No war without Commons Vote

Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab):

The House is deeply united on the humanitarian aid but deeply divided on the oversimplified view of the Foreign Secretary, who, on this complex civil war, could not bring himself to mention the al-Nusra Front, a jihadist group that is a vital part of the opposition. It has been accused of some of the most bloodthirsty massacres of civilians. Will he give an absolute guarantee that before we commit military equipment or personnel to Syria there will be a debate and a vote in this House, so that we can avoid repeating what we have done so often, which is in trying to punch above our weight we die beyond our responsibilities?

Mr Hague:

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has been listening carefully and will know that I have not announced or advocated sending military equipment or personnel. Of course we have conventions in this House, which he and I strongly support, about when we take decisions in the House, and we will observe all those. He will have to decide, given his long concern for humanitarian issues, whether it would be right to be static in the face of this situation. That is the alternative to what I have described. Everybody across the House is rightly concerned about the humanitarian situation, but I do not believe it is responsible for policy to sit still in the face of a rapidly worsening situation.

THE CONVENTION MENTIONED BY WILLIAM HAGUE IS THE 2003 PRECEDENT OF THE VOTE BEFORE THE IRAQ WAR

Comments

[Paul Flynn]

The Iraq vote was significant. 139 Labour MPs voted against a three line whip. I wonder how many Tories will rebel on Leveson tomorrow?

on changing the meaning or words, have a look in previous post of Ed Davey's fascinating definition of subsidy.

[Ad]

It sounds like the government do not know what to do. I only have questions.

*Why get involved at all? Are other European governments and America getting involved?

*Is this like Libya where the government decides it wants to see the regime toppled? I do not know but neither does William Hague seem to know.

I don't see the regime in Syria going away any time soon. In Libya the rebels had full NATO support. Why is this different? Perhaps because Libya was strategically important in terms of the imperialist powers determination to control North Africa and the Sahara.

I find it strange that Hague feels the need for British involvement. What is the desired outcome? Obviously we all wish there was peace in Syria. Perhaps if the rebels are this determined then they should get support, however, are these rebels Islamic extremists?

[HuwOS]

"THE CONVENTION MENTIONED BY WILLIAM HAGUE IS THE 2003 PRECEDENT OF THE VOTE BEFORE THE IRAQ WAR"

So that'd be the convention that the opposition vote overwhelmingly in favour of whatever illegal wrong headed and idiotic proposal the government puts forward and help the government carry the day over it's own backbench revolt.

At least Hague recognises the company his foreign policy shares.

[HuwOS]

Hague is every bit as good at redefining words to suit his purpose as the previous and current US administrations are and as Tony Blair was.
Apparently armoured vehicles and body armour supplied to one side of a war don't count as military equipment, because they in themselves are non lethal (presumable exception being if you drive an armoured vehicle over people)
It is of course as valid as the claim that torture isn't torture unless the pain experienced is equal to death.

The trick is the same, all you do is redefine the word you're using to a meaning that isn't usually applied to it and then stand by your words and/or stake your reputation on your good intentions.
The staking of reputation only seems to be done by people whose reputation wouldn't attract any buyers at any price.