This chapter provides a case study analysis of the operation of public finance law concerning sovereign debt and monetary finance in the UK and Australia between 2005 and 2016. The legal and financial mechanics of sovereign borrowing and monetary finance are closely examined by reference to the authority of central banks and treasuries to finance the state beyond the point of fiscal deficit. The very broad powers delegated to treasuries over sovereign debt are scrutinised in the context of vastly different economic conditions, and their capacity to shrink the financial authority held by parliaments is observed. Special attention is then given to the monetary financing powers of central banks, particularly the Bank of England. The emergency monetary finance provided by the Bank of England during the financial crisis is surveyed, and the public financing aspect of 'unconventional' monetary policy, particularly quantitative easing, is examined. The chapter closes by observing the absence of meaningful legislative governance of debt and monetary finance in the context of financial or economic emergencies.

Drawing together the book's analyses of public finance law and parliamentary constitutionalism, this chapter argues against the descriptive validity of the idea of parliamentary control of public money and observes the implications of that argument for democratic control of public finance. It begins by settling on an analytical framework for assessing whether parliament does indeed 'control' public finance built upon an idea of 'financial self-rule'. That framework is then applied to the legal and institutional practices which were observed in earlier chapters: concluding that parliaments cannot be said to have control of public finance in any studied jurisdiction. After discussing how broadly that conclusion can be generalised, the chapter evaluates different descriptive models of public finance in parliamentary constitutions: executive control, financial interdependence and parliamentary ratification. The chapter concludes that the latter 'ratification' model is most compelling and explains why that model secures a low level of financial self-rule.