Whichever way you cut it, Ukraine’s use of UK missiles is seen as an escalation in the war, says Nigel Farage

We’ve talked about the use of Storm Shadows, our missiles being sent deep into Russia. Now, it is possible, of course, that some of those missiles were used in Crimea earlier.

I don’t know, whichever way you cut it, this is seen as an escalation in the war.

The Russians, of course, have responded in kind with the Russian ambassador today saying that basically we are now direct participants in the war. But I’m not worried about threats from Russia.

What I’m thoughtful about is, should Parliament have a vote before we decide to go to war or escalate a war?

And there are pros and cons with this, but here’s one example of where it really worked.

Back in 2013, we had David Cameron as prime minister, William Hague as foreign secretary. They were hell bent on arming the rebels against Assad in the Syrian civil war.

I have to say, I was vehemently opposed to that happening, as we’re a growing number of members of Parliament and as was public opinion.

Well, in the end, Cameron gave in. He gave the House of Commons a vote on whether we should arm the rebels.

That was a great victory, a victory for common sense, because had we armed the rebels, those rebels, many of them turned out to become an organisation called ISIS.

Quite how the Foreign Secretary didn’t resign over that vote, I never understood.

But Jeremy Corbyn, now, whatever you think of him, he’s actually quite good occasionally at raising big points of national debate.

Corbyn has said that Parliament should have had a vote before we increased and escalated to using Storm Shadows.

Now, government does have the ability, through the royal prerogative, to go to war or escalate war without going to Parliament.

But let me ask you – should Parliament get a vote on increasing our contribution to the Ukraine war?