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;








5

















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











share|improve this question


























  • 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

















5

















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











share|improve this question


























  • 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













5












5








5








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











share|improve this question














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






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question



share|improve this question










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

















  • 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










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















4



















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.






share|improve this answer


























  • That the PM's public statements and court submissions are out of step with each other is deeply worrying.

    – Jontia
    4 hours ago


















2


















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.






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/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
    );



    );














    draft saved

    draft discarded
















    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









    4



















    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.






    share|improve this answer


























    • That the PM's public statements and court submissions are out of step with each other is deeply worrying.

      – Jontia
      4 hours ago















    4



















    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.






    share|improve this answer


























    • That the PM's public statements and court submissions are out of step with each other is deeply worrying.

      – Jontia
      4 hours ago













    4














    4










    4










    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.






    share|improve this answer















    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.







    share|improve this answer













    share|improve this answer




    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    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

















    • 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













    2


















    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.






    share|improve this answer






























      2


















      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.






      share|improve this answer




























        2














        2










        2









        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.






        share|improve this answer














        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.







        share|improve this answer













        share|improve this answer




        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered 8 hours ago









        Peter TaylorPeter Taylor

        3,06010 silver badges19 bronze badges




        3,06010 silver badges19 bronze badges































            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%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





















































            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

            Canceling a color specificationRandomly assigning color to Graphics3D objects?Default color for Filling in Mathematica 9Coloring specific elements of sets with a prime modified order in an array plotHow to pick a color differing significantly from the colors already in a given color list?Detection of the text colorColor numbers based on their valueCan color schemes for use with ColorData include opacity specification?My dynamic color schemes

            Invision Community Contents History See also References External links Navigation menuProprietaryinvisioncommunity.comIPS Community ForumsIPS Community Forumsthis blog entry"License Changes, IP.Board 3.4, and the Future""Interview -- Matt Mecham of Ibforums""CEO Invision Power Board, Matt Mecham Is a Liar, Thief!"IPB License Explanation 1.3, 1.3.1, 2.0, and 2.1ArchivedSecurity Fixes, Updates And Enhancements For IPB 1.3.1Archived"New Demo Accounts - Invision Power Services"the original"New Default Skin"the original"Invision Power Board 3.0.0 and Applications Released"the original"Archived copy"the original"Perpetual licenses being done away with""Release Notes - Invision Power Services""Introducing: IPS Community Suite 4!"Invision Community Release Notes

            199年 目錄 大件事 到箇年出世嗰人 到箇年死嗰人 節慶、風俗習慣 導覽選單