Syria bombings - why wasn't Parliament consulted?

Black humour about the most confusing war of modern times.

As you will recall, the UK joined the USA and France in bombing Syria last month. Much has been made of the fact that Theresa May ordered the missile strikes without consulting Parliament. Although we may not like it, she actually broke no UK laws or conventions in doing so.

The UK has no constitution. Defenders of the present system claim that we have an unwritten constitution that is flexible and can adapt to changing circumstances, but I'm not persuaded by this argument. Our political system consists of a combination of precedent, legislation and the royal prerogative that have all developed and, at times, been in conflict with each other over centuries. To put it another way, it's a convoluted labyrinth that is of benefit only to unscrupulous politicians and lawyers.

Precedent: put simply, this consists of what we might, in a less elevated context, refer to as custom and practice, in this case built up over centuries. The most obvious example is how Parliament itself evolved from the body summoned in 1265 by the French nobleman Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester, which was a major step forward from previous councils of nobles and clergy because for the first time representatives from towns and shires were summoned. Its powers were gradually accumulated, often not peacefully, over subsequent centuries until the 1688 Dutch conquest of England led by William of Orange, who was offered the English throne provided he accepted the supremacy of Parliament over the Crown. The way Parliament operates today has been determined by multiple precedents established over centuries.

Royal prerogative: not all royal powers were surrendered to Parliament (more info here). The right to declare war remains reserved to the Crown and nowadays is exercised on the monarch's behalf by the Prime Minister with no need to consult Parliament. However, in recent years Parliament has been consulted:

• In 2003 - the Iraq War.
• Retrospectively in 2011 - Libya intervention.
• 2013 - the government was defeated over military action in Syria.
• 2014 - UK air strikes against Islamic State forces in Iraq. 
• 2015 - extension of air strikes against IS into Syrian territory.

One exception: there was no consultation over a small deployment of forces to Mali in 2013.

Legislation: there are no laws governing declarations of war, although there have been vague promises of one. Even if we had such a law, it could be overturned by a simple majority in a future Parliament, which is one reason why we should have a written constitution that would need at least a two thirds majority for change.

Why didn't May consult Parliament? I see three main reasons:

• Her government is weak, propped up by bribing the DUP, and there was a very good chance she'd lose the vote, as David Cameron did in 2013.
• A Parliamentary vote would reinforce the precedent that had been set several times already, and would further the process of eroding the royal prerogative. It's my view that May wished to retain the right to declare war without consultation because it's a form of power can be wielded independently of Parliament - both by herself and by her successors. 
• As a weak Prime Minister, she is desperate to hold on to whatever remnants of power she still has.

My conclusion: the principal reason May didn't consult Parliament was because she wanted to prevent such consultation evolving into an accepted precedent that, in time, would become binding on Prime Ministers. She has thus deliberately stifled a development that most of us would have welcomed in order to preserve the powers and privileges that Prime Ministers can exercise through the royal prerogative without any democratic accountability. 

Consigning this relic of the divine right of kings 

to history where it belongs is long overdue.

Neville Grundy

Chair

ARMS Mersey