Tony Blair 'out on a limb'

[Donut]

The only thing that can save him now is a 2nd UN resolution. He cannot possibly take us to war without it. How can a man be so out of step with his own party and his own people. 91% of British people oppose a war without UN backing.

Labour mutiny leaves Blair out on a limb
By Philip Webster, Political Editor (The Times)
# Case for Iraq war rejected in biggest-ever government rebellion

A MASS mutiny by more than 120 Labour MPs over war with Iraq left Tony Blair facing a perilous moment in his premiership last night.

The rebels were among 199 MPs — almost a third of the Commons — who voted against early military action to disarm President Saddam Hussein. It was the biggest revolt against any governing party in parliamentary history and it served notice on the Prime Minister that he will have to win a second UN resolution to avoid his future being called into question.

Amid dramatic scenes in the Commons, 121 Labour rebels joined 13 Conservatives and 52 Liberal Democrats to vote for an amendment declaring that the case for military action had not yet been made.

The rebel amendment was defeated by 393 votes to 199, a majority of 194. The government motion backing its UN efforts to disarm Saddam was passed by 434 votes to 124. On that the revolt fell to 59 MPs.

Despite last-minute arm-twisting by the whips and pledges by Jack Straw and Mr Blair that MPs would have another opportunity to debate war, the Labour revolt dwarfed the worst of the last Parliament — on lone parents and disability benefit.

Even more worrying for Mr Blair were the private warnings from dozens of Labour MPs who remained loyal yesterday that they would be unable to support him if he sought to go to war without UN authority. In those circumstances Mr Blair would probably need Tory MPs’ support to secure Parliament’s backing for military action.

Acknowledging that before the debate began, Mr Blair told MPs that he was working “flat out” to secure the passage of a UN resolution which concludes that Saddam had failed to take his “final opportunity”.

But Mr Blair now clearly faces a devastating split in his party if he goes to war without UN approval. The Times was told authoritatively last night that by lunchtime yesterday Labour whips had expected 145 MPs to rebel. They managed to dissuade about 20 of them and believe that the rebel tally would fall dramatically if a second UN resolution were passed.

Downing Street was taken aback by the scale of the revolt, but insiders said that it was unlikely to sway Mr Blair. “You have seen what he is like. He believes he is doing the right thing,” one said. John Reid, the Labour Chairman, said: “It is roughly what what I would have expected from meeting people throughout the country and inside the Labour Party.”

Charles Kennedy, the Liberal Democrat leader, said MPs had sent a potent signal. “This is a very significant parliamentary occasion,” he said. “Despite investing masses of political and parliamentary capital, the Government has still failed to persuade a third of the House of Commons.”

Mr Blair and President Bush have embarked on a frantic campaign to persuade waverers in the 15-member Security Council to support the resolution when it is put to the vote the week after next.

Mr Blair voiced his hope and expectation that the resolution would be passed and ministers privately believe that the Security Council will be persuaded and that France will refrain from exercising its veto. But ministers admit that if the count were taken now, Britain and the US could not be sure of winning the day.

Mr Blair also appeared to shift position on his past insistence that he would go to war without the UN only if there was an “unreasonable” veto in the face of clear evidence that Saddam had not fulfilled his obligations under previous UN resolutions. Yesterday he said that any veto would be unreasonable if Iraq were in material breach. Resolution 1441 had made it absolutely clear that Iraq had a final opportunity to disarm. If it did not comply, it was in breach.

In the Commons, the opposition to military action was spread across the parties with the former Conservative Chancellor Kenneth Clarke and the former Labour Cabinet ministers Chris Smith and Frank Dobson leading the way.

Mr Clarke called for more time to be given to diplomatic efforts to disarm Saddam. He was a strong supporter of the Atlantic alliance and not some “anti-American, left-wing, peacenik”, but it was time to put down a marker and say that the “other approaches — diplomatic, deterrent policy, the use of threat to get compliance, have not yet been exhausted”.

[Sir Taliesin]

I really don't doubt that you are right Donut, but I seem to recall that Bill Clinton won a similiar vote over NAFTA here in the States. The Democrats in Congress at the time hardly voted for it. All the support came from the Republicans. He still won re-election, the next go around.

I also think, short of a French veto, a UN resolution will be passed in the coming weeks for declaring Iraq in material breech. At least that is what the news is reporting here. Apparently Russia and China look like they are going to abstain along with possibly Mexico. The rest may well vote for the Material breech resolution. That leaves France and Germany out on a limb by themselves.

[Ronn_Bman]

Sounds good Sir T, but I don't think it's going to be that easy.

Especially once Saddam announces they will begin to destroy the El-Samud missiles. He will continue offering just enough to keep those who oppose action in favor of inspection on their current path.

I like the text of the French/German/Russian proposal offered this week. It says continued military pressure is an important element in continuing Iraqi cooperation despite the fact that Germany has declared it WILL NOT act, and the French governments position is that they won't consider action until the inspectors say they can no longer work with the Iraqis.

[ 02-27-2003, 09:03 AM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[Moiraine]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: I like the text of the French/German/Russian proposal offered this week. It says continued military pressure is an important element in continuing Iraqi cooperation despite the fact that Germany has declared it WILL NOT act, and the French governments position is that they won't consider action until the inspectors say they can no longer work with the Iraqis.

But Ronn, France is just saying again what it has been saying over and over and over ! Look here, read all the interviews of M. de Villepin (our Minister of Foreign Affairs. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Ronn_Bman]

Yes, it has been consistant, but saying they won't act until the inspectors "can't work with the Iraqis anymore" while also saying that military pressure is a key element of Iraqi cooperation leaves someone else doing the dirty work.

International cooperation requires cooperation. France may be comfortable allowing others to exert the pressure while it takes the "high road" trying to avoid sending the wrong signal to Iraq, but that isn't really an equitable distribution of responsibility.

[HolyWarrior]

Would these be the same Brits that threw out Winston Churchill?

No those ones are long dead

[Barry the Sprout]

Originally posted by HolyWarrior: Would these be the same Brits that threw out Winston Churchill?

Would that be the same Winston Churchill who put a vote of no confidence on equal pay for women, claimed that the handicapped should be sterilised for the good of the race, and argued that his political opponents would need "some kind of Gestapo" to implement their program?

Surely not! No one could do all that and be an indisputably good person, as so many people know Winston Churchill was.