Apparently there is a public sector strike going on...

[DodgyAgent]

Have a look at the wiki links for various definitions, but here is one of them:

Who says that the Iraq war was not self defence?

[Old Greg]

If only it was that simple

Cameron attacked the low turnout thresholds in union strike ballots and challenged the validity of mandates to take industrial action derived from ballots conducted more than a year ago in some cases.

The prime minister said: "I think the time has come for setting a threshold. It is time to legislate and it will be in the Conservative manifesto."

So should the validity of governments' or MPs' mandates be challenged because of low turnouts which mean that they win votes at <50% of eligible voters? Or does it only work that way when politically convenient?

[Old Greg]

Who says that the Iraq war was not self defence?

Explain how it was.

[Old Greg]

Or just read:

Legality of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

War of aggression[edit]
The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg held following World War II that the waging of a war of aggression is:

essentially an evil thing...to initiate a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.[55]

Benjamin B. Ferencz was one of the chief prosecutors for the United States at the military trials of German officials following World War II, and a former law professor. In an interview given on August 25, 2006, Ferencz stated that not only Saddam Hussein should be tried, but also George W. Bush because the Iraq War had been begun by the U.S. without permission by the UN Security Council.[56] Benjamin B. Ferencz wrote the foreword for Michael Haas's book, George W. Bush, War Criminal?: The Bush Administration's Liability for 269 War Crimes.[57] Ferencz elaborated as follows:

a prima facie case can be made that the United States is guilty of the supreme crime against humanity, that being an illegal war of aggression against a sovereign nation.[58]

... The United Nations charter has a provision which was agreed to by the United States, formulated by the United States, in fact, after World War II. It says that from now on, no nation can use armed force without the permission of the U.N. Security Council. They can use force in connection with self-defense, but a country can't use force in anticipation of self-defense. Regarding Iraq, the last Security Council resolution essentially said, "Look, send the weapons inspectors out to Iraq, have them come back and tell us what they've found -- then we'll figure out what we're going to do." The U.S. was impatient, and decided to invade Iraq -- which was all pre-arranged of course. So, the United States went to war, in violation of the charter.[58]

Professor Ferencz quoted the British deputy legal adviser to the Foreign Ministry who resigned suddenly before the Iraq war started, stating in her resignation letter:

I regret that I cannot agree that it is lawful to use force against Iraq without a second Security Council resolution. [A]n unlawful use of force on such a scale amounts to the crime of aggression; nor can I agree with such action in circumstances that are so detrimental to the international order and the rule of law.[58]

The invasion of Iraq was neither in self-defense against armed attack nor sanctioned by UN Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force by member states and thus constituted the crime of war of aggression, according to the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) in Geneva.[59][60] A "war waged without a clear mandate from the United Nations Security Council would constitute a flagrant violation of the prohibition of the use of force”. We note with “deep dismay that a small number of states are poised to launch an outright illegal invasion of Iraq, which amounts to a war of aggression”.[60][60][61]

Then Iraq Ambassador to the United Nations Mohammed Aldouri shared the view that the invasion was a violation of international law and constituted a war of aggression,[62] as did a number of American legal experts, including Marjorie Cohn, Professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and president of the National Lawyers Guild[63] and former Attorney-General of the United States Ramsey Clark.[64]

[TheFaQQer]

If only it was that simple

Cameron attacked the low turnout thresholds in union strike ballots and challenged the validity of mandates to take industrial action derived from ballots conducted more than a year ago in some cases.

The prime minister said: "I think the time has come for setting a threshold. It is time to legislate and it will be in the Conservative manifesto."

It is that simple. The majority of the votes cast decides the action, regardless of turnout - exactly the same way that all public elections in this country are run.

[DodgyAgent]

So should the validity of governments' or MPs' mandates be challenged because of low turnouts which mean that they win votes at <50% of eligible voters? Or does it only work that way when politically convenient?

The validity of a public sector strike should not be determined by apathy or whatever reason there are for not voting. I would not apply the same rule for voting MPs.

[Old Greg]

If you track back on threads I have argued in () you will see that I am always ready to concede a point or an argument. Unlike most on here who will argue black is white or switch the argument on to something they think they can win.

But then, you are almost always wrong to start out with.

[DodgyAgent]

Or just read:

Legality of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well let a court decide then. So far no court has established whether the Iraq war was illegal.

[DodgyAgent]

But then, you are almost always wrong to start out with.

which is of course a matter of opinion

[Mich the Tester]

Well let a court decide then. So far no court has established whether the Iraq war was illegal.

I certainly wish that would happen.