Jack Straw’s apocalypse of interest
Even better, Straw says he’s vetoing the release of 2003 cabinet minutes where the legality of the war was ‘discussed’ because they would do ’serious damage’ to cabinet government. What we know however, thanks to the Butler Inquiry is that, at the time, cabinet government was in the toilet.
Those cabinet ministers who weren’t complicit or compliant were silent and supine, while Tony Blair and an entourage of unelected placemen plotted a war crime. The ‘Justice’ version of Straw is merely protecting the right of cabinet ministers to be doormats for Prime Ministers to wipe their shitty shoes on.
Straw says if the minutes were released ministers would be inhibited from speaking out in cabinet meetings with their concerns if they knew they might be put into the public domain. What was the excuse in 2003?
Posted on February 25th, 2009 at 11:04am under Affronts to democracy, F.O.I, Iraq, New Labour
| Related posts... • Ooh, you are unlawful • The enviable life of Jack Straw • Jack Straw’s strongest suit |
• Permalink • Trackback • Subscribe |
|
|
|
• 8 Comments |
Sickening. I’m surprised he didn’t try to tell us they’d been eaten by Blunkett’s guide dog.
Still, this gives them plenty of time either to rewrite the minutes, or (more likely) to ensure anyone that *should* be held to account is long-dead by the time their crimes are made public.
Nothing to hide, nothing to fear…..
D
Am I the only one to find absurd the excuse of “we cannot publish the minutes because the no-one will ask questions in Cabinet”?
1) Isn’t the problem here that no-one did ask any questions even though they thought the minutes wouldn’t be published for 100 years?
2) Why are these people in politics at all if they are inhibited by the thought of being seen to ask questions in Cabinet?
I agree with you about the conflict, or apocalypse, of interest – I’m arguing that the veto should be done away with. But if you already know this stuff about ministers being complicit or supine, what more are you going to find out by reading the minutes?
Well, it would be quite nice to know what Lord Goldsmith’s original position on the legality of the war was, what advice he gave to the Cabinet, whether it subsequently changed, and if so, what changed it. That’s rather the central issue about these particular minutes. From the linked BBC article:
So yes, there is a reason to be interested in exactly what was said at that particular meeting.
I must say, I do like the way they always manage to sneak an “unless we really want to” clause into legislation of this type. It really shows the depth of their commitment.
But we do know Lord Goldsmith’s original position, don’t we? His 7 March advice was published
here. It’s so often been said, including by Clare Short and in the Tribunal, that the only advice seen by that Cabinet is the short version of his advice that’s it’s quite obvious no other, more secret, legal advice is going to emerge from these minutes.
At these two meetings the Cabinet changed its line from “we will get a second resolution” to “we will be involved in the invasion of Iraq without a second resolution”. This should mean that these two meetings deal with all the implications of that change in policy, including the legality of invading without UN authority. There is a clear public interest in knowing how this reversal came about.
But we already know what that Cabinet discussed about the legality – it just saw Goldsmith’s short advice. And you simply assert there’s a public interest in seeing the minutes because policy changed. It follows there’s a public interest in seeing Cabinet minutes about every deployment of new troops to Afghanistan, or reduction in troops, every policy change on Northern Ireland, the policy change on a Lisbon referendum, the proposed policy change on tackling extremist Islamism, nationalising Northern Rock and so on and so on. I don’t see on what basis you “keep those secret” if you want to publish the Iraq minutes.
[...] – the best blog commenter around, though, I think, blogless – concisely details why these minutes are so relevant… “At these two meetings the Cabinet changed its line [...]