James York: The Truth on Chagos? We need an off ramp, fast

James York is a member of the Beaconsfield Conservative Association and a policymaker in the insurance industry. 

Nothing is more pressing in our national politics right now than the plight of the absurd, inconceivable, illogical, baffling and frankly suspicious Chagos Islands “deal”. We must find Sir Keir (Sucker?) Starmer an off ramp. A democracy that treats non-binding advice as binding, perpetuates the conversion of sovereignty into ritual.

Trumps acquiescence was caveated by the admission he’d use force to protect his interests. Did you catch the deep breath of irony? It was negating by its nature! Loathe, respect or love Trump – it’s pretty evident that he is playing the game of international relations poker as a realist.

He knows it’s all about power, but one fears our “regulation oriented” barristercrats don’t. They quietly rock, mumbling about “international law”, whilst power across the world does what it wants until it meets the equal and opposing force of other power. There’s really only two states that matter right now.

We all know, in Texas Holdem’ terms, this Chagos move is quit literally “a flop” of bad, bad cards, and very expensive “blinds”!

Let’s take a stock check of why we’re doing this Chagos deal. Firstly, there’s “legal” obligation. It doesn’t take a barristercratic Cambridge alum to spot that the “ruling” behind which Starmer hides is merely advisory.

If the police “advised” you to pay a fine, you might think it in your best interests to, thus avoiding future ire. But if your neighbour did because a bamboo plant had snuck under their fence. Would you? Well, only would if their demand was backed by, say, those police. But the world has no such police force. No state is bound by anything but power. It’s a long-standing thing we call sovereignty. It’s telling that so many on the left scoff at the word.

This ruling is the equivalent of a neighbour demanding compensation, with no police force to enforce it if you don’t comply. Just the dirty looks of other neighbours – many of whom have their skeletons in the windows and feral kids hacking your wifi.

Are you seriously going to change their future behaviour just by “doing the right thing”?

Equivalently, are we noticing British actions being ruled upon by a Chinese and a Russian judge? Something about it doesn’t track. Roughly 50 per cent of the ICJ advisory ruling’s judges could be considered as originating from democracies! This is not an outright accusation of bad faith. Rather, a recognition of the potential that legal cultures formed in non-democratic systems cannot help but interpret consent, legitimacy, and the actions of ideological counterparts differently.

There is the question of personal conflicts of interest, too. Whether or not any impropriety exists is not the point. The appearance of overlapping professional, ideological and reputational incentives would be unacceptable in most other public-decision making domains. Doesn’t Labour’s pursuit of Baroness Mone indicate their instincts on such appearances?

It could be understood, even empathised with that Sir Keir Starmer feels the unconscious tug of approval from a peer in the bar circles to which he cleaves (although, of course, his father was a toolmaker!). His own Attorney General, Lord Hermer was a close colleague of Sands’ at Matrix Chambers – that would suggests professional admiration by proxy, at least. Hermer’s Recusal, while procedurally proper, has the perverse effect here of removing precisely the institutional challenge that democratic accountability would require. A system in which proximity necessitates withdrawal rather than scrutiny is not neutral — it is structurally self-disarming. One wouldn’t wish to be the second in command, asked to approve this deal.

Before we risk the embrace of tin-foiled suspicion, let’s be logical.

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth, said Holmes.

We have already established that it is impossible to insist the decision is beyond legal challenge, and those who made it beyond reproach. It is impossible that this deal is in our national interests. We also have a black hole, don’t we? You can’t spend £35bn when you’re in a black hole! It is impossible that the Chagos islands were threatened by force – Mauritius is all but unarmed. It is also impossible to argue there’s any kind of mandate for this. Starmer is using sovereignty, without even an indicative mandate.

So what is the off ramp? In this instance, democratic mandate has been voluntarily displaced for international law. For there can be no compulsion in an advisory decision. Parliament remains sovereign, even in light of international law. It comes to the root of the Chagos, and even Brexit debates. Just how much sovereignty can an executive spend without a direct mandate? We have neither a mandate from the Chagossians – who appear all but forgotten by the UN and our lawmakers – nor is there a mandate from the British people to give away this land and rent a slice back.

Consider that the “turn” on our little game of international relations poker. The card is the tactical insistence that Chagossians have franchise and agency – just as we did in the Falklands. Secondly, the strategic demand to give it suit. That no longer can any executive use the sovereignty credit card as if it has no limits.

Let’s lastly give this deal a strategic stress test? Hypothetically, two months following this deal, Mauritius (defenceless as it is), signs a security compact for a small but potent naval and air defence package. The natural destination would be China, of course. Mauritius is credit worthy, too! Flush with £35-47bn of British fun money. This deal includes training, a classic Western tactic. Mauritius, seeking to defend its new hundreds of thousands of square miles, contracts China to build it a new naval base in the Chagos. China is rather good at building atoll bases – see the Spratley islands for details – and it despatches a civilian fleet, as well as a non-threatening training contingent of under 500 PLA professionals.

Remember, it’s a political decision to follow the advisory ruling without an express mandate from Chagossians or the British people. How does the deal look through that hypothetical lens?

What of the truth, then? It must lie somewhere between personal bias, corruption and outright ideological capture. Whether that capture is the rules-based order or another more insidious possibility. This policy is quite literally marquee for Sucker Starmer, a man who u-turns more than a forklift truck cleaves to it like a winning lottery ticket. History indicates that when decisions repeatedly contradict interest, threat and mandate, analysts are forced to look beyond error.

Regardless, if we lay down the democratic card we may yet avoid folding. Why does it feel like we’re being sold down that river regardless?