- cross-posted to:
- uk_politics@feddit.uk
- cross-posted to:
- uk_politics@feddit.uk
You must log in or register to comment.
I don’t understand this. How does the UK government voting for a ceasefire actually achieve anything? They’re not going to honour a vote we made.
We can’t affect their policy directly, but as close allies that supply them with weapons, we’re uniquely suited to demand a ceasefire. Our leverage is that we would stop providing them with weapons and political cover to continue their genocide. We could even adopt sanctions, or work with the Hague to have Netanyahu tried for war crimes.
There’s sometimes a disconnect between what’s politically advantageous and what’s actual policy. If it’s popular for an MP to vote for a ceasefire…shrugs
We do nonbinding resolutions in Congress all the time. They don’t actually have an effect on policy, but they make some people happy, so…
Sometimes foreign policy involves stating a position, even if we can’t unilaterally make it happen. Macron has done this, which paved the way for other leaders to do it as well.
If Starmer wants to be prime minister, he has to realise that he will eventually have to take positions on world events. In my opinion, just following America has been disastrous for us, and I’d like us to change that.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Sir Keir Starmer has suffered a major rebellion over his stance on the Israel-Gaza war, with 56 of his MPs voting for an immediate ceasefire.
Jess Phillips, Afzal Khan and Yasmin Qureshi were among shadow ministers backing an SNP motion in the House of Commons.
Labour had ordered its MPs to abstain, with frontbenchers facing the sack for supporting it.
In a statement, Sir Keir said Israel had suffered “its worst terrorist attack in a single day” at the hands of Hamas on 7 October.
Sir Keir has argued that a ceasefire would not be appropriate, because it would freeze the conflict and embolden Hamas.
Instead, Labour, like the Conservative government, the United States and the European Union, is calling for “humanitarian pauses” to help aid reach Gaza.
The original article contains 217 words, the summary contains 128 words. Saved 41%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Labour had ordered its MPs to abstain, with frontbenchers facing the sack for supporting it.
The article no longer seems to have this paragraph. Am I missing something? And does anyone know if Sir Keith is going to follow through?
I presume he’ll have to go through with it or be labelled as weak, they will definitely be sacked though according to The Garudian:
Three Labour frontbenchers have publicly defied the party leadership and called for a ceasefire in Gaza, hours before Keir Starmer faces one of his biggest rebellions as leader over the issue.
Naz Shah (Bradford West), Afzal Khan (Manchester Gorton) and Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) told fellow MPs in the Commons of their intention to vote for an immediate ceasefire, knowing that doing so would result in the loss of their shadow ministerial roles.
Also from their live feed:
Eight shadow ministers quit or face sack from Starmer’s frontbench over Labour’s opposition to Gaza ceasefire
…
The rebels on the front bench included Phillips, Rachel Hopkins, Sarah Owen, Afzal Khan, Paula Barker, Naz Shah, Yasmin Quereshi and Andy Slaughter. Two parliamentary private secretaries also left.
…
Three Labour frontbenchers resigned in the minutes before the vote, after Starmer made clear that those voting for the ceasefire amendment would be sacked.
