Insurgentjg

Not having a written constitution allowed Blair and his advisers to go to war without reference to parliament or the public. George Monbiot comments on a rather confusing unbalanced discussion programme broadcasted on the BBC a Friday before the New Year. Programme discussed with Lord Guthrie, formerly chief of the defense staff, and Sir Kevin Tebbit, until recently the senior civil servant at the Ministry of Defense, if the parliament decides whether Britain should or not go for war. The discussion reveals some terrifying facts about the privileges of unfathomable power which lead Britain to become a party to a crime that killed million of people and changed the history of the world.
Guthrie argued that parliamentary approval would mean intelligence had to be shared with MPs; that the other side could not be taken by surprise which means that the enemies will know that an attack has been planned. Tebbit argued that the prime minister can not deploy forces until he or she has a command over majority of the parliament. This way the executive is already accountable to parliament. Once the prime minister has his majority, in other words, MPs become redundant.Wagging a war of aggression is considered to be a supreme international crime, according to International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg. It is actually at the top of the list of war crimes but mostly the nations or organisations supporting the point of view are scoffed off where in reality these are the few who stand between us and the greatest crimes in history.
If Britain’s top most officers do not understand the simple idea then what can be expected from the country’s policies. In September 2002, a speech in Lords he stated that Britain has to join US in operations against Iraq, the sooner we strike the less easier it will be to handle the threat. No one in the parliament pointed out that he is proposing the supreme international crime. Later on Guthrie also argued that it is unthinkable for British servicemen and women to be sent to international court, regardless of what ever crime they might have committed. He also proposed government that British forces should be allowed to opt out of the European convention on human rights. The grey heads murmured their agreement. The grey heads murmured their agreement. 
According to the British government both the Commons public administration committee and the Lords constitution committee is aware that decision making should provide  “provide sufficient flexibility for deployments which need to be made without prior parliamentary approval for reasons of urgency or necessary operational secrecy”. This means that any matter can’t be kept secret from the parliament unless it is kept from the UN.
Guardian got hold of some letters in 2003 showing how Tebbit prevented the fraud squad at the MoD from investigating the allegations against corrupt dealings by the arms manufacturers BAE. He tipped off the BAE chairman about the confidential letter that was sent by the Serious Fraud Office and he never informed his ministers about the warnings by SFO. In October 2003, during investigations for the death of government scientist David Kelly, he revealed that a decision to name Kelly was made in a “meeting chaired by the prime minister.” This could have been the end of the Blair’s tenure in 10 Downing Street but after a week Tebbit denounced his statement in a written form tto Lord Hutton. Neither parliament nor press was informed about the retraction and it was only after three months when Hutton’s report was published that every one came to know about the hidden realities. Tony Blair already knowing about the secret took crushing advantage.
This programme revealed that both Guthrie and Tallbot have not learnt much from their experiences of disaster in Iraq. They are not alone; Tony Blair wrote an article for the economist “What I have learned” in which he states that “his critics are both wrong and dangerous and that his decisions are based upon the freedom, democracy, responsibility, justice and fairness.” He added that his decisions were difficult to take but were invariably right.
Blair, brown, Straw, Hoon, Campball and their legal advisors still haven’t said a word of regret about Britain’s participation in the supreme international crime. The press and parliament seem to follow the petition of Blair and British government that we “move on” from disastrous land of Iraq. But the question is that does British government has ever learnt from its prior experiences?
British unwritten constitution is widely referred as the gentleman’s agreement, which allows prime minister to act without making any references. Britain went on supporting its ally forces in Iraq because the common people and the parliament were not informed at the time of decision.
George Monbiot going further on the subject says that “Had the truth not been suppressed, Britain could never have attacked Iraq. Real constitutional reform requires much more than the timid proposals in the green paper on the governance of Britain, which are likely to appear in a bill in a few weeks’ time. Yes, parliament should be allowed to vote on whether to go to war, yes the royal prerogative should be rolled back. But the prime minister, his diplomats, civil servants and generals would still decide which wars parliament needs to know about, which crimes could be secretly committed in our name. Real constitutional reform means not only handing power to parliament but also confronting the power of the hard, unaccountable people who act as if it is their birthright.”

___________________________________________________

1  George Monbiot, How Britain became party to a crime, The Guardian.
2  Ibid
3  Ibid
4  Ibid