Suppose the Parliament in England makes a commitment to become a permanent member of a multinational body. It can be ...
JazzySeptember 15, 2023
Why is B wrong?
Hi:
I thought when the Parliament joined a multinational body, the membership would put some constraints on the Parliament's legal power, instead of letting it be an authoritarian regime--which is hinted in the last paragraph. Therefore, more creditors would find the Parliament more credible to honor its debts.
Is my rationale too far from common sense here?
Reply
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
I think you might be making two leaps here. The far more important leap is that we don't know that joining a multilateral organization makes parliament more credible. In fact, some organizations might make it less credible if, say, other members of such an organization has recently repudiated their own debts.
I think the other leap is assuming that the body would necessarily place limits on parliament. While the rules would put some limits in, parliament as sovereign could simply choose to ignore those rules, and, as happened in Brexit, withdraw from that body.
