Recall demands are unnecessary; VIEWPOINT.
EVERY so often there are demands to "do something" about the United Kingdom's lack of a written constitution.
But confusing as it may sometimes be, the fact that our constitution is determined by precedent rather than strict rules is a strength.
While it officially remains the case that a decision to use military action lies with the Government rather than Parliament, Tony Blair's decision to seek Parliamentary approval for the invasion of Iraq raised expectations that future governments would also consult MPs before launching military action.
And we saw the result last year, when David Cameron believed he could not order British armed forces to join US-led military action in Syria without the approval of Parliament.
That approval was denied, leading the United States to abandon its plans too.
But a precedent we can do without is the recall of Parliament every time there is an international crisis.
There is no serious suggestion, certainly at this stage, that the UK will take any kind of military action in Iraq, even though the RAF is helping deliver aid to desperate refugees.
If that changes then perhaps Mr Cameron should summon MPs to Westminster.
But as it stands, the UK's involvement in the region is limited.
That being the case, there is no need for Parliament to be recalled.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Title Annotation:||Editorial; Opinion, Leading articles|
|Publication:||The Birmingham Post (England)|
|Date:||Aug 14, 2014|
|Previous Article:||Eastside unlocked; VIEWPOINT.|
|Next Article:||An election nobody wants; Letters.|