PM wants to give up the power to declare war?

[Woad-Warrier]

Just saw this on the news this morning. Apparently Gorden Brown wants to give up the power for the prime minister to declare war in a constitutional reform. The power being redirected to parliament.

Personally I think parliament should also have to go though the monarch as well. Should stop these stupid middle east wars. Depending on the monarch that is.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6258794.stm

[InquisitorTorquemada]

Good luck with that, dont know about you guys but the only entity in the US with a lower rating than the president is our congress. The last thing we would do is give them more power. Ever wonder why pure totalitarians defeated pure democracies militarily in ancient history? (hint, efficiency of executive powers)

Unless you want that dried up husk running affairs, I suggest you stick with the PM

[Woad-Warrier]

In my personal opinion parliament or more specially (The House of Commons) has too much power as it is.

Time to give the monarch some more say if you ask me.

[the Black Prince]

interesting

from the Civil War to the Falklands, the power to declare war was vested in parliament.

The Falklands blew up when Parliament was in recess, so to get the authority to commit british troops to the defence of the Isles, Thatcher had to get an Order in Council from the Privy Council, the process for reconvening parliament in an emergency session would have taken to long. After the war, Legislation was passed transferring the power, not to the PM, but to the Cabinet.

This is why Blair didn't need a parliamentary vote on military action in Iraq, though one was held anyway.

I think the Falklands showed Thatcher made the right decision to reclaim this power for the executive. I think its rather stupid to give it back again.

[Gary88]

Good luck with that, dont know about you guys but the only entity in the US with a lower rating than the president is our congress. The last thing we would do is give them more power. Ever wonder why pure totalitarians defeated pure democracies militarily in ancient history? (hint, efficiency of executive powers)

yeah but we actually have modicum of faith in those we vote for and expect them to make decisions for us...its kind of their job

[Curtana]

It is just a sop to public opinion. People are angry because TB lied and tricked us into an unwinnable war. Parliament will still do what the PM tells it to. All GB is doing is sharing the blame for any future total screw ups like Iraq and trying to show he wouldn't have done what TB did (which is a lie). Doesn't mean a thing. Besides he still has the power to take executive action in certain 'heightened' circumstances where parliamentary deliberation would take too long. They get to debate it afterwards – thoroughly pointless.

Good luck with that, dont know about you guys but the only entity in the US with a lower rating than the president is our congress. The last thing we would do is give them more power.
Unless you want that dried up husk running affairs, I suggest you stick with the PM

The UK system is very different to the US system. This is not really a factor. The generals run the wars anyway with executive 'supervision'.

[jimkatalanos]

The parliament should declare war, not the PM.
However, the best thing is: citizens to vote for war.

[danzig]

The parliament should declare war, not the PM.
However, the best thing is: citizens to vote for war.

Great, war by mob rule...only thing worse then an incompetent leader is allowing the animals to run the zoo

[jimkatalanos]

Great, war by mob rule...only thing worse then an incompetent leader is allowing the animals to run the zoo

Well, the mob votes for the government. Many times citizens are against war. Is it democratic if a government declares war eventhough the citizens don't want war?

[ajm317]

Well, the mob votes for the government. Many times citizens are against war. Is it democratic if a government declares war eventhough the citizens don't want war?

I'd be far more worried about the public calling for stupid wars every time they get ticked off.

After 9-11 the public in the U.S. probably would have voted for war on any and all Middle Eastern countries. Many of the people I knew at the time were supportive of nuclear strikes. Probably it would be the same everywhere. At least congress and the president shifted out 1-2.

[LoZz]

i hear he is gonna allow protests outside of parliament again, step in the right direction imo

[the Black Prince]

that, at least, is a good move...
is he doing iit for the right reasons though, or is it just popularism??

[killerchinchilla]

that, at least, is a good move...
is he doing iit for the right reasons though, or is it just popularism??

Popularism probably, but I'm not sure it matters as long as the ability to do it is restored.

I think the cabinet should have the right to take military action without consulting parliament on issues where national security is at risk say the Falklands, or where we have a treaty obligation to act, say an invasion of another NATO country. Parliament should be consulted in cases were the intention is to take action against another nation and the aforementioned is not applicable, Iraq say, or in cases where a treaty obligation is not so clear cut, Afghanistan being a prime example.

In the end the Prime Minister is just an MP elected in the same way, and a party leader elected in a variety of ways, and should not have absolute power or any where near the kind of decision making power that Mr Blair seemed to wield.

[jimkatalanos]

The parliament should decide where,when and to who declare war and the citizens should vote if they agree with the parliament.

[Mangalore]

As the most representative of all government institutions it seems logical that parliament must vote on a war or ratify it if the government is allowed to start military operations without a vote. Even then in a heated situation parliament might be still very emotional to decide something stupid, for ww1 the German parliament voted pretty much united to release funds to start it.

[danzig]

The parliament should decide where,when and to who declare war and the citizens should vote if they agree with the parliament.

Great so if we did this during say WW2 the US might have finally entered the war in oh say 1954 or so, a bit too late eh. There is a reason democratic states dont practice direct democracy, it would be so unwieldy and vulnerability to the crisis of the moment which would allow it to easily overreact or so sluggish that the time it actually responded to anything the worst would have already happened.

[InquisitorTorquemada]

Great so if we did this during say WW2 the US might have finally entered the war in oh say 1954 or so, a bit too late eh. There is a reason democratic states dont practice direct democracy, it would be so unwieldy and vulnerability to the crisis of the moment which would allow it to easily overreact or so sluggish that the time it actually responded to anything the worst would have already happened.

BINGO! Ding ding ding ding

[Bootsiuv]

Great so if we did this during say WW2 the US might have finally entered the war in oh say 1954 or so, a bit too late eh. There is a reason democratic states dont practice direct democracy, it would be so unwieldy and vulnerability to the crisis of the moment which would allow it to easily overreact or so sluggish that the time it actually responded to anything the worst would have already happened.

Good post. I argued this same point in the "if america is so bad then..." thread....try getting 300,000,000 to vote on an issue in a timely manner. What a joke.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Good post. I argued this same point in the "if america is so bad then..." thread....try getting 300,000,000 to vote on an issue in a timely manner. What a joke.

We barely get 1/3rd of that number to vote for our leader for 4 years.

[Bootsiuv]

We barely get 1/3rd of that number to vote for our leader for 4 years.

Very true, which is why "true democracy" or "direct democracy" or whatever you want to call it simply won't work in today's day and age. It might have worked for ancient greek city-states (although weren't many of them oligarchies?), but it's quite impractical in the modern world, even for a small country.