Dreams on the Bitface

As far as I can tell, the rules covering which way that clause would be interpreted are clear and simple if you understand them. I don't, but as I understand it it's not likely to be legally ambiguous.

As for the second point, it could be argued (although remember that IANAL) that under 3 (2) (d) it would be prohibited as removing necessary protection, and under 3 (2) (e) as removing the right of legislators to determine the powers of ministers. In any case, such a move would be liable (under the law as it stood at the point of passage) to be rejected by Parliamentary motion.