Boris Johnson and Liz Truss actively lobbied Donald Trump to block the current government's negotiated settlement on the Chagos Islands, according to Politico, in what constitutional experts describe as an unprecedented breach of conventions governing former prime ministers' conduct.
The two former Conservative leaders reportedly contacted the incoming Trump administration urging it to oppose the UK's agreement to cede sovereignty of the Chagos archipelago to Mauritius whilst retaining the strategically vital Diego Garcia military base on a 99-year lease. The deal, negotiated under the Labour government, was designed to resolve a decades-long territorial dispute whilst preserving Anglo-American defence capabilities in the Indian Ocean.
As they say in Westminster, "the constitution is what happens"—precedent matters more than law. And the precedent being set here is profoundly troubling: former prime ministers actively working to undermine their successor's foreign policy by enlisting a foreign power.
The constitutional conventions surrounding former prime ministers are largely unwritten but well understood. Whilst they remain free to criticise government policy—and both Johnson and Truss have done so with enthusiasm—directly lobbying foreign governments to obstruct British foreign policy crosses a line that previous occupants of Number 10 have respected regardless of political differences.
Tony Blair did not lobby foreign capitals to oppose the Iraq War's aftermath when Gordon Brown withdrew troops. Gordon Brown did not urge international leaders to reject David Cameron's EU renegotiation. Theresa May has maintained a studied silence on her successors' Brexit implementations despite profound disagreements. Even David Cameron, who lobbied against Brexit, did so through British political channels rather than foreign governments.
That Johnson and Truss have abandoned this restraint speaks to the post-Brexit Conservative Party's transformation. Both leaders, to varying degrees, have aligned themselves with Trumpian politics and appear to view the former president as a more natural ally than their own country's elected government.
The Chagos agreement itself has divided opinion. Supporters note it resolves a longstanding dispute that has seen Britain repeatedly condemned by international courts and the UN General Assembly. Critics argue it represents a strategic surrender, potentially allowing China to gain influence in the region through Mauritius.
But whatever one's view of the deal's merits, the question of British foreign policy should be settled through British political processes—Parliament, elections, public debate—not through former prime ministers secretly lobbying foreign governments to sabotage agreements already negotiated.
The Trump administration's position on the deal remains unclear, though Republican senators have expressed scepticism. If the agreement ultimately collapses due to American opposition actively solicited by former British prime ministers, it would represent a constitutional crisis of a novel kind: British politicians collaborating with foreign powers to undermine British foreign policy.
Downing Street has declined to comment directly on the reports, though government sources expressed astonishment at what one described as "extraordinary conduct from people who once held the highest office." Labour backbenchers have been less restrained, with several calling for Johnson and Truss to be stripped of their Privy Council membership.
That sanction, whilst symbolically significant, remains unlikely. More consequential may be the broader precedent being established. If former prime ministers can actively work with foreign governments against British interests without meaningful consequence, the conventions that have governed post-premiership conduct for generations may prove to have been more fragile than supposed.
Johnson and Truss have not denied the reports. A spokesman for Johnson said the former prime minister "remains free to express his views on matters of national importance." Truss's office did not respond to requests for comment.
Expressing views and actively lobbying foreign governments to obstruct British foreign policy are rather different things. The fact that this distinction appears lost on two people who once led the country tells us a great deal about the state of post-Brexit Conservatism—and none of it particularly encouraging for those who believe that, whatever our political differences, Britain's interests ought to be represented by Britain's government rather than freelancing former prime ministers with scores to settle.
