Syria Vote

All the business has been cleared from today’s agenda in the House of Commons and the whole day which has been extended to 10pm will consist of a single debate on the motion set out in my last post. This will give 10 and a half hours of time for debate.

Not surprisingly I have received hundreds of emails urging me to vote against military action. It is clear from most of them that the senders appear not to have a full understanding of the situation in the middle east. the situation is extremely complex. I do not pretend that extending our military action across the border from Iraq to Syria will be a solution on its own to the threat from ISIL but it will, in my opinion, on balance, help defeat ISIL and I will vote for it. I should add that I have had some constituents urge me to vote for the motion.

The following is a quote I have given to the media:

I am voting for the motion to extend the military action against ISIL because it is the first duty of government to keep our people safe and I believe that, on balance, extending the military action against these terrorists will help meet that duty. The U.K. is already taking military action against ISIL in Iraq and as ISIL do not recognise the border between Iraq and Syria it does not make sense for the UK to stop action at that border. The action is authorised by the United Nations resolution. Our allies have asked for our help and the planned action is authorised by the United Resolution 2249.



Published by David Nuttall

Business and Political Consultant

3 thoughts on “Syria Vote

  1. As one of the constituents who asked you not to vote for military action, I do not claim to have a full understanding of the Middle East. I would suggest, however, that the grasp of the hundreds (or thousands) of us in Bury North who were against military action is not significantly weaker than that of those in favour. Is it not a little too convenient to state otherwise? Moreover, at a time when low levels of democratic engagement are a popular concern, are you not patronising, insulting even, many of the people you were elected to represent?

  2. So you’re ignoring hundreds of constituents who have elected you to represent THEM in favour of the party line and the calls of “some” constituents to bomb Siria?

    You even concede that it wont be a solution on its own … there is nothing else planned, no coherent strategy as to what else is going to be done, what is expected to be achieved and what the exit strategy is …

    So rather than build up a more coherant and comprehensive plan as to what can be done you’re voting for a widely opposed method of action because your leader would otherwise label you as a terrorist sympathiser, this is quite frankly appalling!

  3. So hundreds of your constituents – the ones you are supposed to represent – don’t want this yet you will vote for it anyway…?

    It is a complex situation – but it is clear that all the evidence points towards not extending action into Syria. There is no agreed end-game (apart from to defeat ISIL) and the Russians have a different agenda to us.

    Perhaps you could also point out to the to the ‘some’ constituents that want military action that we simply don’t have the aircraft to make a difference anyway…

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: