|
Parliament rift { February 27 2003 } Original Source Link: (May no longer be active)
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/27/international/europe/27BRIT.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/27/international/europe/27BRIT.html
February 27, 2003
Parliament Backs Blair on Iraq, but Vote Bares Rift in Labor Party
By WARREN HOGE
LONDON, Feb. 26 Ñ A daylong debate in the House of Commons today laid bare the deep divisions in Prime Minister Tony Blair's Labor Party over his hard-line stance on disarming Iraq.
Antiwar Labor dissidents managed to attract an estimated 120 of the party's 410 members in the House Ñ a figure that exceeded their hopes Ñ to support a motion arguing that the case for military action was "as yet unproven." The government had worked the corridors of Parliament in recent days trying to limit the number of defectors to 40.
In all, 199 members of Parliament backed the rebel motion, and preliminary estimates were that up to 120 of them were from Labor. The motion itself was defeated by a 393-to-199 vote.
A subsequent motion, carefully written by the government to bolster Mr. Blair without mentioning the possibility of war, passed the House by a vote of 434 to 124. The wording supported the government's effort to obtain United Nations backing for disarming Saddam Hussein and called upon Iraq to recognize this as the "final opportunity" to comply.
Despite the shouting and waving of papers that roiled the House throughout the afternoon and evening, Mr. Blair was assured of the backing of the House of Commons for his handling of the conflict because of the support of the opposition Conservative Party.
But the outcome represented the largest rebellion against his authority by his own party members since he came to office in 1997. It posed a serious embarrassment to the Labor leadership at a time when polls show a majority of the British public sharing the dissidents' misgivings.
It was not expected, however, to alter Mr. Blair's resolve to push ahead with his tough approach and his close alliance with President Bush. He has faced widespread opposition from the public and from a significant number of party members for months and repeatedly countered that, regardless of the effect on his popularity, he believes his course of action is the right one and best serves Britain's interest.
In the British system, a prime minister does not need the authorization of Parliament to wage war. Mr. Blair, who has already sent more than 40,000 troops to the Persian Gulf region, has resisted requests that he schedule a vote in the House before sending any of them into combat.
He said today that Parliament would have "many, many times" to vote on the matter, but his clear reference was to the period after a war begins when it would be unthinkable for the Parliament not to back soldiers already on the ground.
Chris Smith, the culture secretary in Mr. Blair's first term and a leader of the antiwar dissidents, said a yes vote for the government motion would set up a timetable for war three to four weeks from now.
"We must say, here, today, in this chamber," Mr. Smith said, "that now is not the time, that the case has yet to be fully made, and that war, with all its consequences, cannot be the present answer."
Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy
|
|
