The UK parliament has more power than many realise. A Labour leader told to show boldness now has a chance to so
Parliament is so routinely disparaged nowadays that it is easy to underestimate what an effective body it can be. To say this is neither to ignore parliament's genuine shortcomings nor to pretend that modern politicians are more commanding public figures than they are. But it is to say that when MPs debate Syria on Thursday, the House of Commons has more power than many seem to realise. It should use that power to uphold process, law and legitimacy.
Parliament's first and most effective power is that it can, if it chooses, stop David Cameron's needlessly precipitate Syria policy dead in its tracks. A defeat for the government, or perhaps even a narrow-squeak victory, would oblige the prime minister to send his regrets to the White House and keep the UK's cruise missiles in their launchers for the time being.
If that were to happen, the UK parliament's reach might be greater still. After two years in which, tragically, the world has been unable to prevent Syria's catastrophe deepening ever further, the Cameron government is suddenly in a hurry to act. Partly this is because of the outrageous use of chemical weapons in Syria. But it is also because the US administration, having boxed itself in about responding to such horrors, now summons Britain to give support. But would the Obama administration, elected to end the war in Iraq and anxious to end the one in Afghanistan, really want to engage in Syria, even to the extent of an arm's-length bombing campaign, without either UN support or major international allies? The answer is not cut and dried. But it is arguable that a vote in the UK parliament could stay Washington's hand from a politically controversial, premature strike that would raise massive issues of legitimacy.
The assumption at Westminster is that parliament will not deny Cameron his mandate. Yet it undoubtedly could, and it arguably should. The use of chemical weapons is indubitably a war crime – the first global treaty against them dates from as long ago as 1925 – that the international community cannot ignore. But that doesn't mean Damascus must be bombed this weekend, before the weapons inspectors have finished their work and before the UN has debated its response. If the purpose of this strike is both to punish the Syrian regime and to send a powerful message to other potential users of chemical weapons, then the message surely needs to have as much support and legitimacy as possible. That means letting the UN process take its course.
The coalition at Westminster has a majority of 77. If Labour goes ahead with its plan to argue for more time and oppose the government motion, and if three dozen Tory and Liberal Democrat backbenchers join forces, then, with the support of at least some of the minor parties, a government defeat or a pyrrhic win is far from impossible. Such a thing has happened before in this parliament, on Europe and on Lords reform, and some of the Tories' most regular rebels are again on the sceptical wing over Syria. So why not now?
Cameron would not have recalled parliament if he was not confident he could carry the Commons on bombing Syria. So runs the official counter-argument. And undoubtedly No 10 has many cards in its hand. Not the least of these, in our naughty world, is that there may be a government reshuffle next week. Individual acts of disloyalty would come at a high personal price for ambitious backbenchers. And Tory MPs, in particular, are never natural rebels on military matters, so waverers will instinctively want to stand by the flag.
Never forget, though, that this is a hung parliament. That's why Cameron was still being forced to negotiate on Wednesday night in order to put his putative majority together. Even on Tuesday Cameron made concessions to MPs who fear an attack on Syria could trigger the glumly familiar unintended consequences and mission creep just as the UK is scuttling from Afghanistan. By emphasising that the Syria mission would be missile-only, would last no more than three days, and was purely a punitive act for Bashar al-Assad's probable use of chemical weapons, Cameron painted himself into a smaller corner than he would surely have wanted at the start of the week.
Wednesday night's planned British move in the UN security council was another concession to an approach based on greater legitimacy. It was probably doomed because of Russia's cold war mentality veto. A similar fate probably awaits the inspection report. But a veto should not mean that no action can be taken once the process has been given a proper chance. If Vladimir Putin gets to decide what is or is not legal, then international law is an ass. But trying everything to make the system work is the right thing to do. Parliament needs to be shown that London will do everything possible for a peaceful solution. In that context the delays – more than 24 hours – in publishing the government's motion for Thursday's debate are further proof that Cameron has not got this in the bag.
Much of this constant redrafting is the indirect exertion of parliamentary power too. The government is struggling to craft a motion that satisfies Liberal Democrat MPs – who in many cases owe their seats to anti-Iraq-war defections from Labour in 2005 – as well as little England Tory backbenchers who, nudged by Ukip's anti-intervention stance yesterday, fear that Nigel Farage speaks for their voters better than Cameron does. But a lot of this is Labour's doing, since as long as Ed Miliband's party refuses to sign up for the government motion, government backbench doubters have that much more power to extract concessions.
Perhaps by the time you read this Labour will have fallen into line behind the government, as many assume it will do in the end. Yet Labour, enjoying a happy convergence between principle and self-interest, was still playing hardball on Wednesday evening, planning its own amendment and pressing to uphold due process before any strike. In past foreign crises including the Falklands and Libya, Labour has often tried to show patriotic mettle by giving official support to controversial military campaigns.
No two military campaigns are the same, but legitimacy always matters. And to its great credit, Labour seems to have learned from Iraq. Significantly, there's little tabloid jingoism over Syria. Quite the opposite, if anything. A Labour leader who is often told to show a bit of boldness has an opportunity to do it on Thursday. He can make parliament matter – and, even more important, he can speak for Britain. Reported by guardian.co.uk 14 hours ago.
Parliament is so routinely disparaged nowadays that it is easy to underestimate what an effective body it can be. To say this is neither to ignore parliament's genuine shortcomings nor to pretend that modern politicians are more commanding public figures than they are. But it is to say that when MPs debate Syria on Thursday, the House of Commons has more power than many seem to realise. It should use that power to uphold process, law and legitimacy.
Parliament's first and most effective power is that it can, if it chooses, stop David Cameron's needlessly precipitate Syria policy dead in its tracks. A defeat for the government, or perhaps even a narrow-squeak victory, would oblige the prime minister to send his regrets to the White House and keep the UK's cruise missiles in their launchers for the time being.
If that were to happen, the UK parliament's reach might be greater still. After two years in which, tragically, the world has been unable to prevent Syria's catastrophe deepening ever further, the Cameron government is suddenly in a hurry to act. Partly this is because of the outrageous use of chemical weapons in Syria. But it is also because the US administration, having boxed itself in about responding to such horrors, now summons Britain to give support. But would the Obama administration, elected to end the war in Iraq and anxious to end the one in Afghanistan, really want to engage in Syria, even to the extent of an arm's-length bombing campaign, without either UN support or major international allies? The answer is not cut and dried. But it is arguable that a vote in the UK parliament could stay Washington's hand from a politically controversial, premature strike that would raise massive issues of legitimacy.
The assumption at Westminster is that parliament will not deny Cameron his mandate. Yet it undoubtedly could, and it arguably should. The use of chemical weapons is indubitably a war crime – the first global treaty against them dates from as long ago as 1925 – that the international community cannot ignore. But that doesn't mean Damascus must be bombed this weekend, before the weapons inspectors have finished their work and before the UN has debated its response. If the purpose of this strike is both to punish the Syrian regime and to send a powerful message to other potential users of chemical weapons, then the message surely needs to have as much support and legitimacy as possible. That means letting the UN process take its course.
The coalition at Westminster has a majority of 77. If Labour goes ahead with its plan to argue for more time and oppose the government motion, and if three dozen Tory and Liberal Democrat backbenchers join forces, then, with the support of at least some of the minor parties, a government defeat or a pyrrhic win is far from impossible. Such a thing has happened before in this parliament, on Europe and on Lords reform, and some of the Tories' most regular rebels are again on the sceptical wing over Syria. So why not now?
Cameron would not have recalled parliament if he was not confident he could carry the Commons on bombing Syria. So runs the official counter-argument. And undoubtedly No 10 has many cards in its hand. Not the least of these, in our naughty world, is that there may be a government reshuffle next week. Individual acts of disloyalty would come at a high personal price for ambitious backbenchers. And Tory MPs, in particular, are never natural rebels on military matters, so waverers will instinctively want to stand by the flag.
Never forget, though, that this is a hung parliament. That's why Cameron was still being forced to negotiate on Wednesday night in order to put his putative majority together. Even on Tuesday Cameron made concessions to MPs who fear an attack on Syria could trigger the glumly familiar unintended consequences and mission creep just as the UK is scuttling from Afghanistan. By emphasising that the Syria mission would be missile-only, would last no more than three days, and was purely a punitive act for Bashar al-Assad's probable use of chemical weapons, Cameron painted himself into a smaller corner than he would surely have wanted at the start of the week.
Wednesday night's planned British move in the UN security council was another concession to an approach based on greater legitimacy. It was probably doomed because of Russia's cold war mentality veto. A similar fate probably awaits the inspection report. But a veto should not mean that no action can be taken once the process has been given a proper chance. If Vladimir Putin gets to decide what is or is not legal, then international law is an ass. But trying everything to make the system work is the right thing to do. Parliament needs to be shown that London will do everything possible for a peaceful solution. In that context the delays – more than 24 hours – in publishing the government's motion for Thursday's debate are further proof that Cameron has not got this in the bag.
Much of this constant redrafting is the indirect exertion of parliamentary power too. The government is struggling to craft a motion that satisfies Liberal Democrat MPs – who in many cases owe their seats to anti-Iraq-war defections from Labour in 2005 – as well as little England Tory backbenchers who, nudged by Ukip's anti-intervention stance yesterday, fear that Nigel Farage speaks for their voters better than Cameron does. But a lot of this is Labour's doing, since as long as Ed Miliband's party refuses to sign up for the government motion, government backbench doubters have that much more power to extract concessions.
Perhaps by the time you read this Labour will have fallen into line behind the government, as many assume it will do in the end. Yet Labour, enjoying a happy convergence between principle and self-interest, was still playing hardball on Wednesday evening, planning its own amendment and pressing to uphold due process before any strike. In past foreign crises including the Falklands and Libya, Labour has often tried to show patriotic mettle by giving official support to controversial military campaigns.
No two military campaigns are the same, but legitimacy always matters. And to its great credit, Labour seems to have learned from Iraq. Significantly, there's little tabloid jingoism over Syria. Quite the opposite, if anything. A Labour leader who is often told to show a bit of boldness has an opportunity to do it on Thursday. He can make parliament matter – and, even more important, he can speak for Britain. Reported by guardian.co.uk 14 hours ago.