Luke Evans: The Chagos deal is not just flawed, but dangerous
Who's accountable for the results?
Dr Luke Evans is shadow minister for health and social care.
In Monty Python and the Holy Grail, the Black Knight has his arms and legs hacked off, yet still insists it is “just a flesh wound”. Watching Ministers defend the Chagos deal now feels much the same.
Every time a Minister is asked a straight question, they dodge it. Another limb gone. Another “tis but a scratch”. MPs ask what happens if the United States refuses to agree. No answer. MPs ask how nuclear treaties affect our most sensitive military base. No answer. MPs ask who really controls Diego Garcia once sovereignty is handed away. Still no answer.
Instead of clarity, the Labour Government shouts political “gamesmanship”. That charge collapses on contact with reality. This is not political theatre. It is Parliament doing its job.
When ministers cannot explain the consequences of giving away British territory, the problem is not the questions. The problem is the deal.
The Government insists that the proposed Chagos Islands deal is necessary, settled and legally sound. Yet each time Parliament asks simple, reasonable questions, Ministers struggle to give clear answers. That alone should give the country pause. But the deeper one looks, the more serious the problems become. This deal is not merely imperfect. It risks undermining Britain’s nuclear deterrent, our alliance with the United States, and our credibility at a time of global instability.
It should be scrapped.
At the heart of the issue is sovereignty. Handing the Chagos Islands away is not an abstract legal exercise. Sovereignty determines which laws apply, which treaties bind, and who ultimately controls what happens on strategically vital territory. Nowhere is that more consequential than Diego Garcia a crucial military base in the Indopacific.
One unanswered question has loomed over this debate from the start. Can Britain unilaterally transfer sovereignty over the Chagos Islands without American agreement under the 1966 UK–US Exchange of Notes?
Ministers have explained the process repeatedly, but they have never answered the crucial point: What happens if the United States does not agree to amend that agreement? If the answer is that the deal collapses, ministers should say so. If the answer is something else, they should explain it. Silence on this point is not reassurance. It is a warning sign.
Yet even that is not the most troubling issue. The most serious problem lies in the interaction between the proposed treaty and the Treaty of Pelindaba, the African nuclear-weapon-free zone treaty, to which Mauritius is a signatory.
Pelindaba is explicit. It prohibits the stationing, storage and possession of nuclear explosive devices on the territory of signatory states. It goes further, committing those states not to assist …
Who's accountable for the results?
Dr Luke Evans is shadow minister for health and social care.
In Monty Python and the Holy Grail, the Black Knight has his arms and legs hacked off, yet still insists it is “just a flesh wound”. Watching Ministers defend the Chagos deal now feels much the same.
Every time a Minister is asked a straight question, they dodge it. Another limb gone. Another “tis but a scratch”. MPs ask what happens if the United States refuses to agree. No answer. MPs ask how nuclear treaties affect our most sensitive military base. No answer. MPs ask who really controls Diego Garcia once sovereignty is handed away. Still no answer.
Instead of clarity, the Labour Government shouts political “gamesmanship”. That charge collapses on contact with reality. This is not political theatre. It is Parliament doing its job.
When ministers cannot explain the consequences of giving away British territory, the problem is not the questions. The problem is the deal.
The Government insists that the proposed Chagos Islands deal is necessary, settled and legally sound. Yet each time Parliament asks simple, reasonable questions, Ministers struggle to give clear answers. That alone should give the country pause. But the deeper one looks, the more serious the problems become. This deal is not merely imperfect. It risks undermining Britain’s nuclear deterrent, our alliance with the United States, and our credibility at a time of global instability.
It should be scrapped.
At the heart of the issue is sovereignty. Handing the Chagos Islands away is not an abstract legal exercise. Sovereignty determines which laws apply, which treaties bind, and who ultimately controls what happens on strategically vital territory. Nowhere is that more consequential than Diego Garcia a crucial military base in the Indopacific.
One unanswered question has loomed over this debate from the start. Can Britain unilaterally transfer sovereignty over the Chagos Islands without American agreement under the 1966 UK–US Exchange of Notes?
Ministers have explained the process repeatedly, but they have never answered the crucial point: What happens if the United States does not agree to amend that agreement? If the answer is that the deal collapses, ministers should say so. If the answer is something else, they should explain it. Silence on this point is not reassurance. It is a warning sign.
Yet even that is not the most troubling issue. The most serious problem lies in the interaction between the proposed treaty and the Treaty of Pelindaba, the African nuclear-weapon-free zone treaty, to which Mauritius is a signatory.
Pelindaba is explicit. It prohibits the stationing, storage and possession of nuclear explosive devices on the territory of signatory states. It goes further, committing those states not to assist …
Luke Evans: The Chagos deal is not just flawed, but dangerous
Who's accountable for the results?
Dr Luke Evans is shadow minister for health and social care.
In Monty Python and the Holy Grail, the Black Knight has his arms and legs hacked off, yet still insists it is “just a flesh wound”. Watching Ministers defend the Chagos deal now feels much the same.
Every time a Minister is asked a straight question, they dodge it. Another limb gone. Another “tis but a scratch”. MPs ask what happens if the United States refuses to agree. No answer. MPs ask how nuclear treaties affect our most sensitive military base. No answer. MPs ask who really controls Diego Garcia once sovereignty is handed away. Still no answer.
Instead of clarity, the Labour Government shouts political “gamesmanship”. That charge collapses on contact with reality. This is not political theatre. It is Parliament doing its job.
When ministers cannot explain the consequences of giving away British territory, the problem is not the questions. The problem is the deal.
The Government insists that the proposed Chagos Islands deal is necessary, settled and legally sound. Yet each time Parliament asks simple, reasonable questions, Ministers struggle to give clear answers. That alone should give the country pause. But the deeper one looks, the more serious the problems become. This deal is not merely imperfect. It risks undermining Britain’s nuclear deterrent, our alliance with the United States, and our credibility at a time of global instability.
It should be scrapped.
At the heart of the issue is sovereignty. Handing the Chagos Islands away is not an abstract legal exercise. Sovereignty determines which laws apply, which treaties bind, and who ultimately controls what happens on strategically vital territory. Nowhere is that more consequential than Diego Garcia a crucial military base in the Indopacific.
One unanswered question has loomed over this debate from the start. Can Britain unilaterally transfer sovereignty over the Chagos Islands without American agreement under the 1966 UK–US Exchange of Notes?
Ministers have explained the process repeatedly, but they have never answered the crucial point: What happens if the United States does not agree to amend that agreement? If the answer is that the deal collapses, ministers should say so. If the answer is something else, they should explain it. Silence on this point is not reassurance. It is a warning sign.
Yet even that is not the most troubling issue. The most serious problem lies in the interaction between the proposed treaty and the Treaty of Pelindaba, the African nuclear-weapon-free zone treaty, to which Mauritius is a signatory.
Pelindaba is explicit. It prohibits the stationing, storage and possession of nuclear explosive devices on the territory of signatory states. It goes further, committing those states not to assist …
0 Comments
0 Shares
42 Views
0 Reviews
