Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9550792" data-attributes="member: 42582">This isn't quite right.The King is a part of the Parliament - and so if the King purported to dismiss a PM who enjoys the confidence of the House of Commons, presumably he would also refuse to grant royal assent to a Bill declaring the UK a republic. (Or anything similar.)So if the Parliament was prepared to take the revolutionary step of appointing a new King (as happened in the late 17th century) to then assent to its Bill, or the even more revolutionary step of declaring a republic, presumably it would likewise disregard the King's dismissal of the PM. Which would be sufficient, I think, to show that the King did not enjoy the power to dismiss the PM.None of this is very accurate. For instance, if you were correct than the recent prorogation case would be wrongly decided. But I think that case is rightly decided; and even those who deny that it is rightly decided don't do so on the basis that the Crown enjoys a unilateral power to act independently of advice. QED.</blockquote>