One thing I don't understand - from the newspapers I got the impression that the British parliament somehow prevented itself from voting on the same issue again, for example im Syria and Turkey start getting nasty or something like that.
Why can't they?
There are only two possible answers to this;
1) Nothing
2) Politics
The British Parliament is supreme when it comes to English and Welsh law. There are absolutely no limits on what they can pass and have enforced. Theoretically.
In this case there is a clear majority of MPs in favour of (keeping open the option of) military action in Syria. It's just that the politics of the votes blocked any motion from actually passing.
What happened was that a Labour amendment to the resolution was put forwards. Labour (or rather Miliband) insisted it was this amendment or nothing. Instead Cameron altered the government resolution from it's original more militant form (essentially saying the UK was ready to following the US into action) to the far more compromising and equivocating resolution that eventually went up for a vote - far closer to Labour's proposal than the original Conservative one.
However, Labour held their ground over their own amendment.
Their version is here and is somewhat narrower and clearer in scope than the government one, but not by so much that their effects would be drastically different.
Between the Labour amendment and government resolution there were over 450 yes votes for keeping military options open. Yet neither motion passed.
A couple commentaries on this.
The thing is, look at this section from the latter article;
Britain’s response to the Syria crisis is now effectively in Ed Miliband’s hands. That’s an incredibly unusual – unprecedented – position for an opposition leader. Undoubtedly it’s daunting, but he’ll have to get used to it now. This is the big leagues, the decisions are tough, but Miliband has a chance to prove his mettle as a Prime Minister and a statesman.
So what should Ed do?
First and foremost – stick to your guns, asses the evidence. If there is sufficient cause to believe the Syrian regime is using chemical weapons on civilians (which I believe there will be) and there’s a credible plan of action – then Labour must act, work with the Prime Minister and vote to launch a military strike on the Assad regime. That’s the logic of what Ed Miliband has been saying all week, and it shouldn’t change just because the government lost a vote in the Commons.
That will require bravery – and political maturity – from both Miliband and Cameron. It might prove unpopular on both the government and opposition benches, provoking rebellions on both sides. It might lock two rivals together, uncomfortably, to a difficult overseas campaign. It might cost them both dear.
But if they both believe that action must be taken, and they believe that the military approach is right, it would be wrong of them both to sit on their hands because of a hasty response to an unusual parliamentary vote. Neither government nor opposition were against intervention at all costs. To be so now seems somewhat perverse.
What the hell are the odds of that happening?
After this defeat Cameron can't simply hold a new vote by whipping government MPs. It would be political suicide and potentially open him to a confidence motion from Conservative rebels (eg, collapse the government). At the same time Labour are unlikely to want to reverse what has suddenly become their anti-war position (even if it's not really their position) when they can make such political gains from shaking off the shadow of Iraq.
For Parliament to actually reverse it's position you would either need such provocative action on Assad's behalf that all of Parliament short of George Galloway would think the requirement for a response is obvious, or a similarly drastic public opinion shift towards a pro-'war' stance that it becomes a good idea - electorally - for Labour to trigger action.
Author
Topic: Egypt and the world and Libya - Now without Ukraine! (Read 372383 times)