Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Sorry Barry I agree 100 % with Alexander and Jimmy on this one. If intervention is required let the Egyptians do it.
Vic, are you talking Dunblane or Culloden?
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
The PM appears to be backing down a bit from his statement regarding military action when questioned at todays press conference. Probably because to impose a no fly zone would,in defence experts opinion, require the presence of an aircraft carrier which we no longer possess.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
dave does tend to "shoot from the hip" at times and then backtracks after speaking to his advisers.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
The idea to arm the rebels in Libya came from a certain Bill Cash Conservative MP, and the PM answered without thinking. His advisers were shocked, and have informed the press that even a no-fly zone cannot be decided upon unless by the UN.
There is, therefore, no consideration on the part of Parliament to send arms to rebels in Libya, and the whole topic about a no-fly zone has nothing to do with aircraft carriers that Britain has or doesn't have, but rather depends on a UN deliberation.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
trust bill cash to come out with something as daft as that, he must have a very safe seat to be continually elected.
Vic Matcham,
What in gods name are you talking about??
Just what exactly happenned years ago in Scotland?? and what lives lost, are you referring to??
Perhaps I have missed something, and by rights I should be dead, if not dead, eternally greatful to my english cousins for saving my life!!
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
I think Vic is referring to Lockerbie. I may be wrong cos his mind works in mysterious ways.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
Military chiefs announced that 11,000 personnel across the Army, Navy and Air Force face complusory redundancy The toll includes some soldiers currently fighting in Afghanistan.
PM David Cameron was accused of betrayal after Defence Secretary Liam Fox told Parliament last year: "No one currently serving in Afghanistan will face compulsory redundancy".
And new defence chief General Sir David Richards said four months ago it was his "clear desire" to safeguard Afghan and Iraq combat veterans.
First in line for the axe will be RAF top gun pilots - even though Mr Cameron has ordered the drawing-up of plans to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya. The Tornado squadron at Lossiemouth have been tokd they face the axe only days after returning from Afghanistan to a hero's welcome and parade.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
LOL Alexander. I love your last sentence in post #18 and I quote ""I permit myself to openly invite you to read the British Constitution, as you seem to make up the rules as you go along, Barry!""
Alexander, talk about making it up as you go along...
Britain has no written Constitution, there is no such document to read.
Your ignorance goes way beyond economics.
There is nothing wrong at all for the West and the UK in particular to protect and look after our own interests and if that means using the military to influence events elsewhere then we should do it. Yes that does include protecting our important oil supplies and there is nothing wrong with that. Helping Gaddafi's opponents gain the upper hand and in so doing gain influence over them, perhaps helping steer them to a more open society cannot be a bad thing for the UK. Of course in the middle east these things can sometimes bite us back when pro-western leaders turn out to be less friendly but that is part of what was once called 'the great game'.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
Yes I was talking about Lockerbie.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
you have to hand it to gaddafi, he has much more style and flair than the average run of the mill homicidal maniac.
today a heavily armed motorcade went through tripoli to a destination where he would give one of his speeches.
true to being a born leader he headed the motorcade, even driving his own vehicle.
a electric golf cart!!
makes the likes of dave, nick and ed look rather downbeat.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Barry, Britain has a Constitution, and it is found in a variety of written documents, even though they are not grouped in one single document.
Further more, there are international laws that are written and recognised internationally. There are also groups of countries that are part of leagues and unions, which often each have a set of regulations or can express views in unity with each other.
To give an example of our laws, T. Blair has to answer for lying to the British Parliament and People in order to attack Irak. Our Country cannot go to war without a parliamentary process being respected.
There are UN laws, which would define your last post about merrily marching into Libya or sending arms to rebels respectively as an invasion or a breach of international law.
The Arab League has just announced that no western countries should intervene in Libya. The Arab countries have their own channels to invite the combatting sides in Libya to see reason or at least not to commit atrocities.
It seems to me Barry, that you do not even realise that Britain recognises the UN and its authority in dealing with international issues such as wars, and that you are not aware what a breach of internatinal law is.
Our Country has not been invaded, I see no reason for Britain to openly challenge the Arab League of Nations by merrily marching into Libya.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Alexander - you are wriggling away there.
Britain has an unwritten Constitution that has evolved over the centuries by custom and practise. Trying to say what you do above does not change that.
Where did I say we should just ignore the UN? The UN certainly does not mean we should in any way forgo the willingness and ability to protect British interests and British citizens or, indeed to influence events in other countries for the better and in the interests of this country. While not ignoring it we should still be very wary of the UN, after all much of its constituents are dictators and despots like Gadaffi.
You do warp arguments to meet your own often rather strange views.
Guest 670- Registered: 23 Apr 2008
- Posts: 573
You are quite right Barry, we don't have a written constitution as such.
Our system allows that which is made law today can be repealed tomorrow according to public opinion at the time. It is a vital part of our democracy and has been for many, many years. Alexander, show me a book which outlines the British Constitution and that which is set in stone.
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
"Magna Carta...did she die in vain to try and keep the boozers open until 11 o'clock...."
Tony Hancock from the '12 Just Men episode'. Brilliant......
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Dave 1, Britain has a variety of written documents that are our present Constitution, and as I stated above, they are not written in one sole document. But every law in Britain is written somewhere.
The term legal, which is more commonly used in Britain, is representative for the term constitutional.
British law is based to an extent on precedent, which is important in courts, and also on bills passed in Parliament, on written laws in general. Whatever law is taken into consideration, it must be written on a document and sealed by the legal authority, in the same way as a judge's decision must be based on a previously written document and must itself be written down as record.
It is important to understand that the British identification of law and of that what is legal is the equivalent to constitutional. Acts of Parliament, or laws, become constitutionally binding.
Also, not everything that today is law can be repealed tomorrow according to public opinion. Some, or even many laws, could be amended, but there are important written laws that will never be repealed as such.
One of these is recognition of a Parliament that governs our Country. May-be a brief look at the Magna Carta will help understand that there is a written proto-constitution.
Parliamentary authority was further increased after the second Civil War, and again after the Glorious Revolution, and in later times too.
Written documents regards parliamentary authority are there, and this is the bases of British democracy and of British law. Once again, you will find that there is a British Constitution, and that it is written, albeit in different documents and not in one document. The fact that the laws can change through legal (constitutional) procedures, has never been questioned by me, but rather the idea of existing laws being misinterpreted, hence my point that Britain cannot just get militarily involved in the strife of another country.
To do so and jeopordise our security and prosperity, or that of other countries, without respecting existing law and international law, can lead to what we see when T. Blair has to face a court and answer for involving Britain in a war by deceiving Parliament.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
alex
a constitution is one document that covers fundamental principles, we do not have one.
laws, acts of parliaments, judicial decisions change all the time and are a completely different thing.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Not so at all, Howard! The problem here is the wrong interpretation of the term Constitution, which some seem to think is synonym for 'one written book': it is not!
Here is an extract from Wikipedia:
"A constitution is a set of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is governed.[1] These rules together make up, i.e. constitute, what the entity is. When these principles are written down into a single or set of legal documents, those documents may be said to comprise a written constitution."
Note the words: single or set of legal documents.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
No - Alexander.... You suggested I should 'read the British Constitution' and there is no such document, it was you suggesting originally that it is 'one book' by telling me to read it.
I have told you the simple fact that the British Constitution is unwritten and has evolved by tradition, precedent and practise and is not a document that can be picked up and read.
In backtracking you seem rather mixed up and have demonstrated in your meandering that it is not something anyone can just read. You just keep on digging yourself in deeper and deeper. Know when to give up.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
No, Barry! In post 18 I DID NOT invite you to read any book of British Constitution, but to read the British Constitution!!!
That with 'one book', or 'a book' of British Constitution that you attribute to me is a pure invention on your part, as post 18 clearly demonstartes to all!