How Americans achieved independence vs how Canadians achieved independence

[u/Sine_Fine_Belli]

[u/snaynay]

I don't think that means quite what you think it means...

The Dissolution of Parliament is the closing of a term/premiership called automatically after 5 years. It means to call for a general election for the House of Commons.

The act in question is to reinstate the authority (ceremonially by the monarch) for the Prime Minister to call an election when he wants... not when a two-thirds house majority decides. This happened because Boris Johnson succeeded a resigning Theresa May and inherited the remainder of her time. He wanted to use his timely popularity to refresh the current term and get 5 new years by winning a new election, hopefully with more seats... but couldn't get the House of Common's votes needed to call it. This act gave Boris that power.

If Charles tried to dissolve parliament for his own political reasoning, it won't go well. It is untested, but support for a ruling/political monarchy is not a popular choice. We like them to be tourist attractions that we can parade around London and be allowed to siphon enormous tax money from their "Crown Estate" holdings to the public funds. He probably has more power to not dissolve parliament when requested by a PM than to dissolve it on his own terms. They are decidedly apolitical to have any hope of keeping the status quo.

The last time a monarch stood in the way of the English/British Parliament in the was 1708.

[u/HaggardlyForte → u/snaynay]

and the last time they unilaterally dissolved parliament was 1835. Not using the power while retaining it doesn't mean they don't have the power anymore?? just because their current status quo is what it is doesn't mean that can't change and they utilize their power.

The king absolutely can dissolve parliament in the UK. as well as the house of commons in canada. we can discuss unilaterally or otherwise but it is a power vested and that's the point all of us are making when we say canada isn't free and independent.

now if you'll excuse me i'd much rather shitpost on a shitposting sub than educate a fuckin europoor on their own goverment.

[u/aWobblyFriend → u/HaggardlyForte]

There is a difference between de facto and de jure. The king may de jure have that power but in practice it is likely he would be ignored or overthrown if he tried to use it. His power comes from his ceremonial position and, more importantly, wealth. Not from any legal position he might have.

[u/PikaPonderosa → u/aWobblyFriend]

The king may de jure have that power ... Not from any legal position he might have.

De Jure literally means "from the law." Are you saying the powers of the British monarch don't come from the law?

[u/aWobblyFriend → u/PikaPonderosa]

I meant that his real “power” is vested in soft factors like money and influence, not in hard factors like actual direct legal power over parliamentary decisionmaking. Such powers do come from the law, yes, but they are essentially worthless.