This weekend, British Cabinet Minister Clare Short has said she will resign if Britain goes to war without a Second Resolution: -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2835519.stm

One junior minister has already resigned over the proposed war and three more have said they will do if war is declared without UN backing: -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2833661.stm

Two weeks ago, 122 Labour MP's voted against a Government backed Commons motion supporting war without a second UN resolution: -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2799377.stm

In the meantime, a second resolution is looking increasingly unlikely, with both France and Russia apparently unwilling to change their opposition to war in general and the 17th March deadline set by America and britain in particluar: -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2830709.stm

So, my question is - Can the British government survive the declaration of war on Iraq without the authority of a UN resolution authorising the use of military force?

Well i believe that any country can go to war without the United Nations approval. If that is what you are asking. You shouldnt need approval to go to war with ANY country

That's not what i am asking.

I am asking whether, given all the signs and examples of dissent within the government that I have cited, the Blair administration can survive as a viable and effective government in the event of a declaration of war on Iraq without UN backing.

This is not another 'is the war right or wrong?' thread. I am asking for predictions as to whether or not Blair's government will fall apart if war is pursued.

Jon Bon



The way things are looking now, I think its fifty fifty. Blair might be able to scratch together enough loyalty from his own party and some moral support from the conservatives on a patriotic bargain, but if it came to that, then Blair has already lost, whether he survived the vote or not.
He would be signing his won 'political death' warrant.

Juber3


Then why did we bother to kick Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait?

Saddam DID have a soverign right to invade Kuwait. But we also had a soverign right to oust him.

I think Brittian's gov't will be just fine. Blair might be commiting political suicide, but will the gov't or his party fall apart over this? nah. If the protestors want to resign, their loss. I'm sure they will be replaced.

--cheers

What do you mean by 'Soverign Right' exactly?




But what about the 122 MP's who voted against war without a resolution? They can't be replaced without a General Election.

Digital Patriot



How can it be a sovereign right when it had nothing what so ever to do with American territory? Are you suggesting America has the right to intervene militarily in any country it so chooses?

Define Soverign.

One countrys soverignty has nothing to do with any other country but it's own.

As the sole leader of Iraq, Saddam is within his OWN right to order an invasion of Kuwait.

The rest of the world, knowing this was the wrong decision, has a right to go to war with him to put him back within his own borders and defend the kuwaiti people.

As an individual driving a vehicle you own, you have the right to drive 90 MPH through a school zone. No one can stop you. However, this is wrong, and if you get caught, you will go to jail. Same thing.



I never said anything about replacing those who do not agree with Mr. Blair. Please re-read my statement. I meant those who leave can be replaced (with an election or however they handle it). Personally, I think it's childish to leave your post over something like this. I'm glad they feel strongly about it, but then vote no and stay the course, rather than quitting.

--cheers

So, does the whole world who knows the US is making the wrong decision have the right to go to war with us to send us back to our own borders to defend the Iraqi people?

[quote=Danya,Mar 11 2003, 12:24 PM]

[/QUOTE]
So, does the whole world who knows the US is making the wrong decision have the right to go to war with us to send us back to our own borders to defend the Iraqi people? [/quote]
Yes, they do. I don't see it happening.

Rumsfeld says we don't need Britain anyway.
link


Two U.S. diplomats have resigned over Bush's Iraq policy.
link

Wasn't this topic about the UK and Tony Blair? Oh yeah. It was. Let's keep it that way.

OK...some signs make it appear as if he can't and that they will pull out if the U.S. goes to war against the U.N.

I don't believe Blair could survive as PM if he were part of that and that's what I think we are seeing now. He will either pull back and survive or take the plunge and lose his position. That's just my guess.

In a documentary (we all know how those can be accurate ), it was said that Saddam invaded Kuwait because he thought that Americans were gonna attack from there (a little paranoia but he's 12 years ahead of himself )


Now...

If the war in iraq doesn't take long, i think Blair will survive the impact etc but if it goes on too long then he will be knocked down so hard he won't be able to get back up.

And if Blair's government doesn't survive? What then? The Labour Party will probably have a new leader, and the UK will probably have a Tory government. Is either so horrible?

Blair is apparently willing to risk it, and I guess he's doing it because it's what he believes is right, certainly not for political advantage since there is none.

I think that is an excellent point. After all Tony Blair is certainly risking his political future for this issue. He has supported the disarmament of Iraq for years. Why?

That's exactly what his gov and citizens have been asking for months now. If you find out you should let them know.

I'm not so sure that would be the scenario. The Tories have been on the wane for years now and are unlikely to ever establish another majority government. Keeping it that way is one of the reasons that Tony Blair has been so hawkish (so there's a distinct political advantage to his position). I think it's almost a certainty that the Labour Party will oust Blair at their earliest possible opportunity, but that does not by any means indicate that the Conservative Party will be able to put together a new government. Most likely, it would be a new Labour government or Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition (if absolutely necessary). At the moment, Labour seats outnumber Conservative seats by nearly three to one and all nine other parties combined by nearly two to one. I think the only certainty is that the days of the British War Party's chairman, Tony Blair, are numbered...

I did not mean to imply that you did.

The point I was trying to make was merely that, whilst a government can carry on effectively by replacing dissenting ministers, it cannot replace dissenting back-benchers.

And it these back-benchers upon whom any government must rely to take their policies through the Commons.