British Prime Minister Andy Burnham has approved the US use of some UK bases for "defensive" air strikes on Iran, in a continuation of a policy introduced by his predecessor Keir Starmer, Bloomberg News reported on Wednesday.
According to sources who spoke to Bloomberg on condition of anonymity, Starmer held a meeting of senior ministers and officials on Friday, in which it was decided that US planes could continue to use bases at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean and RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire.
The sources said that Burnham was briefed on the discussion and agreed with the decision, confirming that he would likely continue Starmer’s policy throughout the renewed US operations.
The decision comes as US bombardment targeted cities across Iran for the 11th consecutive night, with Iranian media reporting explosions in cities including Bushehr, Tabriz and Chabahar and in the provinces of Kurdistan and Ilam.
[...]
But Burnham's continuation of Starmer's policy of allowing American use of British airbases is likely to face backlash, as UK rights groups previously warned that the move could violate international law.
Starmer announced his policy in early March, arguing that the bases were to be used for defensive purposes.
He later confirmed that the agreement would be expanded to allow for the US to launch strikes from UK bases on Iranian sites targeting the Strait of Hormuz - also invoking "collective self-defence" of Gulf state allies as a legal basis for the decision.
Human Rights Watch's UK director, Yasmine Ahmed, wrote to the prime minister, highlighting that the government’s legal justification for the move failed to mention issues related to international humanitarian law (IHL).
She cited a number of instances which have raised questions around US compliance with IHL, including an air strike on Shajareh Tayyebeh primary school in the southern Iranian city of Minab, at the start of the US-Israeli assault on 28 February. Over 150 people were killed in the attack, most of them children.
You need to read up about how our parliament works. We never elect a prime minister, we only elect a person to be an MP for that constituency. That's the way it's been for centuries.
So you agree he is a paid stooge at least.
Read my other comment. The revolving door of party leadership is recent and dysfunctional. And your vote is for your local MP AND the party they are a member of, knowing the policies and leadership of that party.
If you think otherwise you are ignoring a substantial amount of what you should have been considering in your voting decisions.
That's the farce of it all. On paper people vote for an MP, but in their minds people vote for a party, and that party is led by the PM they hope will be running the country.
Literally no one voted for Burnham to lead the party, even though party rules dictate how the party leader is democratically selected. With Labour, I understand the registered party members decide, although they may have restricted that to MP's voting only in the wake of party members choosing Corbyn years ago.
Starmer threw in the towel, over nothing in particular, and Burnham stood uncontested. There is nothing democratic about that.