Proposals to bomb Syria have hit some serious turbulence. While the prime minister moves towards launching airstrikes, the public sees things differently. By almost two to one, British people oppose bombing Syria, according to a survey by YouGov released on 12 April.
Dozens of people reportedly died after an alleged chemical weapon attack on the Syrian city of Douma. 43% of people oppose airstrikes on the Syrian military in response, while under a quarter (22%) support the action. 34% don’t know.
But that doesn’t mean people think the Syrian government wasn’t responsible. 61% believe “there probably was an attack carried out using chemical weapons by Syrian government forces or their allies”. Only 5% adhere to the Russian version of events that there probably wasn’t a chemical attack and the claims are “fabrications”. 29% selected “don’t know” and 5% chose “something else happened”.
Still, the public doesn’t appear to think that airstrikes are an appropriate response.
Under British law, the prime minister doesn’t need to put bombing Syria to a Commons vote. Although that has become customary since Tony Blair asked MPs for approval before the Iraq war. And May is under pressure to do the same.
Jeremy Corbyn said parliament should “always be given a say” on military action. It’s unclear whether the prime minister would win such a vote. In a similar vein, Green Party co-leader Caroline Lucas said there was “absolutely no way” May should take any military action without “a full debate and vote in Parliament”.
The views of MPs aside, the majority of people in Britain seem to oppose the airstrikes. That being the case, the proposals to bomb Syria are looking shaky at best.
We need your help ...
The coronavirus pandemic is changing our world, fast. And we will do all we can to keep bringing you news and analysis throughout. But we are worried about maintaining enough income to pay our staff and minimal overheads.
Now, more than ever, we need a vibrant, independent media that holds the government to account and calls it out when it puts vested economic interests above human lives. We need a media that shows solidarity with the people most affected by the crisis – and one that can help to build a world based on collaboration and compassion.
We have been fighting against an establishment that is trying to shut us down. And like most independent media, we don’t have the deep pockets of investors to call on to bail us out.
Can you help by chipping in a few pounds each month?