Under Advisement
This exchange appeared on the Labour Left Briefing discussion list. As you will see opinions are divided on whether this will do for Blair or help him. I think it will (unfairly) help him as you will see from my response. As I don't want Tories to make gains through the muddle I will accept this windfall if it comes along.
>>>>
> Channel 4 broke an exclusive tonight:
> Tony Blair was told by the government's most senior law officer in a confidential minute less than two weeks before the war that British participation in the American-led invasion of Iraq could be declared illegal.
> Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general, spelt out to Mr Blair the dangers of Britain going to war without a second resolution. It is understood that he then went on to warn that British soldiers could be hauled before the International Criminal Court.
Where's the story here? Never mind exclusive.
Surely everyone has known for a very long time that there were legal arguments for and against military action? All this was rehearsed in minute detail at the time wasn't it? And everyone knew surely that the pros and cons were finely balanced? That a UN resolution was legally stronger?
Most if not all of us favoured those legal arguments against and/or thought that even if it was lawful it was unnecessary and would be a bad judgement.
Personally I thought that a second resolution wouldn't make the case for war any better at all. As France and Russia showed, and as US and UK have shown before, the UN, though the best we've got just now, is bankrupt.
Anyone who has ever sought an opinion from a lawyer, or indeed most professional advisers, will know the form.
First, provide instructions.
Second, receive very likely exhaustive advice i.e. on the one hand x on the other hand y, if a and b then c, but if b not a then c2 etc etc.
Third, interrogate that advice, check nuance, question key points.
Fourth, receive amended advice.
(Third and fourth may be repeated as nauseum)
Fifth, choose action to take leaning on the parts of the advice which suit your chosen course of action.
Sixth, in the event of a dispute see the advice tested in a court.
Step six being the only one that really tells anyone whether something was lawful, unlawful, or mu. And then there are appeals and counter appeals.
There is no exclusive. There is nothing new here.
This whole thing may tip the balance in some of those Lib-Lab marginals, particularly with pro-war Lab incumbents but on the whole I think this is probably playing pretty well for New Labour's adherents in middle England.
I met a sample yesterday. Switched from Tory to NL. Likes Blair. Thinks war was maybe a mistake but no worse than that. BUT will not vote for Blair's candidate - not because of war - but because of position on Palestine. This guy is voting UKIP instead of Kaufman. In probable boundary change for next general he will vote happily for Lloyd if still living here, though his positions on Palestine-Israel are not what this voter believes.
The Tories are looking like clowns on this. And the Lib Dems arguably looking too weak to make a decision over anything important.(Paradoxically though the decision they wouldn't have made in this case would have been the right one if you see what I mean).
Blair, cabinet and parliament were wrong IMO but my opinion at the moment post-Straw doing rather well considering vs Paxman, post-R5 phone in, post Brown-Blair press conference is that this could actually play rather well for Blair.
Which in some ways would not be fair. But if it blocks off any Tory revival or too much Lib-Dem rightwards leverage on Blair's successor then I'll take that.
<<<<<
>>>>
> Channel 4 broke an exclusive tonight:
> Tony Blair was told by the government's most senior law officer in a confidential minute less than two weeks before the war that British participation in the American-led invasion of Iraq could be declared illegal.
> Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general, spelt out to Mr Blair the dangers of Britain going to war without a second resolution. It is understood that he then went on to warn that British soldiers could be hauled before the International Criminal Court.
Where's the story here? Never mind exclusive.
Surely everyone has known for a very long time that there were legal arguments for and against military action? All this was rehearsed in minute detail at the time wasn't it? And everyone knew surely that the pros and cons were finely balanced? That a UN resolution was legally stronger?
Most if not all of us favoured those legal arguments against and/or thought that even if it was lawful it was unnecessary and would be a bad judgement.
Personally I thought that a second resolution wouldn't make the case for war any better at all. As France and Russia showed, and as US and UK have shown before, the UN, though the best we've got just now, is bankrupt.
Anyone who has ever sought an opinion from a lawyer, or indeed most professional advisers, will know the form.
First, provide instructions.
Second, receive very likely exhaustive advice i.e. on the one hand x on the other hand y, if a and b then c, but if b not a then c2 etc etc.
Third, interrogate that advice, check nuance, question key points.
Fourth, receive amended advice.
(Third and fourth may be repeated as nauseum)
Fifth, choose action to take leaning on the parts of the advice which suit your chosen course of action.
Sixth, in the event of a dispute see the advice tested in a court.
Step six being the only one that really tells anyone whether something was lawful, unlawful, or mu. And then there are appeals and counter appeals.
There is no exclusive. There is nothing new here.
This whole thing may tip the balance in some of those Lib-Lab marginals, particularly with pro-war Lab incumbents but on the whole I think this is probably playing pretty well for New Labour's adherents in middle England.
I met a sample yesterday. Switched from Tory to NL. Likes Blair. Thinks war was maybe a mistake but no worse than that. BUT will not vote for Blair's candidate - not because of war - but because of position on Palestine. This guy is voting UKIP instead of Kaufman. In probable boundary change for next general he will vote happily for Lloyd if still living here, though his positions on Palestine-Israel are not what this voter believes.
The Tories are looking like clowns on this. And the Lib Dems arguably looking too weak to make a decision over anything important.(Paradoxically though the decision they wouldn't have made in this case would have been the right one if you see what I mean).
Blair, cabinet and parliament were wrong IMO but my opinion at the moment post-Straw doing rather well considering vs Paxman, post-R5 phone in, post Brown-Blair press conference is that this could actually play rather well for Blair.
Which in some ways would not be fair. But if it blocks off any Tory revival or too much Lib-Dem rightwards leverage on Blair's successor then I'll take that.
<<<<<
posted by Chris Paul at 10:12 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home