The US is about to arm the Syrian rebels - it's decision time for Cameron

The decision by the Obama administration to provide lethal aid means that the Prime Minister can no longer remain on the fence.

The US has finally confirmed what the UK and Europe have long regarded as clear: that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons against the rebels and that President Obama's famous "red line" has been crossed. 

"Following a deliberative review our intelligence community assesses that the Assad regime has used chemical weapons, including the nerve agent sarin, on a small scale against the opposition multiple times in the last year," said the White House's statement. 

"Our intelligence community has high confidence in that assessment given multiple, independent streams of information. The intelligence community estimates that 100 to 150 people have died from detected chemical weapons attacks in Syria to date; however, casualty data is likely incomplete."

After this statement, deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes announced that the US would provide "further support" to the opposition's Supreme Military Council, including "military support". The language was deliberately opaque. Was Rhodes referring to non-lethal equipment such as vehicles, communications and body armour, or was he referring to military arms? "I can't detail what type of support yet" was his response. But judging by reports from the US media, the answer is the latter. The New York Times states that the administration has decided to supply the rebels with "small arms and ammunition", describing it as "lethal aid". It's also notable that while playing down reports that a no-fly zone is set to be established on the Jordanian border, Rhodes said nothing to rule out this option. 

All of which means that it is now decision time for David Cameron. After succeeding in lifting the EU arms embargo, Cameron insisted at PMQs this week that the government "had not made a decision to supply the Syrian opposition with weapons", adding that it was providing "assistance, advice and technical help". When Ed Miliband pressed him on what "safeguards" were in place should lethal equipment be supplied, he again declared: "we are not supplying the opposition with weapons. We are supplying them with technical assistance and non-lethal equipment." 

But the US decision to supply "lethal aid" means that the Prime Minister can no longer remain on the fence. On the Today programme this morning, Conservative MP John Baron, one of many sceptics on the Tory benches, declared that "we don't have to follow the US". The question for Cameron, who has all but confirmed that the Commons will be given a vote on arming the rebels, is whether we will. 

Syrian rebel fighters belonging to the 'Martyrs of Maaret al-Numan' battalion leave their position after a range of shootings on June 13, 2013 in the northwestern town of Maaret al-Numan. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Like it or hate it, it doesn't matter: Brexit is happening, and we've got to make a success of it

It's time to stop complaining and start campaigning, says Stella Creasy.

A shortage of Marmite, arguments over exporting jam and angry Belgians. And that’s just this month.  As the Canadian trade deal stalls, and the government decides which cottage industry its will pick next as saviour for the nation, the British people are still no clearer getting an answer to what Brexit actually means. And they are also no clearer as to how they can have a say in how that question is answered.

To date there have been three stages to Brexit. The first was ideological: an ever-rising euroscepticism, rooted in a feeling that the costs the compromises working with others require were not comparable to the benefits. It oozed out, almost unnoticed, from its dormant home deep in the Labour left and the Tory right, stoked by Ukip to devastating effect.

The second stage was the campaign of that referendum itself: a focus on immigration over-riding a wider debate about free trade, and underpinned by the tempting and vague claim that, in an unstable, unfair world, control could be taken back. With any deal dependent on the agreement of twenty eight other countries, it has already proved a hollow victory.

For the last few months, these consequences of these two stages have dominated discussion, generating heat, but not light about what happens next. Neither has anything helped to bring back together those who feel their lives are increasingly at the mercy of a political and economic elite and those who fear Britain is retreating from being a world leader to a back water.

Little wonder the analogy most commonly and easily reached for by commentators has been that of a divorce. They speculate our coming separation from our EU partners is going to be messy, combative and rancorous. Trash talk from some - including those in charge of negotiating -  further feeds this perception. That’s why it is time for all sides to push onto Brexit part three: the practical stage. How and when is it actually going to happen?

A more constructive framework to use than marriage is one of a changing business, rather than a changing relationship. Whatever the solid economic benefits of EU membership, the British people decided the social and democratic costs had become too great. So now we must adapt.

Brexit should be as much about innovating in what we make and create as it is about seeking to renew our trading deals with the world. New products must be sought alongside new markets. This doesn’t have to mean cutting corners or cutting jobs, but it does mean being prepared to learn new skills and invest in helping those in industries that are struggling to make this leap to move on. The UK has an incredible and varied set of services and products to offer the world, but will need to focus on what we do well and uniquely here to thrive. This is easier said than done, but can also offer hope. Specialising and skilling up also means we can resist those who want us to jettison hard-won environmental and social protections as an alternative. 

Most accept such a transition will take time. But what is contested is that it will require openness. However, handing the public a done deal - however well mediated - will do little to address the division within our country. Ensuring the best deal in a way that can garner the public support it needs to work requires strong feedback channels. That is why transparency about the government's plans for Brexit is so important. Of course, a balance needs to be struck with the need to protect negotiating positions, but scrutiny by parliament- and by extension the public- will be vital. With so many differing factors at stake and choices to be made, MPs have to be able and willing to bring their constituents into the discussion not just about what Brexit actually entails, but also what kind of country Britain will be during and after the result - and their role in making it happen. 

Those who want to claim the engagement of parliament and the public undermines the referendum result are still in stages one and two of this debate, looking for someone to blame for past injustices, not building a better future for all. Our Marmite may be safe for the moment, but Brexit can’t remain a love it or hate it phenomenon. It’s time for everyone to get practical.