Iraq — Case for war not established — rejected — 18 Mar 2003 at 21:15
The majority of MPs voted against making a change to the motion before Parliament that declared war on Iraq. The intact motion for war was voted through immediately after this amendment was rejected.[1]
The change would have been to replace the sections of the motion which read:[2]
- This House...
- notes that in the 130 days since Resolution 1441 was adopted Iraq has not co-operated actively, unconditionally and immediately with the weapons inspectors, and has rejected the final opportunity to comply and is in further material breach of its obligations under successive mandatory UN Security Council Resolutions;
- regrets that despite sustained diplomatic effort by Her Majesty's Government it has not proved possible to secure a second Resolution in the UN because one Permanent Member of the Security Council made plain in public its intention to use its veto whatever the circumstances;
- notes the opinion of the Attorney General that, Iraq having failed to comply and Iraq being at the time of Resolution 1441 and continuing to be in material breach, the authority to use force under Resolution 678[10] has revived and so continues today;
- believes that the United Kingdom must uphold the authority of the United Nations as set out in Resolution 1441 and many Resolutions preceding it, and therefore supports the decision of Her Majesty's Government that the United Kingdom should use all means necessary to ensure the disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction;
- offers wholehearted support to the men and women of Her Majesty's Armed Forces now on duty in the Middle East;
with:
- This House...
- believes that the case for war against Iraq has not yet been established, especially given the absence of specific United Nations authorisation; but,
- in the event that hostilities do commence, pledges its total support for the British forces engaged in the Middle East, expresses its admiration for their courage, skill and devotion to duty, and hopes that their tasks will be swiftly concluded with minimal casualties on all sides.
This was one of five major Parliamentary votes for war before the invasion.[3]
- [1] Division 118, House of Commons, 18 March 2003
- [2] Peter Kilfoyle MP, House of Commons, 18 March 2003
- [3] Iraq 2003 - Against the invasion, Publicwhip policy
Party Summary
Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.
What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.
What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.
What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.
| Party | Majority (No) | Minority (Aye) | Both | Turnout |
| Con | 139 | 15 (+1 tell) | 0 | 95.1% |
| DUP | 5 | 0 | 0 | 100.0% |
| Ind | 0 | 1 | 0 | 100.0% |
| Ind Con | 1 | 0 | 0 | 100.0% |
| Lab | 245 (+2 tell) | 138 (+1 tell) | 0 | 94.1% |
| LDem | 0 | 53 | 0 | 100.0% |
| PC | 0 | 4 | 0 | 100.0% |
| SDLP | 0 | 1 | 0 | 33.3% |
| SNP | 0 | 5 | 0 | 100.0% |
| UUP | 6 | 0 | 0 | 100.0% |
| Total: | 396 | 217 | 0 | 94.8% |
All MPs Eligible to Vote - sorted by party
Includes MPs who were absent (or abstained) from this vote.
Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote