We should not underestimate the hesitation that any political party would feel about bringing forward a proposal to change the war strategy or, in effect, to admit defeat and go home. I guess that that is why the Liberal Democrats have not done so, although that is a matter for them. I am not against my hon. Friend’s proposal, which is interesting.
That brings me to the more general point that we should not have any illusion that procedural mechanisms will enable us to deal with all the practical problems that arise and all the moral and ethical challenges that we face in these situations. In the case of Iraq, unlike all the previous controversies, we have had not one, not two, but three votes, which effectively decided that Parliament was in favour of going to war as necessary. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood), who says ““No””, was not here. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington, who was against the war, confirmed that she saw all three of those votes as leading very clearly in that direction, as I did.
Armed Conflict (Parliamentary Approval)
Proceeding contribution from
Nick Palmer
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 15 May 2007.
It occurred during Opposition day on Armed Conflict (Parliamentary Approval).
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
460 c536-7 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:30:51 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_396893
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_396893
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_396893