26/09/2014 Newsnight


Parliament green lights the attack on Islamic State. Will Nato ally Turkey get involved? The UK Independence Party lays out its stall. Should you watch movies on a phone?

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 26/09/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Britain is now committed to the military battle against so called IS


and will be for a very long time. Left unchecked we will face a


terrorist caliphate on the shores of the Mediterranean, and bordering a


NATO member, with a declared and proven determination to attack our


country, and our people. But there is a consensus here that there will


be boots on the ground. The only question is whose boots are they?


There is already evidence of the conflict spreading as we have


witnessed. Turkey's border with Syria is NATO's


frontier with Islamic State. We have been talking to people that told us


that IS operatives can move through this border pretty much at will.


Will we escalate the war with IS beyond Iraq. I asked the Defence


Secretary. If it is right to help the Government of Iraq to repel


ISIL, it is also right to help them repel ISIL from its safe havens in


Syria. Also tonight. Say hello to my little friend Would you want to


watch classic movie on an iPhone, Al Pacino says definitely not, I don't


want to mess with him but is he out-of-touch.


Good evening, parliament has delivered a mandate for the military


to become immeshed in Iraq again. For the first time since air strikes


were there three-and-a-half years ago, RAF fighters will be dropping


bombs on IS in Iraq. The Prime Minister says there was a strong


case for doing more in Syria but it was clear from the debate, in


particular Labour's position, that had the motion included air strikes


on Syria, success for David Cameron wasn't guaranteed. The single vote


doesn't amount to a comprehensive strategy, a constant theme in the


seven-hour debate. The most awful horrors have been committed by ISIL.


Today they voted to send jets back to Iraq, something many thought they


would never do that. Sill a terrorist organisation unlike those


we have dealt with before. The brutality is staggering. Beheadings,


crucifixions, the gouging out of eyes, the use of rape as a weapon,


the slaughter of children. All these things belong to the dark ages. The


Prime Minister set six tests for action in Iraq, which he told the


House he thought had been met, but the dissent came quickly. How long


will this war last, and when will Mission Creep start. ISIS indeed are


made up of murderous psychopaths, that is not the issue, look at what


the House of Commons agreed to. Iraq, Afghanistan, in this


Government, Libya, none of them success stories. This is about


psychopathic terrorists that are trying to kill us and we do have to


realise that whether we like it or not they have already declared war


on us. There isn't a walk-on-by option. Even Labour MPs reported


feeling a jolt in the Commons chamber when the Prime Minister said


this. War is a necessary evil on occasion, no matter how necessary it


is always ghastly and horrendous. It is with a feeling of depression and


trepidation that I will be supporting the Government tonight.


Critically for the vote to pass the Labour leader supported the action.


The late Robin Cook said on his resignation speech on the eve of the


Iraq War this, "our interests are best protected, not by unilateral


action but multilateral agreement and a world order governed by


rules". Mr Speaker, this is multilateral action, prompted by a


legitimate, democratic state. As always the MP George Galloway was


blunt. This will not be solved by bombing, Mr Speaker we have been


bombing Iraqis for 100 years. 100 years. They are seeking to incite us


to bomb, and why doesn't that give people pause that this is something


they want? Because it will make them the heroic Muslim defenders against


the crusaders. The country named in this vote is Iraq, but the country


on everybody's minds is Syria. The debate has been going on inside


parliament for six hours now, many MPs have made this point, you can't


intervene in Iraq if you don't also try to do something about Syria. The


Prime Minister told the House today he would like to do something about


Syria, but it is the Labour Party, he said, that is stopping him. I'm


very clear, ISIL needs to be destroyed in Syria as well as in


Iraq. We support the action that the United States and five Arab states


have taken in Syria and I do believe there is a strong case for us to do


more in Syria, but I did not want to bring a motion to the House today,


which there wasn't consensus for. Ed Miliband only supports action in


Iraq, but some Lib Dem and his own side think he's wrong. There is a


strong argument about the legal base for action in Syria under Article


51. Point I have been making the last few days is in my view, when


we're not talking about being invited in by a democratic state. It


would be better, I put it no higher than that, it would be better to


seek a UN Security Council resolution. I'm content that were


there to be a motion to the effect that we should take similar action


in Syria, there exists a proper and sound legal basis for that action. I


believe it is a mistake today not to include Syria in the motion. Why is


it right to carry out such actions against ISIS in Iraq, but not in


Syria. I like to ask why we welcomed and supported the American


bombardment of ISIL targets in Syria this week, but said that British


action should be limited to Iraq? Ed Miliband there coming under pressure


from his own side, and later Labour would clarify. The Labour leader


does believe that any action in Syria has to be tested, their word,


at the UN. It doesn't necessarily have to be emphatically voted


through, it is just it is better, they say, to be seen to try. It is


not impossible in the weeks and months ahead that we might see


Labour support action in the UN as a whole even if it cannot. The


tornadoes got the go ahead today, but only after a Commons haunted


debate. T ghosts of when we did go in and when we didn't. Today Ed


Miliband was able to carry his party to support action in Iraq. If


eventually he sees the case for action in Syria himself, it is not


obvious MPs would be so understanding. A vote on Syria would


be very hard to call. Well, the case for intervention


against IS has grown in recent weeks as a result of gruesome beheadings,


parentally carried out by the Britishman the papers have dubbed


Jihadi John. Earlier we spoke to the defence second. I asked him how soon


British bombs would be falling in Iraq. I'm not going to give


Newsnight, even Newsnight, operational details of exactly what


is going to happen when. But the point is this is going to be a long


drawn-out campaign. You shouldn't expect to see immediate results on


Saturday morning, this is going to take some time. Syrian air strikes


were expressly ruled out, would you rather that you were able to have


the ability to drop British bombs on Syria? The Prime Minister made clear


in his own speech today that ISIL can only be defeated in both Iraq


and Syria. ISIL is head quartered in Syria, that is where its command and


control is, that is where its resources are, and a lot of its


people are. So this is a battle against ISIL that can only be won in


both countries. I was quite heartened today by a surprising


amount of support, people saying well if this is true for Iraq why


aren't you operating in Syria. But we have to take this one step at a


time. We have been invited now by the Iraqi Government in their appeal


at the United Nations to come to much more direct help than we have


already been given. We have been given humanitarian help and


supplying arms, we have been invited to help them militarily, that is


what we sought the authority of parliament today. Do you help what


Menzies Campbell says, that actually there is no legal bar to dropping


bombs in Syria, there is no legal bar for you doing it just now? We do


think there is a strong legal case for selective self-defence, if it is


right to help the Government of Iraq repel ISIL, it is also right to help


in northern Syria. There is a strong legal case for action in Syria, but


a much more complicated picture. Of course we don't have the support of


the Government in Syria as we do have the support of the Government


in Iraq. It is a different situation. But you are not in a


sense going into Syria to do anything about overturning the


state. You are going in, in you were going in, to help the Iraqi


Government deal with ISIL? We would if we got to the point of


intervening in Syria, we haven't taken that decision yet, and we


would have to go back to parliament for further authority to do so. If


we were to get to that point and there are other things to talk about


there. Syria is a different proposition. The vote today was


about Iraq. Could you imagine a situation where something really


terrible was happening and you had to send British warplanes from Iraq


into Syria? Yes I could, the Prime Minister made it clear, there are


two exceptions to consulting parliament, one is if there is an


immediate humanitarian need, for example if we knew that a slaughter


was about to occur. The other is about where there is a very direct


British interest, for example in a hostage situation, we have to retain


the ability, the Prime Minister and myself as Defence Secretary to send


forces in immediately when parliament, for example, isn't


sitting or over a weekend, we have to retain that ability. But


generally it is a good thing, I think, to have the authority of


parliament. The FBI said yesterday that they know who Jihadi John is,


do you now know who he is? I would rather not comment on that. At what


point might the British Government release his name though? We have to


do everything possible to, as far as we can, to help protect the lives of


any British hostage. And I'm afraid to say, it is not helpful for us to


speculate in public about where they might be held or who exactly might


be holding them. What I can assure you is we're making every effort,


24/7, day by day, to try to find the location of the two remaining


hostages, and of course if there is any possibility of saving their


lives we would try to do that. Do you accept that the passing of this


motion today puts both Alan Henning and others in possibly more danger?


We know they are in terrible danger, they have shown they can and have


beheaded British hostages. Both those lives, very sadly, are in


danger any way. We can't equally sadly, we can't allow the overall


strategic decision as to whether to help the Government of Iraq be


conditioned sadly by the fate of the earlier hostages or the possible


fate of these too later hostages. Finally, at the moment, IS controls


a quarter of Iraq. What does success look like. What is, as it were, the


end game in all this? The immediate end game in Iraq is to help the


Government of Iraq recover the ground that has been lost to ISIL,


to push them back out of its borders, to regain its territory and


as an all-inclusive Government, that has Sunni, Kurdish and Shia


representation to build political support and to improve the security


situation. On existing borders? On existing borders, for everybody in


Iraq. It is possible for the Iraqi army and the Kurdish forces to do


that, but they are going to need a lot of help. That is what they have


asked the international community for, and that is what I'm very


pleased now we will be part of. Thank you very much Michael Fallon,


thank you very much. As the Westminster debate was taking place


the reality on the ground was a stark reminder of the ferocity of


the take by the group calling itself IS. They are trying to bear down on


the Kurdish city of Kobane on the Syrian-Turkey border, home to at


least 200,000 people. Fighting was visible from Turkey, as Turkish and


Syrian Kurdish fighters have been trying to hold them back. We're


joined from Gazantiep near Kobane. You have been to the border, what


have you been able to see? We were there right on the border of this


Kurdish enclave earlier today. IS has been bearing down on this


enclave, getting closer and closer all the time. We have seen the tense


of thousands of refugees getting across. There was also scuffles at


Turkish Kurds tried to breakthrough the other way from Turkey into


Syria, to join their brethren in the fight against Islamic State. The


Kurds have criticised the Americans saying they are bombing IS


everywhere except on the frontline. They are practically begging the


Americans to come to their aid. The Americans are in a difficult


position, unlike the Iraqi Kurds, the Syrian Kurds are allied with the


Turkish Kurds, and regarded by Turkey and the EU as a terrorist


organisation, putting them in a very difficult position. What have been


the impact on the air strikes that have been undertaken, what has been


the impact on the ground? Well, the air strikes have hit IS, we


understand, at command and control posts, at oil installations, and


some military hardware. Now we know anecdotally from reports that some


IS commanders have been moving out of their more obvious location,


vacating some buildings, we certainly know that quite a few


civilians have left IS-controlled areas. It is interesting to look at


the role of Turkey here. Turkey has so far taken a very back seat role,


it has refused to sign up to any of the US-led coalitions here. But the


President said today that parliament would be recalled and would meet on


the 2nd of October to consider extending the mandate to possibly


include the Turkish military. We don't know what that means, but


Turkey has a huge border with both Iraq and Syria, and while it has


been praised on the humanitarian side, it has taken in possibly more


than any other, over a million-and-a-half refugees, it is


very much taken a back seat role on the security side and it has been


criticised for essentially sitting back and allowing IS to take root.


To those fleeing the conflict in Syria, Turkey has mostly been a


generous host. This is the small town of Surouch, American air


strikes have done little to stop a sustained attacks by Islamic State


on a Kurd enclave. Around 150,000 people have flooded into this area


in recent days. They are all lying on blankets on the gardens and it is


full of people. We are thankful for this town, they are very hoes


pitable, we thank them. But the open border has benefitted others too,


notably Islamic State, they have been able to use this frontier to


move fighters and weapons into Syria. Now has more countries join


the US-led coalition against IS, Turkey, NATO ally, is coming under


increasing pressure to clamp down. This level of security is relatively


new. We have been talking to people who cross the Turkish-Syrian border


illegally for a living. Interestingly they have been telling


us that in the areas where Islamic State controls the Syrian side, the


Turk irk security presence is almost non-existent. And that IS operatives


can cross in and out of Turkey almost at will. Until the nearby


City of Gazantiep, many Syrian refugees scrape a living, relying on


charity. Goods and people cross the border with the help of smugglers.


One told us IS is actively recruiting here. He asked us to


conceal his identity. TRANSLATION: You can see members of IS sitting


around in the luxury hotels here, you can recognise them immediately.


Some of them go around handing out supplies to the refugees. They tell


the women, they will give them whatever they need, just tell their


husbands to go and fight in Syria. They are very dangerous. Recent


pictures sent to us by activists inside Raqqa, suggest that IS have


been keeping a low profile since the start of the US-led campaign. The


smuggler has controlled in and out of IS-controlled territory several


times since the start of the bombing. TRANSLATION: In our village


the foreign fighters have moved out, especially the ones with families.


Normally we would see them on the streets during the day. Now we


don't. They make their movements at night. The US strikes in Syria


focussed, initially, on Raqqa, the self-styled capital of Islamic


State. A mother of two witnessed the first explosions and decided that


the time had come to leave the city. She too asked us to conceal her


identity. TRANSLATION: It was a terrible sound, we are used to


Syrian planes and their sound, this was different. Everyone started


running away. IS fighters and ordinary people, everyone ran. Among


those who fled Raqqa, there are few supporters of IS, most agree things


were far worse under President Assad. She fears that by driving out


the Jihadists, American air strikes could open the door for the regime


to return. TRANSLATION: That would be a disaster, the regime is bad.


I'm not on any side but I'm against the American strikes, this is not


the way to get rid of Islamic State. The air strikes will drive more


refugees across the border, and in among them more IS operatives. It is


no accident that almost everyone we interviewed for this report agreed


to speak only on condition of anonymity. Even as American allies


tried to bomb the Jihadists out of Syria and Iraq, Islamic State is


extending its reach deep into Turkish territory. Here now to


discuss all this is the Labour MP John Woodcock who voted in favour of


air strike, Clare Short who resigned from the Labour Government two


months after the Iraq War in 2003, and Patrick Cockburn the Middle East


correspondent for the Independent and writer of a new book about IS.


First of all John Woodcock, you voted for the motion today, evidence


there that IS is pushing on with the bombing. We have two tornadoes


operating in -- we have six Tornados operating in Iraq, it is not much?


It is part of a force. We have to be up front it will be difficult and


long. It is going to be messy. People are going, innocent people


are going to die through this. But the choice that I face and everyone


in parliament faced is what is the alternative. And for me the


alternative was to do effectively nothing against a group for which


there can be no accommodation. You called the threat as dists an


ideology as the Nazis? If left to grow. At the moment you have group


has grown in a short space of time and taken a lot of territory in a


short space of time. They have not taken a foothold in the region. They


will do everything to destroy our way of life, that is why we have


strike. We are striking with one hand tied behind our backs if we


don't strike in Syria? There is a clear case to go into Syria. You


heard we accept the legal case. A lot of people have said passionately


that we shunned stand by and allow others to take this. There is no


military sense in campaign that stops at an imaginary border as far


as the IS is concerned, and it allows them to go a few money yards


and then be safe. Clare Short how would you have voted today? I would


have abstained. I'm not against taking some action to constrain the


territory taken by IS, but first of all Britain is only six aeroplane,


we are just joining up with America as usual, we not making the


strategy, we are not in charge of it, let's be clear about that.


Britain could have a more useful role in looking at the wider


problems in the Middle East, and looking for big e longer term


solutions. One of the recruiting Sergeants to organisations like IS


is the terrible suffering of the Palestinian people, we do nothing


about that. The evil version of Islam that propagages hatred of


Christians and Jews and Shia, comes out of Saudi Arabia, who has been


spreading those views across the world. So you can't solve this by a


bit of bombing, and a bit of bombing might be part of a strategy to


constrain it, but there is nothing broader and Britain is joining in


the bombing, America is in charge of the strategy. Let's not pretend we


are a significant player in this. Patrick Cockburn I assume you would


acknowledge we can't just solve this by bombing, where does President


Assad play a part in this? It is strange situation, we are not


actually allied to the people who on the ground are fighting ISIS. We


have just seen that in Kobane, that the Syrian Kurds, we regard them as


terrorists. Assad, the people who are fighting ISIS in Syria, the


Syrian army under Assad, Hezbollah, we also regard them as terrorists.


They are all fighting them separately isn't it that is the


problem. What is the main fighting force of the Iraqi Government is in


fact the Shia militias, not the Iraqi army, of which the Sunni are


terrified. That is why Mr Fallon's point that we are supporting an


Iraqi Government that is inclusive and accepted by everyone is not


true. The whole thing is a cimera. Originally President Assad was


encouraging IS to make the case against the FSA. Are you saying we


have to set aside our differences in Britain with President Assad and get


him recognising there has to be a joining up to fight IS in Syria, and


that is the best way of dealing with this? That is already happening. I


mean we are bombing IS which is fighting the Syrian army, this


benefits the Syrian army. If IS attack Aleppo, the biggest city in


Syria, are we going to stand back, that benefits us at. There should be


no alliance with this murderous dictator. It is a gross


simplification of a very complex picture to say on the one side there


is Assad and the other side there is ISIL. There remains beaten back but


not yet cowed, moderate opposition forces who under the cover of air


strikes can actually regain ground. That is what we have to got to be


able to pour resources in to. Isn't this third force really doesn't


exist, the ideas that 5,000 will be trained by the Saudis, they are a


very minor force in Syria. There is a positive thing we could do which


is to get the anti-ISIS force, which would include such moderates that do


exist and Assad not to have a political solution, which isn't


going to happen, but have a ceasefire, then they could direct


their energise against ISIS. Let me bring in Clare Short. I mean the


problems of 2003 were such that you felt you had to resign, because


actually you didn't believe, everything was being, it moved along


so fast. Do you now accept, at least even in the conversations you have


been having here, is that we are being led through this piece by


piece, and actually parliament isn't being bounced into doing things they


don't want to do? Parliament voted today for limited bombing by six


aeroplanes, joining in with an American strategy. It is not an


all-out war and we are not going on the ground. But I don't believe


there is any strategy that will attain the growth of extremists


groups that are spreading now in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya,


Somalia, and northern Nigeria, we have a thatsive problem. If we carry


on with -- we have massive problem. If we carry on in an alliance with


the gulf state it will carry on. We won't solve it this way. If there


was a question of stake taking a vote on air strikes in Syria, what


is Ed Miliband's position going to be if he doesn't get comfort from


the UN. Would you see a situation where you would actually have to


vote against your leader? He's clear today that he remains open of going


in Syria. And understanding that you can't chase this group to the border


and stop. Him and Douglas Alexander have raised the idea of a UN


Security Council resolution. Come on it will never get past? I think that


may well be right, so it is really important that he has said that this


is not a condition of support, I think it is not unreasonable that he


has asked for a greater sense of what would be the strategy in Syria.


I'm clear that we need to be actively saying that it should be


our ambition to go into Syria, let's see the strategy and try to vote on


it as quickly as we can. Thank you very much indeed.


Far from the debate at Westminster, the UKIP leader Nigel Farage told


delegates at his party's conference in Doncaster he that he would not


back air strikes in Iraq. The racecourse seemed a fitting setting


for a man who apowered in Paddy Power's ad for the Ryder Cup.


The first parliamentary election in Clacton, brought on by the defection


of a Tory MP to UKIP. We have been watching Nigel Farage up close.


This isn't perhaps the most obvious place to look for high politics.


Here, underneath the grandstand at Doncaster racecourse is where UKIP


is holding its annual conference. One of the things very striking


about the UKIP conference is it is quite small. It is also quite


elderly as a population. But that is because they don't have any


lobbyists, and what that also means is that everyone here is an


activist, and enthusiast, you can really see the reception they get


from all their speeches. But there is one man they love above


all, Nigel Farage. Especially when he's taking the fight to the Labour


Party. Why are we in concaster, it is quite simple, because Ed Miliband


is one of the town's MPs and we want to signal to the world that we are


now parking our tanks on the Labour Party's lawn. So, UKIP is talking a


big game on supporting the NHS. And proposing new turnover taxes that


will clobber corporate tax avoiders. We're going to pose a much bigger


threat to Labour than they ever dreamt, seats like Doncaster,


Rotherham, Yorkshire, seats in the north-east where I spent a lot of


time in the European elections. Hartlepool we were scoring 40% of


the votes in the European election, we can reach areas the Tories can't


in the north and areas Labour can't reach in the south. Where are things


with UKIP in Scotland? Very well, the tectonic plates are shifting,


the Labour Party is in dire straights, nobody is interested.


Labour treat us like sheep on the housing estates people are saying,


they don't do anything for them, the Conservative Party are non-existent.


The Scottish nationalists most people on the housing estates think


they are a bunch of Edinburgh solicitors doing Scottish dancing.


Many think UKIP could do some serious damage to Labour. The


problem for Labour is they are only thinking about UKIP in terms of what


it means in 2015. Take a step back, look at the long-term picture here,


you have got a radical right party setting up shop in seats that are


hardcore Labour heartland territory and they are winning over 20 pest


plus in some of these seats, without having a local branch. Have they


shored up the left-wing enough, UKIP can be hit from that side, and.


Members and donors have their own ideas. What is the absolute


irreducible core, the red line for a UKIP negotiating position with North


party would be? To get out of the European Union. We would probably, I


mean I'm just giving my own opinion, but we would probably accept a


referendum, number two, immigration. Then we get to all manner of things,


lower taxes, far less regulation:. We would cut foreign aid in order to


do things like giving soldiers' widows more money, we think the


priorities are wrong at the moment. That will make it hard to go into a


coalition with anybody but the Conservatives wouldn't it? It would


be difficult to go into coalition with anyone in way. But I think you


are right. Our policies, except for a few, are very, very similar to the


Conservatives. I mean I supported the Conservatives once and I only


left them, well they expelled me, but the problem was their attitude


to the EU. In our target seats next year, in the by-election, and in the


general election, if you vote UKIP you will get UKIP.


So what does getting UKIP mean? Well outside the core issues of Europe


and immigration, it remains unclear. But members told us they expected


their anti-establishment message would have won them at least five


MPs, or maybe dozens by this time next year.


What's your favourite way to watch a movie, in a big cinema or the


privacy of your iPhone? Al Pacino, who is famous for films, including


the 1983 Scarface, received the BFI fellowship last night, and chose the


moment to ament the idea that watching a movie on an iPhone was an


experience anyone would want. And for a start they can miss the


nuances of an actor's expression, and Pacino is someone always worth


watching closely. Is he old school and needs to catch up or is he a


powerful voice of cinematic experience. I'm joined by one of the


founders of the iPhone Film Festival. I will throw you some


names, Dr Zhivago, Dances with Wolves, would you be happy watching


these films on an iPhone? Yes and I can explain as to why. But


generally, yes. Because we are moving in a new day and age as far


as technology is concerned. But you don't get the panoramic view, that


idea of being in widescreen in the cinema, the space in front of you.


You are looking down at a very reduced screen? Yes, but so the


advantages of viewing something or a film or great film in that matter on


an iPhone, compared to a cinemas you don't have the distractions of


someone sitting next to you eating popcorn, you have the iPhone, it is


just you and the iPhone, you can hold that screen and believe it or


not when I view a movie on an iPhone, I become one into the movie.


I have no distractions whatsoever it is just me and the iPhone viewing


it. That's the gen. Generation of today that choose to view it on a


mobile device or iPhone compared to a movie theatre and watching it in a


movie theatre. There is something about the communal experience of


being in a cinema with a load of other people and seeing some


fantastic film unfold in front of your eyes together, that is actually


something that is worth doing? Right, so I mean if we go back in


time before television sets were actually in millions and millions of


homes it was strictly theatre. When TV came out and people thought you


can't watch a movie on a TV you have to go to a theatre, so this is


transition going from the television set to the iPhone. Nowadays we have


got everything. We are so short of time, I will put to you Al Pacino's


point, he says the nuances and the way actors deliver the lines, even a


vague expression, a tiny expression is completely lost by screwing your


eyes and looking into the iPhone? The experience itself, going back to


what Al Pacino said, it is not that I disagree with him, it is the


experience you get at a movie theatre you are not alone. If you


have a home theatre sitting in front of large screen and viewing it


alone, I agree. At a movie theatre you have hundreds of people around


you, someone is making a sound or someone's phone is going off, or


eating popcorn next to you or a baby crying. Things of that nature is


where you lose that attention span. But if you are on an iPhone, it is


in front of you, it is just you and you are strictly looking at it. So


you get, you become one with the film maker and one with the actor.


Thank you very much for joining us. If you are going to the movies have


great time this weekend, that is all we have time for, good night.


great time this weekend, that is all we have time for, good night. Some


In-depth investigation and analysis of the stories behind the day's headlines with Kirsty Wark.

Parliament green lights the attack on Islamic State. Will Nato ally Turkey get involved?

UK Independence Party lay out their stall.

Should you watch movies on a phone?

Download Subtitles