Opposition Day: British Indian Ocean Territory
147Ayes
298Noes
Defeated · majority 151 · Government won203 did not vote
648 Members · Aye 147 · No 298 · DNV 203 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
Parliament voted on 26 February 2025 to reject an Opposition Day motion on the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT), by 298 votes to 147. Opposition Day motions are a parliamentary device that lets the opposition choose the subject of debate and force a vote, in this case directed at the Labour government's handling of the Chagos Islands sovereignty question and its proposed agreement to transfer the islands to Mauritius. The vote matters because the Chagos Islands host Diego Garcia, one of the most strategically significant military bases in the world, used jointly by the UK and the United States. Critics of the government's deal argue that transferring sovereignty to Mauritius risks the long-term security of that base and weakens Britain's strategic position in the Indo-Pacific. Supporters of the government's approach argue the deal, if concluded, secures Diego Garcia's future on a firm legal footing and avoids a prolonged and potentially losing legal battle over sovereignty. The vote divided along sharply partisan lines. Every Conservative MP who voted backed the motion, as did all voting Liberal Democrats, Reform UK members, and one Democratic Unionist Party member. Every Labour and Labour and Co-operative MP who voted opposed it, joined by the four Green MPs and two independents. With 97 Labour MPs and 18 Liberal Democrats recording no vote, the government's majority was not threatened. The result reflects the opposition's use of parliamentary time to put pressure on the government over a deal that has attracted sustained criticism from across the right of British politics.
Voting Aye meant
Support the opposition motion criticising or opposing the government's handling of the British Indian Ocean Territory, including concerns about the Chagos Islands sovereignty deal with Mauritius and its implications for UK national security and the Diego Garcia military base.
Voting No meant
Back the government's position on the British Indian Ocean Territory, defending its approach to negotiations over the Chagos Islands and arguing the deal secures the long-term future of the Diego Garcia base.
Each row is one party. The stacked bar gives the within-party split of Aye / No / Absent; the columns on the right give the raw counts. The whip column shows the published party position — “Free vote” means the whip was formally removed for this division.
Party
Whip
Aye / No / Abs
Aye
No
Abs
Labour Party
Whipped No
0
264
97
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
88
0
28
Liberal Democrats
Whipped Aye
54
0
17
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped No
0
27
15
Independent
—
1
2
11
Scottish National Party
—
0
0
9
Reform UK
Whipped Aye
4
0
3
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
—
1
0
4
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped No
0
4
0
Plaid Cymru
—
0
0
4
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
0
0
2
Your Party
—
0
2
0
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
—
0
0
1
Restore Britain
—
0
0
1
Speaker
—
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
—
0
0
1
Ulster Unionist Party
—
0
0
1
Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed
The deal is a humiliating, secretive surrender of strategic military assets for billions of pounds, driven by a dogmatic Labour government that has made unacceptable concessions on sovereignty and lease terms.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (5,241 words) →
The deal is essential to protect national security by resolving legal jeopardy from 28 judges and arbitrators, ensuring the base operates for 99 years with US partnership and proper Chagossian support.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (4,297 words) →
While supporting international law and the deal's principle, the Government's process has been shambolic, lacking parliamentary scrutiny, clarity on costs, and meaningful consultation with Chagossians.Liberal Democrats · Voted aye · Read full speech (852 words) →
The ICJ advisory opinion is not binding on Commonwealth matters; judges involved are politically compromised; the Government should explain the legal necessity rather than using it as cover for an unnecessary deal.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,775 words) →
The Opposition's debate is sabotage timed to undermine the Prime Minister in Washington; the deal reflects commitment to 2.5% defence spending and the rules-based international order essential for Ukraine.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (807 words) →
The Government must explain what legal jeopardy justifies the deal; the ICJ has no binding jurisdiction over Commonwealth matters, so the legal necessity claim requires clarification.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (295 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0