David Cameron loses Syria vote in Commons

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)

A rare piece of common sense here from the UK Government.

I'm suprised - I thought he Tory's and Lib Dems would have whipped this through - it looks like it was an actual open vote.

The question is this - will the US follow suit or will Obama decide to act unliaterally - and is this a turning point in western intervention in the middle east?

www.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

GOOD

I'm a little worried though, whenever we hear common sense from that lot there's usually a motive.

I too am so glad to see common sense has prevailed, for now at least.

Im shocked to see it was such a close vote. Im sure it wont take too much propaganda to swing that vote around though.

So I guess they will be voting again at some point in the not too distant future.

Maybe after some better "frame up jobs".

reply to post by neformore


I don't think they can whip something like this, MP's will vote according to their conscience (with an eye on the elections too....) regardless of what the Chief Whip says.

I am rather surprised though that they rejected the motion to authorise force if the UN confirmed chemical weapons were used. What Parliament has effectively done is said the UK will allow such weapons to be used, something I am not happy about.

reply to post by neformore


Im suprised this wasn't pushed through. I know a lot of tory and labour MPs threatened to quit if they were whipped into a vote. Personally i think the whole process of whipping with mps and votes is abhorent and totally goes against the spirit of democracy anyway. Im glad this has been defeated.

Originally posted by neformore
The question is this - will the US follow suit or will Obama decide to act unliaterally - and is this a turning point in western intervention in the middle east?

Don't forget the French and you never know, the Turks might give Assad a kick, although losing the UK's support is probably a more bitter blow to the Americans as we're seen as their right hand man (lacky)

Leave the Americans to make this mistake

reply to post by Megatronus


Agreed on that matey, it is not actually a Parliamentary procedure anyway, it's all internal Party stuff and as you said, totally against the principle of an open Parliament. The only reason any MP obeys the whip is so he can not get ruled out for a cushy ministerial job at some point..

Here in Canada, Harper has announced today that we won't be participating in any military intervention regarding Syria. Now, Cameron. This could be a turning point and a good one at that !

What is U.S. to do? Unilateral intervention? I doubt it.

It leaves a new U.N. resolution to come around after the inspectors return. We'll see...

But these actions today are positive steps.

Forgive my ignorance on middle East issues...

But shouldn't the Arab League be dealing with these kind of things, and not the Western World.

news.sky.com...

This is interesting to read too. Its true and something i overlooked at first when i read about the defeat. This is the first time the UK has told the US no. Usually they say jump and we say "what resources do you wan't". I wonder what this means for cameron now. This defeat must be utterly humiliating for him.

reply to post by Knobby


They are either to weak or spineless to do it themselves, plus it would probably open up their own Sunni/Shia divides back home. The Saudis and Qataris have been funding and arming the rebels though...

reply to post by Megatronus

I wonder what this means for cameron now. This defeat must be utterly humiliating for him.

Hmmm...now imagine this guy...





I bet he didn't see that one coming...

reply to post by Knobby


The middle east countries are dealing with it, by running to thier enforcer (US) and asking them to wade in. In all seriousness, the arab world should be dealing with it. If only they could stop fighting each other over slightly different interpritations of the qu'ran, then they maybe would be able to deal with it. Maybe even stabalise the entire region while they are at it.

Originally posted by Megatronus
news.sky.com...

This is interesting to read too. Its true and something i overlooked at first when i read about the defeat. This is the first time the UK has told the US no. Usually they say jump and we say "what resources do you wan't". I wonder what this means for cameron now. This defeat must be utterly humiliating for him.

Not exactly. Wilson refused to get involved in Vietnam and Major refused assistance in Somalia.

Defence Sec has just confirmed there will be no British military intervention in Syria. Great news. First time the UK have ever said no to the US on foreign policy issues. Will hopefully put pressure on Obama to at least take it to congress.

reply to post by mirageman


Both very good decsions.


Either it shows the Yanks cant win a war without Britain or Britains good at picking its fights.

Originally posted by Knobby
Forgive my ignorance on middle East issues...

But shouldn't the Arab League be dealing with these kind of things, and not the Western World.

The Arab League has been running around in circles for the last two years, like that 'Oh Noes' gif. They'll posture and bluster and then not do a damn thing except schedule another meeting.

something tells me that the war mongers will not give up they want their pound of flesh and will have it