UK Parliament Syria Vote Defeated
Source: Guardian UK
The nos have it. 272-285
The British government lost a crucial vote in the UK parliament that was designed to pave the way for military strikes in Syria.
Cameron spoke after losing the vote. It sounded like he was conceding that the UK would not participate in any US-led strike on Syria.
"While the house has not passed a motion, it is clear to me that the British parliament, reflecting the will of the British people, does not want to see military action."
He says he'll respect that.
[hr][hr]
AP: UK PRIME MINISTER CAMERON LOSES SYRIA WAR VOTE
LONDON (AP) -- British Prime Minister David Cameron has lost a vote endorsing military action against Syria by 13 votes, a stunning defeat for a government which had seemed days away from joining the U.S. in possible attacks to punish Bashar Assad's regime over an alleged chemical weapons attack.
Thursday evening's vote was nonbinding, but in practice the rejection of military strikes means Cameron's hands are tied. In a terse statement to Parliament, Cameron said it was clear to him that the British people did not want to see military action.
THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_BRITAIN_SYRIA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-08-29-17-43-07
Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/29/syria-crisis-iran-says-all-efforts-must-be-made-to-prevent-military-action-live
muriel_volestrangler
(101,153 posts)"The government has lost by 285 votes to 272 - a majority of 13."
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)go west young man
(4,856 posts)Miley Cyrus update out.
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)UK government motion on Syria intervention defeated in parliament http://rt.com/news/uk-parliament-vote-syria-181/
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)It is beginning to seem that all we and our allies have done so far is to elevate Assad to the level of an underdog bad boy. He is nowhere near to becoming a counter culture hero, but let the missiles start flying and even that may come to pass.
It is clearly time to back off a bit and reform, despite the urgency with which some of our Middle Eastern allies may demand an immediate attack.
John2
(2,730 posts)to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey of course, along with Israel. Some Middle Eastern Allies indeed.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)With the addition on Jordan and Kuwait, all of the Middle Eastern allies you mention here are indeed urging us to attack.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,153 posts)The leaders of the Arab world have blamed the Syrian government for a chemical weapons attack that killed hundreds of people last week, but declined to back a retaliatory military strike, leaving President Barack Obama without the broad regional support he had for his last fresh military intervention in the Arab world - in Libya in 2011.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/middle-east/arab-league-refuses-to-back-military-strike-on-syria-1.1508030
Pope, Jordanian king say dialogue only hope in Syria
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Israel, of course, and to a lesser extent Turkey, are more up front and public about it. However, it is an open secret that all the Arab nations mentioned would like to see Assad removed from power. The money and weapons they have given to Syrian rebels testifies to that.
They may prefer that it be done under a UN Security Council blessing, but they want Assad gone.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,153 posts)on Syria. That's what this vote has been about, really.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)There is indeed a considerable difference. There is also a considerable difference between official, public statements and private policy initiatives.
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)UN Security Coucil is not rushing to judgement,either.
Envoys from the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China gathered on Thursday afternoon at UN headquarters in New York. The meeting was called by the Russian delegation, and ended with no statement from the participants.
A similar meeting on Wednesday ended after more than an hour with no agreement.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/08/2013829175841960446.html
(This was written before the MP vote in London)
Celefin
(532 posts)"With some 30 Labour MPs absent, it was Tory ones that sunk Cameron this evening."
"Worth pointing out how historic this is. British has been subservient to US foreign policy since Suez in 1956. A big moment"
(Guardian politics live)
God it's good to see some democracy and MPs acting on what they feel is right, not along what the party tells them.
A big moment, indeed.
John2
(2,730 posts)the French Government would vote on this issue? Polls show they are against it too. Our own Government is bought and payed for.
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)Defence Secretary Philip Hammond confirmed that Britain would not be involved in any military action against the Assad regime - but said it would probably go ahead in any case.
"I expect that the US and other countries will continue to look at responses to the chemical attack.
"They will be disappointed that Britain will not be involved. I don't expect that the lack of British participation will stop any action."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23892783
Germany wasn't particularly interested and elsewhere you'll find France is having second thoughts.
Red line here . Do with it as you please.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)And rarely read.
Clearly a line
Though not aligned.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)former9thward
(31,802 posts)Last edited Thu Aug 29, 2013, 06:53 PM - Edit history (1)
Only 9% support intervention in Syria. Will Congress and the administration support the people? Let's take a break from our never ending war with Asia.
jakeXT
(10,575 posts)yoloisalie
(55 posts)Civilization2
(649 posts)David__77
(23,218 posts)And the nominally Democratic elites that want to bamboozle us into another war, in a haphazard and illegal fashion would not just endanger the Obama presidency, but the whole Democratic Party. Throw in the fact that this would be giving aid and comfort to the sworn enemies of the US, and you have a terrible scenario indeed.
David__77
(23,218 posts)Obama better pay attention!
John2
(2,730 posts)intelligence these days. They have all the information and we have to do as told by the elites.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)jessie04
(1,528 posts)Now every piss-poor dictator will resort to chemical weapons.
And biologic and nuclear won't be far behind.
David__77
(23,218 posts)...
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)It's been a pretty small club until now, the WMD users that is.
jessie04
(1,528 posts)another_liberal
(8,821 posts)We have, by our entitled attitudes and entitled actions, set the bar rather low, haven't we?
Nihil
(13,508 posts)We all know which "piss-poor dictator" resorted to nuclear weapons.
So, have fun when J. Random Stranger decides to "punish" (=murder, & maim)
the civilians of *your* nation because he wants to waggle his dick for his
masters back home ...
(*) of which there is more evidence to tie to your previous president than
there is to tie the largest chemical attack in recent years to Syria's president.
totodeinhere
(13,036 posts)compel Cameron to resign? Shouldn't it be interpreted as a vote of no confidence in his government?
muriel_volestrangler
(101,153 posts)or, I think, the rejection of a budget.
totodeinhere
(13,036 posts)were shouting "resign."
obxhead
(8,434 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,153 posts)idwiyo
(5,113 posts)Civilization2
(649 posts)Will the US go it alone,. and bomb anyway?
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)It would be a foreign relations disaster which might take decades to recover from if we do.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)In answer to your question. See my post #39 below.
http://rt.com/news/uk-parliament-vote-syria-181/
Supersedeas
(20,630 posts)BillyRibs
(787 posts)You have reasonable representation in a lower house of government. 1-93,000. Un-like the US House of representatives, 1-750,000. no wonder GB seems to be getting more and more sane.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Last edited Thu Aug 29, 2013, 10:30 PM - Edit history (1)
Divernan
(15,480 posts)[blockquote
The vote came just before US President Barack Obama was scheduled to meet with congressional lawmakers and other key leaders to brief them on possible military action in Syria. White House deputy spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters Thursday that the US was prepared to go it alone in Syria to protect American core national security interests.
The president of the United States is elected with the duty to protect the national security interests of America, he said. The decisions he makes about our foreign policy is with our national security interests front and center.
Doug Brandow, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, told The Guardian that caution has grown within the Obama administration. I think theyve found over the last couple of days both a lack of support at home, both among the American people and Congress, and then they look internationally and suddenly they dont feel quite so surrounded by friends, he said.
http://rt.com/news/uk-parliament-vote-syria-181/
quadrature
(2,049 posts)blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)"Commentators said it was the first time a British prime minister had lost a vote on war since 1782."
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/08/30/uk-syria-crisis-britain-idUKBRE97S0IL20130830
Posted because the headline sums it up well. We mugged off on Iraq - never again.