• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

UK says no to military strikes

Rainman05

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2012
Messages
10,032
Reaction score
4,966
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Syria crisis: UK says no to military strikes | euronews, world news

British Prime Minister David Cameron has lost a parliamentary vote on possible military action against Syria.

In a humiliating and unexpected development, Cameron and his coalition government failed to pass a motion that would have authorised military action against Syria in principle by 285 to 272 votes

I forgot to post my comments.

I am generally against intervention in Syria. I stated my issue with the whole affair in multiple treads.
 
Last edited:

True, a thread exists elsewhere however maybe this thread could look at the repercussions of a British Prime Minister failing for the first time in over 200 years to secure the approval of Parliament for a military operation.

Previously, under the "Royal Prerogative," a Prime Minister could order troops into action and Parliament was a simple rubber stamp to such decisions.

This is a huge sea-change for UK politics, the royal prerogative has usually been secretly administered but now Parliament has shown that is is no mere stamp for a PM. Mind you, a large part of this is that Cameron does not have a large majority such as Blair had when he used it to send troops into Iraq. Apparently quite a few speakers in the debate misnamed Assad as Saddam during their speeches and memories of the Iraq debacle probably added to the general willingness to stand up to a Prime Minister.

One or two UK correspondents have tweeted that this is the end of the "Special Relationship" however I had hoped Cameron would live up to his previous stance that the UK would distance itself from US policy and requirements. I'm tired of us being part of America's boots on the ground when all we get back for the deaths of British soldiers is American insults that we are an islamic state, going to be over-run by muslims, a left wing socialist state etc etc.

Anyhow, seems it was Parliament that ended the Special Relationship, not the UK Prime (Poodle) Minister.
 
True, a thread exists elsewhere however maybe this thread could look at the repercussions of a British Prime Minister failing for the first time in over 200 years to secure the approval of Parliament for a military operation.

Previously, under the "Royal Prerogative," a Prime Minister could order troops into action and Parliament was a simple rubber stamp to such decisions.

This is a huge sea-change for UK politics, the royal prerogative has usually been secretly administered but now Parliament has shown that is is no mere stamp for a PM. Mind you, a large part of this is that Cameron does not have a large majority such as Blair had when he used it to send troops into Iraq. Apparently quite a few speakers in the debate misnamed Assad as Saddam during their speeches and memories of the Iraq debacle probably added to the general willingness to stand up to a Prime Minister.

One or two UK correspondents have tweeted that this is the end of the "Special Relationship" however I had hoped Cameron would live up to his previous stance that the UK would distance itself from US policy and requirements. I'm tired of us being part of America's boots on the ground when all we get back for the deaths of British soldiers is American insults that we are an islamic state, going to be over-run by muslims, a left wing socialist state etc etc.

Anyhow, seems it was Parliament that ended the Special Relationship, not the UK Prime (Poodle) Minister.

Tellingly for me was the fact that Kerry didn't even mention the UK tonight, but was splashing praise on the French. It was not that long ago the French were taunted as 'surrender monkeys' over Iraq. I would say this says much more about the US, rather, how the US will drop us in a flash. The special relationship holds only if it goes one way.

Paul
 
Tellingly for me was the fact that Kerry didn't even mention the UK tonight, but was splashing praise on the French. It was not that long ago the French were taunted as 'surrender monkeys' over Iraq. I would say this says much more about the US, rather, how the US will drop us in a flash. The special relationship holds only if it goes one way.

Paul

Did you ever think it was actually special?
 
Tellingly for me was the fact that Kerry didn't even mention the UK tonight, but was splashing praise on the French. It was not that long ago the French were taunted as 'surrender monkeys' over Iraq. I would say this says much more about the US, rather, how the US will drop us in a flash. The special relationship holds only if it goes one way.

Paul

Yep, "our oldest ally" is France. Ten years and the tune is changed quite remarkably.
 
Did you ever think it was actually special?

I've never liked the term 'special relationship' but yes, both countries to varying degrees have made much of our apparent intimacy.

Paul
 
-- It was not that long ago the French were taunted as 'surrender monkeys' over Iraq.

Even if France goes in with the US, that insult will still be used against their ally.
 
I think that for many people, an alliance signifies something more than vested interest.

Those people are silly.
 
I think that for many people, an alliance signifies something more than vested interest.

Those people are silly.

Shared and common values play no part?

Paul
 
Shared and common values play no part?

Paul
Only insofar as they reflect current advantage. Otherwise, it's media treacle for an idiotic public.

Remember 'Uncle Saddam'?
 
I'm contemplating the UK's backbone.

No medulla.
 
Economically?
Economically and militarily.

Of course, but surely you see the difference between a 'genuine ally' and keeping a dictator sweet?
Did the Western powers who armed him to the teeth see any difference? I rest my case.

I don't have amnesia, Paul. You need only tell me once.
 
Yes, and cheers.

Makes English whine tasty.
Mmmm. An altogether pleasant aperitif to all those freedom fries, eh?
 
Mmmm. An altogether pleasant aperitif to all those freedom fries, eh?

Cheese usually comes after the main course, along with salad. So what's for desert?
 
George Sand? It's way too early for a nice lecture. How about you put up a fire first?
lulz

There'll be plenty of time for fireworks, once you notice the star spangled banner fluttering proudly from atop the Eiffel.
 
lulz

There'll be plenty of time for fireworks, once you notice the star spangled banner fluttering proudly from atop the Eiffel.

It's almost there...

Eiffel+Tower+Switching+Lights+Z0P3qLsJEnkl.jpg
 
Really refreshing, a dose of parliamentary democracy now and again.
 
Back
Top Bottom