Zimbabwes legal position

#2
Going on about the UK's present legal position,does nothing to remove Mugabe-and he knows it.The time when UK could intervene,is long gone.Until his neighbours realise how much damage the image of Mugabe is doing to all of Southern Africa-and then take economic or political action-''Bob'' can do what he likes,and will continue to do so.
 
#3
Interesting, but we are still up against the fundamental problem that all the other African governments do not want to establish a precedent that undemocratic governments should be removed by force.

For starters: which countries will allow us to cross their territory in order to get to Zimbabwe? Granted, liberating Mozambique and/or South Africa at the same time would be the morally best solution, but it is hardly practical.
 
#4
Well the PARA regt types are always bleating on about wanting to do some air drops...

Tell them when they get back from Afghan we have a job for them which requires hopping out of a plane!

On a serious note the only hope for Zim is a United African Military action & seeing as that will not happen any time soon and western political talks are pissing in the wind, our Ridge Back friends better get used to the idea that Old Bob is staying until he croaks!
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#5
Zimbabwe’s constitutional independence from the UK derives from the Southern Rhodesia Act 1979, which by virtue of section 1 (2) of that enactment could legally be revoked by Order in Council at any time.

Section 3 (1) (b) of the 1979 act also empowers the Queen in parliament by Order in Council to make provision for or in connection with the government of Zimbabwe “as appears to Her to be necessary or expedient”, especially in consequence of any unconstitutional action taken. President Robert Mugabe’s conduct is surely in the nature of “unconstitutional action”, which would therefore legally justify invoking such powers.

Section 3 (3) (a) of the 1979 act also includes the “power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of (Zimbabwe), including laws having extra-territorial operation”, while section 3 (3) (c) permits the suspension or modification of “the operation of any enactment or instrument in relation to (Zimbabwe) or persons or things in any way belonging to or connected with (Zimbabwe)”.

Clearly, therefore, the UK government would be able to promulgate legislation in exercise of its powers under the 1979 legislation, which would have the effect (at least under English law) of restoring Zimbabwe to the status of a British colony with its subjects entitled to the protection of the crown and thereby legally permitting UK military intervention for the purposes of restoring democracy, good governance and the rule of law.

The irony of such a proposition is of course that the UK government would be highly unlikely to do any such thing given the appalling outcome of its interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet the UK’s obligations to the people of Zimbabwe have much greater legitimacy and, if the legal argument I have advanced is for any reason flawed, it is surely at least a lot stronger than was the case of the wholly unlawful invasion of Iraq.
Well shaag me with a large Caribbean fruit! Didn't know that. Fact of the matter is, no matter how much Zimbabwe is deserving of a release from Mugabe and his henchmen, this gobment feels that Zimbabwe being ruled by Mugabe rights one of their 'historical wrongs', and it matters not that he is a merciless, corrupt dictator who has ruined his country and oppresses and kills his people, they won't act for the defence of those people, regardless of UK laws. They'd much rather have an evil indigenous b@stard of a dictator than benign white rule for as long as it takes to put things right again . . . . oh, and there's no oil of course.

Edited to add: speaking of the Paras; how much did it cost us to put Sierra Leone back on track and chase the drugged-up 'possies' The West Side Boys back up through the jungle and over the border?

I doubt very much that freeing Zimbabwe from Zanu's rule would cost a great deal more. Imagine the irony though - ZANU NL goes to war against ZANU PF to restore democracy . . . ha . . . . . ha ha. . . . . . hahaha . . . . . . . muuuuhhhaahahahahahahahahahahahahah!
 
#6
Look next door:

By Staff zimbabwemetro.com July 2, 2008

The Botswana government has sealed off its Botswana-Zimbabwe border. Botswana Defence Forces have been deployed allegedly with heavy artillery, along the long boarder between the two neighbors.

It is suspected that this is the first step Botswana is taking along with breaking ties with Zimbabwe,as it to reviews its recognition and legitimacy of the Zimbabwean government. Botswana might recall its ambassador Pelokgale Seloma from Harare and expel his Zimbabwean counterpart.

In an interview with Botswana Sunday Standard, Botswana minister of Defence, Justice and Security, Brigadier Dikgakgamatso Seretse, said, “This is a very sensitive matter, therefore, I can neither confirm nor deny any deployment of soldiers along the Zimbabwe-Botswana boarder


http://www.thezimbabwean.co.uk/inde...order&catid=31:top zimbabwe stories&Itemid=66
 
#7
To be frank (without the neon sign) I'm firmly of the belief that we should draw a big line around Africa and say "Right, No more anything from us. No Aid, No Loans, No Money, Nothing. You sell something we want, we'll buy it. You want development aid then you pay for it. Can't fed your own people, thats your problem, Too many sick people? Pay for your own drugs with your money, not mine."

I'm sick of being beaten over the head for money to fed people in countries capable of feeding themselves if Aid Agencies weren't too busy stopping the buggers dying off and overstressing land that can't support the numbers trying to live on the land. Ethiopia had a population of about 40 Million in the 80's, when the crops failed. Now the population has doubled, on the same land that couldn't support 40 million....Long term Live Aid has caused more problems than the short term "benefit" of feeding the starving .


And...Breathe....
 
#8
Kitmarlowe said:
To be frank (without the neon sign) I'm firmly of the belief that we should draw a big line around Africa and say "Right, No more anything from us. No Aid, No Loans, No Money, Nothing. You sell something we want, we'll buy it. You want development aid then you pay for it. Can't fed your own people, thats your problem, Too many sick people? Pay for your own drugs with your money, not mine."

I'm sick of being beaten over the head for money to fed people in countries capable of feeding themselves if Aid Agencies weren't too busy stopping the buggers dying off and overstressing land that can't support the numbers trying to live on the land. Ethiopia had a population of about 40 Million in the 80's, when the crops failed. Now the population has doubled, on the same land that couldn't support 40 million....Long term Live Aid has caused more problems than the short term "benefit" of feeding the starving .


And...Breathe....
Actually ending aid would be the best thing that could happen for Africa. What the loony left have done is created an international dependency culture. End aid and the corrupt governments won't last long and once they are gone Africa will be able to turn itself into a viable part of the world economy.
 
B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
#9
Where's Bob Geldof when you need him?

Africa needs to stand on its own two feet now and deal with the crisis within. It's no longer our problem.
 
#10
Africa would fall through its arrse and take YEARS to recover if the aid stopped. As much as it gets on my t1ts we've created a greedy monster in Africa and the world will make us keep feeding it whether we like it or not.
 
B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
#11
What's this 'we' sh*t? I'm all for leaving them to fend for themselves. There's too many people on this planet.

Couple of famines and a handfull of skirmishes might reduce the problem.
 
#12
Closet_Jibber said:
Africa would fall through its arrse and take YEARS to recover if the aid stopped. As much as it gets on my t1ts we've created a greedy monster in Africa and the world will make us keep feeding it whether we like it or not.
Short-termism is the cause of virtually everything that is wrong with the world today. It took YEARS to defeat Hitler, are you saying we should not have done it?
 
#13
Let me get this straight, are you suggesting that we use this power to get rid of Bob and put Cyclops and his mob in carge instead? Do you really think Zim would be any better off?
 
#14
Biped said:
Edited to add: speaking of the Paras; how much did it cost us to put Sierra Leone back on track and chase the drugged-up 'possies' The West Side Boys back up through the jungle and over the border?
The western media would not even refer to them with their real name, No-one want to offend the blacks which is one of the reason we will never deploy to Zimbabwe. (Good thing too I may add, its not our problem)
 
#15
Closet_Jibber said:
Africa would fall through its arrse and take YEARS to recover if the aid stopped. As much as it gets on my t1ts we've created a greedy monster in Africa and the world will make us keep feeding it whether we like it or not.
And the problem with that is.......? It's been over 50 years since we stopped running large chunks of Africa, when we left large chunks of Africa were perfectly capable of running as going concerns without masses of Aid. Whose fault is it that those countries are now in ruins? Let me remind you, one dodgey election in Kenya and the place very nearly fell to pieces in very quick order. Whoses fault is that? It's not my f**king fault the damm place is seemingly incapable of growing up and getting on with it.

And if the rest of the world wants to fed Africa, let it. I don't see the Chinese sticking their hand in their pockets in Sudan for b*gg*r all except oil and gold.....
 
#16
On the subject of Zimbabwe/Rhodesia and what a few highly motivated nasty b****ds could do if they put their mind to it, remember the "Green Leader" raid, and the mental pop hit that followed it?

If you haven't heard it give yourself a treat and get on youtube and type in Rhodesia and "Green Leader". Bananas. St Nazaire might be the greatest raid ever, but the "Green Leader" raid has to be in many people's top ten.
 
#17
I'm not saying I'm happy about it. Far from it... Africa is a massive drain on the money that could be giving me my pay rise or getting me an op in hospital I got fed up of waiting for.

The fact of the matter is whilst we belong to poncey organisations like the EU/UN we will keep dishing out money for sh1t all return the world over. The organisations make us feel guilty for our past and as such we cough up, instead of pnishing African nations for their actions in the present.

As much as its a nice idea to just say fcuk em, we won't. The international community would force the hand of whatever weak willed politico we have in charge into continuing aid as the consequences of cutting the aid would adversely effect the worsed off. Not because they see any of the money we actually give them, but because the governments and or tribal leaders would take it out on them and steal from the people in every little way shape and form they could... Look at Zim!

Truth be known as much as sh1t stinks Africa will hold its hand out in our direction and say "Please boss, can I have some more" and we'll keep giving it.

Thats Life.
 
#18
If our soft politicians cannot be weaned off giving aid to Africa,let us,at least,see it given with strict conditions and monitoring(with the monitoring costs paid out of the aid to concentrate african minds)
 
#19
Mobat said:
Kitmarlowe said:
To be frank (without the neon sign) I'm firmly of the belief that we should draw a big line around Africa and say "Right, No more anything from us. No Aid, No Loans, No Money, Nothing. You sell something we want, we'll buy it. You want development aid then you pay for it. Can't fed your own people, thats your problem, Too many sick people? Pay for your own drugs with your money, not mine."

I'm sick of being beaten over the head for money to fed people in countries capable of feeding themselves if Aid Agencies weren't too busy stopping the buggers dying off and overstressing land that can't support the numbers trying to live on the land. Ethiopia had a population of about 40 Million in the 80's, when the crops failed. Now the population has doubled, on the same land that couldn't support 40 million....Long term Live Aid has caused more problems than the short term "benefit" of feeding the starving .


And...Breathe....
Actually ending aid would be the best thing that could happen for Africa. What the loony left have done is created an international dependency culture. End aid and the corrupt governments won't last long and once they are gone Africa will be able to turn itself into a viable part of the world economy.

back track to the empire, it's kinda our fault we took everything from them
slavery blah blah blah steal there land blah blah
but i can see where you're coming from and agree in parts
 
#20
Closet_Jibber said:
I'm not saying I'm happy about it. Far from it... Africa is a massive drain on the money that could be giving me my pay rise or getting me an op in hospital I got fed up of waiting for.

The fact of the matter is whilst we belong to poncey organisations like the EU/UN we will keep dishing out money for sh1t all return the world over. The organisations make us feel guilty for our past and as such we cough up, instead of pnishing African nations for their actions in the present.

As much as its a nice idea to just say fcuk em, we won't. The international community would force the hand of whatever weak willed politico we have in charge into continuing aid as the consequences of cutting the aid would adversely effect the worsed off. Not because they see any of the money we actually give them, but because the governments and or tribal leaders would take it out on them and steal from the people in every little way shape and form they could... Look at Zim!

Truth be known as much as sh1t stinks Africa will hold its hand out in our direction and say "Please boss, can I have some more" and we'll keep giving it.

Thats Life.
To be honest, I don't see that happening. In reality there are too many different pressures for the two Superpowers, USA and China, to put pressure on us to resume paying aid. The Germans and French cough up less in aid as a percentgae of GDP then we do, the rest of Europe falls into more than us or a lot less than us so I can't see a coalition strong enough in the EU to force us to pay more aid. The UN would not look good demanding that the UK pay more aid out as the collary of that is that the US will be put under pressure next, along with the Chinese and the Russians. As well as the Oil rich states in the gulf, who cough up less than we do......
 

Latest Threads

Top