MPs plan to impeach Blair over Iraq war record

[Robbien]

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.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1290833,00.html

[Sagan]

1. when does Parliament come back?

If Labour expels every backbencher that votes for this, that could make for some interesting party dynamics.

[gbarford]

2. Parliament is back on 7 September

Have to say I'm surprised at this, I had thought that the ability of the House of Commons to impeach had long been repealed, though I am glad that they plan to bring this about.

It would be wonderful if their was any realistic hope of him being impeached, but it would require 80 Labour MPs to vote for it, and that is only if all opposition MPs vote for it, I am not sure that the Conservative Party as a whole, or the Liberal Democrats, would actually support impeachment, I suspect they will say it goes too far, but then I could be wrong.

Even if he is not impeached, if say around 45 or 50 Labour MPs vote for impeachment, it could make his position untenable.

[cmkramer]

3. Impeachment?

What does it mean in the United Kingdom? Here it is the equivalent of an indictment in a criminal court. Does it mean something different over there?

I'm guessing the fruitcakes from both ends of the spectrum will vote for it but I'm not sure about anyone else.

[gbarford]

6. Yes, it is very simular

If someone is impeached, they appear in the Upper House of Parliament, the House of Lords, in a criminal trial like setup. Then, at the conclusion, each Lord is asked to vote "Content" or "Not-Content" or as to whether to convict on the charges. A simple majority is required to convict, no two third majorities I don't think.

I'm not sure what would happen if he was convicted (this is jumping the gun way to much, but it doesn't hurt to speculate), but I think one of the results could very well be that he would be disqualified from being an MP, so his seat would be vacated immediately, and he would be forced to resign as Prime Minister.

[cmkramer]

9. Thanks

I appreciate the information. By the way, I do support his having to explain himself to Parliament. And like I said, much of this will depend on the more moderate MPs. I think it's safe to assume that the more extreme MPs will vote to impeach.

The problem here really is that Saddam Hussein was a bad guy but just because he was a bad guy doesn't mean he was guilty of having WMDs or of fostering terrorism. It's sort of like the neighborhood drug dealer. Just because he's a drug dealer doesn't make him the automatic first suspect any time a crime is committed. I just think that Blair -- and many of the people who voted for war --believed that getting rid of Hussein was so important that it didn't really matter whether the "official reason" for doing it was correct or not.

[leesa]

11. Fruitcakes? The man is a war criminal and has lied to get his country

into an unprovoked, unjust war which is usually defined as treason. Why do you call them fruitcakes?

[cmkramer]

12. I'm talking about extremists.

Not because they're against the war -- so am I -- but more than likely it will be the more extreme MPs who will be the most likely to vote for this.

[coalition_unwilling]

4. In Britain, what's the difference between impeachment and

a vote of no confidence? I didn't even realize impeachment was an option in the British Parliament.

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. To be honest, I think none of us realised it was an option

This short paper on it , from parliament in the last year, regards it as obsolete - and says they thought about abolishing it a few years ago, but never got round to it.

http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/notes/snpc-02666.pdf

The earliest recorded impeachment was that of Lord Latimer in 1376 and the last was in 1806, when Lord Melville (Dundas) was charged by the Commons, but acquitted, of misappropriating official funds. As the authoritative writer Jennings remarks in his Parliament impeachment in the 17th and early 18th centuries was a means for ’liquidating’ opponents, and the procedure may now be regarded as obsolete. In today’s society the ballot boxes are now available for political opponents and the criminal courts for criminals.

The procedure has not been widely adopted in the Commonwealth. However, it survives in a somewhat different form in the constitution of the United States of America as a mechanism for the removal of the President by Congress. In the United Kingdom, different avenues exist for the removal of the Prime Minister. If the Prime Minister became unpopular his own party would put pressure on him to resign. A vote of no confidence can be moved at any time in the House of Commons but the Government, by virtue of its majority, will usually win. If, however, a Prime Minister were to become so unpopular that he no longer commanded the support of his party then a vote of no confidence could be moved. If defeated on such a vote then it is convention that the Prime Minister would resign.

I think the description given here shows that this is being down purely for publicity. If they were serious about removing Blair, they'd use a vote of no confidence.

[Dancing_Dave]

5. Blair will go over Iraq

I don't know if this impeachment will succeed, but it is pushing forward the process which will bring Tony Blair down over his Iraq treachery. He certainly won't survive another national election. It would be best for Britain and Labour that Blair to be brought to justice to before that, so Labour can find a new leader that people trust

[PROGRESSIVE1]

7. Gordon Brown or anyone else who's name is NOT Tony Blair!

[DaveSZ]

8. This should have happened to the Chimp as well

His crimes are much worse than getting a blowjob.

[indepat]

13. But to be successful would require a few Repug votes and that ain't

going to happen under any scenario.

[JoFerret]

10. It's a great dream

but Tony is Mr Teflon.

[dbt]

14. Kick!

Poodle kick.

:evilgrin:
dbt

[truthspeaker]

16. Labour backbenchers: show some backbone!

They may as well go ahead and risk expulsion, because if they don't get rid of Blair their party is doomed anyway.

DO IT!

[yellowcanine]

17. Dang, sometimes I really envy the British for their parlimentary system

Particularly the PM having to face the parliment weekly and answer questions. If the President had to do that I doubt that Shrubya ever would have been nominated - because the pubs know he could never pull that off.

[Jack Rabbit]

18. This will probably go nowhere

Unfortunately, Blair ought to have enough votes from Labourites to withstand any such attack on his misleadership. It will probably do more to cause further defections by British voters from Labour to the Liberal Democrats.

It's really too bad that Blair is immune from any other consequences of his actions. The invasion of Iraq was a war crime on its face and those who perpetrated it deserve to be punished severely.