Chagos islands

There were many reasons why John Ruskin hated Rococo. The overly decorated style was a bête noire for the great architectural critic because he thought it the supreme example of excess and by its excess it concealed its true meaning. We are in an era of British life which I can only think of as ‘late Rococo incompetence’. The excess of bad news, government ineptitude and baffling decisions made by the state is now so great that we are struck dumb, incapable of meaningful reaction. The news cycle abounds with evidence of this tidal wave of depressing or destructive acts. The sheer number of hideous stories has desensitised us.

Imagine, if you will, King Charles in the Deep South. The aesthetics are easy enough: it doesn’t take much to picture His Majesty in crumpled linen, Her Majesty the right side of a large mint julep. But imagine if, in Richmond, Virginia, Charleston or New Orleans, His Majesty makes an off-the-cuff comment about how good it would be if the territories he was speaking in seceded from the United States and that it would be ‘a very great thing’ if claims of the Confederacy were honoured. His Majesty, in a show of tact, acknowledges that Washington D.C. might be a little miffed, but does so with a chuckle. After all, everyone knows that the aspirations of the US are old hat anyway. Except of course the King didn’t do that. He went to Washington and was the epitome of grace and charm.

‘The Special Relationship only exists when the Americans want something,’ a former Downing Street aide observed after Donald Trump rejected the Chagos Islands deal. There are profound differences between London and Washington over military action against Iran while the fourth anniversary of the war in Ukraine this week has exposed further fault lines. The result is that Anglo-American relations are at their worst point since the general election. Starmer’s team argues he should not be ousted at a time of huge international instability. But the reality of the Anglo-American relationship raises three questions. Where did things go wrong? Does the PM still have some kind of relationship with Trump?

When Britain handed Hong Kong over to China in 1997, Tony Blair was in melancholic mood. The newly elected prime minister turned to his aides Alastair Campbell and Jonathan Powell and mused: ‘We shouldn’t lose any more territory. Britain needs to be big. Look at a map. Britain is so small.’ Nearly 30 years later, Britain is shrinking further. Blair may offer advice to his successors in private – Campbell does so in public – but the only one of the trio exercising real power now is Jonathan Powell. He is the Starmer government’s national security adviser – the single most influential actor in British foreign policy. And he’s the architect of the debacle which has come to symbolise everything wrong about that policy: our surrender of the Chagos Islands.

Westminster, London Donald Trump might be determined to acquire more US land – here in Britain, however, our leaders are determined to give it away. A deal to hand over control of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius is in the final stages of parliamentary approval. Trump initially backed the deal, yet U-turned after his Greenland overtures were spurned. “The UK giving away extremely important land is an act of GREAT STUPIDITY,” he declared online. “NO REASON WHATSOEVER.” Bemused, he later asked a British reporter in the Oval Office: “I don’t know why they’re doing it. Do they need money?

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has tonight been forced to stall the Bill which would hand the Chagos Islands over to Mauritius. The legislation enabling the deal was expected to be debated in the House of Lords on Monday. But this evening, it was revealed that the votes have been delayed amid parliamentary ping-pong and a backlash from the Americans. Both the Conservatives and Reform UK are keen to take credit for the pause in the bill, under which Britain would give up the archipelago and lease back the Diego Garcia base. The Conservative case for credit is on the legislative front. Peers like Lord Hannan argue that the flip-flop occurred only after the Tories had put out a rare three-line Whip for Monday, with ministers concluding that their Bill would fall.

"Better late than never." That’s how Reform party leader Nigel Farage has described Donald Trump’s sudden and dramatic repudiation of the United Kingdom’s Chagos handover. "This should be enough to sink just about the worst deal in history." Early this morning, Trump used his Truth Social account to lay into "our 'brilliant' NATO ally, the United Kingdom, over Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s decision to "give away the Island of Diego Garcia, the site of a vital military base, and to do so FOR NO REASON WHATSOEVER.

It would be natural to assume that sinking bond markets would be the government’s priority this week, as low UK growth and high borrowing rattles investors. Yet remarkably the Prime Minister’s attentions seem to be focused elsewhere: on advancing a deal to cede sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius in the days before Donald Trump is inaugurated for his second term as US President. Trump is an opponent of the deal for good reason. The US military base on Diego Garcia proved invaluable during the two Gulf Wars. Keir Starmer is yet to meet an international tribunal he won’t genuflect before Keir Starmer, a former human rights lawyer, appears to be motivated by a desire to observe the rule of international law.

There are just eight days to go until Donald Trump takes office. So the question much of Whitehall is asking is: will David Lammy’s Chagos deal get over the line in time? The agreement to hand the valuable cluster of islands to Mauritius has been attacked by China hawks in the U.S – including Marco Rubio, Trump’s pick for Secretary of State. He has decried the deal as ‘a serious threat to our national security interests in the Indian Ocean.’ Given those risks, why is the Labour government so intent on pressing ahead? After all, handing over British territory isn’t cheap: the current bill stands at £9 billion for UK taxpayers. One reason why the Labour government might be keen on settling the issue is direction from the top.

One of the main arguments against hereditary peerages is that talent and ability are not always passed down across generations. There is much to this. Students of history will know that all the great dynasties see some kind of falloff in capability. Whether the Habsburgs, the Plantagenets or the Kinnocks, the families produce a man – or occasionally a couple of men – of quality, only to see their heirs and successors squander everything. The same rule exists in a meritocratic age. Someone in a family makes a fortune. The next generation spends it. A generation after that, the family is back to square one. Give or take a generation, and you can follow this rule in all of nature, as well as in the obituaries section of the Daily Telegraph.