This is not the first time that this country has endured tyranny. Fortunately for us today our forefathers have already settled the matter once and for all. James the Second was a tyrannical king, the political class of his day invited William of Orange to bring his Army to England sure in their belief that, when confronted by an invading Army, the King would not be able to resist. Indeed, James’ army deserted and he abandoned the throne, living out the remaining years of his life in France.
In offering the now vacant throne to William and Mary, the political classes were not so foolish as to risk a repetition of monarchical tyranny and so the throne was accepted on the basis that the new King and Queen agree to the Bill of Rights (1688)
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMarSess2/1/2/contents
The Bill of Rights restrained the Monarch in so much as it allowed the Monarch to form their government but that that government would be required to seek parliamentary approval for its actions. This is the founding constitutional document that forms the basis of how we are governed to this very day.
The question then is, did our forebears, in closing out one avenue of tyranny (monarchy) open up the possibility of another, a parliamentary tyranny? The answer to this pressing question in light of recent events is No. The Bill of Rights is very clear on this matter. It declares that the parties to the agreement (The King and Queen, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons) cannot do anything that is to the prejudice of the people. In short, the crown, the government and parliament are constitutionally constrained from doing anything that would harm the people.
Knowing the power of the document our forefathers also understood how likely it would be that later generations would likely wish to do away with the most powerful tool that is in the service of individual liberty. It was why the document itself states that it can in no way be fiddled with. The 1700 Act of Settlement stated it very clearly, when referring to the Bill of Rights, it describes the Bill as for ever. It is why, when you go to the government’s legislation website and search under 1688 the Bill is still to be found, live, on the statute book today. Clearly, as the founding constitutional document of our current governance arrangements it cannot be undone by the very institutions that it seeks to restrain.
Clearly a population, correctly schooled in their constitutional history would present a clear and present threat to overreach, whether governmental or parliamentarian, by those who claim mastery. What is clear is that our forebears had lived experience of tyranny and that that experience gave them the wherewithal to protect future generations from repeating it. However, that knowledge and the tools to resist have suffered from what might be described as constitutional entropy, in brief, we forgot.
However, much like the renaissance was the re-discovery of prior knowledge, we have today to re-learn the basis upon which we agreed to be governed and, properly armed with the Bill of Rights, and the knowledge, now, that neither the government nor parliament is permitted to cause harm is the most powerful weapon. It would undo much that they have done and forestall much that they would like to do. How much legislation would stand up to scrutiny by a populace properly armed with an understanding of their constitutional rights? Few, if any, of the more recent disgraceful legislative Acts passed would survive an analysis of harm.
Our past generations were not foolish people, in the Bill of Rights they recognised the power of what they had achieved, likely why the bloodless coup of William & Mary came to be called the Glorious Revolution, it placed those who would govern under an obligation to cause no harm, it is our obligation to see that they are held to their agreement.