Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
From conversations I've had, Tom was pretty much correct earlier on this thread - the original motion that DC and his cronies wanted was one that could have led directly to military intervention in alliance with the Yanks and the French and without waiting for the UN; Parliament was recalled on the basis of that, because DC had said that the government would not proceed to a new war/military action without first consulting and getting the backing of Parliament.
After meeting with Milliminor and Clegg, some of his back benchers, his ministers, etc. it must have become clear that such a course of action would not prosper, so the motion was reconstructed and watered down until Milliminor agreed to it in principal and no immediate, precipitate, military action was in prospect. This was the motion that DC and his Govt thought was inocuous enough to get cross house support and was then laid before the House and reproduced earlier in this thread.
If the announcement to recall Parliament had been held off until after the motion had actually been written, Parliament would not have been recalled. The motion, as presented, could easily have waited until Parliament was in ordinary session and I've heard a considerable number of MPs from all parties express a degree of disgruntlement that they were recalled for 'that' as they put it.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
For crying out loud!
We're not going to war against Syria.
GET OVER IT!
SWWood- Location: Dover
- Registered: 30 May 2012
- Posts: 261
Correct Alex. Whilst others tackle these atrocities carried out against civilians, we will turn a blind eye. Makes you proud to be British.
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Alexander - the whole point I have been making is that the motion before Parliament would not have taken us to war against Syria. It is odd in the extreme that anything that has been posted on this thread could be construed by you as someone, anyone, wishing to go to war and being disappointed that we are not and therefore needing to get over it as you put it.
For crying out loud
A yes vote last night would not have led to war.
No one wants a war against Syria
GET OVER IT
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
The House Rules, OK!
Gov. tried to take over, the House put Gov. in its place.
The House doesn't want this war
Not in our House
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
I heard the results with my own ears:
eyes to the right: 285
nose to the left 272
That's most final!
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
mr wood
You assume the Russians will stay in there box
These things can runway very quickly,
My self having 4 sons of military age I am very pleased we will not be involved.
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
In the meantime, Parliament voted no to condemnation of the use of chemical weapons, no to the stepping up of humanitarian aid and assistance and no to the use of legal means to prevent and deter further atrocities. Last night's vote has every appearance of being everything to do with party politics, poor leadership and miscontruction of the language of the motion and nothing to do with the mass murder, hardship and suffering of unarmed civilians.
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Alexander - another who does not read the evidence. The vote was not about going to war/launch military action, the motion before the House did not seek permission for war.
Just by the way - the 'Ayes' actually lost - they got less votes than the 'Noes' - the vote on the motion that was before Parliament.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
Yes Neil, quite. Omnishambles!
Nobody is coming out of this untainted by incompetence.
However, our doing anything along the lines suggested would have been disastrous. Mayhap, this embarrassment will lead to more fruitful diplomacy.
Politics for politics' sake...shameful.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
Only you believe this Neil
The yes vote was for wriggle room on going with the yanks
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
just watched john kerry give one of the more nauseating performances from a u.s. politician yet.
starts by saying the death toll is 1429, how he can be so exact is beyond me, then turns on the real vote winner by giving the numbers of children dead.
he clearly knows how to get things through congress/the senate.
to his credit he stopped short of holding an onion to his face.
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Keith - read the flipping motion and show me where it says that the House agrees to immediate action with our allies without further reference to the UN or a further vote in the House - no wriggle room in it to do ANYTHING before the UN inspectors' report AND another debate and vote in the House of Commons. If you choose to believe the misreporting in the press and the political spin being put on this shameful shambolic session, then more the fool you.
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
# 144.....¬¬A yes vote last night would not have led to war.``..........extremely naive.....
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
So Reg, you are saying that with a yes to last night's motion in their pocket, the government would have proceeded directly to military action in conjunction with the US and France without waiting for the UN or referring again to Parliament for a vote in support of any action as required by the motion?
Reg - not naive, pragmatic and well informed without political party bias. It is you who is ignoring the facts in favour of sticking to a party political line.
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
Vote yes not to go to war
Vote no not to go to war
Is this what your saying ?
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
basically yes keith a real storm in an egg cup, why they bothered with it is beyond me.
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
The motion is reproduced earlier in the thread and has exactly that result - read it yourself and tell me where it says we should launch a military action or a war without legal sanction by the UN and/or a further debate and vote in Parliament. The whole thing is shambolic.
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,888
Obviously a very poorly worded motion or maybe I should say cleverly worded, damned if you did, damned if you didn't.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
Very strange thing for a cabinet of the gifted to do , don't you think?
