“Does he agree that while the use of the prerogative power is sometimes controversial, it is essential to ensure the safety and security of the British people?” asked the recently defeated Leader of the Opposition Rishi Sunak.
Starmer is considering sending British troops to Ukraine as part of a peacekeeping force and has said Parliament will be allowed to “express a view” on his eventual decision. Many MPs assume he will allow them a say before deployment, pointing to former Prime Minister Tony Blair’s decision to hold a vote before sending British troops to Iraq as setting a key precedent. In 2013, MPs’ rejection of Prime Minister David Cameron’s proposed military action against Syria to deter the use of chemical weapons strengthened the understanding that Parliament should decide.
The Prime Minister convened another meeting in London European military leaders from around 30 countries to nail down details on an “operational phase” for protecting any ceasefire, including air cover for a limited number of troops in combat roles. Any boots on the ground would most likely be deployed to protect cities, ports, and major energy infrastructure.
This week, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni condemned sending European peacekeeping troops to Ukraine as a “risky, complex, and ineffective” endeavour.
Asked whether the Government will put British troops in Ukraine if the US walks away, Armed Forces Minister Luke Pollard said on Thursday: “No, the Prime Minister has been very clear that in bringing together European nations and other allies from across the world to prepare a force that will secure the peace, it will need a US backstop, US involvement.”
So far only the UK and France have committed troops to Ukraine. And even this is just in principle. Even if Starmer successfully forms a European and international coalition, parliamentary approval for his plans remains uncertain.
A Conservative MP told The i Paper: “Starmer is bringing together a coalition of the virtue-signalling. I don’t see any way British troops will ever serve in Ukraine unless the US coughs up a guarantee.
The MP added: “If it comes to a vote, I’d be against.”
“Without America, I just don’t see it happening,” the MP added.
“I think Keir is into it but for everyone else [in the other countries] it’s really a coalition on defence spending. The critical issue will be if he can negotiate for UK companies to be eligible for European funding,” a Labour MP told The i Paper. Nevertheless, the MP predicted if the matter came to a vote in Parliament, Starmer would win.
If Starmer reaches a vote, another Conservative MP and former Cabinet minister believes he can likely persuade MPs from all parties to support him. “He would probably win. I think there’s a consensus that we want to help. But what we’d like to do and what we can do are two different things.
The MP further commented: “I’ve talked to the Ukrainians, and what they said is ‘we can deal with the Russians, but the trouble is, you don’t send us the equipment that you promised’ The Americans have been pretty poor at this and very slow about sending any sort of important equipment – Europe has been better, but still way behind. So if you gave us what you said you would give us then that would be the best guarantee of security, not putting troops on the ground who become targets’.”
Starmer deserves praise for trying to convince like-minded allies to step up and help Ukraine. But there are many obstacles in his way. Some are obvious – Putin’s intransigence and Trump’s hesitation. But he has other hurdles – convincing MPs to back him might be among them.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( ‘A coalition of virtue signalling’: MPs aren’t convinced by Starmer’s peacekeeping plans )
Also on site :