Cameron rushed into holding 'quick' Syria vote by Americans, Ken Clarke suggests.

[dipsydoodle]

Mr Clarke, the Minister Without Portfolio, has disclosed that the Americans “wanted us to make this vote very quickly”.

He said that the Government “did not have time” to ensure that it had enough support from MPs to win the vote.

The Prime Minister was subsequently humiliated in the Commons on Thursday when dozens of Tory MPs rebelled and refused to support his plans for missile strikes against Bashar al-Assad’s regime.

>

The Prime Minister has been accused of attempting to rush the decision on whether to intervene in Syria.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10287984/Cameron-told-to-hold-quick-Syria-vote-by-the-Americans-Ken-Clarke-suggests.html

Whatever - we're out of the frame.

[fedsron2us]

1. So Cameron does whatever the US government wants without question ?

Whose country is he supposed to be representing.

I get confused at times and so I think does our beloved PM.

[T_i_B]

2. If the Americans wanted a quick UK vote.....

.....then the Americans got it wrong.

Mind you, that might not be such a bad thing for those of us in the UK given the outcome of the Syria vote.

[tjwmason]

3. Cameron stands in a proud* tradition

of British Prime Ministers who kow-tow to the American president regardless of the wisdom or the British national interest.

Working from memory, and only a quick ponder at that, I think that the last time a British P.M. stood up to a president was Harold Wilson declining to join their party in Vietnam.

I have to agree with TiB, that if the Americans calculated this one incorrectly, then it's very much for the better...though I don't think it will do much to help the people of Syria.

*By 'proud' I mean 'profoundly ignoble' of course.