House of Commons War Veto Defeated
Interesting............Even in Britain where public support for the war in Iraq is lower than here in America, a bill launched by an anti-war House of Commons member to give British Parliament veto power over military action ordered by the Prime Minister has been defeated:
No Veto for MP's
Per the AP, the bill would have given Parliament veto power to recall military forces that had already been deployed and activated by the PM if Parliament was not convinced about the need or merit:
The anti-war activist parliament member who introduced the bill was Clare Scott:
The bill was voted in favor of by a margin of 92-12, but required a 100 or greater vote tally to pass. There are currently 646 House of Common MP's per the H of C website H of C so it would appear that it had no chance of passing and a huge majority of MP's did not support the bill, and did not even vote or attend. Almost looks like a extremist anti-war moonbat protest bill that the House knew would not pass so they let the loonies march their bill to defeat with only 92 of the 646 MP's attending the protest event. The AP story angle on the vote does not seem to bear that out however, does it? The AP story makes it look like it "just missed"........More accurately the AP story "missed big time"..................................
I find it reassuring that Britain is not allowing the anti-war nuts within their government to do something as extreme and damaging to their protection as giving veto power to Parliament to reverse the PM's decision to protect the country via military action. Americans should take notice and realize the rational of such positions. Regardless of the political party of a national leader, President or PM, they should not have the threat of a veto and the requirement of a political campaigning over such actions hanging over their head to protect their constituency via military action. The next election vote is the right validation.
I have to believe that somewhere Churchill and Roosevelt are throwing down a scotch & soda, having a good cigar, and agreeing that the current generation has not completely lost their perspective and just might be up to the task that we face in protecting democracy in this 'war against terrorism"..........................
No Veto for MP's
Per the AP, the bill would have given Parliament veto power to recall military forces that had already been deployed and activated by the PM if Parliament was not convinced about the need or merit:
Under her proposal, both chambers of parliament would have had to be shown the case for war and its legal justification before voting on committing British troops. A prime minister would still be allowed to take urgent action without approval, but would be forced to withdraw troops if parliament then rejected the move.
The anti-war activist parliament member who introduced the bill was Clare Scott:
The accountability of the executive to parliament is a very important democratic principle which should surely be extended to the making of war," said Short, who resigned from her post as international development secretary following the U.S.-led invasion.
The bill was voted in favor of by a margin of 92-12, but required a 100 or greater vote tally to pass. There are currently 646 House of Common MP's per the H of C website H of C so it would appear that it had no chance of passing and a huge majority of MP's did not support the bill, and did not even vote or attend. Almost looks like a extremist anti-war moonbat protest bill that the House knew would not pass so they let the loonies march their bill to defeat with only 92 of the 646 MP's attending the protest event. The AP story angle on the vote does not seem to bear that out however, does it? The AP story makes it look like it "just missed"........More accurately the AP story "missed big time"..................................
I find it reassuring that Britain is not allowing the anti-war nuts within their government to do something as extreme and damaging to their protection as giving veto power to Parliament to reverse the PM's decision to protect the country via military action. Americans should take notice and realize the rational of such positions. Regardless of the political party of a national leader, President or PM, they should not have the threat of a veto and the requirement of a political campaigning over such actions hanging over their head to protect their constituency via military action. The next election vote is the right validation.
I have to believe that somewhere Churchill and Roosevelt are throwing down a scotch & soda, having a good cigar, and agreeing that the current generation has not completely lost their perspective and just might be up to the task that we face in protecting democracy in this 'war against terrorism"..........................
posted by Steve at 7:44 PM
