What power does the UK parliament hold over a Prime Minister whom they refuse to remove from power?What does the British parliament hope to achieve by requesting a third Brexit extension?Can Boris Johnson invoke the Civil Contingencies Act to suspend the Benn law?Could Boris Johnson send the extension to Brussels via a slow route that would not arrive before Oct.31How did Theresa May remain PM after her Brexit deal was rejected?If the opposition wins a No Confidence vote in the week of April 8, 2019, could they stop No Deal?What is the latest date a general election in the UK can prevent a no-deal BrexitThe actual purview of Her Majesty The Queen's prerogative?According to UK government, Parliament cannot stop a no-deal Brexit: Could this also be used to push through the agreement agreed by Theresa May?Could Boris Johnson theoretically ignore any legislation passed to prevent no-deal brexit?Why did Boris Johnson call for new elections?Why does the UK Prime Minister need the permission of Parliament to call a general election?Can Boris Johnson request a Brexit extension to November 1st?Would this use of *nobile officium* be a separation of powers violation?
Is Schrodinger's Cat itself an observer?
How to respond to "Why didn't you do a postdoc after your PhD?"
Easy way of generating a 50-150W load @12V
Slaad Chaos Phage: Weak Combat Ability?
What could possibly power an Alcubierre drive?
Fermat's polygonal number theorem
What do you call a document which has no content?
Can there be an atomic nucleus where there are more protons than neutrons?
Can a Tundra Storm Herald Barbarian pre-emptively freeze the water of a Decanter of Endless Water?
Code Golf Measurer © 2019
What power does the UK parliament hold over a Prime Minister whom they refuse to remove from power?
Who is Sifter, and what is "the so-called Sifter flare"?
How to see time in ~/.bash_history file
Neither Raman nor IR Active vibrational modes
How does Firefox know my ISP login page?
When did 5 foot squares become standard in D&D?
Which culture used no personal names?
How to prove that invoices are really UNPAID?
Can we not simply connect a battery to a RAM to prevent data loss during power cuts?
Is a list of the most common English words copyrightable?
Can you upgrade armour from breastplate to halfplate?
Does my protagonist need to be the most important character?
Who can change WIP limit in DoW when urgent work emerges?
Usefulness of Nash embedding theorem
What power does the UK parliament hold over a Prime Minister whom they refuse to remove from power?
What does the British parliament hope to achieve by requesting a third Brexit extension?Can Boris Johnson invoke the Civil Contingencies Act to suspend the Benn law?Could Boris Johnson send the extension to Brussels via a slow route that would not arrive before Oct.31How did Theresa May remain PM after her Brexit deal was rejected?If the opposition wins a No Confidence vote in the week of April 8, 2019, could they stop No Deal?What is the latest date a general election in the UK can prevent a no-deal BrexitThe actual purview of Her Majesty The Queen's prerogative?According to UK government, Parliament cannot stop a no-deal Brexit: Could this also be used to push through the agreement agreed by Theresa May?Could Boris Johnson theoretically ignore any legislation passed to prevent no-deal brexit?Why did Boris Johnson call for new elections?Why does the UK Prime Minister need the permission of Parliament to call a general election?Can Boris Johnson request a Brexit extension to November 1st?Would this use of *nobile officium* be a separation of powers violation?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty
margin-bottom:0;
.everyonelovesstackoverflowposition:absolute;height:1px;width:1px;opacity:0;top:0;left:0;pointer-events:none;
I've seen several questions deal with the issues surrounding this issue, but none have tried to tackle this head on.
Boris Johnson had a defection within his party over a key Brexit vote. He then removed the defecting members of his own party from the party itself, which has left him without a majority.
Boris Johnson will strip 21 Tory MPs of the whip in one of the biggest parliamentary bloodbaths in history.
Nine former Cabinet ministers including Philip Hammond, David Gauke, Rory Stewart and Greg Clark will lose the Tory whip after rebelling against the government to try and block a no deal Brexit.
The opposition refuses to vote for no-confidence
U.K. opposition party leaders rejected a plan to put forward a vote of no confidence in Prime Minister Boris Johnson this week at a meeting in Westminster on Monday.
This is now a truly bizarre situation
- Boris Johnson wants No-deal Brexit to happen, which it will, if he can find a way to avoid the law instructing him to ask for an extension (various methods have been floated for him to avoid it)
- Parliament could remove him and install a Prime Minister who would carry out their wishes and get an extension, but does not wish to do so for ostensibly political reasons
How much power does Parliament actually wield in a situation like this? Could they force a recalcitrant Prime Minister to take actions he/she does not agree with using another method (i.e. legislation), or can the Prime Minister simply sit on their hands to avoid any actions, and suffer no real legal consequences (i.e. imprisonment) from it?
NOTE: While Brexit is the catalyst here, this goes beyond just Brexit to the powers of Parliament itself
united-kingdom parliament house-of-commons prime-minister
asked 8 hours ago
MachavityMachavity
19.8k7 gold badges63 silver badges97 bronze badges
add a comment
|
I've seen several questions deal with the issues surrounding this issue, but none have tried to tackle this head on.
Boris Johnson had a defection within his party over a key Brexit vote. He then removed the defecting members of his own party from the party itself, which has left him without a majority.
Boris Johnson will strip 21 Tory MPs of the whip in one of the biggest parliamentary bloodbaths in history.
Nine former Cabinet ministers including Philip Hammond, David Gauke, Rory Stewart and Greg Clark will lose the Tory whip after rebelling against the government to try and block a no deal Brexit.
The opposition refuses to vote for no-confidence
U.K. opposition party leaders rejected a plan to put forward a vote of no confidence in Prime Minister Boris Johnson this week at a meeting in Westminster on Monday.
This is now a truly bizarre situation
- Boris Johnson wants No-deal Brexit to happen, which it will, if he can find a way to avoid the law instructing him to ask for an extension (various methods have been floated for him to avoid it)
- Parliament could remove him and install a Prime Minister who would carry out their wishes and get an extension, but does not wish to do so for ostensibly political reasons
How much power does Parliament actually wield in a situation like this? Could they force a recalcitrant Prime Minister to take actions he/she does not agree with using another method (i.e. legislation), or can the Prime Minister simply sit on their hands to avoid any actions, and suffer no real legal consequences (i.e. imprisonment) from it?
NOTE: While Brexit is the catalyst here, this goes beyond just Brexit to the powers of Parliament itself
united-kingdom parliament house-of-commons prime-minister
asked 8 hours ago
MachavityMachavity
19.8k7 gold badges63 silver badges97 bronze badges
The key point missing is that no one trusts Johnson. The opposition parties are happy to remove him or go for a GE as soon as the extension to the Brexit deadline is agreed. Without that legal agreement they do not trust Johnson and sorry he will do something unexpected to force no deal
– Jontia
7 hours ago
add a comment
|
I've seen several questions deal with the issues surrounding this issue, but none have tried to tackle this head on.
Boris Johnson had a defection within his party over a key Brexit vote. He then removed the defecting members of his own party from the party itself, which has left him without a majority.
Boris Johnson will strip 21 Tory MPs of the whip in one of the biggest parliamentary bloodbaths in history.
Nine former Cabinet ministers including Philip Hammond, David Gauke, Rory Stewart and Greg Clark will lose the Tory whip after rebelling against the government to try and block a no deal Brexit.
The opposition refuses to vote for no-confidence
U.K. opposition party leaders rejected a plan to put forward a vote of no confidence in Prime Minister Boris Johnson this week at a meeting in Westminster on Monday.
This is now a truly bizarre situation
- Boris Johnson wants No-deal Brexit to happen, which it will, if he can find a way to avoid the law instructing him to ask for an extension (various methods have been floated for him to avoid it)
- Parliament could remove him and install a Prime Minister who would carry out their wishes and get an extension, but does not wish to do so for ostensibly political reasons
How much power does Parliament actually wield in a situation like this? Could they force a recalcitrant Prime Minister to take actions he/she does not agree with using another method (i.e. legislation), or can the Prime Minister simply sit on their hands to avoid any actions, and suffer no real legal consequences (i.e. imprisonment) from it?
NOTE: While Brexit is the catalyst here, this goes beyond just Brexit to the powers of Parliament itself
united-kingdom parliament house-of-commons prime-minister
asked 8 hours ago
MachavityMachavity
19.8k7 gold badges63 silver badges97 bronze badges
I've seen several questions deal with the issues surrounding this issue, but none have tried to tackle this head on.
Boris Johnson had a defection within his party over a key Brexit vote. He then removed the defecting members of his own party from the party itself, which has left him without a majority.
Boris Johnson will strip 21 Tory MPs of the whip in one of the biggest parliamentary bloodbaths in history.
Nine former Cabinet ministers including Philip Hammond, David Gauke, Rory Stewart and Greg Clark will lose the Tory whip after rebelling against the government to try and block a no deal Brexit.
The opposition refuses to vote for no-confidence
U.K. opposition party leaders rejected a plan to put forward a vote of no confidence in Prime Minister Boris Johnson this week at a meeting in Westminster on Monday.
This is now a truly bizarre situation
- Boris Johnson wants No-deal Brexit to happen, which it will, if he can find a way to avoid the law instructing him to ask for an extension (various methods have been floated for him to avoid it)
- Parliament could remove him and install a Prime Minister who would carry out their wishes and get an extension, but does not wish to do so for ostensibly political reasons
How much power does Parliament actually wield in a situation like this? Could they force a recalcitrant Prime Minister to take actions he/she does not agree with using another method (i.e. legislation), or can the Prime Minister simply sit on their hands to avoid any actions, and suffer no real legal consequences (i.e. imprisonment) from it?
NOTE: While Brexit is the catalyst here, this goes beyond just Brexit to the powers of Parliament itself
united-kingdom parliament house-of-commons prime-minister
united-kingdom parliament house-of-commons prime-minister
asked 8 hours ago
MachavityMachavity
19.8k7 gold badges63 silver badges97 bronze badges
asked 8 hours ago
MachavityMachavity
19.8k7 gold badges63 silver badges97 bronze badges
asked 8 hours ago
MachavityMachavity
19.8k7 gold badges63 silver badges97 bronze badges
asked 8 hours ago
MachavityMachavity
19.8k7 gold badges63 silver badges97 bronze badges
asked 8 hours ago
MachavityMachavity
19.8k7 gold badges63 silver badges97 bronze badges
19.8k7 gold badges63 silver badges97 bronze badges
The key point missing is that no one trusts Johnson. The opposition parties are happy to remove him or go for a GE as soon as the extension to the Brexit deadline is agreed. Without that legal agreement they do not trust Johnson and sorry he will do something unexpected to force no deal
– Jontia
7 hours ago
add a comment
|
The key point missing is that no one trusts Johnson. The opposition parties are happy to remove him or go for a GE as soon as the extension to the Brexit deadline is agreed. Without that legal agreement they do not trust Johnson and sorry he will do something unexpected to force no deal
– Jontia
7 hours ago
The key point missing is that no one trusts Johnson. The opposition parties are happy to remove him or go for a GE as soon as the extension to the Brexit deadline is agreed. Without that legal agreement they do not trust Johnson and sorry he will do something unexpected to force no deal
– Jontia
7 hours ago
The key point missing is that no one trusts Johnson. The opposition parties are happy to remove him or go for a GE as soon as the extension to the Brexit deadline is agreed. Without that legal agreement they do not trust Johnson and sorry he will do something unexpected to force no deal
– Jontia
7 hours ago
add a comment
|
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
How much power does Parliament actually wield in a situation like this? Could they force a recalcitrant Prime Minister to take actions he/she does not agree with using another method (i.e. legislation)
Yes, see the Benn Act, which does exactly this.
can the Prime Minister simply sit on their hands to avoid any actions, and suffer no real legal consequences (i.e. imprisonment) from it?
Only insofar as Parliament doesn't legislate to force him to do something else. In that case, the legislation may prescribe penalties for failure to comply which would then come into force. Even if not, as in the case of the Benn Act, the PM would be forced to comply via court action. Failure to comply following a court order would result in contempt of court charges. Note that in the current case, despite his public pronunciations, the PM has in fact committed himself in court documents to following the requirements of the Benn Act and additionally commited to not frustrating it's purpose. He recognises that he is not above the law.
answered 7 hours ago
Dan ScallyDan Scally
1,4047 silver badges12 bronze badges
That the PM's public statements and court submissions are out of step with each other is deeply worrying.
– Jontia
4 hours ago
add a comment
|
The most honest answer would be that no-one really knows. Until the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act 2011, the situation couldn't arise because a PM who lost the ability to govern could use the royal prerogative to call an election. The legal theory is that Parliament is sovereign (subject to caveats about Queen's Consent), but the details of how that works in practice may not be settled until a few more theories have been presented to the Supreme Court and affirmed or rejected.
answered 8 hours ago
Peter TaylorPeter Taylor
3,06010 silver badges19 bronze badges
add a comment
|
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/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 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
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f46364%2fwhat-power-does-the-uk-parliament-hold-over-a-prime-minister-whom-they-refuse-to%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
How much power does Parliament actually wield in a situation like this? Could they force a recalcitrant Prime Minister to take actions he/she does not agree with using another method (i.e. legislation)
Yes, see the Benn Act, which does exactly this.
can the Prime Minister simply sit on their hands to avoid any actions, and suffer no real legal consequences (i.e. imprisonment) from it?
Only insofar as Parliament doesn't legislate to force him to do something else. In that case, the legislation may prescribe penalties for failure to comply which would then come into force. Even if not, as in the case of the Benn Act, the PM would be forced to comply via court action. Failure to comply following a court order would result in contempt of court charges. Note that in the current case, despite his public pronunciations, the PM has in fact committed himself in court documents to following the requirements of the Benn Act and additionally commited to not frustrating it's purpose. He recognises that he is not above the law.
answered 7 hours ago
Dan ScallyDan Scally
1,4047 silver badges12 bronze badges
That the PM's public statements and court submissions are out of step with each other is deeply worrying.
– Jontia
4 hours ago
add a comment
|
How much power does Parliament actually wield in a situation like this? Could they force a recalcitrant Prime Minister to take actions he/she does not agree with using another method (i.e. legislation)
Yes, see the Benn Act, which does exactly this.
can the Prime Minister simply sit on their hands to avoid any actions, and suffer no real legal consequences (i.e. imprisonment) from it?
Only insofar as Parliament doesn't legislate to force him to do something else. In that case, the legislation may prescribe penalties for failure to comply which would then come into force. Even if not, as in the case of the Benn Act, the PM would be forced to comply via court action. Failure to comply following a court order would result in contempt of court charges. Note that in the current case, despite his public pronunciations, the PM has in fact committed himself in court documents to following the requirements of the Benn Act and additionally commited to not frustrating it's purpose. He recognises that he is not above the law.
answered 7 hours ago
Dan ScallyDan Scally
1,4047 silver badges12 bronze badges
That the PM's public statements and court submissions are out of step with each other is deeply worrying.
– Jontia
4 hours ago
add a comment
|
How much power does Parliament actually wield in a situation like this? Could they force a recalcitrant Prime Minister to take actions he/she does not agree with using another method (i.e. legislation)
Yes, see the Benn Act, which does exactly this.
can the Prime Minister simply sit on their hands to avoid any actions, and suffer no real legal consequences (i.e. imprisonment) from it?
Only insofar as Parliament doesn't legislate to force him to do something else. In that case, the legislation may prescribe penalties for failure to comply which would then come into force. Even if not, as in the case of the Benn Act, the PM would be forced to comply via court action. Failure to comply following a court order would result in contempt of court charges. Note that in the current case, despite his public pronunciations, the PM has in fact committed himself in court documents to following the requirements of the Benn Act and additionally commited to not frustrating it's purpose. He recognises that he is not above the law.
answered 7 hours ago
Dan ScallyDan Scally
1,4047 silver badges12 bronze badges
How much power does Parliament actually wield in a situation like this? Could they force a recalcitrant Prime Minister to take actions he/she does not agree with using another method (i.e. legislation)
Yes, see the Benn Act, which does exactly this.
can the Prime Minister simply sit on their hands to avoid any actions, and suffer no real legal consequences (i.e. imprisonment) from it?
Only insofar as Parliament doesn't legislate to force him to do something else. In that case, the legislation may prescribe penalties for failure to comply which would then come into force. Even if not, as in the case of the Benn Act, the PM would be forced to comply via court action. Failure to comply following a court order would result in contempt of court charges. Note that in the current case, despite his public pronunciations, the PM has in fact committed himself in court documents to following the requirements of the Benn Act and additionally commited to not frustrating it's purpose. He recognises that he is not above the law.
answered 7 hours ago
Dan ScallyDan Scally
1,4047 silver badges12 bronze badges
answered 7 hours ago
Dan ScallyDan Scally
1,4047 silver badges12 bronze badges
answered 7 hours ago
Dan ScallyDan Scally
1,4047 silver badges12 bronze badges
answered 7 hours ago
Dan ScallyDan Scally
1,4047 silver badges12 bronze badges
1,4047 silver badges12 bronze badges
That the PM's public statements and court submissions are out of step with each other is deeply worrying.
– Jontia
4 hours ago
add a comment
|
That the PM's public statements and court submissions are out of step with each other is deeply worrying.
– Jontia
4 hours ago
That the PM's public statements and court submissions are out of step with each other is deeply worrying.
– Jontia
4 hours ago
That the PM's public statements and court submissions are out of step with each other is deeply worrying.
– Jontia
4 hours ago
add a comment
|
The most honest answer would be that no-one really knows. Until the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act 2011, the situation couldn't arise because a PM who lost the ability to govern could use the royal prerogative to call an election. The legal theory is that Parliament is sovereign (subject to caveats about Queen's Consent), but the details of how that works in practice may not be settled until a few more theories have been presented to the Supreme Court and affirmed or rejected.
answered 8 hours ago
Peter TaylorPeter Taylor
3,06010 silver badges19 bronze badges
add a comment
|
The most honest answer would be that no-one really knows. Until the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act 2011, the situation couldn't arise because a PM who lost the ability to govern could use the royal prerogative to call an election. The legal theory is that Parliament is sovereign (subject to caveats about Queen's Consent), but the details of how that works in practice may not be settled until a few more theories have been presented to the Supreme Court and affirmed or rejected.
answered 8 hours ago
Peter TaylorPeter Taylor
3,06010 silver badges19 bronze badges
add a comment
|
The most honest answer would be that no-one really knows. Until the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act 2011, the situation couldn't arise because a PM who lost the ability to govern could use the royal prerogative to call an election. The legal theory is that Parliament is sovereign (subject to caveats about Queen's Consent), but the details of how that works in practice may not be settled until a few more theories have been presented to the Supreme Court and affirmed or rejected.
answered 8 hours ago
Peter TaylorPeter Taylor
3,06010 silver badges19 bronze badges
The most honest answer would be that no-one really knows. Until the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act 2011, the situation couldn't arise because a PM who lost the ability to govern could use the royal prerogative to call an election. The legal theory is that Parliament is sovereign (subject to caveats about Queen's Consent), but the details of how that works in practice may not be settled until a few more theories have been presented to the Supreme Court and affirmed or rejected.
answered 8 hours ago
Peter TaylorPeter Taylor
3,06010 silver badges19 bronze badges
answered 8 hours ago
Peter TaylorPeter Taylor
3,06010 silver badges19 bronze badges
answered 8 hours ago
Peter TaylorPeter Taylor
3,06010 silver badges19 bronze badges
answered 8 hours ago
Peter TaylorPeter Taylor
3,06010 silver badges19 bronze badges
3,06010 silver badges19 bronze badges
add a comment
|
add a comment
|
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f46364%2fwhat-power-does-the-uk-parliament-hold-over-a-prime-minister-whom-they-refuse-to%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
The key point missing is that no one trusts Johnson. The opposition parties are happy to remove him or go for a GE as soon as the extension to the Brexit deadline is agreed. Without that legal agreement they do not trust Johnson and sorry he will do something unexpected to force no deal
– Jontia
7 hours ago