| 18 March 2003 Parliamentary Approval For The Invasion Of Iraq |
Article Index for 18 |
Website Links For March |
Information About18 March 2003 Parliamentary Approval For The Invasion Of Iraq |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT 18 MARCH 2003 PARLIAMENTARY APPROVAL FOR THE INVASION OF IRAQ | |
| multinational force involved in the 2003 iraq conflict | |
| stances and opinions regarding the 2003 iraq conflict | |
| government of the united kingdom | |
| 2003 in the united kingdom | |
| parliamentary approval for the invasion of iraq | |
|
CONSTITUTIONAL BACKGROUND There is no constitutional requirement for the United Kingdom government to seek any explicit form of Parliamentary approval before committing UK forces to military action. The Royal Prerogative permits the government to give the order to begin action. 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 which would "require the prior approval, by a simple majority of the House of Commons, of military action by United Kingdom forces against Iraq." Dalyell was given leave to bring in his Bill but did not progress it further. {Link without Title} DEBATES IN 2003 The deployments of UK forces to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, along with forces of the United States, were a clear preliminary to military action. A succession of debates were held on UK policy on Iraq. Finally, on March 17 , President Bush gave an ultimatum to Saddam Hussein to give up power within 48 hours or face military conflict. Previous votes had endorsed government policy of confronting Iraq through the United Nations. DEBATE OF 18 MARCH The debate, which broadly reiterated the case for the existence of Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction without fully exploring the reason that the invasion was imminent, and misrepresenting the reason for the lack of a second UN resolution to follow on from UN Resolution 1441 which did not authorize military action, lasted from midday to 10pm, at which time the two Parliamentary votes were held. Both major parties, the Conservatives and Labour, were committed to carrying the votes, with only the third party, the Liberal Democrats, opposed. Any MP who was a member of these first two parties was compelled to rebel if they wished to vote against the invasion of Iraq. According to tradition, a front bench member of a party, either the government or the loyal opposition, must resign before they can vote against their party. The expected mass of resignations from among some of the ranks of these parties did not materialize beyond the resignation of Robin Cook . As is the custom, a motion was proposed on the floor of the House, and the opposition to the motion was allowed to propose an amendment to its wording. The first vote decided whether the amendment should be made, while the second actually passes the motion. Had the government lost either of these votes, it would not have been granted Parliamentary authority for the war. While the war could have proceeded on technically legal grounds so long as the armed forces did not rebel against their orders, many front bench members of the government were prepared to resign had the vote been lost. {Link without Title} The main motion, which was passed at 10pm by 412 to 149 votes {Link without Title} , read:
The amendment to this motion, which was rejected earlier at 9:15pm by 396 to 217 votes {Link without Title} , substituted the bold words for:
The military campaign against Iraq began one day later. EXTERNAL LINKS
|
|
|