Bush steals an election, Blair headed for impeachment

[D_Raay]

http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/newspolitics/tm_objectid=14844775%26method=full%26siteid=50082% 26headline=revealed%2d%2dmotion%2dthat%2dcould%2ds pell%2dblair%2ds%2dend-name_page.html
A WELSH MP's bid to bring down Prime Minister Tony Blair over the Iraq war takes a dramatic step forward today with the first publication of the impeachment motion.

Wales on Sunday can reveal the full text of the document which will be set before Parliament by Plaid Cymru's Adam Price.

Mr Price, and the cross-party group of MPs supporting him, says the motion proves the campaign is far more than a "silly season stunt".

They want to use the centuries-old impeachment procedure to explore charges of "gross misconduct" against Mr Blair and bring him to account for "lies" told about last year's Iraq war, including claims that Saddam Hussein was hiding weapons of mass destruction.

The document calls for a special investigation into Mr Blair's "advocacy of the case for war against Iraq" and his "conduct of policy" over the war.

It has been drawn up by leading QC and Tory MP Douglas Hogg, checked before the House of Commons authorities and could now be chosen by the Speaker for a full debate.

The process could see Mr Blair face trial by the House of Lords and, if found guilty, be removed from office.

Mr Price said the campaign had chosen to strike now because of American President George W Bush's re-election this week. It also follows a report in esteemed medical journal The Lancet, which claimed the number of civilian deaths in Iraq was much higher than previously thought.

"It estimates up to 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians may have died since Tony Blair and George Bush invaded Iraq," Mr Price said last night.

"And we now have the evidence to prove the Prime Minister lied about the reasons for that invasion.

"He must be held accountable for those lies and impeachment is the only way for this to happen. I think it is important because of the mood of the country that this motion is put into the public domain now.

"With 100,000 civilians having lost their lives, all Mr Blair stands to lose is his job for misleading Parliament, the people and our armed forces."

The Carmarthen East and Dinefwr MP launched the impeachment campaign in August with the publication of A Case To Answer, a document accusing Mr Blair of "high crimes and misdemeanours".

"When we initially raised the prospect of impeachment there were people who said the process no longer existed," he added.

"We can now conclusively prove that it is part of the constitution and it can be done. If this were political point scoring we could never have taken it this far."

His colleague, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy MP Elfyn Llwyd, added: "The publication of the text of the motion will put to bed accusations that impeachment was nothing but a silly season stunt. This is a real and serious course of action which we have not undertaken lightly.

"If we allow Tony Blair's actions to go unchallenged, a precedent will have been set that a UK Prime Minister can deceive the Welsh and UK public and parliament and get away with it," he added.

"We cannot allow this to happen, especially in light of Mr Bush's re-election. Who knows what country they will choose to invade next and who could believe any justification for any such invasion?"

And Mr Hogg added: "This is a significant move forward in our attempt to bring the Prime Minster to account for his duplicitous action with regards to Iraq."

Twenty-three MPs - 10 Tories, five Scottish Nationalists, four Plaid, two Lib Dems and two Independents - currently back the campaign and, when the next Parliamentary session begins later this month, Mr Price hopes to double that number.

Mr Price said there is no bar which the campaign needs to reach to get the motion debated. The decision is made by the House of Commons Speaker, Michael Martin.

[hellojello]

seriously though, as if there's any chance of that actually happening.

[Ace42]

Indeed. It would be right and proper, however the speaker will never let it go through, and many MPs are worried about it detracting from their credibility.

[D_Raay]

Indeed. It would be right and proper, however the speaker will never let it go through, and many MPs are worried about it detracting from their credibility.
So, you are saying it isn't possible Ace?

[Ace42]

Snowball's chance in hell.

Impeach a British primeminister? Nononono. As the MPs backing the motion point out, either way it sets a precedent. How many MPs with aspirations for the top spot (or even have their man in the top spot) want to set a precedent of *accountability* ?

I can't see it working, regardless of the rhetoric. Which is a shame as Blair needs to be held accountable, as do all politicians. Just saying "ahhh, we'll wait for their 4 years to run up, and then see if the public like their new set of lies" is just not good enough.

[D_Raay]

Snowball's chance in hell.

Impeach a British primeminister? Nononono. As the MPs backing the motion point out, either way it sets a precedent. How many MPs with aspirations for the top spot (or even have their man in the top spot) want to set a precedent of *accountability* ?

I can't see it working, regardless of the rhetoric. Which is a shame as Blair needs to be held accountable, as do all politicians. Just saying "ahhh, we'll wait for their 4 years to run up, and then see if the public like their new set of lies" is just not good enough.
You don't think this particular set of circumstances warrants some precedence though?

[Ace42]

I'm all for impeaching Blair. However, my personal preferences aside, the chances of it working are next to none.

The speaker of the house has to ok it, and while the unprecedented trans-party support should lend credibility to the action, the fact that they are still not a large number of mps, not backed by the heads of their respective parties, are presented as tabling a "publicity stunt", and are using a law several centuries old to persecute royalist parliamentarians all count against them.

The speaker's job is to keep decorum and debate in the chamber flowing, I can't see him OKing something that will effectively derail all the other (admittedly less pressing) political considerations of the moment. If you were that one man, would *you* dust of centuries (many generations) of unuse, and allow a group of marginalised MPs to make very serious allegations against the sitting PM, and possibly allow the stirring of a hornets nest?

Or would you shut it down, and keep things ticking over like they have for ages?

I can't see him sticking his neck out far enough and putting his credibility on the line.

[D_Raay]

I'm all for impeaching Blair. However, my personal preferences aside, the chances of it working are next to none.

The speaker of the house has to ok it, and while the unprecedented trans-party support should lend credibility to the action, the fact that they are still not a large number of mps, not backed by the heads of their respective parties, are presented as tabling a "publicity stunt", and are using a law several centuries old to persecute royalist parliamentarians all count against them.

The speaker's job is to keep decorum and debate in the chamber flowing, I can't see him OKing something that will effectively derail all the other (admittedly less pressing) political considerations of the moment. If you were that one man, would *you* dust of centuries (many generations) of unuse, and allow a group of marginalised MPs to make very serious allegations against the sitting PM, and possibly allow the stirring of a hornets nest?

Or would you shut it down, and keep things ticking over like they have for ages?

I can't see him sticking his neck out far enough and putting his credibility on the line.

Somebody, somewhere, has to do the right thing here. I guess I am hoping against hope that the British may set things right as an example.

From what I have read the British seem much less succeptible to bullshit than we are over here.

[Ace42]

If it were up to the people, it might well turn out that way, however it is an entirely internal commons process (at least for the forseeable future) which means we don't get a say in the matter.

It being an archaic law, it has to go through the speaker, who has a very ceremonial and tradion based role, as well as practical. This could go either way. Tapping into the tradition, he might feel obliged to follow (even obsolete) practice. On the other hand, he might consider this a radical stunt, and thus be reluctant to enter into something that might call the procedures and perculiarities of the system into question.

And yes, irrespective of the potential embarressment or political fallout, someone somewhere has to do the right thing. It is just a shame that there aren't more politicians taking this seriously, in order to force it be recognised.