If There Was Any Doubt Of Labour's Anti...
News3 mins ago
The Commons Have Voted Against War With Syria
David Cameron's plans for war have been rejected in a House of Commons vote tonight. The Hovernment have lost control of its own foreign policy and Dave has been dealt a humiliating defeat, which will embarrass him abroad.
Common sense prevails?
Common sense prevails?
Answers
thankfully, a genuinely back from the brink decision tonight I think, at least there was some above party politics stuff going on
23:23 Thu 29th Aug 2013
Its not just Mikey or Jim or others here who feel Cameron has not handled this situation especially well though, Naomi. Most of the commentators in the media, ranging from that venerable right wing stalwart Max Hastings, through to editorials in most of the broadsheets, think that Cameron and Hague acted far too hastily in calling for a mandate to use military action in Syria. Cameron and Hague have been leading the calls for such an action ever since the details of this chemical attack started to emerge. Recalling MPs for an urgent debate in the HoC was seen by all as a debate that would give the Executive the mandate they desired. It was only calls for sight of the evidence,calls to wait upon the UN inspectors reports, questions over the scope of the military actions and exactly what objectives this might achieve that gave pause and then talk of a second vote in the HoC "if necessary".
Contrast the JIC report produced for the HoC debate with what John Kerry produced as an intelligence report from the CIA/ other sources - a report that led him to urge calls for intervention and military action far more passionately and with a deal more credibility than either Hague or Cameron were able to articulate.The report was far more detailed and specific in its allegations, although that does not automatically make it more credible.
Had such a report been produced by the JIC prior to the HoC debate in the UK, who knows how the vote might have gone?
For those whose instinct is that intervention is required, that somehow a "limited military action" involving missile strikes against military infrastructure in Syria is going to punish Assad or somehow prevent further use of chemical weapons, they will think Cameron and Hague acted far too precipitately and probably feel aggrieved.
Me, I am just glad we are not involved, and although the situation in Syria is obviously no laughing matter, is brutal and tragic, I still find humour in the medias representation of a UK looking wistfully and longingly at all the military build-up, with politicians and senior military figures taking offence at the US mentioning France as their oldest ally. A reporter for Newsnight said something to the effect that the UK is sort of like a jilted spouse, who has become aware that their partner has taken up with a french mistress
Contrast the JIC report produced for the HoC debate with what John Kerry produced as an intelligence report from the CIA/ other sources - a report that led him to urge calls for intervention and military action far more passionately and with a deal more credibility than either Hague or Cameron were able to articulate.The report was far more detailed and specific in its allegations, although that does not automatically make it more credible.
Had such a report been produced by the JIC prior to the HoC debate in the UK, who knows how the vote might have gone?
For those whose instinct is that intervention is required, that somehow a "limited military action" involving missile strikes against military infrastructure in Syria is going to punish Assad or somehow prevent further use of chemical weapons, they will think Cameron and Hague acted far too precipitately and probably feel aggrieved.
Me, I am just glad we are not involved, and although the situation in Syria is obviously no laughing matter, is brutal and tragic, I still find humour in the medias representation of a UK looking wistfully and longingly at all the military build-up, with politicians and senior military figures taking offence at the US mentioning France as their oldest ally. A reporter for Newsnight said something to the effect that the UK is sort of like a jilted spouse, who has become aware that their partner has taken up with a french mistress
The vote was passed by such a fine margin -- just seven people needed to change their votes for us now to be involved. The idea that waiting a week would not have changed things in some way seems incredible. That includes the possibility of an even stronger result against.
I've not had the opportunity to talk about this with friends yet, but the result has split my family almost down the middle. Yet, curiously we are united on one point: That David Cameron rushed into this vote and should have waited for more details to emerge. I don't see that you can disagree with this either, Naomi -- weren't you advising patience earlier? Doesn't a rushed vote show a level of impatience?
I've not had the opportunity to talk about this with friends yet, but the result has split my family almost down the middle. Yet, curiously we are united on one point: That David Cameron rushed into this vote and should have waited for more details to emerge. I don't see that you can disagree with this either, Naomi -- weren't you advising patience earlier? Doesn't a rushed vote show a level of impatience?
Just crunching the numbers, reports are that 30 Labour MPs were absent - although I can't find a listing - and three DUP. The other five DUP MPs voted solidly against, which, taken together, may be an indication that Cameron was actually spared a worse defeat.
I think it unlikely there will be another vote imminently: this one's exposed Cameron in too many ways within his own party to risk it, and there'll be a "wait and see" approach to whatever the US and France do next. My surprise there is that the French seem to be gambling their relationship with Iran and more's the pity if it does, it's one of the few conduits to influence.
I also think public attitudes will harden; this result has given permission for people of all political stripes and none to say "enough now" in a wider context. Because this part of the world is the single biggest supplier of personnel to the army, it adds a domestic problem. Locally, after the last ten years' experience, people are openly saying "well, get your own kids killed then."
My own MP, one of the Tory rebels (along with three other local rebel Torys), sensibly e-polled the constituency in advance, got a thumping No, faced down the whip and acted on that. Criticisms of appeasement really don't play well round here, - have a look at Richard Dannatt's remarks in the Lords debate in that context.
I think it unlikely there will be another vote imminently: this one's exposed Cameron in too many ways within his own party to risk it, and there'll be a "wait and see" approach to whatever the US and France do next. My surprise there is that the French seem to be gambling their relationship with Iran and more's the pity if it does, it's one of the few conduits to influence.
I also think public attitudes will harden; this result has given permission for people of all political stripes and none to say "enough now" in a wider context. Because this part of the world is the single biggest supplier of personnel to the army, it adds a domestic problem. Locally, after the last ten years' experience, people are openly saying "well, get your own kids killed then."
My own MP, one of the Tory rebels (along with three other local rebel Torys), sensibly e-polled the constituency in advance, got a thumping No, faced down the whip and acted on that. Criticisms of appeasement really don't play well round here, - have a look at Richard Dannatt's remarks in the Lords debate in that context.
When I watched Newsnight after the vote, some of the commentators struck me as almost being on the verge of something like tears. Apparently we are in the process of losing some lofty position in the world which should cause us shame. I think ordinary people seem to be more realistic than many politicians and the media- that we really do not have any real power in the world anymore. We continue apparently to have 'influence', and I do not think that will change much. I do not think we should use our scarce resources to police the world. As has been said before there are atrocities happening all over the world and when the Burundi genocides occurred the world did nothing. Are some people worth more than others? I believe in humanitarian help for people or diplomatic input, but it is time we minded our own business and didn't intervene in their wars.
Who are we going to pick on next - Iran or Pakistan? At least we've decided not to make a bad situation even worse this time - and whatever the wrongs from our historic meddling in this area which must have contributed to the Civil War- isn't it time that we let other peoples solve their own problems in their own way?
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.