No 10 defends Chagos deal after Mandelson’s ‘wobble’ claim

Downing Street has insisted the case for the Chagos Islands deal was “crystal clear” after Lord Mandelson claimed there had been a “wobble” over it within the Government.

The former ambassador to the US, who is at the centre of a storm over his ties to disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein, claimed there were concerns over the cost and legal necessity of the agreement.

Under the deal, which will cost £35 billion over the next century, the UK will hand over the British Indian Ocean Territory to Mauritius but lease back the Diego Garcia UK-US military base.

In a Times interview, Lord Mandelson said that in the spring of 2025 he “became aware of a serious wobble in London over the agreement and its sellability to the British public”.

He added: “That was to do with the price tag and whether we had the total legal obligation to enter the deal and whether the original legal case made for the agreement in Whitehall was as watertight as was claimed.

“So on the one hand I faced a sceptical US administration and then at another point a wobbly government of my own behind me.”

Lord Mandelson said that after working to get Donald Trump’s administration on board with the deal during his time in Washington he was “mildly horrified” to see the US president’s attack on the agreement in January.

Mr Trump called it an “act of great stupidity”, an “act of total weakness” and claimed the site of the vital military base was being given away “for no reason whatsoever”.

Legislation to ratify the deal is in its closing stages in Parliament but progress has been delayed since the president’s outburst.

The Prime Minister’s official spokesman insisted there was no concern over the legal necessity for the deal.

He said: “We’ve been crystal clear about the importance of this deal and we inherited a situation where the effective operation of the military base was under threat.

“Claims that we negotiated this deal solely because of the 2019 ICJ (International Court of Justice) advisory opinion are simply wrong.

“That wasn’t the only challenge we faced.

“Without a deal, Mauritius would inevitably pursue a legally binding judgment, and that judgment would then be applied by countries and international organisations alike.

“And without a deal, we’d face serious, real-world operational impacts on the base.”

Asked about the “wobble”, the spokesman said: “There was a change of governments in both the US and Mauritius in November 2024.

“It’s only right that both new administrations would want to understand the details of the deal, and the deal has subsequently undergone an extremely high level of scrutiny, both through the parliamentary process and through two US administrations.”

The spokesman added: “We continue to work with the US at every level but our position remains unchanged.”