Memorandum by Peter C Beauchamp
May a member of the public send you his own
proposals regarding the Prime Minister's use of the the Royal
Prerogative over the commital of British services to warfare?
It might be that there is some point there that
is worthy of your Committee's attention.
I can assure you that the way Britain became
engaged against Iraq has caused my entire range of respondants
extreme resentment.
A MANDATORY PUBLIC
REFERENDUM ON
THE POSSIBILITY
OF PARTICIPATION
IN ARMED
CONFLICT
(THIS IS
NOT THE
SAME AS
NEIL GERRARD'S
P.MEMS BILL)
No greater loss of (millions) of lives and livelihoods
have been suffered by the British people (and their adversaries),
even over the last hundred years alone, than by going to war,
a decision which is vested in the Prime Minister. Annual Armistice
Days give us a stunning reminder. But now in 2005, the average
Briton is vastly better informed about world affairs through
travel and the media than when our existing system was set up.
Several issues now emerge that make this Constitutional matter
worthy of reconsideration:—
(a) MP's may not be able to obtain sufficient
of their constituents views in time for an urgent vote on such
a subject, so that, if called upon, they may vote along party
lines, irrespective of the views of their electors. Over the Iraq
war (and probably over Kosovo) it is now generally agreed that
the great majority of people would have voted against committing
our armed services did they have a chance, although they would
have supported the Falklands (see several opinion polls eg Telefax).
Surely this is a demonstrable mockery of a so-called democratic
system?
(b) The advent of the Internet and E-Mail
has enabled instant mass voting in UK town referendums.
This may be achieved for the computerless by use of supervised
public library computers. Pin-numbers would safeguard against
voter fraud, such that the quickest response to a Referendum about
going to war could be answered electronically, so expediting
the urgent Government decision. Voting would address an Independent
Parliamentary Ombudsman.
(c) The argument against such an exception
to normal voting-procedure would be that the Prime Minister was
privy to information not in the public domain, however incorrect
this might be. But I believe that especially with the Freedom
of Information Act, all can see that Britain no longer has an
Empire warranting more than a small defence force, whereas such
a decision in the recent past was palpably on grounds of supporting
foreign power politics or even individual ambition and
was the decision of just one man. But when it is clear
a Prime Minister may not consult with his own career Foreign Office
experts who have many years of rich field experience but instead
accept flawed intelligence, isn't this an ideal case for pure
democracy to be set by the Mother of Parliaments? Could we have
your Private Members Bill or at least your advice?
23 September 2005
| 
