Parliament is set to debate and vote on whether to support airstrikes on Syria.  On the 24th November, Tim Farron outlined the 5 tests that would need to be met before Liberal Democrat MP's would consider supporting airstrikes on Syria.  Indeed, the media report that the Liberal Democrat MP's have yet to come to a position.

I don't believe those tests have been satisfied and here is why:

1) Legality

This test has been met with UN Resolution 2249

2) Wider diplomatic framework including efforts towards a no-bomb zone to protect civilians

This test has NOT been met. What evidence has been presented of plans for a no-bomb zone? 

3) UK led pressure on Gulf states for increased support in the region

This test has NOT been met. What, if any, evidence has been presented of such pressure being applied to Gulf states? And what are the chances of it succeeding ? 

4) Post-ISIL plan

This test has NOT been met. The government is NOT clear on what Syria and Iraq will look like post-ISIL. Nor is the government clear on the post-conflict strategy (including an exit strategy) they propose to give the best chance of avoiding a power vacuum.

5) Domestic

This test has NOT been met. The government has not published its 2014 investigation into the Muslim Brotherhood. What if any investigation has taken place into foreign funding and support of extremist and terrorist groups in the UK? Are there proposals to increase the number of Syrian refugees accepted in the UK?

The 5 conditions set out by the Liberal Democrats have NOT been satisfied.  What's the point of them if we ignore them?

Showing 3 reactions

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • Having read the editorial in the Observer this week I am convinced that the PM has not made a convincing case for increasing air strikes. We appear not to have learned the lessons for Iraq, which is deeply depressing. I cannot see how killing more ordinary people and probably forcing greater numbers to become refugees is in anyone’s interest or increases our security in the West.

    IF we and our allies can agree a comprehensive plan, with an exit strategy,and clarity as to the purpose and desired outcome then Mps can be clear about what they are voting for or against. It will have to involve ground forces. Urging caution is not the same as doing nothing and doing something, indeed anything, in order to avoid the opprobrium of ‘doing nothing’ is the worst reason for doing anything at all.
  • Social Liberal Forum posted about Airstrikes on Syria - the 5 tests that have not been met on Social Liberal Forum's Facebook page 2015-12-01 12:43:59 +0000
    David Grace writes that Tim Farron's 5 tests for Lib Dem support for airstrikes in Syria have not been met
  • @soclibforum tweeted this page. 2015-12-01 12:43:55 +0000
    David Grace writes that Tim Farron's 5 tests for Lib Dem support for airstrikes in Syria have not been met