Mr Farage writing in the Express: "If we are to spend money in this area I would rather our foreign aid budget is redirected to ensure we ease the suffering of civilians by assisting the refugees in Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon.
Fits with Yglesias's point the other day that even if you think the war is justified and helps people in the country you're bombing, you could help people more by spending the money on something else.
Better still, give refugees visas and you can actually turn a profit from helping them.
Visas? To go where? You're surely not suggesting Mr Farage would welcome them here?
I'm suggesting that would be a good policy, but as you say it may not be Farage's.
Yep, because we clearly have more than enough jobs and houses for a few hundred thousand (if not more) unskilled workers which largely don't speak English....
To be fair, I'm not by any means sure they are all "unskilled". I can well imagine professional people and skilled tradesmen (and women) upping sticks and fleeing, given the situation. Weren't there at one stage Iraqi doctors driving minicabs? Or is that an urban myth?
What's more, where are these LibDem to Labour switchers?
Last seen super glued to tent pegs outside Balcombe.
Now on the move North to convene an Anti-War rally in Parliament Square.
Will be passing through Mayfield between 16:00 and 16:30. Make sure all windows are closed, doors locked and pets secured inside.
Perhaps they are in a badger camp in Somerset.
Although it did amuse me that one paper reported that "approximately 20 people, including several journalists" attended a midnight ramble to try and protect the disease-ridden vermin. And the badgers ;-)
I am waiting for Badger Dundee to start shooting back at those killing the badgers . It would even up the odds and give them a sporting chance .
Mr Farage writing in the Express: "If we are to spend money in this area I would rather our foreign aid budget is redirected to ensure we ease the suffering of civilians by assisting the refugees in Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon.
Fits with Yglesias's point the other day that even if you think the war is justified and helps people in the country you're bombing, you could help people more by spending the money on something else.
Better still, give refugees visas and you can actually turn a profit from helping them.
Visas? To go where? You're surely not suggesting Mr Farage would welcome them here?
I'm suggesting that would be a good policy, but as you say it may not be Farage's.
Yep, because we clearly have more than enough jobs and houses for a few hundred thousand (if not more) unskilled workers which largely don't speak English....
To be fair, I'm not by any means sure they are all "unskilled". I can well imagine professional people and skilled tradesmen (and women) upping sticks and fleeing, given the situation. Weren't there at one stage Iraqi doctors driving minicabs? Or is that an urban myth?
I know I'm being a bit unfair there, there may well be skilled workers, and people which speak English, but literacy rates in Syria are currently given as 80%, so 20% of the population can't read or write, let alone in English.
I'm not saying we shouldn't turn our backs on them, but we can't support mass immigration on this nature and level. I'm sure people like Edmund and tim would disagree on that, but I'm also sure that the majority of the population of this country wouldn't support it either.
Mr Farage writing in the Express: "If we are to spend money in this area I would rather our foreign aid budget is redirected to ensure we ease the suffering of civilians by assisting the refugees in Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon.
Fits with Yglesias's point the other day that even if you think the war is justified and helps people in the country you're bombing, you could help people more by spending the money on something else.
Better still, give refugees visas and you can actually turn a profit from helping them.
Visas? To go where? You're surely not suggesting Mr Farage would welcome them here?
I'm suggesting that would be a good policy, but as you say it may not be Farage's.
Yep, because we clearly have more than enough jobs and houses for a few hundred thousand (if not more) unskilled workers which largely don't speak English....
To be fair, I'm not by any means sure they are all "unskilled". I can well imagine professional people and skilled tradesmen (and women) upping sticks and fleeing, given the situation. Weren't there at one stage Iraqi doctors driving minicabs? Or is that an urban myth?
I know I'm being a bit unfair there, there may well be skilled workers, and people which speak English, but literacy rates in Syria are currently given as 80%, so 20% of the population can't read or write, let alone in English.
I'm not saying we shouldn't turn our backs on them, but we can't support mass immigration on this nature and level. I'm sure people like Edmund and tim would disagree on that, but I'm also sure that the majority of the population of this country wouldn't support it either.
To be fair, I don't think we "know" where anyone really stands on the issue at this point apart from those who would oppose any kind of intervention under any circumstances. The first key event isn't tomorrow though that may be entertaining up to a point but the publication of the report of the UN Inspectors.
IF said report unequivocally points the finger at Assad, then any resolution put to the Security Council will have considerable weight and it will be for Russia and China to explain any veto. Until then, we have a strong supposition but no verified fact which will keep everything simmering nicely until the weekend.
IF the report fails conclusively to prove that Assad's men initiated the chemical attack (whether Assad personally ordered it or not), it will prove much harder for the US/UK to carry out any kind of airstrike.
Absolutely right. So it's important that Parliament tomorrow votes for something that supports action IF it's proven that Assad was behind the attacks, and IF action is clearly shown to be legal.
Unfortunately, it looks like Cameron is trying to sidestep such trivialities. Perhaps aware of the US military timetable.
All depressingly familiar. And incredibly dangerous for all 3 main parties.
What's more, where are these LibDem to Labour switchers?
Last seen super glued to tent pegs outside Balcombe.
Now on the move North to convene an Anti-War rally in Parliament Square.
Will be passing through Mayfield between 16:00 and 16:30. Make sure all windows are closed, doors locked and pets secured inside.
Perhaps they are in a badger camp in Somerset.
Although it did amuse me that one paper reported that "approximately 20 people, including several journalists" attended a midnight ramble to try and protect the disease-ridden vermin. And the badgers ;-)
I am waiting for Badger Dundee to start shooting back at those killing the badgers . It would even up the odds and give them a sporting chance .
Must be some kind of cultural reference, but drawing a complete blank
What's more, where are these LibDem to Labour switchers?
Last seen super glued to tent pegs outside Balcombe.
Now on the move North to convene an Anti-War rally in Parliament Square.
Will be passing through Mayfield between 16:00 and 16:30. Make sure all windows are closed, doors locked and pets secured inside.
Perhaps they are in a badger camp in Somerset.
Although it did amuse me that one paper reported that "approximately 20 people, including several journalists" attended a midnight ramble to try and protect the disease-ridden vermin. And the badgers ;-)
I am waiting for Badger Dundee to start shooting back at those killing the badgers . It would even up the odds and give them a sporting chance .
Must be some kind of cultural reference, but drawing a complete blank
In one of the Crocodile Dundee films , he makes up in a kangaroo costume and starts firing back at a group of hunters who were driving around slaughtering kangaroos .
To be fair, I don't think we "know" where anyone really stands on the issue at this point apart from those who would oppose any kind of intervention under any circumstances. The first key event isn't tomorrow though that may be entertaining up to a point but the publication of the report of the UN Inspectors.
IF said report unequivocally points the finger at Assad, then any resolution put to the Security Council will have considerable weight and it will be for Russia and China to explain any veto. Until then, we have a strong supposition but no verified fact which will keep everything simmering nicely until the weekend.
IF the report fails conclusively to prove that Assad's men initiated the chemical attack (whether Assad personally ordered it or not), it will prove much harder for the US/UK to carry out any kind of airstrike.
Absolutely right. So it's important that Parliament tomorrow votes for something that supports action IF it's proven that Assad was behind the attacks, and IF action is clearly shown to be legal.
Unfortunately, it looks like Cameron is trying to sidestep such trivialities. Perhaps aware of the US military timetable.
All depressingly familiar. And incredibly dangerous for all 3 main parties.
How do you clearly show it to be legal, especially if one or two members of the UNSC do not agree?
What's more, where are these LibDem to Labour switchers?
Last seen super glued to tent pegs outside Balcombe.
Now on the move North to convene an Anti-War rally in Parliament Square.
Will be passing through Mayfield between 16:00 and 16:30. Make sure all windows are closed, doors locked and pets secured inside.
Perhaps they are in a badger camp in Somerset.
Although it did amuse me that one paper reported that "approximately 20 people, including several journalists" attended a midnight ramble to try and protect the disease-ridden vermin. And the badgers ;-)
I am waiting for Badger Dundee to start shooting back at those killing the badgers . It would even up the odds and give them a sporting chance .
Must be some kind of cultural reference, but drawing a complete blank
In one of the Crocodile Dundee films , he makes up in a kangaroo costume and starts firing back at a group of hunters who were driving around slaughtering kangaroos .
I liked the Family Guy reference to Crocodile Dundee in a flashback "I want to see a lot of you for a short time and then never again".
What's more, where are these LibDem to Labour switchers?
Last seen super glued to tent pegs outside Balcombe.
Now on the move North to convene an Anti-War rally in Parliament Square.
Will be passing through Mayfield between 16:00 and 16:30. Make sure all windows are closed, doors locked and pets secured inside.
Perhaps they are in a badger camp in Somerset.
Although it did amuse me that one paper reported that "approximately 20 people, including several journalists" attended a midnight ramble to try and protect the disease-ridden vermin. And the badgers ;-)
I am waiting for Badger Dundee to start shooting back at those killing the badgers . It would even up the odds and give them a sporting chance .
Must be some kind of cultural reference, but drawing a complete blank
In one of the Crocodile Dundee films , he makes up in a kangaroo costume and starts firing back at a group of hunters who were driving around slaughtering kangaroos .
I liked the Family Guy reference to Crocodile Dundee in a flashback "I want to see a lot of you for a short time and then never again".
I always remember the scene in New York where a mugger threatened Dundee with a sort of penknife and was then confronted with something which almost looked like an Essex seax. Dundee's line was "that's not a knife; THIS is a knife!"
To be fair, I don't think we "know" where anyone really stands on the issue at this point apart from those who would oppose any kind of intervention under any circumstances. The first key event isn't tomorrow though that may be entertaining up to a point but the publication of the report of the UN Inspectors.
IF said report unequivocally points the finger at Assad, then any resolution put to the Security Council will have considerable weight and it will be for Russia and China to explain any veto. Until then, we have a strong supposition but no verified fact which will keep everything simmering nicely until the weekend.
IF the report fails conclusively to prove that Assad's men initiated the chemical attack (whether Assad personally ordered it or not), it will prove much harder for the US/UK to carry out any kind of airstrike.
Stodgius sed hoc non est verum
Sergei Lavrov yesterday stated in his press conference that the UN inspectors in Syria had no mandate to determine who was to blame for deploying chemical weapons in Gouta. Their job is simply to establish whether prohibited weapons were used.
William Hague in his press conference a few minutes ago agreed with Lavrov's interpretation of the UN mission's mandate.
It is for the UNSC to determine responsibility based on evidence provided by the UN as to use.
I guess the non-apportionment of blame restriction was a pre-condition for Syria allowing the inspectors into Damascus and facilitating their inspection of alleged use of chemical weapons.
''How do you clearly show it to be legal, especially if one or two members of the UNSC do not agree?''
You can't and Russia will surely veto...??
Mili will then have to oppose, won't he?
That's what I'd like to know: is the only way to clearly declare an action to be legal through the UNSC, or are there other mechanisms? For instance, if something is put to the UNSC and it is rejected (i.e. no resolution), are there other avenues? A full vote of the UN, perhaps?
To be fair, I don't think we "know" where anyone really stands on the issue at this point apart from those who would oppose any kind of intervention under any circumstances. The first key event isn't tomorrow though that may be entertaining up to a point but the publication of the report of the UN Inspectors.
IF said report unequivocally points the finger at Assad, then any resolution put to the Security Council will have considerable weight and it will be for Russia and China to explain any veto. Until then, we have a strong supposition but no verified fact which will keep everything simmering nicely until the weekend.
IF the report fails conclusively to prove that Assad's men initiated the chemical attack (whether Assad personally ordered it or not), it will prove much harder for the US/UK to carry out any kind of airstrike.
Absolutely right. So it's important that Parliament tomorrow votes for something that supports action IF it's proven that Assad was behind the attacks, and IF action is clearly shown to be legal.
Unfortunately, it looks like Cameron is trying to sidestep such trivialities. Perhaps aware of the US military timetable.
All depressingly familiar. And incredibly dangerous for all 3 main parties.
How do you clearly show it to be legal, especially if one or two members of the UNSC do not agree?
The legality of it should be clear from the Govt's advice.
And Cameron will make that available, won't he? After all, why wouldn't he?
''How do you clearly show it to be legal, especially if one or two members of the UNSC do not agree?''
You can't and Russia will surely veto...??
Mili will then have to oppose, won't he?
That's what I'd like to know: is the only way to clearly declare an action to be legal through the UNSC, or are there other mechanisms? For instance, if something is put to the UNSC and it is rejected (i.e. no resolution), are there other avenues? A full vote of the UN, perhaps?
I think matters can be taken to the General Assembly, yes.
What's more, where are these LibDem to Labour switchers?
Last seen super glued to tent pegs outside Balcombe.
Now on the move North to convene an Anti-War rally in Parliament Square.
Will be passing through Mayfield between 16:00 and 16:30. Make sure all windows are closed, doors locked and pets secured inside.
Perhaps they are in a badger camp in Somerset.
Although it did amuse me that one paper reported that "approximately 20 people, including several journalists" attended a midnight ramble to try and protect the disease-ridden vermin. And the badgers ;-)
It is a 24/7 job, Charles.
You need Thatcher's fortitude and ability to forgo sleep to protest nowadays.
Hardly the most important issue today, but in a blow to David Miranda and the Guardian, the Divisional Court (Gross LJ, Swift & Foskett JJ) has held that Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000 is compatible with articles 6 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Beghal v Director of Public Proscecutions[2013] EWHC 2573 (Admin)).
Are labour really really going to abstain on Syria?
Shocking if they do..
If Cameron wants a vote before the UN inspectors report then it won't just be Labour MPs
See my post to Stodge on the restricted mandate of the UN inspectors in Syria.
But, sigh.
Once again Ed comes out with a clear and principled statement to the press on the day of a crisis, then gets back to his office and all changes the next day.
It is not leading, tim.
You can't blame the Tories for crying "weak, weak, weak".
''How do you clearly show it to be legal, especially if one or two members of the UNSC do not agree?''
You can't and Russia will surely veto...??
Mili will then have to oppose, won't he?
That's what I'd like to know: is the only way to clearly declare an action to be legal through the UNSC, or are there other mechanisms? For instance, if something is put to the UNSC and it is rejected (i.e. no resolution), are there other avenues? A full vote of the UN, perhaps?
I think matters can be taken to the General Assembly, yes.
The legality of a strike without UN approval may be dubious.
If Assads regime retaliate with sinking a RN ship by missile, then that would be legal as it would be self defence. Or so is my understanding of these things.
Fighting limited wars is a losers game, as it gives ample reason for the other side to escalate. Talk softly but carry a big stick, but our political masters prefer to talk loudly and carry a blade of straw. If you are going to fight then go in hard and mean, it is the way to win battles in those parts, as Israel has demonstrated a number of times.
To be fair, I don't think we "know" where anyone really stands on the issue at this point apart from those who would oppose any kind of intervention under any circumstances. The first key event isn't tomorrow though that may be entertaining up to a point but the publication of the report of the UN Inspectors.
IF said report unequivocally points the finger at Assad, then any resolution put to the Security Council will have considerable weight and it will be for Russia and China to explain any veto. Until then, we have a strong supposition but no verified fact which will keep everything simmering nicely until the weekend.
IF the report fails conclusively to prove that Assad's men initiated the chemical attack (whether Assad personally ordered it or not), it will prove much harder for the US/UK to carry out any kind of airstrike.
Absolutely right. So it's important that Parliament tomorrow votes for something that supports action IF it's proven that Assad was behind the attacks, and IF action is clearly shown to be legal.
Unfortunately, it looks like Cameron is trying to sidestep such trivialities. Perhaps aware of the US military timetable.
All depressingly familiar. And incredibly dangerous for all 3 main parties.
How do you clearly show it to be legal, especially if one or two members of the UNSC do not agree?
The legality of it should be clear from the Govt's advice.
And Cameron will make that available, won't he? After all, why wouldn't he?
Hardly the most important issue today, but in a blow to David Miranda and the Guardian, the Divisional Court (Gross LJ, Swift & Foskett JJ) has held that Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000 is compatible with articles 6 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Beghal v Director of Public Proscecutions[2013] EWHC 2573 (Admin)).
Thank god for British justice.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Mr. Rusbridger.
''How do you clearly show it to be legal, especially if one or two members of the UNSC do not agree?''
You can't and Russia will surely veto...??
Mili will then have to oppose, won't he?
That's what I'd like to know: is the only way to clearly declare an action to be legal through the UNSC, or are there other mechanisms? For instance, if something is put to the UNSC and it is rejected (i.e. no resolution), are there other avenues? A full vote of the UN, perhaps?
Of course, since the US has used its veto power in recent years much more often than other members of the Security Council, they would probably be unwilling to encourage the practice of taking matters to the General Assembly when there has been a veto.
Interestingly, France and the UK have not used their veto since 1989 (which was in concert with the US in any case).
''How do you clearly show it to be legal, especially if one or two members of the UNSC do not agree?''
You can't and Russia will surely veto...??
Mili will then have to oppose, won't he?
That's what I'd like to know: is the only way to clearly declare an action to be legal through the UNSC, or are there other mechanisms? For instance, if something is put to the UNSC and it is rejected (i.e. no resolution), are there other avenues? A full vote of the UN, perhaps?
I think matters can be taken to the General Assembly, yes.
Basically, without UNSC approval it seems a mess, although possible (as was Kosovo and Rwanda). Cue debates for the next few decades ...
Next few decades? More pressingly, the debate in parliament is tomorrow, and we're clearly being softened for military action in the next few days. Cameron needs to show us his legal advice now, surely?
And some evidence that the regime was behind the attacks might be nice too. Perhaps the UN might be able to help with that one, Dave?
To be fair, I don't think we "know" where anyone really stands on the issue at this point apart from those who would oppose any kind of intervention under any circumstances. The first key event isn't tomorrow though that may be entertaining up to a point but the publication of the report of the UN Inspectors.
IF said report unequivocally points the finger at Assad, then any resolution put to the Security Council will have considerable weight and it will be for Russia and China to explain any veto. Until then, we have a strong supposition but no verified fact which will keep everything simmering nicely until the weekend.
IF the report fails conclusively to prove that Assad's men initiated the chemical attack (whether Assad personally ordered it or not), it will prove much harder for the US/UK to carry out any kind of airstrike.
Absolutely right. So it's important that Parliament tomorrow votes for something that supports action IF it's proven that Assad was behind the attacks, and IF action is clearly shown to be legal.
Unfortunately, it looks like Cameron is trying to sidestep such trivialities. Perhaps aware of the US military timetable.
All depressingly familiar. And incredibly dangerous for all 3 main parties.
How do you clearly show it to be legal, especially if one or two members of the UNSC do not agree?
The legality of it should be clear from the Govt's advice.
And Cameron will make that available, won't he? After all, why wouldn't he?
I hope the government would release such advice, as long as sources remain safe (I am holding myself as a massive hostage to fortune there!) Although I guess that might not be released until after the UNSC negotiations and vote.
But from the links I've perused and posted, it seems very difficult to get full agreement of the legality without a UNSC resolution. And that means leaving it up to lawyers to decide. Already in ten minutes, I've read four experts in the media who have differing opinions ...
So I'll ask you a slightly different question: what would you personally be happy with? Only a UNSC resolution? If so, do you want to be bound to that in all future conflicts, even when one of the UNSC permanent members is a belligerent?
Sergei Lavrov yesterday stated in his press conference that the UN inspectors in Syria had no mandate to determine who was to blame for deploying chemical weapons in Gouta. Their job is simply to establish whether prohibited weapons were used.
William Hague in his press conference a few minutes ago agreed with Lavrov's interpretation of the UN mission's mandate.
It is for the UNSC to determine responsibility based on evidence provided by the UN as to use.
I guess the non-apportionment of blame restriction was a pre-condition for Syria allowing the inspectors into Damascus and facilitating their inspection of alleged use of chemical weapons.
I sit corrected.
All we will get is a report stating whether chemical weapons were used. IF the report says they were, then it will be mud-slinging aplenty with each side blaming the other and each producing "conclusive evidence" that it was the other side.
Under those conditions, I suggest getting all but the most anodyne resolution through the Security Council will be impossible assuming Putin is genuinely prepared to back Assad no matter what (and it might be worth the Syrian Opposition providing, via the normal backchannels, some guarantee for Russian interests in a post-Assad Syria).
IF, of course, the report cannot conclusively confirm the fact of a chemical attack, then it will be seen as a fuss about nothing and one or two individuals are going to look a bit foolish.
Political parties are often condemned for their "silence" on key issues - I would contend the possibility exists that saying nothing is occasionally not only wise but represents a position of strength rather than weakness.
Sergei Lavrov yesterday stated in his press conference that the UN inspectors in Syria had no mandate to determine who was to blame for deploying chemical weapons in Gouta. Their job is simply to establish whether prohibited weapons were used.
William Hague in his press conference a few minutes ago agreed with Lavrov's interpretation of the UN mission's mandate.
It is for the UNSC to determine responsibility based on evidence provided by the UN as to use.
I guess the non-apportionment of blame restriction was a pre-condition for Syria allowing the inspectors into Damascus and facilitating their inspection of alleged use of chemical weapons.
I sit corrected.
All we will get is a report stating whether chemical weapons were used. IF the report says they were, then it will be mud-slinging aplenty with each side blaming the other and each producing "conclusive evidence" that it was the other side.
Under those conditions, I suggest getting all but the most anodyne resolution through the Security Council will be impossible assuming Putin is genuinely prepared to back Assad no matter what (and it might be worth the Syrian Opposition providing, via the normal backchannels, some guarantee for Russian interests in a post-Assad Syria).
IF, of course, the report cannot conclusively confirm the fact of a chemical attack, then it will be seen as a fuss about nothing and one or two individuals are going to look a bit foolish.
Political parties are often condemned for their "silence" on key issues - I would contend the possibility exists that saying nothing is occasionally not only wise but represents a position of strength rather than weakness.
You cannot have a position of silence on if we undertake military action. If Labour does that, Ed Miliband is utterly unfit for the position of Prime Minister.
On the vote tomorrow, we will know if there is UN backing or not. Waiting and waiting for proof which may never come is not an option.
Of course, since the US has used its veto power in recent years much more often than other members of the Security Council, they would probably be unwilling to encourage the practice of taking matters to the General Assembly when there has been a veto.
Interestingly, France and the UK have not used their veto since 1989 (which was in concert with the US in any case).
There has been a move within the UN since the mid noughties to set out rules and procedures for international intervention. The framework or "norm" is known as the "Responsibility to Protect".
The responsibility to protect (R2P or RtoP) is a United Nations initiative established in 2005. It consists of an emerging intended norm, or set of principles, based on the claim that sovereignty is not a right, but a responsibility. R2P focuses on preventing and halting four crimes: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing, which it places under the generic umbrella term of Mass Atrocity Crimes. The Responsibility to Protect has three "pillars".
1. A state has a responsibility to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing;
2. The international community has a responsibility to assist the state to fulfill its primary responsibility;
3. If the state manifestly fails to protect its citizens from the four above mass atrocities and peaceful measures have failed, the international community has the responsibility to intervene through coercive measures such as economic sanctions. Military intervention is considered the last resort.
Anyone listening to Hague in his press conference this afternoon will have noted how he repeated that the Syrian government had committed a "crime against humanity".
The authority required for the international community to intervene under clause 3. is still undetermined.
Personally, I'd want solid assurance via the UN that 1) chemical weapons were used, 2) Asaad is responsible and 3) action is legal.
Even then I'd be slightly uneasy, as I don't really want Britain to be fighting on behalf of Al Queda and its affiliates.
I suspect sceptical MPs will set the bar slightly lower than that tomorrow, but hopefully they'll demand a bit more from Cameron than the Blairesque "trust me" he's come out with so far.
''How do you clearly show it to be legal, especially if one or two members of the UNSC do not agree?''
You can't and Russia will surely veto...??
Mili will then have to oppose, won't he?
That's what I'd like to know: is the only way to clearly declare an action to be legal through the UNSC, or are there other mechanisms? For instance, if something is put to the UNSC and it is rejected (i.e. no resolution), are there other avenues? A full vote of the UN, perhaps?
I think matters can be taken to the General Assembly, yes.
Basically, without UNSC approval it seems a mess, although possible (as was Kosovo and Rwanda). Cue debates for the next few decades ...
Next few decades? More pressingly, the debate in parliament is tomorrow, and we're clearly being softened for military action in the next few days. Cameron needs to show us his legal advice now, surely?
And some evidence that the regime was behind the attacks might be nice too. Perhaps the UN might be able to help with that one, Dave?
But as has been shown below, it does not appear to be the purpose of the UN team to apportion blame. There are rumours of signals intelligence and other means that indicate that it was the regime, but we mere plebs cannot know if there is any truth to the rumours. And even if they are true, the evidence might not be cast-iron. The authorities might also be hesitant to release it in order to protect sources.
When it comes to apportioning blame, I wonder if there are chemical analyses that can be done on samples to try to work out where it was manufactured? But even that would not prove who used it.
It's a mess. But it's not as big a mess as the areas where chemical weapons have allegedly been used on innocents...
The Wiki article on the right for the "international community" to intervene is contradictory.
In the introductory paragraphs, it states that:
The authority to employ the last resort and intervene militarily rests solely with United Nations Security Council and the General Assembly.
And yet in the body of the article, under a section titled "Use of military intervention", the position is far more opaque:
The question of military intervention under the third pillar of R2P remains controversial. Several states have argued that R2P should not allow the international community to intervene militarily on States, because to do so is an infringement upon sovereignty. Others argue that this a necessary facet of R2P, and is necessary as a last resort to stop mass atrocities. A related argument surrounds the question as to whether more specific criteria should be developed to determine when the Security Council should authorize military intervention.
No prizes for guessing which permanent members of the UNSC take which side in this argument.
Also, given the undecided position on authority to intervene, there will, and can be, no clear cut determination of whether an intervention, unauthorised by the UNSC, is unlawful.
Watch the media for increased use of the term "legitimate" in place of "lawful".
''How do you clearly show it to be legal, especially if one or two members of the UNSC do not agree?''
You can't and Russia will surely veto...??
Mili will then have to oppose, won't he?
That's what I'd like to know: is the only way to clearly declare an action to be legal through the UNSC, or are there other mechanisms? For instance, if something is put to the UNSC and it is rejected (i.e. no resolution), are there other avenues? A full vote of the UN, perhaps?
I think matters can be taken to the General Assembly, yes.
Basically, without UNSC approval it seems a mess, although possible (as was Kosovo and Rwanda). Cue debates for the next few decades ...
Next few decades? More pressingly, the debate in parliament is tomorrow, and we're clearly being softened for military action in the next few days. Cameron needs to show us his legal advice now, surely?
And some evidence that the regime was behind the attacks might be nice too. Perhaps the UN might be able to help with that one, Dave?
It's a mess. But it's not as big a mess as the areas where chemical weapons have allegedly been used on innocents...
By the Al Queda affiliated "rebels" who our armed forces are about to help out?
Dan Hodges @DPJHodges 43s How has Ed Miliband managed to engineer a situation where tomorrow's vote has become as much a test of his credibility as David Cameron's.
Personally, I'd want solid assurance via the UN that 1) chemical weapons were used, 2) Asaad is responsible and 3) action is legal.
Even then I'd be slightly uneasy, as I don't really want Britain to be fighting on behalf of Al Queda and its affiliates.
I suspect sceptical MPs will set the bar slightly lower than that tomorrow, but hopefully they'll demand a bit more from Cameron than the Blairesque "trust me" he's come out with so far.
*) Hopefully the UN will either prove or disprove 1)
*) This will be much harder to prove, and it is perfectly possible that both sides have been using chemical weapons. The only way we may find out who ordered the use of such weapons would be through signals intelligence or, even better, defectors. I guess that even finding shell remnants might not help discover whose side used the weapons.
*) Without a UNSC resolution, we will be down to lawyers arguing about the legality of any action.
The chances are that the government itself is not fully sure of its sources and evidence - information will still be coming in. Iraq was different - there was no real reason for the timing of the invasion. This conflict - if it occurs - is in reaction to a probable atrocity.
''How do you clearly show it to be legal, especially if one or two members of the UNSC do not agree?''
You can't and Russia will surely veto...??
Mili will then have to oppose, won't he?
That's what I'd like to know: is the only way to clearly declare an action to be legal through the UNSC, or are there other mechanisms? For instance, if something is put to the UNSC and it is rejected (i.e. no resolution), are there other avenues? A full vote of the UN, perhaps?
I think matters can be taken to the General Assembly, yes.
Basically, without UNSC approval it seems a mess, although possible (as was Kosovo and Rwanda). Cue debates for the next few decades ...
Next few decades? More pressingly, the debate in parliament is tomorrow, and we're clearly being softened for military action in the next few days. Cameron needs to show us his legal advice now, surely?
And some evidence that the regime was behind the attacks might be nice too. Perhaps the UN might be able to help with that one, Dave?
It's a mess. But it's not as big a mess as the areas where chemical weapons have allegedly been used on innocents...
By the Al Queda affiliated "rebels" who our armed forces are about to help out?
Possibly, possibly not. That's why I go back to the text I posted this morning: whatever we do should try to either prevent or dissuade all sides from using such weapons, and also do what it can to protect non-combatants from harm from such weapons.
Which is easier said than done.
As I have said several times, I'm glad I'm not the one having to make the decisions ...
In Iraq timing did matter as it had to be a winter invasion. Saddam was happy to play cat and mouse with Blix, knowing that as the weather warmed up an invadion would be more difficult. Tropps cannot be kept ready to go for very long.
Personally, I'd want solid assurance via the UN that 1) chemical weapons were used, 2) Asaad is responsible and 3) action is legal.
Even then I'd be slightly uneasy, as I don't really want Britain to be fighting on behalf of Al Queda and its affiliates.
I suspect sceptical MPs will set the bar slightly lower than that tomorrow, but hopefully they'll demand a bit more from Cameron than the Blairesque "trust me" he's come out with so far.
*) Hopefully the UN will either prove or disprove 1)
*) This will be much harder to prove, and it is perfectly possible that both sides have been using chemical weapons. The only way we may find out who ordered the use of such weapons would be through signals intelligence or, even better, defectors. I guess that even finding shell remnants might not help discover whose side used the weapons.
*) Without a UNSC resolution, we will be down to lawyers arguing about the legality of any action.
The chances are that the government itself is not fully sure of its sources and evidence - information will still be coming in. Iraq was different - there was no real reason for the timing of the invasion. This conflict - if it occurs - is in reaction to a probable atrocity.
Look forward to Cameron publishing his legal advice then, which he surely will to reassure us. Won't he?
I expect so, he's not Blair you know. Luckily we have the most grown-up team in the three main roles of PM, Foreign Sec and Defence Sec for yonks. Hague in particular is impressive in this kind of situation, with a really good historical perspective - I think of Jack Straw and shudder (though, to be fair to Straw, it does look as though he made some feeble efforts to restrain Blair).
It doesn't refer to the UN Responsibility to Protect initiative so it would be interesting to know whether this is being treated as a legal "norm" yet by international lawyers.
The core argument of Sir David Bethlehem QC though seems very close to the R2P provisions:
a limited use of force was justifiable in support of purposes laid down by the security council but without the council's express authorisation when that was the only means to avert an immediate and overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe.
In Iraq timing did matter as it had to be a winter invasion. Saddam was happy to play cat and mouse with Blix, knowing that as the weather warmed up an invadion would be more difficult. Tropps cannot be kept ready to go for very long.
Personally, I'd want solid assurance via the UN that 1) chemical weapons were used, 2) Asaad is responsible and 3) action is legal.
Even then I'd be slightly uneasy, as I don't really want Britain to be fighting on behalf of Al Queda and its affiliates.
I suspect sceptical MPs will set the bar slightly lower than that tomorrow, but hopefully they'll demand a bit more from Cameron than the Blairesque "trust me" he's come out with so far.
*) Hopefully the UN will either prove or disprove 1)
*) This will be much harder to prove, and it is perfectly possible that both sides have been using chemical weapons. The only way we may find out who ordered the use of such weapons would be through signals intelligence or, even better, defectors. I guess that even finding shell remnants might not help discover whose side used the weapons.
*) Without a UNSC resolution, we will be down to lawyers arguing about the legality of any action.
The chances are that the government itself is not fully sure of its sources and evidence - information will still be coming in. Iraq was different - there was no real reason for the timing of the invasion. This conflict - if it occurs - is in reaction to a probable atrocity.
A good point, but that wasn't exactly what I meant. Why did the Iraq invasion occur that particular year and not, say, 2004? Or to put it another way, why were the troops built up at that time?
In Syria, there's been a much more obvious and timely reason for an intervention.
Gordon Henderson, MP for Sittingbourne and Sheppey: "There will be a clear Government motion and vote on Syria. Please be assured that I will vote against military action."
You cannot have a position of silence on if we undertake military action. If Labour does that, Ed Miliband is utterly unfit for the position of Prime Minister.
On the vote tomorrow, we will know if there is UN backing or not. Waiting and waiting for proof which may never come is not an option.
I'm not suggesting that if it comes to military action, Labour (or indeed any other party) shouldn't have a publicly-stated view but we aren't at that point yet.
As with many others on here. I'd like to see the UN Inspectors report and I'd also like to know the text and context of Cameron's UN resolution and the motion to be put to the HoC tomorrow.
I was opposed to the Iraq war, indeed it was a major reason that I quit the Labour party.
Troop mobilisation now, as in 1914 carries a certain inevitability. It is hard to back down when it has gone that far, and becomes an issue of timetabling and logistics.
In Iraq timing did matter as it had to be a winter invasion. Saddam was happy to play cat and mouse with Blix, knowing that as the weather warmed up an invadion would be more difficult. Tropps cannot be kept ready to go for very long.
Personally, I'd want solid assurance via the UN that 1) chemical weapons were used, 2) Asaad is responsible and 3) action is legal.
Even then I'd be slightly uneasy, as I don't really want Britain to be fighting on behalf of Al Queda and its affiliates.
I suspect sceptical MPs will set the bar slightly lower than that tomorrow, but hopefully they'll demand a bit more from Cameron than the Blairesque "trust me" he's come out with so far.
*) Hopefully the UN will either prove or disprove 1)
*) This will be much harder to prove, and it is perfectly possible that both sides have been using chemical weapons. The only way we may find out who ordered the use of such weapons would be through signals intelligence or, even better, defectors. I guess that even finding shell remnants might not help discover whose side used the weapons.
*) Without a UNSC resolution, we will be down to lawyers arguing about the legality of any action.
The chances are that the government itself is not fully sure of its sources and evidence - information will still be coming in. Iraq was different - there was no real reason for the timing of the invasion. This conflict - if it occurs - is in reaction to a probable atrocity.
A good point, but that wasn't exactly what I meant. Why did the Iraq invasion occur that particular year and not, say, 2004? Or to put it another way, why were the troops built up at that time?
In Syria, there's been a much more obvious and timely reason for an intervention.
I was opposed to the Iraq war, indeed it was a major reason that I quit the Labour party.
Troop mobilisation now, as in 1914 carries a certain inevitability. It is hard to back down when it has gone that far, and becomes an issue of timetabling and logistics.
In Iraq timing did matter as it had to be a winter invasion. Saddam was happy to play cat and mouse with Blix, knowing that as the weather warmed up an invadion would be more difficult. Tropps cannot be kept ready to go for very long.
In Syria the moment will pass quickly.
A good point, but that wasn't exactly what I meant. Why did the Iraq invasion occur that particular year and not, say, 2004? Or to put it another way, why were the troops built up at that time?
In Syria, there's been a much more obvious and timely reason for an intervention.
Indeed, but my question is why the troops were built up in 2003. What pressure was there? We were going after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, and at the time I could not see why Iraq could not have waited for a year or so.
But that does not apply here: the assets being built up around Syria are, I guess, orders of magnitude smaller in number and type than they were outside Iraq in 2003.
Miliband will be saved because there is no way the UK resolution will get past Russia.
Putin's whole reputation rests upon his hard-man real-politik image and he isn;t going to cave in to the west. A Russian veto will make the attack look distinctly dodgy and Mili can vote against.
Russia might cop some criticism but we are talking about a country with the hardest of skins.
''Troop mobilisation now, as in 1914 carries a certain inevitability.''
This is the key point. By getting aggressive, the west is backing other countries into a corner. The populations of Iran and Russia are watching their leaders as much as we are watching ours.
Given the nature of these regimes, they will not be able to back down. They rule their people through strength and they will have to show it now.
What is the FO doing? what is it advising Cameron to do FFS?
Miliband will be saved because there is no way the UK resolution will get past Russia.
Putin's whole reputation rests upon his hard-man real-politik image and he isn;t going to cave in to the west. A Russian veto will make the attack look distinctly dodgy and Mili can vote against.
Russia might cop some criticism but we are talking about a country with the hardest of skins.
Miliband teams up with Vladimir Putin on the side of mass-murderer who gassed children sleeping in their beds, in a clear example of a crime against humanity?
On topic, disagree with OGH's premise, as it is now UKIP voters who are the key swing voters Cameron needs to win back. If he does that and you add the 6% of 2010 LD voters now voting Tory and most of those undecided from the above graph you get close to a Cameron majority if not just over the line
''Miliband teams up with Vladimir Putin on the side of mass-murderer who gassed children sleeping in their beds?''
Well its Miliband who has set legality as the key condition for deciding his policy (as far as I can make out) and legality will almost certainly rest with the vote of Russia.
Russia will vote against, rendering this an 'illegal' war. I reckon China might abstain.
@taffy - Well, quite. I can respect the position of Diane Abbott, or Dan Hannan, who wrote an excellent piece in the Telegraph yesterday setting out the dilemma, concluding that he wasn't on balance convinced we should take action. Fair enough; no one is claiming this is a simple decision or that there aren't dangers.
However, hiding behind Vladimir Putin in order to avoid having to take a position, for party-political reasons? Yuk.
Edit: Having said that, I don't think that will be Miliband's position. I think he'll support the government.
Miliband will be saved because there is no way the UK resolution will get past Russia.
Putin's whole reputation rests upon his hard-man real-politik image and he isn;t going to cave in to the west. A Russian veto will make the attack look distinctly dodgy and Mili can vote against.
Russia might cop some criticism but we are talking about a country with the hardest of skins.
taffys
I think that is a misreading of Putin's and the Russian position and the likely course of negotiations.
Russia always strikes hard positions which are written in stone and immutable. But they have a habit of regularly changing their position to a new equally hard and permanent decision which is diametrically opposed to its predecessor.
The game being played here is for the US and its allies to convince Russia that it has the will, intent and capability of intervening in Syria within a very short timescale. And that such intervention will act as precedent for more substantial interventions in the future should Assad continue to use chemical weapons or otherwise breach international law. And, further, that the immediate intervention, and potential follow-up interventions, will have the effect of undermining Assad's hold on power to the detriment of Russian interests in the region.
All the above appears very feasible to me and I would expect Russia to move its cast iron position in response.
Getting Russia to move into line with the rest of the international community is after all the primary goal of Hague and Cameron, with a negotiated settlement the main strategy. A punitive and demonstrative response to the use of chemical weapons is merely a tactical move. If the cards fall right, it may even be possible to avoid western military intervention.
On Iraq...i mean Syria...what the spinners are trying to muddy is the actual situation in Syria. They're trying to pretend this is a dictator vs everybody type deal and it's not. It's a minority collection of ethno-sectarian groups along the coast vs a majority collection of ethno-sectarian groups in the interior. It's why Assad (and Saddam) were/are so brutal. In both cases you had a religious minority holding down a majority. In Saddam's case it was Sunnis over Shias. In Syria's case it is Alawites over Sunnis. Same thing, different way round.
Toppling Assad by air - which is the plan using this chemical incident as an excuse - without massive troops on the ground doesn't prevent a Rwanda or Bosnia it *creates* a Rwanda or Bosnia as the stuff that's already been happening in the interior - minority villages massacred and monks having their heads sawed off with pen-knives - is brought to the coast.
RichardNavabi - Michael Foot and Harold Wilson were both thought by many to be on rather over-friendly terms with the Russians, looks like Ed is continuing the tradition
Do you also respect the position of Nigel Farage, who was the first leader to come out against?
No, that interview was a disgrace. Firstly he seemed to be motivated principally by personal hatred of Cameron and Hague, secondly what the hell was he doing giving an interview on such a sensitive topic on Russia Today, and thirdly he seemed neither to know nor to care what effect his words might have internationally.
I think that is a misreading of Putin's and the Russian position and the likely course of negotiations.
Russia always strikes hard positions which are written in stone and immutable. But they have a habit of regularly changing their position to a new equally hard and permanent decision which is diametrically opposed to its predecessor.
The game being played here is for the US and its allies to convince Russia that it has the will, intent and capability of intervening in Syria within a very short timescale. And that such intervention will act as precedent for more substantial interventions in the future should Assad continue to use chemical weapons or otherwise breach international law. And, further, that the immediate intervention, and potential follow-up interventions, will have the effect of undermining Assad's hold on power to the detriment of Russian interests in the region.
All the above appears very feasible to me and I would expect Russia to move its cast iron position in response.
Getting Russia to move into line with the rest of the international community is after all the primary goal of Hague and Cameron, with a negotiated settlement the main strategy. A punitive and demonstrative response to the use of chemical weapons is merely a tactical move. If the cards fall right, it may even be possible to avoid western military intervention.
There has, I think, to be a quid pro quo in here somewhere. I suspect Russia is far more wedded to the continued use of Tartus naval base and its existing commercial interests than it is to Assad personally. If the military and commercial interests of Russia can be guaranteed in a post-Assad Syria, then it may be possible to sway Moscow to the view that Assad has to go and be replaced by a more representative Government.
I would even say that if Moscow wishes to grant Assad and his family asylum, so be it.
''All the above appears very feasible to me and I would expect Russia to move its cast iron position in response.''
We will see but I would be very surprised. Russian officials are likening the west's tactics to 'monkeys throwing hand grenades' I have some sympathy with that view.
There is absolutely zero upside for Putin in agreeing the resolution. Veto and he creates a huge problem for countries he regards as rivals at best, whilst supporting his ally into the bargain.
''If the military and commercial interests of Russia can be guaranteed in a post-Assad Syria...'''
A titanic if, when you look at what has happened post Mubarak in Egypt. Russia might well be trying to do business with some islamist regime.
I doubt anyone wants an overtly Islamist regime except Iran. On that I suspect Moscow and Washington would be in agreement. The Syrian Opposition now needs to start playing the political game and recognise that no one will want a quasi-Al Qaeda Government in Damascus.
The meeting with the French on Friday will be a useful opportunity to show that the Syrian Opposition understand the kind of post-Assad administration that will be accepted.
On Iraq...i mean Syria...what the spinners are trying to muddy is the actual situation in Syria. They're trying to pretend this is a dictator vs everybody type deal and it's not. It's a minority collection of ethno-sectarian groups along the coast vs a majority collection of ethno-sectarian groups in the interior. It's why Assad (and Saddam) were/are so brutal. In both cases you had a religious minority holding down a majority. In Saddam's case it was Sunnis over Shias. In Syria's case it is Alawites over Sunnis. Same thing, different way round.
Toppling Assad by air - which is the plan using this chemical incident as an excuse - without massive troops on the ground doesn't prevent a Rwanda or Bosnia it *creates* a Rwanda or Bosnia as the stuff that's already been happening in the interior - minority villages massacred and monks having their heads sawed off with pen-knives - is brought to the coast.
Syria's demography makes the situation all the more complex. The Kurds alone add a dimension that will make Turkey's actions all the more interesting.
But I don't think the probable chemical attack(s) are an excuse. They#re a very solid reason why something needs to be done. However the best 'something' may not be military action. Let's see what comes up tomorrow.
I think that is a misreading of Putin's and the Russian position and the likely course of negotiations.
...
There has, I think, to be a quid pro quo in here somewhere. I suspect Russia is far more wedded to the continued use of Tartus naval base and its existing commercial interests than it is to Assad personally. If the military and commercial interests of Russia can be guaranteed in a post-Assad Syria, then it may be possible to sway Moscow to the view that Assad has to go and be replaced by a more representative Government.
I would even say that if Moscow wishes to grant Assad and his family asylum, so be it.
Absolutely. Russia has consistently argued that the destruction of the Assad regime would lead to a worse outcome in Syria than the alternative of a negotiated and orderly transition. This view is probably shared by and acceptable to the US and its allies.
Russia has however refused to accept Assad stepping down as a pre-condition for negotiations.
Russia may change on Assad but are unlikely to move on using the existing regime as the foundation for reaching a settlement and agreeing political reform.
The key change over the summer is that an Assad military victory is no longer considered to be a likely short term outcome.
The use of chemical weapons in Gouta and the threatened military response is being used by the western powers as a means of accelerating the move to agreement within the UNSC and the start of negotiations to settle the civil war..
RichardNavabi - Michael Foot and Harold Wilson were both thought by many to be on rather over-friendly terms with the Russians, looks like Ed is continuing the tradition
Insert between "many" and "to be" the words "on the Empire Loyalist Right"!
While Dave dusts down his rifle, George hits his target
News from the Council of Mortgage Lenders this morning confirms that first time buyers, even in London, are the major growth driver in the mortgage and housing market.
The 11,200 mortgages given to those buying their first home in the U.K. capital in the second quarter was a 38 percent increase from a year earlier and the most since the end of 2007, the Council of Mortgage Lenders said today in a statement. First-time buyers accounted for 56 percent of London home loans in the period compared with 46 percent in all of Britain.
Perhaps George should be running the armed forces too?
Neither could run a bath
You stupid scotch twit.
Everyone knows you draw a bath not run it.
Avery we have been over this before in your previous incarnation , Scotch is a drink and only butler's draw a bath, which I thought a poshie liek you would have known.
But isn't it scotch pies that cause Eck to prefer a shower to a bath?
'wait until Inspectors report', and then come back to Parliament, before action.
If the Tories vote against, Labour will vote against the substantive motion....
The problem with Miliband playing the international crisis for party political benefit is that it will mark him in Washington as a "person the President cannot do business with".
In other words, for good or ill, Miliband will be seen more as "Putin's Poodle" than the "heir to Blair" .
That will be welcomed by the hard Labour left but may prove to be an insuperable barrier to the party's re-election prospects.
I know Gordon had to chase Obama into the UN Kitchens to get an audience but Miliband may now have to wait in the UN loos to get a meeting.
Miliband will be saved because there is no way the UK resolution will get past Russia.
Putin's whole reputation rests upon his hard-man real-politik image and he isn;t going to cave in to the west. A Russian veto will make the attack look distinctly dodgy and Mili can vote against.
Russia might cop some criticism but we are talking about a country with the hardest of skins.
Miliband teams up with Vladimir Putin on the side of mass-murderer who gassed children sleeping in their beds, in a clear example of a crime against humanity?
Well it's a position.
Our lot have managed their fair share of crimes against humanity over the years , they do not tend to shout them from the rooftops however. Pot kettle and black come to mind.
Miliband will be saved because there is no way the UK resolution will get past Russia.
Putin's whole reputation rests upon his hard-man real-politik image and he isn;t going to cave in to the west. A Russian veto will make the attack look distinctly dodgy and Mili can vote against.
Russia might cop some criticism but we are talking about a country with the hardest of skins.
Miliband teams up with Vladimir Putin on the side of mass-murderer who gassed children sleeping in their beds, in a clear example of a crime against humanity?
Well it's a position.
As opposed to siding with people who massacre villages the old fashioned way and saw the heads off prisoners with pen-knives? Aren't those war-crimes too?
'wait until Inspectors report', and then come back to Parliament, before action.
If the Tories vote against, Labour will vote against the substantive motion....
The problem with Miliband playing the international crisis for party political benefit is that it will mark him in Washington as a "person the President cannot do business with".
In other words, for good or ill, Miliband will be seen more as "Putin's Poodle" than the "heir to Blair" .
That will be welcomed by the hard Labour left but may prove to be an insuperable barrier to the party's re-election prospects.
I know Gordon had to chase Obama into the UN Kitchens to get an audience but Miliband may now have to wait in the UN loos to get a meeting.
Is that as opposed to being a poodle and blindly propping up US again to try and give their illegal acts some legitimacy.
Talking of Nigel Farage, does anyone know what on earth has happened to Beppo Grillo and the Five Star Movement? They seem to have vanished without trace since grabbing 25% of the vote as recently as February. Of course, in one sense that is not surprising, but presumably all those duly-elected 108 deputies and 54 senators are still there in the Italian parliament. Do they vote, and if so, do they vote as a block?
Miliband might very well reflect that his position is not unlike Iain Duncan Smith's over Iraq.
IDS thought of the good of the country, swinging the tories behind tony when his own party turned against him and defeat would have ended his premiership and kept Britain out of the Iraq war.
IDS was widely lauded for his statesmanship at the time. What a top chap.
Many would argue that another important distinction is that Miliband isnt playing the situation for party political benefit.
Hmmm - did you hear Douglas Alexander on Today a couple of days ago? It was pretty nakedly party-political, he overdid it to such an extent that even James Naughtie felt obliged to correct him for blatantly misrepresenting William Hague's position.
If I have read things correctly, Labour are proposing an amendment to a motion that has yet to be published saying that they will oppose that as-yet-unpublished motion unless their amendment is passed...
How in anyway is that being a responsible opposition?
They really don't know what they are doing - and it is showing badly.
Miliband and Alexander are floudering in their own inexperience. It is a woeful performance from the Official Opposition. Particularly when it was their party who engaged us in all sorts of military action with a hell of a lot less justification than is available to us now.
I don't want to see military action - but I also don't want to allow the use of chemical weapons - and so reluctantly some military strikes might be necessary (as they were in the Balkans)
But Miliband seems to want to play politics over this - and not think about the wider humanitarian situation. Shameful
I know the Tories unquestioningly cheered Blair into Iraq, but that's no reason for this opposition to do the same for Cameron's dodgy war.
PBTories not covering themselves in glory over this.
That said, there are massive political dangers for all parties, and I personally suspect Labour will eventually err on the side of caution. Unfortunately.
Meanwhile, the silence from the Lib Dems is deafening.
'wait until Inspectors report', and then come back to Parliament, before action.
If the Tories vote against, Labour will vote against the substantive motion....
The problem with Miliband playing the international crisis for party political benefit is that it will mark him in Washington as a "person the President cannot do business with".
In other words, for good or ill, Miliband will be seen more as "Putin's Poodle" than the "heir to Blair" .
That will be welcomed by the hard Labour left but may prove to be an insuperable barrier to the party's re-election prospects.
I know Gordon had to chase Obama into the UN Kitchens to get an audience but Miliband may now have to wait in the UN loos to get a meeting.
Is that as opposed to being a poodle and blindly propping up US again to try and give their illegal acts some legitimacy.
All politicians are dogs, malcolm.
And dogs hunt in packs.
And every pack has an alpha dog leading it.
The beta dogs follow close behind.
The poodles at a distance.
You are not suggesting that Scottish Terriers should bring up the rear are you?
If I have read things correctly, Labour are proposing an amendment to a motion that has yet to be published saying that they will oppose that as-yet-unpublished motion unless their amendment is passed...
How in anyway is that being a responsible opposition?
They really don't know what they are doing - and it is showing badly.
Miliband and Alexander are floudering in their own inexperience. It is a woeful performance from the Official Opposition. Particularly when it was their party who engaged us in all sorts of military action with a hell of a lot less justification than is available to us now.
I don't want to see military action - but I also don't want to allow the use of chemical weapons - and so reluctantly some military strikes might be necessary (as they were in the Balkans)
But Miliband seems to want to play politics over this - and not think about the wider humanitarian situation. Shameful
What's wrong with waiting for the UN inspectors to report?
Never trust a single word written by the ultra blairite tim. Dissembling to him is an art form. Never trust a paste from a link, read the entire article. tim will have only pasted the bit that suits his purpose.
I know the Tories unquestioningly cheered Blair into Iraq,
Quite. we should have known better than to trust the word of a labour prime minister on a matter of national security. Most Labour politicians didn;t, after all. We should have known something was up.
TBF, Clegg's in an awkward situation. He's part of a Government whcih seems hell bent on military action of some sort, but leading a party which is extremely suspicious of the advantages of such action. He ca't say NO without riskimg shrill screams about disloyalty and he can't say YES without attacks of abandoning the "rule of law". So he's, presumably waiting for thr next UN debate, when he'll have to make a decision. Even walking out of the govt at this stage would create difficulties!
If I have read things correctly, Labour are proposing an amendment to a motion that has yet to be published saying that they will oppose that as-yet-unpublished motion unless their amendment is passed...
How in anyway is that being a responsible opposition?
They really don't know what they are doing - and it is showing badly.
Miliband and Alexander are floudering in their own inexperience. It is a woeful performance from the Official Opposition. Particularly when it was their party who engaged us in all sorts of military action with a hell of a lot less justification than is available to us now.
I don't want to see military action - but I also don't want to allow the use of chemical weapons - and so reluctantly some military strikes might be necessary (as they were in the Balkans)
But Miliband seems to want to play politics over this - and not think about the wider humanitarian situation. Shameful
What's wrong with waiting for the UN inspectors to report?
Labour probably knows the gist of the Government motion, as does the media.
I know the Tories unquestioningly cheered Blair into Iraq,
Quite. we should have known better than to trust the word of a labour prime minister on a matter of national security. Most Labour politicians didn;t, after all. We should have known something was up.
What's wrong with waiting for the UN inspectors to report?
Labour's record with regards to weapons and reports is hardly exemplary.
I have no problem with a parliamentary vote that registers our displeasure with the Syrian situation and allowing the government of the day to use their long-established legal powers to judge if, as and when military action becomes appropriate.
The last thing we should do is establish parliamentary oversight of all military operations - that would be an intolerable constitutional change.
sounds like Government have modified motion to Labour's amendment...
Or the original motion was always going to be along similar lines - and so this has all been a political posturing game on the part of Miliband and Alexander...
Comments
I'm not saying we shouldn't turn our backs on them, but we can't support mass immigration on this nature and level. I'm sure people like Edmund and tim would disagree on that, but I'm also sure that the majority of the population of this country wouldn't support it either.
Unfortunately, it looks like Cameron is trying to sidestep such trivialities. Perhaps aware of the US military timetable.
All depressingly familiar. And incredibly dangerous for all 3 main parties.
You can't and Russia will surely veto...??
Mili will then have to oppose, won't he?
Shocking if they do..
Dundee's line was "that's not a knife; THIS is a knife!"
Sergei Lavrov yesterday stated in his press conference that the UN inspectors in Syria had no mandate to determine who was to blame for deploying chemical weapons in Gouta. Their job is simply to establish whether prohibited weapons were used.
William Hague in his press conference a few minutes ago agreed with Lavrov's interpretation of the UN mission's mandate.
It is for the UNSC to determine responsibility based on evidence provided by the UN as to use.
I guess the non-apportionment of blame restriction was a pre-condition for Syria allowing the inspectors into Damascus and facilitating their inspection of alleged use of chemical weapons.
And Cameron will make that available, won't he? After all, why wouldn't he?
You need Thatcher's fortitude and ability to forgo sleep to protest nowadays.
Ironic, isn't it?
But, sigh.
Once again Ed comes out with a clear and principled statement to the press on the day of a crisis, then gets back to his office and all changes the next day.
It is not leading, tim.
You can't blame the Tories for crying "weak, weak, weak".
Ed brings the accusation down on his own head.
Cue loads of jokes about scotch!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23855428
http://www.channel4.com/news/syria-military-intervention-legal-cameron-hague-un
Basically, without UNSC approval it seems a mess, although possible (as was Kosovo and Rwanda). Cue debates for the next few decades ...
If Assads regime retaliate with sinking a RN ship by missile, then that would be legal as it would be self defence. Or so is my understanding of these things.
Fighting limited wars is a losers game, as it gives ample reason for the other side to escalate. Talk softly but carry a big stick, but our political masters prefer to talk loudly and carry a blade of straw. If you are going to fight then go in hard and mean, it is the way to win battles in those parts, as Israel has demonstrated a number of times.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Mr. Rusbridger.
Of course, since the US has used its veto power in recent years much more often than other members of the Security Council, they would probably be unwilling to encourage the practice of taking matters to the General Assembly when there has been a veto.
Interestingly, France and the UK have not used their veto since 1989 (which was in concert with the US in any case).
And some evidence that the regime was behind the attacks might be nice too. Perhaps the UN might be able to help with that one, Dave?
But from the links I've perused and posted, it seems very difficult to get full agreement of the legality without a UNSC resolution. And that means leaving it up to lawyers to decide. Already in ten minutes, I've read four experts in the media who have differing opinions ...
So I'll ask you a slightly different question: what would you personally be happy with? Only a UNSC resolution? If so, do you want to be bound to that in all future conflicts, even when one of the UNSC permanent members is a belligerent?
These seem very murky waters...
All we will get is a report stating whether chemical weapons were used. IF the report says they were, then it will be mud-slinging aplenty with each side blaming the other and each producing "conclusive evidence" that it was the other side.
Under those conditions, I suggest getting all but the most anodyne resolution through the Security Council will be impossible assuming Putin is genuinely prepared to back Assad no matter what (and it might be worth the Syrian Opposition providing, via the normal backchannels, some guarantee for Russian interests in a post-Assad Syria).
IF, of course, the report cannot conclusively confirm the fact of a chemical attack, then it will be seen as a fuss about nothing and one or two individuals are going to look a bit foolish.
Political parties are often condemned for their "silence" on key issues - I would contend the possibility exists that saying nothing is occasionally not only wise but represents a position of strength rather than weakness.
On the vote tomorrow, we will know if there is UN backing or not. Waiting and waiting for proof which may never come is not an option.
The responsibility to protect (R2P or RtoP) is a United Nations initiative established in 2005. It consists of an emerging intended norm, or set of principles, based on the claim that sovereignty is not a right, but a responsibility. R2P focuses on preventing and halting four crimes: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing, which it places under the generic umbrella term of Mass Atrocity Crimes. The Responsibility to Protect has three "pillars".
1. A state has a responsibility to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing;
2. The international community has a responsibility to assist the state to fulfill its primary responsibility;
3. If the state manifestly fails to protect its citizens from the four above mass atrocities and peaceful measures have failed, the international community has the responsibility to intervene through coercive measures such as economic sanctions. Military intervention is considered the last resort.
Anyone listening to Hague in his press conference this afternoon will have noted how he repeated that the Syrian government had committed a "crime against humanity".
The authority required for the international community to intervene under clause 3. is still undetermined.
[Post to follow on authority]
Personally, I'd want solid assurance via the UN that 1) chemical weapons were used, 2) Asaad is responsible and 3) action is legal.
Even then I'd be slightly uneasy, as I don't really want Britain to be fighting on behalf of Al Queda and its affiliates.
I suspect sceptical MPs will set the bar slightly lower than that tomorrow, but hopefully they'll demand a bit more from Cameron than the Blairesque "trust me" he's come out with so far.
When it comes to apportioning blame, I wonder if there are chemical analyses that can be done on samples to try to work out where it was manufactured? But even that would not prove who used it.
It's a mess. But it's not as big a mess as the areas where chemical weapons have allegedly been used on innocents...
The Wiki article on the right for the "international community" to intervene is contradictory.
In the introductory paragraphs, it states that:
The authority to employ the last resort and intervene militarily rests solely with United Nations Security Council and the General Assembly.
And yet in the body of the article, under a section titled "Use of military intervention", the position is far more opaque:
The question of military intervention under the third pillar of R2P remains controversial. Several states have argued that R2P should not allow the international community to intervene militarily on States, because to do so is an infringement upon sovereignty. Others argue that this a necessary facet of R2P, and is necessary as a last resort to stop mass atrocities. A related argument surrounds the question as to whether more specific criteria should be developed to determine when the Security Council should authorize military intervention.
No prizes for guessing which permanent members of the UNSC take which side in this argument.
Also, given the undecided position on authority to intervene, there will, and can be, no clear cut determination of whether an intervention, unauthorised by the UNSC, is unlawful.
Watch the media for increased use of the term "legitimate" in place of "lawful".
By the Al Queda affiliated "rebels" who our armed forces are about to help out?
http://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/aug/28/syria-intervention-force-lawful
How has Ed Miliband managed to engineer a situation where tomorrow's vote has become as much a test of his credibility as David Cameron's.
Dan Hodges finds his angle
*) This will be much harder to prove, and it is perfectly possible that both sides have been using chemical weapons. The only way we may find out who ordered the use of such weapons would be through signals intelligence or, even better, defectors. I guess that even finding shell remnants might not help discover whose side used the weapons.
*) Without a UNSC resolution, we will be down to lawyers arguing about the legality of any action.
The chances are that the government itself is not fully sure of its sources and evidence - information will still be coming in. Iraq was different - there was no real reason for the timing of the invasion. This conflict - if it occurs - is in reaction to a probable atrocity.
Which is easier said than done.
As I have said several times, I'm glad I'm not the one having to make the decisions ...
In Syria the moment will pass quickly.
It doesn't refer to the UN Responsibility to Protect initiative so it would be interesting to know whether this is being treated as a legal "norm" yet by international lawyers.
The core argument of Sir David Bethlehem QC though seems very close to the R2P provisions:
a limited use of force was justifiable in support of purposes laid down by the security council but without the council's express authorisation when that was the only means to avert an immediate and overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe.
In Syria, there's been a much more obvious and timely reason for an intervention.
"There will be a clear Government motion and vote on Syria. Please be assured that I will vote against military action."
https://www.facebook.com/gordonhendersonmp/posts/677527075607964
Sittingbourne and Sheppey is a UKIP target seat.
http://survation.com/2013/05/ukip-won-in-8-westminster-constituencies-last-thursday/
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/sittingbourneandsheppey/
As with many others on here. I'd like to see the UN Inspectors report and I'd also like to know the text and context of Cameron's UN resolution and the motion to be put to the HoC tomorrow.
Troop mobilisation now, as in 1914 carries a certain inevitability. It is hard to back down when it has gone that far, and becomes an issue of timetabling and logistics.
But that does not apply here: the assets being built up around Syria are, I guess, orders of magnitude smaller in number and type than they were outside Iraq in 2003.
Putin's whole reputation rests upon his hard-man real-politik image and he isn;t going to cave in to the west. A Russian veto will make the attack look distinctly dodgy and Mili can vote against.
Russia might cop some criticism but we are talking about a country with the hardest of skins.
This is the key point. By getting aggressive, the west is backing other countries into a corner. The populations of Iran and Russia are watching their leaders as much as we are watching ours.
Given the nature of these regimes, they will not be able to back down. They rule their people through strength and they will have to show it now.
What is the FO doing? what is it advising Cameron to do FFS?
Well it's a position.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-28/abbott-promises-not-to-shut-down-labors-healthcare-hubs/4919576
"Miliband teams up with Vladimir Putin on the side of mass-murderer who gassed children sleeping in their beds?"
.......And of course two thirds of the British electorate. As you say "it's a position" and not a bad one for the leader of the opposition.
Well its Miliband who has set legality as the key condition for deciding his policy (as far as I can make out) and legality will almost certainly rest with the vote of Russia.
Russia will vote against, rendering this an 'illegal' war. I reckon China might abstain.
However, hiding behind Vladimir Putin in order to avoid having to take a position, for party-political reasons? Yuk.
Edit: Having said that, I don't think that will be Miliband's position. I think he'll support the government.
I think that is a misreading of Putin's and the Russian position and the likely course of negotiations.
Russia always strikes hard positions which are written in stone and immutable. But they have a habit of regularly changing their position to a new equally hard and permanent decision which is diametrically opposed to its predecessor.
The game being played here is for the US and its allies to convince Russia that it has the will, intent and capability of intervening in Syria within a very short timescale. And that such intervention will act as precedent for more substantial interventions in the future should Assad continue to use chemical weapons or otherwise breach international law. And, further, that the immediate intervention, and potential follow-up interventions, will have the effect of undermining Assad's hold on power to the detriment of Russian interests in the region.
All the above appears very feasible to me and I would expect Russia to move its cast iron position in response.
Getting Russia to move into line with the rest of the international community is after all the primary goal of Hague and Cameron, with a negotiated settlement the main strategy. A punitive and demonstrative response to the use of chemical weapons is merely a tactical move. If the cards fall right, it may even be possible to avoid western military intervention.
Toppling Assad by air - which is the plan using this chemical incident as an excuse - without massive troops on the ground doesn't prevent a Rwanda or Bosnia it *creates* a Rwanda or Bosnia as the stuff that's already been happening in the interior - minority villages massacred and monks having their heads sawed off with pen-knives - is brought to the coast.
The New Statesman makes the same point as you do, actually.
Do you also respect the position of Nigel Farage, who was the first leader to come out against?
I would even say that if Moscow wishes to grant Assad and his family asylum, so be it.
We will see but I would be very surprised. Russian officials are likening the west's tactics to 'monkeys throwing hand grenades' I have some sympathy with that view.
There is absolutely zero upside for Putin in agreeing the resolution. Veto and he creates a huge problem for countries he regards as rivals at best, whilst supporting his ally into the bargain.
Labour amendment.
'wait until Inspectors report', and then come back to Parliament, before action.
If the Tories vote against, Labour will vote against the substantive motion....
A titanic if, when you look at what has happened post Mubarak in Egypt. Russia might well be trying to do business with some islamist regime.
The meeting with the French on Friday will be a useful opportunity to show that the Syrian Opposition understand the kind of post-Assad administration that will be accepted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Syria_Ethno-religious_composition..jpg
But I don't think the probable chemical attack(s) are an excuse. They#re a very solid reason why something needs to be done. However the best 'something' may not be military action. Let's see what comes up tomorrow.
Russia has however refused to accept Assad stepping down as a pre-condition for negotiations.
Russia may change on Assad but are unlikely to move on using the existing regime as the foundation for reaching a settlement and agreeing political reform.
The key change over the summer is that an Assad military victory is no longer considered to be a likely short term outcome.
The use of chemical weapons in Gouta and the threatened military response is being used by the western powers as a means of accelerating the move to agreement within the UNSC and the start of negotiations to settle the civil war..
In other words, for good or ill, Miliband will be seen more as "Putin's Poodle" than the "heir to Blair" .
That will be welcomed by the hard Labour left but may prove to be an insuperable barrier to the party's re-election prospects.
I know Gordon had to chase Obama into the UN Kitchens to get an audience but Miliband may now have to wait in the UN loos to get a meeting.
IDS thought of the good of the country, swinging the tories behind tony when his own party turned against him and defeat would have ended his premiership and kept Britain out of the Iraq war.
IDS was widely lauded for his statesmanship at the time. What a top chap.
He never even got to fight an election.
I can;t see Miliband doing that.
Even the most ardent party identifier can sometimes find it in themselves to be objective.
I promise to model my future contributions to PB on tim's example.
Reckon Mili will swing labour in behind the government like IDS did for Tony?
I can't see it myself.
How in anyway is that being a responsible opposition?
They really don't know what they are doing - and it is showing badly.
Miliband and Alexander are floudering in their own inexperience. It is a woeful performance from the Official Opposition. Particularly when it was their party who engaged us in all sorts of military action with a hell of a lot less justification than is available to us now.
I don't want to see military action - but I also don't want to allow the use of chemical weapons - and so reluctantly some military strikes might be necessary (as they were in the Balkans)
But Miliband seems to want to play politics over this - and not think about the wider humanitarian situation. Shameful
PBTories not covering themselves in glory over this.
That said, there are massive political dangers for all parties, and I personally suspect Labour will eventually err on the side of caution. Unfortunately.
Meanwhile, the silence from the Lib Dems is deafening.
And dogs hunt in packs.
And every pack has an alpha dog leading it.
The beta dogs follow close behind.
The poodles at a distance.
You are not suggesting that Scottish Terriers should bring up the rear are you?
Dissembling to him is an art form.
Never trust a paste from a link, read the entire article. tim will have only pasted the bit that suits his purpose.
Govt majority is 77 so 39 rebels required. That looks pretty likely to me.
However Unionists may vote with the Govt plus could there be some Labour rebels?
Quite. we should have known better than to trust the word of a labour prime minister on a matter of national security. Most Labour politicians didn;t, after all. We should have known something was up.
But possible.
If it happens - what then for Cameron (and Clegg)?
He ca't say NO without riskimg shrill screams about disloyalty and he can't say YES without attacks of abandoning the "rule of law".
So he's, presumably waiting for thr next UN debate, when he'll have to make a decision.
Even walking out of the govt at this stage would create difficulties!
"All due measures" or somesuch, IIRC.
A blank cheque in other words....
Nor do I blindly trust Cameron's word now.
Bit stupid of anyone to do so, to be honest.
Let's wait for the UN work to finish, eh?
I have no problem with a parliamentary vote that registers our displeasure with the Syrian situation and allowing the government of the day to use their long-established legal powers to judge if, as and when military action becomes appropriate.
The last thing we should do is establish parliamentary oversight of all military operations - that would be an intolerable constitutional change.
CH4. "Government got cold feet. Just a preliminary vote tomorrow. Possible Britain won't be there on the day, firing alongside the USA..."
Just confirms what we all knew that they are still completely and hopelessly unfit to govern.