[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Mick

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.

Quite right, Mick. Some people just want delay in an effort to avoid getting involved at all. In a situation like this, you need to respond immediately, not weeks or months later. Of course, where Corbyn is concerned, it would be never. The evidence he wants would have to be detailed forensic evidence that left not a single ridiculous argument left to argue.

Our justice system requires proof that is 'beyond reasonable doubt', and we certainly have at least that level of proof about Assad's involvement in this latest gas attack. You have to be pretty naive to believe that anyone else can be responsible for this evil deed.