Things are rarely this simple. The UK needs to decide if it follows its allies or it's obligations under international law. There is also a very long history of signatories failing to execute warrants against Heads of State.

Agree completely although I am still a staunch Labour supporter and hopeful Starmer will act within the law because what the Prime Minister does next will define him in the minds of British people particularly if he doesn't adhere to the rule of law.

Not end of story though is it because there is always more complexity, nuance and further arguments to make. Enforcement of ICC warrants is a heavily studied and debated topic in international law. It boils down to whether our leaders value the rule of law or positive relationships with our allies.

Lol I just wrote this exact message under another post! Let's see what happens

Which is why I think this is incredibly symbolic but given the rhetoric of western leaders over the last year, I struggle to see how this warrant will be enforced. I'm hopeful it will but I not confident the UK will do it. We'll see what the FCO says once they've consulted their lawyers.

Specifically against Israel? I'm in the UK. In theory it makes sense to enforce the warrant when against say Russia but I'm not confident we would do so here. I'm hopeful given Starmer's background that he'll appreciate the rule of law but honestly this is new territory for the UK.

Expected yes, but there isn't really any mechanism to hold the UK to account if it doesn't. Signatories are bound under Article 89(1) of the Rome Statute but often do not act against sitting heads of state especially when there are clear political implications if they were to execute warrants.

Israel isn't a member and doesn't recognise the ICC's jurisdiction so I suspect this won't lead to any prison sentences or detention generally but still an incredibly symbolic act.

Very observant! It is well used like all the best mugs