Turn on thread page Beta

B951 - Armed Forces (Royal Prerogative) Bill 2016 watch

    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    In how many situations that aren't covered by 5(1)?
    I don't actually object to you posting a bill prior to the second great repeal because there are a number of great bills however 2 things to note should this proceed.

    1) Go back to the formatting of your old bill, it's far prettier.

    2) Your in breach of the guidance document without amending at least two lines to any significant degree.

    Naturally i still consider the actual content to be putrid and a strengthening of the hand of the pacifists in your government.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    How about large operations by special forces like Operation Barras,. Are you suggesting Operations like that it wouldn't be allowed to go ahead until it was debated, voted on, and approved? This seems like an unnecessary move which would only restrict military movements.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    How about large operations by special forces like Operation Barras,. Are you suggesting Operations like that it wouldn't be allowed to go ahead until it was debated, voted on, and approved? This seems like an unnecessary move which would only restrict military movements.
    They would still be possible with a Cabinet vote only under Section 5(1)b.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    They would still be possible with a Cabinet vote only under Section 5(1)b.
    Surely the Prime Minister, the person who holds the highest office in our land, ought to be trusted to authorise SF actions on their own without having to go to the cabinet each time.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    Surely the Prime Minister, the person who holds the highest office in our land, ought to be trusted to authorise SF actions on their own without having to go to the cabinet each time.
    The aim of the bill is to impose reasonable checks and balances. A parliamentary vote is reasonable for the use of conventional forces, but not for special forces. A Cabinet vote is a reasonable means of introducing checks and balances into the authorisation of special forces use.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    The aim of the bill is to impose reasonable checks and balances. A parliamentary vote is reasonable for the use of conventional forces, but not for special forces. A Cabinet vote is a reasonable means of introducing checks and balances into the authorisation of special forces use.
    Why are check and balances needed when it comes to authorising the use of special forces? When has that been misused in such a way that the PM should no longer should be trusted with that power on their own?
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    Why are check and balances needed when it comes to authorising the use of special forces? When has that been misused in such a way that the PM should no longer should be trusted with that power on their own?
    To avoid a single person having complete control over making the decision.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    To avoid a single person having complete control over making the decision.
    It's not like handling the nuclear codes. There's nothing which suggests that it needs to be approved by the cabinet rather than one person.
    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    A hell no when you're hamstringing the special forces to a vote by the cabinet rather than just letting the PM authorise an operation. Unnecessary bureaucracy when accountability already exists.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    yeah, having read this I'm very strongly against it

    think about why the prerogative exists before trying to remove it
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I was the one who argued for a cabinet vote over a decision by, if I recall, the PM, foreign sec and defense sec, my reasoning was the PM can simply fill those positions with friends or yes men, meaning that the cabinet can't hold the PM to account, as it would be much harder to fill the cabinet entirely with yes men and/or friends who will go along with what the PM wants and not challenge them. It is also harder to sack the entire cabinet than it is to sack or reshuffle two positions.

    I think the full reasoning of why I argued for the whole cabinet vote in the emergency situations is a sensible, democratic one which adds a check and balance against someone who has no direct democratic mandate to lead the Country. Especially when even if you take the total vote for a party to be the vote for the manifesto and leader of the party, the last time a party got over 50% of the vote, giving them a mandate of half of those who voted, was in 1931.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Nay. Limiting the use of our military is bad enough, but with the threat of ISIS hanging over us it's just going to hinder our progress in wiping them out. Besides, if ISIS gets the wrong idea about this and starts thinking we're weak what happened in Brussels will end up happening in London.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peroxidation)
    Nay. Limiting the use of our military is bad enough, but with the threat of ISIS hanging over us it's just going to hinder our progress in wiping them out. Besides, if ISIS gets the wrong idea about this and starts thinking we're weak what happened in Brussels will end up happening in London.
    This isn't limiting the use of our military at all, it is simply changing how we go about entering military combat, it is moving us on from he outdated, autocratic system which is a remnant of the days of absolute monarchy and the British Empire. This simply drags us into the 20th Century, let alone the 21st Century.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kay_Winters)
    This isn't limiting the use of our military at all, it is simply changing how we go about entering military combat, it is moving us on from he outdated, autocratic system which is a remnant of the days of absolute monarchy and the British Empire. This simply drags us into the 20th Century, let alone the 21st Century.
    It does limit our military and that's largely the only reason a swathe of your party really support this. Not only do we have to put up with actual pacifists but you'll now get circumstances like 2013 in which Miliband was privately acknowledged to support miliary action but played politics (granted Tory incompetence also prevented action there).
    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    (Original post by Kay_Winters)
    This isn't limiting the use of our military at all, it is simply changing how we go about entering military combat, it is moving us on from he outdated, autocratic system which is a remnant of the days of absolute monarchy and the British Empire. This simply drags us into the 20th Century, let alone the 21st Century.
    It's a movement towards a system inherently political in decision (i.e. parties playing for votes), creating deadlock in situations which did not need to be in such. Accountability in the existing system is sufficient in my view that this is unnecessary and represents more harm than good.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Given the governments accusation that this bill is not intended to hold back military action, is it the governments belief that parliament as a whole is more fit to evaluate the costs and benefits of potential action than the defense or foreign affairs select commities who would normally inform and make recommendations to government.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Given the governments accusation that this bill is not intended to hold back military action, is it the governments belief that parliament as a whole is more fit to evaluate the costs and benefits of potential action than the defense or foreign affairs select commities who would normally inform and make recommendations to government.
    The role of the select committees need not be diminished, but the final say is best had by Parliament as a whole where all corners of Britain are represented.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    The role of the select committees need not be diminished, but the final say is best had by Parliament as a whole where all corners of Britain are represented.
    Representation and whips are more important than expert discussion?
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Representation and whips are more important than expert discussion?
    They are both important. The select committees can make their recommendation to the Government and then it can go before Parliament.

    (I also thought I had required a free vote – I will consider a second reading to that effect.)
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    They are both important. The select committees can make their recommendation to the Government and then it can go before Parliament.

    (I also thought I had required a free vote – I will consider a second reading to that effect.)
    There is no way you can enforce a free vote. That's like me telling you how to run your party.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
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
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?

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.