Parliament votes against an Iraq war

[Peter Cowan]

Just prior to the Iraq war, the House of Commons voted in favour of military action. What if the Commons had voted against ?

How crucial to the invasion was the presence of UK forces ?

Did the US have a plan B to mask / take Basra ?

 

[Flocculencio]

Well, for one thing, Blair comes out of the past few years looking a lot better.

 

[DMA]

If Parliament voted against Britain's involvement in Iraq, then the UK doesn't go to Iraq.

The initial attack upon Iraq goes ahead as planned, albeit the US adds probably 1 or 2 more divisions to its OOB to deal with Basra. The Iraqi defence still crumbles. The result remains the same as per OTL.

The aftermath is slightly different insofar as the cost of the US occupation is increased by about 10% more casualties or thereabouts. Other than that, nothing else changes, although maybe Australia thinks twice before committing its troops prior to the invasion &/or aftermath.

 

[Derek Jackson]

Blair would resign. I guess briefly Prescott would be Prime Minister. The Labour party would then elect a new leader, it might be Brown or it could be Cook, or maybe Straw if he had resigned before the vote (which is probably needed for the vote to go the other way.)

 

[aktarian]

South of Iraq is generally quiet. Is this due to the fact that Brits are there or due to the fact that shi'ias are there?

 

[Satyrane]

If the UK Government is forced by Parliamentary vote not to go to war, the credibility of the 'Coalition of the Willing' takes a big hit. Blair was one of the great ambassadors for military action in Iraq. Better chance of a united(-ish) EU opposition.

(Throws up the interesting (although clearly diplomatically impossible) notion of an EU 'peace-keeping' force being sent to Iraq to mediate between US and Iraqi forces.)

More likely result is perhaps a smaller coalition, as Spain and Denmark bow to pressure from the EU big three not to get involved.

 

[Lord Douglas]

The Parliamentary vote isn't binding, since making war is a Royal Preogerative (sp) transferred to the PM, so he could go to war whether the HofC said yes or no. But if Blair thought that there was a chance that Parliament would say no, then he wouldn't ask them (he was always guarrenteed victory because the Conservative Party supported him). But to get a majority to vote no in the House of Commons, you will have to have another Conservative leader (either Clarke or Portillo) since Ian Duncan Smith was very supportive of the war. Blair's position would be substantially weakened, and Brown would probably take over. Britain wouldn't put pressure on other countries not to go to war, since they actually had wished to go to war themselves.

 

[Derek Jackson]

A no vote in the Parliament was always very unlikely. I guess it would have requried a series of resignations and perhaps the Attorney General to express the view that the war would be illegal (which pretty well every international lawyer not committed to the war or governments planning to start it felt)

I believe that it is likely that more than a hundred Members of Parliament who voted for the war did not deep down think it right, they were pressured by the Labour and Conseravitve leaderships.

Legally a war could still have been started by Royal Prerogative. However if Blair had attempted any such thing I think it likely the that same Royal Prerogative would be used to dismiss Blair.

Actually he would resign, though he might try to force an election.

 

[Hyperion]

If the HofC votes against the war, it would be a political blow to say the least. Britain had 40 thousand troops sent to Iraq, either on the ground, in the air, or in warships. That is quite a lot of forces that would be taken out of the picture, and the US would need a month or so to ferry in another division to make up for those troops being removed.

If Britain backs off, Australia, the only other country that sent more than a token force, at least to the actual invasion, would likely not get involved, at least not in the actual invasion.

 

[DMA]

Many of you are forgetting, that if Britain still sent forces to Iraq, especially after the Commons voted NO, two things are likely to happen.

The first is that a vote of No Confidence would be held against the Government. Now considering the Commons voted NO against the war, but the Government sent troops anyway, you can bet your bottom Pound that the Commons would find No Confidence in the government. As a result, the government would have to resign to make way for someone else.

Secondly, that someone else, although may not last long as a government, would last long enough to call the troops back.

And this then underlines the second fundamental issue in this situation - that being the Crown can only act on the advice of the Government. It's Constitutional Law. The Royal Perogative can only thus take place if the PM advices the Crown to do something (indeed almost everything) - let alone send troops to war.

Of course that's if it got that far. Blair, I'd extremely doubt, wouldn't go against a vote in the Commons, because he'd know the next vote in the Commons, if he ignored the No to war vote, would be the No Confidence motion. And he'd know he'd lose that &, needless to say, government.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

US attitude towards alliances in general and NATO in particular takes a hit.

Without Blair the US goes into Iraq four to six months sooner, possibly preventing some Iraqi efforts to disperse material for resistance.

If the US has a problem with manpower, Bush informs NATO that the 60,000 Americans involved with Bosnia are pulling out. Period. Tell Blair, Chirac, et al to have European replacements on the spot by such and such a date, or watch the peacekeeping effort in the former Yugoslavia collapse.