I didn't say the Queen had the right to interfere in parliamentary matters.. Parties are decided by the people, and party leaders are decided by M.P.s. The monarch retains military power, hence the oath of allegiance, however.
I love reading your civil posts mate, but you're wrong here. Firstly, UN inspectors were in Iraq doing their work when George Bush decided there'd be a war (not because Hussein was cooperative, you're right there, he was a dictator and a murderer, but because he was ****ting himself about a war). Didn't Hans Blix (sp?) mention "the bastards in the White House" because the USA was adamant about war and the inspectors couldn't do their job? And c'mon, the UN is basically the Security Council. The USA, Russia, China, Britain and France. Are Russia and and China going to allow the USA to do what they want? Anyway, an easy question We all have the Internet. Show me the UN resolution which authorised the invasion of Iraq. Doesn't exist.
Certainly : United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 (UNSCR 1441), adopted on Nov. 8, 2002 by a vote of 15-0, stated in part: "Recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security, Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorizes Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area... Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwait and third country nationals wrongly detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq... Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, 1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency], and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991)..." Nov. 8, 2002 - UNSCR 1441 (58 KB) please log in to view this image The vote of 15 - 0 does not seem to include American oil companies, and focuses entirely on Hussein's broken promises.
Is that not about the inspection mate? It's all a little high brow for me but reading through that it looks like it's demanding compliance. It's not declaring war or authorising an invasion is it?
Well, strictly speaking, you're right. But having decided Hussein was, in all respects, in violation of his agreement, he just couldn't be seen to get away with it. The details of attack, etc., would be decided behind closed doors. But the justification is surely included in this Resolution. isn't it?
Excellent knowledgeable reply mate! And because Hussein was ****ting himself about the consequences - i.e. war - he gave in to that resolution which you quote (Nov 2002). ""in the buildup to the war, Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis were cooperating with UN inspections, and in February 2003 had provided UNMOVIC with the names of hundreds of scientists to interview, individuals Saddam claimed had been involved in the destruction of banned weapons. Had the inspections been allowed to continue, there would likely have been a very different situation in Iraq." (Quote from Hans Blix, who was leading the weapons inspectors). So there was no reason for the war. No weapons of mass destruction. And no UN resolution for war because Hussein had given in to the demands of the resolution you quoted. America wanted the oil.
Yeah completely but I'd expect something official to come through at that point. Bureaucrats aren't know for missing an opportunity to draw up some paper work! But I don't really know much about this stuff at all.
Spot on. But, er, this thread was supposed to be about the Monarchy, apologies if it's got hijacked ... by me going OT I suppose ... then again I hope hard but civil debate with sussed people like RAW and the Relic doesn't piss people off.
Well first Dave, can I say how much I appreciate the civility of yourself, MrRAW, and Di5co in this chat. Who's right or who's wrong, I think we've all been gentlemen, and I'll be pleased to shake your hand on that any time. To put it simply, Hussein broke the original agreements, and only came to heel when war was imminent (as you say, he was sh**tiing himself). But he just couldn't be seen to get away with the attempt to break his U.N. agreements. He really had to go by then. And by then his treatment of Kurds had hit the fan to help justify it. One way or another, the British parliamentary majority approved the war and, as it didn't involve Britain internally, H.M. gave her approval. I do agree that the only way H.M.'s blocking of parliamentary plans for the military is if it ever involved the British people. But make no mistake, that is a fundamental part of British law, and you and I are free men because of it. The monarchy is our safeguard.
That's a bit naughty Blunham. The Americans had given us satellite intelligence during the Falkland's war. Surely now, you can't make fun of them for honouring another sovereign state that had been invaded.
No one's immune to having the piss taken out of them Relic. Blind faith in anything or anyone is a dangerous folly.
Bear in mind we have a steadily increased militarisation of our police force and the emergence of 'private security/police' that be utilised for that scenario !
Still doesn't change my absolute belief that our monarchy carries no real power at all regarding the military or anything else..This written constitution that has been mentioned is nothing but protocol, where the Queen is just there for nothing more than to diligently sign anything that the PM puts in front of her.
There is a Royal Prerogative, which enables the government or Prime Minister to take action in the name of the Monarchy, without first consulting the Monarch. There are locks and safeguards in place and it's existence seems to rely on the agreement of both the Government and the Monarchy - i.e. if at any point the government began acting outside of what was deemed lawfully or morally right, there is a second procedure called Queen's Consent where HM can veto or withdraw the Government's Royal Prerogative in that instance. So yes, the Queen is nominally head of the UK's armed forces and those serving swear allegiance to the Monarch and not the Government. But the Monarchy has granted Royal Prerogative (or was coerced into granting it) to the government to take direct action in their name.
Why not just redraw constituency boundaries, update the voting system (to get more people engaged) and get rid of that layer between government of head of state. Regarding getting rid of the Monarch for someone elected; I'm not convinced a career politician trying to win a popularity contest is better than someone who is apolitical and is in the job for life....
Sounds great in principle, but in reality only about 65% voted in the general election (Less than 55% in the North East), so to ask people to vote for a 2nd assembly would be a step too far for the vast majority of the electorate..
Agreed! She's no more than a figurehead and any courtesies the government pay to her are just that, courtesies. The armed forces swear allegiance to the crown but take their orders from No.10. The PM doesnt even need to ask Parliament to deploy forces. He has the power and authority to do that himself, short of a declaration of war, which does require Parliament's approval. Relic, you've mentioned the Constitution a few times but don't forget its an unwritten one, based on precedence and as such constantly open to interpretation, adjustment and refinement.
