Booth's chambers will help impeach Blair over Iraq war

Cherie Booth's chambers, Matrix, are to draw up the document to impeach her husband, Tony Blair, for "high crimes and misdemeanours" in the run up to the war against Iraq, it was disclosed yesterday.

The 12 MPs planning to revive the ancient parliamentary procedure - last used 156 years ago against Lord Palmerston - have engaged his wife's chambers to frame the motion because of their record in taking up human rights issues.

Two of Ms Booth's colleagues will be working on the motion. One, Rabinder Singh, is of equal status to the PM's wife, being a QC and a deputy high court judge.

He recently brought a case arguing that the Iraq war breached international law.

more
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1292084,00.html

our Network and Cable news sources, right? :eyes: <Crickets chirping>

:puke:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3600438.stm

Maybe because it's a partisan joke. The MP's involved are either Nationalists or Conservatives. Boris Johnson is involved, that should tell any Brit the worth of this whole charade.

The trouble is that none of the currently used mechanisms of Parliament has proved capable of holding the Prime Minister to account. Indeed MPs are unable to make even the allegation that Tony Blair has lied for fear of being rebuked for using unparliamentary language. When the MP John Baron claimed during the Butler debate last July that the country was ‘misled by the Prime Minister’ over the 45-minute claim, he was cautioned by the Speaker.

So MPs have been banned from making the fundamental case against Tony Blair over his conduct of the war. The effect of this convention has been crippling: the Prime Minister has not been judged even by the fairly lax standards he applies to his own ministers. ... Yet the Speaker bans discussion of the Prime Minister’s integrity on the floor of the Commons.

By contrast it will be hard for Speaker Michael Martin to resist debate on an impeachment motion. ... Far from being archaic, impeachment remains soundly based in British law. William Holdsworth, whose work is still used to train British lawyers, concluded his analysis of impeachment with an urgent call for its revival, stating that it ‘does embody the sound principle that ministers and officials should be made criminally liable for corruption, gross negligence, or other malfeasances in the conduct of the affairs of the nation. And this principle requires to be emphasised at a time when the development of the system of party government pledges the party to defend the policy of its leaders, however mistaken it may be, and however incompetently it may have been carried out; at a time when party leaders are apt to look indulgently on the most disastrous mistakes because they hope that the same indulgence will be extended to them when they take office; at a time when the principle of the security of the tenure of higher permanent officials is held to be more important than the need to punish their negligences and ignorances. If ministers were sometimes made criminally responsible for gross negligence or rashness, ill-considered activities might be discouraged, real statesmanship might be encouraged and party violence might be moderated.’

From The Spectator (edited by Boris, of course).

If saying Blair misled the country is 'unparliamentary', then this may be the only way of getting the accusations made in Parliament.

"If saying Blair misled the country is 'unparliamentary', then this may be the only way of getting the accusations made in Parliament."

The whole point is not to bring Blair to justice, it's to bring down Blair and the Labour government.

Call me cynical, but I don't see any of those involved as being especially concerned with anything other than their own reputations and interests.

I'm a supporter of Blair, apart from the Iraq mess, his record in power has been a good one... and he's a far better PM than either Brown or Howard would be.

as far as I'm concerned. He went too far, and he, and future PMs, must understand that they're not a president - they're meant to govern via the cabinet, and the Commons. And if impeachment aims directly at him, that's good. There still hasn't been enough criticism of Blair and his lies by leading politicians. I want Labour MPs to look on him as a liability, and to start thinking about how to persuade him to go quietly.

I'd agree that, since there's no chance of any significant number of Labour MPs voting for impeachment, this is largely for publicity for the MPs who first thought of it. But my first thought was 'cheap publicity stunt'; now I think 'sneaky, but valid, publicity stunt'.

"He went too far, and he, and future PMs, must understand that they're not a president"

I agree... and he should be officially rebuked for it. I just don't think kicking him out is in anyone but Michael Howard's best interests.

If anyone doesn't like all the power the PM has, they should be arguing for a separation of those two positions.

I gladly concede your judgment of the internal politics of Great Britain. However, Blair's blatant lies and manipulation of intelligence are an international crime. Saying he's been a good PM except for that nastiness in Iraq misses the point. He knew better, his political tradition argues for a higher standard, and his wisest counselors argued against this war. Whatever the source, the charge against Blair is transparently true. Supporting Blair despite his lies is the logical equivalent of me denying Clinton had sex 'with that woman' (which I did until the DNA tests!). There is no moral equivalent; Blair is an international outlaw and a murderer.

He deserves to be impeached and tried in the World Court along with Agusto Pinochet.

ablle to do all the other things that have been good.

I think tha if no European country were involved in iraq, Bush would be using the chaos in Iraq to destroy the EU. Nothing drives people to senselessly vote for fascists like a bad economy and chaos. I'm sure part of Bush's plans with Iraq were to get RW gov'ts elected all over Europe.

Also, oil from the ME is literally the fuel for economic development of Europe. Bush wanted to be in control of that spigot and Blair didn't want that. Tories would have because they would have said "fuck the people, so long as our cronies get kickbacks and can sell weapons, we'll go along with the American fascists." The Tories would have abdicated their responsibility to look after the interests of the people and let Bush take over Iraq and cause chaos.

Also, it's clear that Blair has a different agenda in Iraq. Bush wants to cause chaos. He wants instability. Yet, look at the areas controlled by the British. It seems that the UK is actually interested in moving Iraq forward faster to autonomy and peace.

Imperialism is bad, and anytime a country is occupying another country, you have to be critical. However, what the US is doing sort of throws the rules out the window. Sometimes, when you have an imperialist nations whose goals are to turn Europe into a right wing haven through destruction of its economy, and whose goal is to turn Iraq into hell on earth for as long as possible, well, in that circumstance, sometimes its better to get involved and try to fuck up those plans from the inside rather than from the outside. That's what I see Blair as trying to achieve.

Matrix lawyers to aid impeachment
By Greg Hurst, Political Correspondent



A CAMPAIGN by an eclectic group of MPs to impeach Tony Blair over his handling of the Iraq war is to be advised by barristers from his wife’s chambers. Adam Price, the Welsh nationalist MP behind the idea, announced that he had retained as counsel Rabinder Singh QC and Professor Connor Gearty of Matrix Chambers. The barristers from Matrix, of which Cherie Booth QC was among the founding members, will draw up an impeachment motion to submit to the Commons and advise the campaign on procedure.

Mr Singh acted earlier this year for the families of Iraqis who accused British soldiers of involvement in unlawful killings and torture in southeast Iraq and has prepared legal opinion questioning the Attorney-General’s view that the invasion of Iraq was unlawful in international law.

By last night three Conservatives and a Liberal Democrat MP had joined nine Plaid Cymru and Scottish Nationalist MPs in supporting a motion to impeach the Prime Minister for “high crimes and misdemeanours” in making the case for war with Iraq.

They were Edward Garnier QC, a former Shadow Attorney-General, Nigel Evans and Boris Johnson, from the Tory benches, and Jenny Tonge, who was sacked from the Lib Dem front bench for declaring that she would consider becoming a suicide bomber were she a Palestinian.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,174-1235126,00.html

I think Blair deserves to be impeached for his actions. It won't happen (impeachment is not really a current part of the UK system); but it may cause him some embarrassment.

I don't think he's a good PM. I think Howard would be much worse. Brown would be better, though not by a huge amount.

so precedent exists.

My money is on him and his gargoyle wife being charged with treason: he and Bush are currently being sued by the UN Head of Military Intelligence for kidnap/hostage-taking in June 2000 - this is NOT reported in the press however...

Also another interesting line is that Blair/Booth have lost over £1million savings in Kevin Maxwell's property company Global Investments/Astec/Meybard which is currently being wound up in the courts....