Sir Keir Starmer has been forced to drop legislation to implement his Chagos Islands giveaway after opposition from Donald Trump. The Telegraph has more.

Labour had hoped to pass a bill to give the islands to Mauritius last year, but delayed it as the US President frequently changed his mind about the deal.

Ministers have now run out of time to put the legislation through Parliament before the end of the current session and the King’s Speech next month.

Trump initially supported the deal, which would see Britain give away the islands, including Diego Garcia, a joint UK-US military base.

The UK would then pay around £35 billion over 99 years to lease back the base, which has been used by the US for operations during the Iran war.

The deal has faced fierce criticism from Reform UK and the Conservatives, who tried to delay the legislation in the House of Lords.

Sir Keir signed the deal with the Mauritian Government last year, but it cannot be implemented until Parliament passes legislation to give up the islands, which are officially known as the British Indian Ocean Territory.

Trump supported the deal soon after taking office, but said earlier this year he no longer thought it was in the interests of Britain and the US.

He then changed his mind twice more, supporting it for a second time and then rejecting it in an angry online post after Sir Keir refused to let him use British military bases to bomb Iran.

Ministers are frustrated by Trump’s repeated change in position, but have said they will not ratify the deal and give the islands to Mauritius without US consent.

Britain is also reliant on the US to formally amend an exchange of letters sent in the 1960s and 1970s that form the legal basis for the agreement to share the base.

Mauritius has repeatedly challenged Britain’s ownership of the Chagos Islands in the international courts, and ministers expected that the International Court of Justice would soon issue a binding ruling to transfer ownership of them.

Worth reading in full.

How could the ICJ issue a “binding ruling” when it has no jurisdiction over disputes between current or former Commonwealth states?