Originally Posted by
Hangarshuffle
People are angry because Parliament weren't informed. Parliament wanted one thing to happen (non involvement) and voted accordingly-and find a little later that all their instructions weren't followed. For the civilian, its as simple as that.
Parliament voted for attacks to be made on IS/Daesh; at the end of the vote (see the other thread) it was clear that Cameron reserved the right to conduct attacks on IS without seeking parliamentary authority to do so, through exercise of the royal prerogative.
Permitting British personnel to attack IS targets in Syria is covered by this; the 2013 parliament did not bind the PM to a position of not permitting attacks against IS in Syria; as glad rag notes, it prevented attacks on Assad's CW arsenal (it did not, in fact, vote against the attacks, since it was never invited to do so - a second vote would've been taken, but the failure of the first motion meant that there was never to be a vote authorising or disallowing attacks).
It's not simple - and while it may 'be as simple as that' it means that those who hold that view do not understand a critical aspect of how parliament works; which in turn means that they can't campaign for /persuade/pressurise their elected representatives to clarify or alter the position...