💪 Frozen Russian Assets: Ukraine

• The House debated the use of approximately $300 billion in frozen Russian assets held by G7 and EU countries to support Ukraine in its conflict with Russia.
• The debate was called for by Mike Martin, who highlighted the humanitarian crisis in Ukraine and the illegal actions by Russia, including the abduction of children.
• There was strong support across the House for using these assets to fund Ukraine’s war effort, emphasizing the moral and strategic necessity of supporting Ukraine.
• Speakers expressed concerns about the legal challenges of seizing assets, advocating for a multilateral approach through the G7 to avoid negative impacts on global financial systems.
• The UK’s past leadership in supporting Ukraine was praised, and there was a call for continued leadership in this new phase of support.
• The importance of disrupting Russia’s war economy and preventing sanctions evasion was stressed, along with closing loopholes that allow dirty money from Russia into the UK.
• The government was urged to investigate and report back to the House on the legal pathways for seizing these assets.
• The motion passed, calling on the Government to explore ways to legally seize the frozen Russian assets for Ukraine’s benefit and report findings to the House.

The session displayed a significant level of agreement and unity among the members of parliament. The debate focused on the seizure of frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine, and there was a shared sentiment across the House that Russia must be held accountable and that Ukraine deserves full support. Multiple members from different parties, including the Liberal Democrats, Labour, and Conservative parties, expressed similar views on the need to investigate and possibly seize Russian assets legally. The motion was supported unanimously, as evidenced by the resolution that was agreed upon at the end of the session. There were no instances of significant disagreement or opposition to the main points discussed, with members even agreeing on the importance of multilateral action and the legal considerations involved. This unity and lack of disagreement resulted in a low disagreement rating of 1.