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
The House of Commons voted on 26 February 2025 on a Conservative Opposition Day motion criticising the Labour government's decision to transfer sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) to Mauritius. The motion was defeated by 298 votes to 147. Opposition Day motions are parliamentary debates initiated by opposition parties, allowing them to choose the topic and put a formal vote to the House, though such votes are not legally binding on the government. The vote reflects the political temperature around one of the most significant British foreign policy decisions in recent years. The agreement would transfer sovereignty of the Chagos Islands, part of BIOT, to Mauritius, while the UK and United States would retain rights to operate the strategically vital Diego Garcia military base for an initial period. Critics argue this weakens British and Western security interests in the Indian Ocean, while the government contends it secures the long-term future of the base and resolves a long-running legal and diplomatic dispute rooted in the 1960s displacement of the Chagossian people. Labour MPs voted unanimously against the motion, with Conservative, Liberal Democrat, and Reform UK MPs all voting in favour of opposing the deal. The Liberal Democrats' support for the motion is notable, as the party has generally taken a more internationalist and pro-multilateral stance, but backed the opposition position here, suggesting broad unease about the terms of the agreement across the political spectrum. The vote falls within a sustained period of parliamentary pressure on the government over defence and security matters, with several related divisions on the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill in January 2025 also resulting in government victories.
Voting Aye meant
Support the opposition motion criticising the government's handling of the Chagos Islands/BIOT sovereignty deal, opposing the terms negotiated with Mauritius
Voting No meant
Reject the opposition motion, backing the government's position on the Chagos Islands deal and its approach to negotiations over BIOT
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
18
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped No
0
27
15
Independent
—
1
3
10
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
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
Your Party
—
0
1
0
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