Nice idea. Become a Senator and try for diplomatic immunity. Walk out of the Ecuadorian Embassy and wave goodbye to the police who have been waiting for him for the last umpteen months.
The legal wrangling could become quite complicated if he succeeded. If the voters in Oz realise how annoyed the UK government would be if he did this then that would help his odds even more.
For US residents I'll point out that Senate spots in Australia are won using a state based proportional system with multiple Senators for each of our 6 states and 2 territories. This means that independent and minority groups can often get 1 or 2 Senators into the upper house.
> Become a Senator and try for diplomatic immunity.
Being a Senator doesn't give you automatic immunity. Immunity is a privilege extended by the host country to a guest's diplomatic corps. It can be revoked at any time.
Neither of Australia's major parties is particularly fond of Assange and I don't think the UK would feel any compunction in refusing to extend immunity to Assange.
It'll be an uphill battle, as I can't see him doing a preference deal[1] with a major party. The Greens might prefer him, but I can't see the two major parties doing so. It will be a publicity coup though.
---------
[1] Explanation: A preference deal means a party agrees to place another party further up it's how-to-vote card, the order usually being determined by what the party thinks will deliver the most self benefit. In the Australian Senate, voters can either indicate their own preferences by numbering every square (typically 150 of them) in the bottom section of the ballot paper, or a single mark "above the line" in the top section, meaning they agree to vote according to the party's how-to-vote card. Most people do the latter, as it is quicker, requires less thinking and is far less arduous (a single number wrong means your vote is informal, and may not be counted). Consequently preference deals are key for minor candidates.
---
Edit: fixed error. Federal elections are not optional preferential.
For US residents I'll point out that Senate spots in Australia are won using a state based proportional system with multiple Senators for each of our 6 states and 2 territories. This means that independent and minority groups can often get 1 or 2 Senators into the upper house.
You've got that around the wrong way. The Senate is not proportionally worked out when determining Senator numbers. That's the House of Representatives. There are currently 76 senators, 12 from each State, and 2 each for the Northern Territory and the ACT.
Why do you think the UK wouldn't be able to arrest him if he was an Australian senator? Some IRA terrorists were elected to the UK parliament while in prison. They still had to stay in prison. (the UK changed their laws to prevent anyone running for election if they are currently in prison)
Sure, but it shows the UK government has no problem jailing UK parliamentarians. What makes you think they'd act differently for Australian parliamentarians?
Sure, but it shows the UK government has no problem jailing UK parliamentarians.
The British government would hardly protest British laws being applied to British citizens!
(Maybe you're thinking about some sort of separation of powers? Google suggests this isn't the case: British MPs can can be arrested, tried, and sentenced to prison, all while still in office. Apparently if the conviction is longer than 12 months, they are automatically (?) expelled from parliament.)
The legal wrangling could become quite complicated if he succeeded. If the voters in Oz realise how annoyed the UK government would be if he did this then that would help his odds even more.
For US residents I'll point out that Senate spots in Australia are won using a state based proportional system with multiple Senators for each of our 6 states and 2 territories. This means that independent and minority groups can often get 1 or 2 Senators into the upper house.