It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Motion of No Confidence

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 09:11 AM
link   
We all know what went on today in Parliament today. In ATS chat, John Bull1 brought up the idea of Howard or Kennedy calling for a vote of confidence. Now this might now happen, but but we have to see what happens in the next few days, a vote might be called. This should help explain the how it happens;



A Motion of No Confidence, also called Motion of Non Confidence is a parliamentary motion traditionally put before a parliament by the opposition in the hope of defeating or embarrassing a government. On rare occasions, it may also be put on the parliamentary order paper by an erstwhile supporter who themselves have lost confidence in the government. The motion is passed or rejected by means of a parliamentary vote.

Governments often respond to a Motion of No Confidence by proposing a Motion of Confidence which according to Anglo-Saxon parliamentary procedure takes precedence and so replaces the Motion of No Confidence. In presidential systems, the legislature may occasionally pass motions of no confidence as was done against United States Secretary of State Dean Acheson in the 1950s, but these motions are of symbolic effect only.




A Motion of No Confidence can be proposed in the government collectively or by any individual member, including the Prime Minister. Sometimes Motions of No Confidence are proposed, even though they have no likelihood of passage, simply to pressure a government or to embarrass its own critics who nevertheless for political reasons dare not vote against it. In many parliamentary democracies, strict time limits exist as to the proposing of a No Confidence motion, with a vote only allowed once every three, four or six months. Thus knowing when to use a Motion of No Confidence is a matter of political judgement; using a Motion of No Confidence on a relatively trivial matter may prove counterproductive to its proposer if a more important issue suddenly arises which warrants a Motion of No Confidence, because a motion cannot be proposed if one had been voted on recently and cannot be proposed again for a number of months.


Links

en.wikipedia.org...
www.parliament.uk...
news.bbc.co.uk...
encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com...



[edit on 14-7-2004 by infinite]




posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 09:24 AM
link   
Vote of no confidence for who? Bush or Blair? If you mean Blair, I think it's unlikely there will be one since it will soon be time for a prime ministerial election anyway. If Bush... I doubt they'll be able to get the requisite number of votes, and as you quoted, in the US it's not really a "used" procedure.

Sharon and John Howard have both survived such votes in recent times. I'm not sure what conclusions you can draw from that, but both are controversial conservative leaders of countries on the "offensive" in the war on terror.

-koji K.



posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Well of course im on about Blair
i would be worried if Bush suddenly became our Prime Minister


Getting back to the topic. Well, it might happen and if it does, we might see it over the next few days. IMHO, Blair has to options if a Motion of No Confidence is passed;

- Resign

- Or call for an early election.

[edit on 14-7-2004 by infinite]



posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 11:33 AM
link   
Infinite, didn't you hear.... when the NWO takes over, Bush will be the prime minister for you and for all !!!



Seriously though, I don't really know your government, but this sounds very confusing.



posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by elevatedone
but this sounds very confusing.


tell me about it. LibDems are calling for a fifth inquire into the reason going to war. Blair has been, what we call in the UK, " moving the goal posts", in other words he is adding more reasons for going to war. The whole case was based on WMD, but now Blair is saying its down to "regime change". Its all very confusing



posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
Well of course im on about Blair
i would be worried if Bush suddenly became our Prime Minister


Getting back to the topic. Well, it might happen and if it does, we might see it over the next few days. IMHO, Blair has to options if a Motion of No Confidence is passed;

- Resign

- Or call for an early election.

[edit on 14-7-2004 by infinite]


hehe... sorry.. when you said kennedy and howard i didnt know if you meant our kennedy and howard or yours... common names!

-koji K.



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join