The cross-party House of Lords Constitution Committee has recommended that the Government should scrap the royal prerogative that allows the Prime Minister to start military action without a Parliamentary vote. PM in waiting Dave is in favour, PM in waiting Gordon is in favour, the military – at least in the person of General Sir Michael Rose, who commanded UN troops in Bosnia – are in favour ("Soldiers don't want to sacrifice themselves for a cause not fully supported by Parliament").
But guess what: King Tony – supported by his old flatmate and lawyer Charlie Falconer, and by Defence Minister and one time computer programmer Adam Ingram – thinks the PM should be able to go to war on his own say-so. None of them, as far as I know, has any experience even of a school Cadet Force, let alone the real armed forces (At school, Blair mocked his Fettes School's Cadet Force, describing boys who joined it as 'toy soldiers' [The Blairs and Their Court
The Commons has debated the issue before of course, in October 2005, when Clare Short introduced a private member's bill. But Blair, never one to do his own dirty work, got poor old Geoff Hoon, then Leader of the Commons, to talk it out.
There was a debate just two days before the 2003 Iraq war, and a vote in favour, but even a vote against wouldn't have been binding. Many MPs were clearly convinced by Blair's persuasive presentation of the lies about incontrovertible evidence of WMDs aimed at Cyprus and beyond which could be used within 45 minutes.
The Lords committee recommends that as well as seeking Parliament's backing before going to war the government should also indicate the war's aims, legal basis, size and likely duration. Can't argue with that.
Comments