MPs have
overwhelmingly voted by 397 to 223 to authorise UK
air strikes against so-called Islamic State in Syria .
During
a 10-hour debate, David Cameron argued that action against the "medieval
monsters" of IS was legal and would "keep our country safe".
Labour
leader Jeremy Corbyn said the case for war "does not stack up" - but
his party was split, with senior Labour figures voting with the government.
The
government has said bombing raids would begin "as soon as practical".
Foreign
Secretary Philip Hammond said he would not give a "running
commentary" on operations, having earlier suggested bombings could begin
as early as Thursday.
Welcoming
the result, Mr Hammond said Britain
was "safer because of the actions taken by MPs today".
'Confronting evil'
The
BBC's political editor Laura Kuenssberg said 67 Labour MPs, including several
members of the shadow cabinet, voted with the government to back air strikes
after their MPs were given a free vote.
Shadow
foreign secretary Hilary Benn was applauded by MPs from across the House,
particularly on the Conservative benches, when he urged his own side to
"confront this evil" posed by Islamic State, who he said "held
our democracy in contempt".
In
an impassioned speech, he said the international community was "faced by
fascists and what we know about fascists is that they must be defeated".
While
there were "rarely perfect circumstances to deploy military forces",
he said " the threat is now" and the UK must rise to the challenge.
Former
Cabinet ministers Alan Johnson, Yvette Cooper and Margaret Beckett also spoke
in favour of military action. But former leader Ed Miliband was among Labour
MPs to vote against.
Full
details of which MPs backed air strikes, and which Conservatives rebelled
against the government by voting against, will be released in due course.
The
SNP, which opposed military action, said it was disappointed and it feared the
outcome would lead "to Iraq
and Libya
all over again".
Democratic indeed but...
No comments:
Post a Comment
Say what is on your mind, but observe the rules of debate. No foul language is allowed, no matter how anger-evoking the posted article may be.
Thank you,
TruthSeeker