Rolling coverage of the day’s political developments as they happenBrittany Kaiser’s Cambridge Analytica evidence to MPs – Summary 2.49pm BST MPs are not debating a substantive motion about the Syrian airstrikes, and any vote that takes place later will be symbolic and to a large extent pointless, but that does not mean this debate has served no purpose. It has. In fact, it has been surprisingly revealing. The convention that in principle MPs should be asked to approve military interventions before they take place has effectively been abandoned.Theresa May did not put it quite like this. But that is the clear implication of what she said. The cabinet manual says military interventions should have prior parliamentary approval “except when there [is] an emergency and such action would not be appropriate”. May’s speech made it clear that, at least as long as she is prime minister, such action will “not be appropriate” in most circumstances.Our ability to exploit uncertainty was a critical part of the operation, and that uncertainty was also a critical part of its success. We know the Syrian regime was not aware in advance of our detailed plans.And yet if I had come here to this House to make the case for action in advance, I could not have concealed our plans and retained that uncertainty. I would quite understandably have faced questions about the legality of our action. The only way I could have reassured the House would have been to set out in advance, as I did yesterday after the event, the limited, targeted and proportionate nature of our proposed action. Let me be absolutely clear what such a war powers act would mean. It would mean many smaller scale, timely and targeted interventions, like the action we have taken to alleviate further humanitarian suffering by degrading Syria’s chemical weapons capability and deterring their use, would become unviable – unviable because it would significantly reduce the effectiveness of any operations and endanger the safety of our servicemen and women.There are situations, not least major deployments like the Iraq War, where the scale of the military build-up requires the movement of military assets over weeks and where it is absolutely right and appropriate for parliament to debate military action in advance.But that does not mean it is always appropriate. It therefore cannot and should not be codified into parliamentary right to debate every possible overseas mission in advance.It was right for me as prime minister with the full support of the cabinet and in drawing on the advice of security and military officials to take the decision on this military strike last weekend and for Parliament to be able to hold me to account for it.By contrast, a war powers act would remove that capability from a prime minister and remove the vital flexibility from the convention that has been established, for it would not be possible to enshrine a convention in a way that is strong and meaningful but nonetheless flexible enough to deal with what are by definition unpredictable circumstances.Let no one in this House be in any doubt that neither I, nor this government, take instructions from any president or any other national government. When we act, we act in what we believe to be the national interest, that is our only concern.It seems the convention established in 2003 and in the Cabinet manual is being tossed aside as simply being inconvenient. I believe it is necessary and urgent that this House has the opportunity to discuss its rights and responsibilities in decisions on UK military intervention, which is not currently codified by law and which, as we’ve discovered in recent days, cannot be guaranteed by conventions alone. The prime minister’s actions are a clear demonstration of why Parliament must assert its authority on this subject.There’s no more serious issue in decisions made by parliament on matters of war and peace, and the government taking planned military action. That convention was established in 2003, it was enshrined in Cabinet in 2011, and the then foreign secretary gave every indication that he supported the principle of parliamentary scrutiny and parliamentary approval of such a major step. I’ve outlined the caveats that are there in a case of overriding emergency, but I do think it is very important that the House of Commons, as one of the oldest parliaments in the world, holds the government to account. Not just on the immediate decision, but on the longer term strategy and the implications of the actions that are taken.It’s been brought to my attention by several sources that the government has been selectively offering intelligence and security briefings by the prime minister’s national security adviser on the current situation in Syria and the UK military response to it. These briefings appear to have been offered to members of the Labour opposition not on the basis of privy counsellor status but on the basis of those opposition members who are sympathetic to the government’s position. That leads to concerns that the government is using intelligence briefings to manipulate parliament and to bolster its own case for its behaviour on the opposition benches – not on security terms, but on politics. 1.57pm BST May says a war powers act would mean many small-scale operations would become unviable. Continue reading…
Via: May suggests giving MPs prior vote on military interventions only right for war – Politics live
Categories: English News