new call to impeach tony blair

[Red_Dave]

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1682466,00.html

:2party:

 

[GarzaUK]

By a General no less. But I don't think it's going to get any momentum. I suppose half of his party want him out tho, and the Lib Dems and the Tories might jump at the chance.
He deserves to get impeached.

 

[Red_Dave]

By a General no less. But I don't think it's going to get any momentum. I suppose half of his party want him out tho, and the Lib Dems and the Tories might jump at the chance.
He deserves to get impeached.

dam right. Theres been a campain online [ http://www.impeachblair.org/ ] to get him impeached and a book written callled "a case to answer" which i hope to read soon but neither of them have got much press coverage. Im hopeing that after this documentary comes out there will be more pressure for the lords to do something due that the fact that someone fairly well respected has surgested it. Plus i imagine the campain in america to get bush impeached will gain momentum as well if the brittish one is succesful or taken more seriously so its all good news.

 

[Red_Dave]

oh and "a case to answer" is availble here http://www.impeachblair.org/downloads/A_Case_To_Answer.pdf

 

[Plain old me]

What exactly is neccersary for a British Prime Minister to be impeached?

 

[GarzaUK]

What exactly is neccersary for a British Prime Minister to be impeached?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment

Procedure
In the United Kingdom, the House of Commons holds the power of impeachment. Any member may make accusations of high treason or high crimes and misdemeanours. The member must support the charges with evidence and move for impeachment. If the Commons carries the motion, the mover receives orders to go to the bar at the House of Lords and to impeach the accused "in the name of the House of Commons, and all the commons of the United Kingdom."

More on website.

 

[alphieb]

Why do the citizens of the UK hate Blair so much? Educate me.

 

[Plain old me]

Does this honestly have a chance? It seems to me that by the time this gets off the ground significantly enough to pose a threat, Blair will be gone.

Why do the citizens of the UK hate Blair so much? Educate me.

He's irritated a lot of people. Trust is huge issue. Sommit like 33% of people voted against Labour in the last election because they did not trust Blair. Iraq's a huge contributer to that, he also introduced university 'top-up' fees when Labour made a manifesto promise not to.

I get the idea that the general feeling is he's outstayed his welcome. He was elected in 1997 and 2001 with landslide victories, and I believe he was only re-elected last year because of a lack of credible opposition, and the assumption that he'd quit soon after the election.

 

[alphieb]

Does this honestly have a chance? It seems to me that by the time this gets off the ground significantly enough to pose a threat, Blair will be gone.



He's irritated a lot of people. Trust is huge issue. Sommit like 33% of people voted against Labour in the last election because they did not trust Blair. Iraq's a huge contributer to that, he also introduced university 'top-up' fees when Labour made a manifesto promise not to.

I get the idea that the general feeling is he's outstayed his welcome. He was elected in 1997 and 2001 with landslide victories, and I believe he was only re-elected last year because of a lack of credible opposition, and the assumption that he'd quit soon after the election.

I never understood why he sided with Bush on the Iraq scam no other country would even touch it. Why do you think he did?

 

[Red_Dave]

Why do the citizens of the UK hate Blair so much? Educate me.

Mainly because he,s made unpoplur decissions like the iraq war.

He,s also made descisions that have really anoyed particular groups e.g hes raised university fee,s so most students dislike him for obvious reasons and banned fox hunting so most in rural areas hate him because it damaged alot of peoples livelihoods because foxes attack sheep, eat chikens e.t.c and the actual proccess of hunting them keeps alot of people in buissness.

Another reason is that blairs taken the previously left-wing party which he leads and made it slightly right of center [by european standards] . This means he gets the worst of both worlds in that right wingers dislike him for being to left-wing and left-wingers dislike him for takeing there party to the right.

 

[Red_Dave]

Does this honestly have a chance? It seems to me that by the time this gets off the ground significantly enough to pose a threat, Blair will be gone.

He's irritated a lot of people. Trust is huge issue. Sommit like 33% of people voted against Labour in the last electiQUOTE]

Yeah thats the problem, least it could speed up his resignation as he would keep face by resingining before the trial [or whatever you call it]. It was waaaaay over 33% anyway as 30-sommit voted concervative and 20 sommit voted lib-dem il try and dig up the figures.

 

[GarzaUK]

Does this honestly have a chance? It seems to me that by the time this gets off the ground significantly enough to pose a threat, Blair will be gone.

I can't see it happening. What's the point? He's going to quit anyway and he has already done the damage.

The Lib Dems are too caught up in themselves at the minute to bother with impeachment. Blair Jr. (Cameron) probably won't do anything in case he offends the public. :roll:

Nah we are stuck with Blair until he quits or his own party gets rid of him.

 

[Red_Dave]

I can't see it happening. What's the point? He's going to quit anyway and he has already done the damage.

The Lib Dems are too caught up in themselves at the minute to bother with impeachment. Blair Jr. (Cameron) probably won't do anything in case he offends the public. :roll:

Nah we are stuck with Blair until he quits or his own party gets rid of him.

I was just thinking: Could blair still be impeached as an mp or do you have to be in the government itself to be impeached?

 

[GarzaUK]

I was just thinking: Could blair still be impeached as an mp or do you have to be in the government itself to be impeached?

"Impeachment is the process by which a legislative body formally levels charges against a high official of government." - Wilkipedia

I think he could, not too sure. He said he was retiring politics anyway after he left.

Its worth noting that impeachment doesn't take the official from office, just the means to.

 

[Plain old me]

I never understood why he sided with Bush on the Iraq scam no other country would even touch it. Why do you think he did?

Honestly? Who knows, I personally supported the war, and still do so morally I can see why he supported the war. Politically....I would say the UK has far greater ties with the 'pro-war' US government then it does with any of its 'anti-war' European neighbours. Plus, I think he possibly saw it as something that would benefit him in the long run...the majority of parliament (both the government and opposition) was with him, and I assume he thought that when we'd invaded, and found the WMD he'd be absolved of any wrong doing.

It was waaaaay over 33% anyway as 30-sommit voted concervative and 20 sommit voted lib-dem il try and dig up the figures.

Yeah, the 33% is just one of the figures I'm desperately trying to remember for my politics exam on wednesday!

Overall, I really can;t see this coming to fruition. I think the last election was really where Iraq could stand a chance of beating Blair. Now that elections been won, and Blair's on his way out I can see it fading into the past. Even the Liberal Democrats have stopped mentioning it.



But we'll always George :censored Galloway to remind us . . .

 

[GarzaUK]

Honestly? Who knows, I personally supported the war, and still do so morally I can see why he supported the war. Politically....I would say the UK has far greater ties with the 'pro-war' US government then it does with any of its 'anti-war' European neighbours.

I have to disagree there. While Britain is certainly the most conservative and capitalist country in Europe, it is nowhere near the conservatism of the US. The closest we ever got is Thatcherism. Politically and socially we are closer to the EU that we are to the US.

People in the UK are mainly pro-abortion, anti- death pelanty and despite it's current weaknesses for a national healt service. We don't feel the need to carry guns, put religion into politics or prevent gay civil partnerships.

Are we as eager to go to war as the US, maybe - I can see your point. But I think that is because our government as a "lackey" complex when it comes to the US. It has helped us give us a bit more international standing - we until recently are "punching above our weight". But with Iraq a mess, are international rep is now the same.

 

[Red_Dave]

Honestly? Who knows, I personally supported the war, and still do so morally I can see why he supported the war. Politically....I would say the UK has far greater ties with the 'pro-war' US government then it does with any of its 'anti-war' European neighbours. Plus, I think he possibly saw it as something that would benefit him in the long run...the majority of parliament (both the government and opposition) was with him, and I assume he thought that when we'd invaded, and found the WMD he'd be absolved of any wrong doing.



Yeah, the 33% is just one of the figures I'm desperately trying to remember for my politics exam on wednesday!

Overall, I really can;t see this coming to fruition. I think the last election was really where Iraq could stand a chance of beating Blair. Now that elections been won, and Blair's on his way out I can see it fading into the past. Even the Liberal Democrats have stopped mentioning it.



But we'll always George :censored Galloway to remind us . . .

much higher than 33 percent all together [hence why we need p.r]

I agree that saddam needed ousting [as do the many dictators around the world we sell weapons to, i can get a source for that if anyone doesnt belive me] but we could have removed him by arming the Kurds in northern iraq. I also think ther reasons given for the war where completely different to the real reasons, whatever they may be. If tony blair was cetain that there where weapons of mass destruction in iraq then he would feel no need to mislead parliament in the way he did [which is set out very well in "a case to answer" linked above]. I dont think blairs winning the election absolves him from the iraq war as

[a] most voted against him
many voted for labour because they didnt want a concervative mp despite being against the war. I think its good that george galloway is reminding us as most seam to think that we can just forget the war and move on. This is ridiculos considering that blair is still in office , having recived no punnishment for his crimes attal and are resources and men are still being blown up

 

[Plain old me]

I have to disagree there. While Britain is certainly the most conservative and capitalist country in Europe, it is nowhere near the conservatism of the US. The closest we ever got is Thatcherism. Politically and socially we are closer to the EU that we are to the US.

People in the UK are mainly pro-abortion, anti- death pelanty and despite it's current weaknesses for a national healt service. We don't feel the need to carry guns, put religion into politics or prevent gay civil partnerships.

Are we as eager to go to war as the US, maybe - I can see your point. But I think that is because our government as a "lackey" complex when it comes to the US. It has helped us give us a bit more international standing - we until recently are "punching above our weight". But with Iraq a mess, are international rep is now the same.

Hmmm...perhaps I didn't word that last comment correctly...I see what you mean, and I agree, the people may feel more like the EU, but I would say the US and UK governments, even if weren't for Blair and Bush, are closer then the UK and, say, German government, or Spanish government. We share many political viewpoints with Europe, but I just get the impression that our government has been, is and possibly always will be closer to the US, rather then European, governments.

I agree that saddam needed ousting [as do the many dictators around the world we sell weapons to, i can get a source for that if anyone doesnt belive me] but we could have removed him by arming the Kurds in northern iraq. I also think ther reasons given for the war where completely different to the real reasons, whatever they may be. If tony blair was cetain that there where weapons of mass destruction in iraq then he would feel no need to mislead parliament in the way he did [which is set out very well in "a case to answer" linked above]. I dont think blairs winning the election absolves him from the iraq war as

[a] most voted against him
many voted for labour because they didnt want a concervative mp despite being against the war. I think its good that george galloway is reminding us as most seam to think that we can just forget the war and move on. This is ridiculos considering that blair is still in office , having recived no punnishment for his crimes attal and are resources and men are still being blown up

Oh, I agree Blair at the very least exaggerated intelligence and mislead parliament, but I think that the time for impeachment is past. There is still anger over Iraq, but I think the last election was the last it would be an issue. Blair has already faced the public with Iraq in election, and he won, and albeit dubious victory. By the time Brown takes the throne, I think the majority of stigma Labour has over Iraq will be washed away. And the Lib Dems will be back to square one

In terms of George Galloway....geez I really dislike that guy. he reminds of Iraq, but I think his motives for doing so are far from 'good'.

Back to the PR debate? After doing some more politics my views on electoral reform has changed somewhat...I'm still no fan of PR, but I'm tempted to go with the AV Plus the Jenkins Report suggested.

 

[Navy Pride]

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1682466,00.html

:2party:

You lefties crack me up......You can't beat Blair at the ballot box so you come up with this stupid idea of impeachment when there are zero grounds for it..........Go for it......see how far you get................

 

[George_Washington]

Blair is awesome. He's a good man that has supported his fellow friends over here in America. I don't think he deserves to be impeached by any means.

You know who really needs to go? Pretty much everyone in Parliament besides him...LOL.

Just joking but you get my drift.

 

[Navy Pride]

Blair is awesome. He's a good man that has supported his fellow friends over here in America. I don't think he deserves to be impeached by any means.

You know who really needs to go? Pretty much everyone in Parliament besides him...LOL.

Just joking but you get my drift.

Tony Blair is a true patriot in the mold of Winston Churchill......I take my hat off to him............

 

[FreeThinker]

Blair has been the only PM since Churchill to have the nutts to stand up against a truly evil enemy and decide to fight.

He's also the only leader that has been able to separate england from the rest of the sniveling self important and completely impotent group of states calling itself europe.

You authority hating jobless overprivileged kids can yell all you want about Tony Blair now. History will do him justice as a great leader.

 

[Red_Dave]

You lefties crack me up......You can't beat Blair at the ballot box so you come up with this stupid idea of impeachment when there are zero grounds for it..........Go for it......see how far you get................

Well blair lost the election in terms of votes [see pie chart i posted] I also posted very long p.d.f listing the grounds for impeachment and there are more than zero

 

[akyron]

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1682466,00.html

:2party:

Well blair lost the election in terms of votes [see pie chart i posted] I also posted very long p.d.f listing the grounds for impeachment and there are more than zero

I read the report. Most of it was flat out "So what" talking points to me.

I liked Blairs simple yet eloquent rebuttal.

""General Rose is entitled to his view. Equally, the government is entitled to point out that we have had free democratic elections in Iraq for the first time in well over a generation.

"In the last of these elections, 69% of the population of Iraq expressed their view.

"In terms of the reasons why we went to war, that has been investigated by four inquiries, including two select committees of the Houses of Parliament.

"The matter has been gone well over and in terms of the outcome - which is what matters - of course there have been difficulties, but we have in process the creation of a democratically elected government in Iraq and that speaks for itself.""

Nato must head for door marked exit:
air power has failed and the allies' only real option is to get out
[British] General Sir Michael Rose


This seems like another chance for Rose to sell another book or marshal more media attention.

 

[The Real McCoy]

I never understood why he sided with Bush on the Iraq scam no other country would even touch it. Why do you think he did?

No other country would touch it???

Here's a few that sent troops:

Australia
South Korea
Italy
Poland
Romania
GeorgiaDenmark
Japan
El Salvador
Azerbaijan
Mongolia
Albania
Latvia
Czech Republic
Lithuania
Armenia
Estonia
Macedonia
Kazakhstan
Bosnia and Herzegovina