Dear Gamarala,

The subject under discussion is not the subject you want to discuss.
The subject is the following statement from Burning Issue

“Britain has a Constitutional Monarchy that has no executive powers.”

Since you are a Sinhalese you would understand the following idiom.
Koheda yanne? Malle pol.

Now I hope you would reread all the relevant posts and take your stand.

My stand is that Burning Issue is wrong.
The so called Constitutional Monarchy does have executive powers.

The non Justiciable Royal Prerogative is also unquestionable by Parliament.

It can create Laws via an Order in Council and it can overturn any Court decision.
It has done both within the current decade.

Good Luck

Dear Off the Cuff,

The problem with your style of argumentation is that you miss the wood for the trees. You are writing at considerable length on an issue of the least importance, when the overall point cannot be assailed – Britain is almost incomparably ahead of Sri Lanka.

Furthermore, contrary to your assessment, I find Burning Issue to be a sincere individual who is focused on the overall picture. Even if some minor details are wrong, his overall conclusion is correct – “only good governance can bring about that balance under which the minorities can gain confidence”. Secondly, it’s also true that the Sinhalese people have grave insecurities resulting in ethnic chauvinism. Consider this video for example (it’s an extract from a Sinhalese film):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVgwARzBI70&feature=share

This shows how ethnic chauvinism is being ingrained into people through film and media. Most people would walk away from this video claiming “how logical”, because it is ostensibly so, whereas on closer analysis, the deeper message is extremely chauvinistic.

So what Burning Issue is saying is correct – solving this problem requires good governance, an element that is missing in the present political climate. Dayan Jayatillake and others seem to think that the problem lies with a lack of opposition. Do you agree with this and what remedies do you suggest? Or do you see the biggest problem as being the crown prerogative in England that is somehow altogether invalidating the British Justice system?

Dear Gamarala,

You wrote “If I may intervene, it appears that Off the Cuff’s misapprehension stems from his confusion over a symbolic monarchy vs an actual feudal system.”

Of course you are welcome but I have no misapprehension.
The cases that I quote are factual. The Royal Prerogative has more power embedded within it than is commonly known. It is a remnant of the old Feudal System. It’s use is rare but it has been used nevertheless. Read all my posts on the subject or do some research on your own. It is retained due to the Absolute Power it provides the user.

You wrote “Britain’s insistence on continuing with its childish and primitive fancy dress party may be a suitable subject of our derision,”

This is of no concern to me or to the subject being discussed. I would not deride it on it’s own. We have our own pomp and pageantry. Any country has. So who are we to deride the Brits on that account? The Brits can do what they want with their pomp and pageantry as long as that won’t impinge on the freedom of others.

You wrote “but I think most would agree that, as far as the overall judicial system and government goes, Britain cannot be lumped together with third world countries.”

We are discussing a SPECIFIC aspect of British Governance. The aspect that allowed them to carry out one of the worst violations of human rights perpetrated by the UK in the 20th century. in the words of David Snoxell the British High Commissioner in Mauritius between 2000 and 2004. The Chagos Atolls came under his purview.

We are not discussing the overall judicial system.

You wrote “I agree with Burning Issue, we have more to learn from Britain than to deride.”

That is your choice but is it an informed choice?

If the desire is to learn, then one should posses the ability to analyse not only the strengths but the weaknesses as well.

Burning Issue has a history going back a few years of twisting the truth, writing half truths and even downright lies in order to project his view point.

Burning Issue,

You wrote “If you do not agree that, in Britain, the Prime Minister and his Ministers are accountable to the parliament and not to the Monarch,… “

Yes they are accountable to Parliament except when the Royal Prerogative is used. Selective blindness will not change that.
I have proven this beyond any doubt.
No less a person than Jack Straw has admitted it.

John Whitaker Straw (born 3 August 1946) is a British Labour Party politician who has been the Member of Parliament (MP) for Blackburn since 1979. He served as Home Secretary from 1997 to 2001, Foreign Secretary from 2001 to 2006 and Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons from 2006 to 2007 under Tony Blair. From 2007 to 2010 he was the Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain and the Secretary of State for Justice, appointed as part of Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s first Cabinet. Straw is one of only three people to have served in Cabinet continuously from 1997 to 2010

Quote From my post of December 8, 2011 • 2:45 am
And Parliament was deliberately bypassed. Jack Straw admitted this in a letter of 15 June 2004 to the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Unquote

If you have better evidence that the Royal Prerogative used in the name of the Monarch by whomsoever cannot bypass Parliament and can be held accountable to Parliament or the Justice system, produce such evidence without trying to hide behind Juvenile arguments.

The Royal Prerogative is a very powerful instrument with which both Parliament and the Justice system of Britain can be overridden or bypassed.

The Royal Prerogative has been used to Bypass Parliament within the current decade.

The Royal Prerogative has been used to SUBVERT JUSTICE as recently as June 2004.

Would you classify the overturning of an UNANIMOUS Decision of the British High Court, by a panel of no less than 7 eminent Judges, with the use of the Royal Prerogative, as Justice?

You call it insignificant, would you excuse similar action if it happened in the third world?
If not why not?

I have provided irrefutable proof that the Royal Prerogative is neither Justiciable nor Accountable to Parliament, where is your proof to the contrary?

You wrote “If there is miscarriage of justice in Britain, there are enough mechanisms to deal with it.

In the Chagos case there was a Miscarriage of Justice and there is no IF about it.

Now please prove how the sufficient Mechanisms that you claim to exist in Britain, dealt with that Injustice that took place 4 decades ago and Rectified it. Did that mechanism succeed in reversing that INJUSTICE?

Are you claiming that the Forced Depopulation of the Chagos Island was Justified?

You wrote ““Where are your Human Rights?”
What qualifications do you have to ask this question?”

Don’t worry about my Qualifications answer the question.
We are discussing Britain and the Royal Prerogative.
Are you avoiding the question because you have no answer?

David Snoxell the British High Commissioner in Mauritius between 2000 and 2004 describes the Chagos drama thus “….. one of the worst violations of human rights perpetrated by the UK in the 20th century. No one has since disagreed with that statement.” vide my post of December 8, 2011 • 2:45 am

Do you disagree?
If so why?

You wrote “You are an ardent supporter of the government that has been overseeing deplorable human rights abuses”

I am an ardent supporter of my Country of Birth and I will defend her to the best of my ability from UNJSTIFIED criticism by anyone. You are welcome to criticise Her as long as you stay within the Boundaries of Truth and Justice.

When you are bankrupt with facts you may classify my defence of my country in anyway you deem fit. However don’t try to use that as an excuse to run away from difficult questions. Probably you may not have a Birthright to defend but I have.

You wrote “I rather be in that “Rubbish Heap” than being under the Sinhala Buddhist Chauvinists!”

As you please but beware of the maggots.

Dishonestly quoting out of context will not extricate you from the Quagmire you stepped in to. My counter to your claim that the Sri Lankan Presidency has equivalent powers to the Royal Prerogative was as follows.

…. In any case what is the Constitutional power that the SL President wields that gives him the right to overrule the Supreme Court of Lanka? The Royal Prerogative has that power.
What Power does he Constitutionally posses that allows him to enact Laws and Bypass Parliament? The Royal Prerogative can do so via an Order in Council. (Vide my post of December 8, 2011 • 2:45 am )

You have completely avoided your own reference to the Lankan Presidency.
Why?
Unable to maintain your Lies?

You wrote “First you need to accept that the Royal Prerogative rest with the Prime Minister where the National Security is at stake.”

Please don’t write any rubbish that comes to your head. The Royal Prerogative is exercised by the PM, the Cabinet and other Govt Officials in the NAME of the Sovereign. It is not the PM alone that can use it.

Was the Forcible Depopulation of the Chagos Atolls, half a world distant from Britain, a National Security issue for Britain?

You wrote “Second you need to accept that Prime Minster is elected by the people …”

Where have I stated anything contrary to the above?
Don’t day dream Burning Issue.

You wrote “….. and he/she is accountable to the parliament”

Are there no exceptions?
In the Chagos case Parliament was Bypassed.
The Tool used was the Royal Prerogative.
I have proved it.
Can you disprove it?

You wrote “I should have stuck to my original idea of not communicating with you ….

Don’t flatter yourself.
I am not writing for your benefit. I told you this before.
I write for the benefit the GV, who you are trying to mislead. You are welcome to challenge what I write or allow it to stand unchallenged if you have no FACTUAL counter.

You wrote “…. as your fixated with one agenda that is to protect Sinhala Buddhist Chauvinism; you do not see beyond that; sad, sad individual”

Barking mad?
Is that why you are back to your Buzz words?
I can return the favour by asking whether you are a Tamil Hindu Vellala High cast Supremacist, the type that trampled on the Religious Freedom of the Low Cast Batu Tamils by preventing their entry to Hindu Temples, but that won’t contribute to the debate.
Are you intellectually bankrupt??

You wrote “You need to grow up fast; perhaps, once you have grown up, we may engage in substantive discussions”

Who avoids difficult questions and who provides childish unsubstantiated arguments is very plain to see.

Dear Gamarala,

Thanks for your contribution. OTC is an excellent debater with many good qualities but operates with a closed mind on the Sinhala Buddhist agenda. I, as a Tamil, understand the past insecurities of the Sinhala Buddhists; I also agree that they needed to assert themselves to a degree. But, things have gone too far and there should be a sense of balance; only good governance can bring about that balance under which the minorities can gain confidence.

If I may intervene, it appears that Off the Cuff’s misapprehension stems from his confusion over a symbolic monarchy vs an actual feudal system. Britain’s insistence on continuing with its childish and primitive fancy dress party may be a suitable subject of our derision, but I think most would agree that, as far as the overall judicial system and government goes, Britain cannot be lumped together with third world countries. I agree with Burning Issue, we have more to learn from Britain than to deride.

I am afraid; you are barking mad!

“So where is your Democracy?”

If you do not agree that, in Britain, the Prime Minister and his Ministers are accountable to the parliament and not to the Monarch, you need to examine your head. You assumed that I am a royalist; I never expressed that I support the Constitutional Monarchy; it does not matter to me whether they are there or not as it does not impinge on my democratic rights. The British Parliamentary system works very well and being admired by many aspiring nations around the world. There is a clear distinction between the pageantry duties that the Monarch performs to the democratic duties of the elected parliament. You on the other hand pedantically scramble finding insignificant aspects of Royal references to executive powers of the elected body to score cheap points.

“Where is your Justice?”

If there is miscarriage of justice in Britain, there are enough mechanisms to deal with it. There is free press to start with; there are many pressure groups function with total freedom. The British Judicial System has withstood many testing times and continually advancing to be even better institution and one cannot ask any more than that. If I were you, I would look to learn from that than helping to denigrate it!

“Where are your Human Rights?”

What qualifications do you have to ask this question? You are an ardent supporter of the government that has been overseeing deplorable human rights abuses.

“In the Rubbish Heap?”

I rather be in that “Rubbish Heap” than being under the Sinhala Buddhist Chauvinists!

“What Power does he Constitutionally posses that allows him to enact Laws and Bypass Parliament?”

First you need to accept that the Royal Prerogative rest with the Prime Minister where the National Security is at stake. Second you need to accept that Prime Minster is elected by the people and he/she is accountable to the parliament.

I should have stuck to my original idea of not communicating with you as your fixated with one agenda that is to protect Sinhala Buddhist Chauvinism; you do not see beyond that; sad, sad individual. You need to grow up fast; perhaps, once you have grown up, we may engage in substantive discussions.

Burning issue,

You wrote “You have answered your own confusion; it was the British Government that used the Royal Prerogative and not the Monarch.”

And the Executioner Acts alone when he pulls the lever of the gallows.
Is he acting alone under his own authority?
Only a fool will say yes.

Even if the Chimney Sweep is delegated to use the Royal Prerogative, the fount of authority is the Monarch. The PM can use it ONLY because the Monarch delegates the power or allows it to be used not otherwise. When the Royal Prerogative is used, the responsibility rests with the Monarch. Parliament cannot challenge it. British Courts cannot Challenge it. It is Supreme. Period

If Parliament cannot challenge the Royal Prerogative which is the higher authority, Parliament?
If the British Courts cannot challenge the Royal Prerogative which is the higher authority, the British Courts?

“smart fool” you said? … … Apparently you don’t even have to try, to become one.

So where is your Democracy?
Where is your Justice?
Where are your Human Rights?
In the Rubbish Heap?

I note that you have accepted that the Royal Prerogative was used in 2004 to over ride the British High Court decision of 2000 in favour of the Chagosians. That Burning Issue is subversion of Justice.

According to your logic, the mindless British Crown, is the most expensive Rubber Stamp in the World …and you are crowing about it. … ha ha haa.

You wrote “There is no evidence that the Monarch overruled the parliament.”

Having trouble reading again?
Just like when you misread that Newspaper Headline about a Chief Justice and claimed that Lanka’s former CJ is a Buddhist Monk (he is still a layman) when the actual CJ who became a Monk was the CJ from Utah, USA.

Learn to read Burning Issue.
The Chagosian case never went before Parliament.
The use of the Royal Prerogative Bypassed Parliament.

The power that the Royal Prerogative possesses, to BYPASS Parliament was one reason for it’s use.

In 2000, High Court judges ruled that Chagossians could return to 65 of the islands, but not to Diego Garcia. In 2004, the government used the royal prerogative – exercised by ministers in the Queen’s name – to effectively nullify the decision.
Last year, the court overturned that order and rejected the government argument that the royal prerogative was immune from scrutiny.
The government had asked the Lords to rule on the issue.
The government won its appeal against a previous court decision that had ruled in favour of 2,000 former residents of the British Indian Ocean territory.
The campaigning journalist John Pilger said the judgement was political and upheld an “immoral and illegal” act.
He added: “How could it be otherwise when the highest court in this country has found in favour of the most flagrant injustice, certainly in my lifetime?”
The Law Lords decision is the final judgement in the long-running case.

He (Mr Gifford) added that the islanders were “really shocked” at the Law Lords’ decision, following as it did the unanimous opinion of seven other judges that their right of abode was “so fundamental” the government could not take it away.
Wednesday, 22 October 2008 14:40 UK
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7683726.stm

Apparently the seven judges of the British High Court who gave a UNANIMOUS decision were imbeciles to do so, as the Privy Council overturned that decision.

Here is another opinion.

When the Chagos Islanders won their initial court battle in 2000, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office under the then-foreign secretary Robin Cook, accepted the verdict. But after 9/11, the FCO reversed its position, using little-used sovereign powers to over-turn the court’s verdict.
http://www.minorityrights.org/1675/press-releases/first-test-on-human-rights-for-gordon-brown-fco-appeals-to-lords-over-chagossians.html

David Snoxell was the British high commissioner in Mauritius between 2000 and 2004. He joined the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) in 1969 and was later deputy commissioner of the British Indian Ocean Territory, 1995 – 1997. He is currently Coordinator of the UK Chagos Islands All Party Parliamentary Group and Chairman of the Marine Education Trust. An interview with Sean Carey about Chagos he states

“My time in Mauritius spanned both the High Court judgement in November 2000 and the orders in council which overturned that judgement in June 2004. Before the orders were enacted I expressed my strong reservations about setting aside a High Court judgement and bypassing Parliament using the Royal Prerogative, as I felt that the issue should be addressed as a political rather than a legal matter. After my retirement in November 2004 I did not take up the cause so as not to embarrass my successor. It was in February 2007, having sat through the second High Court proceedings in which I felt that the case set out by the FCO lawyers was misleading and economical with the truth, that I decided to go public in a letter to the Times. I commented that it was time that the British government brought together, the US, Mauritius and Chagossian leaders to sort out this relic of the Cold War and one of the worst violations of human rights perpetrated by the UK in the 20th century. No one has since disagreed with that statement.”
http://www.newstatesman.com/human-rights/2010/04/160-mauritius-british-chagos

He also states elsewhere that

I hope that I was not the only official during the preceding weeks to argue that overturning a High Court judgment in this way, without informing Parliament, would be seen as behaving with colonial arrogance and would compound the human rights violations and deceptions of the past. Governing Overseas Territories by Order is everyday FCO business ……. And Parliament was deliberately bypassed. Jack Straw admitted this in a letter of 15 June 2004 to the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee. He conceded that the Orders fell within the ambit of a 2002 arrangement by which the FAC should ordinarily be given advance sight of Orders relating to the Constitutions of Overseas Territories.
http://www.cpl.law.cam.ac.uk/Snoxell_D_Paper.pdf

These statements hardly matter as the Constitutional Expert, Burning Issue, will repeat his manthra…. Where is the proof that the Parliament was Bypassed? Where is the proof that Justice was subverted?….ha ha haa.

You wrote “Please pull yourself together for Buddha sake; your abhorrence of anyone who points finger at the destructive Sinhala Buddhist Chauvinism is manifestly obvious. Your ostensive stand on justifying the Sinhala Buddhist Hegemony is beyond belief.”

Pointing fingers is welcome as long as you stay within the boundaries of TRUTH. I will call you to account as soon as I observe you crossing that boundary. You are guilty of transgressing those boundaries not once but several times.

The use of your favourite Buzz words such as Sinhala Buddhists, Hegemony, Chauvinism etc is a very poor cover for transgressing the truth and planting seeds of dissension.

You wrote “The Sri Lankan President has similar powers but they are not called Royal Prerogative. Please get rid of the bigotry and try and be a good human.”

Lost track of what is being debated or trying to draw a Red Herring?

This was your contention “Britain has a Constitutional Monarchy that has no executive powers.” Vide your post of November 2, 2011 • 4:56 pm

What has that got to do with the SL President?
In any case what is the Constitutional power that the SL President wields that gives him the right to overrule the Supreme Court of Lanka? The Royal Prerogative has that power.
What Power does he Constitutionally posses that allows him to enact Laws and Bypass Parliament?
The Royal Prerogative can do so via an Order in Council.

Are you not again trying to cross the Boundary of TRUTH?
Are you Pontificating from ignorance?

You wrote “I must also add that it rather boring to read your posts; ”

Sure sure sure …..when you cannot dance it is the fault of the Floor …..When you are bereft of facts you find it boring. Ha ha haa.

You wrote “you must be one sad individual I am very sorry to say.”

Oh no I am happy to have been able to expose you and your half truths.
I believe you said you did not know whether to laugh or cry.

If I make a mistake I readily admit an apologise for it.
Except when we discussed the Thesavalami Law the need to do so has never occurred during any other discussion with you.

I meant to say:

“which does not correlate with real power!”

You can write several parts to ostensibly prove your points; it will not wash with me. Stop trying to be a smart fool. You have proved nothing. Let me reiterate the real issue that is, you need to show in deeds that the British Monarch has executive authority over and above the British Parliament through the Royal Prerogative. Where is the evidence?
It looks as if you are very much confused with the term the Royal Prerogative! Since Britain is a constitutional Monarchy, all aspects of state affairs are referred to as HRS or Royal, which does correlate with real power!
You said:
“The British Government, in 2004, used the “Royal Prerogative” to overturn that decision.”

You have answered your own confusion; it was the British Government that used the Royal Prerogative and not the Monarch. There is no evidence that the Monarch overruled the parliament.
I have shown this in my previous post where I said that the Royal Prerogative was last exercised by a Monarch was in the 18th century. The Royal Prerogative now rests with the Prime Minster and relevant Ministers where the national security is at risk.
Please pull yourself together for Buddha sake; your abhorrence of anyone who points finger at the destructive Sinhala Buddhist Chauvinism is manifestly obvious. Your ostensive stand on justifying the Sinhala Buddhist Hegemony is beyond belief.

The Sri Lankan President has similar powers but they are not called Royal Prerogative. Please get rid of the bigotry and try and be a good human.

I must also add that it rather boring to read your posts; you must be one sad individual I am very sorry to say.