The Viper and the File

In Aesop's fable, The Viper and the File, a serpent slithers into an armourer's shop, and felt his skin pricked by a file. In fury he turned round and bit the file, which in Caxton's translation replied, “And thou arte a foole to gnawe me, for I telle thee that none euyll may hurte ne adommage another as euylle as he”.

This fable comes to mind as the government wrestles with the courts over the issue of asylum in illegal migration. Labour, in its constitutional reforms of the Blair and Brown era, set up a system which defanged politicians. Areas of discretionary decision making were reduced, as power was ceded to quangos and courts. This makes government almost impossible, as the judges cannot govern, but they can and do rule.

One of the responsibilities of the Executive is to weigh up competing interests and to decide which must take priority. This is not easy, and the balancing act becomes the focus of democratic debate. It applies to all decision-making, because there are limited resources which cannot meet all the demands made upon them.

In the field of taxation and expenditure, for example, is the welfare recipient or the working taxpayer to be favoured? In building a road or a railway, is the homeowner's property to be preferred - or the perceived communal good? These are all questions of balance, but governments are best placed to make them because they should be able to see the totality of the picture, and are accountable. However, judges see only the evidence placed before them. They do not see the full picture, nor are they accountable for their decisions.