A Number of Reasons I – the Chagos Deal

There are a number of reasons why the Chagos deal – handing the islands of the British Indian Ocean Territory – over to Mauritius,  is a really, really bad idea:

• It would compromise the reputation of the UK in the world, causing foreign countries to believe that the UK is now internationally weak, and unable to stand up for its own interests, and the interests of its people overseas. In particular, it encourages Spain to believe that it can take Gibraltar, and Argentina to believe that it can take the Falkland Islands;
• It would reduce the effectiveness of the military base on Diego Garcia because it permits foreign powers, with Mauritian approval, to construct their own military bases, including for surveillance and other purposes, on other islands in the archipelago;
• It would reduce the effectiveness of the military base because it would render it unlawful to service military assets with nuclear capability (both UK and USA) from using it;
• It would be a flagrant breach of the UK’s treaty 8737 with the United States, by which the UK promised that the UK would retain sovereignty over the islands;[1]
• It is extraordinary unkind to the Chagossian people, who Mauritius has always treated badly, who were not consulted, and who are more or less universally opposed the deal;
• It would cost the UK taxpayer a huge amount of money – over £30 billion.
• It would lead to the destruction of the Marine Protection Area, which is the largest marine protection area in the world;
• It is a deal made with crooks (both the current Prime Minister of Mauritius, and the previous Prime Minister of Mauritius have been arrested for money laundering and fraud).[2] The overwhelming likelihood is that if the deal proceeds, a considerable portion of the money paid will be syphoned off by these crooks.
• The case for handing over the Chagos islands to Mauritius has always been nonsensical. The Chagos islands have never been part of Mauritius (although it is true that for convenience they were for a while administered from the UK’s Foreign Office there);
• As part of the process whereby Mauritius gained independence in the 1960s, a deal was made between the UK and Mauritius whereby Mauritius was paid £3 million (£8 billion or so in today’s money) to renounce any possible claim to the islands. The then Prime Minister of Mauritius repeatedly said that Mauritius was not interested in the Chagos Islands. It would set a very bad precedent for the UK to permit breach of treaties made in the past;
• The court of the United Nations – the ICJ – had no jurisdiction in 2019 to rule on any question of sovereignty as between the UK and Mauritius[3], and the ruling was merely advisory in any event.[4] The ruling was not based on any sound legal principle, but rather was motivated by political antagonism towards the UK;
• The deal was steered through by an Indian gentleman working for the Foreign Office, Vijay Rangarajan. The population of Mauritius is predominantly ethnically Indian. It is prejudicial to public trust for a deal of this magnitude to be in the hands of someone with the same ethnicity as the beneficiary.
• Mauritius’s counsel is Philippe Sands KC, a close personal friend of the UK’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer. That raises a reasonable apprehension of bias. It is material that when Mauritius’ Prime Minister Navin Ramgoolam was caught carrying a suitcase of cash into a London bank in 2014[5], he said that he was in London to “discuss a legal matter with Mr Sands”.[6]

Is there any upside to the deal? Well, for politicians in Mauritius, obviously. And also, for Mr Sands, for whom the implementation of the deal would be a feather in his cap. Notwithstanding that Mr Sands swore the oath of allegiance when he took silk, he evidently takes considerable pleasure from the very opposite.[7]

---

[1] See https://phenell.wordpress.com/2026/01/24/giving-away-the-chagos-is-illegal/

[2] The previous Prime Minister is out on bail. Charges against the present Prime Minister were dropped due to the prosecution’s delay in lodging the case.

[3] This is because Mauritius was, and indeed is, a member of the British Commonwealth, and the ICJ has no jurisdiction to resolve disputes between members of the British Commonwealth.

[4] It is usually ignored; see the analysis Provisional, but Not (Always) Pointless: Compliance with ICJ Provisional Measures.  There is these days precious little compliance with the court’s recent rulings:

Case	Year of Order(s)	Substantive compliance	Procedural compliance
Allegations of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russia)	2022	No	–
Application of the CERD (Azerbaijan v. Armenia)	2021	Partial	–
Application of the CERD (Armenia v. Azerbaijan)	2021-23	No	–
Application of the Genocide Convention (Gambia v. Myanmar)	2020	No	Yes
Treaty of Amity (Iran v. United States)	2018	No	–

See also https://phenell.wordpress.com/2024/10/09/hey-joe-more-on-the-chagos-islands/

[5] According to Le Mauricien, the bank greeted him with the words, “How are you Mr Banker?

[6] “Le Premier Ministre à Londres: Navin Ramgoolam, un citoyen comme un autre”. Le Mauricien. 13 April 2014.

[7] He has said it is a “fantastic thing… when you’ve taken your own country to court, won, and humiliated them completely”

Giving Away the Chagos is Illegal

People who follow these pages will know, if they pay attention (?!), that I think the notion of international law is very largely a chimera. Most of what emerges from the United Nations is not law at all, in the proper sense of that word, but the unenforceable expression of some political or governmental aspiration.

An exception is to be found in agreements, either between governments or corporations, insofar as they are enforceable. They can properly be called “law”.

An agreement which I was unaware of until this morning is the treaty between The United Kingdom and the United States of America number 8737, which is registered at the United Nations. It is the original treaty of 30 December 1966 whereby the UK and the USA agreed to the use of Diego Garcia, the largest of the Chagos Islands, as a joint base. Article 1 provides as follows:

The Territory[1] shall remain under United Kingdom sovereignty

The attempt by Keir Starmer, in conjunction with his friends Richard Hermer[2] and Philippe Sands[3], to give away the Chagos Islands to Mauritius is mind-bogglingly daft for a number of reasons which I have already mentioned in these pages. It is also in flagrant breach of Article 1 of treaty 8737. That treaty has been adjusted a number of times, but never in this respect.

CoPilot at the Controls

I was minded this morning to write a blog about Kaprekar’s Constant, as it is called (I do not think it is really a constant at all). And I did. As usual, I composed the blog in Word before copying and pasting.

These days, Word appears with a little message at the top asking if I would like the assistance of Copilot. In a moment of curiosity, I tried it, telling Word that I was planning to write a post. Copilot came up with a complete post of total fluff.[1] Who would post that sort of stuff, I wonder? Well me, you might say, if you follow the footnote above. But really?

But what if I was a vicar? I am not. But supposing I were, and wanted a quick sermon. Sure enough, CoPilot comes up with a complete sermon.[2] It was not, I thought, much more vacuous than the sort of sermon that real people come up with. If they are vicars.

International Law? No. Not really.

Quite a few people have been blithely trumpeting that the arrest of Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela is in breach of international law. Not many of them have any idea what they are talking about.

A solid starting point is that there is not, in truth, any such thing as international law. It is a chimera. Law is – to take a fairly typical definition – a system of rules which a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and which it may enforce by the imposition of penalties. And there is precious little of that that is international.

There are a few things that people sometimes call “international law”: mostly these are treaties. Countries can sign up to treaties if they want to. Insofar as these are enforceable at all, they are enforced by means of arbitration, and some of these arbitral panels call themselves courts, notwithstanding that they are not really courts at all. But their decisions are often enforceable as a matter of national law (in the UK, for example, via the Arbitration Act). You can call that “international law” if you like. But it is only real insofar a nation says so.

So here is the thing: it is all voluntary. Nations can and do decide whether they want to sign up to and ratify any particular international treaty. If not, then the content is not “law” in any sense for that nation.

So, let us look at the Rome Treaty, which has spawned the International Criminal Court. That body does indeed sometimes prosecute individuals for doing things most of us would regard as bad. Well, very bad, actually.

The Undoing of Blair

When Tony Blair was elected as British Prime Minister in 1997, I guessed he would be not too bad. I had not voted for him, but like most people, I had him down as a moderate. But with the benefit of hindsight, I now think he was the most cancerous PM in British history.

He was, and still is, a true Fabian – a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Lurking beneath the easy-going affability, there beats the heart of a rabid international socialist, determined to destroy every foundation of what made Britain great. At the time, it all seemed so harmless. It slipped through, largely unnoticed, as “modernisation”. When the Tories got back into power, they had not the wit to undo it. And of course, Starmer is cut from the same cloth as Blair.

When the new Reform government gets into power, there will need to be a Great Repeal Bill, to cut out the rot. It will be a big task. It is not too early, I venture, to get organised with a list of what legislation must go.

Will Starmer be Saved by an Emergency?

A good deal of everything wrong with the United Kingdom at the moment can be traced back to Tony Blair.[1] It would be unfair to compare the damage he did to that caused by Joseph Stalin to Russia or to Mao Tse Tung in China; he painted on a much smaller canvas. And much of what he did went under the radar. One of the things he did was to enact the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. You may never have heard of it. But it is not impossible that, when the clock runs down on the Starmer government, it may be very significant.

It has not yet been used. But consider the position of the Starmer government in a couple of years’ time. On all present indicators, it will be facing defeat on a catastrophic scale. It will have achieved nothing save massive immigration, unaffordable power, civil unrest and impoverishment. Pretty much the whole of the Cabinet will face the prospect of losing its seat in Parliament. Hard on the heels of Venezuela. Bear in mind that Keir Starmer, although he wears a suit and sounds like a boring civil servant, is in fact a rabid international socialist. The ordinary course of democracy will mean the permanent destruction of his ideals. Is he going to give it all up? Or reach for the CCA?

If he can bring the country to a state of emergency[2], then section 22 might well come to his aid. It includes this:

22           Scope of emergency regulations

(3)           Emergency regulations may make provision of any kind that could be made by Act of Parliament or by the exercise of the Royal Prerogative

and that, of course, means that he can postpone any general election, and stay in power. Potentially indefinitely.

Another Lucy, Gored by The Law

I am having some real difficulty understanding why there has been a generalised assumption that Lucy Connolly was guilty of an offence in relation to the following tweet:

“Mass deportation now. Set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards for all I care. While you’re at it, take the treacherous government and politicians with them. I feel physically sick knowing what these families will now have to endure. If that makes me racist, so be it.”

The charge against her was under the Public Order Act 1986 section 19 (Publishing or distributing written material):

• A person who publishes or distributes written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting is guilty of an offence if—

(a)          he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or

(b)          having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.

It is always worth looking at the definitions and sure enough there is a definition in the Act:

17           Meaning of ” racial hatred “.

In this Part ” racial hatred ” means hatred against a group of persons in Great Britain defined by reference to colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins.

So let us look at the tweet. Who are “the bastards”? Clearly, it is the people in “the fucking hotels” (but presumably not the staff). And equally, those hotels were the hotels housing those who had crossed the Channel in small boats (let us call them “illegal immigrants” for the moment). That is a group, for sure. Is it a group defined by colour? Clearly not; the illegal immigrants were not of a uniform colour. Race? Clearly not; the illegal immigrants were not of a uniform race. Nationality? Clearly not; the illegal immigrants were of several nationalities. Ethnic or national origins? Clearly not; again, the illegal immigrants were not from a single ethnic or national origin. Instead, the group tweet was concerned with was defined by reference to the fact that they were people that had crossed the channel in small boats, and who were now being housed at public expense in hotels. That is the group that Lucy Connolly was primarily objecting to.

That is not the only group that the tweet was addressing. It was also addressing “the treacherous government and politicians”. It might well be thought that this included not only politicians, but also others in government, in particular civil servants. Again, that is not a group of persons listed in section 17.

Now, you might think that stirring up a bit of hatred, intentionally or otherwise, against politicians, bike thieves, estate agents, human rights lawyers, parking wardens or people who cross the channel in small inflatable boats is all thoroughly objectionable. But regardless of your views about that, such hatred is not “racial hatred” within the meaning of section 17. And if it is not “racial hatred” within the meaning of section 17, there can be no offence under section 19.

Lucy Connolly now says that she did not mean to stir up any racial hatred at all. And so there is no offence under section 19(1)(a), notwithstanding the concessions made by her lawyers. What about sections 19(1)(b)? Well, there is a problem for the prosecution here. This is what the Court of Appeal had to say about it:

5              Just over three and a half hours later, the applicant removed that message. By then, however, it had been viewed many times and reposted for others to read. In all, the message was viewed 310,000 times and reposted 940 times

There was no evidence that Lucy Connolly’s post had stirred up any racial hatred within that 3 ½ hours. Rather, it had stirred up some agreement among all the people who would reposted it. Stirring up agreement is not the same thing as stirring up racial hatred. Insofar as racial hatred was stirred up (as far as I am aware, there is no evidence at all that it was in fact stirred up at all), or was likely to be stirred up, it was stirred up by all those people who retweeted it. Obviously, the police would not like to go to all the trouble of prosecuting them. 940 of them. Much easier to find a single scapegoat.

And then there are those words, “for all I care”. Those words mean, of course, exactly the opposite of incitement. Let us take a couple of practical examples:

The wife of habitual drunken husband says, “Go to the pub and get sozzled again, for all I can”. Is that wife encouraging her husband go to the pub and get sozzled again? Clearly not.

Not so hypothetical, look at this from The Guardian:

Jon Savage very generously gave me access to his recordings of Sid’s mum – a heroin addict – going, “I fucking told him, ‘I don’t care where you go. Sling yer hook. Fuck off. Sleep on a park bench for all I care.” This when Sid was 15 years of age. So a very damaged boy.

Was that mother encouraging her son to sleep on a park bench? No.

The highest that the charge could properly be brought against Lucy Connolly was that she was saying that she not prepared to take any active steps to intervene in any riotous attempt to ignite the hotels. Well, it is not an offence to decline to get involved in a riot. Or to say as much.

And so we come to the question of her pleading guilty, notwithstanding that she was not. That was on legal advice that was, admittedly with the benefit of hindsight, less than ideal. But it was worse than that. Not only did her lawyer, Liam Muir of Carter Osborne, adviser to plead guilty, but also apparently conceded that the offence was of the most serious kind. The Court of Appeal said:

28. Mr Muir did not dispute that the offence fell into category A1 of the guideline.

I advance no criticism of Mr Muir here; that is a debate for an entirely different forum. As a lawyer myself, I know that all sorts of factors, not available for public scrutiny, might affect what advice a lawyer gives to his client. All that is pertinent to remark here is that if the courts had properly applied the law, they would have found:

• that Lucy Connolly had committed no offence;
• and even if there had been a technical infringement of the law, it was at a very low category.

There is every reason to believe that the refusal of bail for Lucy Connolly, her conviction, and the severity of her sentence were all politically motivated. The reality is that Lucy Connolly is middle England. As a childminder, she regularly cares for children of all ethnic backgrounds. Understandably, she wrote this tweet in a state of anger at the murders of children.

If you have not done so, I urge readers to listen to the interview by Allison Pearson. Just over an hour long, but worth the time.

She might bring down the government of Keir Starmer. For all I care.

Testing the Effectiveness and Safety of Vaccines

In an interesting post, statistician Steve Kirsch has explained his method for accurately assessing the effect of any intervention on any outcome. In particular, he looks at the effectiveness and safety of the Covid vaccines administered in the Czech Republic. Steve Kirsch seems to me to be a good statistician but a poor communicator; his post is really quite hard to follow as he hops around all over the place without readily explaining what he is doing. But I think I have got it, in a nutshell. And I will try to explain it.

The Czech Republic data is interesting because it contains three bits of data for a large number of individuals:

• when they were born
• when they were first given the Covid vaccine (if at all)
• when they died (if they have died)

Steve Kirsch says this is all the data you need. And it is reliable data.[1] Unlike data as to whether any given death was caused by Covid. There is such data, but it is highly unreliable, partly because the tests for Covid were highly unreliable, and partly because it is unclear whether any given individual died of Covid or with Covid. Much of the data proceeded on the assumption that if someone died within two weeks of a positive test for Covid, that person must have died from Covid. Even if the Covid test was wrong, and even if that person died because they were run over by a bus.

The questions of effectiveness and safety of vaccines are of course interrelated. Vaccines might reduce the number of deaths by preventing people from getting Covid, or reducing the severity of Covid (effectiveness). Or they might increase the number of deaths by reason of unwanted side effects (safety). And so the underlying question is whether, if a person is vaccinated with the Covid vaccine, is that person more or less likely to die prematurely (everybody dies in the end, of course). Stripped to its essentials, here is how Steve Kirsch’s method works:

The US will Probably Now Elbow the UK out of Diego Garcia

The terms of the agreement signed this week between the UK and Mauritius have now been published. It is called AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF MAURITIUS CONCERNING THE CHAGOS ARCHIPELAGO INCLUDING DIEGO GARCIA. Which is the usual form. But it is worth noting:

• the Labour government in the UK was elected with just 34% of the vote. Its support is now running some 22%. Less than a quarter.  The considerable majority of the people of the UK are against this deal. In other words, it is a deal being pushed through by a deeply unpopular government against the wishes of the people;
• Mauritius is one of the most corrupt countries in the world. This deal might well benefit the politicians of Mauritius, but is unlikely to benefit its people;
• the deal most assuredly will not benefit the Chagossians, who were not even consulted about it.

So let us have a look at some of the provisions of this agreement. Just a few of them. The provisions are in bold; comments are in italics.

Desiring to build a close and enduring bilateral partnership based on mutual respect and trust that enhances the prosperity and well-being of our people, the rule of law, and the security of our nations and the wider Indian Ocean region;

What a load of rubbish! There is no such “mutual respect and trust”. On the contrary, the whole of the campaign by Mauritius to obtain the Chagos Islands from the UK over the last few years is in breach of Mauritius’ previous repeated agreements that it has no claim to the sovereignty of the Chagos Islands, and has now been fuelled by lies, greed, and the support of the UK’s enemies. And far from enhancing the well-being of the Chagossians, this deal further worsens their plight. Unsurprisingly, the Chagossians have campaigned, and even tried legal action, to prevent this deal from happening. Both the UK government and the Mauritius government have treated the wishes of the Chagossians with utter contempt.

Blindness

By far the biggest piece of news in the UK right now is the massive Reform victory in the local elections and Runcorn and Helsby by-election.  Reform came top with 30 per cent, followed by Labour on 20 per cent, the Liberal Democrats on 17 per cent, the Conservatives on 15 per cent and the Green Party on 11 per cent.

So. Unwelcome news for the BBC, which is supposed to be neutral, but which in fact supports the Labour Party. Well? How have they reported it? It was not on the front page as I looked at their front page this morning:

Nor on their 2^nd page.