The UK government has ruled out a re-run of the vote on military action in Syria, the foreign secretary has said.
William Hague said ministers could not "go back every week" to something MPs rejected and he was unsure new evidence that may emerge would change minds.
He was speaking after the US delayed strikes until Congress approves them.
On Thursday, MPs voted against the principle of taking military action after a suspected chemical weapons attack on 21 August killed civilians.
They blocked the motion to support military action if backed by evidence from UN weapons inspectors. The government lost by 13 votes after almost 40 MPs from the two coalition parties joined Labour in siding against the motion.
Analysis
Spotting the likely pause before any military action as a result of President Obama consulting Congress, three Westminster big beasts each independently floated an idea.
Two were former Westminster party leaders, Lord Ashdown and Lord Howard.
The third was a former Foreign Secretary and Defence Secretary, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, who now chairs the Intelligence and Security Committee.
Their basic pitch was this: If the facts change on Syria, could the Commons be asked to change its mind?
But senior figures from both the government and Labour stressed that parliament has spoken.
A second vote, with the leadership in support of military action, could split Labour down the middle.
A second defeat could cost David Cameron his job.
Some senior politicians, including the former Westminster party leaders Lord Ashdown and Lord Howard and the former Foreign Secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind, have said the US delay could allow the House of Commons to "think again".
But speaking to BBC Radio 4's World This Weekend programme, Mr Hague said he did not believe new information about the attack would make a difference to the MPs who doubted the government's case.
He said: "I don't think on any issue the government can go back to parliament every few days, or every week with the same proposition, and our proposition already included waiting for the UN weapon inspectors to report, to discuss things at the Security Council, that was already built into our proposal.
"So on this particular issue that we voted for on Thursday... can we go back in the coming days and have that vote again, well no. We can't do that. Parliament has spoken."
The foreign secretary also suggested there had been a "partisan... opportunistic approach from the leadership of the Labour party" on the issue of Syria.
Earlier, Chancellor George Osborne also said that waiting for more evidence would not have made a difference to the MPs' decision.
"They were sceptical of another foreign entanglement," he told the BBC's Andrew Marr Show
"I understand their argument, I don't agree with it, and I don't feel frankly more evidence or another week or more UN reports would have convinced them."
Mr Osborne denied that he and Prime Minister David Cameron had made a miscalculation by taking the vote to Parliament.
But shadow defence secretary Jim Murphy told Sky News: "Syria is complicated, the region is complicated and there's no military exclusive solution. It's about diplomacy, it's about development policy and it is, for some countries, about deployment of military force."
George Osborne: "Very sad if we turned our back on world"
He added that if al-Qaeda was to get its hands on chemical weapons or "if there were to be really significant developments in Syria and the conditions that we set in our motion on Thursday about it being legal, about the evidence being available, compelling evidence, about a UN process, then of course the prime minister has the right to bring that back to Parliament".
Shadow foreign secretary Douglas Alexander said if Mr Cameron returned to Parliament for a second vote following Congress's decision, he would be going back on promises he made after Thursday's debate.
Meanwhile, Archbishop of York Dr John Sentamu told the Andrew Marr Show he did not think it was "wise" to take military action in Syria, saying it was important to wait for the weapons inspectors' report before acting.
Sarin claimMr Cameron had pushed for military action following the suspected chemical weapons attack on the outskirts of Syrian capital Damascus.
The US says it killed 1,429 people and was carried out by the Syrian government.
Syria's President Bashar al-Assad blames opposition forces and says his country will defend itself against any Western "aggression".
Douglas Alexander says the UK-US relationship is "strong, deep and I believe will endure"
President Obama's surprising decision to ask Congress for approval means that a strike that was thought to be imminent will now not go ahead before 9 September, when Congress reconvenes.
Secretary of State John Kerry has said the US has evidence that the chemical nerve agent sarin has been used and he was confident that Congress would give its approval for strikes.
It comes as the opposition Syrian National Coalition called Mr Obama's decision to delay possible military action a "failure of leadership", saying it could "embolden" President Assad's forces.
There has been no official statement from the Syrian government since Mr Obama's announcement, but CBS quoted Deputy Prime Minister Qadri Jamil as saying: "If the US has postponed its decision, or retreated... this invites ridicule from all sides."
Meanwhile, in Damascus, there is some relief in the city among those who feared that US attacks could start this weekend, the BBC's Jeremy Bowen said.
More than 100,000 people are estimated to have died and at least 1.7 million refugees displaced since civil conflict erupted in Syria in March 2011.
The violence began when Syrian security forces clamped down on anti-government protests.
No comments:
Post a Comment