British parliament defeats government motion on Syria

LONDON The British parliament on Thursday voted to reject a government proposal to militarily intervene in Syria. The Guardian is reporting that the result was "a devastating blow to the authority of David Cameron," and meant he became "the first British prime minister in decades unable to deliver British troops to a joint military operation with the U.S." British parliament defeats government motion on Syria The government motion lost by 272 votes to 285 "after scores of ruling Tory MPs voted with Labour." Asked by Labour leader Ed Miliband for an assurance that he would not use the royal prerogative to sanction British involvement in the military action, the prime minister told MPs: "I can give that assurance. Let me say, the House has not voted for either motion tonight. I strongly believe in the need for a tough response to the use of chemical weapons, but I also believe in respecting the will of this House of Commons." "It is very clear tonight that, while the House has not passed a motion, it is clear to me that the British parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action. I get that and the government will act accordingly," the Guardian quoted Cameron as saying. The British prime minister believes that the United States "will continue to look for those responsible for the chemical attacks in Damascus," and that the absence of Britain "should not stop other members from finding the best solution." Cameron said earlier that a military intervention in Syria would be "legal and justified" - even without the approval of the UN Security Council. Meanwhile, CNN has reported that a high ranking official of the U.S. administration said that unilateral action was "perhaps necessary" after the British vote. According to reports. U.S. President Barack Obama is also "facing factors that could delay a military intervention," - the key being finding the evidence that the Syrian authorities used chemical weapons. (Beta/AP, file) Tanjug Guardian.co.uk

British parliament defeats government motion on Syria

The government motion lost by 272 votes to 285 "after scores of ruling Tory MPs voted with Labour."

Asked by Labour leader Ed Miliband for an assurance that he would not use the royal prerogative to sanction British involvement in the military action, the prime minister told MPs:

"I can give that assurance. Let me say, the House has not voted for either motion tonight. I strongly believe in the need for a tough response to the use of chemical weapons, but I also believe in respecting the will of this House of Commons."

"It is very clear tonight that, while the House has not passed a motion, it is clear to me that the British parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action. I get that and the government will act accordingly," the Guardian quoted Cameron as saying.

The British prime minister believes that the United States "will continue to look for those responsible for the chemical attacks in Damascus," and that the absence of Britain "should not stop other members from finding the best solution."

Cameron said earlier that a military intervention in Syria would be "legal and justified" - even without the approval of the UN Security Council.

Meanwhile, CNN has reported that a high ranking official of the U.S. administration said that unilateral action was "perhaps necessary" after the British vote.

According to reports. U.S. President Barack Obama is also "facing factors that could delay a military intervention," - the key being finding the evidence that the Syrian authorities used chemical weapons.