Obviously, from a geeky Hofstadter reading point of view one might argue that unless the PA1911 couldn't be used to modify itself, everything would become moot since essentially one has to only wait a couple of years and then one can amend it and do whatever one likes. But is there any precedent for taking this sort of axiomatic game theory attitude to the UK constitution?
The reporting has seemed disappointingly poor even beyond my low expectations. Obviously one expects that the mainstream media will report technological issues poorly and that there will be plenty of reports by people who don't understand the difference between increase in prices, increase in rate of change of prices etc. etc. However, I would have naively thought that law and politics would be close enough to the core area that the journos understand for some sort of rational reporting. Naive I know, but hey...
On the other hand, I do recall that when the House of Unelected Reactionary Bastards began to block legislation - strangely this began to happen after 1997 - lots of reports seemed to suggest that their writers didn't know about the Parliament act, and t__m__i got to enjoy my shouting 'but what about the Parliament Act you ignorant bozos?' at the TV on a regular basis.
Presumably, if it is declared invalid, some alternative bunch of reactionaries will get to claim that the Sexual Offences Amendment Act 2000, lowering the gay age of consent to 16 is also invalid and we will live in a happy land where foxes can be torn apart but 17 year old men can't shag each other.
... and then, since the Parliament Act was used to change the electoral system for the European Elections from first past the post to PR in the 1999 and 2005 elections, the election will be invalid and have to be rerun under first past the post.
First past the post elections, different ages of consent for gay and hetero sex and dismembered foxes, a land fit for Daily Mail readers.
Hours of fun...