Britain should expand its bombing campaign against Islamic State from Iraq into Syria, David Cameron said today as he announced he would push for a "strong" vote in the Commons to approve the action.
The prime minister told MPs he would soon set out a "comprehensive strategy" for dealing with the Islamist group that claimed responsibility for Friday's terror attack on Paris.
"We must ask ourselves if we really are doing all we can be doing, all we should be doing, to deal with the threat of ISIL and the threat is poses to us directly," he said.
The RAF is currently engaged in a bombing campaign against ISIL in Iraq. However the government has yet to secure parliamentary approval to expand the strikes in Syria alongside the United States and France.
Cameron faces opposition from opposition MPs as well as several of his own backbenchers to any move to increase the UK's military action.
Jeremy Corbyn has argued against expanding Britain's military action. And he told Cameron today any military action would need "consent" from the international community in the form of legal backing from the United Nations.
Cameron said ISIL was a "direct and growing threat" that needed to be dealt with "not just in Iraq but in Syria too". He told MPs the border between Syria and Iraq was "meaningless" to ISIL and
The prime minister said of Britain joining military action in Syria. "Our allies are asking us to do this and the case for doing so has only grown stronger after the Paris attacks. We cannot expect, we should not expect, others to carry the burdens and the risks of protecting our country," he said.
"We need to act against ISIL in Syria. There is a compelling case for doing so."
Cameron said he hoped to "build support right across" the Commons in order to win the vote to "do the right thing for our country".
Corbyn has opposed military action in Syria. However many of his backbenchers disagree and would be prepared to vote in favour.
Yesterday the Labour leader indicated he would not allow them a free vote on the issue, which would give them the freedom to vote against him without formally rebelling.Suggest a correction