1. Exquisite Tweets from @davidallengreen

    PreoccupationsCollected by Preoccupations

    1. Have now read chapter 5 of Chilcot.

    There is stuff there which is just jaw-dropping about the "legal basis" for war.

    Reply Retweet Like

    davidallengreen

    davidallengreen

    2. In essence, there are two things which were, ahem, "far from satisfactory" about how the legal case for invasion was handled.

    Reply Retweet Like

    davidallengreen

    davidallengreen

    3. The first is bad enough: concerted pressure was placed on the @attorneygeneral to revise his initially unhelpful view on legality.

    Reply Retweet Like

    davidallengreen

    davidallengreen

    4. It seems to me that a crucial fact (of material breach) was simply contrived by Blair so to tick a box. Qualified advice was then given.

    Reply Retweet Like

    davidallengreen

    davidallengreen

    5. Once helpful but qualified advice was given, then came second thing. It is astonishing what then happened - but the report documents it.

    Reply Retweet Like

    davidallengreen

    davidallengreen

    6. Blair made sure almost nobody got to see the advice. Not even cabinet ministers. Not officials. They just got the (supposed) conclusion.

    Reply Retweet Like

    davidallengreen

    davidallengreen

    7. This was even though the @attorneygeneral advises the whole government - not just the PM. But it was treated as PM's own advice.

    Reply Retweet Like

    davidallengreen

    davidallengreen

    8. So: unhelpful advice was pushed into being qualified helpful advice, but even then it was not shared. Just a spinned version.

    Reply Retweet Like

    davidallengreen

    davidallengreen

    9. In my view (as an ex government lawyer, 2003-5): had the qualified advice been shared at the time, UK would not have gone to war.

    /Ends

    Reply Retweet Like

    davidallengreen

    davidallengreen