This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/29/syria-debate-parliament-editorial
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| Syria debate: parliament did its job when it mattered | Syria debate: parliament did its job when it mattered |
| (21 days later) | |
| Summoned back to debate the Syrian crisis, the House of Commons distinguished itself on Thursday. It did so more because of the political outcome than because of the quality of the parliamentary occasion itself. What mattered most was not the many powerful speeches. What really counted is summed up in the familiar constitutional phrase about the legislature holding the executive to account. For that is what occurred on Thursday. The government was prevented, by a remarkable 285 votes to 272, from mounting a premature and foolish attack on Syria. Parliament, so often sneered at, did its job when it mattered. | Summoned back to debate the Syrian crisis, the House of Commons distinguished itself on Thursday. It did so more because of the political outcome than because of the quality of the parliamentary occasion itself. What mattered most was not the many powerful speeches. What really counted is summed up in the familiar constitutional phrase about the legislature holding the executive to account. For that is what occurred on Thursday. The government was prevented, by a remarkable 285 votes to 272, from mounting a premature and foolish attack on Syria. Parliament, so often sneered at, did its job when it mattered. |
| The principal loser from an extraordinary 72 hours was David Cameron. The prime minister returned from holiday expecting that he would be able to deliver a Commons majority for an early US-UK military assault in response to the use of chemical weapons in Syria. Three days later, he has failed. A combination of pressures, including public opinion, military caution, Tory backbench uncertainty and a well-played Labour counter-strategy meant Mr Cameron had to scale back and slow down his ambitions. But even that was not enough. As the former army chief Lord Dannatt put it: "The public didn't like it, and the debate has changed." Mr Cameron asked for a blank cheque, but in the end the Commons would not even give him the note of conditional willingness to pay in the future. Mr Cameron's instant reaction suggests he will not be trying again any time soon. | The principal loser from an extraordinary 72 hours was David Cameron. The prime minister returned from holiday expecting that he would be able to deliver a Commons majority for an early US-UK military assault in response to the use of chemical weapons in Syria. Three days later, he has failed. A combination of pressures, including public opinion, military caution, Tory backbench uncertainty and a well-played Labour counter-strategy meant Mr Cameron had to scale back and slow down his ambitions. But even that was not enough. As the former army chief Lord Dannatt put it: "The public didn't like it, and the debate has changed." Mr Cameron asked for a blank cheque, but in the end the Commons would not even give him the note of conditional willingness to pay in the future. Mr Cameron's instant reaction suggests he will not be trying again any time soon. |
| Mr Cameron in fact gave a polished performance when he addressed MPs at the start of the debate. But it was to no avail, and the humiliation is a historic one. For a prime minister to lose control of a key issue of foreign policy of this kind is an almost unprecedented failure. The prospective missile attack on Syria is not a foreign policy moment on a par with the Suez war in 1956, the Norway debate of 1940 or Chanak in 1922, all of which led to the fall of 20th-century prime ministers. But it was a massive reverse nevertheless. It is a reminder that things are different in hung parliaments and that Mr Cameron's control of his party has been seriously weakened. | Mr Cameron in fact gave a polished performance when he addressed MPs at the start of the debate. But it was to no avail, and the humiliation is a historic one. For a prime minister to lose control of a key issue of foreign policy of this kind is an almost unprecedented failure. The prospective missile attack on Syria is not a foreign policy moment on a par with the Suez war in 1956, the Norway debate of 1940 or Chanak in 1922, all of which led to the fall of 20th-century prime ministers. But it was a massive reverse nevertheless. It is a reminder that things are different in hung parliaments and that Mr Cameron's control of his party has been seriously weakened. |
| Though its own motion was also defeated, the Labour party deserves great credit for the wiser course that parliament has now imposed on the prime minister. Ed Miliband's speech Thursday lacked the fluency of Mr Cameron's, but Labour's decision to stand its ground over the Syria debate was the indispensable bedrock of the outcome. Labour's insistence that international law and process should be at the heart of the response to the Assad regime's probable use of banned chemical weapons should not have been necessary. But it is a crucial victory for the multilateral rather than the unilateral approach nevertheless. Mr Miliband should be congratulated for insisting that Britain holds to the line of process and law. Mr Cameron's readiness to change his approach should be noted, too. Both of them have learned some lessons from 2003. But the Tory vindictiveness towards Labour in the debate was a badge of honour. | Though its own motion was also defeated, the Labour party deserves great credit for the wiser course that parliament has now imposed on the prime minister. Ed Miliband's speech Thursday lacked the fluency of Mr Cameron's, but Labour's decision to stand its ground over the Syria debate was the indispensable bedrock of the outcome. Labour's insistence that international law and process should be at the heart of the response to the Assad regime's probable use of banned chemical weapons should not have been necessary. But it is a crucial victory for the multilateral rather than the unilateral approach nevertheless. Mr Miliband should be congratulated for insisting that Britain holds to the line of process and law. Mr Cameron's readiness to change his approach should be noted, too. Both of them have learned some lessons from 2003. But the Tory vindictiveness towards Labour in the debate was a badge of honour. |
| The case for a more measured approach to Syria is ultimately an argument about political effectiveness. The most important objective in the current phase of the Syrian war is to stamp out any use of chemical weapons. That is best achieved by making a renewed case to the nations of the world that chemical weapons must always be beyond the pale, by establishing that a breach of that global proscription of such weapons has occurred, and ensuring that the international ban on them must be upheld and enforced. The world's message is more effective when most widely supported. | The case for a more measured approach to Syria is ultimately an argument about political effectiveness. The most important objective in the current phase of the Syrian war is to stamp out any use of chemical weapons. That is best achieved by making a renewed case to the nations of the world that chemical weapons must always be beyond the pale, by establishing that a breach of that global proscription of such weapons has occurred, and ensuring that the international ban on them must be upheld and enforced. The world's message is more effective when most widely supported. |
| Several things happened on Thursday that advanced this process. The UK government's intelligence assessment of the reported use of chemical weapons on 21 August is due to be followed on Thursday by a similar but by no means conclusive assessment from Washington. The UK document admits it struggles to find the motive but concludes it is highly likely that the Assad regime was responsible for the deaths and poisonings in the attack on the Damascus suburbs last week. The report of the UN inspectors will add substantially to that pool of knowledge. | Several things happened on Thursday that advanced this process. The UK government's intelligence assessment of the reported use of chemical weapons on 21 August is due to be followed on Thursday by a similar but by no means conclusive assessment from Washington. The UK document admits it struggles to find the motive but concludes it is highly likely that the Assad regime was responsible for the deaths and poisonings in the attack on the Damascus suburbs last week. The report of the UN inspectors will add substantially to that pool of knowledge. |
| The legal position, as set out in the UK law officers' advice published on Thursday, is that the best way of responding is under the United Nations charter, but that there is a right to act against the users of chemical weapons on humanitarian grounds if the UN route is blocked by a veto. This is contested and will need to be assessed again. But these measured steps are the right approach. Evidence first, verdict afterwards – not the reverse, as happened over Iraq. | The legal position, as set out in the UK law officers' advice published on Thursday, is that the best way of responding is under the United Nations charter, but that there is a right to act against the users of chemical weapons on humanitarian grounds if the UN route is blocked by a veto. This is contested and will need to be assessed again. But these measured steps are the right approach. Evidence first, verdict afterwards – not the reverse, as happened over Iraq. |
| The debate about Syria and chemical weapons is not over. But it feels as if a page has turned in the way such challenges are being faced. Ten years ago, MPs were given a say over decisions to enter international conflict. Their vote on Iraq was a great error. This week's arguments show that some lessons have been learned. If all this results in a different kind of British approach to conflict, more measured and more respectful of the international order, though no less determined to uphold humanitarian and legal values, then some real good will have come from the dilemmas with which politicians have wrestled this week. | The debate about Syria and chemical weapons is not over. But it feels as if a page has turned in the way such challenges are being faced. Ten years ago, MPs were given a say over decisions to enter international conflict. Their vote on Iraq was a great error. This week's arguments show that some lessons have been learned. If all this results in a different kind of British approach to conflict, more measured and more respectful of the international order, though no less determined to uphold humanitarian and legal values, then some real good will have come from the dilemmas with which politicians have wrestled this week. |
| Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. |