tv British House of Commons Debate on Airstrikes in Syria CSPAN December 2, 2015 6:30am-8:31am EST
>> they believe that british planes will make a real difference in syria just as they are already doing in iraq. honorable gentleman. >> it's important in this debate that there's respect across the house. will the prime minister must apologize on every member of the opposition last night. [shouting] >> i really do suggest that we get on with the debate that the country wants to hear about. in many ways what i've just said helps to answer the next
question that some members have asked why we don't increase level of air strike to free up other coalition capacity in syria. we have these capabilities that other members of the coalition benefit from and it doesn't make sense to stop that daesh do not respect. let me make this argument. this is an important detail point. there was a recent incident in which syrian opposition forces needed urgent support in their fight against daesh, british tornadoes were eight minutes away just over the border in iraq, no one else was close, but britain couldn't help so the syrian opposition forces had to wait 14 minutes while other coalition forces were scrambled. that sort of delay endangers lives of fighting daesh.
>> can he understand that already too many aircraft chasing too few targets, what concerns many of us is lack of comprehensive strategy both military and nonmilitary including an exit strategy, what are the fundamentals differences between iraq and syria is you have nearly a million personnel on the government payroll and still having trouble pushing ie -- isil back in syria and quite frankly we forget lesson in libya. could i ask what is his reaction to foreign affairs committee yesterday that actually the prime minister had not adequately addressed our concern. [shouting] >> let me answer both of my honorable questions, wishing the honorable member well given his
recent illness who is always at the foreign affairs commit combri and always voting on a nonpartisan basis. but where my honorable friend and i distbrees, i believe there's a strategy of which military action is only one part and the key answer to his question is that we want to see a new syrian transitional government whose troops will be our allies in squeezing out and destroying the so-called calefit all together. but my disagreement is that we cannot wait for that to happen. the threat is now. isil daesh are planning the attack now. we can act in syria as we act in iraq and in doing so we can enhance long-term security of our country.
>> will the prime minister join me to review policy when they wrote to me to say that they can't use the word daesh because i would breech the rule. we are at war, we have to defeat the ideology. we have to unit it in us. join me in bizarre policy. >> i agree with my honorable friend. i corresponded with the bbc about their use of is, islamic state which i think is even worse, frankly than isis saying so called is or isil. daesh is clearly an improvement. it's important that we all try to use the language. let me make some problem and i will give way some more. there's much more fundamental answers as to why we should carry air strikes in syria ourselves. it's this. hq of threat to our security. it is in syria where they pump and sell the oil that does so
much to help finance the evil act. it is in syria where gave form. >> i would prefer to hear an apology but i want to discuss the fact, the fact is that we are proposing to be targeting very different things than we are targeting in northern iraq. what practical steps will be used to reduce civilian casualties and secondly, what sorts of targets will be going that reduce threats in uk and directed against our citizens? >> training camps, communication hubs, those plotting against us. as i'm going to argue in a minute, the limited action that we took against hussein which
was an air strike on syria has had an impact on isil, on daesh. how do we avoid civilian policies. one year and three months into the iraqi operations we haven't had any reports of civilian casualties i'm not standing here, you know, there are no casualties in war, of course, there are, it's a very difficult situation we are putting ourselves into it. hugely complex, it's a difficult argument in many ways to get across but it's hard, a simple point which is will we in the long-term be safer and get rid of which is radicalizing muslims [shouting] >> let me take a question from my honorable friend. >> would he agree with me that there are already hundreds, if
not thousands of civilian casualties, those who burned on buildings, crucified who had to flee syria, those are the civilian casualties we are trying to help. [shouting] >> my honorable friend has put it freely. that's one of the aims that we are doing, which is to prevent this death cult from carrying out it does on a daily basis. let me make some progress. let me turn to the question whether there will be ground forces a success. those who say there aren't as many ground troops that we would like, they are correct. we are not dealing with an ideal situation. let me make important points. first, we should be clear what air strikes can do. we don't need ground troops to hit isis health health headquar.
it's clear air strikes can have an effect with the issue of khan and hussein. it can do serious damage to daesh and we should give them that support. >> i think the -- i thank the prime minister. how would the prime minister respond to the point that daesh since offensive against baghdad has actually changed tactics, dispersed courses and particularly raqaa600000 people all through that city into small units which make it attacks from tornadoes given the small number of tornadoes we have. >> that's not an argument for not doing something. it's an argument for using air strikes where you can but having
a longer-term strategy to deliver ground troops. do we wait for perfection, which is a transitional government in syria or do we start the work now of degrading and destroying the organization at the request of our allies, at the request of the gulf states, on the knowledge from our security experts that it will make a difference? make a little bit of progress and i will take interventions from both sides. as i said last week, the full answer to the question of ground services can be achieved until there's a new syrian government, not just sunni, christian jews and others, the new government that will be natural partners in defeating daesh for good. there are some ground force that is we can work on for the meantime. let me give the explanation and colleagues can intervene as they like. last week i told the house we believe there are about 70,000
opposition fighters who do not belong with extremist groups. the house will appreciate there are some limits as to what i can say about this group, i can't risk the safety of the courageous people who are being targeted by the regime or by daesh or both. i know this is an area of great interest and concern for the house so let me try and say a little more. the 70,000 is an estimate of independent joint committee based on detailed analysis updated on a daily basis and drawing on a wide range of open source and intelligence. all of these 70,000, the majority are from the presyrian army, along the 70,000 there are some 20,000 kurdish fighters with whom we can also work. now i'm not arguing -- this is a crucial. i'm not arguing that all of the 70,000 are somehow ideal partners. some, though, left the syrian army and they clearly can play a
role in the future of syria. and that is a view by the russians as well as well. >> you spoke about long-term strategy in syria. possibly more of a challenge with russia. i wonder if he can update the house and conversations that he had with president putin directly or by the united states as to the short and long-term of president assad. >> i've had conversations with president putin on many occasions. the president of the united states barack obama had a meeting tat climate change in paris. as i said before in this house, there was an enormous gap between, britain, america, france and saudi arabia and russia on the other hand. we wanted assad to go instantly.
they wanted him to stay potentially forever. that gap has narrowed and i think it will narrow further. let me make a point because some people worry it's a process. the very clear ambition in the viena talks is for a transitional government within six months and a new constitution, fresh elections within 18 months. there's a real momentum behind these talks. let me give way to the honorable member. >> he remains completely committed to humanitarian effort which has kept so many people alive by the government in that region. [shouting] >> i can certainly confirm that. the second largest bilateral donor in the world after america and will be keeping and will be cosharing in london to make sure
we fill the gap of the funding. >> if it comes to the house and asked for narrow to take out isil i think it would command a widespread consent. he's asking for wider authority than that. in iraq there are ground forces in place. in syria there aren't. a little bit more at the. >> at least about what ground forces he envisions joining us in the syrian raqaa. >> the difficulty of this case. i don't think you can separate taking out the commander and control of isil's operations against the uk, france, belgium or elsewhere. i don't think you can separate that from the task of degrading or destroying the daesh they've
created. the two are linked. as i argued in front of the house last week, as long as this so calefit exist it's a threat to us. it is radicalizing muslims from across the world who are going to fight for that organization and potentially returning to attack us. second question about ground troops as i've explained. there are three parts of the arguments. don't underestimate them. the ground troops that are there. not ideal, not as many as we would like. three, the real plan is as you get a transitional government in syria that can represent all the syrian people, there will be more ground troops for us to work with to defeat -- defeat daesh and the calefit. i know that's complex and that's the strategy but we need to start with the first step which is going after the terrorist
today. let me take the honorable lady. >> i'm grateful but i think the prime minister has to acknowledge that the ground troops with which we can work with would be absolutely essential for the long-term strategy and at the moment he has not shown to me that as we defeat isil we create a vacuum into who assad will move and another enemy. can i give motherly advise, whoever does not work with the division of it, he would improve his standing in the house enormously. [shouting] >> i'm very happy to repeat what she said. people who vote either division of it do serve with honor. i couldn't be more clear about that. what i would say to her if she's saying there aren't enough ground troops, she's right. if they're not always in the right places, she's right. the question for us is should we
act now in order to try to -- let me make some progress. i just want to be clear about the 70,000. that figure does not include a further 25,000 extremist fighters in groups which reject political participation and reject coordination with nonmuslims. so although they fight daesh they cannot and be our partners. mr. speaker, there are ground force who is will take the fight to daesh and many many cases we can work with them and we can assist them. i want to make one final point and i will give away to the leader of is smp if we don't act now, we should be clear there would be even fewer ground forces over time as daesh will get stronger. we have to act now. >> would you clarify for every member of the house the advise
that he's been given and ores have been given in relation to the 70,000 forces that he speaks of? how many of those 70,000s are classified as moderate and how many of them are classified as fundment alists that can never work with? >> over 70,000. the advise i have is that the majority is made up of free-syrian army. 70,000 excludes those. as i said very clear with, i'm not arguing that the 70,000 are ideal partners. some of we don't agree with. the 70,000 is those people who have been prepare today work with and continue to be prepare today work with. let me make this point again f we don't take action against daesh now the number of ground forces we can work with will get less and less and less.
if we want to end up with the situation with a butcher assad in one hand and stronger isil on the other side -- [shouting] >> i know from my time in government how long and how hard the prime minister thinks about these he's questions, but will he ensure that we complete the military aspect of this campaign at all possible so we can get on to the really important, perhaps the most difficult aspect of the questions he's posed, namely the post conflict destabilization? >> i think my friend who himself thought about this is right. that's the end goal. we shouldn't take our eyes off the prize. it's a syria a peace so we don't have the migration crisis and terrorism crisis. that's the goal. let's turn to the overall
strategy. i said it in the house last week. let me say a little more about the nonmilitary elements. counterterrorism, counterextremism and the vital humanitarian work. gives britain a comprehensive plan and also to address the poison ideology that's the root. we will establish a comprehensive review to root out any remaining funding of extremism within the uk, this will examine the nature, scale, origin including any overseas sources. it will report to myself and my right secretary next spring, there are some that suggest that military action can undermine by
radicalizing british muslims. british muslims are appalled by daesh. they are hijacking the peaceful religion of islam. as the king of jordan says in his article today, these people are not muslims, they are outlaws from islam. we must stand with our muslim friends here and around the world as they reclaim their religion from these terrorists. so far from an attack on islam, we are engaged in a defense of islam. [shouting] >> far from the risk of radicalizing, failing to act betray muslims. i give way to the honorable gentleman. >> the prime minister said that -- [inaudible] >> the saudis, turks, why do
they not fight these people? [shouting] >> the turks are taking part in this action and urging us to do the same. the saudis are taking part in this action and urging us to do the same. the jordanias are doing the same. the second part of our strategy is support for the diplomatic process. it begins with identifying the right people to put around the table. next week we expect regime to negotiate under united nations. over the last 18 months, political and armed oppositions
have converged. we know the groups and the ideas. saudi arabia will host a meeting for representatives in riadt united nations will take steps, which we expect to take place before christmas. aim is clear as i've said, transitional government in six months, a new constitution and free elections with 18 months. i would argue that the key elements of a deal are emerging. opposition groups coming together t regime looking at negotiation, the key players, america and russia, saudi arabia and iran and key regional players like turkey all in the room together. my argument is this hitting daesh doesn't hurt the process which hurts -- [shouting] >> murderers on the beach and carnage in paris changes everything and the british
people would find it rather odd that it would take something more than that for britain to stand shoulder to shoulder with a number of other countries and to take on daesh. >> my honorable friend speaks for many, they attack us for who we are and not what we do. they want to attack us again and again. the question is do we answer the call of our allies, closest friends in the world. the french and the americans who want us to join with them and our partners in this work or do we ignore the call. we ignore the call, think for the moment that it thinks as britain as as an ally, think of the countries in the region. if britain won't come to the aid of france, its neighbor in these circumstances just how reliable a neighbor and a friend and ally this country is. let me make some progress on
humanitarian because i'm conscious of the time. extra 1 billion pounds that we are expected to commit in syria reconstruction and the alliance in rebuilding phase. mr. speaker, let us be clear and my honorable friend made this point, people will not return to syria if part of it is under the control of an organization that enslaves, throws gay people off buildings and forces children to mary before they are 10 year's old. >> welcome any comments british muslims in scottland from daesh and i welcome the use of terminology, now, i ask the prime minister as a new member of the house, also been in the chamber for some period of time
on such occasions, given that the language being used would be considered on becoming of for the benefit to new members, would the prime minister -- [shouting] >> in relation -- >> everyone is focused on the main issues in front of us and that is to be focused. >> let me turn to the plan. i said we would be prepared to committing the billion pounds. protection, security, stabilization and issue measures including basic humanitarian needs such as education, helping the refugees to return. over time the focus would shift, long-term rebuilding of syria's shattered infrastructure, expertise of financial institutions and the private sector. as i said last week, we are not
in the business of trying to dismantle the syrian state or institutions. we would aim to allocate reconstruction funds against a plan agreed in syrian government and international community once the conflict had ended. i'll take another one from over there and go to a close. >> i'm grateful to prime minister. what matters to my constituents is whether they already safer after this process takes place. we are attacking the heart of this terrorist organization. will he assure the house as well as taking action in syria he will also sure up services, scottish services in the united kingdom? >> i think that's what our constituents want to know. what are we doing to strengthen our borders, intelligent information across europe, what are we doing to strengthening, all of this we should see through the prism of national
security. that's what our first duty is. and when you have your allies asking you, the intelligent there, the knowledge that can make a difference, i believe we should act. let me take question from liberal democrats. >> he rightly make it is point of how important it is that we don't just stand with allies and friends in europe but stand with them as well. however, prime minister has not stood with european allies in the matter of taking our fair share of refugees from this chris sis and other. will he look again at the save children request that this country take 3,000 orphan children refugee currently in europe? >> i would say we have made -- played a huge part. no other european country has given enough as much as britain has and we've also going to take 20,000 refugees with a thousand arriving by christmas, but i'm happy to look once again at the issue of orphans. i think it's better to take
orphans from the region rather those that come over with extended families, but i'm happy to take a look both in europe and out of europe to see if britain can do to filadelfia -- fulfill responsibility. we cannot use for excuse of inaction. let's be clear, mr. speaker, inaction does not amount for strategy for security or for the syrian. inaction is a choice. i believe it's the wrong. we face clear threats. we've listened to allies. we have unanimous united nations resolution. i responded personally to the detailed report of the foreign affairs select committee. we have a proper motion before this house and we are having a ten and a half-hour debate today n. that spirit i look forward to the rest of the debate. i look forward to listening to
contribution of the members on all floors of the house. the house will come together in large numbers for britain to play its part in defeating these evil extremists and taking the action that is needed now to keep our country safe. in doing so, i pay transcribe out to the extraordinary bravery and service of our inspirational armed force who is will once again put themselves in harms way to protect our values and our way of life and i commend this motion to the house. [shouting] >> the question is mission number 2 as on the order paper. i call the leader of the opposition jeremy corbin. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the whole house recognizes the decisions to send british forces to war are the most serious solemn and morally challenging of any that we have to take as members parliament.
the motion brought before the government today authorizing military action in syria against isil faces with exactly that decision. one with consequences for all here in britain as well as people in syria and middle east. for all members take a decision that british servicemen and women in harms way lead to death of innocence is a heavy responsibility. ..
>> thank you for prime minister the move. will have to move on with the debate. and i hope he will be stronger later to recognize that yes, he did, and apologizing for will be very helpful to improve the atmosphere of this debate today. will my honorable friend give i speak with yes. >> my honorable friend, i thank them. as you probably for the out of the prime minister has not shown leadership by not withdrawing his or on the others.
we also agree with me that there is no place whatsoever in the labour party for anybody who is been abusing those members of the labour party who choose to vote with the government? [shouting] mr. speaker, abuse has no part in the responsible, democratic political dialogue. i believe very strongly. that is what i wish to conduct myself and wish others would conduct themselves in that way. if they do give way then i will move on. >> i am grateful for my friend giving way. would he agree with me that -- prime minister made a clear apology he would clear the air so we could move on? >> as he often does in these occasions he appears to be taking advice from a chancellor
of the exchequer on this matter. if you want to apologize now that's fine but if he doesn't, well, the whole world to note he is not apologizing. mr. speaker, since the prime minister first made his case for extending british going to syria the lastly, questions espresso most of the house have only grown and multiplied. that's what the matter of such concern that the government has decided push this vote through parliament today. it would have been far better to allow a full two days debate that would've given all members a chance to make a proper contribution and you yourself, mr. speaker, and for those that wanted to do some have applied to speak in this debate. it is, mr. speaker, -- >> i'm grateful for the right honorable joe been giving way. he and i worked together on issues. hinault so tough fighting faces in both iraq and syria.
his shadow foreign secretary believes the poor conditions debated at labour party conference for taking action and syria have been met. why does he disagree with him on that? >> he may have to wait a few moments to hear that but it will be in my speech, i can promise him. but also am pleased he has made respect to the kurdish people because at some point over the whole of the middle east and the whole -- that has to be a recognition of the rights to kurdish people, whichever country in which they rest. he and i have shared that view for more than 30 years. my view has not changed all that. [inaudible] >> i thank my wonderful friend for giving way, and i'm glad he mentioned the kurds. cootie be clear at the dispatch box that he or anyone on this binge in a way will want to remove the air protection which is voted on with an overwhelming majority in the house 14 months
ago? >> i thank my friend for the intervention is not part of the motion today. so we move on with this debate. [shouting] >> is in possible, i think, mr. speaker, t tug-of-war conclusion that the prime minister understands that public opinion is moving increasingly against what i believe to be an ill thought out rush to war. and he wants to hold this vote before the opinion grows even further against him. whether it's the lack of strategy, the absence of credible ground troops, the missing diplomatic plan for a syrian settlement, failed to address the impact of the terrorist threat, or the refugee crisis and civilian casualties, it's becoming increasingly clear that the prime minister's proposals are military action simply do not stack up.
>> i'm very grateful to the honorable gentleman give way, and i agree what has been said and the case has not been proven. i wonder under the circumstanc circumstances, i wonder whether not he will reconsider that it's important that the labour party and it's entirety join with these benches here -- to make sure this government -- [inaudible] >> everybody has to make a decision today. every mp has a vote today. every mp has constituency at every mp should beware of what constituents and public opinion is that they will make up their own mind. obviously, i am proposing that we do not support the government motion tonight and i would encourage all colleagues on all sides to join in the opposition lobbying tonight to the government's proposal. last week the prime minister focused his case for bombing industry on the critical test
cross party foreign affairs select committee. given the holes in the government's case it's surprising that last night the committee reported the prime minister had not come and i quote, adequately addressed their concerns. in other words, mr. speaker, the committee judged, judged that the prime minister case for bombing and failed its case. [shouting] spit i'm grateful for the right honorable gentlemen. with the absence of his honorable friend who would have resisted that motion. but it is on a narrow point where it almost impossible for the prime minister to adequately meet those concerns given the fact he's not in a position to produce sufficient detail
obviously to satisfy some of my colleagues. it is a very weak point for him to rely on. [shouting] spirit i thank the member, and he and i have often a very amicable discussion on many of these issues and i'm sure we will again. the fact of the matter is ago at the meeting of foreign affairs select committee there was a verdict given that the prime minister had not adequately addressed the concerns. now, obviously i understand our differencdifferenc es of opinion. goodness, there's plenty of differences of opinion all around this house. [shouting] so i ask the chair of the select committee to recognize that a decision has been made by his committee. after the despicable and horrific attacks in paris last month, the question of whether the government proposal for military action strengthens or undermines our own national
security must, mr. speaker, be the center of our deliberations. there is no doubt that the so-called islamic state group, mr. speaker, i've given way quite a long time already. they are 107 members who wish to take part in this debate and so i think i shall try to move on and see the upside which seems to meet with your approval, mr. speaker. there's no doubt the so-called islamic state has imposed care. in iraq, syria in lebanon. it also causes a thread our own people. the issue now is whether extending british bombing from iraq to syria is likely to reduce or increase that threat to britain. and whether it will counter or spread the kerry campaign isil is waging across the middle east. the answers don't make the case for the government notion on the contrary their warning set back
the vote against yet another ill-fated twist in this never ending war on terror. let's start with the military dimension. the prime minister has been unable to explain why extending airstrikes to syria will make a significant military impact on the existing campaign. i feel it already -- syria our rack by the u.s. airstrikes, britain and russia, and other powers. canada has interestingly withdrawn from this campaign and no longer takes part in it. during more than a year of bombing isil has expanded and lost territory. isil gains include iraqi city of ramadi and to syria city. the claim that the superior british missiles will make a difference is actually quite hard to credit, when the u.s. and other states as an intervention said earlier, when u.s. and other states are struggling to find targets come
extending british bombing are not likely to make a huge difference. secondly, the prime minister has failed to convince almost anyone that even if british participation in the air campaign would tip the balance to the incredible ground forces at the take back territory now held by isil. in fact, mr. speaker, it's quite clear to our no such forces. last week the prime minister suggested that a combination of kurdish militias, the free syrian army, would be able to fill the gap. he even claimed a 70,000 strong force of fighters who were ready to coordinate action against isil with the western air campaign. that claim has not remotely stood up to scrutiny. kurdish forces are a distance away, in the sunni area were
isil controls. it includes a wide range of troops, few if any would regard as moderate and mostly operate in other parts of the country. k visa on the ground forces can take against of a successful anti-isil air campaign are stronger, jihadists and salafis groups close to the iso controlled area. i think the are serious issues we need to think very carefully. because i believe that's what the prime minister bombing campaign could lead to. this is why the subject that -- try to i would give way but i think i should enable to make what i think is an important part of this contribution. this is why the logic of an extended air campaign is, in fact, mission-critical. and western boots on the ground, whatever the prime minister me say now about keeping british combat troops out of the way of
our a real possibility. thirdly, military aim of attacking isil targets in syria is not really part of a coherent diplomatic strategy. the resolution passed after the pairs atrocities and side in today's government motion does not give her an unambiguous authorization for uk bombing in syria. to do so it would've had to be part under chapter seven of the united nations charter to which the security council could not do. [shouting] the u.n. resolution is certainly a welcome framework. for joint action to cut off funding, oil revenues, arms supply from isil. but i wonder how much is
happening? [inaudible] nsse to cut off their oil supplies i do very much agree with them. [inaudible] >> here, here. >> the problem is the oil supplies that are being sold by isil are going into other countries come into turkey and to other places. and i think we need to know, i think we need to know exactly who is buying the oil, who is funding that oil, what banks are involved in financial transactions which ultimate end up with isil an in which other countries in the region may or may not be involved in it. that's despite, mr. speaker, the clear risk of potentially disastrous instance, the
shooting death of a russian military aircraft by turkish forces is the site of the danger of a serious escalation of this whole issue. but i'm grateful to them for giving way. the number of these grants is known and to compensate is also unknown but we did it is they are by definition opposition fighters. they are anti-assad. does he agree that the prime minister's still needs at how we can work with them to retake ground from daesh without getting brought into wider conflict with russia considering they are on the other side? >> i think the member mentioned a very important point and she has been very active in trying to promote humanitarian resolutions to the many conflicts that exist around the world. fortunately, mr. speaker, the prime minister has avoided spelling out the british people the warning he has surely been given. the rightly impact of uk
airstrikes on the threat of terrorist attacks in the uk. that's something everyone should wait and think about it very carefully before we vote whether or not just in our air pilots into action over syria. it is critically important, mr. speaker, that we as a house are honest with the british people about the potential consequences of the action to transfer is proposing to his today. i'm aware that there are those with military experience, including members on the benches opposite as well as the site, -- [shouting] that sending uk bombings will and i quote come increase the short-term risk of terrorist attacks in britain. we should also remember the impact, mr. speaker, on communities here in britain. since the terrorist attacks has been a sharp increase in
islamaphobe at instance and physical attacks are discussed this with people at my local mosque in my constituency, and a terrific. shirley, mr. speaker, the message from all of us in this house today must go out. none of us and we can say this together, we will not tolerate any form of anti-semitism, islamophobia a racism any form in this country. >> here, here. >> the prime minister has not offered a series assessment in my view, of the intensified air campaign on civilian casualties in isil held syrian territory, or the wider syrian refugee crisis. at least 160,000 have already been killed in syria is a terrible civil war. 11 million made homeless and 4 million forced to leave the country. many more have been killed by
the assad regime than by isil it so. yet more bombing in syria will kill innocent civilians. there's no doubt about that. and turned many more syrians into refugees. yesterday i was sent a message from a constituent of mine who comes from syria. i'm sorry, it's not funny. it's a family who is suffering. i quote from his message, i am a syrian from a city which is now controlled by isil. members of my family still live there, and many were killed. my question today is can you guarantee the safety of my family when you're air forces dropped bombs on my city? it's a fair question from a family who are very concerned.
[shouting] >> thank you very much. i would say to my right honorable gentleman i speak as a member of the military who has left and there's a fundamental point here that we think that the leader of the opposition is making, that is a that this is about national security. all these conflicting arguments, the complex situation is very, very difficult it becomes delta national security and inhibiting what these people are trying to do on the streets of this country. >> here, here. >> yes oyes, of course is featun the streets of this country in all of our communities is a very important. that's why we have supported the government's, no longer the same stretch of cutting the police and also increasing security in this country because clearly none of us want any kind of atrocity on the streets of this country. by perot was deeply affected by
7/7 in 25 -- 2005. >> order. i would jus just say the membero has the for cannot be expected to give way to a further intervention when he's in the presence of managing an existing one. the honorable gentleman is experienced enough in this has to be aware of the. mr. jeremy corbyn. >> i would like to -- [laughter] >> i'm very grateful the leader of the opposition. in making this point since the leader of the opposition has said that there 70,000 moderate sunnis that the prime minister claimed as their, consists of many different jihadists groups. and there is some concern, i think it's across the house, that in potentially degrading
isil, daesh, which is possible, we actually create a vacuum into which other jihadists, overtime. that surely does not make the streets of britain safer. spent mr. speaker, i now give way to the member. >> thank you very much. i'm very, very grateful for him giving way. he has a consistent position militia opposing airstrikes. on 26th of september 2014 when he voted against airstrikes against isil in iraqi said this, he said i do not believe that further airstrikes and the deepening of our involvement will solve the problem. as he maintained his opposition to airstrikes in iraq though only increase and extend into syria? >> mr. speaker, i think both members for the intervention and the point made my honorable friend made is a very service one. we have to be careful about what we do in the future.
we have to ask the prime minister has said and others have said we have to be very aware of the danger of some people, mainly young people being people radicalized agenda doing very, very dangerous thing safety. if the radicalization of some, a very small number but nonetheless a significant number of young people across europe products of a war or something else? i think we need to think very, very deeply about that and think they're very deeply about what's happened in this world since 2001, and the increasing numbers of people that are suffering because of it. i rest my case at that point. there is, mr. speaker, ndu wide -- [shouting] there isn't a strategy -- [shouting] -- to provide humanitarian assistance to those victims. mr. speaker, perhaps most importantly of all i ask the prime minister this. is he able to explain how
british bombing in syria will contribute to a comprehensive negotiated political settlement of the syrian war? such a settlement is widely accepted to be the only way to ensure the isolation and defeat of isil. isil grew out of the invasion of iraq and it is forged in syria, and the chaos and horror of a multi-fronted civil war. spoof i thank my right honorable friend for giving way. the prime minister spoke often between a choice of action and inaction. but those of us who will be voted against airstrikes we also want to see action. the prime minister said almost nothing about cutting off the financial supply for daesh which helped radicalized recruits. does my right honorable friend agree with me that we need
action on this point? >> we absolutely need action to ensure there is a diplomatic and political solution to the crisis. i welcome what the prime minister said about speeding up the process in vienna, bush was a message ought to be let's speed that up rather than sending the bombers and now to bring about political settlement. [shouting] what we need, therefore, mr. speaker, is an involvement of all the main regional and international power. now, that i know, i know that is being attempted. i know that there have been discussions in vienna, and we welcome that. i think it is regrettable that -- trench on going to make progress with his speech if i may. there are over 150 members who which to speak, therefore i think long speech from the front bench is taken out of backbenchers speeches.
so the aim must be to establish a broad-based government in syria that has the support of majority of its people. difficult as that is at the present time. [shouting] >> no. such a settlement could help take back territory from isil and bring about lasting defeat from syria. ultimately, mr. speaker, i am really sorry to have to tell members opposite, i've given away quite a lot on members on both sides to i'm not going to continue with my speech. [shouting] >> ultimately -- [shouting] >> order. very long-established convention of his house. the member who has the floor gives way or not as he or she chooses. the lead of the opposition has made it clear that for now he is not get away. the appropriate response isn't an endeavor to jump up and shout give way. it's just not terribly sensible.
mr. jeremy corbyn. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the point i was make it was the ultimate dissolution in syria has to be but all the people of syria but i think on that surely we all agree. [shouting] >> i thought i made it clear, mr. speaker, mcclure that at the moment i'm not giving away. i'm really sorry but i'm not, okay? shot back. >> the government's proposal -- [shouting] the governments proposal -- -- >> point of order. spent mr. speaker, there is indeed -- he on the floor decide whether to give with it is not also customary to also questioned whether putting intervention and we are waiting for the answer on iraq. [shouting]
>> the honorable gentleman is a sufficiently experienced parliamentarian who know that he's made his own point in his own way, and it's on the record. mr. jeremy corbyn. >> thank you, mr. speaker. [shouting] try to if i could move on with the speech i would be most grateful to the government's proposal -- [shouting] the government's proposal for military action in syria are not backed by clear and unauthorized, clear and unambiguous authorization by the united nations. it does not meet a group our own foreign affairs committee but it does not fulfill three of the four conditions laid down in my own party conference resolution a couple of months ago. [shouting] the past week, mr. speaker, boyce have been given to great opposition to the government's plans across the country. in parliament and in immediate
and, indeed, in my own party. and i believe it's a consideration of all the wars we've been involved in in the last 14 years. these matters were degraded through my own campaign to be elected the leader of the labour party, and many people think very deeply about these matters. the right of the record of western military interventions is one that has to be analyzed. british bombing in syria risks yet more of what president obama in a very thoughtful mom called the unintended consequences of the war in iraq, which he himself opposed at the time. iraq, afghanistan and libya looms over this debate. [shouting] mr. speaker, i am not giving way. i'm going to carry on with my speech.
[shouting] >> mr. speaker, to oppose another war and intervention, in my view, is actually not pacifism. it's common sense which i think we should be thinking about it today in this house. to resist our self-determination to draw the western powers back into the middle east isn't to turn our backs our allies. it's refusing to play into the hands of isil of what i suspect some of them wanted to do. is in the wrong for us when we sesee a problem, passing motion, drop bombs and pretending we are doing something to solve it? that's what we did in afghanistan, iraq, libya. has terrorism increased or decreased as a result of all of that? the prime minister said he was looking to build a consensus
around the military action he wanted to take. i don't believe he has achieved anything of the kind. he has failed in my view, to make the case for another bombing campaign. all of our efforts are going to go into freeing the syrian civil war to an end. iraq, afghanistan, libya, i ask members to think very carefully about the previous decisions we have made. [shouting] what we are proposing to do that they descend british bombers -- >> point of order spent on a number of occasions of receiving complaints from the public, what do you think the public thinks when i write on both in the leader of the opposition is being shouted out constantly by the government benches? >> i think what the public wants is a civilized the robust debate
by members on both sides of the house. i think the honorable gentleman, very experienced member for the point of order. let's proceed without fear or favor. mr. jeremy corbyn. >> thank you, mr. speaker. sometimes in this house we get carried away with the theatrics of the play, and forget the art millions of people who sent us to this house to represent them, and we should be able come and we should be able to conduct our debates any decent, respectful and civilized manner. and short as this debate is compared the number who want to speak, i hope all those members who have applied to speak to get called. and i conclude with this point, mr. speaker. in my view, only be negotiated political and diplomatic endeavor to bring about an end
to the civil war in syria will bring some hope to the millions who have lost their homes, who are refugees, who are came out and there is point all across europe, dreaming of a day that they can go home. i think the overriding goal should be to end of the civil war in syria. and, obviously, also to protect the people of this country. that is why, mr. speaker, i do not believe that the motion put by the prime minister achieve that because it seems to put the emphasis on bombing now were as i think the emphasis should be not on bombing now, but i'm bringing about all our endeavors, all our intelligence and all our efforts -- [shouting] i think it very strange that members don't seem to understa understand, they don't want to hear people shouting at each other. for those reasons, for those reasons, mr. speaker, for those
reasons, mr. speaker, i urge members on all sides of the house to think very carefully about responsibility lies with them today. do we send in bombers not totally unaware of what are the consequences are going to be, or do we pause, not sinned and come and instead put all of our efforts into bringing about take peaceful, humanitarian and just political settlement to the terrible situation faced by the people in syria? >> or alan duncan. >> mr. speaker, i don't think there is anybody on either side of the house, as all of us are trying to show responsibility and duty who in any way relish the decision that we are being asked to take today. it is not straightforward like the response in patients of the
falklands. it's a very for difficult decision we are being asked to take it and taking it i think we have to have two issues in the forefront of our thinking. first, the security of our own country, and secondly the desperate need to restore stability in the middle east. but rather, i would like to pick out and emphasize a few points which i would ask the house solemnly to consider. the question of whether to commit our armed forces has actually over the last figures become seriously muddied, both by the painful expense of past decisions and by the complexity of the unfolding disorder across the arab world. the experience of afghanistan and asking for which the leader of the opposition referred, and
of iraq, more significantly, have led to growing precedent and, indeed, unrest. the first point i would like to emphasize is that he must take the decisions today based on the merit of the day. we must base it on the day's facts and not on yesterday's mistakes and regrets. >> here, here. >> welcome before i give way quickly, can i just point out politely to the stop the war coalition. that when it actually comes to syria, stopping the war is exactly what we want to do. >> here, here. >> i think the gentleman for giving way. i absolutely agree that what we need are facts and greater clarity about our capability to
take on the task that is ahead of us. yesterday we were told that there were between 20 and 30,000 daesh across syria and iraq but i could be given a number as to how many taliban were fighting in afghanistan to get a comparative when we had 10,000 of our troops and 30,000 others fighting to get i couldn't get that. i couldn't get an answer to how -- automatic editing get an answer to how many troops we will be flying. do we need those questions answered? >> these must not be speeches, however well intentioned. alan duncan. >> i appreciate the search for certainty in the middle east is a vain hope, perhaps the watchword which 35 years ago when i first -- if you're not confused you don't understand. [laughter] it is a very, very complex world in which we are fighting a
daesh. secondly, mr. speaker, let me move on to my second point. the second point if i might address this right honorable gentleman the leader of the opposition, we must not underestimate the extent and the nature of the danger we face and say that because it's all over there, it's not over here. it's not only a vicious force running rampant through that measurable space between iraq in syria. it is also between those who would readily walk up the main street of a major city with a suicide bomb or a caring a collapsing bomb. so to those in favor of airstrikes would increase the danger, i would urge them not to get into that narrative. these people are already targeting us now. >> here, here. >> thirdly we have to see this threat -- no. in the context of even come of
even greater regional danger. we are witnessing the collapse of nation-states across potentially -- along with a violent release of centuries of sectarian hatred. a crucial element of our policy, mr. speaker, should be to try to stop the spreading. and that means that we must support stable rules within six countries of the gcc and those -- conduct, simply do not understand the horror that would be unleashed by further instability in the region. even now we face the real prospects of an art of brutality and terrorism stretching from syria through iraq to yemen, right across into a terrifying link with the horn of africa.
and forcefully, we can't turn away from this threat and subcontract our obligations. >> here, here. >> if we are to pursue the destruction of ice is a daesh and rebuild stable governments -- ice is daesh -- and underpin wider stability and make more and make all of that a series in convincing objective of our foreign policy, we must be part of the convoy that is trying to do it. we cannot watch it roll by on not playing our part. but, frankly, our reputation, our international reputation has suffered from the vote in august 2013. our allies now question -- no. whether we can be relied upon
when they call for joint assistance. mr. speaker, if we choose today to ring on the sideline, especially when there is a new and unequivocal u.n. resolution in place, it signals to the world that the uk has indeed chosen to withdraw. mr. speaker, we should not be in the business of national resignation from the world stage. >> here, here. >> perhaps indeed the paradox of our position today is not that we are doing too much, but that we are doing too little. but if i get the concern come and in manila correctly to the right honorable gentleman, the leader of the opposition, it is the action i hope we will vote for tonight is not the whole answer. at the prime minister is not pretending that it is.
the hopes that local so-called moderate forces can do the job on the ground and somehow put humpty dumpty together again is of course more an act of faith that a certain plan. but i think it's wrong, however, that the leader of the opposition to dismiss the significance and conclude that their composition is sufficient reason to do nothing. tonight, mr. speaker, i think we should carry the motion. we've got to carry it with our eyes open, knowing that we are flying into a mass that shows that easy prospect on being quickly resolved, but we cannot leave a viable force unchallenged. >> here, here. >> mr. speaker, these airstrikes it do matter. i believe they are justified. i also think my view, the future
judgment of the prime minister about what then follows will eventually become more important than the decision we're taking tonight. >> here, here. >> mr. angus robertson. [shouting] >> it's a pleasure to follow the right honorable gentleman, a fellow member of the intelligence and security committee although if there will be in different places. mr. speaker, -- implementing support which appears in my name and those of honorable and right honorable gentleman, i dropped into the fact -- [inaudible] signed by members of six different political parties and over 100 members from across the house and it reads that while welcoming the renewed emphasis towards piece and reconstruction in syria and accountants recognition that accompanies a strategy against daesh is required but not the least the participation in the ongoing air campaign in syria by 10 countries has been made under current circumstances, and
consequent declined to authorize -- >> here, here. >> mr. speaker, med begin by thanking the prime minister. i'd like to thank them for his statement and his nationals good advice and colleagues from the minister of defense, the foreign commonwealth office and other agencies. and i again put on record our appreciation to all of those who are charged with keeping a safe at home and abroad. >> here, here. >> and notwithstanding the profound differences i have with the prime minister on the issue, i would wish to commend him of parliamentary in recent weeks -- [inaudible] it's disappointing to say the least that he chose to describe opponents of his bombs aspect -- describe opponents of his plans. [inaudible]
>> the and in the is signed by my colleagues, both of whose husband served in the armed forces with distinction. it's also been signed by members of northern ireland who have expressed terrorism firsthand. it is totally wrong for members of this house -- bombing syria. i fear he is not going to. [inaudible] i will give way to the prime minister if he wishes to apologize. [shouting] i hope the prime minister regrets what he said. [shouting] -- share the concerns with her when else house as a country
about the terrorist threat by daesh, the assad regime and regular raised the issue of refugees across the region and in your. europe if there is agreement that the threat is real and doing nothing is not an option. however, however we recall that only two years ago this prime minister, this government wanted us to bomb -- [inaudible] which we no doubt would have strengthened them. now, of course, there is no shortage of countries currently bombing in syria. most recent the russians have been targeting daesh and too often the moderate opposition to assad as well. strikes in syria includes and it's a long list, australia, bahrain, canada, france, jordan, saudi arabia committed in which also uses brimstone as a weapon,
the republic of turkey which addressing is also bomb our allies in kurdistan, the united arab emirates in the united states of america. open sources confirm, mr. speaker, that since september 2014 these airstrikes have included falcons come f-22's, super hornets, sea launch tomahawk cruise missiles and also weapons from drones launched from above the syria. the united states center command confirmed that the united states has conducted more than 2700 airstrikes in syria. in its update from the combined joint strike force coalition shows that military forces have continued to attack gays terrorists in syria, send bombers and remotely-piloted aircraft -- in a moment. these have included -- destroyed and isil tactical vehicle -- i'm
everything from reports from the united states military, from raqqa, this would isil vehicles, one strike destroyed and isil vehicle, two strikes strike and isil tactical unit and destroyed and isil checkpoint. the point is there is bombing currently underway in syria, and to pretend that what is being proposed while not taking that into account is highly misleading and they give way to the honorable gentleman. >> does he think there is a legitimate case for those operations i would want them to withdraw? >> i'm supportive of efforts which are later stabilization in iraq. it's very important, but i would like to stress one thing in particular. i think we have a particular responsibility towards the kurds, old in the back and in
syria. and i would wish that the prime minister would use his good offices would do with nato allies that we do not undermine efforts in iraq and syria. [shouting] and ensure that turkey does not bomb our kurdish allies. i've given way and that will make progress. the prime minister has asked us to listen to his speech for bomb in syria and we have. i know have repeatedly asked to very specific questions to all members on both sides by the south but how will the uk plan to compete on the grid in syria? the house of commons workers committee asked which ground forces will take hold and administered territories captured from daesh in syria? and the second question, the second question that i posed was how will the uk plan secure long-term stability and reconstruction in syria, given that the uk spent 13 times more
bombs in libya and honest post-conflict stability and reconstruction? and ask the prime minister, how much do you estimate this will cost and how much has he allocated from the united kingdom? i would like to turn to those two questions. regarding the issue of growth forces would've told our 70 troops that are opposed to assad and daesh which could take the territory that daesh currently holds. the problem is that only a part of those forces are moderate and there's actually no evidence whatsoever that they would deploy from other parts of the country. i asked the prime minister and interventions and members will have heard. i asked the prime minister of those 70,000, how many are moderate and how many are fundamentalist? i have not had an answer to that question and i would like many members of the comments aikido the rest of the house what that
is. [shouting] >> -- critical issue on the critical issue posed by -- i will give way in a moment to distinction of intelligence and security committee, of course i will but this is an absolutely vital point. it was a vital point raised by the ford affairs select committee, a key part of the argument of having any credibility that a bombing strategy will lead to meeting a long-term piece in syria and it was the daesh, is our grand -- ground forces cable taking the ground? we are repeatedly, that asked again, will any, i will give way, if any member of the government side wants to elucidate and explain to the house where the prime minister would not, therefore secretary,
i'm happy to give way to him if he will confirm what is the makeup of the 70,000 -- [shouting] >> tried to i have not asked a question directly to the prime minister which he didn't answer. i challenged the force i could answer the question. is anybody else from the government side who answer the question? i give way to the honorable gentleman. >> we are at a very similar points. the point the right angle gentleman is making is a knit picking quibbling point -- [shouting] if he wanted me out. if you will hear me out. if you will hear me out. it's dancing on the head of a pin to try and achieve the result of the honorable gentleman's answer. the on these people, we have to trust them. they are not on -- site and
they're not on isil site. we need to work with them. >> here, here. >> let's get this right, mr. speaker. the prime minister has been asked the question. before secretary chu was given an opportunity to confirm the answer to the house. members from the government were asked the question. i see another member prepared to intervene so let me except of that intervention if we're going to get an answer to the question, 70,000, non-assad and non-daesh forces, how many of them are moderates and how many of them are fundamentalist? i give way. >> he is a clever man and he rarely ask a question that he does not know the answer to himself. so i will put the question back to you. how many moderates he thinks? and also recently tied up on the 70,000. seems he has forgotten the courage and syria from the several battalions of syria christians and also the arabs in north and northeast syria who
will work with the free syrian army to take on daesh. no answer. >> anybody watching this debate and reading hansard in the future will be able to recognize that this question has been asked time and time and time again and we have not had an answer to that question. i have given away a significant number of times no. [shouting] and nobody has answered me and nobody -- [shouting] sorry. if my ex-dean -- my esteemed colleague is able to answer the question i would be delighted. >> what interests me about the argument the right honorable gentleman is putting forward is erased is perfectly legitimate questions which should i hope be answered in the course of the debate. but what he glosses over is what
his and his party's position is on the current operations which i think you will agree with me are, in fact, controlling daesh ability to do violence and cruelty in the area, and terrorism in europe. and if, indeed, those actions at the moment involving our allies both in syria and in iraq are achieving that goal i find it difficult to -- how we ourselves should not cooperate. >> here, here. >> i have great respect for the right honorable judgment and i will comment later but we haven't heard and acted to the question which i oppose. if the honorable gentleman can answer the question.
[shouting] >> i think the right honorable gentleman for giving way. are members of the foreign affairs select committee, -- [inaudible] the answer that you seek, i contend, is about 10-15,000 that would be absent -- the answer given by everyone there. >> that's a very favorite import intervention from the honorable lady. from her experience and having traveled the region she is suggesting that the government figures that we been provided are massively wrong here and this is a favorite important point, mr. speaker. we are now hearing on a crucial
issue raised by the ford affairs summit committee a crucial -- far from the 70,000 we heard, it's significantly less. they should worry us all and i will have made some progress. the problem with this issue and it is a critical issue, is that it is only a part of the forces that the prime minister and his colleagues have spoken about are moderate and there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever that they would definitely -- [inaudible] and it appears totally -- that a comprehensive -- any redirection of any forces from other fronts in syria. on stabilizing and rebuilding syria, mr. speaker, the second question i pose to the prime minister, it will cost $170 billion to rebuild syria to
the prime minister has made a commitment that should be 1 billion pounds which is welcomed money to do with the rebuilding after the stabilization of syria, which we welcome. we are entitled to ask however, mr. speaker, whether contribution of less than 1% of what is required is realistically going to be enough. >> here, here. >> yesterday like some of the members of the house i took the time to meet syria exiles to hear their views. it was heartbreaking to hear about people who are literally surviving just on hope and a 16 year-old who only wishes to attend their makeshift school in the basement. they asked whether we are -- stop fighting assad and move into other parts of the country to fight daesh.
that asked how we expect people to fight daesh if they have no feeling of any support. now yesterday, mr. speaker, -- [inaudible] from many different organizations, from solidarity uk, from the sunni community in manchester, from the kurdish house and the syrian community southwest, from scotland to syria, from the syrian welsh of society, from the syrian platform for piece and the syrian association of yorkshire or and in their letter to us they said that mps are asking the wrong question on syria. that being whether or not to bomb daesh. they said, they said complex and make the point and then i will give way to the honorable gentleman, they said from his many organizations across the united kingdom that daesh must be defeated for the sake of the people in syria as well as people in europe and britain as well. however, they stress the
greatest threat comes from assad rather than daesh with a number of people killed by the assad regime being over to have timed the view pane so that is killed during the second world war. i give way. >> i'm very grateful for giving way. irrespective of how this house votes tonight, isn't it important that we do see a successful political resolution to the difficulties in syria? and given that prime minister has set out timescales where he expects to be a transitional government, which is a price i was at those timescales given the current impasse between the likes on one hand of russia and iran, and on the other hand, the u.s.a. and france and others in respect of the future of assad speak with the honorable gentleman makes a good point. i'd like to give way to the
honorable gentleman who i wish to commend on behalf of all of us in the house for the support of the campaign with all daesh, real name which is daesh and nothing else. >> thank you, and your entire party wanting to support me in this campaign when i first raised when changing the terminology to the defeatist evil organization. will he join me and urge the lead of the opposition to join his own foreign secretary to join his select committee, to join the treasury, to ensure we use of the right common object to defeat this terrorist organization? ..