02/12/2015 Newsnight

The debate has run for about 11 hours today,

We will bring you the result of the vote on air strikes in Syria.

So many questions have been asked today,

We will be speaking to the Foreign Secretary and getting lots of

As MPs emerge from the chamber, I'll be crunching the numbers

What does this mean for military action?

And what do the politics of the vote tell us

What do British Muslims think about the possibility of air strikes in

Syria, I have been speaking with people in high Wycombe.

Good evening from Westminster where the results of that key vote,

on Britiain's military intervention in Syria have just come through.

397 votes, in favour of David Cameron's argument, 223 against. 223

against, but winning by the upper end of what we imagine. That is the

upper end of their expectation, Labour whips were saying it might be

as high as 50 to 60, what the prime ministers spokesman has said, it

looked like it may have picked people off, saying that anybody

opposed to it was a terrorist sympathiser, but fiercely that has

not happened, we are going to look at the Commons chamber right now.

David Cameron told us he was not going to bring this vote unless he

was certain to win it, that is exactly what has happened, what they

have done is limited the rebellion on the Tory side to about ten, last

time around it was 30, they have reduced that. They have got the

Liberal Democrats, they have the day you p, and to get up to 397 they

have got 50 to 60 Labour MPs. When we were talking about this on Monday

night, we were trying to make sense of what that number could be. -- the

DUP. There was protection projections of over 100... 50 to 60,

internally, is what whips were saying, and what else has been

suggested, the speech by Hilary Benn, very powerful, a lot of people

inside the Commons chamber, they gave him a standing ovation, he has

taken a different perspective from his leader. That speech by Hilary

Benn may have persuaded as many as 15 MPs. In the last ten, five

minutes of the debate. I have spoken with Labour MPs, senior figures, who

were going to vote in favour, who did not. So actually, the reports I

was getting earlier in the day, looks like something has shifted

later this evening. What about the extensions, there were people, for

instance, Joel Cox, who thought... The significant thing, the Prime

Minister has got the numbers he had, but somebody who has said this, Jo

Cox, very informed, she said she did not been the Prime Minister made the

case, a lot of people said they were not won over by the specifics of

what he had to say. -- Jo Cox. Even so, he got the numbers he got. We

can take you to a dramatic moment that was coming through the Commons,

a couple of moments ago. Order, order.

397, as we have said, 223 against. Talk us through some of the parties,

much more clear-cut, the SNP, whipped vote, they were all against

as far as we know. The Liberal Democrats have a strong proud

tradition, particularly with Iraq, in 2003, Tim Farren stood up and

said that he was going to be leading his party in supporting strikes, he

stood up today and said that, I know that Labour MPs were persuaded by

Tim Farren, Tim Farren gave Labour MPs the reason and permission to go

over and support the Prime Minister. It is a very pathetic picture. In

the fullness of time, the role played by Tim Fallon is going to be

very interesting. I think that if we go back to you, we have a sense of

the numbers as a whole. -- Tim Farron.

Six RAF Typhoons and a couple of extra Tornados

From that, you could say this is a military decision

of a modest kind, we are already involved in Iraq anyway, and already

But that Britain is taking a decision to bomb a country, without

the consent of its government, does make this an important moment.

All the more important given the mixed track record

I'm here with three guests, military historian, journalist and

writer, Max Hastings, Times defence correspondent, Deborah Haynes,

Perhaps a bigger majority than you would have expected? You would not

be surprised, the Prime Minister has staked an enormous amount, it is an

enormous disappointment to me that it was hijacked about the soul of

the Labour Party, rather than the merits of what is happening, the key

thing that Jimmy has not been said loudly enough, that this is not what

the Prime Minister... He said it is effective action to keep streets

safe, it is nothing of the sort, this is a political gesture, it may

be necessary but it is a small political gesture and rather a

dangerous one. Briefly, the debate, over the course of the week, since

the Prime Minister made his statement, feels like ages ago, only

last Thursday, which weighed you think the argument has gone? Have

you heard anything to persuade you? A lot of people in the country

except the fact that something terrible has happened in Paris and

something must be done but since 2001, we have had far too many

gestures in response to situations. Far too little analysis of what are

the objectives and are they attainable? I do not believe that

these debates have seen the questions answered or asked. Do you

feel the debate has in no way answered those questions that people

were asking days ago, months ago, have we got answers? It is not

answer the question, however, it is dangerous to allow ourselves to be

caught up in the emotion of past disastrous campaigns, and use that

as a justification not to act this time, when there is clearly a huge

threat. There is a danger of doing something for the sake of doing

something. But I think we are at a point, we need to be a part of this

coalition properly, completely in all completely out, the situation we

have been in for the last year, half in, half out, that is illogical, as

the government says I welcome this decision. You said you would have

abstained. This was a diplomatic gesture, not just political, they

can have a place in sound strategy, I was struck by how many MPs were

focused, understandably so, on standing with France, and on the

importance of Britain being a sound reliable, dependable ally. Of

course, that is not an entirely unreasonable concern, but there was

a central question throughout these 11 hours, and the last week, who is

going to retake Raqqa and other ices held cities? That question, we are

still looking for the full answer to that question. -- Isis-held cities.

We have heard the government strategy... We have heard they are

determined to get rid of Bashar al-Assad and they want Iraq and

Syria to be unitary state, many do not believe that is possible, and

they want to crush Isis, all of us want to crush Isis, but the

objections are not moral or legal, they are, can what they are

proposing to do work? You to share some of those worries. What is

interesting is how important the Vienna process, the diplomacy was,

in making it possible for the Prime Minister to argue that there is a

diplomatic end in sight which may allow a transitional government of

Armed Forces to take this on. How long is this military intervention

going to last? My goodness... Years! Potentially, depends upon what

happens on the ground, if we have action on the ground, it could be

over in months. 11 hour debate in the Commons, at times rather noisy,

speeches often interrupted by interventions but nobody can say

that the audience were not deployed. There is a simple question at the

heart of the debate today, we face a fundamental threat to security, Isis

have brutally murdered Ridgers hostages, inspired the worst

terrorist attack against British people since 7/7 on the beaches of

Tunisia and plodded atrocity after atrocity on streets at home, since

November last year, we have foiled no more than seven different plots

against our people, so this threat is very real. -- plotted. The

question is this, do we work with allies to degrade and destroy this

threat, do we go after these terrorists in their heartlands, from

where they are plotting to kill British people? Do we sit back and

wait for them to attack us? VOICEOVER: Good intentions were

ruined last night when the Prime Minister himself branded those

opposed to air strikes " terrorist sympathisers". If we got up and

said, whoever does not walk with me through the division lobby is not a

terrorist sympathiser... He would improve his standing in this house,

enormously. I'm very happy to repeat what he has

said, able who voted... They do so with an... Dustup, the opposition,

and... Is it wrong for us in Westminster to see a problem, pass a

motion, drop bombs and pretend we are doing something to solve it?

That is what we did in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya... I ask the question of

the house, has terrorism increased or decreased as a result of all of

that? Conservative Rebels zoned in on one claim in particular. What is

stopping these moderates, once the common enemy, once they have been

somehow miraculously told to swing around, stop fighting Bashar

al-Assad and take on Daesh, what is stopping them from splintering into

100, or even 1000 militias, as we saw in Libya. One appeal was made

time and time again, that France had asked for help. Our French allies

have exquisitely asked for such support, and I ask the house to

consider how we would feel, and what we would say, if what took place in

Paris had happened in London, if we had explicitly asked France for

support, and France had refused? Many made the humanitarian case,

perhaps the most interesting were the Liberal Democrats, who so

famously opposed bombing Iraq in 2003. I cannot stand in this house

and castigate the Prime Minister for not taking enough refugees and for

Britain not standing as tall as it should do in the world and opening

its arms to the desperate as we have done so for many decades and

throughout history, if we do not also do everything in our power to

eradicate that which is the source of these people fleeing from that

terrorist up what many Labour MPs stood up to challenge their leader,

not only for opposing the strike but also the actions of his support

group, Momentum. Frankly I wish I had the self-righteous attitude of

the finger jabbing representatives of our new and Chindit type of

politics... LAUGHTER Will no doubt soon be contacting

those of us who support this motion tonight! The debate is now done, for

many bespoke with, the most difficult decision they have ever

had to take while they were in Parliament.

The Foreign Secretary is down in Westminster and joins us now.

Good evening. Rather than rehearsing the debate, I think it might be

worth asking you what constitutes success or failure in the campaign

we are about to embark on? Would you consider it a failure if we were

still there in four years' time, potentially? I hope it won't be four

years, but I caution it isn't going to be months. I have said this

evening in the debate that while we are using air strikes to contain and

degrade Isil in Raqqa, we will be pursuing a political track, trying

to resolve the Syrian civil war. It is only when those two things come

together, when the degradation of Isil in Raqqa and the creation of a

transitional Syrian government are both happening that we can then

actually utilise the forces that are currently fighting each other, the

Syrian government forces, the Syrian opposition forces, the Kurdish

forces, and get them turned around facing towards Isil and able to

finish off the job in Raqqa, reclaiming what will then be the

territory of the new free Syria from the evil empire of Daesh. Give us a

sense of your timescale on how long you think it might take to reach

that political settlement? Would it be a failure if there was no

political settlement of that kind say within 18 months? Well, that's

the target that we've set out. We have said six months to create a

transitional government, 18 months to internationally supervised

elections. That is an ambitious target. It is the one that all 19

country, including Russia, including Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, China,

as well as the US, France and Britain have all agreed to work to a

target of 18 months to an election supervised by the UN that will

include Syrians in the diaspora, those who have been displaced into

refugee camps, they must have a right to vote in this election. If

it doesn't happen, or if it has no prospect of happening after 18

months, or two years, do we just stay there and just carry on bombing

Raqqa until something else happens? What is the plan there? We are

determined to make this happen. And all the powers involved, including

Russia, want to see Isil degraded and ultimately destroyed. Isil

represents a huge threat to all of us. We are doing two things with

these air strikes. We are delivering an immediate benefit by degrading

Isil's ability to mount external attacks, to plan and execute

external attacks, so just starting those air strikes, even before we

get anywhere near a ground assault on Raqqa will improve the safety of

Britain, of France, of Europe, and of British and French people and

others wherever they are in the world. We have heard that. You must

have some Plan B if the ground force doesn't materialise and there isn't

a political settlement of the type you are talking about, and the

decision will then be we either stay or we leave. Can you imagine us

leaving while IS still control Raqqa? I cannot believe us stopping

air strikes against Daesh in Raqqa for so long as they represent a

threat to us, a threat to British citizens and a threat to the UK

homeland, no, we would have to continue with those air strikes.

Look, there will be a political settlement in Syria. I sincerely

hope that it is achieved within the timescale that we have set out at

Vienna. If it isn't, that won't mean we give up and go home. We have got

to find a political solution to the civil war in Syria. There is no

military solution. There can only be a political solution to that civil

war. As we stand on the eve of Britain entering this arena, what is

it that is going to make you lose sleep? What are you most afraid of?

I'm most afraid of the threat that Isil represents to our security here

in Britain, to our citizens travelling abroad. That plane over

Sharm el-Sheikh could have been a British plane. The attacks on the

streets of Paris could so easily have been attacks on the streets of

London. If Syrian forces, who you hope, opposition forces, who you

hope will join the assault on Isis, if they say we will join that

assault, but we need you to protect us against al-Assad, will you give

them that protection, no-fly zones? Let me be clear about this. The time

for a ground assault against Raqqa will be when a transitional

government is in place in Syria. All these people that we need to focus

on Isil are busy fighting each other in the civil war, the rump of the

Syrian Army, the Free Syrian Army, the opposition forces, the Kurds,

they are all engaged in a civil war. We have to settle that civil war. We

have got to get those people working alongside each other, not

necessarily together, but alongside each other, to reclaim the territory

of their country, Syria, from these occupiers of Isil. There won't be

any ground offensive that only - on this scenario - it doesn't involve

the 70,000 opposition forces. You are talking about a political

settlement that leads to the final assault? That is what we have always

been talking about. We are degrading Isil now. We are preventing them

from attacking us by keeping them under pressure now. To finish Isil

off, we have to finish the Syrian civil war. We have been clear about

that. The two things go hand in hand. So long as al-Assad is there

and fighting this civil war, we will not be able to finish Isil off

because the opposition in Syria will be trying to fight two battles at

once. One last quick one. Do you respect the people who voted against

the Government tonight and do you regret the talk of terrorist

sympathisers and the like? I have said in the debate today that I

recognise that there are people in the House of Commons with

strongly-held, long-established pacifist views who do not believe in

military action in any case. I believe for many of them, I believe

for the Leader of the Opposition, that is a genuinely and

sincerely-held view and I respect that. But there is a difference

between an individual back bench member holding a conscientious view

on something and the Leader of the Opposition seeking to impose that

view on a great political party that aspires to be a party of Government.

That is a very different thing. Thank you very much indeed. The

panel here in the studio. Any comment on that interview and I

suppose what the endgame is and how we get out of this mess? Half of

what the Foreign Secretary said seemed sensible. The bits that we

all have to be cautious about, I cannot accept what he said that our

bombing in Syria is going to make the streets of Britain safer. This

is nonsense. But also, the big question which is are the Russians

on side? Nobody mentioned al-Assad in that conversation. Are the

Russians on side for this great new transitional government? So far, I

think we have heard from the Russians, the British Government

keeps telling us they are. I haven't heard anything from Moscow that the

Russians agree that al-Assad has to go. It is massively complicated.

There are no easy answers. The understatement of the night! The

problem is that the people who are against military action fixate on

the problems and understandably so. I just think that bemoaning the fact

it is complicated is not a solution and I think at least now that we

have had a decision, we will be a full part of the coalition that

gives us greater influence to try and make something good come out of

all this chaos. Shashank Joshi, I thought the first rule was you were

not meant to go into war unless you could see your way out of it? In '91

we were still there when we invaded in 2003 in Iraq. I'm sceptical of

Phil Hammond's confidence that we will be done in four years, given

how much he is relying on a successful political process. I am

delighted he's managed to get Iran and Saudi Arabia around the same

table, that is fantastic, a real achievement. If you listen what Iran

says when it is at the table, if you consider the fact that the

opposition groups are not at that table, Turkey and Russia are at

loggerheads after the downing of the jet, I'm more sceptical that the

transition will operate as smoothly as he hopes. It is complicated. We

can go to the Commons, we will talk to - I tell you what, the debate in

recent days has been a painful one for the Labour Party.

If Jeremy Corbyn believes in anything,

it is in voting down military action of the kind now proposed.

And he has party members on his side.

Well, because we've had confirmation today that tens of his MPs have

taken a different view, including his own Shadow Foreign Secretary.

And the debate today was a moment for the non-Corbyn wing

of the party - including some of the big beasts - to have their say.

Our French allies have explicitly asked us for such support and I

invite the House to consider how we would feel, and what we would say,

if what took place in Paris had happened in London, if we had asked

France for support and France had refused. I wish I had the

self-righteous certitude of the finger-jabbing representatives of

our new and kinder type of politics who will no doubt soon be contacting

those of us who support this motion tonight. I think some of the people

on the front bench now, and the people who are heckling behind me,

need to think carefully about the way in which they have conducted

themselves over recent weeks. We need to do better than this to be a

credible official opposition. Some of the voices in support of the war.

We can talk to Diane Abbott, who was not among those supporting the war.

Good evening. I know Margaret Beckett is with you. Margaret

Beckett gave a barnstorming speech in favour of the war, people thought

it was quite decisive. Can you be friends with Margaret Beckett now

this vote is over? Of course, we have known each other for many

years. Hilary Benn made a magnificent speech, it was just

wrong. The most telling thing about this debate is, at the end of the

debate, although ever since Paris there has been a drum beat for war

in the media, the vast majority of the Labour Party, the majority of

Labour MPs, and a substantial number the Labour Party, the majority of

of Shadow Cabinet members, are in the same position as Jeremy. I think

that public opinion very soon will tire of Cameron's war. Months after

an election, you can get away with this kind of division, in which the

Foreign Secretary and the Shadow Foreign Secretary, and the leader

are disagreeing. If this was months before a General Election, you

wouldn't be able to get away with this, would you? First of all, I

would argue the party as a whole is not divided. The party as a whole,

members, the NEC, MPs take Jeremy's position. This has been a tragic

vote tonight. We should be thinking of the people of Raqqa when those

bombers fly over them in the next 24 hours. To be honest, it doesn't seem

credible to say the party isn't divided. Very senior people in the

party clearly are divided and the members are divided. It may not be

split down the middle. You have a big wing who are not reconciled to

the point of view you have on this. I think you will find that the

majority, the vast majority of party members, and the majority of MPs,

support Jeremy's position. The thing they aren't reconciled to is the

fact their candidate lost the election. You are disagreeing on

something that I guess is one of the things on which you feel most

strongly, is that correct? What is difficult for me is journalists want

to make this a story about Labour splits rather than what I think has

been a very tragic decision tonight. Diane Abbott, would you encourage

members of the party, or members of pressure groups within the party,

there is one called Momentum, would you encourage them to punish the

MPs, like Margaret Beckett who supported today's Government motion?

Of course not. That would be absurd. Jeremy deliberately allowed a free

vote so people should feel free to voice their opinion and vote the way

they wanted. There will be no question of anybody being punished

or marginalised because of the way they spoke or voted tonight. I'm

sure many will be very pleased to hear that. Thank you. Let's go back

to Emily on the Green. I have a couple more noes here. You

tabled that amendment against the vote. The numbers stacked up against

you, but what was the message you took away from that? The message was

the House of Commons is divided on this issue. OK, we lost by 150, but

there was still 200-plus who said we don't think there is a comprehensive

strategy here, we have real concerns about the so-called 70,000 moderates

that are going to be the land force, and we have many questions

unanswered about things like absence of challenging Daesh on social

media, on business and financial interests so still lots of questions

unanswered. The task for the Government is to put this strategy

into place because I'm not convinced they have got it at the moment.

You have been here before with numbers that may not have spelt the

end of the story, Libya, curious bedfellows, Dennis Skinner, Jeremy

Corbyn, you think history has proved you right on that one. Only history

will tell, small number on Libya, ten voted against it, a small

lumber, but what it teaches you is that numbers alone does not

necessarily mean the right decision has been made. A number of us are

saying, all that we are saying, look at the previous interventions, the

previous errors, there is one common denominator, a lack of a strategic

plan that's all you through to the end, including an exit strategy, and

a lack of local knowledge. This looks very similar, I am afraid. On

paper, you too could not be more different, you said you did not even

need to whip the vote against for the SNP, complete uniformity. What

is it, when you look at all of the factors, military experience, last

vote on Iraq, I'm trying to work out if there is anything that you think

unites the no position now? I think there is a number of things, John

has just outlined most of them, briefly, the lack of strategy for

winning the peace, no plan at all for stabilisation all

reconstruction. -- stabilisation and reconstruction. The efficacy of the

bombing, even though supporting it, Tories on the government side, have

said, this will probably make little difference. Others voted against it

saying, this will make no difference. That and... Are those

questions we would not have asked before Iraq, the depth and precision

of that kind of questioning. Indeed, but in the aftermath of Iraq, we are

writes to ask them, what did we do, we created a vacuum which was filled

by IS of this world, and I fear, in the absence of a proper strategic

comprehensive international plan, to win the peace, as well as any

conflict, we will create an even bigger vacuum in Syria, then we

created in Iraq. To be brutally honest, although the government won

the vote, they did not answer a single one of those fundamental

question. John, how do you see the position of Jeremy Corbyn, we see

that the Shadow Cabinet voted with him, we view, against, does he now

look like a bigger figure, after tonight? In matters like this, it is

a matter of conscience, the greatest responsibility that Parliament has,

committing troops to battle, that is what we are talking about, lives on

the line, both those who are in the Armed Forces but also those on the

receiving end of the bombs. A great responsibility to have, should be a

matter of conscience, I suppose I would say that, my whips would agree

with me. As far as I'm concerned, he did what he had to do. If you went

back you think the majority of people in Scotland against military

action of this kind, if you go back and face questions of, why are you

not doing anything about possibly the worst enemy we have faced since

the Second World War, how do you look people in the eye? We have 100

things that we want to do, we should follow the money from the oil

supplies... We should look at the funding for Daesh... The supply of

ammunition, who is supplying it and who is paying for it? All of these

actions can be taken right now, not least challenging the corrupt

ideology which leads people to follow this stuff in the first

place, many, many, many things we could have done which do not involve

going to war in a way, in the absence of a plan for exit, which

may end up being a bigger problem. The reason we are asking these

questions, you will write to refer to it, Parliament has set the bar

higher for intervention, look at the previous errors, whether it is Iraq,

Helmand Libya, even two years ago, when we stop the government from

signing with the other side, in the Civil War, it is right that

Parliament asks these questions and hold the executive to account. Some

of the names and numbers have been filtering through, Rosie Winterton

Labour Chief Whip, has abstained, that is what we understand so far,

we think that nine other Labour MPs voted. -- abstained, along with her.

That starts to show you some of the pictures are merging.

Let's go to Damascus now. Lyce Doucet is there.

Is anybody taking any notice of this British decision in the Syrian

capital? I think that we have got to see it in perspective, the day began

here, in Syria, with the newspapers not making a single mention about

this debate in Britain, which unfolded, as we have seen throughout

the day, with such intensity and symbolism, and most people that we

spoke to today did not know about it, when we asked them about whether

they care, whether they supported, whether Britain would join the air

campaign, most of them said, they would welcome any action against the

so-called Islamic State. The centre of Damascus is under Syrian and

control, president Bashar al-Assad has his greatest supporter here,

many were scathing, they said this is too little, too late, and it is

not going to work unless the coalition, now that Britain has now

joined it in the air campaign, ordinate actions with president

Bashar al-Assad and the Syrian army. That is not going to happen, even

though Russia has been calling for it. The real problem in this, now

that the war is intensifying, the air strikes have started, they have

gone on for more than a year, they have not stop the advance of Islamic

state, president Bashar al-Assad were scathing about that, but there

is another war that he's been going on for five years, the war between

the forces of a growing array of Syrian opposition forces and the

forces of Bashar al-Assad, fundamentally most of them believe

this is the war that matters. For all of the statement and symbolism

in London, what matters in a country where a life everyday is a matter of

life or death, where hardship grows by the day, a country ravaged, where

one third of the people here, 6.3 million people are dependent upon

food aid in order to survive, they want results, they want this war to

end, not to intensify, and make life even worse and cause even more

Syrians to take that Trail heading to Europe. Thank you very much

indeed. How much, housing, and to what

effect will we have military action? -- how soon. It could start

straight, we have eight Tornado ground attack aircraft based in

Cyprus, aircraft that have ground attack aircraft based in

bombing Iraq already, we are already plugged into the targeting analysis

centre in Qatar, and so theoretically, these jets could be

redirected to Syria, almost immediately. We will be sending out

more jets, that is really so that we can conduct missions simultaneously

in Iraq and in Syria, at the same time, when will this happen? Well,

probably not tomorrow, but I reckon it'll probably be in the next 48 72

hours, we will see this operation having started. As for the likely

effect, even the British military do not want to exaggerate the impact,

as one had said to me earlier today, an officer, Britain is getting

involved with a maximum amount of knowledge but with an economy of

military effort. One of the most interesting and contentious claims

in the whole debate has been the issue of 70,000 potential fighters

who are not jihadists and not supporters of Bashar al-Assad, we

have been looking at that claim and who they are. Ever since David

Cameron mentioned this in a debate on Thursday, last week, it has been

a bone of contention. That is because the great unknown in all of

this is who is going to fight the ground war? Who is going to be in

hand to hand combat with Islamic State? What David Cameron appeared

to be doing last week was providing us with an answer. MPs from all

sides of the house have raised concerns about this, it was

certainly one of the most contentious issues in today's

debate. VOICEOVER: We know that there is

Syrian rebel fighters. Delay number 70,000? With a fight for us? Where

did that figure come from? -- are there are 70,000? Today, David

Cameron stuck to his guns, with qualification. I am not arguing,

this is crucial, that all of the 70,000 are somehow ideal partners,

some have left the Syrian army because of the brutality of Bashar

al-Assad, they clearly can play a role in the future of Syria. This

analyst, Charles Lister, thinks the number is about right, he defines

moderates as being both opposed to Isil, and the group that the

coalition wants to work with, it is complicated, but he cites 25,000

members belonging to 58 factions of the free Syrian Army boss southern

front, in areas like Damascus. He says another 20,000 FSA fighters

from 14 factions are found in the North, in Homs, Hama and it live and

Aleppo. Another 40,000, belonging of -- another 30,000 have been

identified. -- Idlib. This makes a total of 75,000. As Charles Lister

excepts, even if the maths adds up, another problem, experts we have

spoken to say that there is just no way that that many Rebels would take

up arms against Islamic State, their focus at the moment is defending the

civilian population against the forces of Bashar al-Assad, Islamic

State just is not a priority. In fact, in areas where the Rebels have

managed to push back Islamic State, they have then been pounded by

president Bashar al-Assad's air force, even if they had the

wherewithal to do it, they have very little incentive to do so. Were you

surprised that David Cameron used that 70,000 figure? I was, the

problem is it was not put into context and not broken down into

what these groups represent, what their actual power base is in the

country and what change they could affect on the ground if a UK

strategy were to openly back them. The same as the 70,000 group, it is

not really explaining how they are able to assist us in fighting Isis,

to some of these fighters have almost no power on the ground

whatsoever, because they are aligned to much more powerful groups that do

not fight Isis, and some are sectarian and Islamist, not the kind

of people you would like to be in alliance with. In the Commons today,

scorn from the Tory chair of the defence committee, he drew a

comparison with history. Instead of having dodgy dossiers, we now have

bogus battalions, of " moderate fighters"! SHOUTING

Iraq in 2003, Syria in 2015, different wars, with different

dossiers, but a reminder of the perils of overstating the case. Some

unease in Whitehall about the use of this 70,000 figure, no other

government relies upon it. Officials privately whisper, it was probably a

mistake for the Prime Minister to be so precise. Whether he meant it or

not, this is the figure against which David Cameron will now be

judged. If the Rebels to emerge in their tens of thousands to banish

Isil, he will be vindicated, if they do not, 70,000 is the number that

will come back to haunt him. STUDIO: Until January this year,

Hadi Al-Bahra was President of the National Coalition for Syrian

Revolutionary and Opposition Forces. Your reaction to the decision of the

British Parliament to enter this action against Isil. Thank God! I

think they have taken the right decision, although it was late,

better late than never! They acted responsibly, and wisely, and we hope

to have a successful campaign against combating all terrorism, and

extremism, in that area. However, you would really like the British to

be involved against Bashar al-Assad, as well? Shaw, winning the campaign

against terrorism, it cannot be won only by military means. We have

really to deal with the root causes of extremism, and terrorism, in the

area, and mainly, the tyranny of the regime, the Richie McCaw Bashar

al-Assad, the corruption, in the area, and also the poverty in the

area. We have to deal on all fronts in order for us to have a successful

campaign against terrorism, we have been acting against Al-Qaeda for

more than 15 years. What have we got? We have got Isis, more extreme,

the organisation, more extreme than Al-Qaeda, a horrible terrorist

organisation. That is why, because we acted only on military front, we

did not act really on the social and economic reasons. Which created

terrorism and extremism in the area. A lot has been said about the

process which began in Vienna, hopefully leading to some political

solution, everybody here is talking about how this might work, they are

suggesting there might be a political settlement involving

Bashar al-Assad. Stepping aside, but perhaps in a transitional way, can

you work with the Vienna process, as I understand it, none of the Syrians

are in the process, it is all the foreign powers, can you work within

the Vienna process? For us we have acted responsibly. With all of the

United Nations efforts, since the previous regime. -- since the

previous conferences, Geneva one and Geneva two, now we are ready to act

very positively, and actively, with the current efforts of the

international community, through Vienna, and through the

reactivation, really, of the Geneva conference, to comply and implement

the communique from the first Geneva conference. Many people will regard

that as helpful. Last question, 70,000, non-jihadists, non-Bashar

al-Assad fighters, who could potentially go in and help in a

ground war against Isil... ? Yes, we have moderate forces on the

ground ready to fight Isis, they have been fighting Isis. We fought

Isis since 2013 without receiving really the proper aid and assistance

from the international community. We have been through this battle alone.

We fought two fronts, one front against the tyranny of al-Assad

regime and the second front against Isil. So now we are ready to

continue our fight but it has to be an organised fight, it has to be

assisted by the international community. This is not Syrian

problem alone. It's international problem. These fighters they came to

Syria from all the country from all over the world, they came from the

US, from England, from France, from the Arab world, from every corner on

the Earth. So all of us, we have to act really in unity against

terrorism and extremism. Hadi Al-Bahra, thank you. Let's go back

to College Green and get the latest there. Emily?

Since we have been on air, some of the protesters that have been

gathering in Parliament Square have started to bring their banners and

their chants down closer behind the cameras, perhaps you can hear them.

They are saying, "Shame on you, don't bomb Syria." We think it is

mostly the Stop The War Coalition. We saw the momentum of the Stop The

War campaigners over the weekend, so that has been something that they

are now feeling incredibly strongly about, given those vote numbers,

that are stacking up, which seem to indicate, which really do indicate

that David Cameron has the mandate to extend those air strikes into

Syria, which, as we have been hearing, could be any time in 72

hours. The curious thing is, the place behind me is accused of Punch

and Judy politics. Today it was anything but that. There was real

soul-searching, rigorous questioning and there was heart-felt argument

and debate. Perhaps one of the finest pieces of oratory came at the

end of that marathon ten-hour session and it came from the Shadow

Foreign Secretary, Hilary Benn, who seemed to grow in stature as he

spoke, always courteous, but very, very impassioned with what he said

and he was cheered from all sides. Curious to see the Government front

bench clapping him on as he took to his feet and spoke. This is what he

said. They hold our values in contempt, they hold our belief in

tolerance and decency in contempt, they hold our democracy, the means

by which we will make our decision tonight in contempt! What we know

about fascists is that they need to be defeated. Hilary Benn speaking

there right at the very end of the ten-hour debate. Our political

editor is with me. That seemed to be something of a game-changer, or a

moment, people are saying that he really sort of grew in the eyes of

many listening there? For many people, he has during the week, so

67 Labour people voted with the Government, to give you the detail.

Seven Conservative rebels have voted against their leader, but it is down

on what we were talking about earlier. It is lower and then seven

abstentions. Let's go back to that Labour number. I have been texted

already to say that people who have been organising against Jeremy

Corbyn and this group Momentum, these people who have been e-mailing

Labour MPs, who were wavering, to say this is how you need to vote,

you need to be anti this war. They think 67 is amazing. Against this,

Jeremy Corbyn's team is putting out this evening that firstly a majority

of the Shadow Cabinet supported the Labour Leader, which is quite

extraordinary given... 16, we have just had that number, 16 supporting

Jeremy Corbyn. 11 against him. You would struggle to find 16 who you

would say would vote in that way. He has inspired some kind of loyalty.

The other thing that Jeremy Corbyn's team is saying that over 150 MPs

supporting him, he is enhanced this evening. Even though this evening

David Cameron has won this vote, he of all people will know that support

in this country for military intervention is very, very hard-won

and evaporates very quickly. If there is any "mission creep" or any

sense that it is going on too long, then things will turn against David

Cameron. It could be that Jeremy Corbyn is prophetic. Once you have

been through those numbers, we will be crunching them to work out who

took whose side and how they fell. I think what will be remembered most

of all is some of the speeches that we have heard, that real sense of

MPs asking themselves the questions that perhaps they didn't ask last

time round, there has been a ghost of Iraq on many of the shoulders,

the poignancy, the precision, the depth of the questioning this time

round seems to undermine a sense that many of those questions weren't

asked properly last time around. So, you have heard a few of the speeches

that have come through and it will be interesting to look back over the

years and just see what has come to what many spoke about this evening.

Back to Evan. Thank you. The voice of British Muslims is

important in the arguments over military action - although we

shouldn't assume there is only one Secunder Kermani has spent the day

in High Wycombe - a community that's been in the spotlight after

at least two young men It's a typical commuter town, but on

these suburban streets foreign policy matters. High Wycombe has a

large British Muslim population and many here are unhappy with Western

governments. People have given up hope nowadays, the community doesn't

have that much hope anymore. They do stuff like this, to share their

thoughts with everyone, every day you walk past, you will see these

same things. There had been a picture of Osama

Bin Laden here, statements of resistance, if not support, perhaps.

Zayn has been following the debate on air strikes in Syria. I'm not in

favour of them. There is a small part of me which is not against them

either in the sense that I think that I believe that those bombs are

going to go and hit Isis and they will hit the terrorists that are

giving us Muslims the bad name. They should be destroyed, not the

innocents. This confuses me. Like I said, you can go and you can bomb

Syria as much as you like, but you are killing innocent people. Down

the road, there is a sense of anger at the prospect of more bombs in a

Muslim country. They shouldn't do it. They will kill innocent people.

How do you think the Government should be fighting against Isis if

they are not doing air strikes? I don't know. Bombing is not, it is

not worth bombing because you will kill a lot of innocent people. They

should do it another way. In the mosques, they are aware that a

number of young men from the area have joined Isis. Some people would

say foreign policy is used as an excuse, it is not the real reason.

Half of their targets are Shias, or other Muslims. If you analyse the

statements of jihadis that have killed themselves, more and one have

cited their reasons, and they include foreign policy. This is one

area of concern that every jihadist has said and then they have blown

themselves and others up. We need to take it seriously. This man was

friends with one of those from the area now with Isis. We are

protecting his identity. How does it feel thinking they could be on the

receiving end of British bombs in Syria? That is a choice they have

made. I'm not concerned about them. My main concern is the innocent men,

women and children that can't get to refuge. More concern should be going

over them than people who are going into that situation. You have seen

the Isis ideology, does there need to be a military solution to

defeating them? Is any other way to be a military solution to

possible? Most people would say it seems like there isn't? I think it's

gone too far. There is an issue that has to be faced. But does that

justify increasing a humanitarian crisis? These guys, they don't just

give up because you are throwing bombs on their heads. Everyone we

spoke to opposes Isis, but for some, angry at Government policies

affecting Muslims here and abroad, there is a perception the air

strikes are the latest Western mistake. Secunder Kermani there. You

heard from Lyse Doucet that people weren't aware we were having this

vote in Syria. I was interested to see the

New York Times report on today's It described the vote as -

and I quote - one that's "become a wider test of British

willingness to play an active role The issue has always been more

about alliance solidarity and leadership than about strict

military or strategic utility". The piece didn't mention

our famed Brimstone missiles. And that may get to the heart

of it - the decision is as much about top-table places, as it is

about extra military firepower. To finish the programme, I'm still

with my panel of three. First, let's reflect, if this fails, or if it

appears to have failed, Max Hastings that, is the end of it for votes

like this on future military interventions for decades? I don't

think this has been a great day for democracy. A lot of what was said in

the House of Commons was tosh. Hilary Benn substituted intense

emotion and passion for intense discussion. I'm strongly in favour

of military action. If one is convinced it is going to work. I

think we are wading into a hell of a mess in Syria. We will end up having

ground troops there and a lot of what David Cameron has said in

defence of this policy is for the fairies. I don't think it will

happen. I think it will have to be Western ground troops and it will be

a hell of a mess unless the Russians change their spots dramatically.

That must really depress you for someone who does believe in the

power of intervention? I do. I think this is a mistaken one. It will be

hard to make the case again if this one fails? I'm amazed that David

Cameron can make many of the arguments he used for that

disastrous intervention in Libya and most of the House of Commons is

willing to go with him and they are bonkers. You are bonkers in his view

as well, Deborah? The issue is, we have already committed, it is not

like we have embarked on a new war today. We were already at war, we

already decided last year that we were with the United States, with

France. It's all very well thinking how we can get to the endgame. We

are here, we are acting. The 2013 vote when Britain said no to air

strikes against President al-Assad's regime, you can argue the rights and

wrongs of that. It undermined our confidence, it undermined our status

in the world, as a military power. You are saying the Alliance, right

or wrong? I'm not saying the Alliance is right or wrong, we are

in the Alliance. If we are in the Alliance, which we have been for the

last year, we should be fully in, as we are at the moment. It gets to

what the New York Times said, Shashank Joshi. What was the phrase

you used, diplomatic gesture? One of the interesting things is the

precedent that has been set over the last several years on going to

Parliament for matters of War and Peace in this way and how tense, how

finely balanced it has been. One of the interesting effects of this in

the long run will be NATO allies in Eastern Europe, Baltic countries

like Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, wondering if there is an Article 5

issue at stake, are we going to have weeks of debate in the House of

Commons about this every time the UK wishes to intervene in this way? It

is not just the outcome, it is not just exorcising the ghost of 2013,

where does this leave us? If we go into this escapade because we are

part of a team, it means we are not sub-contracting our defence, as some

people have said we would be doing, but it does mean we will be

sub-contracting our thinking, we are saying, we are doing it because you

are doing it. Is that the way we should make these decisions? It is

more than we are doing it because you are doing it. The fact is,

America and France are fundamental to our security and in a world which

is so unstable, when you have got threats like Isis, you have got the

actions of Russia, which are so unpredictable and Russia exploits

the fact that we have this democratic process that means we

need to have these crazy debates. It is really important to be unified. I

do understand that - maybe I sound idealistic and with the fairies.

Doing something together is better than thinking it is too difficult we

can't do it. I will give you one example... That is the problem with

this whole debate. It's been fixated on air power and it is so much more

than that. The fact that we have committed to air power in Syria, it

means we have a greater ability to influence the wider campaign. Our

contribution is - the Americans have flown 56,000 sorties in Syria and

Iraq. The idea that Isis will be trembling tomorrow morning because

the RAF's eight Tornados are joining in, this is an example of how we

delude ourselves. It is symbolic, but it is important because we are

participating in the Alliance. Is this an Iraq moment? Will we look

back on this vote as one of those decisive, defining votes? I don't

think so. Iraq was the shattering of a large army and a state. Here,

millions have fled, hundreds of thousands have died, there is a war

already going on and I'm - that is why I'm dismayed by the arguments

against this being civilians will die. Hundreds of thousands have died

already. In that sense, it is not Libya, it is not Iraq. Thank you all

very much. Although Jeremy Corbyn managed to

keep his Shadow Cabinet with him, but Andy Burnham voted against,

apparently influenced by the Prime Minister calling opponents

"terrorist sympathisers". Well, that's it

for this very important evening. The country is not entering this new

military arena with any unity around the strategy -

but despite a robust argument, there