MP or not MP - that is the question

[a completely inoffensive name]

1. We need a certain amount of dentists, teachers, journalists, soldiers and actors in government to provide insight into laws governing dentists, teachers, journalists, soldiers and actors without having to rely entirely on third party interest groups. A handful of good lawyers in the mix is more than sufficient to adequately help draft laws for their party, not to mention outside lawyers specializing in Constitutional law can be hired by a party for purposes of drafting legislation.

2. The world operates much faster than the world of the 1770s. Can you imagine waiting 5 months before legislative action was taken to fund bombing campaigns against ISIS? 5 months before legislation helping Ukraine arrives? The scope of a government is much larger than the scope of FIFA, so the comparison is not apt. Imagine a single organization that drafted laws for every sport ever created, soccer, baseball, american football, cricket, sumo, rugby, basketball, racquetball, weight lifting, etc... and then you might understand why laws are changing constantly in government. It's not the same laws being changed many times but many, many fields having one to a handful of regulations changed.

[Gilrandir]

1. We need a certain amount of dentists, teachers, journalists, soldiers and actors in government to provide insight into laws governing dentists, teachers, journalists, soldiers and actors without having to rely entirely on third party interest groups.

Why should the taxpayers pay for such essentially advisory services? They can be rendered free if MP lawyers need to clarify something within the field of dentistry, journalism and so on or at least they are to be paid fee for such advice instead of keeping them on payroll or the year round. While currently they are paid for passing the laws they didn't create, in fact.

A handful of good lawyers in the mix is more than sufficient to adequately help draft laws for their party, not to mention outside lawyers specializing in Constitutional law can be hired by a party for purposes of drafting legislation.

Again out of pocket expenses for doing the job MPs get paid for. Double salaries for the same job. Not bad.

2. The world operates much faster than the world of the 1770s. Can you imagine waiting 5 months before legislative action was taken to fund bombing campaigns against ISIS? 5 months before legislation helping Ukraine arrives?

There should be emergency meetings of the parliament stipulated for such cases.

The scope of a government is much larger than the scope of FIFA, so the comparison is not apt. Imagine a single organization that drafted laws for every sport ever created, soccer, baseball, american football, cricket, sumo, rugby, basketball, racquetball, weight lifting, etc... and then you might understand why laws are changing constantly in government.

So you think that if we had World Sports Parliament responsible for the rules in all sports it would change the rules in different sports constantly? I'm sure that each sport has a set of stable rules which get changed once in a blue moon. Like the football rule of two substitutions was valid for several decades when about thirty years ago the three substitution rule was superimposed.

It's not the same laws being changed many times but many, many fields having one to a handful of regulations changed.

In Ukraine the former is often the case - MPs adopt laws which turn out to be inadequate so they have to repeal them or correct them .

[a completely inoffensive name]

Why should the taxpayers pay for such essentially advisory services? They can be rendered free if MP lawyers need to clarify something within the field of dentistry, journalism and so on or at least they are to be paid fee for such advice instead of keeping them on payroll or the year round. While currently they are paid for passing the laws they didn't create, in fact.


Again out of pocket expenses for doing the job MPs get paid for. Double salaries for the same job. Not bad.


There should be emergency meetings of the parliament stipulated for such cases.

So you think that if we had World Sports Parliament responsible for the rules in all sports it would change the rules in different sports constantly? I'm sure that each sport has a set of stable rules which get changed once in a blue moon. Like the football rule of two substitutions was valid for several decades when about thirty years ago the three substitution rule was superimposed.

In Ukraine the former is often the case - MPs adopt laws which turn out to be inadequate so they have to repeal them or correct them .

Your whole counterargument is just re-hashing "it's a waste of money" I know in the Ukraine corruption among politicians is probably very high, but for the most part the government is not spending any significant fraction of its GDP on the MP's. If there is one place where you want to spend money to get the job done right, it's hiring people who know the field that is being legislated on.

[Sarmatian]

Why should the taxpayers pay for such essentially advisory services? They can be rendered free if MP lawyers need to clarify something within the field of dentistry, journalism and so on or at least they are to be paid fee for such advice instead of keeping them on payroll or the year round. While currently they are paid for passing the laws they didn't create, in fact.

1. Parliament is supposed to represent the people, which means everyone is welcome. A parliament of lawyers represents lawyers.

2. Lawyers are more about phrasing the laws so they achieve their original purpose. The actual content of the law is made by the experts in the field and those the law will be affecting.

3. Most laws don't affect just a single group of people (just dentist or just teachers). Pensions, social policies, preservation of cultural heritage, protection of minorities, foreign policy... affect entire nation, regardless of education type.

4. Parliaments also choose a government in most cases.

[Gilrandir]

While you're at it, take a look at how hilariously crappy they've done those jobs, how many loopholes exist and how they have managed to put 2 extra refs in who are specifically not allowed to do anything important, simply because they've taken 20 years and still can't decide the obvious(introducing goal line tech).

And anyway, that's 5 changes in 20 years. That's like an hour in the rest of society.

I mentioned the most conspicuous changes while I'm sure there are many more if one gets deeper into it. And you seem to be very critical about the changes introduced - so would you second the creation of FIFA parliament permanently in session able to discuss laws the way ordinary parliaments do?
Ukrainian laws have as many loopholes while a bunch of eggheads have been sweating over them on a permanent basis. If both do their job sloppily, why not opt for the FIFA type of government?

Your whole counterargument is just re-hashing "it's a waste of money" I know in the Ukraine corruption among politicians is probably very high, but for the most part the government is not spending any significant fraction of its GDP on the MP's. If there is one place where you want to spend money to get the job done right, it's hiring people who know the field that is being legislated on.

They say that people pay around 1 mln. hrivnas to get a place on the party roster which (place) is sure to guarantee "deputyship". The majority candidates spend twice as much for their electoral campaign. Once both are in they try to get their money back with a vengeance. So it is not only about official expenditures on the MPs (which are high enough considering all bonuses appended to the vacancy), but also about their further attempts to get the full value of the money they spent by creating various illegal opportunities.

1. Parliament is supposed to represent the people, which means everyone is welcome. A parliament of lawyers represents lawyers.

Meaning lawyers and people are two opposite categories of homo sapiens?
As for "people" in the parliament, see above.

2. Lawyers are more about phrasing the laws so they achieve their original purpose. The actual content of the law is made by the experts in the field and those the law will be affecting.

It seems that the Ukrainian parliament has problems both with the content and the phrasing if it repeals its own laws thus undoing the work they have been already paid for. There is no hope that the content part will be improved (at least 23 years of independece didn't instill that hope in me) so let at least the phrasing be perfect. Perhaps when it is done, the content will follow suit.

3. Most laws don't affect just a single group of people (just dentist or just teachers). Pensions, social policies, preservation of cultural heritage, protection of minorities, foreign policy... affect entire nation, regardless of education type.

I'm sure all spheres can be checked and the need of this or that law will transpire. Then compile a list of these laws, develop them for each sphere and adopt. After initial year of preparation the laws, the further work of the parliament will require three months of work every year.

4. Parliaments also choose a government in most cases.

Not neccessarily from within the parliament. Government members may come from outside it, at least in Ukraine.