Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive- that was yesterday’s dawn.
Now that Parliament has to be consulted on any war matter, we are changed. No more adventurism by Prime Ministers Using (misusing) the Royal Prerogative.
Imagine getting permission for a Nuclear Strike!
For many years I have advocated that it is in Britain’s interest to decommission its nuclear weapons and reduce its armed forces to those necessary for protection of the home islands. Then we can retreat into the company of Scandinavia and Holland, Germany and Italy, Spain and Portugal, that have no illusions about their standing in the world.
Let the European Commission take on the French and British seat on the Security Council, admit Brazil, and India, Indonesia and Japan as well- with vetoes.
I going to ask for a cite on that. I can see that David Cameron has made a rod for his own back in relation to Syria but surely any for any future PM the position will presumably be reset and the RP will be available … I don’t see what Cameron did as setting an unavoidable precedent, and certainly not entrenching anything in law.
The UK is a major trading nation and as such its interests cover the trade routes that have a strategic bearing on its economy. It is a player on the world stage, not simply a regional power. Same as other major trading nations whose economies are based on trade, though they may choose to promote their interests through money and diplomacy. Being able to assert military assets is a strength that the UK has that many other nations do not. Eg. Germany and Japan.
The political system is designed to be capable of reacting to sudden events and this involves contraction of executive power into the hands of Prime Minister. The rest of the time, it is the usual party political debate.
Of course, we had Blair abuse this process over Iraq…I am sure we all learnt something from that. Without that recent history Cameron would have had a much easier time.
This is a contention between the power of the executive and the power of the rest of the parliament. Due to recent history the executive has a much bigger job of convincing the parliament that war is necessary because no-one believes the intelligence any more.
There is significant doubt over the culpability of Assad or parts of his regime in the poison gas attack. So Cameron lost the vote. However, it is quite conceivable that if the evidence were stronger, he could have won.
With respect to the UN and the Security council. That deserves a separate question.
Is this vote the end? Might there be another vote, after more evidence is available, and might that vote swing the other way? Heard that there was a reasonable possibility of that happening on the US news the other day, but not sure if it was accurate.
Much British Administrative Law goes by precedent. Cameron said that after the Iraq fiasco he would ask Parliament before involving British forces in future interventions. It would be a brave PM now who would try to use the Royal Prerogative, especially if the general opinion in the country was against it.
Unless something seismic occurs in UK politics I can see a succession of minority and coalition governments. Not enough people love Conervative of Labour and too many are willing to vote for any party that is ‘none of the above’- SNP, UKIP, Pc, Greens and even the LibDems once they have served out their shame for a parliament.
The Grand Coalitions that were the Conservative and Labour parties have been shattered.
And if (IF!?) a Labour or Labour/LibDem Government is returned, Proportional representation will change the picture completely. It is in the interests of both parties as there is a natural left of centre majority in the UK, but the system returns Conservative administrations becasue of the fear factor about Labour and its left. If coalitions were guaranteed, the Conservatives would be lucky to form one Government in four- much as it took 13 years of Labour before they snuck back in by a whisker.
The government of the day can bring another motion to a vote in Parliament in theory. Another substantive vote on intervention in Syria seems remarkably unlikely any time soon - losing the vote this week was a mere ball hair away from being a confidence vote. Of course, if circumstances change, then the mood of the electorate and thus of Parliament may change too.
I think this situation is perhaps a left-over effect of the Iraq debacle - it’s something that still weighs heavy on many minds. “What does winning look like?” is the question that is often asked. Everyone wants to punish whoever used chemical weapons, but there’s no clear path to doing that. So…
Well, would you believe it- Obama is going to Congress for support. Maybe this democracy thing is catching. Of the people, by the people, for the people.
Um…you do realize that Bush went to Congress and got approval for Afghanistan and Iraq, right? I’m not sure why you see this as a change for Obama to do the same. I’m happy for you that the UK stayed out of it. I wish you joy of the outcome.
The size of the Armed forces is irrelevant in terms of power projection of those forces into the world stage, the army is comparable size of the mid 19th century and in that time we were number one in the world. The aircraft carriers haven’t been scrapped, they’re currently in production and one of them will be mothballed.
As for the desire for decline, why, may I ask? You may bring the examples of health care and education budgets or social welfare policies, however, having a capable military gives the country the ability to defend its possessions and considering we’re an island nation, a strong naval based military is to be desired, especially considering the last time we were caught unprepared (The Falklands)
I think people on the left are looking at this and comparing it as a Suez mark II, it isn’t and shouldn’t be thought of as such, this is much more comparable to Harold Wilson saying no to involvement in Vietnam (though on a much less grander scale) than anything else and if anything this rejection of a Syrian airstrike is a much needed boost to us being able to say NO at least once to US requests for us to be in lockstep with them, but that’s all.
I don’t think any politician will endure much flak from staying out of the quagmire that is the Syrian civil war.
Quite aside from many factions fighting each other and the influence neighbouring states backing one side or another. The international response is muted by a UN hamstrung by the Russian and Chinese veto at the security council. The western powers led by the US have little appetite for another imbroglio in the Middle East that could cost the participants dearly.
The humanitarian case can be addressed by supporting refugees through the UNHCR until the participants grow war weary and their foreign backers cut their losses.
Cameron in the UK did not marshal his party to swing this vote. I suspect Obama might do the same. Both can retreat from the issue claiming their respect for the democratic process forces them to accept the decision. The authority of both nations will be tarnished as mass murders are seen to go unanswered. But that is as much a consequence of the painful mistakes of their predecessors of the current leaders.
But I don’t think any member of the international community of nations is going to come out of this with anything to be proud of except the neighbouring countries like Turkey and Jordan that give shelter to the masses of refugees.
How bad does it have to get before intervention is justified? The record is not good. The international community has seen many genocides and done little avert them.
Obama is damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t take action and a talk of red lines was not the wisest move.
And have all the other armed forces remained the same size? The Royal Navy could fit in a bath-tub and we’re many years from having an aircraft carrier with planes flying off it.
The Army has been cut yet again on the fantasy belief that part-time soldiers will make up the difference. The Territorial Army or whatever they call themselves nowadays is screaming about recruitment and retention crises as people figure out what they might be letting themselves in for.
I’m hoping this is a turning point for us - one where we finally concede we’re a small regional power with no world pretentions any more. For at least 2 decades now our ‘world role’ has been to provide an international fig leaf for the USA.
Makes no military difference if we’re present or not with our handful of soldiers, handful of planes and handful of ships.
Let the Libya escapade be our world stage swansong.
My reading is that by next weekend, there will be a majority in the house for some [limited] action. Assuming O’bama gets his way in Congress, and with more accurate and believable evidence appearing, a re-run in the H of P is a possibility.
Why do we have to be a ‘small regional power?’ It’s pretty damn demoralising to hear people like you denigrating our power projection, not everything we’ve done before Iraq was a disaster, and I don’t think it should be welcomed either, we should retain military capabilities for if in an emergency would help us retain our national independence in military affairs.
I could describe this as lack of self esteem in our national psyche, but this timid withdrawn kind of attitude to world affairs at large is becoming a problem.
Size is irrelevant in terms of force multipliers, and I’m not advocating a bigger army or navy for the sake of it, or even intervention in Syria (Which I’m against) however I am objecting about this general attitude of malaise within British society about our standing in World affairs.
Not even a tiny risk. Good grief, after all this time you really don’t know our system at all, do you?