For me, the only issue today is:
Attorney General, 7 March 2003:
"the language of resolution 1441 leaves the position unclear." and "...there are a number of ways in which the opponents of military action might seek to bring a legal case ... against the UK ... we cannot be certain that they would not succeed."
Letter from no.10 to Attoney General, 15 March 2003: "
it is indeed the prime minister's unequivocal view that Iraq is in further material breach of its obligations".
Lord Goldsmith, 17 March 2003:
"Authority to use force against Iraq exists from the combined effect of resolution 678, 687, and 1441.
"The Security Council also decided that if Iraq failed at any time to comply with and cooperate fully with the implementation of 1441, that would constitute a further material breach.
"It is plain that Iraq has failed so to comply and therefore Iraq was at the time of resolution 1441 and continues to be in material breach.
"Resolution 1441 would have provided that a further decision of the Security Council to sanction force was required if that had been intended. All it requires is reporting to and discussion by the Security Council of Iraq's failures, but not an express further decision to authorise force."
What the ... 
'Tail wagging the dog' springs to mind.