Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Parliament of the United Kingdom" in English language version.
Now the United Kingdom could repeal the UK version of the Australia Acts but it wouldn't make one iota of difference because what has happened now is that all power has passed [to Australia], and even if the British legally under their constitution, under their powers, could say that they reclaimed power, that would be irrelevant for us because all power is now vested here. Our courts would always recognise that all power is now vested here. The United Kingdom power is now completely irrelevant to us, but it was necessary to have that act of transferring it across.
22. Our remit requires us to accept "the primacy of the House of Commons". It is worth considering what this means in the context of legislation, and of the conventions operating between the two Houses. 23. Constitutional and Administrative Law by O. Hood Phillips and Jackson declares it to be a constitutional convention that "In cases of conflict the Lords should ultimately yield to the Commons."[34] It goes on to observe that this convention was backed until 1911 by the possibility of packing the Lords with government supporters, and has been underpinned since then by the Parliament Acts.
The phrase 'Crown in Parliament' is used to describe the British legislature, which consists of the Sovereign, the House of Lords and the House of Commons.
The phrase 'Crown in Parliament' is used to describe the British legislature, which consists of the Sovereign, the House of Lords and the House of Commons.
