Jeremy Corbyn's full speech opposing air strikes in Syria

"The whole House recognises that decisions to send British forces to war are the most serious, solemn and morally challenging of any that we have to take as members of parliament.

"The motion brought before the House today by the Government authorising military action in Syria against Isil faces us with exactly that decision.

"It is one with potentially far-reaching consequences for us all, here in Britain, as well as the people of Syria and the wider Middle East.

"For all members, taking a decision that will put British service men and women in harm's way and almost inevitably lead to the deaths of innocents is a heavy responsibility.

"It must be treated with the utmost seriousness - and respect given to those who make a different judgment about the right course of action to take.

"Which is why the Prime Minister's attempt to brand those who plan to vote against the Government as 'terrorist sympathisers' both demeans the office of the Prime Minister and, I believe, undermines the seriousness of the deliberations we are having today.

"Since the Prime Minister first made his case for extending British bombing to Syria in the House last week, the doubts and unanswered questions then expressed on both sides of the House have only grown and multiplied.

"That's why it is a matter of such concern that the Government has decided to push this vote through Parliament today.

"It would have been far better to allow a full two-day debate that would have given all members the chance to make a proper contribution and you yourself, Mr Speaker, informed us that 157 have applied to speak in this debate.

"It is impossible to avoid the conclusion that the Prime Minister understands that public opinion is moving increasingly against what I believe to be an ill thought-out rush to war is - and he wants to hold the vote before opinion grows even further against it.

"Whether it's the lack of a strategy worth the name the absence of credible ground troops the missing diplomatic plan for a Syrian settlement the failure to address the impact of the terrorist threat or the refugee crisis and civilian casualties: it's becoming increasingly clear that the Prime Minister's proposals for military action simply do not stack up.

"Last week the Prime Minister focused his case for bombing in Syria on the critical tests set by the vey respected cross-party Foreign Affairs select committee.

"Given the holes in the Government's case, it's scarcely surprising that last night the committee reported that the Prime Minister had not 'adequately addressed' their concerns.

"In other words, the committee judged that the Prime Minister's case for bombing has failed its tests.

"After the despicable and horrific attacks in Paris last month, the question of whether the Government's proposal for military action in Syria strengthens - or undermines - our own national security must be at the centre of our deliberations.

"There is no doubt that the so-called Islamic State group has imposed a reign of sectarian and inhuman terror in Iraq, Syria and Libya. And there is no question that it also poses a threat to our own people.

"The issue now is whether extending UK bombing from Iraq to Syria is likely to reduce, or increase, that threat to Britain - and whether it will counter, or spread, the terror campaign Isil is waging across the Middle East.

"The answers don't make the case for the Government's motion. On the contrary, they are a warning to step back and vote against yet another ill-fated twist in this never-ending war on terror.

"Let's start with the military dimension. The Prime Minister has been unable to explain why extending air strikes to Syria will make a significant military impact on the existing campaign.

"Isil is already being bombed in Syria or Iraq by the US, France, Britain, Russia and other powers. Canada has interestingly withdrawn from this campaign and no longer takes part in it.

"During more than a year of bombing Isil has expanded, as well as lost, territory. Isil gains include the Iraqi city of Ramadi and the Syrian city of Palmyra.

"The claim that superior British missiles will make the difference is actually quite hard to credit when the US and other states - as an intervention said earlier - are struggling to find suitable targets. In other words, extending British bombing is highly unlikely to make a huge difference.

"Secondly, the Prime Minister has failed to convince almost anyone that - even if British participation in the air campaign were to tip the balance - there are credible ground forces able to take back territory now held by Isil.

"In fact, it's quite clear there are no such forces.

"Last week, the Prime Minister suggested that a combination of Kurdish militias, the Free Syrian Army would be able to fill the gap. He even claimed a 70,000-strong force of moderate FSA fighters were ready to coordinate action against Isil with the western air campaign.

"That claim has not remotely stood up to scrutiny. Kurdish forces are a distance away in the Sunni Arab areas Isil controls. Nor will the FSA, which includes a wide range of groups few if any would regard as moderate - and mostly operates in other parts of the country.

"The only ground forces able to take advantage of a successful anti-Isil air campaign are stronger jihadist and Salafist groups close to the Isil-controlled areas. I think these are serious issues that we need to think through very carefully.

"That's what the Prime Minister's bombing campaign could lead to.

"This is why the logic of an extended air campaign is in fact mission creep and western boots on the ground - whatever the Prime Minister may say now about keeping British combat troops out of the way, are a real possibility.

"Third, the military aim of attacking Isil targets in Syria is not really part of a coherent diplomatic strategy.

"UN security council resolution 2249 passed after the Paris atrocities and cited in today's government motion does not give clear and unambiguous authorisation for UK bombing in Syria.

"To do so it would have had to be passed under Chapter Seven of the UN Charter to which the security council couldn't agree.

"The UN resolution is certainly a welcome framework for joint action to cut off funding, oil revenues and arms supplies from Isil. But I wonder how much signs there are of that happening.

"Nor is there yet any serious evidence that it's being used to coordinate international military or diplomatic strategy in Syria.

"That's despite the clear risk of potentially disastrous incidents the shooting down of a Russian military aircraft by Turkish forces is a sign of the danger of serious escalation of this whole issue.

"Fourth, the Prime Minister has avoided spelling out to the British people the warnings he has surely been given about the likely impact of UK air strikes on the threat of terrorist attacks in the UK.

"That is something all those backing the Government's motion should weigh and think about very carefully before we vote whether or not to send the RAF into action over Syria.

"It is critically important, Mr Speaker, that we as a House are honest with the British people about the potential consequences of the action the Prime Minister is proposing to us today.

"I'm aware that there are those with military experience, including members on the benches opposite as well as this side, who have argued that extending UK bombing will - and I quote - "increase the short-term risks of terrorist attacks in Britain".

"We should also remember the impact on communities here in Britain. Sadly, since the Paris attacks there has been a sharp increase in Islamophobic incidents and physical attacks. I have discussed these with people in my local mosque in my constituency and it is horrific.

"The message must go out from all of us in the House: we will not tolerate any form of anti-Semitism, Islamophobia or racism in any form in this country.

"And the Prime Minister has offered no serious assessment of the impact of an intensified air campaign on civilian casualties in Isil-held Syrian territory or the wider Syrian refugee crisis.

"At least 250,000 have already been killed in Syria's terrible civil war, 11 million made home homeless and four million forced to leave the country.

"Many more have been killed by the Assad regime than by Isil itself.

"Yet more bombing in Syria will kill innocent civilians, there's no doubt about that, and turn many more Syrians into refugees.

"Yesterday I was sent this message a constituent of mine who comes from Syria, his name Abdulaziz Almashi and I quote from his message.

"'I'm a Syrian from Manbij city, which is now controlled by Isil,' Abdulaziz writes. 'Members of my family still live there and Isil didn't kill them. My question to David Cameron is: 'Can you guarantee the safety of my family when your air forces drop bombs on my city?'' It is a fair question from a family who are very concerned.

"And there is no EU-wide strategy to provide humanitarian assistance to those victims. Perhaps most importantly of all I ask the Prime Minister this: Is he able to explain how British bombing in Syria would be able to contribute to a comprehensive negotiated political settlement of the Syrian war.

"Such a settlement is widely accepted to be the only way to ensure the isolation and defeat of Isil in the country.

"Isil grew out of the invasion of Iraq. But it has flourished in Syria in the chaos and horror of a multi-front civil war.

"And the Government's bombing proposal clearly does not subordinate military action to international diplomatic efforts.

"The Prime Minister's approach is bomb first, talk later.

"But instead of adding British bombs to the others now raining down on Syria, what's needed is an acceleration of the peace talks in Vienna.

"What we need therefore is the involvement of all the main regional and international powers with the aim must be to establish a broad-based government in Syria that has the support of the majority of its people difficult as that is to envisage at the present time.

"Such a settlement could help to take back territory from Isil and bring about their lasting defeat in Syria.

"The Government's proposals for military action in Syria are not backed by a clear and unambiguous authorisation by the UN. It does not meet the seven tests set down by our own Foreign Affairs Select Committee.

"And it does not fulfil three out of four conditions laid down in my own party conference resolution passed two months ago.

"In the past week, we have given a voice to the growing opposition to the Government's bombing plans - across the country, in parliament, outside in the media and in my own party.

"These matters were debated in my own campaign to be elected leader of the Labour party and many people think very deeply about these matters.

"The light of that record of western military interventions is one that has to be analysed, UK bombing of Syria risks yet more of what President Obama in a very thoughtful moment called the 'unintended consequences' of the war he opposed at the time.

"The spectre of Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya looms over this debate.

"To oppose another war and intervention isn't pacifism. It's hard-headed common sense which I think we should be thinking about today in this house.

"To resist Isil's determination to draw the western powers back into the heart of the Middle East is not to turn our backs on our allies.

"It's to refuse to play into the hands of Isil and what I suspect some of them want us to do.

"It's wrong for us here in Westminster to see a problem, pass a motion drop bombs pretending we're doing something to solve it.

"That's what we did in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. Has terrorism increased or decreased as a result of all of that?

"The Prime Minister said he was looking to build a consensus around the military action he wants to take.

"I do not believe he has achieved anything of the kind.

"He has failed to make the case for another bombing campaign. All our our efforts should instead go into bringing the Syrian civil war to an end.

"After Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, I ask members to think very carefully about previous decisions that have been made. What we are proposing to do today is send British bombers.

"In my view, only a negotiated political and diplomatic endeavour to bring about an end to the civil war in Syria will bring some hope to the million who lost their homes, who are refugees, who are camped out in various points all across Europe dreaming of a day that they can go home.

"I think our overriding goal should be to end that civil war in Syria and obviously also to protect the people in this country "That is why I do not believe that the motion put by the Prime Minister achieves that because it seems to put the emphasis on bombing now whereas I think the emphasis should be not on bombing now but on bringing about all our endeavours, all our intelligence and all our efforts.

"For those reasons I urge members on all sides of the House to think very carefully about the responsibility that lies with them today. Do we send in bombers not totally aware of what the consequences are going to be, or do we pause, not send them in and instead put all of our efforts into bringing about a peaceful, humanitarian and just political settlement to the terrible situation faced by the people in Syria."