International law is whatever the great powers of the day decide it is. Discuss.
International law doesn't exist in any meaningful sense. It is a series of decisions taken for political expediency. The UN doesn't have legislative powers - and would be a nightmare if it did. The Security Council is completely misnamed - and urgently needs reform.
The world needs to find a way to send a message to both sides in the Syrian conflict that Chemical Warfare is completely unacceptable. With the Sino-Russian position, we aren't going to get a vote through the UN - and so we have to look at ALL other means. I don't like the idea of military intervention - but I think the Serbian model is probably the right one. Strategic bombing has to be on the table - invasion must not be.
However, I really dislike the way it's portrayed as exclusively something men do to women. There is a very large male minority of victims, and of course the abuse can and does happen in homosexual relationships as well. It seems like one of the last bastions of unthinking, blinkered sexism to pretend men couldn't possibly be victims.
You're clearly not up to date on official sexism theory:
Sexism against women is regressive Sexism against men is progressive
Mr. Richard, I appreciate that perspective (given some women seem to want no women in prison at all and quotas for board members), but it irks me quite significantly.
It will be interesting to see how long the poisonous ghost of Blair's claims lingers.
As long as there are military interventions in the middle east with less than clear aims and very limited and contested information I would think. Quite some time to come in other words.
There just aren't that many outstanding orators in parliament these days to be honest. The passion is too forced and the language too filed with jargon for most of them. Though I'd happily be proved wrong if someone can rise to the occasion. I seem to remember some political figure saying these kind of set-piece debates used to be watched closely by the whips for rising talent. Though if they still are I have no idea.
The Lebanese daily Al-Akhbar, which is close to the Assad regime, reported on Thursday that the regime has come to believe that a Western attack will likely occur. In a recent meeting with the Syrian leadership, President Bashar Assad asked his generals to maintain high morale ahead of an imminent attack.
“Since the beginning of the crisis, you have known that we await the moment when our true enemy will intervene. I know that your morale is high and you are fully prepared to confront any aggression and safeguard the nation,” Assad was quoted by the daily as saying.
“This is a historic confrontation from which we shall emerge victorious,” he added.
In Damascus residents began to prepare for an expected American strike, which could come as early as Thursday, stocking up on water and batteries, according to Reuters.
Long lines for bread and other essentials were reported across the Syrian capital, as jittery residents tried to get ahead of feared shortages.
However, Syrian officials have attempted to remain upbeat, issuing threats against any possible Western military intervention in the country’s two-year-old civil war. ---------- It go's on blaming Israel for all their woes. Naturally.
Mr. Pork, I agree entirely on orators. That said, Galloway's a fantastic speaker but not someone with whom I often agree. Obviously mastery of all is the best, but I'd take a terrific thinker over a great talker (an anti-Blair, if you like) any day.
Well, I've read the legal advice which doesn't tell us much we couldn't have figured out for ourselves and though it prejudges the report of the UN Inspectors, there seems a high degree of confidence, as Yokel reported early on, as to what happened and when it happened though why it happened and whether Bashar Assad personally authorised it is more open to question in my view.
In any case, as an LD, I'm broadly happy with the approach Cameron laid out this afternoon. We need to take this through the UN along the lines of a resolution demanding Syria disclose its chemical weapons stocks and that they are destroyed under UN supervision. Only if Assad fails to comply with this would military force be used.
As I said earlier, I'd like to see the use of force for the purposes of alleviating humanitarian suffering pitched more at safeguarding civilians through the use of safe corridors and protected enclaves on or near the Syrian border than strikes on airfields and Government buildings.
Libya showed that such airstrikes aren't always effective and become less so when the regime hides its assets in civilian areas as happened in Misrata
I('d also like to see a stronger emphasis on the diplomatic approach with the thought given to providing reassurances to Russia that its interests will be protected in a post-Assad Syria on the basis that I suspect no none outside Iran wants an Islamist Syria to emerge from the ashes of the Assad dictatorship.
As a starting point, today's approach is fine but clearly and rightly this will need to be revisited once the Inspectors have reported and the UN avenues have been explored..
Ed's point was a vitally important one. In practical terms we cannot intervene in any way in Syria without being seen to be taking sides. No matter what we say about merely wanting to prevent the use of chemical weapons, an attack on government controlled installations will be seen as an attack on the Syrian government. Thus, if we are going to do it we have to have evidence that not only satisfies us, but is also seen to be compelling by the widest possible international coalition. That is in our best interests, but it is also in the interests of the Syrian people. There is absolutely no doubt that the Iranians, for example, or Hezbollah, would love to escalate the current conflict. If we wade in without ensuring as wide a net of support as possible, without having been seen to explore all options, and however lightly we think we are doing it, we will not only create an excuse for direct targeting of British interests, but also for the Iranians and others to get more closely and directly involved in Syria itself.
Having listened to Cameron I have absolutely no doubt that he is genuine, that this is not about being Churchillian or the heir to Blair or anything like that; but I am also convinced that he has not properly thought-through the full implications of the direction we currently seem to be heading in. Miliband - pushed by his party - seems to be further along that road.
Now, we can be all party political about this and seek to score points and accuse each other of whatever, or we can accept that the one thing that the Iranians, Hezbollah and assorted others or a similar ilk are absolutely desperate for is a western intervention in Syria that can be portrayed as precipitous, partial and anti-Muslim. That way they can escalate, get more closely involved and, with luck, draw in Israel. Were that to happen, it would be a disaster not only for the Syrian people but for all of us. If taking a bit more time, keeping our options open, working closely at the UN and so on makes the task of our undoubted enemies harder, then that is what we should do.
Norman Smith, BBC News Channel chief political correspondent tweets: Aides to Ed Miliband say "categorically untrue" that he earlier signalled his support for PM over strategy on #Syria
Wonder if being there makes a big difference. Only heard the last half of Cameron and the first half of Milliband in the car on the way home, but would struggle to come to the same conclusion about the relative merits of each as Andrew Solaris does in his live blog. Miliband v stuttery and not appearing very confident, Cameron sou des like he normally does.
Norman Smith, BBC News Channel chief political correspondent tweets: Aides to Ed Miliband say "categorically untrue" that he earlier signalled his support for PM over strategy on #Syria
Miliband's statement on Syria made two days ago remains on the Labour Party website. It reads:
Ed Miliband MP, Leader of the Labour Party, speaking after meeting the Prime Minister in Downing Street, said:
“The use of chemical weapons on innocent civilians is abhorrent and cannot be ignored.
“When I saw the Prime Minister this afternoon I said to him the Labour Party would consider supporting international action but only on the basis that it was legal, that it was specifically limited to deterring the future use of chemical weapons and that any action contemplated had clear and achievable military goals.
“We will be scrutinising any action contemplated on that basis.”
Sufficiently ambiguous for Labour to argue that Miliband's current position is consistent and compatible with his earlier statement, but hardly indicative of a clear and stable policy.
Have just been out for lunch. If my chums are anything to go by this is the most foolish action by a PM since Blaiir threatened Iraq. I am now reasonably certain this will dent 'Bombers' poll leads.
The late David Kelly is probably sat atop his heavenly cloud, dismayed at how little the world has moved on in 10 years yet amused at the how much the Labour MPs have changed in ten years.
The same ones who voted for a war against a man who had no WMDs and barely even had an operational army are now questioning the legality of a war against a man who has visibly gassed his own civilians to death.
Weird. Just goes to show the hypocrisy of politics.
Have just been out for lunch. If my chums are anything to go by this is the most foolish action by a PM since Blaiir threatened Iraq. I am now reasonably certain this will dent 'Bombers' poll leads.
I have just topped up on PP's Tory poll lead market...
Have just been out for lunch. If my chums are anything to go by this is the most foolish action by a PM since Blaiir threatened Iraq. I am now reasonably certain this will dent 'Bombers' poll leads.
What did your chums think of Hollande's, Obama's and Merkel's plans?
There is absolutely no doubt that the Iranians, for example, or Hezbollah, would love to escalate the current conflict.
The entire region is hardly in any shape for yet more upheaval and bloodletting. Not much thought seems to have been given to Egypt despite the very recent slaughter of hundreds there protesting against the military coup. Egypt has chemical weapons too, it's used them before and there are also very militant factions involved in the muslim brotherhood.
Escalating tensions and cruise missile attacks do not make happy bedfellows.
"John Pullin, England's captain, the hooker … McBride trying to get … Wilkinson … Going … Williams again … everyone with him … Sid Going … good tackle by Slattery of Ireland … almost on the half-way line … Kirkpatrick, to Williams … this is great stuff … Phil Bennett covering, chased by Alistair Scown … brilliant … oh, that's brilliant … John Williams, Bryan Williams … Pullin … John Dawes, great dummy … David, Tom David, the halfway line … brilliant by Quinnell … this is Gareth Edwards … a dramatic start … What a score!"
I am not sure Paddypower should be taking bets on this sort of thing (going to war or not in response to a chemical weapons massacre) - If they must I hope they will donate any profit to a refugee charity
I am not sure Paddypower should be taking bets on this sort of thing (going to war or not in response to a chemical weapons massacre) - If they must I hope they will donate any profit to a refugee charity
When I tweeted that link, I've had quite a few replies calling it sick/immoral etc
But that is not his point SO. If it was his position would be that military intervention is a bad idea and he repeatedly stated that he would support it if, well it was hard to work that out.
The point you have made is a good one but it does not depend on further evidence, more setting out of the case etc. It is obvious and if you think that taking sides in a civil war is a bad idea ( I have some sympathy with that view myself, especially given the sides seem equally unattractive) then you vote no. That is not the Labour position.
Ming states that even with a fine textual analysis he cannot work out the difference between the substantive motion and the amendment. Labour's position on this is really embarrassing.
"John Pullin, England's captain, the hooker … McBride trying to get … Wilkinson … Going … Williams again … everyone with him … Sid Going … good tackle by Slattery of Ireland … almost on the half-way line … Kirkpatrick, to Williams … this is great stuff … Phil Bennett covering, chased by Alistair Scown … brilliant … oh, that's brilliant … John Williams, Bryan Williams … Pullin … John Dawes, great dummy … David, Tom David, the halfway line … brilliant by Quinnell … this is Gareth Edwards … a dramatic start … What a score!"
Brings a tear to the eye.
BIG LIKE.
He wasn't even supposed to be commentating that day. He stepped in late in the day to replace Nigel Starmer Smith. John Bevan the winger wasn't supposed to be there either, Gerald Davies being the other notable person to pull out due to an illness that morning. What a match they missed, and how ironic that the great game became synonymous with Cliff Morgan, when he wasn't even supposed to be there.
The late David Kelly is probably sat atop his heavenly cloud, dismayed at how little the world has moved on in 10 years yet amused at the how much the Labour MPs have changed in ten years.
The same ones who voted for a war against a man who had no WMDs and barely even had an operational army are now questioning the legality of a war against a man who has visibly gassed his own civilians to death.
Weird. Just goes to show the hypocrisy of politics.
I am sure that you are not deliberately misrepresenting the Labour position, but I think that you have got it completely wring. The issue is not primarily about legality, it is about international legitimacy and what not being seen to do everything possible before military intervention will mean for UK interests and for the Syrian people. If we wade in - or, more correctly - are seen to be wading in, we will make things much worse than they are now, both for ourselves and for the Syrians.
David Kelly, of course, did no doubt Saddam had WMDs.
Have just been out for lunch. If my chums are anything to go by this is the most foolish action by a PM since Blaiir threatened Iraq. I am now reasonably certain this will dent 'Bombers' poll leads.
You should have stayed at your lunch, Roger.
All that has been served up in the Commons is Rhubarb Fool (Ed Miliband), Elderflower Jelly (Menzies Campbell), Cabinet Pudding (David Cameron) and Gypsy Tart (Glenda Jackson).
I am sure your regular Soho haunts offer better fare.
But that is not his point SO. If it was his position would be that military intervention is a bad idea and he repeatedly stated that he would support it if, well it was hard to work that out.
The point you have made is a good one but it does not depend on further evidence, more setting out of the case etc. It is obvious and if you think that taking sides in a civil war is a bad idea ( I have some sympathy with that view myself, especially given the sides seem equally unattractive) then you vote no. That is not the Labour position.
Ming states that even with a fine textual analysis he cannot work out the difference between the substantive motion and the amendment. Labour's position on this is really embarrassing.
His position is that before you intervene militarily you have to ensure that you have made as sure as possible what you do will not have adverse conseuences for either our interests or those of the Syrian people. He argues, I think persuasively, that the government's approach does not go far enough in doing this and that the timetable he sets out is more rigorous. I fail to see what is embarrassing about that.
"John Pullin, England's captain, the hooker … McBride trying to get … Wilkinson … Going … Williams again … everyone with him … Sid Going … good tackle by Slattery of Ireland … almost on the half-way line … Kirkpatrick, to Williams … this is great stuff … Phil Bennett covering, chased by Alistair Scown … brilliant … oh, that's brilliant … John Williams, Bryan Williams … Pullin … John Dawes, great dummy … David, Tom David, the halfway line … brilliant by Quinnell … this is Gareth Edwards … a dramatic start … What a score!"
Brings a tear to the eye.
BIG LIKE.
He wasn't even supposed to be commentating that day. He stepped in late in the day to replace Nigel Starmer Smith. John Bevan the winger wasn't supposed to be there either, Gerald Davies being the other notable person to pull out due to an illness that morning. What a match they missed, and how ironic that the great game became synonymous with Cliff Morgan, when he wasn't even supposed to be there.
If I was doing nighthawks tonight, I would have had about 4 or 5 links to Cliff Morgan
"Daniel Hannan @DanHannanMEP 5h A friend in Ankara tells me something fascinating: apparently, many Turks signal their party affiliation by how they trim their moustaches."
Probably why my Father-in-Law is clean-shaven - the civil service has to remain impartial. ;-)
It does not look like Labour will get anything out of this evening: Even their Left are voting against the amendment. The Coalition-benches should carry this vote comfortably.
Maybe this is Militwunt's goal; to reclaim the pacifis,t hand-wringing vote (including seanT. As mentioned before on this thread; Ed is a shyte.
"Daniel Hannan @DanHannanMEP 5h A friend in Ankara tells me something fascinating: apparently, many Turks signal their party affiliation by how they trim their moustaches."
Probably why my Father-in-Law is clean-shaven - the civil service has to remain impartial. ;-)
I notice Labour MP Bob Ainsworth has swapped his moustache for a stubbly beard.
Farron sounding distinctly more sceptical than Clegg ever has up to this point in an interview just now. Also saying the vote today isn't that important. Interesting.
Now we're being told by those close to Cameron yet another recall vote is possible at the weekend??
Slow down speedy. The weapons inspectors have to start reporting back to the UN Secretary General first and they only plan to leave Syria on Saturday. You would think today might be a warning that rushing things isn't a good idea for Cammie.
"Daniel Hannan @DanHannanMEP 5h A friend in Ankara tells me something fascinating: apparently, many Turks signal their party affiliation by how they trim their moustaches."
@pppolitics: Overwhelming 85% of cash placed so far is on Labour #Syria amendment to NOT be carried tonight (in from 8/11 to 8/15) http://t.co/QluVP8Ruxz
@GuidoFawkes: According to Lib Dem Voice polling 69% of Lib Dems will back UK intervention in Syria. Suggests that LD peaceniks have gone back to Labour.
I think UKIP are wrong to be against action in all circumstances.
They are not. Thats why UKIP calls for a strong defence capability, to defend Britain and it's genuine interests; of which the Syrian civil-war is clearly not.
The late David Kelly is probably sat atop his heavenly cloud, dismayed at how little the world has moved on in 10 years yet amused at the how much the Labour MPs have changed in ten years.
The same ones who voted for a war against a man who had no WMDs and barely even had an operational army are now questioning the legality of a war against a man who has visibly gassed his own civilians to death.
I assume the ethereal Kelly will be even more dismayed/amused by the MPs of the party that proportionally showed the strongest support for the Iraq war.
The idea that Assad can hide behind some junior officer is just absurd. He's not court-martialling anyone for perpetrating the atrocity without authority, is he?
I'm not surprised that the Syria attack is unpopular. It's inconsistent and of no benefit to anyone. If it's a punishment for misdeeds, then why ignore worse misdeeds elsewhere? It's like having a law that only applies to convenient villains.
I'm not a pacifist, but splatting only people you can, and probably aren't intending to splat us first, is playground bullying not courage.
There's no actual evidence it was Assad. It's all circumstantial.
e.g. a youtube clip which doesn't prove anything as - it might not be syria - it might not be rebels - it might not be chemical weapons - who's going to film themselves firing chemical weapons but still worth watching to see how there's no magic hi-tech reason any attack (if there was one) couldn't have come from the rebels. All they'd need is some captured shells and a guy who can read the manual to see to see where the fuses go, wait for Assad's mob to be shelling an area of the city and then lob some chemical shells in.
DC was his usual polished self on these set piece occasions and spoke with a high degree of passion. My opinion is that there is no good option on Syria and as DC says it comes down to a question of personal judgement. For my money all the evidence anybody needs to make up their mind is basically already there and I think Ed.M's approach is pretty much stalling to put off making a decision. But others will see it differently and on this really serious and complex issue I respect their views. Ed.M sounded to me as though he was not that well and so I shall forego having a laugh at his performance.I guess all this may well turn out to be a total waste of time as by the weekend the US may have done th ejob themselves. If not then if I was DC I would be very anxious about winning any vote on Syria at the moment as the mood on his benches seems not exactly to be supportive of him. I can't see Ed ever persuading his side to vikte for a military strike.
Just to say, most Welshmen I know cannot stand the seventies and never want to talk about them.
Curiously, its the English who go all misty eyed and Ron Manager about the period.
It's a great compliment, but I always wonder why.
Maybe its because the Welsh players were very accessible in comparison to English counterparts. Very ordinary blokes from very ordinary backgrounds.
At the time, the England/Wales game wasn't just a nation thing. It was a class thing.
Not sure about that sweeping generalisation! There is undoubtedly a strong public school element to English rugby union, but in this part of the Midlands and in the South West rugby has always been a working man's sport. There were a lot of colliery teams around Warwickshire and Leicestershire in the 60s/70s, and before, while players like David Duckham - who played for Coventry, England and the Lions - had the grammar school background many of the Welsh team did. He was not the only one.
BBC Tom Watson: Senior conservatives saying to me that chief whip misread the mood of the party on Syria
Wouldn't be surprised. Was with a bunch of fairly Tory types last night and it was a clear 4-1 against getting involved. Which is my view too, on this occasion, as it was with the second Iraq war.
In the present case I don't quite get the nuance of "we'll stand back for two years whilst you shoot thousands but gas is different". I fail to see our strategic interest, we cannot fight the whole world just because they don't subscribe to our view of civil society, and whatever happens it seems highly likely that some factional strongman of one kind or another will eventually emerge, and he won't resemble a cuddly Scandinavian social democrat in the slightest no matter what we do.
So don't bother. Save our powder for when it really matters to us.
Our strategic interests are:
(1) Preserving the credibility of the West's policeman - without the US the West as a whole is pretty powerless in military conflict
(2) Preserving the credibility of the international treaty against the use of chemical weapons
Actually in the 70s 'Dai' Duckham was one of my favourite players.
As you say its a bit of a generalisation, but I still think rugby union right now is more relaxed and inclusive socially than it was in the 1970s or before that.
I remember being in the old east stand at Twickers in the 1980s and smiling at the tartan car rugs and thermos flasks....
When Wales scored their first points my mate and I stood up, and realised we were just about the only welshmen in the east stand.....
..without the US the West as a whole is pretty powerless in military conflict..
Weak compared to who? Leaving aside nuclear arsenals for the sake of argument, wouldn't the European nations manage fairly well in a shooting war with Russia at the moment?
Certainly the expeditionary capabilities of the non-US nations are not that strong - though France and Britain retain some capacity - but again, what other countries have a comparable power to project force?
A couple of good tweets highlighted by the Guardian live blog:
anne mcelvoy @annemcelvoy - If both Obama and JIC evidence on Syrian gassing isn't enough for Labour, can Ed Mil tell us what might suffice?
James Forsyth @JGForsyth - To stretch the Iraq analogy, Ed Miliband is now playing the role in the Tory whipping operation that France did in the Labour one in 2003
Asked about an hour ago, but interesting that nobody could tell me what the differences are between the Government and Opposition motions.
I thought the difference was that the Labour amendment required Cameron to return to the House for authorisation of military force, following UN report, etc, but from words of debate sounds as though Government motion now concedes this - so not sure.
The late David Kelly is probably sat atop his heavenly cloud, dismayed at how little the world has moved on in 10 years yet amused at the how much the Labour MPs have changed in ten years.
The same ones who voted for a war against a man who had no WMDs and barely even had an operational army are now questioning the legality of a war against a man who has visibly gassed his own civilians to death.
Weird. Just goes to show the hypocrisy of politics.
I am sure that you are not deliberately misrepresenting the Labour position, but I think that you have got it completely wring. The issue is not primarily about legality, it is about international legitimacy and what not being seen to do everything possible before military intervention will mean for UK interests and for the Syrian people. If we wade in - or, more correctly - are seen to be wading in, we will make things much worse than they are now, both for ourselves and for the Syrians.
David Kelly, of course, did no doubt Saddam had WMDs.
I thought there was pretty clear evidence that the reason why we couldn't find Saddam's WMDs is that a lot were smuggled over the border into Syria...
Deplores the use of chemical weapons in Syria on 21 August 2013 by the Assad regime, which caused hundreds of deaths and thousands of injuries of Syrian civilians;
Recalls the importance of upholding the worldwide prohibition on the use of chemical weapons under international law;
Agrees that a strong humanitarian response is required from the international community and that this may, if necessary, require military action that is legal, proportionate and focused on saving lives by preventing and deterring further use of Syria’s chemical weapons;
Notes the failure of the United Nations Security Council over the last two years to take united action in response to the Syrian crisis;
Notes that the use of chemical weapons is a war crime under customary law and a crime against humanity, and that the principle of humanitarian intervention provides a sound legal basis for taking action;
Notes the wide international support for such a response, including the statement from the Arab League on 27 August which calls on the international community, represented in the United Nations Security Council, to “overcome internal disagreements and take action against those who committed this crime, for which the Syrian regime is responsible”;
Believes, in spite of the difficulties at the United Nations, that a United Nations process must be followed as far as possible to ensure the maximum legitimacy for any such action;
Therefore welcomes the work of the United Nations investigating team currently in Damascus, and, whilst noting that the team’s mandate is to confirm whether chemical weapons were used and not to apportion blame, agrees that the United Nations Secretary General should ensure a briefing to the United Nations Security Council immediately upon the completion of the team’s initial mission;
Believes that the United Nations Security Council must have the opportunity immediately to consider that briefing and that every effort should be made to secure a Security Council Resolution backing military action before any such action is taken, and notes that before any direct British involvement in such action a further vote of the House of Commons will take place; and
Notes that this Resolution relates solely to efforts to alleviate humanitarian suffering by deterring use of chemical weapons and does not sanction any action in Syria with wider objectives.
@GuidoFawkes: According to Lib Dem Voice polling 69% of Lib Dems will back UK intervention in Syria. Suggests that LD peaceniks have gone back to Labour.
But it also explains a lot about Labour's strategy if - as Mike contests - holding on to those LD defectors is the key to 2015.
If Farron comes over all sceptical and Labour supports the war...
‘expresses its revulsion at the killing of hundreds of civilians in Ghutah, Syria on 21 August 2013; believes that this was a moral outrage; recalls the importance of upholding the worldwide prohibition on the use of chemical weapons; makes clear that the use of chemical weapons is a grave breach of international law; agrees with the UN Secretary General that the UN weapons inspectors must be able to report to the UN Security Council and that the Security Council must live up to its responsibilities to protect civilians; supports steps to provide humanitarian protection to the people of Syria but will only support military action involving UK forces if and when the following conditions have been met that:
(a) the UN weapons inspectors, upon the conclusion of their mission in the Eastern Ghutah, are given the necessary opportunity to make a report to the Security Council on the evidence and their findings, and confirmation by them that chemical weapons have been used in Syria;
(b) compelling evidence is produced that the Syrian regime was responsible for the use of these weapons;
(c) the UN Security Council has considered and voted on this matter in the light of the reports of the weapons inspectors and the evidence submitted;
(d) there is a clear legal basis in international law for taking collective military action to protect the Syrian people on humanitarian grounds;
(e) such action must have regard to the potential consequences in the region, and must therefore be legal, proportionate, time-limited and have precise and achievable objectives designed to deter the future use of prohibited chemical weapons in Syria; and
(f) the Prime Minister reports further to the House on the achievement of these conditions so that the House can vote on UK participation in such action, and that any such vote should relate solely to efforts to deter the use of chemical weapons and does not sanction any wider action in Syria.’.
If Cameron wants to do things without evidence,all he needs to do is to convince his own party and coalition partners.The reason he`s opted for two votes is Cameron can`t even convince Larry,the Downing street cat let alone a majority in Parliament to vote for direct military action yet.
Comments
The world needs to find a way to send a message to both sides in the Syrian conflict that Chemical Warfare is completely unacceptable. With the Sino-Russian position, we aren't going to get a vote through the UN - and so we have to look at ALL other means. I don't like the idea of military intervention - but I think the Serbian model is probably the right one. Strategic bombing has to be on the table - invasion must not be.
Sexism against women is regressive
Sexism against men is progressive
There just aren't that many outstanding orators in parliament these days to be honest. The passion is too forced and the language too filed with jargon for most of them. Though I'd happily be proved wrong if someone can rise to the occasion. I seem to remember some political figure saying these kind of set-piece debates used to be watched closely by the whips for rising talent. Though if they still are I have no idea.
“Since the beginning of the crisis, you have known that we await the moment when our true enemy will intervene. I know that your morale is high and you are fully prepared to confront any aggression and safeguard the nation,” Assad was quoted by the daily as saying.
“This is a historic confrontation from which we shall emerge victorious,” he added.
In Damascus residents began to prepare for an expected American strike, which could come as early as Thursday, stocking up on water and batteries, according to Reuters.
Long lines for bread and other essentials were reported across the Syrian capital, as jittery residents tried to get ahead of feared shortages.
However, Syrian officials have attempted to remain upbeat, issuing threats against any possible Western military intervention in the country’s two-year-old civil war.
----------
It go's on blaming Israel for all their woes. Naturally.
Well, I've read the legal advice which doesn't tell us much we couldn't have figured out for ourselves and though it prejudges the report of the UN Inspectors, there seems a high degree of confidence, as Yokel reported early on, as to what happened and when it happened though why it happened and whether Bashar Assad personally authorised it is more open to question in my view.
In any case, as an LD, I'm broadly happy with the approach Cameron laid out this afternoon. We need to take this through the UN along the lines of a resolution demanding Syria disclose its chemical weapons stocks and that they are destroyed under UN supervision. Only if Assad fails to comply with this would military force be used.
As I said earlier, I'd like to see the use of force for the purposes of alleviating humanitarian suffering pitched more at safeguarding civilians through the use of safe corridors and protected enclaves on or near the Syrian border than strikes on airfields and Government buildings.
Libya showed that such airstrikes aren't always effective and become less so when the regime hides its assets in civilian areas as happened in Misrata
I('d also like to see a stronger emphasis on the diplomatic approach with the thought given to providing reassurances to Russia that its interests will be protected in a post-Assad Syria on the basis that I suspect no none outside Iran wants an Islamist Syria to emerge from the ashes of the Assad dictatorship.
As a starting point, today's approach is fine but clearly and rightly this will need to be revisited once the Inspectors have reported and the UN avenues have been explored..
Having listened to Cameron I have absolutely no doubt that he is genuine, that this is not about being Churchillian or the heir to Blair or anything like that; but I am also convinced that he has not properly thought-through the full implications of the direction we currently seem to be heading in. Miliband - pushed by his party - seems to be further along that road.
Now, we can be all party political about this and seek to score points and accuse each other of whatever, or we can accept that the one thing that the Iranians, Hezbollah and assorted others or a similar ilk are absolutely desperate for is a western intervention in Syria that can be portrayed as precipitous, partial and anti-Muslim. That way they can escalate, get more closely involved and, with luck, draw in Israel. Were that to happen, it would be a disaster not only for the Syrian people but for all of us. If taking a bit more time, keeping our options open, working closely at the UN and so on makes the task of our undoubted enemies harder, then that is what we should do.
WILL LABOUR'S AMENDMENT TO THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION FOR MILITARY INTERVENTION BE CARRIED?
No 8/11
Yes Evens
http://www.paddypower.com/bet/politics/other-politics/uk-politics?ev_oc_grp_ids=1298095
Ed Miliband MP, Leader of the Labour Party, speaking after meeting the Prime Minister in Downing Street, said:
“The use of chemical weapons on innocent civilians is abhorrent and cannot be ignored.
“When I saw the Prime Minister this afternoon I said to him the Labour Party would consider supporting international action but only on the basis that it was legal, that it was specifically limited to deterring the future use of chemical weapons and that any action contemplated had clear and achievable military goals.
“We will be scrutinising any action contemplated on that basis.”
Sufficiently ambiguous for Labour to argue that Miliband's current position is consistent and compatible with his earlier statement, but hardly indicative of a clear and stable policy.
The dithering continues.
The same ones who voted for a war against a man who had no WMDs and barely even had an operational army are now questioning the legality of a war against a man who has visibly gassed his own civilians to death.
Weird. Just goes to show the hypocrisy of politics.
The entire region is hardly in any shape for yet more upheaval and bloodletting. Not much thought seems to have been given to Egypt despite the very recent slaughter of hundreds there protesting against the military coup. Egypt has chemical weapons too, it's used them before and there are also very militant factions involved in the muslim brotherhood.
Escalating tensions and cruise missile attacks do not make happy bedfellows.
"John Pullin, England's captain, the hooker … McBride trying to get … Wilkinson … Going … Williams again … everyone with him … Sid Going … good tackle by Slattery of Ireland … almost on the half-way line … Kirkpatrick, to Williams … this is great stuff … Phil Bennett covering, chased by Alistair Scown … brilliant … oh, that's brilliant … John Williams, Bryan Williams … Pullin … John Dawes, great dummy … David, Tom David, the halfway line … brilliant by Quinnell … this is Gareth Edwards … a dramatic start … What a score!"
Brings a tear to the eye.
But that is not his point SO. If it was his position would be that military intervention is a bad idea and he repeatedly stated that he would support it if, well it was hard to work that out.
The point you have made is a good one but it does not depend on further evidence, more setting out of the case etc. It is obvious and if you think that taking sides in a civil war is a bad idea ( I have some sympathy with that view myself, especially given the sides seem equally unattractive) then you vote no. That is not the Labour position.
Ming states that even with a fine textual analysis he cannot work out the difference between the substantive motion and the amendment. Labour's position on this is really embarrassing.
He wasn't even supposed to be commentating that day. He stepped in late in the day to replace Nigel Starmer Smith. John Bevan the winger wasn't supposed to be there either, Gerald Davies being the other notable person to pull out due to an illness that morning. What a match they missed, and how ironic that the great game became synonymous with Cliff Morgan, when he wasn't even supposed to be there.
David Kelly, of course, did no doubt Saddam had WMDs.
If you were remotely familiar with my posts on here you would know that I do not support UKIP.
Don't make things up.
All that has been served up in the Commons is Rhubarb Fool (Ed Miliband), Elderflower Jelly (Menzies Campbell), Cabinet Pudding (David Cameron) and Gypsy Tart (Glenda Jackson).
I am sure your regular Soho haunts offer better fare.
Maybe this is Militwunt's goal; to reclaim the pacifis,t hand-wringing vote (including seanT. As mentioned before on this thread; Ed is a shyte.
Slow down speedy. The weapons inspectors have to start reporting back to the UN Secretary General first and they only plan to leave Syria on Saturday. You would think today might be a warning that rushing things isn't a good idea for Cammie.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/iainmartin1/100233213/miliband-and-cameron-both-lose-in-syria-debate/
Just to say, most Welshmen I know cannot stand the seventies and never want to talk about them.
Curiously, its the English who go all misty eyed and Ron Manager about the period.
It's a great compliment, but I always wonder why.
Maybe its because the Welsh players were very accessible in comparison to English counterparts. Very ordinary blokes from very ordinary backgrounds.
At the time, the England/Wales game wasn't just a nation thing. It was a class thing.
Syria: Hit him hard
http://www.economist.com/printedition/covers/2013-08-29/ap-e-eu-la-me-na-uk
I'm starting to feel for Wee-Timmy....
Ahem. :-)
More Popcorn
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21584329-present-proof-deliver-ultimatum-and-punish-bashar-assad-his-use-chemical
Goldsmith says he has some "concerns" about the government's legal case.
For example, how does the government know that the chemical weapons was not the work of a rogue element in the Assad regime.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2013/aug/29/mps-debate-syria-live-blog
The idea that Assad can hide behind some junior officer is just absurd. He's not court-martialling anyone for perpetrating the atrocity without authority, is he?
I'm not surprised that the Syria attack is unpopular. It's inconsistent and of no benefit to anyone. If it's a punishment for misdeeds, then why ignore worse misdeeds elsewhere? It's like having a law that only applies to convenient villains.
I'm not a pacifist, but splatting only people you can, and probably aren't intending to splat us first, is playground bullying not courage.
"Newspoll: 9% swing in Sydney marginals
An 800-sample Newspoll survey supports an impression that Sydney alone stands to put victory beyond Labor’s reach."
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2013/08/30/newspoll-9-swing-in-sydney-marginals/
Difficult, but I fail to see how Cameron's slashing of the defence budget can be in Britain's interests, under any circumstances - in peace or war.
e.g. a youtube clip which doesn't prove anything as
- it might not be syria
- it might not be rebels
- it might not be chemical weapons
- who's going to film themselves firing chemical weapons
but still worth watching to see how there's no magic hi-tech reason any attack (if there was one) couldn't have come from the rebels. All they'd need is some captured shells and a guy who can read the manual to see to see where the fuses go, wait for Assad's mob to be shelling an area of the city and then lob some chemical shells in.
Result: one free US air force.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cbOZBODPU64
Not even middle-eastern despots go that far.
Row erupts after Labour leader moves to block early Commons vote on military action
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/29/syria-ed-miliband-succour-assad?CMP=twt_gu
(1) Preserving the credibility of the West's policeman - without the US the West as a whole is pretty powerless in military conflict
(2) Preserving the credibility of the international treaty against the use of chemical weapons
Those are two pretty big points.
Though if they wanted to play politics they would have said that f****** c*** and a copper-bottomed s***" Miliband is giving succour to Assad
Actually in the 70s 'Dai' Duckham was one of my favourite players.
As you say its a bit of a generalisation, but I still think rugby union right now is more relaxed and inclusive socially than it was in the 1970s or before that.
I remember being in the old east stand at Twickers in the 1980s and smiling at the tartan car rugs and thermos flasks....
When Wales scored their first points my mate and I stood up, and realised we were just about the only welshmen in the east stand.....
Certainly the expeditionary capabilities of the non-US nations are not that strong - though France and Britain retain some capacity - but again, what other countries have a comparable power to project force?
anne mcelvoy @annemcelvoy - If both Obama and JIC evidence on Syrian gassing isn't enough for Labour, can Ed Mil tell us what might suffice?
James Forsyth @JGForsyth - To stretch the Iraq analogy, Ed Miliband is now playing the role in the Tory whipping operation that France did in the Labour one in 2003
"Paul Goodman @PaulGoodmanCH 2m
Miliband's speech a weasel looking for a hole to vanish into. Shifty. Embarrassed. Labour traumatised by Iraq."
Paul Goodman the TORY MP?
Are we reduced to re tweeting criticisms of Ed from TORY MPs?
2) I didn't see you complaining when I posted one of his comments criticising Cameron last night
Don't they know I've got plans for this weekend.
Which is which is left as an exercise for the reader.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmagenda/ob130829.htm
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/news/2013/manuscript-amendment-29aug13.pdf
2) On Sunday, going to Liverpool to see Liverpool spank Man Ure at the Cathedral of Football, Anfield
Government Motion
That this House:
Deplores the use of chemical weapons in Syria on 21 August 2013 by the Assad regime, which caused hundreds of deaths and thousands of injuries of Syrian civilians;
Recalls the importance of upholding the worldwide prohibition on the use of chemical weapons under international law;
Agrees that a strong humanitarian response is required from the international community and that this may, if necessary, require military action that is legal, proportionate and focused on saving lives by preventing and deterring further use of Syria’s chemical weapons;
Notes the failure of the United Nations Security Council over the last two years to take united action in response to the Syrian crisis;
Notes that the use of chemical weapons is a war crime under customary law and a crime against humanity, and that the principle of humanitarian intervention provides a sound legal basis for taking action;
Notes the wide international support for such a response, including the statement from the Arab League on 27 August which calls on the international community, represented in the United Nations Security Council, to “overcome internal disagreements and take action against those who committed this crime, for which the Syrian regime is responsible”;
Believes, in spite of the difficulties at the United Nations, that a United Nations process must be followed as far as possible to ensure the maximum legitimacy for any such action;
Therefore welcomes the work of the United Nations investigating team currently in Damascus, and, whilst noting that the team’s mandate is to confirm whether chemical weapons were used and not to apportion blame, agrees that the United Nations Secretary General should ensure a briefing to the United Nations Security Council immediately upon the completion of the team’s initial mission;
Believes that the United Nations Security Council must have the opportunity immediately to consider that briefing and that every effort should be made to secure a Security Council Resolution backing military action before any such action is taken, and notes that before any direct British involvement in such action a further vote of the House of Commons will take place; and
Notes that this Resolution relates solely to efforts to alleviate humanitarian suffering by deterring use of chemical weapons and does not sanction any action in Syria with wider objectives.
If Farron comes over all sceptical and Labour supports the war...
Opposition Amendment
Line 1, leave out from ‘House’ to end and add
‘expresses its revulsion at the killing of hundreds of civilians in Ghutah, Syria on 21 August 2013; believes that this was a moral outrage; recalls the importance of upholding the worldwide prohibition on the use of chemical weapons; makes clear that the use of chemical weapons is a grave breach of international law; agrees with the UN Secretary General that the UN weapons inspectors must be able to report to the UN Security Council and that the Security Council must live up to its responsibilities to protect civilians; supports steps to provide humanitarian protection to the people of Syria but will only support military action involving UK forces if and when the following conditions have been met that:
(a) the UN weapons inspectors, upon the conclusion of their mission in the Eastern Ghutah, are given the necessary opportunity to make a report to the Security Council on the evidence and their findings, and confirmation by them that chemical weapons have been used in Syria;
(b) compelling evidence is produced that the Syrian regime was responsible for the use of these weapons;
(c) the UN Security Council has considered and voted on this matter in the light of the reports of the weapons inspectors and the evidence submitted;
(d) there is a clear legal basis in international law for taking collective military action to protect the Syrian people on humanitarian grounds;
(e) such action must have regard to the potential consequences in the region, and must therefore be legal, proportionate, time-limited and have precise and achievable objectives designed to deter the future use of prohibited chemical weapons in Syria; and
(f) the Prime Minister reports further to the House on the achievement of these conditions so that the House can vote on UK participation in such action, and that any such vote should relate solely to efforts to deter the use of chemical weapons and does not sanction any wider action in Syria.’.
@TelePolitics: Blog: Ed Miliband looked lightweight and out of his depth during Syria debate http://t.co/RtupQGP55D