Keir Starmer accused of being 'misleading' with Chagos deal as judge moves to block removal of Chagossians from island

Sir Keir Starmer's Chagos deal has hit another crisis after a judge ruled to temporarily block an order to remove Chagossians who landed on the island earlier this week.

The injunction adds to the Prime Minister's woes after Donald Trump declared that the deal is a "big mistake", ordering Sir Keir to "not give away Diego Garcia".

Thanking GB News for covering Chagossian First Minister Misley Mandarin's settlement on the islands, Mr Tumbridge said: "I think it's absolutely huge, and thank you for covering the story, because these men, four of them, several of them are very elderly, were born on the islands and were removed about 50 years ago, and genuinely took huge risk to take to a boat to get back to their homeland, because they are so desperate to go there and prove that they want to go there.

"People have been pushing this idea in the Labour Party that they don't really want to go back, and there's nobody on the islands and therefore it doesn't matter.

"And I think the fact that you've got these people willing to take that personal risk and do subsistence living shows how much they want it."

Celebrating the Chief Justice of the Indian Ocean Territory's decision to grant an injunction to block Mr Mandarin's removal from the island, Mr Tumbridge said he is "grateful" for the support.

He explained: "I'm also running a judicial review for the Chagossians where we've been waiting four months, and thank you to your programme for covering that on Monday, where we haven't had an answer as to whether we can have a proper hearing to look at why they were never consulted.

"So this is huge, because now there's going to have to be a proper judicial look, and I'm very grateful to the Chief Justice of the Indian Ocean Territory for granting this injunction."

Host Stephen Dixon then recalled a GB News interview with Labour MP Alex Ballinger, who claimed that the Chagossians "had been consulted" and there was only a "small minority" of the community who wanted to return to the islands.

Completely disagreeing with the claim, Mr Tumbridge hit back: "I'm afraid they're misleading you, and it's in black and white. If anyone wants to look at the Labour Party manifesto, they promised that they would protect and recognise the British territories and that self determination was at the centre.

"They have also admitted in the judicial review case that hasn't yet finished that they have never done a consultation. That's what the judicial review is all about. It's about saying before you give away these islands forever, you should consult them."

He added: "Now I must be clear that what we've been saying is that they should be consulted so that parliament knows what it should or shouldn't do. It's ultimately a parliamentary decision, but they've got no understanding of what the people want because the Government refused to consult them."

Arguing that the Chagossian community "should be allowed to settle" on the islands even if the deal is rejected, the lawyer told GB News: "If they just agree not to hand it over to Mauritius, that's still the question of resettlement.

"David Cameron's Government did look at this and thought it was too expensive to resettle them, but actually I think there's a win all around here. For those that care about the plight of people that have been treated very poorly, let them resettle. For those that care about our security, let them resettle."

He continued: "Because it would be then like Gibraltar and the Falklands with a population on those islands who at the moment, from our polling, around 90 per cent want to be British. It's a much more secure way to operate these islands. And I think we should always remember that the islands are vastly spread out. The one that my clients are on is about 120 miles from the military base.

"Things would have to be thought through, but fundamentally, there's no reason why the outer islands couldn't be settled by British citizens."

In a statement, a Foreign Office spokesman said: "This is nonsense. We've always been clear that if a long term deal was not reached, there was a risk of further litigation being brought rapidly, which could have serious implications for base operations.

"Instead, the Government acted decisively to address threats to the base's operations, to protect national security threats and safeguard our shared defence capabilities.

"The agreement we reached will secure the future of the base, ensuring that it can continue to operate securely for generations to come."