SWWood- Location: Dover
- Registered: 30 May 2012
- Posts: 261
But it wasn't poorly worded, it was clear. On top of that, Cameron dealt with numerous interventions during the debate yesterday, dealing specifically with the issue of whether this motion would provide permission to go to war. He could not have been clearer that it did not. I see no way that anyone who has read the motion, or listened to the debate, could interpret this any other way.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
So what was the point of asking for permission not to go to war?
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
One Editorial comment so far......
Syria crisis: It's usually the MPs who are gung-ho for going to war...
David Cameron is the first PM blocked by the legislature from embarking on a military adventure
There is no precedent in British history for Parliament preventing a Prime Minister from going to war.
For Parliament even to want to prevent a war is rare enough: in more cases than not, when war clouds
have loomed MPs have been gung-ho for military action - often more so than the ministers who
faced the responsibility of sending young men to their deaths.
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
The British people do not want to go to war
Not fore Belgium Poland or Sirea
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
you've broken records here keith, 164 posts and 1876 viewings since you started this thread 4 days ago.
goes to show that dover is not a backwater oblivious to what goes on in the wider world.
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
People do not want war Howard
If only politicians listened to the people
All weapons of mass destruction come from intelligent educated people
Not tom the bricky
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Reg, quoting the press who are misreporting from a position of spin. Try using the source material to quote something from the motion that would have led us into war/military action without reference to the UN Security Council AND another debate and vote in Parliament.
On the basis of the actual evidence, the editorial you quote is, at best, misguided and, at worst, deliberately misleading. Only people who have not read the motion and did not listen to the debate would/could believe that the Govt were blocked from going to war by yesterday's vote. They were not even asking for permission to go to war and whatever the outcome of last night's vote we would not be launching a military action/war.
But as a result of yesterday's vote, Parliament has failed (as a body) to condemn the use of chemical weapons, boost humanitarian assistance or support a strong position or approach to the issue when the UN Security Council dicuss the UN inspectors' reports.
Paddy Ashdown put it quite well earlier today "a good day for Parliament - maybe; a good day for the Government - no; a good day for Britain - absolutely not!"
Guest 782- Registered: 4 Oct 2012
- Posts: 357
Reading your post Neil just serves to underline my belief that these politicos are no better in Westminster dealing with a motion for or against, than our sheep at DTC dealing with whether or not we should have toilets open on the seafront!
On dear
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Let's get this out of the toilet pan:
last night, the House of Commons saw a majority of MPs seeing through a false motion, false in its wording and intent.
They saw a motion stating that only if Assad used chemical weapons was this unacceptable. It was clearly written in the motion. Nowhere did it say: ANYONE using chemical weapons.
Those who voted NO realised also that top people in various western governments had already decided that "the Assad regime" (meaning the government of Syria), had used chemical weapons no matter what the UN would state, before the UN had even completed their preliminary investigations.
They understood that Britain was being told to bomb Al Qaeda to power in Syria so Al Qaeda could then add hundreds of thousands of new recruits from half the world to the tens of thousands they have already recruited from half the world, including passport holders from London.
To then train and instruct these to carry the Jihad of bombs "back" to the West and create havoc.
We as British People had already made clear in our vast majority that we're not going along with a war against Syria, the majority of MPs who voted brought this message home.
We are an Island Nation, we've isolated ourselves from sheer madness and now we shall sit back and sip our cups of Naafi tea and half-roasted coffee, and get on with our lives, sort our own mess out and make sure that these Al Qaeda nut-cases don't cross our Shores. If they tried it, we'd defend ourselves.
Full Stop.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
Its so sad seeing all the kids.I do not know if it is a good thing or a bad thing that the UK is not going in with the USA. But there must be away of stoping what is going on if only they would get around the table and talk to each other and try to work with each other to find away to stop it all and rebuild. Sooner or later unless they kill all that live there they will have to talk, but all very sad.:
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Well certainly things have moved on at speed since my last look in on this thread,
it looks like even on this thread thoughts are divided.
My view fits in with many others,,
Taking some of the views, I go along with PETER if the cobbled together mouse had no intention of going to war, or military action, then why go through all this recalling MP;s,
Without doubt Charlie will be damaged by his vote, but im sure as DAVID says he has his eye on promotion now or soon
but to support the MOUSE is no credible way forward as it's the people who elect you, not the mouse
And he might regret that vote come the next election.
The Mouse really went in to this recall thinking he was to win this vote, but after talking to cleggy and milly it became clear
he wasn't going to get an easy ride.
I still believe he was under the impression he was going to win the vote.
But if that was the case he wasn't listening to the many conservative MP's telling him they were unhappy.
I'm certain had he won the vote he would have moved forward much more quickly, and maybe this jolt will help us
understand and make sure we have all the facts.
Why go for this permission before we have the results of the UN who the mouse supported going in to get feedback.
Was the mouse being pushed by the USA for quicker action?
It looks like the USA are likely over the next 48 hours to take action(whatever that may be)
So whilst the mouse is seriously wounded, ED didn't come out of this much better, his amendment whilst maybe applaudable in trying to stem the tide and highlight to stop the rush,
it failed to be clear, and how it would make any difference to the original motion by the mouse.
When pressed milly wouldn't rule out military action either.
I thought CLEGGY summing up(which surprized me as the MOUSE was there) was so poor in content that the few Tories that needed to be talked round, would have made up there mind to vote against after cleggys poor summing up.
This is another story that will run and run
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
Neil,we have flogged this to death.My final opinion / view but not contribution.
Having written many motions,they can from time to time,allow,once approved to be very flexible
with action taken.When the civil servants add their `master pieces`you could commit murder and
get away with it.
If the UK Parliament had voted yes to this motion the world and its brother especially messrs
Cameron,Obama etc,etc would have had a clearer run at Military Action.....an act of war.
As it happens the UK opinion has less value on world affairs than in the past.
There will be MILITARY ACTION.
Anyone who has experience / knowledge of the ME and FE will tell you the aftermath of such
action will be far reaching.Politics is a nasty business.
Have a peaceful weekend.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
neil
a parliamentary motion is not needed to send humanitarian aid to syria and just as importantly neighbouring jordan who flooded out with refugees.
SWWood- Location: Dover
- Registered: 30 May 2012
- Posts: 261
A
howard mcsweeney1 wrote:neil
a parliamentary motion is not needed to send humanitarian aid to syria and just as importantly neighbouring jordan who flooded out with refugees.
A motion was sought to condemn the use of chemical weapons on civilians, and call for a strong humanitarian response. It may not be required, but that is no excuse to reject it!
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
Courtesy Guardian............
France expected to replace UK as key US ally in Syria intervention
François Hollande reaffirms resolve to 'punish' Damascus over chemical weapons as he prepares
for talks with Barack Obama
The French president, François Hollande, who is not constrained by a parliamentary vote before
he can launch an attack on Syria.
France looked likely on Friday to replace Britain as the US's key ally in the international response
to the use of chemical weapons in Syria, as Barack Obama and François Hollande were due to hold
what the latter called in-depth talks with "all options on the table".
In an interview with Le Monde, Hollande reaffirmed his resolve to "punish" Damascus over an attack
that he said had caused irreparable harm to the Syrian people.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Hi SW WOOD it appears that eveb prominent conservative back benchers and big wigs within the conservative had real concerns over the intentions of the mouse
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
Courtesy Guardian............
France expected to replace UK as key US ally in Syria intervention
François Hollande reaffirms resolve to 'punish' Damascus over chemical weapons as he prepares
for talks with Barack Obama
The French president, François Hollande, who is not constrained by a parliamentary vote before
he can launch an attack on Syria.
France looked likely on Friday to replace Britain as the US's key ally in the international response
to the use of chemical weapons in Syria, as Barack Obama and François Hollande were due to hold
what the latter called in-depth talks with "all options on the table".
In an interview with Le Monde, Hollande reaffirmed his resolve to "punish" Damascus over an attack
that he said had caused irreparable harm to the Syrian people.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
It may well have been good to step back, get all the facts first
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Reg, and there's the nub of it - measuring others by the stick with which one measures oneself. If you had written that motion and got it passed, you would have gone to war without waiting for the UN Security Council and a further debate and vote in the House of Commons. Says more about you, the current Labour Party leadership in the House and the rebels than it does about the Mouse, his cohorts or the other party. I'll remember.
There is a high likelihood that there will be some form of military action soon, but that, in any circumstances, would not be taking place with the involvement of the UK on the basis of the motion that was not passed by Parliament.
I am glad that the UK will not be involved in military action at this time (I also have a son of Military age), but sad that the House did not see fit to vote on the motion that was before it and voted instead on something that was not in the motion.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Of course the house was recalled by the mouse as he wanted to get this vote through and go for a second vote early next week to give him what he would call credibility to go to war.
He failed as has been reported above,
no more so than his poor presentation and wanting to rush to please the USA.
Whilst the French may have a leader that can do whatever he pleases, and probably will do
although Cameron could do the same he recognises the vote has wounded him, he now needs to sit back a bit. watch things develop, trouble now is if it goes to another vote after the UN inspectors have reported back, he may have trouble convincing his party.
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS