so the british parliament has voted down a military strike in syria, good for them. at least the issue is being discussed over there at the very highest levels, as opposed to this country where obama hasn't made his decision yet, which translates to he's made his decision.
I read somewhere that there'll be a second vote after the UN inspection. Depending on the results, there's every chance they'll vote yes since it was only defeated by 13 votes.
I read that Labour leader Ed Miliband had promised Cameron his support but then voted against. Cam the Spam is furious and a Downing Street "source" claims he called Red Ed a "copper bottomed chicken s**t c**t"......
It is without modern precedent for a prime minister to lose control of his foreign policy, let alone decisions about peace and war.
That, though, is what has happened in the past 24 hours.
David Cameron summoned MPs to return early from their summer break in order to vote for British involvement in military strikes against Syria within days.
The timetable was not his. It was President Obama's.
Having declared that the use of chemical weapons in Syria would be the crossing of a red line, the White House was under pressure to act and to act fast.
No guarantee In addition, Obama is said to have wanted to act before leaving the US for a foreign trip next Tuesday.
If he still wants to stick to that timetable, Britain will no longer be with him.
The government simply could not guarantee that its own MPs would give it a majority in the vote tonight. They needed Labour's support.
Ed Miliband showed every sign of offering it in a series of face-to-face meetings with David Cameron until last night, when he insisted that MPs be given a second vote after the UN weapons inspectors in Syria had reported.
“ Start Quote
David Cameron has consistently talked tough on Syria and consistently proved unable to act tough. Today he will try to present that as a search for consensus after the painful wounds of Iraq.”
It is impossible to know whether he was acting out of principle or in response to pressure from his own MPs. The answer is probably both.
In response the prime minister felt he had no choice but to buckle. So, now MPs are being asked to vote on the "principle" of military action but with the promise that they will get another say before any missiles are fired.
Labour are still not happy. They are tabling an amendment which sets out what they call a "road map" to a decision - in effect a series of hurdles that have to be crossed before action can be taken.
The one that could prove trickiest is the one that may seem the easiest. It is the call for "compelling evidence" that chemical weapons were used by the Assad regime.
The UN weapons inspectors in Damascus will not produce that evidence.
