Talk:Parliament of the United Kingdom/Archive 1

Naming of the article
Hum... A quick search on Google indicates that there are at least two other Houses of Parilment in the world -- in India and Tasmania. Shouldn't this page become a disambiguation page and the content moved to Houses of Pariliament of the United Kingdom? --maveric149

I don't think so. It is like Paris, there is one famous one and the rest are not so. Houses of Parliament, people think Britain not Tasmania.


 * Wasn't sure so that is why I asked. Thanks! --maveric149


 * Nonsense, parliament is a common name. Paris is a proper noun. A more apt comparison would be linking Cola to Coca Cola. As mentioned below, House of Representatives doesn't discuss the US HoR, even though I'm sure more people (e.g. US+Britain+Canada, rather than just Britain+US) would default to that one than the Parilament->British Parliament. --202.147.117.39 01:48, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm for turning Houses of Parliament into a disambiguation page, but couldn't this be better named as Houses of Parliament, UK or UK Houses of Parliament?

That would be like disambigulating O'Connell Street (Dublin) on the basis that, even though 98% of the world would think Dublin when they saw O'Connell Street, there is a street in a small village somewhere else that also is called O'Connell Street.


 * To be fair, this seems consistent. See House of Representatives or Congress. Mr. Jones 19:57, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Parliament of Cornwall (History of)
Since we have all the other ones here, and the Cornish one was as genuine as the Parliament of Ireland, ought it not get a mention. Graldensblud 01:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

See Also Cornish Assembly Mr Taz (talk) 16:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you are referring to the Stannary Parliament, which had jurisdiction in relation to tin mining, as part of administering customary mining law. I do not think it had any wider jurisdiction, whatever Cornish nationalists may claim.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Limitations on sovereignty prior to joining the EC
The article makes the standard claim that the UK parliament was sovereign prior to joining the EC, which for all significant purposes it was. However legally speaking, I believe that there were a few limits on its powers. The main one being its relationship with the Church of Scotland, for which it is not allowed to legislate (although it did until the 1920s). The 1707 Treaty of Union also allowed the Scottish judges to abolish laws which broke the Treaty, a power which was never used as the judges came to the conclusion that doing so would break their oath of loyalty to the Crown (I think). Still, in principle, there were always limits to Parliament's sovereignty. Comments ? -- Derek Ross


 * I don't know the details but if that is correct then that qualification needs to be added in. (Great! I've learned another new fact learned tonight on wiki.) ÉÍREman 00:36 Apr 22, 2003 (UTC)

Yes, I would definitely check. These are "facts" that I've picked up over the last twenty years. But I can't remember the sources now. A quick check on the web seems to show that there's at least some basis for them.

However, in the same spirit as above: I believe that there are other limits to Parliament's sovereignty in England, tied up with the provisions of the Bill of Rights, Magna Carta, etc. In particular the precedence of common law over statute law guaranteed by MC mean that Parliament can't effectively legislate in English law to change things like the presumption of innocence during trial. Of course none of these provisions mean that Parliament won't or hasn't legislated in whatever manner it sees fit at one time or another. It just means that they need friendly (or ignorant) judges to make it stick. -- Derek Ross


 * I may be wrong (it is fifteen years since I did a course on UK government and politics! Jeez, that long!) but I thought that parliament could overrule common law. I know in Ireland, for example (and it is nothing to do with the provisions of the constitution giving it that right) the Oireachtas can and does overrule common law and replace it with statute law. I understood that in the UK the Magna Carta no longer has practical significance, merely symbolic significance, not least because it was applicable to a state (England) and a system of government that have both been replaced, albeit along lines of evolution rather than revolution, in the last millenium or so. I understood the situation to that parliament theoretically could do almost anything, just that convention said there were certain things it should not touch. I presume there are many places where common law principles and decisions have been replaced by statute law. (I was looking for my copy of de Smith but I cannot find it. I really must'' sort out my library of books here. ÉÍREman 05:12 Apr 23, 2003 (UTC)

You could be right, I'm no expert on law. Even so I'd like to comments on your sentence about different state, different system of Government. While that's something I would agree with, I would be less inclined to say "different legal system". Legal systems have changed very slowly in the UK and in many ways have ignored the various Treaties of Union. For instance, nearly three hundred years after the Union of the Scottish and English parliaments, the two criminal legal systems still treat each other as belonging to foreign governments, making it as difficult for an English court's search warrants to be served on Scottish residents (or vice-versa) as it is for an Irish court's search warrants to be served on Scottish residents. With this pace of change, I'd hesitate before saying that Magna Carta or the Bill of Rights has no practical significance although there's little doubt that UK governments have always acted as if there were no limits on their legal powers. -- Derek Ross 00:26 Apr 26, 2003 (UTC)

Supremacy of Parliament
In response to previous discussion relating to the supremacy of Parliament when it comes to the Treaties of Union, I would argue that Parliament has the authority to amend these Treaties. For example, the Treaty of Union with Ireland suggests that Ireland and Great Britain be united "forever". Obviously, this provision was violated when the Irish Free State was formed. So I don't really think that the Treaties of Union are a barrier to Parliament's sovereingty, or rather, the Queen's sovereignty in Parliament, and I wonder why the notes relating to Parliament's lack of sovereignty over the Church of Scotland remain in the article. -- Lord Emsworth 03:18, Jan 19, 2004 (UTC)

Parliament is the supreme legislative body. It can do anything whatsoever. With regard to Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights, those are just other Acts of Parliament which can be amended by the current Parliament. With respect to Magna Carta, only 3 of its 40 odd provisions are still in force. The rest have been repealed. Furthermore, it is completely wrong to say that the common law is supreme over statute law. The very opposite is the case throughout the common law world. As A. V. Dicey states: 'Parliament thus defined has, under the English constitution, the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and further, that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament.'  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.149.119 (talk) 05:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The source of legislative authority
The opening sentence is wrong. It says ''In the politics of the United Kingdom, legislative authority (that is, the power to make laws) is vested in Parliament. . . ''

Incorrect. Legislative authority is vested in The Queen-in-Parliament, ie the participation of the monarch and the two houses. Unless the Queen Assents to a Bill, it cannot become law. In fact no monarch since Queen Anne with a Militia Bill in I think 1714 has declined to grant Assent. But Assent is still a legal requirement. Legislature authority exists only through The Queen-in-Parliament. Executive authority only exists through The Queen-in-Council with the cabinet exercising executive power as a committee of the (Privy) Council. (That's why every minister must be a Rt. Hon, ie a member of the Privy Council.) So this article contains a fundamental mistake in its opening sentence. Oh dear! :-) FearÉIREANN 05:47 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Parliament and the Queen-in-Parliament are actually synonymns. Both refer to the Queen, gathered with the House of Lords and House of Commons, making laws. 141.156.238.169 04:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

When did the parliament first appear?
Hi, I have a really stupid question on the birth of the British Parliament. According to the information on this web, there was no standing parliament pre-1640s. So, when was the embrio of Parliament first formed, for what cause and under what circumstance? -- 147.8.44.10 20:40 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Informal parliaments were held from about 1234, but the first one with elected representatives was in 1254 when two knights from each shire were sent. Simon de Montfort's parliament introduced burgesses representating some selected boroughs. During this period parliaments were usually summoned in order to raise money for wars. Mintguy (T)


 * As is now clear from the article, the first British parliament was in 1707. The terms British and Great Britain had been coined as a political construct promoting the idea of unity after James VI of Scotland acceded to the English throne in 1603, becoming James I of England. Both countries then came under his personal rule while retaining separate parliaments, both of which dated back to the 13th century with earlier roots. (A bit later the term "Celtic" was coined for the indigenous peoples who had previously been called "British" following the Greek Pytheas of Massalia who sailed round Pretaniké around 325 BC)....dave souza 17:54, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I have just done TONS of research for a research paper for college about the origins of the British parliament. In 1295, an English parliament was set up by Edward I of the Plantagenet family (NOT Edward the Confessor of the Saxons). It was full of people outside the aristocracy and the clergy (no politics, no Church). The main reason it was set up was because Edward needed money for his wars to conquer Scotland, Wales, and France. He only conquered Wales fully out of the three, but may have temporarily held Normandy or where Luxembough is today. In 1301, Edward's son, Edward II, was named Prince of Wales in respect for the Welsh. It has become a custom today for the prince or next king/queen to be named Prince/Princess of Wales. Hence, Princess Diana was the Princess of Wales when she married Prince Charles, next in line to the throne. She was also from Wales, so that worked out great for her. Anyways, eventually, the Parliament thought about what else they could do...and a 'redress of grievences' was made by the king to fix wrongs in the society for the support of the Parliament. Basically, the king had to do something good for the country before the country would invest in his costly wars. The first model parliament was summoned to go meet in the St. Stephen's Chapel in the Palace of Westminster, which later burnt down in 1834 and was fully rebuilt into what is the gothic/big ben structure you see today. The Parliament you see today has a great, large structure with the House of Commons and the House of the Lords. The Lords have less power because the seats are inherited or appointed while the Commons has the seats elected. Of course, a parliament can be dissolved if necessary...


 * Do you mean "the first Parliament" or the first British Parliament? Although Westminster is called the "mother of all Parliaments" it isn't actually the oldest.  That honour goes to Iceland or the Isle of Man, depending upon whic criterea you use (in each case in about the 11th century). Legis 14:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually that is a very common misquotation - "England is the Mother of all Parliaments" (Bagehot perhaps) is the original. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.131.101 (talk) 21:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Images
This article lacks images I think. There are some works by Monet which could be used here. I believe the copyright on his works has expired as he died over 70 years ago. http://www.art-artist.co.uk/impressionist/monet-parliament.htm


 * Check on that. It is so famous, and you may want to see who owns it now. You may be right; however, don't just 'think' the copyright is gone. Plagerism and the lack of credibility to someone's artwork can land you in deep do-do. If anything is copyrighted, I don't bother with it. (Don't forget to look at the bottom of a webpage for copyright information. It hides in odd places.) I can usually find a google image that isn't copyrighted and it can be twice as good for representing what I am attempting to represent. Be careful and have fun...sometimes just looking at it is enough for better ideas.


 * The paintings are not copyright, but these photographs of the paintings probably are copyright. Unless someone takes a camera to the art gallery where these hang and takes their own shots for Wikipedia and assigns the copyright appropriately, you still need to check out where the image you're using comes from. Richard Gadsden 11:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Seat
I know what people mean when they use seat while discussing the British parliament and British politics, but I suspect many Americans do not. It would be a handy addition to this article, to Parliament, or as its own article: Seat (parliament). -Acjelen 17:30, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Contradiction
This article manages to contradict itself within the space of two paragraphs:

For instance, the Fifty-Second Parliament assembled in 1997, but was dissolved after only four years.

Thus, each Parliament is separately numbered, the present Parliament being the Fifty-Third Parliament of the United Kingdom

If 1997 saw the assembly of the 52nd Parliament, then 2001 would have seen the assembly of the 53rd and 2005 would have seen the assembly of the 54th (not the 53rd as stated). Is it possible that this article has just been overlooked since the General Election in May?

It also contradicts List of Parliaments of the United Kingdom - which states that the Parliament assembled in 1997 was the 51st (not the 52nd) ; this would mean the second statement above about the present Parliament being the 53rd is correct -- Zaphod Beeblebrox 12:01, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Further contradictions occurs with the article MPs elected in the UK general election, 2001 - this states that the current (2005) Parliament is the 54th, that assembled in 2001 was the 53rd and that assembled in 1997 was the 52nd.

I can see there might be some checking of enumeration to be done here... -- Zaphod Beeblebrox 12:05, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * From and Cases of controverted elections, in the second Parliament of the United Kingdom, 1802, it looks to me as though the first was in 1801 and the second 1802 so List of Parliaments of the United Kingdom is one out all the way through. --Cavrdg 18:32, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Surely to be verifiable, this numbering system should be used by the organs of government. Otherwise, isn't it just OR ?  Us counting from the start and putting numbers ?  -- Beardo 22:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Seaparation of Powers, and Separation of Church and State
Well, as an American, I am always apalled to hear that there remain Bishops and other religious positions in Parliament. Clearly, there should be a separation of church and state, the Church should not control the government in any way, and the government should not control any church in any way. I am surprised the British have not asserted their freedom in this venue.

Furthermore, having the courts as part of the Parliament is a conflict of interest. The men who make the laws clearly should not be the ones interpreting them.

Of course, Britain still has a King, so ultimately the people only have a say in British government because the Royal Family decides to allow it. Here in the great nation of the United States of America, we do not acknowlege the authority of any god or any representitive thereof to dictate policy. The goverment derives its just powers from the consent of the governed, not by drawing a sword from a stone.

I am sure the great men at www.republic.org.uk would agree with me on these points. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.97.207 (talk) 22:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The fact that the very young nation of USA defeated Britain twice (in 1776 and 1812) clearly shows that natural right is on the side of democracy. It is a matter of fact that Britain only exists due to the grace of USA, without their economic aid the britons would be starving under a communist regime following the 1949 red army landing. Without the engineering and economic might of the USA, the free world would not exist, there would be no Internet, no freedo of speech, only the red banner with the sickle. USA has created more than all other nations throughout the entire written history have done, combined!


 * We can only hope that the European Union will force Britain to abolish its feudalistic roots and establish a modern state based on the french and yankee derived democratic principles. Peerage, nobility, royality and any other birtright is against the good order of nature and thus invalid. Church must be separate from state. If Britain would convert to elective democracy, they would be just as successful as USA in their own right, because they are made of the same creative anglo-saxon genetics. BTW, Ireland should be entirely united in an independent republic.


 * "Here in the great nation of the United States of America, we do not acknowlege the authority of any god or any representitive thereof to dictate policy." LOL! If that's what you think, you should probably pay more attention to what your policy-makers are saying! &mdash; Trilobite 14:08, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * This Yank is off his head in delerious grandeur!!!


 * "I am surprised the British have not asserted their freedom in this venue." Errm... help, help, I'm feeling oppressed? No, wait, I'm not.


 * "Here in the great nation of the United States of America..." Yes at this point you kinda lost ALL creditability.


 * "The goverment derives its just powers from the consent of the governed, not by drawing a sword from a stone." Our government derives its powers from Parliament and the Crown - it's worked very well for over 300 years without any serious constitutional problems. Constitutional monarchy is a very, very stable form of government, especially when tied in with parliamentary democracy.


 * Or is this getting a little too complicated for our over-zealous American visitor?


 * (Sorry to all the normal Americans out there reading this, but you do have some pretty ignorant and arrogant people amongst you!) David 22:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * "...based on the french and yankee derived democratic principles" - oh, give us those American democratic principles. However, we Brits are a practical people, so forgive us if we make a few small changes to them so they fit our way of life. For a start, we might re-arrange things a little so that they guy who gets to be in charge is the one who actually gets the most votes. Yeah, yeah, I know, we're so retarded, sorry....Bedesboy 09:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, um, up to a point. The voting mechanism in the UK does not guarantee that the governing party necessarily polled the most votes merely that it controls the most seats and that could be by coalition.  Speaking as a Brit, I would say that there is a serious democratic deficit in the current arrangements in that we vote for an MP but elect a government.  Although, as mentioned above, we seem to bumble on somehow (actually we seem to be quite good at that.) 217.154.66.11 12:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm.... I smell troll dung. Ajkgordon 13:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Boy, if he was excited about the fact that Bishops could sit in the HoL, it is a good thing nobody put in the articles that Irish Peers were allowed to sit until comparatively recently. Legis 14:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There's also the thing about the General Synod itself having law-making authority...Graldensblud 01:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Whos the idiot who thinks the Americans beat us in 1812! In case you didnt notice we drove you OUT of Canada, you FAILED in your objective! That was on top of you doing it while we were fighting against Napoleon who had conquered most of Europe and we beat him at the same time. Heres some trivia for you, the White House is painted white to cover the burn marks from when Britain set it on fire in 1812. Also its funny how some Americans take full credit for their independance, conveniently ignoring the fact that the French, the Spanish and the Dutch were all on their side both at land and at sea. There was both a French Army and a French navy at Yorktown but we'll just skip that bit shall we because it makes the Americans look better. I have full respect for Americans and for America which, all said and done, has done a pretty good job in the world (World wars... better late than never!) but i suggest that some of them either read a proper history book or stick their heads out of their nationalist cloud. Oh and finally on democracy... ours is the oldest existing democracy on earth, why should we change it as its worked perfectly well so far! Rant over.Willski72 (talk) 19:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The current article includes
... House of Lords and the House of Commons meet in separate chambers in the Palace of Westminster (commonly known as the "Houses of Parliament ...

Commentary
It is not generally known that the word "House" does NOT only mean a building, but also a group of legislators. The article as written may leave the impression that the "Houses of Parliament" means the building, the Palace of Westminster.QUITTNER142.150.49.166 20:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Democratic?
I think that refering to the Commons as "democratically" elected needs to be re-thought. The simple plurality system used for elections to the Commons, although giving universal sufferage, does not give equal weight and value to every vote cast. As such i suggest that the word democratically be removed from the opening paragraph of the article and just left at "the elected House of Commons." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.147.43 (talk)


 * I disagree, because:


 * 1) Most people accept the elections to the HoC as democratic (if they have trouble with democracy in the UK it is usually with other things).
 * 2) The meaning of the word demos (the root of democratic) is people, MPs are elected by the people.
 * 3) There is no perfect electoral system; and in any system you don't end up giving equal weight to every vote case (STV, Condorcet etc, might give a fairer distribution of weighting, but not equal).

Incidentally, please sign your name on talk pages by using ~, also please consider getting a username. Thanks CaptainJ(t 19:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Parliament of the United Kingdom and the UK Overseas Territories
Congratulations for making Today's Featured Article! By the way, I noted that the article says:


 * The Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the supreme legislative body in the United Kingdom and British overseas territories.

I doubt the validity of this statement; for all I know the UK overseas territories have their own written constitutions providing for a process of legislation of which the Wstminster Parliament is no part. Legislation in the Falklands, Gibraltar, Bermuda etc. is entirely a matter of their elected legislative bodies, with some laws (such as constitution amendments) enacted by Queen's Orders in Council under her Royal Prerogatives. (Even if the UK Cabinet ministers may have the actual saying in this process, this is still not the UK Parliament.) The UK Parliament does not legislate even for uninhabited overseas territories such as South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands; legislation there is enacted by Queen's Orders in Council. One exception might be the Akrotiri and Dhekelia territory though. Apcbg 09:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

British overseas territtories often have their own legislatures, but Acts of Parliament are supreme in these places. For instance, the British Overseas Territories Act 2002 states "This Act extends to- (a) the United Kingdom, (b) the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, and (c) the British overseas territories." It is in the nature of dependent territories that they are ultimately subject to the laws of the colonial power. 141.156.238.169 03:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

West Lothian Question
I think this article should include a brief mention of the West Lothian Question. I've included this under the first paragraph of the "Legislation" section.


 * This has lead to what is known as the West Lothian question: the situation where Westminster MPs for Scottish constituencies may vote on legislation that will have no effect on Scotland. For example, the Higher Education Act (2004) only passed with the votes of Scottish MPs, yet the act had no bearing on higher education in Scotland.

If there's a better place, feel free to move it. But I think the article is missing a relatively important point by not including it. Kayman1uk 12:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * On this note, is it not true that Northern Irish law is also separate, and that Parliament can pass laws pertaining only to NI (or, for that matter, only to England and Wales and Scotland)? --Jfruh (talk) 14:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

''This has led to what is known as the West Lothian question: the situation where Westminster MPs for Scottish constituencies may vote on legislation that will have no direct effect on Scotland. For example, the Higher Education Act 2004 passed only with the votes of Scottish MPs, but the act had no bearing on Scotland.''

This is nonsense. A little forgotten fact in the malay of the West Lothian question is that parts of this bill DID affect Scotland directly, however minimally. It is even stated on the Higher Education Act 2004 page here!! I am deleting this to reflect this. Panthro 16:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Featured article, but...
...there's only two pictures. We should put more in my opinion. -- TonyM ｷﾀ━( °∀° )━ｯ!!  15:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe a historical picture (rather than a present day picture). Perhaps the "Irish House of Commons", or something similar? Grimhelm 15:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly what I was looking for! It would be nice to have some pictures of people and historical events that have something to do with the subject. -- TonyM ｷﾀ━( °∀° )━ｯ!!  16:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, if no one minds, I'll add it. Grimhelm 14:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Privileges
A. P. Herbert, in one of those curious historical footnotes, reported the Commons to the criminal justice system for breach of the licensing laws (none of the bars in the House were licensed, and many opened outside normal hours); it reached the High Court, which eventually decided that Parliamentary privilege extended even to such prosaic activities - indeed, to anything which they can claim with a straight face. I'm not sure if working this in as an example would be appropriate, but it sprang to mind... Shimgray | talk | 17:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

"Binding future Parliaments"
I was reading the featured article on Canada and noticed the following:
 * "The Canada Act 1982 is an Act of Parliament passed by the British Parliament that severed all remaining constitutional and legislative ties between the United Kingdom and Canada,"

I'm not clear how this stacks up with this:
 * "No Act of Parliament may be made secure from amendment or repeal by a future Parliament."

Do these two statements contradict? Are these types of act an exception to the rule? Or is it simply the case that the UK could, in theory, repeal the act but that Canada would laugh heartily and ignore it? In which case, what would the position of the monarch be? Kayman1uk 08:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. It's not just a theoretical question. I'm trying to say that I don't see how the statement about never binding future parliaments is supportable for acts severing sovereignty over territories. Kayman1uk 09:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think I can answer this now having looked through the UK article more carefully. Parliament can give up sovereignty (whether over another territory or, for example, the churn of Scotland), and thereby diminish itself. That doesn't change the specific sovereign powers of parliament, but it does lessen their scope. This is presumably the case with all sovereign bodies. Kayman1uk 22:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I can definately answer this question as I am a Lawyer, Parliament can pass legisation that binds itself but, Parliament retains the power to repeal that legislation therefore unbinding itself. For example, India and Pakistan received independence through the Indian Independence Act 1947, Parliament can repeal this Act which would result in India and Pakistan becoming a united British Colony once more.

Unfortunately, that is not a definitive answer. Academic lawyer William Wade advanced the theory, echoed by the questioner, that such a law would be valid from the point of view of the United Kingdom, but Canadian authorities would ignore the new statute as a contradiction of their patriated Constitution, just as India and Pakistan would presumably disregard such an Act aimed towards them. We shall not know for sure until the UK Parliament tries it. 141.156.238.169 04:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The Portcullis
Isn't the portcullis the symbol of the UK Parliament? Shouldn't that go up - either as a symbol at the top of the article, or as a mention somewhere? See, for example, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/82573.stm. Wikiman, 14:04, 27 August 2006


 * Probably. HM Gov't have a PDS giving the history of the portcullis available at http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/g09.pdf (search Google for 'Crowned Portcullis'. Copyright of the Crowned Portcullis mark are detailed at http://www.parliament.uk/site_information/parliamentary_copyright.cfm. A few further historical notes on the Portcullis badge are also available from the College of Arms at http://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/About/06.htm. The Portcullis probably needs its own dedicated page as it's use is not restricted to Parliament as the PDF details - Westminster council use it, and it's also the symbol on the back of a 1 penny piece 82.38.168.60 00:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Upper/Lower Houses
Is the British Parliament symmetrical (equal balance of power between Upper & Lower Houses, like in the United States) or asymmetrical (unequal balance of power between Upper & Lower Houses, like in Canada)? And is this mentioned in the article? I tried to find it but couldn't, I might have just skipped over it. Also, if it isn't in the article, perhaps it's a good idea to include it. Stop The Lies 09:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies


 * Unequal - the Lords have limited powers to block. -- Beardo 18:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The Parliament Acts have shifted the balance of power wholly in the favour of the Commons. That's part of a trend that's been going on for a number of years, but historically there have been times when each house was the stronger. Graldensblud 01:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The various former colonies, in their constitutions, reflect British practice at the time of their independence. The USA has two equally strong chambers and a strong executive unconnected with either, exactly as Britain had in the late 18th century (King, Lords, and Commons). Canada and Australia have two chambers, of which the upper chamber is strong but definitely subordinate, and in which the executive is drawn from the lower chamber. This reflected British practice in the late 19th century. Current British practice has evolved still further, with the upper chamber being extremely weak and little more than a rubber stamp. TharkunColl 08:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Where did parliament meet after 1834?
The old Palace of Westminster burnt down in 1834, and according to its own article, the new (current) building wasn't ready for use until some 20 years later (specifically, the House of Lords chamber was completed in 1847, and the House of Commons chamber in 1852. The building as a whole wasn't finished until as late as 1870). So where did parliament hold its meetings in the interim? Also, after the House of Commons chamber was destroyed by German bombs in 1941 the Commons met in the House of Lords chamber until 1950 (when the House of Commons chamber was rebuilt) - so where did the Lords meet during this period? TharkunColl 16:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Having a look at 'Notes and Queries' at the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/notesandqueries/query/0,,-87066,00.html), someone's posed this very question. Out of all the answers, one stands out by someone having actually done some research (apparently) ... I have a definitive answer to this question from the House of Commons information office. It wrote me the following: "When the Chamber was destroyed the House of Commons moved to sit in old Court of Requests (which had been used by the Lords from 1801) and the Lords moved to the remains of the Painted Chamber. The site of the Court of Requests is now marked by the statue of Richard Lionheart. 82.38.168.60 21:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Problems with some stated facts
On the section entitled Italic textParliament of England Italic text I believe there were two erroneous facts. It is stated that the `so called "Model Parliament" of 1295 (was) adopted by Edward III.` However, I thought Edward III did not become king until 1327, therefore this cannot possibly be true. Was the Parliament not adopted by Edward I considering he was in power at the time? Also was it not during the reign of Edward III and not Edward II that parliament was separated into two houses? Please feel free to dispute me if I am wrong but I have become confused after cross referencing these facts with other literature. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ne14abeermatt (talk • contribs) 01:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

How were early parliamentary elections held?
I've often wondered about this and wish this article would be more enlightening on this point. Were there ballot-boxes (and secret ballots?), or public town meetings of some kind? Designated polling places? Who counted the votes? Did these practices vary by region? Did candidates campaign, and are there any early surviving examples of campaign literature? Were there any antecedent "parties" to the Whigs and the Tories of the late c. 17?

More info on how members of parliament were elected would be a useful addition to this article, and/or a worthwhile subject for a separate article.

Small question (judges)
Can a judge become a Member of Parliament? --Weenie beenie 13:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The Law Lords already sit in the House of Lords, so can't be elected to the Commons. The judges of the other higher courts are forbidden from being MPs. Very junior judges, such as part-time Justices of the Peace, can be MPs, and some JPs do in fact serve in the Commons. 96.241.29.6 (talk) 08:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The senior judges are Law Lords and sit in the House of Lords however this year (2009) they are being moved to a Supreme Court, they still wont be able to be elected to the Commons though.Willski72 (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of the People Act
I thought a link to that article would be in place here or in related articles, but I don't know where. It's something that will be voted on tomorrow, so maybe temporary links could be placed (also depending on the outcome). DirkvdM 11:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Mother of Parliaments quote
I found a ref to the John Bright speech being reported in The Times of January 19 1865. Has someone assess to this newspaper's microfilms, or any other version, to provide a citation? TIA ww2censor (talk) 04:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I went to look at the microfilm of The Times at the New York Public Library yesterday and found the article. It was made during a speech to his constituants in Birmingham on Wednesday January 18 1865. ww2censor (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Repetition
When reading this article, it seems as if the subsection on Parliament of England repeats itself, as if 2 versions of the same history run back to back. We get up to the Glorious Revolution after six paragraphs, then dive back to Curia Regis and Anglo Saxon times. Should not the whole second half be deleted, or merged into the first? Honyng (talk) 05:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Jersey
Here it says 'Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming told BBC Radio Four's Today programme he would be speaking to a government minister later on Thursday about the issue of the rule of law in Jersey. In February Mr Hemming signed an early day motion in Parliament that said there was a lack of confidence in the ability of the island's authorities to deal with the abuse allegations.' Does the sovereignty of the Parliament of the United Kingdom extend to Jersey, though Jersey is not part of the United Kingdom? Is this ultra vires? See Crown Dependencies. – Kaihsu (talk) 19:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Quoth said article:


 * Acts of the British Parliament do not usually apply to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, unless explicitly stated, and even this is increasingly rare. When deemed advisable, Acts of Parliament may be extended to the Islands by means of an 'Order in Council', and normally the agreement of their administrations would be sought first. An example of this was the Television Act 1954, which was extended to the Channel Islands, so as to create a local ITV franchise, known as Channel Television.


 * Westminster retains the right to legislate for the Islands against their will as a last resort, but this is also rarely exercised, and may according to legal opinion from the Attorney-General of Jersey have fallen into desuetude — although this argument was not accepted by the Department for Constitutional Affairs (The Marine, Etc., Broadcasting (Offences) Act 1967 was one recent piece of legislation extended to the Isle of Man against the wishes of the Manx Parliament).


 * I suppose that in theory it is the Crown who is supreme in the Channel Islands, but as the Queen defers to the Government and the Government relies on Parliamentary support, in that sense the UK Parliament does have authority over the dependencies. The fact that the UK government can advise the Queen on matters in the dependencies is I suppose why they're Crown Depedencies and not Commonwealth Realms, yes? --Jfruh (talk) 21:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

From the point of view of British constitutional law, the British Parliament is supreme. According to one maxim, it could demand that Frenchmen stop smoking on the streets of Paris. That would be ridiculous under international law or French law, but there is no principle from the British constitutional perspective that would stop it.

Unlike Paris, the Crown Dependencies are under British control, so an Act of Parliament could be forced on their inhabitants. However, the modern British government doesn't like to be seen as a colonial oppressor, so it doesn't typically act in such a dictatorial manner. Instead, the consent of the local government is usually obtained before laws are passed for the Crown Dependencies. 96.241.29.6 (talk) 07:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The Queen is the third component of Parliament.
This statement is, I suppose, supported by the source's"The highest legislative authority in the United Kingdom. Made up of the House of Commons, House of Lords and the Queen (who is the UK's current hereditary monarch)." Stating it as the "third component" may confuse U.S. readers that the Queen has an equal role to the two houses. Can't this read,"The Queen has a role in opening, dissolving Parliament and approving bills." &#8756; Therefore | cogito·sum 23:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

In theory the crown is an equal component to the two houses (and again, in theory, is perhaps superior to the current House of Lords as it can refuse to allow Bills to become Acts). However, things are different in practice. The contrast between theory and practice is the difficult thing for some Americans to grasp. It is best left as it is. MAG1 (talk) 09:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't characterize it as difficult to grasp (we're not ineducable and more than capable of "grasping" theory from its application) -- I wasn't aware that it could be considered an equal component though I knew of the Queen's theoretical but pro forma and rarely exercised power to refuse Bills. Possibly this is the source of Cheney's (who holds a similar role sans veto power) novel theory that his constitutional responsibilities as president of the Senate creates a unique "component" distinct from the executive branch, and subsequently exempt from laws governing executive offices.


 * This issue arose in the trivial understanding of a joke from the American comedy "Arrested Development" -- see The Ocean Walker, note the bullet point "Parliament" and the dissection of the joke at Talk:The Ocean Walker. The joke: There are three houses of Parliament. There aren't and that was the joke. Some stalwart soul has struggled to rationalize that the writers meant (they didn't -- see discussion) that the third house was the Queen ("the third component"), going as far as referencing your article here at the above mentioned Parliament bullet point to buttress their argument. I believe the way you are characterizing the queen's role is confusing and hence my call for improvement. However, if this is a common and truly accurate description (the source didn't put it this way, so possibly a better source would improve the article), then so be it. &#8756; Therefore | cogito·sum 11:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Postscript: I would argue that it would be as messy to describe the U.S. Congress as having four components: the two houses, the president (who has veto power) and the vice-president (who presides and has a tie-breaking vote) when there are two houses and the two executives have a role in the legislative process. &#8756; Therefore | cogito·sum 11:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The crown (in theory) also appoints the government, enacts secondary legislation through the privy council, calls and dissolves parliament, and provides its premises. The queen is also separate from both houses of parliament: she is not a member of either and does not have the vote. Parliament cannot function (in theory) without the involvement of the crown. Its equivalent in the US is the president (who has powers similar to an 18th century British monarch) not the VP, but the big difference there is the separation of powers; so, as I understand it, the executive and legislative branches are entirely separated and the presidency is separate from the congress. This does not happen in the U.K. (currently, the House of Lords is the top UK court). The VP seems to have two roles as part of the government and as a member of congress. Clearly in the latter he is part of the senate, not a separate entity. The comparison won't be great, but the Lord Speaker would be the equivalent. MAG1 (talk) 13:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. About the grasping point, I am very well aware that there are lots of fantastically intelligent and well-educated Americans (of course, as this is all anonymous, it would be possible that I am one myself), so notice the word "some" and see here. MAG1 (talk) 14:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The Queen is, theoretically, the most important part of Parliament. She passes laws, with the advice and consent of the Lords and Commons. Without her agreement, the whole legislative process would come to a screeching halt.

Omitting her role would be like removing the Third Amendment from the article on the U.S. Bill of Rights--another quaint provision that is rarely invoked, but important nonetheless. 96.241.29.6 (talk) 07:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Assessed for B-class
Hi guys, I filled out the B-class checklist per WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom's criteria, I've kept it at a "C" for the reason listed below;


 * b1 "Referencing & citations;" Only problem is a lack of inline citations, eight sections lack any at all. Presumably the current refs already cover everything stated in the article, so all that'll be need is quick copy edit to assign inline citations to the correct places.

Ryan 4314  (talk) 03:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Crowned Portcullis SVG
I drew a vector of the Crowned Portcullis. There's room for improvement but nevertheless I'm pretty happy with what I've got:

200px

Would anyone complain if it replaced the current PNG? --Tom Edwards (talk) 19:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably best to stick with the PNG until the central seam issue can be fixed on the server. --Tom Edwards (talk) 10:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

the "portcuillis device" as it is known is subject to copyright, and more importantly the prosaic priviliges of Parliament, and generally permission is required to publish it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.131.101 (talk) 21:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Need to remove Judicial Functions
Now that the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has opened, Parliament itself holds no judicial functions and the 'Law Lords' do not exist. So therefore, any references to Law Lords needs to removed from sections talking about the powers of parliament today and moved to sections discussing the history of parliament. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.219.219.141 (talk) 00:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

House of Lords
I'm pretty sure it's house of lords and not house of poo faces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.150.215 (talk) 23:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The edit was made by a vandal. Thank you for taking the time to fix it. Regards. Road Wizard (talk) 01:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Title
Your edit summary is flawed, for instance, the article at United Kingdom begins: "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (commonly known as the United Kingdom, the UK, or Britain) is a sovereign state located off the north-western coast of continental Europe." It would be absurd to change that article's title or (the bold type in the) first sentence. Cheers, Chrisieboy (talk) 14:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've reverted my edit - you are correct. It makes sense to have the full title in bold because redirects with the full title also direct to the article. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

what's in a name?
I am just beginning to realise that some people feel very strongly about names! I changed 'Kingdom of Great Britain' to 'United Kingdom of Great Britain' yesterday because it is what the sources also call it, and I have been reverted by this morning.

Realising how touchy people seem to be, I though I should explain what I have done in this article so it is not just immediately reverted by someone who doesn't 'get it' - I have added the following phrase:

Confusingly, the UK parliament website chooses to refer to this merged parliament as 'the Parliament of the United Kingdom' stating "The Parliament of the United Kingdom met for the first time in October 1707"

I have done this because I don't think we can just ignore what the UK parliament website says about itself but I've tried to say it in a way that should not mean people think I am trying to change the name of the parliament from 'Parliament of Great Britain' which it was clearly called in the Treaty of Union.86.157.165.214 (talk) 11:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Reverted; the 1st Parliament of the United Kingdom followed the 18th Parliament of Great Britain. Are you User:Fishiehelper2? Chrisieboy (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

General advice
Today the state is called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and has had that name since the creation of the Irish state in 1924 and when the area now known as the Republic of Ireland left the Union. The term 'Britain', as the previous writer noted is used as shorthand because the full title is rather a mouthful. The terms Britain and British isles are geographical terms not political. Before that it was called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland from the time of the Act of Union with Ireland in 1801. Before that England, Scotland and Wales were called Great Britain from the Act of Union with Scotland in 1707. Hence Queen Anne was the first Queen of Great Britain and so styled herself. James VI and I was king of two nations, England and Scotland but he called them collectively --Britain. With regard to the constitution, you are all getting yourselves into a terrible muddle when you need not. The issues you are struggling with are quite clearly laid out in any number of reputable books. But I suggest you go to ones by British authors who do not try to explain the constitution of the United Kingdom in terms of those of other countries but on its own terms. Dicey got himself into all sorts of bother in the end and Jennings put the whole thing into a far more sensible perspective but he is now outdated because of devolution etc. Having said that the theory is that Parliament is sovereign body of the state of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, that state having existed since 1924. It is the supreme legislative body of the state and consists of the Queen-in-Parliament. The concept of the Monarch-in-Parliament dates back to Henry VIII, before that time the Monarch was completely separate from Parliament. Sovereignty is expressed when the monarch assents to legislation. There are strange and difficult to define aspects of the British Constitution (like conventions) but don't get bogged down in them, they are not worth it. Just start with a political definition and treat the legal explanations with circumspection. Dicey is not without his critics (amongst political scientists, if not lawyers). Of course, if you want to take reality into account then the concept of national sovereignty is very dubious nowadays anyway. You can try Anne Lyons' Constitutional History of the United Kindom (unlike Bagehot and Dicey who referred to the "English" constitution or "English" constitutional law). If you really want to go back into the history of parliament, then try Maitland, or read Elton on Maitland (where he points out Maitland's errors and also the difficulty historians have dealing with lawyers) and, of course Milsom.Sgmp (talk) 23:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgmp (talk • contribs) 23:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

About the Parliament of the UK
I have just completed the French article “histoire du Royaume –Uni” with a short text and link to “Parliament of the UK”, as British history and the history of its Parliament are clearly bound to each other. But the article Parliament of the United Kingdom appears “not to be clear enough” according to the banner “?”. And the suggestion is to improve it is to insert precise “citations”. Now, my own suggestion for a better comprehension of the British “living heritage” (http://www.parliament.uk/about/) for democracy is to create a link to the article Forty Shilling Freeholders, one of its fundaments for almost six centuries, from “1430 to 1832” and to the XX° century, under a different financial rate, as this article offers a stronger links with history, than the mere concept of Freeholder, too easily translated into French with empty definitions such as “inhabitant of a place”… — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crocy (talk • contribs) Crocy (talk) 00:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And now, the question is : how to do this best ? I thank the specialists to correct my possible attempts to introduce this (most important) link (since my attempt to introduce the french version for "Forty shilling freeholders" is beeing attacked before "deletion")Crocy (talk) 00:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As the British Parliament appears to be characterised by the presence of two Houses, I suggest to introduce the former discussed link under the fact that the British living heritage stands on in the pursuit of the "commonwealth between classes", and henceforth, "the effort to maintain" it, just as freeholders do. Don't they ? Crocy (talk) 01:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And not very surprisingly, the French part of Wikipedia presents the Commonwealth (la chose publique []) as "opposed to a state governed by the members of a unique class", and still states it as the governement of one class only : "le peuple". Crocy (talk) 01:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Merge UK Parliamentary questions
I propose that UK Parliamentary questions be merged into Parliament of the United Kingdom. I think that the content in the UK Parliamentary questions article can easily be explained in the context of Parliament of the United Kingdom, and the Parliament of the United Kingdom article is of a reasonable size in which the merging of UK Parliamentary questions will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Subin.a.mathew (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I concur that UK Parliamentary questions can safely be merged into Parliament of the United Kingdom since the nature of the questions article means it pertains solely to the UK Parliament. I have performed the merger on 8 March 2012, placing the content of the questions article in the Relationship with the Government section of the Parliament article. Aaronjbaylis (talk) 15:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Mother of parliaments
Quote: It has been called "the mother of parliaments",[7] its democratic institutions having set the standards for many democracies throughout the world,[8] and the United Kingdom parliament is the largest Anglophone legislative body in the world.

Comment: Well, yes, it has often been called that, but only by people who did not know they were misquoting John Bright. He said this NOT of the UK Parliament, but of England herself. The actual words he used on 18 January 1865 in Birmingham were: "England is the mother of parliaments". (Oxford Dictionary of Quotations, Revised 4th ed, 1996, p. 141).

So, if we're going to include these words in this article, we have to point out they're a misquotation, otherwise we just perpetuate the untruth, as we've been doing up till now. --  Jack of Oz   [your turn]  19:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I've now redirected Mother of Parliaments, which was a redirect to here, to a discrete article called The mother of parliaments (expression). And I've completely separated it out from Mother of Parliament, with which it had no relationship.  I've also corrected the heading of the short section in John Bright's article that had the quote as "The Mother of all Parliaments".


 * I hope I've managed to shed some light on what has been a pile of confusion. --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  19:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I've now amended the lede to make it clear the expression is a misquotation when applied to the Parliament. --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  22:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Bicameral in theory, largely unicameral in practice
Hey. I understand that UK's parliament is bicameral in essence. However, I feel we should include that due to the restrictions the House of Lords has, bicameralism is purely asymmetrical and the House of Lords' function is largely ceremonial. The only important power that the House of Lords possesses is to delay money bills for a month and all other bills for a year. Due to this limitations, it might in fact be called a "near-unicameral" parliament, according to Arend Lijphart. (page 18). What do you think? Thank you. ComputerJA (talk) 18:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Bicameral does not imply equal - being asymmetrical does not stop it being bicameral. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 11:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That, and the Lords has a lot more power in practice than it does on paper. Being able to delay a bill for a year is actually normally quite damaging to the government's legislative agenda, and governments will normally compromise with the Lords on amendments to legislation in order to avoid significant delay. Far more amendments are made to government legislation in the Lords than in the Commons, where governments have a majority to block anything they don't want to put up with. 'Largely ceremonial' is very much an over-statement of the case. -  Chrism  would like to hear from you 12:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ComputerJA is wrong. The House of Lords' ultimate power is very limited, but it fulfils a useful function in scrutinising most legislation.  In practice, the Commons can almost always insist on having things its own way.  In most cases, when the Commons insists, the House of Lords climbs down, but it is frequently able to persuade the government that it is wrong.  With the whips being much weaker in the Lords, the government cannot get legislation through its committee stage by voting down all amendments as happens all too often in the Commons.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Dignitries
As far as I can tell, there are no dignitries, so I think the word should be dignitaries. All the best. Andy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.95.148 (talk) 16:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Vandal
Previously an anon. IP and now in the form of X.equilibrium.x - suggest editors new to this see the article's page history. Argovian (talk) 11:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Still keeping an eye on it. BethNaught (talk) 11:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Argovian (talk) 20:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

As you consider myself to be vandal for highlighting DELIBERATELY MISLEADING, INACCURATE AND FALSE INFORMATION, regardless of my proccess, what does that make you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by X.equilibrium.x (talk • contribs) 13:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Sane? Argovian (talk) 20:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Parliament of England and Parliament of Great Britain
The current parliament directly descends from the Parliament of England. The traditions, structure, chambers, voting systems and seat of the parliament has remained largely unchanged since the 17th century. Why do we only cover this institutions history since 1801, if it was developed two centuries earlier? Rob984 (talk) 16:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As you say, the UK Parliament is clearly a descendant of the English and GB Parliaments; however, the United Kingdom only came into existence in 1801. There are cross-references to Parliament of England, Parliament of Scotland, Parliament of Great Britain and Parliament of Ireland at the top of the "History" section, for information on the current institution's antecedents. Alkari (?), 16 February 2015, 20:51 UTC

There needs to be a note in the lede about electing the P.M.
I would suggest adding a line at the end of the third paragraph in the lede about the election of the PM. It may seem terribly unnecessary to everyone over there but Americans don't understand how it works. I can't tell you how many times I heard a talking head on TV say that "Cameron had been re-elected", or how historians express shock that Churchill wasn't re-elected in 1945. I know this is explained in greater detail in the body of the article, but something like, "This means that the electorate never votes directly for a candidate for the office of Prime Minister" should be added at the end of that paragraph. Remember that you are writing for a world wide audience, some of whom aren't the least bit familiar with the parliamentary system, and school kids looking for info don't often bother to read further beyond the lede. __209.179.16.138 (talk) 16:48, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring re: composition pic
Theowrig (talk), as can be seen both on this page and at House of Commons of the United Kingdom, seems intent on changing the diagram showing the current composition of Parliament to a new format, without consensus, and despite being reverted by numerous different people, and without any response to invitations via editnotice or messages left on their talkpage. -  Chrism  would like to hear from you 20:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Parliament of the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080118231241/http://www.royal.gov.uk:80/output/Page4691.asp to http://www.royal.gov.uk/OutPut/Page4691.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Parliament of the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Primary&PageNumber=84&NavFrom=2&parentActiveTextDocId=1080244&ActiveTextDocId=1080244&filesize=4238
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061016215929/http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/p01.pdf to http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/p01.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Status re: dissolution
We've recently had this article, as well as those of the Commons and Lords, stating that Parliament is curently dissolved prior to the state opening. This is legally nonsense, otherwise the election of the Speaker and the taking of the oath/affirmations wouldn't be happening. See this article and this one about the timetable for the meeting of a new parliament. Specifically:

"Both the House of Commons and the House of Lords sit for a few days ahead of the official State Opening of Parliament, the formal start of a parliamentary session. During this time the re-election or election of a new Speaker of the House of Commons takes place, and MPs and Lords take the oath or affirmation." -  Chrism  would like to hear from you 22:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Parliament of the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130718211150/http://sshls-dev.port.ac.uk/hub/public-policy/structures/parliament-and-law-making/ to http://sshls-dev.port.ac.uk/hub/public-policy/structures/parliament-and-law-making/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment
The following was added to the article page by user:Amunra reborn: This Article needs a rework. There is no such thing as "Parliament of the United Kingdom". The UK is a collection of four countries who are members of the British Government (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales). The British government governs more than just these four countries, ie Gibraltar, Falkland Islands etc. Out of the four countries in the UK, only England does not have its own local law making body. Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own Parliament under which reports to the British Parliament. Wales has the Welsh Assemble which has slightly less power. There is no equivalent ruling body to represent England's interest who are ruled directly by the British Government.
 * You are misinformed. The Parliament that meets at Westminster is the Parliament of the United Kingdom, the same thing you call the "British Parliment".  However the Scottish and Northewrn Ireland Parliaments and Welsh Assembly do not "report" to the British Parliament.  They have devolved legislative powers.  Peterkingiron (talk) 20:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You are right, they have some devolved legislative powers but they are not stand alone. They do still accept some laws from the British Government and they have seats in Westminster and effect laws that spread over the whole UK, see the governments own website for an explanation of this: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/UKgovernment/Devolvedgovernment/DG_073306

I do however concede the British Government seems to be called the United Kingdom Parliament. When I was thought at school the term UK was hardly ever used, when and how was it introduced as the replacement for Britain? If this is the new name for the same governmental body does this really mean the Falkand Islands are governed by the UK parliament despite not being in the UK! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amunra reborn (talk • contribs) 09:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the country's full name, and has been since 1801/1927. Britain is often used as a shorthand way of describing it, deriving from the island/preceding kingdom of Great Britain which makes up the main landmass. And yes, as an overseas territory of the UK, the Falklands are subject to any laws passed by Westminster that are specified to apply to them, though generally most matters are left to their own LegCo. - Chrism would like to hear from you 15:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The article is too long and spends too much time discussing procedural minutia, particularly historical procedural minutiaNigelrg (talk) 15:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The paragraph referring to the Westminster Bridge terrorist attack is not relevant to this article, though it will be relevant to other articles. I propose it is deleted. Impregnable (talk) 22:34, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed: I've removed it.  If there is to be material about attacks in or on Parliament itself, it should include the assassination of Airey Neave in 1979. Wikiain (talk) 02:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

"so-called upper house"
I have removed this technical and pedantic lecturing in the lead about the status of the two chambers and their relationship with one another. The terms upper house and lower house are historic and ceremonial, used to describe most bicameral legislatures around the world, even ones which are not officially bicameral. The House of Lords being the upper chamber obviously does not mean it can't be secondary in importance, so the concept of it "not really" ("so-called") being an upper chamber is POV on the part of a particular editor. The Lords' gradual loss of power and influence should be a topic for discussion within the article, but the mess of descriptors in the lead needed to go. Not every reader is going to be familiar with these concepts.--Hazhk (talk) 14:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * On a related note, the lead is far too long. It should be trimmed further. --Hazhk (talk) 14:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Dubious
I added two dubious tags. The two statements I added the tags to are obviously only true during a majority government. The UK Parliament, and other Parliaments modeled after it, use the "first past the post" model of election, so minority governments are not that frequent. But they do occur, and the UK Parliament is a minority government right now.

In the UK and similar systems compromising with some of the other parties is essential, because a defeat of a funding bill means the current PM and cabinet have lost the confidence of the House. The PM has to report this to the Sovereign, or GG. The PM has to step down. Either the leader of another party is given a chance to form a government, or there is another election.

I suspect the questionable sentences were drafted prior to the current minority government. Geo Swan (talk) 14:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * We do not have a minority government: we have a coalition government (with a small majority). Peterkingiron (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Are the tagged statements untrue in a coalition government? EllenCT (talk) 03:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * We don't have a minority or coalition government in January 2019 (just a confidence and supply agreement), and the massive defeat of the Government's Brexit Bill, with over 1/3 of the governing aprty's MPs voting against the government shows quite clearly that these points are not dubious. Aside from this there are many examples of successful backbench revolts; Tteh bTheresa May govern,ent has lost a couple of dozen votes this way. I will remove the dubious tags. Stub Mandrel (talk) 22:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Capital letters for "house/houses of Parliament"?
This article shows both upper and lower case for "house" and "houses", as in "both houses of Parliament" I'm all for capital "H" in "House of Commons" and "House of Lords", but "h" for "two houses" and "both houses". Any problems? Chris the speller  yack  16:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Clarification on the House of Lords?
I have a few questions that maybe could be answered to clarify something about the House of Lords and Life Peerage, which for those of us less familiar with the system may clarify a few things in the article.

"Under the House of Lords Act 1999, only life peerages (that is to say, peerage dignities which cannot be inherited) automatically entitle their holders to seats in the House of Lords."

There is a line to this in both this article and the one on the House of Lords. So for my questions 1. As it relates to the composition of the House of Lords, is it's membership solely based on the various number of peers (temporal and spirituals minus any limit numerical limit they may place on themselves) in existence at any one time? 2. When term ends or the government falls and a new government is formed, do the same Lords simply retake their seats? I don't understand. 3. Finally, the line I quoted above seems to imply that not every Life Peer takes a seat in the House of Lords; is this the case? If a Life Peer decides that he or she wants to join or quit the House of Lords at any given time, is this allowed? Just generally, there needs to be some kind of clarification on both this article and the article on the House of Lords how the body is formed/elected/nominated/appointed, etc. just like it is for the House of Commons. --Criticalthinker (talk) 17:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I found these links describing composition and appointment for the House of Lords:


 * https://constitution-unit.com/2015/07/29/the-truth-about-house-of-lords-appointments/


 * https://www.parliament.uk/business/lords/whos-in-the-house-of-lords/members-and-their-roles/how-members-are-appointed/


 * The process sounds like a mess, quite frankly, as it's not standardized. In any case, it would be helpful if someone more familiar with the process of appointment and composition make appropriate changes to this article (and the article on the House of Lords, itself) to make clear that the make-up of the body isn't particularly tied to House of Commons elections and thus doesn't necessarily reflect the political composition of the Commons, that the body doesn't have a set limit as it relates to overall size, that all life peers are entitled to a set, though not all of them take it, that there is a pool of hereditary peers for appointment/election to the body to fill resignations/retirements/deaths, etc...I'm still unclear, however, if there is any kind of rules concerning how the non-partisans are chosen or if there are any formal rules governing political appointments by the parties? --Criticalthinker (talk) 18:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Political groups graphic
The coloration used for the three Plaid Cymru members in the infobox graphic does not match the colour in the key. Can that be resolved by someone here, or does it need to go to WP:GL, or somewhere else? Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

While we're on the subject: I realise this is a fast-moving topic, but the text has the Labour Party at 246 MPs (I believe correctly?), but the graphic legend has 247 for Labour, and the graphic itself has 248. Come on, folks - do try to keep up. :-) 92.232.224.153 (talk) 12:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't the figures for 'Independent' and 'The Independents UK' be combined? They're shown as 31 and 5, respectively; whereas the Parliament website (at the time of writing at least...) shows the two together as 'Independent 36'. DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Infobox - The Independents in Commons
There is currently an internal inconsistency in representing the Commons party membership in the infobox: the image and the associated legend give different information. Specifically, the group of independents calling themselves 'The Independents' are distinguished from other independents in the figure, being given a distinct pink colour, while the legend completely fails to explain what the pink dots mean, while counting those members among the other independents. The purpose of a legend is to explain the figure, not to present a different POV than the figure. There are several ways that this can be addressed. The legend can count The Independents separately from other independents so as to match the dots in the figure; the pink dots can be removed from the figure with no representation of The Independents being made at all; or a hybrid approach can be used whereby the legend explains that the pink dots are The Independents without counting them separately from other independents. Just having the legend pretend there aren't any pink dots in the figure is not really a viable solution. Agricolae (talk) 08:52, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The same problem exists on the Lords plot. At the top of the last full row, it shows a sky blue dot, a light purple dot, then after the one dot for the Greens, a lighter blue dot, two for the UUP, then three light pink.  The meaning of these, the sky blue, light purple, light blue and light pink, is left entirely to the reader's imagination.  Meanwhile the legend says there are six independants, assigning them a colour that does not appear in the plot.  These are clearly meant to be flavours of independents, but if they are to be assigned distinctive colours, the reader needs to be told what these are, or they should be displayed in the plot with the same nondescript independent colour assigned them in the legends. (Plus though the legend includes the Speaker, the image has no corresponding black dot). Agricolae (talk) 02:53, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

The Speakership is not vacant
John Bercow is still Speaker until the 4th November 2019 hence my prior edit. Eolais (talk) 12:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Dissolution => no MPs
Given that the Parliament dissolved on 6 November and consequently there are no MPs until after the December 2019 GE, shouldn't the seating chart and party listings in the infobox be emptied to reflect this? DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:55, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

SNP/Neale Hanvey
According to Parliament the SNP have 47 MPs, and Neale Hanvey is an independent. I have corrected the figures in the infobox. FDW777 (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Commons register of interests
The Commons register of interests delas with the three regular Masonic Lodges lobbying in the Westminster Parliament: "New Welcome Lodge, which recruits MPs, peers and parliamentary staff, and Gallery Lodge, established for members of the political press corps known as the lobby", and the Alfred Robbins Lodge, set up for journalists. (source:, ). It seems to be relevant for the WP:article.

Infobox: Imran Ahmad Khan has not actually resigned yet (as of 2022-04-25)
Via https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/apr/24/mp-convicted-of-sexually-molesting-boy-15-fails-to-keep-his-promise-to-resign (article from 08.00 UTC, 2022-04-25), although Ahmad Khan said in a statement he's going to resign, for whatever reason he hasn't done so yet, which is Absolutely Buck Wild™ but does mean he's technically still an independent for the time being and his seat won't be vacant until he does the official Chiltern Hundreds thing. Will update when he actually resigns. AsmodeanUnderscore (talk) 08:32, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * sorry, article is actually from 08.00 UTC, 2022-04-24. AsmodeanUnderscore (talk) 09:03, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Update: via https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/apr/28/imran-ahmad-khan-mp-completes-resignation-process (article from 13.10 UTC, 2022-04-28), Ahmad Khan has now officially started resigning, effective April 30th. With this delay, he can pick up a full month's paycheck for April. AsmodeanUnderscore (talk) 20:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Origin of "House of Commons"
This page states (near the end of "Composition and Powers") that (...The Commons, the last of the "estates" of the Kingdom, are represented in the House of Commons, which is known formally as, "The Honourable The Commons in Parliament Assembled" ("commons" coming not from the term "commoner," but from commune, the old French term for a municipality or local district).

This appears to contrast to what is said in the Wikipedia article "House of Commons", namely, "The Middle English word common or commune, which is derived from the Anglo-Norman commune, meant "of general, public, or non-private nature" as an adjective and, as a substantive, "the common body of the people of any place; the community or commonalty" in the singular; "the common people, the commonalty; the lower order, as distinguished from those of noble or knight or gentle rank", or "the burgers of a town; the body of free citizens, bearing common burdens, and exercising common rights; (hence) the third estate in the English constitution; the body of people, not ennobled, and represented by the Lower House of Parliament" in the plural." (In both quotations, the italics are mine)

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary is silent on the origin of the usage yet it defines "Commons" as "the political group or estate comprising the commoners" and "the parliamentary representatives of the commoners".

Several websites (not academic ones though) say that in 1275 Edward I called his first Parliament which included "members of the nobility, men of the church and also, through writs, the election of two county representatives and two from the towns or cities". IF correct, this would seem to group both the representatives from "counties" and those from "towns" together as "the Commons", precluding the interpretation of "Commons" as simply linked to "communes".

Has anyone more accurate information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.66.2.85 (talk) 12:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

The duration section states "the Septennial Act 1715 extended the maximum to seven years, but the Parliament Act 1911 reduced it to five" but then continues "The Septennial Act was repealed by the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011" There is an inconsistency but I do not know what the actual position is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob Wikicont (talk • contribs) 11:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Continential Congress
The British Parliment was once in control of the United States of America. 2603:7000:B901:8500:F03B:6566:85F8:C36B (talk) 01:04, 16 August 2022 (UTC)


 * The Parliament of Great Britain had a vague and ill defined relationship to Colonial government in the Thirteen Colonies. However, the Continental Congress was a body created and constituted by the separate American colonies/states. It had no formal relationship to Parliament, but rather stood in opposition to Parliament's claim to have authority to tax and legislate for the colonies. Ltwin (talk) 01:57, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Current numbers of parties' MPs
I think Labour has one more MP, and the LDs one fewer, than is shown here, ie, 197 and 14, not 196 and 15. Page House of Commons of the United Kingdom has 14 LDs but 196 for Labour, so its numbers don't add up. I base this on looking at a vote on https://votes.parliament.uk/Votes/Commons/Division/1372?byMember=False#ayes to see who voted for fracking, incidentally. So both this page and the HoC one need altering. Nick Barnett (talk) 15:36, 21 October 2022 (UTC)


 * @Nick Barnett members.parliament.uk gives 196 and 14 - the difference with your figure is that Christian Matheson had the whip suspended today and then immediately resigned, but that wasn't the case on Tuesday. (Or whatever day the vote was - feels like fifteen years ago...). There's a detailed timeline at the bottom of List of MPs elected in the 2019 United Kingdom general election although those pages are not always well crosslinked.
 * Agree the LD figure is wrong, though - will fix just now Andrew Gray (talk) 16:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I see . . . so Mr Matheson has resigned as an MP altogether, not just as a Labour MP, so the numbers are correct to add up to 649 until after the by-election. Thanks Andrew. Nick Barnett (talk) 16:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)