Royal prerogatives are established powers that give the prime minister and cabinet the authority to make decisions without consulting parliament.[1] Royal prerogatives were described by AV Dicey as "The residue of discretionary or arbitrary authority... legally left in the hands of the crown."[2] The quote outlines the historical movement of the transfer of power from the crown to the government and, through the power devolved to the monarch, the Queen is constitutionally required to follow. The government's exercise of royal prerogative to deploy armed forces abroad is obsolete and the legal basis for decisions in this regard is questionable is obsolete in 21st century democracy as its powers have been diluted through convention and judicial review. Say No to Plagiarism Get a Custom Essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? with the possibility of reform, its past use by the government is still controversial. The Royal Prerogative is a significant element of the government and constitution of the United Kingdom, following the overthrow of James II in the Glorious Revolution of 1688. The Bill of Rights. it was passed in 1689, confirming the power of parliament and its ability to deploy armed forces. However, royal prerogatives can be contested in the courts and do not have absolute power, as witnessed in the case of R (Miller) v Secretary of state of exiting the European Union, in which the ruling stated that there is no form of law superior to the primary one legislation, and can only be challenged when parliament itself has taken steps to allow its implementation. Furthermore, the government's use of prerogative power can also be challenged through judicial review. Until 1984, in the case of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the civil service of the House of Lords, the courts did not review how prerogative powers were exercised, only whether they existed. . The use of royal prerogative in the 21st century has caused controversy. In circumstances such as the 1982 Falklands War or the 1991 First Gulf War, there have been no votes or attempts to gain parliamentary approval that have caused discussions about parliament's involvement in the deployment of the armed forces. Tony Blair is an example of the controversy created by the start of the invasion of Iraq, which public opinion was against. The votes in favor of the invasion were also divided and there was no united parliament to support Tony Blair's decision. In Australia, however, royal prerogatives are limited by the constitution, unlike the United Kingdom; in Australia, section 68 of the constitution vests power in the governor general, who is a separate body from the government. There is an absence of democratic accountability within parliament when royal prerogatives have been put in place, resulting in less involvement of parliament regarding the armed forces. Clare Shorts had said: "Going to war is one of the most important decisions... our democratically elected parliament has no formal right to discuss it", the quote conveys how the royal prerogative is not compatible with 21st century importance of parliament collectively making a decision. A solution is needed not only to restore the confidence of the citizens of the United Kingdom, but also to allow soldiers to know that the government has their full support on the decision to go to war. Not only does the voice of a party direct and order, but the voice of the people is represented by the declaration. Reforms of the royal prerogatives have been proposed by the Labor government.