When did the Tories do similar ? If I remember correctly there was a public enquiry into the Falklands conflict. Not sure if I can remember if anything followed the first Gulf war.
Government must release cabinet minutes on lead-up to Iraq war
- Thread starter laptop
- Start date
When did the Tories do similar ? If I remember correctly there was a public enquiry into the Falklands conflict. Not sure if I can remember if anything followed the first Gulf war.
teqniq
DisMembered
The short answer to that is .... no.
As an afterthought the cunt looks like something straight out of '1984' or 'Brazil' is there a bit of wish fulfilment going on here?
SpookyFrank
Don't swallow the cap
It looks like the freedom of information act was deliberately created with a watertight loophole (?) for just this sort of thing. I daresay a ministerial veto is about as final as it gets.
IMO the very fact that they're vetoing stuff like this from becoming public should be justification to throw the entire government out on their arses and send them cap in hand to the dole office with the rest of us*, regardless of whether there's anything damning in the actual documents (which there quite clearly is, or we wouldn't be here).
*In the unlikely event that there's anyone in government who couldn't be thrown in jail for perjury, embezzlement or fraud of some description.
These cunts have got to be shown for what they are. The whole political system in this country is morally bankrupt I thought bailing out the banks was a fucking disgrace as well. It's an absolute farce. The press should be whipping up a national strike or march but no they're owned by big business that owns the government 
RIP democracy.........
RIP democracy.........
You can just imagine it, eh?
More like this....
Blair: Look its all very well having these objections based on the legality of things but Bush reckons the FBI have details of several of our MP's on their list of paedos they got from this operation Ore and if we dont play ball then they are going to name and shame them and then we are fucked come the next election so the troops go in. Simple as.
(apologies for my conspiracy loon moment but nothing would surprise me, nor would this also being the reason for the Tories being willing to go along with Straws use of the veto )
agricola
a genuine importer of owls
As has been mentioned elsewhere, this decision is actually the one that sets the precedent - not the release of the minutes which would have been the decision of both the tribunal and commissioner.
Of course there is the question about whether it can ever be described as democratic or even a fair FOI system that an independent tribunal, followed by an independent commissioner, is overruled by someone who was deeply involved in the decision that lead to the FOI request in the first place.
As an aside, having been forced to sit through one of Straw's speeches a decade ago I take objection to the claim that he could pass for the Witchfinder General. The man is some form of verbal lettuce.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
"Blair: So to re-cap, President Bush wants us to join him in some unfinished business in Iraq, which will mean sending in the troops.
Straw: Jolly good, a little bird told me that Saddam has big nasty weapons aimed at us as we speak!
Short: What little bird?
Blair: Oh, just shut up! You sad brummie leftie!!!
Straw: Yeah bitch! Go and make some coffee!! "
You can just imagine it, eh?
I just can't see it. Straw would never have called her a bitch. He would have said 'ugly bint'.
I've done some research on this and think that the chronology is roughly as follows:
1) Goldsmith presents a detailed, seventeen page, legal opinion to the prime minister explaining why it would be illegal for the UK to go into Iraq without a further UN resolution.
2) A wee while later, a cabinet meeting is held to discuss the prospective invasion. The Goldsmith report is NOT presented to the cabinet at this meeting (why not?). After discussions, and presumably due to "queries" raised by Cooke and Short during this meeting about the legality of such an enterprise, a decision on the invasion is postponed and another cabinet meeting is scheduled for a couple of weeks later.
3) A few days after the first cabinet meeting, a face-to-face meeting is scheduled and held comprising two senior ministers (I can't remember who, but the info's freely available, but they were very senior - cabinet level,) and Goldsmith.
(He was summonsed?).
Immediately after this meeting, Goldsmith does a complete U-Turn on his SEVENTEEN PAGE opinion on the likely illegality of invasion and issues to the prime minister a ONE PAGE opinion that the invasion would, probably, maybe, be legal.
The two ministers concerned claim that there was no pressure put on Goldsmith and that, in fact, when they met with him, he himself volunteered that he'd already changed his mind and wanted to chuck out his seventeen page opinion.
The one page opinion was duly extracted.
(Have the minutes of this meeting been released yet?)
4) A few days later, the second cabinet meeting is held and, this time, the cabinet, having NOT seen the previous SEVENTEEN PAGE opinion from Goldsmith, is presented with the latest ONE PAGE opinion from Goldsmith suggesting that an invasion kinda, sorta, should be OK.
5) The cabinet then votes to invade.
6) The dissenters resign.
7) The UK invades Iraq.
That's about it so far.
Keep digging peeps.
Woof
1) Goldsmith presents a detailed, seventeen page, legal opinion to the prime minister explaining why it would be illegal for the UK to go into Iraq without a further UN resolution.
2) A wee while later, a cabinet meeting is held to discuss the prospective invasion. The Goldsmith report is NOT presented to the cabinet at this meeting (why not?). After discussions, and presumably due to "queries" raised by Cooke and Short during this meeting about the legality of such an enterprise, a decision on the invasion is postponed and another cabinet meeting is scheduled for a couple of weeks later.
3) A few days after the first cabinet meeting, a face-to-face meeting is scheduled and held comprising two senior ministers (I can't remember who, but the info's freely available, but they were very senior - cabinet level,) and Goldsmith.
(He was summonsed?).
Immediately after this meeting, Goldsmith does a complete U-Turn on his SEVENTEEN PAGE opinion on the likely illegality of invasion and issues to the prime minister a ONE PAGE opinion that the invasion would, probably, maybe, be legal.
The two ministers concerned claim that there was no pressure put on Goldsmith and that, in fact, when they met with him, he himself volunteered that he'd already changed his mind and wanted to chuck out his seventeen page opinion.
The one page opinion was duly extracted.
(Have the minutes of this meeting been released yet?)
4) A few days later, the second cabinet meeting is held and, this time, the cabinet, having NOT seen the previous SEVENTEEN PAGE opinion from Goldsmith, is presented with the latest ONE PAGE opinion from Goldsmith suggesting that an invasion kinda, sorta, should be OK.
5) The cabinet then votes to invade.
6) The dissenters resign.
7) The UK invades Iraq.
That's about it so far.
Keep digging peeps.
Woof
Similar threads
- Poll
