Today in the HoC, we learned from Mrs May that we are to have a treaty between the UK and Jordan – allegedly to get rid of just one individual – Qatada. Doesn’t that seem a little extreme?
Shortly after 12:50, during her statement, Theresa May said that her attempts to deport Qatada failed because the judges “moved the goalposts”, so rendering her position and arguments useless. Mark Reckless then intervened to ask her whether the judges were entitled to move the goalposts.
But she wouldn’t answer that question. Instead, she dismissively blustered that Britain must abide by the rule of law, yada yada yada.
But if the judges are not entitled to “move the goalposts”, then deporting him is not flouting the rule of law. It is the judges who are making up the law as they go along.
Does our constitution allow for unelected judges to make the law? If so, what is the point of Parliament? Perhaps that is the destination toward which the EU has been intentionally travelling, with the help of our MPs.
When there are contradictions in an argument and its proponent refuses to address those contradictions, you can be sure that a lie is being told.
So, if Reckless is right that the judges were acting outside of their jurisdiction and that Qatada could indeed be legally deported, then might she have concocted this latest “difficulty” in order to obtain a treaty with Jordan?
I would like to read that treaty. Will it be made available to the public?
Interestingly, Keith Vaz alluded to the possibility of this treaty being extended to include other countries – or similar treaties agreed.
Does anyone smell a rat?
- Theresa May vs Mark Reckless: how Abu Qatada led to a Conservative sense of humour failure – James Kirkup, Telegraph