Could you, from a legal perspective, could you help me understand the differences in that approach from the UK government?

Oh, I'll have to be careful.

But I mean, it's a bare double standard.

It's not very careful of me, but I think it's a very dangerous precedent to set.

I mean, if you're having to perform sort of semantic gymnastics to thread a line between, it's for a court to decide whether a genocide has occurred, a position that the UK consistently takes.

but then making its own assessment on a trade deal when, despite the ICJ finding a serious risk of genocide and the ICJ issuing repeated interim orders and another court, the ICC, has issued arrest warrants, then the courts have decided that there is enough forensic evidence evidence that there is at least a very serious risk that genocide is occurring.

So I don't think that's a sustainable or logical position, morally or legally.

It's not trying to just plug a hole.