Development on the "Impeach Bliar" front...

#1
Dear supporter,

Now that George Bush has been re-elected, it is even more imperative that Tony Blair be held to account for his misconduct over Iraq. Remember it is only because of the death of Dr David Kelly that he held the Hutton enquiry and because the US held an investigation that we had our own Butler Review. These revealed a pattern of deceit that we documented in "A Case to Answer." We can only imagine what further misleading statements have and will be made if he is not called to account.

The work at Westminster is going well, but we cannot make an announcement for a couple of weeks yet, however John Gummer MP has now joined the campaign. You may have heard the fantastic reception by the Any Questions audience to Adam Price's call for impeachment, last weekend.

We are also delighted with increasing celebrity support across the political
spectrum from Jimmy Reid, the great Trade Union Leader through to the author Frederick Forsyth while the medieval historian and Python, Terry Jones has sent us a generous donation.

There are two new initiatives for building the campaign:

1. A petition - the text is on the website, and

2. An initiative from the Green Party for "Impeachment Cities".

Later this month both Brighton and Oxford City Councils will debate whether to support impeachment. As the councillors explain, Tony Blair himself pointed out that law and order in our communities depends on people who break the rules being punished, and if the leader of the country can get away with it, then it is a license to every yob and bent official in the country.

Yours,

impeachBlair.org
 
#2
Don't know how much it will get done, signed up, donation sent anyway never like people with two faces and double standards, especially ones who think that they are better than the people that they are meant to serve 8)
 
#3
Sat 6 Nov 2004 9:04pm (UK)
Blair 'Should Face Commons Probe over Iraq'

By Jamie Lyons, Political Correspondent, PA News

MPs fighting to impeach Tony Blair over the Iraq war tonight demanded he face a House of Commons inquiry.

The group want a select committee to be set up to examine the Prime Minister’s conduct in relation to the war.

They want it to consider if there are sufficient grounds to impeach him on charges of gross misconduct.

... 23 MPs have put their names to a motion calling for the inquiry...

It says it should consider the conclusion of the Iraq Survey Group that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction and UN Secretary General Kofi Annan’s declaration that the war was illegal.

It says the committee should also consider if there were sufficient grounds to impeach Mr Blair on charges of “gross misconduct in his advocacy of the case for war and in his conduct of policy in connection with that war”.

Commons speaker Michael Martin must now rule on whether the motion can be tabled for debate by MPs.

Former Tory Cabinet minister Douglas Hogg ... told the IoS...“This is a significant move forward in our attempt to bring the Prime Minster to account for his duplicitous action with regards to Iraq.”
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3726598
 
#4
Not likely to happen I know, but on the off chance: Are there any volunteers (ability with axes required) for a supporting role in a morning's entertainment on Tower Hill? :twisted:
 
#6
More on the impeachment question. This from AFP based on a report in today's Independent on Sunday.

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.
full story at http://uk.news.yahoo.com/041107/323/f644y.html
 
#7
Commons motion to impeach Blair gets go-ahead

David Hencke, Westminster correspondent
Friday November 19, 2004

The Guardian

The parliamentary motion to impeach Tony Blair for "gross misconduct" over the
war against Iraq will be published next Wednesday, the day after the Queen's
speech.

It will be the first to be tabled in 198 years, since Lord Melville, a close
friend of the then prime minister, William Pitt the younger, faced impeachment
for misusing public money in running the Admiralty.

Senior parliamentary officials, including legal advisers to the Commons Speaker,
Michael Martin, on Wednesday night approved the wording of the text as meeting
parliamentary rules, allowing the motion to be tabled on the first day of the
new session. The Tory chief whip, David Maclean, has paged every Tory frontbench
MP telling them not to sign it.

The Liberal Democrats are divided, with Jenny Tonge, the MP for Richmond, among
those supporting the idea and Sir Menzies Campbell, the party's foreign affairs
spokesman, strongly opposing it. No Labour MP is expected to sign the motion for
fear of losing the party whip for bringing the leader into disrepute.

The motion, which was drawn up by Douglas Hogg, the MP for Sleaford and North
Hykeham and son of the former Tory lord chancellor Lord Hailsham, is attracting
support among backbench MPs who would not normally support the same cause.

The latest recruits among the 25 backing the call are George Galloway, the
deselected Labour MP for Glasgow Kelvin, who is suing the Daily Telegraph for
libel over allegations he took money from Saddam Hussein, and John Gummer, the
former Tory environment secretary and MP for Suffolk Coastal.

Adam Price, the Plaid Cymru MP who launched the campaign for the motion, said
yesterday: "This is the only way left to MPs to call the prime minister to
account over his conduct in the war against Iraq."


* * Remember to visit www.impeachBlair.org to sign the new online petition * *
 
#8
Are the Tories resigned to being in opposition forever? Why on earth would the front bench be told not to sign it? :?
 
#9
Purple_Flash said:
Are the Tories resigned to being in opposition forever? Why on earth would the front bench be told not to sign it? :?
Probably because it's regarded as a frivolous motion with no hope of success. Sadly. :cry:
 
#10
claymore said:
Purple_Flash said:
Are the Tories resigned to being in opposition forever? Why on earth would the front bench be told not to sign it? :?
Probably because it's regarded as a frivolous motion with no hope of success. Sadly. :cry:
Can a Prime Minister be "impeached"?
maybe censured or reprimanded ?

To remove one wouldn't it take a vote of non-confidence, or a move of his own Party to change leader?
 
#11
Any politico can be impeached. They just don't want you to know that.

Notice how the standard-issue NuLab "It's obsolete" or "old fashioned" or "a relic" or "any other way of denigrating anything that started pre-1997" was trottedout.
Don't talk about the issue, oh no, that would suggest that you had something other than contempt for any who disaggree. You must attack the process.

God, the only way I want to see this stinking govt is on spikes on London bridge.
 
#12
RCSignals said:
Can a Prime Minister be "impeached"?
maybe censured or reprimanded ?

To remove one wouldn't it take a vote of non-confidence, or a move of his own Party to change leader?
As a vote of the House of Commons is required to institute impeachment proceedings, the size of the present Labour majority does make it unlikely that impeachment proceedings will be successful. But there isn't any absolute reason why a Prime Minister (or ex-Prime Minister?) cannot be impeached.
 
#13
Bladensburg said:
Any politico can be impeached. They just don't want you to know that.

Notice how the standard-issue NuLab "It's obsolete" or "old fashioned" or "a relic" or "any other way of denigrating anything that started pre-1997" was trottedout.
Don't talk about the issue, oh no, that would suggest that you had something other than contempt for any who disaggree. You must attack the process.

God, the only way I want to see this stinking govt is on spikes on London bridge.
Yes, not unlike the lines from the Democrats when the move was to impeach Willie boy
 
#14
I thought that inpeaching a bloke for shagging a munter was a bit pointless though. It did rather diminish the system as a whole.
 
#15
Bladensburg said:
I thought that inpeaching a bloke for shagging a munter was a bit pointless though. It did rather diminish the system as a whole.
Possibly. The Rhetoric on the subject from Democrats was the same though.

"I did not have sex with that woman....Monica Lewinsky" :lol:
 
#16
Interesting that Labour say this process is a relic / old fashioned etc etc yet are happy to enforce the Parliamant Act in order to ensure the hunting ban goes through.

God bless democracy..............sorry I mean hypocracy.
 
#17
A little bizarre to find myself supporting George Galloway on anything but I wish him luck on this one. Looking at the list they are a right bunch of Kooks and bum-bandits. Britain is truely getting weirder and weirder.

Sorry had to edit this as I wrote cooks instead of Kooks. Stil I might have been right.
 
#18
Commons motion to impeach Blair gets go-ahead

David Hencke, Westminster correspondent
Friday November 19, 2004
The Guardian

The parliamentary motion to impeach Tony Blair for "gross misconduct" over the war against Iraq will be published next Wednesday, the day after the Queen's speech.
It will be the first to be tabled in 198 years, since Lord Melville, a close friend of the then prime minister, William Pitt the younger, faced impeachment for misusing public money in running the Admiralty.

Senior parliamentary officials, including legal advisers to the Commons Speaker, Michael Martin, on Wednesday night approved the wording of the text as meeting parliamentary rules, allowing the motion to be tabled on the first day of the new session....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,,1354571,00.html
 
#19
Today's Scotsman, opinion piece by Alex Salmond MP on Why Tony Blair must be impeached. Whatever we think of Salmond and his party, it seems hard to pick holes in his arguments on this.

...This is not just a matter of Parliament being misled - as we know now it was. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. This is also an issue of whether the Prime Minister was in a position to know that his statements were wrong.

I offer just one example of the mass of evidence which can now be deployed. On 17 September 2002 the Prime Minister’s own Chief of Staff - Jonathan Powell - wrote in an e-mail that the government "will need to make it clear that we do not claim that we have evidence that he [Saddam] is an imminent threat".

And yet when he presented that very case to the House of Commons one week later, Tony Blair claimed "the threat is serious and current".

Perhaps the Prime Minister can explain these and the other 27 discrepancies. However, there is a case to answer.

No self-respecting parliament can accept a position where its decisions are reached on the basis of misinformation. All standard parliamentary procedures for holding the government to account have been exhausted and found wanting. It is into this vacuum that impeachment comes back as the final protection of Parliament, and thus democracy itself.

...
http://news.scotsman.com/archive.cfm?id=1354242004
 
#20
hackle said:
Today's Scotsman, opinion piece by Alex Salmond MP on Why Tony Blair must be impeached. Whatever we think of Salmond and his party, it seems hard to pick holes in his arguments on this.

...This is not just a matter of Parliament being misled - as we know now it was. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. This is also an issue of whether the Prime Minister was in a position to know that his statements were wrong.

I offer just one example of the mass of evidence which can now be deployed. On 17 September 2002 the Prime Minister’s own Chief of Staff - Jonathan Powell - wrote in an e-mail that the government "will need to make it clear that we do not claim that we have evidence that he [Saddam] is an imminent threat".

And yet when he presented that very case to the House of Commons one week later, Tony Blair claimed "the threat is serious and current".

Perhaps the Prime Minister can explain these and the other 27 discrepancies. However, there is a case to answer.

No self-respecting parliament can accept a position where its decisions are reached on the basis of misinformation. All standard parliamentary procedures for holding the government to account have been exhausted and found wanting. It is into this vacuum that impeachment comes back as the final protection of Parliament, and thus democracy itself.

...
http://news.scotsman.com/archive.cfm?id=1354242004
I agree with all of the above, very sad to say it has'nt got a snow balls chance in hell of succeeding.

What a state this shower have turned the Mother of all Parliments into :twisted:
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top