The chagos agreement

[Sephiroth]

I think that this topic merits a thread of its own.

The British press have cooked up a potential threat of the UK being sued by Mauritius for billions of GBP should the Chagos deal collapse.

"Amusing" in terms of Starmer that this prospect might be, the Agreement seems to me, at least, watertight against liability if the deal collapse. Highlighted text in the quotes are mine.

Agreement

between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of Mauritius concerning the Chagos Archipelago including Diego Garcia

London and Port Louis, 22 May 2025

[The Agreement is not in force]

Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs by Command of His Majesty May 2025

ARTICLE 18

Entry into Force
This Agreement shall enter into force on the first day of the first month following the date of receipt of the later note by which the Parties notify each other that they have completed their respective internal requirements and procedures necessary for the entry into force of this Agreement, unless the Parties agree otherwise.

From the Letter proposing payment rules (from UK to Mauritius)

c. each annual payment for the first (1st) thirteen (13) years shall be in respect of a twelve (12) month period commencing from the date of the entry into force of the Agreement or its anniversary, as applicable;

https://assets.publishing.service.go...ego_Garcia.pdf

So, you can see that the Agreement is not in force and there is thus no legal basis for a claim against the UK (in my opinion, at least). It may be that Mauritius will see it differently and that an International Court could side with Mauritius because they hate the UK.

So - there's plenty of fun yet to be had.

[Carth]

I'll be honest here, I've taken no real interest in whatever is happening with these islands.

Am I right in thinking we're handing them over and then paying some kind of 'rent' to continue to use them?

Why would we want to rent something that *according to the experts* will be 4ft underwater in the next few years

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Carth

I'll be honest here, I've taken no real interest in whatever is happening with these islands.

Am I right in thinking we're handing them over and then paying some kind of 'rent' to continue to use them?

Why would we want to rent something that *according to the experts* will be 4ft underwater in the next few years

no no no it's been underwater since the 90s or so we were led to believe

[Carth]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

no no no it's been underwater since the 90s or so we were led to believe

aah, so those rumours of the secret underwater nuclear facility with massive submarine (or UFO) base and fallout shelters for the rich and famous aren't just social media rantings then

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Carth

aah, so those rumours of the secret underwater nuclear facility with massive submarine (or UFO) base and fallout shelters for the rich and famous aren't just social media rantings then

no, i live in an underwater house, due to rising sea levels I've been underwater for decades

One thing I don't understand is that the reason we keep these islands is because of the American base located there, so why don't we hand it over to them entirely and let them worry about it?

We don't have to deal with the issue anymore. Trump gets more land.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by Damien

One thing I don't understand is that the reason we keep these islands is because of the American base located there, so why don't we hand it over to them entirely and let them worry about it?

We don't have to deal with the issue anymore. Trump gets more land.

Trump would go for that deal 'if he ever found out about the rich oil and mineral deposits under the islands' . . . ooops, I've let it out now, sure hope the AI bots don't spread that around.