ON Friday morning last week, when I heard the news reports of the parliamentary proceedings on Syria the day before, I began to wonder if the reporters had been on another planet.

There were two votes in the Commons on Thursday of last week: the first on a Labour proposal and the second on a Government proposal. Neither sought to authorise – or to oppose – military action against the Assad regime in Syria. What they both tried to do was to lay down slightly different processes by which such a decision would be made.

The two questions put to Parliament were about the process of authorising military action and not a vote on military action itself. The Labour proposal was defeated by more than 100 votes and the Government proposal was defeated by 13 votes.

By refusing to take a decision on how to decide, Parliament has prevented any decision from being made.

In effect we have, by accident if you like, ruled out the possibility of any UK military action against Assad.

I know that this will be a great relief to many of my constituents.

I served in the army in Iraq and I entirely understand the feeling of war weariness, and the determination not to get embroiled in yet another intractable conflict in the Middle East.

I also understand people’s deep suspicion and the way they feel that they were duped into war by politicians who either simply didn’t understand the consequences of their actions or deliberately sought to mislead.

I did vote for the process involving the UN and weapons inspectors, as set out in the Government motion. If that motion had been carried and the Government had then, at a later date and having followed the agreed process, come to the Commons with a request to authorise a limited military action to deter further use of chemical weapons, then I might have voted for that too, but only if it really was limited, proportionate, lawful, likely to secure its objective and unlikely to be subject to mission creep (of course, there are no certainties). This cannot now happen or, if it does, it will not involve the UK.

I know that many constituents will breathe a collective sigh of relief, but there may be repercussions. A “red line” was laid down and Assad has crossed it; if consequences do not follow for him, what lesson will he take from it? He has now used chemical weapons on 14 occasions. If he feels he has got away with using these very effective munitions, and that he can now use his extensive arsenal with impunity, then the misery of the people of Syria may be about to be multiplied.

There may also be more far-reaching consequences: our whole defence posture is based on deterrence. There are unsavoury regimes throughout the world that hold off from doing things which are against our interests because they fear our response. If they perceive that our will to respond is diminishing, they might act accordingly.

In our attempt to shield our country from another danger, we may have made the world a more dangerous place.