Answer:
Yes and no.
Explanation:
Yes because he could have been forced into this.
No because there could be parental consent.
The two other answers to this question are spot on, but I'm going to interpret this question in a different way. I'm going to answer it as if the question said "Who was the first presidential style Prime Minister of UK?"
I would argue that there have been two 'Presidents of the United Kingdom': Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair.
For the first eight years of her administration, Margaret Thatcher was effectively 'the President of the United Kingdom'. Her administration was able to do things most post war PMs were not able to do, possibly buoyed by the large mandates she was given by the British public in 1979 and 1983.
Given the landslide election of 1997, it became almost impossible for the Conservative party to win the 2001 election, and very unlikely that would would have much of a chance in 2005 (Michael Portillo's words, not just mine). With this sort of a political landscape and public mandate, Blair was able to govern as a de-facto president, allowing him to push through parliament decisions that didn't have, not only, the public's backing but even the backing of much of the Labour party. This can be seen in Blair's decisions regarding Iraq and Afghanistan post 9/11.
Answer:
D. sometimes double the size
Answer:
It is necessary to limit individual rights because the fundamental rights are good but giving extra rights makes a person feel distinguished from the society and establish their supremacy.
In a democracy, the rights that are being written in the constitution of different countries is necessary but on the other hand, granting extra rights to the citizens can destroy democracy and establish a sense of helplessness.
That's it you need to know!
Hope it helps you mate!
Answer:
It is cheating people
and they owe them in full a contract is a contract and they fulfilled their responsibilities
