Explanation please.

Chocolatelovinggran, yes we share your relief. At least Starmer doesn't pout, have tantrums, bully, intimidate and make a mess wherever he goes for everyone else to clear up. Trump acts entitled, and thinks the world owes him. He will go down in history, but not quite how he imagines.

" I genuinely thought this was a forum for adults who could consider every point of view." But no-one has yet heard your point of view on the Chagos Islands, so no-one can consider it, to agree, disagree, or weigh one aspect against another.

Why not start again, beginning with your own thoughts on the handover?

Menopauselbitch

petra

I’m assuming you’ve searched for information on this issue?

She’s asking for opinions rather than what Google tells her

I didn't take the original question as asking for opinions but as a question on the facts and reasons for the action.

The facts were given, simply and clearly as asked, in 95% of the replies. The other few (very few) commented on how she could find more and deeper information online. That, after all, is how those who passed on the explanations had found it in the first place - Gransnet is not made up of paid professional political commentators who have been trained in seminars on international law. We are ordinary people in various occupations who discuss current affairs alongside other discussions on making Yorkshire puddings, coping with toxic relations and fighting bureaucracy.

For some reason the OP took offence at the mix of replies. She must be feeling fragile today. It is up to her, of course, whether she posts again on Gransnet or stays away.

Perhaps just understand that when people put real serious effort and time in answering your concerns

as they really genuinely did, and you appear to rubbish what they have said to you, people are bound to react, ROMILO.

Your other option was to lay out your concerns with backing up information, but you choose to take the huff instead of doing it. No-one has been nasty:

The floor is still open, should you decide to take it, of laying out the problems you have with the issue at hand specifically and with alternative information?

Would you do that for us?

Wow that's me told. I don't really see why why saying I would get worse on other forums makes it acceptable. I genuinely thought this was a forum for adults who could consider every point of view.
I'm sure there are lots of lovely people on Gransnet but I won't be posting again.

" information without the personal insults" If you tried posting the same question on one of the Social Media groups on Facebook, you would get some personal insults that make the snippiest answers on GN look like a loving letter from your doting Grandma!

You last year. Does anyone else think that many people are very quick to take offense at anything and everything these days?

May I politely request that if you have an objection to what is happening with the Chagos Islands, then you say specifically what it is rather than just ask for simple explanations.

People have replied in good faith. I did and you responded,

quite patronising answers on here. Wikipedia is unverified research, The Guardian hardly unbiased.

I explained that the Wiki source contains many references to court rulings and constitutional documents as well as books on the subject. The second was because it is not behind a paywall, as many newspapers are, so it is easy to access.

I asked you to say what it is that you want. You did not reply.

If you do have an objection to what is happening over Chagos, then why not say what to is so that people can have an informed discussion about it rather than these tedious ad hominen attacks.

Elegran

Well, you did ask if someone would explain it to you simply. DaisyAnneReturns posted a short very clear explanation at Thu 02-Apr-26 23:42:51 There is a longer account at lordslibrary.parliament.uk/uk-mauritius-treaty-on-the-chagos-archipelago/ and lots more on the internet from various viewpoints.

Yes and thankyou to those who provided information without the personal insults. The others can sit back and feel superior or maybe that is me being insulting.

Well, you did ask if someone would explain it to you simply. DaisyAnneReturns posted a short very clear explanation at Thu 02-Apr-26 23:42:51 There is a longer account at lordslibrary.parliament.uk/uk-mauritius-treaty-on-the-chagos-archipelago/ and lots more on the internet from various viewpoints.

Exit stage Right.

By blaming others.

Having been branded anti Starmer, ignorant, and too lazy to do my own research time to bring this lecture to an end. Well done all of you !

MayBee70

Wyllow3

What's the point of asking, OP, and when some people do some serious and reasonable research, just attempt to rubbish it:

when you are as capable as anyone else of finding, if you can, alternative sources of information that suit your narrative?

Just anti Starmer click bait. Imo…

It's time such posts were called out. It not difficult to find facts but I feel this OP, even though it’s phrased as a question, is aimed simply to cast doubt on a political decision and prompt others to join in that process, not because the criticism is based on neutral information but because of the mislead belief of the OP.

It is an old observation but there is a big, big difference between an informed discussion, and a pooling of ignorance.

Wyllow3

What's the point of asking, OP, and when some people do some serious and reasonable research, just attempt to rubbish it:

when you are as capable as anyone else of finding, if you can, alternative sources of information that suit your narrative?

Just anti Starmer click bait. Imo…

Kamiso

Anyone can write on WIKI. I certainly did when treatment options for my rare cancer were misrepresented.
The Guardian is no better than the Mail. Just a place for certain people to swallow their nonsense whole.
The Islanders wanted to stay with the UK but Starmer has his eye firmly on a place on the EU gravy train along with his greedy cabinet members and Milligan’s the nutcase who wants to go back to the dark ages.

Some seem to have attend Harry Windsors lectures and are unaware that the British Empire no longer exists and is now the Commonwealth!

The Guardian is independently run by a trust, as opposed to a single person.

The Daily Mail is owned by Lord Rothermere.

Most of the journalistic media in this country, sad to say, is owned by the Rothermere's and the foaming-at-the-mouth Rupert Murdoch's of this world, both of which keep a cast iron grip on their organisations via wholesale nepotism.

The Guardian and The Daily Mail are in no way comparable.

But you weren't to know that.

ROMILO

I normally stay well away from anything that could be described as political but can anyone explain simply why we are giving away the Chagos islands and paying someone for the privilege of taking them.

The UK isn’t simply “giving away” the Chagos Islands—it’s part of a long-running legal and diplomatic dispute with Mauritius.

The islands were separated from Mauritius by the UK in the 1960s before Mauritius became independent.
Mauritius has argued ever since that this separation was illegal under international law.
In recent years, bodies like the International Court of Justice and the United Nations General Assembly have said the UK should return the islands to Mauritius.

So the current UK policy is about resolving that dispute and aligning with international legal opinion, not just a voluntary giveaway.

As for the “paying” part:
The UK and its allies, especially the United States, want to keep using the military base on Diego Garcia.
Any payments are likely part of a deal to lease or secure continued access to that base after sovereignty changes.

Well, way back in the 1980's I think there was a lot of collective head-scratching when the Argentinians invaded The Falkland Islands.

"The what islands? Where?" and "never heard of it mate!"

Ditto The Chagos Islands.

What's the point of asking, OP, and when some people do some serious and reasonable research, just attempt to rubbish it:

when you are as capable as anyone else of finding, if you can, alternative sources of information that suit your narrative?

Not possible to 'give away' something you don't own in the first place. Those islands belong to the people who live there. Some nice references on here to the history and the plunder.

We were obliged to give back what was not ours.
We are not ruled by Trump who wants to take other people's land and rule the world - Greenland, Canada and chunks of South America.

Thank goodness Starmer is keeping us out of the illegal war that Trump and Netanyahu have started - some fools like Farage would have followed Trump all the way!

vegansrock

Mauritius is a poor country which relies on tourists and little else. Our colonial past is not all glorious. Time we gave something back.

Not so.

The have a thriving shipping port and online presence.

Menopauselbitch

petra

I’m assuming you’ve searched for information on this issue?

She’s asking for opinions rather than what Google tells her

No, the OP said "an explanation" which to me means she wants information, not opinions.
But maybe you know better..

Menopauselbitch

petra

I’m assuming you’ve searched for information on this issue?

She’s asking for opinions rather than what Google tells her

OP very clearly asked for an explanation (of facts), not opinions.

Dreadwitch I don't believe Starmer 'decided' to give it back. There was a ruling from the International Court of Justice in the Hague decided the archipeligo should be returned to Mauritius on 25/03/2019. In 2021, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) confirmed this ruling, stating the UK has no sovereignty over the islands.
However, neither of these bodies can enforce the ruling. The UN can but the 5 founding bodies, of which the UK is one, can veto the decision.

betterworldcampaign.org/un-explained/understanding-international-court-of-justice#:~:text=Does%20the%20ICJ%20enforce%20its,the%20power%20to%20veto%20enforcement - ICJ/ITOLS

I still believe the Chagossian people should be asked what they want.

Dreadwitch

Yes he could answer, as can many people. It's simple, we stole the land and Starmer decided it was, about time we gave it back.

Starmer had no choice in the matter.

In On 25 February 2019, the judges of the International Court of Justice by thirteen votes to one stated that the United Kingdom is under an obligation to bring to an end its administration of the Chagos Archipelago as rapidly as possible.

Years before Starmer became PM

petra

I’m assuming you’ve searched for information on this issue?

She’s asking for opinions rather than what Google tells her