Minister defends ‘good value' Chagos deal as Badenoch says Trump ‘laughing'

A minister has said the US will be paying 'many multiples more' to operate the Diego Garcia military base than the UK will pay to lease it under the Chagos deal, as Kemi Badenoch said the agreement would leave Donald Trump 'laughing'.
Armed forces minister Luke Pollard defended the deal as 'good value' but the Tory leader said the US president has got a 'great deal at the expense of the UK'.
In a treaty to 'complete the process of decolonisation of Mauritius', the Government has agreed to pay at least £120 million-a-year for 99 years for control of the vital Diego Garcia base, plus hand over £1.125 billion for economic development over a 25-year period.
The Government has faced questions about their estimation of the full cost.
Officials said the deal amounted to an average of £101 million a year in 2025/26 prices with an overall cost of £3.4 billion a year 'using a net present value methodology'.
The Tories have said the true cost of the deal could rise to more than £30 billion if inflation is at the 2% target.
Mr Pollard stood firm on the figures and said the cost was 'comparable' to bases other allies lease in the region.
'So it's £3.4 billion over 99 years – that represents good value,' he told Sky News.
The French pay 85 million euros a year to rent a base in Djibouti that is 'literally next door to the Chinese naval base that's leased there', he said.
He argued that Diego Garcia is '15 times bigger than that French base' and the UK had secured an 'exclusion zone' around the base to protect UK and US operations.
The Trump administration in Washington supported the deal, which guarantees the future of the base which is used extensively by the US armed forces.
Asked why the US is not contributing to the cost of leasing back the base, he said the partner country pays much more in operational costs.
'What we are bringing to the deal is the real estate, the UK will be leasing the base and the Americans pay for the operating costs of the base – now that is many multiples more than the leasing cost,' he told Times Radio.
Tory leader Mrs Badenoch said the US was benefiting at the UK's expense.
'Donald Trump is laughing at that Chagos deal,' the Conservative Party leader told BBC Breakfast.
'He's welcoming it because he's not going to have to pay very much, if anything at all.
'He's got a great deal at the expense of the UK. That's not right. It hasn't been done in our national interest.
'What I want to see is more nurses being paid well but we can't do that because we're taking a lot of terrible decisions under Keir Starmer that are weakening our country.'
The total cash cost over the 99-year term of the deal will be at least £13 billion for the use of the base and the 25-year agreement to hand over money to support projects to promote the 'economic development and welfare of Mauritius'.
The International Court of Justice, in an advisory opinion in 2019, said the Chagos Archipelago should be handed over.
Ministers argued that the deal needed to be done because the UK would have faced legal challenges 'within weeks' which could have jeopardised the operation of the Indian Ocean base which is used by US and British forces.
The UK will retain full operational control of Diego Garcia, including the electromagnetic spectrum satellite used for communications which counters hostile interference.
A 24-nautical mile buffer zone will be put in place around the island where nothing can be built or placed without UK consent.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

South Wales Guardian

10 minutes ago

• South Wales Guardian

Farage plans to charge non-doms £250,000 fee which will be given to poor

On Monday, the party leader and MP for Clacton will reveal the policy which he said would 'encourage the return of wealth and talent to the United Kingdom', according to the Telegraph. The Labour Government abolished the non-dom tax status in April, which is where UK residents whose permanent home or domicile for tax purposes is outside the UK. Last year, former Conservative chancellor Jeremy Hunt revealed plans to scrap the tax status before successor Rachel Reeves sped up the process. Reform UK's policy would mean 'every high-net-worth newcoming (or returning leaver)' would pay a £250,000 one-off fee 'in return for a stable, indefinite remittance-style regime on offshore income and a 20-year inheritance-tax shield', Mr Farage wrote in an article for the Telegraph. All of this fee would be given to Britain's lowest-paid full-time workers through an automatic tax-free dividend via HMRC, the party leader added. In response, Labour said the policy was a 'golden ticket for foreign billionaires to avoid the tax they owe in this country'. Mr Farage wrote: 'Our policy is simple – Britain must be a place where success is celebrated, not punished with excessive taxes, crippling energy costs, or punitive inheritance levies. 'We will actively encourage the return of wealth and talent to the United Kingdom, on the clear condition that those who come here deliver immediate, visible benefits to our workers.' The plan would mean around 2.5 million 'hard-working Britons' would receive an 'annual cash bonus', the Reform UK leader claimed. He added: 'Our policy is not a 'golden visa' or a backdoor to citizenship. 'It is a one-time flat tax paid by newcomers in exchange for the certainty of a favourable tax status. 'Individuals will still be liable for all standard UK taxes on UK-sourced income, property and spending. 'But they won't be taxed on offshore income and gains for the duration of their agreed status.' A Labour spokesperson said: 'Nigel Farage can brand this whatever he wants – the reality is his first proper policy is a golden ticket for foreign billionaires to avoid the tax they owe in this country. 'As ever with Reform, the devil is in the detail. 'This giveaway would reduce revenues raised from the rich that would have to be made up elsewhere – through tax hikes on working families or through Farage's promise to charge them to use the NHS.'

The Independent

12 minutes ago

• The Independent

Retaliation, regime change, sleeper cells and impeachment: The looming questions in the wake of Trump's attack on Iran

President Donald Trump bombed Iran's nuclear facilities just weeks after Israel began attacking the nation over concerns it was developing a nuclear weapon. What happens next? Should Americans expect retaliation from Iran? If so, where, and in what form? Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on Sunday that what happens next will largely be up to Iran and its response to the U.S.'s bombing. 'If the regime wants peace, we're ready for peace. If they want to do something else, they're incredibly vulnerable. They can't even protect their own airspace,' Rubio said on CBS's Face the Nation. How did the US attack Iran? On June 21, Trump initiated Operation Midnight Hammer, which saw B-2 bombers and missiles strike Iran's nuclear facilities where the U.S. and Israel believe Iran was enriching uranium for use in nuclear weapons. The Natanz and Isfahan nuclear sites were hit by a salvo of 30 Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles — cruise missiles with a range of at least 1,000 miles — fired from American submarines. At the Fordow nuclear site, which is located hundreds of feet underground, as many as six 30,000 munitions known as Massive Ordnance Penetrators — which are referred to by the Air Force designation GBU-57A/B — hit the site. The MOP so-called bunker-buster bombs were designed specifically to attack and destroy hardened facilities such as Fordow which are otherwise protected from typical munitions. The bombs used against Fordow were dropped from B-2 Spirit stealth bombers flying out of Whitman Air Force Base in Missouri. Will Iran retaliate? No one knows, perhaps not even Iranian leaders. Tehran could choose not to retaliate in an effort to reopen diplomatic options with the U.S., though its unclear if that would stop Israel from continuing to launch missiles into its territory. In 2020, after Trump assassinated Iranian general Qassim Suleimani, Iran launched a wave of missile attacks against U.S. troops in Iraq, but then pulled back from further retaliation, possibly in order to avoid a larger regional war. Iran could proceed in a similar fashion now. It's unclear if Ayatollah Khamenei will seek to re-establish diplomatic avenues with Trump. What can Iran do to the U.S.? Iran could seek to attack U.S. troops or U.S. assets in the region. The United States has about 40,000 troops stationed across the Middle East, in more than a dozen countries including in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and the UAE, and on ships in the region. It could also target U.S. commerce. Tehran could try to shut down the Strait of Hormuz, cutting off a vital shipping lane and blocking oil tankers from entering or leaving the Persian Gulf. Iran also has cyberwarfare capabilities or it could work with allied elements — like Al Qaeda — to carry out proxy attacks on U.S. and Israeli interests in the region. Is the U.S. at war? Officially, the U.S. would have to declare war, which requires Congressional approval. But that is mostly a formality. The U.S. did not declare war on Afghanistan or Iraq but still was involved in "boots on the ground" armed conflict in both countries. Asked directly during an interview with NBC's Kristen Welker whether the U.S. was now at war with Iran, Vice President JD Vance replied: 'No Kristen, we're not at war with Iran, we're at war with Iran's nuclear program.' Is the U.S. aiming for regime change? There have been mixed messages from the Trump administration about whether they are trying to bring down the Ayatollah's regime. The U.S. stated that regime change was an aim in its 2003 invasion of Iraq – something it achieved but at very great cost and leaving a long and controversial legacy. Vance told NBC's Kristen Welker on Sunday morning: 'Our view has been very clear that we don't want a regime change. We do not want to protract this or build this out any more than it's already been built out. We want to end their nuclear program and then we want to talk to the Iranians about a long-term settlement here.' However, several hours later, Trump appeared to contradict him with a post on his social media site: 'It's not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change,' but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!' What is the War Powers Resolution and can Trump be impeached over the attack? Trump's opponents have called his strike illegal, citing the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which requires the president to give Congress a 48-hour notification before taking any military action. It also limits the deployment of U.S. armed forces to 90 days without a formal declaration of war. Some Democrats have already accused Trump of violating the act. "The President's disastrous decision to bomb Iran without authorization is a grave violation of the Constitution and Congressional War Powers," Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, posted on X. If Trump did violate the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution, he could theoretically be impeached, but due to Republicans' control of both the House and the Senate, an impeachment vote would be extremely unlikely to succeed. 'This is not about the merits of Iran's nuclear program. No president has the authority to bomb another country that does not pose an imminent threat to the US without the approval of Congress. This is an unambiguous impeachable offense,' Democratic Congressman Sean Casten wrote on X. What has Iran said about the strikes? Iranian Minister of Foreign Affairs Abbas Araghchi accused the US of breaching international law in a social media post following the strike. 'The United States, a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, has committed a grave violation of the UN Charter, international law and the NPT [Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty] by attacking Iran's peaceful nuclear installations,' Araghchi said. He called on the rest of the UN to share in Iran's outrage over the attack, and said that Iran 'reserves all options to defend its sovereignty, interest, and people'. 'The events this morning [Sunday] are outrageous and will have everlasting consequences. Each and every member of the UN must be alarmed over this extremely dangerous, lawless and criminal behavior," he said. According to a New York Times report, Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, has taken shelter in a bunker since the start of Israel's missile attacks, and has named three possible successors to lead the country in the event of his assassination. What's the deal with sleeper cells? Following Saturday's strikes, which Trump claimed 'totally obliterated' Iran's nuclear sites of Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan, both White House and FBI officials have been on high alert for Iranian sleeper cells. Sleeper cells consist of spies or terrorists hiding out in the U.S. or Western countries that remain inactive, often living quiet and unassuming lives working regular jobs until they are ordered to act on a mission. According to reports, Tehran may now try to activate these covert spies – should they exist – after the U.S. joined Israel's military operations against Iran. Sleeper cells have been broken up in the U.S. in the past, such as in 2010 when 10 Russian sleeper agents were arrested and exchanged in a prisoner swap with Moscow. Who are Iran's allies? Iran's allies include some of the same groups and nations that oppose the U.S.'s role on the world's stage. Iran backs both the Lebanese militant force Hezbollah and Palestinian militants Hamas, and both groups would be considered allies of Iran. The Popular Mobilization Force in Iraq, Yemen's Houthi rebels, and Bashar Al-Assad's loyalists before his ousting in Syria are all also supporters of Iran. The country has also been supporting Russia in its war against Ukraine, and enjoys a relationship with Moscow. Similarly, Iran maintains a strategic and economic partnership with China. What has the rest of the world said about the U.S. strikes? The world's response to Trump's attack in Iran has been mixed, though most statements express concerns over what happens next. Democrats The Democrats have condemned Trump's attack, accusing him of pushing the nation toward all-out war with Iran. House Minority Leader Congressman Hakeem Jeffries issued a scathing response to Trump's attacks. 'President Trump misled the country about his intentions, failed to seek congressional authorization for the use of military force and risks American entanglement in a potentially disastrous war in the Middle East,' Congressman Hakeem Jeffries said in a statement. 'Donald Trump shoulders complete and total responsibility for any adverse consequences that flow from his unilateral military action.' United Nations United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres said he was "gravely alarmed" by Trump's action. 'This is a dangerous escalation in a region already on the edge – and a direct threat to international peace and security', he said. 'At this perilous hour, it is critical to avoid a spiral of chaos. There is no military solution. The only path forward is diplomacy. The only hope is peace.' United Kingdom In the United Kingdom, Prime Minister Keir Starmer cautioned Iran to seek a diplomatic response and insisted maintaining stability in the region was a priority, according to a statement from Downing Street. 'Iran's nuclear programme is a grave threat to international security. Iran can never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon and the US has taken action to alleviate that threat,' Starmer said in a statement. European Union The European Union walked the line, saying that it agreed that Iran must be stopped from developing a nuclear weapon, but also urging restraint from both Tehran and the U.S. and Israel. Israel Israel praised Trump's actions. 'Congratulations, President Trump. Your bold decision to target Iran's nuclear facilities with the awesome and righteous might of the United States will change history,' Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a televised address. 'History will record that President Trump acted to deny the world's most dangerous regime the world's most dangerous weapons.' Russia Russia brushed off the attack, saying that it didn't do anything to stop Iran's alleged nuclear ambitions. The deputy head of President Vladimir Putin's Security Council, former president Dmitry Medvedev, said in a statement that multiple nations would be willing to provide Iran with nuclear weapons — though he did not specify which — and said the strike caused minimal damage to Iran's nuclear facilities. China The Chinese foreign ministry also "strongly condemned" the attack, saying they 'seriously violate the purposes and principles of the UN Charter and international law, and have exacerbated tensions in the Middle East' 'China calls on the parties to the conflict, Israel in particular, to reach a ceasefire as soon as possible, ensure the safety of civilians, and start dialogue and negotiation,' the foreign ministry said on X. 'China stands ready to work with the international community to pool efforts together and uphold justice, and work for restoring peace and stability in the Middle East." Latin/South America and Iran's regional allies Several Latin and South American countries with left-wing governments condemned Trump's attacks. Mexico, Venezuela, Cuba, and Chile, all voiced their opposition to the U.S.'s attack. Iran's allies, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis, all strongly condemned the attacks in their own statements.

Glasgow Times

23 minutes ago

• Glasgow Times

Farage plans to charge non-doms £250,000 fee which will be given to poor

On Monday, the party leader and MP for Clacton will reveal the policy which he said would 'encourage the return of wealth and talent to the United Kingdom', according to the Telegraph. The Labour Government abolished the non-dom tax status in April, which is where UK residents whose permanent home or domicile for tax purposes is outside the UK. Last year, former Conservative chancellor Jeremy Hunt revealed plans to scrap the tax status before successor Rachel Reeves sped up the process. Reform UK's policy would mean 'every high-net-worth newcoming (or returning leaver)' would pay a £250,000 one-off fee 'in return for a stable, indefinite remittance-style regime on offshore income and a 20-year inheritance-tax shield', Mr Farage wrote in an article for the Telegraph. All of this fee would be given to Britain's lowest-paid full-time workers through an automatic tax-free dividend via HMRC, the party leader added. In response, Labour said the policy was a 'golden ticket for foreign billionaires to avoid the tax they owe in this country'. Mr Farage wrote: 'Our policy is simple – Britain must be a place where success is celebrated, not punished with excessive taxes, crippling energy costs, or punitive inheritance levies. 'We will actively encourage the return of wealth and talent to the United Kingdom, on the clear condition that those who come here deliver immediate, visible benefits to our workers.' The plan would mean around 2.5 million 'hard-working Britons' would receive an 'annual cash bonus', the Reform UK leader claimed. He added: 'Our policy is not a 'golden visa' or a backdoor to citizenship. 'It is a one-time flat tax paid by newcomers in exchange for the certainty of a favourable tax status. 'Individuals will still be liable for all standard UK taxes on UK-sourced income, property and spending. 'But they won't be taxed on offshore income and gains for the duration of their agreed status.' A Labour spokesperson said: 'Nigel Farage can brand this whatever he wants – the reality is his first proper policy is a golden ticket for foreign billionaires to avoid the tax they owe in this country. 'As ever with Reform, the devil is in the detail. 'This giveaway would reduce revenues raised from the rich that would have to be made up elsewhere – through tax hikes on working families or through Farage's promise to charge them to use the NHS.'