Does Parliament hold absolute power in the UK? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern)Could a US political party gain complete control over the government by removing checks & balances?Parliament proposing/passing motion whose constituency effects depend on how a member votedWill the British Parliament prevent “Brexit”?In a Westminster system, why would the PM voluntarily dissolve a majority government?Does the United Kingdom, in practice, have other constitutional principles which limit the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty?What power does the Queen have in the event of a Hung Parliament?Why don't Sinn Féin take their seats in the UK parliament?What are the limits to the power of the City Remembrancer?Why doesn't the UK hold a second Brexit referendum to clarify what the public wants from Brexit?Have the UK Conservatives lost the working majority and if so, what does this mean?How has the division of power worked, between govt and parliament, in modern Britain?Why don't hard Brexiteers insist on a hard border to prevent illegal immigration after Brexit?

Table formatting with tabularx?

Vertical ranges of Column Plots in 12

"Destructive power" carried by a B-52?

How could a hydrazine and N2O4 cloud (or it's reactants) show up in weather radar?

Twin's vs. Twins'

Is the time—manner—place ordering of adverbials an oversimplification?

How does TikZ render an arc?

Can two people see the same photon?

Statistical analysis applied to methods coming out of Machine Learning

malloc in main() or malloc in another function: allocating memory for a struct and its members

Understanding piped commands in GNU/Linux

Is this Kuo-toa homebrew race balanced?

Does the main washing effect of soap come from foam?

Problem with display of presentation

Did any compiler fully use 80-bit floating point?

Why complex landing gears are used instead of simple, reliable and light weight muscle wire or shape memory alloys?

Why not use the yoke to control yaw, as well as pitch and roll?

Can gravitational waves pass through a black hole?

What is "Lambda" in Heston's original paper on stochastic volatility models?

NIntegrate on a solution of a matrix ODE

One-one communication

Determine whether an integer is a palindrome

Adapting the Chinese Remainder Theorem (CRT) for integers to polynomials

What does 丫 mean? 丫是什么意思?



Does Parliament hold absolute power in the UK?



Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern)Could a US political party gain complete control over the government by removing checks & balances?Parliament proposing/passing motion whose constituency effects depend on how a member votedWill the British Parliament prevent “Brexit”?In a Westminster system, why would the PM voluntarily dissolve a majority government?Does the United Kingdom, in practice, have other constitutional principles which limit the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty?What power does the Queen have in the event of a Hung Parliament?Why don't Sinn Féin take their seats in the UK parliament?What are the limits to the power of the City Remembrancer?Why doesn't the UK hold a second Brexit referendum to clarify what the public wants from Brexit?Have the UK Conservatives lost the working majority and if so, what does this mean?How has the division of power worked, between govt and parliament, in modern Britain?Why don't hard Brexiteers insist on a hard border to prevent illegal immigration after Brexit?










9















Does Parliament hold absolute power in the UK?



What I mean by absolute power is: presumably they can make illegal or legal whatever they want. Even going so far as to disenfranchise their own electorate.



Is this correct, or are there any checks on the power of Parliament?










share|improve this question



















  • 1





    Why stop at parliament? Even if we imagine a written constitution that specifies it can only be amended by a supermajority at a plebiscite, we could still ask: "could the People in theory decide to rewrite the constitution so it can never be amended again, thereby disenfranchising their children and children's children forever? Are there any checks on that?"

    – Henning Makholm
    Apr 12 at 20:36











  • The modified version of the question (with its only focus on "absolute power") seems to be largely a UK-duplicate of politics.stackexchange.com/questions/40334/…

    – Fizz
    Apr 13 at 0:42
















9















Does Parliament hold absolute power in the UK?



What I mean by absolute power is: presumably they can make illegal or legal whatever they want. Even going so far as to disenfranchise their own electorate.



Is this correct, or are there any checks on the power of Parliament?










share|improve this question



















  • 1





    Why stop at parliament? Even if we imagine a written constitution that specifies it can only be amended by a supermajority at a plebiscite, we could still ask: "could the People in theory decide to rewrite the constitution so it can never be amended again, thereby disenfranchising their children and children's children forever? Are there any checks on that?"

    – Henning Makholm
    Apr 12 at 20:36











  • The modified version of the question (with its only focus on "absolute power") seems to be largely a UK-duplicate of politics.stackexchange.com/questions/40334/…

    – Fizz
    Apr 13 at 0:42














9












9








9








Does Parliament hold absolute power in the UK?



What I mean by absolute power is: presumably they can make illegal or legal whatever they want. Even going so far as to disenfranchise their own electorate.



Is this correct, or are there any checks on the power of Parliament?










share|improve this question
















Does Parliament hold absolute power in the UK?



What I mean by absolute power is: presumably they can make illegal or legal whatever they want. Even going so far as to disenfranchise their own electorate.



Is this correct, or are there any checks on the power of Parliament?







united-kingdom parliament






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Apr 12 at 16:56









JJJ

7,30622661




7,30622661










asked Apr 12 at 15:26









BenBen

3,4051541




3,4051541







  • 1





    Why stop at parliament? Even if we imagine a written constitution that specifies it can only be amended by a supermajority at a plebiscite, we could still ask: "could the People in theory decide to rewrite the constitution so it can never be amended again, thereby disenfranchising their children and children's children forever? Are there any checks on that?"

    – Henning Makholm
    Apr 12 at 20:36











  • The modified version of the question (with its only focus on "absolute power") seems to be largely a UK-duplicate of politics.stackexchange.com/questions/40334/…

    – Fizz
    Apr 13 at 0:42













  • 1





    Why stop at parliament? Even if we imagine a written constitution that specifies it can only be amended by a supermajority at a plebiscite, we could still ask: "could the People in theory decide to rewrite the constitution so it can never be amended again, thereby disenfranchising their children and children's children forever? Are there any checks on that?"

    – Henning Makholm
    Apr 12 at 20:36











  • The modified version of the question (with its only focus on "absolute power") seems to be largely a UK-duplicate of politics.stackexchange.com/questions/40334/…

    – Fizz
    Apr 13 at 0:42








1




1





Why stop at parliament? Even if we imagine a written constitution that specifies it can only be amended by a supermajority at a plebiscite, we could still ask: "could the People in theory decide to rewrite the constitution so it can never be amended again, thereby disenfranchising their children and children's children forever? Are there any checks on that?"

– Henning Makholm
Apr 12 at 20:36





Why stop at parliament? Even if we imagine a written constitution that specifies it can only be amended by a supermajority at a plebiscite, we could still ask: "could the People in theory decide to rewrite the constitution so it can never be amended again, thereby disenfranchising their children and children's children forever? Are there any checks on that?"

– Henning Makholm
Apr 12 at 20:36













The modified version of the question (with its only focus on "absolute power") seems to be largely a UK-duplicate of politics.stackexchange.com/questions/40334/…

– Fizz
Apr 13 at 0:42






The modified version of the question (with its only focus on "absolute power") seems to be largely a UK-duplicate of politics.stackexchange.com/questions/40334/…

– Fizz
Apr 13 at 0:42











5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes


















15














Parliament has one power. It can pass motions.



These motions can become Acts of Parliament and define new laws. The text of the Act of Parliament is basically unlimited. An Act of Parliament can, in theory, consist of nothing but the word "Rhubarb" written 5000 times. It could contain a statement that "pi = 4", or it could repeal the law of Gravity. These are silly examples, but they show that Parliament can create any act that it chooses. How that relates to "power" is more questionable.



Obviously, an Act that declares "pi = 4" would have no effect on the actual value of pi. Similarly an Act that is unenforceable, will not be enforced.



Could Parliament change the electoral system to vary who gets to vote? Yes they have done this multiple times in the past. The direction of history has meant that the franchise has been extended each time, to include non-property-owning men, and then to include some women. But it is far from the case that "everybody" can vote. Prisoners, under-18s, and The Queen, for example, have no vote in elections. Parliament could make it impossible for women to vote, but such a law would be unenforceable.



The ultimate check on the power of any authority is the risk of violent revolution. This restriction on the power of any government is implicit.






share|improve this answer


















  • 8





    "Parliament could make it impossible for women to vote, but such a law would be unenforceable" - in what sense? If you are not on the electoral register, you can't vote. UK birth certificates record the person's gender. End of problem! Of course if might be difficult to find people willing to work to enforce it, but that's not the same as "unenforceable".

    – alephzero
    Apr 13 at 8:20






  • 3





    "The ultimate check on the power of any authority is the risk of violent revolution" - this is the core of the answer. If the Parliament passed a law right now which sentenced all left-handed people to death, it would be unenforceable because so many people would be against it, that it could lead to the collapse of the current government. However, if 80 years from now, the values of society shifted enough so that the majority of people would find it OK to kill all left-handed people, such an Act of Parliament would pass through and there will be plenty of people willing to enforce it.

    – vsz
    Apr 13 at 9:33






  • 2





    I think this answer is incomplete without mentioning the Royal Prerogative which gives the Queen the power to refuse the Royal Assent on any bill that Parliament wishes to enact. It is a matter of convention, not Parliamentary sovereignty, that the monarch does not exercise this power.

    – JBentley
    Apr 13 at 13:11






  • 3





    The Queen in this role is part of parliament, There are 3 parts of Parliament: Commons, Lords, Monarch, each have a role, albeit in the case of the Monarch a ceremonial one. Remember "convention" = "constitution" in the UK system.

    – James K
    Apr 13 at 14:05











  • @JamesK Fair point (on the first point). Convention = constitution is a bit inaccurate. Perhaps you mean that conventions are part of the constitution. It's also important to remember that conventions are not legally binding and can be broken (and indeed, commonly are).

    – JBentley
    Apr 13 at 14:31


















8














There's a substantial difference between the theoretical and actual limits of authority held by Parliament.



De facto



In the UK tradition Parliament's authority is theoretically absolute. With a sufficient majority in the House of Commons any law can be passed and the authorities (police, judiciary, etc) can be directed to enforce that law. The upper House of Lords can attempt to delay or amend those laws, but the lower house has primacy and can force them through after a certain amount of time.



De Jure



All new laws must be 'assented' to by the Monarch. Since the Parliament are (again theoretically) subject to her failure to assent, the 'in law' position is that Parliament is not absolute since the lower House of Commons can't direct her to sign even with a majority vote. In fact, without her specific consent to form a government and sit in session, Parliament is dissolved.



Realpolitik



In the real world, Parliament is bounded by a great number of limits; the need to secure a majority in both houses for normal legislation, the enforcability of laws that are passed, budgetary limits, EU law (for the time being), International Law, various treaties to which the UK is signatory and pressure from outside bodies with influence (such as foreign governments).






share|improve this answer

























  • A good answer. Couple of corrections: the Queen’s power to dissolve Parliament was removed by the Fixed Term Parliaments Act; that power now lies solely with he Commons. Also, no party has a majority in the Lords, and by convention, the plan is to keep it that way.

    – Steve Melnikoff
    Apr 14 at 15:06











  • @SteveMelnikoff - And while that's true in principle, the legal position is that she could simply use her prerogative to issue and pass a law that reverses that decision (or simply to dissolve or prorogue parliament) without the express consent of her government and Parliament. In reality, of course, that would be an unsustainable action, but it wouldn't be illegal and remains within her purview.

    – Valorum
    Apr 14 at 15:24



















7














Another elephant in the room here is the European Convention on Human Rights, an international convention to which the UK is a party state. This effectively gives a supranational body, the European Court of Human Rights the power to pass judgement that a contracting state has breached provisions in the convention concerning human civil and political rights.



The original treaty does let states leave (denounce the treaty), but only after a 5 year cooling off period. As with all international treaties, it's not entirely clear what would happen if a state just unilaterally stopped playing ball immediately, especially if it were willing to enter a period of North Korean style isolationism, but it is another element in play, beyond the various parties (and the two houses) of Parliament watching each other.






share|improve this answer


















  • 1





    It's worth noting also that the UK has also imported much of the ECHR into domestic law with the Human Rights Act 1998.

    – JBentley
    Apr 13 at 13:15











  • It can still overrule the HRA in domestic law provided it does so explicitly, and then domestic courts have no power to consider either it or the Convention. However, given the current state of anglo-european relations I expect the Council of Europe would act somewhat faster to fine Britain than they did when Russia defied the Court. There is also a provision to suspend the convention in part of the applicable territory of a signatory (originally for Algeria, I think), but Britain neglected to invoke that in NI when they were ignoring the ECHR there.

    – user1567459
    Apr 14 at 10:53


















6














The Fixed-term Parliaments Act means they have to respond to the electorate, eventually. In fact this provision has existed for a long time in various forms




The Septennial Act 1715 provided that a parliament expired seven years after it had been summoned; this period was reduced to five years by the Parliament Act 1911.




The House of Lords can exercise some restraint in terms constitutionality of laws, although given the lack of a single, written constitution in the UK that's a complicated exercise.



Presumably the Queen can withhold Royal Assent on some completely insane law, but there isn't much in the way recent precedent.




The last bill that was refused assent by the sovereign (on the advice of ministers) was the Scottish Militia Bill during Queen Anne's reign in 1708.







share|improve this answer




















  • 7





    Given parliament could simply repeal the FTPA (presuming royal assent), I don't really think that's much of a check on their power.

    – CoedRhyfelwr
    Apr 12 at 15:49






  • 2





    I suppose my question revolves around disenfranchising their own electorate. In effect changing the rules of the game such that the electorate’s vote is diminished in some way, in future general elections. Presumably this is well within the power of the Parliament.

    – Ben
    Apr 12 at 15:52







  • 3





    @Ben Elections are indeed fundamentally controlled by legislation, along with bodies such as the Electoral commission, created by legislation. Indeed one of the current arguments against the ID trials being continued in the upcoming UK local elections is that it unfairly disenfranchises some voters.

    – origimbo
    Apr 12 at 16:07






  • 2





    @Fizz If the House of Commons passed a law declaring themselves MPs for life, the House of Lords would block it. The Parliament Act which allows the Commons to override Lords vetoes specifically excludes and keeps the Lords veto for any legislation which would postpone the latest possible date for the next general election.

    – Mike Scott
    Apr 13 at 5:11






  • 2





    @Fizz Supposedly in 1999 the queen told Blair that one of her red lines for refusing Royal Assent was anything that would effectively make Parliament permanent or making elections into a sham (so he didn't need to worry about his Lords reforms enabling that), unless there was a clear demonstration of overwhelming public support that she believed would be permanent. That means they can't, say, change the electoral act to make the deposit millions of pounds for people who aren't sitting MPs and then bypass the Lords because it hasn't technically abolished elections.

    – user1567459
    Apr 14 at 10:48


















2














Just to add to the other answers here, in theory the monarch can veto an Act of Parliament by refusing Royal Assent.



In practice Royal Assent is a formality and the theoretical power of veto is never exercised. The last time Royal Assent was actually withheld was in 1708. However if Parliament voted to do something so clearly undemocratic as arbitrarily cancelling elections or disenfranchising the majority of the population then it remains a possibility.



Also relevant is the fact that the UK monarch is the head of the armed forces. In theory the Queen could order the army to go and arrest the Prime Minister, and it would be a legal order that they would have to obey.



(An urban legend has it that Queen Victoria withheld assent to a law outlawing lesbianism on the grounds that no woman would ever do such a thing. This is not true.)






share|improve this answer























  • Re arresting the PM: it’s been a while, but the last time a monarch tried that, it did not end well for the monarch...

    – Steve Melnikoff
    Apr 14 at 15:11











Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "475"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);













draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f40542%2fdoes-parliament-hold-absolute-power-in-the-uk%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes








5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









15














Parliament has one power. It can pass motions.



These motions can become Acts of Parliament and define new laws. The text of the Act of Parliament is basically unlimited. An Act of Parliament can, in theory, consist of nothing but the word "Rhubarb" written 5000 times. It could contain a statement that "pi = 4", or it could repeal the law of Gravity. These are silly examples, but they show that Parliament can create any act that it chooses. How that relates to "power" is more questionable.



Obviously, an Act that declares "pi = 4" would have no effect on the actual value of pi. Similarly an Act that is unenforceable, will not be enforced.



Could Parliament change the electoral system to vary who gets to vote? Yes they have done this multiple times in the past. The direction of history has meant that the franchise has been extended each time, to include non-property-owning men, and then to include some women. But it is far from the case that "everybody" can vote. Prisoners, under-18s, and The Queen, for example, have no vote in elections. Parliament could make it impossible for women to vote, but such a law would be unenforceable.



The ultimate check on the power of any authority is the risk of violent revolution. This restriction on the power of any government is implicit.






share|improve this answer


















  • 8





    "Parliament could make it impossible for women to vote, but such a law would be unenforceable" - in what sense? If you are not on the electoral register, you can't vote. UK birth certificates record the person's gender. End of problem! Of course if might be difficult to find people willing to work to enforce it, but that's not the same as "unenforceable".

    – alephzero
    Apr 13 at 8:20






  • 3





    "The ultimate check on the power of any authority is the risk of violent revolution" - this is the core of the answer. If the Parliament passed a law right now which sentenced all left-handed people to death, it would be unenforceable because so many people would be against it, that it could lead to the collapse of the current government. However, if 80 years from now, the values of society shifted enough so that the majority of people would find it OK to kill all left-handed people, such an Act of Parliament would pass through and there will be plenty of people willing to enforce it.

    – vsz
    Apr 13 at 9:33






  • 2





    I think this answer is incomplete without mentioning the Royal Prerogative which gives the Queen the power to refuse the Royal Assent on any bill that Parliament wishes to enact. It is a matter of convention, not Parliamentary sovereignty, that the monarch does not exercise this power.

    – JBentley
    Apr 13 at 13:11






  • 3





    The Queen in this role is part of parliament, There are 3 parts of Parliament: Commons, Lords, Monarch, each have a role, albeit in the case of the Monarch a ceremonial one. Remember "convention" = "constitution" in the UK system.

    – James K
    Apr 13 at 14:05











  • @JamesK Fair point (on the first point). Convention = constitution is a bit inaccurate. Perhaps you mean that conventions are part of the constitution. It's also important to remember that conventions are not legally binding and can be broken (and indeed, commonly are).

    – JBentley
    Apr 13 at 14:31















15














Parliament has one power. It can pass motions.



These motions can become Acts of Parliament and define new laws. The text of the Act of Parliament is basically unlimited. An Act of Parliament can, in theory, consist of nothing but the word "Rhubarb" written 5000 times. It could contain a statement that "pi = 4", or it could repeal the law of Gravity. These are silly examples, but they show that Parliament can create any act that it chooses. How that relates to "power" is more questionable.



Obviously, an Act that declares "pi = 4" would have no effect on the actual value of pi. Similarly an Act that is unenforceable, will not be enforced.



Could Parliament change the electoral system to vary who gets to vote? Yes they have done this multiple times in the past. The direction of history has meant that the franchise has been extended each time, to include non-property-owning men, and then to include some women. But it is far from the case that "everybody" can vote. Prisoners, under-18s, and The Queen, for example, have no vote in elections. Parliament could make it impossible for women to vote, but such a law would be unenforceable.



The ultimate check on the power of any authority is the risk of violent revolution. This restriction on the power of any government is implicit.






share|improve this answer


















  • 8





    "Parliament could make it impossible for women to vote, but such a law would be unenforceable" - in what sense? If you are not on the electoral register, you can't vote. UK birth certificates record the person's gender. End of problem! Of course if might be difficult to find people willing to work to enforce it, but that's not the same as "unenforceable".

    – alephzero
    Apr 13 at 8:20






  • 3





    "The ultimate check on the power of any authority is the risk of violent revolution" - this is the core of the answer. If the Parliament passed a law right now which sentenced all left-handed people to death, it would be unenforceable because so many people would be against it, that it could lead to the collapse of the current government. However, if 80 years from now, the values of society shifted enough so that the majority of people would find it OK to kill all left-handed people, such an Act of Parliament would pass through and there will be plenty of people willing to enforce it.

    – vsz
    Apr 13 at 9:33






  • 2





    I think this answer is incomplete without mentioning the Royal Prerogative which gives the Queen the power to refuse the Royal Assent on any bill that Parliament wishes to enact. It is a matter of convention, not Parliamentary sovereignty, that the monarch does not exercise this power.

    – JBentley
    Apr 13 at 13:11






  • 3





    The Queen in this role is part of parliament, There are 3 parts of Parliament: Commons, Lords, Monarch, each have a role, albeit in the case of the Monarch a ceremonial one. Remember "convention" = "constitution" in the UK system.

    – James K
    Apr 13 at 14:05











  • @JamesK Fair point (on the first point). Convention = constitution is a bit inaccurate. Perhaps you mean that conventions are part of the constitution. It's also important to remember that conventions are not legally binding and can be broken (and indeed, commonly are).

    – JBentley
    Apr 13 at 14:31













15












15








15







Parliament has one power. It can pass motions.



These motions can become Acts of Parliament and define new laws. The text of the Act of Parliament is basically unlimited. An Act of Parliament can, in theory, consist of nothing but the word "Rhubarb" written 5000 times. It could contain a statement that "pi = 4", or it could repeal the law of Gravity. These are silly examples, but they show that Parliament can create any act that it chooses. How that relates to "power" is more questionable.



Obviously, an Act that declares "pi = 4" would have no effect on the actual value of pi. Similarly an Act that is unenforceable, will not be enforced.



Could Parliament change the electoral system to vary who gets to vote? Yes they have done this multiple times in the past. The direction of history has meant that the franchise has been extended each time, to include non-property-owning men, and then to include some women. But it is far from the case that "everybody" can vote. Prisoners, under-18s, and The Queen, for example, have no vote in elections. Parliament could make it impossible for women to vote, but such a law would be unenforceable.



The ultimate check on the power of any authority is the risk of violent revolution. This restriction on the power of any government is implicit.






share|improve this answer













Parliament has one power. It can pass motions.



These motions can become Acts of Parliament and define new laws. The text of the Act of Parliament is basically unlimited. An Act of Parliament can, in theory, consist of nothing but the word "Rhubarb" written 5000 times. It could contain a statement that "pi = 4", or it could repeal the law of Gravity. These are silly examples, but they show that Parliament can create any act that it chooses. How that relates to "power" is more questionable.



Obviously, an Act that declares "pi = 4" would have no effect on the actual value of pi. Similarly an Act that is unenforceable, will not be enforced.



Could Parliament change the electoral system to vary who gets to vote? Yes they have done this multiple times in the past. The direction of history has meant that the franchise has been extended each time, to include non-property-owning men, and then to include some women. But it is far from the case that "everybody" can vote. Prisoners, under-18s, and The Queen, for example, have no vote in elections. Parliament could make it impossible for women to vote, but such a law would be unenforceable.



The ultimate check on the power of any authority is the risk of violent revolution. This restriction on the power of any government is implicit.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered Apr 12 at 20:46









James KJames K

36.9k8107158




36.9k8107158







  • 8





    "Parliament could make it impossible for women to vote, but such a law would be unenforceable" - in what sense? If you are not on the electoral register, you can't vote. UK birth certificates record the person's gender. End of problem! Of course if might be difficult to find people willing to work to enforce it, but that's not the same as "unenforceable".

    – alephzero
    Apr 13 at 8:20






  • 3





    "The ultimate check on the power of any authority is the risk of violent revolution" - this is the core of the answer. If the Parliament passed a law right now which sentenced all left-handed people to death, it would be unenforceable because so many people would be against it, that it could lead to the collapse of the current government. However, if 80 years from now, the values of society shifted enough so that the majority of people would find it OK to kill all left-handed people, such an Act of Parliament would pass through and there will be plenty of people willing to enforce it.

    – vsz
    Apr 13 at 9:33






  • 2





    I think this answer is incomplete without mentioning the Royal Prerogative which gives the Queen the power to refuse the Royal Assent on any bill that Parliament wishes to enact. It is a matter of convention, not Parliamentary sovereignty, that the monarch does not exercise this power.

    – JBentley
    Apr 13 at 13:11






  • 3





    The Queen in this role is part of parliament, There are 3 parts of Parliament: Commons, Lords, Monarch, each have a role, albeit in the case of the Monarch a ceremonial one. Remember "convention" = "constitution" in the UK system.

    – James K
    Apr 13 at 14:05











  • @JamesK Fair point (on the first point). Convention = constitution is a bit inaccurate. Perhaps you mean that conventions are part of the constitution. It's also important to remember that conventions are not legally binding and can be broken (and indeed, commonly are).

    – JBentley
    Apr 13 at 14:31












  • 8





    "Parliament could make it impossible for women to vote, but such a law would be unenforceable" - in what sense? If you are not on the electoral register, you can't vote. UK birth certificates record the person's gender. End of problem! Of course if might be difficult to find people willing to work to enforce it, but that's not the same as "unenforceable".

    – alephzero
    Apr 13 at 8:20






  • 3





    "The ultimate check on the power of any authority is the risk of violent revolution" - this is the core of the answer. If the Parliament passed a law right now which sentenced all left-handed people to death, it would be unenforceable because so many people would be against it, that it could lead to the collapse of the current government. However, if 80 years from now, the values of society shifted enough so that the majority of people would find it OK to kill all left-handed people, such an Act of Parliament would pass through and there will be plenty of people willing to enforce it.

    – vsz
    Apr 13 at 9:33






  • 2





    I think this answer is incomplete without mentioning the Royal Prerogative which gives the Queen the power to refuse the Royal Assent on any bill that Parliament wishes to enact. It is a matter of convention, not Parliamentary sovereignty, that the monarch does not exercise this power.

    – JBentley
    Apr 13 at 13:11






  • 3





    The Queen in this role is part of parliament, There are 3 parts of Parliament: Commons, Lords, Monarch, each have a role, albeit in the case of the Monarch a ceremonial one. Remember "convention" = "constitution" in the UK system.

    – James K
    Apr 13 at 14:05











  • @JamesK Fair point (on the first point). Convention = constitution is a bit inaccurate. Perhaps you mean that conventions are part of the constitution. It's also important to remember that conventions are not legally binding and can be broken (and indeed, commonly are).

    – JBentley
    Apr 13 at 14:31







8




8





"Parliament could make it impossible for women to vote, but such a law would be unenforceable" - in what sense? If you are not on the electoral register, you can't vote. UK birth certificates record the person's gender. End of problem! Of course if might be difficult to find people willing to work to enforce it, but that's not the same as "unenforceable".

– alephzero
Apr 13 at 8:20





"Parliament could make it impossible for women to vote, but such a law would be unenforceable" - in what sense? If you are not on the electoral register, you can't vote. UK birth certificates record the person's gender. End of problem! Of course if might be difficult to find people willing to work to enforce it, but that's not the same as "unenforceable".

– alephzero
Apr 13 at 8:20




3




3





"The ultimate check on the power of any authority is the risk of violent revolution" - this is the core of the answer. If the Parliament passed a law right now which sentenced all left-handed people to death, it would be unenforceable because so many people would be against it, that it could lead to the collapse of the current government. However, if 80 years from now, the values of society shifted enough so that the majority of people would find it OK to kill all left-handed people, such an Act of Parliament would pass through and there will be plenty of people willing to enforce it.

– vsz
Apr 13 at 9:33





"The ultimate check on the power of any authority is the risk of violent revolution" - this is the core of the answer. If the Parliament passed a law right now which sentenced all left-handed people to death, it would be unenforceable because so many people would be against it, that it could lead to the collapse of the current government. However, if 80 years from now, the values of society shifted enough so that the majority of people would find it OK to kill all left-handed people, such an Act of Parliament would pass through and there will be plenty of people willing to enforce it.

– vsz
Apr 13 at 9:33




2




2





I think this answer is incomplete without mentioning the Royal Prerogative which gives the Queen the power to refuse the Royal Assent on any bill that Parliament wishes to enact. It is a matter of convention, not Parliamentary sovereignty, that the monarch does not exercise this power.

– JBentley
Apr 13 at 13:11





I think this answer is incomplete without mentioning the Royal Prerogative which gives the Queen the power to refuse the Royal Assent on any bill that Parliament wishes to enact. It is a matter of convention, not Parliamentary sovereignty, that the monarch does not exercise this power.

– JBentley
Apr 13 at 13:11




3




3





The Queen in this role is part of parliament, There are 3 parts of Parliament: Commons, Lords, Monarch, each have a role, albeit in the case of the Monarch a ceremonial one. Remember "convention" = "constitution" in the UK system.

– James K
Apr 13 at 14:05





The Queen in this role is part of parliament, There are 3 parts of Parliament: Commons, Lords, Monarch, each have a role, albeit in the case of the Monarch a ceremonial one. Remember "convention" = "constitution" in the UK system.

– James K
Apr 13 at 14:05













@JamesK Fair point (on the first point). Convention = constitution is a bit inaccurate. Perhaps you mean that conventions are part of the constitution. It's also important to remember that conventions are not legally binding and can be broken (and indeed, commonly are).

– JBentley
Apr 13 at 14:31





@JamesK Fair point (on the first point). Convention = constitution is a bit inaccurate. Perhaps you mean that conventions are part of the constitution. It's also important to remember that conventions are not legally binding and can be broken (and indeed, commonly are).

– JBentley
Apr 13 at 14:31











8














There's a substantial difference between the theoretical and actual limits of authority held by Parliament.



De facto



In the UK tradition Parliament's authority is theoretically absolute. With a sufficient majority in the House of Commons any law can be passed and the authorities (police, judiciary, etc) can be directed to enforce that law. The upper House of Lords can attempt to delay or amend those laws, but the lower house has primacy and can force them through after a certain amount of time.



De Jure



All new laws must be 'assented' to by the Monarch. Since the Parliament are (again theoretically) subject to her failure to assent, the 'in law' position is that Parliament is not absolute since the lower House of Commons can't direct her to sign even with a majority vote. In fact, without her specific consent to form a government and sit in session, Parliament is dissolved.



Realpolitik



In the real world, Parliament is bounded by a great number of limits; the need to secure a majority in both houses for normal legislation, the enforcability of laws that are passed, budgetary limits, EU law (for the time being), International Law, various treaties to which the UK is signatory and pressure from outside bodies with influence (such as foreign governments).






share|improve this answer

























  • A good answer. Couple of corrections: the Queen’s power to dissolve Parliament was removed by the Fixed Term Parliaments Act; that power now lies solely with he Commons. Also, no party has a majority in the Lords, and by convention, the plan is to keep it that way.

    – Steve Melnikoff
    Apr 14 at 15:06











  • @SteveMelnikoff - And while that's true in principle, the legal position is that she could simply use her prerogative to issue and pass a law that reverses that decision (or simply to dissolve or prorogue parliament) without the express consent of her government and Parliament. In reality, of course, that would be an unsustainable action, but it wouldn't be illegal and remains within her purview.

    – Valorum
    Apr 14 at 15:24
















8














There's a substantial difference between the theoretical and actual limits of authority held by Parliament.



De facto



In the UK tradition Parliament's authority is theoretically absolute. With a sufficient majority in the House of Commons any law can be passed and the authorities (police, judiciary, etc) can be directed to enforce that law. The upper House of Lords can attempt to delay or amend those laws, but the lower house has primacy and can force them through after a certain amount of time.



De Jure



All new laws must be 'assented' to by the Monarch. Since the Parliament are (again theoretically) subject to her failure to assent, the 'in law' position is that Parliament is not absolute since the lower House of Commons can't direct her to sign even with a majority vote. In fact, without her specific consent to form a government and sit in session, Parliament is dissolved.



Realpolitik



In the real world, Parliament is bounded by a great number of limits; the need to secure a majority in both houses for normal legislation, the enforcability of laws that are passed, budgetary limits, EU law (for the time being), International Law, various treaties to which the UK is signatory and pressure from outside bodies with influence (such as foreign governments).






share|improve this answer

























  • A good answer. Couple of corrections: the Queen’s power to dissolve Parliament was removed by the Fixed Term Parliaments Act; that power now lies solely with he Commons. Also, no party has a majority in the Lords, and by convention, the plan is to keep it that way.

    – Steve Melnikoff
    Apr 14 at 15:06











  • @SteveMelnikoff - And while that's true in principle, the legal position is that she could simply use her prerogative to issue and pass a law that reverses that decision (or simply to dissolve or prorogue parliament) without the express consent of her government and Parliament. In reality, of course, that would be an unsustainable action, but it wouldn't be illegal and remains within her purview.

    – Valorum
    Apr 14 at 15:24














8












8








8







There's a substantial difference between the theoretical and actual limits of authority held by Parliament.



De facto



In the UK tradition Parliament's authority is theoretically absolute. With a sufficient majority in the House of Commons any law can be passed and the authorities (police, judiciary, etc) can be directed to enforce that law. The upper House of Lords can attempt to delay or amend those laws, but the lower house has primacy and can force them through after a certain amount of time.



De Jure



All new laws must be 'assented' to by the Monarch. Since the Parliament are (again theoretically) subject to her failure to assent, the 'in law' position is that Parliament is not absolute since the lower House of Commons can't direct her to sign even with a majority vote. In fact, without her specific consent to form a government and sit in session, Parliament is dissolved.



Realpolitik



In the real world, Parliament is bounded by a great number of limits; the need to secure a majority in both houses for normal legislation, the enforcability of laws that are passed, budgetary limits, EU law (for the time being), International Law, various treaties to which the UK is signatory and pressure from outside bodies with influence (such as foreign governments).






share|improve this answer















There's a substantial difference between the theoretical and actual limits of authority held by Parliament.



De facto



In the UK tradition Parliament's authority is theoretically absolute. With a sufficient majority in the House of Commons any law can be passed and the authorities (police, judiciary, etc) can be directed to enforce that law. The upper House of Lords can attempt to delay or amend those laws, but the lower house has primacy and can force them through after a certain amount of time.



De Jure



All new laws must be 'assented' to by the Monarch. Since the Parliament are (again theoretically) subject to her failure to assent, the 'in law' position is that Parliament is not absolute since the lower House of Commons can't direct her to sign even with a majority vote. In fact, without her specific consent to form a government and sit in session, Parliament is dissolved.



Realpolitik



In the real world, Parliament is bounded by a great number of limits; the need to secure a majority in both houses for normal legislation, the enforcability of laws that are passed, budgetary limits, EU law (for the time being), International Law, various treaties to which the UK is signatory and pressure from outside bodies with influence (such as foreign governments).







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Apr 13 at 8:44

























answered Apr 13 at 7:50









ValorumValorum

2,094916




2,094916












  • A good answer. Couple of corrections: the Queen’s power to dissolve Parliament was removed by the Fixed Term Parliaments Act; that power now lies solely with he Commons. Also, no party has a majority in the Lords, and by convention, the plan is to keep it that way.

    – Steve Melnikoff
    Apr 14 at 15:06











  • @SteveMelnikoff - And while that's true in principle, the legal position is that she could simply use her prerogative to issue and pass a law that reverses that decision (or simply to dissolve or prorogue parliament) without the express consent of her government and Parliament. In reality, of course, that would be an unsustainable action, but it wouldn't be illegal and remains within her purview.

    – Valorum
    Apr 14 at 15:24


















  • A good answer. Couple of corrections: the Queen’s power to dissolve Parliament was removed by the Fixed Term Parliaments Act; that power now lies solely with he Commons. Also, no party has a majority in the Lords, and by convention, the plan is to keep it that way.

    – Steve Melnikoff
    Apr 14 at 15:06











  • @SteveMelnikoff - And while that's true in principle, the legal position is that she could simply use her prerogative to issue and pass a law that reverses that decision (or simply to dissolve or prorogue parliament) without the express consent of her government and Parliament. In reality, of course, that would be an unsustainable action, but it wouldn't be illegal and remains within her purview.

    – Valorum
    Apr 14 at 15:24

















A good answer. Couple of corrections: the Queen’s power to dissolve Parliament was removed by the Fixed Term Parliaments Act; that power now lies solely with he Commons. Also, no party has a majority in the Lords, and by convention, the plan is to keep it that way.

– Steve Melnikoff
Apr 14 at 15:06





A good answer. Couple of corrections: the Queen’s power to dissolve Parliament was removed by the Fixed Term Parliaments Act; that power now lies solely with he Commons. Also, no party has a majority in the Lords, and by convention, the plan is to keep it that way.

– Steve Melnikoff
Apr 14 at 15:06













@SteveMelnikoff - And while that's true in principle, the legal position is that she could simply use her prerogative to issue and pass a law that reverses that decision (or simply to dissolve or prorogue parliament) without the express consent of her government and Parliament. In reality, of course, that would be an unsustainable action, but it wouldn't be illegal and remains within her purview.

– Valorum
Apr 14 at 15:24






@SteveMelnikoff - And while that's true in principle, the legal position is that she could simply use her prerogative to issue and pass a law that reverses that decision (or simply to dissolve or prorogue parliament) without the express consent of her government and Parliament. In reality, of course, that would be an unsustainable action, but it wouldn't be illegal and remains within her purview.

– Valorum
Apr 14 at 15:24












7














Another elephant in the room here is the European Convention on Human Rights, an international convention to which the UK is a party state. This effectively gives a supranational body, the European Court of Human Rights the power to pass judgement that a contracting state has breached provisions in the convention concerning human civil and political rights.



The original treaty does let states leave (denounce the treaty), but only after a 5 year cooling off period. As with all international treaties, it's not entirely clear what would happen if a state just unilaterally stopped playing ball immediately, especially if it were willing to enter a period of North Korean style isolationism, but it is another element in play, beyond the various parties (and the two houses) of Parliament watching each other.






share|improve this answer


















  • 1





    It's worth noting also that the UK has also imported much of the ECHR into domestic law with the Human Rights Act 1998.

    – JBentley
    Apr 13 at 13:15











  • It can still overrule the HRA in domestic law provided it does so explicitly, and then domestic courts have no power to consider either it or the Convention. However, given the current state of anglo-european relations I expect the Council of Europe would act somewhat faster to fine Britain than they did when Russia defied the Court. There is also a provision to suspend the convention in part of the applicable territory of a signatory (originally for Algeria, I think), but Britain neglected to invoke that in NI when they were ignoring the ECHR there.

    – user1567459
    Apr 14 at 10:53















7














Another elephant in the room here is the European Convention on Human Rights, an international convention to which the UK is a party state. This effectively gives a supranational body, the European Court of Human Rights the power to pass judgement that a contracting state has breached provisions in the convention concerning human civil and political rights.



The original treaty does let states leave (denounce the treaty), but only after a 5 year cooling off period. As with all international treaties, it's not entirely clear what would happen if a state just unilaterally stopped playing ball immediately, especially if it were willing to enter a period of North Korean style isolationism, but it is another element in play, beyond the various parties (and the two houses) of Parliament watching each other.






share|improve this answer


















  • 1





    It's worth noting also that the UK has also imported much of the ECHR into domestic law with the Human Rights Act 1998.

    – JBentley
    Apr 13 at 13:15











  • It can still overrule the HRA in domestic law provided it does so explicitly, and then domestic courts have no power to consider either it or the Convention. However, given the current state of anglo-european relations I expect the Council of Europe would act somewhat faster to fine Britain than they did when Russia defied the Court. There is also a provision to suspend the convention in part of the applicable territory of a signatory (originally for Algeria, I think), but Britain neglected to invoke that in NI when they were ignoring the ECHR there.

    – user1567459
    Apr 14 at 10:53













7












7








7







Another elephant in the room here is the European Convention on Human Rights, an international convention to which the UK is a party state. This effectively gives a supranational body, the European Court of Human Rights the power to pass judgement that a contracting state has breached provisions in the convention concerning human civil and political rights.



The original treaty does let states leave (denounce the treaty), but only after a 5 year cooling off period. As with all international treaties, it's not entirely clear what would happen if a state just unilaterally stopped playing ball immediately, especially if it were willing to enter a period of North Korean style isolationism, but it is another element in play, beyond the various parties (and the two houses) of Parliament watching each other.






share|improve this answer













Another elephant in the room here is the European Convention on Human Rights, an international convention to which the UK is a party state. This effectively gives a supranational body, the European Court of Human Rights the power to pass judgement that a contracting state has breached provisions in the convention concerning human civil and political rights.



The original treaty does let states leave (denounce the treaty), but only after a 5 year cooling off period. As with all international treaties, it's not entirely clear what would happen if a state just unilaterally stopped playing ball immediately, especially if it were willing to enter a period of North Korean style isolationism, but it is another element in play, beyond the various parties (and the two houses) of Parliament watching each other.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered Apr 12 at 16:33









origimboorigimbo

13.9k23355




13.9k23355







  • 1





    It's worth noting also that the UK has also imported much of the ECHR into domestic law with the Human Rights Act 1998.

    – JBentley
    Apr 13 at 13:15











  • It can still overrule the HRA in domestic law provided it does so explicitly, and then domestic courts have no power to consider either it or the Convention. However, given the current state of anglo-european relations I expect the Council of Europe would act somewhat faster to fine Britain than they did when Russia defied the Court. There is also a provision to suspend the convention in part of the applicable territory of a signatory (originally for Algeria, I think), but Britain neglected to invoke that in NI when they were ignoring the ECHR there.

    – user1567459
    Apr 14 at 10:53












  • 1





    It's worth noting also that the UK has also imported much of the ECHR into domestic law with the Human Rights Act 1998.

    – JBentley
    Apr 13 at 13:15











  • It can still overrule the HRA in domestic law provided it does so explicitly, and then domestic courts have no power to consider either it or the Convention. However, given the current state of anglo-european relations I expect the Council of Europe would act somewhat faster to fine Britain than they did when Russia defied the Court. There is also a provision to suspend the convention in part of the applicable territory of a signatory (originally for Algeria, I think), but Britain neglected to invoke that in NI when they were ignoring the ECHR there.

    – user1567459
    Apr 14 at 10:53







1




1





It's worth noting also that the UK has also imported much of the ECHR into domestic law with the Human Rights Act 1998.

– JBentley
Apr 13 at 13:15





It's worth noting also that the UK has also imported much of the ECHR into domestic law with the Human Rights Act 1998.

– JBentley
Apr 13 at 13:15













It can still overrule the HRA in domestic law provided it does so explicitly, and then domestic courts have no power to consider either it or the Convention. However, given the current state of anglo-european relations I expect the Council of Europe would act somewhat faster to fine Britain than they did when Russia defied the Court. There is also a provision to suspend the convention in part of the applicable territory of a signatory (originally for Algeria, I think), but Britain neglected to invoke that in NI when they were ignoring the ECHR there.

– user1567459
Apr 14 at 10:53





It can still overrule the HRA in domestic law provided it does so explicitly, and then domestic courts have no power to consider either it or the Convention. However, given the current state of anglo-european relations I expect the Council of Europe would act somewhat faster to fine Britain than they did when Russia defied the Court. There is also a provision to suspend the convention in part of the applicable territory of a signatory (originally for Algeria, I think), but Britain neglected to invoke that in NI when they were ignoring the ECHR there.

– user1567459
Apr 14 at 10:53











6














The Fixed-term Parliaments Act means they have to respond to the electorate, eventually. In fact this provision has existed for a long time in various forms




The Septennial Act 1715 provided that a parliament expired seven years after it had been summoned; this period was reduced to five years by the Parliament Act 1911.




The House of Lords can exercise some restraint in terms constitutionality of laws, although given the lack of a single, written constitution in the UK that's a complicated exercise.



Presumably the Queen can withhold Royal Assent on some completely insane law, but there isn't much in the way recent precedent.




The last bill that was refused assent by the sovereign (on the advice of ministers) was the Scottish Militia Bill during Queen Anne's reign in 1708.







share|improve this answer




















  • 7





    Given parliament could simply repeal the FTPA (presuming royal assent), I don't really think that's much of a check on their power.

    – CoedRhyfelwr
    Apr 12 at 15:49






  • 2





    I suppose my question revolves around disenfranchising their own electorate. In effect changing the rules of the game such that the electorate’s vote is diminished in some way, in future general elections. Presumably this is well within the power of the Parliament.

    – Ben
    Apr 12 at 15:52







  • 3





    @Ben Elections are indeed fundamentally controlled by legislation, along with bodies such as the Electoral commission, created by legislation. Indeed one of the current arguments against the ID trials being continued in the upcoming UK local elections is that it unfairly disenfranchises some voters.

    – origimbo
    Apr 12 at 16:07






  • 2





    @Fizz If the House of Commons passed a law declaring themselves MPs for life, the House of Lords would block it. The Parliament Act which allows the Commons to override Lords vetoes specifically excludes and keeps the Lords veto for any legislation which would postpone the latest possible date for the next general election.

    – Mike Scott
    Apr 13 at 5:11






  • 2





    @Fizz Supposedly in 1999 the queen told Blair that one of her red lines for refusing Royal Assent was anything that would effectively make Parliament permanent or making elections into a sham (so he didn't need to worry about his Lords reforms enabling that), unless there was a clear demonstration of overwhelming public support that she believed would be permanent. That means they can't, say, change the electoral act to make the deposit millions of pounds for people who aren't sitting MPs and then bypass the Lords because it hasn't technically abolished elections.

    – user1567459
    Apr 14 at 10:48















6














The Fixed-term Parliaments Act means they have to respond to the electorate, eventually. In fact this provision has existed for a long time in various forms




The Septennial Act 1715 provided that a parliament expired seven years after it had been summoned; this period was reduced to five years by the Parliament Act 1911.




The House of Lords can exercise some restraint in terms constitutionality of laws, although given the lack of a single, written constitution in the UK that's a complicated exercise.



Presumably the Queen can withhold Royal Assent on some completely insane law, but there isn't much in the way recent precedent.




The last bill that was refused assent by the sovereign (on the advice of ministers) was the Scottish Militia Bill during Queen Anne's reign in 1708.







share|improve this answer




















  • 7





    Given parliament could simply repeal the FTPA (presuming royal assent), I don't really think that's much of a check on their power.

    – CoedRhyfelwr
    Apr 12 at 15:49






  • 2





    I suppose my question revolves around disenfranchising their own electorate. In effect changing the rules of the game such that the electorate’s vote is diminished in some way, in future general elections. Presumably this is well within the power of the Parliament.

    – Ben
    Apr 12 at 15:52







  • 3





    @Ben Elections are indeed fundamentally controlled by legislation, along with bodies such as the Electoral commission, created by legislation. Indeed one of the current arguments against the ID trials being continued in the upcoming UK local elections is that it unfairly disenfranchises some voters.

    – origimbo
    Apr 12 at 16:07






  • 2





    @Fizz If the House of Commons passed a law declaring themselves MPs for life, the House of Lords would block it. The Parliament Act which allows the Commons to override Lords vetoes specifically excludes and keeps the Lords veto for any legislation which would postpone the latest possible date for the next general election.

    – Mike Scott
    Apr 13 at 5:11






  • 2





    @Fizz Supposedly in 1999 the queen told Blair that one of her red lines for refusing Royal Assent was anything that would effectively make Parliament permanent or making elections into a sham (so he didn't need to worry about his Lords reforms enabling that), unless there was a clear demonstration of overwhelming public support that she believed would be permanent. That means they can't, say, change the electoral act to make the deposit millions of pounds for people who aren't sitting MPs and then bypass the Lords because it hasn't technically abolished elections.

    – user1567459
    Apr 14 at 10:48













6












6








6







The Fixed-term Parliaments Act means they have to respond to the electorate, eventually. In fact this provision has existed for a long time in various forms




The Septennial Act 1715 provided that a parliament expired seven years after it had been summoned; this period was reduced to five years by the Parliament Act 1911.




The House of Lords can exercise some restraint in terms constitutionality of laws, although given the lack of a single, written constitution in the UK that's a complicated exercise.



Presumably the Queen can withhold Royal Assent on some completely insane law, but there isn't much in the way recent precedent.




The last bill that was refused assent by the sovereign (on the advice of ministers) was the Scottish Militia Bill during Queen Anne's reign in 1708.







share|improve this answer















The Fixed-term Parliaments Act means they have to respond to the electorate, eventually. In fact this provision has existed for a long time in various forms




The Septennial Act 1715 provided that a parliament expired seven years after it had been summoned; this period was reduced to five years by the Parliament Act 1911.




The House of Lords can exercise some restraint in terms constitutionality of laws, although given the lack of a single, written constitution in the UK that's a complicated exercise.



Presumably the Queen can withhold Royal Assent on some completely insane law, but there isn't much in the way recent precedent.




The last bill that was refused assent by the sovereign (on the advice of ministers) was the Scottish Militia Bill during Queen Anne's reign in 1708.








share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Apr 12 at 15:47

























answered Apr 12 at 15:40









FizzFizz

16.2k241105




16.2k241105







  • 7





    Given parliament could simply repeal the FTPA (presuming royal assent), I don't really think that's much of a check on their power.

    – CoedRhyfelwr
    Apr 12 at 15:49






  • 2





    I suppose my question revolves around disenfranchising their own electorate. In effect changing the rules of the game such that the electorate’s vote is diminished in some way, in future general elections. Presumably this is well within the power of the Parliament.

    – Ben
    Apr 12 at 15:52







  • 3





    @Ben Elections are indeed fundamentally controlled by legislation, along with bodies such as the Electoral commission, created by legislation. Indeed one of the current arguments against the ID trials being continued in the upcoming UK local elections is that it unfairly disenfranchises some voters.

    – origimbo
    Apr 12 at 16:07






  • 2





    @Fizz If the House of Commons passed a law declaring themselves MPs for life, the House of Lords would block it. The Parliament Act which allows the Commons to override Lords vetoes specifically excludes and keeps the Lords veto for any legislation which would postpone the latest possible date for the next general election.

    – Mike Scott
    Apr 13 at 5:11






  • 2





    @Fizz Supposedly in 1999 the queen told Blair that one of her red lines for refusing Royal Assent was anything that would effectively make Parliament permanent or making elections into a sham (so he didn't need to worry about his Lords reforms enabling that), unless there was a clear demonstration of overwhelming public support that she believed would be permanent. That means they can't, say, change the electoral act to make the deposit millions of pounds for people who aren't sitting MPs and then bypass the Lords because it hasn't technically abolished elections.

    – user1567459
    Apr 14 at 10:48












  • 7





    Given parliament could simply repeal the FTPA (presuming royal assent), I don't really think that's much of a check on their power.

    – CoedRhyfelwr
    Apr 12 at 15:49






  • 2





    I suppose my question revolves around disenfranchising their own electorate. In effect changing the rules of the game such that the electorate’s vote is diminished in some way, in future general elections. Presumably this is well within the power of the Parliament.

    – Ben
    Apr 12 at 15:52







  • 3





    @Ben Elections are indeed fundamentally controlled by legislation, along with bodies such as the Electoral commission, created by legislation. Indeed one of the current arguments against the ID trials being continued in the upcoming UK local elections is that it unfairly disenfranchises some voters.

    – origimbo
    Apr 12 at 16:07






  • 2





    @Fizz If the House of Commons passed a law declaring themselves MPs for life, the House of Lords would block it. The Parliament Act which allows the Commons to override Lords vetoes specifically excludes and keeps the Lords veto for any legislation which would postpone the latest possible date for the next general election.

    – Mike Scott
    Apr 13 at 5:11






  • 2





    @Fizz Supposedly in 1999 the queen told Blair that one of her red lines for refusing Royal Assent was anything that would effectively make Parliament permanent or making elections into a sham (so he didn't need to worry about his Lords reforms enabling that), unless there was a clear demonstration of overwhelming public support that she believed would be permanent. That means they can't, say, change the electoral act to make the deposit millions of pounds for people who aren't sitting MPs and then bypass the Lords because it hasn't technically abolished elections.

    – user1567459
    Apr 14 at 10:48







7




7





Given parliament could simply repeal the FTPA (presuming royal assent), I don't really think that's much of a check on their power.

– CoedRhyfelwr
Apr 12 at 15:49





Given parliament could simply repeal the FTPA (presuming royal assent), I don't really think that's much of a check on their power.

– CoedRhyfelwr
Apr 12 at 15:49




2




2





I suppose my question revolves around disenfranchising their own electorate. In effect changing the rules of the game such that the electorate’s vote is diminished in some way, in future general elections. Presumably this is well within the power of the Parliament.

– Ben
Apr 12 at 15:52






I suppose my question revolves around disenfranchising their own electorate. In effect changing the rules of the game such that the electorate’s vote is diminished in some way, in future general elections. Presumably this is well within the power of the Parliament.

– Ben
Apr 12 at 15:52





3




3





@Ben Elections are indeed fundamentally controlled by legislation, along with bodies such as the Electoral commission, created by legislation. Indeed one of the current arguments against the ID trials being continued in the upcoming UK local elections is that it unfairly disenfranchises some voters.

– origimbo
Apr 12 at 16:07





@Ben Elections are indeed fundamentally controlled by legislation, along with bodies such as the Electoral commission, created by legislation. Indeed one of the current arguments against the ID trials being continued in the upcoming UK local elections is that it unfairly disenfranchises some voters.

– origimbo
Apr 12 at 16:07




2




2





@Fizz If the House of Commons passed a law declaring themselves MPs for life, the House of Lords would block it. The Parliament Act which allows the Commons to override Lords vetoes specifically excludes and keeps the Lords veto for any legislation which would postpone the latest possible date for the next general election.

– Mike Scott
Apr 13 at 5:11





@Fizz If the House of Commons passed a law declaring themselves MPs for life, the House of Lords would block it. The Parliament Act which allows the Commons to override Lords vetoes specifically excludes and keeps the Lords veto for any legislation which would postpone the latest possible date for the next general election.

– Mike Scott
Apr 13 at 5:11




2




2





@Fizz Supposedly in 1999 the queen told Blair that one of her red lines for refusing Royal Assent was anything that would effectively make Parliament permanent or making elections into a sham (so he didn't need to worry about his Lords reforms enabling that), unless there was a clear demonstration of overwhelming public support that she believed would be permanent. That means they can't, say, change the electoral act to make the deposit millions of pounds for people who aren't sitting MPs and then bypass the Lords because it hasn't technically abolished elections.

– user1567459
Apr 14 at 10:48





@Fizz Supposedly in 1999 the queen told Blair that one of her red lines for refusing Royal Assent was anything that would effectively make Parliament permanent or making elections into a sham (so he didn't need to worry about his Lords reforms enabling that), unless there was a clear demonstration of overwhelming public support that she believed would be permanent. That means they can't, say, change the electoral act to make the deposit millions of pounds for people who aren't sitting MPs and then bypass the Lords because it hasn't technically abolished elections.

– user1567459
Apr 14 at 10:48











2














Just to add to the other answers here, in theory the monarch can veto an Act of Parliament by refusing Royal Assent.



In practice Royal Assent is a formality and the theoretical power of veto is never exercised. The last time Royal Assent was actually withheld was in 1708. However if Parliament voted to do something so clearly undemocratic as arbitrarily cancelling elections or disenfranchising the majority of the population then it remains a possibility.



Also relevant is the fact that the UK monarch is the head of the armed forces. In theory the Queen could order the army to go and arrest the Prime Minister, and it would be a legal order that they would have to obey.



(An urban legend has it that Queen Victoria withheld assent to a law outlawing lesbianism on the grounds that no woman would ever do such a thing. This is not true.)






share|improve this answer























  • Re arresting the PM: it’s been a while, but the last time a monarch tried that, it did not end well for the monarch...

    – Steve Melnikoff
    Apr 14 at 15:11















2














Just to add to the other answers here, in theory the monarch can veto an Act of Parliament by refusing Royal Assent.



In practice Royal Assent is a formality and the theoretical power of veto is never exercised. The last time Royal Assent was actually withheld was in 1708. However if Parliament voted to do something so clearly undemocratic as arbitrarily cancelling elections or disenfranchising the majority of the population then it remains a possibility.



Also relevant is the fact that the UK monarch is the head of the armed forces. In theory the Queen could order the army to go and arrest the Prime Minister, and it would be a legal order that they would have to obey.



(An urban legend has it that Queen Victoria withheld assent to a law outlawing lesbianism on the grounds that no woman would ever do such a thing. This is not true.)






share|improve this answer























  • Re arresting the PM: it’s been a while, but the last time a monarch tried that, it did not end well for the monarch...

    – Steve Melnikoff
    Apr 14 at 15:11













2












2








2







Just to add to the other answers here, in theory the monarch can veto an Act of Parliament by refusing Royal Assent.



In practice Royal Assent is a formality and the theoretical power of veto is never exercised. The last time Royal Assent was actually withheld was in 1708. However if Parliament voted to do something so clearly undemocratic as arbitrarily cancelling elections or disenfranchising the majority of the population then it remains a possibility.



Also relevant is the fact that the UK monarch is the head of the armed forces. In theory the Queen could order the army to go and arrest the Prime Minister, and it would be a legal order that they would have to obey.



(An urban legend has it that Queen Victoria withheld assent to a law outlawing lesbianism on the grounds that no woman would ever do such a thing. This is not true.)






share|improve this answer













Just to add to the other answers here, in theory the monarch can veto an Act of Parliament by refusing Royal Assent.



In practice Royal Assent is a formality and the theoretical power of veto is never exercised. The last time Royal Assent was actually withheld was in 1708. However if Parliament voted to do something so clearly undemocratic as arbitrarily cancelling elections or disenfranchising the majority of the population then it remains a possibility.



Also relevant is the fact that the UK monarch is the head of the armed forces. In theory the Queen could order the army to go and arrest the Prime Minister, and it would be a legal order that they would have to obey.



(An urban legend has it that Queen Victoria withheld assent to a law outlawing lesbianism on the grounds that no woman would ever do such a thing. This is not true.)







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered Apr 13 at 8:45









Paul JohnsonPaul Johnson

8,60142038




8,60142038












  • Re arresting the PM: it’s been a while, but the last time a monarch tried that, it did not end well for the monarch...

    – Steve Melnikoff
    Apr 14 at 15:11

















  • Re arresting the PM: it’s been a while, but the last time a monarch tried that, it did not end well for the monarch...

    – Steve Melnikoff
    Apr 14 at 15:11
















Re arresting the PM: it’s been a while, but the last time a monarch tried that, it did not end well for the monarch...

– Steve Melnikoff
Apr 14 at 15:11





Re arresting the PM: it’s been a while, but the last time a monarch tried that, it did not end well for the monarch...

– Steve Melnikoff
Apr 14 at 15:11

















draft saved

draft discarded
















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid


  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f40542%2fdoes-parliament-hold-absolute-power-in-the-uk%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

រឿង រ៉ូមេអូ និង ហ្ស៊ុយលីយេ សង្ខេបរឿង តួអង្គ បញ្ជីណែនាំ

Crop image to path created in TikZ? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Crop an inserted image?TikZ pictures does not appear in posterImage behind and beyond crop marks?Tikz picture as large as possible on A4 PageTransparency vs image compression dilemmaHow to crop background from image automatically?Image does not cropTikzexternal capturing crop marks when externalizing pgfplots?How to include image path that contains a dollar signCrop image with left size given

Romeo and Juliet ContentsCharactersSynopsisSourcesDate and textThemes and motifsCriticism and interpretationLegacyScene by sceneSee alsoNotes and referencesSourcesExternal linksNavigation menu"Consumer Price Index (estimate) 1800–"10.2307/28710160037-3222287101610.1093/res/II.5.31910.2307/45967845967810.2307/2869925286992510.1525/jams.1982.35.3.03a00050"Dada Masilo: South African dancer who breaks the rules"10.1093/res/os-XV.57.1610.2307/28680942868094"Sweet Sorrow: Mann-Korman's Romeo and Juliet Closes Sept. 5 at MN's Ordway"the original10.2307/45957745957710.1017/CCOL0521570476.009"Ram Leela box office collections hit massive Rs 100 crore, pulverises prediction"Archived"Broadway Revival of Romeo and Juliet, Starring Orlando Bloom and Condola Rashad, Will Close Dec. 8"Archived10.1075/jhp.7.1.04hon"Wherefore art thou, Romeo? To make us laugh at Navy Pier"the original10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.O006772"Ram-leela Review Roundup: Critics Hail Film as Best Adaptation of Romeo and Juliet"Archived10.2307/31946310047-77293194631"Romeo and Juliet get Twitter treatment""Juliet's Nurse by Lois Leveen""Romeo and Juliet: Orlando Bloom's Broadway Debut Released in Theaters for Valentine's Day"Archived"Romeo and Juliet Has No Balcony"10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.O00778110.2307/2867423286742310.1076/enst.82.2.115.959510.1080/00138380601042675"A plague o' both your houses: error in GCSE exam paper forces apology""Juliet of the Five O'Clock Shadow, and Other Wonders"10.2307/33912430027-4321339124310.2307/28487440038-7134284874410.2307/29123140149-661129123144728341M"Weekender Guide: Shakespeare on The Drive""balcony"UK public library membership"romeo"UK public library membership10.1017/CCOL9780521844291"Post-Zionist Critique on Israel and the Palestinians Part III: Popular Culture"10.2307/25379071533-86140377-919X2537907"Capulets and Montagues: UK exam board admit mixing names up in Romeo and Juliet paper"Istoria Novellamente Ritrovata di Due Nobili Amanti2027/mdp.390150822329610820-750X"GCSE exam error: Board accidentally rewrites Shakespeare"10.2307/29176390149-66112917639"Exam board apologises after error in English GCSE paper which confused characters in Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet""From Mariotto and Ganozza to Romeo and Guilietta: Metamorphoses of a Renaissance Tale"10.2307/37323537323510.2307/2867455286745510.2307/28678912867891"10 Questions for Taylor Swift"10.2307/28680922868092"Haymarket Theatre""The Zeffirelli Way: Revealing Talk by Florentine Director""Michael Smuin: 1938-2007 / Prolific dance director had showy career"The Life and Art of Edwin BoothRomeo and JulietRomeo and JulietRomeo and JulietRomeo and JulietEasy Read Romeo and JulietRomeo and Julieteeecb12003684p(data)4099369-3n8211610759dbe00d-a9e2-41a3-b2c1-977dd692899302814385X313670221313670221