Does Theresa May need MPs to approve UK action in Syria?

Latest news

    Media playback is unsupported on your device

    Media captionThe US president has said “nothing’s off the table” – so what options are on the table?

    As Theresa May weighs up what role – if any – the UK should have in military action against Syria, the question of parliamentary approval will need addressing. So far this week the prime minister has side-stepped it.

    Much will depend on the scale and timing of the missile strike the United States seems poised to launch in response to the apparent chemical weapons attack last week.

    Theresa May certainly could agree to launch UK missiles from a Royal Navy submarine or RAF jets without MPs giving the green light first. Because, while the recent practice has been for governments to win the backing of parliament before UK military action it is only a convention to do so and a recent one at that.

    In March 2003 the Blair government’s move to secure the approval of MPs in advance of the Iraq invasion was the first time the decision to go to war had been given to parliament. That established a precedent that has been followed since and Theresa May will be acutely aware of how events played out.

    Of most relevance today is the Commons vote David Cameron held in August 2013 on a motion agreeing to potential UK military action against President Assad in Syria following the use of chemical weapons.

    MPs were recalled from their summer recess, a debate was held and the government lost the division by 13 votes. Labour opposed the motion but so did 30 Tory MPs and 9 Lib Dems – who were then part of the coalition.

    The vote was a political and diplomatic disaster for David Cameron and the US had to shelve its plans for military action. Five years on, there is no chance Theresa May will risk a re-run of that. If she does seek parliamentary approval she will only do so if she knows she can get it.

    Mrs May might find other votes more encouraging.

    For instance, in 2011 the Commons voted overwhelmingly in favour of military action in Libya by 557 to 13. Crucially, that vote came soon after UK, US and France carried out air strikes against the Libyan forces to enforce a UN-mandated no-fly zone. MPs are currently away on recess and there is no sign a parliamentary recall is brewing.

    So if the UK does decide to take part in US-led action in Syria it is possible MPs are asked to vote after the missiles have been launched.

    Two other votes are relevant. In September 2014 MPs voted by 524 to 43 to sanction UK air strikes against Islamic State forces in Iraq. In December 2015 David Cameron returned to the Commons to seek authorisation to extend the strikes against IS into Syrian territory. Jeremy Corbyn instructed Labour MPs to vote against the motion but 66 of his own MPs, including front benchers, voted with the government and the motion was passed by 397 votes to 223.

    So how might House of Commons arithmetic add up if Theresa May took a new motion to MPs asking them to approve military action against President Assad now? Remember, Parliament has never given its backing to military action against the Syrian government, only to air strikes against Islamic State forces based in the country.

    Clearly a lot would depend on the wording and scope of the motion.

    While there is cross-party revulsion at the apparent use of chemical weapons in Syria many MPs are likely to have concerns about the ramifications that could follow military action, not least a possible confrontation with Russia.

    Unlike David Cameron, Theresa May is running a minority government with a working majority of just 13. All votes are potentially dicey. Of those 30 Tory MPs who voted against military action in 2013, 23 are still in the Commons.

    It is almost impossible to imagine Jeremy Corbyn instructing his MPs to vote for air strikes. But it is also a safe bet a section of the parliamentary Labour Party would ignore him again.

    These are some of the political considerations Theresa May will be mulling over.

    Jeremy Corbyn has already said parliament must have a vote. Parliament “should always be given a say on any military action”, he said on Wednesday.

    Media playback is unsupported on your device

    Media captionSuspected chemical attack is ‘barbaric’ – May

    The Iraq vote in 2003 set a precedent and the UK’s experience of the conflict that followed frames this argument. But it is not parliament’s right to decide when Britain goes to war.

    The ability for a prime minister to take military action is one of their royal prerogatives. A government is allowed to use that power on behalf of the Crown.

    Over the last decade or so ministers have thought about introducing legislation that would enshrine that convention in law but the idea of a War Powers Act has always been abandoned.

    Governments do not want to surrender their power to deploy Britain’s armed forces and they don’t want their hands tied by parliament.

    In the end, Theresa May will have to make a political judgement. One of the hardest a prime minister can face.

    View the original article:

    In the same category are

    Trump-Putin summit: US president under fire over poll meddling comments Media playback is unsupported on your device Media captionThe ways Trump and Putin see eye to eyeThere has been a barrage of criticism in the US aft...
    Usain Bolt may play football trial in Australia Image copyright EPA Image caption Usain Bolt has played in a number of exhibition matches this year Eight-time Olympic champion Usain Bolt is in t...
    Millions to face hosepipe ban in north-west England Image caption Carlisle and north Eden Valley are exempt from the forthcoming ban England's first hosepipe ban this summer has been announced by Un...
    ‘How we made Now That’s What I Call Music 100’ Image copyright BBC / Now Music Image caption The Now series has sold more than 120m copies in the UK since it launched in 1983 The 100th edition ...
    UK heatwave: Hidden landscapes the heatwave is revealing As the summer sun continues to beat down on the British Isles, ghosts are appearing in the yellowing fields.Normally kept hidden by lush grasses and...
    The perilous search for ‘Himalayan viagra’ More valuable than gold, Yarsagumba fungus is only found in the Himalayan mountains above 3,000 metres (10,000 feet). Every spring people come from mi...

    Leave a comment

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.