No10 insists that Cameron may still seek vote on bombing Syria

Number 10 is this morning pushing back against the reports that David Cameron has abandoned a vote on extending British military involvement in action against Isis to Syria. Sources insist that they do not recognise the stories that have appeared in a number of papers and that nothing has changed. Those reports suggest that Cameron was struggling to persuade sufficient numbers of Labour MPs to back his stance. This is not particularly surprising given it was always going to be difficult to be confident that MPs from another party would definitely do as they said. The Tory whips can hardly apply the same methods to those MPs in the Opposition party as they do to those on their own side. Cameron has always said he will not bring a vote until there is consensus. But there seems to be a lack of confidence about the difference British involvement would make when currently British action in Iraq has to a certain extent freed up other countries to focus more on Syria. Perhaps Labour MPs were wary for the same reasons that the Foreign Affairs Select Committee is wary in its latest report on the matter, published this morning. The committee says that the government has not yet answered a serious of questions on Syria: 35. The Government should explain the following points before asking the House of Commons to approve a substantive motion authorising military action: a) On an international strategy:

i)How the proposal would improve the chances of success of the international coalition’s campaign against ISIL;

ii)How the proposed action would contribute to the formation and agreement of a transition plan for Syria;

iii)In the absence of a UN Security Council Resolution, how the Government would address the political, legal, and military risks arising from not having such a resolution;

iv)Whether the proposed action has the agreement of the key regional players (Turkey; Iran; Saudi Arabia; Iraq); if not, whether the Government will seek this before any intervention;

v)Which ground forces will take, hold, and administer territories captured from ISIL in Syria.

b) On the military imperative:

i)What the overall objective is of the military campaign; whether it expects that it will be a “war-winning” campaign; if so, who would provide war-winning capabilities for the forces; and what the Government expects will be the result of extending airstrikes to Syria.

ii)What extra capacity the UK would contribute to the Coalition’s actions in Syria.

36. We are persuaded that it is not yet possible for the Government to give a satisfactory explanation on the points listed above. Until it is possible for the Government to address these points we recommend that it does not bring to the House a motion seeking the extension of British military action to Syria. In this sense nothing, as Number 10 says, has changed because Cameron hasn’t yet answered the questions from those unsure of the merits of British involvement in this particular fight.