Motion to Impeach

Leslie

Leslie

Communistrator
Staff member
A draft of a parliamentary motion to impeach British Prime Minister Tony Blair accuses him of "gross misconduct" over the US-led invasion of Iraq.

The Independent on Sunday said it had obtained the text of the motion from a cross-party group of MPs, adding it would be offered for debate soon after the new parliamentary session begins later this month.

The motion calls for a select committee to investigate the "conduct of the PM in relation to the war in Iraq", the daily said.

The committee would draw up the "articles of impeachment" and a panel of law lords would judge whether Blair deliberately misled the nation into waging an unlawful war, it said.

A guilty verdict would see Blair arrested by parliament's Sergeant at Arms.

Michael Martin, the speaker in the House of Commons, must rule on whether the motion can be proposed for debate on the floor of the house.

The newspaper said that although Blair had little chance of losing an impeachment vote, the very fact it was held would represent a serious humiliation.

Downing Street has ordered officials to compile a case against the motion on the grounds it is obsolete.
Adam Pryce, the Welsh nationalist Plaid Cymru MP who began the campaign to impeach Blair, said he hoped 30 to 50 members of parliament would support the motion, according to the Independent. So far 23 have signed up.

The text calls for a committee to investigate and report to the house on Blair's conduct regarding the war and to consider the following:
  • The conclusions of the US Iraq Survey Group which reported that in March 2003, when the invasion was launched, Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction and had been essentially free of them since the mid-1990s.
  • The opinion of UN Secretary General Kofi Annan that the war was unlawful.
  • "Whether there exist sufficient grounds to impeach ... Blair on charges of gross misconduct in his advocacy of the case for war against Iraq and in his conduct of policy in connection with that war."
Click to expand...
*edit - that was a subscription link, sorry didn't notice. - here is another.

Things are getting interesting.
 
Gonz said:
So, it is now a crime for a leader to lead?
Click to expand...

In a representative government, shouldn't it be a crime for a leader to counter the wishes of his constituency? Doesn't really matter in this canse though, they're just trying to make a statement.

The newspaper said that although Blair had little chance of losing an impeachment vote, the very fact it was held would represent a serious humiliation.
Click to expand...
 
chcr said:
In a representative government, shouldn't it be a crime for a leader to counter the wishes of his constituency?
Click to expand...

I suppose, in instances, yes. However, the very definition of "constituecy" falls to task. Is 51% a mandate for war?
 
chcr said:
In a representative government, shouldn't it be a crime for a leader to counter the wishes of his constituency? Doesn't really matter in this canse though, they're just trying to make a statement.
Click to expand...



I do not think England is a represenative. I thought it was still a Monarchy what with the Queen and all. I dont think it should be a crime but it would mean he will not be voted back in more than likely
 
our monarch has heald limited actual powers since the time of charles II.
at a technical level our governmental system has her at the top and she has the right to dissolve parliament and reject the leaders put before her. in reality she is head of state for show only and has no usable power.
she does meet with the prime minister fairly regularly and is well known for being extremely well read and enlightened on matters of foreign and domestic policy.
 
Given extreme posibilities, could the Monarchy, in it's previous form, rise again or has the King/Queen been stripped of this ability.
 
Gonz said:
Given extreme posibilities, could the Monarchy, in it's previous form, rise again or has the King/Queen been stripped of this ability.
Click to expand...


Thinking of Emigrating?


ALL HAIL KING GONZ!!!!
knee.gif
 
You could always just move to San Francisco and be a "Queen" [seinfeld]not that there is anything wrong with that[/seinfeld]
 
as i believe it stands the law would in theory allow the monarch to regain power through dissolving parliament. the reality is that the monarchy is tolerated in this country at a traditional image level - if there was an attempt to return to a monarchal rule then the reign would be short and very sweet.

it is similar to the relationship of the monarchy and the armed forces - they have high ranks and class in the military but it is a show only status - all the power to instruct lies in the ministry of defence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top