I hope you understand why I'm asking these questions, because the argument has been in the air.
I don't know if anybody has formulated it overtly, but the degree to which these elections are binding, or become de facto binding, seems to be viewed by some of the people who have appeared here as witnesses, and in some of the questions, as being a consideration as to whether or not the law winds up becoming unconstitutional. This is despite the fact that nobody would make the argument that the royal prerogative, in the purest black-letter sense, is being violated.
Clearly, on paper at least, the crown retains its absolute discretion, in much the same way that the crown retains the discretion it has failed to exercise for 300 years to refuse to sign laws into effect after both Houses of Parliament have passed them.
I'm trying to get clarity on that point, simply because that could affect how one were to deal with the legislation, how one were to try to amend it in order to make it constitutional, etc. I guess I've made that more as a comment than a question, but I suppose that would probably invite some comment from you, so I might invite that.