Judges who make law, like our own, should be absolutely opposed to the idea that this gives them any precedence over the country's democratic process; they make or interpret law in the absence of a specific provision made by Parliament and they don't presume to try to over-rule what Parliament has decided. This is ingrained in Lord Judge's fundamental tenets, but not so in the judicially-unqualified administrators appointed to the ECHR. In the particular case of 'votes for cons' Europe's interference is intolerable.
"My personal belief is that sovereignty on these issues should not be exported, and we should be wary of the danger of even an indirect importation of the slightest obligation on Parliament to comply with the orders and directions of any court, let alone a foreign court.Europe has produced too many Roland Freislers for us ever to cede judicial authority to other than our own Supreme Court.
Ultimately this is a political, not a judicial, question
My profound concern about the long-term impact of these issues on our constitutional affairs is the democratic deficit
Are we – are they – prepared to contemplate the gradual emergence of a court with the equivalent jurisdiction throughout Europe of that enjoyed by the Supreme Court in the USA? Thomas Jefferson would have strongly advised us against it."
|Euro-Clerks get the key to the Dressing-Up Box|