[bemusedthrow75]

> Decisions by the parliament are treated as immutable there?

Yes, and no.

Parliament is sovereign -- it is the supreme legal authority.

But it cannot bind its successors. So any law parliament creates, any decision can be overturned by a subsequent parliament.

[sorokod]

Is that not similar to how the US constitution is managed? It was amended and latter un-amended in the case of prohibition (18th and 21st amendments)

[bemusedthrow75]

The "parliament cannot bind its successors" principle was absolutely (and deliberately) imported into US law, yes.

It's more general -- no branch of government can bind its own successors. (With the exception of e.g. presidential pardons which cannot be undone)

[Aeolun]

I think this is generally true? It’d be weird if there were some laws from 30 years ago that nobody wanted, but were not legally allowed to be changed. You’d just change them anyway and nobody would care.

[bemusedthrow75]

It's generally true precisely because British parliamentary democracy formalised the concept, mind you. Before that, yes, rulers made laws that would perpetually benefit them and their successors.