Daniel Hannan argues in this opinion piece that Caribbean and African countries pursuing slavery reparations claims against Britain are conducting a hostile campaign, and he contends that Britain should respond with diplomatic and economic sanctions including aid cuts and visa bans. He frames the issue as Britain being perceived as a "soft touch" and unfairly singled out for historical reckoning.

Hannan's central argument rests on claims that Britain was uniquely committed to abolishing slavery, spending 1.8 per cent of annual GDP between 1808 and 1867 on anti-slavery operations—more than any other nation. He states that Britain banned slavery in its colonies and conducted global campaigns against the practice, and argues that this expenditure, combined with subsequent foreign aid, would cover any historical debt many times over. He contrasts this with other nations that abolished slavery later (China in 1910, Ethiopia in 1942, Saudi Arabia in 1962) but do not face similar reparations requests, suggesting they escape such claims because they do not respond positively to them. He presents counterarguments about the problems of retroactive moral standards and comparisons to other historical injustices.