Does Parliament hold absolute power in the UK? The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey...

Accepted by European university, rejected by all American ones I applied to? Possible reasons?

One-dimensional Japanese puzzle

Was credit for the black hole image misappropriated?

ELI5: Why do they say that Israel would have been the fourth country to land a spacecraft on the Moon and why do they call it low cost?

how can a perfect fourth interval be considered either consonant or dissonant?

Drawing vertical/oblique lines in Metrical tree (tikz-qtree, tipa)

How do spell lists change if the party levels up without taking a long rest?

Is it ethical to upload a automatically generated paper to a non peer-reviewed site as part of a larger research?

How do you keep chess fun when your opponent constantly beats you?

Do I have Disadvantage attacking with an off-hand weapon?

Is 'stolen' appropriate word?

Is there a writing software that you can sort scenes like slides in PowerPoint?

Did the UK government pay "millions and millions of dollars" to try to snag Julian Assange?

Homework question about an engine pulling a train

Why are PDP-7-style microprogrammed instructions out of vogue?

Using dividends to reduce short term capital gains?

Is an up-to-date browser secure on an out-of-date OS?

Mortgage adviser recommends a longer term than necessary combined with overpayments

Can the DM override racial traits?

Why can't devices on different VLANs, but on the same subnet, communicate?

For what reasons would an animal species NOT cross a *horizontal* land bridge?

Windows 10: How to Lock (not sleep) laptop on lid close?

What's the point in a preamp?

Working through the single responsibility principle (SRP) in Python when calls are expensive



Does Parliament hold absolute power in the UK?



The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are In
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Could a US political party gain complete control over the government by removing checks & balances?Will 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?












4















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
    7 hours ago











  • 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
    3 hours ago


















4















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
    7 hours ago











  • 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
    3 hours ago
















4












4








4








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 11 hours ago









JJJ

6,54022457




6,54022457










asked 12 hours ago









BenBen

3,2651539




3,2651539








  • 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
    7 hours ago











  • 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
    3 hours ago
















  • 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
    7 hours ago











  • 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
    3 hours ago










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
7 hours ago





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
7 hours ago













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
3 hours ago







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
3 hours ago












3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















6














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































    4














    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
      12 hours ago






    • 1





      @CoedRhyfelwr: It's a good question what would happen if the HoC passed a law declaring themselves MPs for life (either implicitly or explicitly). But as with all such hypotheticals, given the lack of a written constitution, we can only speculate.

      – Fizz
      12 hours ago








    • 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
      12 hours ago








    • 1





      @Ben: do you mean like gerrymandering?

      – Fizz
      12 hours ago






    • 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
      11 hours ago



















    4














    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
























      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

























      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes








      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      6














      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




























        6














        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


























          6












          6








          6







          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 7 hours ago









          James KJames K

          36.7k8107157




          36.7k8107157























              4














              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
                12 hours ago






              • 1





                @CoedRhyfelwr: It's a good question what would happen if the HoC passed a law declaring themselves MPs for life (either implicitly or explicitly). But as with all such hypotheticals, given the lack of a written constitution, we can only speculate.

                – Fizz
                12 hours ago








              • 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
                12 hours ago








              • 1





                @Ben: do you mean like gerrymandering?

                – Fizz
                12 hours ago






              • 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
                11 hours ago
















              4














              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
                12 hours ago






              • 1





                @CoedRhyfelwr: It's a good question what would happen if the HoC passed a law declaring themselves MPs for life (either implicitly or explicitly). But as with all such hypotheticals, given the lack of a written constitution, we can only speculate.

                – Fizz
                12 hours ago








              • 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
                12 hours ago








              • 1





                @Ben: do you mean like gerrymandering?

                – Fizz
                12 hours ago






              • 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
                11 hours ago














              4












              4








              4







              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 12 hours ago

























              answered 12 hours ago









              FizzFizz

              15k23796




              15k23796








              • 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
                12 hours ago






              • 1





                @CoedRhyfelwr: It's a good question what would happen if the HoC passed a law declaring themselves MPs for life (either implicitly or explicitly). But as with all such hypotheticals, given the lack of a written constitution, we can only speculate.

                – Fizz
                12 hours ago








              • 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
                12 hours ago








              • 1





                @Ben: do you mean like gerrymandering?

                – Fizz
                12 hours ago






              • 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
                11 hours ago














              • 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
                12 hours ago






              • 1





                @CoedRhyfelwr: It's a good question what would happen if the HoC passed a law declaring themselves MPs for life (either implicitly or explicitly). But as with all such hypotheticals, given the lack of a written constitution, we can only speculate.

                – Fizz
                12 hours ago








              • 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
                12 hours ago








              • 1





                @Ben: do you mean like gerrymandering?

                – Fizz
                12 hours ago






              • 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
                11 hours ago








              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
              12 hours ago





              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
              12 hours ago




              1




              1





              @CoedRhyfelwr: It's a good question what would happen if the HoC passed a law declaring themselves MPs for life (either implicitly or explicitly). But as with all such hypotheticals, given the lack of a written constitution, we can only speculate.

              – Fizz
              12 hours ago







              @CoedRhyfelwr: It's a good question what would happen if the HoC passed a law declaring themselves MPs for life (either implicitly or explicitly). But as with all such hypotheticals, given the lack of a written constitution, we can only speculate.

              – Fizz
              12 hours ago






              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
              12 hours ago







              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
              12 hours ago






              1




              1





              @Ben: do you mean like gerrymandering?

              – Fizz
              12 hours ago





              @Ben: do you mean like gerrymandering?

              – Fizz
              12 hours ago




              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
              11 hours ago





              @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
              11 hours ago











              4














              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




























                4














                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


























                  4












                  4








                  4







                  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 11 hours ago









                  origimboorigimbo

                  13.8k23355




                  13.8k23355






























                      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

                      Taj Mahal Inhaltsverzeichnis Aufbau | Geschichte | 350-Jahr-Feier | Heutige Bedeutung | Siehe auch |...

                      Baia Sprie Cuprins Etimologie | Istorie | Demografie | Politică și administrație | Arii naturale...

                      Ciclooctatetraenă Vezi și | Bibliografie | Meniu de navigare637866text4148569-500570979m