Home World Chagos Surrender Violates International Law—The Right Must Unite to Defend Britain’s Interests...

Chagos Surrender Violates International Law—The Right Must Unite to Defend Britain’s Interests NOW!

Under international law, a small number of fundamental principles—known as Peremptory Norms or Jus Cogens—override all other legal agreements, including treaties.

Among them is the right to self-determination, the principle that a people must decide their own future. The Chagos Islands’ destiny should be determined by the Chagossians and the British people—both of whom reject Keir Starmer’s reckless giveaway. A united right must act now to stop this illegal surrender before it’s too late, explains Great British PAC Policy Director, Andrew Hunt.

Things are getting serious for the fate of our country and its allies. To defend ourselves, we need a united right.

That means both the Conservatives and Reform UK must, now and again, put aside egos and vanity and work in concert for the sake of our nation. The Chagos debacle provides a perfect opportunity to do just that.

We have already seen good work from both sides, with Robert Jenrick’s excellent video persuasively explaining why the Chagos surrender is nothing but self-harming nonsense: Robert Jenrick releases seven-minute takedown of Starmer’s ‘nonsense’ Chagos ‘surrender’

In Parliament, Reform have vehemently opposed this vile deal, while Richard Tice has this morning pledged to rip up any deal, cease payments and retake the islands.

We can all agree that this time, The Tice is Right.

And if we can all agree, then we must halt the next Starmer disaster by working together.

Reform UK and The Conservatives just need to set out a united stance against the Chagos surrender on grounds of international law.

Under International law, there are a small number of laws called Peremptory norms or Jus Cogens. These are deemed so important that they trump other forms of international law, such as Treaties.

Peremptory norms include self-determination. That is the right of a territory’s people to choose their destiny. Simply put, either the Chagos Islands’ future should be determined by the Chagossians or the British People. Both parties have made clear that they oppose the Chagos giveaway and have not been sufficiently consulted.

Thus, we can argue that Chagos surrender is illegal. That means Reform and the Conservatives should commit to tearing up the Deal, halting all payments, freezing out Mauritius economically (no visas, no travel, no trade and no remittances), and as a last resort, retaking the islands with military force. That is, full restitution of the status quo.

That joint commitment, combined with a near certainty that the next general election will herald a new right government (Conservative, Reform or a coalition), would leave the Chagos deal in tatters.

For starters, The US will not want such a deal. It puts their military base in an even worse state of legal limbo, it leaves them on the hook for the billions not paid by Britain, and there could even be military skirmishes all around its airbase.  

Moreover, even Mauritius will want to walk away. The UK is a vital economic partner for the small nation. An economic freeze out by the UK would send them into financial crisis. Nor would Mauritius want to face a military skirmish with a powerful nation like Britain.  

That is why all it takes is a clear, courageous and united commitment from the right not to recognise the deal and retake the Islands for Britian and the Chagossians.

So come on Nigel, come on Kemi, this is a moment to work together for the nation.

2 COMMENTS

  1. Retake the Chagos islands by force? You have got to be kidding.

    That opens the door to, for example, China to take Taiwan, Argentina to take the Falklands, citing the same casus belli.

    The idea here is to prevent it happening. Saying that it will be reversed and not honoured by a future govt is possible, however prevention is better than cure.

  2. Update: I see Trump has approved the giveaway (reported Sat 5th april ’25). Sad day. This court case may be the only hope now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here