M. Mouse, the point is that the process of law has achieved a ruling that defies long accepted political freedoms, and for that reason will undoubtedly not be allowed to act in the way that it currently has to deny unions the right to ballot their membership and to take strike action.
It is a fundamental change that has been created not by a legislative process with the explicit political consent that is inherent in that, but as a by-product of litigation that has such overhwelming social and political consequences that it will undoubtedly be overturned in a legislative forum. If it is not, and I remain utterly confident that it will, then employees of any firm in Europe have been reduced to a new form of serfdom, as someone else put it. I very much doubt that that situation will be allowed to stand and it would have very fundamental ramifications for all European democracies if it did. I re-iterate: it wont.
It is a long standing legal principle that Judges interpret the law as it is before them, they do not set social policy. If it is "bad law" then it is for a legislative forum to change it. This is "bad law" precisely because it creates a situation where a Judicial forum has been used to fundamentally alter social policy for which there is no political mandate to do so. It will not stay this way, but may take a substantial time to alter, during which time Mr Walsh will offshore BA to his hearts' content.
Last edited by ShortfinalFred; 24th May 2008 at 00:21.