Peter Oborne
Over the years I have learnt to respect and trust the judgment of my friend (and co-author) David Morrison.
So I take seriously Dr Morrison’s alarming assertion in the Huffington Post that William Hague deceived the House of Commons, about the legitimacy of the new regime which took power in the Ukraine on February 22nd of this year.
The Foreign Secretary told MPs on the 4th of March that President Yanukovych was replaced in accordance with the Ukrainian constitution.
Mr Hague stated that: “it is wrong to question the legitimacy of the new authorities”, because Yanukovych went following a vote “by the very large majorities required under the constitution”.
I have now put Dr Morrison’s claim to the FCO.
A spokesman rejected the notion that the Foreign Secretary has misled parliament, asserting that “the procedure of Yanukovych’s removal was initiated under Article 111 of the Ukrainian Constitution with the requisite (constitutional – 300) majority.”
This is a poor response, and as far as I can see the FCO has simply invented the figure of 300 votes required by Article 111.
It is quite plain that none of the regular constitutional procedures for the removal of a president were followed: no investigatory procedure was established and the courts were not involved, as the Constitution demands.
To make matters worse, the bill was not even supported by three quarters of the Rada as explicitly required by Article 111.
The FCO also makes a great deal of the fact Yanukovych “fled” the country.
The Ukrainian constitution clearly states the grounds for impeachment of a president; fleeing is not one of them.
In any case it is arguable that Yanukovych fled for fear of his and his families’ lives as violent thugs, including neo-Nazis, seized control of Kiev.
I would not go as far as Dr Morrison and say that William Hague deceived the House of Commons.
I hold no brief for Yanukovych, who reportedly ordered snipers to shoot and kill protestors.
However it is clear the Foreign Secretary was reckless and cavalier with his facts and that MPs have been misled.
This is the sort of carelessness and inaccuracy and contempt for due process which brought British foreign policy into disrepute during the Blair years.
So it is worth reminding Mr Hague of the Ministerial Code (1.2 c.): “It is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. Ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the Prime Minister.”
The Foreign Secretary needs to come back to the House of Commons and correct the answer he gave to the Labour MP David Hanson on March 4th.
Over the years I have learnt to respect and trust the judgment of my friend (and co-author) David Morrison.
So I take seriously Dr Morrison’s alarming assertion in the Huffington Post that William Hague deceived the House of Commons, about the legitimacy of the new regime which took power in the Ukraine on February 22nd of this year.
The Foreign Secretary told MPs on the 4th of March that President Yanukovych was replaced in accordance with the Ukrainian constitution.
Mr Hague stated that: “it is wrong to question the legitimacy of the new authorities”, because Yanukovych went following a vote “by the very large majorities required under the constitution”.
I have now put Dr Morrison’s claim to the FCO.
A spokesman rejected the notion that the Foreign Secretary has misled parliament, asserting that “the procedure of Yanukovych’s removal was initiated under Article 111 of the Ukrainian Constitution with the requisite (constitutional – 300) majority.”
This is a poor response, and as far as I can see the FCO has simply invented the figure of 300 votes required by Article 111.
It is quite plain that none of the regular constitutional procedures for the removal of a president were followed: no investigatory procedure was established and the courts were not involved, as the Constitution demands.
To make matters worse, the bill was not even supported by three quarters of the Rada as explicitly required by Article 111.
The FCO also makes a great deal of the fact Yanukovych “fled” the country.
The Ukrainian constitution clearly states the grounds for impeachment of a president; fleeing is not one of them.
In any case it is arguable that Yanukovych fled for fear of his and his families’ lives as violent thugs, including neo-Nazis, seized control of Kiev.
I would not go as far as Dr Morrison and say that William Hague deceived the House of Commons.
I hold no brief for Yanukovych, who reportedly ordered snipers to shoot and kill protestors.
However it is clear the Foreign Secretary was reckless and cavalier with his facts and that MPs have been misled.
This is the sort of carelessness and inaccuracy and contempt for due process which brought British foreign policy into disrepute during the Blair years.
So it is worth reminding Mr Hague of the Ministerial Code (1.2 c.): “It is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. Ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the Prime Minister.”
The Foreign Secretary needs to come back to the House of Commons and correct the answer he gave to the Labour MP David Hanson on March 4th.
No comments:
Post a Comment