[مستر محمد سلام]

Syria: No 10 accuses Ed Miliband of giving succour to Assad regime

Row erupts after Labour leader moves to block early Commons vote on military action


A furious row between Downing Street and the Labour leadership has erupted after No 10 accused Ed Miliband of giving "succour" to the Assad regime after he moved to block an early Commons vote on military action.
As Cameron rejected a Labour amendment on Syria, the prime minister's spokesperson accused Miliband of "flipping and flopping" and of having moved the goalposts in negotiations over the past 48 hours.
Asked whether Miliband was giving succour to the Assad regime, another Downing Street spokesperson said: "Yes. The fact is that a lot of the arguments over this could give succour to the regime."
Labour on Thursday night alleged the controverisal remark was made by Cameron's director of communications, Craig Oliver, and the party wrote to Sir Jeremy Heywood, the cabinet secretary, to complain about No 10's "infantile" claim.
Michael Dugher, the shadow Cabinet Office minister, wrote: "You will have noticed reports the director of government communications Craig Oliver has described the leader of opposition as giving 'succour to Assad'. It is language which is infantile and irresponsible.
"It follows a pattern of behaviour by 10 Downing Street through recent days which demeans the office of prime minister. It is particularly disappointing given the serious nature of today's debate and the fact that throughout the country people will be listening with great concern about events in Syria, some knowing their relatives could soon be involved in military action.
"We ask that Mr Oliver apologises and withdraws the remark. In view of the public interest in this matter we are releasing this letter to the media."
Ed Miliband was accused of 'flipping and flopping' and moving the goalposts over military action in Syria. Photograph: Reuters A Downing Street spokesperson said the letter to the cabinet secretary was "completely over the top". The spokesperson said: "Labour's reaction is completely over the top. The No 10 press people were asked if the lack of an international response could give succour to the regime and they agreed with that. They did not mention Ed Miliband by name."
Miliband was already angry after a government source used expletives overnight to criticise Miliband. A government source told the Times on Wednesday night: "No 10 and the Foreign Office think Miliband is a ****ing cunt and a copper-bottomed shit."
A Labour spokesman said of the attack on Miliband. "It seems to us that it is uncalled for. It is demeaning to the debate. There will be families up and down this country who are listening to this debate thinking that if there is military action it could be my son involved, it could be my father involved.
"Downing Street should not lower itself to the level of personal abuse. David Cameron says he wants a consensual approach. His representatives are lowering themselves to a level that is uncalled for."
The war of words between Labour and No 10 came after the prime minister rejected out of hand a Labour amendment that Miliband will press to a vote at 10pm on Thursday night after a lengthy debate in the Commons.
Miliband is refusing to support a government motion, which includes his demand for a second vote to authorise military action, on the grounds that it fails to set out strong enough conditions for the involvement of UN weapons inspectors and the UN security council.
But the prime minister made clear that he was prepared for a parliamentary showdown after he rejected the Labour amendment on the grounds that it failed to mention that chemical weapons were launched in the disputed attack east of Damascus on 21 August. He also said that Labour made no mention of the role of the Assad regime.
The failure to reach agreement followed heated personal exchanges between Cameron and Miliband on Wednesday. Downing Street said that Miliband made no mention of his demand for a second vote at a face-to-face meeting on Wednesday. He made the demand in a later call. Labour confirmed that Miliband did not raise it on the grounds that he was listenting to the prime minister at their meeting.
A N0 10 spokesperson said: "Ed Miliband is flipping and flopping and completely unable to make up his mind. He has been shifting the goalposts."
But the prime minister admitted that a British military attack on Syria would have to be a "judgment call" as there was no "single smoking piece of intelligence" that the regime used chemical weapons. Speaking at the beginning of the emergency Commons debate on Syria, the prime minister said he believed that forces loyal to Bashar al-Assad did use poisonous gas against the Syrian people "right in front of our eyes".
Cameron told MPs there were at least 95 "horrific videos" of people dying in a gas attack in a suburb of Damascus two weeks ago, and added there was further evidence in the form of eyewitness and social media reports.
However, the prime minister did concede that there could be no 100% certainty about the intelligence on which Britain would have to make a decision on whether to intervene in Syria.
Returning to first principles, Cameron argued it was in Britain's national interest to maintain the "international taboo" against the use of chemical weapons on the battlefield. He said the consequences of inaction would be greater than action, as it would give Assad a green light to commit more abuses. "We must not let the spectre of previous mistakes paralyse us," he added.
He acknowledged people were sceptical about getting into "another war in the Middle East" after the actions of the Blair government in the runup to the 2003 Iraq war "well and truly poisoned the well of public opinion" about intervention on the basis of secret intelligence. But he insisted the situation was fundamentally different to Iraq.
"I am of course deeply mindful of the lessons of previous conflicts and in particular the deep concerns in the country caused by what went wrong with the Iraq conflict in 2003," he told MPs during a packed House of Commons debate on the issue.
"But this is not like Iraq. What we are seeing in Syria is fundamentally different," he said. "We are not invading a country. We are not searching for chemical or biological weapons. The case for ultimately, and I say ultimately because there would have to be another vote in this house, the case for ultimately supporting action is not based on a specific piece or pieces of intelligence."
He said the government's motion was purely based on the argument that the world must not stand by while chemical weapons are used against civilians. "The motion also makes clear that, even if all these steps are taken, anything we do would have to be legal, proportionate and specifically focused on deterring further use of chemical weapons," he said.
The prime minister promised he would wait until UN weapons inspectors had delivered their verdict before joining the US in any intervention. The inspectors are due to leave the country on Saturday and, it is understood, could deliver an interim report to the United Nations that day.
He also said it would be "unthinkable" to proceed if the UN security council was overwhelmingly against an attack – although this was not thought to refer to Russian and Chinese objections.
No military strike will take place without another vote by MPs in the House of Commons, Cameron added. "I wanted the recall of this house to debate these absolutely vital national and international issues," he said.
"It is this house that will decide what steps we next take. If you agree to the motion I have set down no action can be taken until we have heard from the UN weapons inspectors, until there has been further action at the United Nations and another vote in this house. "Those are the conditions we the British government, the British parliament, are setting and it is absolutely right we do so."
Ed Miliband said Cameron had not yet made a convincing enough case for a military strike on Syria. He said evidence published on Thursday by the joint intelligence committee was "important" but more was needed for it to be conclusive.
The Labour leader made it clear he was not opposed to action in principle but wanted more time and better arguments before his MPs would give the coalition their backing. The prime minister must make "a better case than he did today", he added.


































00