellor, announced in October that she would cut the amount of inheritance tax relief available to family farms. Just 3,190 businesses in the sector have been set up over the same period. It leaves a net loss of 3,175, indicating the number of farms is shrinking at the fastest pace on record. Victoria Atkins, the shadow environment secretary, said the farm closures were a result of 'Labour's disastrous tax policies'. She added: 'The crippling NICs increases, alongside the family farm and family firm taxes, are destroying generational businesses, creating job instability and even leading to devastating suicides. 'These statistics prove that Labour do not understand our rural communities and our rural communities cannot afford Labour.' Lee Anderson, a Reform UK MP, said rising taxes and red tape were 'pushing British farming to the brink'. 'No government in modern history has done more damage to rural Britain than Labour is right now,' he said. 'Farms are closing at twice the rate new ones are opening. This is completely unsustainable. Labour has betrayed the industry that helped build this country.' 'Beaten from post to pillar' Farmers are also grappling with the soaring cost of fertiliser and a poor harvest following the recent drought and floods last year. James Grindal, a 55-year-old third-generation farmer in South Leicestershire, said the poor weather and barrage of costs mean new farmers and entrepreneurs are reluctant to set up businesses in the industry. He said: 'Yields are quite a bit down this year, it has been so dry – we have not had decent rain for four or five months. 'People have been beaten from post to pillar. Whichever way you turn you seem unwanted. 'The Government is not over-supportive of us, with inheritance tax relief disappearing.' Mr Grindal's 84-year-old father still works on the farm and remains a part-owner. However, he warned that the Chancellor's tax raid meant that when his father dies, the family will be unable to invest in the farm as planned. Mr Grindal said: 'He is still actively involved in the farm – he still sits on tractors occasionally, why shouldn't he own a bit of the land he has worked hard to own? Out of nowhere [this tax was] dropped on us. 'When he passes away we are going to have to pay a fair bit of tax on that. It will probably stop us from doing some of what we are doing. 'I could understand the tax if we were going to sell it. But we are not, we are going to keep growing corn and feeding people.' Currently, family farms do not incur inheritance tax, receiving full relief on the usual 40pc rate. Under the changes introduced by Ms Reeves which take effect from April 2026, inheritance tax will be charged at a rate of 20pc, above a threshold of £1m. Farmers have objected that their businesses are typically cash-poor and low-margin, meaning they will be forced to sell chunks of their land to settle the bill. Mr Grindal said that the tax changes meant his teenage sons would be even more reluctant to take on the family business. 'There are not many people coming new into the industry. I've got two boys, 19 and 17, and I very much doubt they will come into farming,' he said. 'There is not a great deal of encouragement to get up at the crack of dawn and work all day and not get much reward for it, when they see what else they can do.' Confidence at 'rock-bottom' Tom Bradshaw, president of the National Farmers' Union, said confidence in the industry was 'at rock-bottom' with farmers facing 'a number of challenges.' The inheritance tax rise came as 'another bitter blow and another attack', he said. Mr Bradshaw added: 'It creates this continuing sense that the industry isn't valued and its worth to the country isn't being recognised. 'I can understand why the psychology is there that people will be taking the decisions that they may be resigned to sell off, and they are no longer able to make a living off it.' Victoria Vyvyan, president of the Country Land and Business Association, said taxes and red tape were undermining farmers' efforts to make ends meet. She said: 'This report says what ministers won't: rural businesses are being pushed to the edge. 'Farmers trying to modernise or diversify are blocked at every turn – by red tape, by National Insurance rises, by a government that talks growth while pulling out the foundations beneath it. 'Still, the countryside carries on. New businesses are opening. People are holding on. But grit isn't a strategy. What's needed now is simple: stability, clarity, and a government willing to listen – before more farms are lost and more families are forced out.' Michael Oakes, who sold his dairy business last year and now runs a beef herd in the West Midlands, said the rising demand for renewable energy was also compounding farmers' woes. He added: 'You've got some landlords taking land out of food production to put into solar.' Ms Reeves's tax change, which alongside a similar reduction in the relief for family businesses is set to raise up to £520m per year for the Exchequer, caused immediate political ructions with farmers driving tractors into central London to protest outside Parliament. MPs also heard emotional evidence from family farms about the dangers of the tax raid. Jonathan Charlesworth, a farmer in Yorkshire, said his father, John, took his own life in fear of the inheritance tax raid. Other farmers have told The Telegraph that the impending increase has opened a 'suicide window' for elderly business owners who worry they will impose a financial burden on their children and grandchildren by staying alive beyond April of next year. Any hopes the plans might be softened were dashed with the publication of the Finance Bill this week which confirmed the changes will come into force next year. A Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs spokesman said: 'Our commitment to farming and food security is steadfast and farming profits in the UK increased by £1.6bn last year. 'We are slashing costs and red tape for food producers to export to the EU, have appointed former NFU president Baroness Minette Batters to recommend reforms to boost farmers' profits, and we're ensuring farmers get a bigger share of food contracts across our schools, hospitals, and prisons.'
Telegraph
3 hours ago
- Telegraph
Britain can dodge climate lawsuits if it pays UN, Vanuatu lawyer says
Britain can dodge climate lawsuits from other countries if it makes 'significant and meaningful' contributions reflecting its historical responsibility for global warming to a UN fund, Vanuatu's lawyer has said. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) opened the door for countries to sue each other for contributing to climate change, including past emissions, in a landmark legal opinion on Wednesday. The case was brought by a coalition of nations suffering from rising sea levels and extreme weather, but which have barely contributed to global pollution. Margaretha Wewerinke-Singh, associate professor of sustainability law at the University of Amsterdam, is legal counsel in the case for Vanuatu, the world's most climate-vulnerable island. 'The opinion provides a legal basis for such a lawsuit should any state choose to pursue that? Whether or not that is chosen is of course another question,' she told the Telegraph the day after her courtroom victory. 'Litigation is not really in anyone's interest, certainly also not in the interest of states that are seeking reparations for climate harms,' she added in an exclusive interview. In 2022, world governments agreed to set up the UN Loss and Damage fund to compensate states that are disproportionately harmed by climate change. It is still at an early stage of implementation. It has initial capital of about £517m but the fund is expected to need trillions to cover loss and damage, and many governments have not yet committed funds to it. In 2023, the UK pledged up to £40m as an early contribution. Professor Wewerinke-Singh said Britain was involved in talks over the fund and needed to put more money into it. 'If that happens, and the contributions of the UK are significant and meaningful, and show that the UK is mindful of its historical responsibility, then I think climate vulnerable states will not rush to sue the UK,' she said. Climate vulnerable states were aware they were harmed by a problem they did not cause, and it was not fair for them to be forced to depend on charity, Professor Wewerinke-Singh said. In 2015, Vanuatu lost 64 per cent of its GDP when it was hit by a typhoon in an extreme weather event. 'Vanuatu and all the climate-vulnerable states are finding themselves in a state of continuing crisis,' she said. 'There needs to be a shifting of the burden from the victims to the polluters. This opinion makes it clear that those who are harmed indeed have rights to claim reparations.' The ICJ opinion has said it is up to states to decide how to assign blame for climate change. If they failed to do so, the courts could, she said. Professor Wewerinke-Singh said liability could be worked out by looking at each country's overall contribution to emissions that can be quantified. 'Basically the proportion of contribution can then be matched with the proportion that states should pay for damages,' she said. Though the UK contributed close to 100 per cent of all global CO2 emissions in the 1700s, this share has rapidly declined over time, according to data from the Global Carbon Budget. At 4.4 per cent it now sits behind the United States (23.8 per cent), the European Union (16.5 per cent), and China (15.0 per cent). A lawsuit could be launched by a single nation or a large coalition of them.132 nations supported the ICJ case. Senior Conservatives and Reform UK politicians have urged the Government to ignore the opinion amid fears Labour will follow it, as Britain implemented an ICJ advisory opinion when it gave the Chagos Islands to Mauritius last year. The advisory opinion issued on Wednesday in The Hague is a way of clarifying specific questions of international law, and is not legally binding. It does carry moral authority and will be influential on the future of environmental litigation. Vanuatu's lawyer said it was a 'mistake to treat the opinion as non-binding' because the law that the court had clarified with the opinion was binding. She said, 'If states don't do what the court says needs to be done, then they breach their obligations, their hard law obligations. So it really is a shift.' Even if a state walked out of the UN Paris Agreement, like the US is doing, it could not walk out of those obligations, she said. Professor Wewerinke-Singh was asked if she feared that historical climate reparations could be caught up in the same culture wars as demands for reparations for slavery. She admitted it was a risk but added, 'when we talk about reparations, it may sound very polarising, but it doesn't need to be. 'It can be a very collaborative process. It doesn't need to be contentious. It doesn't need to be about court battles. It can be done in a very civilised, mature way.' She said the world needed to discuss how to settle the issue 'in a way that benefits us all, that keeps us all safe, that ends the climate crisis, but also redesigns societies in ways that are sustainable and so everybody can have a dignified life'. After the decision Ralph Regenvanu, its minister of climate change adaptation, said Vanuatu would take the ICJ ruling to the UN General Assembly and 'pursue a resolution that will support implementation of this decision'. Legal analysis of the opinion for its government said, 'For Vanuatu, the opinion is both shield and sword: a shield affirming its right to survival and a sword compelling the world's major emitters to act in line with science and justice.'
