Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

B951 - Armed Forces (Royal Prerogative) Bill 2016 Watch

    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    B951 - Armed Forces (Royal Prerogative) Bill 2016, TSR Government

    ARMED FORCES (ROYAL PREROGATIVE) BILL 2016
    An Act removing the Royal Prerogative in the use of the military.
    BE IT ENACTED by the Queen's most excellent Majesty, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-

    1: USE OF THE ARMED FORCES
    (1) The Armed Forces may not be used in a combat role without the consent of the House of Commons.

    2: PROCEDURE
    (1) A proposition to use the Armed Forces may be submitted by the Prime Minister to the Speaker.
    (2) The proposition may be debated by Members of Parliament.
    (3) A minimum of 96 hours after the proposition was read to the House of Commons, Members of Parliament will vote upon it.
    (4) A proposition is deemed to have passed if an absolute majority of Members of Parliament vote in favour.

    3: INVOLVEMENT OF THE SOVEREIGN
    (1) The Sovereign is not involved in authorising use of the Armed Forces.

    4: AUTHORISATION
    (1) Following the successful passage of a proposition the government is authorised to use the Armed Forces for the stated purpose.

    5: EXCEPTIONS
    (1) In the following situations the Prime Minister may act immediately, without the consent of the House of Commons:
    (1) a. When British territory or diplomatic buildings are under attack or planned attack by another country or armed group.
    (1) b. When Cabinet votes that Special Forces should be used.
    (2) If planned attack is used as justification for use of the Armed Forces, the plans should be released publicly as soon as is deemed safe following the conclusion of the conflict.

    6: COMMENCEMENT, SHORT TITLE AND EXTENT
    (1) This Act may be cited as the Armed Forces Act 2016.
    (2) This Act shall extend to the United Kingdom; and
    (3) Shall come into force immediately.


    Notes
    This bill ensures that the Armed Forces are not used by the Prime Minister via the Royal Prerogative without Parliamentary Consent. Exceptions are made to ensure we can respond immediately to an attack upon our territory and to ensure Special Forces can be deployed (with the proportional safeguard of ensuring the PM, Foreign Secretary and Defence Secretary agree).

    If you think you recognise this bill, it was passed back in July 2014 (though I started writing it in April that year whilst on holiday in Kent – I remember it well) under the guise of the Armed Forces (Declaration of War) Bill 2014.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    What if we don't have the precious time to go through this process; 96 hours is a long time, especially when a matter of hours can make all the difference!
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by adam9317)
    What if we don't have the precious time to go through this process; 96 hours is a long time, especially when a matter of hours can make all the difference!
    In how many situations that aren't covered by 5(1)?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Nay, additional to the above, the royal perogative here is de facto gone anyway, this is legislating for the sake of it
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    In how many situations that aren't covered by 5(1)?
    Which is not practically applicable anyway
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Aye.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Does this also interfere with UN peacekeeping missions, or are they already subject to Commons' votes?

    Nay - I don't think the Special Forces should be subject to such red-tape or openness - they are, after all, special forces. E.g. the SAS took out several high-up IS militants in Syria without Parliament's consent.

    Everything I else I agree with.



    DRINK!!
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Not a chance.

    Should this pass i am sure i speak for all Tories in saying that this will be immediately repealed once the electoral math allows it.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Nay ! A thousand times nay ! , The PM Should be allowed to authorise military action without the agreement of parliament and what is technically removes the queen as commander In chief of the armed forces ....a terrible bill that should never of been made
    I urge all members to reject this utter tosh from the government
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    i am pleased that the Government has adopted a proposal similar in nature to that I proposed in the previous parliament. i am also pleased that the Royal Family and Her Majesty are in effect placed above politics by this proposal.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by barnetlad)
    i am pleased that the Government has adopted a proposal similar in nature to that I proposed in the previous parliament. i am also pleased that the Royal Family and Her Majesty are in effect placed above politics by this proposal.
    You mean you actually believe this is not already the case and /or any parts for which it is not it is a necessarily bad thing that it is there?
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    From what I read it sounds like it's just making it harder to say "tally ho, I declare a war"

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    Does this also interfere with UN peacekeeping missions, or are they already subject to Commons' votes?
    If they involve use of the armed forces in a combat role then yes.

    Nay - I don't think the Special Forces should be subject to such red-tape or openness - they are, after all, special forces. E.g. the SAS took out several high-up IS militants in Syria without Parliament's consent.
    Section 5(1)b.

    (Original post by Andy98)
    From what I read it sounds like it's just making it harder to say "tally ho, I declare a war"
    Sort of, the Prime Minister is no longer able to unilaterally declare or enter one without parliamentary support.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Not a chance.

    Should this pass i am sure i speak for all Tories in saying that this will be immediately repealed once the electoral math allows it.
    (Original post by hazzer1998)
    Nay ! A thousand times nay ! , The PM Should be allowed to authorise military action without the agreement of parliament and what is technically removes the queen as commander In chief of the armed forces ....a terrible bill that should never of been made
    I urge all members to reject this utter tosh from the government
    It's nice to see the Tories championing parliamentary democracy.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    If they involve use of the armed forces in a combat role then yes.



    Section 5(1)b.



    Sort of, the Prime Minister is no longer able to unilaterally declare or enter one without parliamentary support.
    Ahhh right.

    I read that wrong - sorry.

    Aye.



    DRINK!!
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    It's nice to see the Tories championing parliamentary democracy.
    You mean what is already the case? Seems you want to arbitrarily grow the statute book as well as destroying the economy and encourage tax avoidance

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    nay

    i'll read this agqin tomroow but it seems siht right now
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    An attempt by the Government to look good and get some legislations passed. Nay
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Nay. Also this was a bad attempt at a populist bill as you can't pass anything.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Not only is this a bad act that limits the ability of Britain's military in fighting abroad, but it proves the government is lazy by copying things that have passed in the past; this should not count in Rakas21's bill count.
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 3, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.