Sandra on Syria
Q&A
Q: What exactly happened last week?
Ed Miliband was not prepared to support an ill-judged and rushed decision to use military force: before the weapons inspectors had reported, before the UNSC had debated and voted on the basis of the evidence presented, and before the wider impact of military action on the region had been properly weighed up.
These are the lessons of Iraq. We have to learn them.
The Prime Minister insisted Parliament vote ahead of the evidence, and Parliament decided the case had not been made. That is the conclusion that Parliament came to on Thursday.
Q: Does Labour rule out backing the use of force in future if your tests are met?
Labour never ruled out the use of force in principle. But the Prime Minister now has.
He gave his word to the British People that British military force being used in Syria is now off the agenda and the Chancellor confirmed that again on Sunday.
Q: Should the Prime Minister bring this back to a vote in Parliament if the facts change?
The Prime Minister ruled this out when he made clear to the House, and the Chancellor confirmed today, that Britain will not be engaging in military action in Syria.
After he gave his word to the British people that Britain will not be engaging in military action in Syria, if he then changed his mind on that, I think there would be serious questions that would be asked about his judgement and his reasons for doing so.
But ultimately that is for the Prime Minister to decide.
Q: What should happen next on Syria?
Britain must take a lead in putting Syria at the very top of the diplomatic agenda – and that must start at next week’s G20 meeting in St Petersburg.
The only way to stop the violence is to stop the war. Even those who were advocating military strikes in Syria were not claiming that this was going to end the fighting or stop the conflict. So the G20 summit must be a Syria Summit.
The UK must work with our allies, to ensure that meeting marks the start of a renewed diplomatic initiative
· to bring together the warring sides of conflict,
· to contain the crisis within Syria and minimise its spill over across the region,
· to address the shameful shortfall in international humanitarian support to victims of this conflict.
The problem isn’t going away because we aren’t going to be involved in any military action. I have nothing in common with those Tories who opposed action because they are isolationists. I want Labour, as an internationalist party, to continue to work tirelessly for a resolution to the Syrian crisis.
Q: If the US takes military action, will you condemn it?
The same criteria apply there as here. We welcome the fact that President Obama has decided to set out his case to Congress before taking action. We have no doubt that he is proceeding with the best of motives. My biggest concern is that we have no idea what will result from any military action. It could bring about an escalation in the crisis. What if it doesn’t deter Assad from further atrocities?
Q: Are you saying the American strikes would be illegal?
No - as we said last week, as Kosovo demonstrated, actions can have a legal basis without a Chapter VII Resolution in the Security Council.
Q: Why did you vote against the motion in parliament this week?
Parliament was not prepared to take a decision in circumstances where the UN weapons inspectors had not completed or published their work.
The Americans assessment had not yet been made public.
And the Security Council hadn’t yet voted on the basis of the evidence.
That debate took place in the shadow of the decision on Iraq taken over 10 years ago.
And one key lesson to take from those events is that it is vital to follow due process, and be seen to follow due process.
Q: What were the differences between your amendment and the Government motion?
There were key differences between our amendment and the Government’s motion that we felt were very significant.
First, we called for a Resolution to be pushed to a vote in the UN as a crucial way of pressing for the widest possible international support.
Second, we called for compelling evidence to be published about the perpetrators of any attack.
Third, we called for any authority granted by parliament for military action to be time limited.
Finally, we called for explicit acknowledgement of any possible implications on the region.
The Government motion did not contain these key tests and because of that we didn’t vote for it.
Sandra Osborne MP
Q&A
Q: What exactly happened last week?
Ed Miliband was not prepared to support an ill-judged and rushed decision to use military force: before the weapons inspectors had reported, before the UNSC had debated and voted on the basis of the evidence presented, and before the wider impact of military action on the region had been properly weighed up.
These are the lessons of Iraq. We have to learn them.
The Prime Minister insisted Parliament vote ahead of the evidence, and Parliament decided the case had not been made. That is the conclusion that Parliament came to on Thursday.
Q: Does Labour rule out backing the use of force in future if your tests are met?
Labour never ruled out the use of force in principle. But the Prime Minister now has.
He gave his word to the British People that British military force being used in Syria is now off the agenda and the Chancellor confirmed that again on Sunday.
Q: Should the Prime Minister bring this back to a vote in Parliament if the facts change?
The Prime Minister ruled this out when he made clear to the House, and the Chancellor confirmed today, that Britain will not be engaging in military action in Syria.
After he gave his word to the British people that Britain will not be engaging in military action in Syria, if he then changed his mind on that, I think there would be serious questions that would be asked about his judgement and his reasons for doing so.
But ultimately that is for the Prime Minister to decide.
Q: What should happen next on Syria?
Britain must take a lead in putting Syria at the very top of the diplomatic agenda – and that must start at next week’s G20 meeting in St Petersburg.
The only way to stop the violence is to stop the war. Even those who were advocating military strikes in Syria were not claiming that this was going to end the fighting or stop the conflict. So the G20 summit must be a Syria Summit.
The UK must work with our allies, to ensure that meeting marks the start of a renewed diplomatic initiative
· to bring together the warring sides of conflict,
· to contain the crisis within Syria and minimise its spill over across the region,
· to address the shameful shortfall in international humanitarian support to victims of this conflict.
The problem isn’t going away because we aren’t going to be involved in any military action. I have nothing in common with those Tories who opposed action because they are isolationists. I want Labour, as an internationalist party, to continue to work tirelessly for a resolution to the Syrian crisis.
Q: If the US takes military action, will you condemn it?
The same criteria apply there as here. We welcome the fact that President Obama has decided to set out his case to Congress before taking action. We have no doubt that he is proceeding with the best of motives. My biggest concern is that we have no idea what will result from any military action. It could bring about an escalation in the crisis. What if it doesn’t deter Assad from further atrocities?
Q: Are you saying the American strikes would be illegal?
No - as we said last week, as Kosovo demonstrated, actions can have a legal basis without a Chapter VII Resolution in the Security Council.
Q: Why did you vote against the motion in parliament this week?
Parliament was not prepared to take a decision in circumstances where the UN weapons inspectors had not completed or published their work.
The Americans assessment had not yet been made public.
And the Security Council hadn’t yet voted on the basis of the evidence.
That debate took place in the shadow of the decision on Iraq taken over 10 years ago.
And one key lesson to take from those events is that it is vital to follow due process, and be seen to follow due process.
Q: What were the differences between your amendment and the Government motion?
There were key differences between our amendment and the Government’s motion that we felt were very significant.
First, we called for a Resolution to be pushed to a vote in the UN as a crucial way of pressing for the widest possible international support.
Second, we called for compelling evidence to be published about the perpetrators of any attack.
Third, we called for any authority granted by parliament for military action to be time limited.
Finally, we called for explicit acknowledgement of any possible implications on the region.
The Government motion did not contain these key tests and because of that we didn’t vote for it.
Sandra Osborne MP