Live
Audio Only
The British parliament voted Wednesday in favor of joining international airstrikes on Syria, despite widespread public opposition.
Three hundred and ninety seven legislators voted in favor of airstrikes proposed by Prime Minister David Cameron, while 223 voted against.
Many of these votes for war came from legislators from the opposition Labour party, which has been fiercely divided on the issue of airstrikes over the past week.
While Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn argued against airstrikes, his own shadow foreign secretary Hilary Benn claimed recent attacks in Paris illustrated the Islamic State group poses a security risk to the Western world.
“We have a moral and a practical duty to extend the action we are already taking in Iraq to Syria,” Benn said.
Corbyn rejected claims from pro-war voices including Benn that airstrikes would make the U.K. safer.
Corbyn, whose Labour party holds the second-most seats in the U.K.’s lower house of Parliament, stressed that “the question of whether the government’s proposal for military action in Syria strengthens—or undermines—our own national security must be at the center of our deliberations.”
IN DEPTH: The Rise of the New European Left
He said there is “no doubt” the Islamic State group “poses a threat to our own people.” But for Corbyn, a veteran anti-war campaigner, bombing may increase that threat in Britain. He finds enough evidence to suggest it is a “warning to step back and vote against yet another ill-fated twist in the never-ending war on terror.”
Corbyn’s stance is not shared by all those in his party, which was formerly led by Tony Blair who led the country into bloody, unsuccessful wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The Stop the War Coalition staged a protest outside parliament as the vote took place, chanting, “No more war.”
In a statement, the coalition argued British involvement in Syria's conflict will be another “foreign policy disaster” in the vein of conflicts in Libya and Iraq.
“Almost all the key players voted for the catastrophic bombing of Libya which led to the deaths of up to 50,000 people and created a failed state, now recognized as a breeding ground for terrorism,” the activist group said.
The coalition added, “Let their record speak for them, we should not follow them into another catastrophe.”
The decision to take military action in a fourth Muslim country in just 14 years is not only opposed by anti-war activists, but also the majority of British voters. Yougov reported Wednesday that public support for the airstrikes in Syria has sharply fallen over the last month from 59 percent to 48 percent, with a corresponding leap in those who disapprove from 20 percent to 31 percent between Nov. 17 and Dec. 1.
The crux of the motion asks voters to support “Her Majesty’s Government in taking military action, specifically airstrikes, exclusively against ISIL in Syria,” using a common acronym for the Islamic State group. The motion clearly states that “the Government will not deploy U.K. troops in ground combat operations.”
During the hours-long parliamentary debate, Cameron spoke first, making his case for war, which he had previously laid out in a 36-page plan on Nov. 26.
He then fended off questions from parliamentarians, many about an alleged comment he’d made the day before when dismissed those who vote “no” as “a bunch of terrorist sympathizers.”
The closest Cameron came to an apology was saying, “I respect people who’ve come to a different view from the government and the one I’ve set out today and those who vote accordingly. And I hope that provides some reassurance to members right across the house,” but stayed silent as politician after politician demanded a direct apology from him.
Newsletter
