Theresa May statement on Syria

Lester Mason
April 17, 2018

As the Conservative leader explained her rationale for the airstrikes, opposition parties claimed the attacks were legally dubious, risked escalating conflict and should have been approved by lawmakers.

"Bombs won't save lives or bring about peace", he said, adding that Britain should be leading the response and "not taking instructions from Washington and putting British military personnel in harms way".

"Theresa May should have sought parliamentary approval, not trailed after Donald Trump".

By morning, the Western countries said their bombing was over for now.

She will say United Nations inspectors found Syrian president Bashar al-Assad's government responsible for four previous chemical weapons attacks and that she is confident it was "highly likely" to have been behind last week's attack in Douma, which killed up to 75 people.

"This extraordinary U-turn is an admission that the prime minister made an error in failing to recall parliament and is yet more evidence of how ill-considered this military action is - and just how far Theresa May's actions have been dictated by presidential tweet". However, that has been less the case in recent years.

Mrs May added that governments were agreed on using military action "where necessary and proportionate, and as a last resort, to avert an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe is permissible under global law".

In the early 2000s, the then British prime minister Tony Blair who belonged to Corbyn's own party, was mocked as the American poodle for allegedly following the U.S. in its intervention in Iraq and war on terrorism.

Britain has said there are no plans for future strikes against Syria.


May said the strike was "limited and targeted" and came after intelligence indicated that Syrian military officials had coordinated a chlorine attack in the Damascus suburb of Douma on April 7.

Mrs May is due to give a Commons statement on Monday before facing questions from MPs.

Deploying the armed forces is a prerogative power, meaning the prime minister can launch action without backing from MPs.

"I believe that parliament should have been consulted and voted on the matter".

Her office issued a statement detailing what it said was the legal justification for military action, saying Assad had used chemical weapons since 2013 and the blocking of United Nations action by Russian Federation and other allies of Syria left no alternative to "truly exceptional" use of force. The strikes at 0100 GMT were 15 miles (24 kilometres) west of Homs.

British Prime Minister Theresa May, facing a rowdy session of parliament on Monday, defended her decision to join USA -led missile strikes against Syria without first seeking parliament's authorization. Speaking on LBC, he said on Sunday: "Theresa May tells us in her speech that we're doing this in our national interest".

Leaders of the Green Party accused May of trampling over parliamentary democracy and sought a vote to be held on Monday, April 16. "Indeed, we have been calling for parliament to be recalled since last Wednesday", Blackford said in a statement.

The document added: "In these circumstances, and as an exceptional measure on grounds of overwhelming humanitarian necessity, military intervention to strike carefully considered, specifically identified targets in order effectively to alleviate humanitarian distress by degrading the Syrian regime's chemical weapons capability and deterring further chemical weapons attacks was necessary and proportionate and therefore legally justifiable".

"There is no proposal on the table at the moment for further attacks because so far, thank heavens, the Assad regime have not been so foolish as to launch another chemical weapons attack", he told the Andrew Marr show.

Other reports by Iphone Fresh

Discuss This Article

FOLLOW OUR NEWSPAPER