Guest 670- Registered: 23 Apr 2008
- Posts: 573
#41
The Magna Carta was a sort of written constitution, however much of it today and over the years has either been repealed or fallen in to disuse. You mention judges they it is true are governed by precedent but those precedents are set initially by Parliament in the form of laws. There would be little point in a judge sentencing a person to 10 years when the maximum sentence laid down by the state is 7 years.
There are no set documents comprising a constitution, our nation is governed by Parliament which is elected by the people, peoples attitudes change and therefore those that govern us have to bow to the will of the people. Abortion, Homosexuality and others were all legalised to conform to public opinion but should public opinion change again, they can quite easily be repealed.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#42
Alexander - by saying I should read it you were suggesting that I should read a document that does not exist.
Dave1 is absolutely right in what he says.
You just twist and turn Alexander.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#43
seems to be a split in government ranks about what action should be taken over libya.
michael gove has a very hawkish attitude to the situation.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#44
Nobody in history has ever read all the sources of law which make up the British Constitution. This document gives a good idea of how the country's legal framework was formed and how it changes over time.
http://www.inbrief.co.uk/legal-system/british-constitution.htm
You may have to cut and paste the link.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#45
No, Barry! I don't twist and turn the Constitution, and it seems that Peter's link confirms the authority of Parliament, in particular that of the House of Commons.
The context of this discussion about the British Constitution on this thread is in relation to your ideas that Britain can simply get involved in a military fashion in another country, under the guise that it is 'in our interests'.
Many long wars have broken out after it was claimed that an initial battle or march-through, would resolve everything. Often, it has led to a war of prolongued agony, much harder to end than it was to start. This has happened all over the world, and also at the start of both World Wars.
I trust in the Government to apply common sense in considering the issue of Libya, perhaps even offering mediation, helping refugees fleeing from Libya and arriving in Tunisia to return to their home-countries, and inviting the waring sides to use restraint and to respect civilian lives, and not to commit atrocities on prisoners either, and to consider an end to hostilities and an atempt at dialogue.
This is what the basics of my participatiuon in this thread are about, that we do not need another war, and that yor views on marching into Libya, or sending arms to Libya, are your own personal ideas and do not come from the British laws.
Incidentally, you may find, by reading on the subject, that Libian rebels have a massive arsenal of arms, including war-planes. And that the Libyan pilotes apparently refused to deploy their war-planes against rebels within urban areas so as not to cause casualties among the civilians.
The Arab League is also closely following events, and is consulting with the African league (forgot the exact name, for which I appologise), and NO-ONE there is asking for Britain to go on a military campaign in Libya. I believe that even the rebels in Libya have not asked for British military involvement either.
The security of our Country and the wider security of other regions depends on law and common sense being applied, and on international collaboration. Whenever some-one brandiishes military intervention in other countries' strife, should reckon with the fact that many people are prepared to stand up and oppose this by invoking the Constitution.
I believe that many British mothers have lost a son in Afghanistan, and that our Country is getting mightily fed-up with this sacrificing our young generation in the cause of some so-called 'interests' of Britain in Afghanistan. The problem is, the Government knows it is so much harder to pull out of Afghanistan than it was to enter! The same applies for America: it's hard to pull out, much harder than it was to enter Afghanistan.
These ideas on sending British military forces into other countries' problems are more and more likely to be opposed as soon as they crop up, before they take shape and before it is too late!
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#46
Isolationism did not work for America in the 1930's any more than appeasement and it will not work now for us.
It is a dangerous world out there and we must be prepared and ready to do what is considered best for the UK at all times. This is why we need a strong and powerful defence posture able to project power when needed.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#47
Yes Barry, isolationism: if Britain were to send arms to the rebels, or a militray force, ours would be the only country in the world to do so, and we would have really isolated ourselves from the rest of the world!
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#48
I have said this before on the forum and will say it again. Military operations to rescue our own citizens rightly are paid for out of the defence budget as we are defending our own citizens. Intervening in another country's civil war is a foreign policy adventure and should be paid for out of the foreign office budget.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#49
appeasement doesn't really come into the issue, libya are not threatening us or any other country.