Syrian crisis: How MPs voted
LAST week the Government lost a Commons vote on supporting, in principle, military action against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's Government. The debate was called in response to a suspected chemical weapons attack in the country.
David Cameron had cut short his holiday in Cornwall to recall Parliament to vote on whether military action should be taken after thousands of civilians were killed or seriously injured in the attack.
A total of 39 MPs from the coalition parties, voted against the motion.
The Commons was asked to agree to "provide a strong humanitarian response", including military action.
Buy one get one free on main course and specials excludes fillet steaks and beef wellingtons
Must book to qualify 01209 860332 and present voucher on arrival
Contact: 01209 700617
Valid until: Sunday, December 15 2013
But the Prime Minister's plans to support intervention in the wake of the chemical attack was defeated by 13 votes.
Following the vote, north and mid-Cornwall's MPs told the Cornish Guardian how they voted and why:
MID-Cornwall Liberal Democrat MP Stephen Gilbert was one of those who voted for intervention.
"The regime has used chemical weapons on 14 occasions that we know of, but this was the most widespread," he said.
"The motion that Parliament debated would not have allowed military action. It would, however, have condemned the attacks, called for increased humanitarian aid and referred the issue to the United Nations Security Council.
"The motion itself was clear that a second vote would be needed by MPs to approve any British intervention.
"Since the horror of the First World War the international community, led by Britain, has been working to prevent the possession and use of chemical weapons.
"The treaty that outlaws them is older than the United Nations itself. Chemical weapons are utterly repugnant; they cause significant suffering before death and, with no warning and no protection, there was nothing the innocent civilians shelled by the Syrian Government could do.
"I don't believe that the use of chemical weapons against innocent people should go unchallenged."
Similarly, South East Cornwall MP Sheryll Murray, a Conservative, voted for the motion.
"No right-thinking person can fail to be deeply moved by the horrific scenes we have seen in Syria. People, often children, are clearly dying in horrific and painful ways and I feel it is very difficult to walk on by," she said.
"During the debate in Syria I was very disappointed that a cross-party agreement could not be reached.
"I understand that it was very late on that Labour decided not to back the Government and decided to come forward with its own motion changing some important details.
"This meant the very worst of all cases happened. Because it was such a last-minute change no discussion could take place and while the vast majority of MPs voted for at least one of the motions, neither went through.
"I feel it is worth noting that no military action would have taken place under either motion without further debate in the House.
"It seems that even further debate will now not take place. This has meant that Britain is seriously limited in any action it can take and this is extremely unfortunate.
"I am concerned that this sends a bad message out to the world that we are uncaring and that we will not intervene. I have concerns on other areas, such as the Falklands of the message this has sent out. I hope this explains my position but, like the Prime Minister, respect the decision of the House."
But Dan Rogerson, Liberal Democrat MP for North Cornwall, voted against the motion, being unconvinced intervention would save any lives.
"I voted against both the Labour and the Government motions on military action in Syria," he said.
"The use of chemical weapons, whether in war between countries or as here by a regime against its own people, is abhorrent to everyone.
"Those responsible must face the full weight of international law as others have done, from Nazi war criminals through to those involved in the Balkan genocides.
"The focus for British foreign policy now must be pursuing diplomatic routes as well as offering humanitarian aid in order to achieve a peaceful resolution as soon as possible.
"I am not against all military intervention, and I supported action in Libya where there was a defined objective. However what has been discussed with regard to Syria is, in my view, lacking in strategic objective and will not help those at risk of persecution.
"I respect the views of those colleagues who decided that a response to the use of chemical weapons was the most important consideration, and I know that like me they did not vote the way they did lightly."