I don't think she'd dare at this point, even as a parliamentary bargaining ploy, as the hardline Brexiteers are shrieking loudly enough about the prospect of "betrayal" as it is. "Short" and "technical" have been her buzzwords.

Depending how hard people have been listening, there's a perception of mixed messaging coming from the EU leadership. Here's Verhofstadt yesterday:

Link to tweet

does the government 'Cabinet' nor the 'Privy Council' - 'non-binding' advisory bodies all. A UK Prime Minister in this country with no written Constitution has almost complete dictatorial powers. She can lie to, procedurally manipulate and ignore parliament. She can stack the newly so-named 'Supreme Court' she probably doesn't, in law, have to obey. Hell, if pushed she can probably appeal to the 'Constitutional Precedent' provided in case-law from the time of Henry VIII and order heads to, literally, roll.

We don't have a codified constitution in the sense of one unified document, but we do have the Bill of Rights etc. and we have signed up to international norms via the UN and ECJ, as the government's found to its cost at various times, with varying degrees of penalty from none at all to overturning decisions.

He/she also cannot bind the hands of future parliaments by declaring that any law passed or decision of parliament can never be changed.

However, May has come close to seizing the sorts of dictatorial powers you describe through the "Henry VIII" measures parliament passed, allowing less or no parliamentary scrutiny of statutory instruments during the course of Brexit.

But to extend your argument, "national sovereignty" is a mercurial concept in an increasingly globalized world. Everyone's a rule-taker in some regard, unless they want to go the route of the likes of North Korea and become a pariah.

What I object to most is the utter humbug of Farage and other Brexiteers campaigning long and loud about "taking power back" when they're evidently opposed to parliament exercising what power it currently has!