JUST BREAKING: British MPs vote on government motion, opposition amendment on Syria

page: 1
37
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+4 more 
posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 04:23 PM
link   
British lawmakers have rejected a Labor amendment on that would have authorized the United Kingdom’s intervention in Syria, with a vote regarding a government motion underway.

Labour Amendment Scores:

Yes 220

No 332

Maj 112


DETAILS TO FOLLOW

rt.com...
edit on 29-8-2013 by deviant300 because: Sources Update



Edit: British Military Action against Syria was voted against therefore the British people don't want military action.
The British Armed Forces un the Med will most likely be returning home.
edit on 29-8-2013 by deviant300 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by deviant300
 


Now for the votes on military intervention, which I think will go the same way. Then I guess it's just a matter of when the first strikes will begin.

And the second vote hasn't passed 285-272, so I guess the US is going alone.


UK Prime Minister David Cameron tells MPs: "It's clear to me that the British parliament and the British people do not wish to see military action; I get that, and I will act accordingly."



www.bbc.co.uk...
edit on 29-8-2013 by DAZ21 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 04:36 PM
link   
The government just lost the vote, as expected.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 04:38 PM
link   
Let the propaganda commence



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Knobby
The government just lost the vote, as expected.
I actually thought it would go the other way!

Common sense prevails thankfully
:



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Mister_Bit
 


I'm sure they'll find a cop out. Once US or France strikes, they'll claim they are "obligated" to help their allies.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 04:41 PM
link   
So we wont be joining the planks in attacking Syria and getting into another war for the arms industry,oil,israelis and politicians who have shares or interest in the above.I think the 90% of the public against action might have scared some of the puppets to vote no.i still think Cameron will get his war one way or another.They always do.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 04:42 PM
link   
What a mess. Both the government & opposition motions defeated.

I guess the UK is opting out of this one, unless the mood changes over the weekned.

This is historically significant. It creates a division between USA & UK, the first major spat on defense matters since the US invasion of British Commonwealth nation Grenada in the 1980's.

Downing Street are briefing furiously against Labor leader Milliband. I don't wish to circumvent the ATS censor but this is relevant, he's variously being described by government spokesmen (on the public payroll) as a S*** or a F****** C**** .... Labor have complained to the Cabinet Office.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 04:44 PM
link   
Hey guys.. Question?

In America, the President can technically, and requiring some REAL creative logic on this specific situation, conduct war without Congressional approval or really, even notice for a short period. He has to notify within 48 hours, but not ask anyone's permission. He has to get authorization at 60 days or leave within a statutory 30 day window allowed for withdrawal of committed forces.

How does this work in the UK? This was a vote against...so how is it still pretty well assumed it's going to happen anyway? I understand a second vote it coming...but didn't this one mean anything?

- Confused Bunny



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Oh gosh there are 3 threads saying exact same things. Is it necessary to have 3 with the same breaking news??



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Do you really believe that is it? there will be more votes and I wouldnt rule out some other atrocity committed to ensure our involvement.. something stinks here.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 04:47 PM
link   
Before posting breaking news why cant people first read to see if its already been posted?...


I think that Cameron, tried his best and failed flat on his face.
edit on 29-8-2013 by FreedomEntered because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Horus12
 


I'm with you Horus, feels like the "calm before the storm"



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 04:55 PM
link   
Hi there,

I think another thing to look out for is News concerning the meeting of 5 of the permenant members of the UN.

A meeting of which Russia called.

All members walked... again.

ABC News Source

Another link with same info...

ADN News

They talk. They walk

The Nations are still at logger heads about taking action.

With the developments as stated by the OP, this may end up with the UK sitting this out, while USA & France carry out strikes.

BBC News link on topic.

Cameron has lost his bid. Any action will likely cause a party revolt.

The main cause of the vote loss was that the three page dosier handed out arguing the need for action mainly suggested Assad regime caused the attacks, saying it was "likely" Assads regime carried out the gas attacks.

There was no definate hard proof and a lot of the MP's don't want another attack carried out with little infomation (i.e. Iraq)

The current thoughts are that USA are going to release more intelligence on this also, to try and prove who was responsable.

eee.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 04:55 PM
link   
edit on 29/8/13 by Esrom Escutcheon Esquire because: Double trouble post.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 04:58 PM
link   
The House of Commons may have voted not to LEAD the strike with America, but I'll bet my last dollar that when in a few months time America asks for assistance the Brits will go. This time there are major players in the region, America has lit a firecracker they may not be able to handle.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by haveblue
 


The UK will probably have a "Support" role, such as flying bombs/supplies to Allied forces.

And moving SAS soldiers about, who'll sneak into Syria to get targets etc.

I think this role will grow if there is retaliation.


eee.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by wrabbit2000
 


The US Presidential system is in many ways a throwback to your last King George & the Royal Prerogative. In the same way that Queen Elizabeth is the UK Head of State & the military is hers, so that is the case with President Obama and the US military.

Over the years, Congress though has legislated to put certain obstacles in the way of the President to prevent him from engaging in long wars without their approval. That hasn't happened in UK because up until recently the government hasn't sought Parliamentary approval before going to war or taking military action. Instead the government exercises the Royal Prerogative, they act on behalf of Queen Elizabeth and order her military to do what they tell them. It was only in 2003 when Blair sought parliamentary approval for the Iraq war that the Brits tried to introduce democracy into their warmaking. And it's blown up in PM Cameron's face tonight.

Strictly speaking Cameron can still tell the military to go in using the Royal Prerogative but it'd cause much difficulty in Parliament.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by LeBombDiggity
 


Well said, that Frenchman


So, while it hasn't totally ruled us out of attending this beach party, it does make it look quite unlikely..



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Im glad were not going and im also glad tptb don't seem to have infiltrated our system completely..





new topics

top topics



 
37
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join