Reply to: Ministers' Expenses: This is Beyond a Joke

[expat]

Just an odd thought: are the expenses of Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling, among others, perhaps subject to Scots Law rather than English Law? Scots Law depends much less on Common Law and much more on codified law than English Law does; and there is no respect in which, in a United Kingdom context, English Law takes precedence over Scots Law or vice versa (neither system is subsumed within the other).

[ASB]

However, I should point out that the sheer number of MPs who have recently been crying "but it was within the rules" in respect of their expenses are certainly pushing me in the direction that BN66 should not be applied retrospectively - although I'm not sure if that's because I'm being swayed by the argument, or simply angry at the MPs.

I suspect it's a bit of both...

However, your point is about the extreme examples. And it is largely valid. Effectively (and I'm probably misquoting a little) you seem to be saying "well it's obvious what parliament meant, so it's ok to go back and retrospectively clarify it" (but only within the bounds of what is obviously wrong).

Our law covers that eventuality. When tested if a law as written is genuinely unclear in its meaning based on what is written then the intent of parliament is considered. This intent is inferred by reference to hansard, committee, debate etc. (of course this view may be incorrect but it is my understanding).

The fact is that whatever parliament originally intended and what they actually pass can be very different things - both in error and deliberately (e.g. use of anti terrorist legislation by local authorities for various fiscal reasons).

Ultimately something has to take precedence. This can be either the law as written, or parliamentry intent. In the latter case there is no point whatsoever in having any written law at all.

Given our framework is that written take precedence I am completely against any retrospection. The damage to society through uncertainty and constantly changing interpretation will overall be far worse than the damage as a result of explointing the rules. The fact that things are wrong and need to be revisited does allow their correction - which limits the damage. It also encourages lawmakers to actually draft the things properly in the first place.

If things can be constantly fixed retrospectively there is no motivation to even try and get it right and improve and balance the lawmaking process.

[centurian]

Interesting and emotive examples you posed to maybe defend Retrospective Legislation.

That's just the point. I mentioned that they were extreme examples. The argument for/against retrospective legislation as a concept isn't black and white - just a case of how extreme the scenarios become - and where the tipping point is.

Perhaps the reason a lender does not reposess non defaulters is because to do so would mean they would be breaking contract law.

You're assuming it does break contract law...

What if a lender found an obscure piece of legislation that would enable them to do... would retrospective legislation be justifed to "restore the balance" or would the bank be justified in seizing their entire mortgage book because it was "within the rules"...

In choosing other much more emotive 'offences' to compare against you risk missing the crucial point - namely legal exceptions and caveats that exist in many, many less emotive offences and laws.

Well that's where the crux is. For me, the issue isn't the theoretical concept of retrospective legislation, but the degree to which it should be used (this sub-thread centred around whether retrospective legislation should be used at all).

I have never stated that BN66 should be applied retrospectively, but I think the argument of "BN66 is wrong because retrospective legislation is wrong" is not correct. Instead, the argument should focus on why retrospective legislation should not be used in this case.

However, I should point out that the sheer number of MPs who have recently been crying "but it was within the rules" in respect of their expenses are certainly pushing me in the direction that BN66 should not be applied retrospectively - although I'm not sure if that's because I'm being swayed by the argument, or simply angry at the MPs.

[expat]

Benefit in kind is not taxable for MPs.

WRONG! (again)

[minestrone]

I really think the Government are pushing the public to the very edge now, especially with the way the economy has gone.

Public are more interested in the X Factor auditions than the economy.

Add together public sector employees and people who are happy to get paid not to work then compare it to number of private sector employees who have lost their jobs. It equals another labour government

[chris79]

Sadly members of all parties exploit the expenses rules, it doesn't matter who you vote for whatever party forms a Government this particular piece of waste will continue.

The grim and hopeless fact is that it's our entire political system that's morally and institutionally corrupt.

But at least the people currently in charge have a chance to see and hear the outcry from the public and do something about it. Something they are sweeping under the carpet with yet 'another' expensive and pointless report to clear up the obvious, and conclude with "it was all within the rules".

I really think the Government are pushing the public to the very edge now, especially with the way the economy has gone.

[BobTheCrate]

Bad examples Centurion

Interesting and emotive examples you posed to maybe defend Retrospective Legislation.

Perhaps the reason a lender does not reposess non defaulters is because to do so would mean they would be breaking contract law.

When the state tries to legislate for everything, or every eventuality the outcome is chaos if for no other reason that one piece of legislation will inevitably grind against one or more other pieces of legislation. Retrospective Legislation seemingly directly contradicts European law as one example.

Your paedophile example does not sit well IMO. I'll try to explain why. That law simply states it is illegal to sexually molest a child. The law does not provide for any circumstances or caveats under which it is legal to sexually molest a child. It is a black and white law if you like and as such is not comparable to tax law. Tax law of course is different in as much it is far from B&W and provides for a large volume of caveats.

Tax law does not simply state "thou must pay 33% of all your income no matter what". It makes certain allowances and variances ... and as soon as it does it creates loopholes.

In choosing other much more emotive 'offences' to compare against you risk missing the crucial point - namely legal exceptions and caveats that exist in many, many less emotive offences and laws.

[Cyberman]

A. He is making income from his London flat.
B. Receiving benefit in kind (11 Downing St.) which allows (A)
C. Claiming expenses on 3rd residence, despite A&B

I'm no expert but that looks dodgy to me, especially the benefit in kind.
State within a state.

Benefit in kind is not taxable for MPs.

[ace00]

Greedy Bast*rds


" Chancellor Alistair Darling has become the latest in a line of ministers to be drawn into the row over MPs' expenses, over claims made for a second home.

While living in 11 Downing Street rent free the chancellor claimed second home allowances for his Edinburgh home while also renting out his London flat. "

A. He is making income from his London flat.
B. Receiving benefit in kind (11 Downing St.) which allows (A)
C. Claiming expenses on 3rd residence, despite A&B

I'm no expert but that looks dodgy to me, especially the benefit in kind.
State within a state.

[TimberWolf]

I have two things to add


1 Motives
2 Lesser of two evils
3 Ends justifying the means

The three rules of crime: Means, Motive and Opportunity.

[Cyberman]

Morally and institutionally corrupt b****rds, I cannot wait to place my vote in the ballot box in 13 months time.

"It's within the rules"... if the rules said it was ok to murder people would they do that too?.. sackless t**ts should be forced to pay it back with interest, just like anyone outside their little club would be made to do.

... and what makes it worse is that Blair said Labour would be 'whiter than white'. Labour truly are the worst form of hypocrites.

... and ..... Broon passed a law to make expenses tax free for MPs in 2003 !!!!!!!!

[EternalOptimist]

In the end, it is not an easy question. That's why it grabbed my interest. I maintain that it is an important principle of rule of law. You make me ask myself, How far do principles go if sticking to them produces possibly worse evils? Or are the evils of bending principles just less visible?

Not simple.

I have two things to add


1 Motives
2 Lesser of two evils
3 Ends justifying the means

[expat]

And I do appreciate people have their principles.

Maybe I have a negative view of the world, but I find principles are bounded by the situations and scenarios people are in - they sound hard and fast, but they are not immovable objects - it is merely just a case of how much pressure needs to be applied before they get moved - a bit like "code freezes".

In the end, it is not an easy question. That's why it grabbed my interest. I maintain that it is an important principle of rule of law. You make me ask myself, How far do principles go if sticking to them produces possibly worse evils? Or are the evils of bending principles just less visible?

Not simple.

[TheBigD]

Looks like there all on the take...

Greedy Bast*rds


" Chancellor Alistair Darling has become the latest in a line of ministers to be drawn into the row over MPs' expenses, over claims made for a second home.

While living in 11 Downing Street rent free the chancellor claimed second home allowances for his Edinburgh home while also renting out his London flat. "

[TykeMerc]

Morally and institutionally corrupt b****rds, I cannot wait to place my vote in the ballot box in 13 months time.

"It's within the rules"... if the rules said it was ok to murder people would they do that too?.. sackless t**ts should be forced to pay it back with interest, just like anyone outside their little club would be made to do.

Sadly members of all parties exploit the expenses rules, it doesn't matter who you vote for whatever party forms a Government this particular piece of waste will continue.

The grim and hopeless fact is that it's our entire political system that's morally and institutionally corrupt.