Skip to main content

Results of ISIL survey

There will be a vote later today on the following motion. I am currently in Birmingham, but will soon catch a train to London in order to vote on the motion. I opposed military action against Assad and opposed the 2003 attack on Iraq.

The wonders of modern technology enabled me late last night to send out a survey (including the motion) to those constituents of mine who subscribe to my electronic newsletter.  For some reason those with hotmail accounts were blocked, but many others did get the newsletter and a lot have responded.  I will put an analysis of the responses later.

THIS IS THE MOTION

That this House:

Condemns the barbaric acts of ISIL against the peoples of Iraq including the Sunni, Shia, Kurds, Christians and Yazidi and the humanitarian crisis this is causing;

Recognizes the clear threat ISIL pose to the territorial integrity of Iraq and the request from the Government of Iraq for military support from the international community and the specific request to the UK Government for such support;

Further recognizes the threat ISIL poses to wider international security and the UK directly through its sponsorship of terrorist attacks and its murder of a British hostage;

Acknowledges the broad coalition contributing to military support of the Government of Iraq, including countries throughout the Middle East;

Further acknowledges the request of the Government of Iraq for international support to defend itself against the threat ISIL poses to Iraq and its citizens, and the clear legal basis that this provides for action in Iraq;

Notes that this motion does not endorse UK air strikes in Syria as part of this campaign, and any proposal to do so would be subject to a separate vote in Parliament;

Accordingly supports Her Majesty’s Government, working with allies, in supporting the Government of Iraq in protecting civilians and restoring its territorial integrity, including the use of UK air strikes to support Iraqi, including Kurdish, security forces’ efforts against ISIL in Iraq;

Notes that Her Majesty’s Government will not deploy UK troops in ground combat operations;

Offers its wholehearted support to the men and women of Her Majesty’s armed forces.

The analysis of the responses follows:

Do you support the motion put forward by the UK government?  84% yes, 16% no
Should the UK support a Multinational force against ISIL in Iraq? 89% yes, 11% no
Should the UK support a Multinational force against ISIL in Syria? 80% yes, 18% no
Do you oppose working with Assad (the dictator of Syria responsible for large numbers of deaths in Syria)? 71% yes, 27% no
Do you agree that we should not aim to occupy anywhere? 91%, 5%
Do you agree we should work with groups on the ground such as the Arab Sunni's who oppose ISIL, the Kurds, Yazidies and Shi'a who all oppose ISIL anyway and not bring in British troops on the ground? 89% 10%
(the missing numbers in percentage terms are those people who did not answer the question, one could take that as being "don't know")


It is clear from this that my constituents are substantially in support of the government's motion.  As is well known I do not always vote with the government.   The people I am accountable to are the voters of yardley not the party whips.  However, on this occasion my the local voters are aligned with the government's position.

Hence I am expecting to vote with the government on this issue.

International law is, of course, key in all of this. My view is that ISIL operate as a gangster state in many ways similar to North Korea. Their persecution of other groups and the violent way in which they brook not even the slightest challenge and treat captives as slaves means that they are one of the worst organisations on the planet.

From the perspective of international law the way in which they capture UK citizens (including those who are only around because of being involved in humanitarian relief) and murder them is clearly an act of war against the UK. The UK, therefore, has the right to take proportionate action against them.

Additionally if the Iraqi government ask for assistance then international law does permit acting with them.

I do not think we should work with Assad or aim for any form of occupation.  Our efforts should be in support of the people who have been living in the Middle East.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Its the long genes that stop working

People who read my blog will be aware that I have for some time argued that most (if not all) diseases of aging are caused by cells not being able to produce enough of the right proteins. What happens is that certain genes stop functioning because of a metabolic imbalance. I was, however, mystified as to why it was always particular genes that stopped working. Recently, however, there have been three papers produced: Aging is associated with a systemic length-associated transcriptome imbalance Age- or lifestyle-induced accumulation of genotoxicity is associated with a generalized shutdown of long gene transcription and Gene Size Matters: An Analysis of Gene Length in the Human Genome From these it is obvious to see that the genes that stop working are the longer ones. To me it is therefore obvious that if there is a shortage of nuclear Acetyl-CoA then it would mean that the probability of longer Genes being transcribed would be reduced to a greater extent than shorter ones.