I wish my high school had covered parliamentary systems. So many things about it seem batshit insane. The government can expel MPs who vote against it? The prime Minister can seize power by suspending the entire parliament?
In fact he probably can't even do that in all cases, as the local party branches might not let him.
If they're required to vote with the party then why are they there at all instead of a single party representative casting multiple votes? How does a party ever change its mind about anything if its members can't make their own decisions?
A free vote allows an MP to vote against their party with no consequence.
at the other extreme we have:
A three line whip, which is literally underlined three times, are votes and proceedings the government considers important. Traditionally manifesto promises and last votes on major bills. Voting against a three line whip can result in removal of the whip, ie expulsion, but traditionally even this has been rare. Parties have usually had a few MPs well known for voting against them on some issues, and managed to keep them on as MP. Throwing out 21 when you lose your very first vote is unprecedented.
Mind you, losing your very first vote as PM is unprecedented. :)
https://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/principal/whip...
I’m with you man, makes no sense to me.
I think how it works is the Queen will always deny having had any discretion. If she ever has to reject the 'advice' of her Prime Minister she will say she has been advised that the advice was unconstitutional and therefore she had no option but to reject it.
It's hard to believe that a one-year suspension in modern times would stand, but resolving it would be messy.
It'd be a pretty much immediate constitutional crisis but I don't doubt at all that it'd end up with the head of state getting changed to an elected position. Definitely messy though which is why the tradition stuff works fine for now.
It is actually though. We had a similar situation in Canada a few years back where the PM prorogued parliament for an extended period of time and the Governor-General (our representative of the Crown).
The procedure for formally ratifying a bill is called Royal Assent[1].
An exerpt from the wiki article on it kind of sums up your issue
>Under modern constitutional conventions, the sovereign generally acts on, and in accordance with, the advice of his or her ministers. However, there is some disagreement among scholars as to whether the monarch should withhold royal assent to a bill if advised to do so by her ministers. Since these ministers most often enjoy the support of parliament and obtain the passage of bills, it is improbable that they would advise the sovereign to withhold assent. Hence, in modern practice, the issue has never arisen, and royal assent has not been withheld.
So it's all a matter of tradition and stuff. Theoretically the Queen could go and put her foot down in England or in any other Commonwealth realm that she still technically rules.
That said the common consensus on what would probably happen there is that parliment would essentially immediately have a vote on tossing the queen as head of state, probably write in some elected presidential position or something to do all the stuff that the Queen or her representative used to do then go back to arguing about whatever they were before and the main consequence would be a wasted voting period and having to remove "Royal ____ of ______" from a lot of organizations.
In that case the Governor-General sought, and took, the advice of the Chief Justice.
On the Canadian example from 2008, I note the Wikipedia page says
« It was also at the same time said by Peter H. Russell, one of those from whom Jean sought advice, that Canadians ought not regard as an automatic rubber stamp the Governor General's decision to accept Harper's advice concerning prorogation; Russell disclosed that Jean granted the prorogation on two conditions: parliament would reconvene soon and, when it did, the Cabinet would present a proposed budget, a vote on which is a confidence matter. »
So it seems clear that in Canada, at least, it is not that simple.
Impossible position, much?