Britannia Radio

This is a long STUDY, but it is an interesting read, plus the index helps you get to the pages of interest.  It is as well to remember at this stage that the only vote the people had, was on a Common Market for trade.  

The Lisbon Treaty, as was the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe just a tidying up exercise.  Remember that.   Now ask yourselves, why was such a STUDY required in the first place?  Anne. 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. All societies have to reconcile the need for security provided for by the armed forces, on the one hand, and the requirement to respect democratic values, human rights and freedoms on the other hand.

2. The lessons learned from history - even recent - of European States, but not only, have shown that the military might affect democracy and its values. The interests of the military must therefore be subordinate to the interest of a democratic society.

3. The control of the military is an indispensable element of a democratic government. The degree and type of such control will vary considerably according to the system of government, historical traditions and also cultural values.

4. The democratic control over the armed forces has two dimensions, which both enhance and promote confidence-building and peace. The domestic dimension implies the primacy of the civilian general interest and of the principles of a democracy over the military. The international dimension prohibits in general the threat or use of force against a State.

5. The democratic control of the armed forces is a complex matter. The study has focused on particular aspects related to armed forces: "traditional" issues such as military expenditure or military budget and appointment of top commanders and issues which correspond to the change in the role of the armed forces, both  at national and international level.

       ******************************************************************

1) Monarchies

228. Generally speaking, monarchs cannot act independently in their command powers over armed forces, neither can they exercise any form of veto powers. In the United Kingdom,the government exercises the royal prerogative in military matters as the Crown, according to the general understanding, and there is no specific rule in the unwritten constitution of the United Kingdom concerning armed forces. The government is, however, subject to general forms of parliamentary control.170 Nevertheless, there is settled jurisprudence from the courts that "the disposition and armament of the armed forces [are] within the exclusive direction of the

169 NOLTE, KRIEGER, "European Military Law Systems: General Comparative Report", (note 104), pp. 51ff.

170 NOLTE, KRIEGER, "European Military Law Systems: General Comparative Report", (note 104), p. 32.

Crown,"171 which means that "a person cannot challenge in the courts a decision of the crown to deploy British forces in any place ... nor can a decision as to the armament with which it is supplied be challenged."172

Chandler v. Director of Public Prosecution (1964) AC 736.

172 ROWE P. (2003), "Military Law in the United Kingdom", Nolte, G. (ed.), European Military Law Systems,

(note 104), pp. 833-834.

http://www.venice.coe.int/docs/2008/CDL-AD(2008)004-e.pdf

408. At the European Union level, the intergovernmental character of the security and defence policy, together with the lack of judicial competence of the European Court of Justice on European Security and Defence Policy issues and the insufficient competence of scrutiny by the European Parliament, produce a deficit in the democratic control of armed forces. Greater involvement of the European Parliament, as well as the granting of competences in this field to the European Court of Justice, would improve the democratic credentials of armed missions under the European Union flag.

The Queen is commander-in-chief of all the Armed Forces of the Crown