Register to Comment
Page 569 of 583 FirstFirst ... 69469519559567568569570571579 ... LastLast
Results 5,681 to 5,690 of 5827
Like Tree2697Likes
  1. #5681
    Levellers Levellers is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    12,666

    Aside from all the other issues all three leaders, May, Trump and Marcon, are in domestic trouble.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #5682
    gleeful gleeful is offline

    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    6,685

    Quote Originally Posted by Supra View Post
    Does May have the same right as PM to carry out certain military actions as Trump and Macron?
    When Trump and Macron had decided it would have been embarrassing for May to consult Parliament. I see Corbyn is suggesting new laws regarding Military intervention, I wonder is it to limit the power of the PM.
    If so, May can now point at the importance of urgency of action especially joint action. Deferring to Parliament could end up escalating things.
    In the UK they basically make things up as they go along. They don't have a constitution so its all based on precedent - which means whatever the last guy got away with is now the rule. Cameron lost the vote, so the rule is now you need a vote.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #5683
    Outlaw103 Outlaw103 is offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    1,035

    Quote Originally Posted by Outlaw103 View Post
    Ok, So Theresa May is in a spot of bother today because she choose to engage in a military strike in Syria without a parliamentary vote.

    The level of pressure she is under is not sufficient to see her Government under threat. It is suggested in the media that it is likely that had she sought approval from parliament she would have received it. However, even among those who support military action in Syria there is unrest about her failure to give parliament a vote.

    The debate today will give an indication of the level of opposition to her decision.

    However, there is a context to all of this. The previous time, during a much more violent period in the Syrian conflict, a vote towards intervention held in parliament was defeated and one can not help but wonder had it not been for the events in Salisbury, would:

    a) ...there have been the level of support for military action among MP's, with or without a vote, especially in circumstances where, unlike 2013, Assad is almost a certain victor.

    b) ...the consequences for Theresa May for engaging in military action without consulting parliament, and to the background music of twitter fingers Trump, be sufficient to have represented a threat to her Government.

    Those two questions could be asked again but instead of Salisbury never happening it does but there is a more significant period of time, a cooling off period if you will, between that event and an alleged chemical attack in Syria by Assad.

    What impact does the event in Salisbury, and its proximity to the alleged chemical attack in Syria, have on the political consequences of Theresa Mays' decision.

    It would give those of us capable of thinking cause to.
    Add to this the fact that Parliament was not sitting when the chemical attack is alleged to have taken place and the subsequent military strike was carried out.

    Now ask yourself this question:

    Was it easier or more difficult for Theresa May to make a decision not to consult parliament about British involvement in the strikes because parliament was not sitting when everything went down?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #5684
    gleeful gleeful is offline

    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    6,685

    Quote Originally Posted by Outlaw103 View Post
    Add to this the fact that Parliament was not sitting when the chemical attack is alleged to have taken place and the subsequent military strike was carried out.

    Now ask yourself this question:

    Was it easier or more difficult for Theresa May to make a decision not to consult parliament about British involvement in the strikes because parliament was not sitting when everything went down?
    May is an opportunist. She doesn't do planning.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #5685
    Greener Greener is online now
    Greener's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    2,921

    Where does it say Parliament has to be consulted in these cases?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #5686
    gleeful gleeful is offline

    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    6,685

    Quote Originally Posted by Greener View Post
    Where does it say Parliament has to be consulted in these cases?
    Precedent. Cameron asked for both Libya and Syria.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #5687
    Greener Greener is online now
    Greener's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    2,921

    Quote Originally Posted by gleeful View Post
    Precedent. Cameron asked for both Libya and Syria.
    But that isn't the same as codified law. It raises problems like this. Its why Corbyn is saying "dubiously legal"
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #5688
    gleeful gleeful is offline

    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    6,685

    Quote Originally Posted by Greener View Post
    But that isn't the same as codified law. It raises problems like this. Its why Corbyn is saying "dubiously legal"
    Exactly. The UK needs a constitution. I believe they are the only country in the world without one.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #5689
    The Eagle of the Ninth The Eagle of the Ninth is offline
    The Eagle of the Ninth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    65,856

    Quote Originally Posted by gleeful View Post
    Precedent. Cameron asked for both Libya and Syria.
    Is that a substantive legal convention?

    Or is it as we know simply very unwise to ignore parliament, even if you have the technical power to do so?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #5690
    rainmaker rainmaker is offline
    rainmaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    19,445

    Quote Originally Posted by gleeful View Post
    They don't have a constitution so its all based on precedent - which means whatever the last guy got away with is now the rule. .
    Nonsense. There isn't really any such rule where parliament is concerned - no parliament can bind its successors.

    Just because Camerons government followed a procedural rule they set themselves, does not mean that any government that follows must also do so. Most UK military action has never involved seeking a parliamentary vote first.
    Last edited by rainmaker; 16th April 2018 at 02:35 PM.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment