🏝️💷One of Sir Keir Starmer’s closest friends, Prof Philippe Sands KC, acted as lead counsel for Mauritius in the Chagos Islands dispute between 2010 and 2024. Documents released to the Mauritian parliament show that around £8 million was paid to his legal team during that period. While his precise share is unknown, as chief counsel it would have been substantial.
His legal work helped secure an advisory ruling at the International Court of Justice — a ruling Labour ministers have relied upon to justify transferring sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius.
And as part of that deal?
Britain will pay £35 BILLION to lease back Diego Garcia for 99 years.
No proven corruption.
No declared illegality.
Just… numbers so large they need their own postcode. 💰
Now let’s talk about the part that really matters.
AMERICA DOES NOT PAY THE UK RENT FOR DIEGO GARCIA.
Yes. Read that again.
For decades, the United States has operated the military facilities on Diego Garcia under a defence cooperation agreement.
There is no commercial rent cheque landing in the UK Treasury.
There is no annual payment offsetting costs.
The “payment” has historically been strategic partnership and intelligence cooperation — not cash. 🇺🇸
Now combine that with this:
Britain is committing £35 billion over 99 years to lease the territory from Mauritius.
So the obvious question becomes:
WILL AMERICA SHARE THE £35 BILLION COST?
Because if:
- The US is the primary operational user
- The base serves American global military strategy
- And Britain absorbs a 99-year financial obligation
Then British taxpayers are effectively underwriting a strategically vital American asset.
That isn’t conspiracy.
That’s maths.
🏝️ The Generational Mortgage Nobody Asked For
Ninety-nine years.
Governments change every few years.
Strategic landscapes evolve.
Technology shifts.
Alliances realign.
Yet a government that may not be in office in four years has committed the British public to a century-scale financial obligation.
Was Parliament fully consulted?
Was the cost-sharing detail laid bare?
Did taxpayers explicitly sign off on underwriting this arrangement?
Or did this glide through on the language of “international law” and “strategic necessity” while the price tag quietly ballooned?
Because £35 billion is not symbolism.
It’s schools.
It’s hospitals.
It’s defence spending elsewhere.
It’s debt interest.
And here’s the uncomfortable sequence:
A close friend of the Prime Minister earns millions arguing Mauritius’ case.
That case produces a ruling.
That ruling underpins a sovereignty transfer.
That transfer results in a £35bn lease commitment.
No conspiracy required.
Just optics sharp enough to draw blood.
🔥 Challenges 🔥
If America benefits most, should America pay proportionally?
Is this principled diplomacy — or the most expensive co-working space in the Indian Ocean?
Should a 99-year, £35bn commitment require explicit Parliamentary approval and transparent cost-sharing disclosure?
Drop your take in the blog comments (yes — the actual blog). 💬
Defend it. Dismantle it. Demand clarity.
👇 Comment. Like. Share.
The sharpest responses will be featured in the next issue of the magazine. 📰🔥
Chameleon Magazine 
Leave a comment