Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35943752)

Her Majesty's government has royal prerogative powers, the government is the executive and can issue commands to the military without Parliamentary approval.

When then Prime Minister, David Cameron's vote in 2013 to strike Syria was defeated, he honoured that vote but he didn't have to do so, legally. He could have had the vote, lost as he did and still took military action.

Seeking parliamentary approval has become the standard convention, but they are not necessarily legally enforceable.

This is why you have the apparent Putin appeaser, Corbyn, trying to suggest creating a War Power Act, that requires a vote in the house, to pass any legal test in the future that requires Parliament to approve military action. I think such an Act would bog us down in litigation, while meanwhile we are having bombs thrown over our heads.

But as for May ordering a strike with our allies this weekend, she is legally protected in the sense that a Parliamentary approval may be circumvented to protect either, i)Critical national interests, ii)Prevent humanitarian catastrophe, or iii) In self-defence.

I would say a foreign regime, such as Syria using Chemical weapons comes under "prevent humanitarian catastrophe', which Theresa May will have to justify tomorrow when she speaks in the Commons and likely use this line of passing the legal test for the military strike.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35943825)

We are talking about Jeremy Corbyn here, Hugh.

---------- Post added at 18:44 ---------- Previous post was at 18:42 ----------


What, who think JC should be PM? Sorry, but there's no excuse....:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by noel43 (Post 35943828)

Looks like Trump'S BITCH got away with it.

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35943831)

:nono: Do not use 'derogatory' language like that again on this forum.

And you're wrong, as per usual.

There was nothing to get away with. She passed the legal test to use military action.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35943829)

It does not matter who we are talking about as it could be Alien Zarg from outer space as the trouble with you its all about your viewpoint and nobody else's and if any posters thing differently to your view you insult and patronise them and make it quite clear that you think they are simple-minded
and unintelligent..

Originally Posted by noel43 (Post 35943832)

So says the pacifist who wouldn't defend his country.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35943833)

I have only said this of Jeremy Corbyn, because he is dangerous. He consorts with terrorists and if in power he would seriously damage our security and ruin our economy.

Plenty on this forum have questioned the judgement of the American people in choosing Donald Trump as their president and I didn't hear you protesting then about their right to say so. But where Oh, Jeremy Corbyn is concerned, there seems to be a bit of a blind spot.

At least the Donald isn't devastating the American economy, which makes him rather better than JC.

Originally Posted by noel43 (Post 35943832)

So says the pacifist who wouldn't defend his country.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35943839)

The point I see Denphone making isn't about who is the better out of Trump or Corbyn. It's about accepting that others have valid but different viewpoints and respecting their right to hold those views.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35943833)

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35943833)

At least the Donald isn't devastating the American economy, which makes him rather better than JC.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35943870)

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35943870)

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35943881)

No blind spot here as l have consistently voiced my concerns about Jeremy Corbyn but l have just as many concerns about Theresa May as l see neither as competent leaders at all as Mrs T even though l was not a great fan of hers was far far superior to the current incumbent of 10 Downing Street.

Granted He might not be devastating the American economy but personally l don't like his preening narcissistic ways but everybody has a different viewpoint and l respect that.

Say what you want but don't insult and patronise those forum members who have a different viewpoint to yours because they have just as many legitimate reasons for their viewpoint as you have for yours.

Would you support a party based on just one policy? as good luck to those who voted for Nigel Farage but one policy was never going to make them electable in a million years.

Originally Posted by RizzyKing (Post 35943747)

We can be targeted they can be targeted everyone can be targeted and that's always been the case so it changes nothing. If the UK becomes too scared to act because of repercussions then we really are a small nation and would be better off out of anything risky we should get out of NATO as that's risky good job we are getting out of the EU that was one big risk and the UK is now out of the risk business. Appeasement always sounds good in the short term trouble is in the medium to longterm it costs more lives, money and time assad and putin being left alone to do whatever they want isn't good for anyone.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35943903)

That's very interesting, Den. You have just as many concerns about Theresa May as Jeremy Corbyn? Wow.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35943903)

.

I think you got out of the wrong side of the bed yesterday, Den!

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35943924)

Voters have many concerns about a whole plethora of issues so there is nothing wow about that unless you think we should all think like you.

---------- Post added at 10:39 ---------- Previous post was at 10:36 ----------



No l am fine and dandy OB even though l woke up several times last night..:)