Commons vote on Syria airstrikes (round 2).

Commons vote on Syria airstrikes (round 2).

Author
Discussion

BlackLabel

Original Poster:

13,251 posts

123 months

Tuesday 17th November 2015
quotequote all
After Cameron's failure to win parliamentary approval to launch military action against Assad in 2013 we are going to have another vote on bombing Syria sometime soon. Of course this time we'll be leaving Assad alone and concentrating on ISIS.

bbc said:
David Cameron has promised a "comprehensive strategy" to win MPs' backing for bombing Islamic State militants in Syria as well as Iraq.

The prime minister told the Commons the Paris attacks had strengthened the case for air strikes, suggesting there could be a fresh vote on the issue.

He wanted to "do the right thing for our country", and hit the "head of the snake" of IS in Raqqa, Syria, he said.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34846457

What difference will expanding our operations into Syria actually make? The Americans and the French have aircraft carriers in the region and both have lots of air power - F16s, fifth-generation F-22s, B52 and B2 bombers, Rafale and Mirage jets etc.

Will 7 or 8 British Tornados really make a significant difference?

Politically it will be interesting to see Labour implode over this issue. Many senior Labour MPs will vote with the government just to get one over on Corbyn. Some said the last vote was humiliating for Dave, well this one may well be the same for the Labour leader.

Edited by BlackLabel on Tuesday 17th November 17:36

Einion Yrth

19,575 posts

244 months

Tuesday 17th November 2015
quotequote all
BlackLabel said:
Will 7 or 8 British Tornados really make a significant difference?
Well it'd make London a bit more of a target.

eatcustard

1,003 posts

127 months

Tuesday 17th November 2015
quotequote all
Einion Yrth said:
Well it'd make London a bit more of a target.
Its already a target.

Sent the planes in.

citizensm1th

8,371 posts

137 months

Tuesday 17th November 2015
quotequote all
pointless exercise with out lots and lots of troops on the ground.At best all it will do is make it easier for Assad's troops and allies to regain control.

Esseesse

8,969 posts

208 months

Tuesday 17th November 2015
quotequote all
I'd rather we didn't and we unhitched our foreign policy from Uncle Sams.

Murph7355

37,714 posts

256 months

Tuesday 17th November 2015
quotequote all
Esseesse said:
I'd rather we didn't and we unhitched our foreign policy from Uncle Sams.
I tend to agree.

Or we started to encourage a bit more low key involvement. No real need to advertise that we're in there. Go in, help the regional powers where needed and leave.

eldar

21,747 posts

196 months

Tuesday 17th November 2015
quotequote all
Esseesse said:
I'd rather we didn't and we unhitched our foreign policy from Uncle Sams.
1916 & 1943. Who needs Americans, we do a brilliant job by ourselves.

Esseesse

8,969 posts

208 months

Tuesday 17th November 2015
quotequote all
eldar said:
Esseesse said:
I'd rather we didn't and we unhitched our foreign policy from Uncle Sams.
1916 & 1943. Who needs Americans, we do a brilliant job by ourselves.
It's neither 1916 or 1943. Arguably it was our own fault that we had to rely on the Americans even then. Also we are/were arguably far better at running bits of the world than the Americans.

paulrockliffe

15,702 posts

227 months

Tuesday 17th November 2015
quotequote all
I read something earlier about France invoking Article whatever with the EU, which if agreed (presumably by Ange?) would compel us to join in with their action.

If that's the case, Dave is going to need Commons permission first or he'll end up looking like a tit if we're forced to do it anyway by the EU. Nigel will have a field day.

Anyone know what the exact deal with that is?

Esseesse

8,969 posts

208 months

Tuesday 17th November 2015
quotequote all
paulrockliffe said:
I read something earlier about France invoking Article whatever with the EU, which if agreed (presumably by Ange?) would compel us to join in with their action.

If that's the case, Dave is going to need Commons permission first or he'll end up looking like a tit if we're forced to do it anyway by the EU. Nigel will have a field day.

Anyone know what the exact deal with that is?
Not sure but it isn't just a scare story that they're in the process of building combined EU military structures, so I wouldn't be surprised.

Catweazle

1,159 posts

142 months

Tuesday 17th November 2015
quotequote all
paulrockliffe said:
I read something earlier about France invoking Article whatever with the EU, which if agreed (presumably by Ange?) would compel us to join in with their action.

If that's the case, Dave is going to need Commons permission first or he'll end up looking like a tit if we're forced to do it anyway by the EU. Nigel will have a field day.

Anyone know what the exact deal with that is?
NATO not EU.

DoubleByte

1,254 posts

266 months

Tuesday 17th November 2015
quotequote all
Esseesse said:
eldar said:
Esseesse said:
I'd rather we didn't and we unhitched our foreign policy from Uncle Sams.
1916 & 1943. Who needs Americans, we do a brilliant job by ourselves.
It's neither 1916 or 1943. Arguably it was our own fault that we had to rely on the Americans even then. Also we are/were arguably far better at running bits of the world than the Americans.
Arguably you seem to be rewriting history a little.

Pupp

12,224 posts

272 months

Tuesday 17th November 2015
quotequote all
Catweazle said:
paulrockliffe said:
I read something earlier about France invoking Article whatever with the EU, which if agreed (presumably by Ange?) would compel us to join in with their action.

If that's the case, Dave is going to need Commons permission first or he'll end up looking like a tit if we're forced to do it anyway by the EU. Nigel will have a field day.

Anyone know what the exact deal with that is?
NATO not EU.
Nope - EU

V8FGO

1,644 posts

205 months

Wednesday 18th November 2015
quotequote all
They could also invoke Article 5 of the NATO treaty.

Mr_B

10,480 posts

243 months

Wednesday 18th November 2015
quotequote all
Don't bother, they hardly need a handful of ageing RAF bombers. This smacks of just wanting to say you were at the party.

Axionknight

8,505 posts

135 months

Wednesday 18th November 2015
quotequote all
Catweazle said:
paulrockliffe said:
I read something earlier about France invoking Article whatever with the EU, which if agreed (presumably by Ange?) would compel us to join in with their action.

If that's the case, Dave is going to need Commons permission first or he'll end up looking like a tit if we're forced to do it anyway by the EU. Nigel will have a field day.

Anyone know what the exact deal with that is?
NATO not EU.
EU Article 42(7). EU countries must provide "aid and assistance" to an EU nation that has been the victim of armed aggression.

iphonedyou

9,253 posts

157 months

Wednesday 18th November 2015
quotequote all
Mr_B said:
Don't bother, they hardly need a handful of ageing RAF bombers. This smacks of just wanting to say you were at the party.
That probably is why Cameron is keen to secure the vote.

Not national security, and definitely not a wish to avoid relying on the military capabilities of member states without contributing our own in direct action - no, there's a war party and he wants to be at it. Maybe he'll give it a Tripadvisor review after - good, but a bit sandy and the reception at check-in unfriendly.

Wait, no. That's not right at all.

Catweazle

1,159 posts

142 months

Wednesday 18th November 2015
quotequote all
Axionknight said:
Catweazle said:
paulrockliffe said:
I read something earlier about France invoking Article whatever with the EU, which if agreed (presumably by Ange?) would compel us to join in with their action.

If that's the case, Dave is going to need Commons permission first or he'll end up looking like a tit if we're forced to do it anyway by the EU. Nigel will have a field day.

Anyone know what the exact deal with that is?
NATO not EU.
EU Article 42(7). EU countries must provide "aid and assistance" to an EU nation that has been the victim of armed aggression.
I wasn't aware of this development, my apologies.

Axionknight

8,505 posts

135 months

Wednesday 18th November 2015
quotequote all
Added to the Lisbon Treaty and Greece initially tabled the idea apparently - who knew?

http://www.politico.eu/article/what-is-article-42-...

paulrockliffe

15,702 posts

227 months

Wednesday 18th November 2015
quotequote all
The wording sounds a bit vague, but we've sent a destroyer to provide air defence support to the French Carrier, so we're probably covered. Not sure what the air threat would be mind.