This Summary describes the last vote in December 2015. Corbyn gave his party a free vote. Next time he would no doubt have enough authority to run a whipped vote. That should be enough to stop any war votes going through Parliament. Here is the 2015 situation described –
- Britain will join the coalition of nations conducting airstrikes against Islamic State militants in Syria after MPs in the House of Commons voted to authorise the UK’s participation. MPs voted 397 to 223 in favour of sending RAF Tornados into the skies over Syria, after an all-day debate in parliament. As Patrick Wintour reports, 66 Labour MPs backed the government in defiance of the party leader,Jeremy Corbyn. In a day of soul searching, recrimination and often heartfelt speeches, it became clear David Cameron was guaranteed a clear overall majority. Corbyn, who was forced by divisions in his party to give his MPs a free vote,
TAP – The reduced Conservative MPs (330 to 318?) might swing 12 votes the other way plus 66 more Labour votes if whipping was used and was 100% successful. The 397 ayes of 2015 would become 319 which is not a Commons majority. Since then the Russians have significantly changed the situation on the ground, and MPs should be more cautious. The planned vote to invade Syria from Jordan which was the reason Theresa May called the election to ensure war would come, is now, I would imagine, most unlikely. Is it even possible Corbyn could engineer a cessation of British involvement in bombing Syria?
The DUP have at times voted for bombing and at times voted against bombing.
The Democratic Unionist Party, along with the SDLP and the UUP, helped to sink David Cameron’s last attempt to launch air strikes in Syria, with five of its MPs voting against the move and three absent.
But DUP Westminster leader Nigel Dodds has now said that the party would support the government’s motion.
He said there had been “much discussion” with the prime minister and others in government and that his party had “concluded that the time is right for us to act, and to act decisively”.
Jeremy Corbyn Opposes Britain Bombing Syria (from november 2015)
Britain already is bombing Syrian targets covertly. Prime Minister David Cameron ordered it illegally despite parliamentary majority opposition in August 2013.
Freedom of Information (FOI) documents obtained by the UK-based Reprieve human rights group revealed illegal British aerial operations in Syria – striking infrastructure and government targets, not ISIS and other terrorist elements as Cameron later claimed, a liar and unindicted war criminal like Obama.
In response to Reprieve’s FOI request, Britain’s Defense Ministry lied, saying:
“UK military personnel embedded with the USA, French and Canadian armed forces have been authorized to deploy with their units to participate in coalition operations against ISIL.”
US, UK, French, Canadian, Australian and Israeli warplanes are involved in bombing Syrian targets illegally. Russia alone, working cooperatively with Syrian ground forces, is effectively combating ISIS and other terrorist groups.
Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn opposes Cameron’s plans for escalated UK bombing in Syria. Many of his shadow cabinet members oppose his righteous position – notably shadow foreign secretary Hilary Benn and deputy party leader Tom Watson, disgracefully claiming a “compelling case” for involvement.
Corbyn is holding firm, telling Labour MPs he “cannot support” Cameron’s plan to bomb Syria, knowing it has nothing to do with targeting ISIS and other terrorist groups – everything to do with weakening Assad, supporting Washington’s agenda to oust him.
In a memorandum to Britain’s Foreign Affairs Select Committee, Cameron lied, claiming involvement in Syria is “vital…to keep this country safe” – despite no evidence suggesting Assad threatens Britain now, earlier or ahead, or a credible terrorist threat exists.
US-created ISIS is supported by Cameron’s government as well as other NATO and regional countries, notably Israel, Saudi Arabia and other rogue Gulf states.
Cameron claiming ISIS poses a “direct” threat to Britain is one of his many bald-faced lies. “The longer ISIL is allowed to grow in Syria, the greater the threat it will pose,” he ranted.
“It is wrong for the United Kingdom to sub-contract its security to other countries, and to expect the aircrews of other nations to carry the burdens and the risks of striking ISIL in Syria to stop terrorism here in Britain.”
The only terrorist threats the UK and other European countries face are state-sponsored. Exhibit A was the false flag November 13 Paris incident, a well-planned military operation, not ISIS terrorism.
Cameron like Obama, France’s Hollande and other NATO leaders want Assad replaced by a pro-Western puppet leader – something Russia forthrightly opposes. So does Corbyn.
He urges Labour opposition to bombing Syria. He formerly headed the UK-based Stop the War coalition. On November 26, it posted a “7-point rebuttal (to) Cameron’s case for war on Syria,” saying:
1. Cameron’s so-called plan includes no “coherent strategy to defeat Isis” – nothing any more effective than America’s phony campaign, supporting its terrorist foot soldiers, using them to try ousting Assad, striking Syrian targets exclusively.
2. Bombing Syria without UN Charter Chapter 7 Security Council authorization is flagrantly illegal.
3. All US-led bombing campaigns cause horrendous numbers of civilian casualties, far more in number than alleged militants.
4. Cameron duplicitously argues for “prioritising a ‘ceasefire’ (while) advocating military intervention” – without just cause for what he has in mind.
5. His alleged concern about terrorism offers no evidence suggesting any threat to Britain, especially related to conflict in Syria.
6. Arguing for bombing Syria to create a safer world is ludicrous on its face.
7. Sensible foreign policy objectives should be pursued – including ending US-led support for ISIS and other terrorist groups. Stop recruiting, arming, funding, training and directing them as imperial foot soldiers against regional peace and stability.
Corbyn seeks grassroots support in an effort to convince Labour MPs to oppose Cameron’s rage for war and overcome opposition within his own shadow cabinet, most supporting military action in Syria.
He addressed Labour MPs by letter, saying “I do not believe the prime minister’s current proposal for airstrikes in Syria will protect our security and therefore cannot support it.”
According to London’s Guardian, he’s “expected to go over the heads of MPs who disagree by seeking the backing of the national executive committee for his position and has begun canvassing members for support, sending them an email on Friday night that read: ‘I am writing to consult you on what you think Britain should do. Should parliament vote to authorise the bombing of Syria?’ “
Thousands of Brits were enlisted to lobby their MPs against Cameron’s scheme. Large Saturday anti-war protests are planned. Britain’s Stop the War coalition said “(t)he proposed vote in Parliament on bombing Syria by British forces is likely to take place within the next week.”
Approval “is more likely following the terrible events in Paris. Yet this bombing will not stop terror attacks. Stop the War is opposed to this military response. Protests will take place this Saturday around the country” – in London and other UK cities.
Unite and Unison labor union leaders support Corbyn’s position, saying no legitimate case for war was made. French President Hollande showed which side he’s on, urging UK MPs to support war – on Syria, not ISIS and other terrorists as he claims.
The Guardian said his intervention “appeared to be carefully choreographed with Downing Street…” It came a day after Cameron submitted his proposal for war.
Pressure on Corbyn to resign is increasing. He’s holding firm, making the case against Britain’s greater involvement in Washington’s imperial adventurism.
It has nothing to do with defeating terrorism, everything to do with destroying Syrian sovereignty, isolating Iran, then targeting the Islamic Republic the same way.
It’s how Washington operates globally, using NATO and other countries to advance its imperial agenda, risking global war by potentially challenging Russia and China – what everything now ongoing seems headed toward.