Anthony Barnett (London, OK): I love disagreeing with Iain Dale because he is usually onto something important and isn't frightened of his instincts, unlike most British politicians. He has just blogged the SFO/BAE case and criticised his own leader for supporting the government. But I think he has missed a trick here - along with the whole British media except, it seems, for The Sun and OurKingdom. There, I never thought I'd say that! Except that we two august organs agree from completely different points of view.
Unlike the Sun I think what Blair and Thatcher did with Saudi Arabia and what this then, it seems, permitted and encouraged BAE to do in Tanzania and South Africa which was probably much worse, was quite wrong. I am against it. But it is not clear that what Blair did was unlawful. This is the point that John Jackson has been making here and again here in OK. He reckons that Justice Moses has been making up the law and that (sorry, it is irresistible) he supposes erroneously.
Accordingly to our system, the Prime Minister can make a judgement about the national interest. The attorney general can than make a lawful decision on the basis of that judgement. If the PM is cowardly and perfidious, “cautious, perhaps pusillanimous" is how Justice Moses describes it, well, that is how the Empire was built (and dismantled). It does not make it illegal. Provided - emphasis - parliament approves. Iain quotes and applaudes Sam Leith of the Telegraph writing this morning that:
"No one, whether within this country or outside is entitled to interfere with the course of our justice," is the ringing refrain of Lord Justice Moses's judgment on the Al-Yamamah fraud inquiry. It is a wonderfully fierce and lucid restatement of the principle of separation of powers and, in its context, an object reminder of why it is so important.
Excuse the Anglo-Saxon, but this is constitutional bollocks: we do not have the separation of powers in the UK. Parliament is responsible for the rule of law in Britain, not the judges - thank you very much. If you don't like it, campaign for a democratic constitution which does have a clear separation of powers, one which will also bind the judges. As John Jackson warns, even if we may want to applaud judges pillorying the executive this should not lead us into supporting the replacement of our current executive dictatorship with judicial dictatorship.
