Chatting to a mate last night about this i have done some googling this morning and some fairly scary stuff has come to light, most of which i know will be scare mongering but it got me to thinking,,,,, what if they are right 😯 .

The arguements that they put forward DO seem feasable.

Anyone who’s interested can click on these links,,, SOME CONTAIN STRONG LANGUAGE so you might prefer to do your own searching.

http://thejournal.parker-joseph.co.uk/blog/_archives/2009/3/2/4109792.html

http://bastardoldholborn.blogspot.com/2009/03/oh-fuckity-****.html

http://devilskitchen.me.uk/2009/03/flattening-laws-of-england.html

Anyone got any thoughts on this ?

I have not got a good handle on the detail of the CCA. However, if you are planning to declare martial law and put the army on the streets for the purposes of abolishing democracy and declaring a totalitarian government there is no very good reason for passing a bill in parliament authorising you to do so.

There is not (as far as I am aware – happy to be corrected!) a Pakistani law which authorises the army to stage a coup and take over the government every few years. They still do it.

Is martial law not passed by government rather than an individual which is the powers that the CCA would give ANY senior goverment minister/official as it allows them to disband parliment ?

Is your question “what is the correct form for declaring a fascist military takeover?”? 😯

To be honest this country would probably run better if the military took charge.

Well it could hardly be run worse.

😉

All the fun of Basra, but in Luton?

😉

BigDummy – I guess it is,,, not that I’m planning anything you understand 😉

sottyandjim – your right but if it was the military controlled by gordon brown thats a scary thought.

No more general elections, no way of shifting him out of office,,, he’s always struck me as having dictator qualties,,,,,,,,,,, comrade 😐

sootyandjim – your right but if it was the military controlled by gordon brown thats a scary thought.

Do you honestly think that if the military took charge then the one-eyed nostril miner wouldn’t be first against the wall?

There’d be people killed in the rush to pull the trigger I’m sure.

😉

The best (only?) argument for a constitutional monarchy imo.

Ok joking aside it just worries me that this act will give any one individual the power to run the country in any way they see fit using what ever powers they feel they need without the recourse to parliment, don’t forget that they can

prohibit, or enable the prohibition of, assemblies of specified kinds, at specified places or at specified times;

and is parliment not an assembly ?

They could then use the military for their own ends against their own public and the fact that the army are redeploying soldiers on the basis of whether they are willing to fire on UK citizens in this country says to me they are expecting problems in the near future which could be the excuse they need to bring in the CCA.

😕

Do go and read the act in full. I haven’t really got time this morning, but apart from anything else all regulations not approved by Parliament lapse after 7 days, and Parliament can strike down any emergency regulations made. is parliment not an assembly – not on a normal reading of British legislation. It is not defined as such, and parliament is itself mentioned repeatedly in the act. Of course, Peter Hain and the Household Cavalry can dissolve parliament, but that is because they have tanks, not because the CCA says it is legal to do it.

As I said earlier, if you wanted to impose martial law and abolish democracy you’d need the support of the army and the police, not a law authorising you to do it.

I think the rationale for this piece of legislation is to enable the bodies which are charged by the act with planning for emergencies to do so on the basis that they will be able to be authorised to do what they need to do.

I hope I’m not wildly naive about the good intentions of this government or the commanders of our armed forces. But I’m a lot more worried about a lot of the other things that have found their way onto the statute book over the years than I am about this, the practical effect of which appears to be to make lawful that which needs to be done.

They could then use the military for their own ends……

Although its often been poo poo’d by a few on here its quite an important quirk of constitutional law that the Armed Forces (and the Police I believe) swear an Oath of Allegiance to the monarchy rather than the government. This came about due to the almost tyrannical actions of Oliver Cromwell after the removal of Charles 1, especially in the respect of his misuse of the New Model Army to carry out his dirty work.

Although outwardly it is the government that decides policy for the Armed Forces of this country the individuals involved have no loyalty to that institution other than a devolved loyalty befitting those of an office appointed by the crown.

I ….. swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will, as in duty bound, honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, in Person, Crown and Dignity against all enemies, and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, and of the generals and officers set over me. So help me God.

It may seem quaint to those who have never taken it but many in the Armed Forces (and may who have since left) consider taking the Oath an important act to take. If push came to shove and they were required to take a side I’m sure most would chose the monarchy and the subjects of rather than an increasingly tyrannical Prime Minister.

Ok cheers for the replies, seems to all make sense to me now,,, I’ll leave you alone to get on with some work. 😀

Cheers again

BigSi

S&J – wouldn’t the orders in question come from the PM exercising the Royal Prerogative through the Privy Council and not as head of the majority party in the Commons though?

The authority of the Crown in relation to the armed forces is, by constitutional convention anyway, exercised exclusively by the Privy Council. For the Queen to give orders independently of the Privy Council to the armed forces tomorrow would (probably rightly) be regarded as an attempted coup.

Ultimately the Queen is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces and although the Privvy Council exists as the tool by which the Queen grants Westminster control over the military as an organisation the buck stops with the CinC. This quirk exists in order to seperate corruptable elected individuals (MPs) from having a potential tool of oppression at their immediate disposal with which they could interfer with the democratic process.