This article is from the source 'independent' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mps-iraq-vote-commons-passes-vote-by-massive-majority-to-include-britain-in-isis-strikes-9758454.html

The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
MPs' Iraq vote: Commons passes vote by massive majority to include Britain in Isis strikes MPs' Iraq vote: Commons passes vote by massive majority to include Britain in Isis strikes
(about 1 hour later)
British jets are set to strike Isis targets within days after the move was overwhelmingly supported this afternoon by MPs of all parties. The prospect of British military action in Syria moved closer tonight after MPs overwhelmingly approved air strikes against Isis targets in Iraq.
The Commons motion was passed by a vote of 524 to 43 meaning that Britain could send RAF planes to the region of northern Iraq – where jihadist militants have acquired great swathes of land – as early as the weekend. Six RAF Tornados will launch attacks within days after the Commons voted by 524 to 43 to approve intervention in Iraq. Some 24 Labour MPs, six Tories and one Liberal Democrat voted against. Rushanara Ali, a Labour education spokeswoman, resigned from the opposition front bench so she could abstain. Iain McKenzie was sacked as a Labour parliamentary aide after voting against.
Though Britain’s military action will thus far be limited to Iraq, following a request by the Iraqi government, Prime Minister David Cameron has signalled that he is prepared to extend the area to include Syria. Many MPs expressed fears of “mission creep”. But the six-and-a-half-hour emergency debate unexpectedly turned into a heated argument over whether to take military action in Syria as well as Iraq. Several MPs argued that it would be logical to extend air strikes to Syria, pointing out that Isis does not recognise the border between the two countries.
Mr Cameron told an emergency Commons debate today: “There isn’t a walk-on-by option, there isn’t an option hoping it will go away. David Cameron gave his clearest sign yet that he would like to join the United States in hitting Isis in Syria. “I am very clear that Isis needs to be destroyed in Syria as well as in Iraq,” he told the Commons. “I believe that there is a strong case for us to do more in Syria.”
In his speech he added that Isis fighters are “psychopathic terrorists who want to kill us”. The Prime Minister admitted that Syria was a “more complicated” issue than Iraq, where the new government has formally requested UK military support. But he brushed aside legal doubts about action in Syria. “I do not believe that there is a legal barrier, because I think that the legal advice is clear that were we or others to act, there is a legal basis,” he said.
“This is not a threat on the far side of the world. Left unchecked, we will face a terrorist caliphate on the shores of the Mediterranean, bordering a Nato member [Turkey], with a declared and proven determination to attack our country and our people. One method could be for Iraq to request UK help to combat Isis attacks launched from Syria, which could then allow intervention under the United Nations charter.
“This is not the stuff of fantasy - it is happening in front of us and we need to face up to it.” Mr Cameron also kept open the option of authorising emergency action in Syria without first winning the approval of MPs – either to tackle a humanitarian crisis or in Britain’s national interest. But he promised to ask the Commons as soon as possible for retrospective approval.
Sir Edward Leigh, Tory MP for Gainsborough, said he supported the strikes despite having apprehensions that Britain’s armed forces will not be able to make much noise in the region following swingeing cuts to defence budgets. The motion approved promised MPs a fresh vote before any intervention in Syria. Mr Cameron would probably need Labour’s support to win a majority. A Labour spokesman said: “Without a clear plan for military activity in Syria, we are not giving the Government a blank cheque.” 
Echoing Winston Churchill’s famous quote, he said: “Never have so few been asked by so many to achieve so much with no clear aim in sight. But Ed Miliband is not ruling out action in Syria. He wants an attempt made at the UN to secure approval for action there, but is not making a UN resolution is a condition of his support. He wants Mr Cameron to spell out which countries would send troops to fight in Syria.
“If you want to act with a big stick in the world, you must wield the means and what have we been doing to the armed forces over the last four years, and how many planes have we got to bomb [Isis]? What serious difference will we make? The Labour leader told MPs: “When we are not talking about being invited in by a democratic state, it would be better - I put it no higher than that - to seek a UN Security Council resolution. That is the highest multilateral institution of the world.”
“In our zealous liberalism we have encouraged revolutions across the Middle East and then been profoundly shocked when the forces we have helped unleash have turned against us. Ministers are starting to build a case for a wider campaign against Isis in Syria. Michael Fallon, the Defence Secretary, told BBC Radio 4: “Isis is based in Syria, that's where its headquarters are, that's where its resources, its people are. They have crossed the border into Iraq and to deal with Isis you do have to deal and defeat them in both Iraq and in Syria.”
“In that sense the British Government is indirectly culpable in fostering the conditions for a jihadism to thrive in Iraq and Syria,” adding that Britain should apologise to the civilians affected by the turmoil. He added: “The Prime Minister made it clear to defeat Isis we have to do it in both countries, so the logic follows. But we are not asking Parliament to do that at the moment, we are taking this in a calm, measured way, step by step, but it is clear to us that obviously Isis, in the end, has to be tackled on a broader front.”
Mr Cameron said there is no “legal barrier” for the UK to join US and Arab-led strikes against the Islamic State (also known as Isis) in Syria, as opposition leader Ed Miliband voiced concerns that the UK would need to establish a legal framework to do so. Several senior MPs spoke in favour of extending action to Syria. Sir Richard Ottaway, the Tory chairman of the Commons foreign affairs select committee, said: “The border between Syria and Iraq has virtually disappeared. It is a seamless conflict over two countries covering thousands of miles and presenting a vulnerability in Isis’s stretched resources that we are not capitalising on.”
While supporting the strikes in Iraq, Mr Miliband said in today’s debate that more “work needs to be done” to determine the consequences of intervening in Syria. Kenneth Clarke, the former Conservative Cabinet minister, said: “The legal case for intervention in Iraq is clear with its Government’s inviting us, and I think it is pretty clear in Syria because of the genocide and the humanitarian disasters being inflicted on that country.”
“The point I have been making in the last few days is, in my view, when we are not talking about being invited in by a democratic state it would be better - I put it no higher than that - it would be better to seek a UN Security Council resolution,” Mr Miliband, who voted against strikes on Syria President Bashar al-Assad’s regime last year, said. Peter Hain, the former Labour Cabinet minister, said: “Isis will never be defeated if it is constantly allowed to regroup from its Syrian bases. Without either UN or Syrian Government authorisation, air strikes in Syria may be illegal, although there could well be justification under international law for such strikes, even without UN agreement.”
"Why? This is the highest multilateral institution in the world and therefore it would be better to seek authorisation.” Sir Menzies Campbell, the former Liberal Democrat leader, said: “The very factors that justify intervention in Iraq would be of equal weight in relation to Syria. Those are, to put it briefly, the barbarism that is being displayed, and the fact that regional stability is being heavily undermined.” 
Mr Miliband’s sentiments were criticised by some corners of parliament, including Sir Menzis Campbell, Lib Dem MP for North East Fife, who said a UN resolution would be “wholly pointless exercise because of the attitude undoubtedly to be taken by Russia and possibly also by China”. But Frank Dobson, another former Labour cabinet minister, warned: “I am concerned about the ease with which, when some people talk, they slip seamlessly from Iraq to Syria. When people talk about getting involved in Syria, they are talking about sending young people from our country to a place where they will not have the faintest idea who they are supposed to be fighting.”
Liam Fox, Tory MP for North Somerset and a former Defence Secretary, said it was a “mistake” not to include Syria into the motion today. Dennis Skinner, the veteran left-wing Labour MP, said: “There are two questions the Prime Minister has not put to himself: how long will this war last and when will mission creep start?”
“There is a clear legal case to attack Isil bases in Syria and I'm afraid sooner or later we are going to have to do it. It would be far better if we had said so explicitly today.” John Baron, a Conservative MP who voted against action in Iraq, argued: “Without the Iraqi army being able to take and hold ground, there is a real risk that air strikes alone will not only prove ineffective but could become counterproductive, especially if civilian casualties mount and Isis spins the story that it has withstood the might of the west and held its ground, which it has so far managed to do?”
Additional reporting by agencies Winding up the debate, Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, said: “There are times when it is simply impossible to reason with your foe. We must act – we do so mindful of the mistakes and lessons of the past.”
The Danish Government is sending seven F-16 fighter jets to take part in airstrikes in Iraq - one more plane than Britain, reinforcing the impression that the UK’s involvement is largely symbolic. Belgium is sending six F-16 fighters.