In the News
| Published date | 01 April 2010 |
| Date | 01 April 2010 |
| DOI | 10.1111/j.2041-9066.2010.00003.x |
| Subject Matter | In the News |
A Very Public
Inquiry
When Gordon Brown announced,
last year, that the investigation into
the UK’s role in the Iraq war would
be held not behind closed doors but
in public it seemed certain that the
Chilcot inquiry would become a
major talking point in the run-up to
the general election. And so it has
proved.
The inquiry commenced on 24
November 2009 with Sir Peter
Ricketts, chairman of the Joint In-
telligence Committee at the time of
the invasion of Iraq in 2001. Ricketts
said he believed that Saddam Hus-
sein was intent on acquiring weap-
ons of mass destruction and that
sanctions against Iraq had failed. He
also confi rmed that while US offi -
cials had discussed the possibility of
‘regime change’ in Iraq as early as
February 2001 this did not become
UK policy until after the terrorist at-
tacks of 9/11.
In the months since Ricketts’ ap-
pearance, a series of high profi le La-
bour politicians including Tony Blair,
Geoff Hoon, Claire Short and Jack
Straw have given evidence before
Sir John Chilcot and his committee.
Former foreign secretary Straw told
the inquiry that he supported the
decision to go to war with Iraq ‘very
reluctantly’, while Short, one-time
head of the department for interna-
tional development, accused Tony
Blair and former attorney general
Lord Goldsmith of misleading parlia-
ment and the cabinet about the war’s
justifi cations.
Tony Blair’s submission to the
inquiry on 29 January proved par-
ticularly controversial, with banks
of protestors outside the Queen
Elizabeth II conference centre,
in London, branding the former
prime minister a ‘war criminal’ and
a ‘liar’. Nevertheless, Blair vigor-
ously defended the decision to go
to war and has since dismissed the
Chilcot inquiry as part of what he
perceives as the UK’s obsession with
‘conspiracy’.
The inquiry is expected to deliver
its fi nal report after the general
election, but could have a bearing
on its outcome. With a signifi cant
amount of evidence left to be heard
it seems certain that the story of
how the UK came to invade Iraq,
in 2003, will run right up to elec-
tion day.
Europe’s 2020
Vision
A draft strategy for the future of the
European Union has received a very
mixed response in Brussels, writes
Vasilis Margaras from the Centre for
European Policy Studies.
Launched for consultation in
November 2009, Europe 2020 is
designed as the successor to the
Lisbon Treaty. The strategy focuses
on creating growth through knowl-
edge and information technology,
empowering citizens and creating
a more competitive, greener econ-
omy.
Despite such noble aspirations the
draft of Europe 2020 has received
a considerable amount of criticism
from political parties and non-gov-
ernmental bodies in Brussels. Social-
ists in the European parliament have
criticised the document’s failure to
address the problems caused by the
fi nancial crisis. Calling for the crea-
tion of ten million new jobs across
Europe, social democrats have de-
manded greater social responsibil-
ity from the EU, universal access to
public services and a tougher line on
tax havens.
Elsewhere, the thinktank Con-
frontations Europe claimed that
the strategy is too ‘short-termist’
and fails to address the fundamen-
tal problems of the current growth
model. The largest coalition of
women’s non-governmental or-
ganisations, the European Women’s
Lobby, argued for the strengthening
of equality between women and
men. The strategy, they said, needs
to be accompanied by new targets
and monitoring mechanisms such as
systematic gender impact assessment
on all policies, targets, benchmarks
and measures.
Debate took place not only on the
content of the strategy but also its
coordination. The European Envi-
ronmental Bureau, an infl uential
federation of environmental citi-
zens’ organisations, asked for specifi c
proposals on how the Europe 2020
strategy will deliver environmental
and sustainability objectives for a
healthy, clean, prosperous and so-
cially fair EU.
Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel
Angel Moratinos, whose country
currently holds the EU presidency,
expressed concern that there would
be no consequences for countries
not abiding by the strategy’s aims.
The UK and Germany, however,
argued that imposing a controlling
mechanism for the implementation
of Europe 2020 would impose fur-
ther bureaucracy.
The consultation process has now
closed and it remains to be seen
whether any of the points raised
will be taken into account in the
strategy’s fi nal draft. The EU is in
a state of fl ux and needs direction
- but if Europe 2020 fails to address
the concerns voiced in Brussels the
union could be looking at Lisbon all
over again.
Hung Parliament?
Don’t Panic
There is a distinct possibility that
the next general election will re-
turn the UK’s fi rst hung parliament
since 1974 (See Paul Whiteley’s
election forecast on page 5). Senior
politicians in the Conservative and
Labour parties may dread such an
outcome, but a new study argues
that a hung parliament need not
be a disaster – as long as politicians
and the markets avoid post-election
panic.
‘In the UK political system, minor-
ity governments are often seen as
weak, unstable and short term. They
need not be,’ said Professor Robert
Hazell, director of the Constitution
Unit at University College London
and co-author of Making Minority
Government Work.
‘Recent minority governments and
parliaments in Scotland and New
Zealand have been highly effective,
running their full course, with clear
strategies and programmes. Minor-
ity governments can work so long
as everyone understands the rules
of the new political game.’
In the News
The story of
how the UK
came to invade
Iraq will run
right up to
election day
2Political Insight
To continue reading
Request your trial