Today's HOC Vote

ColchesterFC said:
Have the SNP ministers been told how to vote or have they been given a free vote? Genuine question, not trying to have a pop at anyone.
Click to expand...

I think they're being whipped (just my opinion based on following it closely over the past few days before anyone asks why or demands proof/hyperlinks!!) altho not entirely sure it's that big a deal as IMO pretty much all of them would have opposed it anyway given a free vote.
 
ger147 said:
I think they're being whipped (just my opinion based on following it closely over the past few days before anyone asks why or demands proof/hyperlinks!!) altho not entirely sure it's that big a deal as IMO pretty much all of them would have opposed it anyway given a free vote.
Click to expand...

I think that is correct.
Wee Angus keeps them on a tight rein at Westminster but most of the time they seem share the same thoughts.
Good to see the group growing in confidence at Westminster, their respect and manners have been a breath of fresh air to that place.
 
HomerJSimpson said:
Still not convinced that yes is the way to go and airstrikes alone will not solve the crisis and so inevitably troops going in will follow. This is where I start to have issues
Click to expand...

Lets bin the UN then as the appear to want everyone involved:

5. Calls upon Member States that have the capacity to do so to take all necessary measures, in compliance with international law, in particular with the United Nations Charter, as well as international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law, on the territory under the control of ISIL also known as Da’esh, in Syria and Iraq, to redouble and coordinate their efforts to prevent and suppress terrorist acts committed specifically by ISIL also known as Da’esh as well as ANF, and all other individuals, groups, undertakings, and entities associated with Al-Qaida, and other terrorist groups, as designated by the United Nations Security Council, and as may further be agreed by the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) and endorsed by the UN Security Council, pursuant to the statement of the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) of 14 November, and to eradicate the safe haven they have established over significant parts of Iraq and Syria;
 
Old Skier said:
Lets bin the UN then as the appear to want everyone involved:

5. Calls upon Member States that have the capacity to do so to take all necessary measures, in compliance with international law, in particular with the United Nations Charter, as well as international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law, on the territory under the control of ISIL also known as Da’esh, in Syria and Iraq, to redouble and coordinate their efforts to prevent and suppress terrorist acts committed specifically by ISIL also known as Da’esh as well as ANF, and all other individuals, groups, undertakings, and entities associated with Al-Qaida, and other terrorist groups, as designated by the United Nations Security Council, and as may further be agreed by the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) and endorsed by the UN Security Council, pursuant to the statement of the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) of 14 November, and to eradicate the safe haven they have established over significant parts of Iraq and Syria;
Click to expand...

Sorry but it's my opinion. Look at Afghanistan and the issues every nation has had including the military might of Russia when they had a force there, and especially the US and UK forces. It's long hard and attritional and there will be many, many casualties. Do we actually know how we'd target and eradicate forces moving around familiar surroundings and being helped by sympathisers. It's just a recipe for a grand mess
 
H
IanG said:
It's a no from me.

Will bombing IS in Syria make us safer in the short or long term? - in my opinion no.
Will bombing IS in Syria make the lives of innocent bystanders in Syria better/safer in the short or long term? - in my opinion no.

Will bombing IS in Syria accidentally kill innocents and thereby alienate the local population further from the west? - in my opinion yes

Can the West solve the problems in the region militarily? - in my opinion no.
Is there collective political will in the region to find a political solution? - in my opinion no.

Given the above, while the temptation to join in and 'do something' in the light of the dreadful acts of terror is strong, ultimately we'd be better off keeping our boys and girls safe, ensuring security at home and trying where possible to support anyone striving for a sensible political solution.

I know this sounds like a lily-livered weak response but without a strategic objective/plan bombs only kill people, they don't solve problems, and they often make things worse.

Having said all that I'm relieved it is not my responsibility to actually make these decisions, the whole thing is a tragic mess.
Click to expand...


No it's not a lily-livered weak response, well said ,I agree with every word you wrote.
 
So 397 v 223 in favour of airstrikes against IS in Syria.

David Cameron must really be hoping that MI5 and MI6 are at the top of their game for the next couple of months because I can only imagine the "I told you so's" from the no side of things if there is an attack on the UK mainland in the next few months.
 
ColchesterFC said:
So 397 v 223 in favour of airstrikes against IS in Syria.

David Cameron must really be hoping that MI5 and MI6 are at the top of their game for the next couple of months because I can only imagine the "I told you so's" from the no side of things if there is an attack on the UK mainland in the next few months.
Click to expand...

I suspect that an attack on home soil will worry him a lot less than a misplaced bomb that destroys s hospital or a school.
 
Doon frae Troon said:
No of course not.... that would be a staggeringly high number.
At a very rough guess I would say it is around two thirds against.
Click to expand...

So what was your point caller?

Edit - actually, don't bother answering, I couldn't give a monkeys!

For or against, right or wrong, the decision has been made. Good luck to all our British boys and girls, here's hoping you vapourize some bad guys and get back to us safe.
 
Last edited:
Unsurprising, because Cameron said all along he wouldn't hold a vote unless he knew he would win. Personally, I would have liked the same test applied to this military action. Unless you know how you think it will end, don't do it! And I really don't think that anyone has a firm plan on how this ends. Should we do nothing? No, absolutely not. Should we do this? No, absolutely not, or at least not immediately, rushing in. Just because we believe that we must do something doesn't mean that anything will do.

Lots of very good speeches from both sides, and not on party political lines as well which is when Parliament is generally at its best. Some good quotes:

"Everybody feels a bond with the French, but an emotional reflex is not enough. Military action might be effective at some point, but military action without a political strategy is folly."

"... our French allies have asked us for such support, and I invite the house to consider how we would feel, and what we would say, if what took place in Paris had happened in London, if we had explicitly asked France for support and France had refused."

Find it very difficult to argue with either of those. This one is probably closest to how I feel though:

"The issue today is about what practical action can result in some way in damaging Daesh, in stopping their atrocities. If what the government were proposing today would in any way, not even get rid of Daesh but weaken them in a significant way ... I wouldn’t have any difficulty in voting for this motion."
 
Very tough decision today but, on balance, the wrong one for me. Not that we shouldn't be taking action but this seems ill thought out with no real plan beyond dropping bombs. Cameron's lies about the supposed 70,000 "moderates" ready to fight ISIS on the ground should have been better exposed. Plus Putin is bombing those 70,000 so what are we going to do to defend those "allies"?

What a mess. :(
 
For me we had to get involved. One of our Allies has suffered a devastating attack by ISIS and part of being an alliance is backing each other.

I'm not sure if it's what will be best but I feel we had no choice.

People thinking this action will mean they will try and attack us in the UK are deluded. They already are if reports are to believed.
 
FairwayDodger said:
Very tough decision today but, on balance, the wrong one for me. Not that we shouldn't be taking action but this seems ill thought out with no real plan beyond dropping bombs. Cameron's lies about the supposed 70,000 "moderates" ready to fight ISIS on the ground should have been better exposed. Plus Putin is bombing those 70,000 so what are we going to do to defend those "allies"?

What a mess. :(
Click to expand...

History will view Cameron's 70,000 moderates as it does Tony Blair's WMD's.
 
I don't think it's about what difference our British planes will make but it's about us standing side by side with the coalition in whatever action is taken.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top