Chilcot Enquiry

[Bren122]

It cannot be the case, however, that the information that the "in" section of the Cabinet depended upon when deciding to go to war could reasonably be supposed to be reliable, nor when Tony Blair declared to Parliament that Saddam definitely had WMDs that he planned to use on the Shi'a population, that this information was based on extensive detailed and authoritative intelligence which he reasonably believed was true

I probably should have made the point in another way.
Unless there is evidence presented that Blair clearly knew that he was lying (say a video recording or a confession) it is unlikely that a finding of knowingly lying to parliament will be upheld for two reasons not wholly unrelated. Firstly, the Conservatives supported the War and made a great deal of fuss over the evidence even though it is likely that they were merely committed to the conflict because it was backing up the USA. Secondly, had the Conservatives been in power then it is unlikely that things would have unfolded any differently. Finding that Blair knowingly lied to Parliament could mean that a future scenario involving a Conservative government acting to support the USA but knowing this was not a sufficient justification for the British people would then have to be much more careful in its own justifications.
A quick flip through the pages of history will demonstrate many occasions when one party or another went to or conducted a war where there was clearly lies being told but the opposition not taking this up for fear that it would constrict its own actions when in government; i am thinking particularly of the Suez Invasion and the Nile Expedition to 'rescue' General Gordon. Another example is the execution of Admiral Byng for abandoning the fortress of Minorca without a fight to cover up the years of neglect of the garrison by both parties in the lead-up to the war, when it was obvious that the first target of the Spanish would be that fortress. The execution was widely seen and reported in Europe for what it was but in England, for a long time, it was viewed very differently.
It is a vote in parliament and as such will be decided by politics and not by the facts.

[MMI]

I probably should have made the point in another way.
Unless there is evidence presented that Blair clearly knew that he was lying (say a video recording or a confession) it is unlikely that a finding of knowingly lying to parliament will be upheld for two reasons not wholly unrelated. Firstly, the Conservatives supported the War and made a great deal of fuss over the evidence even though it is likely that they were merely committed to the conflict because it was backing up the USA. Secondly, had the Conservatives been in power then it is unlikely that things would have unfolded any differently. Finding that Blair knowingly lied to Parliament could mean that a future scenario involving a Conservative government acting to support the USA but knowing this was not a sufficient justification for the British people would then have to be much more careful in its own justifications.
A quick flip through the pages of history will demonstrate many occasions when one party or another went to or conducted a war where there was clearly lies being told but the opposition not taking this up for fear that it would constrict its own actions when in government; i am thinking particularly of the Suez Invasion and the Nile Expedition to 'rescue' General Gordon. Another example is the execution of Admiral Byng for abandoning the fortress of Minorca without a fight to cover up the years of neglect of the garrison by both parties in the lead-up to the war, when it was obvious that the first target of the Spanish would be that fortress. The execution was widely seen and reported in Europe for what it was but in England, for a long time, it was viewed very differently.
It is a vote in parliament and as such will be decided by politics and not by the facts.

I understand all of that, but the scrutiny of the modern press is less respectful of politicians now than it was in 1956, and it is prepared to worry at an issue for as long as it takes for them to make the point they want to make. One can only hope thay want to make it perfectly clear that Blair did lie to Parliament, and he did ignore legal advice that the war would be illegal, and that, as a result, the politicians, when voting - if ever it comes to a vote - will vote for appropriate action.

[Bren122]

I understand all of that, but the scrutiny of the modern press is less respectful of politicians now than it was in 1956, and it is prepared to worry at an issue for as long as it takes for them to make the point they want to make. One can only hope thay want to make it perfectly clear that Blair did lie to Parliament, and he did ignore legal advice that the war would be illegal, and that, as a result, the politicians, when voting - if ever it comes to a vote - will vote for appropriate action.

The legality or illegality of the war is a moot point- no country is going to test it in case it sets a precedent that backfires against them.
The same with the vote in parliament- nobody is seriously going to vote on the matter unless there is absolutely foolproof evidence that he lied in case it limits their own party when they are in power.
The press and minor parties can bang on about it as much as they want; as with Gladstone and the Nile Campaign it might even bring down the government; but at the end of the day the Conservatives and Labour (and the Lib-Dems if they thought they will ever get into power) will not vote for it because it threatens to tie their hands.