Tony Blair faces impeachment for gross misconduct, for misleading the people and parliament over the Iraq war. But what exactly does that mean? Impeachment is a parliamentary accusation, potentially ending with a conviction after a trial by parliament. It is the last resort for holding ministers to account, invented in England before the wars of the roses, then reinforced by the Scottish parliamentary law of trying the king’s ministers for giving false advice. Impeachment is a great British export – famously to the United States, but also as far afield as the Philippines and Iran. At home it has been forgotten, until now.

We have already done what they said was impossible. A motion of impeachment is now on the agenda of the House of Commons for the first time since the days of Napoleon – it will appear daily under potential “future business” on the order paper – though for procedural reasons only the top six supporters are listed. The motion was marked by an event last week in London, led by SNP, Plaid Cymru, Tory and Liberal MPs, backed by the Greens and leading cultural figures including Iain Banks, Frederick Forsyth, Harold Pinter, Brian Eno, Terry Jones and Corin Redgrave.

As a student in the 1970s, I read that some of the great legal historians recommended that we bring impeachment back. Every so often there is a great bleating amongst the political sheep in London that “parliament must act”. And I have written a few articles reminding people that impeachment is still on the books.

Which brings us to Blair. The Butler report was a fiasco. You know: a bunch of worthies spend months preparing a report, which ensures nothing can be debated because “we have to wait for the report”. Then, when it is published, our elected representatives are given an hour or two to read it, there is a short debate, and then everyone goes on a three-month holiday.

Soon after that pantomime, my mobile phone rang. It was Adam Price, the Welsh MP, saying he had persuaded Plaid Cymru and the SNP to back an impeachment bid. Over the summer, Adam and I researched impeachment. There were times when we felt like kids in a real-life Harry Potter adventure, turning the pages of 300-year-old books to discover a lost treasure of great power that we can use to preserve our freedom.

In the early 1600s, parliamentarians were faced with an attempt by the king to act without parliamentary authority. They searched the parchment manuscripts from earlier times and found in impeachment a device to hold the king’s minister – the Duke of Buckingham – to account.

The Victorian historian Walter Bagehot described impeachment as an ancient device. He believed it had been replaced by the modern and delicate constitutional conventions of Cabinet government, and ministers who resign when found deceiving us. But Blair has no time for conventions. Decisions on war and peace are supposed to be made around the Cabinet table and minuted – now they are made on his sofa and e-mailed . Decisions used to be based upon facts, now they are based on faith. Blair had faith that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and we are supposed to be content with that.

Well, we are not content. Along with Glen Rangwala, I compiled A Case To Answer, which details 28 occasions when the Prime Minister held intelligence and UN reports that contradicted what he said about Iraq. Without the suicide of Dr David Kelly – and the US intelligence investigation that led to a probe in Britain – we might never have known we had been misled. There have been more leaked documents since that show how the war and the con-trick were planned a year before the Commons voted.

The first concrete result of this impeachment motion is that the Liberal Democrats have been emboldened to propose a new Commons committee to investigate the powers of prime ministers in making war. They should follow their MPs Jenny Tonge and Paul Marsden and call for impeachment.

Second, according to the BBC’s World At One, Downing Street said, “MPs have the right to call for impeachment. Let’s see what happens.” A macho “bring it on” statement that appears to welcome a debate.

Third, if nothing else, impeachment is back as a live instrument of the constitution – and this in itself is a huge step.

What now? We need more MPs to support it and a full debate in the Commons. It is up to the Speaker, Michael Martin , to decide whether that debate goes ahead. Labour, LibDem and Tory MPs have found reasons not to support impeachment. Some say: “Let’s wait for the election .” Or: “We can’t support it because of the Tories.” Or: “It’s too full of nationalists,” and so on .

But this is not about parties; it is about fighting for the fundamental principle that ministers must not deceive parliament. Look at the MPs who support the impeachment motion: from former Tory ministers and Boris Johnson to SNP leader Alex Salmond. They have all managed to sink their differences . It is time for Labour MPs to join the campaign. Privately, many have indicated that, when the time is right, they will join. Many have written to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan accusing the Blair government of war crimes. Why can they support that yet not support charging the Prime Minister in the court of parliament? Some Labour MPs even suggest it should be left to the relatives of the British dead in Iraq to take Blair to court. They must take responsibility themselves and impeach.

We hope and expect that early in the new year there will be a debate and a vote in the Commons and that we will win it. It is at root a simple proposition. The standard for resignation after misleading the House was set by the resignations of Peter Mandelson and Beverley Hughes . Who can say – and which MP can vote – that Blair misled us less? Let Labour MPs shuffle through the lobbies in favour of Blair’s deceit and explain that to their constituents.

We may not win. The defenders of parliament against the Stuart kings might have lost – if they had, we would have a country with a history of absolute monarchy . The campaigns for the vote, free speech, and racial equality might have been lost. In the end it comes down to how much we care, for our country and our freedom.

Dan Plesch is co-author of A Case To Answer and author of The Beauty Queen’s Guide To World Peace (Politico’s, £8.99)

www.impeachblair.net

www.danplesch.net

28 November 2004