Sheffield To Recognise Palestine As A State?

[bendix 10]

I don't really understand the point of Sheffield recognising Palestine as a state.  I have no problem with the issue per se, but why is it a subject for Sheffield City Council to get involved in?  As TCH said, the Labour Party doesn't support states, but can support parties.  Why, then, is it ok for for a city council to recognise a disputed state?  Is it normal for local authorities to wade into international diplomacy?

 

What does it hope to achieve?  Will there be bilateral relations, investment treaties, and twinned cities?

 

Or is it, to be crassly cynical, simply an assinine gesture?

[Top Cats Hat 10]

1 hour ago, alchresearch said:

But with Labour it does appear to be some kind of obsession.  This country and their party has enough problems they should be focusing on first.

Unless you are the BNP, UKIP or the Brexit Party, any party looking to form a government will have to have a foreign policy when they are in power.

 

To have a foreign policy you need to take a view on international matters as well as domestic    ones.

 

Why should Labour be any different?

[bendix 10]

But Sheffield City Council is not a political party, nor a state.  As such, why would a City Council need to make a stand on a foreign policy issue?

 

What am I missing?   Has it also taken a position on China's claim regarding the Spratley Islands, and such things.  Will it be sending it's foreign office representatives out to those countries on fact finding missions, and opening consulates in the more imporant ones?

 

 

[Top Cats Hat 10]

5 minutes ago, bendix said:

But Sheffield City Council is not a political party, nor a state. 

Nor is it a national government.

 

I was responding to alchresearch’s comment that the Labour Party should primarily take a view on domestic matters.

[bendix 10]

Fair enough TCH. 

 

I prefer to not read the entire thread before throwing in pithy and insightful comments to it.  As Sydney Smith once said, "I never read a book before reviewing it, because it might prejudice me so."

[alchresearch 213]

19 hours ago, Top Cats Hat said:

Unless you are the BNP, UKIP or the Brexit Party, any party looking to form a government will have to have a foreign policy when they are in power.

 

To have a foreign policy you need to take a view on international matters as well as domestic    ones.

 

Why should Labour be any different?

Because the people involved in all the troubles Labour are in aren't Shadow Foreign Secretaries.

 

They're provincial nobodies who should be concentrating on local issues first.  

 

Take Chris Williamson for example.  He's a big name in the antisemitism row. 

 

According to his profile, he's MP for Derby North - is that a big Palestinian / Israeli community?

 

What about his shadow role? Until recently he was: Shadow Minister (Home Office) (Fire and Emergency Services) (3 Jul 2017 to 11 Jan 2018)

 

Again, what has that role got to do with antisemitism?  None whatsoever, so maybe he should keep his big mouth shut.

[Nightbird 0]

2 hours ago, alchresearch said:

Because the people involved in all the troubles Labour are in aren't Shadow Foreign Secretaries.

 

They're provincial nobodies who should be concentrating on local issues first.  

 

Take Chris Williamson for example.  He's a big name in the antisemitism row. 

 

According to his profile, he's MP for Derby North - is that a big Palestinian / Israeli community?

 

What about his shadow role? Until recently he was: Shadow Minister (Home Office) (Fire and Emergency Services) (3 Jul 2017 to 11 Jan 2018)

 

Again, what has that role got to do with antisemitism?  None whatsoever, so maybe he should keep his big mouth shut.

This is going off topic but this reminds me of Irvin Patnick's interventions in the Hillsborough disaster; Hillsborough wasn't his patch so why was he involved?

[Top Cats Hat 10]

2 hours ago, alchresearch said:

According to his profile, he's MP for Derby North - is that a big Palestinian / Israeli community?

Are you now suggesting that MPs should only comment or vote on matters of immediately concern to their constituents?

 

And since when did you have to be an Israeli or Palestinian to voice an opinion or show concern for those who are?

[Branyy 10]

14 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

Are you now suggesting that MPs should only comment or vote on matters of immediately concern to their constituents?

It seems a bit... unproductive?

[Nightbird 0]

43 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

Are you now suggesting that MPs should only comment or vote on matters of immediately concern to their constituents?

 

 

I would suggest that MP's should mainly concern themselves with matters to do with this country.

[Top Cats Hat 10]

2 minutes ago, Nightbird said:

I would suggest that MP's should mainly concern themselves with matters to do with this country.

They do. 🙄

[Nightbird 0]

Just now, Top Cats Hat said:

They do. 🙄

Some don't.