You are reading a single comment by @Grumpy_Git and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
Because it would be parliament essentially prejudging against a specific legal term?
See also government Vs high court in "Rwanda is a Safe country"
They would have been better to explicitly state that UK companies are barred from selling weapons or items used in the production of such. At least it would have had meaning and input
Grumpy_Git
The full text of the motion and each of the amendments: https://www.thenational.scot/news/24134333.read-snps-gaza-ceasefire-motion-labours-amendment---full/
There have been a few comments about the SNP motion being designed to hurt a fractured Labour party, but to be honest it reads like the most simple and straightforward of the lot, with little specificity other than to press for a ceasefire. Dunt and friends are getting wrapped up in the show of it all, as ever.
Labour's amendment is much more specific in describing the outcomes and process, and for that it's a genuinely good amendment. I'm not sure their watering down of conditions is really any different to "press for a ceasefire" either.
But if this all hinges on the mention of collective punishment, which it clearly is by any reasonable definition, why are Labour unable to say it? Is it really controversial at this point given the number of non-combatants killed?