|
UK lawmakers to get 'war votes'
25/10/2007 19:53 - (SA)
London - British lawmakers are to get a greater say in whether to send the country's armed forces to war, the government said on Thursday as it launched consultations on widespread constitutional reform.
As it stands, the government does not need the approval of the House of Commons to send the military into armed conflict under an ancient convention dating from the time the monarch decided whether to go to war.
Parliamentary votes were not held for the Falklands War in 1982 or the first Gulf war in 1991. Lawmakers were given a vote before the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 and backed the government.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced in July that certain of these "royal prerogatives" which have since passed to the executive should be abolished to restore primacy to parliament and have a more open democracy.
In a document put before the lower House of Commons on Thursday, Justice Secretary Jack Straw said lawmakers' new role in deciding military intervention could be made either by parliamentary convention or through legislation.
But there were a number of key issues that needed to be considered.
'Need for secrecy'
"It is essential that any new arrangements should not damage morale, hinder us in meeting our international obligations, nor inhibit operational flexibility and the need for secrecy and to act in emergencies," Straw said.
The new arrangements should also not put the armed forces under any legal liability, he added.
A similar transfer of power has been proposed for the ratification of international treaties as part of proposals that could see Britain have its first written constitution instead of a jumble of laws and legal precedents.
In a speech, Brown outlined plans to extend individual freedoms in a range of areas, taking into account changes in modern society, technology and current threats.
Since coming to power in 1997, civil liberties and human rights groups have accused Brown's governing Labour Party of passing a raft of legislation that have curtailed individual freedoms and rights.
They are particularly angry at a wave of anti-terrorism laws that they say disproportionately discriminate against Muslims and outlaw freedom of expression and even movement or assembly.
Executive decisions
Brown outlined no firm proposals on Thursday to tackle those concerns but said "we should consider whether we need to do more to offer redress for the individual against any disproportionate use of powers by the state".
He was also silent on the possibility of raising the maximum time a security suspect can be held in custody without charge from the current 28 days, which has caused controversy here.
Whatever is decided, there needed to be greater legal or judicial safeguards on executive decisions and increased parliamentary scrutiny of them, he added.
- AFP
|
News
