Iraqi Yazidi fighter stands guard outside a shrine on August 10, 2014 in Sheikhan. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

MPs want a chance to debate Iraq whether or not military action is planned

Downing Street is wrong to reject demands for a recall on the grounds that "our focus is humanitarian support". 

Three days after the new western mission in Iraq began, support for a recall of parliament is growing among MPs. Conservative Conor Burns has emailed the Speaker requesting a recall and has also written to Michael Gove (now Chief Whip) criticising Britain's limited response to the humanitarian crisis.

"I feel very strongly that the government's response is not hard enough or strong enough," he said. "These people are being beheaded by people from IS, and our only response is to drop some food or water on them. I think the US and UK should be involved in air strikes. I am not by any means advocating a ground war but I think we should put our special forces in there."

Other Tories demanding a recall include Glyn Davies ("I suggested recall weeks ago. [There is a] much stronger case for it than the motion we MPs returned for last summer"), Andrew Rosindell ("Britain cannot stand by and watch brutal terror being carried out against Christians in Iraq"), Nick de Bois and David Burrowes. The latter pair write in a letter to David Cameron: 

"What we are witnessing in Iraq is truly shocking and requires a co-ordinated international response. The horrific persecution of minority groups in the region impose both a moral obligation and a duty to our constituents to reconvene so that the escalating crisis can be properly debated with a view to the government being able to seek guidance from and support of the House for policies aimed at ending the killing. It is vital that the House of Commons debate an appropriate response to this emergency.

"Whilst the government is rightly engaged in a massive humanitarian effort we believe that the lack of a co-ordinated international response and the unilateral military intervention of the US demand the urgent attention of parliamentarians at this time."

On the Labour side, Tom Watson, Andrew Gwynne, Graham Allen and Mike Gapes (writing on The Staggers), the former chair of the foreign affairs select committee, have also made the case for a recall. Gapes wrote: "The Prime Minister may feel unable to act now following his defeat and mishandling of the Syria debate last August. He should get over it and urgently recall Parliament. I hope we can then, with opposition support, achieve a massive vote for UK military intervention alongside our US and NATO partners to defend and protect our democratic and secular Kurdish friends and to stop the genocide of Christians, Yazidis and other minorities by ISIL in Iraq and Syria."

Downing Street has responded by arguing that there is no need for a recall on the grounds that "our focus is humanitarian support" and that military action is currently not planned. But while this may be true, what MPs are demanding is a chance to debate whether that is the right stance for the government to take, not merely to approve it. Some of those calling for a recall, such as Conor Burns and Mike Gapes, support UK military action, but others, such as Tom Watson and Nick de Bois, currently do not. 

With the government not ruling out UK air strikes if the situation deteriorates, and three weeks to go before the end of the recess, there is merit in parliament returning to debate the circumstances (if any) in which military intervention would be appropriate. One of the reasons why MPs rebelled over Syria was the government's failure to consult them earlier in the process. If Cameron does eventually decide to take military action, he will have more chance of winning approval if parliament is recalled now. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Brexiteers want national sovereignty and tighter borders – but they can't have both

The role of the European Court of Justice is a major sticking point in talks.

Why doesn't Theresa May's counter-offer on the rights of European citizens living and working in Britain pass muster among the EU27? It all comes down to one of the biggest sticking points in the Brexit talks: the role of the European Court of Justice.

The European Commission, under direction from the leaders of member states, wants the rights of the three million living here and of the British diaspora in the EU guaranteed by the European Court. Why? Because that way, the status of EU citizens here or that of British nationals in the EU aren't subject to the whims of a simple majority vote in the legislature.

This is where Liam Fox, as crassly he might have put it, has a point about the difference between the UK and the EU27, being that the UK does not "need to bury" its 20th century history. We're one of the few countries in the EU where political elites get away with saying, "Well, what's the worst that could happen?" when it comes to checks on legislative power. For the leaders of member states, a guarantee not backed up by the European Court of Justice is no guarantee at all.

That comes down to the biggest sticking point of the Brexit talks: rules. In terms of the deal that most British voters, Leave or Remain, want – a non-disruptive exit that allows the British government to set immigration policy – UK politicians can get that, provided they concede on money and rules, ie we continue to follow the directions of the European Court while having no power to set them. Britain could even seek its own trade deals and have that arrangement.

But the problem is that deal runs up against the motivations of the Brexit elite, who are in the main unfussed about migration but are concerned about sovereignty – and remaining subject to the rule of the ECJ without being able to set its parameters is, it goes without saying, a significant loss of sovereignty. 

Can a fudge be found? That the Article 50 process goes so heavily in favour of the EU27 and against the leaving member means that the appetite on the EuCo side for a fudge is limited. 

But there is hope, as David Davis has conceded that there will have to be an international guarantor, as of course there will have to be. If you trade across borders, you need a cross-border referee. If a plane goes up in one country and lands in another, then it is, by necessity, regulated across borders. (That arrangement has also been mooted by Sigmar Gabriel, foreign minister in Angela Merkel's government. But that Gabriel's centre-left party looks likely to be expelled from coalition after the next election means that his support isn't as valuable as many Brexiteers seem to think.)

On the Conservative side, a new EU-UK international body would satisfy the words of May's ECJ red line. On the EU27 side, that the body would, inevitably, take its lead from the treaties of the EU sans Britain and the ECJ would mean that in spirit, Britain would be subject to the ECJ by another name.

But it comes back to the Brexit dilemma. You can satisfy the voters' demand for non-disruptive control of British borders. You can satisfy political demand for sovereignty. But you can't have both. May – and whoever replaces her – will face the same question: who do you disappoint?

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics.

0800 7318496