[noel43]

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.

Looks like Trump'S BITCH got away with it.