Stop the War?

[Sue]

Helen Hayes' position. She is voting against air strikes. I was one of the (many) people who emailed her asking to vote against.

Dear Sue,

I am writing to you, as a member of the Labour Party in Dulwich and West Norwood, to outline my views on the situation in Syria, and my voting intention this evening.

I have received hundreds of emails asking for my views on the government?s proposal that the UK should join coalition forces and undertake airstrikes in Syria. I am grateful to everyone who has got in touch - including many of you - to share their views, both for and against airstrikes and those who have thoughtfully set out the complexity of the decision and the finely balanced nature of the arguments.

I attended the Prime Minister?s statement on Syria in Parliament last week, participated fully in the discussions and debates within the Parliamentary Labour Party, have been briefed by senior military officers and have listened carefully to the views of all of the local residents who have contacted me about this matter. I am writing to set out my views and my voting intention.

The conflict in Syria is complex and multi-faceted. Bashar al-Assad has waged a war of destruction against his people, resulting in unimaginable pain, misery and loss. 250,000 Syrians have lost their lives and it is no surprise that many thousands more choose to risk a perilous journey across Europe in search of safety and security. The highest level of correspondence I have received since being elected has been about the refugee crisis ? huge numbers of constituents have contacted me to say that the UK should do more to help refugees and that the UK must take action to help bring stability to Syria.

A country which was once peaceful and prosperous, the home of an extraordinarily rich cultural heritage, has been terribly damaged by civil war. The chaos has allowed ISIL (also known as Daesh) to gain territory in Syria, using the land and resources they control to fund a campaign of ideological warfare and international terror. Daesh is an entirely abhorrent organisation. There can be nothing but condemnation for an organisation which beheads and crucifies people, uses rape as a weapon of war, persecutes religious and ethnic minorities, and perpetrates the dreadful atrocities we have recently seen in Paris, Beirut, Ankara and Sharm El Sheikh.

The international community?s failure to take united action to address the situation in Syria has led to a significant deterioration over the past four years. I am clear that the UK has a responsibility within the wider international community to do more to address the crisis in Syria, and that there is an urgent need to act. This includes engagement to persuade Russia to withdraw support from Bashar al-Assad and for a new national government of unity in Syria.

Whether or not to support military action is the gravest decision that any Member of Parliament has to take and must be taken with clear conviction. The key question in this instance is whether authorising UK airstrikes will lead to a peaceful resolution in Syria and increased security in the wider world, and whether this is the best way to support our neighbour and long term ally France.

I listened very carefully to the Prime Minister?s statement last week. I was glad that he spoke of the need for a comprehensive programme of action in relation to Syria, including a long term commitment to aid and reconstruction and to diplomatic efforts to replace Bashar al-Assad. But there are important areas where I have serious concerns.

Diplomatic efforts to remove Bashar al-Assad as President of Syria, resolute efforts to cut off resources to Daesh, an international strategy to stem the ideological reach and growth of Daesh and to stop new recruits, and a continued commitment to international aid and reconstruction all form part of the approach which stands the best chance of a long-lasting peace for Syria. While the Prime Minister has highlighted the need for a comprehensive strategy I do not believe that he has identified all of the pieces of the jigsaw that are needed. There is a widely held view from many with extensive military experience that airstrikes are not the most effective way to defeat Daesh, and that bombing Raqqa would risk the lives of civilians.

The leadership of the Labour Party has agreed that there will be a free vote on the government?s proposals. For the reasons outlined above and having closely studied the government?s motion, I will be voting against UK airstrikes on Syria this evening. I acknowledge that there are a range of views on this matter within the country and the Labour Party and I respect colleagues who, after careful consideration, are taking an alternative view. I sincerely hope that the debate is undertaken in a respectful manner that reflects the magnitude of the decision at hand.

I hope that this will be read in the spirit of sombre reflection in which it was written. There will be consequences if Parliament votes for airstrikes, but there will also be important consequences for Syria if the international community fails to take effective action to tackle Daesh and to stop the fighting. The current choice is being presented by many as a choice between action or inaction. I believe that there is a pressing need for action, but it must be the right course of action.

I will vote against airstrikes this evening, but will press very hard for the UK to engage fully in a comprehensive strategy to achieve a peaceful resolution to the current conflict and for the long term reconstruction of Syria.

Best wishes,

Helen

Helen Hayes MP

Labour Member of Parliament for Dulwich and West Norwood

ETA: Ooops sorry, just seen this is on her website and a link posted to it above!

[DulwichFox]

Yes.. I agree we must be high on the list as an ISIL(S) target.. but to give them a legitimate excuse

(in their minds) to launch an attack is wreckless and will not IMHO make us any safer by attacking them.

Comments like 'Cutting off the head of the Snake' are ridiculous. This Snake has more than one head.

Like Cameron himself, there are many in the Conservative Party that are ready to take his place.

DulwichFox

[ratty]

Cameron should be ashamed of himself for that pathetic comment. Anyone trying to defend it should also be equallŷ ashamed and is equally pathetic. It disgusts me quite frankly.

[DulwichFox]

A Government that wants to protect UK Citizens lives.. Whilst at the same time people are dying in

Ambulances because money needed by he NHS to keep A&E units open is being used to build bombs and fund Trident.

Ironic ??

So people die anyway..

DulwichFox

[Blah Blah]

Agreed Fox. They are voting now. Cameron said he wanted to win any vote by a good margin originally. Public support (which wasn't much over 40% anyway) has been dropping away too.

[Blah Blah]

397 to 223. We go to war :(

That's a huge majority.

[ed_pete]

We're already at war in Iraq.

[Sue]

Hell in a handcart. Again. :(

[Blah Blah]

There are ground forces in Iraq. There are none in ISIL held Syria. We keep hearing about the stronghold of Raqqa. Who is going to take back that city? Anyone who thinks that tirbes that hate each other can be brought together to get rid of ISIL and then live peacefully side by side in the aftermath is in cloud cuckoo land. That is precisely why Iraq and Afghanistan are in the mess that they are. It is also why, as heinous as it is, you often end up with totalitarian dictatorships in government in the region. Libya is the perfect example of what kind of aftermath could be expected.

Bombing is just a first stage that could end up with something that demands a full scale western military invasion. Who in the region is going to deliver stability? From Saudi to Iran, they are all pretty awful regimes.

[Loz]

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Anyone who thinks that tirbes that hate each other can be brought together to get rid of

> ISIL and then live peacefully side by side in the aftermath is in cloud cuckoo land. That is

> precisely why Iraq and Afghanistan are in the mess that they are. It is also why, as heinous as it

> is, you often end up with totalitarian dictatorships in government in the region.

I've considered a couple of times lately that Assad may just currently be the least-worst realistic solution for Syria. At least in the short term.

[Blah Blah]

I think that's the conclusion the allies have come too. Deal with IS first, Assad after.

Harriet Harman voted for.

[red devil]

Hilary Benn > Jeremy Corbyn...

[Saffron]

But it's not two separate problems. There needs to be a strategy in place for both. There's currently no international consensus on Assad.

[Jeremy]

Are Russia on board with the US/NATO plan (whatever that might be), or are they still doing their own thing?

[Otta]

red devil Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Hilary Benn > Jeremy Corbyn...

Better speaker no doubt. But his speech yesterday just made me think of Jim Hacker doing his Churchill bit.

[DaveR]

"Harriet Harman voted for."

Almost every Labour MP with ministerial experience voted for. Party of govt vs protest party.

[WorkingMummy]

I just find the whole thing so confusing. Last time parliament voted, in 2013, the proposition was to bomb Assad. Now we are bombing ISIL.

When Cameron answered the question re ?wtf is then plan yesterday, he trotted off some answer about getting everyone involved to sit down and talk. "So first, we need to identify who those people are..."

?? We don't know who they are yet. But we are weighing in?

The only part of his explanation that really rang true was when he said, our allies keep asking us to do this.

[????]

?I wish I had the self-righteous certitude of our finger jabbing representatives of our new and kinder type of politics?

Alan Johson, nails it for me... Corbynistas NOT practising what their leader preaches. Angry, ignorant, middle class twats many of them.

[miga]

It's better to be seen as stridently doing anything, than to appear indecisive by thinking, planning and possibly deciding that doing nothing is the best option. Anyway, they can't bomb Assad now.

[TheArtfulDogger]

Maybe this man should lead the campaign

[DulwichFox]

Cameron will Bomb who the U.S. tells him to bomb.. He has very little say in the matter..

DulwichFox

[Otta]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ?I wish I had the self-righteous certitude of our

> finger jabbing representatives of our new and

> kinder type of politics?

>

> Alan Johson, nails it for me... Corbynistas NOT

> practising what their leader preaches. Angry,

> ignorant, middle class twats many of them.

I read a post from Jeremy Corbyn's Facebook page earlier (which someone else had shared I might add). His post itself was fair enough, but the comments were cringe worthy. And the spelling, ye Gods.

[Blah Blah]

DaveR Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Almost every Labour MP with ministerial experience voted for.

Yes that seems to be the case.

There is an air of 'we must help out our mates' in all of this. And that we should keep the illusion of being a great super power going even if in reality we are not. I think both Cameron and Blair share this vanity. It's about the dream of being a great international statesmen over common sense sometimes.

I think if we get a year down the line and little has changed (and esp if things are worse), Cameron will find himself under fire.

[malumbu]

Some good debate thanks. Just e-mailed my (non-Dulwich) MP who was a 'yes' - no info on his Website unlike other Labour MPs

[Otta]

"It's about the dream of being a great international statesmen over common sense sometimes."

I Di actually believe there is an element of truth to that.