I believe that Tony Blair should resign over two issues relating to the legal advice given over the Iraq war. 1) Was Tony Blair in breach of the Ministers Code of Conduct? http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/pro..._code/page2.asp 23. When advice from the Law Officers is included in correspondence between Ministers, or in papers for the Cabinet or Ministerial Committees, the conclusions may if necessary be summarised but, if this is done, the complete text of the advice should be attached. Blair and Lord Goldsmith did NOT ensure that the complete text of the Iraq legal advice was included in papers for the cabinet. Therefore it seems unarguable that they are in breach. Given that : a) Tony Blair himself is meant to enforce this code b) This was not an irrelevant omission - the cabinet may have taken a different decision if they'd seen the full advice Isn't this reason enough for him to go? 2) Was the War Legal? Quite simply, even as a legal layman it seems plain that the initial advice given by the Attorney General on the conditions required for a legal war were not met. The full text of the advice is here - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4491801.stm There was no second resolution. So this leaves the argument over whether resolution 1441 revived resolution 678. The relevant text is : 29. However, the argument that resolution 1441 alone has revived the authorisation to use force in resolution 678 will only be sustainable if there are strong factual grounds for concluding that Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity. In other words, we would need to be able to demonstrate hard evidence of non-compliance and non-cooperation. Given the structure of the resolution as a whole, the views of UNMOVIC and the IAEA will be highly significant in this respect. In the light of the latest reporting by UNMOVIC, you will need to consider very carefully whether the evidence of non-cooperation and non- compliance by Iraq is sufficiently compelling to justify the conclusion that Iraq has failed to take its final opportunity. Were there strong factual grounds for concluding that Iraq had failed to take the final opportunity? Was there demonstrable hard evidence of non-compliance and non-cooperation? Did UNMOVIC or the IAEA report non-compliance and non-cooperation? No - the final report from Hans Blix reported that co-operation was improving, but more time was required to verify compliance. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2867913.stm Mr Blix, who headed the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (Unmovic), said he was very disappointed that inspections were aborted. "We had made rapid start," he said. "We did not have any obstacles from the Iraqi side in going anywhere. They gave us prompt access and we were in a great many places all over Iraq." And we now know of course that Iraq had complied - they had no WMD. It is now clear why the government was so keen to suppress publication of this legal advice as it makes a mockery of their statements that the legal case for war was clear and unequivocal. In our lawful democracy, shouldn't Blair take responsibility for his duplicity and step down?