The problem with Miliband playing the international crisis for party political benefit
At least noone could accuse you of doing that Avery...
Have you noticed how tim has gone quiet since Ed started dithering, Neil?
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.
@DAlexanderMP: UN weapons inspectors’ evidence should be put before UN Security Council and House of Commons ahead of a decision on use of force in Syria
Is Cameron going to disagree with that? Does he have the numbers to disagree with that?
It is a delaying tactic and Ed is deploying it to play to his gallery.
As a privy counsellor briefed by the PM and National Security Council, Miliband will have had access to the same intelligence available to Downing Street.
I fully expect the UK and the US to wait for the UN Inspectors report before launching an attack, but everyone knows that the report will not blame the Assad regime (at least directly and unambiguously) for initiating the use of chemical weapons. Such a conclusion is outside the UN Inspectors remit. So the delivery of the report is not the deciding factor on whether intervention is legitimate. US, UK and French intelligence is and Miliband is privy to it.
So Miliband is just grandstanding on the UN report.
On the issue of restricting the prerogative power of the Crown on the advice of ministers to authorise military intervention, this would be a foolish precedent for Miliband to try to set by motion in the House of Commons. It would not be legally binding, would not restrict the Crown (PM) from action and would not aid clarity in face of the public.
On playing with the motion by introducing amendments, the obvious response is for the government to draft a new motion which accommodates any genuine concern that Miliband may have. The motion is not important. The parliamentary vote is.
I wish our leading politicians would sometimes get together and reach agreement on a decision which they collectively think is right.
This Syria moment is massive. It is absolutely imperative that as a country we get it right and take the decision which costs the least lives.
If we agree not to get involved and Assad gasses 10,000 civilians to death next week our leaders need to have persuasive reasons as to why they decided against acting. Equally, if we strike, and it all goes pear-shaped, Syria attack Israel, Israel attack Syria, Iran attacks Israel (insert whatever Middle Eastern horror-show you want here) then our leaders will need a pretty persuasive argument as to why they got involved.
Party-political calculations seem sadly misguided at times like this.
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.
If you'd ever posted anything of any consequence I might take you seriously. What's your opinion on an immediate strike on Syria, in your own words.
I am against any intervention now back to the matter at hand..
Noone should trust anything you write...letting other posters know that they need to be extremely careful is of consequence and indeed a public service.
The tim response
1) diss the person who makes a comment or accuse them of being an idiot, simpleton or whatever insult comes to hand 2) accuse them of stalking Tim, who was it who pointed out your selective pasting of links .., was it Random or Rexel 56. You must know who it was. Indulge me and let me know who it was who called you out.
So, if not in August what about: The Guns of September?
It really is marvelous; here we have a PM straining at the leash to have a go at Assad and his minions. This is the same PM that has pared the Armed Forces not only to the bone but to the the very marrow. He now wants to pit these forces to a probable air assault by British pilots not aquainted or trained against modern Russian missile defences. Ask the israelis how they came cropper in the first hours of the 1973 Yom Kippur War, with defences not a patch on todays wares.
Let's hope that parliaments stops this maniac Cammo.
I wish our leading politicians would sometimes get together and reach agreement on a decision which they collectively think is right.
This Syria moment is massive. It is absolutely imperative that as a country we get it right and take the decision which costs the least lives.
If we agree not to get involved and Assad gasses 10,000 civilians to death next week our leaders need to have persuasive reasons as to why they decided against acting. Equally, if we strike, and it all goes pear-shaped, Syria attack Israel, Israel attack Syria, Iran attacks Israel (insert whatever Middle Eastern horror-show you want here) then our leaders will need a pretty persuasive argument as to why they got involved.
Party-political calculations seem sadly misguided at times like this.
Indeed. And what if we do get involved, and the Al-Queda affiliated "rebels" who we're supporting gas thousands to death next week?
We need to be so careful.
So in a way, I'm glad Cameron has taken a party-political decision not to press ahead trying to get a green light for his war just yet.
Labour playing politics with matters of war and peace now I see.
Just confirms what we all knew that they are still completely and hopelessly unfit to govern.
Cameron tried to get an attack voted through before the inspectors reported, phoned his backbaenchers and the Lib Dems and realised his career was over if he'd pushed ahead.
Don't be silly, tim.
Even you know that is not true.
The recall of Parliament is a courtesy and means of consulting the legislature. It is also a PR stunt to up the ante with the Russians.
Cameron is not fussed by what Parliament authorises tomorrow. He just needs a vote which unites the main parties behind the UK's international position.
As Parliament is out of recess next week, further 'authorities' can be obtained as, when and if necessary.
The party political games of the opposition are the least of his concerns at present.
The problem with Miliband playing the international crisis for party political benefit
At least noone could accuse you of doing that Avery...
Have you noticed how tim has gone quiet since Ed started dithering, Neil?
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.
@DAlexanderMP: UN weapons inspectors’ evidence should be put before UN Security Council and House of Commons ahead of a decision on use of force in Syria
Is Cameron going to disagree with that? Does he have the numbers to disagree with that?
I wish our leading politicians would sometimes get together and reach agreement on a decision which they collectively think is right.
This Syria moment is massive. It is absolutely imperative that as a country we get it right and take the decision which costs the least lives.
If we agree not to get involved and Assad gasses 10,000 civilians to death next week our leaders need to have persuasive reasons as to why they decided against acting. Equally, if we strike, and it all goes pear-shaped, Syria attack Israel, Israel attack Syria, Iran attacks Israel (insert whatever Middle Eastern horror-show you want here) then our leaders will need a pretty persuasive argument as to why they got involved.
Party-political calculations seem sadly misguided at times like this.
Indeed. And what if we do get involved, and the Al-Queda affiliated "rebels" who we're supporting gas thousands to death next week?
We need to be so careful.
So in a way, I'm glad Cameron has taken a party-political decision not to press ahead trying to get a green light for his war just yet.
Yep, and I'm glad he took the party-political decision to recall parliament out of courtesy to all the other political parties.
@patrickwintour: Government motion for commons debate backs military action if necessary, but promises 2nd vote for MPs before "direct British involvement".
Cameron crapped his pants.
He decided that this is a grave decision which needs proper consideration and parliamentary oversight.
But if the rebels use CW at some time in the future (there's just as much evidence that they've already used them in the past), do we go back and bomb them?
@patrickwintour: Government motion for commons debate backs military action if necessary, but promises 2nd vote for MPs before "direct British involvement".
Cameron crapped his pants.
He decided that this is a grave decision which needs proper consideration and parliamentary oversight.
Blair wouldn't been measuring up a Damascus Palace by now.
What's Cameron's angle on this? Why the rush to step into Syria? I don't think much of Ed Milliband, but I think he's done the right thing, reining in Cameron. I remember the last time an opposition blindly agreed with a government on going to war.
'Labour claimed the Prime Minister had been forced to climb down over the use of force against Syria before the UN process had been exhausted in response to Ed Miliband's stance.
A source said: "We will continue to scrutinise this motion, but at 5.15pm, David Cameron totally ruled out a second vote; an hour and a half later he changed his mind.
@patrickwintour: Government motion for commons debate backs military action if necessary, but promises 2nd vote for MPs before "direct British involvement".
Cameron crapped his pants.
He decided that this is a grave decision which needs proper consideration and parliamentary oversight.
Blair wouldn't been measuring up a Damascus Palace by now.
Sorry, cheap shot
Cherie would be commissioning an architect to divide it into units for the children.
Cameron / the Tories in a mad rush for some unknown reason, forced by the opposition / Labour to consider things more carefully before committing our forces to war.
It seems clear the military forces are in place already. The UK nuclear attack submarine popping up in Gibraltar earlier in the week was not it appears for the benefit of the spanish. A simulaneous stand-off attack with cruise missiles against the syrian air defence system or 'prestige' targets (Assad's brother's residence?) will humiliate syria (and russia). Good luck trying to find that british sub which fires the token 1 missile or attack a US carrier battlegroup in the mediterranean sea. Short sharp lesson. Plus of course helps out the US defence industry as all of those cruise missiles needing using up anyway...
@patrickwintour: Government motion for commons debate backs military action if necessary, but promises 2nd vote for MPs before "direct British involvement".
Cameron crapped his pants.
He decided that this is a grave decision which needs proper consideration and parliamentary oversight.
He crapped himself.
Link.
Personally I'm with Josias - very thankful it's not me who has to make this call. Either way you could be responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people.
'Labour claimed the Prime Minister had been forced to climb down over the use of force against Syria before the UN process had been exhausted in response to Ed Miliband's stance.
A source said: "We will continue to scrutinise this motion, but at 5.15pm, David Cameron totally ruled out a second vote; an hour and a half later he changed his mind.
So, if not in August what about: The Guns of September?
It really is marvelous; here we have a PM straining at the leash to have a go at Assad and his minions. This is the same PM that has pared the Armed Forces not only to the bone but to the the very marrow. He now wants to pit these forces to a probable air assault by British pilots not aquainted or trained against modern Russian missile defences. Ask the israelis how they came cropper in the first hours of the 1973 Yom Kippur War, with defences not a patch on todays wares.
Let's hope that parliaments stops this maniac Cammo.
You are rubbishing tactics about which you have zero knowledge.
Well it seems the silly season is over at last. No more jibes about pointing at squid or Milibands mobile phone silence.
Tommorow is real politics, with very real consequences both for Syrians and British forces. Lets hope that the debate reflects the mood of the country, however contradictory that can be.
A robust debate in the mother of Parliaments would be a fine example to the middle east of democracy in action. Jaw Jaw is better than War War.
'Labour claimed the Prime Minister had been forced to climb down over the use of force against Syria before the UN process had been exhausted in response to Ed Miliband's stance.
A source said: "We will continue to scrutinise this motion, but at 5.15pm, David Cameron totally ruled out a second vote; an hour and a half later he changed his mind.
If that report is true it proves that Labour are seeking to use the crisis to score party political points. Despicable!
Labour is completely unfit to govern.
Didn't we have silly game playing like this over Libya? Something makes me think in the end Miliband came out looking a complete fool and Gadaffi's Stooge....
Ed Llewellyn: Prime Minister, I have Mr Edward Miliband on the line.
David Cameron: Who else is waiting?
Ed Llewellyn: Your wife, sir, President Barack Obama, President François Hollande, Chancellor Angela Merkel, The Chief of the Defence Staff, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Their Majesties King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and King Abdullah II of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, your mother, Mr. Threadneedle (your tailor), Mark Bolland (CEO of Marks and Spencer), Graham Brady and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
David Cameron: Well you had better put him after my mother and before Mark Bolland then. Did he say whether the call was urgent or brief you on what he wanted?
Ed Llewellyn: Mr Milliband wishes to table an urgent amendment to your motion on Syria in the House tomorrow. He would like your comments.
David Cameron: Oh is that all? He had better come after Mr. Threadneedle then and before the Turk.
Ed Llewellyn: All done. Leave it with me, Prime Minister.
Thanks for that JJ. BTW I made it to Aldgate yesterday, even checked out the former junction where the A13 once mixed it with the A11 and Leman Street.
@Sunil_Prasannan I hope you were accompanied by Billy Bragg's "A13 Trunk Road To The Sea".
Actually, I once was in touch with him, regarding getting his permission to name my A13 Fotopic site "A13 Trunk Road to the Sea" - must have been about six years ago. Sadly, Fotopic has long since been defunct.
Sooner or later Ed.M will have to get of the fence and decide one way or the other about Syria. When he was a Minister in the last Labour Govt it was reported that he drove his civil servants mad as he kept avoiding taking a decision. In one sense he is of course right to scrutinise and hold a Govt to account but for my money its as much about the problem he has with sitting on the fence and also facing real problems with his own Party if he supported DC plus the opinion polls rather than any high minded stuff about the UN etc etc. Faced with Labours refusal to back what after all is a very general motion, DC had no choice other than to delay a vote on a military strike. He also faces the fact that people such as Davis and Alfyrie are more than willing to use Syria to strike against DC.
On the other hand, from this point on, Labour own every atrocity in Syria. I'm not sure Ed Miliband will be too comfortable with that.
As I pointed out this morning, there're dangers for everyone.
But one thing I am certain of: letting the use of chemical weapons go unpunished sets a very bad precedent.
Having set out that position, what I want to see are solutions to the problem. People opposing a military intervention (as I may do) need to work out other solutions, and preferably ones that have not already been tried.
The problem is I cannot see any. Assad is in deep trouble internally, and a diplomatic solution could be a long way off if things remain as they are.
I can't believe Miliband is vacillating over Syria and hoping it will go away. Parliament should be showing a united front to heap pressure on Assad and his puppet masters in the Kremlin. You know it's bad when Labour are spinning to the Telegraph that 'Ed played a blinder'.
I can't believe Miliband is vacillating over Syria and hoping it will go away. Parliament should be showing a united front to heap pressure on Assad and his puppet masters in the Kremlin. You know it's bad when Labour are spinning to the Telegraph that 'Ed played a blinder'.
How much do you think Assad really cares about Ed Miliband?
After a couple of hours or so of taking flak for switching their position on Syria, the Labour leadership will be feeling pretty chuffed right now.
The end result is that the US could end up launching attacks on its own or (even worse perhaps in Foreign Office eyes) with just the French for partners. To many British diplomats that’s their worst nightmare – failing to deliver for your mighty superpower ally.
That may still not happen. The US might delay its own timetable to wait for Britain. But it might not.
So how on earth does this play out for Cameron now he's been forced to climb down?
Surely the only way the UK can get involved now is if there is full UN agreement and / or clear evidence that Asaad had used chemical weapons. Tough for Cameron if the US go ahead without him.
Or, following some ambiguous UN business, a muddy compromise that Labour would sign up to and / or would give Cameron the numbers to win his vote?
Jeez what a mess David Cameron has got himself into.
Oh yes Celtic. Goals either side of half time. This is the most important 40 minutes for Scottish football this year. Making the CL again is critical for the whole Scottish game.
Oh yes Celtic. Goals either side of half time. This is the most important 40 minutes for Scottish football this year. Making the CL again is critical for the whole Scottish game.
I can't believe Miliband is vacillating over Syria and hoping it will go away. Parliament should be showing a united front to heap pressure on Assad and his puppet masters in the Kremlin. You know it's bad when Labour are spinning to the Telegraph that 'Ed played a blinder'.
How much do you think Assad really cares about Ed Miliband?
Nice to see that the abour party have kept faith with their 'Thirties appeasement. One should not be surprised about Miliband: EDITED
That's rather low tbh.
Prime Minister Ed decided there will be no blank cheque - and there will be no blank cheque ! If the US wants to attack another Muslim country, let them.
I know Miliband is keen on having lengthy inquiries into everything, but is this really the time and the place? Why does he want yet another drawn-out UN report compiled over the yawning months ahead, so he can wave it about saying 'I have in my hand a piece of paper'?
What's Cameron's angle on this? Why the rush to step into Syria? I don't think much of Ed Milliband, but I think he's done the right thing, reining in Cameron. I remember the last time an opposition blindly agreed with a government on going to war.
The only explanation i can think of is the US want Britain and France to scamper ahead to make it look like the US is being dragged into intervention (as only 9% support intervention in the US).
Quite clearly drafted for an international audience with the United Nations Security Council and its Members in focus.
Almost nothing on military action.
A vote in favour by Parliament will bolster the UK's cause at the UN.
Cameron and Hague's aim is to give the permanent members of the UNSC every reasonable opportunity to avoid the need for military intervention.
It is all up to Russia and China now.
Well, it's a well-drafted text but then I'd expect nothing less from the Government machine.
The interesting part for me is the connection between the humanitarian crisis and the use of chemical weapons. I find that tenuous inasmuch as the humanitarian crisis existed long before the chemical weapons attack.
I would have liked to have seen more on dealing with the humanitarian crisis and linking military action to the relief of that crisis.
The crux though is that IF the UN Inspectors are unequivocal in saying that chemical weapons were used, the prohibition of such weapons under international law is clear and there is room for punitive action against any and all users of such weapons.
That doesn't mean action HAS to be taken and I share the concerns of a number of people over the consequences of taking such action. Irrespective of whatever international legality exists or otherwise for an action against those using chemical weapons, I am left with the sense of "what happens next?" and not in an amusing Question of Sport way.
Let's say the US, UK and France carry out a series of airstrikes on air bases and Syrian Government buildings - such actions in Libya didn't lead to a collapse of Gaddafi's Government and I suspect Assad's wouldn't crumble either. Ultimately, it may come down to airstrikes on tanks and armoured formations and as we saw in Libya, the propensity of the regime under attack to shelter such vehicles in civilian areas makes such strikes fraught with the risk of civilian collateral casualties.
@patrickwintour: Government motion for commons debate backs military action if necessary, but promises 2nd vote for MPs before "direct British involvement".
Cameron crapped his pants.
He decided that this is a grave decision which needs proper consideration and parliamentary oversight.
He crapped himself.
Link.
Personally I'm with Josias - very thankful it's not me who has to make this call. Either way you could be responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people.
No point making noises that add up to nothing for two years then try and push everything through in two days, Blair had the balls to drag the USA into Kosovo and had the balls to stop a civil war in Sierra Leone. Cameron has payed this like he did the boundary changes, at the last moment he realised he didn't have the numbers and couldn't command the support of his backbenchers. He had to stop the vote because he would've been humiliated by Tory And Lib Dem MPs
No, tim.
The parliamentary vote is only one piece of a very large jigsaw that Cameron and Hague have to put together. It is one of those dark coloured bits that form the background.
In the foreground are the allies, the US, France and Turkey with the most direct involvement; Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, Iraq and the Arab League; Germany and other EU countries; NATO; the EU; the UK Defence Staff and MOD; the Treasury; the FCO; and, of course, Russia and China and other members of the Security Council as well as Iran.
Miliband and his games are really far, far down Cameron's agenda. Dave will be laughing at Ed when chatting with Barack tonight. "Not another little boy like Putin, is he Dave?". "'fraid so, Barry".
As Stark Dawning so wisely points out, Labour activists and spinners running around crying 'Ed's playing a blinder' is but a trifle in context. Might get 5 minutes on Sky News. 10 or 15 minutes on the BBC but it will all be forgotten by midnight.
Toppling Assad without boots on the ground to separate the two sides leads to a Rwanda/Bosnia situation as the rebels from the interior take over the coastal areas.
So i'd think it would be a very good time and place.
Well, it's a well-drafted text but then I'd expect nothing less from the Government machine.
The interesting part for me is the connection between the humanitarian crisis and the use of chemical weapons. I find that tenuous inasmuch as the humanitarian crisis existed long before the chemical weapons attack.
I would have liked to have seen more on dealing with the humanitarian crisis and linking military action to the relief of that crisis. ...
The connection between "humanitarian crisis" and use of chemical weapons (a "Mass Atrocity Crime") and "crimes against humanity" are all direct references to the UN law on intervention by the international community in a sovereign state's internal affairs.
Humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect (R2P) both agree on the fact that sovereignty is not absolute. However, the R2P doctrine shifts away from state-centred motivations to the interests of victims by focusing not on the right of states to intervene but on a responsibility to protect populations at risk. In addition, it introduces a new way of looking at the essence of sovereignty, moving away from issues of ‘control’ and emphasising ‘responsibility’ to one’s own citizens and the wider international community.
The language of the motion suggests that the UK will be arguing the legality of intervention in the alternative: firstly under the 'old' humanitarian crisis intervention rules and secondly under the newer 'responsibility to protect' norms.
Quite clearly drafted for an international audience with the United Nations Security Council and its Members in focus.
Almost nothing on military action.
A vote in favour by Parliament will bolster the UK's cause at the UN.
Cameron and Hague's aim is to give the permanent members of the UNSC every reasonable opportunity to avoid the need for military intervention.
It is all up to Russia and China now.
The crux though is that IF the UN Inspectors are unequivocal in saying that chemical weapons were used, the prohibition of such weapons under international law is clear and there is room for punitive action against any and all users of such weapons.
That doesn't mean action HAS to be taken and I share the concerns of a number of people over the consequences of taking such action. Irrespective of whatever international legality exists or otherwise for an action against those using chemical weapons, I am left with the sense of "what happens next?" and not in an amusing Question of Sport way.
Let's say the US, UK and France carry out a series of airstrikes on air bases and Syrian Government buildings - such actions in Libya didn't lead to a collapse of Gaddafi's Government and I suspect Assad's wouldn't crumble either. Ultimately, it may come down to airstrikes on tanks and armoured formations and as we saw in Libya, the propensity of the regime under attack to shelter such vehicles in civilian areas makes such strikes fraught with the risk of civilian collateral casualties.
My guess is where we are heading is a draft UN resolution which requires Syria to agree to decommission their chemical weapons stocks immediately with destruction supervised by the United Nations or face the consequences.
The resolution could be extended to urge Syria to enter into UN sponsored negotiations with rebel representatives for a ceasefire and political settlement of the Civil War.
Both seem very reasonable in the circumstances and it would be hard for Russia and China to veto the resolutions with the eyes of the world focussed on them in the coming week.
I would say there is a very reasonable chance that by the end of next week all talk of immediate military action will have been abandoned.
Toppling Assad without boots on the ground to separate the two sides leads to a Rwanda/Bosnia situation as the rebels from the interior take over the coastal areas.
So i'd think it would be a very good time and place.
There are more than two sides to this conflict; it is just that they have coalesced into two groupings. When one group wins, the winners may well fragment and start fighting each other.
The Kurds in particular will have set aims in mind.
Comments
As a privy counsellor briefed by the PM and National Security Council, Miliband will have had access to the same intelligence available to Downing Street.
I fully expect the UK and the US to wait for the UN Inspectors report before launching an attack, but everyone knows that the report will not blame the Assad regime (at least directly and unambiguously) for initiating the use of chemical weapons. Such a conclusion is outside the UN Inspectors remit. So the delivery of the report is not the deciding factor on whether intervention is legitimate. US, UK and French intelligence is and Miliband is privy to it.
So Miliband is just grandstanding on the UN report.
On the issue of restricting the prerogative power of the Crown on the advice of ministers to authorise military intervention, this would be a foolish precedent for Miliband to try to set by motion in the House of Commons. It would not be legally binding, would not restrict the Crown (PM) from action and would not aid clarity in face of the public.
On playing with the motion by introducing amendments, the obvious response is for the government to draft a new motion which accommodates any genuine concern that Miliband may have. The motion is not important. The parliamentary vote is.
This Syria moment is massive. It is absolutely imperative that as a country we get it right and take the decision which costs the least lives.
If we agree not to get involved and Assad gasses 10,000 civilians to death next week our leaders need to have persuasive reasons as to why they decided against acting. Equally, if we strike, and it all goes pear-shaped, Syria attack Israel, Israel attack Syria, Iran attacks Israel (insert whatever Middle Eastern horror-show you want here) then our leaders will need a pretty persuasive argument as to why they got involved.
Party-political calculations seem sadly misguided at times like this.
now back to the matter at hand..
Noone should trust anything you write...letting other posters know that they need to be extremely careful is of consequence and indeed a public service.
The tim response
1) diss the person who makes a comment or accuse them of being an idiot, simpleton or whatever insult comes to hand
2) accuse them of stalking
Tim, who was it who pointed out your selective pasting of links .., was it Random or Rexel 56. You must know who it was. Indulge me and let me know who it was who called you out.
It really is marvelous; here we have a PM straining at the leash to have a go at Assad and his minions. This is the same PM that has pared the Armed Forces not only to the bone but to the the very marrow. He now wants to pit these forces to a probable air assault by British pilots not aquainted or trained against modern Russian missile defences. Ask the israelis how they came cropper in the first hours of the 1973 Yom Kippur War, with defences not a patch on todays wares.
Let's hope that parliaments stops this maniac Cammo.
http://orderorder.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/me.png
We need to be so careful.
So in a way, I'm glad Cameron has taken a party-political decision not to press ahead trying to get a green light for his war just yet.
Even you know that is not true.
The recall of Parliament is a courtesy and means of consulting the legislature. It is also a PR stunt to up the ante with the Russians.
Cameron is not fussed by what Parliament authorises tomorrow. He just needs a vote which unites the main parties behind the UK's international position.
As Parliament is out of recess next week, further 'authorities' can be obtained as, when and if necessary.
The party political games of the opposition are the least of his concerns at present.
I think it was Rexel 56 , but it might have been both of them.
Cameron - Itching for war at all costs ("Heir To Blair" again)
Clegg - Wants to hide under the duvet and wishes it would all go away.
Milliband - Is now supporting a Syrian despot and the brutal Brutal Putin for his own opportunistic ends
Does that sum it up?
But if the rebels use CW at some time in the future (there's just as much evidence that they've already used them in the past), do we go back and bomb them?
Sorry, cheap shot
Or would that count as microbiological warfare?
A source said: "We will continue to scrutinise this motion, but at 5.15pm, David Cameron totally ruled out a second vote; an hour and a half later he changed his mind.
"Ed was determined to do the right thing. It has taken Labour forcing a vote to force the Government to do the right thing."'
http://www.independent.ie/world-news/vote-wont-authorise-syria-action-29534777.html
It would be her Damascene conversion.
Good to see Parliament doing its job, really.
Personally I'm with Josias - very thankful it's not me who has to make this call. Either way you could be responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/08/28/syria-vote-labour_n_3831468.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10272339/Syria-Cameron-forced-to-drop-timetable-for-strikes-by-Miliband.html
Damian McBride, a key aide to Gordon Brown, warned Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs to “stay sceptical” about Mr Cameron’s claims.
It is “all too easy” for senior MPs “to be given top secret briefings and believe everything they’re told” by the government, he said.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/matthewholehouse/100232956/in-full-the-governments-motion-on-syria/
Tommorow is real politics, with very real consequences both for Syrians and British forces. Lets hope that the debate reflects the mood of the country, however contradictory that can be.
A robust debate in the mother of Parliaments would be a fine example to the middle east of democracy in action. Jaw Jaw is better than War War.
Didn't we have silly game playing like this over Libya? Something makes me think in the end Miliband came out looking a complete fool and Gadaffi's Stooge....
Readers of the Oxford English Dictionary require urgent clarification.
David Cameron: Who else is waiting?
Ed Llewellyn: Your wife, sir, President Barack Obama, President François Hollande, Chancellor Angela Merkel, The Chief of the Defence Staff, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Their Majesties King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and King Abdullah II of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, your mother, Mr. Threadneedle (your tailor), Mark Bolland (CEO of Marks and Spencer), Graham Brady and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
David Cameron: Well you had better put him after my mother and before Mark Bolland then. Did he say whether the call was urgent or brief you on what he wanted?
Ed Llewellyn: Mr Milliband wishes to table an urgent amendment to your motion on Syria in the House tomorrow. He would like your comments.
David Cameron: Oh is that all? He had better come after Mr. Threadneedle then and before the Turk.
Ed Llewellyn: All done. Leave it with me, Prime Minister.
How can Cameron have miliband on the ropes and then he lets labour take the high ground over Syria,My Conclusion - he's crap.
Time to go,and time for Theresa may.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/matthewholehouse/100232956/in-full-the-governments-motion-on-syria/
Faced with Labours refusal to back what after all is a very general motion, DC had no choice other than to delay a vote on a military strike. He also faces the fact that people such as Davis and Alfyrie are more than willing to use Syria to strike against DC.
But one thing I am certain of: letting the use of chemical weapons go unpunished sets a very bad precedent.
Having set out that position, what I want to see are solutions to the problem. People opposing a military intervention (as I may do) need to work out other solutions, and preferably ones that have not already been tried.
The problem is I cannot see any. Assad is in deep trouble internally, and a diplomatic solution could be a long way off if things remain as they are.
And in the meantime, innocent people die.
Almost nothing on military action.
A vote in favour by Parliament will bolster the UK's cause at the UN.
Cameron and Hague's aim is to give the permanent members of the UNSC every reasonable opportunity to avoid the need for military intervention.
It is all up to Russia and China now.
Why are MP's getting off their sun loungers if nothing is actually going to happen?
MODERATED
All Ed Miliband is doing on Syria is delaying the moment when he has to make a decision. But eventually, that moment will come.
@DPJHodges 24m
Ed Miliband's problem isn't the voters think he's a war-monger. It's they think he's weak and indecisive.
@DPJHodges 33m
Let me try to explain simply. Ed is now defined as man who opposed action. Cam as man who supported action. There will be action.
After a couple of hours or so of taking flak for switching their position on Syria, the Labour leadership will be feeling pretty chuffed right now.
The end result is that the US could end up launching attacks on its own or (even worse perhaps in Foreign Office eyes) with just the French for partners. To many British diplomats that’s their worst nightmare – failing to deliver for your mighty superpower ally.
That may still not happen. The US might delay its own timetable to wait for Britain. But it might not.
But there must be a chance that delays now extend, opposition to British involvement builds, and it never happens. - See more at: http://blogs.channel4.com/gary-gibbon-on-politics/cameron-ducks-syria-vote/23868#sthash.mJmFGYb4.dpuf
And given Miliband's family background is Jewish I rather doubt they supported Nazi Germany.
Surely the only way the UK can get involved now is if there is full UN agreement and / or clear evidence that Asaad had used chemical weapons. Tough for Cameron if the US go ahead without him.
Or, following some ambiguous UN business, a muddy compromise that Labour would sign up to and / or would give Cameron the numbers to win his vote?
Jeez what a mess David Cameron has got himself into.
The interesting part for me is the connection between the humanitarian crisis and the use of chemical weapons. I find that tenuous inasmuch as the humanitarian crisis existed long before the chemical weapons attack.
I would have liked to have seen more on dealing with the humanitarian crisis and linking military action to the relief of that crisis.
The crux though is that IF the UN Inspectors are unequivocal in saying that chemical weapons were used, the prohibition of such weapons under international law is clear and there is room for punitive action against any and all users of such weapons.
That doesn't mean action HAS to be taken and I share the concerns of a number of people over the consequences of taking such action. Irrespective of whatever international legality exists or otherwise for an action against those using chemical weapons, I am left with the sense of "what happens next?" and not in an amusing Question of Sport way.
Let's say the US, UK and France carry out a series of airstrikes on air bases and Syrian Government buildings - such actions in Libya didn't lead to a collapse of Gaddafi's Government and I suspect Assad's wouldn't crumble either. Ultimately, it may come down to airstrikes on tanks and armoured formations and as we saw in Libya, the propensity of the regime under attack to shelter such vehicles in civilian areas makes such strikes fraught with the risk of civilian collateral casualties.
The parliamentary vote is only one piece of a very large jigsaw that Cameron and Hague have to put together. It is one of those dark coloured bits that form the background.
In the foreground are the allies, the US, France and Turkey with the most direct involvement; Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, Iraq and the Arab League; Germany and other EU countries; NATO; the EU; the UK Defence Staff and MOD; the Treasury; the FCO; and, of course, Russia and China and other members of the Security Council as well as Iran.
Miliband and his games are really far, far down Cameron's agenda. Dave will be laughing at Ed when chatting with Barack tonight. "Not another little boy like Putin, is he Dave?". "'fraid so, Barry".
As Stark Dawning so wisely points out, Labour activists and spinners running around crying 'Ed's playing a blinder' is but a trifle in context. Might get 5 minutes on Sky News. 10 or 15 minutes on the BBC but it will all be forgotten by midnight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Syria_Ethno-religious_composition..jpg
Toppling Assad without boots on the ground to separate the two sides leads to a Rwanda/Bosnia situation as the rebels from the interior take over the coastal areas.
So i'd think it would be a very good time and place.
Humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect (R2P) both agree on the fact that sovereignty is not absolute. However, the R2P doctrine shifts away from state-centred motivations to the interests of victims by focusing not on the right of states to intervene but on a responsibility to protect populations at risk. In addition, it introduces a new way of looking at the essence of sovereignty, moving away from issues of ‘control’ and emphasising ‘responsibility’ to one’s own citizens and the wider international community.
The language of the motion suggests that the UK will be arguing the legality of intervention in the alternative: firstly under the 'old' humanitarian crisis intervention rules and secondly under the newer 'responsibility to protect' norms.
The resolution could be extended to urge Syria to enter into UN sponsored negotiations with rebel representatives for a ceasefire and political settlement of the Civil War.
Both seem very reasonable in the circumstances and it would be hard for Russia and China to veto the resolutions with the eyes of the world focussed on them in the coming week.
I would say there is a very reasonable chance that by the end of next week all talk of immediate military action will have been abandoned.
The Kurds in particular will have set aims in mind.