> 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?
> 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.
> 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).
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.
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?