SIR – All three county MPs – Robin Walker, Peter Luff and Harriett Baldwin – claimed with a passion and at length that they “did not vote in favour of military action” when supporting the Government’s motion in last week’s debate on Syria (Worcester News, September 5).

How then, when the defeat of the Government’s motion is seen internationally as a withdrawal of support for military action, can the MPs argue that in supporting the motion, they didn’t vote for military action or, at any rate, kept the possibility alive?

President [Barack] Obama called David Cameron on August 24 seeking British support for a military strike.

Earlier in the year, some 80 Tory MPs had demanded a Commons vote for military action so Mr Cameron recalled Parliament two days later.

The original motion would have allowed Mr Cameron to join the US in a military strike on Syria but it was watered down when Tory whips warned of the possibility of defeat when Labour decided to divide the House.

Even in its moderated form, the Government motion was, nevertheless, part of a process that would have led to another Commons vote on supporting military action against Syria had it been passed.

By its defeat, the prospect of British participation was firmly quashed.

I put it to the three MPs, having read their submissions, that claiming to “not vote in favour” is a piece of political sophistry that anticipated a second vote down the road leaving them open to support military action.

Finally, it would also be helpful in weighing up their arguments if the three MPs could indicate if they were part of the 80 Tories who had demanded a vote earlier in the year.

Peter Nielsen

Worcester