• Chris@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • tal@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      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…

    • Daniel Quinn
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

    • cook_pass_babtridge@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.