down to five or six a the few places down to five or six 3 eight. tomorrow the few places down to five or six a eight. tomorrow morning but for most of us a bright start with plenty of sunshine. you will see shower clouds bubbling up through the dated there will be some showers, the odd heavy one, but big gaps between those showers. quite a lot of dry weather and i think by the end of the day northern ireland, wales, south—west england should be mostly drivers 15 to 19, perhaps 20 to four thursday, a band of rain which is in from the south—west, affecting a good part of england and wales but north lincolnshire should stay mainly derived northern england, south—west scotland seen rain again. somewhat weather as we entered august for the start of september, there is a change on the way. high pressure is set to build across the uk and high pressure tends to mean settled weather. that is what we are going to get as we move into the weekend it will be largely dry with some spells of sunshine and it will start to feel a bit warmer as well.

that's it. newsnight with faisal islam is getting under way on bbc two. but the news continues here on bbc one, as wejoin our the government acknowledges that the imposition of post brexit red tape, checks and charges on importers of eu food and farm produce will add to the overall rate of inflation. some uk farmers are concerned that eu competitors have many months more of free reign in the british market that they don't enjoy. but with the changes now pushed into next year, will they survive contact with a likely general election?

we're joined by labour's shadow international trade secretary, nick thomas—symonds, farmer liz webster, and conservative brexiteer and former trade secretary peter lilley. also tonight. as mental health referrals spike, an exclusive newsnight investigation reveals how a draft report into what was the worst nhs mental health trust in england — norfolk and suffolk — was changed, shifting blame from bosses over losing track over potentially thousands of deaths. it raises questions about nhs governance, we speak to whistleblowers and bereaved parents. it is despicable. i think it is a betrayal of their bereaved relatives, service users, carers and staff. i'm not surprised because we've seen poor governance year after year and this cover up culture. and it's been ten years since this moment... the ayes to the right, 272. the noes to the left, 285. cheering.

after the use of chemical weapons on civilians in syria, then pm david cameron became the first sitting pm since 1782 to lose a parliamentary vote on military action. it postponed us airstrikes indefinitely, encouraged putin's russia, and what else? good evening. it's groundhog day at the post—brexit border. a fifth delay of the border checks and charges and red tape on eu food imports that were an inevitable consequence of the shape of the government's brexit deal. this part of the oven—ready deal is, after three years, not even fully thawed. which raises a rather important question, as we inch closer to a general election, probably next year, will these new checks actually ever see the light of day? the government did today acknowledge that these moves, when they do come in, will eventually add to headline inflation, albeit modestly. the opposition say they will negotiate a new veterinary agreement with the eu if they win power, which could lessen or even eradicate

the need for these checks. is that what they mean by "make brexit work"? and if the government is to go to the trouble of introducing such barriers to trade, in order to diverge from eu rules on gene editing or fertilisers, why is the government not vigorously pursuing these opportunities? could this issue, which affects food prices, farmer livelihoods, trade, and our relations with europe be the real test of where britain is heading on brexit in general? here is nick. trade on the move. still flowing across the english channel. bonjour, monsieur! but after brexit, checks. 0ut came eu inspectors from the start. january 2021, when the uk fully left the eu. a pause on the uk side. checks on animal and plant products coming from the eu were due to come into force byjuly 202i.

multiple delays since then. and today, the fifth delay, after the government said those checks would increase inflation by 0.2% over three years. paper checks will be delayed from this october until next january. and physical checks will be delayed from january 2024 to april 202a. the government has put it off and put it off and put it off. and given the economic situation, you can understand why. but at some point, presumably next year, they are going to have to bite that bullet. it's going to become even harder to get businesses to prepare for the next iteration, for the next deadline, because they have been marched up this hill so many times that they might just think, well, i'm not going to prepare. it's not taking back control, it's losing control. tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow. those delays do make you think of the famous quote from that scottish play. but change may well be in the air.

a general election is looming, and soon after that, there will be a review of the uk's trade agreement with the eu. and so attention is naturally focusing on labour's plans for a veterinary agreement with the eu which would certainly soften the edges around some of those checks. a uk—eu veterinary agreement could remove the need for supplementary health documentation, the need for identity checks on products entering the uk, the need for physical inspection of goods. but it very much depends on what has been negotiated because these agreements live on a spectrum. you have for example eu— new zealand that reduces the need for physical interventions but still requires some paperwork. you also have the eu veterinary agreement with switzerland, that removes all obligations entirely. the difference between the two is regulatory harmonisation. so how integrated or reintegrated is the uk, the uk under the labour party perhaps willing

to go to remove the need for these obligations. a degree of political reluctance to accept... a conservative commentator believes that a veterinary agreement brokered by a labour government would last the course. that would remove an awful lot more problems, of course at the expense of allowing the united kingdom to align with the eu. on this area. now, i don't think all that many voters are actually politically motivated by the details of the sps agreements. so if labour did bring that in i think that is a practical step which would be unlikely to be unpicked by a future conservative government and it would smooth this somewhat. a pro—european commentator on the left sees wisdom in the labour plan. labour will do everything they can to smooth trade. after all, labour will have no internal difficulties, there will be no wrangles and fights the way there have been within the tory party, where every time a sensible tory minister tries to smooth things out with europe, it's backbenchers are frothing at the mouth and raging

and rampaging, again they have fierce brexiteers, they will have none of those problems. what's more, labour will have a much easier time with europe and we will be looking at a new government that is not responsible for brexit, that didn't back brexit, a party that didn't back brexit. that has said time and again it wants the smoothest and most cordial relations possible with europe. round the brexit course, seven years on from the momentous vote, and the practicalities are still being worked out. i'm joined now by labour's shadow international trade secretary nick—thomas symonds. we'll speak to conservative peer and former minister lord lilley, and in the studio by farmer liz webster, a former libdem candidate. we did invite the government on to discuss this but they declined. so interesting if not unexpected, you would back this move to manage inflation especially in food prices? apart from managing food inflation that checks the government now finds

itself introducing is a real risk for higher inflation. the government plan as it stands is going to introduce these additional checks, there will be additional certification required from the start of next year and from next april these additional physical checks as well. and there are also import charges as well, import charges that the government estimates between 20 and £15 per consignment and i think is complacent about the impact on inflation and complacent about the impact of those charges on smaller importers. the government should not be in this position, it should as we have been calling for seek to negotiate a veterinary agreement which could have taken away many of these changes altogether. we

which could have taken away many of these changes altogether.— which could have taken away many of these changes altogether. we can get down to specifics _ these changes altogether. we can get down to specifics now— these changes altogether. we can get down to specifics now because - these changes altogether. we can get down to specifics now because it - down to specifics now because it raises questions for yourself and the labour party about what you mean about making brexit work. so this deal you propose, about making brexit work. so this dealyou propose, keir about making brexit work. so this deal you propose, keir starmer said last year we will eliminate most border checks. what does most mean, it does not mean all of them, or does it mean full alignment? it means to the lowest practical level, in terms of precisely the nature of the veterinary agreement, obviously it is a matter for negotiation and we need something specific to the uk and its needs. switzerland has a particular agreement because it has a series of bilateral agreements in terms of its single market position. the new zealand model of equivalence is again suitable for new zealand. what we would do is take a pragmatic approach, seeking to minimise these checks to the lowest level possible.

it is not some academic exercise. it does matter so people would appreciate some clarity on it. for example would you be prepared to accept some kind of european court ofjustice of a site which would open up the possibility of eradicating most of the cheques? we eradicating most of the cheques? - would be seeking to have come as you would be seeking to have come as you would in any trade arrangement, some sort of body that oversees it. the eu has been creative in these things previously if you look at the previously if you look at the previous agreements that they've made. we havejoint committees previous agreements that they've made. we have joint committees that would oversee it, so obviously that is a matter for the would oversee it, so obviously that is a matterfor the negotiation. but the central purpose of the negotiation is to go into it and say to people look, we want to get food onto your tables as quickly as possible. notjust meat but cereal and fruit, vegetables, all of which are going to end up being more

expensive as a consequence of these checks. we would minimise these checks. we would minimise these checks to help people who are struggling with the bills right now. but this is about trade—offs, if you want to go for minimal checks or even no checks of the kind you've just criticised, you will have to go for no diversions from eu laws on things like gene editing or fertiliser. are you happy with that trade—off? we're not interested in a race to the bottom on standards, whether on the environment or food standards indeed other areas like workers' rights. but if you look at the new zealand equivalents model for example under that model it is correct to say that there are still checks but the physical checks are down to around i% so you can be very creative in this negotiation as to how you minimise checks. but you cannot do what this government has done an essentially stand to one side and not attempt to negotiate a

veterinary agreement. no surprise when you see the way that they've been churning through prime ministers and government ministers and the way they've been willing the previous team to make and then break agreements with the eu that they are in this position. let's bring in lizzie webster, you must welcome these agreements? it is a double—edged sword, there is no answer to this as it stands with brexit. it is a relief for consumers because of inflation and cost of living but it is a catastrophe for british farming and british food security. it is like expecting your football team, your british football team to go and compete in international football with chains around their legs. we have so much burden on us, and no help, and globally food is under stress and we rely on europe to feed us. even more now than ever. we welcome these delays? as i say it is both, i

cannot answer. what i would say is the answer is to get back in the single market and free us up because there are no advantages to brexit whatsoever. particularly for food production and food security and public health. lord linley, in black and white today the government acknowledged that post—brexit checks would add to food inflation which is the opposite of what was outlined. by the opposite of what was outlined. by 2% in three years to be specific. so with the trade deal it was supposed to boost the economyjust by 0.08% so this figure would be a headline. i would by 0.08% so this figure would be a headline. iwould rather we by 0.08% so this figure would be a headline. i would rather we had no controls on food and food products coming from the eu as we have not had for 50 years. but if we cannot do that, the only reason to have any is for health reasons. and i understand ministers are worried

there is african swine fever in the eu and it could come to us without any checks. they are also worried about salmonella and i commit it could come to us without adequate checks. so we want a minimum of checks. so we want a minimum of checks and also minimal checks with the rest of the world, where now in a position to have our own arrangements the rest of the world and moving ahead with a single trade window which is the most important single development in trade processes that anyone has thought about and people do not even mention, it will make it easier for anyone exporting or importing to get to a single point of contact with the government rather than dealing with customs and excise, environment and everyone else. it will speed it up and everyone else. it will speed it up and reduce costs across the board. you said you would rather have a

different brexit. the you said you would rather have a different brexit.— you said you would rather have a different brexit. the brexit we have not, we different brexit. the brexit we have got. we now — different brexit. the brexit we have got, we now decide _ different brexit. the brexit we have got, we now decide what _ different brexit. the brexit we have| got, we now decide what controls to have and what not to. our decision. i think they should be the minimum and only for health reasons and to protect our agriculture from disease and that sort of thing. but not to act as a protection in the way the eu uses these things, which keeps goods out, raises costs, protects the agriculture, because protection ultimately is doing to yourself what you do to your enemies in war. in peacetime, you impose sanctions. it is damning either way.— is damning either way. there is a sovereiun is damning either way. there is a sovereign choice _ is damning either way. there is a sovereign choice in _ is damning either way. there is a sovereign choice in terms - is damning either way. there is a sovereign choice in terms of - is damning either way. there is a i sovereign choice in terms of where you land the closeness of the relationship and a benefit for people on your side of the argument was that divergence, may be different rules on gene editing or different rules on gene editing or different types of fertiliser, it doesn't seem, i would be interesting to know what you think about this, the government is vigorously pursuing this area, therefore what is the point and trade barriers? you

are wrong- — is the point and trade barriers? you are wrong- we _ is the point and trade barriers? yfrl. are wrong. we have passed an act legalising gene editing. it was supported by the labour party and through gritted teeth the lib dems at the end. they would have to scrap that if we were to go back into the single market, as effectively they are arguing. so we have moved in that direction, i would like to go further. we have done so. to pretend that we could keep that and enter into some kind of swiss style agreement without accepting a lock, stock and barrel of the entire eu rules and food products is a dream, an illusion. the eu won't let us do it. they won't even give us what they have given new zealand because they have given new zealand because they want to punish us for leaving. i understand that, but it is just a fact of life we have to cope with. i'm sure your farm fact of life we have to cope with. i'm sure yourfarm and fact of life we have to cope with. i'm sure your farm and colleagues cannot abide eu firms having free access to the uk whilst the reverse is not true. figs access to the uk whilst the reverse is not true-—

is not true. as i said, it is a double-edged _ is not true. as i said, it is a double-edged sword. - is not true. as i said, it is a double-edged sword. i - is not true. as i said, it is a double-edged sword. i feel is not true. as i said, it is a - double-edged sword. i feel sorry for double—edged sword. i feel sorry for consumers facing inflation and as farmers facing an unfair playing field. added to which, gene editing is no benefit to us because farming is no benefit to us because farming is collapsing in britain right now because of brexit. gene editing is no advantage to us if we are not producing any food. right now, our farmers cannot afford to produce food. we are not subsidised any longer, europeanfarmers food. we are not subsidised any longer, european farmers are, many other farmers longer, european farmers are, many otherfarmers across the longer, european farmers are, many other farmers across the world are subsidised. these products are coming in, undercutting us, and we are not able to afford to produce food. all of the support they have offered us has been withdrawn. we must be that they you'll come back to this issue again no doubt. thank you for us, liz webster and lord lilley, and nick thomas simmons. we know our mental health services are under pressure. we know demand is unprecedented. and in some cases this has led to failures, but at one trust it seems they've gone to great lengths to protect those in charge from criticism. a report into the norfolk and suffolk foundation trust,

once branded the worst trust on mental health in the country, showed it had lost track of thousands of patients who'd died. and tonight we can reveal sections of that original report were radically altered. quotes like, "a culture of fear", a "lack of transparency" and "weak and inadequate governance of mortality data" were all taken out. both the trust and the report authors say the changes were made during a standard fact checking process and that the report is "independent" and "robust". but the health ombudsman says the changes go way beyond what he would expect. nikki fox reports. a lot of carers that contact me are absolutely desperate to keep their loved ones alive. really, really frightened their loved ones will die. mental health waiting times are at an all time high. the staff that do care are being burnt out because they've just got such an overwhelming amount of work they're having to do. but despite these pressures, nhs leaders stand accused of putting their reputations before patient safety.

the patient�*s safety is not held in as high esteem as the reputation of the trusts being governed. we're dealing with people's lives here. for years, mental health services here in norfolk and suffolk were rated the worst in the uk. why? well, a decade ago, as part of the government's push to reduce the deficit, the trust cut its budget by 20%, slashing beds and staffing. at the time, doctors warned it was a car crash in slow motion. but the trust repeatedly said this wasn't contributing to an increased number of deaths. tim shanahan was 30 when he died waiting for support. his mother, caroline, believes he would be alive today if he'd had help sooner. we came here when we heard the news that tim had died.

my husband, tim's brother and sisters. and wejust... sat there and tried to think, our lives would never be the same again. tim had people who loved him, who are all forever changed, because he's forever gone. tim was one of thousands of mental health patients who died without the norfolk and suffolk foundation trust knowing whether his lack of treatment was a factor in his death. caroline and other campaigners believe the failure to properly record or report the deaths of those needing mental health services has put patient safety at risk. they lobbied westminster for a public inquiry. it's really simple. if they don't know who's died, then they don't know why they've died.

and if they don't know why they've died, they can't learn from that and use that learning to improve services and prevent future deaths. in an attempt to get conclusive answers local nhs bosses brought in auditors grant thornton to produce an independent report. it found computer systems showed 8,000 people in touch with mental health teams died in three years. behind every photo, a personal story. but because the trust didn't record the deaths properly, it couldn't say how many were connected to their care or treatments. in fact, this report into mental health has provided absolutely no clarity. it found the trust had no idea how more than three quarters of people died. it reported thousands fewer deaths to the public than it had recorded in its internal data systems. and it blamed a large increase on covid when it didn't

have the proper evidence that that was the case. despite these failings, the report made no direct criticisms of senior executives or leaders. the trust took three months to agree the wording of it. three versions were produced before it was made public. newsnight has seen evidence that during this time it was radically changed, reducing blame on executives. 15 mentions of "poor", "inadequate" or "weak" governance were removed. the unpublished draft version read "the governance over mortality reporting at the trust is weak. there is no single point of accountability." but bbc newnsight understands the trust pushed back on the idea of poor governance. the published version read, "the governance structures in place at the trust are in line with national requirements, but operational understanding of this governance was unclear." another section of the draft version

said, "the governance over mortality reporting at the trust is inadequate," while the published version read, "the trust has strong governance in its approach to inpatients." however, it did say "the controls over mortality reporting at the trust require improvement" and "the governance and accountability need to be clarified and reinforced." a reference to a lack of transparency around the reporting of deaths was removed, as was a section saying the trust had a culture of fear. i think it's despicable. i think it's a real betrayal of their bereaved relatives, of their service users, their carers, their staff. i'm not surprised, because we've seen year after year poor governance and this sort of cover up culture where nobody accepts any responsibility for their actions. and that has to change. hi, rob. nice to meet you. reports changing between their first

and final drafts is, of course, not unusual. but what is unusual is this leak, allowing the public to see those changes. changes which, according to the parliamentary and health service 0mbudsman, go way beyond what he would normally expect. i am concerned at the difference between the draft report and the published reports, because the differences in the texts at key points are so huge that this is notjust a bureaucratic drafting issue. this is still quite a damning report. absolutely. but i come across a culture in the health service time and time again where managers, trusts, say to me, if you're critical about what we do, you will scare people off. and that's not going to help us.

now, i understand that, but i also know that at the heart of the health service is public trust. if people are not told the truth about what has happened, then their relationship with the health service will be in further decline than it already is. in response, the norfolk and suffolk nhs foundation trust told us that it was standard practice to check the factual accuracy of the draft report and provide further information to the auditors to ensure it was evidence based. they added they'd been open and honest about the failings highlighted in the report, and were committed to making improvements. while the authors of the independent report, grant thornton, said after the initial draft, the engagement team at the trust changed, he then provided further information around controls and internal processes of which we were previously unaware.

the new evidence did adjust our assessment of significance in some areas. we maintain the final public report is an entirely independent, robust, and thorough assessment of the historic matters at the trust. so what do those working on the front line think? during our investigation, a number of medical staff contacted us to voice their concerns. they didn't want to be identified for fear of losing theirjobs, but believe things need to change. we spoke to one staff member who deals daily with people seeking help. they say a culture of reputational management has seeped into day to day operations. you get chastised for raising these concerns and trying to promote a culture where you do learn, but it's coming down from the senior leadership team, and they'll either pinpoint you individually and use you as a scapegoat, or they'll try and transfer the blame onto another team or another service.

and it's here that whistleblowers think the link between poor culture and a lack of resources is most keenly felt. i've seen comments from an internal staff forum, and again and again, they say how there isn't enough staff or resources to deal with all the people that need help. 0ne even says that it's only a matter of time before a colleague is killed on the wards. nhs england told newsnight that supporting patients to get the right care was an absolute priority, and it was increasing funding for mental health by an extra £2.3 billion a year. but the number of people in crisis in the community in england is 30% higher than before the pandemic. it's a picture that's mirrored in norfolk and suffolk, with the increase of people in touch with mental health services. staff say things are particularly bad in children's mental health. like all whistleblowers,

they fear reprisals. they point out the number of referrals for children and young people has doubled since before the pandemic. in fact, 140 of the trust's doctors raised concerns about huge workloads in a letter to the leadership. 0ne told us red flags like staff shortages are not always recorded because they're under such pressure. i think lots of these risky practices have become normal practices. i think people have given up raising concerns because it's become normal and we've accepted how things are. it's almost, it almost feels futile to be raising concerns about safety with regards to staffing and resources, because the message that you get is that there aren't any more people.

the norfolk and suffolk foundation trust says it is committed to listening to its staff and acting it says it has introduced safer ways of working and is focused on improving its culture and treating more people. the health watchdog, the cqc, upgraded the trust's rating to "requires improvement" but the trust says it's seeing a significant and sustained demand for services. hi, caroline. hello, nikki. bereaved relatives say they won't give up. while we were filming, they raised concerns again at a public board meeting held online. we are just three ordinary women. but we are persistent. mid staffs eventually came out, and the francis report came out ofjust persistent relatives who were determined to find out why their loved ones had failed. and we are determined and persistent. it was met with an apology they'd waited a decade for. we have lost count of people who've died. our systems, our processes, our entire approach has simply not been good enough. every single life lost matters.

and i am truly, truly sorry to the families and friends of all of those loved ones. for far too long, you and your colleagues have been saying this to us, that we have lost count, and we haven't listened to you. we know that trusts will do a great deal when they are in a difficult position to try and preserve their reputation. sometimes at the avoidance of the facts. we have to get together to try and change the culture of the health service so that people feel more confident about accepting criticism. tim shanahan's mother caroline says until patient safety is prioritised, the scale of the crisis in mental health will never be acknowledged. they're losing their patients.

this isn't about making yourself look good. this is about it has to change. or more people will die. if you've been affected by any issues raised in nikki's film, you can contact the bbc�*s actionline. details are on the screen. a decade on from a domestic british political earthquake that had worldwide reverberations — perhaps to this day — the syria vote. it felt significant enough that david cameron became the first pm since lord north to lose a vote on military action. assad is now firmly entrenched in damascus. in a moment, we will discuss the consequences of that vote with a former mp and a syrian expert. first, here's our insight editor joe pike, and a warning there is some upsetting content in his report. a step forward for parliamentary power. the ayes to the right, 272.

the noes to the left, 285. cheering. a knock—back for government. i was surprised and disappointed. ijust think it was the right decision. the government thought they had a deal with labour. but on the day, ed miliband told his mps to vote against them. forcing david cameron into an embarrassing defeat. it is clear to me that the british parliament, reflecting the views of the british people, does not want to see british military action. i get that, and the government will act accordingly. the minister responsible for relations with the syrian opposition is still haunted by those events. the syrians had been brave enough to go on the streets, challenge assad in the first place, call for reform first of all, not his overthrow. and then found military force used against them. and the children, who were tortured and dumped on the doorsteps to quell the protests.

those people deserved a chance. so you are effectively abandoning people to their fate. and we knew pretty well what their fate was going to be and in hindsight, that is exactly what theirfate has been. david davis led the conservative rebels. has cameron forgiven you? probably not! but that doesn't matter. i mean, look, we're talking about the fate of nations and the fate of hundreds and thousands, indeed millions of people. the individual view of one ex prime minister, neither here nor there in truth. if you asked me would i do it again, yes, in a heartbeat. i was angry about it. i think about it often. the failure of military action in iraq and afghanistan loomed large in labour's decision. 0n the night of the vote, i felt very uncomfortable. because there was a clear majority to take action against assad. he had dropped chemical weapons

on the heads of children. in school playgrounds. there should have been consent and a majority for military action. the weakness was a failure of the two parties to cooperate. at 2am, rockets containing the nerve agent sarin were dropped. in a suburb of damascus, more than a thousand people are thought to have died. how would the west respond? mps returned to parliament to find government and opposition miles apart. doing nothing is a choice. it's a choice with consequences. i know the whole house recognises that this will not and cannot be achieved through a military solution. what is said at this dispatch box can change minds and change the course of history. and that might, arguably, it did. although not in the way that david cameron and nick clegg had hoped. their defeat in this chamber was stunning. its impact on geopolitics

is still hotly contested. but whatever the longer term significance, ten years ago the political drama here was being watched in capitals across the world. a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilised. yet ultimately president 0bama decided not to act. within months, vladimir putin had annexed crimea and in 2015, russia became directly involved in the syrian civil war. but are these events linked? there is a view that this particular decision was absolutely pivotal in a sense that the west was in decline and not prepared to stand up for things that should have been international norms. i would certainly make an argument to say that the decision made about not enforcing a red line, i think that contributed to a sense in which autocrats think, if we push a bit, maybe these states

will not respond. were we ever going to invade crimea or move to stop putin annexing crimea? no, we weren't. were we ever going to do anything to stop the chinese in hong kong? this is fantasy. is not anywhere even close to a sensible foreign policy argument. of course these nations are exercising their power improperly. but the reason they do so is because we don't have the means to stop it. the collective west including the uk refuse to enforce the red line. couldn is cemented in the middle east. putin is cemented in the middle east. wagner and his mercenaries have influence in up to a dozen come countries across africa. russia has what it has always wanted, which is up always

wanted, which is a port in the middle east and a port in sebastopol. and has invaded ukraine twice. so while it may be too anglo centric to say that is all a consequence of britain and others refusing to enforce a red line, at least it is adjacent to that and we are living with some of those consequences. the common thread through almost all these events, vladimir putin. has western determination of the ukraine today been undercut by inaction a decade ago? the consequences of this decision we will discuss now with the conservative middle east council director, charlotte leslie, and dr rim turkmani, director of syria conflict research programme at london school of economics. charlotte leslie, how important was the loss of this vote? it charlotte leslie, how important was the loss of this vote?— the loss of this vote? it was a fundamental _ the loss of this vote? it was a

fundamental moment - the loss of this vote? it was a fundamental moment for - the loss of this vote? it was a fundamental moment for any| the loss of this vote? it was a . fundamental moment for any mp the loss of this vote? it was a - fundamental moment for any mp of my generation. 0ne fundamental moment for any mp of my generation. one of the reasons i think is i was not able to actually make the vote because i was in the kalahari desert and that illustrates some of the problems white david cameron lost the vote and to do with our attitude towards common foreign policy in general. i was in syria before things went badly south and there was a huge risk that it would be hit by the so—called arab spring and things would get nasty. this is not a parliament discussion that we should have had in that summer but we should have been having it for some time and the spectacle of parliament subject to internal party politics was damaging to our democracy and has proved to be damaging to the image of the strength and unity of the west. as the red line set out by barack 0bama was not followed through. i

the red line set out by barack 0bama was not followed through.— was not followed through. i really think far more _ was not followed through. i really think far more importance - was not followed through. i really think far more importance has - was not followed through. i really l think far more importance has been given— think far more importance has been given to _ think far more importance has been given to the — think far more importance has been given to the loss of that vote than it actually — given to the loss of that vote than it actually deserves. i think the uk was meant — it actually deserves. i think the uk was meant tojoin it actually deserves. i think the uk was meant to join forces with the us on military— was meant to join forces with the us on military action. barack 0bama had red lines _ on military action. barack 0bama had red lines but — on military action. barack 0bama had red lines but he decided to seek permission from congress that he knew_ permission from congress that he knew oppose the strike. even cameron did not— knew oppose the strike. even cameron did not have _ knew oppose the strike. even cameron did not have to get the mandate of parliament legally but politically he needed it after iraq and syria. what _ he needed it after iraq and syria. what changed the course of action and stop— what changed the course of action and stop the vote that was one i lost but — and stop the vote that was one i lost but the diplomatic opportunity that arose as a result of the credible _ that arose as a result of the credible threat of force. so the us secretary of state made a statement that assad could avoid strike

turning — that assad could avoid strike turning over his chemical