Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2859189.stm

House of Lords mind you, so not as important. They are usually asleep most of the time anyway

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2001
Location: ........
Posts: 15003

How's about this one

UK PM faces 'war trial' by wife's law firm

London, March 16: British Prime Minister Tony Blair is facing the embarrassing prospect of being prosecuted for 'war crimes' over the Iraq crisis by his wife's human rights law firm.

The interesting row has intensified on whether Britain's plan to bomb Iraq is legal, as it emerged that Left-wing MPs are backing plans to employ Cherie Blair's law chambers, Matrix, in legal action against the British Government.

She played a key role in setting up the chambers two years ago to specialise in human rights causes. One of her Matrix colleagues told MPs last week that the war against Iraq is illegal under international law.

Now, anti-war campaigners plan to use the firm to force Blair to answer for his actions to the International Criminal Court.

According to a report in The Mail on Sunday, Cherie Blair earns an estimated 250,000 pounds a year from Matrix, which has more than 30 of Britain's top barristers on its books, including NRI Rabinder Singh.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35656

The attorney general spoke on the subject of legality yesterday; he is convinced. As am I; whether or not you think that it is right, the UK government hasn't made laws forbidding this kind of thing.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002

And then it became 3!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2859189.stm

Clare Short stays though!

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35656

Yeah, it is amusing; in some sense, if anyone is to go then Blair would love for Claire Short to go, because she talks straight (that is to say that she isn't easily cowed) and is popular with the party membership, but she stays and the others go instead.

I can't remember anything like this happening before in my lifetime.

On the bright side, perhaps Labour (or 'New Labour' as they branded themselves) will now die a death if Blair is badly weakened and they resume their old hobby (now embraced by the tories) or infighting. Saddam and Blair both going would be a great twofer from my point of view (regardless of whatever courage he is showing now, he has been at best an odious Prime Minister in my opinion).

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2003
Location: Here
Posts: 181

I can't agree. Blair, without his reliance on control freakery and yet with this strong principled streak, would be a very impressive prime minister. Is uppose it depends on the likelihood of him giving up spin.
OK thats similar to saddam voluntarily disarming. Hmm...

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35656

He has had years of unpleasant poll driven oilyness; this action on Iraq isn't enough by a long street. And the labour party eat babies anyway.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002

and then it was 5! (6 if you count the one on Sunday)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2860583.stm

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2001
Location: Rio de los Brazos de Dios
Posts: 3876

This morning I spent three hours listening to Commons and was
semi-mesmerized by it. I didn't really know one hell of a lot about the form and the political liturgy but it was most interestiung. I know that the majority of you Limeys on the Forum don't like Blair
and some seem to be very firm in that belief but I think that he is a very great credit to your government and to your nation. He is a good and persuasive speaker and I think that he has the advantage and interest of the UK at heart.

Evidently there is a tradition (maybe even a rule) in the Commons
that when a speaker mentions another member of Commons or refers to his view directly then he is honor bound to "give way" to that member for a reply in his defense. Charles Kennedy refused to do that this morning and was lightly chided by the speaker for it and lambasted by a Conservative named I think William Hague.


The noisy chorus from the bsack-benchers is foreign to me but interesting in the manner that it is almost orchestrated as if it were a Greek Play chorus

All in all a very interesting three hours. I wish that we had your Mr Hague, Duncan-Smith and Blair, or rather their clones in our Senate. I think they are truly more statesmen than politicians

The very idea that any chamber should attempt a Civil Rights trial of Tony Blair in the ICC sends a chill up my back and drives me even deeper into resistance to the US giving up one iota of it national sovereignty to any international organization.

Of course none of this is any of my business. I am not a citizen of UK. Just some remarks of interest from an outsider.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

oxsan


Don't kick until yer spurred.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35656

Blair is a socialist and a dissembler, so I hardly going to like him. On Iraq, he has been admirable in some ways, although inept in others. If all you needed was one good act to balance all the other bad ones, then he would be fine, but I don't hold to that at all.

The fact that things are debated in the Houses of Parliament, including the grilling of all ministers (right up to the Prime Minister his or herself) is something that I do like about the way that politics is run here (especially now that it is broadcast or at least taped so that it can be shown later).

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002

Old William Hague was very funny yesterday I have to say I look forward to reading the 9 hour debate in full at some point in the future.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35656

I liked William Hague. He was victim to the anti-baldness conspiracy that Churchill only overcame by being lucky enough to have a war on. Thus we can understand Ian Duncan Smith's enthusiasm for war; soon he will be saying that our soldiers should start dating local women in Kuwait, to see if he can prolong this one.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2001
Location: Rio de los Brazos de Dios
Posts: 3876

Parliament is fun to watch---at least Commons is. Were I a British citizen I think that I would "stand" just to better watch the show. One member was asleep yesterday and the cameraman took great delight I think in putting that members face just over Blairs shoulder while Blair was speaking. The MP would wake up with a violent start from time to time.

There is a "great baldness conspiracy?" The Conservatives are
doomed then. Their benches looked like a row of billiard balls. I would have fit right in there.

There was one Islamic member yesterday (at least his first name was Mohammad per the TV trailer) who was some upset by the proceedings. Charles Kennedy was roundly booed and was treated harshly mainly by the Conservatives who accused Kennedy of treating them harshly.

The Speaker looked like a cherubic angel but could master a
sharp tongue. He corrected one woman who shouted something with
words sort of like, "The Honourable Lady will be reminded that it is quite enough that I heard the remark, it is not necessary to repeat it."

I think that yesterday was quite a momentous and historic day in Commons and I am glad that I heard ans saw it.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

oxsan


Don't kick until yer spurred.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged