Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » MPs were right to oppose action in Syria in 2013 and may well

SystemSystem Posts: 5,841
edited April 14 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » MPs were right to oppose action in Syria in 2013 and may well be right now

Ed Miliband’s legacy to the world cannot just be measured by his inadvertently handing the Labour leadership to Jeremy Corbyn*. He also played a decisive role in preventing the UK joining proposed action against the Assad regime after Syria used chemical weapons in 2013. The effect of Britain withdrawing from planned operations – and doing so because of opposition in the legislature – was to cause Obama from drawing back from his ‘red line’ on Syrian chemical use, to open the region to Russia, to stabilise Assad in power and to normalise the use of chemical weapons in Syria (and, quite possibly, beyond).

Read the full story here


«13456

Comments

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 27,715
    First!
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,480
    The world stood by us as we did the right thing over Salisbury. That solidarity was aimed at stopping the use of the world's deadliest nerve agents from being, oh you know, just one of those casual things that Russia does without consequence.

    So it is right we stand in solidarity as civilised nations send out a message that using chemical weapons is not one of those casual things that Russia and its allies can do without consequence.

    Ideally these actions would have been under the aegis of the UN, but sadly that body is now utterly compromised in its ability to prevent such abuses.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,725
    A really good article. Thank you.
  • Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,125
    They can oppose it all they like, its happened.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 31,866
    Thanks, David.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 27,715

    The world stood by us as we did the right thing over Salisbury. That solidarity was aimed at stopping the use of the world's deadliest nerve agents from being, oh you know, just one of those casual things that Russia does without consequence.

    So it is right we stand in solidarity as civilised nations send out a message that using chemical weapons is not one of those casual things that Russia and its allies can do without consequence.

    Ideally these actions would have been under the aegis of the UN, but sadly that body is now utterly compromised in its ability to prevent such abuses.

    "But our efforts have been repeatedly thwarted. Even this week the Russians vetoed a Resolution at the UN Security Council which would have established an independent investigation into the Douma attack," she said.

    "So there is no practicable alternative to the use of force to degrade and deter the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian Regime."
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 3,919
    I am assuming that David Herdson wrote this article before the US/UK and French airstrikes this evening. I cannot believe I am saying this, but the speech writer who put together Trump's statement this evening managed to achieve the almost impossible task of making him sound like a Statesman.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 8,464
    Anyone know what they actually bombed?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 8,878
    edited April 14
    "May must come to parliament and make her case"

    Too late. What is it about British Prime Ministers and the compulsion to drop bombs?
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 3,919
    edited April 14

    Anyone know what they actually bombed?

    Twitter
    MSNBC@MSNBC
    General Dunford describes three targets in Syria strikes:
    • Scientific research center for chemical weapons
    • Chemical weapons storage facility
    • Chemical weapons equipment storage facility and command
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,480
    You can get on your high horse, Russian Embassy, when the Americans actually use them to suffocate children. Unlike your allies, with your conniving, who use them with impunity. Well, no longer.
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 3,919
    edited April 14
    Twitter
    Andrew Neil@afneil
    Canada's Trudeau supports US/UK/French strikes against Syria.


    Andrew Neil@afneil
    British say they launched missiles from Tornado jets against Syria.

  • Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,125
    Everybody knows you cannot insult the President of Russia.
    Ask those Russians who do it and end up in jail.
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 3,919
    Twitter
    Andrew Neil@afneil
    US claims airstrikes destroyed infrastructure at three sites connected to Syria's chemical weapons programme.
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 3,919
    Twitter

    Andrew Neil@afneil
    PM Malcolm Turnbull says Australia backs U.S.-led retaliatory airstrikes in Syria
  • RobDRobD Posts: 31,866
    America are actively destroying their stockpiles. Can Russia say the same?
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 8,464
    fitalass said:

    Anyone know what they actually bombed?

    Twitter
    MSNBC@MSNBC
    General Dunford describes three targets in Syria strikes:
    • Scientific research center for chemical weapons
    • Chemical weapons storage facility
    • Chemical weapons equipment storage facility and command
    Thanks but that's what they're saying they're trying to bomb, which is a different question.
  • felixfelix Posts: 7,239
    On this I disagree with the header. The action was proportionate, measured and with our key allies. It may well prove unpopular but it is right.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,340

    You can get on your high horse, Russian Embassy, when the Americans actually use them to suffocate children. Unlike your allies, with your conniving, who use them with impunity. Well, no longer.
    The US work:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_chemical_weapons_program#Chemical_weapons_disposal

    And Russians from last year:
    https://www.opcw.org/news/article/opcw-marks-completion-of-destruction-of-russian-chemical-weapons-stockpile/

    The only problem for the Russians and the OPCW in the last link is that obviously they had not destroyed all their stocks, as they used some in the UK in March (assuming they did not make up a new batch to spec).
  • RobDRobD Posts: 31,866

    You can get on your high horse, Russian Embassy, when the Americans actually use them to suffocate children. Unlike your allies, with your conniving, who use them with impunity. Well, no longer.
    The US work:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_chemical_weapons_program#Chemical_weapons_disposal

    And Russians from last year:
    https://www.opcw.org/news/article/opcw-marks-completion-of-destruction-of-russian-chemical-weapons-stockpile/

    The only problem for the Russians and the OPCW in the last link is that obviously they had not destroyed all their stocks, as they used some in the UK in March (assuming they did not make up a new batch to spec).
    Given that Novichok is not a proscribed chemical, they can both legitimately claim to have destroyed all their chemical weapons (as per convention), and yet still retain large stockpiles of Novichok.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,340
    RobD said:

    You can get on your high horse, Russian Embassy, when the Americans actually use them to suffocate children. Unlike your allies, with your conniving, who use them with impunity. Well, no longer.
    The US work:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_chemical_weapons_program#Chemical_weapons_disposal

    And Russians from last year:
    https://www.opcw.org/news/article/opcw-marks-completion-of-destruction-of-russian-chemical-weapons-stockpile/

    The only problem for the Russians and the OPCW in the last link is that obviously they had not destroyed all their stocks, as they used some in the UK in March (assuming they did not make up a new batch to spec).
    Given that Novichok is not a proscribed chemical, they can both legitimately claim to have destroyed all their chemical weapons (as per convention), and yet still retain large stockpiles of Novichok.
    Ah, thanks.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,340
    As an additional factoid, I think the US helped pay for the Russians to destroy their chemical weapons stock, as the Russians pleaded poverty. It was many hundreds of millions of dollars in the early days of the program.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 31,866

    RobD said:

    You can get on your high horse, Russian Embassy, when the Americans actually use them to suffocate children. Unlike your allies, with your conniving, who use them with impunity. Well, no longer.
    The US work:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_chemical_weapons_program#Chemical_weapons_disposal

    And Russians from last year:
    https://www.opcw.org/news/article/opcw-marks-completion-of-destruction-of-russian-chemical-weapons-stockpile/

    The only problem for the Russians and the OPCW in the last link is that obviously they had not destroyed all their stocks, as they used some in the UK in March (assuming they did not make up a new batch to spec).
    Given that Novichok is not a proscribed chemical, they can both legitimately claim to have destroyed all their chemical weapons (as per convention), and yet still retain large stockpiles of Novichok.
    Ah, thanks.
    Wiki (I know....) says this on Novichok:

    These agents were designed to achieve four objectives:[15][16]

    To be undetectable using standard 1970s and 1980s NATO chemical detection equipment;
    To defeat NATO chemical protective gear;
    To be safer to handle;
    To circumvent the Chemical Weapons Convention list of controlled precursors, classes of chemical and physical form.[17]
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 27,715
    felix said:

    On this I disagree with the header. The action was proportionate, measured and with our key allies. It may well prove unpopular but it is right.

    I too disagree with the header. What purpose is served by repeatedly being vetoed by the Russians at the UN?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 27,715
    FPT:
    Y0kel said:

    Just to point out, after last years strike, reported use of chemical weapons in Syria went down dramatically.

    Only time will tell if that will be the outcome.

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 27,715
    The PA have a video of May’s statement - which edits out the comment on Russian obstruction at the UN:

  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 3,919
    edited April 14
    Edit
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,340

    The PA have a video of May’s statement - which edits out the comment on Russian obstruction at the UN:

    http s://twitter.com/PA/status/984989091786731520?s=20

    This may be a stupid question, but why edit it?
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 3,919

    FPT:

    Y0kel said:

    Just to point out, after last years strike, reported use of chemical weapons in Syria went down dramatically.

    Only time will tell if that will be the outcome.

    Thanks for that info, it will be interesting to see if the same happens again after this intervention.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 27,715

    The PA have a video of May’s statement - which edits out the comment on Russian obstruction at the UN:

    http s://twitter.com/PA/status/984989091786731520?s=20

    This may be a stupid question, but why edit it?
    Possibly for length.....or because they are worried about “insulting the President of Russia”? Which I thought a very telling quote - illustrates what this is really about.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 1,420

    The PA have a video of May’s statement - which edits out the comment on Russian obstruction at the UN:

    Falklands Moment™
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 27,715
    Dura_Ace said:

    The PA have a video of May’s statement - which edits out the comment on Russian obstruction at the UN:

    Falklands Moment™
    I doubt it (irony?). While the usual model is for the public to swing behind the armed forces (in particular) and the government (to an extent) with Corbynmania who knows? The “added dimension” is Salisbury, which makes this also a domestic issue - given the reported Syrian connection.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 17,423
    Just woken up to this. Not an easy decision but probably the right one. Hope everyone made it back to base.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 1,818
    So May has gone ahead despite Parliament voted against bombing Assad, albeit in 2013.

    An overruling of Parliament by the executive that sets an interesting precedent.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 31,866
    Foxy said:

    So May has gone ahead despite Parliament voted against bombing Assad, albeit in 2013.

    An overruling of Parliament by the executive that sets an interesting precedent.

    I believe the crown has prerogative in such matters.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,340
    Foxy said:

    So May has gone ahead despite Parliament voted against bombing Assad, albeit in 2013.

    An overruling of Parliament by the executive that sets an interesting precedent.

    That vote five years ago was about a different situation. For one thing, the use of chemical weapons by a foreign power against our own country is an important factor, as are the facts this is a different government, and every major party has different leaders.

    Parliament has not been overruled, and it's stupid of you to say it has.

    But what answer do you have? Are you in the Tyndall camp and wish to see the treaties ripped up, or do you want them upheld? And if so, how, when they are so flagrantly broken?
  • daodaodaodao Posts: 551
    May doesn't see the need for Parliament's backing if she can bypass it, a previous example being the attempt to invoke Article 50 without a parliamentary vote.

  • RobDRobD Posts: 31,866
    daodao said:

    May doesn't see the need for Parliament's backing if she can bypass it, a previous example being the attempt to invoke Article 50 without a parliamentary vote.

    While the case did go to the Supreme Court, there was no attempt to invoke it before the parliamentary vote.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 1,818
    edited April 14

    Foxy said:

    So May has gone ahead despite Parliament voted against bombing Assad, albeit in 2013.

    An overruling of Parliament by the executive that sets an interesting precedent.

    That vote five years ago was about a different situation. For one thing, the use of chemical weapons by a foreign power against our own country is an important factor, as are the facts this is a different government, and every major party has different leaders.

    Parliament has not been overruled, and it's stupid of you to say it has.

    But what answer do you have? Are you in the Tyndall camp and wish to see the treaties ripped up, or do you want them upheld? And if so, how, when they are so flagrantly broken?
    That 2013 vote was about bombing Assad for using chemical weapons. Parliament voted against, and now May has done it anyway. It is a significant constitutional event. This was not an emergency meeting executive action.

    I do not support virtue signalling via missiles. May said it was not about regime change, but where have we heard such words before?

    We are now bombing both sides of the same war. Our NATO ally Turkey is bombing a third side.

    I do not doubt Assad has used chemical weapons, indeed one of my work colleagues had relatives affected by the 2013 chemical attacks.

    Here we go again on another Middle East adventure, without clear purpose.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,102
    Foxy said:

    So May has gone ahead despite Parliament voted against bombing Assad, albeit in 2013.

    An overruling of Parliament by the executive that sets an interesting precedent.

    I thought Parliament has subsequently voted in favour of military action in Syria?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 31,866
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    So May has gone ahead despite Parliament voted against bombing Assad, albeit in 2013.

    An overruling of Parliament by the executive that sets an interesting precedent.

    That vote five years ago was about a different situation. For one thing, the use of chemical weapons by a foreign power against our own country is an important factor, as are the facts this is a different government, and every major party has different leaders.

    Parliament has not been overruled, and it's stupid of you to say it has.

    But what answer do you have? Are you in the Tyndall camp and wish to see the treaties ripped up, or do you want them upheld? And if so, how, when they are so flagrantly broken?
    That 2013 vote walkabout bombing Assad for using chemical weapons. Parliament voted against, and now May has done it anyway.It is a significant constitutional event. This was not an emergency meeting executive action.

    I do not support virtue signalling via missiles. May said it was not about regime change, but where have we heard such words before?

    We are now bombing both sides of the same war. Our NATO ally Turkey is bombing a third side.

    I do not doubt Assad has used chemical weapons, indeed one of my work colleagues had relatives affected by the 2013 chemical attacks.

    Here we go again on another Middle East adventure, without clear purpose.
    Why is it a significant constitutional event? HMG is not bound by Parliament on such matters, even if it has had votes on it in the past.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 1,818
    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    So May has gone ahead despite Parliament voted against bombing Assad, albeit in 2013.

    An overruling of Parliament by the executive that sets an interesting precedent.

    I thought Parliament has subsequently voted in favour of military action in Syria?
    That was bombing IS, not the Assad government.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,340
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    So May has gone ahead despite Parliament voted against bombing Assad, albeit in 2013.

    An overruling of Parliament by the executive that sets an interesting precedent.

    That vote five years ago was about a different situation. For one thing, the use of chemical weapons by a foreign power against our own country is an important factor, as are the facts this is a different government, and every major party has different leaders.

    Parliament has not been overruled, and it's stupid of you to say it has.

    But what answer do you have? Are you in the Tyndall camp and wish to see the treaties ripped up, or do you want them upheld? And if so, how, when they are so flagrantly broken?
    That 2013 vote was about bombing Assad for using chemical weapons. Parliament voted against, and now May has done it anyway. It is a significant constitutional event. This was not an emergency meeting executive action.

    I do not support virtue signalling via missiles. May said it was not about regime change, but where have we heard such words before?

    We are now bombing both sides of the same war. Our NATO ally Turkey is bombing a third side.

    I do not doubt Assad has used chemical weapons, indeed one of my work colleagues had relatives affected by the 2013 chemical attacks.

    Here we go again on another Middle East adventure, without clear purpose.
    Rubbish. The situation is very different, and you are making false equivalences.A better point would be: "Parliament was asked before, why not now?" But saying that the 2013 vote is still in any way binding is wrong.

    And it might have escaped your attention that there are more than two sides in this war

    But your reply is telling: you have no answers, and you are willing to turn a blind eye to the use of chemical weapons all whilst wringing your hands and wondering: "What would JC do?" ;)
  • RobDRobD Posts: 31,866

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    So May has gone ahead despite Parliament voted against bombing Assad, albeit in 2013.

    An overruling of Parliament by the executive that sets an interesting precedent.

    That vote five years ago was about a different situation. For one thing, the use of chemical weapons by a foreign power against our own country is an important factor, as are the facts this is a different government, and every major party has different leaders.

    Parliament has not been overruled, and it's stupid of you to say it has.

    But what answer do you have? Are you in the Tyndall camp and wish to see the treaties ripped up, or do you want them upheld? And if so, how, when they are so flagrantly broken?
    That 2013 vote was about bombing Assad for using chemical weapons. Parliament voted against, and now May has done it anyway. It is a significant constitutional event. This was not an emergency meeting executive action.

    I do not support virtue signalling via missiles. May said it was not about regime change, but where have we heard such words before?

    We are now bombing both sides of the same war. Our NATO ally Turkey is bombing a third side.

    I do not doubt Assad has used chemical weapons, indeed one of my work colleagues had relatives affected by the 2013 chemical attacks.

    Here we go again on another Middle East adventure, without clear purpose.
    Rubbish. The situation is very different, and you are making false equivalences.A better point would be: "Parliament was asked before, why not now?" But saying that the 2013 vote is still in any way binding is wrong.

    And it might have escaped your attention that there are more than two sides in this war

    But your reply is telling: you have no answers, and you are willing to turn a blind eye to the use of chemical weapons all whilst wringing your hands and wondering: "What would JC do?" ;)
    He'd probably seek advice from the Kremlin.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,102
    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    So May has gone ahead despite Parliament voted against bombing Assad, albeit in 2013.

    An overruling of Parliament by the executive that sets an interesting precedent.

    I thought Parliament has subsequently voted in favour of military action in Syria?
    That was bombing IS, not the Assad government.
    Ah, I don't know why they bothered seeking approval for bombing that lo!

    I'm not sure what the consequences of Parliament vetoing our intervention would have been for May, but I think she should have tried to get approval. If nothing else it would have been another opportunity show Corbyn for what he is.

    And we absolutely should be boycotting the World Cup.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 13,195
    RobD said:

    Foxy said:

    So May has gone ahead despite Parliament voted against bombing Assad, albeit in 2013.

    An overruling of Parliament by the executive that sets an interesting precedent.

    I believe the crown has prerogative in such matters.
    Whilst the government does enjoy crown prerogative the most recent constitutional convention set by both Labour and Conservative administrations is that Parliament is more directly involved.

    The question is whether there was time for Parliament to be involved. In my view there was and it was a severe error of judgement for the Prime Minister to circumnavigate parliamentary scrutiny.

    That said I fully support these airstrikes.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 31,866
    JackW said:

    RobD said:

    Foxy said:

    So May has gone ahead despite Parliament voted against bombing Assad, albeit in 2013.

    An overruling of Parliament by the executive that sets an interesting precedent.

    I believe the crown has prerogative in such matters.
    Whilst the government does enjoy crown prerogative the most recent constitutional convention set by both Labour and Conservative administrations is that Parliament is more directly involved.

    The question is whether there was time for Parliament to be involved. In my view there was and it was a severe error of judgement for the Prime Minister to circumnavigate parliamentary scrutiny.

    That said I fully support these airstrikes.
    A short lived convention, if it ever was one.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 13,219
    edited April 14
    Due to my insomnia I heard Trump's announcement live and for the first time he seemed Presidential.

    As the reporting continued through the night it is generally accepted that May and Macron mitigated Trump's decision as he wanted to go further.

    It was all over in two hours but the threat to Syria remains if it attempts further chemical attacks

    The 4 Tornado's used gps and did not enter into Syria and the whole attack from and back to base was 40 mins

    Politically I think Corbyn is in far greater difficulty over this than May and there must be the real danger for him of a fracture in his party over their response

    As for TM she looked shattered when she spoke from No 10 and demonstrated the real steel needed to take the most difficult decisions.
  • DM_AndyDM_Andy Posts: 150
    On balance I'm okay with the airstrikes if it will degrade Assad's ability to produce chemical weapons. The Assad government and Russia have blocked the chance for OPCW to work out what's going on so we have to go on the basis that it was the Syrian government that ordered the use of chemical weapons contravening international law.

    However it is a dangerous path to not get Parliament's approval, especially if the argument is that May thought she might lose the vote. There was plenty of time to recall Parliament and make her case to the House.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 13,195
    RobD said:

    JackW said:

    RobD said:

    Foxy said:

    So May has gone ahead despite Parliament voted against bombing Assad, albeit in 2013.

    An overruling of Parliament by the executive that sets an interesting precedent.

    I believe the crown has prerogative in such matters.
    Whilst the government does enjoy crown prerogative the most recent constitutional convention set by both Labour and Conservative administrations is that Parliament is more directly involved.

    The question is whether there was time for Parliament to be involved. In my view there was and it was a severe error of judgement for the Prime Minister to circumnavigate parliamentary scrutiny.

    That said I fully support these airstrikes.
    A short lived convention, if it ever was one.
    The government will claim there was no time to invoke the convention, albeit in principle they would have liked to have done so. Such a position is untenable.

    Clearly there will be times where operational requirements make prior parliamentary scrutiny a non starter. However this action has been flagged for several days. It is a failure of leadership for the Prime Minister not to come to the House of Commons and make the case for military action.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 31,866
    DM_Andy said:

    On balance I'm okay with the airstrikes if it will degrade Assad's ability to produce chemical weapons. The Assad government and Russia have blocked the chance for OPCW to work out what's going on so we have to go on the basis that it was the Syrian government that ordered the use of chemical weapons contravening international law.

    However it is a dangerous path to not get Parliament's approval, especially if the argument is that May thought she might lose the vote. There was plenty of time to recall Parliament and make her case to the House.

    Hadn't the OPCW verified that Syria had destroyed all of its chemical weapons? Giving them a chance to work out what has been going on doesn't really seem all that worthwhile as Syria will just hide stockpiles from them.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,434
    As far as I can tell this missile strike is a gesture. It looks like the Americans have done a deal with the Russians to target away from their operations in exchange for Russia not doing anything in response. I don't think even Assad will be too troubled by it.

    Quite simply David Cameron failed to make a case for war in 2013. Ed Miliband was almost pleading with him to give some purpose and direction.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 13,219
    JackW said:

    RobD said:

    JackW said:

    RobD said:

    Foxy said:

    So May has gone ahead despite Parliament voted against bombing Assad, albeit in 2013.

    An overruling of Parliament by the executive that sets an interesting precedent.

    I believe the crown has prerogative in such matters.
    Whilst the government does enjoy crown prerogative the most recent constitutional convention set by both Labour and Conservative administrations is that Parliament is more directly involved.

    The question is whether there was time for Parliament to be involved. In my view there was and it was a severe error of judgement for the Prime Minister to circumnavigate parliamentary scrutiny.

    That said I fully support these airstrikes.
    A short lived convention, if it ever was one.
    The government will claim there was no time to invoke the convention, albeit in principle they would have liked to have done so. Such a position is untenable.

    Clearly there will be times where operational requirements make prior parliamentary scrutiny a non starter. However this action has been flagged for several days. It is a failure of leadership for the Prime Minister not to come to the House of Commons and make the case for military action.
    Listening overnight to live reaction it is clear that the strategy was being discussed and agreed between the allies over the last week and it would have been impossible for TM to consult Parliament with plans that were evolving.

    In this case I accept TM was correct to act as she did
  • RobDRobD Posts: 31,866
    edited April 14
    FF43 said:

    As far as I can tell this missile strike is a gesture. It looks like the Americans have done a deal with the Russians to target away from their operations in exchange for Russia not doing anything in response. I don't think even Assad will be too troubled by it.

    Quite simply David Cameron failed to make a case for war in 2013. Ed Miliband was almost pleading with him to give some purpose and direction.

    The case was clear. Assad had been using chemical weapons on his own populace. It was Miliband's opportunism that threw a spanner in the works..

    Let's not forget, up to a thousand people are thought to have died in the attack:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghouta_chemical_attack
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,213
    JackW said:

    RobD said:

    Foxy said:

    So May has gone ahead despite Parliament voted against bombing Assad, albeit in 2013.

    An overruling of Parliament by the executive that sets an interesting precedent.

    I believe the crown has prerogative in such matters.
    Whilst the government does enjoy crown prerogative the most recent constitutional convention set by both Labour and Conservative administrations is that Parliament is more directly involved.

    The question is whether there was time for Parliament to be involved. In my view there was and it was a severe error of judgement for the Prime Minister to circumnavigate parliamentary scrutiny.

    That said I fully support these airstrikes.
    I agree about the severe error of judgment.

    Since the government has not made any meaningful attempt to set out its aims or how military means will achieve those to either Parliament or the public, I do not support these airstrikes.

    I am still capable of being persuaded but that requires someone to try to persuade me. Gesture bombing, as Stewart McDonald describes it, is not something I would support.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 13,219
    I have just heard the BBC ask their corrrspondent if the allies knew of these chemical plants why haven't they acted before to take them out.

    Just like that then
  • RobDRobD Posts: 31,866

    I have just heard the BBC ask their corrrspondent if the allies knew of these chemical plants why haven't they acted before to take them out.

    Just like that then

    Yeah, that would have gone down well....
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 13,219

    JackW said:

    RobD said:

    Foxy said:

    So May has gone ahead despite Parliament voted against bombing Assad, albeit in 2013.

    An overruling of Parliament by the executive that sets an interesting precedent.

    I believe the crown has prerogative in such matters.
    Whilst the government does enjoy crown prerogative the most recent constitutional convention set by both Labour and Conservative administrations is that Parliament is more directly involved.

    The question is whether there was time for Parliament to be involved. In my view there was and it was a severe error of judgement for the Prime Minister to circumnavigate parliamentary scrutiny.

    That said I fully support these airstrikes.
    I agree about the severe error of judgment.

    Since the government has not made any meaningful attempt to set out its aims or how military means will achieve those to either Parliament or the public, I do not support these airstrikes.

    I am still capable of being persuaded but that requires someone to try to persuade me. Gesture bombing, as Stewart McDonald describes it, is not something I would support.
    Would it help if Theresa offered a second referendum
  • DM_AndyDM_Andy Posts: 150
    RobD said:

    DM_Andy said:

    On balance I'm okay with the airstrikes if it will degrade Assad's ability to produce chemical weapons. The Assad government and Russia have blocked the chance for OPCW to work out what's going on so we have to go on the basis that it was the Syrian government that ordered the use of chemical weapons contravening international law.

    However it is a dangerous path to not get Parliament's approval, especially if the argument is that May thought she might lose the vote. There was plenty of time to recall Parliament and make her case to the House.

    Hadn't the OPCW verified that Syria had destroyed all of its chemical weapons? Giving them a chance to work out what has been going on doesn't really seem all that worthwhile as Syria will just hide stockpiles from them.
    That was the UN Security Council resolution that Russia vetoed (2018/321) which the US, UK and France drafted.

    It's not questioned that the UK Constitution gives the executive wide-ranging powers. But conventions are also important, this wasn't a national emergency, there was plenty of time to recall Parliament. It isn't right to avoid a convention just because May happens to run a minority government. I can't imagine the PBTories would support a Corbyn administration ruling by decree?

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,480
    Another morning where the manufacturers of systems to defend from air attacks think "really guys, I mean - why do we bother making this stuff...?"
  • DM_AndyDM_Andy Posts: 150

    JackW said:

    RobD said:

    JackW said:

    RobD said:

    Foxy said:

    So May has gone ahead despite Parliament voted against bombing Assad, albeit in 2013.

    An overruling of Parliament by the executive that sets an interesting precedent.

    I believe the crown has prerogative in such matters.
    Whilst the government does enjoy crown prerogative the most recent constitutional convention set by both Labour and Conservative administrations is that Parliament is more directly involved.

    The question is whether there was time for Parliament to be involved. In my view there was and it was a severe error of judgement for the Prime Minister to circumnavigate parliamentary scrutiny.

    That said I fully support these airstrikes.
    A short lived convention, if it ever was one.
    The government will claim there was no time to invoke the convention, albeit in principle they would have liked to have done so. Such a position is untenable.

    Clearly there will be times where operational requirements make prior parliamentary scrutiny a non starter. However this action has been flagged for several days. It is a failure of leadership for the Prime Minister not to come to the House of Commons and make the case for military action.
    Listening overnight to live reaction it is clear that the strategy was being discussed and agreed between the allies over the last week and it would have been impossible for TM to consult Parliament with plans that were evolving.

    In this case I accept TM was correct to act as she did
    Sorry but that's bollocks - if May could consult her cabinet on Thursday then there's no reason not to have recalled Parliament to meet on either Thursday or Friday.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 31,866
    DM_Andy said:

    RobD said:

    DM_Andy said:

    On balance I'm okay with the airstrikes if it will degrade Assad's ability to produce chemical weapons. The Assad government and Russia have blocked the chance for OPCW to work out what's going on so we have to go on the basis that it was the Syrian government that ordered the use of chemical weapons contravening international law.

    However it is a dangerous path to not get Parliament's approval, especially if the argument is that May thought she might lose the vote. There was plenty of time to recall Parliament and make her case to the House.

    Hadn't the OPCW verified that Syria had destroyed all of its chemical weapons? Giving them a chance to work out what has been going on doesn't really seem all that worthwhile as Syria will just hide stockpiles from them.
    That was the UN Security Council resolution that Russia vetoed (2018/321) which the US, UK and France drafted.

    It's not questioned that the UK Constitution gives the executive wide-ranging powers. But conventions are also important, this wasn't a national emergency, there was plenty of time to recall Parliament. It isn't right to avoid a convention just because May happens to run a minority government. I can't imagine the PBTories would support a Corbyn administration ruling by decree?

    To punish a dictator who gassed his own people? Corbyn would have my complete backing.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 1,754
    So Assad has won. The West is just putting up a bit of a show of strength to offset the defeat a bit. Can we talk about something else now.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,480
    JackW said:

    RobD said:

    JackW said:

    RobD said:

    Foxy said:

    So May has gone ahead despite Parliament voted against bombing Assad, albeit in 2013.

    An overruling of Parliament by the executive that sets an interesting precedent.

    I believe the crown has prerogative in such matters.
    Whilst the government does enjoy crown prerogative the most recent constitutional convention set by both Labour and Conservative administrations is that Parliament is more directly involved.

    The question is whether there was time for Parliament to be involved. In my view there was and it was a severe error of judgement for the Prime Minister to circumnavigate parliamentary scrutiny.

    That said I fully support these airstrikes.
    A short lived convention, if it ever was one.
    The government will claim there was no time to invoke the convention, albeit in principle they would have liked to have done so. Such a position is untenable.

    Clearly there will be times where operational requirements make prior parliamentary scrutiny a non starter. However this action has been flagged for several days. It is a failure of leadership for the Prime Minister not to come to the House of Commons and make the case for military action.
    Leaders lead - and take the consequences. She was already in a tenuous position. If she has judged the mood of the party wrong, then the letters will come in for her to face a challenge.

    But like your good self, I suspect that the view will be taken that she should be given support after the event. On the understanding - this, but no further.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 13,219
    DM_Andy said:

    JackW said:

    RobD said:

    JackW said:

    RobD said:

    Foxy said:

    So May has gone ahead despite Parliament voted against bombing Assad, albeit in 2013.

    An overruling of Parliament by the executive that sets an interesting precedent.

    I believe the crown has prerogative in such matters.
    Whilst the government does enjoy crown prerogative the most recent constitutional convention set by both Labour and Conservative administrations is that Parliament is more directly involved.

    The question is whether there was time for Parliament to be involved. In my view there was and it was a severe error of judgement for the Prime Minister to circumnavigate parliamentary scrutiny.

    That said I fully support these airstrikes.
    A short lived convention, if it ever was one.
    The government will claim there was no time to invoke the convention, albeit in principle they would have liked to have done so. Such a position is untenable.

    Clearly there will be times where operational requirements make prior parliamentary scrutiny a non starter. However this action has been flagged for several days. It is a failure of leadership for the Prime Minister not to come to the House of Commons and make the case for military action.
    Listening overnight to live reaction it is clear that the strategy was being discussed and agreed between the allies over the last week and it would have been impossible for TM to consult Parliament with plans that were evolving.

    In this case I accept TM was correct to act as she did
    Sorry but that's bollocks - if May could consult her cabinet on Thursday then there's no reason not to have recalled Parliament to meet on either Thursday or Friday.
    Why insult me - just say you disagree which is fair enough
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 13,219

    So Assad has won. The West is just putting up a bit of a show of strength to offset the defeat a bit. Can we talk about something else now.

    I think you may have a problem with that
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 43,090

    Another morning where the manufacturers of systems to defend from air attacks think "really guys, I mean - why do we bother making this stuff...?"

    Some of the SAMs intercepted the Damascan bound missiles, others got through
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 13,219
    Boris says he 'welcomes' the action.

    For someone as intelligent as Boris could he not find a more appropriate word
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,500

    So Assad has won. The West is just putting up a bit of a show of strength to offset the defeat a bit. Can we talk about something else now.

    He was winning before but we just told him he can’t win quickly with chemical weapons. Do it the hard way Bashir old boy.

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 43,090

    JackW said:

    RobD said:

    Foxy said:

    So May has gone ahead despite Parliament voted against bombing Assad, albeit in 2013.

    An overruling of Parliament by the executive that sets an interesting precedent.

    I believe the crown has prerogative in such matters.
    Whilst the government does enjoy crown prerogative the most recent constitutional convention set by both Labour and Conservative administrations is that Parliament is more directly involved.

    The question is whether there was time for Parliament to be involved. In my view there was and it was a severe error of judgement for the Prime Minister to circumnavigate parliamentary scrutiny.

    That said I fully support these airstrikes.
    I agree about the severe error of judgment.

    Since the government has not made any meaningful attempt to set out its aims or how military means will achieve those to either Parliament or the public, I do not support these airstrikes.

    I am still capable of being persuaded but that requires someone to try to persuade me. Gesture bombing, as Stewart McDonald describes it, is not something I would support.
    Would it help if Theresa offered a second referendum
    What does that have to do with the situation in the Eastern Med ?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 13,219
    Pulpstar said:

    JackW said:

    RobD said:

    Foxy said:

    So May has gone ahead despite Parliament voted against bombing Assad, albeit in 2013.

    An overruling of Parliament by the executive that sets an interesting precedent.

    I believe the crown has prerogative in such matters.
    Whilst the government does enjoy crown prerogative the most recent constitutional convention set by both Labour and Conservative administrations is that Parliament is more directly involved.

    The question is whether there was time for Parliament to be involved. In my view there was and it was a severe error of judgement for the Prime Minister to circumnavigate parliamentary scrutiny.

    That said I fully support these airstrikes.
    I agree about the severe error of judgment.

    Since the government has not made any meaningful attempt to set out its aims or how military means will achieve those to either Parliament or the public, I do not support these airstrikes.

    I am still capable of being persuaded but that requires someone to try to persuade me. Gesture bombing, as Stewart McDonald describes it, is not something I would support.
    Would it help if Theresa offered a second referendum
    What does that have to do with the situation in the Eastern Med ?
    Trying to placate Alastair - tongue in cheek comment
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 1,818

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    So May has gone ahead despite Parliament voted against bombing Assad, albeit in 2013.

    An overruling of Parliament by the executive that sets an interesting precedent.

    That vote five years ago was about a different situation. For one thing, the use of chemical weapons by a foreign power against our own country is an important factor, as are the facts this is a different government, and every major party has different leaders.

    Parliament has not been overruled, and it's stupid of you to say it has.

    But what answer do you have? Are you in the Tyndall camp and wish to see the treaties ripped up, or do you want them upheld? And if so, how, when they are so flagrantly broken?
    That 2013 vote was about bombing Assad for using chemical weapons. Parliament voted against, and now May has done it anyway. It is a significant constitutional event. This was not an emergency meeting executive action.

    I do not support virtue signalling via missiles. May said it was not about regime change, but where have we heard such words before?

    We are now bombing both sides of the same war. Our NATO ally Turkey is bombing a third side.

    I do not doubt Assad has used chemical weapons, indeed one of my work colleagues had relatives affected by the 2013 chemical attacks.

    Here we go again on another Middle East adventure, without clear purpose.
    Rubbish. The situation is very different, and you are making false equivalences.A better point would be: "Parliament was asked before, why not now?" But saying that the 2013 vote is still in any way binding is wrong.

    And it might have escaped your attention that there are more than two sides in this war

    But your reply is telling: you have no answers, and you are willing to turn a blind eye to the use of chemical weapons all whilst wringing your hands and wondering: "What would JC do?" ;)
    I do wonder what "JC" would do, but Jesus Christ not an earthly Jeremy Corbyn.


  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 5,271
    DM_Andy said:

    RobD said:

    DM_Andy said:

    On balance I'm okay with the airstrikes if it will degrade Assad's ability to produce chemical weapons. The Assad government and Russia have blocked the chance for OPCW to work out what's going on so we have to go on the basis that it was the Syrian government that ordered the use of chemical weapons contravening international law.

    However it is a dangerous path to not get Parliament's approval, especially if the argument is that May thought she might lose the vote. There was plenty of time to recall Parliament and make her case to the House.

    Hadn't the OPCW verified that Syria had destroyed all of its chemical weapons? Giving them a chance to work out what has been going on doesn't really seem all that worthwhile as Syria will just hide stockpiles from them.
    That was the UN Security Council resolution that Russia vetoed (2018/321) which the US, UK and France drafted.

    It's not questioned that the UK Constitution gives the executive wide-ranging powers. But conventions are also important, this wasn't a national emergency, there was plenty of time to recall Parliament. It isn't right to avoid a convention just because May happens to run a minority government. I can't imagine the PBTories would support a Corbyn administration ruling by decree?

    Can you identify the convention you are talking about which has been "avoided," with an example or two, from before the year 2000, of instances where it has been followed?
  • JackWJackW Posts: 13,195

    JackW said:

    RobD said:

    JackW said:

    RobD said:

    Foxy said:

    So May has gone ahead despite Parliament voted against bombing Assad, albeit in 2013.

    An overruling of Parliament by the executive that sets an interesting precedent.

    I believe the crown has prerogative in such matters.
    Whilst the government does enjoy crown prerogative the most recent constitutional convention set by both Labour and Conservative administrations is that Parliament is more directly involved.

    The question is whether there was time for Parliament to be involved. In my view there was and it was a severe error of judgement for the Prime Minister to circumnavigate parliamentary scrutiny.

    That said I fully support these airstrikes.
    A short lived convention, if it ever was one.
    The government will claim there was no time to invoke the convention, albeit in principle they would have liked to have done so. Such a position is untenable.

    Clearly there will be times where operational requirements make prior parliamentary scrutiny a non starter. However this action has been flagged for several days. It is a failure of leadership for the Prime Minister not to come to the House of Commons and make the case for military action.
    Listening overnight to live reaction it is clear that the strategy was being discussed and agreed between the allies over the last week and it would have been impossible for TM to consult Parliament with plans that were evolving.

    In this case I accept TM was correct to act as she did
    Absolutely incorrect.

    Nobody is suggesting that the House of Commons would have been briefed in tactical detail on the operation but the principle of military action is another matter.

    Appropriate members of the Privy Council would have had further knowledge. Parliament should have been recalled and the Prime Minister has failed in her duty to Parliament and the nation.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 1,818
    TGOHF said:

    So Assad has won. The West is just putting up a bit of a show of strength to offset the defeat a bit. Can we talk about something else now.

    He was winning before but we just told him he can’t win quickly with chemical weapons. Do it the hard way Bashir old boy.

    Barrel bombs on hospitals and starvation sieges it is then. It is not Assad that will suffer.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,434
    edited April 14
    RobD said:

    FF43 said:

    As far as I can tell this missile strike is a gesture. It looks like the Americans have done a deal with the Russians to target away from their operations in exchange for Russia not doing anything in response. I don't think even Assad will be too troubled by it.

    Quite simply David Cameron failed to make a case for war in 2013. Ed Miliband was almost pleading with him to give some purpose and direction.

    The case was clear. Assad had been using chemical weapons on his own populace. It was Miliband's opportunism that threw a spanner in the works..

    Let's not forget, up to a thousand people are thought to have died in the attack:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghouta_chemical_attack
    Lawmakers, not just on Labour benches, were unconvinced that Cameron was not bouncing them into a commitment that went beyond air strikes, not least because he initially didn't rule it out. The vote against was welcomed by almost all the press including the part that is normally Tory.

    I am not saying they were right; simply Cameron failed to make the case. By the end it probably was just a gesture similar to today's attack that wouldn't have made any difference. On that basis they should have gone ahead in my view, in hindsight.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 13,219
    JackW said:

    JackW said:

    RobD said:

    JackW said:

    RobD said:

    Foxy said:

    So May has gone ahead despite Parliament voted against bombing Assad, albeit in 2013.

    An overruling of Parliament by the executive that sets an interesting precedent.

    I believe the crown has prerogative in such matters.
    Whilst the government does enjoy crown prerogative the most recent constitutional convention set by both Labour and Conservative administrations is that Parliament is more directly involved.

    The question is whether there was time for Parliament to be involved. In my view there was and it was a severe error of judgement for the Prime Minister to circumnavigate parliamentary scrutiny.

    That said I fully support these airstrikes.
    A short lived convention, if it ever was one.
    The government will claim there was no time to invoke the convention, albeit in principle they would have liked to have done so. Such a position is untenable.

    Clearly there will be times where operational requirements make prior parliamentary scrutiny a non starter. However this action has been flagged for several days. It is a failure of leadership for the Prime Minister not to come to the House of Commons and make the case for military action.
    Listening overnight to live reaction it is clear that the strategy was being discussed and agreed between the allies over the last week and it would have been impossible for TM to consult Parliament with plans that were evolving.

    In this case I accept TM was correct to act as she did
    Absolutely incorrect.

    Nobody is suggesting that the House of Commons would have been briefed in tactical detail on the operation but the principle of military action is another matter.

    Appropriate members of the Privy Council would have had further knowledge. Parliament should have been recalled and the Prime Minister has failed in her duty to Parliament and the nation.
    I think we should agree to disagree Jack
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 13,219
    NATO, Canada, Australia and the EU all issue statements in support of the allied action.

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,340

    JackW said:

    RobD said:

    Foxy said:

    So May has gone ahead despite Parliament voted against bombing Assad, albeit in 2013.

    An overruling of Parliament by the executive that sets an interesting precedent.

    I believe the crown has prerogative in such matters.
    Whilst the government does enjoy crown prerogative the most recent constitutional convention set by both Labour and Conservative administrations is that Parliament is more directly involved.

    The question is whether there was time for Parliament to be involved. In my view there was and it was a severe error of judgement for the Prime Minister to circumnavigate parliamentary scrutiny.

    That said I fully support these airstrikes.
    I agree about the severe error of judgment.

    Since the government has not made any meaningful attempt to set out its aims or how military means will achieve those to either Parliament or the public, I do not support these airstrikes.

    I am still capable of being persuaded but that requires someone to try to persuade me. Gesture bombing, as Stewart McDonald describes it, is not something I would support.
    It isn't gesture bombing. The aims are mentioned in the first fifteen seconds of May's statement. The choice of targets for last night's raids seem sensible given those aims.

    I have to ask you what I have asked others: what would you do? (and as you're a thoughtful and sensible chap, I hope you'll give a sane and realistic answer).
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 3,919

    Due to my insomnia I heard Trump's announcement live and for the first time he seemed Presidential.

    As the reporting continued through the night it is generally accepted that May and Macron mitigated Trump's decision as he wanted to go further.

    It was all over in two hours but the threat to Syria remains if it attempts further chemical attacks

    The 4 Tornado's used gps and did not enter into Syria and the whole attack from and back to base was 40 mins

    Politically I think Corbyn is in far greater difficulty over this than May and there must be the real danger for him of a fracture in his party over their response

    As for TM she looked shattered when she spoke from No 10 and demonstrated the real steel needed to take the most difficult decisions.

    Excellent summary and I agree with your analysis.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 17,423

    JackW said:

    RobD said:

    JackW said:

    RobD said:

    Foxy said:

    So May has gone ahead despite Parliament voted against bombing Assad, albeit in 2013.

    An overruling of Parliament by the executive that sets an interesting precedent.

    I believe the crown has prerogative in such matters.
    Whilst the government does enjoy crown prerogative the most recent constitutional convention set by both Labour and Conservative administrations is that Parliament is more directly involved.

    The question is whether there was time for Parliament to be involved. In my view there was and it was a severe error of judgement for the Prime Minister to circumnavigate parliamentary scrutiny.

    That said I fully support these airstrikes.
    A short lived convention, if it ever was one.
    The government will claim there was no time to invoke the convention, albeit in principle they would have liked to have done so. Such a position is untenable.

    Clearly there will be times where operational requirements make prior parliamentary scrutiny a non starter. However this action has been flagged for several days. It is a failure of leadership for the Prime Minister not to come to the House of Commons and make the case for military action.
    Leaders lead - and take the consequences. She was already in a tenuous position. If she has judged the mood of the party wrong, then the letters will come in for her to face a challenge.

    But like your good self, I suspect that the view will be taken that she should be given support after the event. On the understanding - this, but no further.
    If it’s a short, sharp, shock, with no boots on the ground apart from a few SAS, then I think there’s general support for the action from her own side.

    If we’re sending in troops or we’re still bombing them next week then let’s have a debate in Parliament about it.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 13,922
    So we've lobbed in our portion of cruise missiles. Sigh.

    So what do we do next time there's a chemical attack?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,480
    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    So May has gone ahead despite Parliament voted against bombing Assad, albeit in 2013.

    An overruling of Parliament by the executive that sets an interesting precedent.

    I thought Parliament has subsequently voted in favour of military action in Syria?
    That was bombing IS, not the Assad government.
    Ah, I don't know why they bothered seeking approval for bombing that lo!

    I'm not sure what the consequences of Parliament vetoing our intervention would have been for May, but I think she should have tried to get approval. If nothing else it would have been another opportunity show Corbyn for what he is.

    And we absolutely should be boycotting the World Cup.
    A conditional boycott of the World Cup could yet be the pawn that Putin never calculated could make it across the board to become a queen. Putin is desperate for the reflected glory of this event. Heaven knows, the Russians have paid enough to make it happen.

    So the separate countries - f*ck FIFA - should put a resolution together, stating that they will each instruct their national team not to attend unless Russia acknowledges unambiguously, that

    a) it was behind the Salisbury attack. The use of any form of nerve agent attack will never again be undertaken by them or their state's operatives

    and

    b) it was complicit with its allies in using chemical weapons in Syria. The use of any form of chemical weapon attack will never again be undertaken by them and they will prevent their allies from doing so too.

    You want the World Cup to go ahead, Mr Putin? It's in your hands....you know what you need to do.

    (Personally, whilst we have them over a barrel, I'd add c) the Russian state has been complicit in industrial scale doping in sport. If any single Russian athlete in any sport is discovered in the next ten years to have used doping - regardless of whether it led to success - then every single Russian competitor will be banned from every sporting event outside of Russia. Oh, and no competing under some wanky white flag either.)
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,340
    MaxPB said:

    So we've lobbed in our portion of cruise missiles. Sigh.

    So what do we do next time there's a chemical attack?

    What would you do? Ignore it?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 13,219
    Sandpit said:

    JackW said:

    RobD said:

    JackW said:

    RobD said:

    Foxy said:

    So May has gone ahead despite Parliament voted against bombing Assad, albeit in 2013.

    An overruling of Parliament by the executive that sets an interesting precedent.

    I believe the crown has prerogative in such matters.
    Whilst the government does enjoy crown prerogative the most recent constitutional convention set by both Labour and Conservative administrations is that Parliament is more directly involved.

    The question is whether there was time for Parliament to be involved. In my view there was and it was a severe error of judgement for the Prime Minister to circumnavigate parliamentary scrutiny.

    That said I fully support these airstrikes.
    A short lived convention, if it ever was one.
    The government will claim there was no time to invoke the convention, albeit in principle they would have liked to have done so. Such a position is untenable.

    Clearly there will be times where operational requirements make prior parliamentary scrutiny a non starter. However this action has been flagged for several days. It is a failure of leadership for the Prime Minister not to come to the House of Commons and make the case for military action.
    Leaders lead - and take the consequences. She was already in a tenuous position. If she has judged the mood of the party wrong, then the letters will come in for her to face a challenge.

    But like your good self, I suspect that the view will be taken that she should be given support after the event. On the understanding - this, but no further.
    If it’s a short, sharp, shock, with no boots on the ground apart from a few SAS, then I think there’s general support for the action from her own side.

    If we’re sending in troops or we’re still bombing them next week then let’s have a debate in Parliament about it.
    It was clear in the briefing from the Pentagon about 3.30am that this is a one off and had concluded.

    However, any use by Assad of chemical weapons will see further action
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 43,090

    NATO, Canada, Australia and the EU all issue statements in support of the allied action.

    Will they be paying a contribution towards the action. Tomohawks ain't cheap
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,340
    One question for the wise: if the world has known about Novichok and its variants for a decade or two, then why has the OPCW not put it on their chemical weapons list? Is there a mechanism to add weapons to treaties? If so, have they tried?

    Given the way technology has allowed a whole range of new potential weapons, it seems sensible that treaties should be easy to extend (with agreement from the signatories) to other related weapons.

    One thing I wish to come out of this mess is for *stronger* treaties on the use of such weapons (and then hopefully extending to other weapons).
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 13,922

    MaxPB said:

    So we've lobbed in our portion of cruise missiles. Sigh.

    So what do we do next time there's a chemical attack?

    What would you do? Ignore it?
    Yup. As lamentable as that seems, the alternative (our current actions) has achieved precisely nothing.

    And you didn't answer the origin question, what happens next time? A few more missiles? These and the last lot didn't work.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,500
    Foxy said:

    TGOHF said:

    So Assad has won. The West is just putting up a bit of a show of strength to offset the defeat a bit. Can we talk about something else now.

    He was winning before but we just told him he can’t win quickly with chemical weapons. Do it the hard way Bashir old boy.

    Barrel bombs on hospitals and starvation sieges it is then. It is not Assad that will suffer.
    If you have any wonderful alternatives then Donald would love to hear them.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 13,219
    edited April 14
    Pulpstar said:

    NATO, Canada, Australia and the EU all issue statements in support of the allied action.

    Will they be paying a contribution towards the action. Tomohawks ain't cheap
    Trump did mention Saudi, UAE, Qatar and Egypt should contribute
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 27,715
    Pulpstar said:

    NATO, Canada, Australia and the EU all issue statements in support of the allied action.

    Will they be paying a contribution towards the action. Tomohawks ain't cheap
    Storm Shadow £790,000

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storm_Shadow
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 5,271
    JackW said:

    JackW said:

    RobD said:

    JackW said:

    RobD said:

    Foxy said:

    So May has gone ahead despite Parliament voted against bombing Assad, albeit in 2013.

    An overruling of Parliament by the executive that sets an interesting precedent.

    I believe the crown has prerogative in such matters.
    Whilst the government does enjoy crown prerogative the most recent constitutional convention set by both Labour and Conservative administrations is that Parliament is more directly involved.

    The question is whether there was time for Parliament to be involved. In my view there was and it was a severe error of judgement for the Prime Minister to circumnavigate parliamentary scrutiny.

    That said I fully support these airstrikes.
    A short lived convention, if it ever was one.
    The government will claim there was no time to invoke the convention, albeit in principle they would have liked to have done so. Such a position is untenable.

    Clearly there will be times where operational requirements make prior parliamentary scrutiny a non starter. However this action has been flagged for several days. It is a failure of leadership for the Prime Minister not to come to the House of Commons and make the case for military action.
    Listening overnight to live reaction it is clear that the strategy was being discussed and agreed between the allies over the last week and it would have been impossible for TM to consult Parliament with plans that were evolving.

    In this case I accept TM was correct to act as she did
    Absolutely incorrect.

    Nobody is suggesting that the House of Commons would have been briefed in tactical detail on the operation but the principle of military action is another matter.

    Appropriate members of the Privy Council would have had further knowledge. Parliament should have been recalled and the Prime Minister has failed in her duty to Parliament and the nation.
    I have a pair of boots whose age was already in double figures when this "convention" was established. You may hope it will in due course become a convention, and you may be right, but "failed in her duty" overstates the case.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 1,818
    TGOHF said:

    Foxy said:

    TGOHF said:

    So Assad has won. The West is just putting up a bit of a show of strength to offset the defeat a bit. Can we talk about something else now.

    He was winning before but we just told him he can’t win quickly with chemical weapons. Do it the hard way Bashir old boy.

    Barrel bombs on hospitals and starvation sieges it is then. It is not Assad that will suffer.
    If you have any wonderful alternatives then Donald would love to hear them.
    Sometimres there are no good alternatives, but this is not our war. At least it wasn't until today.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,500
    There can be a debate next week where all the handwringers, virtue signallers, armchair generals etc can have their moment in the sun.


    “I hate war and Trump aren’t I grand ?” Zzzzzzzz
This discussion has been closed.