MPs plan to impeach Blair

[Mise]

MPs plan to impeach Blair over Iraq war record

David Hencke, Westminster correspondent
Thursday August 26, 2004
The Guardian

MPs are planning to impeach Tony Blair for "high crimes and misdemeanours" in taking Britain to war against Iraq, reviving an ancient practice last used against Lord Palmerston more than 150 years ago.

Eleven MPs led by Adam Price, Plaid Cymru MP for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr, are to table a motion when parliament returns that will force the prime minister to appear before the Commons to defend his record in the run-up to the war. Nine of the MPs are Welsh and Scottish Nationalists, including the party leaders, Elfyn Llwyd, and Alex Salmond, and two are Conservative frontbenchers, Boris Johnson, MP for Henley and editor of the Spectator, and Nigel Evans, MP for Ribble Valley.

A number of Labour backbenchers are considering whether to back the motion, though it could mean expulsion from the party.

The MPs' decision follows the commissioning of a 100-page report which lays out the case for impeaching Mr Blair and the precedents for action, including arguments laid down in Erskine May, the parliamentary bible, on impeachments dating back to medieval times.

The authors are Glen Rangwala, a lecturer in politics at Newnham College, Cambridge, and Dan Plesch, honorary fellow of Birkbeck College, London.

Under the ancient right, which has never been repealed, it takes only one MP to move a motion and the Speaker has to grant a debate on the impeachment. This means, at the least, Mr Blair will have to face a fresh debate on his personal handling of the war and there will have to be a vote in parliament on whether to institute impeachment proceedings.

In effect, impeachments were discontinued after Lord Palmerston, accused of concluding a secret treaty with Russia, survived an impeachment debate in 1848. The proceedings were replaced with a convention on ministerial responsibility, with ministers being forced to resign if they misled parliament. The last two cases involved the Home Office minister Beverley Hughes, over immigration clearances in Romania and Bulgaria, and Peter Mandelson over the Hinduja passports affair.

Mr Price said he believed the case was compelling. "To dust off Victorian constitutional histories and examine precedents from the time of Charles I and Chaucer may seem bizarre. But the conduct of the prime minister has left people and parliament with no alternative if we are to preserve the very basis of democracy."

It'll probably just degenerate into another "inquiry" or something, but still, . More worryingly, it shows the desperation of the Labour back benchers, in that they can't get their voices heard by Tony (I'd imagine it's pretty hard when he sits so close to the Tories), so they try to impeach him.

 

[Abulafia]

Personally, I'd cut his balls off and cover the wound up with red tape - either way, such an enquiry will waste more tax cash.

 

[CurtSibling]

I would cheer to see hypocritical Vicar Blair go.

But another US-boot-licking android will replace him anyway.

 

[FriendlyFire]

I find the way they treated Dr Kelly (who was THE leading expert on nuclear Bio weapons development for the middle east) was utterly discusting.

Wheres the accountability ?

 

[CurtSibling]

The UK is a parliamentary dictatorship - So there is no accountability...

 

[Suppersalmon]

should be intresting hopefully we can get rid of Bliar but who would replace him ?

 

[Mise]

should be intresting hopefully we can get rid of Bliar but who would replace him ?

Gordon Brown I would imagine. Hopefully it would be someone who actually listens to its party and to the public.

 

[Cullyn]

The UK is a parliamentary dictatorship - So there is no accountability...

I find the way they treated Dr Kelly (who was THE leading expert on nuclear Bio weapons development for the middle east) was utterly discusting.

Wheres the accountability ?

I would cheer to see hypocritical Vicar Blair go.

But another US-boot-licking android will replace him anyway.

Personally, I'd cut his balls off and cover the wound up with red tape - either way, such an enquiry will waste more tax cash.

MPs plan to impeach Blair over Iraq war record

David Hencke, Westminster correspondent
Thursday August 26, 2004
The Guardian

MPs are planning to impeach Tony Blair for "high crimes and misdemeanours" in taking Britain to war against Iraq, reviving an ancient practice last used against Lord Palmerston more than 150 years ago.

Eleven MPs led by Adam Price, Plaid Cymru MP for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr, are to table a motion when parliament returns that will force the prime minister to appear before the Commons to defend his record in the run-up to the war. Nine of the MPs are Welsh and Scottish Nationalists, including the party leaders, Elfyn Llwyd, and Alex Salmond, and two are Conservative frontbenchers, Boris Johnson, MP for Henley and editor of the Spectator, and Nigel Evans, MP for Ribble Valley.

A number of Labour backbenchers are considering whether to back the motion, though it could mean expulsion from the party.

The MPs' decision follows the commissioning of a 100-page report which lays out the case for impeaching Mr Blair and the precedents for action, including arguments laid down in Erskine May, the parliamentary bible, on impeachments dating back to medieval times.

The authors are Glen Rangwala, a lecturer in politics at Newnham College, Cambridge, and Dan Plesch, honorary fellow of Birkbeck College, London.

Under the ancient right, which has never been repealed, it takes only one MP to move a motion and the Speaker has to grant a debate on the impeachment. This means, at the least, Mr Blair will have to face a fresh debate on his personal handling of the war and there will have to be a vote in parliament on whether to institute impeachment proceedings.

In effect, impeachments were discontinued after Lord Palmerston, accused of concluding a secret treaty with Russia, survived an impeachment debate in 1848. The proceedings were replaced with a convention on ministerial responsibility, with ministers being forced to resign if they misled parliament. The last two cases involved the Home Office minister Beverley Hughes, over immigration clearances in Romania and Bulgaria, and Peter Mandelson over the Hinduja passports affair.

Mr Price said he believed the case was compelling. "To dust off Victorian constitutional histories and examine precedents from the time of Charles I and Chaucer may seem bizarre. But the conduct of the prime minister has left people and parliament with no alternative if we are to preserve the very basis of democracy."

It'll probably just degenerate into another "inquiry" or something, but still, More worryingly, it shows the desperation of the Labour back benchers, in that they can't get their voices heard by Tony (I'd imagine it's pretty hard when he sits so close to the Tories), so they try to impeach him

What a complete load of rubbish.

1. Tony Blair has been elected TWICE as the Prime Minister of the UK, in free, fair and democratic elections.

2. Tony Blair has always stood up and defended his actions. He has never hidden, and has appeared before not just the House of Commons, but various Parliamentary committees defending his actions in the war.

3. He also stood before his own Party Conference and defended his actions.

4. This so-called impeachment is nothing more that party politics. I notice that the leaders of the Conservative and Liberal parties are not associated with the impeachment.

5. @ Abulafia, I think that is the type of thing that Mr, Hussein would have done.

6. @ FriendlyFire, David Kelly committed suicide. It was by his act, no-one else’s. As for accountability, lets see, how about the Hutton Enquiry?

7. @ CurtSibling. I’d guess by all your comments you are not a fan of the UK PM, fair enough. Although I would suggest you look back in history to the 1980’s Tory gov before you start claiming that the UK is a Parliamentary Dictatorship. I have to ask, what are you eating for breakfast to be so delusional. The UK is by far one of the fairest and democratic countries in the World. And just because you disagree with Tony Blair does not mean he is a dictator. By the way I also would call his a boot licking android. The UK and the USA are allies, strong allies.

By the way, I totally agreed with the Invasion of Iraq, just feel that the coalition have messed up the peace.

 

[Mise]

1. Tony Blair has been elected TWICE as the Prime Minister of the UK, in free, fair and democratic elections.

His actions BEFORE the last elections are not in question. It is his actions AFTER that are lacking in integrity as a Prime Minister.

2. Tony Blair has always stood up and defended his actions. He has never hidden, and has appeared before not just the House of Commons, but various Parliamentary committees defending his actions in the war.

Although the various enquiries cleared him of any legal wrong doings, he still went to war on deeply flawed intelligence, as the (was it the Butler?) report said. It speaks volumes about his competence as a Prime Minister.

3. He also stood before his own Party Conference and defended his actions.

Clearly, he didn't defend them well enough, if a 100 page report can be written about them.

4. This so-called impeachment is nothing more that party politics. I notice that the leaders of the Conservative and Liberal parties are not associated with the impeachment.

Two Tory MPs are involved, and a number of Labour back benchers, as well as many more who are considering it. If anything else, it shows just how little his own party trusts him.

 

[Abulafia]

5. @ Abulafia, I think that is the type of thing that Mr, Hussein would have done.

Then I've got a friend in Saddam.

 

[Cullyn]

His actions BEFORE the last elections are not in question. It is his actions AFTER that are lacking in integrity as a Prime Minister.

I don’t believe that. Tony Blair did not invade IRAQ, the British parliament voted on and agreed on the use of force. It was the UK that invaded IRAQ.

Although the various enquiries cleared him of any legal wrong doings, he still went to war on deeply flawed intelligence, as the (was it the Butler?) report said. It speaks volumes about his competence as a Prime Minister.

The intelligence was flawed, that we NOW know after the invasion. Before the invasion all Tony Blair had to go on was what MI5 was telling him. It was then his job as the Prime Minister of the UK to make a decision as to what to do. He decided to ally with the USA in their move to oust Saddam Hussein.

Clearly, he didn't defend them well enough, if a 100 page report can be written about them.

This I find funny. Pick any political decision ever made by any politician and you will find that someone with an opposing point of view will be able to write 100 pages about how it was bad.

Two Tory MPs are involved, and a number of Labour back benchers, as well as many more who are considering it. If anything else, it shows just how little his own party trusts him.

So Supporting this you have:

A whole 2 out of 163 Tory MP’s,
SNP with 9 MP’s
Plaid Cymru with 4 MP’s
And a “number” of Labour who have 407 MP’s, but for sake of an argument lets say 5% or 21 MP’s

That gives us a grand total of 36 of 659Mp’s that support this. I should think Mr. Blair is terrified. There is no way on gods green earth that the UK Labour Party would ditch Tony Blair. I mean, who ever heard of a Turkey voting for Christmas?

Then I've got a friend in Saddam.

Silly boy.

 

[anarchywrksbest]

....and two are Conservative frontbenchers, Boris Johnson, MP for Henley and editor of the Spectator...

Hoorah!

 

[Suppersalmon]

So Supporting this you have:
A whole 2 out of 163 Tory MP’s,
SNP with 9 MP’s
Plaid Cymru with 4 MP’s
And a “number” of Labour who have 407 MP’s, but for sake of an argument lets say 5% or 21 MP’s

these are the people who have come out into the public eye and surporting it but there will more likely be some more people ether waiting until Parlement begins to surport and also there may be people who surport the idea in private.

Also it is not just the war with Iraq that people are unhappy about people are also annoyed about Top up fees despite in his Party manefesto for the 2001 election stating that he would not introduce them.

....and two are Conservative frontbenchers, Boris Johnson, MP for Henley and editor of the Spectator...
Hoorah!

Yeah let Brois be the PM

 

[anarres]

I don’t believe that. Tony Blair did not invade IRAQ, the British parliament voted on and agreed on the use of force. It was the UK that invaded IRAQ.

Based on the information and how it was presented by Tony MPs did vote for war, but many MPs have now said they felt they were misled by the report on WMD programmes and would have voted differently. Have you also ever heard of party whips? Do you think every vote is a free one and that there was no coercion from Tony to vote his way?

The intelligence was flawed, that we NOW know after the invasion. Before the invasion all Tony Blair had to go on was what MI5 was telling him. It was then his job as the Prime Minister of the UK to make a decision as to what to do. He decided to ally with the USA in their move to oust Saddam Hussein.

Umm... BS! You know full well that they dossier was manipulated to "take out the limitations - omit the question marks and replace with exclamation marks in such a way as to make the evidence seem much more compelling than it was". Basing the case for war on a dossier that implied GOOD intelligence (when Tony knew it was in fact VERY shaky evidence) is to MISLEAD parliment!!!!

This I find funny. Pick any political decision ever made by any politician and you will find that someone with an opposing point of view will be able to write 100 pages about how it was bad.

blah blah blah...

I was a labour voter all my life until Tony refused to renationalise the railways and restore student grants. Lying to parliment isn't "any political decision", it's breaking the terms of office you agreed to when taking the job.

So Supporting this you have:

A whole 2 out of 163 Tory MP’s,
SNP with 9 MP’s
Plaid Cymru with 4 MP’s
And a “number” of Labour who have 407 MP’s, but for sake of an argument lets say 5% or 21 MP’s

That gives us a grand total of 36 of 659Mp’s that support this. I should think Mr. Blair is terrified. There is no way on gods green earth that the UK Labour Party would ditch Tony Blair. I mean, who ever heard of a Turkey voting for Christmas?

So, the motion will fail. Big deal - do you think the people who started it ever expected to win? No, they expected to point out the people of britain that THEY are angry and pissed at Tony for lying to them and to us all. This *isn't* a party political attack, this is concerned MP's taking upon themselves to express their anger.

And as for the number of labour MPs that may support it - each and every one will NEVER get a cabinet job (by ANY future labour PM), and they all face the prospect of beign ousted from the party all together. NOW DO YOU THINK IT IS APPROPRIATE TO MOCK THEM? WHEN THEY PUT THEIR FUTURE ON THE LINE TO MAKE A MORAL STANCE AGAINST THE PRIME MINISTER????

Silly boy.

My sentiments exactly. I just wonder what kind of a person spouts such nonsense party political lines for a right wing authoritarian leader of a party that is meant to be socialist!

 

[Dr Alimentado]

New Labour are not meant to be socialist, they are meant to be electable. In modern politics ideology is a hindrance not an asset.

 

[Cullyn]

Based on the information and how it was presented by Tony MPs did vote for war, but many MPs have now said they felt they were misled by the report on WMD programmes and would have voted differently. Have you also ever heard of party whips? Do you think every vote is a free one and that there was no coercion from Tony to vote his way?

Umm... BS! You know full well that they dossier was manipulated to "take out the limitations - omit the question marks and replace with exclamation marks in such a way as to make the evidence seem much more compelling than it was". Basing the case for war on a dossier that implied GOOD intelligence (when Tony knew it was in fact VERY shaky evidence) is to MISLEAD parliment!!!!
blah blah blah...

I was a labour voter all my life until Tony refused to renationalise the railways and restore student grants. Lying to parliment isn't "any political decision", it's breaking the terms of office you agreed to when taking the job.
So, the motion will fail. Big deal - do you think the people who started it ever expected to win? No, they expected to point out the people of britain that THEY are angry and pissed at Tony for lying to them and to us all. This *isn't* a party political attack, this is concerned MP's taking upon themselves to express their anger.

And as for the number of labour MPs that may support it - each and every one will NEVER get a cabinet job (by ANY future labour PM), and they all face the prospect of beign ousted from the party all together. NOW DO YOU THINK IT IS APPROPRIATE TO MOCK THEM? WHEN THEY PUT THEIR FUTURE ON THE LINE TO MAKE A MORAL STANCE AGAINST THE PRIME MINISTER????


My sentiments exactly. I just wonder what kind of a person spouts such nonsense party political lines for a right wing authoritarian leader of a party that is meant to be socialist!

A lot of good points here amounts the bluntness. Do I doubt that the whips were used to get the vote, or indeed any vote? Not at all. I have no doubt that is what happened then and is what happens in the most. And I would add that many Labour MP’s still voted with there conscience and voted against it. And fair dues to them. As for those MP’s who now say they would not have voted for war, for the most I simply do not believe them. Since the war there has been 2 elections, and in both the British public punished the government, for a variety of reasons including the war. No opposing politician is going to support an unpopular decision in the face of an election. The words, fair, sailor’s and weather springs to mind, especially Michael Howard.

As for the dossier, I would not ever claim that it was manipulated. The BBC reporter that claimed it was a “dodgy Dossier” was discredited. The Butler report also claimed that given the evidenced we now have the intelligence in the dossier was flawed, but at the time it was the best available to the government. Sure No. 10 presented it in a light to support their views, but there was no shortage of alternative views available to every politician from a myriad of different views for them to consult. Any politician who blindly uses one information source is an incompetent fool. And despite most people’s notions, there are few fools in any Parliament.

One other minor point. You said that you were a labour voter all your life until “Tony refused to renationalise the railways and restore student grants” and so I’ll assume that you use public transport and need a grant or know someone who does. Nationalisation is not the cure all you may think. It discourages investment and innovation and encourager’s the opposite. The way the British transport system was privatise was wrong and it was doesn’t to maximise the profit of the companies buying the railways. But the cost of re-nationalising the railways would be staggering and a total waste of the UK tax-payers money. Why should the UK taxpayer subsidise the failures of a private company, when it is more cost-effective to just force them to change and then let them worry about it.

As for a student grant, I agree. For those who cannot afford to go to college the state should support. For those who can, let them pay.

I am a member o a political party. I have taken contrary views on many topics within the party but all political parties are democratic and so each view is discussed and a position agreed. I would never, ever mock anyone who stands up for that which they believe in.

The point I was making was this. It is a tiny majority of MP’s who want to forward this motion and it is motivated by a lot of things other than the IRAQ war. Just look at the party which threatens the SNP & Plaid Cymru’s seats. It is Labour. This motion is political opportunism, nothing more. That certain labour MP’s choose to use it as a way of showing there continued opposition to the war is fair enough, but I am sure that if it looked like a realistic vote to impeach the PM, then every Labour MP would stand full square behind there leader. Except for Galloway, but he is a bit if a muppet. (IMHO)

Am not sure if you are calling me a Silly boy but anyway. Heres the thing, Tony Blair is Left of Centre in his politics and anyone who calls him right wing is being silly. I mean, look at the investments he has made in Health, education and infrastructure? Didn’t see the Tories doing all that cos they were too busy selling off the family silverware.

Anywho’s, this discussion is fairly exhausted and so I’ll let it be.

Except I should ‘ave said, I’m not a Ukian, I is a paddy living in Ireland…. and I’m defending a brit…… what is the world coming to……..

 

[Plotinus]

Am not sure if you are calling me a Silly boy but anyway. Heres the thing, Tony Blair is Left of Centre in his politics and anyone who calls him right wing is being silly. I mean, look at the investments he has made in Health, education and infrastructure? Didn’t see the Tories doing all that cos they were too busy selling off the family silverware.

I totally agree. The fact that Blair is not a traditional Foot-style ideologist does not entail that he is right-wing. In fact I don't think he's right-wing at all. Compare him to the Tory leadership or the Lib Dem leadership and it's obvious which he most resembles. Blair retains the traditional Labour - and socialist - faith in public services, funded by the government and used by everyone. Where he innovates is in how he goes about trying to achieve that. Compare that to Howard's unwavering faith in the private sector and the power of competition and it's quite clear the two are poles apart. Howard thinks that "choice" will cure all ills - Blair recognises that "choice" is useless without standards. People may disagree with the ways he goes about trying to improve and maintain those standards, but that's a separate issue.

 

[Jawz II]

as long as blair the war poodle gets it, im a happy camper

 

[TrailblazingScot]

Personally, I'd cut his balls off and cover the wound up with red tape - either way, such an enquiry will waste more tax cash.

Personally, I'd cut your balls off and cover the wound up with red tape - either way, it will save the human race from any of your spawn

Moderator Action: Warned for trolling
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Gelion]

If I'll be an MP in the next month - count me in!