Court is a check for authoritarianism

IN a recent news clip a backwoodsman Tory MP was seen making a speech in Parliament decrying the fact that a ‘foreign court’ had had the temerity to challenge a decision (regarding the transportation of asylum seekers to Rwanda) made by the ‘sovereign UK Parliament. His views were later echoed by the Attorney General.

In reality, Parliament has not been “sovereign” since the time of empire, if then. The ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights) is not a foreign court, but an international court set up after the Second World War by, among others, the UK.

It was and is signed up to by 47 European states. It was put in place specifically to protect the rights of individuals against the erosion of those rights by individual Governments.

Similarly, Parliament is not sovereign in having the right to renege on international agreements freely entered into by the UK Government (eg, the Northern Ireland Protocol).

It is also worth remembering the furore over our own supreme court ruling a prorogation of parliament being illegal, again, lots of whingeing about interference by an unelected body in the operation of the elected government, a government that appears to consider itself above any law.

Whatever our feelings about the rights and wrongs of sending asylum seekers to Rwanda (nationally we seem to be split about 50/50) or our relationship with the EU. We must surely all be thankful for the independence of the judiciary and the existence of international laws.

Without checks and balances many, perhaps most, Governments would slide towards authoritarianism.

Steve Rogers, Shipley