After8
9:59 Wed Jun 3
Re: Charles Kennedy dead RIP
|
Kronic I've supplied all the data, every time it came up Kennedy opposed the war and he was right to do so.
It's an embarrassment that only 15 MPs from my party used their brains and worked out that bombing a country without a firm UN mandate that didn't have WMDs and wasn't threatening its neighbours and without a reconstruction plan wasn't a terribly good idea. Instead they were sucked into the whole argument over national security.
|
Marston Hammer
9:58 Wed Jun 3
Re: Charles Kennedy dead RIP
|
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/john-whitelegg-the-myth-of-mr-kennedys-opposition-to-the-war-6168707.html
|
After8
9:56 Wed Jun 3
Re: Charles Kennedy dead RIP
|
Hmmm
‘This House -
supports United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 as unanimously adopted by the UN Security Council; agrees that the Government of Iraq must comply fully with all provisions of the Resolution; and agrees that, if it fails to do so, the Security Council should meet in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance.’
The second extra condition requiring a further debate in the House before any British troops could be committed to military action against Iraq was satisfied, while the first, requiring a Security Council mandate, was not.
- See more at: http://www.iengage.org.uk/politics/mps-and-voting/11-mps-voting-records?start=1#sthash.vynuCQ8h.dpuf
http://www.iengage.org.uk/politics/mps-and-voting/11-mps-voting-records?start=1
Iraq — Case for war is unproven — rejected
26 Feb 2003
Division 96
The second vote taken by MPs in the run up to the war in Iraq involved debating whether a case for war had been proven by the Government and therefore satisfying MPs that the Government was left with no other option than declaring war.
The majority of MPs voted against inserting the line:
‘...but finds the case for military action against Iraq as yet unproven.’
Those that voted ‘no’ in this division were supporting the Government’s claims that sufficient peaceful conditions had been explored in relations with Iraq and that the country’s possession of weapons of mass destruction and the threat it posed to the West and its allies in the region necessitated a course of war.
The main motion in support of the Government for war was then passed in a vote immediately afterward in Division 97 (see below).
- See more at: http://www.iengage.org.uk/politics/mps-and-voting/11-mps-voting-records?start=2#sthash.OUzbsE3H.dour
Iraq — Support for the Government
26 Feb 2003
Division 97
After winning the vote in the Commons in the debate on whether a case for war had been proven, the Government went on to seek the support of the House for its intended course of action; that is to plan for war.
The motion voted on stated:
‘That this House takes note of Command Paper Cm 5769 on Iraq; reaffirms its endorsement of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, as expressed in its Resolution of 25th November 2002; supports the Government's continuing efforts in the United Nations to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction; and calls upon Iraq to recognise this as its final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations.’
MPs that voted ‘no’ in this motion were challenging the Government’s determination to take Britain to the point of declaring war against Iraq. While those that voted ‘aye’ were voting in support of the Government’s claims that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and that Britain should be part of any campaign designed to forcibly disarm her.
-http://www.iengage.org.uk/politics/mps-and-voting/11-mps-voting-records?start=3
Iraq — Case for war not established — rejected
18 Mar 2003
Division 117
Before the vote took place in Parliament on whether Britain should launch an attack on Iraq, MPs debated the question of whether or not a case for war had been established. This motion was an opportunity for MPs to reject the Blair government’s stance on invading Iraq by voting in favour of the motion that advanced the argument that the Government had not provided sufficient justification for leading the country into a war.
The majority of MPs voted against making a change to the motion below which would have questioned the case presented by the Government in favour of war and found it wanting. This was the fourth time MPs met to vote on whether or not Britain should be involved in any military campaign against Iraq. After this division, MPs voted on a declaration of war (Division 118, below).
The change would have been to replace the sections of the motion which read:
This House
notes that in the 130 days since Resolution 1441 was adopted Iraq has not co-operated actively, unconditionally and immediately with the weapons inspectors, and has rejected the final opportunity to comply and is in further material breach of its obligations under successive mandatory UN Security Council Resolutions;
regrets that despite sustained diplomatic effort by Her Majesty's Government it has not proved possible to secure a second Resolution in the UN because one Permanent Member of the Security Council made plain in public its intention to use its veto whatever the circumstances;
notes the opinion of the Attorney General that, Iraq having failed to comply and Iraq being at the time of Resolution 1441 and continuing to be in material breach, the authority to use force under Resolution 678 has revived and so continues today;
believes that the United Kingdom must uphold the authority of the United Nations as set out in Resolution 1441 and many Resolutions preceding it, and therefore supports the decision of Her Majesty's Government that the United Kingdom should use all means necessary to ensure the disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction;
offers wholehearted support to the men and women of Her Majesty's Armed Forces now on duty in the Middle East;
with:
This House
believes that the case for war against Iraq has not yet been established, especially given the absence of specific United Nations authorisation; but, in the event that hostilities do commence, pledges its total support for the British forces engaged in the Middle East, expresses its admiration for their courage, skill and devotion to duty, and hopes that their tasks will be swiftly concluded with minimal casualties on all sides.
Those that voted ‘no’ in Division 117 were voting in support of the Government’s and in support of the case presented by the Government for war. Those that voted ‘aye’ were voting in favour of the amendment which stated that a case for war had not yet been sufficiently established.
Some MPs did not vote in Division 117 (case for war not established) but did go on to vote in Divison 118 (declaration of war).
http://www.iengage.org.uk/politics/mps-and-voting/11-mps-voting-records?start=4
Iraq — Declaration of War — 18 Mar 2003 at 22:00
The motion voted through by a majority of MPs agreed that the Government "should use all means necessary to ensure the disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction".[1]
This resulted in the United Kingdom joining the United States led invasion of Iraq two days later.[2]
A proposed change to this motion saying that This House "believes that the case for war against Iraq has not yet been established" had just been voted down.[3] A number of MPs voted in one and not the other, or voted inconsistently.[4] Earlier in the year, during the build-up to war, there had been three other votes in favour of the Government policy.[5]
http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2003-03-18&number=118&display=allvotes
Voted against it a number of times, see above.
|
The Kronic
9:49 Wed Jun 3
Re: Charles Kennedy dead RIP
|
riosleftsock 9:37
He voted against you plum. As did all 53 LibDem MPs, 139 Labour MPs and a pathetic 15 Tories.
|
riosleftsock
9:37 Wed Jun 3
Re: Charles Kennedy dead RIP
|
All lib dems voted against or abstained from voting. In fact I can only find one who voted against.
Kennedy isn't listed as a nay or an abstainer, so it seems he may have forgot to vote.
Very conscientious and principled.
My arse.
|
Babelman
7:46 Wed Jun 3
Re: Charles Kennedy dead RIP
|
HairyHammer 12:30 Wed Jun 3
agree well said
|
Mickey Rat
5:52 Wed Jun 3
Re: Charles Kennedy dead RIP
|
Very sad and feel for his family having all the shit in the press when they must be devastated, these days most MP's are boring party clones who never step out of line, Kennedy was a rare exception who spoke out against the Iraq war. I love a good drink but thank God I'm not dependent on it, alchoholism is a bloody awful disease for the drinker and their families
|
HairyHammer
3:28 Wed Jun 3
Re: Charles Kennedy dead RIP
|
When everyone was busy sucking on Americas balls let us not forget what Charles Kennedy was doing standing with the people on the issue if Iraq.
He got so much stick for it but still made himself and the people of the UK heard.
Everyone one day will fall, we are all fallible having a drink problem was probably what killed Charles but it is a terible illness those who do not see that choose not to.
|
Crassus
2:27 Wed Jun 3
Re: Charles Kennedy dead RIP
|
says a lot for the party then
look, the bloke was a defected Labour party member, who rode a wave and crashed via his own failings and general ineptitude
as I said, shame for his lad but no loss to the general herd
|
Darlo Debs
2:09 Wed Jun 3
Re: Charles Kennedy dead RIP
|
*Having
|
Darlo Debs
2:08 Wed Jun 3
Re: Charles Kennedy dead RIP
|
HVing a drink.problem does not mean he did not have inegrity as a politician. Even when pissed he was a better leader than Campbell...
|
Crassus
2:03 Wed Jun 3
Re: Charles Kennedy dead RIP
|
So full of integrity that the bloke was unfit t serve his constituents, let alone his party's - not my comments, Ming Campbell's
Bloke was a piss head, ask his ex wife
|
Darlo Debs
12:44 Wed Jun 3
Re: Charles Kennedy dead RIP
|
Crassus very few politicians do much of worth by that standard. He at least seemed to be a man of integrity and that inself is worthy of note in a profession that seems to corrupt and morally bankrupt many others.
|
Crassus
12:37 Wed Jun 3
Re: Charles Kennedy dead RIP
|
Infidel 12:50 Tue Jun 2
Agree entirely, a worthless politician that gave virtually nothing
Shame for his lad mind but as I am not his lad I will not ponder his memory too long
|
HairyHammer
12:30 Wed Jun 3
Re: Charles Kennedy dead RIP
|
A wonderful politician and obviously a decent man.
May he R.I.P really shocked today to hear about his passing.
I will always remember his brave stance about Iraq and he has since been proved very right.
|
Rise Park family
9:27 Tue Jun 2
Re: Charles Kennedy dead RIP
|
Seemed like a really decent person. We all have our demons, sadly his won. Sympathy to his family and friends. RIP
|
zebthecat
9:21 Tue Jun 2
Re: Charles Kennedy dead RIP
|
riosleftsock 8:34 Tue Jun 2
Well he was right though. Maybe not for the right reasons.
|
Bosman Free
9:11 Tue Jun 2
Re: Charles Kennedy dead RIP
|
Recent diagnosis of Alzheimers. Lost seat (no Alzheimers jokes please) alcohol dependence
Suicide.
Don't shoot the postman
|
Takashi Miike
9:02 Tue Jun 2
Re: Charles Kennedy dead RIP
|
he was a likeable politician and that is rare. sad day for his family
|
riosleftsock
8:34 Tue Jun 2
Re: Charles Kennedy dead RIP
|
I think he was wrong to oppose the invasion of Iraq.
His opposition wasn't based on his understanding that the dossier was sexed up, it was just a typical liberal opposition to war, any war.
His opposition was pointless, other than being able to say "i told you so" several times after.
Still liked the bloke though.
|
dicksie3
7:15 Tue Jun 2
Re: Charles Kennedy dead RIP
|
Pretty gutted by this, to be honest...
Really liked the bloke... Seemed like a proper genuine bloke - very rare quality for a politician...
|
| 
