In a dramatic escalation of political tension in Westminster, Conservative Members of Parliament are mounting a determined campaign to block Labour’s controversial Chagos Islands deal, arguing that it could open the door to Chinese espionage in the Indian Ocean. This effort, announced on October 19, 2025, comes amid growing scrutiny of the government’s approach to national security, especially following the collapse of a high-profile China spy case that has reignited debate over the United Kingdom’s relationship with Beijing.
The proposed Chagos Islands agreement would see the British government formally cede control of the remote archipelago to Mauritius, ending nearly two centuries of British sovereignty. The deal, which is expected to cost British taxpayers up to £47 billion over the next century, has drawn fierce criticism from Conservative MPs, security experts, and former ministers alike. Their main concern? That the transfer could allow China, through its close economic and political ties with Mauritius, to extend its surveillance reach into a region of immense strategic importance.
At the heart of the dispute lies Diego Garcia, a remote atoll that has served for decades as a crucial military base jointly operated by the United Kingdom and the United States. The base is a linchpin for Western military operations across the Middle East and Indo-Pacific. Security analysts, as reported by Conservative Post and GB News, warn that handing over the islands to Mauritius could enable Beijing to establish a monitoring post—potentially on a nearby island—giving China the ability to observe British and American defense activities in the region.
Shadow Foreign Secretary Dame Priti Patel did not mince words in her criticism of the Prime Minister’s approach. In a statement that captured the intensity of the opposition, Patel declared, “Our spineless Prime Minister is kowtowing to China. He is so desperate for the CCP’s approval, he is prepared to hand over his own country’s sovereignty – not to mention £40 billion of taxpayers’ cash – to an ally of Beijing. As usual, he is running scared of scrutiny. He can’t face being held to account over Chagos and China, because he knows his arguments don’t stand up. He thinks that by hiding behind the façade of international law, he can betray the British people and get away with it. But the Conservatives will always stand up for the national interest, and so we will resist Starmer’s Chagos-China Surrender Bill every step of the way.”
The Labour government, for its part, has argued that the deal is necessary to comply with a 2019 advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which stated that the territory should be returned to Mauritius. Officials contend that rejecting the ICJ’s recommendation could weaken Britain’s position in future sovereignty disputes. However, Conservative critics are quick to point out that ICJ opinions are non-binding, and they claim the government is needlessly undermining national security in the process.
Senior Conservatives have outlined a multi-pronged strategy to block or delay the Chagos agreement. Their first move is to force a parliamentary vote that could delay or halt the deal by holding up billions of pounds in planned payments to Mauritius. One proposed amendment would require Parliament to approve any payments to Mauritius before they are made, effectively forcing MPs to vote annually on hundreds of millions of pounds in transfers. Another amendment seeks to delay the agreement’s implementation until the government releases Lord Hermer’s full legal justification for the deal—a document that has so far remained behind closed doors.
The role of Attorney General Jonathan Powell has also come under scrutiny. Powell has been closely linked both to the Chagos negotiations and to broader national security matters, raising questions among Conservative MPs about the government’s transparency and accountability in the decision-making process.
According to GB News, the Conservative Party has gone so far as to accuse the Labour government of being responsible for the collapse of the recent China spying case, alleging that it was due to Labour’s relations with the Communist nation. This accusation forms part of a wider pattern of political attacks centered on national security and the government’s handling of relations with Beijing.
The final Commons debate on the Chagos Islands Bill is expected to take place in the coming days, and Conservative MPs have vowed to use every parliamentary mechanism available to prevent what they describe as a dangerous and unnecessary surrender of British territory and leverage to a nation closely aligned with China. The stakes are high—not only for the future of the Chagos Islands and their inhabitants, but also for the broader question of how the United Kingdom navigates its relationships with both its allies and its rivals in an increasingly complex global landscape.
The controversy has also shone a spotlight on the fate of the Chagossians, the original inhabitants of the islands who were forcibly removed decades ago. On October 28, 2025, Chagossian leader Misley Mandarin and her community will learn in the High Court whether they can proceed with their judicial review against the government, a case coordinated by the Great British PAC. The outcome of this legal battle could add another layer of complexity to an already fraught situation, with questions of justice, restitution, and sovereignty all hanging in the balance.
For some observers, the row over the Chagos Islands is emblematic of deeper anxieties about Britain’s place in the world. The UK’s willingness to cede territory under international legal pressure, the specter of growing Chinese influence, and the ever-present demands of national security have combined to create a perfect political storm. The opposition’s arguments are bolstered by the sheer scale of the financial commitment involved—up to £47 billion over the next century, a figure that has left many taxpayers and politicians alike wondering whether the government’s approach is truly in the national interest.
Yet, government officials maintain that upholding international law and resolving longstanding colonial disputes is essential for Britain’s reputation on the world stage. They argue that maintaining the status quo would only invite further legal challenges and diplomatic isolation, especially as global attitudes toward decolonization continue to evolve.
With the final parliamentary vote looming and legal challenges on the horizon, the fate of the Chagos Islands remains uncertain. Will Britain hold firm to its historic claims, or will it heed international calls for restitution and risk the strategic consequences that critics fear? As the debate rages on, one thing is clear: the outcome will reverberate far beyond the shores of the Indian Ocean, shaping the future of British foreign policy for years to come.
