Donate SIGN UP

Should May Have Sought Parliamentary Approval?

Avatar Image
Khandro | 08:30 Sun 15th Apr 2018 | News
175 Answers
She has entirely lost my support - such as it was- and will not lose any sleep over that perhaps, but there seems to be gathering condemnation at home and abroad e.g.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/14/syria-missile-raid-may-faces-anger-trump-declares-mission-accomplished
Gravatar

Answers

161 to 175 of 175rss feed

First Previous 6 7 8 9

Avatar Image
Yes. I don't particularly care about the legal niceties. There was no urgency required in this action (if it was due to chemical weapons) except for the American timetable, and therefore she was morally obliged to consult parliament as Cameron did. I imagine, however, that she was concerned about losing the vote and also that the US has learned from last time...
08:45 Sun 15th Apr 2018
-- answer removed --
did anyone in this forum watch the 3 hour Q&A session that followed the statements made by the PM and leader of the opposition?
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Are we discussing the merits or otherwise of the air strikes or that May did not consult parliament? If the latter it has been repeated ad nauseam that she had no constitutional obligation to do so.
//If the latter it has been repeated ad nauseam that she had no constitutional obligation to do so.//

Constitutional obligations are not the only obligations on politicians. She had a moral obligation to do so.
It was 6 hours in fact (!)
I watched a lot of it (tho nothing like the whole thing!)
Sorry, that was in reply to mushroom:

"did anyone in this forum watch the 3 hour Q&A session that followed the statements made by the PM and leader of the opposition? "
-- answer removed --
Where do you get the 'moral' obligation idea from?
//Irans supreme leader disagrees Jackdaw.\\

I see. The ramblings of a mad mullah are the definitive argument.
-- answer removed --
//It was 6 hours in fact (!)//

I lost interest when the house started arguing with the leader of the house about Standing Order no.24. one of the stand out points was despite criticism from the back benches (of both sides) levelled at the leader of the opposition, the PM made no agreement or criticism of Mr Corbyn herself but pointed instead to the support from the labour benches, and previous examples of labour administrations in taking action that could be described as "humanitarian".
There was no cause urgency in this, the military is grossly underfunded, and it embroils the UK in proxy conflict with other powers which may have serious long-term consequences. Given that this was not a self defense/kill-or-be-killed kind of situation, that kind of major decision ought to be put before parliament, as it was in (I think) 2013.
-- answer removed --

161 to 175 of 175rss feed

First Previous 6 7 8 9

Do you know the answer?

Should May Have Sought Parliamentary Approval?

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.