Limits over UK’s use of military force ‘would entrench inaction’
Rees-Mogg rebuke for Corbyn in Commons
JEREMY CORBYN’S proposal to limit the Government’s ability to launch military operations would “entrench inaction”, MPs were told during a bad-tempered debate over whether Parliament should have been consulted over the Syrian airstrikes.
Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg took the Labour leader to task over his approach to the missile strikes over the weekend, telling MPs of the numerous powers Parliament already has to check the use of military force – dating back to the Bill of Rights in 1689.
Opening the second emergency debate in as many days on Britain’s role in missile strikes on Syria’s chemical warfare facilities, Mr Corbyn called for the introduction of a War Powers Act that would force future UK governments to seek approval from Parliament.
He said Mrs May’s predecessor, David Cameron, had sought authority for military action on several occasions, though the Prime Minister said the proposed measure would “seriously compromise” national security, national interests, and the lives of citizens at home and abroad.
Several Labour MPs defied Mr Corbyn’s request to vote against the emergency debate motion, as the Opposition sought to express its dissatisfaction at the Government’s treatment of Parliament in relation to the military action in Syria.
The motion, which stated the House of Commons has considered Parliament’s rights in relation to the approval of military action by British forces overseas, was approved by 317 to 256 – majority 61.
During the debate Mr ReesMogg challenged the Labour leader to call a vote of confidence in the Government if he did not feel comfortable with the Syrian air strikes.
He said: “It would have been open to the opposition instead of going for an SO24 debate, to ask for a vote of confidence in Her Majesty’s Government, and I think that would have been the right thing to do having listened carefully to the Leader of the Opposition’s speech.
“The opposition fundamentally does not have confidence, or its leadership does not, to have made this decision and then we would have seen whether this House had confidence in the executive to make the decisions that are the legitimate business of the executive.”
He added: “That it has not chosen to go down this route actually shows that the opposition is of a pacifist tone, and that may be honourable and it may be noble, but it is different from upsetting our constitution merely to entrench inaction.”
Opening the debate yesterday, Mr Corbyn said: “I am sorry to say the Prime Minister’s decision not to recall Parliament and engage in further military action in Syria last week showed a flagrant disregard for this convention.”
But Mrs May defended her decision to take action without seeking Parliament’s approval, saying that coming to the Commons beforehand would have compromised the “effectiveness of our operations and safety of British servicemen and women”.
Mr Corbyn, who faced a badtempered atmosphere in the Commons with Tory MPs consistently looking to intervene, said such an Act could “specify at what point in decision-making processes MPs should be involved, as well as retaining the right of Ministers to act in an emergency or in the country’s self-defence”.
Tory MP Andrew Bridgen drew laughs in the Chamber with a sideswipe at Mr Corbyn, suggesting the Labour leader would not authorise military action even if the Isle of Wight were invaded.
And Mrs May attracted cheers from the Tory benches with her response to a question from Labour MP Karen Lee, who suggested US President Donald Trump had more say over UK foreign policy than MPs.
THERESA MAY’S diligence over her Parliamentary duties has been a redeeming feature after she was criticised by Labour – and others – for not seeking the prior approval of MPs before authorising the RAF to join France and America in targeted airstrikes against the Syrian regime.
In doing so, she’s convinced politicians like William Hague, a former Foreign Secretary, that the Prime Minister should retain the prerogative to authorise military action without Parliament’s consent, not least to protect the operational security of the Armed Forces.
Mrs May’s standing in Parliament appears enhanced. Her statement on Monday, setting out the humanitarian and legal case for intervention, was followed by three hours of questions by MPs that were answered respectfully.
She then remained in the Commons for Labour MP Alison McGovern’s threehour debate on the plight of Syrian refugees, before winding up on behalf of the Government at 10.50pm and responding to the more valid points made by backbenchers.
She also led the Government’s response to yesterday’s separate debate in which Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn called for a War Powers Act to limit the powers of Prime Ministers.
Mrs May’s example stands in contrast to the total confusion that existed over Parliamentary procedures – Commons leader Andrea Leadsom and Speaker John Bercow both appeared clueless – and then the confusion which ensued when Mr Corbyn tried and failed to persuade MPs to vote against his own motion which stated that MPs had considered their rights in relation to the approval of military action by British forces overseas.
What a farce. Evidently, he wanted to make a symbolic point but, in doing so, Mr Corbyn helped Mrs May to justify her actions and demonstrate why prime ministers should retain the right to act in the national interest when necessary.