‘Outrageous’: Ken Livingstone demands parliament vote on Syria military strikes (VIDEO)
Ex-London mayor Ken Livingstone sounded a warning to Prime Minister Theresa May as the UK government inches closer to launching military strikes against Syria. Livingstone urged the PM not to act without a parliamentary vote.
On Wednesday, May hosted an emergency cabinet meeting to discuss the alleged chemical weapons attack in Syria. “Cabinet agreed it was vital that the use of chemical weapons did not go unchallenged,” a statement following the meeting read. “Cabinet agreed on the need to take action to alleviate humanitarian distress and to deter the further use of chemical weapons by the [Bashar] Assad regime.”
Livingstone told RT’s Bill Dod that May should “absolutely not” act without parliamentary approval. “The last time Britain was considering getting involved in Syria there was a debate in parliament and parliament voted against it. That was very bad news for the then-prime minister [David] Cameron.
“The idea that we should get into war in the Middle East without a vote in parliament being able to debate and make a decision is outrageous. There’s clearly been an attack. What isn’t clear is who did it… until we’re absolutely certain what the truth it, I think [acting] is completely unacceptable.”
Livingstone’s comments come as research indicates that a meager 22 percent of Britons support UK airstrikes in Syria following the alleged chemical attack.
EX-UKIP MEP Explains The Forces Driving the Western Push For War With Syria
US Secretary of Defence James Mattis, has expressed concern that strikes on Syria may cause the situation to escalate “out of control.” At the same time, UK cabinet has supported joining the US and France in any attacks against Damascus. Sputnik spoke to Former UKIP Member of the European Parliament, Godfrey Bloom about the situation.
Sputnik: So UK Prime Minister Theresa May has received the backing of her cabinet for what they have described as “the need to take action to deter the further use of chemical weapons,” but it appears that she’s likely to try and avoid consulting with parliament on this, as is customary. Why do you think that is?
Godfrey Bloom: Well of course, it’s whether we accept or not that there has been any use of chemical weapons. Of course there is no serious evidence to suggest there has been any usage of chemical weapons any more than there was last time. The American State Department have already admitted that they have no hard evidence of the Assad regime using chemical weapons, so the whole preface I think is wrong. The reason she does not want a parliamentary debate is because I think it would soon be very clear in parliament, and clear therefore to the public, that there is no evidence at all.
Sputnik: Yesterday the US government said that it has concerns that any military attack on Syria could cause a conflict that might, in the words of Secretary of Defence Jim Mattis, “escalate out of control” — obviously alluding to a confrontation with Russia. Do you think they’re only now starting to consider the ramifications of what any strike on Syria could lead to?
Godfrey Bloom: I hope they do. The trouble is with politicians is that they don’t have any military training or strategic training. I happen to be a graduate of the Royal College of Defence Studies and actually understand something of both military history and strategic military planning. Politicians don’t, and they tend to rush into things. They tend to open their mouths before they think, and without thinking these things through. Of course if you’re going to send — there’s talk of sending carriers, carrier fleets, air strikes, all this kind of thing — you can’t contain that sort of thing. If the Russians retaliate to that kind of behaviour, you’re very soon in a shooting war and history shows that once these wars get under way, there’s very little to do anything about them.Of course we learned that, or you would’ve thought we’d have learned that, in 1914 in the Balkans, with the cost of certainly the British Empire, one million dead, one million more dead, and one million maimed. So, we don’t seem to learn the lessons, do we, and I don’t quite understand why.
Sputnik: Finally, why is it that the West continues to contemplate this, despite the absence of bona fide evidence and the known risks associated with a strike on Syria, namely the possibility of an escalation in conflict?
Godfrey Bloom: Well, one of the problems I think that we have, and I don’t quite know how we overcome this, and we were warned by general Eisenhower — or President Eisenhower as he then was — in his excellent autobiography, that of course the power of the industrial military complex in America is huge. In life generally in politics, if you follow the money that’s where you get you answer. We’re dealing with trillions of dollars in budget, not just for the military and military machinery, but of course CIA budgets as well. It’s a really serious problem that you have a huge vested interest in the continuance of the Cold War and even perhaps a shooting war, because people make so much money out of it, and that’s the danger.
So, we were warned of this by President Eisenhower and indeed we were also given the heads up in a speech much later by President Kennedy who was complaining that the CIA really calls the shots in America these days. Trump on his manifesto promised to pull the troops out. He was quite clear on that, on his campaign trail. But he’s been switched by the war supporters, the permanent cold war supporters, in deep state in Washington. He’s losing that battle, it’s a great shame and it’s very dangerous. Where is it going to end? I think there’s an absolute determination now to get things into a shooting war — very frightening!