Memorandum by Charles Arnett, Mark Gulley,
Christian Fellowship Brethren
We submit respectfully that there are compelling
reasons to maintain the status quo.
1. The House of Commons Select Committee
on Public Administration 4th Report, March 2004, led to the reponse
of the DCA in July 2004, which states:
"The Government notes that even those witnesses
in favour of the extension of parliamentary authority in this
area recognise the difficulties, both of definition (when would
the requirements be triggered) and timing (in emergency situations).
The Government's view is that the pragmatic approach, allowing
the circumstances of parliamentary scrutiny to reflect the circumstances
of the armed conflict, continues to be the more effective approach."
Surely there is much wisdom here.
2. The evidence of the Right Hon. William
Hague, while in favour of more parliamentary involvement, also
alludes to the possibility that:
"an international situation will arise in
the next 20 years that is entirely different from anything that
we have ever experienced and we would find such an act (the "simple
and flexible" measure he called for) did not cater for it."
It would therefore be most unwise to propose
any measure of parliamentary or judicial intervention which would
limit the needed maximum flexibility in adopting military action
which is at present possible, using the Government prerogative
powers.
3. Decisions about the balance between prerogative
power and parliamentary approval ought to consider not only legal
and constitutional issues, but other elements of the context of
21st century armed conflict. Some are of cardinal importance.
Some brief details are on the accompanying page.
4. The most important thing in war making
is the quality of the leadership and highlighted by present conflict—respect
for Christian principles.
Have any senior staff in the Services requested
a greater say for Parliament and the Courts?
APPENDIX
1. Speed is of the essence both in the initiation,
and continuation, of modern military activity. Any procedure which
could cause delay should be avoided; it could be disastrous.
2. The most important international conflict
of today is unlike the 20th century world wars or the Cold War.
It is religious (or fanatical) in origin, and characterised by
a ruthless disregard for human life, and slaughter of innocent
men, women and children (Muslim, Christian et al.). Its undisguised
aims are the subjugation of the Christian nations and the obliteration
of Israel.
Again, the speed and maximum flexibility of
action must be kept open, or horrendous loss of life could result.
3. The current alliance between the UK,
the USA and Australia, is crucial in opposing the spread of the
fanatical Muslim minority.
Anything which could, even unwittingly, reduce
or delay our capacity to act with the USA should be shunned. There
are far too many EU nations which are unwilling to lend their
support, or unable to.
4. Much secret intelligence cannot be communicated
to Parliament. If the speed of communications, and mode of them,
keeps advancing, the gap between what is known and what can be
made public could widen.
5. Any delaying procedures give more scope
for media influence and intervention.
The unaccountable yet huge influence of the
media is a subject which cries out for parliamentary attention.
The harassment of Lord Goldsmith in recent times is but one disgraceful
example.
6. If there is pressure to give more powers
to Parliament as to the initiation or continuation of military
activity, allied with pleas for open government, should the openness
also extend to consideration of:
— how many MPs pleading for such powers
are in fact largely (or wholly) opposed to war making in general?
— how many have any expertise in military
matters (knowledge of which concentrates in the Lords)?
— how many MPs sympathise with the
development of the European Defence Force, which at worst is intended
as counterweight to NATO and the influence of the USA, and at
best will be crippled by inter EU rivalry of dissensions?
We therefore encourage the Government to maintain
the status quo on War Making Powers.
| 
