The Commons' refusal to go to war is a landmark in British constitutional history. What is it that stands out in UK parliament that is giving our MPs an increaing authority over Britain?
To truly understand the need for Britain to make peaceful inroads with Syria, we must look back to the tragedies handed down to us by our predecessors.
As governments are so infrequently held accountable for their actions, is there any reason why they wouldn't try and circumvent the very laws they hold in place?
Does the West have any moral right to interfere with the Syrian regime's use of chemical weapons when they facilitated the manufacture of them?
The Commons chose to stand back from the cusp of military intervention in Syria. Is this a knock for British national pride or a chance to learn from our imperial past?
As direct military intervention has been ruled out for the UK by the Commons, we must turn to our non-military options to see how the UK can now push for peace and make an impact for the good in Syria.
Last Thursday's vote in the House of Commons means that Britain will not participate in military action against Syria. Conservative MP Rory Stewart explains why he thinks the use of chemical weapons should lead to cautious intervention and argues that an international campaign against chemical wea
Enoch Powell highlighted the differences between England's vision of itself and its reality, but has this led ideology to be chosen over pragmatism in the Commons rejection of the Syria vote?
Slowly British politics is coming to terms with reality and this is welcome, the Syria debate viewed from Scotland.
Blair's deceptions on Iraq were a central theme of last night's debate and even if Chilcot has been deliberately stalled, the House yesterday passed a damning judgement on both Blair and Cameron.
