The point is that it allows something it is not designed for. I don't think anyone is against it because it hurt their political party, the cat is out of the bag on that front anyway.
I understand the appeal certainly, but unfortunately in practice it is real case of sausage making. Where at best the reason for clause X,Y, or Z was 'so it would get passed even though it is utterly irrelevant' at best or at worst 'cynically exploiting a moral panic or corruption'.
The reasoning being, 'if we let the external systems deal with it, they would not judge rightly by our standards.' If they believed it would judge rightly, they would have no reason to institute their own.
However IMO this is a case of "A is much more complex and dangerous than B, so there is no reason to have B driven by more secretive and restrictive standards than those applied to A"
Sounds well intentioned yet clearly broken, whoever wrote it could surely see the likely effect is exclusion, so why did they push it through? I don't think incompetence can explain this one.
reply