On Wednesday night, the House of Commons voted to take action against IS in Syria, including the use of air strikes on IS targets. It was a motion backed by the Government and opposed by new Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and the Scottish National Party, which ended up splitting Parliament by 397 votes in favour to 223 against.
After months of media reports detailing the appalling crimes IS members are committing in the Middle East, and especially after the recent attacks in Paris, tensions surrounding the Syrian issue have reached breaking point – something that was reflected in the Commons during Wednesday’s 10-hour debate.
But as the RAF’s bombs start to rain down 3,000 miles away, what does the Parliamentary result actually mean for the people of Syria?
We spoke to a number of MPs before and after the Commons vote to get a sense of how they were feeling about the possibility of bombing IS strongholds and what the potential repercussions could be for us here in the UK.
Here, two of them set out their arguments for and against bombing IS in Syria and reveal why they voted the way they did.
Who do you agree with? Have your say over at Grazia’s Facebook page, or tweet us @GraziaUK.
Liz Kendall, Labour MP for Leicester West, voted with the Government for taking action in Syria
‘This was by far the toughest decision I’ve had to take since becoming an MP. People have really strongly held views on both sides, and no-one made the decision lightly.
‘In the end, I was convinced that we have to take action against Daesh in Syria, which is their headquarters.
I voted to protect the British people and to show solidarity with our allies
‘They pose a real and direct threat to people in this country. In Syria, they are butchering innocent people, raping women, throwing gay men off rooftops and killing Yazidi women because they are too old to be sold for sex.
‘The unanimously passed UN resolution made a huge difference because it called on countries that have the capacity to do so to take all necessary measures against Daesh.
‘I voted to protect the British people and to show solidarity with our allies. The challenge now is to make sure the Prime Minister makes good on his promise to do everything we can to secure a lasting political settlement in Syria.’
Cat Smith, Labour MP for Lancaster and Fleetwood, voted against the Government’s proposals
‘Ultimately, Cameron just hasn’t made the case. He’s offered absolutely nothing to persuade me that this is how we defeat Daesh. They’re evil and they absolutely need defeating, I have no qualms with that aspect of it, but I just fear air strikes will be ineffective and will potentially make things worse.
‘I’m not a pacifist, I’m not someone who’s finding excuses for voting against it in principle … but the problem for me is that nobody can say who these 70,000 moderate allies are in Syria [David Cameron has quoted the Joint Intelligence Committee’s assertion that there are 70,000 Muslim fighters in Syria who are not affiliated to extremist groups].
‘Yasmin Qureshi of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee has been on a fact-finding mission to the region and the figures she kept being given were 10 to 15,000 moderates, which is a fraction of the 70,000 Cameron’s claiming.
We won’t be any safer for taking action in Syria. By bombing Syria, you’re risking civilian deaths, leading to more radicalisation
‘In terms of alternative plans, it has come up that we’re not doing enough to make sure that we weaken Daesh’s access to funding. The fact they’re receiving $1.5million a day in oil [revenue]; there’s been nothing from the Government benches that says we’re going to be addressing this. As a country willing to buy that oil, I think in terms of sanctions we’re actually in a powerful position to cut off funding to Daesh, which completely limits what they can do.
‘We won’t be any safer for taking action in Syria. America has been dropping bombs over Iraq and Syria for 17 months and what we’re hearing back is there are too many planes and not enough targets, because it’s too difficult to figure out where to strike when [Daesh] are so integrated into communities. By bombing Syria, you’re risking civilian deaths, which would then lead to further radicalisation.
‘[Cutting off IS’ funding through sanctions] is a diplomatic avenue that hasn’t been explored at all. The funding they’re getting through Saudi Arabia – and frankly their human rights record needs to be seriously looked at in terms of our international relations – the one thing that strikes me today is the enemy of our enemy is not our ally.’
Written by Emmeline Saunders – @Emm_Saunders