4 ms·

There may be a constitutional or-- as it's often put in Europe-- a basic law issue. But, I'm wondering why it is that we haven't heard about a debate to change

There may be a constitutional or-- as it's often put in Europe-- a basic law issue. But, I'm wondering why it is that we haven't heard about a debate to change these laws.

logicchains 7y ago
They might not even be changeable. For Germany for instance: "Article 79 states the Basic Law may be amended by an absolute two-thirds majority of both the Bundestag and the Bundesrat. Such a vote may not remove any of the principles underlying articles 1 and 20 as defined by the eternity clause, or remove or otherwise affect the essence of, any of the fundamental rights originally specified in articles 1 to 19; [32] but may clarify, extend or refine those original principles and fundamental rights. " (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law_for_the_Federal_Republic_of_Germany#Process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law_for_the_Federal_Repu...) So any coronavirus-fighting law that could be seen as "removing" one of those fundamental rights simply could not be made. Making these laws hard to change is deliberate, as allowing for changes in "emergencies" allows potential dictators to use emergencies as an excuse for broadening their own power, as Hitler did (and Hungary is doing now, under pretense of fighting the virus).
viceroyalbean 7y ago
The simplest reason is probably because that type of internal political debate is unlikely to be reported by foreign media, assuming you aren't consuming any Swedish news. That's not to say that too much discussion of these types of laws have been brought up, but a law was recently (quarantine throws off my sense of time, but I think last week) passed which gave the government significantly more power in terms of ability to close down businesses, airports, harbors, and more without needing to seek parliamentary approval first. This was after a bit of debate regarding the unprecedented nature of such a law and some modifications which were mostly aimed at not giving the government too much power.

There may be a constitutional or-- as it's often put in Europe-- a basic law issue. But, I'm wondering why it is that we haven't heard about a debate to change these laws.

logicchains 7y ago

They might not even be changeable. For Germany for instance: "Article 79 states the Basic Law may be amended by an absolute two-thirds majority of both the Bundestag and the Bundesrat. Such a vote may not remove any of the principles underlying articles 1 and 20 as defined by the eternity clause, or remove or otherwise affect the essence of, any of the fundamental rights originally specified in articles 1 to 19; [32] but may clarify, extend or refine those original principles and fundamental rights. " (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law_for_the_Federal_Republic_of_Germany#Process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law_for_the_Federal_Repu...) So any coronavirus-fighting law that could be seen as "removing" one of those fundamental rights simply could not be made. Making these laws hard to change is deliberate, as allowing for changes in "emergencies" allows potential dictators to use emergencies as an excuse for broadening their own power, as Hitler did (and Hungary is doing now, under pretense of fighting the virus).

viceroyalbean 7y ago

The simplest reason is probably because that type of internal political debate is unlikely to be reported by foreign media, assuming you aren't consuming any Swedish news. That's not to say that too much discussion of these types of laws have been brought up, but a law was recently (quarantine throws off my sense of time, but I think last week) passed which gave the government significantly more power in terms of ability to close down businesses, airports, harbors, and more without needing to seek parliamentary approval first. This was after a bit of debate regarding the unprecedented nature of such a law and some modifications which were mostly aimed at not giving the government too much power.