Manchesterism Morphs To Mauritiusism - Chagos Surrender Continues

For reasons best known to himself, or rather because Jonathan Powell (a man with questionable links to China) told him so, Burnham will continue with the Chagos surrender.

This will costs taxpayers £47BN, anger Trump and blow up his spending plans.

 

Captain U Turn Pauses Chagos Surrender

 

The British government will delay legislation to hand sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius after U.S. President Donald Trump renewed his attack on Britain’s deal over the archipelago. 

Starmer’s administration will “pause for thought” on plans to bring legislation underpinning the deal back to the House of Lords, a senior U.K. government official briefed on the plans and granted anonymity because they are not authorised to speak on the record, said. It comes after the U.S. latest president’s scathing social media post on the agreement

The Media is Wilfully Ignoring Trump's Nuanced Chagos Statement

 

Contrary to what the media and the traitors (Starmer, Hermer and Sands) would have us believe, Trump has not endorsed the Chagos surrender.

"I understand that the deal Prime Minster Starmer has made, according to many, the best deal he could make." 

Translation:

"Others may think that,  but I don't."

Moving on... 

"I retain the right to militarily secure.."

Translation:

"It's ours, no matter hat you might say or think." 

This despite the fact that Starmer literally begged Trump to publicly endorse the deal! 

Starmer's Greenland vs Chagos Hypocrisy

"Any decision about the future status of Greenland belongs to the people of Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark alone."

~ Keir Starmer

He didn’t say or do the same thing for the people of Chagos. Monumental hypocrite.

pic.twitter.com/K2P1ETpjiE

— James Melville 🚜 (@JamesMelville) January 19, 2026

   

Starmer’s Chagos Betrayal: A Strategic Surrender Endangering Global Security

 

In a move that reeks of diplomatic naivety and strategic cowardice, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has overseen a deal that hands over the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, leasing back the critical Diego Garcia military base at an astronomical cost to British taxpayers. This agreement, signed on May 22, 2025, not only undermines Britain’s global standing but also raises serious questions about Starmer’s judgement, particularly regarding the use of U.S. military assets stationed at Diego Garcia and their potential role in addressing Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Worse still, it remains unclear whether Starmer has fulfilled his treaty obligations to inform Mauritius of any planned U.S. military actions from the base, a requirement that could compromise operational security in a volatile region. This article dismantles Starmer’s reckless decision, exposing its flaws and highlighting the military implications of this so-called “deal.”

The Chagos Deal: A Financial and Strategic Fiasco

Starmer’s agreement to cede sovereignty of the Chagos Archipelago to Mauritius, while leasing back Diego Garcia for 99 years at a cost of £101 million annually (potentially totalling £30 billion over the lease period), is nothing short of a financial and strategic disaster. The deal, ostensibly struck to comply with a 2019 International Court of Justice (ICJ) advisory opinion, was framed by Starmer as a necessary step to secure the Diego Garcia base from legal challenges. Yet, this narrative crumbles under scrutiny. The ICJ’s opinion was non-binding, and Britain could have continued to assert its sovereignty while negotiating from a position of strength. Instead, Starmer’s government capitulated, agreeing to pay Mauritius exorbitant sums—£165 million annually for the first three years, £120 million for the next decade, and inflation-adjusted payments thereafter—while Mauritius uses the windfall to fund tax cuts and debt repayments for its citizens.

 

This financial burden on British taxpayers is egregious enough, but the strategic implications are far graver. Diego Garcia, a joint UK-U.S. military base, is a linchpin of Western power projection in the Indian Ocean, located just 5,300 kilometres from Iran. Its strategic value lies in its ability to host heavy bombers and support operations across the Middle East, free from the constraints of Gulf airspace. Under the deal, the UK retains operational control of Diego Garcia, but Mauritius’s sovereignty introduces new vulnerabilities, including the requirement to notify Mauritius of any military actions launched from the base. This clause, buried in the treaty’s fine print, could jeopardise the secrecy and efficacy of military operations, particularly in a potential conflict with Iran.

U.S. Military Assets at Diego Garcia: A Critical Arsenal

Diego Garcia is not just a speck in the Indian Ocean; it is a fortress of military might. The base hosts a range of U.S. aircraft critical to regional and global security. Recent reports confirm the presence of four B-52 Stratofortress bombers, capable of carrying precision-guided bombs and cruise missiles, spotted on Diego Garcia’s runway on June 16, 2025. Additionally, speculation surrounds the potential deployment of B-2 Spirit stealth bombers, which can carry bunker-busting munitions like the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator, designed to target deeply buried facilities such as Iran’s Fordo nuclear enrichment plant. These assets underscore Diego Garcia’s role as a staging ground for potential U.S. or joint U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, a prospect that has grown more likely amid escalating tensions following Israel’s attacks on Iran in late May 2025.

 

The base’s strategic importance cannot be overstated. Its isolation allows for secure operations, and its proximity to the Middle East enables rapid response capabilities. Yet, Starmer’s deal introduces a dangerous wildcard: Mauritius, a nation with growing ties to China, Russia, and Iran, now has a say in the base’s operations. The requirement to notify Mauritius of any military actions, such as U.S. bomber strikes, risks leaking sensitive information to adversarial powers, potentially undermining the element of surprise critical to such missions.

Has Starmer Informed Mauritius? A Glaring Silence

The treaty’s notification clause is not a minor bureaucratic detail—it’s a potential operational disaster. As tensions with Iran escalate, with Donald Trump reportedly considering strikes on Tehran’s nuclear facilities, the question looms: has Starmer informed Mauritius of any U.S. intentions to use Diego Garcia for such operations? Posts on X have raised this concern, with users like @joerichlaw and @RossKempsell questioning whether Starmer and his National Security Advisor, Jonathan Powell, have complied with the treaty’s terms. Starmer’s government has remained conspicuously silent on this matter, offering no public confirmation of whether Mauritius has been notified of recent U.S. bomber deployments or potential plans for strikes on Iran.

 

This silence is damning. If Starmer has informed Mauritius, he may have already compromised operational security, given Mauritius’s diplomatic ties to powers hostile to Western interests. If he has not, he is in breach of his own treaty, undermining the deal’s legitimacy and exposing the UK to legal and diplomatic repercussions. Either way, Starmer’s handling of this issue betrays a lack of foresight and a failure to prioritise national security. The presence of B-52s and potential B-2s at Diego Garcia, combined with the treaty’s notification requirement, places Starmer in an impossible position—one entirely of his own making.

The Chagossian Betrayal: A Moral Failure

Beyond the strategic and financial costs, Starmer’s deal tramples on the rights of the Chagossian people, who were forcibly displaced from Diego Garcia in the 1960s and 1970s to make way for the military base. UN human rights experts have condemned the agreement for failing to consult Chagossians and for barring their return to Diego Garcia, violating their cultural and ancestral rights. The deal’s provision for a £40 million trust fund and potential resettlement on outer islands does little to address the Chagossians’ grievances, especially when Mauritius, not the UK, controls the terms of any return. Starmer’s claim that the deal was necessary to avoid legal challenges rings hollow when weighed against this moral failing, further tarnishing his legacy.

A Surrender to Adversaries

Starmer’s defenders argue that the deal secures Diego Garcia’s future by aligning with international law and U.S. support. Yet, this ignores the broader geopolitical context. Mauritius’s growing alignment with China, Russia, and Iran raises legitimate concerns that the deal could expose Diego Garcia to “malign influence,” precisely what Starmer claimed to guard against. Critics, including Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch and Reform UK’s Nigel Farage, have slammed the deal as a “surrender” that weakens Britain’s strategic position and emboldens adversaries. The suggestion that China might establish bases on outer Chagos islands, unhindered by the UK’s diminished sovereignty, is a chilling possibility that Starmer’s government seems ill-prepared to counter.

Conclusion: A Leader Out of His Depth

Keir Starmer’s Chagos deal is a masterclass in shortsightedness, trading Britain’s strategic leverage for a costly lease and a dubious promise of stability. The presence of U.S. B-52 and potentially B-2 bombers at Diego Garcia underscores the base’s critical role in countering threats like Iran’s nuclear program, yet Starmer’s treaty risks compromising these operations through its notification clause. His failure to clarify whether Mauritius has been informed of U.S. intentions only deepens the suspicion that he is either negligent or deliberately opaque.

 

Coupled with the deal’s financial extravagance and disregard for Chagossian rights, Starmer’s actions reveal a leader out of his depth, prioritising appeasement over strength. Britain deserves better than this capitulation, and the world cannot afford the consequences of such weakness.

Starmer’s Chagos Surrender: A Betrayal of Britain’s Interests and Taxpayers’ Trust

 

In a move that defies logic and insults the British public, Prime Minister Keir Starmer has orchestrated a deal that hands over the strategically vital Chagos Islands to Mauritius while funnelling billions of pounds of taxpayer money to a foreign government—money that Mauritius plans to use to abolish income tax for 81% of its workforce and raise minimum salaries. Meanwhile, Starmer’s government cries poverty, slashing winter fuel payments for pensioners, hiking council taxes, and hammering farmers with new levies, all under the guise of navigating Britain’s supposed “financial dire straits.” This is not leadership; it’s a masterclass in hypocrisy and mismanagement.

 

The Chagos Islands, home to the critical Diego Garcia military base, have long been a cornerstone of British and Western security interests in the Indian Ocean. The base, jointly operated with the United States, is a linchpin for regional stability, countering Chinese influence, and ensuring global trade routes remain secure. Yet, Starmer has chosen to surrender this sovereign territory in a deal that reeks of diplomatic weakness and fiscal irresponsibility. Reports suggest the UK is paying Mauritius anywhere from £3.4 billion to a staggering £30 billion—potentially ten times the government’s initial claim—to facilitate this handover. The exact figure remains murky, but even the lower end of this spectrum is an obscene sum for a nation that Starmer insists is strapped for cash.

 

Let’s unpack this absurdity. At home, Starmer’s government has spent months preaching austerity, warning that Britain’s finances are in tatters. Pensioners are losing their winter fuel allowances, facing colder homes as energy prices soar. Farmers, the backbone of rural communities, are being squeezed with new taxes that threaten their livelihoods. Council taxes are creeping up, hitting working families already stretched thin. Yet, while Starmer pleads poverty, he’s simultaneously wiring billions to Mauritius—a nation that, thanks to this windfall, can now afford to exempt four out of five employed citizens from income tax and boost their salaries. The Mauritian government has openly celebrated this deal as a financial bonanza, with ministers boasting about the tax cuts and wage hikes it will fund. This isn’t just tone-deaf; it’s a slap in the face to every British taxpayer struggling to make ends meet.

 

The contradictions are glaring. If Britain is in such dire financial straits, how can Starmer justify funnelling billions to a foreign government for a deal that undermines our strategic interests? If the coffers are empty, why is the UK effectively subsidising Mauritius’ tax cuts while raising taxes at home? The answer lies in Starmer’s warped priorities and a Labour government that seems more interested in posturing on the global stage than defending Britain’s sovereignty or its people’s welfare.

 

The Chagos deal is not just a financial scandal; it’s a strategic disaster. The islands’ handover has raised alarm bells, with critics warning that Mauritius, increasingly aligned with China’s Belt and Road initiative, may not be a reliable steward of this critical territory. Posts on X have highlighted growing concerns, with some calling the deal “treasonous” and pointing to Beijing’s “massive congratulations” to Mauritius as evidence of whose interests this really serves. Starmer’s claim that China opposed the deal has been debunked, exposing his rhetoric as either naive or deliberately misleading. Handing over a key military asset to a nation cosying up to a global rival is not statesmanship—it’s strategic suicide.

 

Moreover, the deal fails to address the human cost. The Chagossian people, forcibly displaced decades ago, have been sidelined in the negotiations, with a UN panel recently urging the UK to renegotiate to protect their rights. Starmer’s rush to close this deal has ignored their plight, prioritising diplomatic expediency over justice. This is a government that claims to champion fairness but abandons vulnerable communities when it suits its agenda.

The hypocrisy doesn’t end there. Starmer’s cabinet is reportedly fracturing over the deal, with some members privately questioning why billions are being sent abroad while domestic services are cut. The public shares this outrage. Social media posts on X reflect a growing sentiment that Starmer is “betraying” Britain, with one user bluntly calling him “a traitor and a fool” for agreeing to pay Mauritius to take our territory and then “rent” it back at an exorbitant cost. The optics are damning: a Labour government that lectures its citizens about fiscal responsibility while splashing cash on a deal that weakens Britain’s global standing.

 

Starmer’s defenders might argue that the deal resolves a long-standing colonial dispute and aligns with international law. But this argument collapses under scrutiny. The cost—both financial and strategic—is wildly disproportionate to any diplomatic gains. Mauritius’ government has already signalled it may demand even more concessions, with reports suggesting they want to reopen the deal for additional funds and restrictions on British access. This is not a resolution; it’s a capitulation that invites further exploitation.

 

The British public deserves better. They deserve a government that prioritises their needs over foreign giveaways, that protects national security over diplomatic posturing, and that values transparency over obfuscation. Starmer’s Chagos surrender is a betrayal of all three. It’s time for him to answer for this reckless decision—why is he bankrolling tax cuts in Mauritius while taxing Britons into oblivion? Why is he surrendering sovereign territory to a nation aligned with our rivals? And why, in the face of supposed financial ruin, is he spending billions to weaken Britain’s global influence?

 

This deal is not just a policy failure; it’s a national disgrace. Starmer and his government must be held accountable before they squander more of Britain’s wealth and security on their misguided quest for global applause.

 

Sources: Information drawn from web reports and posts on X, including claims of financial figures ranging from £3.4 billion to £30 billion, Mauritius’ tax cut plans, and concerns about strategic implications and Chagossian rights. Specific figures and claims remain contested and require further verification.

Starmer’s Chagos Surrender: A Betrayal of Britain and Its People

 

In a move that reeks of incompetence, betrayal, and a shocking disregard for Britain’s national interest, Prime Minister Keir Starmer has pushed through a deal to cede sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius—a decision that will cost British taxpayers an eye-watering £30 billion over decades, compromise national security, and ignore the wishes of the Chagossian people. This deal, cloaked in the guise of moral necessity, is nothing short of a scandal, orchestrated by a cabal of lawyers with deep ties to Starmer himself, and it stands as one of the most egregious missteps of his fledgling premiership.

An Unnecessary Surrender

Starmer has claimed that handing over the Chagos Islands, including the strategically vital Diego Garcia military base, was necessary to comply with international law and secure the future of the UK-US military partnership. Yet, this assertion crumbles under scrutiny. The UK has maintained sovereignty over the Chagos Islands since 1965, when they were detached from Mauritius prior to its independence. For decades, this arrangement has worked without issue, with Diego Garcia serving as a critical hub for Western military operations in the Indian Ocean. The International Court of Justice’s 2019 advisory opinion, often cited by Starmer’s government, is non-binding and does not mandate this surrender. Legal experts, including those outside Starmer’s inner circle, have argued that the UK could have continued to assert its sovereignty while negotiating alternative arrangements, such as a lease agreement, without relinquishing control entirely. 

 

The decision to cave was not driven by legal necessity but by political expediency and Starmer’s desire to signal Britain’s retreat from its global responsibilities. By rushing to finalise this deal, Starmer has weakened Britain’s strategic position and handed Mauritius—a nation with growing ties to China—a geopolitical gift it neither earned nor deserved.

The Staggering Cost to Taxpayers

The financial implications of this deal are nothing short of scandalous. Estimates suggest that the UK will pay Mauritius between £9 billion and £30 billion over the coming decades, including annual lease payments for Diego Garcia and potential “reparations” for the Chagossian people. This figure dwarfs the £1.4 billion saved by Starmer’s controversial decision to scrap the winter fuel allowance for millions of British pensioners—a move that has already sparked outrage for endangering the health and finances of the elderly. To put this in perspective, the cost of the Chagos deal could fund the reinstatement of the winter fuel allowance for years, with billions left over to protect family farms from Labour’s punitive inheritance tax hikes. 

 

Starmer’s priorities are baffling. At a time when working families face rising taxes and pensioners shiver through winter, his government is funnelling billions to a foreign nation to lease back territory Britain already controlled. This is not leadership; it is fiscal recklessness.

The Chagossians’ Voice Ignored

Perhaps the most galling aspect of this deal is its complete disregard for the Chagossian people, who were forcibly displaced from the islands in the 1960s and 1970s to make way for the Diego Garcia base. The Chagossians have consistently expressed their desire to remain under British sovereignty, with many opposing transfer to Mauritius due to fears of marginalisation and neglect. Community leaders have voiced concerns that Mauritius, which has shown little interest in their welfare until now, will not prioritise their rights or repatriation. By ignoring these voices, Starmer has betrayed the very people he claims to champion, prioritising geopolitical posturing over human rights.

Security Implications: A Dangerous Precedent

The security implications of this deal are equally dire. The agreement requires the UK to notify Mauritius in advance of any military operations from Diego Garcia, a condition that could compromise operational secrecy and give Mauritius—and potentially its allies, including China—unprecedented insight into Western military activities. Diego Garcia is a linchpin of US-UK defence strategy, used for everything from counterterrorism operations to projecting power in the Indo-Pacific. Handing Mauritius a seat at the table risks undermining the base’s effectiveness and emboldening adversaries who seek to erode Western influence in the region.

 

The deal’s security flaws are compounded by Mauritius’s growing economic and diplomatic ties to China. Posts on X and various analyses have raised alarms about the potential for Chinese influence to creep into the Chagos Archipelago, placing a critical US-UK military asset in jeopardy. Starmer’s government has downplayed these concerns, but the naivety of trusting Mauritius to act as a neutral partner in a geopolitically sensitive region is staggering.

A Cabal of Activist Lawyers

At the heart of this deal lies a troubling network of legal insiders with deep ties to Starmer. Leading the Mauritian negotiating team is Philippe Sands, a prominent lawyer and long-time associate of Starmer, dating back to their days at the Bar. Sands has represented Mauritius in its legal campaign against the UK for years, and his involvement in securing this deal raises serious questions about conflicts of interest. Furthermore, the UK’s Attorney General, Lord Hermer, reportedly strengthened legal advice to push Starmer toward surrender, arguing that the UK risked breaching international law—a claim that conveniently aligned with Mauritius’s demands. This cosy circle of lawyers, with Starmer at its centre, has engineered a deal that serves Mauritius’s interests while undermining Britain’s. The stench of cronyism is inescapable.

A Deal Collapsing Under Scrutiny

The Chagos surrender has sparked fierce backlash, even within Starmer’s own cabinet. Reports indicate that some ministers are questioning the deal’s exorbitant cost, especially when juxtaposed against domestic austerity measures like the winter fuel allowance cut. On X, critics like Robert Jenrick and Andrew Neil have lambasted Starmer for his lack of transparency and the deal’s staggering financial burden. A judicial review, launched by the campaign to Save the Chagos, is now underway, signalling that this deal may not survive public and legal scrutiny.

A Betrayal of Britain’s Interests

Starmer’s Chagos surrender is a masterclass in political failure: a costly, unnecessary, and strategically disastrous decision driven by a clique of insiders and sold to the public under false pretences. It ignores the Chagossian people, jeopardises national security, and squanders billions that could be better spent on Britain’s struggling pensioners and farmers. This is not the action of a leader committed to Britain’s strength or sovereignty but of one willing to sell out the nation’s interests for a fleeting moment of international applause. The British people deserve better—they deserve a government that fights for them, not one that gives away their assets to appease foreign powers and old friends.

Starmer’s Defence Spending Deception: A Masterclass in Creative Accounting

Prime Minister Keir Starmer strode into the House of Commons on February 25, 2025, with the swagger of a man who thought he could pull the wool over the nation’s eyes. In a grand announcement, he pledged to boost UK defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2027, trumpeting an eye-watering £13.4 billion annual increase starting that year. 

 

It was a figure designed to dazzle, to signal resolve ahead of his White House meeting with President Donald Trump, and to placate a public and military increasingly jittery about Britain’s security posture. But peel back the layers of this shiny promise, and what emerges is a tapestry of half-truths, inflated figures, and outright misdirection that should leave every taxpayer—and every soldier—fuming.

 

Let’s start with the headline number: £13.4 billion. 

 

It sounds impressive, doesn’t it? 

 

A hefty injection of cash to bolster Britain’s armed forces in what Starmer calls a “dangerous new era.” But the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), a bastion of economic clarity, swiftly called foul. Strip out inflation and account for the fact that defence spending was never going to stay frozen in nominal terms, and the real increase shrinks to a far less glamorous £6 billion annually by 2027. 

 

That’s right—less than half of what Starmer boasted about from the dispatch box. The £13.4 billion figure assumes a bizarre counterfactual where defence spending wouldn’t have risen at all without his intervention, a scenario so detached from reality it’s laughable. This isn’t a boost; it’s a sleight of hand, a classic case of a politician juicing the numbers to look tougher than he is.

 

But Starmer didn’t stop there. To pad out his 2.5% of GDP target, he’s quietly redefined what counts as “defence spending.” For the first time, contributions from MI6 and the security services—previously excluded—are being rolled into the pot. This accounting trick bumps the figure up to 2.6% by 2027, a convenient little flourish that lets him claim extra credit without actually finding new money for tanks, ships, or troops. It’s the equivalent of a student claiming extra credit for homework they were already doing—except here, the stakes are national security, not a gold star.

 

And then there’s the Chagos Islands deal, the cherry on this cake of deception. Starmer’s government is reportedly shelling out £18 billion to Mauritius to cede sovereignty over the archipelago while leasing back the Diego Garcia military base for 99 years. This is a staggering sum, dwarfing the supposed £6 billion “increase” in real defence spending. 

 

Yet whispers persist—unconfirmed but suspiciously plausible—that these payments might be folded into the defence budget to artificially inflate the numbers. If true, this isn’t just creative accounting; it’s borderline scandalous. The Chagos deal, already a contentious surrender of British territory, could end up eating the entire real-terms defence uplift and then some, leaving the actual armed forces no better off—or worse. Instead of strengthening Britain’s military, Starmer might be funnelling billions into a diplomatic giveaway, all while dressing it up as a commitment to security.

 

Even if we take the 2.5% target at face value, it’s a pitiful offering. Britain’s current spending sits at 2.3% of GDP, so this much-vaunted increase amounts to a measly 0.2% bump over two years. In a world where threats are escalating—Russia’s war in Ukraine, China’s sabre-rattling, and an unpredictable Middle East—this is a drop in the bucket. Military chiefs have been clamouring for far more, with former British Army head Lord Richard Dannatt arguing for 3.4% to match US levels. 

 

And then there’s Trump, the man Starmer is so keen to impress. The US President has repeatedly demanded NATO allies spend 5% of GDP on defence, a threshold last seen during the Cold War. Against that yardstick, Starmer’s 2.5% by 2027 isn’t just too little; it’s too late. Trump, a man not known for subtlety, is likely to scoff at this timid gesture when they meet, seeing it for the window dressing it is.

 

The insult is compounded by how Starmer plans to fund this so-called boost: slashing the foreign aid budget from 0.5% to 0.3% of national income. That’s a £6 billion cut, conveniently matching the real-terms defence increase—a neat little swap that exposes the lie of any grand “generational response.” Starmer’s not finding new money; he’s just shuffling it around, robbing Peter to pay Paul, all while claiming a victory he hasn’t earned. Labour backbenchers and charities have decried this as shortsighted, a betrayal of Britain’s global humanitarian role. They’re right, but the real betrayal is to the public, fed a narrative of strength that crumbles under scrutiny.

 

Starmer’s defenders might argue he’s making tough choices in tough times. But tough choices don’t justify dishonesty. He stood before Parliament and the nation, peddling a £13.4 billion figure he knew—or should have known—was inflated, banking on the fact that most wouldn’t check the maths. His own Defence Secretary, John Healey, squirmed on BBC Breakfast the next day, reluctantly conceding the IFS’s £6 billion estimate was closer to the mark. The Prime Minister’s credibility shouldn’t hinge on such flimsy spin, especially on an issue as grave as defence.

 

This isn’t leadership; it’s legerdemain. Britain deserves a PM who levels with the public, not one who cooks the books to impress a foreign leader who’ll see through the ruse in seconds. Starmer’s 2.5% pledge is too little, too late, and too dishonest to stand as the “biggest sustained increase since the Cold War” he claims. The armed forces won’t be cheering—they’ll be crying. And Trump? He’ll probably just laugh.

Put Down The Bong Starmer!

 

US Senator John Kennedy urged on the Senate floor:

“We need to stop this deal. President Trump and and Secretary Rubio need to pick up the phone and and call Prime Minister Starmer in the United Kingdom and say to to the Prime Minister: ‘Mr Prime Minister with all due respect stop dipping into your ketamine stash! Put down the bong… Our struggle with China is serious. It’s serious as four heart attacks and a stroke, and it is bone deep down to the marrow stupid for us because of guilt over colonialism to bow to the wishes of the United Nations.”