Sir Keir Starmer’s debut at Prime Minister’s Questions last July almost immediately prompted a question regarding his prerogative power to deploy British troops without parliamentary consultation.
“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.
While on the surface Sunak was making a simple statement of cross-party support for Ukraine, he was subtly trolling the Labour benches opposite him. After the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan, Labour’s institutional memory is nervous of British involvement in foreign wars and baulks at the idea of combat without a go-ahead vote from MPs.
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.
Starmer’s search for a “coalition of the willing” was again top of the political agenda on Thursday as he worked to bolster the UK and France’s plan to safeguard Ukraine’s future security should a ceasefire occur.
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.
While a refusal to countenance foreign troops in Ukraine is to be expected from Moscow – one of Vladimir Putin’s demands during his 90-minute telephone conversation with Donald Trump on Tuesday was for a total ban on all international aid to Kyiv – Starmer is yet to convince everyone of the wisdom of his coalition.
This week, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni condemned sending European peacekeeping troops to Ukraine as a “risky, complex, and ineffective” endeavour.
In Westminster, some MPs turn cold at the thought of deploying British troops in Ukraine without an American or Nato security guarantee. Despite obvious reluctance from Trump and his team to offer a so-called security “backstop”, Starmer still hopes to convince the US that his willing force will do the heavy lifting and only needs back-up as a surety to make Russia think twice before attacking.
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.”
Starmer appears to have no choice with Trump not yet onside. Meanwhile, with at least two Nato members, including Slovakia and Hungary, prepared to veto any action against Russia, Starmer and France’s Emmanuel Macron will insist they have to act outside the established Nato umbrella.
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.
Some MPs dismiss the idea that he will be free to proceed. One said any force serving outside of Nato’s structures will not only fail but damage the long-term prospects of the alliance. That’s because any joint force serving under the banner of the so-called “coalition of the willing” would not be protected by Nato’s Article 5 – the cornerstone of its collective defence, which says an attack on one member is considered an attack on all.
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.
“What happens if British troops are involved in a skirmish with the Russians and they’re not part of a Nato force? Other Nato countries will hesitate before they respond to help and probably won’t help at all. And what does that mean for Article 5? Without Article 5, you’ve effectively killed off Nato.
The MP added: “If it comes to a vote, I’d be against.”
A Labour MP said Starmer couldn’t pledge an open-ended commitment to UK troops without a vote in Parliament and that the “jury is out” if he could win support for such a commitment, calling the idea of an international coalition outside Nato command “structurally unsound”.
“Without America, I just don’t see it happening,” the MP added.
Starmer has seen his domestic favourability rating improve since taking on a leadership role to help Ukraine, but one of his Labour colleagues questioned whether other so-called willing nations might be driven by motives other than protecting Ukraine’s peace and sovereignty.
“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.
“It’s Reform making everyone panic” in the Labour Party, but even so, the MP added: “I reckon our lot will explode with the chance to look hardcore. It might come down to where the troops are positioned – people might be okay with British troops in Estonia but not in Ukraine.”
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.
“If they want to put boots on the ground, they’re going to have to have air cover, and there’s no commitment from the US at the moment,” the MP added. “So this is a long way off anything happening, if it happens at all.”
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’.”
On Thursday, Starmer said the “timetable now is coming into focus” after talks between the US and Russia, and that if a deal comes to fruition, the coalition of the willing needs to be ready to react right away. “That’s why it’s important today that we’re turning the political momentum that we had on the weekend, in the meeting that I convened of nearly 30 political leaders… from the political concept into military plans,” he told Sky News.
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 :
- Billboard’s 2025 Global Power Players Revealed
- Meghan Markle shares unseen family photos on seventh wedding anniversary to Prince Harry
- Amazon’s Best-Selling Power Bank Is Now Nearly Free, 76K Reviews Can’t Be Wrong