Keir Starmer likes to talk tough about his relationship with the USA, but as is always the case when it comes to his politics, the rhetoric does not match his actions. As the Financial Times reports this morning;
The UK government has been forced to drop legislation that would ratify its deal to hand sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, after the US withheld its backing for the plan.
UK officials acknowledged on Friday that the legislation had run out of time to proceed to the statute book within the current parliamentary session, which will end later this month.
I see no reason for the UK to have the right to the Chagos Islands. This is a legacy of its colonial past and something wholly inappropriate as a result.
Donald Trump is, of course, dedicated to creating a new colonial present. That is what his actions over Gaza, Iran, and potentially elsewhere (think Cuba) indicate.
Keir Starmer has, as ever in the modern Labour tradition, tried to triangulate this situation and has failed dismally. Now we can clearly see who has the upper hand: it is Donald Trump. Starmer convincingly proves, yet again, that he is both Trump's poodle and an agent for the advance of fascism as a result.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
There’s an opportunity now to develop a plan that provides a better solution for the islanders, with full consultation, greater financial support and strong resettlement arrangements to enable people to return to the outer islands if they wish to do so. But will Starmer take this opportunity or simply bend to Trump’s will?
This is not politics; this is playing with politics and yet again politics is made worse and weaker because of it.
How convenient for our most supine prime minister.
Supine: good word
Starmer also seems not to realise what involvement means. He states the UK is not involved in the war with Iran despite the fact that the UK supplies arms to Israel, allows the US to use UK bases and I gather uses UK forces to monitor events. Not being involved would mean no arms supply to a belligerent, no use of bases and not allowing UK air space to be used. Does he not realise that the UK is involved or is he simply caving in to Trump. He has no morals or scruples. At the next election he hopefully will be booted out.
Agreed
The people who should primarily decide the status of the Chaos Island are the Chagossians. But the UK and Us deported them between 1965 and 1973, another appalling stain on UK history. 🙁
Many of the original Chagossians will now be dead. Mauritius is 1250 miles from the Chagos Islands and seems to have little historical claim. Which leaves a huge mess in determining who should control the Islands.
The UK should listen to the remaining Chagossians and their descendants. Starmer, Trump, and Mauritius all seem to have been ignoring them.
Looking at some of the press coverage, we seem to seeing Imperial nostalgia with talk of “giving away the islands” as though they were British territory. The ICJ have awarded them to Mauritius. Do we want international law or only when it suits us?
As our military commitment seems to be small, perhaps the answer is to leave and let the Americans negotiate a ‘deal’ if it is that important to them? And it is key strategic base for them.
“The ICJ have awarded them to Mauritius”.
Of course one should generally comply with international law. But it is more important to do what is right. It is no excuse to say, “the ICJ told me to” (that was established at Nuremberg). The Chagossians wishes should be primary.
The media , including BBC have colluded with Starmer’s ‘its not our war’ trope, despite 2000lb bombs from Fairford slaughtering civilians in Tehran, and a fighter from Lakenheath shot down somewhere over Iran, and admission that are deploying our military assets from bases in the gulf and supplying arms to the terror-state destroying Beirut.<p>
No curiosity, no questioning, how would international law see all of this, just parroting ‘Israel targeting Hezbollah’ as kids bodies pulled out from under the rubble.
Agreed