David Lammy’s flirtation with reparations could backfire spectacularly

Foreign Secretary David Lammy, is reportedly preparing to engage in discussions with Caribbean nations regarding reparations for Britain’s historical involvement in the transatlantic slave trade. This initiative includes a planned meeting with the Reparations Commission of the Caribbean Community (Caricom), a coalition of 15 member states.

But the notion of Britain paying reparations for slavery is not only impractical but also deeply misguided. David Lammy’s willingness to entertain the idea overlooks key historical facts,

practical challenges, and the wider consequences of setting such a precedent. While Britain undoubtedly played a role in the transatlantic slave trade, it also led the charge to abolish slavery and eradicate it across the world. Rather than burdening contemporary taxpayers with the sins of the past, we should focus on addressing present-day inequalities through meaningful policies.

Unlike many nations that engaged in slavery, Britain did more than simply end the practice—it actively fought against it. The abolitionist movement, spearheaded by Quakers in the 1780s, led to the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833, which liberated countless individuals.

More significantly, Britain expended vast sums of money and resources to suppress the global slave trade, deploying the Royal Navy to intercept slave ships and pressuring other nations to follow suit. To ignore this contribution is to distort history.

But even if we were to accept the notion or reparations, determining an appropriate amount is fraught with complexities. Barbados’s Prime Minister Mia Mottley has claimed that Britain owes her country £3.9 trillion, while a 2023 report estimated the total owed to former Caribbean colonies at £18 trillion. These figures are not only unrealistic but raise fundamental questions: Who would be compensated? How would eligibility be determined?

And who would pay? The passage of time makes it nearly impossible to establish a fair and just framework for distributing reparations.

Beyond financial impracticalities, reparations could have serious political ramifications.

Some former colonies might view payments as an admission of guilt, potentially fueling resentment rather than reconciliation. Moreover, such a move could embolden other nations to make similar demands for historical injustices, opening the floodgates to countless claims that Britain—or any country with a colonial past—could never realistically meet. Rather than fostering goodwill, reparations could instead deepen diplomatic divides.

At a time when Britain faces pressing domestic issues—ranging from economic recovery to social inequality—diverting resources toward reparations is both imprudent and unnecessary. The focus should be on tackling contemporary injustices, improving education, and fostering economic development in affected regions rather than attempting to retroactively correct historical wrongs.

Investing in trade, infrastructure, and education in former colonies is a more productive way to acknowledge history while building a better future.

If Britain were to pay reparations, it would set a dangerous precedent. Countless historical injustices could be litigated, creating an endless cycle of financial and moral liability. Nations across the world have histories steeped in conquest, colonization, and oppression. If we start issuing reparations for every past atrocity, where does it end? Instead of looking backward with a lens of perpetual grievance, societies should seek to move forward through constructive engagement and cooperation.

Some proponents of reparations, including Lord Hermer, have argued that there is a moral and legal basis for such payments. However, morality and legality must be tempered with practicality. Holding contemporary Britain accountable for actions committed centuries ago ignores the fact that today’s citizens bear no responsibility for those events. Furthermore, Britain itself made enormous sacrifices to end the slave trade and combat its remnants worldwide—an effort that should be acknowledged rather than dismissed.

Rather than engaging in a divisive and unworkable campaign for reparations, a better approach would be to focus on sustainable, long-term solutions.

David Lammy’s flirtation with reparations is not only ill-advised but also counterproductive.

Britain has already taken significant steps to acknowledge and rectify past injustices. The way forward is through meaningful engagement and development—not through an unworkable and deeply flawed policy of reparations.