Why does something need to be a fiction in law or the courts?
In: 43
The UK has a fantastically whimsical example of a legal fiction that remains relevant into the modern age.
Our Members of Parliament cannot resign. There is no provision in our (“unwritten”) constitution or Parliamentary rules for this to happen.
**However…** it IS possible for a Member of Parliament to be rendered ineligible to continue holding their seat in Parliament – by accepting a paid office under the Crown (in layman’s terms, accepting a job working for the monarch).
So, rather than creating a process for allowing a member to resign like any normal country would, we instead now have a system where the Speaker can appoint members, at their own request, to one of two nominally paid (i.e. paid fuck all) offices working for the King: the “Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead” and the “Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Chiltern Hundreds”.
If any MP asks for one of the positions they are immediately appointed to it, rendering themselves ineligible to remain in Parliament and thus triggering a by-election (special election) for their seat.
This is considered a legal fiction because the job isn’t a real job, it’s just a nonsense technicality to allow them to resign.
Media reporting will usually report these appointments using terminology that reflects the practical reality of what has occured (“Nadine Dorries MP has finally **resigned**”) rather than the weird legal reality.
As to *why* we do this… that’s actually a good question to be honest.
Latest Answers