Summary
We’re going to close our rolling coverage of the Chilcot report with a summary of the day’s key developments and reaction.
- Sir John Chilcot’s 6,000-page report on the Iraq war and occupation delivered a crushing verdict on Tony Blair’s decision to join the US invasion, finding a cascade of mistakes and bad strategy that led to years of devastating mismanagement and strife.
- Key findings include: Blair deliberately exaggerated the threat posed by Saddam Hussein; the UK chose invasion before it had exhausted peaceful options; British intelligence produced “flawed information”; the US ignored UK advice on postwar planning; the British military was poorly prepared for war, Blair ignored warnings, kept his cabinet in the dark and had no plans for occupation.
- The report revealed secret letters between Blair and George W Bush, including one in which the then prime minister pledged to the US president: “I will be with you, whatever.” Six days after invasion, he added: “This is the moment when you can define international politics for the next generation: the true post-cold war world order.”
- Blair responded by saying: “I express more sorrow, regret and apology than you can ever know or believe.” But the former prime minister insisted he made the right decision. “I believe it is better we took that decision. I acknowledge the mistakes and accept responsibility for them,” he said. “As this report makes clear, there were no lies, there was no deceit.”
- Bush defiantly insisted the decision to invade was the correct one. “Despite the intelligence failures and other mistakes he has acknowledged previously,” a spokesperson said, “President Bush continues to believe the whole world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power.”
- Blair rejected at least nine findings of the report, including that war was “not a last resort”, that the UK and US undermined the UN, that an insurgency was predictable and that the military and intelligence services share some blame.
- Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn apologised on behalf of the party. He apologised to Iraqis, British soldiers and to “the millions of British citizens who feel our democracy was traduced and undermined by the way in which the decision to go to war was taken”.
- Reg Keys called Blair’s statement the “ramblings of a madman”, saying the former prime minister misled parliament and that his son and other soldiers died in vain.
- Lord Butler and others made limited defenses of Blair, with many saying that he exagerrated the reliability of intelligence but acted in good faith and did not lie. The US diplomat in charge of the occupation in 2003 agreed with several key findings but also argued that the decision to invade was justified.
- Many Iraqis met the report with the grim sense that it only articulated the obvious: that western hubris and incompetence had created the conditions for years more of strife, including Sunday’s bombing, which killed an estimated 250 people in one of the worst atrocities of postwar Iraq.
Updated
The Chilcot report is little more than a footnote to many Iraqis, who are still reeling from one of the worst atrocities of postwar Iraq: a bombing in central Baghdad that killed an estimated 250 people and outraged a country mostly inured by violence, my colleague Martin Chulov reports.
For the mix of mourners staring into the middle distance, desperate relatives wailing for help, forensic officers crouched near puddles and others who stood bewildered by the scale of destruction, it would merely tell them what they already knew: that the war and its aftermath were both grave mistakes.
The few who had seen brief reports from London on Iraqi television shrugged and pointed at the damage when asked what they made of what was effectively Britain’s mea culpa. “This is the reason for all this chaos,” said Bassam Jaber Abayati, a Karrada local. “They should have known better. They should have done this [apologised] earlier. The west should be accountable for all this misery.”
A second local, Ahmed Ali said: “This is the result of the war. It’s all destroyed. What do you want me to say? If I had money I would not live in Iraq another day. I would go anywhere that would take me.”
Throughout the eight-year occupation and chaotic years since, sectarian war and widespread displacement of communities have ravaged the country. Terror attacks have barely relented, with state-backed militias running riot, and first al-Qaida in Iraq and then Islamic State unleashing murderous savagery.
Col Ahmed Hassan, a police officer attached to the interior ministry, said: “There is no excuse for [the decision to invade]. It was an extermination war. This is not the terrorists behind this. It is states against us. This is what all Iraqis feel. There was a high level of engineering behind this and that is the job of countries.”
Fadi Faris, 35, from Amara, an area occupied by the British army, said: “It was a mistake of excuses. They found the worst two reasons to invade, weapons of mass destruction and links to terrorism, and they stuck to them.
“We still live in the way of the dark ages, so we could never use the tools of democracy. It was like bringing a knife and giving it to a child. Under Saddam we had a government with a big problem. Now we don’t have a real government and we only have problems.
“The British, when they came to Iraq 100 years ago, established a good government. Iraq was stable and it was going in a reasonable direction. They learned nothing [about the society] from that time. The US was the real decision-maker. Britain was just an ally. It was not a British plan at all.”
Updated
Russia has claimed it warned the UK of the “unjust and highly dangerous” Iraq war, with its embassy in London seizing on the Chilcot report to boast about its warnings.
“No real WMD in Baghdad, unjust & highly dangerous war. The entire region on the receiving end,” embassy staff tweeted. Since Vladimir Putin assumed the presidency in 1999, the Kremlin has generally opposed western intervention abroad – even though in recent years Russia has grown more active in Georgia, Ukraine and Syria.
My colleague Ian Black reports on reaction around the world:
Franz Klintsevich, first deputy chairman of the defence and security committee in the upper house of Russia’s parliament, said the UK should apologise to the Iraqi people, pay compensation and prosecute the officials who decided on the invasion.
In Iran, widely seen as the greatest beneficiary of the US-led invasion, there was no official comment and the media paid scant attention to the report. The exception was Press TV, an English-language state broadcaster, which provided live coverage of Tony Blair’s press conference.
In Tehran, Hassan Rouhani, Iran’s president, pledged that his country would stand by the Iraqi government in a phone call to the prime minister, Haidar al-Abadi. He expressed his condolences for the recent terrorist attacks that have killed 250 people in Baghdad. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, also failed to mention Chilcot.
Iraqi media was dominated by the mounting death toll in the Karrada bombings. Another story was about Abadi accepting the resignation of his interior minister in the wake of the carnage.
“Iraq as a country has become a battlefield for regional and international powers, and this is one of the most critical consequences of the invasion,” Iraqi political analyst Hadi al-Isami told al-Jazeera, saying Chilcot would do nothing to assuage the country’s plight.
#Chilcot inquiry: No real WMD in Baghdad, unjust & highly dangerous war. The entire region on the receiving end. pic.twitter.com/UoL09xfqqQ
— Russian Embassy, UK (@RussianEmbassy) July 6, 2016
Updated
Paul Bremer, the US diplomat put in charge of governing Iraq after the invasion and occupation, has backed several key findings of the Chilcot report.
Bremer agreed in a piece in the Guardian that the US and UK made “inadequate” plans for the occupation of Iraq, and accused both George W Bush and Tony Blair of ignoring internal warnings.
“The commission noted that that ‘bad tidings’ tended not to be heard in London,” he said. “The same was true in Washington. Before the war, a few American military officers suggested the need for a substantial post-conflict military presence. They were not heard.”
Bremer also criticized the failure to prevent looting after the invasion and inconsistent military commitments.
“As David Richmond, one of the able British CPA colleagues, told the commission, the coalition ‘never got on top of security’,” he said. “So the coalition gave the impression to Iraqis that we were not serious in this most important goal of any government. No doubt this failure encouraged some members of what became the resistance.”
But the former diplomat agreed with Bush and Blair’s insistence that they made the right decision even if their methods were severely wanting.
“I believe history will agree that it was the correct, if difficult decision to remove Saddam,” he writes. “Had we not done so, today we would likely confront a nuclear armed Iraq facing off against a nuclear armed Iran. Bad as the unrest in the region is today, that would be worse.”
Earlier on Wednesday, a spokesperson for Bush said the former president acknowledges “intelligence failures and other mistakes”, but added “the whole world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power”.
Updated
Former defence secretary Geoff Hoon has also stoically defended his and Tony Blair’s conduct in an interview to Sky News. He says he has read only the executive summary of the Chilcot report.
“We do have to learn the lessons of process,” he says. There were ways we could and should have done better.” Hoon says that Blair “accepted those cirticisms, as do I.”
Like Blair, McFadden and Clwyd, he argues that everyone made decisions in good faith.
“We know now that there were not weapons of mass destruction,” Hoon says. “Knowing that now we would not have had the legal basis to have gone into Iraq.”
He insists that he saw nothing to suggest that British intelligence had received flawed intelligence – such as a description of a chemical weapon that was suspiciously akin to a device in the movie The Rock. “Had I seen something that doubted it maybe things would’ve been different,” he says, when asked why he didn’t challenge intelligence or Blair.
“I did not detect anyone at that time who did not do anything otherwise than a serious job,” he says. “I believe they were hardworking, conscientious dedicated people.”
“With the benefit of hindsight you can look back on any group of people and say they could’ve done better.”
Q: But wasn’t it your responsibility?
Hoon: “They gave me their best military advice and I certainly challenged that advice from time to time.”
But more often than not, Hoon hints, he deferred to others. “These are peple who devoted their entire lives [to the military and intellgience]. It’s not for politicians to second guess their expert advice.”
Hoon also insists that information never received the ministry about the dire need for equipment to protect against IEDs and the guerrilla warfare that came with occupation and Iraq’s sectarian wars.
There was “no sense of anyone on the ground at the time saying this piece of equipment or that piece of equipment was required”, Hoon says.
“Very little of this information actually made it to the ministry of defense, nevermind to the ministers,” he concludes. “I recognise that overall I was responsible.”
Updated
The Labour MP Pat McFadden has given a partial defence of Tony Blair and the decision to invade Iraq on BBC News, saying “these decisions were taken in good faith”.
“Intelligence was not falsified, parliament was not lied to, the cabinet was not lied to,” he says, meaning British intelligence agencies did not falsify material, although they accepted bogus information.
“This was not unconditional support,” he adds. “All the effort on the British end was to persuade the Americans to go down the UN route.”
McFadden was an adviser to Blair in Downing Street, and defends the former prime minister. “Advisers can advise,” he says, “but a prime minister more than anyone has to make that decision. He still believes it was the right decision, but of course it had many consequences and he’s had to live with them since.”
“He could’ve opted out of not taking part, I don’t think he could’ve stopped the Americans,” he adds. “It was at that time, to use a phrase from our age, a binary decision.”
Like Ann Clwyd he argues that sectarian violence was rampant in Iraq before the invasion created a power vacuum out of which a Shia-Sunni civil war erupted. People act as though “history began in 2003”, McFadden says, and as though “now all the extremist violence stemmed from that”.
“But it’s important to stress that’s not the case. We had 9/11 two years before this, we had Bali, and we also had Saddam’s regime, which had engaged in its own horrific killing.”
“I don’t think it was a rush to war, and you know Mr Blair was asked about this today, about whether there could’ve been more time,” McFadden goes on. “The answer he gave was ‘I had to make a decision.’ That’s what a prime minister has to do.”
Updated
The French ambassador to the US, Gérard Araud, has taken the Chilcot report as a vindication of his country’s refusal to join the invasion of Iraq.
Araud tweets: “May I remind everybody how France was abused and denigrated for opposing the war? France was right!”
Alongside some statistics about the toll of the war – approximately 165,000 civilian casualties, 4,486 American soldiers killed, 179 British service members killed, more than $2tn spent and no weapons of mass destruction found – Araud posted another tweet. “Not only a geopolitical disaster, not only distortion and manipulation but also a human tragedy,” he wrote.
.@benjaminhaddad In 2003, Blair was not facing more "uncertainties and constraints" that the French President who opposed an absurd war.
— Gérard Araud (@GerardAraud) July 6, 2016
Updated
MI6 stood by bogus intelligence
British intelligence agencies accepted false information even after a source told them of a supposed chemical weapon that was remarkably similar to one from the 1996 movie The Rock, my colleague Ewen MacAskill has learned from the report.
The incident is just one of a series of blunders described by the Chilcot report committed by Britain’s overseas spy agency, the Secret Intelligence Service in the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
In the incident, the report describes a source providing details about spherical glass containers allegedly filled with chemical weapons at an establishment in Iraq.
MI6 at the time defended the authenticity of the source and the material, according to the Chilcot report. “However, it drew attention to the fact that the source’s description of the device and its spherical glass contents was remarkably similar to the fictional chemical weapon portrayed in the film The Rock,” the report says.
In the 1996 movie, Nicolas Cage, playing an FBI chemical warfare specialist, joins Sean Connery, playing a former British spy, to prevent chemical weapons being launched against San Francisco.
The similarity between the movie and the source’s alleged device had been noted when the MI6 report was first circulated on 11 and 23 September 2002, well before the Iraq invasion in March 2003.
But this and other bogus claims were not formally withdrawn by MI6 until 29 July 2003, four months after the invasion, Chilcot reports.
In a devastating finding, Chilcot said: “SIS did not inform No 10 or others that the source who had provided the reporting issued on 11 and 23 September 2002 about production of chemical and biological agent had been lying to SIS.”
False allegations that Saddam could attack UK targets within “45 minutes” were not withdrawn until 28 September 2004. Bogus information by a source known as Curve Ball that also fed into the case for war was not withdrawn until the following day, 29 September 2004.
The faulty intelligence from MI6 was compounded by Tony Blair who hardened up the information when he wrote the foreword to the so-called “dodgy dossier” in September 2002. Chilcot concluded that Blair presented the assessments of the spy agencies to parliament with a “certainty” not justified by available intelligence.
Chilcot blames the intelligence community not just for passing on bogus information in the first place but failing to correct the prime minister when he toughened up the so-called intelligence.
The intelligence agencies had a serious blind spot. “At no stage was the proposition that Iraq might no longer have chemical, biological or nuclear weapons or programmes identified and examined by either JIC (the Joint Intelligence Committee, the umbrella organisation representing all the intelligence agencies) or the policy community.”
In the foreword to the dossier presented to the public in September 2002 preparing the case for war, Blair said he believed the intelligence had “established beyond doubt” that Saddam had continued to produce WMDs.
But the Chilcot report concludes: “The assessed intelligence had not established beyond doubt that Saddam Hussein had continued to produce chemical and biological weapons.”
Updated
The Labour MP Ann Clwyd, who was Tony Blair’s special envoy on human rights in Iraq before the war, has defended the former prime minister in an interview on Sky TV.
“I think Tony Blair did the right thing at the time on the evidence that he had,” she says.
When pressed to defend her support for the invasion, she cites what she saw in the 1990s and early 2000s in her argument that Saddam Hussein was going to inflict war crimes on minorities in Iraq.
“I’d just come back in February that year from Kurdistan where the Kurds are already fleeing out of the towns and the cities into the countryside, because they believed that Saddam Hussein was going to be using chemical weapons against them again.
“In all the years that I’ve known them they said there was no other way but war.”
The Sky host argues that the invasion and mistake-riddled occupation destabilised Iraq and created the circumstances ripe for civil war – the brutal Shia-Sunni wars that were not quelled until the so-called US “surge”. Al-Qaida did not have a strong presence in Iraq before the war, but Clwyd says: “Sectarian violence had been going a long time in Iraq, before 2003.”
“The elements of al-Qaida in the north of Iraq, they were closely associated subsequently with al-Qaida, those are also still in existence,” she says.
Q: So you don’t see the links between dismantling the security forces and the rise of al-Qaida in Iraq with the invasion?
Clwyd: “No, I think that’s much too simplistic.”
She again says that the atrocities perpetrated by Saddam justified the invasion. “If you’d stood by the mass graves,” she says, “near Babylon and you’d see bodies being excavated … they were Shia [and they] had tried an uprising against Saddam Hussein, and they’d been ruthlessly suppressed. The Kurds had tried to raise an uprising against Saddam Hussein and they were ruthlessly suppressed.”
She notes the UN resolutions being ignored by Saddam. “I think there is an argument for intervention,” she says.
Q: Was there no alternative to war?
“I didn’t want a war,” Clwyd says. “We gathered evidence of Iraqi war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide.” She suggests that perhaps the international community could have obtained indictments against Saddam and members of his regime. “Also sanctions. Although there were sanctions against the regime, they did not work properly. Saddam Hussein really subverted the oil for food programme.”
Updated
9 Chilcot findings rejected by Tony Blair
Tony Blair’s lengthy speech about the Chilcot report, and his subsequent Q&A with journalists, was remarkable. Blair has expressed sorrow and regret about what happened before, but today, particularly in his opening remarks, he sounded more emotional and contrite than ever.
The intelligence statements made at the time of going to war turned out to be wrong.
The aftermath turned out more hostile, protracted and bloody than we ever imagined.
The coalition planned for one set of ground facts and encountered another.
A nation whose people we wanted to see free and secure from the evil of Saddam became instead victim of sectarian terrorism.
For all of this I express more sorrow, regret and apology and in greater measure than you can know or may believe.
But the raw emotion (genuine, I believe, although no doubt many will assume it wasn’t) could not conceal the fact that Blair’s performance was a statement of defiance.
Earlier this year Tony Blair said in an interview that at some point “the political class as a whole has got to get up and stand up for itself”. That’s what he was doing this afternoon. His main complaint about Sir John Chilcot was that Chilcot did not recognise what it was like to have to take decisions. Blair repeatedly criticised Chilcot for refusing to consider what might have happened if Britain has chosen not to support the invasion of Iraq, suggesting that there was a thick streak of naivety or otherworldliness running through the report.
But Blair also rejected many of Chilcot’s specific conclusions. I’ve counted at least nine points where Blair said Chilcot was wrong. Here they are:
- Blair said he did not accept Chilcot’s claim that the war was “not a last resort”. There was no rush to war, Blair said.
The inquiry finds that as at 18 March war was not the ‘last resort’. But given the impasse at the UN and the insistence of the USA – for reasons I completely understood and with hundreds of thousands of troops in theatre which could not be kept in situ indefinitely – it was the last moment of decision for us, as the report accepts.
- He rejected Chilcot’s claim that Britain and America undermined the authority of the UN by going to war without a second resolution. Blair said:
The inquiry finds that going to war without a majority of the UNSC in agreement ‘undermined the authority of the UN.’
The reality is that we – Britain – had continually tried to act with the authority of the UN. I successfully convinced the Americans to go back to the UN in November 2002 to secure resolution 1441.
- Blair said he did not accept Chilcot’s assessment that it would have been acceptable to refuse to support America.
Whilst they accept that it was my prerogative as PM to decide to be with the USA in military action, the inquiry questions whether this was really necessary.
9/11 was an event like no other in US history. I considered it an attack on all the free world. I believed that Britain – as America’s strongest ally – should be with them in tackling this new and unprecedented security challenge. I believed it important that America was not alone but part of a wider coalition. In the end, a majority even of the European Union nations supported action in Iraq.
- Blair said he did not accept Chilcot’s claim that the risk of an insurgency should have been predicted.
The inquiry finds that there were some warnings about sectarian fighting and bloodletting. I accept that but would point out that nowhere were these highlighted as the main risk and in any event what we faced was not the anticipated internal bloodletting but an all-out insurgency stimulated by external arms and money.
- Blair said Chilcot was wrong to blame the armed forces, the intelligence services and civil servants, because they were following Blair’s instructions.
I do not think it is fair or accurate to criticise the armed forces, intelligence services, or civil service. It was my decision they were acting upon. The armed forces in particular did an extraordinary job throughout our engagement in Iraq in the incredibly difficult mission we gave them.
Some of the Chilcot criticisms are of the armed forces are set out here.
- Blair said he did not accept Chilcot’s claim that the war was a failure. (See 12.09pm.) Blair said the first part of the campaign was a “brilliant military success”.
- He said he did not accept Chilcot’s claim that it was “humiliating” for British soldiers to have to do a deal with a militia group in southern Iraq.
- Blair rejected Chilcot’s claim that it was a mistake to be conducting “two enduring campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan” at the same time.
- Blair accused Chilcot of underestimating the damage done to French and German relations with America by their stance on Iraq.
That’s all from me and Peter for today.
We are handing over to Alan Yuhas.
Updated
George Bush says world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power
George W Bush, the former American president, has defended the decision to invade Iraq following the publication of today’s report. A spokesman for Bush said:
President Bush is hosting wounded warriors at his ranch today and has not had the chance to read the Chilcot report. Despite the intelligence failures and other mistakes he has acknowledged previously, President Bush continues to believe the whole world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power. He is deeply grateful for the service and sacrifice of American and coalition forces in the war on terror. And there was no stronger ally than the United Kingdom under the leadership of Prime Minister Tony Blair. President Bush believes we must now find the unity and resolve to stay on the offensive and defeat radical extremism wherever it exists.
Here are two diplomatic experts on Chilcot.
From John Simpson, the BBC’s world affairs editor
#Chilcot shows that UK's Iraq invasion as bad as Suez.Led to cynicism about politics which maybe played part in #Brexit
— John Simpson (@JohnSimpsonNews) July 6, 2016
From Patrick Wintour, the Guardian’s diplomatic editor
Apart the effective damning Blair judgement, Chilcot totally lacks historical sweep, context or analysis. Reads like Diary of a Mandarin.
— Patrick Wintour (@patrickwintour) July 6, 2016
Corbyn apologises for war on behalf of Labour to Iraqis, to soldiers' families and to Britons
Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader, is giving a speech in Westminster about the Chilcot report now. Much of the speech was the same as the one he gave in the House of Commons, but towards the end he has just included an apology on behalf of Labour for the decision to go to war.
So I now apologise sincerely on behalf of my party for the disastrous decision to go to war in Iraq in March 2003.
That apology is owed first of all to the people of Iraq. Hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost and the country is still living with the devastating consequences of the war and the forces it unleashed.
They have paid the greatest price for the most serious foreign policy calamity of the last 60 years.
The apology is also owed to the families of those soldiers who died in Iraq or who have returned home injured or incapacitated.
They did their duty but it was in a conflict they should never have been sent to.
Finally, it is an apology to the millions of British citizens who feel our democracy was traduced and undermined by the way in which the decision to go to war was taken on the basic of secret ‘I will be with you, whatever’ understandings given to the US president that have now been publicly exposed.
Updated
Lord Butler says Blair exaggerated the reliability of the intelligence, but did not lie
In a debate in the House of Lords in 2007 Lord Butler, the former cabinet secretary who chaired a report into the use of intelligence in the run up to the Iraq war, said that Tony Blair was “disingenuous” about the WMD intelligence because it did not show conclusively that Saddam Hussein had WMD, as Blair suggested. Butler also told peers that when Blair said the WMD intelligence was “extensive, detailed and authoritative”, those words “could simply not have been justified”. Peter Oborne quotes Butler repeatedly in his book Not the Chilcot Report to help make his case that Blair can be accused of lying.
But Butler has been giving interviews to Sky and BBC News this afternoon and he did not go as far as he did in the Lords. He said that, although Blair was guilty of “exaggerating the reliability of the intelligence”, he would not accuse him of lying. He also said he did not think Blair should be taken to court. That would only be justified if Blair was criminally negligent, Butler said. But he said he did not believe Blair was criminally negligent.
Jack Straw, who was foreign secretary at the time of the Iraq war, is being interview on Sky News. He says Tony Blair was “never gung-ho” about war.
Asked about the phrase “I will be with you, whatever” that Tony Blair included in his July 2002 memo to Bush, Straw says he thought that was unwise because it would be misinterpreted.
Updated
Goldsmith says Chilcot backs his finding that war was legal
Lord Goldsmith, attorney general at the time of the Iraq war, has put out a statement about the Chilcot report.
He says he welcomes the fact that there is nothing in the report that challenges his conclusion that the war was legal, and nothing in the report which challenges the fact that this was his “honestly held view”.
Lord Goldsmith, then attorney general, on #Chilcot pic.twitter.com/bHEchl16Cl
— Kay Burley (@KayBurley) July 6, 2016
Reg Keys says Blair's statement was 'ramblings of a madman'
Reg Keys, whose son Tom died in Iraq and who stood against Tony Blair in the 2005 election, is responding to Tony Blair now on BBC News.
He says Blair was rambling. Blair feels he has been exonerated by Chilcot, Keys says. But he says that is not what the report says.
He says Blair misled parliament. And he accuses Blair of refusing to meeting relatives of those killed in Iraq.
Keys says his view is that his son and other soldiers did die in vain.
He says Blair is a “consummate actor”. He says Blair’s comments were just “the ramblings of a madman”.
He says Blair has been found guilty by Sir John Chilcot.
Relatives of servicemen killed are handing the findings to lawyers. They will take whatever action is appropriate.
He says Chilcot has done a “damn good job”. It is a very thorough report, he says.
Updated
Q: Do you accept that the lack of trust created by Iraq led to people voting to leave the EU, because they don’t trust politicians.
Blair says he thinks that argument is “a bit of a stretch”.
People are entitled to expect politicians to act in good faith. But they also need them to take decisions.
He says there are many aspects to the question of why there is a disconnect between the public and politicians. But that is a topic for another day.
However, this report does show that he acted in good faith.
It is best to have politicians who take decisions, not duck them, he says.
- Blair says politicians need to take decisions, not duck them.
And that’s it. His marathon press conference is over.
Q: Did you over-estimate your own ability to influence the Americans?
No, says Blair. He says he had a good assessment of his influence.
He says he is not clear whether Chilcot is saying the UK should not have invaded with America, or whether he is just saying the UK should not have invaded in March 2003.
- Blair says it is unclear whether Chilcot is criticising just the timing of the invasion, or the decision to invade in principle.
Blair says his worry after 9/11 was that America would go after al-Qaida on its own.
He says he wanted the Americans to know Britain would support them because he wanted them to build a coalition. And that worked well in Afghanistan, he says.
Q: Do you think the Iraqis are better off since the invasion?
Blair says it would depend who you ask. Some would say yes. The Kurds are better off, he says. And he says an aide to the Iraqi president made a statement today saying Iraq was better off.
Q: If America had not been committed to invasion, would you have tried to persuade them to invade Iraq?
Blair says that is a very good question.
He would definitely have been in favour of taking action to stop WMDs falling into terrorist hands.
He says his first intervention in Iraq was with President Clinton. After that America adopted regime change in Iraq as official policy.
He does not know how it would have turned out if there had been a different US president. But he had to deal with the situation as it was.
Updated
Q: You said history would be the judge of your decision on Iraq. And this is the first judgment of history. Why are you rejecting it?
Blair says he thinks Iraq will stabilise and the Middle East will stabilise.
There is a drive to get rid of sectarian politics, and replace it with rule-based politics.
Iraq under Saddam had no chance. Now it does have a chance, he says.
Updated
Q: You say your comments will not affect how you are seen. So is there any point giving this explanation?
Blair says he thinks there is more understanding in the country than people think.
And the report does not say he acted in bad faith.
He says people should trust a politician most when they are taking a difficult decision.
He thinks about this every day, he says. And he keeps coming back to the point that he was right to remove Saddam.
Updated
Q: Jonathan Powell and David Manning urged you to remove the phrase ‘I will be with you, whatever’ from your note to President Bush. So isn’t it disingenuous to claim it was not a blank cheque?
Blair says it was not a blank cheque. He says other words were removed from the draft. But he needed to be at the heart of US decision making. He needed to ensure they went down the UN route; and they did.
Q: Lots of people in the UK looked at George Bush and didn’t trust him. They thought he was gung-ho. What do feel about that, and are you still in touch with him?
Blair says he is in touch with many people.
He says his prompting encouraged Bush to commit to a Palestinian state. He says Bush committed to going down the UN route, even though others in the administration were opposed.
He says he “completely disagrees” with a line in the Chilcot report saying France and Germany have a strong relationship with the US, even though they opposed the invasion. He says France and Germany had to work hard to repair the damage done by their stance on Iraq.
- Blair says Chilcot underestimates the damage done to French and German relations with America by their stance on Iraq.
Updated
Q: You have expressed sorrow, but you say you do not regret what you did. Can you see why people look at this and conclude they do not trust you?
Blair says there is no inconsistency between the two things.
He says he spends so much of his time considering this. He could not say he regrets something when he does not.
Q: You say the calculus of risk changed after 9/11. There were no links between al-Qaida and Iraq. But there are links between al-Qaida and Arab countries where you have built a business career.
He says he never claimed there was a link between Iraq and al-Qaida, although some in America did.
Updated
Q: Jeremy Corbyn said today you made the case for the war in a way that was not justified. And a Labour frontbencher [Paul Flynn - see 1.44pm] has suggested you should be prosecuted?
Blair says parliament was not misled.
He would challenge his critics to read the reports he read, and not conclude that Saddam was developing WMDs.
Updated
Q: What mistakes do you apologise for?
Blair says if he was planning a campaign like this now, he would look much more carefully at the risk of external elements linking up with insurgent elements in the country.
He says the report does not address this point.
Q: Do you accept military resources were too stretched by trying to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Blair says he does not accept that. He remembers the cabinet meeting where this was discussed, and he insisted the Afghanistan operation should only go ahead if the military had the resources. He implies that the military told him they could cope with both campaigns.
- Blair rejects claims that fighting campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan was a mistake.
- Blair implies military assured him it could fight in Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time.
Updated
Q: You were warned that an invasion might increase the terrorist threat to the UK, and increase the threat of WMDs getting into the hands of terrorists.
Blair says the risk of WMDs getting into the wrong hands was not a reason for not trying to get rid of it.
And he says the terrorists attack countries in the west whatever. They attacked Belgium, which has not been involved in any wars.
Updated
If you’ve not yet seen it, here’s our useful guide to the key points from the Chilcot report.
Q: Chilcot says British troops were humiliated in the south because they had to make a deal with insurgents.
Blair says he does not accept British troops were humiliated.
- Blair rejects Chilcot’s claim that British troops were humiliated in the south of Iraq by having to do a deal with Iraqi insurgents.
Q: What did you mean when you said you would be with President Bush “whatever”.
Blair says he meant whatever the political difficulties. But it had to be done in the right way, he says.
He says he persuaded Bush to go down the UN route.
Updated
Q: You have apologised to the families for the first time. Do you understand why families want to see you pay a price for what you did?
Blair says he has apologised before for the mistakes.
It is up to the families to call for what they want, he says.
He is trying to explain what he did.
Please don’t accuse me of lying, he says.
Blair says decision not to bomb Syria in 2013 was 'a fundamental mistake'
Q: You create the decision you are apologising. But you say you stand by your decision. So what are you apologising for?
For the mistakes.
Q: What mistakes?
For the mistakes with planning and process, Blair says.
But Blair says he does not regret the decision he took.
- Blair rejects Chilcot’s claim the war was a failure. (See 12.09pm.) He says the first part of the campaign was a “brilliant military success”.
He says he is in the Middle East two or three times a month. He knows the roots of Islamist extremism go far deeper than Iraq.
He says the west will be less safe if it does not intervene.
- Blair says parliament’s decision not to intervene in Syria in 2013 was a “fundamental mistake”.
He says the Chilcot report does not address the need for strategy.
Updated
Blair criticises Chilcot for not considering what might have happened if Saddam had remained in power
Q: Isn’t it disingenuous to say what is happening in Syria now has no links to Iraq? Some of the Islamic State figures are people held in American camps in Iraq.
Blair says he is not saying there is no link. But Isis only flourished when ungovernable space opened up in Syria.
He says nowhere in the report does Chilcot say what might have happened if Saddam had been left in power.
- Blair criticises Chilcot for not considering what might have happened if Saddam had remained in power.
Updated
As Tony Blair continues to answer questions, here are the Guardian’s Luke Harding and Ewen MacAskill with their reaction to the Chilcot report.
Updated
Q: You could have said no, and let America invade on its own. Our forces did not play an important part.
Blair says he does not accept that. Our forced played a big role, he says.
And if Britain had abandoned the US at the last moment, that would have been a big decision, he says.
Q: You said to President Bush in July 2002 you would be with him “whatever”. That looked like a blank cheque.
Blair says it was not a blank cheque. It was not read that way in America, as correspondence with Colin Powell shows, he says.
And the letter was about going down the UN route. That meant, if Iraq complied with the terms of the UN resolution, there would have been no war.
Blair's Q&A
Q: Would you do it again? And what do you say to the families of the soldiers who died who want you to look them in the eye and say you did not mislead them?
Blair says he can look the nation in the eye and say he did not mislead them.
And he cannot say he took the wrong decision, he says.
He says many people disagreed with him. That is their right. There were no lies. But there was a decision. There was a decision to get rid of Saddam Hussein and to stand by America. He says Chilcot came close to disagreeing.
But if you disagree, you have to consider what the alternatives are.
He says decision makers have to take decisions.
If you are not prepared to say what else you would do, you are a commentator, not a decision maker.
Blair is winding up now.
He thanks Sir John Chilcot and his team, and pays tribute to the late Sir Martin Gilbert.
We cannot make decisions with hindsight, he says. But we can learn from mistakes.
There will not be a day of my life when I do not relive and rethink what happened.
He says this is why he is spending so much time working to promote peace in the Middle East.
Updated
Blair is now addressing what lessons can be learnt.
He says since stepping down as prime minister he has been studying the origins of Islamist extremism. This is a global problem, he says.
He say he has seen today’s politicians deal with the same problems he faced in Libya and Syria.
He will publish more detailed proposals in due course.
He says the problem is that, in these countries, extremism spreads if there is a power vacuum. That is why in a country like Syria it would be best to negotiate with withdrawal of the regime.
He says it is important to show that the west is not just intervening in Muslim countries.
A different type of military approach is necessary, he says.
He says western countries have a low tolerance of casualties. That means they are reluctant to commit ground forces. But the western troops are best. That means there is a need for a rethink. There might be a case for demanding a different level of commitment, he says.
He says international rules need to be revised.
To combat extremism, a strategy is needed, combining hard power and soft power.
The west has to decide whether it has a strategic interest in fighting Islamist extremism. And it needs to consider what commitment it should make. Blair says his view is that the west should commit to this.
Updated
Blair says that if Saddam had been left in power, there might have been an Arab spring uprising in Iraq, with Saddam in power. And that would have created another Syria, he says.
He says in 2010 Iraq was relatively stable.
Islamic State emerged in Syria, after the uprising started there, he says.
He says at least there is a legitimate government in Iraq.
He is not excusing the failures, he says. But he says all decisions are difficult in a dangerous world. And the only thing a decision maker can do is take decisions.
Updated
Blair says he does not accept that it would have been better to have left Saddam in place.
He would have been strengthened if the US had backed down, he says.
Updated
Blair says full legal advice should have been shown to cabinet
Blair says he accepts it would have been better to have given the full legal advice to cabinet.
But it was not requested by cabinet, he says. And it was not normal to share it with cabinet.
Blair says he accepts there is case for sharing it with parliament too.
- Blair says full legal advice should have been shown to cabinet.
Blair says cabinet should have been given an options paper on Iraq
He says the cabinet debated Iraq 26 times before the invasion.
But he could and should have insisted on an options paper being debated by cabinet, he says.
- Blair rejects Chilcot’s claim that the cabinet was sidelined over Iraq.
- But Blair accepts it would have been better for cabinet to discuss an options paper on Iraq.
Updated
Blair turns to the planning for post-conflict Iraq.
He says the inquiry has identified serious failings. But the inquiry itself could not suggest alternative approaches, he says.
He says his planning focused on the risks he was warned about: a humanitarian disaster, the use of WMDs and reconstruction problems.
But the main problem was terrorism. This had not been anticipated, he says.
Updated
Blair turns to the intelligence.
He says people need to consider what he was seeing in the intelligence reports that came to him, for example in March 2002 and September 2002.
He says all major intelligence agencies thought Iraq had WMDs.
He says the Chilcot report says the Iraq survey group is important, but it does not explain why. The Iraq survey group concluded that, once sanctions were lifted, Saddam intended to resume his WMD programme.
Would you want to take the risk, he asks. He says Saddam would have been a threat for as long as he was in power.
Updated
Blair now talks about his attitude to America – which is also criticised by Chilcot.
He says the attack on 9/11 was like no other. It was perceived as an attack on freedom.
He says Britain’s strong relationship with America led to America seeking an international coalition to fight al-Qaida.
He says there should be two pillars to Britain’s foreign policy: a strong relationship with the US, and a strong relationship with Europe.
Updated
Blair says the invasion led to Libya disarming, and the shutting down of the AQ Khan nuclear network.
Blair criticises the modern “addiction” to believing the worst of everyone.
Blair says he accepts responsibility for his decision.
But he asks people “with humility” to accept why he did what he did.
He took the decision he did because he thought it was right and because he thought the cost of inaction would be greater.
Blair rejects Chilcot’s claim that decision to invade Iraq could have been delayed
Blair says he persuaded Bush to go down the UN route.
That was backed up by the threat of military action.
He says troops could not have been kept on standby for much longer.
Referring to Chilcot’s claim that he undermined the authority of the UN (see 12.09pm), he says it was the failure to uphold UN security council resolution 1441 that undermined its authority.
He says by the time they got to March he faced a binary choice. Delaying was no longer an option.
- Blair rejects Chilcot’s claims that he undermined the authority of the UN security council.
- He rejects Chilcot’s claim that the decision to invade could have been delayed.
Blair says there was no rush to war
Blair asks people to imagine his position. You are seeing the evidence mount up on WMDs; you are considering the possibility of a terrorism attack; and you have a duty to protect the country.
He says there was no rush to war.
- Blair says there was no rush to war.
- He says he did not commit to war when he met Bush at Crawford in Texas in April 2002. The Chilcot report accepts that, he says.
Updated
Blair says the fear of the US administration, which he shared, was that terrorist groups would obtain WMDs. The calculus of risk changed after 9/11, he says.
Saddam’s regime was the place to start, not because he was the only person to have these weapons, but because his record suggested he would be willing to use them.
The final Iraq Survey Group report found that Saddam did indeed intend to go back to developing WMD programmes.
Updated
Here is the full quote from the start of Blair’s address:
The decision to go to war in Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power in a coalition of over 40 countries led by the USA, was the hardest, most momentous, most agonising decision I took in 10 years as British prime minister.
For that decision today I accept full responsibility, without exception and without excuse. I recognise the division felt by many in our country over the war and in particular I feel deeply and sincerely – in a way that no words can properly convey – the grief and suffering of those who lost ones they loved in Iraq, whether the members of our armed forces, the armed forces of other nations, or Iraqis.
The intelligence assessments made at the time of going to war turned out to be wrong. The aftermath turned out to be more hostile, protracted and bloody than ever we imagined. The coalition planned for one set of ground facts and encountered another, and a nation whose people we wanted to set free and secure from the evil of Saddam, became instead victim to sectarian terrorism.
For all of this I express more sorrow, regret and apology than you may ever know or can believe.
Updated
Blair says he wants to explain what happened.
His premiership changed completely on 9/11, he says.
It was the worst terrorist attack ever.
He says for more than 20 years the regime of Saddam Hussein had been a source of conflict and bloodshed.
Saddam ruled with an unparalleled brutality. His was the only regime to have used WMDs. There was evidence al-Qaida wanted to use these weapons. And 9/11 showed they would have used them.
Updated
But Blair says there are two things that he cannot do.
He will not say he regrets getting rid of Saddam Hussein.
And he will never accept that soldiers died in vain.
He says they died in the struggle against terror, the defining struggle of our time.
He says he knows some relatives cannot accept this.
He says the report says there were no lies, and decisions were taken in good faith.
But the report makes serious criticisms, he says.
- Blair says he accepts the criticisms in the Chilcot report, even when he does not fully agree with them.
But he says it is wrong to blame the armed forces.
Updated
Tony Blair's press conference
Tony Blair is giving a press conference now.
He says he will make a long statement. Then he will take questions for as long as necessary.
He says the decision to go to war was the hardest he took.
He takes full responsibility for what happened, without exception or excuse.
- He says he takes full responsibility for the Iraq war.
- He says he feels “more sorrow and regret and apology” for this “than you can ever believe”.
Updated
In the Commons Jeremy Corbyn was heckled by the Labour MP Ian Austin when he was delivering his statement about the Chilcot report. Austin shouted:
Sit down and shut up. You’re a disgrace.
This has outraged some Corbyn supporters, but Austin does not seem too bothered. He has retweeted this.
@frankthetank622 @AMoveToTheLeft If you witnessed @IanAustinMP heckle Jeremy & are upset plz report him to rosie.winterton.mp@parliament.uk
— Adrie the immigrant (@adrievdm) July 6, 2016
Updated
Alastair Campbell is on BBC News now. He says Tony Blair “was not giving George Bush a blank cheque”. He says there were “no easy decisions on the table”.
He says the deaths of British soldiers and Iraqis weigh heavily on him.
Q: If Blair said ‘I will be with you whatever’, isn’t that a blank cheque?
Campbell says Blair was signalling his support, just as he did when he told the Americans in public after 9/11 that he would be with them whatever.
He says Cameron was right to say it would be a mistake to rule out further military interventions.
Updated
In the Commons David Cameron is still responding to questions. Adapting one of Tony Blair’s most famous comments, the SDLP MP Mark Durkan said that this was not a day for soundbites, but today was a day when “the hand of history should be feeling someone’s collar”. Cameron laughed, and said MPs had to take responsibility for their actions.
Scotland Yard’s war crimes unit is not studying the Iraq inquiry report nor was it given an advance copy by Chilcot’s team.
Critics of the war have claimed it was illegal and may have amounted to a war crime. But there is currently no involvement by UK police, and nothing has been referred to them. In a statement Scotland Yard said: “The Chilcot inquiry has not referred any matters to police for criminal investigation at any stage in their work.”
The war crimes unit is part of Scotland Yard’s counter terrorism command, which when it does investigate cases, works closely with the Crown Prosecution Service
The CPS has published this guide to investigating war crimes, including an email address to refer cases. There may be different opinions about whether anything in the vast report may possibly amount to an offence under United Kingdom criminal law.
Updated
Alastair Campbell, who was Tony Blair’s communications director at the time of the Iraq war, has written a long post on his blog about Chilcot. He welcomes the fact that he has not been accused of “sexing up” the dossier about Iraq’s WMDs. And he says it important to remember that leaders have to take difficult decisions. He concludes:
I am going to leave the final word in this piece to the constitutional expert, Professor Vernon Bogdanor. Last month he gave a long and thoughtful lecture on the Iraq war, at Gresham College in London. It was a calm and cold-headed analysis and merits careful reading. But I was particularly struck by his final paragraph.
‘Of course, with hindsight, all things might have been done differently, but as President Bush said, and on this I agree with him, “Hindsight is not a strategy. Everyone’s hindsight is better than the most acute foresight.” My conclusion,’ said Bogdanor, ‘is that there are no easy answers, that Bush and Blair were faced with an almost impossible dilemma, and that all of us should be very grateful that we were not in their shoes and did not have to make their difficult decisions.’
The Chilcot inquiry panel knows a lot about foreign policy, and about government process. They have been through millions of documents and produced a huge and challenging piece of work. But ultimately, as they recognise, they have never actually had to make the decision they have been examining. Such decisions are the stuff of leadership, which may explain why David Cameron, whose statement I have just listened to as I finish this, seemed to be speaking with considerable sympathy and support for his predecessor. He knows how hard these decisions are. He also knows that there may well be times in the future where we have to put our armed forces in harm’s way once more.
Updated
In the Commons the Green MP Caroline Lucas told David Cameron he and his party should take responsibility for their decision to vote for the war. In his reply Cameron said he did not see the point in going back over old arguments.
Updated
The Labour MP Frank Field says Tony Blair should apologise for the decision he took. Field said:
A considered verdict on the Iraq war will evolve over the next few weeks as the Chilcot report is read fully. What is now clear is the total incompetence of Tony Blair in launching a war and having no plan for the day after the Iraqi regime was overthrown.
That gigantic political error resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis, as well as 179 British soldiers. The Middle East has been thrown into chaos. Tony Blair maintains he has nothing to apologise for. If this record is not one which warrants an apology, it is difficult to think what is.
Here is Mike Hookem, the Ukip defence spokesman, on the Chilcot report:
Blair’s quest for personal prestige on the international stage, the failure of the intelligence community and the failure of MPs to properly research the UN’s reasons for not backing military action led to the UK’s armed forces being condemned to seven years of hell for which they were underequipped and not properly supported.
The report shines a spotlight on the glaring failures of the government to have any kind of pre- or post-conflict planning which would inevitably lead to the rise of another fundamentalist group as we now have with Daesh (Isis).
Each and every one of those involved in taking the UK into Iraq should hang their heads in shame as they have failed both the armed forces and the British people as a whole.
Updated
A response from Plaid Cymru’s Westminster group leader, Hywel Williams:
The Chilcot report confirms what Plaid Cymru MPs have said from the beginning – the dossier prepared by Mr Blair to make the case for war was deliberately distorted in order to convince parliament to vote for an illegal war, and did not reflect the evidence given to Mr Blair by the security services. It confirms that Mr Blair undermined the UN security council’s authority and that war was not a last resort.
It is clear that when Blair failed to get the second UN resolution, he handed over UK foreign policy to George Bush. His legacy is a million dead, a failed state and the Middle East in flames. The region as a whole in crisis, with innocent families fleeing their own governments and terrorist organisations, and desperately seeking refuge in Europe.
We cannot have an illegal war with such devastating consequences without a judicial or political reckoning. Mr Blair must be held to account.
Updated
Examination of the Chilcot report is showing some more deficiencies in the military planning for the war (see also here).
A Ministry of Defence list of “showstopping” equipment deficiencies created in May 2002 – just 10 months before the invasion – was not shared with key logistics departments but kept among a tight-knit group of military figures and officials, Chilcot finds.
The deficiencies included not enough tents for troops, with only 2,500 available; a clear “pinch point” relating to the number of support helicopters; and that eight Chinook Mk35 helicopters, ordered in 1995, would not be ready for another two years.
Updated
In the Commons Alex Salmond, the former Scottish first minister, said he could not see how Tony Blair’s comment to President Bush in July 2002 about being with him “whatever” (see 1.01pm) was in anyway compatible with what Blair was saying at the time publicly.
Speaking on the BBC’s Daily Politics Show Paul Flynn, the leftwing Labour MP and newly appointed shadow leader of the Commons, said he thought there should be “serious consideration” given to the idea of prosecuting Tony Blair.
Updated
Jack Straw: in hindsight, different decisions would have been made
The foreign secretary at the time of the invasion of Iraq, Jack Straw has released a statement in response to the report, saying that “with the benefit of hindsight, different decisions would have been made in Iraq”.
He added: “The consequences which flow from the decision to take military action against Iraq will live with me for the rest of my life.”
Updated
Here’s a video extract of Sir John Chilcot introducing his report.
Updated
The Labour MP Alan Johnson asks Cameron if he has found any evidence of lies told to parliament when the Commons debated Iraq in March 2003.
Cameron says he can’t find an accusation of “deliberately deceiving people” in the report. But there are complaints about information not being presented accurately.
Updated
The family members of some of the British servicemen and women who died in Iraq have welcomed the Chilcot report, with many saying it had set down in black and white what they had been arguing for more than a decade.
Rose Gentle, whose son Gordon was 19 when he was killed, said: “Now we can turn and say we have got the proof. Twelve years of fighting for my son have been worth it.”
Many spoke of their relief that the report had finally been published. Pauline Graham, Gordon Gentle’s grandmother and Rose Gentle’s mother, said: “Now we know where we stand and what we can do. Tony Blair should betaken to court for trial for murder. He can’t get away with this any more.”
Some fought back tears while speaking of the loved ones they had lost, and there was also widespread anger. Mark Thompson, father of Kevin Thompson, who was killed in 2007, said he also blamed Blair. “He’s destroyed families. We have lost grandchildren. We have lost a daughter-in-law. He’s got everything. He should be stripped of everything he has for what he’s done. It was an illegal war. My son died in vain. He died for no reason.”
Many of the family members hope to bring private prosecutions following the report’s publication, but Matthew Jury, who represents the family members of 29 who died, said it would take “weeks and months of full and proper consideration” before decisions could be made. “Legal proceedings may be possible”, he said, but it was too early to determine anything further.
Peter Brierley, whose son Shaun died in 2003, said: “What I have always said is what I want is to be able to go home, sit in my chair, switch on the telly and say, I have done everything I possibly can. There is nothing else I can do for my son. With this today, that seems at least to be closer now.”
Updated
The Conservative MP David Davis says that, although Sir John Chilcot does not accuse Tony Blair of deceit, “a lot of evidence” suggests that he did deceive MPs. For example, the Bush memo mentioned earlier (see 1.01pm) said the aim of the invasion was regime change. That is not something Blair admitted at the time. What action can the Commons take about the fact it was deceived.
Cameron says that this issue is complicated. But he says that he has looked at the report carefully, and Chilcot does not seem to be accusing Blair of deceit.
Margaret Beckett, the Labour MP who was environment secretary at the time, sounded almost tearful as she told MPs that people who voted for the war (like her) had to take responsibility for what they did. But did Cameron agree that terrorists also needed to take responsibility for what they did.
Cameron agrees. He says MPs have to take responsibility for how they voted.
There’s a lot of reaction coming in from human rights groups and other NGOs to the Chilcot report. This is the response from Amnesty International’s UK director, Kate Allen:
In the lead-up to the Iraq invasion we warned that there could be terrible consequences and tragically we were proved right, with thousands of civilians killed and injured, millions of people forced from their homes and the whole country thrown into chaos.
At the time we had a clear sense that politicians were intent on invading Iraq at any cost and that they’d set out to use the appalling human rights record of Saddam Hussein’s rule to help justify the decision to invade. Iraqi abuses we’d been documenting for years were suddenly being mentioned in speeches and in government briefing papers.
It’s a tragedy that politicians and their advisers failed to properly assess the human rights consequences of such a massive military operation (including the horrible sectarian violence it helped unleash), and it’s also a tragedy that the horrors of Abu Ghraib and cases like Baha Mousa all followed.
Angus Robertson, the SNP leader at Westminster, asks David Cameron why he did not mention the note from Tony Blair to President Bush saying: “I will be with you, whatever.” (See 1.01pm.) Cameron said he had alluded to this.
Here’s a video extract of the very emotional press conference held by families of some of the service personnel killed in Iraq after the report was published.
Cameron tells MPs it is good when MPs debate issues like going to war early. In 2003 the debate took place just before the war was due to start, and as a result some MPs felt they were obliged to support British troops by voting in favour.
Updated
The main Commons statements on the Chilcot report are now over. But backbench MPs now have a chance to question David Cameron about the report, and this session will go on for another hour or so. We won’t be covering every question, but we will cover the highlights.
Cameron is responding to Corbyn.
He says the intelligence and security committee has already been beefed up. He says it would be a mistake to change those arrangements now.
He says he is opposed to a war powers act. He has looked at this carefully, he says. It would get us into a “legal mess”.
He says he disagrees with Corbyn over the US. Corbyn thinks it is always wrong. Cameron says he is not saying it is always right, but he suggests it often is.
Updated
Corbyn suggests Commons could take action against Blair for misleading it
Corbyn is addressing the lessons that need to be learnt.
He calls for better parliamentary oversight of decisions to go to war. There should be a war powers act, he says.
And the use of drones should also be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, he says.
MPs should be given rigorous and objective evidence when deciding whether to go to war.
Corbyn says MPs were misled in the run-up to the war. The Commons must decide what action it wants to take about this.
- Corbyn suggests the Commons should take action against Tony Blair for misleading it in the run-up to the war. That seems to be a reference to the tentative SNP plans to try to impeach Blair over this.
Updated
Here is a page of one of the memos from Tony Blair to George W Bush, which we reported on earlier. This contains what seems likely to become one of the best-known lines from Chilcot, Blair telling the US president in July 2002: “I will be with you, whatever.”
You can read the full pdf version here.
Updated
Corbyn's statement on the Chilcot report
Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader, begins by paying tribute to those killed, and to their relatives. He met some relatives yesterday, he says.
He says the report should not have taken this long.
He says the “overwhelming weight of international legal opinion” says the invasion was illegal.
It had devastating consequences, he says, fuelling terrorism and war across the region.
By any measure the invasion and occupation of Iraq “has been for many a catastrophe”.
He says it has led a break-down in trust in politics.
While the governing class got it wrong, many people got it right. Some 1.5m people marched against the war, he says.
He says those opposed to the war did not condone Saddam Hussein. Many of them had protested against him when America and the UK were still supporting him.
He says we must be saddened by what has been revealed.
Many MPs voted to stop the war. But they have not lived to see themselves vindicated.
He recalls Robin Cook. He said in his resignation speech, in a few hundred words, what Chilcot has shown would come to pass.
Here’s part of what Corbyn said:
By any measure, the invasion and occupation of Iraq has been, for many, a catastrophe. The decision to invade Iraq in 2003 on the basis of what the Chilcot report calls ‘flawed intelligence’ about the weapons of mass destruction has had a far-reaching impact on us all.
It’s led to a fundamental breakdown in trust in politics and in our institutions of government. The tragedy is that while the governing class got it so horrifically wrong, many of our people actually got it right. On 15 February 2003, 1.5m people, spanning the entire political spectrum, and tens of millions of people across the world, marched against the impending war, the greatest-ever demonstration in British history.
Robin Cook's resignation. Greatest parliamentary speech of my lifetime. Oh that they had listened. https://t.co/uqyud6OoCW … #Chilcot #Blair
— James Robottom (@jimrobottom) July 6, 2016
Updated
My colleague Damien Gayle is with protesters in London. Unsurprisingly, the Stop the War Coalition still believe Tony Blair should face prosecution in the wake of Chilcot.
Lindsey German of @STWuk: #Chilcot is not the end, it's the beginning pic.twitter.com/H34yK7P9wr
— Damien Gayle (@damiengayle) July 6, 2016
Earlier, during prime minister’s questions, Cameron said it was important to “learn the lessons of the report”.
The SNP’s Angus Robertson had asked about planning, citing not just Iraq, but Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and for the UK post-Brexit. “When will the UK government actually start learning from the mistakes of the past rather than condemned to repeat them in the future?” he asked.
Cameron said it was not possible for planning to be fool-proof. “What John Chilcot says about the failure to plan is very, very clear,” Cameron said said, citing the new national security council set up by the coalition government after the 2010 election as an example of new methods of decision-making.
“There is actually no set of arrangements and plans that can provide perfection in any of these cases,’ he went on.
“We can argue whether military intervention is ever justified and I think it is, but planning for the aftermath is always difficult. I don’t think in this House we should be naive in any way that there’s a perfect set of plans that can solve these problems in perpetuity – there aren’t.”
Cameron says Chilcot report should not rule out further military interventions
Cameron says there are some lessons from Iraq that should not be drawn.
First, it would be wrong to conclude that Britain should not support America, he says.
Second, we should not conclude that we cannot rely on the judgments of the intelligence agency. He says the report shows how assessing intelligence, and taking policy decisions based on that, must be kept separate.
Third, it would be wrong to conclude that the military cannot intervene successfully.
And, fourth, it would be wrong to conclude that intervention is always wrong.
- Cameron says Chilcot report should not rule out further military interventions.
Cameron on the lessons to be learnt from Iraq
Cameron says MPs voted for military action.
MPs who voted in favour will have to take “our share” of responsibility.
He says, even when the government plans thoroughly, that does not guarantee success in a military intervention. He cites Libya as an example.
He is now turning to lessons.
First, war should be a last resort, he says.
Second, government machinery matters. That is why he set up the national security council, he says. He also says he has appointed a national security adviser.
Cameron says the government would not commit troops now without a full and thorough debate in the national security council.
Third, culture matters too, he says. It must be safe for officials to challenge ministers without being afraid. He says in the NSC everyone can speak their mind.
Fourth, Cameron says the government can now deploy experts around the world at short notice.
Fifth, Cameron says it is important to ensure the armed forces are properly resourced. The government is doing this. He says the decision to sent troops to Iraq without proper equipment was “unacceptable”.
Updated
Cameron says Chilcot says the UK did not provide the UK forces with appropriate equipment.
The MoD was slow to respond to the threat from IEDs (improvised explosive devices), he says.
Cameron says Chilcot says the government could have re-assessed - but did not.
And Chilcot says it was too focused on withdrawing from Iraq, Cameron says.
Cameron says Chilcot says it is questionable whether not participating in invasion would have broken the US/UK partnership.
Cameron says Chilcot does not accuse Blair of deliberate attempt to deceive people
Cameron says Chilcot does not express a view as to whether or not the war was legal.
But he says the circumstances in which its legality was evaluated were unsatisfactory.
He says Chilcot says diplomatic options had not been exhausted.
He says Chilcot criticises the decision-making process in No 10.
And Chilcot says Blair sent notes to President Bush not agreed with colleagues.
But Chilcot did not find there was a deliberate attempt to deceive people, Cameron says.
- Cameron says Chilcot does not accuse Blair of a deliberate attempt to deceive people.
Updated
Cameron is now summarising some of the report’s findings.
He says Chilcot found there was a genuine belief in Washington and London that Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological weapons, and was trying to get nuclear weapons.
But the idea that Saddam did not have these weapons was not seriously considered by the joint intelligence committee, he says.
He adds that Chilcot says Robin Cook showed that it was possible to come to a different conclusion from the intelligence.
He says Chilcot found that Blair did not improperly influence the September 2002 dossier about Iraq’s WMDs. But Chilcot says the limitations of the intelligence should have been made clearer.
Updated
Another of our stories on the report, this one about criticisms of the foreign secretary in 2003, Jack Straw:
Jack Straw signed up to plans for an invasion in Iraq, despite fearing there could be ‘a long and unsuccessful war’, the Chilcot report finds.
The report states the then foreign secretary raised the question in response to a briefing in March 2003 of what would happen in the event of a protracted conflict, but ‘Mr Straw’s question was not put to officials and there is no indication that it was considered further’.
It also criticises Straw’s role in the deeply flawed process of preparing for post-crisis Iraq, with the UK failing to win over Washington to its preferred plan for the UN to take the lead. ‘It was Mr Straw’s responsibility as foreign secretary to give due consideration to the range of options available to the UK’ should it fail to convince the US that the UN should take charge, it says.
‘These included making UK participation in military action conditional on a satisfactory post-conflict plan … Mr Straw did not do so in January 2003,’ it says.
Read the full story:
Updated
Cameron's statement on the Chilcot report
David Cameron is making his statement about the Chilcot report now.
He says families of those killed waited too long for it. He pays tribute to their service. And he says we must never forget the thousands more injured in Iraq.
- MPs will spend two days debating the report next week, Cameron says.
Clare Short, international development secretary at the time of the Iraq war, has told the BBC she feels “terrible” about her role in what happened. These are from the BBC’s Chris Mason.
Fmr Lab Cab Min Clare Short has said she feels “terrible” over her role in run up to the Iraq War and her failure to prevent the conflict.
— Chris Mason (@ChrisMasonBBC) July 6, 2016
"I know I tried my damnedest,” Clare Short told @BBCNews. “But I failed and for that I feel terrible.”
— Chris Mason (@ChrisMasonBBC) July 6, 2016
This is from CND’s general secretary, Kate Hudson:
The report shows that Tony Blair had no respect for cabinet procedure, no respect for parliament, and no respect for international law. A country was destroyed, millions of innocent Iraqis were killed, British soldiers were killed, and terrorism has spread across the Middle East.
Chilcot reveals the evidence that must now be used to bring Tony Blair to justice. This is our demand. Only when justice is served can we prevent disasters like the Iraq war ever happening again.
Updated
Here is the Lib Dem leader, Tim Farron, on the Chilcot report:
Blair was fixated in joining Bush in going to war in Iraq regardless of the evidence, the legality or the serious potential consequences. Daesh has arisen from the complete absence of any post conflict planning by the government.
Charles Kennedy’s judgment has been vindicated in every respect. I hope those in the Labour and Conservative parties who were so forceful in their criticism of him and the Liberal Democrats at the time are equally forceful in their acknowledgements today that he was right. An absence of scrutiny by the Conservative party opened the door for Blair and the Labour government to pursue a counter-strategic, ill-resourced campaign.
Updated
Some legal thoughts on the report from my colleague Owen Bowcott:
Reacting to the Chilcot report, Dr Mark Ellis, executive director of the London-based International Bar Association, said: “The UN charter prohibits the use or threat of force in international relations, thus guaranteeing the territorial integrity of every country. The only exception to this mandate is through the authorisation of the UN security council or through the inherent right of self-defence.
“The overwhelming evidence is that neither of these exceptions existed and, consequently, the invasion of Iraq violated international law. Yet, international law has not progressed to a stage where those who breached these legal principles will be brought to justice.
“To date, the international criminal court does not have jurisdiction over ‘acts of aggression’. The only body able to initiate sanctions against states that trigger these acts is the UN security council. However, both the United States and Great Britain, as permanent members of the council, would never consent to such sanctions.”
Updated
My colleague Robert Booth has been looking in detail at some of the correspondence between Tony Blair and George Bush before the Iraq war within the Chilcot report:
Tony Blair wrote to George Bush eight months before the Iraq invasion to offer his unqualified backing for war, claiming that the removal of Saddam Hussein would “free up the region” even if ordinary Iraqis may “feel ambivalent about being invaded” and could fight back.
In an six-page memo marked secret and personal, the British prime minister told Bush: “I will be with you whatever” and set out a plan to persuade Britain Saddam must be toppled.
He warned Bush: “In Britain, right now I couldn’t be sure of support from parliament, party, public or even some of the cabinet”, and said that winning political support in Europe would be tougher still.
But he then set out a recipe for providing evidence against Iraq, according to the memo released as part of the Chilcot inquiry.
“If we recapitulate all the WMD evidence; add his attempt to secure nuclear capability; and, as seems possible, add on al-Qaida link, it will be hugely persuasive over here,” he said. “Plus, of course, the abhorrent nature of the regime”.
Blair devoted six lines to “post-Saddam” planning. He said his toppling “should lead in time to a democratic Iraq governed by the people”, but concluded “just swapping one dictator for another seems inconsistent with our values”.
In the memo, Blair was clear about the difficulties ahead. “The planning on this and the strategy are the toughest yet,” he said. “This is not Kosovo. This is not Afghanistan. It is not even the Gulf war.”
“The military part of this is hazardous,” he said. “Getting rid of Saddam is the right thing to do. He is a potential threat. He could be contained. But containment as we found with al-Qaida, is always risky. His departure would free up the region. And his regime is probably, with the possible exception of North Korea, the most brutal and inhumane in the world.”
Updated
In PMQs, Angus Robertson, the SNP’s leader at Westminster, asked David Cameron about Chilcot. Cameron said he would talking about this fully in his statement at 12.30pm, but he did say that he thought it was impossible to have absolute certainty about what might happen next before taking a decision like the one Tony Blair took to go to war.
David Cameron defends principle of military intervention: 'I don't think we should be naive that there is a perfect set of plans' #Chilcot
— Steven Swinford (@Steven_Swinford) July 6, 2016
Updated
Some more quotes from the families’ press conference, from Roger Bacon, via the Press Association:
Never again must so many mistakes be allowed to sacrifice British lives and lead to the destruction of a country for no positive end. We were proud when our husbands, sons and daughters signed up to serve our country. But we cannot be proud of the way our government has treated them.
We must use this report to make sure that all parts of the Iraq war fiasco are never repeated again. Neither in a theatre of war, nor in the theatre of Whitehall.
We call on the British government immediately to follow up Sir John’s findings to ensure that the political process by which our country decides to go to war is never again twisted and confused with no liability for such actions.
Updated
Salmond says Blair should face 'consequences' for Iraq
Alex Salmond, the former Scottish first minister and the SNP’s foreign affairs spokesman, has issued a statement about the Chilcot report. Here is an extract.
The publication of the report of the Iraq Inquiry by Sir John Chilcot today is welcome but long overdue.
The report’s forensic examination of thousands of pages of evidence and its firm conclusions are excoriating of a prime minister who, contrary to his denials, gave a pre-determined commitment to President Bush on 28 July 2002 to join US military action in Iraq. We now know that long before parliament formally voted on whether or not to go to war in Iraq, Tony Blair had told George Bush - “I will be with you whatever” ...
After such carnage, people will ask inevitable questions of was conflict inevitable and worthwhile? The answer from Chilcot is undoubtedly no. And who is responsible? The answer is undoubtedly Tony Blair. There must now be a consideration of what political or legal consequences are appropriate for those responsible.
Updated
Another story, about the ill-preparedness of UK forces for the Iraq war:
The UK’s military involvement in Iraq ended with the “humiliating” decision to strike deals with enemy militias because British forces were seriously ill-equipped and there was “wholly inadequate” planning and preparation for life after Saddam Hussein, the Chilcot report finds.
In a withering assessment that will confirm the worst fears of the families of personnel who died, the inquiry has found British forces lacked essential equipment such as armoured patrol vehicles and helicopters – and yet nobody at the Ministry of Defence appeared to be taking responsibility for the problems.
The MoD planned the invasion in a rush and was slow to react to the security threats on the ground, particularly the use of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) that killed so many troops, the report says.
But instead of quickly addressing serious equipment shortfalls such as the use of poorly protected Snatch Land Rovers when the conflict began, the MoD allowed delays to develop that “should not have been tolerated”.
Read the full story here:
This is from the Russian embassy in the UK.
#Chilcot inquiry: No real WMD in Baghdad, unjust & highly dangerous war. The entire region on the receiving end. pic.twitter.com/UoL09xfqqQ
— Russian Embassy, UK (@RussianEmbassy) July 6, 2016
This is from the Stop the War Coalition.
The Chilcot report is a damning indictment of Tony Blair and those around him in taking us to war in Iraq. It is clear that he used lies and deception to get his way, that the war was unnecessary and illegal and that everything was done to ensure it went ahead.
The victims are the Iraqis, those soldiers who died and were injured, but also the whole political system traduced by this process.
The anti-war movement and the millions who marched were vindicated by this report and we now demand justice.
Families of some of the service personnel killed in Iraq have been holding a highly emotional press conference, with much criticism of Tony Blair’s role. They have found the report to be more damning than they expected. Roger Bacon, whose 34-year-old son, Matthew, was killed in 2005, was asked if the report had been worth the wait:
It still took too long. but from what we have seen today ... it is an extremely thorough piece of work and was, in that sense, worth the wait.
Rose Gentle whose son Gordon killed in war: 'He's done... a lot better than we thought. Everything's we thought he's just come out & said'
— esther addley (@estheraddley) July 6, 2016
Updated
Chilcot's statement - Summary
Here are the main points from Sir John Chilcot’s statement.
- Chilcot said the invasion was “not a last resort.”
We have concluded that the UK chose to join the invasion of Iraq before the peaceful options for disarmament had been exhausted. Military action at that time was not a last resort.
- He said the intelligence was presented with a certainty that was not justified.
The judgments about the severity of the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction – WMDs – were presented with a certainty that was not justified.
- He said planning for post-invastion Iraq was “wholly inadequate”.
Despite explicit warnings, the consequences of the invasion were underestimated. The planning and preparations for Iraq after Saddam Hussein were wholly inadequate.
- He said the war was a failure.
The government failed to achieve its stated objectives.
- He accused the UK of undermining the authority of the UN security council.
Mr Blair and Mr Straw blamed France for the “impasse” in the UN and claimed that the UK government was acting on behalf of the international community “to uphold the authority of the security council”.
In the absence of a majority in support of military action, we consider that the UK was, in fact, undermining the security council’s authority.
- He said the process of deciding the war was legal was unsatisfactory.
The inquiry has not expressed a view on whether military action was legal. That could, of course, only be resolved by a properly constituted and internationally recognised court.
We have, however, concluded that the circumstances in which it was decided that there was a legal basis for UK military action were far from satisfactory.
- He said the joint intelligence committee should have told Blair to accept the limitations of the intelligence about Iraq’s WMD.
The joint intelligence committee should have made clear to Mr Blair that the assessed intelligence had not established “beyond doubt” either that Iraq had continued to produce chemical and biological weapons or that efforts to develop nuclear weapons continued.
- He said Blair overlooked the threat the invasion would pose to the UK.
In the House of Commons on 18 March 2003, Mr Blair stated that he judged the possibility of terrorist groups in possession of WMD was “a real and present danger to Britain and its national security” – and that the threat from Saddam Hussein’s arsenal could not be contained and posed a clear danger to British citizens.
Mr Blair had been warned, however, that military action would increase the threat from al-Qaida to the UK and to UK interests. He had also been warned that an invasion might lead to Iraq’s weapons and capabilities being transferred into the hands of terrorists.
- He said Blair should have anticipated the post-invastion problems.
Mr Blair told the inquiry that the difficulties encountered in Iraq after the invasion could not have been known in advance. We do not agree that hindsight is required. The risks of internal strife in Iraq, active Iranian pursuit of its interests, regional instability, and al-Qaida activity in Iraq, were each explicitly identified before the invasion.
- He said Blair overestimate his ability to influence America.
Some are the management of relations with allies, especially the US. Mr Blair overestimated his ability to influence US decisions on Iraq. The UK’s relationship with the US has proved strong enough over time to bear the weight of honest disagreement. It does not require unconditional support where our interests or judgments differ.
Updated
Cameron and Corbyn at PMQs
In the Commons, David Cameron is taking PMQs. Jeremy Corbyn mentioned the conflict in Iraq in his first question, but he is focusing on low pay. Cameron and Corbyn will be speaking about the report after 12.30pm.
Updated
Tony Blair says reports clears him of 'bad faith'
Tony Blair has responded to the Chilcot report. This is his full statement:
The report should lay to rest allegations of bad faith, lies or deceit. Whether people agree or disagree with my decision to take military action against Saddam Hussein; I took it in good faith and in what I believed to be the best interests of the country.
I note that the report finds clearly:
- That there was no falsification or improper use of Intelligence (para 876 vol 4)
- No deception of Cabinet (para 953 vol 5)
- No secret commitment to war whether at Crawford Texas in April 2002 or elsewhere (para 572 onwards vol 1)
The inquiry does not make a finding on the legal basis for military action but finds that the Attorney General had concluded there was such a lawful basis by 13th March 2003 (para 933 vol 5)
However the report does make real and material criticisms of preparation, planning, process and of the relationship with the United States.
These are serious criticisms and they require serious answers.
I will respond in detail to them later this afternoon.
I will take full responsibility for any mistakes without exception or excuse.
I will at the same time say why, nonetheless, I believe that it was better to remove Saddam Hussein and why I do not believe this is the cause of the terrorism we see today whether in the Middle East or elsewhere in the world.
Above all I will pay tribute to our Armed Forces. I will express my profound regret at the loss of life and the grief it has caused the families, and I will set out the lessons I believe future leaders can learn from my experience.
Damien Gayle is at the protest in central London, where the Green MP Caroline Lucas has said she believes Tony Blair is a war criminal.
#Blair is a war criminal, says @CarolineLucas at #Chilcot demo pic.twitter.com/ACJPhKhOUJ
— Damien Gayle (@damiengayle) July 6, 2016
We also have a full story on the criticism of intelligence agencies.
The Chilcot report identifies a series of major blunders by the British intelligence services that produced “flawed” information about Saddam Hussein’s alleged weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), the basis for going to war.
The intelligence community emerges from the report with its reputation and some of its most senior staff badly damaged.
The report singles out for criticism Sir John Scarlett, the chairman of the joint intelligence committee (JIC), an umbrella group that pulls together the work of the main intelligence agencies, mainly the findings of the overseas service, MI6.
The then MI6 chief, Sir Richard Dearlove, also comes in for criticism.
In one of the most damning sections, the report concludes that Tony Blair presented the assessments of the spy agencies to parliament with a “certainty” not justified by the intelligence that had been gathered. Chilcot castigates the intelligence community for failing to make any serious attempt to rein him in.
Read the full story here:
Here is a snippet of our main political story about the report:
Tony Blair deliberately exaggerated the threat posed by the Iraqi regime as he sought to make the case for military action to MPs and the public in the buildup to the invasion in 2002 and 2003, the Chilcot inquiry has found.
In his forensic account of the way Blair and his ministers built the case for military action, Chilcot finds the then Labour prime minister – who had promised US president George W Bush, “I will be with you, whatever” – disregarded warnings about the potential consequences of military action and relied too heavily on his own beliefs, rather than the more nuanced judgments of the intelligence services.
In particular, Chilcot identifies two separate, key occasions in the buildup to the conflict, against the background of mass protests on the streets of London by the Stop the War coalition, when Blair appears to have overplayed the threat from Iraq and underplayed the risks of invasion.
In the House of Commons on 24 September 2002, Blair presented Iraq’s past, current and future capabilities as evidence of the severity of the potential threat from Iraq’s WMDs [weapons of mass destruction]. He said that, at some point in the future, that threat would become a reality,” Chilcot says.
But Chilcot argues instead: “The judgments about Iraq’s capabilities in that statement, and in the dossier published the same day, were presented with a certainty that was not justified.”
Read the full story here:
Updated
Here’s part of our main story on the report’s findings.
Sir John Chilcot has delivered a devastating critique of Tony Blair’s decision to go to war in Iraq in 2003, with his long-awaited report concluding that Britain chose to join the US invasion before “peaceful options for disarmament” had been exhausted.
The head of the Iraq war inquiry said the UK’s decision to attack and occupy a sovereign state for the first time since the second world war was a decision of “utmost gravity”. He described Iraq’s president, Saddam Hussein, as “undoubtedly a brutal dictator” who had repressed his own people and attacked his neighbours.
But Chilcot – whom Gordon Brown asked seven years ago to head an inquiry into the conflict – was withering about Blair’s choice to join the US invasion. Chilcot said: “We have concluded that the UK chose to join the invasion of Iraq before the peaceful options for disarmament had been exhausted. Military action at that time was not a last resort.”
The report suggests that Blair’s self-belief was a major factor in the decision to go to war. In a section headed Lessons, Chilcot writes: “When the potential for military action arises, the government should not commit to a firm political objective before it is clear it can be achieved. Regular reassessment is essential.”
Read the rest here:
Updated
Chilcot thanks the inquiry staff.
And he pays tribute to Sir Martin Gilbert, one of the five members of the inquiry panel who died before the report was published.
And that’s it.
Chilcot says all aspects of any military intervention need to be debated and considered with full rigour. That did not happen in this case, he says.
Blair “overestimated his ability” to influence US decisions on Iraq, Chilcot says
Chilcot says there are many lessons in the report.
- Blair “overestimated his ability” to influence US decisions on Iraq, Chilcot says.
Chilcot says the UK should be able to disagree with the US.
Chilcot says there was no need to go to war in March 2003
Chilcot says the inquiry’s report is unanimous.
Military action may have been necessary at some point. But it was not necessary in March 2003.
- Chilcot says there was no need to go to war in March 2003.
Chilcot says it was “humiliating” that the UK had to do a deal with insurgent groups in Basra.
Chilcot says from 2006 the UK was conducting two enduring campaigns, in Iraq and Afghanistan. But it did not have the resources to do so.
- Chilcot says UK was fighting campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time when it did not have the resources to do so.
Chilcot says the UK was fully implemented in the coalition’s provisional authority’s decisions. But it did not have much influence over them.
He says the scale of the UK effort in post-conflict Iraq “never matched the scale of the challenge”.
Chilcot is now talking about the government’s failure to achieve the objectives it set in Iraq.
The armed forces fought a successful campaign. Saddam Hussein fell in less than a month. He says the armed forces deserve great respect.
The invasion and subsequent instablity resulted in the death of at least 150,000 Iraqis, and probably many more. Most of them were civilians. The people of Iraq have suffered greatly.
Chilcot says the coalition made a declaration before the invasion promising a better future for the people of Iraq.
He says the inquiry considered the post-conflict period in great detail.
He only has time to address a few key points now.
Updated
Chilcot says the inquiry does not accept Blair’s claim that it was impossible to predict post-invasion problems
Chilcot is now talking about the planning for after the war. He says the risks to British troops were not properly identified, or flagged up to ministers. Cabinet did not discuss the military options or their implications, he says.
He says the government thought the post-conflict administration would be UN-led. But the US did not agree, and so instead the UK decided to get the US to accept UN authorisation of a coalition-led administration.
Blair told the inquiry the problems encountered after the invasion could not have been known in advance.
- Chilcot says the inquiry does not accept Blair’s claim that it was impossible to predict the post-invasion problems. Those problems were anticipated, he says.
Updated
Chilcot says it is now clear that policy on Iraq was made “on the basis of flawed intelligence and assessments”.
They were not challenged – and they should have been.
He says Blair and Jack Straw said Iraq had vast stocks of WMD. Blair said after the war Saddam Hussein retained the intent to use WMD. But this was not the argument he made before the war.
Updated
Chilcot says Blair said the threat of terrorist groups getting hold of WMD was real. But Blair had been warned that an invasion would increase the threat from al-Qaida, and that it would increase the chances of terrorists getting weapons.
Chilcot:
Mr Blair had been warned, however, the military action would increase the threat from al-Qaida to the UK and UK interests. He had also been warned that an invasion might lead to Iraq’s weapons and capabilities being transferred into the hands of terrorists.
Updated
Chilcot says Blair presented the intelligence about Iraq’s WMD 'with a certainty that was not justified'
Chilcot says Blair told MPs that at some point in the future the threat from Iraq’s WMD would be real.
- Chilcot says Blair presented the intelligence about Iraq’s WMD “with a certainty that was not justified”.
A more full quote from Chilcot:
There was an ingrained belief in the UK policy and intelligence community that Iraq had retained some chemical and biological capability and was determined to preserve and, if possible, enhance them, and in the future to acquire a nuclear capability, and was able to conceal its activities from the UN inspectors.
Of a Commons statement by Blair on the subject on 24 September 2002:
The judgements about Iraq’s capabilities in that statement and in the dossier published the same day were presented with a certainty that was not justified. The Joint Intelligence Committee should have made clear to Mr Blair that the assessed intelligence had not established beyond doubt either that Iraq continued to produce chemical and biological weapons, or that efforts to develop nuclear weapons continued.
Updated
Chilcot says there were a number of occasions when Iraq policy should have been discussed by cabinet but was not.
Chilcot says Lord Goldsmith advised Blair a second security council resolution was unnecessary to justify war.
Blair gave Goldsmith an assurance that Iraq was in breach of its obligations. But it is not clear on what basis he decided that.
Chilcot said:
The precise basis on which Mr Blair made that decision is not clear. Given the gravity of the decsion, Lord Goldsmith should have been asked to provide written advice explaining how, in the absence of a majority in the security council, Mr Blair could take that decision. This is one of a number of occasions identified buy the inquiry when policy should have been considered by a cabinet committee and then discussed by cabinet itself.
Updated
Chilcot says without evidence of major new Iraqi violations, most UN security council members were not convinced peaceful alternatives to war had been exhausted.
He says Blair and Bush blamed France for obstructing action. They said France was undermining the UN security council’s authority.
- Chilcot says his inquiry concluded it was America and Britain who were undermining the authority of the UN security council, because they pushed for military action when peaceful alternatives had not been exhausted.
Updated
Chilcot is now talking about Tony Blair’s meeting with George Bush in 2002. Blair urged Bush to take the issue of Iraq to the UN.
Resolution 1441 was adopted by the UN security council. It provided for any breaches by Iraq to be reported to the security council. But in December 2002, Bush decided UN weapons inspectors would not achieve the desired result.
In January, Blair accepted the US timetable for war in mid-March, Chilcot says. He says Bush agreed to push for a second UN resolution. But by 12 March it was clear there was no support for this, he says.
Updated
Chilcot says war was 'not a last resort'
Chilcot starts by saying we should recall those killed and injured in Iraq, including the 250 people killed in the attack last weekend.
The report will be published on the committee’s website when he finishes speaking. He says the invasion was the first time Britain had taken part in the invasion and occupation of a sovereign state since the second world war.
He says the inquiry has concluded that the UK chose to join the invasion before the peaceful options were exhausted.
- Chilcot says war was “not a last resort”. The UK decided to invade before the peaceful options had been exhausted.
- He says the intelligence justifying invastion was presented “with a certainty that was not justified”.
- He says planning for after the invastion was “wholly inadequate”.
Updated
Sir John Chilcot's statement
Sir John Chilcot is making a statement now about the findings of his report. He welcomes people to the QE2 centre, where the public hearings were also held.
Updated
Here is a picture from inside the QE2 centre.
#ChilcotReport pic.twitter.com/Lh3CMAotbv
— Faisal Islam (@faisalislam) July 6, 2016
Publication of the Chilcot report is getting heavy coverage from Arab and other Middle Eastern media. Al-Jazeera, broadcasting in Arabic and English from the Qtarai capital, Doha, is planning to devote much of the day to live reports from London. Its Saudi-owned rival, al-Arabiya, based in Dubai, is running a story headlined “Blair in spotlight as UK Iraq inquiry gives verdict” on its English-language website, but it is far less prominent on the Arabic site.
Al-Jazeera English, which covers Iraq in depth, says its reporting will not focus narrowly on Tony Blair and any repercussions for British domestic politics but on the broader perspective on the 2003 invasion and its continuing regional and global impact, underlined by last weekend’s carnage in Baghdad. The Chilcot story is not one of the main headlines on AJ Arabic.
Other big Middle Eastern stories today are the announcement of a three-day ceasefire by the Syrian government marking the start of the Eid al-Fitr holiday at the end of Ramadan.
Updated
Here are some more pictures from the Stop the War Coalition protest outside the QE2 centre in central London.
Updated
The Green MP Caroline Lucas is one of those who has been allowed to start reading the report before it gets published at 11am.
Can't report what's i see in #Chilcot for a few hours. Will be reacting later. pic.twitter.com/1SFgGT96Ut
— Caroline Lucas (@CarolineLucas) July 6, 2016
2.6 million words - speed reading starts now #Chilcot pic.twitter.com/ZwIn5280Wf
— Caroline Lucas (@CarolineLucas) July 6, 2016
Here is Tony Blair leaving his home this morning.
At some point protesters were outside his home with this banner.
And here is one of the protesters, Michael Culver.
Updated
Outside the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre a woman with a loudhailer is reading a list of Labour MPs who voted for the war in the Iraq, to boos after each name.
She says: “You will not be surprised to know that some of these Labour MPs are considering running in the leadership election ... We would like to start by saying that Jeremy Corbyn voted against the Iraq war.”
Protestors with banners beginnings to arrive outside QEII centre ahead of #Chilcot report pic.twitter.com/k3kZloJJ3c
— esther addley (@estheraddley) July 6, 2016
Updated
Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general at the time of the Iraq war, was doorstepped outside his home by reporters this morning. He drafted the legal opinion saying going to war would be legal. Initially he said he would read the report first and then make a statement. But, when asked if the war was legal, he replied: “Yes, of course it was.”
Protesters and activists have begun arriving outside the Queen Elizabeth II centre in Westminster, where the Chilcot report will be published at 11am.
Many are carrying banners and flags, reading, “Blair: Now is the time to pay for your crimes”, and “2 million Iraqi people died in the Iraq war”. Others expressed support for the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, or called for Blair’s impeachment.
Amid shouts of, “Tony Blair, war criminal”, a large white banner was unveiled reading: “Blair must face war crimes tribunal.”
Among the protesters is a small number from the group Veterans for Peace. One of them, Ben Griffin, said: “Many of our members served in Iraq and witnessed what happened there, and we firmly believe that what happened in Iraq was a war of aggression ... during which the Geneva convention was broken many times.”
Griffin said he had served in Basra with the SAS but during a period in the UK on leave in 2005 had refused to return to Iraq.
Some banners outside #Chilcot backing Corbyn. 'Give Peace a chance: Corbyn for PM', 'With Jeremy & John against war' pic.twitter.com/Yo6Qi0ms6A
— esther addley (@estheraddley) July 6, 2016
Updated
Help us read the Chilcot report
This is Peter Walker here, I’m helming the live blog with Andrew today. While we have some of the Guardian’s top people inside the lock-in to get through as much of the Chilcot report (or at least its summary) as possible in three hours, the full publication is about 2.6m words long, or almost four-and-a-half times as long as War and Peace. It will take days to read properly. And so we’re hoping you could help.
If you’re reading through the report and you spot an interesting fact or snippet you think we’ve missed, it would be great if you could let us know – we’ve set up a page for contributions.
What sort of things might be interesting? You can probably guess, but there’s also a few pointers in our article from this morning about six questions Chilcot must answer. Any assistance we can get to understand the report and its implications as fast as possible will be hugely valuable.
The full report and supporting documents will be available here from about 11.35am UK time today, though I’m guessing the website might be pretty slow to start with, given the heavy traffic.
Updated
Britain lost 179 servicemen and women in Iraq. They are all named on the Operation Telic wikipedia page.
Many, many more Iraqis died, but the exact number is unknown, not least because the Americans chose not to publish a count. On the BBC this morning I’ve heard different reporters describe the Iraqi death toll as either in the “tens of thousands” or the “hundreds of thousands”.
One organisation that compiles figures on this is Iraq Body Count. According to its latest figures, the number of civilians killed by violence since the invasion is between 160,400 and 179,312. But these are likely to be minimum figures because Iraq Body Count only records fatalities verified by two independent sources.
Other studies have produced much higher figures. In 2006, the Lancet medical journal published research suggesting that 655,000 Iraqis had died as a result of the conflict. This figure was obtained by sample research – doctors doing house-to-house surveys in Iraq, asking people about the deaths of relatives – with a nationwide figure then being produced by extrapolation. In 2015, the US-based Physicians for Social Responsibility published a report using similar methodology that claimed that 1m Iraqis had been killed since the invasion, or 5% of the population.
Updated
The Stop the War Coalition is organising a protest outside the QE2 centre to coincide with the publication of the Chilcot report.
10am Today | Outside QE2 Centre | Protest: #Chilcot - Time for Truth & Justice - https://t.co/1AbyNUijlI pic.twitter.com/uP9Y2vBOqx
— Stop the War (@STWuk) July 6, 2016
Lindsey German, the coalition’s convenor, says that regardless of what Chilcot says, she believes Tony Blair lied.
Whatever #Chilcot will say Blair lied, thousands died. Join protest from 10 onwards Westminster @STWuk
— Lindsey German (@LindseyAGerman) July 6, 2016
She has also retweeted a link to this article by the journalist Peter Oborne, based on his new book Not the Chilcot Report, which makes the case that Blair can be accused of lying to justify the war and of initiating a war of aggression (ie, a war crime.)
Updated
Jack Straw, who was UK foreign secretary at the time of the Iraq war, and who by his own account could have stopped Britain’s participation in the war if he had chosen to oppose it, was asked about the report as he left his home this morning. Asked if he stood by his decision to support the war, he replied:
I’m just on the way to read the report. I’ve not yet seen it. So you’ll have to forgive me. I shall be making lots of comments once I’ve read the report, but obviously not in advance.
Updated
The parents of Senior Aircraftsman Peter McFerran, 24, from North Wales, who was killed in southern Iraq in 2007, arrived at the QE2 centre in London shortly before the report was released to families at 8am, the Press Association reports. The couple had travelled to London from Flintshire and wore “Justice for Peter” T-shirts.
McFerran’s mother Ann, 64, said she was “apprehensive” and didn’t know what to expect. She said it was her husband Bob’s 73rd birthday and added: “The right outcome would be a good birthday present.” Asked what that outcome would be, she replied: “Justice for Peter.”
Updated
Chilcot says he hopes his report will ensure Britain never goes to war again without proper consideration
Sir John Chilcot has been giving interviews ahead of the publication of his report. Here are the key points he has been making.
- Chilcot said he hoped his report would ensure that Britain does not go to war in the future without a very thorough assessment of the potential disadvantages. He implied this did not happen in 2003. He said:
The main expectation that I have is that it will not be possible in future to engage in a military or indeed a diplomatic endeavour on such a scale and of such gravity without really careful challenge analysis and assessment and collective political judgment being applied to it.
There are many lessons in the report but that probably is the central one for the future.
- He explained why it had taken his inquiry seven years to report.
It’s turned out to be on an unprecedented scale. There is no doubt that it’s taken a lot longer than the government which set us up expected, or indeed what we expected at the start, but to get to the bottom of what happened over a nine-year period with all the legal, military, diplomatic, and intelligence aspects of it has proved very great. Apart from the oral witness hearings which we’ve held, we had to scrutinise and analyse something like over 150,000 government documents. That’s a huge task and takes a great deal of time if you’re going to get to the bottom of all of that. I think getting agreement on the material that we could publish from that government archive has taken time in itself, but if we are going to give – as we believe we have – a really reliable account, we’ve had to get agreement from government to publish some things which are quite without precedent; cabinet discussions, discussions with other heads of state and government.
- He said many individuals and institutions would be criticised in the report, but on the basis of evidence and rigorous analysis.
I made very clear right at the start of the inquiry that if we came across decisions or behaviour which deserved criticism then we wouldn’t shy away from making it. And indeed, there have been more than a few instances where we are bound to do that. But we shall do it on a base of a rigorous analysis of the evidence that supports that finding. We are not a court – not a judge or jury at work – but we’ve tried to apply the highest possible standards of rigorous analysis to the evidence where we make a criticism.
Updated
Two soldiers who fought in Iraq have criticised the lack of planning and resources during the conflict on the Today programme on BBC Radio 4.
Ahead of the publication of the Chilcot report, Lance Corp Iain McMenemy described the anarchy after the toppling of Saddam Hussein, while Lance Corp Damien Hern said the Middle-Eastern country had been left a mess.
McMenemy told the programme that shortly after British troops crossed into Iraq, a number of soldiers had their body armour plates taken from them.
We were issued with the body armour vest and we were given ceramic plates, one for the front, one for the back and that’s what stops a bullet.
First week into the combat campaign itself we were asked to give them up ... There were other troops that would be fighting perhaps on foot and the ones that were fighting on foot should have those ceramic plates because they may have more need for it.
At the time we were asked we were manning vehicle checkpoints on foot so we were very much at that point in the firing line so we felt we shouldn’t be asked to give up the ceramic plates which were the difference between stopping a bullet and not.
The men told the programme that many soldiers had to wear ”greens” rather than desert camouflage uniforms. Hern recalled a visit by Tony Blair, during which he was asked not to attend because he still had a green uniform.
When Tony Blair came out to visit the troops I was based at Umm Qasr and he came to say thank you to the troops who were involved in the campaign.
I was still in green kit at the time, so I was still in UK kit. We were told by the camp sergeant major, who was in charge of that visit, that anybody who was in green was to stay away from the parade. Do not come near the parade. The prime minister does not want to see people dressed inadequately in the wrong kit. It would send out the wrong message.
Updated
John Miller, whose son Simon was one of six military policemen murdered in Iraq in 2003, told Sky News this morning that he hoped Tony Blair would be put on trial at the international criminal court. “There’s got to be some kind of court case, be that in The Hague or elsewhere,” he said. “I want to see him in the dock.”
Millier is set to be disappointed. In a statement at the the weekend the office of the prosecutor at the international criminal court said:
We will take note of the Chilcot report when released in the context of its ongoing preliminary examination work concerning Iraq/UK. A preliminary examination is not an investigation but a process aimed at determining whether reasonable basis exist to open an investigation. As already indicated by the office in 2006, the ‘decision by the UK to go to war in Iraq falls outside the court’s jurisdiction’.
This means the ICC is looking at allegations of torture and abuse by British soldiers, but that it cannot consider whether the decision to go to war was a crime. It cannot consider a “crime of aggression”. In the future it may get jurisdiction over “crimes of aggression”, but the ICC said at the weekend that this “has not yet crystalised and in any event, will not apply retroactively”.
Updated
Good morning. I’m Andrew Sparrow, taking over from Claire. I will be writing the blog today with my colleague Peter Walker.
Journalists have just been admitted to the “lock-in” at the Queen Elizabeth conference centre in London where they have three hours to read the report before the embargo is lifted and the first stories about what it contains can be published at 11am. Sir John Chilcot will also make a statement about its contents then.
This is from the Press Association’s Andrew Woodcock:
Behind this door is the #Chilcot report. Press heading in for three hours of speed reading pic.twitter.com/4sqMJX7B4x
— Andrew Woodcock (@AndyWoodcock) July 6, 2016
And this is from the BBC’s Iain Watson:
The press wait for access to #Chilcot report at Westminster We see it at 8 pic.twitter.com/0cVKd2i0L8
— iain watson (@iainjwatson) July 6, 2016
Updated
We are likely to hear directly from Tony Blair later today, after the publication of the Chilcot findings.
Blair is planning to hold a press conference to deliver a robust response to the findings. He will insist the Shia-Sunni split in Iraq, one of the driving forces of the continuing violence, preceded the invasion and was not the result of the disruption created by the war.
He will claim that Iran and al-Qaida had a role in creating the insecurity inside Iraq after the invasion. At same time, he will acknowledge he is now more cautious about the consequences of unleashing dangerous forces when a strongman such as Saddam Hussein is removed.
He will again apologise for the mistaken intelligence about Saddam’s alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction, but will point to evidence that the Iraqi leader sought to mislead the United Nations weapons inspectors and his own military in order to strengthen his political position inside Iraq.
Blair insists he gave no secret irrevocable pledges to Bush that the UK would go to war and any commitments of solidarity were subject to political support. His attempts to secure a second UN resolution that set tests Saddam needed to meet so as to avoid invasion is presented by Blair as proof there was no pre-ordained invasion.
Blair has previously accepted that the post-war planning was inadequate, but the report is likely to blame Whitehall inadequacy and the lack of expertise in the Foreign Office as well as turf wars in Washington.
Updated
Mordaunt is asked about reports today that Andrea Leadsom’s banking career isn’t quite as billed.
A reminder from today’s morning briefing of a report in the Times, drawing on comments from a former colleague of Leadsom on Reaction:
Andrea Leadsom has no experience as an investment banker … During 10 years at the investment fund Invesco Perpetual, from 1999 to 2009, she did not have any role in managing funds or advising clients. Despite the title ‘senior investment officer and head of corporate governance’ she only held approval from the financial services regulator – required for any roles dealing with funds or clients – for a three-month period from December 2002 to February 2003.
A spokesman for Leadsom told the Times:
Anyone who reads Andrea’s CV and attaches a lot of weight to that particular role may actually be under some slight misapprehension as to what it was she actually did.
On the Today programme, Mordaunt says – not sure how this fits with the spokesman’s quote above – that the Times report is a ...
totally bogus article that she [Leadsom] was not given the right to reply to. This is a concerted effort to rubbish a stellar career and imply she was just making the tea.
Pressed on whether Leadsom has actually run an investment fund, Mordaunt insisted:
Yes, she has … at Barclays. She was running a fund. She was also managing the global banking network.
Updated
Two Tory MPs – Penny Mordaunt, a supporter of Andrea Leadsom, and Ed Vaizey, a Michael Gove fan – are on the Today programme to, in essence, argue that their candidate ought to be the second name on the ballot to party members.
Mordaunt says:
We have a huge responsibility to put forward the two best candidates – it’s party leader but it’s also the prime minister. A final with two women in it would be very exciting but it’s got to be on merit.
She praises Leadsom for her foresight and reforming zeal.
Vaizey, on the other hand, thinks Leadsom doesn’t yet have the chops for the job:
Michael Gove is the most experienced of the two candidates vying for second place on the ballot. What motivates Michael … is about social justice, reaching out to those people who’ve been left behind.
Vaizey says (slightly bafflingly) that one of the things people often don’t know about Gove is that ...
He is very close to the chancellor and the prime minister … I think that’s important.
And he doesn’t think the Gove U-turn on backing Boris Johnson will hurt him among party members:
They’ll trust a man who was prepared to make that decision … He felt he [Johnson] wasn’t the right person to be prime minister.
Updated
Speaking to BBC Radio 4’s Today programme this morning, Karen Thornton, whose son Lee was killed in Iraq in 2006, said she remained convinced that Tony Blair had exaggerated intelligence about Iraq’s capabilities and should face a trial for war crimes:
If it is proved that he lied then obviously he should be held accountable for it … He shouldn’t be allowed to just get away with it.
But she did not feel confident that John Chilcot’s report would provide the accountability she was hoping for:
Nobody’s going to held to account and that’s so wrong … I think the people who lied should be held to account.
We just want the truth.
Updated
Morning briefing
The big picture
With John Chilcot publishing – after seven years of inquiry – his report into the war in Iraq, we can expect/hope that the rest of the day will be relatively quiet. The world of politics does sometimes remember how to do respectful. This might be one of those days.
Tuesday night did, however, heap some news upon us, with the Tory leadership field thinning from five hopefuls to three. With the first round of voting by Conservative MPs completed, Fox was chased off and Crabb scuttled after him.
Here’s how the voting looked:
- Theresa May: 165 MPs
- Andrea Leadsom: 66
- Michael Gove: 48
- Stephen Crabb: 34
- Liam Fox: 16
That saw Fox lopped off the list. Crabb then withdrew, apparently not wishing to prolong our, or his, agony, saying:
I think, given the seriousness of the situation, the quicker we have a new and strong prime minister in place, the better.
Both retreating candidates have decided instead to endorse May, putting her in a formidable position ahead of what will now be the final knockout round on Thursday. The two remaining Tory’s Got Talent contestants will then go to the public (as long as they’re paid-up members of the Conservative party) vote to determine who gets to move into No 10 and be the prime minister.
Gove will be doing his stubborn best to be in that final two, insisting last night that he’s not dropping out:
I think the message I have – optimism and hope about Britain’s bright future outside the European Union – is one that is shared by many Conservative members and voters, and indeed by the majority of the country …
I think that they [party members] should have a choice between two candidates of experience, two candidates who have delivered in government departments, and above all they should have a choice between one candidate who argued that we should remain in the European Union and one candidate who argued we should leave.
“Candidates of experience … who have delivered in government departments” might – should you be a cynical type who reads between the lines strung out for us by politicians – be a reference to the perceived lack of these things by Leadsom, Gove’s rival for that number two slot on the ballot.
Claims by Leadsom supporter Bernard Jenkin that she held a senior role at “a large investment firm where she was responsible for managing hundreds of people and billions of pounds” are – reports the Times today, drawing on comments from a former colleague of hers on Reaction – not quite right. The Times reports:
Andrea Leadsom has no experience as an investment banker … During 10 years at the investment fund Invesco Perpetual, from 1999 to 2009, she did not have any role in managing funds or advising clients. Despite the title ‘senior investment officer and head of corporate governance’ she only held approval from the financial services regulator – required for any roles dealing with funds or clients – for a three-month period from December 2002 to February 2003.
A spokesman for Leadsom conceded:
Anyone who reads Andrea’s CV and attaches a lot of weight to that particular role may actually be under some slight misapprehension as to what it was she actually did.
Team Leadsom said it would be releasing her full CV this morning. But not her tax return.
May released four years of her tax returns yesterday, showing that last year she earned a salary of £112,426 as an MP and home secretary, plus £617 in interest and £5,419 in dividends. She banks at Coutts, where they give new savers a mink piggy bank, which is nice. Gove flung his earnings into the public arena at the weekend, revealing his only income came from his job as education secretary (£117,786 in 2013-14) and as chief whip the following year (£96,071).
Given the peak fever has receded, I’m not sure we can still call Labour’s leadership situation a crisis, but whatever it is, it’s still limping on. The take-home from hours of talks yesterday between deputy leader Tom Watson and trade union chiefs is that the shadow cabinet will take part in formal peace talks to try to bring together the party’s factions. As my colleagues Heather Stewart and Rowena Mason report:
The TUC general secretary, Frances O’Grady, or her predecessor, Brendan Barber, are seen as potential chairs for the negotiations, which are aimed at averting an immediate challenge to Corbyn’s leadership and “cooling the temperature”. The role is likened by some senior party figures to that of Gen John de Chastelain, who oversaw the disarmament process in Northern Ireland.
I’ll just let that final clause sink in for a moment …
As for who’s in that shadow cabinet, the latest list was released by Jeremy Corbyn’s team yesterday; this seems to be the most up-to-date version but it does – wrongly – include the two peers who, while still technically in their roles due to different rules governing the House of Lords, are not attending:
As we were... @LadyBasildon & @SteveTheQuip still not attending Shadow Cabinet - a position supported by our Lords frontbench team & Group
— LabourLordsUK (@LabourLordsUK) July 5, 2016
Meanwhile, the Green party announced the five candidates – well, six, as one is a job-share joint ticket – in the running to succeed Natalie Bennett as its new leader, but because none of them has yet performed a devastating double-cross on a former friend, prepare yourself for a period of civility before a winner is announced. I know. It’ll take some getting used to.
Has the UK Brexited yet?
No. And yesterday Oliver Letwin – essentially now the UK’s minister for Brexit – confirmed that the government hadn’t made a plan for a leave vote. Don’t despair, though, because Letwin is confident that his new Cabinet Office Brexit team can have ready a “fine-grained, multi-dimensional” options paper before the new prime minister settles in her (ok, maybe his) seat on 9 September.
On that pesky question of whether the triggering of article 50 needs an act of parliament, Letwin said legal advice was that it could be invoked under the royal prerogative. The government was due, by the close of Tuesday, to respond to a legal challenge arguing that parliamentary approval would be needed, but I think we can take Letwin’s revelation as a spoiler on that point.
More financial wobbles today: the pound has sunk to three-decade lows and the Asian share markets have fallen. Yesterday, three British commercial property funds suspended trading as asset prices plunged.
Today the Commons will – at Labour’s insistence – vote on whether the right to remain of EU nationals living in the UK should be guaranteed regardless of future Brexit negotiations. The vote will not be binding on the government – but it’s already proving to be a stumble in Theresa May’s otherwise fairly stomping route to No 10.
You should also know:
- Andrea Leadsom has been embroiled in a row over an ‘overrun with foreigners’ retweet.
-
Kevin McKeever, a partner at Portland Communications, which has been accused of plotting against Jeremy Corbyn, said he had received a death threat.
- The Metropolitan police received more than 500 reports of hate crimes after the Brexit vote.
- Naz Shah’s suspension from the Labour party has been lifted after the MP apologised for Facebook comments suggesting Israeli citizens should be deported to the US. A spokesperson for the Board of Deputies of British Jews said:
Naz Shah stands out as someone who has been prepared to apologise to the Jewish community at a local and national level, and make efforts to learn from her mistakes. In that regard, her reinstatement today seems appropriate and we would hope for no repeat of past errors.
Read these
Martin Chulov, in the Guardian, assesses the impact of the Chilcot report from Baghdad:
Across the Iraqi capital, there is little sense that the long-delayed Chilcot report into Britain’s decision to go to war will change anything. Thirteen years after the invasion, the country is still reeling from the upheaval unleashed by the war. What was envisaged by planners in London and Washington to be a seamless transition from dictatorship to democracy has proved to be anything but.
A tussle for control of post-Saddam Iraq has barely relented, and continues to ravage the country’s finances, communities and social fabric. Citizens say the relentless grind has become a ‘forever war’ that could rumble on over decades, ensuring that communities torn apart by sectarianism remain at odds for generations.
‘Nothing Britain could say or do can address this, or make up for it,’ said Safa Gilbert, a Christian who returned to her home city on Monday from exile in Lebanon. ‘Even if they wanted to help, they did not. And all they needed to do is understand the society first.’
In the New Statesman, Hilary Wainwright says many are misjudging Corbyn’s leadership style:
The ‘strong man’ notion of leadership by which Corbyn appears all too often to be judged is not … just a matter of a macho style. It is embedded in the nature of the UK’s unwritten constitution and the immense but opaque power that it gives to the executive: extensive powers of patronage, powers to go to war be ready to press the nuclear button, negotiate treaties of various kinds and in many ways preserve the continuity of the British state …
His credibility as prime minister, a different kind of prime minister from the current model, would require an effective challenge to the centralised nature of power in our political system. A challenge that would need to be made now, while in opposition, with extensive popular participation.
At Politico, Nicholas Vinocur says the Brexit vote might not be the harbinger of victory Marine Le Pen hoped it would be:
Prior to Brexit, Le Pen enjoyed a measure of exclusivity in being France’s Eurosceptic-in-chief. Both mainstream parties, President François Hollande’s Socialists and Nicolas Sarkozy’s Les Républicains, were equivocal about the EU and avoided advancing hard positions on the bloc’s future.
But with Brexit, France has a chance to reassert its role in the bloc, and the mainstream positions have shifted dramatically. All leading candidates for the Right’s presidential nomination want to roll back Brussels’ powers, give more say to national parliaments and ultimately vote on EU reform in a vast, bloc-wide referendum. The only difference between that and Le Pen’s proposal? They do not want to give the French an option to leave.
Schadenfreude of the day
Courtesy of Germany’s Free Democratic party, which sent mobile billboards around London inviting glum pro-EUers to hop over to Berlin:
Hey #London based folks, send us your pics if you see our billboard! #ZeitFürDasNächsteBerlin #Berlin @SebCzaja pic.twitter.com/yH3pZDLhsQ
— FDP Berlin (@fdp_berlin) July 5, 2016
Celebrity intervention of the day
Pop behemoth Harry Styles visited the House of Lords on Tuesday, as a guest of life peer Lord (Robert) Winston. At time of writing, Styles’ views on the UK’s withdrawal from the EU are unknown, but given that his appearance prompted this response from a Labour lords spokesman –
My theory … is that he was in for the start of the two-day debate on Brexit and its consequences. He’s clearly heard that the government has no direction.
– we can say with some certainty that this has not helped.
The day in a tweet
Labour still has no shadow attorney general. Lucky there's no legally tricky negotiations coming up.
— Michael Savage (@michaelsavage) July 5, 2016
If today were a work of architecture
It would be the Basilica of the Sagrada Família. Begun in 1882. Completed … not yet. Possibly by 2026. Or 2030. Maybe 2032.
And another thing
Would you like to wake up to this briefing in your inbox every weekday? Sign up here.
Updated
Chilcot briefing
Good morning. Today’s live coverage will focus on the long-awaited publication of the Chilcot report on Britain’s role in the war in Iraq, as well as scooping up the day’s other political goings-on.
With so much news to sift through, I’m divorcing the early Chilcot news – the report itself is published at 11am – from the rest of the day’s developments; the regular morning briefing (covering leadership and Brexit latest) will follow this post.
Do join us in the comments below or find me on Twitter @Claire_Phipps.
Chilcot: the timetable
All times are BST (GMT+1).
- David Cameron already has the report, which was delivered to him at 11am on Tuesday.
- The report is embargoed until Sir John Chilcot makes his public statement, but some senior politicians, journalists and other involved parties, including the families of some of the 179 British soldiers who died in the conflict, will be able to read it from 8am on Wednesday.
- At 11am, Chilcot makes his statement.
- When he concludes, at around 11.20am, the entire report will be published here.
- PMQs follows at noon in the House of Commons.
- Immediately after that, at around 12.30pm, David Cameron and Jeremy Corbyn will make statements on the report. It’s expected that Corbyn will, as he has pledged, apologise on behalf of the Labour party for the war in Iraq.
- Tony Blair is also expected to give a press conference later today.
What is the Chilcot report?
Announced on 15 June 2009 by then prime minister Gordon Brown, the inquiry was tasked with examining Britain’s role in Iraq from the run-up to the war, the military action and its aftermath, spanning a period from 2001 to 2009. Predicted to take a year, the inquiry has instead taken seven and has cost £10m. The finished report runs to 12 volumes and 2.6m words.
This six-minute video explainer takes you through the background – and the key questions the report will attempt to answer.
What the report will tell us
Chilcot says the report will not hold back from criticising those in charge in the period under review:
I made very clear right at the start of the inquiry that if we came across decisions or behaviour which deserved criticism then we wouldn’t shy away from making it. And, indeed, there have been more than a few instances where we are bound to do that.
In the spotlight will be:
- Tony Blair, then prime minister: what commitments did he make to then US president George Bush? Did he mislead MPs and the British public over the – now discredited – threat posed by weapons of mass destruction?
- MI6: why was the intelligence it provided so wrong, particularly on WMDs and the 45-minute claim? Did it permit intelligence to be exaggerated for political purposes?
- Military commanders including then head of the army, Sir Mike Jackson, his successor, Gen Sir Richard Dannatt, and then head of military operations and current chief of defence staff, Gen Sir Michael Houghton: did they fail to make adequate preparations for the war and its aftermath?
- Peter Goldsmith, then attorney general, whose original legal advice against war later changed to conclude that a further UN resolution was not necessary.
What it probably won’t tell us
- Experts say Chilcot is unlikely to make a call on whether the decision to go to war was illegal. There are no lawyers on the inquiry panel.
- It is also considered highly unlikely that Blair – who gave evidence on two separate occasions to the inquiry – will face any prospect of being charged with war crimes.
Some background reading
Updated
