The United States was founded by English colonists who were dissatisfied with vesting this much power in a chief executive.
Yet it’s the UK, whose leaders were far more bent on war, that will recall its parliament and put the question to them. Meanwhile in the US, the media jeer at the idea of recalling Congress to provide authorization.
The U.K. government will ask British lawmakers on Thursday to back a strong “humanitarian” response, including military action if necessary, to the suspected chemical weapons attack by the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, but several provisos suggest any intervention won’t be imminent.
The motion to be put before a special debate and nonbinding vote in Parliament says every effort should be made to secure United Nations Security Council backing for military action and that the U.K. Parliament will hold a further vote before any direct British involvement in such action takes place.
The commitment to hold a second vote came after the center-left opposition Labour Party pushed for tougher conditions for supporting military action in Syria.
The motion also says the U.N. Security Council must have the opportunity to consider evidence collected at the site of the alleged attack last week in Damascus that killed hundreds of people.
The UK can hold two votes on the issue. But we can’t hold even one.
In 2002, the same people in power now were urging us to follow the European lead. Now they avoid discussing the embarrassing fact that the UK government is behaving more democratically than we are.
Prime Minister Cameron will take the question of military action in Syria to parliament, but our own King George III has all but ruled it out.