Quote Originally Posted by Pannonian
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.