Supreme Court ruled Rwanda deportations are unlawful.

The Supreme Court has a history of aligning with the European Court of Human Rights, and since Brexit there has been a growing dissatisfaction with its decisions, not only its legal interpretations but also its role in blocking legislation; many progressive thinkers argue that the Court should have the power to operate beyond its traditional boundaries of interpreting and administering the law, believing that it should be able to block legislation which could be perceived to be in contravention of human rights.

When the Court blocks legislation it is going beyond its judicial role and undermines Parliament’s sovereignty by overstepping the principle of separation of power, which is fundamental to the UK’s constitutional framework and democracy.

This situation is not solely the result of the Court; Parliament also shares responsibility for this state of affairs, which has developed over several decades as a result of overreliance on progressive and liberal ideas that have led to an imbalance in policymaking, within supranational institutions and national government decision-making coming second to international liberalism resulting in economic instability, social unrest, and political polarisation.

This could have been avoided if the government had not handed its parliamentary sovereignty over to the ECHR and had taken a more self-reliant approach that prioritised its people’s interests over external entities or abstract universalism.

The ECHR is not part of the European Union but is actually part of the Council of Europe, an international organisation founded shortly after the Second World War to uphold a commitment to human rights, democracy, and the rule of law, with the belief being these commitments were essential to prevent the human suffering seen during WWII from happening again while partly true; it also served as a bulwark against communism, particularly Stalinism, from spreading across Europe.

The CoE has two statutory bodies the Committee of Ministers, which is comprised of foreign ministers from each member state, and the Parliamentary Assembly, which consists of elected officials from each member state. In addition, the CoE has a Commissioner for Human Rights who promotes awareness of and respect for human rights within the member states. The secretary-general is the head of the organisation’s secretariat, with the CoE also having other essential bodies, such as the European Directorate for the Quality of Medicines & HealthCare and the European Audiovisual Observatory.

To conclude the ECHR only holds authority due to the agreement between member states. This agreement was established many years ago through the commitments made by our Parliament. As a result, previous governments have constrained future governments by binding them to a legal framework that threatens our parliamentary sovereignty. Unless the current government is willing to use its authority to repeal these treaties, the constraints will remain in place, and we will continue to be subject to the ECHR’s authority.

This follows a pattern of other decisions taken over the decades, for example:

The devolution of power to bodies like the Scottish Parliament and Senedd Cymru.

The Human Rights Act 1998.

The UK’s entry to the European Union in 1973 – and subsequent exit in 2020.

The decision to establish a UK Supreme Court in 2009 ended the House of Lords’ function as the UK’s final Court of Appeal.

The liberal progressives argue that these developments do not fundamentally undermine the principle of parliamentary sovereignty since, in theory, Parliament could repeal any of the laws implementing these changes.

We must see elected officials carry out the policies they are elected on; this will require a government that is genuinely committed to acting in the Nation’s best interests. We are all familiar with the political games played at our expense, and many of us consider it a grave insult when the government fails to use the powers entrusted to it by the people.

Scroll to Top