Very well said, David Burrows! For “ magic thinking” (a good portrayal ) I would substitute “ Machiavellian thinking”. But then would Suella Braverman take on grasp the implications behind that reference?
It is not very original to point out that Suella Braverman is not very bright; and that their is a streak of nastiness in her when it comes to asylum seekers who, by definition and if granted asylum, are entitled to expect a basic level of kindness from their country.
In your piece you raise the point that 'The fundamental question [Braverman] raises is, [quoting her] "where does ultimate authority in the United Kingdom sit? Is it with the British people and their elected representatives in parliament? Or is it with the vague, shifting, and unaccountable concept of 'international law?'"'
You go on: 'Any lawyer will tell you the answer. Parliament makes the law but the courts interpret it. Parliament, being sovereign, can change the law. But the courts can still decide what the legislation means.'
Your and my professional rules require us to act with integrity and to observe the rule of law. Braverman is - or has been - a member of the bar. She has accepted the award of KC? Does this not require her to have regard to the operation of the law (or 'the rule of law') and to have respect for what judge's decide? Is it not time for her to recognise and understand that at least the seventeeeth century the job of UK judges has been to protect individuals - including asylum seekers - against the overbearing state.
No more magical thinking?
Very well said, David Burrows! For “ magic thinking” (a good portrayal ) I would substitute “ Machiavellian thinking”. But then would Suella Braverman take on grasp the implications behind that reference?
It is not very original to point out that Suella Braverman is not very bright; and that their is a streak of nastiness in her when it comes to asylum seekers who, by definition and if granted asylum, are entitled to expect a basic level of kindness from their country.
In your piece you raise the point that 'The fundamental question [Braverman] raises is, [quoting her] "where does ultimate authority in the United Kingdom sit? Is it with the British people and their elected representatives in parliament? Or is it with the vague, shifting, and unaccountable concept of 'international law?'"'
You go on: 'Any lawyer will tell you the answer. Parliament makes the law but the courts interpret it. Parliament, being sovereign, can change the law. But the courts can still decide what the legislation means.'
Your and my professional rules require us to act with integrity and to observe the rule of law. Braverman is - or has been - a member of the bar. She has accepted the award of KC? Does this not require her to have regard to the operation of the law (or 'the rule of law') and to have respect for what judge's decide? Is it not time for her to recognise and understand that at least the seventeeeth century the job of UK judges has been to protect individuals - including asylum seekers - against the overbearing state.