6 ms·

Tony Blair was the head of government and leader of the ruling party. Had he decided not to take Britain to Iraq, then the UK would not have taken part in the w

by danjac 5y ago

Tony Blair was the head of government and leader of the ruling party. Had he decided not to take Britain to Iraq, then the UK would not have taken part in the war and there would not have been a vote in Parliament. At the end of the day, the buck stopped with him. Would lack of UK support have been sufficient to deter the US? Who knows, probably not given the neocon lunatics in the White House at the time. Harold Wilson's decision to keep the UK out of Vietnam was in retrospect a wise decision, and no doubt Blair would have had a better reputation had he made the same choice. That all said, Blair's post-PM career seems to involve toadying up to every dictator left on the planet (in marked contrast to his successor Gordon Brown's work supporting refugees and global vaccination) so maybe his reputation is well-deserved after all.

HatchedLake721 5y ago
> Had he decided not to take Britain to Iraq, then the UK would not have taken part in the war and there would not have been a vote in Parliament. I don't get this. He cannot just "decide to take Britain to Iraq", since the UK Government cannot start a war without Parliament's approval. He came to the Parliament with the available intelligence at the time, and after days of debates, 412 people voted in favour of the invasion. I would understand the hate if he knew the "irrefutable evidence" shown to United Nation by the Secretary of State was a lie at the time of the vote in Parliament. But as far I know, he wasn't aware of that. Is this just a blind hate of a scapegoat? Why are the other 411 people given a pass?
- ineedasername 5y ago
  UK Parliament does not get a binding vote on going to war. Their recourse, if they disagree, is to remove the PM altogether. Admittedly, I'm not sure there's much of a meaningful difference between the two. If an MP doesn't want to go to war, I'd think that a big enough difference if opinion to vote no-confidence. As such if a majority of Parliament didn't want to go to war, they may have taken that step.
- danjac 5y ago
  > He cannot just "decide to take Britain to Iraq", since the UK Government cannot start a war without Parliament's approval. Had Blair decided not to go to war, there would not have been a vote. He was leader of the Labour Party and instructed his whips to ensure MPs voted for war. > He came to the Parliament with the available intelligence at the time, and after days of debates, 412 people voted in favour of the invasion. We now know, from the Chilcot inquiry, that Blair knew the intelligence was poor and either deliberately misled Parliament or allowed his belief to blind his judgement. Either conclusion is damning.
  - iso1210 5y ago
    Did Hutton ever apologise to the BBC. He skewered them when they claimed the dossier was perhaps not quite fully trustworthy
- detaro 5y ago
  > He cannot just "decide to take Britain to Iraq", since the UK Government cannot start a war without Parliament's approval. Declaring war and deploying troops is a power held by the Crown (which will do it on request of its government). Parliamentary approval is not required, parliament merely can hold a no-confidence vote and remove the government afterwards if it disagrees. The Afghanistan war just a bit earlier was debated in parliament, but not actually voted on by parliament. For Iraq, there was a formal vote for the first time, but again, not a formal authorization that would have had legal force - although loosing it realistically would have collapsed Blairs government once he committed to having the vote. (And also made any Labour MPs voting against it not just the MPs who were against the war, but also the MPs who forced their government to fail).
ineedasername 5y ago
Parliament has the power to remove the Prime Minister, and it's possible that they would have done so if the Prime Minister failed to come to the aid of a historic ally. PM's have had no-confidence votes, or been pushed out of office before one would occur, over lesser issues. That aside, Parliament doesn't have to authorize via binding vote on these matters. They get a debate opportunity by normative convention, but any vote they took to override would not be binding unless they were willing to remove the PM. Nonetheless I think it's fair to place a sizeable portion of the blame on Parliament: They can't decide to go to war, but they do have some levers of power that would stop it, if they were willing to remove their PM. I certainly don't know where I put % blame here, but I'm equally sure Parliament was checking complicit on the issue.
freeflight 5y ago
> Had he decided not to take Britain to Iraq, then the UK would not have taken part in the war and there would not have been a vote in Parliament. Not only that, the 2005 London bombings most likely wouldn't have happened, that was direct retaliation for UK participation in the "coalition of the willing", willing to invade and occupy Iraq as part of a "crusade" on terror.

by danjac 5y ago

HatchedLake721 5y ago

> Had he decided not to take Britain to Iraq, then the UK would not have taken part in the war and there would not have been a vote in Parliament. I don't get this. He cannot just "decide to take Britain to Iraq", since the UK Government cannot start a war without Parliament's approval. He came to the Parliament with the available intelligence at the time, and after days of debates, 412 people voted in favour of the invasion. I would understand the hate if he knew the "irrefutable evidence" shown to United Nation by the Secretary of State was a lie at the time of the vote in Parliament. But as far I know, he wasn't aware of that. Is this just a blind hate of a scapegoat? Why are the other 411 people given a pass?

ineedasername 5y ago
UK Parliament does not get a binding vote on going to war. Their recourse, if they disagree, is to remove the PM altogether. Admittedly, I'm not sure there's much of a meaningful difference between the two. If an MP doesn't want to go to war, I'd think that a big enough difference if opinion to vote no-confidence. As such if a majority of Parliament didn't want to go to war, they may have taken that step.
danjac 5y ago
> He cannot just "decide to take Britain to Iraq", since the UK Government cannot start a war without Parliament's approval. Had Blair decided not to go to war, there would not have been a vote. He was leader of the Labour Party and instructed his whips to ensure MPs voted for war. > He came to the Parliament with the available intelligence at the time, and after days of debates, 412 people voted in favour of the invasion. We now know, from the Chilcot inquiry, that Blair knew the intelligence was poor and either deliberately misled Parliament or allowed his belief to blind his judgement. Either conclusion is damning.
- iso1210 5y ago
  Did Hutton ever apologise to the BBC. He skewered them when they claimed the dossier was perhaps not quite fully trustworthy
detaro 5y ago
> He cannot just "decide to take Britain to Iraq", since the UK Government cannot start a war without Parliament's approval. Declaring war and deploying troops is a power held by the Crown (which will do it on request of its government). Parliamentary approval is not required, parliament merely can hold a no-confidence vote and remove the government afterwards if it disagrees. The Afghanistan war just a bit earlier was debated in parliament, but not actually voted on by parliament. For Iraq, there was a formal vote for the first time, but again, not a formal authorization that would have had legal force - although loosing it realistically would have collapsed Blairs government once he committed to having the vote. (And also made any Labour MPs voting against it not just the MPs who were against the war, but also the MPs who forced their government to fail).

ineedasername 5y ago

Parliament has the power to remove the Prime Minister, and it's possible that they would have done so if the Prime Minister failed to come to the aid of a historic ally. PM's have had no-confidence votes, or been pushed out of office before one would occur, over lesser issues. That aside, Parliament doesn't have to authorize via binding vote on these matters. They get a debate opportunity by normative convention, but any vote they took to override would not be binding unless they were willing to remove the PM. Nonetheless I think it's fair to place a sizeable portion of the blame on Parliament: They can't decide to go to war, but they do have some levers of power that would stop it, if they were willing to remove their PM. I certainly don't know where I put % blame here, but I'm equally sure Parliament was checking complicit on the issue.

freeflight 5y ago

> Had he decided not to take Britain to Iraq, then the UK would not have taken part in the war and there would not have been a vote in Parliament. Not only that, the 2005 London bombings most likely wouldn't have happened, that was direct retaliation for UK participation in the "coalition of the willing", willing to invade and occupy Iraq as part of a "crusade" on terror.