Next week's business - an update
It's all change as the House of Commons now devotes most of Monday to a debate on the UN resolution authorising intervention in Libya. It will be on an amendable motion - an important parliamentary point - and I will do my best to publish the text of the resolution here, as soon as I get it.
(MPs will still debate the resolution on their salary at 10pm - but I doubt much time will now be spent on that, and there were calls for the Leader of the House Sir George Young to allow an unlimited debate on Libya, so everyone who wanted to speak would get the chance.)
The Government also plans to publish a summary of its legal advice on the UN resolution and the legality of use of force. One interesting piece of choreography in David Cameron's statement today (Friday) was that the Government's top legal advisor, the Attorney-General, Dominic Grieve, was prominently placed one seat down from the PM - a visible attempt to reassure MPs that the legality of the war was fully established, so dispelling some memories of the Iraq debate, exactly eight years ago.
The change to Monday means the debate on the Budget Responsibility Bill is pushed back to Tuesday - and the remaining stages of the Scotland Bill have been kicked into the long heather. I imagine that will resurface the following week. (Incidentally, I'm told the report by the Scottish Select Committee on the Bill will be published at 10am on Monday.) The Budget remains on Wednesday and the scheduling for the rest of the week is unchanged.
I'm Mark D'Arcy and I'll be writing about what goes on in the chambers and committee rooms at Westminster.
Comment number 1.
At 18th Mar 2011, TheGingerF wrote:That seems fair enough given the importance of Libya.
Despite a lot of people from different parts of political spectrum trying to make out there are massive differences between Iraq and Libya, it is the similarities that are the most persuasive. It will be interesting to see how our political class have changed (or not) their view on regime change foreign policy, laced with a touch of protecting the innocent. I suspect we will see the most pronounced change by our new responsible governing Liberals.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 20th Mar 2011, corum-populo-2010 wrote:So, no debate or votes on Monday on UN resolution on Libya - are we surprised - yes, actually?
I would also add, although off topic, that some British newspapers today, Sunday, are disgustingly publishing jingoist front pages after the overnight attacks.
I have mixed feelings about censorship, but what I, and my family do disagree with are these disgraceful, divisive and disgusting headlines. Totally shameless.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 21st Mar 2011, Lemon flavoured wrote:Freedom of the press is paramount imho. Censoring "jingoistic" headlines would be a massive curtailment of that.
As for the vote, I can't see there being more than 20 votes against the government.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 21st Mar 2011, corum-populo-2010 wrote:Yes, post 03 @ 12:25pm on 21 March 2011 - 'lemon_flavoured' I agree that freedom of the press to report is paramount and I never did, nor would suggest anything different.
Reporting is one thing on a somber issue regarding UN intervention to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya. I would suggest 'lemon_flavoured' that you are deliberately missing the point on concern of front pages of certain Sunday newspapers?
As for the vote expected today, Monday on UN intervention - well it didn't happen. Which wipes the floor on your opinion of a vote that was never destined to happen?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 21st Mar 2011, Larkhan wrote:"As for the vote expected today, Monday on UN intervention - well it didn't happen. Which wipes the floor on your opinion of a vote that was never destined to happen?"
Erm, the debate, followed by the vote, is set to happen, provided there are no ministerial statements or urgent questions, in roughly an hour's time at 15:30 GMT. It's under the title of the 'United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 (Motion)'. The text of the motion is:
"That this House welcomes United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 1973; deplores the ongoing use of violence by the Libyan regime; acknowledges the demonstrable need, regional support and clear legal basis for urgent action to protect the people of Libya; accordingly supports Her Majesty’s Government, working with others, in the taking of all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas under threat of attack in Libya and to enforce the No Fly Zone, including the use of UK armed forces and military assets in accordance with UNSC Resolution 1973; and offers its wholehearted support to the men and women of Her Majesty’s armed forces."
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 21st Mar 2011, Lemon flavoured wrote:Re: post #4.
If people are offended by a certain newspaper's headline, they are free to complain to the PCC, or simply to boycott that paper. Censorship is very rarely the answer.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 21st Mar 2011, corum-populo-2010 wrote:Post 05 - 'Larkhan' my post was not regarding anything you never said before now. As for your patronising "Erm" - am too polite to respond in how I would wish to.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)
Comment number 8.
At 21st Mar 2011, corum-populo-2010 wrote:Post 06 @ 5:32pm on 21 March - 'lemon_flavoured'. As I already pointed out I know freedom of the press to report is paramount.
So stop twisting my comments or responses and take a lie down.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 8)
Comment number 9.
At 21st Mar 2011, Lemon flavoured wrote:Re post #8 fair enough. I'm not arguing that the reporting is responsible.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 9)
Comment number 10.
At 22nd Mar 2011, TheGingerF wrote:Well I was correct in my last sentence up at 1 above:
Tories: Iraq 99% for 1% against, Libya 99% for 1% against (rounded up)
Labour: Iraq 80% for 20% against, Libya 95% for 5% against
LibDems: Iraq 0% for 100% against, Libya 100% for 0% against
SNP/Plaid: looks like as per LibDems (although Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ has decided not to mention these parties)
So conclusions:
a) Only the LibDems/Nationalists can truly see the glaring differences between the 2 conflicts OR,
b) Its all a bit different when you actually have to govern, for the LibDems at least
c) If you really want regime change then the Tories will be right behind you, no matter what other supporting story you decide to justify intervention with
Complain about this comment (Comment number 10)