Australian Senate passes historic no-confidence motion against PM over Iraq

A historic censure for Howard, over a war that three quarters of Australians do not support. Now does the British PM have the courage to ask for a vote in the UK parliament? Not upto date…

Australian PM censured over Iraq

The Australian Senate has passed an historic no-confidence motion against the prime minister over his handling of the crisis in Iraq.
John Howard and his Conservative-Liberal coalition were censured for deploying troops to the Gulf ahead of a possible war.

Opposition and minor parties joined forces to pass the motion against Mr Howard by 33 to 31 votes. The vote has no legislative clout, but is considered an important symbolic gesture as it is the Senate’s first vote of no-confidence in a serving leader in its 102-year history. Mr Howard -a staunch US ally - has insisted the deployment of troops does not mean Australia has decided to support any war with Iraq. But so far, Australia and the UK are the only countries to have joined the US in deploying forces to the Gulf region.

Support for troops

During the heated debate, which started on Tuesday, Mr Howard was accused of deploying troops without reference to parliament and against to public opinion. “The prime minister has made a unilateral decision and sent 2,000 of our defence personnel off to a war undeclared in the northern hemisphere without any cogent explanation of his actions,” said the Labour Party’s leader in the Senate, John Faulkner. Senator Bob Brown, head of the left-wing Australian Greens, said the no-confidence vote marked an “historic condemnation of the government” and its leader. “His gross mishandling of Australia’s involvement deserved the strongest parliamentary rebuke,” Mr Brown said. While the motion declared opposition to any unilateral US attack on Iraq, it did not go quite as far as the Greens had hoped. The party’s bid to condemn any Australian involvement, even with a United Nations mandate, was defeated. And a no-confidence motion similar to that passed in the Senate was defeated in Australia’s lower House of Representatives on Wednesday. The conservative majority ensured the motion fell by 82 votes to 63.

Public opinion

About 400 anti-war protesters demonstrated outside the national parliament on Tuesday, angry at Mr Howard’s stance on Iraq. Recent opinion polls show that 76% of Australians oppose their country’s participation in a US-led war, while 57% support joining military action that has UN backing. In an interview with Australian magazine The Bulletin, Mr Howard admitted the decision to deploy troops had put him under huge pressure. “It’s the first thing I think about when I wake up, and that has been the case for the last few weeks,” he told the magazine.

Re: Australian Senate passes historic no-confidence motion against PM over Iraq

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Malik73: *
A historic censure for Howard, over a war that three quarters of Australians do not support. Now does the British PM have the courage to ask for a vote in the UK parliament? Not upto date...

[/QUOTE]

Heard on the news that 81% of UK populace is against the war. Blair went to France to sell the war to Chirac and was told to go back home. The French PM is the only european leader representing the views of the public at large when he says that war is not the solution. Why isnt Blair representing the views of the UK population the same way Chirac is?

Re: Re: Australian Senate passes historic no-confidence motion against PM over Iraq

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by 5Abi: *

Heard on the news that 81% of UK populace is against the war. Blair went to France to sell the war to Chirac and was told to go back home. The French PM is the only european leader representing the views of the public at large when he says that war is not the solution. Why isnt Blair representing the views of the UK population the same way Chirac is?
[/QUOTE]

Thats because British "democracy" allows Blair to do everything in the name of the Queen (order in council), without needing any parliamentary approval whatsoever. The UK lacks a constitution, and relies more on "conventions" and historical precedents making the House of Commons a mere talking shop, especially in cases of war. Even if Blair allowed a vote in the House of Commons and it went against him, he could ignore it at will - he can do anything in the name of the Queen, and ignore parliament and the people.

Malik can you elaborate what you meant by "do anything in teh name of Queen and ignore parliament". Isnt UK a democracy? Isnt he elected by the people and answerable to them?

Re: Re: Australian Senate passes historic no-confidence motion against PM over Iraq

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by 5Abi: *

Heard on the news that 81% of UK populace is against the war. Blair went to France to sell the war to Chirac and was told to go back home. The French PM is the only european leader representing the views of the public at large when he says that war is not the solution. Why isnt Blair representing the views of the UK population the same way Chirac is?
[/QUOTE]

French PM is not the only one as German chancellor won the election on the basis that he doesn't support war. Apart from 8 countries, all other european countries didn't favour war by their head of governments.

Australian PM Loses No-confidence Vote

The majority of Australians are firmly opposed to Bush’s war against Iraq. This is also the first time in 102 years that a serving PM has been defeated by the Senate.

Senate censures PM’s Iraq move](http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/06Feb2003_news22.html) Bangkok Post

First no-confidence vote of serving leader

Prime Minister John Howard has suffered a historic defeat in an unprecedented no-confidence vote by Australia’s Senate over his handling of the Iraq crisis. The Labor opposition, left wing Greens, Democrats and Independent senators used their upper house majority to pass the motion by 34 votes to 31, following an emotional, 11-hour debate over the looming conflict.

It was the first time in the 102 year history of the Australian parliament that the upper house has censured a serving prime minister with a vote of no confidence. Mr Howard’s conservative Liberal-National government was also censured in the motion, which condemned its decision to deploy troops to the Gulf without reference to parliament and contrary to public opinion. Australia and Britain have been the only countries to join the United States in deploying troops to the Gulf in preparation for war in Iraq.

Labor Senate Leader John Faulkner moved the motion, saying no explanation had been offered for sending Australian defence personnel to the Middle East, the prime minister having made a unilateral decision'' by sending 2,000 personnel off to a war undeclared in the northern hemisphere. **Mr Faulkner said the prime minister had acted without any cogent explanation of his actions’'.

The motion expressed the Senate’s full support and confidence in Australia’s servicemen and women while expressing opposition to the government’s decision. It declared opposition to a unilateral military attack on Iraq by the US, insisted the disarmament of Iraq proceed under UN authority, and expressed total opposition to any use of nuclear arms.

Greens Senator Bob Brown said the censure marked a historic condemnation of the prime minister.The prime minister made the decision with no reference to the parliament, without the backing of the Australian people, without a request from the UN,'' he said.He stands condemned, censured and without the confidence of the Senate.‘’

This probably deserves its own thread. But suffice to say all of the Queen’s wide-ranging “royal prerogative” powers (i.e. in effect more than any US President can independently exercise that is) are exercised in her name by her Prime Minister. These perogative powers do not need any parliamentary approval, and are exercised by the PM by what are called “orders in council”, akin to Presidential decrees. The power to sign treaties with foreign powers, send military forces abroad, declare war, or a state of emergency, appoint senior Judges, Bishops, military chiefs etc, confer state honours, and many other powers. None need the approval of parliament, and hence that is why Blair does not “constitutionally” have to ask parliament for any approval over Iraq. Here is a link which sheds some light on this issue:-

The Monarchy](http://www.charter88.org.uk/pubs/facts/enq_mon.html)