David Cameron loses Syria vote in Commons

Originally posted by deviant300
Okay so if the evidence from the UN investigators proves Assad Forces used Chems and that the US and UK intelligence released some intel to the world would this then turn tides.

Could the PM go for a second round of votes if this was the case or does this mean the UK military is nulled permanently.

Technically, the PM can still carry out military action - he had and has no need to seek authorisation from Parliament. He only did it as a courtesy but the power to deploy the UK Forces rests with the Royal Prerogative, which the PM exercises on behalf of the Queen.

While it would most likely be a political minefield if he did so, legally the vote the other day is not binding.

Originally posted by crazyewok
Leave the Americans to make this mistake

Of course...

Let the Americans make the mistake.

-SAP-

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by deviant300
Okay so if the evidence from the UN investigators proves Assad Forces used Chems and that the US and UK intelligence released some intel to the world would this then turn tides.

Could the PM go for a second round of votes if this was the case or does this mean the UK military is nulled permanently.

Technically, the PM can still carry out military action - he had and has no need to seek authorisation from Parliament. He only did it as a courtesy but the power to deploy the UK Forces rests with the Royal Prerogative, which the PM exercises on behalf of the Queen.

While it would most likely be a political minefield if he did so, legally the vote the other day is not binding.

You are quite correct legally. Its politically impossible though.

Unless the UK is attacked and they make that argument I don't see how this current government could survive blowing a raspberry to the parliament and the people like that.

In such circumstances, with near unanimous public outrage Milliband might think it worthwhile to push a no confidence motion.

reply to post by justwokeup


Oh, indeed. Cameron would have been better off taking action then merely advising Parliament afterwards..

Having said that, this is quite shrewd move by Cameron, it is Win-Win. If the strikes go Pete Tong, then he can say it was the right thing to do and he did Parliaments will, no harm done to his reputation. However, if they are successful in an way, he can make Milliband look like the plank he is for not supporting it. Either way, this won't harm Cameron in the slightest.

I actually think Milliband gambled wrong too. He and Labour voted against the motion, despite his support for something (typical Millband though, wishy washy) assuming the Tories would win it as they have the majority. He did not count on them losing with a big Tory rebellion, so now he has painted himself into a political corner with regards to this.

Also, about "public outrage", I think too many are comparing this to Iraq which is wrong.

This is more akin to Kosovo, Bosnia or Rwanda -the last two being occasions where we dithered about intervening and many, many people died.

Originally posted by stumason
Also, about "public outrage", I think too many are comparing this to Iraq which is wrong.

This is more akin to Kosovo, Bosnia or Rwanda -the last two being occasions where we dithered about intervening and many, many people died.

Why it ended up they way it did wasn't the deliberate choice of any party leader. Although, by accident almost, parliament has reflected the current national will :-)

Respect your opinion Stu but I actually don't think the Iraq comparison is wrong. This is all about rescuing the rebels, its just they cant say that out loud.

We need to go down the UN route if we are getting involved in military actions not related to defending ourselves or our allies. I'm unwilling to intervene on the side of the rebels. We need to learn that backing one group of villains over another isn't a good idea.

I recognise the 'rebels' are not homogenous. That there are some in the original FSA with noble democratic intentions. I feel sad for those people, but given who they are mixed up with and supported by, Im not willing to smash their opponents.

Let the Saudis do it if they want the Sunni Syria that badly.

Originally posted by justwokeup
Why it ended up they way it did wasn't the deliberate choice of any party leader. Although, by accident almost, parliament has reflected the current national will :-)

Quite - I suspect Cameron thought it would pass, as did Miliband - it backfired for both yet Cameron is now in a politically strong position, whereas Miliband is now left with no other avenue to go down.

Originally posted by justwokeup
Respect your opinion Stu but I actually don't think the Iraq comparison is wrong. This is all about rescuing the rebels, its just they cant say that out loud.

Perhaps, but the comparison with Bosnia or Kosovo in that case isn't far from the mark either. In fact, Kosovo is a much more analogous example than Iraq.

Originally posted by justwokeup
We need to go down the UN route if we are getting involved in military actions not related to defending ourselves or our allies. I'm unwilling to intervene on the side of the rebels. We need to learn that backing one group of villains over another isn't a good idea.

Indeed - my own personal opinion is that we should strike to rid both sides of any chemical weapons (and any victor in the conflict as well - god forbid the Islamists take charge with that stockpile) - we should then enforce a ceasefire between both sides to end the killing. That is the morally correct thing to do, rather than take sides.

Originally posted by justwokeup
I recognise the 'rebels' are not homogenous. That there are some in the original FSA with noble democratic intentions. I feel sad for those people, but given who they are mixed up with and supported by, Im not willing to smash their opponents.

Let the Saudis do it if they want the Sunni Syria that badly.

Quite - it's not like the Saudis or Qataris don't have the capability to strike themselves, they just want us to do the dirty work for them so they don't kick up the old Sunni vs Shia grudge match back home.

Originally posted by neformore

David Cameron loses Syria vote in Commons

www.bbc.co.uk

British MPs have voted against possible military action against Syria to deter the use of chemical weapons.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Too right.

Most of us Brits aren't happy with the idea of going against Syria, at least not until more investigations have taken place! Even then, we'd probably be better off keeping our noses out.

Wait till "Syria" send a few missiles over the 150 mile stretch of water to our base in Cyprus.. Then you will see the newly deployed Typhoon fighter squadron get involved.. Not to mention assets in Jordan *cough cough* and ships already in situe.. Seriously.. That vote was smoke and mirrors.

reply to post by EvanB


I did mention in one of the threads that an attack on British installations would give the green light to our involvement, so assuming the US use Akrotiri, then Syria would be quite within it's rights to send a SCUD over. As it is on British Sovereign territory, rather than Cyprus itself, this can be construed as an attack on the UK itself.

Originally posted by SloAnPainful

Originally posted by crazyewok
Leave the Americans to make this mistake

Of course...

Let the Americans make the mistake.

-SAP-

Well why should we jump of the cliff with the usa?

I believe that this has nothing to do with Syria, the Americans or the war going on out there. ' No one in their right mind trusts David Cameron and his government as far as we can throw them! It is as simple as that!!
I bet Samantha couldn't trust that man to put the rubbish out... and we are expected to trust him in a war, with his other misfits? I don't think so!!!

Originally posted by crazyewok

Originally posted by SloAnPainful

Originally posted by crazyewok
Leave the Americans to make this mistake

Of course...

Let the Americans make the mistake.

-SAP-

Well [color=gold] why should we jump of the cliff with the usa?

Well... that all depends on the landing... doesn't it.


Mike

Originally posted by happinness
I believe that this has nothing to do with Syria, the Americans or the war going on out there. ' No one in their right mind trusts David Cameron and his government as far as we can throw them! It is as simple as that!!
I bet Samantha couldn't trust that man to put the rubbish out... and we are expected to trust him in a war, with his other misfits? I don't think so!!!

Maybe this is part of it, a way to get rid of Cameron and usher in the next puppet, maybe Nigel Farrage....or someone even worse!

reply to post by DrHammondStoat

Hello DrHammondStoat,

My thoughts for the day ....

Sure... Cameron only want's to score brownie points with a general election on the horizon?!?!
He made a lot of cringe worthy speeches over the Olympics as if it was his idea. Always bragging about how wonderful us Brits are, when in reality he doesn't give a poo. If he was that enthusiastic about us, then why is he letting his ministers close down hospitals? making people homeless?

The Olympics spoke volume's when you think about it? The tories are only interested in the elite and what makes them feel that they have achieved. Now Cameron has had to backtrack, using the excuse that Parliament have made their feelings known. Now Mr Cameron let's sit down and discuss this properly like grown ups. If you had been in power at the height of the Ireland conflict, how would you have felt if another country wanted to put their number 10 boots in? No one want's to see people getting chemicals thrown over them or hurt. Then again Cameron and his tories will quite happily kill a fox for fun or happily stuff the turkey down their throats on xmas day while some poor sod with learning difficulties has lost his little two bed flat because he can't afford the bedroom tax!! The wonderful altruistic Mr Cameron .... such a nice man?

I can't wait to see the back of them, but then again the British public must take some of the responsibility for voting them in in the first place.

hx

Originally posted by happinness
reply to post by DrHammondStoat

 

Hello DrHammondStoat,

My thoughts for the day ....

Sure... Cameron only want's to score brownie points with a general election on the horizon?!?!
He made a lot of cringe worthy speeches over the Olympics as if it was his idea. Always bragging about how wonderful us Brits are, when in reality he doesn't give a poo. If he was that enthusiastic about us, then why is he letting his ministers close down hospitals? making people homeless?

The Olympics spoke volume's when you think about it? The tories are only interested in the elite and what makes them feel that they have achieved. Now Cameron has had to backtrack, using the excuse that Parliament have made their feelings known. Now Mr Cameron let's sit down and discuss this properly like grown ups. If you had been in power at the height of the Ireland conflict, how would you have felt if another country wanted to put their number 10 boots in? No one want's to see people getting chemicals thrown over them or hurt. Then again Cameron and his tories will quite happily kill a fox for fun or happily stuff the turkey down their throats on xmas day while some poor sod with learning difficulties has lost his little two bed flat because he can't afford the bedroom tax!! The wonderful altruistic Mr Cameron .... such a nice man?

I can't wait to see the back of them, but then again the British public must take some of the responsibility for voting them in in the first place.

hx

If you think a Labour government would not be pushing for exactly the same things you are mistaken. This is all being driven by the unravelling of long term Foreign Policy machinations planned in the FO. Long term plans and strategic alliances don't change when the Tories / Labour swap places.

Qatar and the Saudis would still be squawking and we'd still be dancing. The chess game continues regardless of the front man moving the pieces.

If you want change you have to elect a party willing to tip the chess board over and pick up the pieces.

reply to post by justwokeup

To think that Alan Johnson would have let Gary Mckinnon go with no remorse whatsoever?

Theresa May upset's the Police all the time and her local council many years ago over planning permission, yet it appears that she has a heart after all.
There's good and bad on both sides, but I guess you have to way up your own personal circumstances and what you feel you can handle, because politics isn't nice and certainly Politian's aren't nice. More reason to vote, but do your homework first!