Pressure is intensifying on the British government to suspend negotiations over the future of the Chagos Islands, after fresh revelations concerning Peter Mandelson, his former consultancy Global Counsel, and the widening political fallout from disclosures about his links to the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein.
Campaigners and opposition figures say the talks, which would reshape Britain’s strategic position in the Indian Ocean and its relationship with Mauritius, cannot proceed while serious questions remain unanswered about lobbying, conflicts of interest and whether private actors stood to profit from decisions taken at the highest levels of government.
The intervention comes as the advocacy organisation Great British PAC called for an immediate pause to the process and launched a public petition at StopChagos.com demanding that negotiations be frozen until a full, independent investigation is completed.
Epstein disclosures ignite political storm
The crisis was triggered by U.S. court documents released this month detailing Mandelson’s long-standing association with Epstein, including communications that continued after Epstein’s 2008 conviction. The disclosures prompted renewed scrutiny of Mandelson’s conduct both during his ministerial career and later when he was appointed UK ambassador to Washington.
Prime minister Keir Starmer has acknowledged that the revelations raised serious concerns about the vetting process for that diplomatic role. Mandelson subsequently resigned from the House of Lords and stepped aside as ambassador, saying he regretted the damage caused to the government.
Mandelson and the Chagos negotiations
Unlike some other strands of the controversy, Mandelson’s connection to the Chagos talks is direct. As ambassador to the United States, he was one of the senior British figures involved in negotiations with Washington over the future of the islands and the joint military base there.
Media reports and parliamentary sources say he held closed meetings with U.S. officials concerning revisions to treaty documentation governing the territory. Notes of those discussions and draft updates have not been made public, adding to demands for disclosure now that Mandelson’s wider activities are under investigation.
Critics argue that this places the Chagos deal firmly within the current controversy rather than merely adjacent to it.
Focus on Global Counsel and shareholding questions
Attention has also centred on Global Counsel, the consultancy Mandelson co founded in 2010 and remained financially connected to until early this year.
Although he stepped down from day-to-day leadership in 2024 when preparing to take up the Washington post, the company confirmed earlier this month (February 2026) that Mandelson had continued to hold shares until this point, when it announced that his remaining stake had finally been divested and that he would now have “no role or association” with the business going forward.
That disclosure sharpened scrutiny of whether a serving ambassador should have retained a financial interest in a firm engaged in advising multinational clients on government relations.
The firm has also been under pressure following its 2023 investigation by the Office of the Registrar of Consultant Lobbyists over disclosure issues, and amid reporting about contacts between Mandelson and Epstein conducted using Global Counsel email addresses.
Why the chief executive resigned
Last week Global Counsel’s long-time chief executive and co founder, Benjamin Wegg Prosser, also stepped down.
According to reporting in the Guardian and City AM, his departure formed part of an effort to draw a line under the reputational damage caused by the Epstein disclosures and Mandelson’s continued association with the firm until very recently. Several clients have also reportedly cut ties or reviewed their relationships with the consultancy recently.
The resignation has been interpreted in Westminster and the corporate world as evidence of the scale of the crisis confronting the company.
Palantir and government contracts
One strand of the controversy involves the data analytics firm Palantir Technologies, which has received substantial UK government contracts in recent years.
The Daily Mail and the Guardian have reported that Mandelson helped arrange meetings between British ministers and Palantir executives while the company was also a client of Global Counsel. Opposition MPs have demanded full transparency about any role such introductions played in procurement decisions. Both the government and Palantir insist that contracts were awarded through proper processes and deny wrongdoing.
It is also clear some of Global Counsel’s clients operate in the mining and energy sectors, industries with significant interests in deep-sea mineral exploration, including potential commercial activity on the Indian Ocean seabed around Chagos.
Campaigners demand a pause
Against this backdrop, campaigners say pushing ahead with the Chagos agreement risks fatally undermining public confidence.
In launching its petition, the Great British PAC said that unresolved questions about lobbying and financial relationships meant ministers could not credibly proceed with such a sensitive strategic deal. “Are some people making money from this,” one online campaigner online asked, “and if so, who, and how?”
Senior figures at Westminster are urging the government to publish correspondence between Mandelson, Global Counsel and departments involved in defence and foreign policy, along with records of meetings connected to the Chagos negotiations.
Claire Bullivant, chief executive of Great British PAC, said:
“We are not here to accuse anyone. What we are demanding is transparency. This is a major international agreement that could place the British taxpayer on the hook for billions of pounds, and it is only responsible to ensure that every aspect of the process has been properly scrutinised and is beyond reproach.
“Any MP or peer who genuinely wants to protect the public should welcome that level of due diligence. Asking questions and pausing to examine the facts is not obstruction, it is basic good governance.”
Legal specialists note that there is no automatic statutory requirement to suspend talks while allegations circulate, but stress that political convention and ministerial codes demand a far higher level of transparency where national security and major diplomatic commitments are concerned.
A defining test for the government
For Downing Street, the controversy comes at a moment of fragile public confidence and mounting political pressure. Ministers maintain that negotiations over Chagos are being conducted by officials and are lawful, but critics argue that the cumulative effect of the Mandelson revelations, the lobbying questions and the upheaval at Global Counsel make it impossible to proceed without first establishing the full facts.
Whether or not improper influence is ultimately proven, campaigners say one conclusion is unavoidable. Until Mandelson’s role, Global Counsel’s activities and the government’s decision-making processes are subjected to thorough scrutiny, any attempt to finalise the Chagos deal will remain clouded by suspicion.
That, they argue, is why the negotiations must now be paused.
To sign the petition go to www.StopChagos.com
