Brits Out!

[Odin]

To try and flesh it out a bit for you. The only political party consistently against the war was/is the liberal democrats. The only people who vote for them eat muesli for brekky and wear sandals in the winter. So no chance there then.

Well thats odd considering the tone here from Brits and there dissatisfaction with the war, and apparant opinion polls. I know I might be simplifying it slightly be taking the tone "change your government, change your policy" but if there is only 1 party that is consistant on getting out, whats the problem then?

I know the UK isnt as liberal/socialist as the continent (yet) but didnt Kennedy have nearly 25% in the election? Thats hardly a few crackpots, considering labour had 40% Thats within striking distance for one decisive issue to breach the gap.

Yet, perhaps the UK system has progressed further that the overall adgenda of a party decides the vote, not a couple of bulletted sound bites like the U.S.

[Pannonian]

Well thats odd considering the tone here from Brits and there dissatisfaction with the war, and apparant opinion polls. I know I might be simplifying it slightly be taking the tone "change your government, change your policy" but if there is only 1 party that is consistant on getting out, whats the problem then?

I know the UK isnt as liberal/socialist as the continent (yet) but didnt Kennedy have nearly 25% in the election? Thats hardly a few crackpots, considering labour had 40% Thats within striking distance for one decisive issue to breach the gap.

Yet, perhaps the UK system has progressed further that the overall adgenda of a party decides the vote, not a couple of bulletted sound bites like the U.S.

FYI, the party currently in government was the party that had the most MPs voting against invading Iraq. More Labour MPs voted against the war than there are LibDem MPs in the Commons. Had the Opposition Tories voted with the Labour rebels, Blair might not have achieved a majority in favour of the war. As it was, 100+ Labour MPs voted against the war, but 150+ Tories voted for it (there are around 60 LibDems).

[Tribesman]

Leaving doesn't make the mission accomplished.

It most certainly does, they have handed over all their regions apart from the final one which is in the transition phase , once that transition is complete it is mission accomplished and they can bugger off home (or more probably Afghanistan) .
Or are you on about some crazy pie in the sky mission that has nothing to do with handing over power and leaving when the Iraqis want you out . Remember the local and provincial governments have made it very clear that the British presence is not welcome anymore .

I don't think you know what you're talking about- feel free to prove me wrong though.

lets refresh your memory then , it involved getting local tribal and religeous leaders to take more power , run things themselves and get rid of "al-Qaida" elements , it involved getting their own little militias to become the new police force . You said it was good news . Hey you even linked a video .
That is exactly what the Brits had done from the start , now it is the tribal and religeous leaders who are having their militias..sorry ...police attacking the Brits , the Brits have tied to fix it , they have gone back and disbanded the security forces , but since the same people run them when they are reformed it doesn't make any difference .
Hey they could get rid of the leadership , but thats a bit of a bugger what with "democratic" elections and the fact that there are no other leaders to deal with of any influence , and even if there was any alternative leaders they would bring their own little militias and do exactly the same .
So Xiahou like I said at the start , take a good look at the shape of things to come .


Anyhow , as to the subject , attacking their allies ,.
Well I suppose its all they have left to attack now ,they blamed the UN , the French , the Russians , they blamed those that opposed the lunacy from the start , they blamed those that changed their minds about the sanity of the adventure , they blamed the Spanish electorate , they blamed the media .
Its about time all the blame was put right where it belongs , with the brainless politicians who went ahead with this idiocy .

But hold on , maybe they could blame Luxembourg , perhaps it was them again .

[Odin]

FYI, the party currently in government was the party that had the most MPs voting against invading Iraq. More Labour MPs voted against the war than there are LibDem MPs in the Commons. Had the Opposition Tories voted with the Labour rebels, Blair might not have achieved a majority in favour of the war. As it was, 100+ Labour MPs voted against the war, but 150+ Tories voted for it (there are around 60 LibDems).

Forgive my ignorance but the tories are conservatives right? thats always been what I thought, but Im a touch off today.

This is part of Parlimentary system that always throws me. In the states the constitution has article I that says congress can declare war, and article II that says the president is commander in chief (essentially he conducts the war).

How does this operate in the parlimentary system? Blair is the head of government by default of his majority. the majority votes to go to war so you now have a binding law? At that point who is in charge of its execution? (IE Commander in chief, please dont say its the monarch....).

Now once we are off the ground, how does the authorization get revoked? Another vote and another law? If yes, is it then binding on the Commander and chief to recall forces or adhere to the terms of the law?

See here the president has the veto, and then there is the 2/3 majority rule needed to override the veto, essentially this is why the dems cant end the war for us, they dont have the 2/3rds to override a bush veto.

[Pannonian]

Forgive my ignorance but the tories are conservatives right? thats always been what I thought, but Im a touch off today.

This is part of Parlimentary system that always throws me. In the states the constitution has article I that says congress can declare war, and article II that says the president is commander in chief (essentially he conducts the war).

How does this operate in the parlimentary system? Blair is the head of government by default of his majority. the majority votes to go to war so you now have a binding law? At that point who is in charge of its execution? (IE Commander in chief, please dont say its the monarch....).

Now once we are off the ground, how does the authorization get revoked? Another vote and another law? If yes, is it then binding on the Commander and chief to recall forces or adhere to the terms of the law?

See here the president has the veto, and then there is the 2/3 majority rule needed to override the veto, essentially this is why the dems cant end the war for us, they dont have the 2/3rds to override a bush veto.

AFAIK the PM can order the troops into action at his whim, but any PM who does so on unreasonable grounds can expect a prompt vote of (no) confidence on his ability to head HM's government. Seeking some kind of mandate for his war, and with the general populace clearly against, Blair opted for the House of Commons, which can be more easily controlled (especially as he counted on the support of the Tories/Conservatives). He got that support, but around a quarter of the Labour MPs voted against the party line. While there are no clear rules for establishing authority, Blair fed off the mandate of that vote for the rest of his Premiership.

Authority is revoked when the PM can no longer count on a workable majority, and an election is called to establish a clearer mandate, or the PM resigns and allows a replacement to take over who can command that workable majority. This was what happened to Chamberlain, who could no longer count on the support of Labour, and with enough Conservative MPs also against him to embarrass him. A compromise candidate was found, Churchill, who could gather enough support to form a workable government. Sometimes a PM, on his own initiative, calls for a confidence vote to reestablish his own authority, as Major did with the Conservative party in the 1990s.

[Odin]

AFAIK the PM can order the troops into action at his whim, but any PM who does so on unreasonable grounds can expect a prompt vote of (no) confidence on his ability to head HM's government. Seeking some kind of mandate for his war, and with the general populace clearly against, Blair opted for the House of Commons, which can be more easily controlled (especially as he counted on the support of the Tories/Conservatives). He got that support, but around a quarter of the Labour MPs voted against the party line. While there are no clear rules for establishing authority, Blair fed off the mandate of that vote for the rest of his Premiership.

Authority is revoked when the PM can no longer count on a workable majority, and an election is called to establish a clearer mandate, or the PM resigns and allows a replacement to take over who can command that workable majority. This was what happened to Chamberlain, who could no longer count on the support of Labour, and with enough Conservative MPs also against him to embarrass him. A compromise candidate was found, Churchill, who could gather enough support to form a workable government. Sometimes a PM, on his own initiative, calls for a confidence vote to reestablish his own authority, as Major did with the Conservative party in the 1990s.

So technically, the PM does not have to go to parliment to declare war. Blair chose to. Here in the U.S. the president must get congressional approval under the constitution.

I understand the PM can be revoked at anytime by vote of his party, but the actual business about going to war, concievably can be done by one person in the UK system of government

AFAIK the PM can order the troops into action at his whim

.

I know there is probably a lot more involved, but im getting to the bottom line here. If your right (i understand its as far as you know) the PM has soul discretion under the mandate of his majority, thats a powerful position indeed.

[Del Arroyo]

Chuck Norris could fill all the portajohns from here to Buqah from too much shrubbin' mai.

[JR-]

Britain's army is simply too small and meagerly funded to continue a fight on two fronts.

it is better that Britain concentrates on one, and the one might as well be the front with the most public backing.

[Banquo's Ghost]

How does this operate in the parlimentary system? Blair is the head of government by default of his majority. the majority votes to go to war so you now have a binding law? At that point who is in charge of its execution? (IE Commander in chief, please dont say its the monarch....).

Just to further illuminate what Pannonian has already written, the power to declare war is a royal prerogative - that is, a power retained by the monarch but invariably exercised by the Prime Minister (who supposedly shares the decision with Cabinet, but not necessarily in recent regimes). The Prime Minister is accountable to Parliament, but since by definition, he/she is the leader of the largest party, the PM can usually rely on their support. (To hold the PM accountable would, as Pannonian notes, lead to them putting their own seats at risk via the inevitable general election).

Tony Blair asking Parliament to support his action before taking it was a fairly major breach of convention. Oddly, he never actually needed to make up dossiers to convince MPs - he could just have gone ahead anyway.

In brief, for this and several other purposes, the Prime Minister of Great Britain has monarchial powers. They also own several kinds of fish.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I was not being facetious.

If they do not wish to continue supporting this mission, then they should be allowed to leave.

We should not unduly exert ourselves to persuade them to remain.

Sorry, "force" was a poor choice of phrasing.

[Brenus]

Well, anyway, if the new French President carries on his way, US will have the Foreign Legion and the Chasseurs Alpins soon as the British troops will be leaving…

[rory_20_uk]

I believe that Gordon Brown has given up the power to be able to use the Royal Perogative. Damn good thing too.

The British Armed Forces needs massive investment. I would suggest a large slice of Social Security budget gets given to them. With the money wages, equipment and personnel numbers can be increased, as well as encouraging people to go for the jobs in the first place.

[spmetla]

Well, anyway, if the new French President carries on his way, US will have the Foreign Legion and the Chasseurs Alpins soon as the British troops will be leaving…

I'd rather France send excellent units like that to Afghanistan to reinforce their current troops there.