Nick Clegg has told the BBC that there will be no second vote in Westminster on military intervention in Syria. He said:
I don’t think there’s any point in us going back to parliament asking the same question… so we have no plans to do that.
Meanwhile, Boris Johnson has called for a second vote after US revealed new evidence about the use of sarin gas. Nick Clegg responded by saying that he didn’t need any additional persuading to take the position he did, given the evidence he had already seen.
* Newshound: bringing you the best Lib Dem commentary in print, on air or online.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Latest PollBase is out, with all the British voting intention polls since the 1930s
Weekly Road Report - West End Ward #dundeewestend
A remarkable politician
Well done Planting Up Sunniside
Reform UK councillor was 'pen pal' of top Al Qaeda terrorist who masterminded 9/11
Peter Hirst
David Evans
Brenda Will
14 Comments
Then personally I think he has failed again. This time to understand the worries that many expressed on Thursday. Which was not that no action should ever happen, but that the ham fisted motion and the opposition amendment bounced people into accepting all sorts of premises for action that are/were not proven but that could easily be used in the second promised debate to shut down any opposition. “The house has already agreed that Asad used the weapons, that as a result punitive retaliation would be legal…” and so on.
The British public is hugely against any intervention in the Syrian civil war, and as far as can be ascertained under any circumstances unless British national security is threatened. Shouyldn’t parliament reflect that?
I wouldn’t of totally ruled out a second vote, based on new evidence and significantly changed circumstances, both in terms of events in Syria and within the UN.
I find it interesting that not only is Congress now going to vote on US involvement, but that the French government are now also pushing for a vote… it does seem that in this instance the UK has shown what democracy really means…
Yes I accept that people will die in Syria, however we should not forget the hard lessons from our nation’s journey to Parliamentary democracy…
I thought from the previous threads that there was agreement that ‘punitive strikes’ against Assad – even if he did authorise the chemical attacks – would not help in the primary objective of finding a peaceful settlement in Syria and may very well cause an escalation to the conflict. Also that it is the Russians and others who are best placed to find a settlement.
I would be interested to know from anyone supporting strikes – in any circumstances – how they believe they would help a resolution to the conflict.
“I don’t think there’s any point in us going back to parliament asking the same question… so we have no plans to do that.”
But it wouldn’t be the same question. The questions which were ‘asked’ in Parliament last week were both (Labour’s and Coalition’s) pretty irrelevant to the actual taking of any action since they both required another vote. Nor, if the matter were debated again, would there be the same information available and different things would have happened in between ie a different situation.
Perhaps the question raised by John Roffey above might even get addressed if there were another debate. What types of intervention over what timescale would be likely to influence events the way we wanted and with what potential downsides?
Tony, I disagree they were not relevant. They were hamfisted. They asked parliament a priori to agree, note and believe that Assad did it, that that made strikes legal and beneficial and so on. Had a second debate been based on the first the government could have easily tried to play the line “but you already agreed that Assad did it and that strikes would therefore be legal and beneficial now you’ve got the extra proof and/or diplomatic effort you asked for you have no choice based on your previous resolution but to support strikes now”. But rejection of the first motion (some MPs mentioned these same fears about being bounced into something later) does not necessarily imply “we’re not talking about it any more”. That was petulant on the part of a government wounded by its own stupidity.
“But it wouldn’t be the same question.”
Precisely, Tony.
I agree with Jock Coats. Clegg’s statement seems bizarre, boxing our foreign policy into a corner. Things could still get much worse in Syria … we have not solved anything. We have just thrown the ball out of touch!
There is to much repercussion high risk to follow the US line on Syria but there is now further evidence on the ground of the horror of the use of the universally banned `chemical weapons’: and to condemn and to find all ways to prevent their repeated use and application by the Syrians, should be the basis for a second Vote by the British Parliament?
Military intervention in any sovereign country by outside forces is a matter of the utmost seriousness and must only happen if there is very wide consensus for action. This is what the UN Security Council is for. It is not a coincidence that its membership straddles the “cold war” divide – and it will be a long time (if ever) before this divide entirely disappears. In the rare event of a situation in any country becoming such a serious threat to humanity and civilisation that consensus for intervention is achieved across the Security Council then action must follow. The concept of a “coalition of the willing”drawn from one side only of the cold war divide is highly dangerous and a recipe for increasing world instability.
Well done Nicolas..
I guess this means, then, that there will definitely be a second vote on Syria.
Oh dear, the War Lovers are out and rampaging, again!
We LDs used to be able to get the ‘Let’s go and kill innocent people’ thing right. Our MPs offered a very firm ‘NO!’ to ‘Bomb ‘Em to Hell Blair’. Needless to say, our team lost the vote, Britain went to war, killed lots of women, children and grannies – and we lost the war.
I can’t understand why any LD members would wish to open even the slightest possibility of yet more British-dealt death and destruction in the middle-east. For God’s sake, aren’t the Syrians killing one another fast enough, without needing any help from Britain?
I recall, all to clearly, that prior to both Iraq1 and Iraq2, we were assured that Smart Bombs were really, really clever: they could find their ways down any chosen chimney-pot. But no, it transpired that they couldn’t. The alleged Smart Bombs murdered the wrong people, frequently – though I would suggest that all war-deaths are a bad idea.
So, all these marvellous Cruise missiles are going to pick-out and destroy military targets, with precision? No, sorry, they won’t; they can’t. They might hit the chosen postcode – just!
This morning’s Today prog included a short interview with an Israeli major-general. It was obvious that Israel is lusting for US/UK/French strikes on Syria. Then, Israel can blitz Syria into Eternity!
So, please dear comrade-LibDems, try very hard not to be War Lovers.
@ David White
‘Oh dear, the War Lovers are out and rampaging, again!’
Although Cameron has said he has accepted the will of the HofC – he is still arguing that strikes are necessary. I suspect that feverish activity has been going on behind the scenes to twist the arms of Coalition MPs to obtain a certain majority – should he hold a second vote. If he could be sure of this – there is little doubt that he would hold one.
Presumably, the ‘War Lovers’ are part of that process with regard to the Lib/Dem MPs.