Get all your news in one place.
100's of premium titles.
One app.
Start reading
The Guardian - UK
The Guardian - UK
Politics
Andrew Sparrow

Cameron sets out 'moral case' for airstrikes against Isis in Syria – Politics live

David Cameron setting out the case for bombing Islamic State (Isis) in Syria

Afternoon summary

That’s all from me for today.

Thanks for the comments.

There were more questions about Syria at the afternoon Number 10 lobby briefing (although not so many answers). Here are the main points.

  • The prime minister’s spokesman said the claim that there are 70,000 moderate Syrian opposition fighters is “based on the best intelligence analysis that we have”. Earlier some MPs said they did not accept it. (See 2.33pm.)
  • The spokesman would not say when a vote might be held. David Cameron now wanted to allow MPs time to reflect on the arguments put forward, the spokesman said.
  • The spokesman refused to define what Cameron meant when he said he wanted a “clear majority”. (See 2.33pm.)

George Eaton has a good account of the shadow cabinet meeting on his New Statesman blog. He says it started with Jeremy Corbyn saying he was unequivocally opposed to military action. Here’s an extract.

A majority of members are prepared to support military action, according to those present, but Jeremy Corbyn is not. At the start of the 75 minute meeting, the Labour leader read out a prepared statement stating his unconditional opposition to air strikes. He was supported by shadow international development secretary Diane Abbott, who said that she would never vote to send the armed forces to war, shadow communities secretary Jon Trickett and Parliamentary Labour Party chair John Cryer (who added that he was prepared to back the shadow cabinet’s collective view). Shadow chancellor John McDonnell did not speak but has previously stated his opposition to air strikes.

The remainder, however, either favour or are prepared to support military action. Following Corbyn’s statement, shadow foreign secretary Hilary Benn spoke, arguing that the tests Labour had set for intervention (such as a UN resolution) had been met and that Cameron had made a “compelling” case for air strikes. He was supported by deputy leader Tom Watson, who reminded the shadow cabinet that he had rebelled over Libya in 2013 and emphasised the atrocities committed by Isis in Syria. He called for the party to reach a collective decision.

The shadow cabinet has been meeting today to discuss Syria. According to ITV’s Chris Ship, a majority of members are in favour, but the shadow cabinet has not yet taken a decision as to what the party should do. It will meet again on Monday.

The Stop the War Coalition (which used to be chaired by Jeremy Corbyn, until he stood down just after his election as Labour leader) has issued a seven-point rebuttal of Cameron’s Syria document. It says bombing Isis in Syria will do “nothing to weaken Isis but will instead inflame the civil war, deepen the misery of the Syrian people and increase the terrorist risk.”

Cameron's statement - Summary and analysis

Have you noticed how no one is calling it a dossier?

David Cameron’s 36-page document is certainly dossier-length but, as he stressed repeatedly in his marathon Commons performance, he wants to avoid making the mistakes Tony Blair made in 2003 and he was doing everything he could to avoid hyperbole as he made the argument for Britain joining air strikes against Islamic State (Isis, or Isil) in Syria.

As a Commons performance it was first-class. He was polite, intelligent, reasonable, and not once did he strike a wrong note. In particular, he was reaching out to Labour (claiming that he had satisfied the conditions set out in the motion on Syria passed at the Labour conference) and at no point did indulge in partisan point-scoring. Liam Fox, the hawkish Conservative former defence secretary who is no Cameron fan, thinks it was his finest hour.

But is Cameron the winning the argument?

He is certainly making progress. In the Commons several Tories stood up to announce that, although they were opposed to air strikes in the past, they are now in favour.

Yet the “not a dossier” does not clinch the argument, as my colleagues Ewen MacAskill (see 12.10pm) and Rafael Behr (see 1.18pm) point out. Some of the assumptions that Cameron is making about what might happen if Isis loses its grip on Raqqa are closer to flimsy than robust and, even as he summoned all his charm and authority, he could not persuade MPs otherwise. Last week one unnamed minister reportedly said a Commons vote in favour of air strikes was “in the bag”. Today it did not feel like that. Even though it is assumed that dozens of Labour MPs would prefer to vote in favour, hardly any of them explicitly backed Cameron this morning and the mood was very different from Tuesday last week when they were queuing up to disown Jeremy Corbyn over security matters. Cameron seemed genuinely unsure as to whether he would win - at one point he talked about if a vote takes place, not when - and everything now seems to depend on what Labour does. Corbyn strongly implied that the party would not back air strikes with his blessing. Perhaps the shadow cabinet will over-rule him, or perhaps there will be a free vote. In those circumstances, the Commons will probably vote for air strikes next week. But if Labour decides not to support the government, and Cameron has to rely on Labour rebels, it starts to look much more uncertain.

Here are the main points.

  • Cameron said that he would only hold a vote on air strikes against Isis in Syria if he believes there is a “clear majority” in favour.

There will not be a vote in this House unless there is a clear majority for action, because we will not hand a publicity coup to Isil.

  • He said that Isis would grow stronger unless Britain took action against it in Syria.

Every day we fail to act is a day when Isil can grow stronger and more plots can be undertaken ...

All the advice I have received – the military advice, the diplomatic advice and the security advice – all says yes, that the risks of inaction are greater.Some have asked specifically whether taking action could make the UK more of a target for Isil attacks.

  • He said intelligence chiefs said Britain was already a top-tier Isis target.

The judgement of the director general of the security service [MI5] and the chairman of joint intelligence committee is that the UK is already in the top tier of countries that ISIL is targeting.

  • He said Britain would contribute at least £1bn to post-conflict reconstruction in Syria.
  • Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader, expressed considerable scepticism about bombing Isis in Syria. While not explicitly ruling it out, he used his response to Cameron to raise seven questions about Cameron’s plans, and he implied air strikes would increase, not decrease, the threat from Isis.

There is no doubt that the so-called Islamic State group has imposed a reign of terror on millions in Iraq, Syria and Libya. All that ISIS stands for and does is contrary to everything those of us on these benches have struggled for over generations.

And there is no doubt that it poses a threat to our own people.

The question must now be whether extending the UK bombing from Iraq to Syria is likely to reduce, or increase, that threat and whether it will counter, or spread, the terror campaign ISIS is waging in the Middle East.

  • Julian Lewis, the Conservative MP who chairs the Commons defence committee, questioned Cameron’s claim that there were 70,000 moderate opposition fighters in Syria able to take over the ground currently held by Isis. Lewis said:

The suggestion there are 70,000 non-Islamist, moderate, credible ground forces, I have to say, is a revelation to me and I suspect most other MPs in this House.

Some other Tories made a similar point, including the former cabinet minister Peter Lilley who told Cameron:

I want you to convince me that what you refer to as the Free Syrian Army actually exists rather than is a label we apply to a rag-bag group of clans and tribal forces with no coherent force.

Cameron insisted that the 70,000 figure came from the joint intelligence committee, not from him. He said that he was very anxious not to overstate the case, and he suggested intelligence chiefs could give evidence to a Commons committee if MPs wanted more information about this claim.

  • Cameron said that the arguments in his case for bombing Isis in Syria addressed the conditions set for supporting military action in the motion on this passed by the Labour conference. He mentioned the Labour conference motion twice, unlike Labour MPs, who did not refer to it.
  • The SNP signalled that it would vote against air strikes, while the DUP signalled it would vote in favour.

Updated

Three Guardian writers, Martin Wollacott, Mary Dejevsky and Owen Jones, have given their verdicts on Cameron’s case for war for a Comment is Free panel.

David Cameron has finally finished his statement. He took questions from 103 backbenchers, and was on his feet for two hours and 45 minutes. That must be a near record for a ministerial statement.

I will post a summary soon.

My colleague Rafael Behr has written a point-by-point analysis of the answers Cameron has given to the seven questions raised by the foreign affairs committee. Here is his article.

And here is an extract - Rafael’s take on Cameron’s response to the question about who will hold the ground after Isis have been bombed.

The boots-on-the-ground conundrum. The lesson from past interventions in Iraq and Libya, for example, is that jihadi terrorism thrives in a power vacuum, so there is little sense in striking in Syria to degrade Isis without confidence that some other force, more amenable to peace and civil reconstruction, can move in under the cover of airstrikes.

Cameron makes some brave assumptions here about the capabilities of the Syrian opposition and extrapolates very optimistically from limited progress made by Kurdish forces so far. This is the weakest link in his chain – an expression of wishful thinking and heroic ambition as much as a credible argument. It is hard to avoid the impression that he is deferring this aspect of the strategy, by far the trickiest one, until after the Tornados are in the air. But history suggests convenient deferral of this kind of plan is a fatal flaw – a shoot-from-the-hip response that undermines even the very best of intentions. A major cause for concern.

Mike Kane, the Labour MP, says MPs in the Commons are concerned about the “winnability” issue - whether Isis will be beaten on the ground.

Cameron says “losability” is an issue too; he says it is important to take action now.

Andrew Slaughter, the Labour MP, asks Cameron if he agrees that anything that sustains Assad in power would be unacceptable.

Cameron says the government wants to help the Syrian opposition currently fighting.

Steve McCabe, the Labour MP, asks what will happen if the Free Syrian Army cannot take Raqqa.

Cameron says he will come back to the Commons regularly to update MPs. “We are not dealing with perfection,” he says.

Tommy Shepphard, the SNP MP, asks if Cameron thinks Isis can be beaten on the grounds without the help of the Syrian army.

Cameron says he envisages the Syrian opposition fighters taking over.

Labour’s Albert Owen says since becoming an MP he has been asked to vote for military action four times. Sometimes he has voted yes, and sometimes no. If bombing increases the number of refugees from Syria, will Cameron increase the number allowed into the UK?

Cameron says the government has set out its plans, but will keep them under review. He wants to make progress, and take 1,000 refugees by Christmas.

Kevin Brennan, the Labour MP, says he voted against air stikes in Syria in 2013. Will British bombing replace less accurate bombing?

Cameron says that is exactly what he is proposing.

George Kerevan, the SNP MP, asks when there might be a ceasefire in Syria.

Cameron says we cannot afford to wait until there is a settlement in Syria before acting against Isis.

Labour’s Diana Johnson asks Cameron if Britain needs a chapter 7 UN resolution to give full legal authority to military action.

Cameron says the resolution passed last week has lots of “chapter 7 language” in it, even if it not a chapter 7 resolution.

Cameron says he will consider putting a line about the need for him to regularly update MPs on Syria in any motion being put to the Commons for a vote.

Cameron says the RAPTOR pod, a high-power surveillance camera, is so powerful that it is said a plane using one could hover over the Isle of Wight and read the hands on the clock of Big Ben.

Andrew Percy, a Conservative, says that he did not support Cameron when MPs voted in Syria in the past, but that he will support him now.

Brendan O’Hara, the SNP defence spokesman, says Cameron claims that Britain can make a unique contribution because it has the Brimstone missile. But haven’t the Saudis got one too?

Cameron says it is a very effective weapon. He does not answer the point about Saudi Arabia.

John Glen, a Conservative, says he welcomes Cameron’s plans. But can Cameron assure him Britain will not pull out if this takes longer than expected.

Cameron says he knows there is not a quick and easy solution. “This whole process is going to take a long time,” he says.

Labour’s Sir Keir Starmer asks if Britain’s allies agree that the 70,000 moderate Syrian fighters are the right people to take Isis territory. Cameron says they do agree about this.

Cameron says he would not back military action if he thought it would derail the political process.

Ian Mearns, the Labour MP, asks where we will contain and detain Isis fighters who are not killed.

Cameron says the military campaign is only part of the strategy. This is a generational struggle, he says.

Cameron says Britain can sustain the use of RAF forces “at a regular tempo of combat”, instead of having to use them in surges. That would make Britain a valuable partner, he says.

Craig Whittaker, a Conservative, asks for an assurance that British military action would make a difference.

Cameron says it would. He says “plot after plot” against the UK has come from around Raqqa, he says.

Andrew Bingham, a Conservative, says he opposed military action in Syria two years ago. But now he would back Cameron, he says.

Bob Blackman, a Conservative, asks how long this would take.

Cameron says it will take time. He will report back to MPs regularly. It would be a “long and complex” strategy.

Jeremy Lefroy, a Conservative, says he supports Cameron’s statement. What extra resources would Britain deploy?

Cameron says Typhoon and Tornado jets would be deployed. But Britain would continue with the action it is taking against Isis in Iraq too.

Peter Bone, a Conservative, asks Cameron if he will meet Jeremy Corbyn to agree a draft motion with him.

Cameron says he will try to draft the broadest possible motion to attract the widest support.

In response to a question from Labour’s Kate Hoey, Cameron the aim of this mission would not be regime change in Syria.

Here is the latest YouGov polling on whether Britain should join air strikes against Isis in Syria.

John Woodcock, the Labour MP, says the Iraqi government is flawed, and the political settlement in the country is broken. Sunni areas need to have the capacity to govern for themselves.

Cameron agrees that the settlement in Iraq is flawed. But we have to engage with it, he says.

Liam Byrne, the Labour MP, asks who the political leaders are who could take over cities like Raqqa.

Cameron says a large extent of the caliphate in Iraq has been rolled back. There are 70,000 moderate Syrian fighters. Unless we help them, they will be rolled back, he says.

He agrees that there are not enough of them. But that is not an argument for doing nothing; it is an argument for helping them.

Tom Tugendhat, a Conservative, says the attacks on Paris were not an add-on to what Isis does; they were a core part of its strategy. Isis must be destroyed, he says.

Pat McFadden, the shadow Europe minister, says it is critical to learn lessons from the past. But it is also critical to accept that Isis are responsible for what they do.

What can Cameron say to persuade people that he has the “staying power” for this?

Cameron says he agrees about Isis. Britain has the ability to bring countries together, he says. And it has “a large wallet” to help reconstruction.

Cameron says he is not pretending the case for air strikes is perfect. But arguing for doing nothing would be a counsel of despair, he says.

My colleague Ewen MacAskill has written an early assessment of Cameron’s “case for war” document. He is quite sceptical.

Here is his article.

And here is an excerpt.

“There is a credible military strategy to defeat Isil in Syria as well as Iraq”

If there is, no one has told the US.

In private briefings and in public testimony to Congress, a long line of senior American officers have acknowledged frustration with the battle against Islamic State. General John Allen, who was in overall charge of the US campaign in Syria and Iraq, has quit after a year.

A marine commander, Lieutenant General Robert Neller, offering his best assessment of how the war is going, described it as a “a stalemate”.

Philip Davies, a Conservative, asks for an assurance that the Commons motion on this will specify attacking Isis in Syria, and that it would not allow attacks on Assad’s forces.

Cameron says he can give that assurance.

Richard Draz, a Conservative, urges Cameron not to rule out using British ground forces to “crush” Isis.

Cameron says this would be counterproductive.

Labour’s Richard Burden asked who would step in on the ground if Isis gets bombed.

Cameron says the moderate forces have shown they can take territory.

Sir Edward Leigh, a Conservative, says Cameron made a convincing case. But so did Tony Blair for war in Iraq. He says the Free Syrian Army are a “rag-tag army” and that they will not hold Isis territory. We need to cooperate with Russia, he says.

Cameron says he is not pretending that there is some perfect armed force available. He is not over-playing their significance. He is saying the real ground forces will arrive when there is peace and a new government in Syria.

But teaming up with Assad is not possible, he says.

He says he hopes this difference with Leigh won’t lead to Leigh voting against the government.

Chris Leslie, the former shadow chancellor, says the UN security council resolution does not just allow UN members to take steps to tacked Isis, but it requests them to act.

Cameron agrees. He says the Labour party conference motion called for UN security council authorisation. That condition has now been met, he says.

Stephen Gethins, the SNP MP and a member of the foreign affairs committee, says he does not think Cameron has answered the committee’s seven questions. Will Cameron appear before the committee before a vote in the Commons?

Cameron says he will appear before it, but not necessarily before a Commons vote. But if there is a vote, he will be in the Commons to deal with questions from MPs.

Sarah Wollaston, a Conservative, says she voted against military action last time, but that this time she will be backing Cameron.

Labour’s Derek Twigg says ensuring ground forces are available to fight Isis is crucial. Will Cameron put pressure on Iraq to do more to arm Sunnis to fight Isis.

Cameron says he agrees with this point.

If MPs are not convinced by what he is saying about 70,000 moderate Syrian opposition fighters being available, he is happy for the intelligence and defence chiefs to give evidence to Commons committees about this. He says he does not want to overstate anything; if anything, he wants to understate his case.

Christopher Chope, a Conservative, says Turkey seems more interested in bombing the Kurds than in bombing Isis.

Cameron says the Turks accept Isis is “an enormous threat” to their country.

Keith Vaz, the Labour chair of the home affairs committee, says Cameron has made a “powerful case”. But air strikes will lead to more refugees coming to Europe. Are other EU countries ready for this?

Cameron says the only solution to the migration crisis is a political solution in Syria. This will help achieve that.

Bernard Jenkin, a Conservative, asks when the US will show more resolve. They are only two around seven sorties a day, and only one or two are cleared to bomb.

Cameron says the Americans are bearing a considerable burden already.

Philippa Whitford, the SNP MP, says “something must be done” is not a good basis for action. The people who bombed Paris, and who bombed London in 2005, lived here. We cannot bomb them.

Cameron says this is absolutely not a “something must be done” strategy. Doing nothing has consequences too, he says.

James Gray, a Conservative, says he thinks people will support the case Cameron has made.

Caroline Lucas, the Green MP, asks whether bombing Isis in Syria would increase the chances of a political solution.

Cameron says getting rid of Isis would increase the chances of political solution.

Sir Gerald Howarth, a Conservative, says the RAF helped stopped Iraq falling into the hands of Isis. It makes no sense to stop bombing Isis at the Iraq border, he says.

Hywel Williams, the Plaid Cyrmu MP, says Cameron should consider alternatives to bombing.

Bob Stewart, a Conservative, says he applauds the prime minister for what he is doing. Will Cameron hold a vote next week?

Cameron says, as a former soldier, Stewart knows the importance of standing by your allies.

Dennis Skinner, the Labour MP, says Turkey has been buying oil from Isis and fighting Kurds, who are fighting Isis. It would be a crazy war, with enemies to the left and to the right. “Keep out,” he says.

Cameron says countries are coming together in an alliance to defeat Isis.

Turkey has taken action to try to stop the smuggling of oil across its border, he says.

Cheryl Gillan, a Conservative, says Tony Blair took Britain to war in Iraq on a false premise. She thanks Cameron for being so open with the case for air strikes. She thinks the Commons will back military action.

Cameron says what happened in 2003 “poisoned the well” in relation to these issue, and that he has tried to do things differently. He hasn’t rushed, and he has published his advice. But Iraq should not stop the government acting.

Paul Flynn, the Labour MP, says Isis want to escalate this into a world war between Muslims and Christians. Won’t air strikes increase the threat posed by terrorism, and encourage people to join Isis?

Cameron says Isis are threatening the UK already. We want to avoid a battle between Muslims and Christians, he says. Isil butcher Muslism “in vast numbers”.

John Baron, a Conservative, says Britain risks repeating the mistakes made in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. He also questions the claim that there are 70,000 moderate Syrian opposition fighters. There are already too many air strikes chasing too few targets, he says.

Cameron says there are too many terrorists chasing targets.

Dodds indicates DUP would support military action

Nigel Dodds, the DUP leader, says his party understands the need to stand up to terrorism. He indicates that the DUP would support military action.

Nadine Dorries, the Conservative, says if the attack had happened in London not Paris, people would be alarmed if other countries were not helping the UK. He asks Cameron to ask the chief whip to get Labour to agree to allow its MPs to vote for military action.

Cameron says Dorries makes a good point about the alliance with France.

He says he will not hold a vote if there is a danger of losing it. That is not because of personal pride; “all politicians are ultimately expendable”. But losing the vote would send out a message that would help Isis.

Cameron also says that many of the conditions set in the motion on Syria passed by Labour its conference have been met or are being met.

Liz Kendall, another Labour leadership candidate, asks for an assurance that Cameron will make a commitment to getting a political solution.

Cameron says he can give that commitment because this is the number one problem the government faces, not least because of its impact on the refugee crisis.

Peter Lilley, a Conservative, says he needs Cameron to convince him that the Free Syrian Army exists, and that it is not just a “rag-bag group of tribal forces with no coherent force”. There are no moderates, he says.

Tim Farron, the Lib Dem leader, says there are knee-jerk reactions on both sides. The Lib Dems have set out five tests to judge this issue, he says. He says Cameron will have to say much more to MPs to convince them that ground forces will be available to take the land captured from Isis. He asks about establishing safe zones. And what is being done to put pressure on Saudi Arabia to help, he asks.

Cameron says he is opposed to a knee-jerk reaction. He says, to create safe zones, you would have to enforce them, and that could lead to ground forces having to get involved.

He says Saudi Arabia supports the action Britain is planning.

Liam Fox, the Conservative former defence secretary, says if the UK does not act, that is a policy position that will have consequences. The jihadists hate us not for what we do, but for who we are, he says.

Cameron agrees.

Yvette Cooper, the former Labour leadership candidate, asks how Cameron will avoid appearing to help Assad’s forces? Won’t that help Isis recruit?

Cameron says his target is Isis, not the regime. If the Sunni majority accept the West wants a transition from Assad, that will help.

Julian Lewis casts doubt on Cameron's claim that there are 70,000 moderate Syrian opposition fighters

Julian Lewis, the Conservative chair of the Commons defence committee, says Isis must be beaten militarily. But air strikes need to be launched alongside ground forces, he says. He says the claim that there are 70,000 moderate Syrian opposition fighters is a revelation to him. (He’s implying it is not true.) The West has to choose between backing Assad and backing Isis, he says.

Cameron says the 70,000 figure comes from the joint intelligence committee (JIC). It is an independent figure.

He says today’s document was cleared by the JIC.

Labour’s George Howarth asks what a transitional government in Syria might look like.

Cameron says this is being discussed in Vienna. It should start with ceasefires. Then there needs to be a discussion about institutions, then elections, and then the replacement of Assad, he says.

Andrew Mitchell, the Conservative former international development, says Cameron’s arguments are “compelling” (the same word Ken Clarke used).

David Winnick, the Labour MP, says he thinks military action by Britain will not make any difference.

Kenneth Clarke, the Conservative former chancellor, says Cameron has made a “compelling case”. The border between Iraq and Syria is “meaningless”, he says. But does Cameron accept that we might have to settle for something far short of liberal democracy in Syria. Going straight to elections might be a mistake, as in the Arab Spring. We might have to accept having some unpleasant people in charge.

Cameron says Clarke has never been an unquestioning supporter of military action. He says Clarke has thought about these things, and makes good point. He says when he says Assad has no part in Syria’s future he is not expressing a preference; he is making a statement of fact. But he accepts that this will not led to “Swiss-style democracy” in Syria.

Robertson indicates SNP planning to vote against air strikes

Angus Robertson, the SNP leader at Westminster, is responding to Cameron now.

The SNP shares the concerns over everyone about the threat posed by Isis, he says. (He calls it Daesh.)

How is the UK supporting moves to a political transition in Syria?

How will the UK secure peace on the ground. He quotes from the foreign affairs committee’s question on this. (See 10.16am.) Which forces will take ground from Isis? Not can, but will, he says.

Two years ago Cameron wanted MPs to vote to bomb Assad. That would have helped Isis, he says.

He says Cameron now wants the SNP to back air strikes without knowing who will hold the ground.

Without answers to these questions, the SNP will not vote for air strikes, he says.

Cameron says the Free Syrian Army and the Kurdish forces are on the ground able to take ground from Isis. Britain can help them take ground and relieve suffering, he says.

Of course “the true arrival of ground forces” awaits a new government, he says. But can we afford to wait for that, Cameron asks.

Cameron says he thinks the whole world would come together to support reconstruction in Syria.

Updated

Crispin Blunt, the Conservative chair of the foreign affairs committee, goes next. He used to be sceptical about air strikes in Syria, but he has recently shifted his stance. He says his personal view is now that the country’s interests would best be served by Britain joining air strikes against Isis.

Cameron says he is happy to give MPs regular updates about Syria.

Cameron is responding to Corbyn.

He says he respects Corbyn’s long-held views on these issues, and his caution.

On what difference Britain would make, he says the US and France want Britain to get involved. They think Britain would make a difference.

On ground forces, he says there are at least 70,000 moderate Syrian forces able to help.

On boots on the ground, he says he is not going to deploy troops on the ground. Western countries have learnt that would be counter-productive.

On legality, he says he UN resolution does unambiguously give legal cover for air strikes. Deconfliction measures are in place, he says, to ensure that there is not a clash with the Russians.

On ending the civil war, Cameron says Syria cannot have a future as long as that caliphate exists.

On the threat level, he says he quotes the head of MI5 and the chair of the joint intelligence committee saying the threat from Isis is already as high as it could be.

On civilian casualties, he says in a year and three months of action in Iraq there have been no reports of civilian casualties. Britain’s weapons are “some of the most accurate known to man”, he says.

On unintended consequences, Cameron says he thinks he has thought through the possible results. Corbyn quoted Obama, but Obama wants the UK to help, Cameron says.

Corbyn responds to Cameron

Jeremy Corbyn is responding to Cameron.

He says there is no doubt Isis poses a threat.

But the question is whether or not bombing would increase the threat to the UK? And would it make the situation worse?

He has seven questions.

1) Will British action make a difference on the ground? Will it contribute to a war-winning strategy.

2) Can the conflict be won without troops on the ground? Would the Kurds take over, or other extremists?

3) Would there be mission creep? Can Cameron rule out troops on the ground?

4) Does the UN resolution give clear legal authorisation for action? And what is being done to cut off arms supplies to Isis? And would there be a greater risk of incidents like the shooting down of the Russian warplane this week?

5) How would this contribute to an end to the Syrian civil war?

6) What assessment has Cameron been given of the impact of air strikes on the chances of terrorist attacks in the UK? And what are the chance of civilian casualties from air strikes?

7) Does Cameron accept air strikes could risk more unintended consequences?

Updated

Cameron says there will not be a vote in the Commons unless there is a “clear majority” in favour

Camerons says those that say we need a diplomatic solution are right. But we cannot wait for that to happen, he says.

  • Cameron says there will not be a vote in the Commons unless there is a “clear majority” in favour. Otherwise there would be a risk of a “publicity coup” for Isis, he says.

Cameron asks if acting against Isis help to bring about transition.

Yes, he says. There cannot be transition in Syria without preserving its territory.

Cameron says this is a highly complex situation.

He looks forward to answering MPs’ questions.

He says the air operations centre has a memorandum of understanding with the Russians. There is daily coordination.

People wonder if Britain would be taking sides in an Sunni/Shia conflict. No, he says. He says Isis is predominantly Sunni, but it is killing Sunni and Shia alike.

Cameron says people want to know that Britain has learnt the lessons of past conflict.

Terrible mistakes were made in the aftermath of the Iraq war, he says.

He says Britain does not want to dismantle the state or its institutions in Syria.

In Libya state institutions had been degraded over decades. That is not the case in Syria, he says.

Cameron says Britain would contribute at least £1bn to post-conflict reconstruction in Syria

Cameron says the government has a full strategy for tackling Isis, involving military and diplomatic action. Humanitarian support is a factor too, he says. Aid to Syrians in refugee camps is helping to ensure they do not need to travel to Europe.

Will there be proper post-conflict planning? Yes, he says. Britain would contribute at least £1bn.

  • Cameron says Britain would contribute at least £1bn to post-conflict reconstruction in Syria.

Updated

Cameron turns to the question of who might hold the territory captured from Isis. See 10.16am.

People are right to ask questions about ground troops, he says.

But this question cannot be fully answered until Syria has a new government. There has to be a full political settlement. But can we wait for that before we take action? Cameron says his answer is no.

Cameron turns to the legal position.

He says the advice is that Britain faces an armed attack from Isis.

And the UN security council resolution authorises military action.

Cameron says Isis will grow stronger if Britain does not act now

Cameron says that begs the next question - why now?

There is a real political process underway, he says.

But we cannot for that to finish before degrading Isis.

He says we want to defeat the terrorists.

But there is a broader objective. As long as Isis can peddle the myth of a caliphate in Iraq and Syria, that acts as a beacon to Islamist extremists.

He says Isis has been squeezed in Iraq.

But it would be a mistake to stop at the border.

There is a risk in not acting, he says.

Ever day we wait, Isis could grow stronger.

Cameron says all the advice he is getting is that there would be a bigger risk in not acting.

  • Cameron says Isis will grow stronger if Britain does not act now.

He says some people think this will make Britain a target.

But the military and security advice is that Britain is already a top-tier Isis target, he says.

  • Cameron says Britain already a top-tier Isis target.

Updated

Cameron starts by summarising the key questions about the prospect of bombing Islamic State in Syria. They are broadly, but not exactly, the same as those posed by the foreign affairs committee.

The first question is why?

Cameron says Isis are a threat to the UK.

All seven of the plots to the UK disrupted in the last year were linked to Isis, or inspired by them. (Cameron uses the term Isil, but Guardian style is Isis.)

And there is a question why us?

He says Britain’s closest allies, the US and France, want the UK to help.

As we have shown in Iraq, the RAF can carry out dynamic targeting, he says.

He says Brimstone missiles are more accurate than anything the Americans have. And the RAPTOR pod has no rival, he says. (See 10.23am.)

Cameron says we should not rely on others to act on our behalf.

So there is a moral case for action. If we cannot act now, when France has been attacked, when would we act?

Cameron's statement on Syria

David Cameron is about to start his statement now.

Test 7 - What extra capacity would Britain bring

The foreign affairs committee’s seventh test was this:

7) What extra capacity the UK would contribute to the Coalition’s actions in Syria.

And here is an extract from Cameron’s response to this question.

The UK has advanced military capabilities that bring a qualitative edge above those deployed by most other Coalition partners. In Iraq, for example, the RAF is able to carry out “dynamic targeting” where our pilots are able to provide rapid support to other units engaged in combat and in need of immediate air support. We also have the Brimstone missile which enables us to strike accurately with low collateral damage, therefore increasing the scope for strikes against specific ISIL targets – even the US do not possess this capability.

The UK currently contributes airborne Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities, refuelling support and command and control to the Coalition in Syria. Our ISR capability is second to none. The RAPTOR pod on our Tornado aircraft has no rival. It enables the Tornado to gather 60% of the Coalition’s tactical reconnaissance in Iraq, while also being equipped for strikes. Currently, therefore, it is illogical that our aircraft are deployed to carry out the important task of finding and tracking high value targets but cannot complete the task of launching the strikes against them.

Test 6 - What is the overall military objective

The foreign affairs sixth test was this:

6) What the overall objective is of the military campaign; whether it expects that it will be a “war-winning” campaign; if so, who would provide war-winning capabilities for the forces; and what the Government expects will be the result of extending airstrikes to Syria.

And here is an extract from Cameron’s response.

The objective of our counter-ISIL campaign is to degrade ISIL’s capabilities so that it no longer presents a significant terrorist threat to the UK or an existential threat to Iraq, Syria or other states. We are working alongside our partners, including in the Coalition, to deny ISIL safe havens from which to operate, to prevent ISIL from obtaining the resources to mount attacks, and to counter its poisonous ideology ...

Acting together, the Coalition has the most advanced military capabilities in the world. But the business of “war-winning” is about more than those military capabilities alone. The Coalition’s military campaign is just one – albeit key – strand of its strategy to degrade and ultimately defeat ISIL. That requires a comprehensive response, including: squeezing ISIL’s finances; cutting off its flow of foreign fighters; challenging its poisonous ideology; providing humanitarian assistance to those in need; and working for a settlement to the Syria conflict and greater political inclusion in Iraq.

Test 5 - Who will hold the ground captured from Isis

The foreign affairs committee’s fifth test was this:

5) Which ground forces will take, hold, and administer territories captured from ISIL in Syria.

And here is an extract from Cameron’s reply to this question (which is perhaps the most crucial of all).

The model that is starting to work in Iraq involves Coalition air support enabling Iraqis – from both the Iraqi Security Forces and the Kurdish Peshmerga – to take back, hold and administer territory regained from ISIL.

This is more difficult in Syria, because Assad’s forces are still fighting directly against the moderate opposition and there is no prospect of intervention by an external ground force. Any large-scale external force, even of Arab or other Muslim troops, could risk inflaming the conflict further, rather than contributing to a political settlement.

But, whilst political talks on a settlement for Syria take place, both the Kurds and other moderate armed groups have shown themselves capable of both taking territory from ISIL, and holding and administering it. Although the situation on the ground is complex, our assessment is that there are around 70,000 Syrian opposition fighters on the ground who do not belong to extremist groups.

Where they have retaken ground, they have relieved the suffering that the civilian population previously endured under ISIL control.

The Syrian Kurds have successfully defended Kurdish areas in Northern Syria from sustained ISIL attack and retaken territory from ISIL, such as around the city of Kobane. The territories under their control are stable. They are an important element of any counter ISIL effort in Syria. The Kurds will also play an important role in a political settlement for Syria which respects Syria’s territorial integrity and the parameters set out in the 2012 Geneva Communiqué.

But only moderate Sunni Arabs can retake traditionally Sunni Arab areas such as Raqqa. Such moderate armed groups in Northern Syria have shown themselves capable of defending territory north of Aleppo from sustained ISIL assault. They have stopped ISIL’s attempts to capture the main humanitarian border crossing with Turkey and sweep into Idlib province. Supported by Coalition airpower, the opposition have held their ground, protecting a vital supply route into Aleppo. In Southern Syria, the Southern Front of the Free Syrian Army has consolidated its control over significant areas and has worked to prevent terrorists such as ISIL and Jabhat Al Nusra from operating.

Test 4 - Whether air strikes would have the support of regional players

The foreign affairs committee’s fourth test was this:

4) Whether the proposed action has the agreement of the key regional players (Turkey; Iran; Saudi Arabia; Iraq); if not, whether the Government will seek this before any intervention;

And here is an extract from Cameron’s response to this question.

Both Turkey (which faces an acute threat from ISIL in Northern Syria) and Jordan (which faces particular threats from ISIL in Southern Syria and from Western Iraq) have made clear that they would welcome the UK joining the Coalition’s strikes against ISIL in Syria.

Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Russia are all members of the International Syria Support Group and are engaging in the political strategy to end the Syrian conflict.

Russia is taking direct military action against ISIL in Syria and supported UNSCR 2249. UK aircraft on Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) missions over Syria already operate in accordance with the terms of the air safety arrangements for the Coalition, agreed with Russia by the US. These are applied to all Coalition aircraft operating over Syria and the Coalition will continue to take whatever action is necessary to ensure air safety for its aircraft. Iran has made clear through its actions that its objectives in Syria have, until now, been very different from our own. But we are now engaged in diplomacy with Iran and hope that it will now use its influence to help to bring about a peaceful resolution to the crisis, but we will not allow Iran a veto over our vital security interests.

Test 3 - Whether air strikes would be legal

The foreign affairs committee’s third test was this:

3) In the absence of a UN Security Council Resolution, how the Government would address the political, legal, and military risks arising from not having such a resolution;

And here is an extract from Cameron’s response to this question.

There is now a UN Security Council Resolution. Resolution 2249 (of 20 November 2015) has now made a clear and unanimous determination that ISIL “constitutes a global and unprecedented threat to international peace and security”, and called upon Member States to take “all necessary measures... to prevent and suppress terrorist acts committed specifically by ISIL... and to eradicate the safe haven they have established over significant parts of Iraq and Syria.”

There is a clear legal basis for military action against ISIL in Syria. The legality of UK strikes against ISIL in Syria is founded on the right of self-defence as it is recognised in Article 51 of the UN Charter. The right to self-defence may be exercised individually where it is necessary to the UK’s own defence, and collectively in the defence of our friends and allies.

Test 2 - How air strikes would contribute to a transition plan for Syria

The foreign affairs committee’s second test was this:

2) How the proposed action would contribute to the formation and agreement of a transition plan for Syria;

Here is an extract from Cameron’s reply to this question.

All members of the [International Syria Support Group] recognise that ISIL must be defeated militarily. The threat that ISIL poses cannot be negotiated away. Without degrading its military capabilities, we risk allowing ISIL to continue expanding its territorial control over Syria, which would reduce the chances of a peaceful settlement. ISIL has sought to destroy Syria’s territorial integrity in its efforts to build a brutal caliphate across the borders of Syria and Iraq.

Alongside efforts to secure a political transition, together with our allies we are putting diplomatic pressure on Russia to end its attacks on moderate Syrian forces and instead coordinate its military efforts with the Coalition against ISIL. This it is beginning to do, following the ISIL bombing of Metrojet 9268 in Sharm El Sheikh, although Russian forces have continued to strike at moderate opposition forces in parallel.

ISIL presents a serious military threat to the tens of thousands of moderate Syrian fighters who are opposed to both the Assad regime and to ISIL, and who are under attack from both ...

Coalition military action against ISIL will help to relieve some of the military pressure on those groups, enabling them to better protect Syrian civilians and to focus on their true objective – political transition in Syria.

Test 1 - How air strikes would improve the chances of the international coalition.

The foreign affairs committee’s first test was this:

1) How the proposal would improve the chances of success of the international coalition’s campaign against ISIL;

Cameron’s answer starts on page 11 of the document. Here is an extract:

The Coalition’s military campaign is a key part of this strategy. Without it, ISIL would continue to expand the territory under its control, develop more terrorist affiliates across the Middle East and more widely, and encourage more people to join its murderous endeavour. The Coalition’s military action in Iraq – in which the UK is fully participating – is having some success. 30% of ISIL’s territory has been regained. But Raqqa in Syria is ISIL’s capital and home to a significant proportion of its thousands of hardened fighters, who move freely between Syria and Iraq. ISIL uses the chaos in Syria to make the money it needs from oil, and from taxing and extorting money from the Syrian people.

This reinforces the need for the Coalition to step up its military campaign in Syria to: reduce ISIL’s capacity to take more territory; cut off its supply routes and sources of finance; and degrade its command and control. Without such action, the progress made by successful military operations in Iraq would be lost. That is why the US, France, Turkey and our Arab allies are all committed to expanding the campaign in Syria. They recognise that, as in Iraq, a greater UK military contribution to the campaign in Syria would mean greater military effect against ISIL. This is particularly the case for Turkey and Jordan, two of Syria’s immediate neighbours who face the biggest threat from ISIL.

This greater military effect would not only help to reduce ISIL’s capacity to plan attacks against the UK, it would speed progress towards a better future for the Syrian people, and support security for Syria’s neighbours ...

By staying out of the Coalition’s collective effort, we leave other nations, including those less capable than us and with whom we have collective defence arrangements, to meet our security needs for us. This can only have a damaging effect on Britain’s standing in the world.

Updated

David Cameron’s document setting out the case for air strikes is a response to this report from the foreign affairs committee raising concerns about the prospect of the RAF bombing Isis in Syria (pdf).

That report set out seven questions Cameron would have to answer for air strikes to be justified. They were:

1) How the proposal would improve the chances of success of the international coalition’s campaign against ISIL;

2) How the proposed action would contribute to the formation and agreement of a transition plan for Syria;

3) In the absence of a UN Security Council Resolution, how the Government would address the political, legal, and military risks arising from not having such a resolution;

4) Whether the proposed action has the agreement of the key regional players (Turkey; Iran; Saudi Arabia; Iraq); if not, whether the Government will seek this before any intervention;

5) Which ground forces will take, hold, and administer territories captured from ISIL in Syria.

6) What the overall objective is of the military campaign; whether it expects that it will be a “war-winning” campaign; if so, who would provide war-winning capabilities for the forces; and what the Government expects will be the result of extending airstrikes to Syria.

7) What extra capacity the UK would contribute to the Coalition’s actions in Syria.

Updated

The full document is also on the Commons foreign affairs committee website (pdf).

It runs to 36 pages. I will post the highlights soon.

This is the document:

David Cameron publishes the case for air strikes against Isis in Syria

Downing Street has just released David Cameron’s reply to the foreign affairs committee setting out the case for air strikes against Isis in Syria.

Here’s an extract.

Throughout Britain’s history, we have been called on time and again to make the hardest of decisions in defence of our citizens and our country. Today one of the greatest threats we face to our security is the threat from ISIL.

We need a comprehensive response which seeks to deal with the threat that ISIL poses to us directly, not just through the measures we are taking at home, but by dealing with ISIL on the ground in the territory that it controls. It is in Raqqa, Syria, that ISIL has its headquarters, and it is from Raqqa that some of the main threats against this country are planned and orchestrated. We must tackle ISIL in Syria, as we are doing in neighbouring Iraq, in order to deal with the threat that ISIL poses to the region and to our security here at home. We have to deny a safe haven for ISIL in Syria. The longer ISIL is allowed to grow in Syria, the greater the threat it will pose. It is wrong for the United Kingdom to sub-contract its security to other countries, and to expect the aircrews of other nations to carry the burdens and the risks of striking ISIL in Syria to stop terrorism here in Britain.

That is why I believe that we should now take the decision to extend British airstrikes against ISIL into Syria, as an integral part of our comprehensive strategy to degrade ISIL and reduce the threat it poses to us.

Updated

George Osborne's interviews - Summary

Here are the main points from the interviews that George Osborne has been giving this morning. As usual he was on a building site wearing a hi-vis jacket. (“As usual” because Osborne tries wherever possible to be filmed on a building site, a crude but probably effective way of reinforcing his claim that the Tories are “builders”.)

  • Osborne insisted that he would not be revising plans to introduce universal credit despite claims that the new benefit will cost working households on average £1,000 in 2020. On the Today programme, when this Resolution Foundation claim was put to him, Osborne said that people opposed to universal credit did not accept the need to reform welfare. Universal credit was a simpler system, he said. And he said there was “transitional protection” to ensure that people moving onto the new benefit would not lose out.
  • He said that abandoning the tax credit cuts was not a sign of weakness.

I don’t think it’s a weakness if you’re doing a job like mine to listen to people and listen to the concerns that are made.

But he refused to accept that the cuts he announced in his summer budget were wrong. His central judgment, about the need to cut welfare spending, was right, he said.

  • He said that Band D council tax payers would pay an extra £25 a year on average if councils use the new power he is giving them to levy a precept to fund social care.
  • He said the was keeping the copy of Mao’s Little Red Book that John McDonnell threw on the table in the Commons chamber for him after yesterday’s statement. It was important to know what your opponents are thinking, he joked.

Yeah, I’ve got it in my desk in the Treasury now. I always think it’s important to know what your political opponents are thinking and reading ... I suspect he’s got several copies at home so I might keep hold of this one.

  • He insisted that he was “100% focused” on his current job and not thinking about the Conservative leadership. Asked about his ambitions, he said:

This job is all-consuming and all-absorbing so I’m 100% focused on that.

I’ve taken some of the quotes from PoliticsHome.

George Osborne
George Osborne Photograph: BBC

Resolution Foundation says Osborne's budget and spending review decisions hit the poor but spare the rich

The Resolution Foundation, the thinktank focusing on the low paid, has put out a new analysis of the autumn statement and spending review this morning. It welcomes George Osborne’s decision to abandon his planned tax credit cuts, but it says that the working poor will still lose out from the introduction of universal credit over the next five years.

Here are the key points.

  • The move to universal credit will cost working households £1,000 on average in 2020, the Resolution Foundation says. It says households with children will lose £1,300 on average.
  • It says the tax, benefit and minimum wage changes in the summer budget and the autumn statement, taken together, will cost the poorer 50% of households £650 on average in 2020. The richer 50% of households will lose nothing, it says. That means, overall, they’re regressive.
Distributional impact of summer budget and spending review tax, benefit and minimum wage changes in 2020
Distributional impact of summer budget and spending review tax, benefit and minimum wage changes in 2020 Photograph: Resolution Foundation

Here is the Resolution Foundation analysis.

And here is a quote from Torsten Bell, the foundation’s director.

The focus in recent months and on the day of the autumn statement was rightly on the immediate impact on family budgets of tax credit changes next April. That reinforces how welcome the chancellor’s decision to reverse those changes is. It will have reassured millions of working families that were set to be significantly worse off next April.

The attention now turns to the longer term changes to the welfare system the government has put in train. All the post-2020 welfare cuts announced in the summer budget remain in place and will eventually affect millions of families as universal credit is rolled out nationally.

New Resolution Foundation analysis shows that these cuts fall overwhelmingly on poor working families.

The most damaging changes are to universal credit, the government’s flagship welfare programme which is at serious risk of being undermined. For working households with children on universal credit the average loss with be £1,300 in 2020. These changes will also increase the risk of people being trapped in low-paid short-hours work.

Q: What do you say to people who think bombing Isis in Syria will make us more of a target, and will risk repeating the mistakes of Iraq and Libya?

Osborne says we are a target already. Look at the attack in Tunisia.

He says Britain is not a country that lets others, like France and America, defend our interests. We can bring unique capabilities to the campaign. But bombing on its own is not the anwer. Just because we cannot do everything does not mean we should not do something.

It is a bit strange and artificial to bomb Isis in Iraq but not in Syria.

Q: The government has backed down a lot recently. You look like a government that can be pushed around.

Osborne says he does not accept that. He says he wanted to back the police.

On Syria, the government is learning from Iraq. It is making the case to parliament carefully.

And that’s it. I will post a summary of this interview, and Osborne’s other ones, shortly.

Q: The OBR says you will put fuel duty up in the future. Is that right?

Osborne says the OBR always assumes that in future fuel duty will go up with inflation. But when budgets happen the Treasury takes a decision.

Q: How much will council tax bills go up?

Osborne says he wants health and social care to integrate. Whitehall is putting money into local government to help fund that.

Councils will be able to levy a precept to fund social care if they want.

Q: How much will that cost a band d council tax payer? £100?

Osborne says it is more like £25 a year.

But people will benefit from other measures, like cuts to fuel bills, he says.

Q: People say the new benefit, universal credit, will still leave people worse off. Are you willing to revisit that?

Osborne says people who argue that are saying the welfare system should not change. That is not his view, he says.

Universal credit will be a simpler benefit. It has been welcomed across the political spectrum.

He says in 2010 nine out of 10 people were on means-tested benefits. By 2020 it will be five out of 10. That is much more sustainable.

Updated

Q: You are gambling that the forecasts will be right?

Osborne says some people say he should cut more quickly. Some say he should go more slowly. He is trying to make a central judgment.

Q: Are you saying you made a mistake with tax credits? Or are you saying it was the right decision, but you were forced into changing?

Osborne says the central judgment, that Britain needs to move to a higher wage, lower welfare economy is right. But people argued he was moving there too quickly. Because the public finances are better, he was able to move there more slowly.

Q: Do you think you just got it wrong?

Osborne says the central judgment was right. But it is not a weakness to listen to people, he says.

One view was that he should not change welfare. He does not agree.

Then others said they agreed with the goal, but wanted help with the transition. He says he was happy to listen to those concerns.

George Osborne's Today interview

Nick Robinson is interviewing George Osborne. He says Osborne spent more than expected.

Q: When did you discover your inner Ed Balls?

Osborne says he has taken difficult decisions. There is light at the end of the tunnel now.

Q: But the economy has not improved that much over the last few months.

Osborne says the OBR is an independent forecaster.

Q: Shouldn’t you just use the extra money to pay down the debt?

Osborne says Paul Johnson, the head of the IFS, told the Today programme earlier that there were still difficult cuts ahead. Previous chancellors would have decided to run a deficit forever. He says he is putting aside money for a rainy day.

George Osborne, the chancellor, and John McDonnell, is Labour shadow, have been giving interviews about the autumn statement this morning.

Osborne said that his decision to abandon the planned tax credit cuts was not a sign of weaknesss. He told GMTV:

I don’t think it’s a weakness, if you are doing this job, to listen to people and listen to the concerns that are made.

And McDonnell has been defending his decision to quote from Mao’s Little Red Book in the Commons. He was being jocular, he said. And he insisted that he did not support Mao.

On the Today programme he even found himself having to apologise after it broadcast an interview with a Chinese woman who said she found the book brought back chilling memories.

I will post more from the interviews both men have been giving soon.

And Osborne is about to give an interview to the Today programme. I will cover that in detail.

Then David Cameron is making his Commons statement making the case for bombing Islamic State (Isis) in Syria. We are expecting that at 10.30am. I will be covering it in detail.

If you want to follow me on Twitter, I’m on @AndrewSparrow.

Updated

Sign up to read this article
Read news from 100's of titles, curated specifically for you.
Already a member? Sign in here
Related Stories
Top stories on inkl right now
One subscription that gives you access to news from hundreds of sites
Already a member? Sign in here
Our Picks
Daredevil Creator Explains Why The Netflix Show Happened Despite Being Pitched As Two Movies
Drew Goddard goes way back with the Man Without Fear.
Cinemablend
Cinemablend
Zendaya to 'go into hiding' over fears fans will be 'sick of her' in 2026
Zendaya is to appear in movies Spider-Man: Brand New Day, Dune: Part Three, The Odyssey, and The Drama this year, and she is planning to "go into hiding" over fears fans will get "sick" of seeing her.
BANG Premier
BANG Premier
The 6 best new shows and movies streaming this week on Netflix, Prime Video, Disney Plus, and more (March 30–April 5)
Creature features, the return of Your Friends and Neighbours, and more great new shows and movies
Total Film
Total Film
Every phone ping takes 7 seconds of your attention — here’s how to get it back
Notifications steal seven seconds of your focus according to a new study, but there are ways to avoid this.
TechRadar
TechRadar
'Show Me Your Greencard' Video From Braintree, MA Goes Viral—Outrage Sparks Over Racist Sign
A viral video from Braintree, Massachusetts, shows a woman displaying a 'Show Me Your Greencard' sign, sparking accusations of racism and a broader debate on everyday discrimination.
International Business Times UK
International Business Times UK
Angelina Jolie 'Clone' Rumours Explained: Was Brad Pitt's Ex Replaced by a Body Double at a China Fashion Show?
Angelina Jolie's appearance at a Shanghai Tom Ford event triggered online frenzy over clone and body double claims, fuelling debate on her looks amid longstanding health disclosures.
International Business Times UK
International Business Times UK
Fourteen days free
Download the app
One app. One membership.
100+ trusted global sources.
Download on the AppStore Get it on Google Play