There is much sympathy in Britain for the plight of Syrian refugees in Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan, and for all civilians who have suffered so much in the civil war in Syria. There is strong support for humanitarian assistance through governmental and charitable organizations and for further efforts to bring the parties together to negotiate a solution. The use of chemical weapons in the conflict is universally condemned. But U.K. public opinion does not, at least at present, think that British forces should take part in a military action against the Syrian regime even if the United States decides to make limited military strikes against the regime.
British Prime Minister David Cameron, who had been pressing U.S. President Barack Obama to take military action to deter the Syrian regime from further use of chemical weapons, decided to try to get parliamentary agreement to Britain giving military support to the U.S. if the president decided to go ahead with strikes against Syrian government weapons sites. The House of Commons was accordingly recalled from its summer recess and held an emergency debate on Syria on Aug. 29. The government sought support in principle for military intervention.
After a long and heated debate, the government's motion was rejected by a narrow majority. The opposition Labour Party, which had seemed to be prepared to support some form of military action, decided in the end to vote against the motion when it became clear that the motion did not have universal support from members of the Conservative and Liberal Democratic parties, which form the present coalition government.