As Foreign Policy and The 170-year old political must read, The Economist, report, the heads of government in the UK and the US are facing troubled political waters, while the deadly situation in Syria awaits action from the World.
(from FP)
By a vote of 285 to 272 (8/29) , the British House of Commons defeated a preliminary measure for authorizing a military intervention in Syria, a shocking defeat for Prime Minister David Cameron and a development that all but rules out British participation in punitive strikes against the Assad regime.
The defeat in Parliament represents the greatest setback of Cameron's premiership and came largely at the hands of rebels within his own party. "It is clear to me that the British Parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action," a chastened Cameron said immediately after the vote. "I get that, and the government will act accordingly."
________________
While this was NOT a Vote of No Confidence, it was clearly a political defeat for Cameron, who gains the premiership by having his party with the most seats in the House of Commons. This exercise of divided government is not often seen, and called shocking by The Economist:
FOR those who like to believe that Britain is largely a force for good in the world—a vigorous upholder of the rules-based international order, a country with a proud record of being willing to use its resources (whether economic or military) in defence of universal humanitarian values and a stalwart ally—the result of last night’s House of Commons vote on the principle of military action against Syria was both shocking and shaming.
The Economist: Vote of Shame
Your thoughts? Blog comments here. Remember 10 insightful comments can earn you 10 points of EC for the first semester. Just comment with your first name and last initial (ie: Chris W.) so I know who to credit.
No comments:
Post a Comment