In an article published on 10 September, David Wolfson QC argued that the government’s actions around the Internal Markets Bill do not breach the rule of law.
Sadly, while I wish this were true, I do not concur. From the moment Brandon Lewis stood in parliament and openly admitted the government’s plans breached international law, albeit in a ‘limited and specific’ manner (and there can be no question that this was in error), the government has been acting in a way which does not accord with the philosophy embodied by the expression ‘rule of law’.
At its heart, the rule of law is the concept that all are equal under the law — in other words, the law applies to everyone, in the same way, no matter who you are. The origins of this principle date back far into history — around 1760 B.C. to be specific and the Code of Hammurabi, one of the first examples of the codification of law, applying to the acts of the ruler as well as the people.
There are other elements to the rule of law (and you can read our definition here) but, for these purposes, the key point is that the government cannot place itself above the law that applies to everyone else. To be fair, Mr Wolfson and I seem to be in agreement on this, and on the point ‘upholding the rule of law is a fundamental principle of sound government’.
But here is where our opinions diverge.
It is vitally important to distinguish between the rule of law and rule by law. The latter describes a situation where you have laws and those laws are intended to govern.
Already a subscriber? Log in
Comments
Don't miss out
Join the conversation with other Spectator readers. Subscribe to leave a comment.
UNLOCK ACCESSAlready a subscriber? Log in