Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Blair's troubles

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
sidwill Donating Member (975 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-08-03 09:15 AM
Original message
Blair's troubles
Does anybody on this board understand the process by which Blair is being investigated by Parliament? Does the ruling by the parliamentary committee that cleared http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18872-2003Jul7.html Blair end all further investigations into his lying?

In other words, from a legal/governmental standpoint is Blair now in the clear? Or is there still a chance that he can be removed from office over this.

The only reason I ask is that, I beleive that only a Blair impeachment over this will get our media and congress to start demanding hard answers from the Bushistas.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Oggy Donating Member (652 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-08-03 09:39 AM
Response to Original message
1. The best answer I can give is...
Parliamentary committees are there to do the donkeywork in Parliament, so they will investigate issues of the day. They normally reflect the make up of the House of Commons, so as in this case you had a Labour majority, Tories with the second most members followed by Lib Dems. A committee will only produce a report or recommendations; they don’t have the power to change things in themselves. In this case the report has been limited by a lack of information, so they have only half answered questions. A bit like in a court of law, this specific charge will not be investigated again by committee, unless new evidence comes to light. Then the committee would look specifically at that evidence.

As the report is not binding as such, Tony Blair could yet still find himself in trouble. Indeed as the real power is in the Commons itself, even if he had been found guilty of lying by the committee, he would have to be questioned in the House, and as the Cabinet is seen in law as having collective responsibility, (which is why Robin Cook resigned before the war and why Claire Short should have), the whole Government would have to resign.

I hope this answers your question. I should know more, but having spent far too much of my life not being interested in politics I’m on a big learning curve on how my country works.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sidwill Donating Member (975 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-08-03 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Thanks
That was informative, thanks again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oggy Donating Member (652 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-08-03 10:22 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Its a pleasure
to be of help :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 06th 2024, 01:12 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC