The 1,062 laws subjected to a royal veto in the UK

"Subjected to" here is a bit weaselly. It suggests that they were vetoed, or threatened with a veto. In fact, it's just the number of laws that had to be reviewed, of which the vast majority were presumably accepted without comment.

The number of laws where this may have been relevant is, in the words of the article, "at least four". That's so out of keeping with "1,062 laws subjected to..." that I'd say it's false.

Maybe it's just a difference between UK and US English. But to me, even just saying "subject to" would be less wrong. It's the difference between active and passive voice. Using the past tense somehow implies a thing that was actively done and is now over. In practice it was more a matter of nothing being done most of the time, and that's more timeless.

It's not that there's no "there" there, but the "there" appears to apply to "at least four" laws (none of which are really all that significant). The possibility of more is interesting, but having to inflate the significance suggests that it actually isn't.