Since March 2011 the Syrian government, led by Bashar al-Assad, has brutally put down a popular uprising in which more than 100,000 people have died.
Last night, on 29 August 2013, Parliament voted against a motion that Britain should in principle support military intervention in Syria. (You can find the full motion here).
The motion was put forward after the Syrian regime used chemical weapons to kill over 350 people on 21 August . This has to be wrong. It is a crime against humanity. Britain, the US and France have the capability to stop this and as a result we have a moral duty to do so.
Some have argued that military intervention would be illegal. This is not so. Following advice from the Attorney General (the legal adviser to the UK Government) the Government released a statement affirming that limited military strikes to deter future chemical weapons attacks would be legal under international law, even without the backing of the United Nations.
With the motion's failure ended any real prospect of Britain fulfilling this moral duty. In the words of the Prime Minister: 'It is clear to me that the British Parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action. I get that and the Government will act accordingly.'
Why did the motion fail? The blame surely lies with Ed Miliband who refused to call his party (Labour) to back the motion. His argument was that there must be 'compelling evidence' before any British involvement.
How much evidence does Miliband need? According to the Joint Intelligence Committee it is 'highly likely that the Syrian regime was responsible' for the use chemical weapons (CW) on 21 August and that '[t]here is no credible evidence that any opposition group has used CW'. The US has even gone so far as to call the regime's use of chemical weapons 'undeniable'.
There is further evidence to suggest that Assad's regime has used CW on a smaller scale at least 14 times since 2012. If we don't send Assad a clear message now he will continue in the knowledge he can use chemical weapons with impunity.
Last year I argued that Britain has a moral duty to intervene in Syria to protect the lives of innocent civilians. Those views haven't changed.
Today our country turned its back on the slaughter of innocent men, women and children. We should be ashamed.
