4 ms·

> It's dangerous to criminalise political tier decisions and actions Politicians should not be above the law. On the contrary, the public figures are supposed

> It's dangerous to criminalise political tier decisions and actions Politicians should not be above the law. On the contrary, the public figures are supposed to be more transparent and held accountable more readily than private citizens.

dalbasal 9y ago
Morally, I agree with you. My former prime minister is in jail for graft, theft essentially. He will spend less time in prison (though fortunately he is at least serving some) than a common thief even though the damage he has done is imesurably greater. The reason I argue the opposite (OP) is for practical rather than moral reasons. Morals are a luxury. Systemic stability is at stake and is a requisite for any rule of law. That said, prosecuting legislators and/or political executives for ilegal legislation is far too dangerous, essentially merging all branches of government.
qubex 9y ago
The law is the output of politicians so in a certain sense they can collectively always pass legislation that protects themselves anyway so there’s not much point in compelling them into doing so by prosecuting them. Parliamentary immunity also exists in many countries to ensure that parliamentarians cannot be prosecuted for acts they undertook whilst in office (or other acts, so they that they cannot be compelled into anything). You’re never going to get a body politic to pass a law that places them all at risk, and if somehow one got through, they’d pretty quickly pass another one to repeal it.
- pbhjpbhj 9y ago
  In the UK the Queen passes the laws, so there seems no reason she couldn't issue a writ making particular actions of MPs unlawful. Presumably she doesn't because she rather likes the money and the palaces more than she wants to settle the question as to how you have a parliamentary democracy and monarchy with "you don't".
  - qubex 9y ago
    I don’t know if that is even possible within the confines of the UK’s latter-day (uncodified) constitutional monarchy, but the Queen resuming the practice of unilaterally imposing laws upon Parliament and the Realm at large would be one of the most terrifying regressions of the past several centuries. Besides, the scenario you depict further reinforces my argument that there’s a “trusted root” at the apex of our democracies and that this entity (whether the Queen, or Parliament, or Congress, or the President, or whatever-have-you) can pursue its own interests with abandon, and there’s nothing we buggers further down the pyramid can do to prevent it.
    - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
      If the Queen imposed a requirement for MPs who sponsor laws to go to prison if those laws clearly beach the ECHR (or maybe HRA) who'd complain? It's far less terrifying to me that the present Queen can do that than that any oligarch with a £100M to spare can probably "lobby" to get the changes they want. The royal family are in a dicey position, but I trust the current Queen more than MP s in general, but perhaps less than the 2 Houses as a whole. She can probably do anything that goes with either Parliament OR with the demos but couldn't go against both.
ascorbic 9y ago
It's not illegal to pass a bad law. When the Supreme Court finds the law is incompatible with the Human Rights Act or EU law, they rule that the law needs to be changed. They don't prosecute the MPs that voted for it.

dalbasal 9y ago

Morally, I agree with you. My former prime minister is in jail for graft, theft essentially. He will spend less time in prison (though fortunately he is at least serving some) than a common thief even though the damage he has done is imesurably greater. The reason I argue the opposite (OP) is for practical rather than moral reasons. Morals are a luxury. Systemic stability is at stake and is a requisite for any rule of law. That said, prosecuting legislators and/or political executives for ilegal legislation is far too dangerous, essentially merging all branches of government.

qubex 9y ago

The law is the output of politicians so in a certain sense they can collectively always pass legislation that protects themselves anyway so there’s not much point in compelling them into doing so by prosecuting them. Parliamentary immunity also exists in many countries to ensure that parliamentarians cannot be prosecuted for acts they undertook whilst in office (or other acts, so they that they cannot be compelled into anything). You’re never going to get a body politic to pass a law that places them all at risk, and if somehow one got through, they’d pretty quickly pass another one to repeal it.

pbhjpbhj 9y ago
In the UK the Queen passes the laws, so there seems no reason she couldn't issue a writ making particular actions of MPs unlawful. Presumably she doesn't because she rather likes the money and the palaces more than she wants to settle the question as to how you have a parliamentary democracy and monarchy with "you don't".
- qubex 9y ago
  I don’t know if that is even possible within the confines of the UK’s latter-day (uncodified) constitutional monarchy, but the Queen resuming the practice of unilaterally imposing laws upon Parliament and the Realm at large would be one of the most terrifying regressions of the past several centuries. Besides, the scenario you depict further reinforces my argument that there’s a “trusted root” at the apex of our democracies and that this entity (whether the Queen, or Parliament, or Congress, or the President, or whatever-have-you) can pursue its own interests with abandon, and there’s nothing we buggers further down the pyramid can do to prevent it.
  - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
    If the Queen imposed a requirement for MPs who sponsor laws to go to prison if those laws clearly beach the ECHR (or maybe HRA) who'd complain? It's far less terrifying to me that the present Queen can do that than that any oligarch with a £100M to spare can probably "lobby" to get the changes they want. The royal family are in a dicey position, but I trust the current Queen more than MP s in general, but perhaps less than the 2 Houses as a whole. She can probably do anything that goes with either Parliament OR with the demos but couldn't go against both.

ascorbic 9y ago

It's not illegal to pass a bad law. When the Supreme Court finds the law is incompatible with the Human Rights Act or EU law, they rule that the law needs to be changed. They don't prosecute the MPs that voted for it.