Parliament was at its best yesterday, applying the brakes to a headlong rush into western military intervention. The country was overwhelmingly opposed to such action, not because we are a nation of apologists or appeasers but because people weighed up the moral arguments and risks and concluded that it would be wrong to risk igniting a wider war.

The watered-down motion before the Commons sought to equate military action with humanitarian aid and asserted that such action would be legally justified. I could not agree.

The shadow of Iraq hung over the debate but with realism that a military strike could escalate into a wider conflict with many hundreds of thousands more victims and no exit strategy. There was the sense that such action would be best led by others and with a wider consensus.

The Arab League agreed that western intervention would harden attitudes and inflame tensions. In my opinion, it is time for us to encourage them to deliver the message that the use of chemical weapons is unacceptable.

The "red line" was crossed in 1985, when Saddam Hussein systematically deployed these horrors against Iranian forces but it suited western governments to look the other way. It is in part the seething resentment at western double standards that prevents us claiming the moral high ground in this debate. What about the use of weaponised white phosphorus, which burns on contact with air and keeps burning right down to bone?

How can that not be a chemical weapon? Perhaps only because it has been deployed by US forces. We urge extremists to abandon conflict for the ballot box, yet the world's policeman has failed to call a coup a coup in Egypt or demand the release of Mohamed Morsi, their democratically elected leader.

We must let the UN inspectors finish their work in Syria, to collect the forensic evidence to hold the guilty to account and to use every diplomatic effort to bring a ceasefire. The moral responsibility for inaction at the UN lies firmly with Russia and China. Those with the greatest influence over Assad could stop the suffering that goes far beyond the use of chemical weapons. Iran, of all nations, with full understanding of their horrific effects, could now ensure that they are never again allowed to maim and kill across the region.

In rejecting western military intervention, Britain does not turn its back on Syria. We will continue to provide humanitarian assistance but parliament has told the government that this must not be delivered in the form of cruise missiles.