Skip to comments.
Anti-War Ammendment Beaten but with Sizeable Labour Rebellion (UK)
BBC ^
| 03/18/2003
| BBC
Posted on 03/18/2003 2:21:47 PM PST by Naspino
Watching the live video. They just voted on an anti-war ammendment but it was beaten 396-217; most of the no's of course coming from Blair's party. I have incredible respect for Blair. It would be like Clinton standing with the Republicans; unheard of -- but he's doing it.
TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Breaking News; Government; News/Current Events; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: blair; iraq; uk; war
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40 next last
1
posted on
03/18/2003 2:21:47 PM PST
by
Naspino
To: Naspino
Somehow, winning by almost a 2-1 margin in British Parliament is considered a near defeat.
2
posted on
03/18/2003 2:23:45 PM PST
by
Dog Gone
To: Dog Gone
That would be if you were Pro Blair or not.
Apparently the person mixing words here is a commie!
Ops4 God Bless America!
3
posted on
03/18/2003 2:24:56 PM PST
by
OPS4
To: Naspino
I still think Bush either has something on Blair (pictures, or the like) or otherwise imtimidated him into cooperating. Either way, I don't care, the UK is with us.
To: Dog Gone
Losing the support of half his party is a big deal. Does anyone know the exact breakdown of the Labour MPs' votes?
5
posted on
03/18/2003 2:25:17 PM PST
by
xm177e2
(Stalinists, Maoists, Ba'athists, Pacifists: Why are they always on the same side?)
To: Dog Gone
That's a parliamentary system for you -- it's the Labourites who elect Blair to leadership, and they can depose him from that position, while maintaining their majority in the House of Commons.
To: Dog Gone
165 Labour MPS had to rebel before Blair had to rely on Tory votes.
It seems 139 rebelled.
7
posted on
03/18/2003 2:25:29 PM PST
by
Naspino
To: MoralSense
"Blair suffers Iraq revolt"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2862325.stm
The real vote is still coming.
8
posted on
03/18/2003 2:26:59 PM PST
by
Naspino
To: MadIvan
Ivan, I know you probably already know about this, but I wanted to ping
you to a Brit thread for a change!
Thanks to our British friends and to Tony, standing tall and winning.
9
posted on
03/18/2003 2:27:42 PM PST
by
Semper911
(For some people, bread and circus are not enough. Hence, FreeRepublic.com)
To: Naspino
Yep... I disagree with most of his political beliefs, but he is showing that he CAN make intelligent principled stands in the face of the overwhelming opposition of his friends. The mark of very strong character, in children (usually referred to as peer pressure) and in adults. Reminds me of Moynihan... a Good Man. He is also showing exactly how important the UK's alliance with America truly is (at a time when it is exceedingly important to us diplomatically), which says quite a bit about the nation's, as well as the man's, loyalty.
To: Naspino
Two-thirds of Britians politicans supported Blair.... If American could even once get a two thirds majority in a hottly contested debate, it would mark the end of the losing political party:) And the media told us that France would Veto NATO, but then France was shown the door when the vote in Burssels came up because France is a non-voting military member (Still waiting for the media to explain that one too).
Congrat's to PM Blair!
11
posted on
03/18/2003 2:28:38 PM PST
by
Jumper
To: Naspino
The democrat party in the United States is easily as strongly against the war as is Labour in the UK. In this country the democrats should henceforth be referred to as Copperheads because they, especially Dashole, are as deadly as were the democrats during the Civil war
To: Teacher317
412 - 149
UK endorses war with Iraq.
13
posted on
03/18/2003 2:29:28 PM PST
by
Naspino
To: Naspino
412-149... the second vote to support war has passed
Comment #15 Removed by Moderator
To: Teacher317
If only our Democratic party would be more like Blair, we could disagree with them on policy issues with honor.
16
posted on
03/18/2003 2:32:33 PM PST
by
L`enn
To: Naspino
Good news. I'm glad the Tories got their heads screwed on right on this issue. It would have been very damaging to the country and their party if they had undermined Blair.
Blair went along with Bush because he put his country first, and the Special Relationship with the U.S. is incredibly important to England as a counterweight to bloodymindedness coming from the Continent. I don't know how much he personally favors the war, but he certainly favors the alliance with America.
17
posted on
03/18/2003 2:33:37 PM PST
by
Cicero
(Marcus Tullius)
To: Naspino
The fact that Blair didn't have to rely on Tory support is the key I think. He would have survived the vote even with out their crossing the aisle.
Apparently this has been made out to be a tempest in a tea cup.
Does anyone remember the vote totals when Congress authorized the first Gulf War?
18
posted on
03/18/2003 2:33:50 PM PST
by
waspguy
To: Dog Gone
Somehow, winning by almost a 2-1 margin in British Parliament is considered a near defeat. Under Britain's parliamentary system, it is. The PM owes his job to his party - and once he loses the support of the majority of his party, he's as good as gone.
19
posted on
03/18/2003 2:34:02 PM PST
by
ambrose
To: Huggybear VT
And that is total defeat for Blair's opponent's in the Labour Party. Au revoir, Robin Cook!
Blair and Straw gave brilliant speeches today.
20
posted on
03/18/2003 2:34:03 PM PST
by
Maeve
(Siobhan's daughter and sometime banshee.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson