I did not vote in favour of military action

I am afraid that the reporting in your paper and the unwarranted accusation that local MPs did not vote according to their principles is wide of the mark and may mislead.

Throughout the process I have been deeply sceptical of military intervention and have made this clear to anyone who asked, including to the whips.

I supported the Prime Minister’s decision to recall Parliament to debate the situation but intended to speak up for a diplomatic approach and warn of the risks of military action.

Wisely, the Government listened to the concerns of backbench MPs in drafting the motion for Thursday’s debate and included no commitment to military action.

The motion condemned the use of chemical weapons but called upon the UN to complete its investigations and, while acknowledging that some form of intervention might be required to protect lives, depending on the outcome of those investigations, made absolutely explicit that Parliament would be asked again before any action was approved.

Having carefully examined this wording, I felt that it deserved the support of the whole House and, were it to pass, would guarantee that there would be no UK forces sent into Syria without an explicit vote of Parliament.

I drafted a speech, of which a copy was sent to your paper, in which I would have made clear that my vote could not be considered a mandate for intervention.

Unfortunately as the debate was heavily oversubscribed, I did not get the chance to give it. I made clear to my whip that although I was supporting the motion that night, if they put military intervention to a vote the following week, as was then expected, I could not support it.

Ironically the opposition put forward a differently worded, but very similar motion setting specific conditions for military intervention and implying, if these conditions were satisfied, then it should go ahead.

This was decisively rejected by the House of Commons by a margin of more than 130 votes. Such was the degree of concern, however, that there was no majority in favour of the Government’s motion and it was also defeated by a margin of 13 votes.

I think this was a shame as firstly it means that the House failed to condemn what, whoever might be responsible, appears to be an appalling crime against humanity.

Secondly, Mr [Ed] Miliband’s approach undermined a longstanding convention whereby oppositions have worked with governments on matters on foreign policy, without offering a truly different approach.

Thirdly, and most importantly on the night, it left no guarantee that the House would be consulted again.

In the event the Prime Minister rightly responded to the House by saying that it was clear that the country did not want a war and ruled out military action. I am glad that he did so.

Some of the analysis of last week’s events have suggested it marks a watershed in which Britain is withdrawing from its international responsibilities. I don’t believe this is the case.

I think MPs were motivated by the understandable concerns of their constituents, by the lessons learned from the mishandling of the Iraq war and by the fear that any strictly military intervention could make the situation in Syria worse rather than better.

Our approach to Syria should continue to be motivated by the British national interest and by our best humanitarian instincts.

There is a lot of good that we can potentially do without military intervention and I do not think last week’s events should deter us from trying to do it.

It is a rare and serious thing to be asked to attend Parliament in such a situation. I am comfortable with the approach that I took and feel that it represented the concerns of my constituents accurately.

At no point in this vote was I under pressure from whips, in fact I rang them to tell them of my position before they had asked me and my position was accepted.

For the Worcester News to report that any MPs voted in principle in favour of military intervention is simply inaccurate. To accuse us of voting according on “the orders of the whips” is sloppy journalism, when the paper had information that proved that the opposite was true. I have published on my website the full text of the speech I wrote for the debate and constituents can judge it for themselves on its merits.

I am glad that there will be no UK military intervention in Syria and that the Government has recognised the strength of feeling in Parliament and among the British people on this issue.

We must still strive to improve the appalling humanitarian situation in that country and we must not let the legacy of past mistakes in Iraq overshadow our responsibility to engage positively in the world.

ROBIN WALKER

Worcester MP