The most simple definition of the rule of law is that those who make the law are also bound by it
It is an obvious breach of that principle when lawmakers choose to change the law (parliamentary standards rules) to protect a lawmaker who has already been found in breach of them
It is an obvious breach of that principle when lawmakers choose to change the law (parliamentary standards rules) to protect a lawmaker who has already been found in breach of them
https://twitter.com/BBCBreaking/status/1455927864512110596
The fact that the rule and findings in question relate to corruption, and the change will protect an individual from findings of corruption, goes to show how serious a breach of the rule of law this is.
And the worst part is that internal parliamentary anti-corruption rules are *entirely* the responsibility of parliament. The Bill of Rights 1689 likely prevents any court challenge, so this is the end of the matter, subject to public stink.
There is, of course, nothing wrong with parliament changing its procedure if it isn't working properly - but to do so *retrospectively* in response to a finding of corruption is hugely problematic.
In our political system, we entirely trust parliament to mark its own homework. The corruption dog just ate it.
Also, we should call this what it is: corruption. Not sleaze, which is a euphemism.
This is good news, though it is dumbfounding that the government did it in the first place, and thought they would get away with it. A lot of other issues of corruption emerging, is this the way they will treat them? bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politi…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
