LONDON, ENGLAND (BNO NEWS) -- British lawmakers on Thursday rejected a proposal that would have paved the way for military action in Syria, marking a stunning defeat for Prime Minister David Cameron whose government had been expected to join the U.S. in possible airstrikes against the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

The government's nonbinding motion was defeated by 285 to 272, a majority of just 13 votes. The military action would have been in response to the alleged use of chemical weapons near the Syrian capital of Damascus last week, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of people in an attack the U.S. and other countries have blamed on Assad.

Cameron, speaking in the House of Commons after Thursday's vote, assured lawmakers that the United Kingdom will not take part in any military action against Syria unless another vote takes place. "I can give that assurance," he said, responding to a question from Opposition leader Ed Miliband.

"I strongly believe in the need for a tough response to the use of chemical weapons, but I also believe in respecting the will of this House of Commons," the prime minister told lawmakers. "It is very clear tonight that, while the House has not passed a motion, the British Parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action. I get that, and the Government will act accordingly."

Earlier on Thursday, the British government published a summary of its legal advice on a possible military strike on Syria. It said such military action would be considered to be a "humanitarian intervention," of which the aim would be to relieve humanitarian suffering by deterring or disrupting the further use of chemical weapons.

"If action in the [uN] Security Council is blocked, the UK would still be permitted under international law to take exceptional measures in order to alleviate the scale of the overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe in Syria by deterring and disrupting the further use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime," the government's document said.

(Copyright 2013 by BNO News B.V. All rights reserved. Info: [email protected].)

"It is very clear tonight that, while the House has not passed a motion, the British Parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action. I get that, and the Government will act accordingly."

"Cameron, speaking in the House of Commons after Thursday's vote, assured lawmakers that the United Kingdom will not take part in any military action against Syria unless another vote takes place. "I can give that assurance," he said, responding to a question from Opposition leader Ed Miliband."

BBC correspondent said a 2nd vote is extremely unlikely.

Great news. Looks like the Nobel Peace Prize winner will have to wage another illegal war on his own.

This is one of the few times that I admire the parliamentary Labour party plus the 30 odd coalition MPs who voted on their conscience and NOT with the party.

Big Dave needs to understand that the way that the military in the UK has been cut we simply DON'T have the people or equipment available. We are no longer the people who conquered a third of the known world, the British fighting spirit with a few exceptions is no longer available.

The British military has been at war for over 10 continuous years in Iraq and Afghanistan neither of which are our wars.

The people don't want to attack Syria and are sick of the HAWK politicians who only know how to start wars but have no idea of how to run one and worst of all they have no idea of how to stop one

Mr Cameron blames Tony Blair for poisoning the well of public trust in politicians

P.S.

What is "Dodgy Tony's" job now???

Edited August 30, 201312 yr by Basil B

Great news. Looks like the Nobel Peace Prize winner will have to wage another illegal war on his own.

Yes, the refusal of the UK to intervene on humanitarian grounds will endear it to Iran and give the Russians and Chinese a good chuckle.

I bet the Gulf state arabs really value the "friendship" they have with the UK.

Although I agree with the refusal to intervene, that refusal carries with it some significant costs in the arab world;

- perception of weakness

- limited value as a friend/ally

The arab world will once again turn to the Great Satan to save it from its own excesses.

Hopefully, the USA does not succumb to GOP interventist pressure and manages to stay out of this conflict.

Unfortunately, I can see a few cruise missiles being fired off at poison gas depots, the locations of which are known.

Mr Cameron blames Tony Blair for poisoning the well of public trust in politicians

P.S.

What is "Dodgy Tony's" job now???

mideast peace envoy.

Great news. Looks like the Nobel Peace Prize winner will have to wage another illegal war on his own.

Yes, the refusal of the UK to intervene on humanitarian grounds will endear it to Iran and give the Russians and Chinese a good chuckle.

I bet the Gulf state arabs really value the "friendship" they have with the UK.

Although I agree with the refusal to intervene, that refusal carries with it some significant costs in the arab world;

- perception of weakness

- limited value as a friend/ally

The arab world will once again turn to the Great Satan to save it from its own excesses.

Hopefully, the USA does not succumb to GOP interventist pressure and manages to stay out of this conflict.

Unfortunately, I can see a few cruise missiles being fired off at poison gas depots, the locations of which are known.

Maybe it should be up to the Arabs to sort out this mess. We never hear of them proposing military intervention. they are equally happy to sit back and watch the mess.

I understand their fear of getting involved. the whole of the arab world needs to get its house in order, the only thing is those in power today won't be in power when it does finally happen. Shia against Suni!

I'm not one bit bothered about what the Middle East thinks, to me they're a bunch of smarmy back stabbing rats that have taken great delight in watching US and British soldiers being mown down fighting wars fought in their interest.

The Arab League have the firepower to wipe out Assad themselves, but they'll wait for the West to do it as usual.

As a Democrat, I applaud the decision, as a Technocrat, I deplore it. This vote should not have taken place until after the UN had reported. This vote is premature.

These votes should always be unwhipped, they should always be a matter of conscience, not party policy. I would think more of the politicians involved if the had voted against after seeing the UN evidence.

Putting that technicality aside........here's what I think.

Even if the UN reports back that chemical weapons were used, the UK government should say to the Arab League, it's your problem, you fix it.

Land the monkey straight on the back of the people with a vested interested. Let's see Arabian aircraft and Arabian soldiers stepping up for a change, and leave Our Boys out of it.

I hope Obama takes the same attitude, it's time that these extraordinarily wealthy and well armed countries started taking responsibility for what is happening on their door step.

Have a look at this breathtakingly accurate assessment by David Starkey........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuGdlhKT5-M

He's right you know, he's right.

I'm not one bit bothered about what the Middle East thinks, to me they're a bunch of smarmy back stabbing rats that have taken great delight in watching US and British soldiers being mown down fighting wars fought in their interest.

The Arab League have the firepower to wipe out Assad themselves, but they'll wait for the West to do it as usual.

As a Democrat, I applaud the decision, as a Technocrat, I deplore it. This vote should not have taken place until after the UN had reported. This vote is premature.

These votes should always be unwhipped, they should always be a matter of conscience, not party policy. I would think more of the politicians involved if the had voted against after seeing the UN evidence.

Putting that technicality aside........here's what I think.

Even if the UN reports back that chemical weapons were used, the UK government should say to the Arab League, it's your problem, you fix it.

Land the monkey straight on the back of the people with a vested interested. Let's see Arabian aircraft and Arabian soldiers stepping up for a change, and leave Our Boys out of it.

I hope Obama takes the same attitude, it's time that these extraordinarily wealthy and well armed countries started taking responsibility for what is happening on their door step.

Have a look at this breathtakingly accurate assessment by David Starkey........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuGdlhKT5-M

He's right you know, he's right.

Sorry I seem to be out of "likes" or I would give your post one

I agree with your post & with all the hardware & ordinance we have sold or given those

neighboring countries they can if they deem fit sort their own neighborhood.

Instead they want others to dirty their hands & reputation.

If the US wants to bomb Syria then bomb them with care packages, food, medicine, red cross,doctors if allowed

No problem with any of that & a noble gesture

Dropping explosives on a Sovereign State for what ever reason when they are having a civil war that

does not threaten us is off bounds.

Terrible to watch? Yes of course it is but, it is a civil war & one that they need to sort themselves.

It is not our place to choose sides lest it be seen as seeking control & looking for favors to later be repaid.

Not unlike Libya with its instant Central Bank

Good video too

Thanks

Edited August 30, 201312 yr by mania

This is one of the few times that I admire the parliamentary Labour party plus the 30 odd coalition MPs who voted on their conscience and NOT with the party.

The coalition MPs who voted against the government may have voted with their conscience; but the Labour MPs simply followed the party line.

Not interested in the rights and wrongs of the debate, simply playing party politics and wanting to inflict a defeat on Cameron.

This is one of the few times that I admire the parliamentary Labour party plus the 30 odd coalition MPs who voted on their conscience and NOT with the party.

Big Dave needs to understand that the way that the military in the UK has been cut we simply DON'T have the people or equipment available. We are no longer the people who conquered a third of the known world, the British fighting spirit with a few exceptions is no longer available.

The British military has been at war for over 10 continuous years in Iraq and Afghanistan neither of which are our wars.

The people don't want to attack Syria and are sick of the HAWK politicians who only know how to start wars but have no idea of how to run one and worst of all they have no idea of how to stop one

As my sig starts "The war is not meant to be won, it's meant to be continuous....."

True democracy in action.

Well done England.

I don't get chance to say that very often - especially where politics is concerned.

Edited August 30, 201312 yr by cardholder

True democracy in action. Well done England. I don't get chance to say that very often -especially where politics is concerned.

It wasn't the English parliament. Thankyou for your support for our independence though.

True democracy in action. Well done England. I don't get chance to say that very often -especially where politics is concerned.

It wasn't the English parliament. Thankyou for your support for our independence though.

You have it.

In spades....

BBC - Germany says no to intervention.

Great news. Looks like the Nobel Peace Prize winner will have to wage another illegal war on his own.

No the French are still up for a bit argy bargy.

I think Cameron has taken the defeat with good grace, Parliament has reflected the mood of the country even though they are shocked and sympathetic to what is going on in Syria, a good day for democracry.

Overall I think this will be a good thing for Britain and around the world other will see that Britain does not always follow blindly where the US goes and if BO is a bit mad he should have made a bit more of the "special relationship" because I dont think he cares to hoots about Britain and Europe although its nice to have free feed at the Palace every now and then.

Let the UN and the Arab League sort this one out.

In fairness they haven't ruled anything out, they've just demanded incontrovertible evidence before they support any action.

In fairness they haven't ruled anything out, they've just demanded incontrovertible evidence before they support any action.

Who really knows what is driving these decisions behind the scenes. This could all be motivated by less than honorable intentions.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23883048

Why is British parliament suddenly so timid about labeling someone a war criminal? is Assad not a war criminal? Gas civilians, torturing children and napalming school yards. People throw war criminal label around when it suits their agenda.

The point is, their little political show case skirted very real issues, was a bit deceptive and was perhaps motivated by less than honorable motivations.

I watched the debate live, can't say i was too impressed with Cameron or Milliband to be honest. But there were some very good contributions, not least from Conservative MP David Davis, very eloquent, i think the Tories missed a trick not electing him as leader when they had the chance. The uncomfortable shuffling of feet and squirming was very apparent when he made reference to the recently de-classified CIA files which lays bare the complicity of The US in aiding and abetting Saddam Hussain when he used sarin gas against Iran during the Iran - Iraq war, killing up to 50,000 Iranians. And then concealing it and lying when Iran tried to prove it at the UN. No wonder there is such scepticism about the true motives of the Wests concern for the people of Syria.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/08/cia-files-us-aided-iraq-with-iran-gas-attacks.html

The main problem Cameron faced i think, is that he produced no evidence at all regarding who was responsible for the recent attack, just kept quoting the opinions of the Joint Intelligence Committee, who of course were responsible for the false intelligence that led us into Iraq. Hence their opinions have no credibility whatsoever. Anyway, opinions are just that, not proof. Constantly repeating that the Syrian Government are the only ones in possession of chemical weapons so case proved, whilst studiously ignoring the fact that UN inspectors found evidence of use by rebels, and that a group of rebels were arrested in Turkey trying to smuggle four and a half pounds of sarin into Syria didn't help Cameron's cause either, which David Davis very eloquently and inconveniently pointed out! The final straw from the government's point of view was possibly the performance of Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, who was tasked with winding up the debate. He is coming in for some stick today from ministers, rightly so, it was a truly dreadful and inept performance.

Great news. Looks like the Nobel Peace Prize winner will have to wage another illegal war on his own.

Yes, the refusal of the UK to intervene on humanitarian grounds will endear it to Iran and give the Russians and Chinese a good chuckle.

I bet the Gulf state arabs really value the "friendship" they have with the UK.

Although I agree with the refusal to intervene, that refusal carries with it some significant costs in the arab world;

- perception of weakness

- limited value as a friend/ally

The arab world will once again turn to the Great Satan to save it from its own excesses.

Hopefully, the USA does not succumb to GOP interventist pressure and manages to stay out of this conflict.

Unfortunately, I can see a few cruise missiles being fired off at poison gas depots, the locations of which are known.

"limited value as a friend/ally" - Shouldn't that read limited value as a dhimmi puppet state?

Great news. Looks like the Nobel Peace Prize winner will have to wage another illegal war on his own.

Yes, the refusal of the UK to intervene on humanitarian grounds will endear it to Iran and give the Russians and Chinese a good chuckle.

I bet the Gulf state arabs really value the "friendship" they have with the UK.

Although I agree with the refusal to intervene, that refusal carries with it some significant costs in the arab world;

- perception of weakness

- limited value as a friend/ally

The arab world will once again turn to the Great Satan to save it from its own excesses.

Hopefully, the USA does not succumb to GOP interventist pressure and manages to stay out of this conflict.

Unfortunately, I can see a few cruise missiles being fired off at poison gas depots, the locations of which are known.

The arab world will once again turn to the Great Satan to save it from its own excesses.

Translates as, the Great Satan will once again prostitute itself for oil and more military hardware sales.

Yet again poor teenagers from places like Boise Idaho will be sacrificed in much the same way as they have been in the past to keep a drug lord in power in Afghanistan.

How many F-15s do the Saudis now posses, how about those F-16s in the Emirates, dont hear too much about the Omanis wanting to involve themselves.

Great news. Looks like the Nobel Peace Prize winner will have to wage another illegal war on his own.

Yes, the refusal of the UK to intervene on humanitarian grounds will endear it to Iran and give the Russians and Chinese a good chuckle.

I bet the Gulf state arabs really value the "friendship" they have with the UK.

Although I agree with the refusal to intervene, that refusal carries with it some significant costs in the arab world;

- perception of weakness

- limited value as a friend/ally

The arab world will once again turn to the Great Satan to save it from its own excesses.

Hopefully, the USA does not succumb to GOP interventist pressure and manages to stay out of this conflict.

Unfortunately, I can see a few cruise missiles being fired off at poison gas depots, the locations of which are known.

Out of curiousity don't you think ALL the Arab states in the region should sort Syria out themselves?

After all it is THEIR Muslim brothers who are suffering.

It is NOT the responsibility of Western governments to go around the world sorting it out and putting it to rights western style.

It is an Arab and Muslim problem. Let them sort it out.

Edited for bad spelling and poor eyesight.

Edited August 31, 201312 yr by billd766

Great news. Looks like the Nobel Peace Prize winner will have to wage another illegal war on his own.

Yes, the refusal of the UK to intervene on humanitarian grounds will endear it to Iran and give the Russians and Chinese a good chuckle.

I bet the Gulf state arabs really value the "friendship" they have with the UK.

Although I agree with the refusal to intervene, that refusal carries with it some significant costs in the arab world;

- perception of weakness

- limited value as a friend/ally

The arab world will once again turn to the Great Satan to save it from its own excesses.

Hopefully, the USA does not succumb to GOP interventist pressure and manages to stay out of this conflict.

Unfortunately, I can see a few cruise missiles being fired off at poison gas depots, the locations of which are known.

Out of curiousity don't you think ALL the Arab states in the region should sort Syria out themselves?

After all it is THEIR Muslim brothers who are suffering.

It is NOT the responsibility of Western governments to go around the world sorting it out and putting it to rights western style.

It is an Arab and Muslim problem. Let them sort it out.

Edited for bad spelling and poor eyesight.

I entirely agree with the sentiment but I fear that an 'Arab' solution is unlikely. 'Muslim Brothers' appear to come in different shades, sizes and persuasion - oh, and they continue to kill each other.

Great news. Looks like the Nobel Peace Prize winner will have to wage another illegal war on his own.

Yes, the refusal of the UK to intervene on humanitarian grounds will endear it to Iran and give the Russians and Chinese a good chuckle.

I bet the Gulf state arabs really value the "friendship" they have with the UK.

Although I agree with the refusal to intervene, that refusal carries with it some significant costs in the arab world;

- perception of weakness

- limited value as a friend/ally

The arab world will once again turn to the Great Satan to save it from its own excesses.

Hopefully, the USA does not succumb to GOP interventist pressure and manages to stay out of this conflict.

Unfortunately, I can see a few cruise missiles being fired off at poison gas depots, the locations of which are known.

Out of curiousity don't you think ALL the Arab states in the region should sort Syria out themselves?

After all it is THEIR Muslim brothers who are suffering.

It is NOT the responsibility of Western governments to go around the world sorting it out and putting it to rights western style.

It is an Arab and Muslim problem. Let them sort it out.

Edited for bad spelling and poor eyesight.

Not all the people are Muslim and not all are Arab. There are a number of religions, including Christians and ethnic groups, including Kurds.

In the last couple of thousand years, they haven't done a very good job of sorting out their own problems. They seem to do a pretty job in creating them, though.

This is one of the few times that I admire the parliamentary Labour party plus the 30 odd coalition MPs who voted on their conscience and NOT with the party.

Big Dave needs to understand that the way that the military in the UK has been cut we simply DON'T have the people or equipment available. We are no longer the people who conquered a third of the known world, the British fighting spirit with a few exceptions is no longer available.

The British military has been at war for over 10 continuous years in Iraq and Afghanistan neither of which are our wars.

The people don't want to attack Syria and are sick of the HAWK politicians who only know how to start wars but have no idea of how to run one and worst of all they have no idea of how to stop one

You are assuming that all the Labour members votes against the act - it was a free vote, so I would suggest that there were people in all camps voting on all directions. If there is a UN ruling for military action (however unlikely that is) - it is doubtful Britain would stay out of it, they would be obliged to act. The military has changed and numbers on the ground make little difference any more, nor do warships which is why the Navy has been decimated, subs, missile cruisers and carriers make sense - the rest do not. Technology like drones and missiles are the current order of the day - and tomorrow it will be almost purely cyber. Enough of a military will always exist for conventional action (such as bombing Syrian chemical stores/factories, comms and military installations) - the rest is just media fear mongering - if it was all sown to numbers in Karkheh, then we would all have been speaking Mandarin decades ago.

It was probably a correct vote for now - at least until the UN has had its inspectors in a while to legitimise the news and possible future risk. Then we shall see I guess - it is a dangerous slippery slope to turn a blind eye on such matters - Rwanda should serve as a reminder in doing so - and then it was just machetes and clubs.

I wonder if the Arab League will not end up in military action in the area. There has already been public accusation from Syrian government spokesmen stating it was Saudi and Qatar - and according to Reuters: "Arab League ministers will pass a resolution blaming Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for last week's chemical weapons attack in Damascus when they meet in Cairo next week, League officials said on Wednesday" http://www.thestar.com.my/News/World/2013/08/29/Arab-League-ministers-to-blame-Syrias-Assad-for-chemical-attack.aspx

Israel has also been blamed of course, and have threatened to take vengeance on Israel if the US intervenes - which of course they will not do - if they could have, they would have, but they know that would be a costly and fairly final decision!

30 government ministers failed to even attend the debate. Surely the whips failed to do their job here? Even if it was just to let DC know he was in deep shit with this vote.