Why fixed Admiralty terms collide with parliamentary sovereignty

Could fixed minimum terms for senior Admiralty appointments protect the reforms?

No durable guarantee follows from a fixed term: officers can already receive extensions, ministers serve at the Cabinet's pleasure, and a later Parliament could repeal the arrangement.

Fixed minimum terms would not provide an easy way to protect naval reform. Senior officers could receive extensions or additional tours, while ministers served at the Cabinet's pleasure. Making such terms immune to later political change would require a much larger constitutional reform in this argument. Under parliamentary sovereignty, a future majority can amend or repeal the arrangement because one Parliament cannot bind the votes of another. The counterfactual therefore changes Admiralty practice within the existing constitutional order.