Has the Prime Minister fudged the numbers on defence spending, and is he about to bankrupt Britain to comply with his beloved international law?
Yesterday, Sir Keir Starmer said this: "I can announce this Government will begin the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the Cold War.
"We will deliver our commitment to spend 2.5 per cent of GDP on defence, but we will bring it forward so that we reach that level in 2027. That means we will cut our spending on development assistance."
But today that has started to unravel.
Patrick Christys says Starmer is set for his 'biggest betrayal yet'
GB News
In simple terms, instead of paying just for soldiers, tanks and missiles, he might spend that money handing Chagos over to essentially the Chinese, which will make us less safe.
And it would also seem to contradict what his deputy, Angela Rayner, is saying. Using the defence budget to surrender our sovereign territory is not really keeping us safe, is it, deputy Prime Minister?
But if Keir Starmer does that, then that's absolutely shocking, and many might regard that as his biggest betrayal yet.
But the Prime Minister now faces a huge problem here because this judge, who is a Jamaican man called Patrick Robinson, ruled against Britain over Chagos.
It seems as though Britain is giving up the Chagos Islands because of a ruling by a panel of judges that included him. This is the same bloke who thinks that Britain should pay £18trillion in slavery reparations.
In a report he co-authored, the judge claimed that once the state has committed a wrongful act, it should be obliged to pay reparations.
The report set out payment plans for the countries involved, but left it up to governments to negotiate what sums are paid. So apparently the Prime Minister is taking instructions from a man who thinks we owe £18trillion in slavery reparations.
So, will Keir Starmer spend our defence budget surrendering our sovereign territory? And will he choose the ruling of a reparations obsessed judge over Britain's national interest?
Of course, this whole thing could be completely pointless because the Foreign Secretary, David Lammy, has tonight said that President Trump could essentially just veto the whole thing.
So what's been the point of all this?