British parliamentary approval for the invasion of Iraq

Last updated

British parliamentary approval for the invasion of Iraq was given by the elected members of the House of Commons to Tony Blair's government on the eve of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, in a series of two votes, on 18 March 2003.

Contents

Constitutional background

There is no constitutional requirement for the Crown to seek any explicit form of parliamentary approval before committing British forces to military action. By virtue of the royal prerogative, the Sovereign may give the order to commence military action, which is customarily given on the advice of His Majesty's Government.

However the political controversy over whether to participate in military action, which covered the legal legitimacy as well as foreign policy questions, had been under discussion for many years. As early as 1999, the anti-war MP, Tam Dalyell had proposed a Ten Minute Rule Bill called Military Action Against Iraq (Parliamentary Approval) Bill to "require the prior approval, by a simple majority of the House of Commons, of military action by British forces against Iraq". Dalyell was given leave to bring in his Bill, [1] [ full citation needed ] but it could not be debated and voted upon because as a Bill that affected the royal prerogative, the consent of the Queen was needed before it could be debated in Parliament (known as Queen's Consent). The government advised Queen Elizabeth II to withhold consent, which she did, as constitutional convention requires.

Debates in 2003 before 18 March

The deployments of UK forces to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, along with forces of the United States, were a clear precursor to military action. Several debates were held on Britain's Iraq policy. Finally, on 17 March 2003, US President Bush gave an ultimatum to Saddam Hussein to leave power within 48 hours or face military action. Previous votes had endorsed government policy of confronting Iraq through the UN.

Debate of 18 March

The sovereign has the power to declare war, as an exercise of the royal prerogative, without the approval of Parliament. Before or after the start of previous wars, there had normally been debate in Parliament; however for the first time a vote was held, allowing Parliament to signify its position in regards to a declaration of war, [2] [3] even though it was, "purely symbolic" and "not binding on the government". [4] The debate was held on 18 March 2003, and lasted from midday to 10 pm, at which time the two parliamentary votes were held. [5]

Of the three largest UK-wide parties in Parliament, both the Labour and Conservative parties were committed to approving the invasion, but a quarter [6] of Labour MPs voted against the invasion. However, the Liberal Democrats, which had one in twelve of the MPs in parliament, were opposed to the invasion, and its MPs voted against it. The then-Leader of the Liberal Democrats, Charles Kennedy, made clear his opposition to the war at a 'Stop the War' rally in London's Hyde Park, in front of thousands of attendees, before the War began. [7]

If the vote had been lost, many Labour ministers would have resigned, [8] including the Prime Minister Tony Blair, who suggested in his speech that he would resign if the vote was not passed. [9]

Frontbench members of a party by tradition must resign from that position before they can vote against their party. The expected[ who? ] mass of resignations from among some of the ranks of these parties did not materialise beyond the resignation of Robin Cook.

The government proposed a motion in Parliament, stating:

This House notes its decisions of 25 November 2002 and 26 February 2003 to endorse UN Security Council Resolution 1441; recognises that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and long range missiles, and its continuing non-compliance with Security Council Resolutions, pose a threat to international peace and security; notes that in the 130 days since Resolution 1441 was adopted Iraq has not co-operated actively, unconditionally and immediately with the weapons inspectors, and has rejected the final opportunity to comply and is in further material breach of its obligations under successive mandatory UN Security Council Resolutions; regrets that despite sustained diplomatic effort by Her Majesty's Government it has not proved possible to secure a second Resolution in the UN because one Permanent Member of the Security Council made plain in public its intention to use its veto whatever the circumstances; notes the opinion of the Attorney General that, Iraq having failed to comply and Iraq being at the time of Resolution 1441 and continuing to be in material breach, the authority to use force under Resolution 678 has revived and so continues today; believes that the United Kingdom must uphold the authority of the United Nations as set out in Resolution 1441 and many Resolutions preceding it, and therefore supports the decision of Her Majesty's Government that the United Kingdom should use all means necessary to ensure the disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction; offers wholehearted support to the men and women of Her Majesty's Armed Forces now on duty in the Middle East; in the event of military operations requires that, on an urgent basis, the United Kingdom should seek a new Security Council Resolution that would affirm Iraq's territorial integrity, ensure rapid delivery of humanitarian relief, allow for the earliest possible lifting of UN sanctions, an international reconstruction programme, and the use of all oil revenues for the benefit of the Iraqi people and endorse an appropriate post-conflict administration for Iraq, leading to a representative government which upholds human rights and the rule of law for all Iraqis; and also welcomes the imminent publication of the Quartet's roadmap as a significant step to bringing a just and lasting peace settlement between Israelis and Palestinians and for the wider Middle East region, and endorses the role of Her Majesty's Government in actively working for peace between Israel and Palestine.

An amendment was proposed urging the executive to wait for further UN approval. It removed the text "recognises that Iraq's weapons ... in the Middle East" and replaced it with:

This House... believes that the case for war against Iraq has not yet been established, especially given the absence of specific United Nations authorisation; but, in the event that hostilities do commence, pledges its total support for the British forces engaged in the Middle East, expresses its admiration for their courage, skill and devotion to duty, and hopes that their tasks will be swiftly concluded with minimal casualties on all sides...

Parliament voted on the amended text in a vote at 9:15 pm, but the amendment was defeated by 396 to 217 votes. [10]

At 10 pm, the motion without the amendment was passed by 412 to 149 votes, [6] therefore signifying Parliament's approval of an invasion. The British military campaign against Iraq, known as Operation Telic, began one day later.

18 March 2003
That HM Government should use all means necessary to ensure the disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction
Absolute majority: 330/659
VotePartiesVotes
Yes check.svgAye Labour Party (254), Conservative Party (146), Ulster Unionist Party (6), Democratic Unionist Party (5), Independent Conservative (1)
412 / 659
No Labour Party (84), Liberal Democrats (52), Scottish National Party (5), Plaid Cymru (4), Conservative Party (2), Independent Community and Health Concern (1), Social Democratic and Labour Party (1)
149 / 659
Abstentions Speaker of the House (1), Labour Party (69), Conservative Party (17), Sinn Féin (4), Social Democratic and Labour Party (2), Liberal Democrats (1)
94 / 659
Tellers Labour Party (3), Conservative Party (1); not counted in vote totals
4 / 659

Charts


See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Iraq disarmament crisis</span> Early 2000s diplomatic crisis

The Iraq disarmament crisis was claimed as one of primary issues that led to the multinational invasion of Iraq on 20 March 2003.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tam Dalyell</span> Scottish Labour Party politician (1932–2017)

Sir Thomas Dalyell, 11th Baronet,, , known as Tam Dalyell, was a Scottish Labour Party politician who was a member of the House of Commons from 1962 to 2005. He represented West Lothian from 1962 to 1983, then Linlithgow from 1983 to 2005. He formulated what came to be known as the "West Lothian question", on whether non-English MPs should be able to vote upon English-only matters after political devolution. He was also known for his anti-war, anti-imperialist views, opposing the Falklands War, the Gulf War, the War in Afghanistan and the Iraq War.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission</span>

The United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) was created through the adoption of United Nations Security Council resolution 1284 of 17 December 1999 and its mission lasted until June 2007.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441</span> 2002 UN Security Council resolution regarding Iraqi disarmament

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 is a United Nations Security Council resolution adopted unanimously by the United Nations Security Council on 8 November 2002, offering Iraq under Saddam Hussein "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions. It provided a justification for the subsequent US invasion of Iraq.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">International reactions to the prelude to the Iraq War</span> Pre-war responses

This article describes the positions of world governments before the actual initiation of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and not their current positions as they may have changed since then.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United Nations Security Council and the Iraq War</span> Security Council positions before war

In March 2003 the United States government announced that "diplomacy has failed" and that it would proceed with a "coalition of the willing" to rid Iraq under Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction the US and UK claimed it possessed. The 2003 invasion of Iraq began a few days later. Prior to this decision, there had been much diplomacy and debate amongst the members of the United Nations Security Council over how to deal with the situation. This article examines the positions of these states as they changed during 2002–2003.

The 2003 invasion of Iraq began on March 20. On March 18, US President George W. Bush had set a deadline for the ruler of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, and his two sons, Uday and Qusay, to leave the country or face military action. By the time of the ultimatum, political and military preparations for the invasion were well advanced.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2003 invasion of Iraq</span> Military invasion led by the United States

The United States-led invasion of the Republic of Iraq was the first stage of the Iraq War. The invasion phase began on 19 March 2003 (air) and 20 March 2003 (ground) and lasted just over one month, including 26 days of major combat operations, in which a combined force of troops from the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and Poland invaded Iraq. Twenty-two days after the first day of the invasion, the capital city of Baghdad was captured by coalition forces on 9 April 2003 after the six-day-long Battle of Baghdad. This early stage of the war formally ended on 1 May 2003 when U.S. President George W. Bush declared the "end of major combat operations" in his Mission Accomplished speech, after which the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) was established as the first of several successive transitional governments leading up to the first Iraqi parliamentary election in January 2005. U.S. military forces later remained in Iraq until the withdrawal in 2011.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002</span> Joint resolution of the United States House of Representatives and Senate

The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, informally known as the Iraq Resolution, is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No. 107-243, authorizing the use of the United States Armed Forces against Saddam Hussein's Iraq government in what would be known as Operation Iraqi Freedom.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Peter Goldsmith, Baron Goldsmith</span> British barrister (born 1950)

Peter Henry Goldsmith, Baron Goldsmith,, is a British barrister who served as Attorney General for England and Wales and Attorney General for Northern Ireland from 2001 and 2007. His resignation, announced on 22 June 2007, took effect on 27 June, the same day that Prime Minister Tony Blair stepped down. Goldsmith was the longest serving Labour attorney general. He is currently a partner and head of European litigation practice at US law firm Debevoise & Plimpton and Vice Chairperson of the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre.

The following lists events in the year 2003 in Iraq.

The Military Action Against Iraq Bill was a private member's bill introduced into the United Kingdom House of Commons by Tam Dalyell under the Ten Minute Rule. It received its formal first reading on 26 January 1999. The bill sought to transfer the power to authorise military strikes against Iraq from the monarch to Parliament. The long title of the bill was "A Bill to require the prior approval, by a simple majority of the House of Commons, of military action by United Kingdom forces against Iraq". It was presented by Tam Dalyell and supported by Tony Benn, Harry Cohen, Jeremy Corbyn, George Galloway, Neil Gerrard, Ian Gibson, John McAllion, Alice Mahon, Robert Marshall-Andrews, Dennis Skinner and Audrey Wise.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criticism of the Iraq War</span>

The U.S. rationale for the Iraq War has faced heavy criticism from an array of popular and official sources both inside and outside the United States. Putting this controversy aside, both proponents and opponents of the invasion have also criticized the prosecution of the war effort along a number of lines. Most significantly, critics have assailed the U.S. and its allies for not devoting enough troops to the mission, not adequately planning for post-invasion Iraq, and for permitting and perpetrating widespread human rights abuses. As the war has progressed, critics have also railed against the high human and financial costs.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq</span>

A dispute exists over the legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The debate centers around the question whether the invasion was an unprovoked assault on an independent country that may have breached international law, or if the United Nations Security Council authorized the invasion. Those arguing for its legitimacy often point to Congressional Joint Resolution 114 and UN Security Council resolutions, such as Resolution 1441 and Resolution 678. Those arguing against its legitimacy also cite some of the same sources, stating they do not actually permit war but instead lay out conditions that must be met before war can be declared. Furthermore, the Security Council may only authorise the use of force against an "aggressor" in the interests of preserving peace, whereas the 2003 invasion of Iraq was not provoked by any aggressive military action.

The 2003 United States–British–Spanish Draft Resolution on Iraq was, according to Ambassador John Negroponte, "a resolution to have the Council decide that Iraq is not complying, is out of compliance, with Resolution 1441". Initially introduced on February 24, 2003, and amended on March 7, 2003, the draft set a March 17 deadline for Iraq to demonstrate "full, unconditional, immediate and active cooperation in accordance with its disarmament obligations." The draft was based on information from the Iraqi defector "Curveball," who claimed Saddam Hussein was in possession of weapons of mass destruction, which Curveball later admitted was untrue. The widely discussed UN resolution was not brought up for formal vote after it became clear that it would not have passed due to opposition from France, Russia, and China. The United States invaded Iraq without UN support on March 20, 2003, initiating the Iraq War.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Legality of the Iraq War</span> Review of the topic

Political leaders of the US and UK who led the arguments which resulted in the invasion of Iraq have claimed that the war was legal. However, legal experts, including the chairman of the Iraq Inquiry, John Chilcot, who led an investigation with hearings from 24 November 2009 to 2 February 2011, concluded that the process of identifying the legal basis for the invasion of Iraq was unsatisfactory and that the actions of the US and the UK have undermined the authority of the United Nations.

A declaration of war is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation and another.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Iraq Inquiry</span> 2009 British public inquiry into the Iraq War

The Iraq Inquiry was a British public inquiry into the nation's role in the Iraq War. The inquiry was announced in 2009 by Prime Minister Gordon Brown and published in 2016 with a public statement by Chilcot.

In 2011, the government of the United Kingdom acknowledged that a constitutional convention had developed whereby the House of Commons should have an opportunity to debate the matter before troops are committed. It said that it proposed to observe that convention except when there was an emergency and such action would not be appropriate.

References

  1. ↑ "House of Commons Hansard Debates for 26 Jan 1999 (pt 6)". publications.parliament.uk.
  2. ↑ "History's verdict". The Guardian. 19 March 2003. Retrieved 27 May 2010.
  3. ↑ "The Governance of Britain – War powers and treaties: Limiting Executive powers" (PDF). The Stationery Office. 25 October 2007. Retrieved 27 May 2010.
  4. ↑ "Inquiry to look at MPs' role in declaring war". The Guardian. 11 August 2005. Retrieved 11 May 2014.
  5. ↑ "Debates on 18 March 2003". Hansard . TheyWorkForYou. Retrieved 27 May 2010.
  6. 1 2 "Declaration of War: List of votes". The Public Whip . Retrieved 27 May 2010.
  7. ↑ Kathryn Snowdon (2 June 2015). "Charles Kennedy's Iconic Anti-Iraq War Speech In Hyde Park In 2003 Was Before Its Time". HuffPost . Retrieved 6 November 2023.
  8. ↑ Wintour, Patrick (26 April 2003). "When Blair stood on the brink". The Guardian. Retrieved 27 May 2010.
  9. ↑ Macintyre, Ben (19 March 2003). "Blair plays not to the gallery but to the heart". The Times. London. Retrieved 27 May 2010. Blair explicitly nailed his political fate to personal principle. If the House voted to withdraw troops from the coming conflict, he said, they would also remove him.
  10. ↑ "Case for war not established: List of votes". The Public Whip. Retrieved 27 May 2010.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.