Brits refuse to join @barackobama’s Syrian Adventure.

…Wait.  What?

The Obama administration’s plans to strike at Syria lost its most important foreign ally tonight when the British government said it would not take part in any military action against Syria for its suspected use of chemical weapons.

The announcement by British Defense Secretary Philip Hammond came after Prime Minister David Cameron was defeated in the House of Commons when he put it to a vote.

Cameron said it was clear that Parliament did not want to see British military action.

“I get that and the government will act accordingly,” the prime minister said.

Via Hot Air, which also notes that this could very well mean the fall of the Cameron government (it certainly weakened it).  The Daily Mail:

David Cameron’s authority in Parliament and on the world stage was dealt an unprecedented blow last night as he faced a breathtaking Commons defeat over plans for missile strikes on Syria.

In an extraordinary assault on the Prime Minister’s authority, 50 coalition MPs joined Labour in voting against a watered-down Government motion supporting the ‘principle’ of military action.

There were shouts of ‘resign’ from the Labour benches as the result – 285 votes to 272 – was announced to a shocked House of Commons.

The last time something like this happened in the United Kingdom was in 1782, when Parliament told George III that his war with the colonies was over; there is no word whether the Queen of England allowed herself a dry chuckle, or even two, in response to yesterday’s news. Do not be surprised if she did; the House of Hanover isn’t known for holding grudges over slights, but that doesn’t mean that they ever forget them, either.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

PS: How did this fail? If it was always going to fail, then why did they have the vote? – And yes, that’s a question that should be directed at the American government; I’m guessing that the British government scheduled this vote at President Obama’s no-doubt urgent request, which means that Barry has some British egg on his face, too.

7 thoughts on “Brits refuse to join @barackobama’s Syrian Adventure.”

  1. Moe, you didn’t twist the knife hard enough.
    NBC has a poll out showing 80% of Americans want Congress to vote on it as well. (linkage below)
    As there’s no way the hardcore anti-war in Congress can vote “Aye”, this is pointless.
    Looks, to this cat, like Obama has failed *utterly* to make his case for war to either the American or British people.

  2. England backed out for a very good reason. It has so many Muslims that any attack on Syria would result in terrorist attacks at home. Besides that, their politicos are afraid of losing their heads.

  3. Off-topic: Err, I think you mean the House of Windsor, Moe. Victoria was the last Hanoverian monarch. Yes, yes, I know…the current ruler is a blood descendant of Victoria, in an unbroken line of descent. So shouldn’t she be in the same house? Well, as it turns out, British heraldry has operated for centuries under a set of arcane rules that combine to say “no.”
    In fact, under those rules, I’m honestly not sure that Elizabeth II won’t be the last Windsor on the throne…the current crown prince might assume the throne as Charles III, the first ruler in the house of Mountbatten-Windsor. And he doesn’t even have to use his birth name as his regnal name — he might choose to be George VII, or start a new name and become King Philip.
    Having said all that…your point is well-taken.

    1. Actually, just remembered — depending on whether you consider Queen Mary’s husband Philip a rightful monarch of Britain, Charles might be Philip II.
      Okay, fine, I’ll shut up now.

  4. We can thank Obama for returning an increasingly irrational Labor Party to power.

Comments are closed.