the prime minister has made a commitment that should be 1 billion pounds which is welcomed money to do with the rebuilding after the stabilization of syria, which we welcome. we are entitled to ask however, mr. speaker, whether contribution of less than 1% of what is required is realistically going to be enough. >> here, here. >> yesterday like some of the members of the house i took the time to meet syria exiles to hear their views. it was heartbreaking to hear about people who are literally surviving just on hope and a 16 year-old who only wishes to attend their makeshift school in the basement. they asked whether we are -- stop fighting assad and move into other parts of the country to fight daesh. that asked how we expect people

to fight daesh if they have no feeling of any support. now yesterday, mr. speaker, -- [inaudible] from many different organizations, from solidarity uk, from the sunni community in manchester, from the kurdish house and the syrian community southwest, from scotland to syria, from the syrian welsh of society, from the syrian platform for piece and the syrian association of yorkshire or and in their letter to us they said that mps are asking the wrong question on syria. that being whether or not to bomb daesh. they said, they said complex and make the point and then i will give way to the honorable gentleman, they said from his many organizations across the united kingdom that daesh must be defeated for the sake of the people in syria as well as people in europe and britain as well. however, they stress the

greatest threat comes from assad rather than daesh with a number of people killed by the assad regime being over to have timed the view pane so that is killed during the second world war. i give way. >> i'm very grateful for giving way. irrespective of how this house votes tonight, isn't it important that we do see a successful political resolution to the difficulties in syria? and given that prime minister has set out timescales where he expects to be a transitional government, which is a price i was at those timescales given the current impasse between the likes on one hand of russia and iran, and on the other hand, the u.s.a. and france d othersnre in respect of the teachers. >> the honorable gentleman makes a good point and i go onto the political process to give way to

the honorable gentleman i would wish to commend on behalf of all of us in this house that supported the campaign by their real name and nothing else. >> the entire party is in this campaign my first raised issue to change the terminology to defeat this organization. will he join the committee to ensure we use the right terminology to defeat the terrorist organization? >> i agree with everything the gentleman said. it is beyond me that my former

employees cannot find that terminology and i call on them to do so. >> i need to make some progress. >> they have made an appeal that should be a concern for any action by the uk to protect civilians they need to explicitly by concrete actions this is the point raised by the honorable gentleman and the labor market. ibb to all parties all parties in the house and all members of the house support the international to transition to the stable government in the terrorist groups we believe these will only be secured by the long-term commitment to make

sure the timescale is as quick as can be delivered. they must step up their support for the initiatives and other diplomatic efforts for the political transition. posed by the foreign affairs committee in the house of commons neither wants on the issue in the foreign affairs we cannot support the government. it is important however. it was relevant for me as it would appear for most aircraft.

they will have a huge problem with legitimacy and mandates to the operation in scotland. it would do so with its report and the opinion poll released today and in a normal circumstances the normal country under the circumstances the armed forces would not be deployed in the amendment. i appeal to make sure we do not ignore iraq and libya.

let's not repeat the military action without a comprehensive plan. the debate is not about provoking a new confrontation. they have already come printed piece and decency and humanity. we have seen what they are capable of in terms of beheading. we have seen the refugee crisis they have provoked in the middle east. it's also not about what is being portrayed it as an

extension on the military accounting that we are already following in iraq and the unwillingness of the opposition to answer the question. he's against the position to understand the military response and to understand the mindset insults. first of all. not those of other religions.

we have new laws, new borders into the extreme violence in the prosecution of the self-appointed mission. i have yet to see that violence on the sands of tunisia and industries of the jordanian pilot we need to be under no illusions this is not like some of the political terrorists we have seen in the past. this is a different threat. this is a group that doesn't seek accommodation. they seek domination. he one of the concerns starting to leave to go to libya in growing numbers.

we will have to confront them as well as some stage. they have chosen to confront us and the free world and decency and humanity and it is a prerequisite. there are elements to this. on the military question will be allied action be a game changer though but it will make a significant contribution to what they are able to do and the prime * correct but he says it enables us to diminish civilian casualty. it's also very important in the

propaganda for the reporters in the region bridging can contribute to it minimizing civilian casualty it's not an important contribution to me that we must be rational and cautious no conflict is ever one and the prime minister was right to point out that it was only a passive response. i believe that ultimately we will seek an international coalition to be successful in the long term. they set out its baby coordinating the international coalition.

we have to be on the ground in syria there is no chance of peace for whatever happens indiana. because the military campaign. it is militarily such positions and we had a chance to correct it today. we started asking our allies.

it made it much difficult for the diplomatic countries to continue the airstrikes. they are attacking with great significance and we have a chance to return a solid position today. there will be no peace. it would have its own consequences. it doesn't mean that we wouldn't seek a terrorist atrocity in this country that we didn't

tackle the source over there. that would be an application of the primary responsibility of the house of commons which is the protection of the british people. there is absolutely no doubt that it's a vital and lonesome murderous organization. the attack in paris, the murder of 130 innocent people could just as well have been in london and their choice was a retaliation against french activity in the region that

doesn't justify our taking activity it would have been appropriate, relevant and above all. they claimed to call themselves islamic. they do not own islam. hundreds of millions of muslims throughout the world. there are kidnappings and all of the abominable things that they do. we would wish to get rid of it to defeat it and to stop it.

it couldn't be taken in order to stop to get rid of them. they spoke about getting a transitional government in syria he spoke about the situation in syria. it is some distaste as the foreign secretary in the leading officials in this area and administration. they murder their own people. but then they are not going to

go. vendors talk about negotiations indiana, the assumption that somehow that is going to result in getting rid of assad and the administration is a delusion one of the most detestable leaders of any state in the world because the allies and because the suit him. action against them isn't going to be successful so what is the issue today. it isn't about getting rid. it's about what practical action

can result in some way in damaging and stopping their atrocities and the people that are fleeing from them and flocking to them including sadly some small number of people. if what we are proposing today would in any way not simply are not totally get rid of it but we condemn in a significant way so that they wouldn't go on behaving in the fashion that we see i wouldn't have any difficulty.

there are no limits of any kind. the upsurge of other people in the region to get rid of them. what if what do might cause some damage to undermine them. what but it was undoubtedly due despite the issues which i'm sure given in good faith would kill innocent civilians, and i am not going to be a party to killing innocent civilians. i'm not interested in the gesture of politics or military activity.

i go for it. i asked for the support to get rid of kuwait to formulate the policy of the members of parliament. i'm interested in effective activity. this government motion in the activities that will follow including military action from the air wouldn't change the situation on the ground. i'm not interested in members of the house putting their hands up for something that in their own

hearts they know will not work. >> we will now apply with an immediate -- >> there are those that have opposed on that occasion since 2003 including my honorable friend the member of the foreign affairs committee who is the mover of today's amendment. it is my judgment that he was wrong last year against isil. i don't know what he would say to the families forces.

the effort in iraq over the last year has been to the enormous credit of the armed forces and stabilization of iraq. this house and then gave without intervention. i think the reason a number of us oppose the motion about the airstrikes in iraq was very simply. we had into beaten isil despite nearly a million security forces on the government payroll and that brings us to syria because we have nothing near that and we still don't have that plan.

it was absolutely necessary for the government and people of iraq. it is as if you are seeing the angel of death. how can i carry on on a dalia basis. we have to acknowledge they are at war with us.

this isn't a tone of choice. in the defeat of isil and its ideology will be the work of many years of the decade. the mission was the civil war it was impossible to achieve that is the necessary first step into the agreement of the international support that can be seen to that transition.

i do believe the government was able to offer to minister the caption from isil in syria to the satisfaction of the committee and in the wake of that ibb of the kind mr. made the point revealing when he mentioned the real plan and that is the ideal solution which is reference on page 20 of the prime ministers response to the foreign affairs select committee they would enable it to tackle the groups in defense of the nation. they were fighting along the army and ideally needs to be the forces that we claim this isil that we shouldn't imagine for one minute that this is a task

that they will be able to accomplish on their own. it was a part of the international community to face up to the reality. how would we exercise the greatest influence. taking evidence on this issue to suggest that our role as a compromised limited number of the coalitions against isil operating only in iraq. for the basic efficacy of the airstrikes and additional capability for the whole coalition. the issues are marginal to the outcomes. what is not marginal to the

outcome is getting international politics right. all the people they represent denied the government the authority it needs today. by the previous conditions that assad can now play the role of the transaction. and the criticism is that the government should be seeking the authority from the house. it is a restriction that i do not understand. it's armed groups that put themselves beyond the wreck of the judgment of the international support groups and the security council to act

within the law. they would show a lack of foresight. we know that both syria and an iraqi forces need the maximum possible which includes appointing the fighting could be that includes engineers as well as the pretense of logistical services support, command and control and communication functions. it was effective military capabilities that may provide that including us.

however. the honorable colleague on the kennedy [inaudible] >> however if the government has chosen a path that is going to require you to come back to the house authority than that's the government's choice. that is a presentation to the civilized world dot if all necessary means. on behalf of the house to hold the government to account in detail. the honorable lady has been

helpfully and recovery and she would be supporting the government this evening. which side would he be on this evening i extended my judgment is also the best discharge its responsibilities by giving our government the authority not just to act with our international partners against the border but to make the compromises and national objective and to ensure the collective security of all nations. they would be on opposite sides today but let me attributed to that i would like to make the point that during the evidence

several witnesses suggested that by participating the military action they were actually compromised and diplomatic capabilities. the >> i have to say to them into the house nothing i've heard in the last months have done anything except the opposite of that conclusion and every single country that we went to. there's one in this house that should rectify this evening. part of the challenge they delivered a compelling performance and raised the united kingdom party to the disaster in the middle east.

it's right that we should be mindful of history but we shouldn't be hamstrung by it. >> since the national security and the safety of the constituents there will be differences of view between any party in this house. so in good faith and conscience members will reach different conclusions. anybody that approaches today without the gravest doubt of anxiety has been paying attention. this is a debate of contradiction. entering the resolution in the

threat they describe to international peace and security that the proposal before us is only through a relatively minor extension of action we are already undertaking. it is precisely because their headquarters are in syria. we are being asked to make a further effort to contain from extending the mayhem and bloodshed of the companies even more widely across the middle east. serious questions are being raised and i respect of those that raise them. and about the aftermath of the

rebuilding. some say simply innocent people are more likely to be killed and the reaction does create casualties however much we try to minimize them. so should we on those grounds of enemy action in iraq although we undertake it and it does seem to be making a difference should we take no further action who are themselves killing innocent people or should we simply leave it to others if we made ourselves the biggest targets we will remain a target. there is no need to wonder about it. they told us with every day that passes we mustn't just take them at their word.

they have to sort out the fellow countrymen and women to kill including aid workers and whatever we decide today there is no doubt that they will do so again nor is it the consequence of an action. we've seen what happens when they take control. should it make us unwilling to contemplate any further extension of the controlled territory in action to the construction quite separately there are those not opposed in principle action who doubt the efficacy of what is proposed the coalition action that will have little effect well, don't forget

if there had been no bombing in cosa though perhaps they would have been seeking refuge in europe. tell them if memory served without which they felt they were losing control. tell them in sierra leone the actions should be avoided because there would be casualties. the state and peace were almost destroyed. this british military action that brought them back. of course it took place in conjunction with the diplomatic activities as they shared the view is strengthened in other parts of the bannister told us today. our conference did call for the united nations before further action and we now have a unanimous security council

moreover that resolution calls on member states in unmistakable terms into calls to again i quote to eradicate the safe haven they have established and it speaks of the need to save the peace process the united nations calls the member states to act now. moreover, the allies have explicitly asked for such support and i invite the house to consider how we would feel and what we would say for what had happened in london if we have explicitly asked for support and funds.

>> these are genuinely extremely difficult as well as serious but at the urging of the united nations in the military actions. in my name into the honorable members there are many on both sides of the house who feel airstrikes are not a wise move in the absence of a long-term strategy both military and non- military otherwise we risk repeating the errors that we

made in holland and libya and we allow the government to intervene. that strategy must include comprehensive layout to the military plan. it must include plans made for the aftermath, and indeed an exit strategy that many of these questions have remained unanswered. can i just say there are no easy answers just a series of tough decisions but as such, there's got to be respect on both sides to those views held. one of two people have suggested that one of trained politics were personalities with this issue i would refer them to my voting record to the extension

by opposition and indeed two years ago in this house when we were asked to support the striking. i have been called a pacifist as well and i would refer those people through my military record when it got an approval and also to my record in northern ireland is the commander during the 1980s. >> i have huge respect. would you agree with me that in all military operations the first thing that goes wrong is the plan.

however this shouldn't stop us from making the effort to succeed again. >> at the same time we owed it those participating through the plans to make sure it is as realistic and comprehensive as possible otherwise i suggest we do risk repeating past errors. >> while he made the point about the end, shortly the protection of the people and the safety -- >> i completely agree with my honorable friend there are many on both sides that oppose the

government on extending including those to be the case but some have supported the deployment to afghanistan. we have to try to get some answers but perhaps most damning against those of us who say we don't want to support in the extension of military airstrikes is that they are sitting on our hands. they don't want we don't want to do anything we want to stick our heads in the sand. we do be the end the need for military action to take on terrorists. many supported that initial deployment to afghanistan in 2001 and we succeeded to very

quickly within a couple of years where we had trouble with afghanistan is when the mission falls into one of nationbuilding when we simply didn't realize what we were getting into and didn't have the resources to back it up but we need a long-term strategy. so we need one if we haven't got an idea but it should be. we've been talking about disrupting the financial flows and business interest for at least a year if not 18 months. why are we not disrupting the business and financial interest? why aren't we doing more to disrupt the prominence on social media?

we talked about it many times but i do not see any evidence that is actually disrupting the prominence. something we should tackle for the ideology and the sectarianism of the groups that as a long-term strategy i don't see much evidence of that. where are those questions to our allies in the region about feeding this extremism. what but can i get to the point that has been raised before further foreign affairs committee recent visit to the middle east who only managed to get back for the bannister's state about these troops we all

know and accept you cannot through airstrikes alone. but everybody is having trouble identifying with the ground forces should be and who should actually supply them. we visited those capitals and we spoke to a lot of experts across a wide range of fields and the point that kept plaintiff kept coming across was the belief that there were very few remaining up to five years in the civil war. with the strategy doesn't address i have asked this question before is what is the common enemy, what is stopping

them as we saw in libya? we ignore the lessons at all costs because what we were being told on the ground only last week is that they are very splintered. they are not a homogenous group. we should also draw the lessons we are struggling to defeat and that is with the estimates of 800 or 900,000 security forces

to finish the job in iraq before we start thinking about any long-term strategies but again we are struggling and that is one of the fundamental differences between iraq and syria. again this is a strong message in the middle east. we are already at the top table. china is not intending to intervene as a member of the p5 it is quite clear we are showing solidarity with our partners. most people accept that but as we intervene more, we become more responsible for the events on the ground and stay open to

the unintended consequences. without a comprehensive strategy airstrikes will simply reinforce the time when there are already too many chasing the target and i suggest just as in the previous interventions time and time again often the supporting intelligence sources and time and time again it turned out to be wrong. just a few weeks ago the committee released a thoughtful report arguing against airstrikes in syria. returning from my travel i and other colleagues still hold onto that view and it holds the position of the committee last night that the minister has launched in server address our concerns. mr. speaker i. will oppose this

military action and i will intend to move the amendment in my name and that of other honorable members. we have stood at this very point before. they should have no excuse for repeating our errors and setting out for the same tragic misguided path once more. >> it is during my time in parliament but it's become a convention to house authorizes military action previously under the guide of the prerogative sometimes they would involve the house of commons and most often they didn't. and this new convention places they responsibility on the members of parliament to weigh out the arguments and vote according to their conscience rather than the parliamentary. i am not sure if either party's have worked on this or not but i'm pretty sure about is nobody

on either side of the house would seek to justify or agree with the proposition to force them to vote the way they did. they pose a real and dangerous and it's based not in iraq where they are already fully engaged, but in syria. this external operations unit is responsible for killing 30 holidaymakers on a beach and a british man who puts terrorists

along with 129 others in the atrocity a few weeks ago. it's true that this unit could have moved out but that isn't what the intelligence services the needs. in fact, the fact is just as al qaeda needed a safe haven they created for themselves in afghanistan to plan 9/11 and other atrocities, so isil need their self-declared caliphate to finance, train, organize and recruit. if they may be elsewhere but there is little doubt that the center is in raqqa. they were against isil by 520 votes to 43. nobody expected the action would bring about the swift end to the threat.

indeed the prime minister in responding to the interventions at a command i intervention said, and i quote, this mission will take not just months but years. many honorable members felt at that time that it was illogical to have the effectiveness. we were inherited by the absence of a specific resolution and there was some justification for the house to combine its response to one part of the territory in september, 2014 but can shortly be no such justification in december, 2015. no such justification after paris, no such justification after the request for help for the nearest continental neighbor and close ally in response to the murderous attacks that took place on the 13th of november. no such justification for the un

security council resolution, 20 249 number five of the resolution unanimously agreed and calls upon the member states that have the capacity to do so to take all necessary measures to eradicate the safe haven isil has established over parts of iraq. >> i would think to the honorable member. >> germany says they are refusing to bomb. >> germany are constrained.

the point we are making is after recent events where we sit now in this parliament having authorized military actions in iraq we cannot only justify not responding to that by extending our operations into syria if we ignore about part of the resolution 2249 that i just mentioned we are less supporting those contained in the other paragraphs expressing deeper sympathy and reaffirming those responsible must be held to account. in other words this country will be expressing indignation while doing nothing to implement unanimously agreed notion which the chair of the security council has held to formulate. furthermore, there is no argument attacking in syria that cannot be made against the

action where we helped to prevent the expansion and we claim 30% of the territory that occupied for the foreign select committee. the prime minister pointed out tornadoes with the special parts so sophisticated that they gather to 60% of the coalition's tactical reconnaissance in iraq could be used for a similar effect so long as another country comes in to complete the strike. this is a ridiculous situation. >> it's true that it's the strongest ally of ours and we haven't got that in syria.

>> my friend makes a good point we rent a pencil we have from the debate in 2014. this wasn't raised by anybody incidentally. the issues are what comes next and it's a very important consideration and we've expressed concerns on all sides have it mustn't stop us from what happened in responding to the resolution 2249 and the request for all countries with a capability to act. now the resolution didn't say say let's delay this. they said let's act now. and i don't believe that anybody in this house that believes that defeating this motion tonight will somehow remove us from the line of fire. the isil and its allies will consider us to no longer be a legitimate target for their barbaric activities. the 102 people murdered of the

seven plots by the security services over this year are all planned against us before this motion was even conceived for the content contempt by one idea what this could affect their ability to plan and execute attacks if it doesn't destroy the capability it will force the operations to move and in so doing make it more exposed and less effective. the motion presents a package of measures which will be taken forward by the international community to bring about the transformation that we will have promised regular updates as part of this motion. furthermore it meets the standards many members will have

said when endorsing military action now that the convention applies. is it a just cause is the proposed action and last result and doesn't have a reasonable prospect of success and broad regional support does it have a clear legal base i think it meets all of those criteria. i find the decision is difficult for anyone and i wish i had frankly the self righteous servitude of the representatives around you in the type of politics who would no doubt soon be contacting those of us that supported this motion tonight but i believe that isil has to become front and destroyed and that will defend our country and our way of life and to provide the best way to achieve this

objective. >> after ten and a half hours of debate, the house of commons voted 397-224 for airstrikes against syria and air force planes began bombing targets. the telegraph reports britain's defense secretary says air strikes in syria could last three years. the royal air force is destroying their oil fields. the telegraph also has unconfirmed reports that isis decided the next target will be broken. european security agencies sighting by cnn that says internationals that are isis operatives in iraq are being told to return home and launch an attack. we will keep you updated on develop and hear on the c-span networks. in just a few moments live coverage of the prints of jordan speaking at the national press club in washington, d.c.. he's a candidate to be the next

president of the international soccer agency spa. the justice department announced war indictments against corruption. here's the announcement from the attorney general loretta lynch. >> the new charges unsealed today highlight corruption schemes principally involved in soccer officials essential and south america and a sports marketing company is based in south america and the united states. now, consistent with the generational nature of the corruption schemes, they have payments related to the tournaments that have already been played as well as matches scheduled into the next decade including multiple cycles of fifa world cup qualifiers and international friendly matches involving six central american member associations. ..