The Briefing Room

General Category => World News => Topic started by: mystery-ak on August 30, 2013, 08:53:17 AM

Title: Obama's Syria plans in disarray after Britain rejects use of force
Post by: mystery-ak on August 30, 2013, 08:53:17 AM
Title: Re: Obama's Syria plans in disarray after Britain rejects use of force
Post by: Right_in_Virginia on August 30, 2013, 09:54:30 AM
We need a Congressional debate and vote!!
Title: Re: Obama's Syria plans in disarray after Britain rejects use of force
Post by: EC on August 30, 2013, 10:02:14 AM
Woah!!!!!

It was not rejected. It is a none binding resolution. It takes the tone of the House, but in no way limits the PM's ability to act. As I said on another thread, it was pretty much a party line vote.
Title: Re: Obama's Syria plans in disarray after Britain rejects use of force
Post by: Right_in_Virginia on August 30, 2013, 10:07:55 AM
Woah!!!!!

It was not rejected. It is a none binding resolution. It takes the tone of the House, but in no way limits the PM's ability to act. As I said on another thread, it was pretty much a party line vote.

And the PM's already stated several times publicly that he will abide by this vote and not join military action.
Title: Re: Obama's Syria plans in disarray after Britain rejects use of force
Post by: EC on August 30, 2013, 10:15:54 AM
And the PM's already stated several times publicly that he will abide by this vote and not join military action.

Wanna buy a bridge? One lady owner. Polished it twice a week.

The US goes in, we go in. Full stop. You know that, the world knows that.
Title: Re: Obama's Syria plans in disarray after Britain rejects use of force
Post by: Scottftlc on August 30, 2013, 11:07:50 AM
I think the action by Parliament was highly important because it was the act that gave attention to the matter in the U.S. and started the questioning of this entire folly.  Before, America was sleepwalking into Obama's next deadly dalliance with radical Islamists.  Britain has now given a voice to the opposition here and people are paying attention whereas before the opposition could not even get attention, let alone traction.

Britain has done a service for America with that vote...regardless of whether or not Obama plows ahead with this destructive folly, and regardless of whether Britain ends up getting drug into it.
Title: Re: Obama's Syria plans in disarray after Britain rejects use of force
Post by: EC on August 30, 2013, 11:56:04 AM
Not a snowballs chance I will disagree with you on that.

The US is backing the wrong side. We know it, but "proud rebels rising up against a dictator" is far more emotive for the ones who don't hunt for the real news.

Do I like Assad? No. Do I like the alternative? Hell no!
Title: Re: Obama's Syria plans in disarray after Britain rejects use of force
Post by: Oceander on August 30, 2013, 01:15:09 PM
Woah!!!!!

It was not rejected. It is a none binding resolution. It takes the tone of the House, but in no way limits the PM's ability to act. As I said on another thread, it was pretty much a party line vote.

Nonetheless, does the vote signal any risks to Cameron's continued government if he chooses to ignore the vote?  In other words, if he ignores it and a bunch of UK troops get plastered, is he going to face a vote of no confidence?
Title: Re: Obama's Syria plans in disarray after Britain rejects use of force
Post by: Dengar01 on August 30, 2013, 01:16:48 PM
It is amazing to me how the liberals are all for bombing Syria.  The same bums who wanted Bush impeached are all beating war drums. 

This speech by Kerry right now is making me literally want to puke!
Title: Re: Obama's Syria plans in disarray after Britain rejects use of force
Post by: Oceander on August 30, 2013, 01:17:52 PM
It is amazing to me how the liberals are all for bombing Syria.  The same bums who wanted Bush impeached are all beating war drums. 

This speech by Kerry right now is making me literally want to puke!

One of the essential characteristics of liberalism is hypocrisy, dyed-in-the-wool hypocrisy.
Title: Re: Obama's Syria plans in disarray after Britain rejects use of force
Post by: EC on August 30, 2013, 01:19:49 PM
Nonetheless, does the vote signal any risks to Cameron's continued government if he chooses to ignore the vote?  In other words, if he ignores it and a bunch of UK troops get plastered, is he going to face a vote of no confidence?

It is possible. Labour will certainly push for one. They will not have the votes, on current count. Having just watched the Kerry presser - he was 32 minutes late - right now I am feeling "Oh, crap!!"
Title: Re: Obama's Syria plans in disarray after Britain rejects use of force
Post by: Oceander on August 30, 2013, 01:23:53 PM
It is possible. Labour will certainly push for one. They will not have the votes, on current count.

At present; however, suppose the US initiates a unilateral attack and the UK follows the US in, only to take some unpleasant hits, would that cause more of the members to side with Labour?
Title: Re: Obama's Syria plans in disarray after Britain rejects use of force
Post by: massadvj on August 30, 2013, 01:26:23 PM
It is amazing to me how the liberals are all for bombing Syria.  The same bums who wanted Bush impeached are all beating war drums. 

This speech by Kerry right now is making me literally want to puke!

You mean Mr. "Global Test" says we should strike unilaterally?  Imagine that!
Title: Re: Obama's Syria plans in disarray after Britain rejects use of force
Post by: EC on August 30, 2013, 01:36:04 PM
At present; however, suppose the US initiates a unilateral attack and the UK follows the US in, only to take some unpleasant hits, would that cause more of the members to side with Labour?

That's a toss up. We take unpleasant hits then talk about the weather (think the IRA or the 7/7 bombings) - so in a way no. With the current make up of the House, if push comes to shove the vote will be mostly party lines with a few votes of conscience either way, probably cancelling each other out, which will narrowly defeat a vote of no confidence. Might not be by much - 4 votes maybe - but Cameron should squeak by even if there is a right royal SNAFU.
Title: Re: Obama's Syria plans in disarray after Britain rejects use of force
Post by: EC on August 30, 2013, 01:47:02 PM
Double post, sorry.

There is an additional complication. A vote of no confidence has to be accepted by the Queen in person. She actually has to sign off on it, since the PM serves at her pleasure. Considering the long ties to and treaties with Jordan and Israel, that would be difficult to grant during a time of war aimed at our long time allies.
Title: Re: Obama's Syria plans in disarray after Britain rejects use of force
Post by: Cincinnatus on August 30, 2013, 02:50:36 PM
You mean Mr. "Global Test" says we should strike unilaterally?  Imagine that!

Yeah, imagine. Remember the constant din from the Left about how Bush had no support from other nations with his Iraqi invasion?

This whole thing is rife with hypocrisy and thus far the MSM has been silent on that point.
Title: Re: Obama's Syria plans in disarray after Britain rejects use of force
Post by: Oceander on August 30, 2013, 02:52:06 PM
Double post, sorry.

There is an additional complication. A vote of no confidence has to be accepted by the Queen in person. She actually has to sign off on it, since the PM serves at her pleasure. Considering the long ties to and treaties with Jordan and Israel, that would be difficult to grant during a time of war aimed at our long time allies.

Which raises an interesting interplay of powers and the relationship between the Queen and the Prime Minister.  As I understand it, although the Queen has the technical authority to overrule the Prime Minister, in practice she almost never does - in part, as was explained to me by Greg Craven when I took Con. Law with him in Australia, because it would be an undemocratic thing to do and dangerous for a head of state who does not stand for election and therefore cannot be said to have the support of the public solely by virtue of her position as Queen.  Certainly, as Craven pointed out, the Queen can and does mercilessly grill the Prime Minister over legislation she finds objectionable during their consultations, and that the Prime Minister will often return to Parliament to try and remove those issues repugnant to the Queen, but that at the end of the day the Queen will normally accede to the wishes of the people as expressed by the legislation passed in Parliament.

It raises an interesting interplay because it normally when a Parliamentary act is brought to the Queen for approval, it is the Prime Minister who is the principal advocate for the act in persuading the Queen to approve the act; however, in a case such as a no-confidence vote, I would assume the Prime Minister would not advocate for that vote, despite the fact that he would have to stand as a school-boy and face the Queen's probing questions about why she should not accept the vote.  Interesting because the roles are reversed in a sense and now it is the Queen - the unelected head of state - who is advocating for the will of the people as expressed by Parliament, and the Prime Minister - the elected member of Parliament in charge of the government - who is advocating against the expressed will of the people.
Title: Re: Obama's Syria plans in disarray after Britain rejects use of force
Post by: AbaraXas on August 30, 2013, 03:08:57 PM
Title: Re: Obama's Syria plans in disarray after Britain rejects use of force
Post by: Oceander on August 30, 2013, 03:13:28 PM
Title: Re: Obama's Syria plans in disarray after Britain rejects use of force
Post by: EC on August 30, 2013, 03:18:59 PM
You got that exactly and perfectly right.

The Crown is not a figurehead, though it has been reduced to a shadow of itself (rightly, I say). The reigning monarch is supposed to be the embodiment of the wishes of the people and the country. That is the ideal, anyway, though you can imagine how many times it falls short  :laugh:

Since She can't speak to everyone, the will of the people is represented by the MP's. Her job is to implement that, as long as it will not harm the nation as a whole. Deciding if a particular piece of legislation was potentially harmful used to be the job of the House of Lords. That aspect of the checks and balances system has pretty much gone by the wayside. Since they were not elected, the Lords - in theory - had no outside influences. Coming from all three branches - Lords, Clergy and Judicial, it was assumed that if legislation was approved it was beneficial to the country as a whole.