Farage May Be Tokenistic, But We Should Listen (This Time)

Photo © European Union 2013 - European Parliament

An unprecedented situation arose today: when The Telegraph published that Nigel Farage believes the UK should welcome refugees from the Syrian conflict, a moment arose where the Green Party, the left, and UKIP, the right, were in agreement.

Almost three years since the beginning of the Syrian crisis and a large proportion of the Syrian population are either dead, militarised or displaced by the civil war. Yet, despite this, the British government and their official opposition remain adamant that the UK should not accept any refugees from the battle-torn state. Ignoring the massive demand placed on the neighbouring countries, especially Lebanon, and that the Syrian population must either leave their home and country or face their imminent death, the Tories, Labour and Lib Dems are refusing to help those in dire need of aid.

Hence, it does come as a real surprise when the leader of the UK Independence Party, renowned for his intolerance of migration and non-nationals, is the most high-profile figure calling for the UK to be more accepting. Despite the Green Party having called for this kind of action on Syria since the vote in Parliament, UKIP are being granted the real voice, due to their increasing success in the polls. Having caught on to this, Nigel Farage is making the most of it and he and his party are beginning to act as more of a pressure on the Government.

Attempting to find reconciliation for this confusion, however, can inevitably lead to some cynicism. Is it just a ploy by the UKIP leader to find some a policy that is popular with the British electorate? Perhaps it is just a way to soften the hardened perception of the party that they are nationalistic and racist. It is possible to find this as an answer: In the same article, the party leader maintained the position that we should limit the number of Eastern Europeans becoming resident in the UK. Trying to differentiate become immigrants and refugees, Farage implied that we have a duty to help those displaced by war and other humanitarian crises, which is entirely right, but that those immigrating for other reasons are undeserving of any support, regardless of the wider contexts of their lives.

And, again, I find myself in complete shock as I find myself in agreement with Tory politician, Andrew Brigden, who said “it’s purely political tokenism and it’s a policy put forward by…a tokenist politician.” Nigel Farage is simply doing this to strengthen his party’s image where the other parties look weak, and with the European elections on the horizon. He’s also chosen the Christmas period, when the other parties are fairly quiet (with the exception of Cameron who is busy being criticised in flood-stricken Yalding) to make this bold announcement. It’s all part of his recipe to gain a positive perception of his party. With people becoming tired of the three governmental parties, they are looking for alternatives and with UKIP tapping into their fears on immigration, distrust of Europe and now some compassionate ground for Syrian refugees, there is a potential for a far more popular UKIP here.

However, even if we are to be cynical of Farage’s motives, his is a policy we must also support. There has been a distinct lack of support for Syrian civilians throughout the conflict from the UK. We have shouted at Assad and threatened terrorist organisations who have used the conflict to their advantage. We have offered non-lethal support and humanitarian aid. But the conflict continues and people continue to lose their homes and their lives. If we really want to help the Syrian people, we need to help end the conflict and help every civilian return to a normal peaceful life.

Prime Minister's Questions - 4th September

Image by Victoria Kettlewell

MPs appeared rusty as the first session of Prime Minister's Questions began after the Summer recess. It comes as no surprise that the dominant topic in the House was Britain's response to the Syrian civil war, following the recall of parliament for a debate on military intervention last week. Cameron and Miliband debated in a calm manner, agreeing on points that a diplomatic solution must be reached by convening talks between the warring parties and the nations backing them. Cameron couldn't resist a shot at Miliband, ending their exchange with a complaint that Miliband divided the house on a vote 'that led to a vote'. Many members of the House called for a more concerted effort in bettering relations with Iran, who were named as complicit in an attack on the British embassy, following the election of a new president. Cameron argued that Britain needed to be cautious but that he had taken steps towards this.

Asked about why the Tories won't back a mansion tax but continue to implement a bedroom tax, Cameron retorted that Labour needed to learn what a tax was before ridiculing Miliband about whether they would reverse it if they were in Government and demonstrating how to nod in response. Miliband showed no sign of Labour's commitment post-2015, showing an unwillingness to show their true views, either because they would be unpopular or so as not to reveal their tactics. Prime Minister's Questions only return for a few weeks before party conference season puts it on a hiatus again.

The UK wants to stay away from bombs, not give 'succour' to Assad

Photo by Steve Rhodes 

The Government's defeat in the House of Commons over taking military action in Syria demonstrates a rare circumstance where the public are listened to by the MPs and widespread unwillingness to create another situation we are still overseeing in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet, as another day begins since the use of chemical weapons, allegedly by Assad, the propaganda war will begin and we will be told that we have failed the Syrian people by voting against; the UK Government will denounce its citizens as misinformed, misguided and attack anti-war MPs for their ill thought-out and 'despicable' (as Michael Gove shouted) choices. But this is not the case.

By voting no to military action yesterday, that is all MPs, representing us, have done. With public support for military intervention sitting at figures between 8 and 12 percent, depending on your source, the case for it was always going to be undermined. And that is because people recognised the failings of the Iraq and Afghanistan war: the massive loss of lives; the lies told by the Government; and, the failure for the conflicts to end after over a decade. In addition, the increased prevalence of whistleblowers, such as Wikileaks and Chelsea Manning, have raised the profile of the war crimes and terrible consequences of Western military intervention. Many now have the opinion that using bombs as a way of ending a conflict only makes the situation worse. Perhaps, the deep misunderstanding of the way to end a conflict has caused deep resentment by groups in the Middle-East and hence given way to the increased membership of terrorist organisations such as Al-Qaeda. I am in no way condoning the activities such organisations partake in, but I can see a possible motivation; you wrecked our country with your imperialist use of your military muscle, we'll do what we can to show you how reckless you have been. 

It is for these reasons that people oppose military intervention in Syria. The motion presented to the House yesterday, including the amendment, did not present us with the dichotomy that we are told we were presented with. It was not so simple as black and white that it was either bomb Syria or sit back and watch Syria bomb itself. The third option, ignored by the motions and the amendments, although recognised by many members of the house in their speeches, and unsuccessfully proposed as an amendment by Green MP Caroline Lucas, was that we used more peaceful, negotiating tactics, based on humanitarian aid and diplomacy to end the conflict. A far less bloody solution than was proposed by the leaders of the three main parties in the house. It was this view that was ever-dominant throughout the debate yet, ironically, no-one was given the choice to vote for it. The closest that MPs could get to voting for peaceful action, was to vote against the motion and the amendment, which called for military action.

Hence, the opinions that we are presented with today, that we have 'let the people of Syria down', we have 'ruled out any action' and that we have somehow given 'succour' to Assad completely disregard this third option. It is unfortunate that we live in a world where the two most powerful nation's leaders are bloodthirsty, hotheaded and quick to hit the launch button. At least, with some stroke of luck, a majority of thirteen members of the House swung the vote in the way of sense.