02/12/2015 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 02/12/2015. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Welcome to this Daily Politics Special, live


from Westminster, where MPs will spend today debating and then voting


on whether Britain should bomb Islamic State targets in Syria.


Normal parliamentary business has been put aside today.


Instead MPs will spend over 10 hours debating whether to step up military


operations against Islamic State jihadists by extending air strikes


The Prime Minister, who set out his case


for strikes last week, is confident he'll get the majority he wants.


Otherwise he wouldn't be having the vote.


But last night, he was condemned for telling Conservative rebels


they should not vote with Jeremy Corbyn and what he called


Labour described the remarks as a "contemptible slur".


The Labour leader says opposition to war is growing.


And that the Prime Minister's proposals didn't stack up.


But he's been accused of bullying his own MPs


The first British jets could be over Syria as early as tomorrow morning,


if as expected, MPs vote in favour of action.


The PM has claimed 70,000 supposedly moderate Syrian


And what do you, the public, make of it all?


One new poll suggests millions of British voters have turned


against airstrikes in the last few days, though there's


Conservative Foreign Secretary, Malcolm Rifkind, and former Labour


MPs will spend over 10 hours debating the military,


moral and political case for striking IS targets in Syria,


culminating in a vote at around about 10 o'clock tonight.


A vote which David Cameron is expected to win.


We can't hide from these people, we can't pull the quilt over our heads.


They have killed British citizens in Sousse in Tunisia, we have thwarted


seven Isil inspired or Isil directed terrorist plots on the streets


The Russian plane that was downed at Sharm el-Sheikh, almost certainly by


an Isil bomb, could easily have been a British plane carrying British


They are going after us and the only way we can protect


ourselves is fighting back, hitting back at them, degrading


them, reducing their capacity to plan and plot attacks against us.


The Prime Minister will almost certainly win his vote but has there


been a sense that arguments have been slipping away from him? I don't


think so. When you come to a point of decision, some people who are


undecided are a bit nervous about committing themselves to something


that will involve loss of life, that is a natural human reaction. The


public also appreciate this is the UK joining the rest of the


international community who are already carrying out this exercise


and is no conceivable argument for saying it is proper to bomb Isis in


Iraq but not the same in Syria when Isis themselves don't recognise a


border between the countries. The Prime Minister has been trying to


build a big majority. He has been conciliatory towards those on the


other side who have some doubts. It didn't help when he decided to


describe some of the people who don't agree with him as terrorist


sympathisers. I think he realises that themselves, it was an


unfortunate comment that came out, which was not appropriate and eyes


as Becky will be the first to acknowledge that. -- I suspect. Some


Labour MPs seem to be under some pretty unpleasant pressure.


Absolutely and it is disgusting, I bought is happening. Why has this


become so toxic in the Labour Party? Sadly the whole issue has become


about Jeremy Corbyn, the leadership of the party, rather than focusing


on this most serious issues. Both parties are divided to some extent,


the Tories left so but they have their rebels also. Labour seem to be


deeply divided on this, all over the place. Indeed, you could say that.


It is right to say there are passions on both sides of the


argument which is understandable and absolutely right because it is so


serious. But what is a disgrace is the way people are being harried and


threatened by colleagues in the Parliamentary Labour Party but also


by party members up and down the country. Do you think this will, in


the end, come to an issue for some MPs, to put it another way, are you


aware of Labour MPs who are frightened of facing deselection as


a result of positions they might take? Yes, I am, and I feel


especially for those new members of the House of Commons. People who


have been there for five or ten years, their skins tend to be


thicker but for new members it is a very... It is very difficult. They


are under pressure. It is hard to see how Labour puts itself together


after this. If you work on the assumption that how Mr Corbyn has


handled the event is how he will handle things in the future. There


are some wise people in the party who I hope will be working with him


and counselling him and there are people like Hilary Benn who clearly


take a different view to Jeremy Corbyn but I know that Hillary and


many people around Jeremy, what they want to do is ensure that is a


culture of respect after this vote. Whichever way people vote, they


should respect the opinions of others. In reality, what is at stake


today is a technical shift, a tactical shift, and yet it has


become one of these great occasions of Parliament. It is a huge vote, if


the government was to lose, it could well fall. How have we come to this?


How has a military shift, with us already bombing in Iraq, how has


this become such a totemic issue? Because the government was defeated


two years ago. Not on an identical vote but something sufficiently


similar that this would be seen as a reversal of that position. When the


House of Commons did that, it had a big impact around the world. You


have to think back to the 1930s when Oxford union students said they


would not fight for King and country and everybody said that was


decadent. The people who voted against the government two years ago


were not in that situation but it had real damage intervals of our


diplomatic clout oversees. And if we all agree that the ultimate solution


is not just the destruction of Islamic State but a political


solution to the Civil War in Syria, Britain must be part of that


initiative. You cannot opt out of the military component and expects


to have weight when the diplomacy is to be addressed. Have you come to a


view on this issue? I'm glad I don't have to vote on this. It finally


balanced but I come down against air strikes in the end. Because? The


arguments which are put about the need to have ground forces from the


region, the fact that the Prime Minister says there are 70,000


people who will be those ground forces, I am not sure they would be


a coherent force. Yes, air strikes together with ground forces have


worked in Iraq but the situation is very different, there is a standing


army and a government that invited people in. The ground Force issue is


extremely important and what also bothers me, many if the potential


ground forces are people who are, understandably, fighting against


President Assad. And the Russians are fighting against those forces.


We are getting into very deep waters. The potential ground forces


are seen by many as a nonsense. There are two groups of anti-Assad


rebels who are not Islamic State. One is in the south, the other in


the North and they have divided into 50 or 60 different groups, no way


are they a coherent force. But there is an answer to what we have been


saying. Air power, even in northern Syria, has already helped because


the Kurds, for example, were able to hold on to Kobani, which Islamic


State would desperate to get, and they were prevented a combination of


the Kurds on the ground and air power. You have chosen the one group


that is coherent! That is the Kurds and they are very geographically


specific. There is no disagreement that in the rest of the Islamic


State area, you will not drive them out of territory by air power alone.


The problem we are to address is that will not be resolved overnight


-- have two address. So do we leave Isis untouched in their own main


command centres? It is not just bombing individuals, it is their


convoys, for example. With respect to you, that was not the question.


My question was, do you accept that the so-called 70,000 ground forces


that the Prime Minister has mentioned can be in no way regarded


as a coherent force? They are certainly not a coherent force. If


you add up the various resistance groups, there are 70000 and some are


quite effective, for example Kneer the Jordanian border. -- near the


Jordanian border. They have had local victories but you are right. I


hope the government does not think there is a single body of 70,000


that can be used at this moment. Let's remind ourselves what MPs will


be voting on and debating later and how does the Parliamentary


arithmetic add up. We won't know the exact numbers until after the vote.


The motion before the Commons today starts by saying so-called


Islamic State poses a "direct threat to the United Kingdom".


It notes that "military action is only one component


of a broader strategy to bring peace and stability to Syria".


Specific reference is made to "requests from France, the US,


and regional allies for UK military assistance".


And the motion reiterates the government's commitment


"not to deploy UK troops in ground combat operations".


Finally it provides that the House supports military action,


"specifically air strikes, exclusively against Isil in Syria",


and offers wholehearted support to the British armed forces.


In 2013 the government lost a vote to bomb forces in Syria loyal


As a result, David Cameron's been reluctant to bring forward


a new vote in the current climate because of the risk of losing,


but he's confident that support has been "growing" and he can win now.


We won't know the exact voting breakdown until after the vote,


but it appears that between ten to 15 of the Conservatives' 330 MPs


will defy the Prime Minister and oppose air strikes.


Figures this morning suggested around 50 of Labour's 231 MPs would


support the government, but the BBC has learned Jeremy Corbyn's team are


now assuming around 90 Labour MPs will vote for the motion.


The SNP have signalled that their 54 MPs still taking the party


But the Liberal Democrats and the DUP with eight MPS each will


Let's talk now to the Conservative MP, John Baron,


John Baron, you are going to vote against air strikes, how did you


feel being described by the Prime Minister as a terrorist sympathiser?


I will not come at a private meeting but having served in Northern


Ireland as a platoon commander, those who vote against air strikes


are not terrorist sympathisers -- I cannot comment. Did you think that


language was appropriate and helpful when we are talking about issues


this serious? There has been a lot of emotive language, I have been


called a pacifist and I have the medals to prove I am not. There have


been various accusations. We have to have an informed debate, respect the


views of each other, there are no easy decisions in foreign policy,


there are hard choices. Respect each other and use the language


accordingly and if we can't do that, there is something sad, particularly


when we are accused of playing politics or personalities. I have


consistently opposed international intervention in Iraq and Helmand and


Libya and indeed two years ago so this is a matter for me of


conscience. And for you, Caroline Flint? Firstly I agree with


everything John has just said. For myself and others, this is really


difficult, the most serious decision you make is about putting our


service men and women into a combat situation whether from the air or


the ground. I have gone to several meetings since the statement last


week to find out more and I have come down in favour of supporting


the air strikes, the extension of our activity in Syria similar to


Iraq. That is against what the Labour


Party leader Jeremy Corbyn has said. Talking about respect, what has


happened to respecting each other's views in the Houses of Parliament.


Caroline Flint, have you come under pressure from some in your own party


that you would have blood on your hands if you vote in favour of the


Government's proposal? None of my party colleagues have said that to


me but like a number of my colleagues I have received via


social media and e-mails views that are against us supporting the Prime


Minister today expressed in language which I think is intolerant and


unhelpful. I know that other colleagues have received even


worse. It is really important that there is an understanding and


respect in this debate. Just to say about the Prime Minister, I think he


should apologise for what he is alleged to have said in this


meeting. It is completely unhelpful and I say that as someone who will


support the Government's motion. Do you think he should apologise, John


Baron? I've said my piece, I've made it clear that having served on the


streets of Northern Ireland you can vote for air strikes and not be a


terrorist sympathiser -- boat against air strikes. What about an


amendment in the debate? Can you tell us about that? It is saying


that the case for intervention, for war if you like, has not been made.


It is broad enough and short enough so that it welcomes anybody from all


sides of the house. And there are many of us who have deep concerns


about the line that the Government is taking. The central case is we do


not have an adamant, realistic long-term strategy, both military


and non-military, which includes an exit strategy. That absence featured


in our previous interventions in Iraq and in Helmand, in Libya, and


would have done two years ago when the Government was asked whether it


would side with the rebels. Without the long-term comprehensive strategy


and including the exit strategy we are deeply concerned about this,


particularly when you can't even identify the local ground forces


that will have to take the ground at the end of the day. Caroline, why


have you come to the conclusion that it will have a material impact on


Isis in Syria? Of course, I don't believe that by extending activity


to include air strikes that that is going to get rid of Isil in and of


itself, or for that matter solve the problem the Civil War in Syria. But


what I do believe is this: I voted 14 months ago to support air strikes


in Iraq to tackle the Isil forces there. In Syria we are already


supplying intelligence to allow others to pinpoint their air


strikes, refuelling and other logistical support as well. Given


that we know that Isil doesn't recognise any borders on this I feel


that the extension of our activity to support air strikes in the way we


have been doing in Iraq, I just think it doesn't make sense not to.


If you are against air strikes in Syria people should say they are


against what we are doing in Iraq as well. That is the truth of the


debate. Thank you for joining us. I will let you go into the chamber.


Thanks, Joe Cole. Malcolm Rifkind, other than the symbolic act of


showing solidarity with our allies, what is British bombing in Surrey


achieve? Specific military point that Britain has certain specific


munitions called Brimstone, which are impressive at pinpointing the


enemy and not having the same likelihood of creating collateral


damage and innocent people being killed. How many missiles do we have


of this type? I don't have the specific number. Maybe it does


because there are reports we don't have many. That is part of the wider


problem of the defence budget. That it is not a significant capability.


That is not what our allies believe. King Husein of Jordan this morning


wrote in the Daily Telegraph saying Britain is needed as part of the


international effort. He's bound to want that, they would all want that,


they want all the Allies they can get. It is also the case that the


typhoons we are deploying along with the tornadoes cannot carry the


Brimstone missile. That's as may be. You mentioned the Brimstone. I'm


putting the point that this is not the magical weapon the Government


has made it out to be. These are your words and not mine. The asked


me in the initial question was there any specific military benefit the


edited kingdom -- the United Kingdom can bring. They will bring these


missiles. We don't know how many. The Royal Air Force will know and


that is enough for me. You say it has a pinpoint capability but we now


know that the IS in Raqqa has now disbursed through the buildings.


They haven't got headquarters. They have dispersed themselves into the


population. The Brimstone missile is irrelevant in that situation. Your


conclusion does not match your initial statement. You are assuming


that the only bombing that will take place is in Raqqa, areas occupied by


civilians. Some of the prime time gets we will be going for, I assume,


and I'm sure I'm right, will for example be convoys carrying fuel,


convoys carrying munitions that have to go back and forward in northern


Iraq. The Americans are doing that already. They took out 180 of them,


why does it need the British? We are going to spend a ?100,000 Brimstone


missile to take out a fuel tanker? What we are saying is this is an


international effort. The United Kingdom does not franchise out the


defence of this country. If we see that Isis is a threat to the United


Kingdom and there is an international effort approved by the


United Nations supported by France, the United States, Russia and a


whole host of other countries the idea that the United Kingdom would


say let them do it on our behalf because they are making an effort


and save the money and do it for another purpose, you don't believe


that yourself and neither do most people. Isn't the stronger case that


the French have asked us to join them? Mr Hollande made a direct plea


to British Parliament, that Mr Obama in the United States would like us


to do the same, the King of Jordan has joined this morning, these are


our allies, and we would expect them to come to our aid when we needed. .


We have a duty to go to their aid when we have asked for it -- they


have asked for it? Solidarity is important but as has been said in


the debate so far we are doing a lot on the ground to supply whatever the


military there is doing, supplying humanitarian aid and we are doing a


lot already. It's important that when people look at the whole


strategy and situation and people have to be absolutely certain that


the political situation is there, the ground forces on the ground are


there and the missiles are in place and I don't think everything is in


place. Even the Germans, who have for obvious reasons been reluctant


to be involved in any military adventures overseas for 70 years are


sending the German navy to the eastern Mediterranean, sending 1500


troops and they have moved their reconnaissance and satellite


capabilities over the area Mr Hollande is asking. Indeed that they


are not making air strikes, that's the important distinction. In


response to the discussion you had with Malcolm Rifkind earlier, I


think I heard on the radio this morning that Isis is moving some of


its strategic headquarters to Libya, so what does that mean? Are we


supposed to... We have already bombed Libya! Are we supposed to


bomb it again? That was my point. It is unlikely we are going to move


focus to Libya. The core area of Isas has been northern Iraq and more


recently Syria. -- Isis. They have some operations in other countries


but that doesn't alter the fact that the so-called caliphate requires to


control large amounts of territory to give it credibility. It is only


by denying Isis in its heart mind, Syria and northern Iraq, that we


will remove the scourge from the problem we face. Is it not


inevitable, contrary to what the parliament was asked to vote two


years ago that we now have to make common cause with President Assad


and the Russians? With the Russians, yes, with Assad no. If the


Russians, partly as a result of having lost an aircraft because of


the Isis terrorist attack on it, if the Russians are prepared to


coordinate, as they say they are with France and presumably other


parts of the coalition against Isis, then yes, Russia is a sensible ally.


Two or three years ago the Russians helped to remove chemical weapons


from Syria and they did it in 24-hour is. Assad was told to go


operate with the Russians and he did. That shows the influence the


Russians have. Assad goes to the heart of the diplomatic


conversations that will have to take place regarding this Syrian Civil


War. How can you make common cause with the Russians and not Assad,


given he is only there because of the Russians? Assad is not actually


fighting Isis. The military conflict between Assad and the Syrian


opposition is in other parts of Syria. For his own reasons of


self-interest he's happy to leave Isis on touched. How can we be


onside with Russia and yet make Assad a deal-breaker, that's not


going to work? Assad is not a deal-breaker. You are confusing two


separate issues, they are obviously linked at some stage in this ghastly


process but they are essentially two issues. There is a question of how


to do with the Isis terrorist threat in northern Syria and the quite


separate issue, although inevitably it has links, of a political


solution, a diplomatic solution to the Syrians of war. Even if Isis


disappeared tomorrow the Civil War would continue until there are peace


negotiations. So we have a common cause with Russia to deal with the


Isis threat from the North. When it comes to the diplomatic solution for


the Syrians of a war, that is something which is grindingly slowly


making progress, but we have not yet got to the stage of a breakthrough.


The Labour leader put a lot of emphasis on the Vienna talks and


that there should be some kind of diplomatic negotiated way out of


this. With the best will in the world it is hard to see that


happening quickly, since it would involve the Assad regime, it would


involve the external parties including ourselves, and it would


involve all of these militia will stop the only people it wouldn't


involve is the Islamic State. At is absolutely right, it is a very slow


process and it has been given a timescale of 6-12 months to find a


resolution to the problem. It is a slow process and I understand why so


much store is put on the political process. We have to do other things


in the meantime, such as work with people on the ground. Personally, I


think we should be arming the Kurds, for example. I think the Kurds are


doing a magnificent job in both Iraq and Syria. But there we get into a


complex situation. Perhaps not the British, but the Germans have been


helping to arm the Kurds and others have been doing too. Their weapons


need to be modernised and so on. I come back to the point I made to


Malcolm Rifkind. Even if they were terribly well armed, they have a


geo- specific mission. They don't want to go further than the


territories around what they regard as Kurdistan. Yes, but I have been


talking to some Kurds of late, and I think they may be prepared to go a


little further. I think it is worth pursuing these issues. There is an


additional point as well, that best remains an area that Isis controls


between Raqqa and the Turkish border. The rest of it is controlled


by the Kurds. If that particular route could be blocked off, which it


ought to be able to without too much military problem, then that is a


serious blow to the ability of Isis to get recruits coming through the


porous Turkish border. If the Kurds were minded to do more but needed a


condition that they wanted a greater Kurdistan recognised that would just


create chaos in the region. They will not make that demand because


they know it is unrealistic at this moment in time. What they have


already achieved by historic standards is an incredible amount of


autonomy, both in the Kurdish region of Iraq and increasingly in northern


Syria. They will not be pushed out of that area. They know that this


will have to be step-by-step if they are going to realise their


aspirations. It would throw the cat among the pigeons if the Russians in


retaliation for what happened to their jet work to start backing a


Kurdistan. The Russians don't have a problem with the Kurds that the


Turks do. Exactly. There are lots of curious alliances but we must not


lose sight of the main target which is Islamic extremist terrorism which


controls a large part of Syria. That is what today is all about, that is


why the need for Britain to be part of this international community,


which the United Nations resolution gives full authority for, that is


something that gives a step forward. Laura Kuenssberg has been across


this story from the start. Prime Minister is probably heading for a


substantial victory. But it has been a rough 72, 36, 48 hours for him.


The terrorists remark at the committee last night, the 70,000


troops on the ground figure being widely disparaged. It has not been


great. If they held the vote at the end of last week they would


certainly have got their numbers at that point in the immediate


aftermath of David Cameron making that speech, widely acknowledged to


have been very effective and very statesman-like in the House of


Commons, particularly in the last 24 hours and overnight there has been a


sense of a real scramble, a very tense scramble. On both sides you


have had people trying to screw down their supporters. As you say there


is a 99.999% chance that the government will get what will feel


like a pretty hefty majority on this. But I think there is a sense


that as the vote has approached, scrutiny has become more intense,


MPs have been agonising over this and in every single political party,


we often give MPs a rough ride. In a week like this you see how seriously


they take these kinds of decisions. That the case has perhaps become a


little bit scratchy around the edges. There is no question about


that and as Sir Malcolm referenced, David Cameron will probably feel it


would have been better if he had not used the line at the 1922 last night


and it was inevitable it would come out. The idea you could say that


privately other room of Tory MPs. It is worth remembering, as we


discussed in his Conservative Party conference speech, used that line


but the campus was so different than pre-Paris and pre-this argument and


three being potentially 24 - 36 hours from British jets taking off


into the sky. -- canvas. More from the House of Commons now. Shadow


Edinburgh secretary is there. We are talking about the arguments that


have become much more angry, it feels and much more on the edges, if


you like -- energy Secretary. At least 50 or so Labour MPs will vote


with the government in favour of air strikes, disappointed by your


colleagues who would do that? Not at all. As Laura said, most of


us have wrestled hard with this decision. I listened to the Prime


Minister last week with an open mind about military action. I was looking


for reasons to support him in fact because I accept there is a strong


case for taking action in Syria in order to evade Isil and cut them off


in their headquarters. But like many of my colleagues, I have come to the


conclusion in the last few days that the Prime Minister is not able to


provide any kind of concrete strategy about what happens after


military air strikes and what happens on the ground. Unless he


said something very different in a few minutes time, I'm going to vote


against military action because I don't think it will help and


potentially, given the lack of clarity about ground troops, it


could make it worse. We have discussed the comments of David


Cameron last night but Jeremy Corbyn is said to have sparked accusations


that he is bullying his MPs by saying there would be no hiding


place for those siding with David Cameron. Caroline Flint


substantiated reports that she had been targeted on social media and by


e-mail by either those in the Parliamentary Labour Party or party


members like trying to pressurise MPs to knock back air strikes. What


do you say to them? It is right that the debate has become angry and


heated and it is a shame because this is not a Black and Whites


issue. There are consequences to both action and inaction and I think


the point Jeremy was making is that all MPs are to live with their own


consciences and go back to the constituencies and look their


constituents in the eye and answer them. I have not come under any


pressure from anyone about how I vote. He was right to give MPs a


free vote on this issue, I would prefer that all MPs had a free vote


on this so that Parliament could surface some of these difficult


arguments and reach a collective conclusion outside of party


politics. We will let you go into the debate because it is starting


shortly. It has been fractious, she has not been put under any pressure


because she agrees with Jeremy Corbyn. I think in some parts of the


Labour Party, fractious is an under estimate. It was a true talk talking


to some MPs last night, there is a sense that some of the bonds of


trust have been stretched -- it was brutal. It has become extremely


intense, stories of bullying. One pro strikes MP recounted an


extraordinary exchange with somebody they saw as being in the Corbyn camp


who basically said, you start it, we'll finish it. Jeremy Corbyn's


office denied this is going on in a deliberate way and that there is any


kind of bullying going on but there are many MPs who feel as if there


is. This is part of the wider picture of how Jeremy Corbyn wants


to involve the membership much more and reach outside Parliament because


that is where his power base is. For some MPs, and not all Blairites as


they are seen, this is difficult to come back from and this has changed


the Labour Party in the last few days, it has become very serious.


Let's dip into the House of Commons as it prepares for this debate. As


you can seek it is a house, no try ministers questions today. -- Prime


Minister's Questions. The benches are full, a big air of anticipation.


The Prime Minister will open for the government and give the case as he


sees it for extending the RAF bombing from Iraq into Syria and he


will be followed by the Leader of the Opposition, Jeremy Corbyn, who


will give the case against doing so. We will bring you both speeches


live, full and uninterrupted. We understand that 157 members have put


their names down to the speaker requesting to speak in this debate.


As Laura was saying, it has been an issue about which MPs have thought


long and hard and they have come to their decisions, or perhaps some


will only after the debate. One almost unprecedented Parliamentary


procedure will take place which is that the Leader of the Opposition


will open for the opposition against the motion of the government but the


Shadow Foreign Secretary, Hilary Benn, will close for the opposition


and he will be speaking in favour of the motion. I can't remember that


happening in my life, even in the days when I was covering Gladstone


and Disraeli! It is a big occasion with a lot of MPs wanting to speak


on this issue. We understand the Prime Minister is going to speak for


quite some time, maybe at 240 minutes, and it could be longer --


up to 40 minutes. It could be longer because I imagine he would take a


large number of interruptions not just from the Labour side but those


on his own side he is yet to convince. And we will also hear from


the Scottish Nationalists who will follow. Angus Robertson will speak


on their behalf. After the Labour Party, by far the biggest opposition


what in Parliament so their voice matters as well. I can't help but


notice Hilary Benn sitting there and pondering what is an incredible


irony. He is in direct opposition to his leader who of course was one of


the strongest adherence of his father's politics. Something very


interesting about the two of them. And the brooding presence of Tom


Watson who has been such a keep figure in the last few days. -- key


figure. Even before a vote has cast, this has stitched the canvas,


with big invitations for labour and also for David Cameron. This is his


fifth big foreign-policy intervention since being Prime


Minister and he is now in a different place. When we discussed


the defence review, what ministers say is they believe there should be


a new assertiveness in the British attitude to intervening in the rest


of the world, that we live in a different place now where the terror


threat has modulated and evolved and we must therefore take a different


attitude. Although David Cameron wants to take this action and has


done for a long time, this is perhaps the start of a new attitude.


The beginning of his prime in as the ship was marked by a winding down of


operations in Afghanistan. But this will shape him and the Labour Party


and of course the SNP and what is going on in Scotland. Hardly a


single Scottish MPs will vote for this action. We can go back into the


chamber and see what is going on. The debate should have started. It


is ten minutes late because they are arguing about whether there should


be a two date the bait. The Scottish Nationalists have joined Mr Corbett


in asking for that -- eight to date debate -- a two-day debate.


There is another point of order taking place. The Scottish


Nationalists will be voting with Mr Corbyn on this but I understand the


Lib Dems and the DUP are going to side with the government. Indeed and


that is one of the reasons why a couple of Tory MPs believe they


might win without needing the support of Labour MPs. I think that


is optimistic from the government benches, it could be narrow in that


situation. But a real change for the Lib Dems. If you think back to the


last time there was an occasion like this in Parliament, it was very


different, but the Lib Dems build themselves into the mainstream


politics through their opposition to the Iraq war. They are now under Mr


Farren, who, rightly or wrongly, you would think would be less inclined


to support this. What happened? It took them a long time to get to this


position, they had hoped for a decision far earlier than when it


came at about 9pm last night. The Prime Minister is on his feet as we


begin this debate. The question before the house today


is how we keep the British people safe from the threat posed by Isil.


Let me be clear from the outset. This is not about whether we want to


fight terrorism, it is about how best we do that. I respect that


governments of all political colours in this country have had to fight


terrorism and take the people with them as they do so. I respect people


who come to a different view from the government and the one I will


set out today and those who vote accordingly and I hope that provides


some reassurance to members right across the house. I am happy to give


way. I thank the Prime Minister for giving way and he is right in his


opening statement to say how important it is to respect opinion


on all sides of this house so will the apologise for the marks he made


in the meeting last night against Right honourable and honourable


friends on this side of the house? I be clearer in my remarks, I respect


people who disagree, I respect the fact that governments of all colours


have had to fight terrorism and I respect we are all discussing how to


fight terrorism, not whether to fight it. In moving this motion,...


Mr Speaker... The Prime Minister is clearly not at this stage giving


way. He has the floor. I will take dozens of interventions in the time


I have, I am conscious of not taking up too much time with similar people


wanting to speak I will give way a lot in my speech. Let me make some


progress at the start. In moving this motion I am not pretending that


the answers are simple. The situation in Syria is incredibly


complex. I'm not overstating the contribution that our incredible


servicemen and women can make and neither am I ignoring the risks of


military action. Nor am I pretending that it 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. 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. 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, inspired the worst terrorist attack against British


people since 7-7 on the beaches of Tunisia and plotted atrocity after


atrocity on the street here at home. Since November last year our


security is that is have foiled no fewer than seven 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


go after these terrorists in with their heartlands from where they


plot to kill British people or do we sit back and wait for them to attack


us? Thank you for giving way to it would be helpful if he could retract


his inappropriate comments from last night but will he be reassured that


no one on this side of the house will make a decision based on any


such remarks, nor will we be threatened from doing what we


believe is the right thing, whether those threats come from online


activists or indeed from our own dispatch box? I completely agree


with the honourable gentleman, everyone in this house should make


up their mind on the arguments in this house and there is honour in


voting for and honour in voting against. That is the way this house


should operate and that is why I wanted to be absolutely clear at the


start of my sentence, this is about how we fight terrorism, not whether


we do. I will make some progress and then give way. In answering this


question, we should remember that 15 months ago, facing the threat from


Isil in Iraq, this house voted 524 to 43 to authorise as drugs in Iraq.


Since then our brilliant RAF pilots have helped local forces halt the


advance of Isil and recovered 30% of the territory they had captured. On


Monday spoke to the president of Iraq in Paris and he expects his


better Jude for the vital work our forces are doing and yet when plays


reach the border with Syria, a border that Isil themselves do not


recognised we can no longer act to defend either his country or hours.


Even when we know that their headquarters are in Syria and it is


from here that many of the plot against our country are formed.


The Prime Minister is facing an amendment signed by 110 members of


this house from six different political parties. I've examined


that list very carefully and I cannot identify a single terrorist


sympathiser on that list. Will he now apologise for his deeply


insulting remarks? PRIME MINISTER: I've made clear this is about how we


fight terrorism and there is honour in any vote that honourable member


is make. We possess the capabilities to reduce this threat to our


capability. My argument today is we should not wait any longer before


doing so. We should answer the call from our allies. The action we


propose is legal, it is necessary and it is the right thing to do to


keep our country safe. 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. I


give way to the member for Stratford-upon-Avon. I've just


returned from Baghdad and Irbil, where Isil is on the back foot,


Ramadi is surrounded, Sinjar has been liberated. The route between


Mosul and Raqqa has been cut off but everyone on the ground tells me that


unless we attack Isil in Syria there is no point in liberating Mosul or


the rest of Iraq because all they will do with is regrouping Syria and


come back and attack that country and our country. PRIME MINISTER: My


honourable honourable friend makes an important point and it is set out


clearly in the UN Security Council that the fact this so-called


caliphate exists in Syria and also Iraq is a direct threat to Iraq and


the government of Iraq. He talks about some of the better news there


has been from Iraq, I would add to that what has happened in Tikrit


since that has been taken from Isil. We have seen 70% of the population


returning to that city. Later in the debate I'm sure we will talk about


the importance of humanitarian aid and reconstruction. That can only


work if you have good government in those towns and the absence of Isil


or Daesh in those towns. Let's mix in progress and I will take more


interventions, including from the different political parties in this


house. Mr Speaker, since my statement last week the House had an


opportunity to ask questions of our security experts. I rinsed a


briefing for all members as well as more detailed briefings for Privy


Council members. I spoke to our allies including President Obama,


Chancellor Merkel, President Hollande and beat King of Jordan.


The king of Jordan Rhodes in the Telegraph today ex-president his


wish for Britain to stand with the Allies in dealing with this threat.


The King of Jordan. 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, it


operations. The need to avoid civilian casualties. The importance


of ceasefires and a political settlement and 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 as people as


possible to feel able to support this action. I give way to the


honourable member for Carshalton. I will be supporting him today. But I


do think, however, that he needs to apologise for the comments he made


in relation to the Labour Party. Could I ask him very specifically in


relation to civilian casualties were UK Government is going to do to


minimise those? The honourable gentleman raises an important


point. In Iraq for a year and three months there have been no reports of


civilian casualties related to the strikes that Britain has taken. Our


starting point is to avoid civilian casualties altogether. I have


argued, and indeed I will argue again today, that our position


weapons and the skill of our pilots makes civilian casualties less


likely, so Britain being involved in the strikes in Iraq can both be


effective in prosecuting the campaign against Isil, but also can


help us to avoid civilian casualties as well. Let me give way to the


honourable member for Birkenhead. I'm grateful to the Prime Minister.


Is he aware that we have press reports that over the recent past


60,000 Syrian troops have been murdered by Isil, and our allies


have actually waited to attack until after those murderous acts have


taken place. And therefore there is a key part in the motion for many of


us, which talks about our action will be exclusively against Isil. If


Isil are involved in attacking Syrian government troops, will we be


bombing I saw in defence of those troops, or will we wait idly by as


our allies have done until now, wait for Isil to kill those troops and


then for us to bomb. What I would say to the right honourable


gentleman, who I have great respect for, the motion says exclusively


Isil because that was a promise I made in this house in response to


the points made from both sides of the House. And as far as I'm


concerned, were ever Isil are, wherever they can be properly


targeted that is what we were should do. -- that is what we should do. It


is important will make onto the argument about ground troops, in my


discussions with the King of Jordan, he made the point that in


the south of Syria there is already cooperation between Jordanian


government and the French and Americans and Free Syrian Army, but


also there is a growing ceasefire between the regime troops and the


Free Syrian Army, so they can turn their guns on Isil. That is what


I've said, this is an Isil first strategy. They are the threat, they


are the ones we should be targeting and this is about our national


security. Let me make some progress and then I will take more


interventions. I want to address in my remarks the most important points


raised and I will take as many interventions as I can. I believe


the key questions raised are these: first, good acting in this way


increase the risk to our security by making an attack on Britain more


likely? Second, does Britain have the capability to make a significant


difference? Third, the question asked by a number of members


including the honourable member for Gordon, is why don't we increased


the level of our 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 they really needed to make this operation a


success? Fifth, what is the strategy for defeating Isil and securing a


lasting political settlement in Syria? And, six, is there a proper


reconstruction host conflict stabilisation plan for Syria? In the


time I have available I want to try and answer one of these. Let me give


way to the honourable member. I thank the Prime Minister for giving


away. He will know how members of the party feel when it comes to


fighting and dealing with terrorism. And for that there will always be


supporting the matter where terrorism raises its head. Turning


to the motion, can I ask the Prime Minister if he can guarantee to the


House where he indicates that the Government will not deploying UK


troops in ground combat operations if it becomes necessary at a later


date to do that. Will he come back to the House to seek approval for


that? It is not only something I don't want to do, it is something


that I think if we did would be a mistake, because the argument was


made to us by the Iraqi government that the presence of Western ground


troops, that can be a radicalising force, that can be


counter-productive and that is our view. That I would say to him and to


colleagues behind him who are concerned about this issue, I accept


that this means that our strategy takes longer to be successful


because we rely on Iraqi ground troops in Iraq, we rely on the


patchwork of Free Syrian Army troops there are in Syria. In time we hope


for Syrian ground troops from a transitional regime but that takes


longer. One of the killer messages that has to come across today is a


yes we have a strategy, it's a convex picture and will take time


but we are acting in the right way. Let me make one more point before


taking more interventions. Before we get onto these things, Mr Speaker, I


want to say a word about the terminology we used to describe this


evil death cult. Having considered the representations made to me by


the honourable member for chilling and listen to many numbers across


the House it's time to join our key I France, the Arab league and other


members of the international community in using as frequently as


possible the terminology Daesh rather than Isil. This evil death


cult is neither a true representative of is that nor is it


a state. I'm interested to hear what the honourable gentleman says we


should use to talk about Daesh but talking about terminology, should


heed not take this opportunity withdraw the remarks that he is


calling those not voting with him to note a bunch of terrorist


sympathisers? Not only is that offensive, it is dangerous and


untrue. I've made my views clear about the importance of all of us


fighting terrorism and its time to move on. Let me turn to the


important questions, and I will take interventions as I go through these


questions. First, could acting increased the risk to our security?


This is one of the most important questions we have to answer. Privy


councils across the House have had a briefing from the chair of


independent joint intelligence committee. Obviously I cannot share


all of the classified material that I can say this, Paris wasn't just


different because it was so close to us, or because it was so horrific in


scale. Paris was 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. It is not surprising in my view that the judgment of the


chair of the joint intelligence committee and the judgment of the


director-general of the security service, is that the risk of a


similar attack in the UK is real. And that the UK is already in the


top tier of countries on Isil's target list. Let me be frank, Mr


Speaker. I want make this point and then I will take more interventions.


If there is an attack on the UK in the coming weeks or months there


will be those who try and save it has happened because of our trikes.


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 seven different plots


our security services have foiled -- because of our tax. The terrorist


level to the UK was raised to severe last August meaning an attack is


highly likely from the threat of Daesh. 800 people, including


families and children have been radicalised to such an extent they


have travelled to this caliphate. The House should be under no


illusion, these terrorists plot to kill us and radicalise our children


now. They attack us because of who we are not because of what we do.


Thank you, Mr Speaker. On these benches we all share the Prime


Minister has Mac horror for Daesh and its death cult, and we abhor


terrorism. Will he take the opportunity to identify which


members of these benches he regards as terrorist sympathisers? Everyone


in this house can speak for themselves. When it comes to the


risks of military action, the risks of inaction are far greater than 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. Let me make my argument and then I will take his


question. This point has been raised in briefing after briefing. I


believe we can make a real difference. I told the House last


week about our dynamic targeting, about our Brimstone missile is, the


raptor pod on our tornadoes and the intelligence gathering work of our


Reaper drones. I will not repeat that today but there is another way


to put this which I think is equally powerful. In the coalition there is


a lot of strike capacity 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 have a significant


proportion of high precision strike capability. That's why this decision


is so important. He's been very persistent and I will give way to


the honourable gentleman. He's right to sing the praises of the RAF


pilots, and my constituent Mike Poole was tragically killed training


for the RAF in a tornado in 2012. He has asked specifically this


question. Will be a force in northern Iraq, or is the air force


in northern Iraq, and if you go into Syria, does it have coalition


warning systems in this crowded airspace? Absolutely essential for


the safety of our pilots. The honourable gentleman is right to pay


this to -- bring up this issue. In terms of our own aeroplanes they


have the most advanced systems to make sure they are kept safe. The


argument I was making is one reason why members of the international


coalition, including Mr Obama and President Hollande who made these


points to me personally, they believe British planes would make a


real difference in Syria, just as they are already doing in Iraq. I'm


grateful for the Prime Minister giving way. It's important in this


debate that there is respect across the House. In the spirit of respect,


will the Prime Minister who has been asked before apologise. For the slur


put on every member of the opposition last night.


Either vote is an honourable vote but I is just we get on with the


debate that the country wants to his. I've believe this is 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 the capabilities but


other members of the coalition want to benefit from and it makes no


sense to stop using these capabilities at a border between


Iraq and Syria that IS does not recognise or respect. -- Daesh does


not recognise. There was a recent incident in which Syrian opposition


forces needed urgent support in the fight against Daesh. British


Tornados were eight minutes away over the border in Iraq, no one else


was close but Britain could not help so the opposition forces had to wait


40 minutes in a perilous situation while other forces were scrambled.


That sort of De Laet endangers the lives of those fighting Daesh on the


ground and does nothing for our reputation -- that sort of delay. I


thank him for giving way. Can he understand that, at a time when too


many aircraft are chasing too few targets, what concerns many of us is


a lack of com preventive strategy both military and non-military


including an exit strategy? One of the fundamental differences between


Iraq and Syria is you have nearly a million personnel on the government


payroll and still we are having trouble pushing Isil act. 70,000


moderates in Syria, quite frankly, we risk forgetting the lesson in


Libya. What is his reaction to the decision of the Foreign Affairs


Committee yesterday that actually the Prime Minister had not


adequately addressed our concerns? Let me answer both questions. The


second question is perhaps answered by something I am sure the whole


house want to join me in which is wishing the honourable member for


Ilford South well given his recent illness, who normally is always at


the foreign affairs select committee and voting on the basis of the


arguments he believes in. Where we disagree is I believe there is a


strategy of which military action is only one part. The key answered his


question is that we want to seem a new Syrian transitional government


whose troops will then be our allies in squeezing out destroying the


so-called caliphate altogether. My disagreement with my honourable


friend is that I believe we cannot wait for that to happen, the threat


is now, Isil-Daesh are planning attacks now. We can act in Syria as


we did in Iraq and in doing so we can enhance the long-term security


and safety of our country. I first double thank the Prime Minister for


that change into another cheap and all members of Parliament because


the house for their support. -- change in terminology. Would he join


me in urging the BBC to change their policy of not using the word Daesh


because it would breach impartiality rules. We are at war with


terrorism, we have to be united, will he join me in urging the BBC to


review their bizarre policy? I agree with my honourable friend and I have


corresponded with the BBC about their use of IS macro, Islamic


State, which I think is even worse than either saying so-called I S or


Isil but Daesh is clearly an improvement and it is important we


all try to use this language. Let me make some progress and I will give


way some more. There is a more fundamental answer as to why we


should carry out as drugs in Syria ourselves will stop it is Rakip in


Syria that is the HQ of this threat -- carry out air strikes. As I have


said, it is in Syria were many of the plots against our country are


formed so we must act in Syria to deal with these threats ourselves. I


thank him for giving way, I would have preferred an apology but I want


to discuss the facts. We proposing to be targeting different things


than in northern Iraq and I would like to ask him what practical steps


will be used to reduce civilian casualties and what sort of target


will will be going against which will reduce the terrorist threat to


the UK in terms of operations against our citizens? In terms of


the sort of targets we can go after, clearly it is the leaders of this


death cult itself, the training camps, the communications hub is,


those that are plotting against us. As I will argue, the limited action


we took against this dame, has already had an impact on Isil-Daesh


and that is an important point -- against Husein. We have a policy of


wanting zero civilian casualties. One year and three months into these


Iraqi operations, we have not had any reports of civilian casualties.


I am not standing here saying that there are no casualties in war, of


course there are, this is a very difficult situation will stop it is


hugely complex and a difficult argument to get across. But at the


heart is a simple point, will we in the long-term be safer and better


off if we can get rid of this so-called caliphate which is


radicalising Muslims, turning people against us and plotting atrocities


on the streets of Britain? I'm grateful to my right honourable


friend for giving way. Would he agree with me that there are already


hundreds if not thousands of civilian casualties, those who are


thrown off ill beans, burned, decapitated, crucified, who have had


to flee Syria -- throne of ill doings. -- throne of the holdings.


We want to prevent this from carrying out these ghastly axe.


Let me to the question of whether there will be ground forces to make


this operation a success are a ghastly acts. Those who say there


are not as mini ground troops as we like and not in the right places are


correct, we are not feeling with an ideal situation. We should be clear


what air strikes alone can achieve. We don't need ground troops to


target the supply of oil which they used to fund terrorism or to target


their headquarters and infrastructure and supply routes and


training facilities. It is clear that air strikes can have an effect


with the issue of Khan and Hussein. Irrespective of ground forces, the


RAF can do serious damage to the bloody right now to bring terror to


our streets and we should give them that support


our streets and we should give them capability. How would he was born to


the point that since the offensive on Baghdad was blunted by air power,


it has changed its tactics and disbursed it forces and particularly


in Raqqa, has disbursed it operations into small units which


make it into this to attacks from our Tornados? I think what he says


is absolutely right, of course they have changed tactics. But that is


not an argument for doing nothing, it is an argument for using air


strikes where you can but having a longer term strategy to deliver the


ground troops through the transition you need. The argument is simple, do


we wait for perfection which is a transitional government in Syria, or


do we start the work now on the grading and destroying this


organisation at the request of our allies and the Gulf states on the


knowledge from our security experts that it will make a difference? As I


said, the full answer to the question of ground forces cannot be


achieved until that is a new Syrian government that represent all the


people. It is this new government that will be the natural partners


for our forces in defeating Daesh for good but there are some ground


forces we can work with in the meantime. Last week I told the


house, let me give the explanation, we believe there are around 70,000


Syrian opposition fighters who do not belong to extremist groups and


with whom we can coordinate attacks on Daesh. The house will appreciate


there are some limits on what I can say about them, not least that I


cannot risk their safety, who are being targeted daily by the resume


or Daesh or both. This is an area of great interest and concern so let me


say a little more. The 70,000 is a tent -- estimate from our


independent joint intelligence committee based on a detailed


analysis updated daily and drawing on a wide range of open source and


intelligence. Of these, 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. I am not arguing, this is crucial, that all of these


70,000 art somehow ideal partners. Some left the Syrian army because of


the brutality of Assad and they can play a role in the future of Syria.


That is a view taken by the Russians as well who are prepared to talk


with these people. I thank him for giving way and the helpful way he


has helped colleagues from across the house he spoke about a long-term


strategy and a new government in Syria and there is wide agreement on


that but possibly more of a challenge with Russia so can he


update the house on, say should he has had with President Putin as to


the short and longer term prospects for President Assad? I have had


these conversations with President Putin on many occasions, most


recently in Antalya. Barack Obama had a meeting with him at the


climate change conference in Paris. There was an enormous gap between


written, America and Saudi Arabia and Russia on the other hand --


Britain. We wanted Assad to go instantly, they wanted him to stay


at that gap has narrowed and it will narrow further as these vital talks


in Vienna get underway. And a point about these talks are some people


worry it is a process without an end but the clear ambition of the talks


is for a transitional government within six months and a new


constitution and fresh sections within 18 months so there is a real


momentum behind these talks. That require fresh elections.


Was he confirmed the house that alongside any military intervention


in Syria that may be authorised to night he remains completely


committed to the huge F at which has kept so many people alive by this


government in that region? -- the huge humanitarian effort.


We will be keeping that other not least with the vital conference in


London next year when we will bring together the whole world to make


sure we fill the gap in the funding that has not been available. He is


presenting his case well, if he had come to the house and asked for a


narrow licence to take out Isil's external planning capability and


think it would have commanded widespread consent but he is asking


for a wider authority and I want to draw him on the difference between


Iraq and Syria. There are ground forces in place in Iraq but not in


Syria. Can he say more about what ground forces he envisages joining


us in the seizure of Raqqa? This goes to the nub of the difficulty of


this case. I don't think you can separate taking out the command and


control of Isil's operations against the UK or France or elsewhere from


the task of degrading and destroying the Daesh caliphate they have


created. They are intricately linked and as I argued last week, as long


as this so-called caliphate exists, it is a threat to us, not least


because it is radicalising Muslims from across the world who are going


to fight for that organisation and potentially returning to attack us.


On his second question about ground troops, as I explained, there are


three parts to this. The things we can do without ground troops, don't


underestimate them. The ground could that are there, not ideal, not as


men it is radicalising Muslims from across the world who are going to


fight for that organisation and potentially returning to attack us.


On his second question about ground troops, as I explained, there are


three parts to this. The things we can do without ground troops, don't


underestimate them. The ground could that are there, not ideal, not as


men as we and can work with. The real plan is, as you get a


transitional government in Syria that can represent all the Syrian


people, there will be more ground troops for us to work with two


defeat Daesh and the caliphate which will keep our country safe. I know


that takes a long time and it is complex but that is the strategy


that we need to start with the first step which is going after these


terrorists today. I'm grateful but I think he has to acknowledge that the


ground troops which we can work with will be essential for his long-term


strategy and at the moment he has not shown to me that, as the defeat


Isil, we create a vacuum into which Assad will move and we must fight


and other enemy. And the final word, can I give him some motherly advice?


If he just got up and said, whoever does not walk with me through the


division lobbies is not a terrorist sympathiser, he would improve his


standing in this house enormously. I'm very happy to repeat what she


said. People who vote in either division lobby do so with honour, I


couldn't have been more clear about that. What I would say to her, is if


she is saying there are not enough ground troops she's right, if she is


saying they are not always in the right places she's right. But the


question is, should we act now in order to try and start to turn the


tide? Let me make some progress. I will give way to the leader of the


SNP in a moment. I want to be clear about the 70,000. That figure


doesn't include a further 25,000 extremist fighters in groups which


reject political participation and reject coordination with


non-Muslims. So, although they fight plaice they cannot and will not be


our partners. So, Mr Speaker, there are ground forces that will take the


fight to Daesh and in many cases we can work with them and assist them.


If we don't act now we should be clear there will be even fewer


ground forces over time as Daesh will get even stronger. In my view


we simply cannot afford to wait, we have to act now. I give way to the


leader of the SNP. I'm grateful for the leader for giving way. Would he


clarified for every Member of the House the advice he has been given


and others have been given in race into the forces of 70,000? How many


are classified as moderate and how many are classified as on the


mentalists we could never work with? On the 70,000, the advice I have is


that the majority are made up of Free Syrian Army. But of course the


Free Syrian Army has different leadership in different parts of the


country. 70,000 excludes those extremist groups like al-Nusra that


we will not work with. But as I said very clearly I'm not arguing that


the 70,000 are ideal partners. Some of them do have views that we don't


agree with. But the definition of the 70,000 is those people that we


have been prepared to work with and continue to be prepared to work


with. Let me make this point again, if we don't take action against


Daesh now, the number of ground forces we can work with will get


less and less. If we want to end up with a situation where you have the


butcher Assad on one side and a stronger Isil on the other side, not


acting is one of the things that will bring that about. I give way to


my honourable honourable friend. I know from my time in government


how long, hard and I just be the Prime Minister thinks about these


questions. But, will he ensure that we complete the military aspect of


this military campaign so that we can get onto the really but perhaps


most ethical aspect of the questions he has posed, the post-conflict


stabilisation and reconstruction of Syria? Without this early stage


there will not be a Syria to reconstruct? I think my Right


Honourable honourable friend who always thought about these things


carefully is right. That is the end goal. We shouldn't take our eyes off


the prize, which is a reconstructed Syria that can represent all the


people, a Syria at peace so we don't have the migration crisis, the


terrorism crisis, that's the goal. Let me return to the overall


strategy. I set this out in the House last week. Counterterrorism,


counter extremism, political and diplomatic processes and vital


humanitarian work my Right Honourable honourable friend


referred to. Our counterterrorism strategy gives Britain can Prince of


plan to prevent and foil plots at home and also prevent deep poisonous


extremist ideology that is the root cause of the threat we face. I can


announce 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


extremism activity in the UK, including any overseas sources. It


will report to myself and Right Honourable honourable friend the


Home Secretary next spring. I want to make this point before giving


way. There are some who express military action is in some way


capable of undermining our counter extremism strategy by radicalising


British Muslims. Let me tackle this head on, British Muslims are


appalled by Daesh. These women rake raping, murderous monsters are


hijacking the peaceful religion of Islam for their ends. As the King of


Jordan says, these people are not Muslims, they are outlaws from


Islamabad must stand without Muslim Friends of Labour and around the


world as they reclaim their religion from beast terrorists. Far from an


attack on Islam, we are engaged in a defence of Islam. And far from the


risk of radicalising British Muslims by acting, failing to act would be


to betray British Muslims and the wider religion of Islam in its very


hour of need. The Prime Minister said that they would fight all the


time in this country. Why don't the Iranians, the Saudis, the Turks, why


do they not fight these people? Why has it always got to be us who fight


them? The Turks are taking part in this action and urging us to do the


same. The Saudis are taking part in this action and urging us to do the


same. The Jordanians have taken part in this action and urge us to do the


same. I have here quote after quote from leader after leader in the Gulf


world making and pleading with Britain to take part to take the


fight to this death cult that threatens us all so much. The second


part of the strategy is support for the diplomatic and political


process. Let me say a word about how this process can lead to ceasefires


between the regime and opposition so essential for the next stages of


this political transition. It begins with identifying the right people to


put around the table. We expect a Syrian Bell a team of people to


negotiate under the auspices of the United Nations. Over the last 18


months political and armed opposition have confirmed Eddie


Macken the -- have converged and we will arrange a meeting for


opposition representatives in Riyadh and the United Nations will take


forward discussions on steps towards a ceasefire, including at the next


meeting of the international Syrian support group that we expect to take


place before Christmas. The aim is clear, a transitional government


within six months, the 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 negotiation, the key players, America, Russia, Saudi


Arabia and Iran and Chiriches no players -- key regional players like


Turkey. Negotiation helps this process which is the eventual goal.


Does the Prime Minister agree with me that the murders on the beach in


Tunisia and the carnage in Paris on the 13th of November changes


everything. And British people would find it rather odd that it would


take something more than that for Britain to stand shoulder to


shoulder with a number of other countries and take on Daesh? My


honourable honourable friend speaks for many of us, they attack us for


who we are, not because of what we do and they want to attack us again


and again. Do we answer the call of our allies, some of our closest


friends in the world, the French and Americans, who want us to join with


them and their Arab partners in this work, or do we ignore the call? And


if we ignore the call, think what that says about Britain as an ally.


Inc what it says to the countries in the region who ask themselves if


Britain won't come to the aid of France, it's neighbour in these


circumstances, just how reliable neighbour, honourable friend and


ally this country is. Let me talk about humanitarian relief and longer


term stabilisation. I said last week the report for refugees in the


region and the extra ?1 billion we have committed to Syria's


reconstruction and the broad international alliance we would work


with in the rebuilding phase. But Mr Speaker, let us be clear and my


honourable honourable friend for Dorset North made this 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,


behead aid workers and forces children to marry before they are


even ten years old. We cannot separate the humanitarian work and


the reconstruction work from dealing with Daesh itself. I'm grateful for


the Prime Minister for giving way and welcome any comments that


distance British Muslims and Muslims in Scotland from Daesh and I welcome


the use of that terminology. I ask the question as a new Member of the


House, looking to seasoned Parliamentary members who have been


in the House for some time as new members do on such occasions. Given


the language used would be seen as unbecoming of a parliamentarian, for


the benefit of new members would the Prime Minister withdraw his remarks


in relation to terrorist sympathisers? What I would say is I


think everyone is focused on the main issues in front of us and that


is what we should be focusing on. Let me turn to the plan for


post-conflict reconstruction to support a new Syrian government when


it emerges. I've said we would be prepared to commit ?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 helping refugees to return. Over time the focus would


shift, the 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're 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 wants the


conflict had ended. That is the absolute key. I will take the


honourable member here and there and bring it to a close. Prime Minister,


what matters to my constituents is whether they will be safer after


this process has taken place. He's making a strong case that we are


attacking the heart of this terrorist organisation. Will he


assure the House, as well as taking action in Syria, you will also shore


up services, security services and policing, in the United Kingdom?


That is what our constituents want to know. What are we doing to


strengthen our borders, what are we doing to exchange intelligence


information across Europe? What are we doing to strengthen intelligence


and policing agencies which the Chancellor spoke about last week.


All of this we should see through the prism of international security.


When you have the knowledge you can make a difference I believe we


should act. Let me take an intervention from the leader of the


Liberal Democrats. He rightly makes the point how important it is we are


seen to stand with our friends and allies in Europe. However, the Prime


Minister has not so fast and with those European allies on the matter


of taking our fair share of refugees from this crisis and others. Would


he look again at the save the children request that this country


takes 3000 orphaned children, refugees currently in Europe? I


would say we have played a huge part in Europe as the biggest bilateral


donor. No other European country has given as much as Britain has and we


will take 20,000 refugees with 1000 arriving by Christmas. I'm happy to


look once again at the issue of orphans. I think it is better to


take orphans from the region rather than those who come over with


sometimes extended family. I'm very happy to look at that again, both in


Europe and out of Europe, to see if Britain can do more to fulfil our


moral responsibilities. Mr Speaker, let me conclude, this is not 2003.


We must not use past mistakes as an excuse for indifference or in


action. Let's be clear, Mr Speaker, in action does not amount for a


strategy for our security or the Syrian people. But in action is a


choice. I believe it's the wrong choice. We face a clear threat and


we have listened to our allies. We have taken legal advice. We have a


unanimous United Nations resolution and discussed action extensively at


meetings of the Security Council and cabinet and I've responded


personally to the report of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee and


we have a proper motion before the House and we have a ten hour debate


today. I look forward to the rest of the debate and listening to


contributions of members on all sides of this House. But at the end


of it all I hope the House will come together at in large numbers so that


Britain will defeat these evil extremists and take the action


needed now to keep the country safe. I pay tribute to the extraordinary


bravery in service of our inspirational Armed Forces who will


once again put themselves in harms way to protect our values and our


way of life and I commend this motion to the House.


The question is motion number two, I call the leader of the opposition,


Mr Jeremy Corbyn. Thank you, Mr Speaker.


Shouldn't brought before the house today by the government faces us


with exacting that decision. It is one with potentially far-reaching


consequences for us all, Hitler in written as well as the people of


civic -- here in Britain as well as the people of Syria. Taking a


decision that would put British servicemen and women in harm 's way


and would almost inevitably lead to the death of innocents is a heavy


responsibility and it must be treated with the utmost seriousness


and respect given to those who make a different judgment about the right


course of action to take. That is why the Prime Minister's attempt to


brand those who planned to vote against the government as terrorist


sympathisers both demeans the office of the Prime Minister and I believe


undermines the seriousness of the deliberations we are having. If he


now wants to apologise for those remarks, I would be happy to give


way to him to do so. Since the Prime Minister is unmoved,


we will have to move on with the debate and I hope... He will be


stronger later to recognise that, yes, he did make an unfortunate


remark last night and apologising for it would be very helpful to


improve the atmosphere of this debate. I thank my honourable friend


for giving way. As he is appropriately pointing out that the


Prime Minister is not showing leadership by not withdrawing his


slur on me and others, would he also agreed there is no place whatsoever


in the Labour Party for anybody who has been abusing those members of


the parties who choose to vote with the government on this resolution?


-- of the party. Abuse has no part in responsible, Democratic political


dialogue, I believe very strongly in that and that is the way I wish to


conduct myself and I wish others to conduct themselves. I'm very


grateful to my right honourable friend for giving way. Would he


agreed that if the Prime Minister came to the dispatch box and made a


clear apology, he would clear the air immediately and we could move on


in this debate with a simple, I'm sorry? As he often does on these


occasions, he appears to be taking advice from the Chancellor of the


Exchequer on this matter. If he wants to apologise, that's fine, if


he doesn't, the whole world can note he is not apologising. Since the


Prime Minister first made his case for extending British bombing to


Syria last week, the doubts and unanswered questions then expressed


on both sides of the house have only grown and multiplied. That is 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


a proper contribution and you yourself, Mr Speaker, informed us


that 157 have applied to speak in this debate. I'm grateful to him for


giving way. We have worked together on the Kurdish issue, he knows how


tough the Kurds are finding it fighting Isil in Iraq and Syria. His


Shadow Foreign Secretary believes the four conditions debated at the


Labour Party conference for taking action in Syria have been met, why


does he disagree? He may have to wait a few moments to hear that but


it will be in my speech, I can promise him Ulster I'm pleased he'd


made the intervention in respect of the Kurdish people because at some


point, over the whole of the Middle East and this is that the mud, that


has to be a recognition of the rights of Kurdish people, in


whichever country they live. I thank him for giving way. I'm glad


he has mentioned the Kurds. Could he be clear that he or anyone on this


bench in no way will want to remove the air protection which was voted


on with an overwhelming majority in the house 14 months ago? I thank him


for the intervention, it is not part of the motion today so we move on


with this debate. It is impossible to avoid the conclusion that the


Prime Minister understands that public opinion is moving


increasingly against what I believe to be an ill thought out rush to


walk. He wants to hold this vote before opinion grows further against


him -- rush to war. Whether it is a lack of strategy, the absence of


credible ground troops, the missing the Mitic plan for a Syrian


settlement, the failure to address the impact of the terrorist threat


or the refugee crisis and civilian casualties, it is becoming clear


that the Prime Minister's proposal for military action simply do not


stack up. And grateful to him for giving way and I agree that the case


has not been put for this. Under these circumstances, and the slur


that has been put on the opposition benches, whether or not he will


reconsider that it is important that the Labour Party in its entirety


joins with these ventures on opposing the government to make sure


this government is defeated on this motion? Every MP as to make a


decision today, every MP has a vote today, every MP has a constituency


and they should be aware of what constituents and public opinion is


and they will make up their own mind. Obviously I am proposing we do


not support the motion of the government and I would encourage all


colleagues on all sides to join me in the opposition lobby tonight.


Last week the Prime Minister focused his case for bombing in Syria on the


critical tests set by the very respected cross-party foreign


affairs select committee. Given the holes in their case to it is


scarcely surprising that last night the committee reported 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. I'm grateful to the right and noble gentleman.


That the committee resolved 4-3 that the prime Minster has not adequately


addressed concerned in the second report with the absence of his


honourable friends for a dinner in Valley and Ilford South, who would


have resisted that motion, but it is on a narrow point where logically it


is all most impossible for the Prime Minister to adequately meet those


concerned given the fact he is not in a position to produce sufficient


detail to set aside some of my colleagues. It is a very weak point


for him to rely on. I thank him for his intervention and we have often


had amicable discussions on many of these issues and I am sure we will


again. The fact is that at a meeting of the foreign affairs select


committee, there was a verdict and that the Prime Minister had not


adequately addressed the concerns. Obviously I understand there are


differences of opinion, there are plenty all around this house. Your


benches and these. I ask the chair of the select committee to recognise


that a decision has been made by his committee. After the despicable and


horrific attacks in Paris last month, the question of whether the


government's proposals 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, I had given way quite a lot already, there are 157 members who


wish to take part in this debate so I think I should try to move on and


speed it up slightly which appears to meet with your approval. There is


no doubt that the so-called Islamic State has imposed a reign of


sectarian and inhumane terror in Iraq, Syria, and Libya, and that it


also poses a threat to our own people. The issue now is whether it


is whether it's ending British bombing from Iraq to Syria is likely


to reduce or increase that threat to 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 motion. On the


contrary, they are warning to step back. A vote against yet another


ill-fated twist in this never-ending war on terror Ulster that start with


the military dimension. The prime Minster has been unable to explain


why extending extract to Syria will make a significant literary impact


on the existing campaign. Isil is already being bombed by Syria, the


US, France, Britain and Russia and other powers. Canada has withdrawn


from this campaign and no longer takes part in it. During more than a


year bombing, Isil has expanded and lost territory, they gained include


it Ramadi and the Syrian city of polymer. The claim that superior


British missiles would make a difference is hard to credit when


the US and other states, as an intervention said earlier, are


struggling to find suitable targets. In other words, extending British


bombing is unlikely to make a huge difference. Secondly, 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 is quite clear there are no such forces. Last week the Prime


Minister suggested that a combination of Kurdish militias, the


free Syrian army, able to fill the gap. He even claimed a 70,000 strong


force of moderate FS a fighters were ready to coordinate action against


Isil with the Western air campaign. That claim has not remotely stood up


to scrutiny. Kurdish forces are a distance away in areas where Isil


controls. The FSA include a wide range of groups and few if any would


regard as moderate and mostly operate in other parts of the


country. The only ground forces able to take advantage of a successful


anti-Isil air campaign are stronger jihadist groups close to the Isil


controlled areas. I think these are serious issues that we need to think


through carefully all stop I believe that is what the Prime Minister's


bombing campaign could lead to. This is why the logic... I will give


weight later on in my contribution but I think I should be enabled to


make an important part of this -- give weight. This is why the logic


of an extended air campaign is in fact mission creep and western boots


on the ground, whatever he may say now about keeping British combat


troops out of the way, are a real possibility. Thirdly, the military


aim of attacking Isil targets in Syria is not really part of a


coherent diplomatic strategy. The UN Security Council resolution to 249


passed after the Paris atrocities and cited in today's 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 seven of the


United Nations Charter to which the Security Council could not agree.


The UN resolution is certainly a welcome framework. For joint action


to cut off funding, oil revenues, arms supplies from Isil. But I


wonder how many side there are of that happening. I thank him for


giving way. We don't agree on much but on the necessity to cut off the


oil supplies I do agree with him but I am at a loss to understand why he


would oppose a strike which are such a crucial part in targeting oil


supplies which are providing funding for Isil Daesh. The problem is, the


oil supplies that are being sold are going into other countries come into


Turkey and other places and I think we need to know exactly who is


buying that oil, who is funding it, what banks are involved in financial


transactions which ultimately end up with Isil and which other countries


in the region may or may not be involved. That is despite the clear


risk of a potentially disastrous incidents, the shooting down of


eight Russian military aircraft by Turkish forces is a sign of the


danger of a serious escalation of this whole issue.


I'm grateful to him for giving way. The number of the grand troops is


unknown and the composition also but we note by definition they are


opposition fighters, anti-Assad. Does he agree the Prime Minister


still has a question to answer about how we can work with them to take


round from Daesh without getting drawn into a wider conflict with


Russia, given they are on the other side? I think the member for


Brighton makes an important point. She has been very active in trying


to promote peace and humanitarian resolutions to the many conflicts


that exist around the world. Fourthly, Mr Speaker, the Prime


Minister has avoided spelling out to the British people the warnings he


has surely been given. The likely impact of UK air strikes on the


threat of terrorist attacks in the UK. That's something everyone who


backs the Government's motion should think about very carefully before we


decide whether or not to send RAF pilots into action over Syria. It is


critically important, Mr Speaker, that we as a House are honest with


the British people about the potential consequences of the action


the Prime Minister is proposing to us today. I'm aware that there are


those with military experience, including members on the benches


opposite as well is on this side, who have argued that by extending UK


bombing will," increase the short-term risk of terrorist attacks


in Britain." We should also remember the impact, Mr Speaker, on


communities here in Britain. Sadly, since the Paris tax there has been a


sharp increase in Islamophobic incidence and physical attacks --


attacks. Have discussed these with people in my local mosque in my


constituency and it is horrific. Surely, Mr speaker, the message from


all of us in this house today must go out, none of us, let's say this


together, we will not tolerate any form of anti-Semitism, Islamophobia


or racism in any form in this country. The Prime Minister has not


offered a serious assessment in my view of the 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 4 million


forced to leave the country. Many more have been killed by the Assad


regime banned by Isil itself will stop yet more bombing in Syria will


kill De -- innocent civilians, no doubt about that command many more


civilians into refugees. Yesterday I was sent a message from a


constituent of mine who comes from Syria. I'm sorry, it's not funny,


it's a family who are suffering. I quote from his message: I'm a Syrian


from a city which is now controlled by Isil. 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 you're a forces drop


bombs on my city? It's a fair question from a family who are very


concerned. Thank you very much. I would say to the right honourable


gentleman, I speak as a member of the military who has left and there


is a fundamental point here that the lead -- Leader of the Opposition is


making. This is about national security. All of the conflict in


ordinance, the complex situations, it's very, very difficult but it


comes down to national security and inhibiting what these people are


trying to do on the streets of this country. Yes, of course, security on


the streets of this country in all of our communities is very


important. That's why we have supported the government in no


longer pursuing the strategy of cutting the police and also


increasing security in this country. Kos, clearly none of us


want any kind of atrocity on the streets of this country. My borough


was deeply affected by 7/7 in 2005. Can I just say, the member who has


the floor cannot be expected to give way to a further intervention when


he's in the process of answering an existing one. The honourable


gentleman is an experienced enough denizen of this house to be aware of


that. I'd like to give weight to the member for Tottenham. David Lammy.


Stop it! I'm very grateful to the leader of


the opposition. In making his points, does the leader of the


opposition access that these 70,000 moderate Sunnis that the Prime


Minister claims are there, consists of many different Jihadist groups,


and there is some concern, I think across the House, that in


potentially degrading Isil, Daesh, which is possible, we actually


create a vacuum into which other jihadists come over time? That


surely does not make the streets of Britain safer. Mr Speaker, in the


sense of north London geography I now give way to the member for


Southgate. I'm very grateful for him for giving way. He has a consistent


position in relation to opposing air strikes, consistently in this House.


In 2014 on the 27th of September when you voted against air strikes


in Iraq, he said, I do not believe that further air strikes and the


deepening of our involvement will solve the problem. Does he maintain


his opposition to air strikes in Iraq, let alone extending it to


Syria? I would thank both members for their interventions. The point


made by my honourable friend, the member for Tottenham, is a serious


one. We have to be careful about what happens in the future. As the


Prime Minister and others have said we have to be very aware of the


danger of some people, mainly young people, being deeply radicalised and


end up doing very dangerous things indeed. Is the radicalisation of


some, a very small number but nevertheless a significant number,


of young people across Europe a product of the war or something


else? I think we need to think very deeply about that and think very


deeply about what has happened in this world since 2001, and the


increasing numbers of people that are suffering because of it. I rest


my case at that point. There isn't, Mr Speaker, an EU wide strategy to


provide humanitarian assistance to those victims. Mr Speaker, perhaps


most importantly of all, I asked the Prime Minister this, is he able to


explain how British bombing in Syria will 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. Isil grew out of the invasion of Iraq and it has


flourished in Syria in the chaos and horror of a multi-fronted Civil War.


I thank my Right Honourable friend for giving way. The Prime Minister


spoke often of the choice between action and inaction that we face


today. But those of us who will be voting against air strikes, we also


want to see action. The Prime Minister said almost nothing about


cutting off the financial supplies for Daesh, which buy the bombs,


which helped radicalised recruits. Does my Right Honourable friend


agree with me that we need action on this point? We absolutely need


action to ensure there is a diplomatic and political solution to


the crisis. I welcome what the Prime Minister said about speeding up the


process in Vienna. Surely the message ought to be let's speed that


up rather than sending the bombers in now to bring about political


settlement. What we need, therefore, Mr Speaker, is an


involvement of all the main regional and international powers. I know


that has been attempted. I know that they have been discussions in Vienna


and we welcome that. I think it is regrettable... Mr Speaker I will try


and make progress with the speech, if I may. There are over 150 members


who wish to speak, therefore I think long speeches on the front benches


take time out of backbench speeches. The aim must be to establish a


broad-based and in Syria that has the support of the majority of its


people. Difficult as that is to envisage at the present time. Are


you going to give way? No. Such a settlement could take away territory


from Isil and bring about their defeat in Syria. Ultimately, Mr


Speaker, I'm sorry to have to tell members opposite. I've given away


quite a lot to members on both sides and I will continue with my speech.


Sit down! Order! The very long established


convention of this House is the member who has the floor gives way


or not as he or she chooses. The leader of the opposition has made it


clear for now he's not going to if way, the appropriate response is not


for a member to jump up and shout "give weight! " Jeremy Corbyn. Thank


you -- give way. The solution for Syria has to be for all of the


people of Syria, I think we are agreed on that. I thought I made it


clear, I think the Speaker made it clear, that at the moment I'm not


giving way. I'm really sorry but I'm not, OK? The Government's


proposals... The Government's proposals for... On a point of


order, though it is indeed customary that he who holds the floor decides


whether or not to give way, is it not also customary to answer


questions when they are put in interventions and we are waiting for


the answer on Iraq? Answer! Answer! The honourable gentleman is a Savic


and the experienced parliamentarian to know he has made his own point in


his own way and that it's on the record. Mr Jeremy Corbyn. Answer!


Answer! Thank you, Mr Speaker. If I could move on with the speech I


would be most grateful, Mr Speaker. The Government's proposals... The


Government's proposals for military action in Syria are not backed by a


clear and unauthorised... Fear and unambiguous authorisation by the


United Nations. It does not meet the seven tests set down by our own


Foreign Affairs Committee. And it does not fulfil three of the four


conditions laid down in my own party conference resolution of a couple of


months ago. In the past week, Mr Speaker, voice has been given to


growing opposition to the Government's bombing plans across


the country. In Parliament, outside, in the media and indeed in


my own party. And I believe it's a consideration of all the wars that


we have been involved in in the last 14 years. These matters were debated


a great deal during my own campaign to be elected the leader of the


Labour Party. Many people think very deeply about these matters. The


likes of the record of Western military intervention must be


analysed. British bombing in Syria risks more of what President Obama


in a very thoughtful moment called "the unintended consequences of the


war in Iraq" which he himself opposed at the time. The spectre, Mr


Speaker, of Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya looms over this debate. Mr


Speaker, I'm not giving way, I'm going to carry on with my speech. Mr


Speaker, to oppose another war and intervention, in my view, is


actually not pacifism, it's hard-headed common-sense which I


think we should be thinking about today in this House. To resist


Isil's determination to draw the Western powers back into the heart


of the Middle East isn't to turn our back on our allies, it is refusing


to play into the hands of Isil and what I suspect some of them want us


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


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


That's what we did in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya. I ask the House this


question: Has terrorism increased or decreased as a result of all of


that? STUDIO: As the leader of the


opposition comes to the end of his speech we have to leave it. We've


run out of time and been on the air for two hours. We've seen opening


speeches from the government and opposition. Both Mr Cameron and Mr


Corbyn having a pretty rough time of it. I think both sides will regard


the leaders perhaps getting the debate off to the kind of start they


would have hoped are both struggling with interventions, difficult


debate. We will see how it continues. The debate will continue


on BBC Parliament and BBC News will be across this for the rest of the


day up until the vote is taken around 10pm tonight. But from this


Daily Politics Special it's over, we will be back tomorrow with the Daily


Politics when we will be able to review everything that has happened


today. But for now, thanks for joining us here and it's goodbye


from the Daily Politics.


Download Subtitles