So Many what ifs - but a decision made in the end Can I first say a big sincere thank you to everyone who has commented on my posts, or emailed, written, phoned or texted me over the past few weeks about this issue, and in particular in the last 24 hours once the actual wording of the Government’s motion was known. Your views helped enormously in framing the decision that I had to take, whether to support, oppose or abstain on UK military air strikes against ISIL targets in Iraq. It’s been a long day and just about every question that could be asked about the Government’s proposals was asked. Not every question was answered of course, but then not all could be given the number of ‘what if’s’ raised in the Chamber today. The Government’s case was that there is a threat to UK citizen’s and to the stability of the Middle East. I think that case was proven well before today’s vote with the beheading of a British hostage and the routine murder within the territory controlled by ISIL by beheading, crucifixion and bullets of people who do not support ISIL’s aims. That left the questions of whether the proposed action would be legal. I voted against the invasion of Iraq in 2003 that was a very different proposition to today. Instead of invading Iraq we are being asked by the Iraqi Government to defend it. However, I still sought the advice of the Attorney General whom I met this morning and he assured me further that the issue here is not one of legality. The last of my questions was whether air strikes were the answer because my concern all along has been the so called ‘collateral damage’ or the murder by our actions of innocent men, women and children that simply create more of the hatred of the West that ISIL feeds on. The question no one can answer in advance is whether more innocent people will die as a consequence of the UK joining in with the air strikes, or whether fewer will die if we leave the bombing up to others. People have expressed opinions both ways. One side argues that without effective forces on the ground air strikes will lead to more deaths; others that targeted air strikes will remove the ability of ISIL to terrorise local communities and so more lives will be saved. My view is that if air strikes are to go ahead then they should be accompanied by mitigating actions to counter any negative consequences. Before the debate I met the Deputy Prime Minister and asked him about humanitarian aid and support to neighbouring countries having to deal with people fleeing the areas of conflict. He said that humanitarian aid will be stepped up and later when the Prime Minister addressed the House it was confirmed that we are increasing our aid effort. I also asked about the long-term plan that’s needed to tackle other causes of extremism, such as tackling poverty, inequality and poor governance of people throughout the Middle East. As the UN Secretary General said yesterday Missiles may kill terrorists. But good governance kills terrorism. The response was positive but far less detailed than I had hoped, and centred on taking the military action in order to create space for political solutions to emerge. On deciding which way to vote I would say I was less than 70 per cent convinced to back the motion and did so with very real reservations and concerns, but fewer than had I voted against or abstained. The vote was 524 in favour of the motion, 43 against. Once again, thank you to everyone who offered their advice, thoughts and views and if anyone has any further questions or concerns please don’t hesitate to contact me.
Posted on: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 16:16:03 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015