LABOUR leader Jeremy Corbyn caused outrage in the Commons yesterday, when he suggested Russia might not be behind the chemical attack on the streets of Salisbury.
Corbyn, in his response to the Prime Minister, seemed to suggest Vladimir Putin could have been framed.
READ MORE: SNP give their backing to Tory sanctions on Russian 'spies'
The left-winger’s statement infuriated the Tories, upset many of his own backbenchers and strained Labour’s fragile post-election truce.
There was even talk of resignations in the shadow cabinet.
Corbyn had asked May if, as she suggested on Monday, there was still a possibility that the Russian government could have lost control of some or all of its stock of nerve agent.
But May in her statement said the government had ruled that out after Moscow seemed to treat “the use of a military-grade nerve agent in Europe with sarcasm, contempt and defiance”.
The row intensified when Corbyn’s spin-doctor Seamus Milne then suggested the British intelligence services weren’t very reliable.
Speaking to reporters after the statement, Milne said: “There is a history in relation to weapons of mass destruction and intelligence which is problematic, to put it mildly.
“So, I think the right approach is to seek the evidence to follow international treaties, particularly in relation to prohibitive chemical weapons.”
Pressed on whether Moscow was being framed, he said the “overwhelming” evidence pointed to either the Russian state being responsible or losing control of the agent.
He added: “If the material is from the Soviet period, the break up of the Soviet state led to all sorts of military material ending up in random hands.”
The spokesman said that during the “WMD saga” there was “both what was actually produced by the intelligence services, which in the end we had access to, and then there was how that was used in the public domain in politics.
“So, there is a history of problems in relation to interpreting that evidence but, in this case, the Government may well have other evidence that we are not aware of.
“Clearly this issue has to be followed on the basis of the evidence.”
A number of Labour MPs, embarrassed by Corbyn and his spin doctor, tabled an early day motion “unequivocally” accepting that Russia was behind the attack.
Even MPs normally loyal to Corbyn kept quiet rather than rushing to his defence.
One Labour MP described Milne as Putin’s “craven, constant and shameful apologist”.
The spokesman should “stand aside and let the Kremlin write the speeches and brief the media directly,” the MP added.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel