Subscribe to our RSS feed 
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Facebook
GoogleA really interesting and enjoyable article, but I do have several reservations about it's line of reasoning - and indeed the HoL select committee's.
Firstly, at no stage is it made clear in concrete terms why it is preferable for parliament should be consulted before war or a troop deployment. It is just assumed that transfering power from the executive to the legislature must be a 'good thing', and therefore the current arrangement constitutes an abnormality. In fact, I would argue that the conduct of warfare is highly suited to executive decision making and highly unsuited to 'decision by committee' because above all, the prosecution of war needs timely, bold, decisive, and clear cut decisions. As Winston Churchill once said: 'Put the most gallant sailor, the most intrepid airman, and the most audacious soldier at the table together, and what do you get? The sum of their fears.' Gallant, intrepid and audacious are not words which spring to mind when thinking of our current crop of legislators, and quite frankly, I am concerned that the sum of their fears might well be so pusillanimous that we would soon cease to play an effective role in international affairs altogether.
But there is another problem. Governments like John Major's on very slender majorities are at the mercy of minority interest MPs. Suppose that a serious escalation in loyalist violence in Northern Ireland had occured during the 1990s. The Major government is briefed by military commanders and republican politicans that a drastic increase in troop numbers is needed to halt the crisis. But who is the government reliant on to support its domestic agenda?
Ulster Unionist MPs! There is a serious danger that Britain's responses to international events become pawns or bargaining chips in the domestic political game if parliamentary influence is increased, to the detriment of a consistent or appropriate foreign policy.
There is also the quality of MPs themselves. It has been frequently commented on that practically none of them have any real experience in foreign affairs, and only a tiny percentage have any experience of the Armed Forces or the events that they would be pontificating about. Whether from right or left, there is a tendency to sermonise, score party points and build careers. Fine when debating about the pros and cons of something relatively unimportant like hunting with dogs, less so when lives and the security of the nation may be at stake. From my point of view, the case has just not been made strongly enough about why parliament as an institution is the correct one to be making decisions about war fighting.
Secondly, these proposals relate to events and procedures leading up to the most recent invasion of Iraq which is generally judged to have been mis-managed. MPs and the Media have felt miffed that they were disregarded over the decision to go to war. However, regarding the MPs, the question really is whether they would have done anything different from the executive when the question: 'To go to War?' was put to the HoC vote on 18th March 2003. The rather embarrassing answer for MPs is actually, NO, in spite of a rebellion there was a crushing majority on favour of both motions on the war in February and March. From my perspective, this knocks out another prop from the parliamentary case, because in fact our legislators were shown to have no better judgement on troop deployment than the much criticised executive.
So, in summary I believe that Parliament has serious case to answer before it is entrusted with any fresh legislative powers, and that so far its powers of judgement have not been especially impressive.
In fact, for the reasons outlined above in point one, it may well be institutionally incapable of offering the kind of quality and speed of decision making that is so vital in the conduct of international affairs.
This was originally posted as a comment, but deserves a wider audience. I believe James posts on Inner West Central but it is a common name, I suppose).
