Royal decree in the 21st century - so much for democracy

[rman]

In 2004 the queen of the United Kingdom issued a decree that overruled a decision by the British High Court and the International Criminal Court. These courts had concluded that it was a violation of human rights for the UK to deport the population of the Chagos islands in the Indian Ocean to Mauritius so that the US could build a military base on these islands.

see

Stealing a Nation (2004)
produced by John Pilger
www.johnpilger.com
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6633024118233381439
www.chomskytorrents.org/TorrentDetails.php?TorrentID=2012

"There are times when one tragedy, one crime tells us how a whole system works behind its Democratic facade, and helps us understand how much of the world is run for the benefit of the powerful and how governments often justify their actions with lies."
-- John Pilger

In the 1960s and 70s, British governments, conspiring with American officials, tricked into leaving, then expelled the entire population of the Chagos islands in the Indian Ocean. The aim was to give the principal island of this Crown Colony, Diego Garcia, to the Americans who wanted it as a major military base. Indeed, from Diego Garcia US planes have since bombed Afghanistan and Iraq. The story is told by islanders who were dumped in the slums of Mauritius and in the words of the British officials who left a 'paper trail' of what the International Criminal Court now describes as 'a crime against humanity'.

[tritsofme]

1. The ICC can only rule on events that have happened since 2002

So this brief summary speaking to events that happened 40 years makes ICC involvement seem implausible.

[dipsydoodle]

2. You've mis-expressed that

The GOVERNMENT issued a royal decree in June 2004 that forbids the Diego Garcians from returning home.

The high court last week ruled that that this royal decree was unlawful.

Lord Justice Hooper and Mr Justice Cresswell said, “The suggestion that a minister can, through the means of an order in council, exile a whole population from a British overseas territory and claim that he is doing so for the ‘peace, order and good government’ of the territory is, to us, repugnant.”

from 20th May '06 : http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=8847

If you're tying to make out the Queen can act like * you're onto a loser. It don't quite work like that here.

[rman]

3. The government agreed to the decree,

but it originates from the Queen - though obviously she didn't think it up entire on her own (same as Bush isn't the one who thinks up his presidential signing statements).
The ceremony involves the queen handing the decree to a few representatives of the parliament, to which they then all agree. It wouldn't be called a Royal decree if there'd be no royalty involved in it.

[dipsydoodle]

4. It doesn't

originate from the Queen. Most are decrees are routine like shuting a town for a day annually to hold a fair. In this case she'd have been obliged to authorise what Blur had proposed. Blur knew that and in effect stitched her up. He subsequently came unstuck over the issue as the Socialist Worker reported.

Hopefully the lease won't be renewed when it gets to 2016 or whenever it's due to be done. We've discussed this topic on DU on numerous occasions over the past 6 months or so.

[rman]

5. Could you point me to some of the numerous threads

where this was discussed? I somehow missed those in spite of my visiting DU every day and in spite of me being interested in these kinds of topics.

It does look like the queen does play a significant role in these decrees; if there'd be no queen she couldn't be 'stitched up' and there'd be no basis in law to circumvent the democratic process of parliament in this manner.

[LeftishBrit]

6. The Monarch has no decision-making role and hasn't in decades...

... in fact, in the last 100 years or so.

She just signs whatever her government tells her to sign, and goes around doing royal tours, and being as someone once put it "a highly paid model for a postage stamp".

There are plenty of arguments that could be - and are- used against the monarchy, such as the expense to the taxpayer, and the fact that these people are treated as celebrities and have oodles of money just because of an accident of birth. But they don't have political power. In fact, one of the relatively few valid arguments FOR a monarchy is that it separates the role of political leader from that of symbolic head of state, making it less easy to develop a 'cult of personality' around a leader, or to accuse his/her opponents of lack of patriotism.

[rman]

7. Fact is, the queen's "just signing" does circumvent the normal democratic

process of parliament. A majority of parliament could be against the decree, but it becomes law anyway because the queen signs it. Thanks to some ancient medieval law. It is not exactly democratic.

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. No, it doesn't work that way

In theory, Parliament could pass a law, and the Queen could then refuse to sign it. That hasn't happened in nearly 300 years. Try this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/notesandqueries/query/0,5753,-24007,00.html

The Queen cannot make laws herself. "The Crown" has various powers, wielded by the Prime Minister. It was he who shafted the Chagossians.