eurealist.co.uk

In an Opinion piece the Telegraph argues that British Judges are standing in the way of justice.

When judges stand in the way of justice
Telegraph

Snip
Indeed, our judges seem to see it as their business always and everywhere to oppose repatriation orders - not just of illegal immigrants, but of known villains. The nine Afghan hijackers who diverted a flight to Stansted in 2000 remain here - despite the fact that Britain has fought a war to topple the regime from which they claimed to be fleeing. Ditto the six Iraqis who arrived here in 1996 by the same method. Meanwhile, unable to deport Islamist agitators whom it considers dangerous, the Government is forced to lock them up. Now the courts say that this, too, is wrong, since it constitutes discrimination on grounds of nationality.
According to the Home Secretary, the law lords refuse even to speak to him, such is their lofty sense of judicial independence. That concept is, of course, a vital defence against arbitrary government. But the separation of powers works both ways. Just as it is wrong for politicians to interfere in individual court cases, so it is wrong for judges calculatedly to defy the will of Parliament. Even if our judges were the wisest and most disinterested people in Britain, they would have no right to cross the line that separates the judiciary from the legislature.

Snip
“Home Secretaries may not rule that certain murderers should be ineligible for parole; but it is quite all right for them to set murderers free, as happened in Northern Ireland. We do not doubt that judges are acting from the best of motives. And, Heaven knows, this newspaper has been critical enough of the illiberal laws passed by this ministry in the name of security. But, whatever his faults, Charles Clarke is answerable to the rest of us. Judges - and they should remember this - are not.
Ends…

The Telegraph gives the impression that British judges are just making up the law as they go along with the intention of standing in the way of the elected government, and therefore that they are acting against the wishes of the people.

Although the Telegraph makes the point that the concept of “judicial independence is a vital defence against arbitrary government”, they do not explore the reality of exactly what that means, preferring instead to take the governments line that “Just as it is wrong for politicians to interfere in individual court cases, so it is wrong for judges calculatedly to defy the will of Parliament” But are the Judiciary collectively defying the will of parliament? We seem to have an elitist political class that is not prepared to accept the consequences of their own incompetent meddling with the constitution of this country. The fact is Judges can only apply the law they are told to by Parliament to use.

What the politicians must ask themselves is who told the judges to apply external laws to this country in the first place, who placed these laws on the statue books, it certainly was not the judges, they are only doing what they are told to do. The politicians have over the years voluntarily passed their own powers away to international bodies, by voluntarily agreeing to internationally legal commitments, by so doing they have removed not only their own powers but the sovereignty of the British people.

It was Tony Blair himself in the last Parliament (1998) who agreed that henceforth the full effects of the European Court of Human Rights would hold sway in this country. Parliament therefore has told British judges to apply those rulings emanating from that court. It was the ruling from the ECHR that said it was wrong to treat foreign people the Government considers dangerous, differently from our own nationals, as it constitutes discrimination on grounds of nationality. This in itself is an argument for internationalism, which undermines the powers of the British Government on a national level, which is exactly what it is intended to do.
So the Parliamentarians signed away their own powers and told the judiciary to apply external law, and now because the judges are doing exactly that, they want to punish them and remove their powers to “defy the will of this Parliament”.

The answer does not lay in the removal of powers from the Judiciary, so that they become nothing more than an enforcement agency for a short term elitist parliamentary system, which is what this recent crop of politicians would very much like to create, the real answer is to return to parliament the powers that they have given away and then to tell the judges exactly what laws they must apply.

The long term answer is to create a new British Constitution that has within it the division of the powers of the state that are necessary to preserve the integrity of democratic accountability and one moreover that would be beyond the power of Parliament to change at will or to ignore.

But that is not going to happen at this stage because there is an increasing pressure towards internationalism which makes national institutions less affective at the same time as it increases the powers of the Executive, powers that the elitist internationalists will fight tooth and nail to hold onto.