MPs are engaged in a marathon debate in the House of Commons, arguing whether or not to extend UK air strikes against Islamic State (IS) into Syria. Here are some of the key statements and interventions in the debate. We have kept the speakers' style on IS/ISIL/Daesh, as it can be illustrative of their view. This page will be updated periodically
Prime Minister David Cameron (in favour of bombing):
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn (against bombing):
[This version was sent round by Labour in advance of the speech]
Mr Speaker,
The whole House recognises that decisions to send British forces to war are the most serious, solemn and morally challenging of any that we have to take as members of parliament.
The motion brought to the House today by the government authorising military action in Syria against Isil faces us with such a decision.
It is one with potentially far-reaching consequences for us all, here in Britain, as well as for the people of Syria and the wider Middle East.
For all members, taking a decision that will put British service men and women in harm’s way and almost inevitably lead to the deaths of innocents is a heavy responsibility.
It must be treated with the utmost seriousness—and respect given to those who make a different judgement about the right course of action to take.
Which is why the Prime Minister’s attempt to brand those who plan to vote against the government as “terrorist sympathisers” both demeans the office of the Prime Minister and undermines the seriousness of the deliberations we are having today.
Since the Prime Minister first made his case for extending UK bombing to Syria in the House last week, the doubts and unanswered questions then expressed on both sides of the House have only grown and multiplied.
That’s why it is a matter of such concern that the government has decided to push this vote through parliament today.
It would have been far better to allow a full two-day debate that would have given all members the chance to make a proper contribution.
It is impossible to avoid the conclusion that the Prime Minister understands public opposition to his ill thought-out rush to war is growing—and wants to hold the vote before it slips from his hands.
Whether it’s the lack of a strategy worth the name the absence of credible ground troops the missing diplomatic plan for a Syrian settlement the failure to address the impact on the terrorist threat or the refugee crisis and civilian casualties: it’s become increasingly clear that the Prime Minister’s proposal for military action simply doesn’t stack up.
Last week the Prime Minister focused his case for bombing in Syria on the critical tests set by the respected cross-party Foreign Affairs select committee.
Given the holes in the government’s case, it’s scarcely surprising that last night the committee reported that the Prime Minister had not “adequately addressed” their concerns.
In other words, the committee judged that the Prime Minister’s case for bombing has failed its tests.
After the despicable and horrific attacks in Paris last month, the question of whether the government’s proposal for military action in Syria strengthens—or undermines—our own national security must be at the centre of our deliberations.
There is no doubt that the so-called Islamic state group has imposed a reign of sectarian and inhuman terror in Iraq, Syria and Libya. And there is no question that it also poses a threat to our own people.
The issue is now whether extending UK bombing from Iraq to Syria is likely to reduce, or increase, that threat in Britain - and whether it will counter, or spread, the terror campaign Isil is waging across the Middle East.
The answers don’t make the case for the government’s motion. On the contrary, they are a warning to step back and vote against yet another ill-fated twist in the never-ending war on terror.
Start with the military dimension. The Prime Minister has been unable to explain why extending air strikes to Syria will make a significant military impact on the existing campaign.
Isil is already being bombed in Syria or Iraq by the US, France, Britain, Russia and other powers.
During more than a year of bombing Isil has expanded, as well as lost, territory. Those Isil gains include the Iraqi city of Ramadi and the Syrian city of Palmyra.
The claim that superior British missiles will make the difference is hard to credit when the US and other states are struggling to find suitable targets. In other words, extending UK bombing is highly unlikely to work.
Second, the Prime Minister has failed to convince almost anyone that - even if British participation in the air campaign were to tip the balance—there are credible ground forces able to take back territory now held by Isil.
In fact, it’s quite clear there are no such forces.
Last week, the Prime Minister suggested that Kurdish militias or the Free Syrian Army would be able to fill the gap. He even claimed a 70,000-strong force of moderate FSA fighters was ready to coordinate action against Isil with the western air campaign.
That claim has not remotely stood up to scrutiny. Kurdish forces will be of little assistance in the Sunni Arab areas Isil controls. Nor will the FSA, which includes a wide range of groups few would regard as moderate - and mostly operates in other parts of the country.
The only ground forces able to take advantage of a successful anti-Isil air campaign are much stronger jihadist and Salafist groups close to Isil-controlled areas.
That’s what the Prime Minister’s bombing campaign could well lead to.
It’s why the logic of an extended air campaign is mission creep and western boots on the ground—whatever the Prime Minister may say now…. about keeping British combat troops out of the fight.
Third, the military aim of attacking Isis targets in Syria is not part of a coherent diplomatic strategy.
UN security council resolution 2249 passed after the Paris atrocities and cited in today’s government motion does not give clear and unambiguous authorisation for UK bombing in Syria.
To do so it would have had to be passed under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter to which the security council couldn’t agree.
The UN resolution is certainly a welcome framework for joint action to cut off funding, oil revenues and arms supplies from Isil. But there’s little sign of that happening in earnest.
Nor is there yet any serious evidence that it’s being used to coordinate international military or diplomatic strategy in Syria.
That’s despite the clear risk of potentially disastrous incidents such as the shooting down of a Russian military aircraft by Turkish forces leading to a dangerous escalation.
Fourth, The Prime Minister has avoided spelling out to the British people the warnings he has surely been given about the likely impact of UK air strikes in Syria on the threat of terrorist attacks in the UK.
That is something all those backing the government’s motion should weigh heavily when they vote to send RAF pilots into action over Syria.
It is critically important, Mr Speaker, that we are honest with the British people about the potential consequences of the action the Prime Minister is proposing today.
I’m aware that there are those with military experience, including members on the benches opposite, who have argued that extending UK bombing will—and I quote—“increase the short-term risks of terrorist attacks in Britain.”
We should also remember the impact on communities here in Britain. Since the Paris attacks there has been a sharp increase in Islamophobic incidents and physical attacks.
The message must go out from all of us in the House: we will not tolerate any form of anti-Semitism, Islamophobia or racism in our country.
And the Prime Minister has offered no serious assessment of the impact of an intensified air campaign on civilian casualties in Isil-held Syrian territory or the wider Syrian refugee crisis.
At least 250,000 have already been killed in Syria’s terrible civil war, 11 million made homeless and four million forced to leave the country.
Many more have been killed by the Assad regime than by Isil itself.
Yet more bombing in Syria will kill innocent civilians of that there’s no doubt and turn many more Syrians into refugees.
Yesterday I was sent this message from a Syrian constituent of mine.
“I’m a Syrian from Manbij city, which is now controlled by Isil”, he writes. “Members of my family still live there and Isil didn’t kill them. My question to David Cameron is: ‘Can you guarantee the safety of my family when your air forces bomb my city?’”
And there is no EU-wide strategy to provide humanitarian assistance to those victims. You can’t back more bombing without a plan to pick up the pieces.
Finally, and perhaps most important of all the Prime Minister is still entirely unable to explain how UK bombing in Syria would contribute to a comprehensive negotiated political settlement of the Syrian war.
Such a settlement is widely accepted to be the only way to ensure the isolation and defeat of Isil in the country.
Isil grew out of the invasion of Iraq. But it has flourished in Syria in the chaos and horror of a multi-front civil war.
And the government’s bombing proposal clearly does not subordinate military action to international diplomatic efforts.
The Prime Minister’s approach is bomb first, talk later.
Instead of adding British bombs to the others now raining down on Syria, what’s needed is an acceleration of the peace talks in Vienna.
Those negotiations need to involve all the main regional and international powers with the aim of establishing a broad-based government in Syria that has the support of the majority of its people.
In the context of such a settlement internationally backed regional forces could help to take back territory from Isil. But its lasting defeat in Syria can only be secured by Syrians themselves.
The government’s proposal for military action in Syria is not backed by clear and unambiguous authorisation by the UN. It does not meet the seven tests set by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee.
And it does not fulfil three out of four conditions laid down in Labour’s conference resolution passed two months ago.
In the past week, we have given a voice to the growing opposition to the government’s bombing plans—across the country, in parliament and the Labour party.
And the rejection of fourteen years of disastrous wars in the wider Middle East was a central pillar of the platform on which I was elected Labour leader.
In the light of that record of western military interventions, UK bombing of Syria risks yet more of what President Obama called “unintended consequences”.
The spectre of Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya looms over this debate.
To oppose another reckless and half-baked intervention isn’t pacifism. It’s hard-headed common sense.
To resist Isil’s determination to draw the western powers back into the heart of the Middle East isn’t to turn our backs on allies.
It’s to refuse to play into the hands of Isil.
It’s wrong for us here in Westminster to see a problem, pass a motion and drop the bombs pretending we’re doing something to solve it.
That’s what we did in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. Has terrorism increased or decreased as a result?
The Prime Minister said he was looking to build a consensus around the military action he wants to take.
He has achieved nothing of the kind.
He has failed to make the case for another bombing campaign. All our efforts should instead go into bringing the Syrian civil war to an end.
After Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, members thinking of voting for bombing should keep in mind how terrible the consequences can be.
Only a negotiated peace settlement can overcome the Isil threat in Syria. And that should be our overriding goal.
It's also notable that when Corbyn was asked by Labour MP John Woodcock to confirm that he did not oppose Britain's current air strikes in Iraq, he dodged the question, saying simply that the issue was not in the motion being debated.
Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Crispin Blunt (in favour of bombing):
Blunt made an intervention during Corbyn's speech, which cited the fact that Blunt's committee had decided that their tests for military action had not been met. Blunt said that to say so was "a very weak point" given that "logically it is almost impossible for the Prime Minister to adequately meet those concerns," due to constraints on what the Prime Minister could say publicly.
SNP leader Angus Robertson (against bombing):
There is agreement across this House that the threat from Daesh is real and doing nothing is not an option. We recall however that only two years ago this Prime Minister wanted us to bomb the opponents of Daesh, which would no doubt have strengthened them.
The influential Foreign Affairs Committee took a wide range of evidence from military experts, academics, lawyers, the Foreign Secretary and Syrian groups. As a result a number of questions were presented to the Prime Minister and just yesterday a majority of committee members agreed that these questions had not been answered.
There is no shortage of countries already bombing Syria. Most recently the Russians have been attacking Daesh and too often the moderate opposition to Assad as well.
On the issue of Ground Forces, we are told that there are 70,000 troops that are opposed to Assad and Daesh which could take the territory Daesh currently holds. The problem is that it seems only a part of those forces are moderate and there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that they would definitely deploy from other parts of the country to counter Daesh. It appears to be totally wishful thinking that without a comprehensive ceasefire first in Syria, we can expect any redirection of any forces from other fronts in the country.
On stabilising and rebuilding, we are advised by the World Bank that it will cost $170 billion dollars to rebuild Syria. The Prime Minister has made a commitment to contribute £1bn towards this mammoth task which is welcome. We are entitled to ask whether a contribution of less than 1% is realistically going to be enough.
Yesterday I took the time to meet Syrian exiles to discuss their experiences and hear their views. They asked whether we are seriously asking people to stop fighting Assad and move to another part of the country to fight Daesh. They asked how we expect people to fight Daesh if they have no feeling of any support.
Over one hundred MPs have signed a cross-party amendment against the vote with key signatories including Green MP Caroline Lucas, Hywel Williams of Plaid Cymru, SDLP MP Alasdair McDonnell and Labour MP Graham Allen as well as Conservative John Baron MP.
We know that 72% of Scots are opposed to airstrikes, and 57 out of 59 Scottish MPs are expected to vote against them. In any normal country, under normal circumstances, Scotland would not be involved yet Scottish forces – from RAF Lossiemouth- will be deployed to bomb Syria."
Robinson also highlighted an intervention by Labour Foreign Affairs Committee member Yasmin Qureshi, who said that on visits to the region she had heard a figure closer to 15,000 for the number of moderate ground troops in Syria: "this should worry us all," Robertson said, "the problem with this issue is that only a part of the forces the Prime Minister and his colleagues have spoken about are moderate."
Ed Miliband, former Labour leader (against bombing):
Having listened to today’s debate and the many arguments that have been made, I will be voting against the government’s motion tonight.
I will do so because I do not think the case has been adequately made that extending British air strikes will either defeat ISIL or make us safer here at home.
A strategy for the defeat of ISIL depends crucially on ground troops and a political settlement, or the path towards a political settlement. That is because ISIL cannot be defeated from the air alone, as even supporters of air strikes acknowledge, and because ISIL’s success depends on the vacuum created from a multi-sided civil war.
Neither an explanation of who the ground troops will be, nor the political settlement we are seeking in Syria, or how we get there, has been provided by the government. We would be going ahead without an adequate road-map or a clear strategy.
The other case made for extending air strikes is that it will make us safer here at home. But I do not believe this case has been adequately made either.
ISIL is a network, not simply an organisation with a headquarters. What is more, nearly 3000 coalition air strikes have already been aimed at Syria and the case for what British air strikes will add is weak.
ISIL can only be defeated in Syria with an effective and comprehensive plan. That is what is required and the proposition fails to meet that test. That is why I will be voting against the motion.
Gerald Kaufman, Labour former Shadow Home Secretary and Father of the House (against bombing)
Mr speaker, there is of course absolutely no doubt that daesh/IS is a vile, laothesome, murderous organisation. The attack in Paris, the murder of 130 innocent people, could just as well have been in London, and their choice of paris was a retaliation against French activity in their region but that does not [prevent] our taking activity if it were appropriate, relevant and above all successful.
They claim to call themselves Islamic, and the Prime Minister talked about reclaiming Islam from them. They do not own Islam. Hundreds of million of Muslims throughout the world are appalled by their murder, their beheadings, their kidnappings, all of the abominable things that they do. But mr speaker, our loathing of IS, our wish to get rid of it, to defeat it, to stop it, is not the issue here today.
The issue here is what action could be taken in order to stop them, in order to get rid of them, and I have to say that I don't see such an action. The Prime Minister spoke about getting a transitional government in Syria. He spoke about the situation in Syria. I've been to syria many times. I did it with some distaste as Shadow Foreign Secretary, and met senior officials in the Syrian administration. Murderers!... they murdered their own people. They murdered 10,000 people in Hama alone... I would be delighted to see them got rid of. But they are not going to go. And when there's talk about negotiations in Vienna... [the idea] that that is somehow or other going to get rid of Assad [is not correct]. Putin... will make sure that because they're his allies, action against them is not going to be successful.
[Today's vote] isn't about changing the regime in Syria, it isn't about getting rid of Daesh, it's about what practical action can result in some way in damaging Daesh, in stopping their atrocities, in stopping the people who are fleeing from them, in stopping the people who are flocking to them—including, sadly, some small number of people from this country. If what the government were proposing today would in any way... weaken them in a significant way so that they would not go on behaving in the abominable fashion that we see, I wouldn't have any difficulty in voting for this motion today. But there is absolutely no evidence that... bombing Daesh, bombing Raqqa, will result in an upsurge of people in the region to get rid of them. What it would do, it might cause some damage... what it would undoubtedly do... it will kill innocent civilians and I am not going to be a party to killing innocent civilians for what will simply be a gesture. I'm not interested in gesture politics... I'm interested in effective military activity, and when that is brought before this house I vote for it... when the previous Conservative government came to this house [proposing intervention in what became the First Gulf War] I as Shadow Foreign Secretary formulated the policy [which led Labour to vote in favour]... I'm not inteersted in making the show, I'm not interested in members of this house putting their hands up... for something that they know will not work.
John Baron, Conservative member of the Foreign Affairs Committee (against bombing):
[excerpts]
There are many on both sides of the house who feel that extending air strikes into Syria is not a wise move in the absence of a long-term strategy... that strategy must include comprehensive layout as to the military plans, it must include thought given and plans made as to the aftermath, and indeed an exit strategy, but many of these questions we have asked remain unanswered
One or two people have suggested that one is playing politics or personalities with this issue. I would refer them to my voting record on Iraq... I have been called a pacifist and worse, and I would refer those people to my military record as a solider, where I've got the medals to proveI' certainly not a pacifist, and also to my record in Northern Ireland as a platoon commander in the 1980s.
We owe it to those participating in any military action that we think very carefully, that we think through the plans... otherwise I suggest that we do risk repeating past errors.
But perhaps the most damning accusation against those of us who say we don't want to support air strikes is that we're sort of sitting on our hands—we don't want to do anything... and I would refer you to that point that many of us believe in the need for military action to take on terrorists... many of us supported the initial action in Afghanistan in 2001... But we need a long term strategy... let me give you some examples. Let's talk about the non military side of this. We've been talking about disrupting Daesh's financial flows and business interests... in this place for at least a year. There has been no disruption of those business and financial interests.
Why aren't we doing more to disrupt their prominence on social media? again we've talked about it in this place many times but I don't see any [of that]... we should be tackling the extremism that these groups including Daesh feed off. That is a long term strategy but I dont see any evidence of it... where are the awkward questions to our allies in the region about feeding this extremism?
We should also draw the lessons with Iraq, where we are struggling to defeat Daesh in iraq and that is with 900,000 security forces on our payroll. One strategy we could employ is finish the job in Iraq before we start thinking about... Syria.
We are already at the top table. China is not intending to intervene in this situation and yet sits at the top table as a member of the P5. we would do so also and it's quite clear that we are showing solidarity with our partners. In conclusion the short term effect of strikes would be marginal.. but as we intervene more we become more responsible for the events on the ground.
Just a few weeks ago the Foreign Affairs Committee produced a very reasoned and thoughtful report... returning from my travels I and other colleagues still hold to that view and it was the decision of the Committee last night that the Prime Minister had not adequately addressed our concerns.
We have stood at this very point before. We should have no excuse for repeating our errors and setting out on the same tragic path once more.
Julian Lewis, Conservative Chair of the Defence Select Committee (against bombing)
[excerpts]
A gesture of solidarity, however sincerely meant, cannot be a substitute for hard headed strategy. Most defence committee members probably intend to vote for such air strikes, but I shall vote against in the absence of credible ground forces... just as I voted against the proposal to bomb Assad in 2013. Indeed the fact that the British government wanted to bomb first one side and then the other in the same civil war illustrates to my mind a vacuum at the heart of our strategy.
Daesh must indeed be driven out of its territory militarily, but this can only be done by a credible force which is ready and waiting to do the fighting on the ground, so who will provide this force?
The Arab spring... shows the two most likely outcomes: a victory for authoritarianism on the one hand, or a victory for revolutionary islamism on the other... I am sorry to say... that we face a choice between very nasty authoritarians or islamist totalitarians. There is no third way. Our government, however, is in denial about this. It does concede, however, that air strikes must be in support of ground forces and has come up with a remarkable figure of 70,000...moderate fighters with whom we can supposedly co-ordinate our air strikes... it is very unlikely however... that territory [seized] from daesh would [no longer be under islamist control]
I have made inquiries of two people... one is the writer and journalist Patrick Cockburn who is one of Britain's leading commentators on Syria and Iraq... this is what he tells me and I quote: "unfortunately, the belief that there are 70,000 moderate opposition fighters on the ground in Syria is wishful thinking. The armed opposition is dominated by ISIS or Al Qaeda type organisations... [non extremists] are generally men from a single clan, tribe or village. They are often guns for hire... many of these groups seeks to present a moderate face abroad but remain violently intolerant and sectarian inside of Syria.
To have separate conflicts going on within the same battlespace without reaching a proper agreement can lead us into all sorts of nasty confrontations, the worst of which would be if we ended up eyeball to eyeball with the Russians
[Quoting a second expert, Peter Ford] he calls [the FSA] "a ragbag.. united mainly by a desire to use the FSA appellation to secure... funding. most of the factions, which are extremely locally based, have no interest in being drawn into battles with groups which basically share their sectarian agenda... so, mr speaker instead of dodgy dossiers we now have bogus battalions.
if eventually we get an overall military strategy together, which adding a few bombing raids does not comprise... there arises the question of the occupying power because there will have to be an occupying power remaining in power for many years to come... that occupying force must be a muslim one and only the Syrian government army is likely to provide it.
Air strikes alone are a dangerous diversion and distraction. What is needed is a grand military alliance involving not only the west but Russia and yes its Syrian government clients too... we need to choose the lesser of two evils and abandon the fiction of a cosy third choice. There is a general consensus now that the decision to remove Saddam Hussein was a terrible mistake, but Saddam Hussein was every much of a vicious dictator as we are told that Assad is... so ask yourself this. You may feel pious about it looking back on the wrong decision that was made about Saddam Hussein, but a very similar decision confronts us tonight.
Yvette Cooper, Labour MP and former leadership candidate (in favour of bombing)
[Excerpts]
We know that no parliament ever takes a [more] serious decision than... whether to put our forces in harm's way.
Our governments have got those decisions wrong before: when we went into iraq in 2003, but also when we failed to intervene in Bosnia a decade before that
I do not believe that the Prime Minister has made the most effective case... but I also feel that I cannot say that the coalition air strikes that are under way already in both Syria and Iraq should somehow stop. So if they are not to stop and France has asked for our help I do not feel that we can say no.
I feel there are limits [the government] need to take but I will also vote with the government on this motion tonight.
I disagree with any suggestion that this can be done as ISIS first or Daesh first... in the end we know there is the Vienna process to replace the Assad regime... which is crucial to also prevent the recruitment for ISIS as well and if we the coalition are seen somehow to be siding with Assad... that will also increase recruitment for Daesh as well.
The air strikes won't be part of an imminent, decisive military campaign, but I also disagree with those who say that instead of ISIS first we should have Vienna first... and thats why I think the coalition air strikes are needed... we all know that ISIS is not going to be part of the process, they won't negotiate they are a death cult.
They hold oil, territory, communications that they want to use to expand, and I don't think that the coalition can stand back and give them free reign while we work on that vital peace process... if we have evidence that there are communication networks that are being used to plan attacks [on the west]... can we really say that those coalition air strikes should not take place to take those communication networks out?
If we think that the coalition air strikes should continue can we really say no when France, having gone through the terrible ordeal in Paris, says they want our help in continuing these air strikes now?
I still think we should do much more [for refugees]... but that same argument about sanctuary applies to security as well.
If we are to do our bit and to take the strain I also think we need to have more limited objectives than the Prime Minister has laid out... where there is any risk that people are being used as human shields to cover targets however important those targets might be those strikes should not go ahead.
And I think time limits too... if it isn't working in 6 months or if it proves counter productive we should be ready to review and we should be ready to withdraw and I think tonight we should lend the government support and keep it under review not to give an open ended commitment that this should go on whatever the consequences might be.
In the interests of cohesion in our politics and our country the way we conduct this debate is immensely important... none of us, however we vote tonight, are terrorist sympathisers and none of us have blood on our hands.
Prime Minister David Cameron (in favour of bombing):
Mr Speaker, I beg to move the motion on the order paper in my name and that of my Rt Hon Friends.
The question before the House today is how we keep the British people safe from the threat posed by ISIL.
And Mr Speaker, let me be clear from the outset, this is not about whether we want fight terrorism, it’s about how best we do that.
I respect that governments of all political colours in this country have had to fight terrorism and have had to take the people with them as they do so.
And I respect people who come to a different view from the government and from the one I’ll set out in the House today, and those who vote accordingly.
And I hope that provides some reassurance to Members right across the House.
Mr Speaker, in moving this motion, I am not pretending that the answers are simple.
The situation in Syria is incredibly complex.
I am not overstating the contribution that our incredible servicemen and women can make.
Neither am I ignoring the risks of military action…
…nor am I pretending that military action is any more than one part of the answer.
I am absolutely clear that we must pursue a comprehensive strategy that also includes political, diplomatic and humanitarian action.
And I know that the long-term solution in Syria—as in Iraq—must ultimately be a government that represents all of its people…
…and one that can work with us to defeat the evil organisation of ISIL for good.
But Mr Speaker, notwithstanding all of this, there is a simple question at the heart of the debate today.
We face a fundamental threat to our security.
ISIL have brutally murdered British hostages.
They’ve inspired the worst terrorist attack against British people since 7/7 on the beaches of Tunisia…
…and they’ve plotted atrocity after atrocity on the streets here at home.
Since November last year our security services have foiled no fewer than 7 different plots against our people.
So this threat is very real.
And the question is this: do we work with our allies to degrade and destroy this threat?
And do we go after these terrorists in their heartlands…
…from where they are plotting to kill British people…
…or do we sit back and wait for them to attack us?
In answering this question we should remember that 15 months ago…
…facing a threat from ISIL in Iraq…
…this House voted 524 to 43 to authorise airstrikes in Iraq.
Since then our brilliant RAF pilots have helped local forces to halt ISIL’s advance and recover 30 per cent of the territory ISIL had captured.
On Monday I spoke to the President of Iraq in Paris and he expressed his gratitude for the vital work our forces are doing.
And yet when our planes reach the border with Syria…
…a border that ISIL themselves do not recognise…
…we can no longer act to defend either his country – or our indeed country.
Even when we know that ISIL’s headquarters are in Raqqah in Syria…
…and it is from here that many of the plots against our country are formed.
Mr Speaker, we possess the capabilities to reduce this threat to our security.
And my argument today is that we should not wait any longer before doing so.
We should answer the call from our allies.
The action we propose to take is legal…
… it is necessary…
…and it is the right thing to do to keep our country safe.
And my strong view is that this House should make clear that we will take up our responsibilities rather than pass them off and put our own national security in the hands of others.
Now Mr Speaker, since my statement last week, the House has had an opportunity to ask questions of our security experts.
I have arranged a briefing for all Members…
…as well as more detailed briefings for Privy Councillors.
I have spoken further to our allies – including President Obama, Chancellor Merkel, President Hollande and the King of Jordan.
The King of Jordan has written in
The Daily Telegraph today expressing his wish for Britain to stand with Jordan in eliminating this global threat.
I have also listened carefully to the questions asked by Members on all sides of this House…
…and I hope that Honourable Members can see the influence this House has had on the motion that stands before us.
The stress on post-conflict stabilisation and reconstruction, the importance of standing by our allies, the importance of only targeting ISIL, not deploying ground troops in combat operations, to avoid civilian casualties, the importance of ceasefires and a political settlement, a commitment to regular updates to this House.
I’ve drawn these points from across the House and put them in the motion because I want as many people as possible to feel able to support this action.
In my remarks, I want to address the most important points raised…
…and I will of course take as many interventions as I can.
Mr Speaker, the key questions that have been raised are these.
First, could acting in this way actually increase the risk to our security by making an attack on Britain more likely?
Second, does Britain really have the capability to make a significant difference?
Third, the question asked by a number of Members—including the Hon Member for Gordon—is why don’t we just increase our level of air strikes in Iraq…
….to free up capacity amongst other members of the coalition, so they can carry out more air strikes in Syria.
Fourth, will there really be the ground forces needed to make this operation a success?
Fifth, what is the strategy for defeating ISIL and securing a lasting political settlement in Syria?
And sixth, is there a proper reconstruction, post conflict stabilisation plan for Syria?
I want to try in the time I’ve got available to answer all of these in turn.
But before we get on to all these things, Mr Speaker, I want to say a word about the terminology we use to describe this evil death cult.
Having carefully considered the strong representations made to me by the Hon Member for Gillingham and Rainham…
…and having listened to many Members of Parliament from across the House…
…I feel it is time to join our key ally France, the Arab League, and other members of the international community in using as frequently as possible the terminology Daesh rather than ISIL.
Because frankly this evil death cult is neither a true representation of Islam nor is it a state.
Let me turn to the important questions.
First, could acting increase the risk to our security?
This is one of the most important questions we have to answer.
Mr Speaker, Privy Councillors and Members from across the House have had a full briefing from the Chair of the independent Joint Intelligence Committee.
Obviously I can’t share all the classified material but I can say this.
Paris wasn’t just different because it was so close to us, or because it was so horrific in scale; as different because it showed the extent of terror planning from Daesh in Syria and the approach of sending people back from Syria to Europe.
This was if you like, the head of the snake in Raqqa in action.
So it’s not surprising in my view that the judgement of the Chair of the Joint Intelligence Committee and the judgement of the Director General of the Security Service…
…is that the risk of a similar attack in the UK is real and that that the UK is already in the top tier of countries on ISIL’s target list.
So let me be frank, Mr Speaker.
If there is an attack on the UK in the coming weeks or months, there will be those who try to say it has happened because of our airstrikes.
I do not believe that would be the case.
Daesh have been trying to attack us for the last year—as we know from the 7 different plots that our security services have foiled.
The terrorist threat level to the UK was raised to severe last August in the light of the threat from Daesh, meaning an attack is highly likely.
Eight hundred people—including families and children—have been radicalised to such an extent that they have travelled to this so-called caliphate.
The House should be under no illusion: these terrorists are plotting to kill us, and to radicalise our children, right now.
They attack us because of who we are, not because of what we do.
But when it comes to the risks of taking military action…
…the risks of inaction are far greater thank the risks of what I propose.
Next, there are those who ask whether Britain conducting strikes in Syria will really make a difference.
This is a question that came up.
I believe we can make a difference.
I told the House last week about our dynamic targeting…
…about our Brimstone missiles, about the RAPTOR pod on our tornadoes, and the intelligence gathering work of our REAPER drones.
But there is another way of putting this which I think is equally powerful.
There is, of course, in the coalition a lot of strike capability but when it comes to precision strike capability—whether covering Iraq or Syria—last week, the whole international coalition had some 26 aircraft available.
Eight of those were British tornadoes.
So typically, the UK actually represents between a quarter and a third of the international coalition’s precision bombing capability.
And we also have about a quarter of the unmanned strike capability flying in the region.
So we do have a significant proportion of high precision strike capability.
That’s why this decision is so important.
So the argument I was making is one reason why members of the international coalition—including President Obama and President Hollande who made these points to me personally…
…they believe that British planes would make a real difference in Syria, just as they are already doing in Iraq.
In many way, what I’ve just said I believe helps to answer the next question that some Members have asked…
…about why we do not simply increase our level of air strikes in Iraq to free up other coalition capacity for strikes in Syria.
We have these capabilities that other Members of the coalition want to benefit from.
And it makes absolutely no sense to stop using these capabilities at a border between Iraq and Syria that Daesh simply do not recognise or respect.
In fact, there was a recent incident in which Syrian opposition forces needed urgent support in their fight against Daesh.
British tornadoes were 8 minutes away just over the border in Iraq, no-one else was close.
But Britain couldn’t help, so the Syrian opposition forces had to wait 40 minutes in a perilous situation while other coalition forces were scrambled.
Now that sort of delay, it endangers the lives of those fighting Daesh on the ground and frankly does nothing for our reputation with our vital allies.
There is a much more fundamental answer as to why we should carry out air strikes in Syria ourselves.
And it’s this.
It is Raqqa in Syria that is the headquarters of this threat to our security.
It is in Syria where they pump and sell the oil that does so much to help finance their evil acts.
And as I’ve said, it is in Syria where many of the plots against our country are formed.
Let me turn to the question of whether there will be the ground forces to make this operation a success.
Those who say there aren’t as many ground troops as we would like…
…and that they are not all in the right place…
…they are correct.
We are not dealing with an ideal situation but let me make a series of, I think, important points.
First, we should be clear what air strikes alone can achieve.
We don’t need ground troops to target the supply of oil which Daesh uses to fund terrorism.
We don’t need ground troops to hit Daesh’s headquarters, their infrastructure, their supply routes, their training facilities, their weapons supplies.
It’s clear that airstrikes can have an effect, as I’ve just said, with the issue of Khan and Hussain.
So irrespective of ground forces, our RAF can do serious damage to Daesh’s ability right now to bring terror to our streets and we should give them our support.
As I said last week, the full answer to the question of ground forces can’t be achieved until there is a new Syrian government that represents all the Syrian people…
…not just Sunni, Shia and Alawite, but Christian, Druze and others.
And it is this new government who will be the natural partners for our forces in defeating Daesh for good.
But there are some ground forces that we can work with in the meantime.
Last week I told the House that we believe there are around 70,000 Syrian opposition fighters…
…who do not belong to extremist groups…
…and with whom we can co-ordinate attacks on Daesh.
The House will appreciate there are some limits on what I can say about these groups.
Not least because I can’t risk the safety of these courageous people—who are being targeted daily by the regime, or by Daesh, or by both.
But I know this is an area of great interest and concern for the House, so let me try and say a little more.
The 70,000 is an estimate from our independent Joint Intelligence Committee…
…based on a detailed analysis, updated on a daily basis, and drawing on a wide range of open source and intelligence.
Of these 70,000, the majority are from the Free Syrian Army.
Alongside the 70,000, there are some 20,000 Kurdish fighters with whom we can also work.
Now I’m not arguing—this is a crucial point—I am not arguing that all of these 70,000 are somehow ideal partners. Some though, left the Syrian army because of Assad’s brutality and they clearly can play a role in the future of Syria.
And that is actually a view that is taken by the Russians as well, who are prepared to talk to these people.
And those figures do not include a further 25,000 actual extremist fighters in groups which reject political participation and any co-ordination with non-Muslims…
So although they fight Daesh, they cannot and will not be our partners.
But, Mr Speaker, there are ground forces who will take the fight to Daesh…
…and in many cases we can work with them and we can assist them.
Third, if we don’t act now, we should be clear that there will be even fewer ground forces over time…
…as Daesh will get even stronger.
My view, we simply cannot afford to wait.
Let me turn to our overall strategy.
Again I set this out in the House last week.
But let me say a little more about each of the non-military elements….
…counter-terrorism, counter-extremism, the political and diplomatic process and the vital humanitarian work that my Rt Hon Friend just referred to.
Our counter-terrorism strategy gives Britain a comprehensive plan to prevent and foil plots at home…
…and also to address the poisonous extremist ideology that is the root cause of the threat that we face.
As part of this I can announce today that we will establish a comprehensive review to root out any remaining funding of extremism within the UK.
This will examine specifically the nature, scale and origin of the funding of Islamist extremist activity in the UK…
…including any overseas sources.
And it will report to myself and My Rt Hon Friend the Home Secretary next spring.
Mr Speaker, I know there are some who suggest that military action could in some way undermine our counter-extremism strategy by radicalising British Muslims.
So let me take this head on.
British Muslims are appalled by Daesh.
These women-raping, Muslim-murdering, mediaeval monsters—are hijacking the peaceful religion of Islam for their warped ends.
As the King of Jordan says in his article today: these people are not Muslims they are outlaws from Islam.
And we must stand with our Muslim friends here and around the world as they reclaim their religion from these terrorists.
So far from an attack on Islam…
…we are engaged in a defence of Islam.
And far from a risk of radicalising British Muslims by acting…
…failing to act would actually be to betray British Muslims and the wider religion of Islam in its very hour of need.
The second part of our strategy is our support for the diplomatic and political process.
Let me say a word about how this process can lead to the ceasefires between the regime and opposition that are so essential for the next stages of this political transition.
It begins with identifying the right people to put around the table.
Next week we expect the Syrian regime to nominate a team of people to negotiate under the auspices of the United Nations.
Over the last 18 months political and armed opposition positions have converged.
We know the main groups and their ideas.
And in the coming days Saudi Arabia will host a meeting for opposition representatives in Riyadh. And the United Nations will take forwards discussions on steps towards a ceasefire…
…including at the next meeting of the International Syria Support Group which we expect to take place before Christmas.
The aim is clear as I’ve said, a transitional government in 6 months, a new constitution and free elections within 18 months so I would argue that the key elements of a deal are emerging.
Ceasefires, opposition groups coming together, the regime looking at negotiations, the key players – America and Russia, Saudi Arabia and Iran and key regional players like Turkey all in the room together.
And my argument is this, hitting Daesh doesn’t hurt this process, it helps this process which is the eventual goal.
I set out for the House last week our support for refugees in the region…
…and the extra £1 billion that we would be prepared to commit to Syria’s reconstruction…
…and the broad international alliance that we would work with in that rebuilding phase.
But Mr Speaker, let us be clear.
People will not return to Syria, if part of it is under the control of an organisation that enslaves Yazidis…
…throws gay people off buildings…
…beheads aid workers…
…and forces children to marry before they are even 10 years old.
So we cannot separate the humanitarian work and the reconstruction work from dealing with Daesh itself.
Let me turn in more detail to the plan for post conflict reconstruction to support a new Syrian government when it emerges.
I have said we would be prepared to commit at least £1 billion to Syria’s reconstruction.
The initial priorities would be protection, security, stabilisation and confidence-building measures…
…including meeting basic humanitarian needs, such as education, health and shelter, and of course helping refugees to return.
Now over time the focus would shift to longer-term rebuilding of Syria’s shattered infrastructure…
…harnessing the expertise of the international financial institutions and the private sector.
As I said last week, we are not in the business of trying to dismantle the Syrian state, or its institutions.
We would aim to allocate reconstruction funds against a plan agreed between a new inclusive Syrian government and the international community, once the conflict has ended.
That is the absolute key.
Mr Speaker, let me conclude. This is not 2003.
We must not use past mistakes as an excuse for indifference or inaction.
And let’s be clear Mr Speaker, inaction does not amount to a strategy for our security or for the Syrian people.
But inaction is a choice. I believe it’s the wrong choice.
We face a clear threat.
We have listened to our allies.
We have taken legal advice.
We have a unanimous United Nations Resolution.
We have discussed our proposed action extensively at meetings of the National Security Council and Cabinet.
I have responded personally to the detailed report of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee.
We have a proper motion before the House.
And we are having a 10 and a half hour debate today.
Now in that spirit I look forward to the rest of the debate…
…I look forward to listening to the contributions of Members on all sides of the House.
But I hope that at the end of it all…
…the House will come together in large numbers for Britain to play its part in defeating these evil extremists…
…and taking the action that is needed now to keep our country safe.
In doing so, I pay tribute to the extraordinary bravery and service of our inspirational armed forces….
…who will once again put themselves in harm’s way to protect our values and our way of life.
And I commend this motion to the House.
[This version was sent round by Labour in advance of the speech]
Mr Speaker,
The whole House recognises that decisions to send British forces to war are the most serious, solemn and morally challenging of any that we have to take as members of parliament.
The motion brought to the House today by the government authorising military action in Syria against Isil faces us with such a decision.
It is one with potentially far-reaching consequences for us all, here in Britain, as well as for the people of Syria and the wider Middle East.
For all members, taking a decision that will put British service men and women in harm’s way and almost inevitably lead to the deaths of innocents is a heavy responsibility.
It must be treated with the utmost seriousness—and respect given to those who make a different judgement about the right course of action to take.
Which is why the Prime Minister’s attempt to brand those who plan to vote against the government as “terrorist sympathisers” both demeans the office of the Prime Minister and undermines the seriousness of the deliberations we are having today.
Since the Prime Minister first made his case for extending UK bombing to Syria in the House last week, the doubts and unanswered questions then expressed on both sides of the House have only grown and multiplied.
That’s why it is a matter of such concern that the government has decided to push this vote through parliament today.
It would have been far better to allow a full two-day debate that would have given all members the chance to make a proper contribution.
It is impossible to avoid the conclusion that the Prime Minister understands public opposition to his ill thought-out rush to war is growing—and wants to hold the vote before it slips from his hands.
Whether it’s the lack of a strategy worth the name the absence of credible ground troops the missing diplomatic plan for a Syrian settlement the failure to address the impact on the terrorist threat or the refugee crisis and civilian casualties: it’s become increasingly clear that the Prime Minister’s proposal for military action simply doesn’t stack up.
Last week the Prime Minister focused his case for bombing in Syria on the critical tests set by the respected cross-party Foreign Affairs select committee.
Given the holes in the government’s case, it’s scarcely surprising that last night the committee reported that the Prime Minister had not “adequately addressed” their concerns.
In other words, the committee judged that the Prime Minister’s case for bombing has failed its tests.
After the despicable and horrific attacks in Paris last month, the question of whether the government’s proposal for military action in Syria strengthens—or undermines—our own national security must be at the centre of our deliberations.
There is no doubt that the so-called Islamic state group has imposed a reign of sectarian and inhuman terror in Iraq, Syria and Libya. And there is no question that it also poses a threat to our own people.
The issue is now whether extending UK bombing from Iraq to Syria is likely to reduce, or increase, that threat in Britain - and whether it will counter, or spread, the terror campaign Isil is waging across the Middle East.
The answers don’t make the case for the government’s motion. On the contrary, they are a warning to step back and vote against yet another ill-fated twist in the never-ending war on terror.
Start with the military dimension. The Prime Minister has been unable to explain why extending air strikes to Syria will make a significant military impact on the existing campaign.
Isil is already being bombed in Syria or Iraq by the US, France, Britain, Russia and other powers.
During more than a year of bombing Isil has expanded, as well as lost, territory. Those Isil gains include the Iraqi city of Ramadi and the Syrian city of Palmyra.
The claim that superior British missiles will make the difference is hard to credit when the US and other states are struggling to find suitable targets. In other words, extending UK bombing is highly unlikely to work.
Second, the Prime Minister has failed to convince almost anyone that - even if British participation in the air campaign were to tip the balance—there are credible ground forces able to take back territory now held by Isil.
In fact, it’s quite clear there are no such forces.
Last week, the Prime Minister suggested that Kurdish militias or the Free Syrian Army would be able to fill the gap. He even claimed a 70,000-strong force of moderate FSA fighters was ready to coordinate action against Isil with the western air campaign.
That claim has not remotely stood up to scrutiny. Kurdish forces will be of little assistance in the Sunni Arab areas Isil controls. Nor will the FSA, which includes a wide range of groups few would regard as moderate - and mostly operates in other parts of the country.
The only ground forces able to take advantage of a successful anti-Isil air campaign are much stronger jihadist and Salafist groups close to Isil-controlled areas.
That’s what the Prime Minister’s bombing campaign could well lead to.
It’s why the logic of an extended air campaign is mission creep and western boots on the ground—whatever the Prime Minister may say now…. about keeping British combat troops out of the fight.
Third, the military aim of attacking Isis targets in Syria is not part of a coherent diplomatic strategy.
UN security council resolution 2249 passed after the Paris atrocities and cited in today’s government motion does not give clear and unambiguous authorisation for UK bombing in Syria.
To do so it would have had to be passed under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter to which the security council couldn’t agree.
The UN resolution is certainly a welcome framework for joint action to cut off funding, oil revenues and arms supplies from Isil. But there’s little sign of that happening in earnest.
Nor is there yet any serious evidence that it’s being used to coordinate international military or diplomatic strategy in Syria.
That’s despite the clear risk of potentially disastrous incidents such as the shooting down of a Russian military aircraft by Turkish forces leading to a dangerous escalation.
Fourth, The Prime Minister has avoided spelling out to the British people the warnings he has surely been given about the likely impact of UK air strikes in Syria on the threat of terrorist attacks in the UK.
That is something all those backing the government’s motion should weigh heavily when they vote to send RAF pilots into action over Syria.
It is critically important, Mr Speaker, that we are honest with the British people about the potential consequences of the action the Prime Minister is proposing today.
I’m aware that there are those with military experience, including members on the benches opposite, who have argued that extending UK bombing will—and I quote—“increase the short-term risks of terrorist attacks in Britain.”
We should also remember the impact on communities here in Britain. Since the Paris attacks there has been a sharp increase in Islamophobic incidents and physical attacks.
The message must go out from all of us in the House: we will not tolerate any form of anti-Semitism, Islamophobia or racism in our country.
And the Prime Minister has offered no serious assessment of the impact of an intensified air campaign on civilian casualties in Isil-held Syrian territory or the wider Syrian refugee crisis.
At least 250,000 have already been killed in Syria’s terrible civil war, 11 million made homeless and four million forced to leave the country.
Many more have been killed by the Assad regime than by Isil itself.
Yet more bombing in Syria will kill innocent civilians of that there’s no doubt and turn many more Syrians into refugees.
Yesterday I was sent this message from a Syrian constituent of mine.
“I’m a Syrian from Manbij city, which is now controlled by Isil”, he writes. “Members of my family still live there and Isil didn’t kill them. My question to David Cameron is: ‘Can you guarantee the safety of my family when your air forces bomb my city?’”
And there is no EU-wide strategy to provide humanitarian assistance to those victims. You can’t back more bombing without a plan to pick up the pieces.
Finally, and perhaps most important of all the Prime Minister is still entirely unable to explain how UK bombing in Syria would contribute to a comprehensive negotiated political settlement of the Syrian war.
Such a settlement is widely accepted to be the only way to ensure the isolation and defeat of Isil in the country.
Isil grew out of the invasion of Iraq. But it has flourished in Syria in the chaos and horror of a multi-front civil war.
And the government’s bombing proposal clearly does not subordinate military action to international diplomatic efforts.
The Prime Minister’s approach is bomb first, talk later.
Instead of adding British bombs to the others now raining down on Syria, what’s needed is an acceleration of the peace talks in Vienna.
Those negotiations need to involve all the main regional and international powers with the aim of establishing a broad-based government in Syria that has the support of the majority of its people.
In the context of such a settlement internationally backed regional forces could help to take back territory from Isil. But its lasting defeat in Syria can only be secured by Syrians themselves.
The government’s proposal for military action in Syria is not backed by clear and unambiguous authorisation by the UN. It does not meet the seven tests set by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee.
And it does not fulfil three out of four conditions laid down in Labour’s conference resolution passed two months ago.
In the past week, we have given a voice to the growing opposition to the government’s bombing plans—across the country, in parliament and the Labour party.
And the rejection of fourteen years of disastrous wars in the wider Middle East was a central pillar of the platform on which I was elected Labour leader.
In the light of that record of western military interventions, UK bombing of Syria risks yet more of what President Obama called “unintended consequences”.
The spectre of Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya looms over this debate.
To oppose another reckless and half-baked intervention isn’t pacifism. It’s hard-headed common sense.
To resist Isil’s determination to draw the western powers back into the heart of the Middle East isn’t to turn our backs on allies.
It’s to refuse to play into the hands of Isil.
It’s wrong for us here in Westminster to see a problem, pass a motion and drop the bombs pretending we’re doing something to solve it.
That’s what we did in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. Has terrorism increased or decreased as a result?
The Prime Minister said he was looking to build a consensus around the military action he wants to take.
He has achieved nothing of the kind.
He has failed to make the case for another bombing campaign. All our efforts should instead go into bringing the Syrian civil war to an end.
After Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, members thinking of voting for bombing should keep in mind how terrible the consequences can be.
Only a negotiated peace settlement can overcome the Isil threat in Syria. And that should be our overriding goal.
It's also notable that when Corbyn was asked by Labour MP John Woodcock to confirm that he did not oppose Britain's current air strikes in Iraq, he dodged the question, saying simply that the issue was not in the motion being debated.
Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Crispin Blunt (in favour of bombing):
Blunt made an intervention during Corbyn's speech, which cited the fact that Blunt's committee had decided that their tests for military action had not been met. Blunt said that to say so was "a very weak point" given that "logically it is almost impossible for the Prime Minister to adequately meet those concerns," due to constraints on what the Prime Minister could say publicly.
SNP leader Angus Robertson (against bombing):
There is agreement across this House that the threat from Daesh is real and doing nothing is not an option. We recall however that only two years ago this Prime Minister wanted us to bomb the opponents of Daesh, which would no doubt have strengthened them.
The influential Foreign Affairs Committee took a wide range of evidence from military experts, academics, lawyers, the Foreign Secretary and Syrian groups. As a result a number of questions were presented to the Prime Minister and just yesterday a majority of committee members agreed that these questions had not been answered.
There is no shortage of countries already bombing Syria. Most recently the Russians have been attacking Daesh and too often the moderate opposition to Assad as well.
On the issue of Ground Forces, we are told that there are 70,000 troops that are opposed to Assad and Daesh which could take the territory Daesh currently holds. The problem is that it seems only a part of those forces are moderate and there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that they would definitely deploy from other parts of the country to counter Daesh. It appears to be totally wishful thinking that without a comprehensive ceasefire first in Syria, we can expect any redirection of any forces from other fronts in the country.
On stabilising and rebuilding, we are advised by the World Bank that it will cost $170 billion dollars to rebuild Syria. The Prime Minister has made a commitment to contribute £1bn towards this mammoth task which is welcome. We are entitled to ask whether a contribution of less than 1% is realistically going to be enough.
Yesterday I took the time to meet Syrian exiles to discuss their experiences and hear their views. They asked whether we are seriously asking people to stop fighting Assad and move to another part of the country to fight Daesh. They asked how we expect people to fight Daesh if they have no feeling of any support.
Over one hundred MPs have signed a cross-party amendment against the vote with key signatories including Green MP Caroline Lucas, Hywel Williams of Plaid Cymru, SDLP MP Alasdair McDonnell and Labour MP Graham Allen as well as Conservative John Baron MP.
We know that 72% of Scots are opposed to airstrikes, and 57 out of 59 Scottish MPs are expected to vote against them. In any normal country, under normal circumstances, Scotland would not be involved yet Scottish forces – from RAF Lossiemouth- will be deployed to bomb Syria."
Robinson also highlighted an intervention by Labour Foreign Affairs Committee member Yasmin Qureshi, who said that on visits to the region she had heard a figure closer to 15,000 for the number of moderate ground troops in Syria: "this should worry us all," Robertson said, "the problem with this issue is that only a part of the forces the Prime Minister and his colleagues have spoken about are moderate."
Ed Miliband, former Labour leader (against bombing):
Having listened to today’s debate and the many arguments that have been made, I will be voting against the government’s motion tonight.
I will do so because I do not think the case has been adequately made that extending British air strikes will either defeat ISIL or make us safer here at home.
A strategy for the defeat of ISIL depends crucially on ground troops and a political settlement, or the path towards a political settlement. That is because ISIL cannot be defeated from the air alone, as even supporters of air strikes acknowledge, and because ISIL’s success depends on the vacuum created from a multi-sided civil war.
Neither an explanation of who the ground troops will be, nor the political settlement we are seeking in Syria, or how we get there, has been provided by the government. We would be going ahead without an adequate road-map or a clear strategy.
The other case made for extending air strikes is that it will make us safer here at home. But I do not believe this case has been adequately made either.
ISIL is a network, not simply an organisation with a headquarters. What is more, nearly 3000 coalition air strikes have already been aimed at Syria and the case for what British air strikes will add is weak.
ISIL can only be defeated in Syria with an effective and comprehensive plan. That is what is required and the proposition fails to meet that test. That is why I will be voting against the motion.
Gerald Kaufman, Labour former Shadow Home Secretary and Father of the House (against bombing)
Mr speaker, there is of course absolutely no doubt that daesh/IS is a vile, laothesome, murderous organisation. The attack in Paris, the murder of 130 innocent people, could just as well have been in London, and their choice of paris was a retaliation against French activity in their region but that does not [prevent] our taking activity if it were appropriate, relevant and above all successful.
They claim to call themselves Islamic, and the Prime Minister talked about reclaiming Islam from them. They do not own Islam. Hundreds of million of Muslims throughout the world are appalled by their murder, their beheadings, their kidnappings, all of the abominable things that they do. But mr speaker, our loathing of IS, our wish to get rid of it, to defeat it, to stop it, is not the issue here today.
The issue here is what action could be taken in order to stop them, in order to get rid of them, and I have to say that I don't see such an action. The Prime Minister spoke about getting a transitional government in Syria. He spoke about the situation in Syria. I've been to syria many times. I did it with some distaste as Shadow Foreign Secretary, and met senior officials in the Syrian administration. Murderers!... they murdered their own people. They murdered 10,000 people in Hama alone... I would be delighted to see them got rid of. But they are not going to go. And when there's talk about negotiations in Vienna... [the idea] that that is somehow or other going to get rid of Assad [is not correct]. Putin... will make sure that because they're his allies, action against them is not going to be successful.
[Today's vote] isn't about changing the regime in Syria, it isn't about getting rid of Daesh, it's about what practical action can result in some way in damaging Daesh, in stopping their atrocities, in stopping the people who are fleeing from them, in stopping the people who are flocking to them—including, sadly, some small number of people from this country. If what the government were proposing today would in any way... weaken them in a significant way so that they would not go on behaving in the abominable fashion that we see, I wouldn't have any difficulty in voting for this motion today. But there is absolutely no evidence that... bombing Daesh, bombing Raqqa, will result in an upsurge of people in the region to get rid of them. What it would do, it might cause some damage... what it would undoubtedly do... it will kill innocent civilians and I am not going to be a party to killing innocent civilians for what will simply be a gesture. I'm not interested in gesture politics... I'm interested in effective military activity, and when that is brought before this house I vote for it... when the previous Conservative government came to this house [proposing intervention in what became the First Gulf War] I as Shadow Foreign Secretary formulated the policy [which led Labour to vote in favour]... I'm not inteersted in making the show, I'm not interested in members of this house putting their hands up... for something that they know will not work.
John Baron, Conservative member of the Foreign Affairs Committee (against bombing):
[excerpts]
There are many on both sides of the house who feel that extending air strikes into Syria is not a wise move in the absence of a long-term strategy... that strategy must include comprehensive layout as to the military plans, it must include thought given and plans made as to the aftermath, and indeed an exit strategy, but many of these questions we have asked remain unanswered
One or two people have suggested that one is playing politics or personalities with this issue. I would refer them to my voting record on Iraq... I have been called a pacifist and worse, and I would refer those people to my military record as a solider, where I've got the medals to proveI' certainly not a pacifist, and also to my record in Northern Ireland as a platoon commander in the 1980s.
We owe it to those participating in any military action that we think very carefully, that we think through the plans... otherwise I suggest that we do risk repeating past errors.
But perhaps the most damning accusation against those of us who say we don't want to support air strikes is that we're sort of sitting on our hands—we don't want to do anything... and I would refer you to that point that many of us believe in the need for military action to take on terrorists... many of us supported the initial action in Afghanistan in 2001... But we need a long term strategy... let me give you some examples. Let's talk about the non military side of this. We've been talking about disrupting Daesh's financial flows and business interests... in this place for at least a year. There has been no disruption of those business and financial interests.
Why aren't we doing more to disrupt their prominence on social media? again we've talked about it in this place many times but I don't see any [of that]... we should be tackling the extremism that these groups including Daesh feed off. That is a long term strategy but I dont see any evidence of it... where are the awkward questions to our allies in the region about feeding this extremism?
We should also draw the lessons with Iraq, where we are struggling to defeat Daesh in iraq and that is with 900,000 security forces on our payroll. One strategy we could employ is finish the job in Iraq before we start thinking about... Syria.
We are already at the top table. China is not intending to intervene in this situation and yet sits at the top table as a member of the P5. we would do so also and it's quite clear that we are showing solidarity with our partners. In conclusion the short term effect of strikes would be marginal.. but as we intervene more we become more responsible for the events on the ground.
Just a few weeks ago the Foreign Affairs Committee produced a very reasoned and thoughtful report... returning from my travels I and other colleagues still hold to that view and it was the decision of the Committee last night that the Prime Minister had not adequately addressed our concerns.
We have stood at this very point before. We should have no excuse for repeating our errors and setting out on the same tragic path once more.
Julian Lewis, Conservative Chair of the Defence Select Committee (against bombing)
[excerpts]
A gesture of solidarity, however sincerely meant, cannot be a substitute for hard headed strategy. Most defence committee members probably intend to vote for such air strikes, but I shall vote against in the absence of credible ground forces... just as I voted against the proposal to bomb Assad in 2013. Indeed the fact that the British government wanted to bomb first one side and then the other in the same civil war illustrates to my mind a vacuum at the heart of our strategy.
Daesh must indeed be driven out of its territory militarily, but this can only be done by a credible force which is ready and waiting to do the fighting on the ground, so who will provide this force?
The Arab spring... shows the two most likely outcomes: a victory for authoritarianism on the one hand, or a victory for revolutionary islamism on the other... I am sorry to say... that we face a choice between very nasty authoritarians or islamist totalitarians. There is no third way. Our government, however, is in denial about this. It does concede, however, that air strikes must be in support of ground forces and has come up with a remarkable figure of 70,000...moderate fighters with whom we can supposedly co-ordinate our air strikes... it is very unlikely however... that territory [seized] from daesh would [no longer be under islamist control]
I have made inquiries of two people... one is the writer and journalist Patrick Cockburn who is one of Britain's leading commentators on Syria and Iraq... this is what he tells me and I quote: "unfortunately, the belief that there are 70,000 moderate opposition fighters on the ground in Syria is wishful thinking. The armed opposition is dominated by ISIS or Al Qaeda type organisations... [non extremists] are generally men from a single clan, tribe or village. They are often guns for hire... many of these groups seeks to present a moderate face abroad but remain violently intolerant and sectarian inside of Syria.
To have separate conflicts going on within the same battlespace without reaching a proper agreement can lead us into all sorts of nasty confrontations, the worst of which would be if we ended up eyeball to eyeball with the Russians
[Quoting a second expert, Peter Ford] he calls [the FSA] "a ragbag.. united mainly by a desire to use the FSA appellation to secure... funding. most of the factions, which are extremely locally based, have no interest in being drawn into battles with groups which basically share their sectarian agenda... so, mr speaker instead of dodgy dossiers we now have bogus battalions.
if eventually we get an overall military strategy together, which adding a few bombing raids does not comprise... there arises the question of the occupying power because there will have to be an occupying power remaining in power for many years to come... that occupying force must be a muslim one and only the Syrian government army is likely to provide it.
Air strikes alone are a dangerous diversion and distraction. What is needed is a grand military alliance involving not only the west but Russia and yes its Syrian government clients too... we need to choose the lesser of two evils and abandon the fiction of a cosy third choice. There is a general consensus now that the decision to remove Saddam Hussein was a terrible mistake, but Saddam Hussein was every much of a vicious dictator as we are told that Assad is... so ask yourself this. You may feel pious about it looking back on the wrong decision that was made about Saddam Hussein, but a very similar decision confronts us tonight.
Yvette Cooper, Labour MP and former leadership candidate (in favour of bombing)
[Excerpts]
We know that no parliament ever takes a [more] serious decision than... whether to put our forces in harm's way.
Our governments have got those decisions wrong before: when we went into iraq in 2003, but also when we failed to intervene in Bosnia a decade before that
I do not believe that the Prime Minister has made the most effective case... but I also feel that I cannot say that the coalition air strikes that are under way already in both Syria and Iraq should somehow stop. So if they are not to stop and France has asked for our help I do not feel that we can say no.
I feel there are limits [the government] need to take but I will also vote with the government on this motion tonight.
I disagree with any suggestion that this can be done as ISIS first or Daesh first... in the end we know there is the Vienna process to replace the Assad regime... which is crucial to also prevent the recruitment for ISIS as well and if we the coalition are seen somehow to be siding with Assad... that will also increase recruitment for Daesh as well.
The air strikes won't be part of an imminent, decisive military campaign, but I also disagree with those who say that instead of ISIS first we should have Vienna first... and thats why I think the coalition air strikes are needed... we all know that ISIS is not going to be part of the process, they won't negotiate they are a death cult.
They hold oil, territory, communications that they want to use to expand, and I don't think that the coalition can stand back and give them free reign while we work on that vital peace process... if we have evidence that there are communication networks that are being used to plan attacks [on the west]... can we really say that those coalition air strikes should not take place to take those communication networks out?
If we think that the coalition air strikes should continue can we really say no when France, having gone through the terrible ordeal in Paris, says they want our help in continuing these air strikes now?
I still think we should do much more [for refugees]... but that same argument about sanctuary applies to security as well.
If we are to do our bit and to take the strain I also think we need to have more limited objectives than the Prime Minister has laid out... where there is any risk that people are being used as human shields to cover targets however important those targets might be those strikes should not go ahead.
And I think time limits too... if it isn't working in 6 months or if it proves counter productive we should be ready to review and we should be ready to withdraw and I think tonight we should lend the government support and keep it under review not to give an open ended commitment that this should go on whatever the consequences might be.
In the interests of cohesion in our politics and our country the way we conduct this debate is immensely important... none of us, however we vote tonight, are terrorist sympathisers and none of us have blood on our hands.
