Underblog.co.uk

Sorry, did I say opinion? Did I make it explicitly clear that I meant opinion, and not advice? Do forgive me, I meant advice.

OK, so what in shitting crikey is going on?

Well, remember that MPs, the press and several cabinet ministers initially assumed that a 2-page answer given by Lord Goldsmith to the House of Lords and circulated to MPs on the 17th of March 2003, which laid out a case for war under existing UN resolutions, was a summary of the Attorney General’s legal advice. This was not corrected at the time, because this is what Blair needed parliament to believe to get approval for the war in Iraq.

We were recently told that this 2-page document was in fact a summary of Goldsmith’s “opinion”, and not a summary of the advice given to Blair. This line was necessary because information was beginning to surface, from Philippe Sands and others, that the Goldsmith’s 13-page advice given to the Prime Minister on the 7th of March 2003 was far less certain about the legality of the war than the supposed summary of that advice. Because MPs weren’t told about the doubts, it was no longer possible to say that the 2-page answer was a summary of the 13 page advice. That would imply that the document was designed to mislead parliament about the Goldsmith’s advice to Blair.

But that left another problem: Tony Blair did not let cabinet see the original 13 page document. This was a contravention of the ministerial code, which states that legal advice received by any minister should be circulated to the whole cabinet. If the PM were to admit he had broken the code, he would have to resign.

So now they say that the 13 page document was not “the” legal advice at all (although it is known that it contained legal advice)! They are making the absurd claim that the 2-page answer given to parliament was the full legal advice.

Three questions:
1. What was the 13 page document given to the prime minister on the 7th of March 2003?
2. If it wasn’t legal advice, the argument against releasing it (that governments should be able to receive advice in confidence) doesn’t apply. So can we see it please?
3. Why the hell has the government been insisting for months that it would not release the full legal advice about the war, even though it supposedly released that advice to parliament two years ago?

Do not try and spin the advice. That’s impossible. Only try to change the truth.
What truth?
There was no advice.

Keep tugging at the thread, people. With a little luck the whole thing could unravel.

Tony Blair used to say that he would resign if he became an electoral liability. Today the Observer reports that Blair admits that he has become “an issue”, but now he is saying that he will only resign when he feels he is no longer able to make “a contribution”. Which could mean anything.

Blair also claims that although he is an issue, that no other leader would fare better: “I am an issue, I always will be. Whoever is the Prime Minister will be.” OK, Let’s get this straight: although he is an issue, he’s actually not an issue at all, because anyone else would be just as much of an issue, presumably because it’s the labour party that is the real issue? That’s pretty rich, considering his presidential style of leadership, and the way in which he has ignored the concerns of his party.

So Blair suggests that replacing him would not help the party’s fortunes in the general election. A poll published last week by the Independent on Sunday suggests otherwise. Blair or the general public, I just don’t know who to believe.

OK, so here’s the dealio. It seems that Goldsmith’s opinion, at least by March 2003, was that attacking Iraq would be legal. However, his legal advice was that it might not be. Got that?

MPs made the decision to go to war on the basis of Goldsmith’s personal opinion, not on the legal advice he gave in his professional capacity. Tony Blair was advised that the war could be illegal, MPs were not.

So that’s alright then.

—Update: Of course, the distinction between advice and opinion was not explained at the time. The shadow foreign secretary, Michael Ancram, certainly seemed unaware of the situation. He said the following during the parliamentary debate which ended with a vote for war:

“The next question is: is military action legal? I accept the Attorney-General’s advice. It is not the advice of an individual lawyer or legal expert but the considered legal advice of the person who is charged with the constitutional duty of advising the Government and the House on the legality or otherwise of actions. The House should give exceptional weight to that advice.”

He clearly believed the advice given by Lord Goldsmith to the government, in his professional capacity as Attorney General, to state unequivocally that war would be legal. Of course, nobody from the government corrected this misapprehension, because it was precisely what they wanted us all to think. Blair didn’t have to actually tell a direct lie, but the intention was obviously to mislead.

Oh, and here’s something Jack Straw said the day before the debate:

“Of course it would have been better if it had been possible to achieve a consensus in the United Nations for a second resolution, but there is no question about the legality of the action that we propose to take.” (My emphasis)

Remember that foreign office lawyers had been united in the view that a second UN security council resolution was necessary (according to John Kampfner), and that the second most senior lawyer in Jack Straw’s department resigned, saying that the invasion was a “crime of agression“. Jack Straw also saw Attorney General’s actual advice, which, according to Philippe Sands,

“recognised that if [the Attorney General's] argument were to come before a court of law it might well be unsuccessful, so that the use of force against Iraq could be found to be illegal.”

How then could Jack Straw tell the house that there was “no question” over the legality of the proposed war? Clearly, if the government were to release the Attorney General’s advice, it would show that Jack Straw lied to parliament.