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)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?

What was the last x86 CPU that did not have the x87 floating-point unit built in?

Do warforged have souls?

60's-70's movie: home appliances revolting against the owners

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

Is this wall load bearing? Blueprints and photos attached

different output for groups and groups USERNAME after adding a username to a group

The following signatures were invalid: EXPKEYSIG 1397BC53640DB551

Do working physicists consider Newtonian mechanics to be "falsified"?

What's the point in a preamp?

Keeping a retro style to sci-fi spaceships?

Was credit for the black hole image misappropriated?

Does Parliament hold absolute power in the UK?

How did passengers keep warm on sail ships?

Pretty sure I'm over complicating my loops but unsure how to simplify

number sequence puzzle deep six

How to determine omitted units in a publication

How to substitute curly brackets with round brackets in a grid of list

Deal with toxic manager when you can't quit

Working through Single Responsibility Principle in Python when Calls are Expensive

How many cones with angle theta can I pack into the unit sphere?

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

Would an alien lifeform be able to achieve space travel if lacking in vision?

Why doesn't shell automatically fix "useless use of cat"?

Define a list range inside a list



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)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?










2















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
























  • 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
    38 mins ago















2















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
























  • 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
    38 mins ago













2












2








2








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 4 hours ago









JJJ

6,49522457




6,49522457










asked 5 hours ago









BenBen

3,2551539




3,2551539












  • 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
    38 mins 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
    38 mins 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
38 mins 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
38 mins ago










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















3














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




















  • 3





    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
    5 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
    5 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
    5 hours ago












  • @Ben: do you mean like gerrymandering?

    – Fizz
    5 hours ago






  • 1





    @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
    5 hours ago


















3














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






























    2














    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























      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









      3














      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




















      • 3





        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
        5 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
        5 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
        5 hours ago












      • @Ben: do you mean like gerrymandering?

        – Fizz
        5 hours ago






      • 1





        @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
        5 hours ago















      3














      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




















      • 3





        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
        5 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
        5 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
        5 hours ago












      • @Ben: do you mean like gerrymandering?

        – Fizz
        5 hours ago






      • 1





        @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
        5 hours ago













      3












      3








      3







      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 5 hours ago

























      answered 5 hours ago









      FizzFizz

      15k23796




      15k23796







      • 3





        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
        5 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
        5 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
        5 hours ago












      • @Ben: do you mean like gerrymandering?

        – Fizz
        5 hours ago






      • 1





        @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
        5 hours ago












      • 3





        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
        5 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
        5 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
        5 hours ago












      • @Ben: do you mean like gerrymandering?

        – Fizz
        5 hours ago






      • 1





        @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
        5 hours ago







      3




      3





      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
      5 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
      5 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
      5 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
      5 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
      5 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
      5 hours ago














      @Ben: do you mean like gerrymandering?

      – Fizz
      5 hours ago





      @Ben: do you mean like gerrymandering?

      – Fizz
      5 hours ago




      1




      1





      @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
      5 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
      5 hours ago











      3














      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



























        3














        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

























          3












          3








          3







          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 4 hours ago









          origimboorigimbo

          13.8k23355




          13.8k23355





















              2














              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



























                2














                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

























                  2












                  2








                  2







                  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 29 mins ago









                  James KJames K

                  36.6k8107156




                  36.6k8107156



























                      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

                      Siegen Nawigatsjuun

                      Log på Navigationsmenu

                      Log på Navigationsmenu