61

Because the Fixed Term Parliaments Act law says so: if the motion is passed on a division, the number of members who vote in favour of the motion is a number equal to or greater than two thirds of the number of seats in the House (including vacant seats). It's not about who votes and who doesn't, it's a legal requirement that there is a minimum threshold ...


41

Another revolution, obviously. They did that in 1649. Much more likely, they would politely inform the Queen that the people don't seem to want a Queen any more. If that is really the case, and not just a vocal minority, then after some polite back and forth the Queen would probably step down rather than fighting a civil war which she is unlikely to win. ...


16

As summary, some limits from case law: Parliamentary expense declarations were not considered included in the privilege. The privilege also doesn't cover parliamentary publications per se although a related (1840) statue does. Declarations to the press by MPs also not covered. The way of referring to the previous floor statements outside of Parliament has ...


14

This is an exception to normal parliamentary procedure. As @Moo correctly answers, the Fixed Term Parliament Act requires a specific threshold to pass. Closure Motions also have a threshold of 100 (thanks @steve-melnikoff). Normal contested votes in the House of Commons only require a majority of MPs who voted, provided minimum quorum (40 including the ...


13

The Oath doesn't preclude republicanism. (Subject to interpretation, of course.) Note that the oath (or solemn declaration) only commits the MP to "true allegiance" to the reigning monarch of the day. I (name of Member) swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, ...


13

As with all constitutional questions in the UK, the qualifier "Parliament can change the below at will" must be borne in mind. is there any process to expel an MP from their post except for calling a General Election, assuming no wrongdoing by said MP? No. To my knowledge, the only mechanisms through which an MP can be pre-emptively removed from office ...


10

There is a minimum number of MPs as a threshold for divisions (votes) in the House of Commons. That is set by Standing Order. The current quorum is 40. It doesn't matter what parties they are from. 41.Quorum (1)If it should appear that fewer than forty Members (including the occupant of the chair and the tellers) have taken part in a division, ...


9

It is not at all clear to me that the oath is intended to be taken literally or that it precludes republican principles. For example, in order to be nationalized as a Canadian citizen one must swear loyalty to the Queen, but the Supreme Court of Canada has held that: The reference to the Queen is symbolic of our form of government and the unwritten ...


9

In recent years the constitutional settlement seems to be that significant changes to the constitution require a referendum. Now even supposing that all MPs took the oath of allegiance entirely literally. There would be no breaking of this oath in legislation to enable a referendum on the abolition of the monarchy. The citizens swear no oath of loyalty and ...


9

There are lots of republican MPs (probably including the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition). Some of them have taken the Loyal Oath with their fingers crossed behind their backs. At the moment, it's not worth campaigning for a republic because polls show that the public is overwhelmingly in favour of the monarchy. That could easily change when ...


6

Parliamentary privilege is granted by the Bill of Rights, 1688, enacted shortly after the reformation of the monarchy. The relevant passage cites (with original spelling): That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament. This means that any statement ...


6

As Lag's answer mentions, the quorum for a division is 40*. However, many decisions in the Commons are done by a voice vote, for which there is no quorum. For example, adjournment debates are sometimes attended only by the Speaker (or a deputy), the MP who secured the debate, the minister responding, and a government whip. At the end of the debate, the ...


5

No; your assumption that such letters are public is mistaken. There's no statutory requirement to publish correspondence between MPs. Although the House of Commons is a public body under the Freedom of Information Act, individual MPs are not, and thus there's no legislative framework to compel them to publish correspondence. Individual MPs, particularly if ...


3

That’s the rules for this particular vote: Two thirds of all MPs must vote yes, not two thirds of all voting MPs. But obviously the MPs are aware of the rules, so if the rules were different (two thirds of voting MPs) then most of the abstainees would have voted “No”.


3

The role of a party leader is to set the political direction that their party takes. This does not necessarily have to be done as a member of the House of Commons (they can still meet with their Parliamentary caucus if they're not), but it makes it a lot easier if they are. They still set the tone of the party, but they do not vote in Parliament themselves....


3

The short version is that it could probably made legal to do it that way, but almost certainly won't happen, for good political and legal reasons. The relevant bits of Article 50 are: A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union ...


3

Since o.m.'s answer was apparently always intended to refer to the English Commonwealth, it may be worth keeping the events of the 1688-89 and the "Glorious Revolution" in mind. In this case, an unpopular Head of State was (relatively bloodlessly) deposed and replaced by another, with the new head(or rather heads) of state and the legislature regularising ...


3

Purposely avoiding mentioning the rules causing this, since @Moo already answered with that. If there is no vote for a motion, it is not counted as a vote for that motion. (Circular, I know.) The UK parliament is set up to maintain the status-quo in cases where there's a tie, or some uncertainty. Also, if the majority was only out of people who showed up ...


3

As a side note, it's not actually correct that "prospective United Kingdom MPs must swear allegiance to the monarch". Elected MPs must swear allegiance to the monarch in order to take their seats in Parliament. But they can still be elected as MPs without swearing allegiance. There's a long history of abstensionism by Irish Republican MPs elected in ...


3

In a strict legal sense, the biggest differences I'm aware of is that the candidate of a registered party are allowed to choose to use the name, description and emblem of their party on their ballot paper, but must be issued a certificate from the party's nominating officer to do so (which effectively means they must be selected following the party's own ...


2

There is no one answer to this question, but one of the many available paths to a British Republic is the path of ‘peaceful legal revolution’ of the type described by the respected Mark Moshinsky (now a Justice of the Federal Court of Australia) in a 1989 paper[1] (and others before and since). He did not in any way approach the subject of British ...


1

If there were an impending crisis of succession, and if the reigning monarch himself were to appoint his successors on a republican plan, then the MPs would not be breaking their oaths by supporting that plan.


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible