Judges have put future military action at risk, warn ex-chiefs
LEADING military figures have warned that the Government’s ability to launch urgent military action without the approval of MPs could be undermined by the High Court Brexit case this week.
The decision that Royal prerogative powers cannot be used to trigger Brexit may erode a similar right to order troops to defend the country without Parliament’s consent, they fear.
Lord Dannatt, a former head of the Army, and Lord West, a former First Sea Lord, have told The Sunday Telegraph it is essential the power is not watered down.
A senior Tory minister has also privately raised fears, questioning whether the Government would have to obtain the approval of MPs for any military action after the ruling.
The concerns have emerged after three High Court judges ruled that Theresa May could not use Royal prerogative to start Brexit talks, saying instead a vote in Parliament was needed. Royal prerogative is a centuries-old power that originally gave the monarch the right to take certain decisions without explicit approval by Parliament, but has effectively now passed to the prime minister.
The powers cover a range of topics – not always clearly defined in law – but one of them is the “control, organisation and disposition of the Armed Forces”.
In recent years the right to launch military actions without Parliament’s approval has been eroded, with a convention forming for MPs to have a say first. Tony Blair, the former Labour prime minister, gave MPs a vote over the 2003 Iraq invasion while David Cameron twice gave the House of Commons a say over air strikes in Syria.
Leading military figures have told this newspaper that they fear the High Court ruling this week could undermine this right even further.
Lord Dannatt said: “This judgement should not be allowed to impact on the future use of the Royal prerogative as far as authorising military action is concerned.
“I fear it might, but it is up to the Government now to make it quite clear that that linkage is not legitimate and should not be made.” He said defence of the country was “the most basic duty of government” and warned there would always be situations where the urgent need for action meant Parliament could not be consulted.
“It’s very easy for people to make the case: ‘There is a precedent now. We rolled over on the Brexit business, the Royal prerogative is a 19th century or 20th century thing, we must get Parliament behind anything we do’,” Lord Dannatt said.
“That is kind of consensus government, whereas actually the Prime Minister has to be a leader, to take decisions and live with the consequences.”
Lord West, a former Labour security minister, said: “There are people who don’t like the ability to use the Royal prerogative to react and go to war rapidly if you need to as a nation and I’m afraid they are wrong.
“We elect a government and the whole duty of a government is to govern. There may an occasion where you have to take action because the time to act is so little. You can’t go and have a debate in Parliament about it.
“Military forces have to move immediately and actions have to be taken immediately. Therefore I think one needs a Royal prerogative or a similar mechanism to allow a Government to take action.”
The fears are shared in some parts of the Government. A senior minister said “Will this mean that decisions to drop bombs now require a vote in Parliament?”