Many thanks for reading, Anurag.

* Post 4 should say the existence of those *limits* (on the Lords' powers) proves the incorrectness of the claim in the letter.

The correct legal and constitutional position is set out here:
publiclawforeveryone.com/2025/06/20/w...

But there is no general principle that the Lords must always give way to the Commons. If there was, the more modest legal and conventional limits on the Lords' powers would be redundant. The existence of those powers proves the incorrectness of the claim in the letter. /4

The primacy of the Commons is constitutionally acknowledged in certain limited ways, including via the Salisbury convention (Lords should not block manifesto bills) and law (Parliament Acts enable Commons to legislate unilaterally subject to Lords' one-year delaying power). /3

The letter asserts that: 'Respect for the primacy of the Commons is not optional; it is the foundation of our parliamentary legitimacy.' However, this statement is so partial as to be misleading and incorrect. /2

Thank you, Conor. That's very kind.

I agree, Jess.

That's very kind, David. But I was home alone and looking for something to do ... I am much more likely to be watching something on Netflix this evening!

Thanks for reading, Stefan. And I agree with your points. Presumably while some of what they want to do re Art 8 will be relatively straightforward, as you say, other aspects will at least test the Strasbourg envelope, as it were, depending on exacrly what the new legislation ends up saying.

Thanks, Schona.