This is huge.
Government's Brexit White Paper (p52) includes a guarantee that the UK "is committed to membership of the European Convention on Human Rights". Will be incendiary to hard core Brexiteers who saw the ECHR as the next in line for UK to leave assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/upl…
Government's Brexit White Paper (p52) includes a guarantee that the UK "is committed to membership of the European Convention on Human Rights". Will be incendiary to hard core Brexiteers who saw the ECHR as the next in line for UK to leave assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/upl…
Fascinating that this is included in two sections: security cooperation and (less explicitly) "Foreign policy, defence and development"
The implication is that in order to cooperate on security, foreign policy, defence and development (whatever that is meant to mean) the UK needs to assure the EU that it will keep to common human rights standards.
It makes sense when you remember that EU has made signing up to European Convention on Human Rights a pre-requisite of joining the EU, and there is ever closer (with bumps) harmonisation between the European Court of Justice (the EU court) and the European Court of Human Rights
Also makes sense (as @ObiterJ points out) because the Good Friday Agreement includes membership of the European Convention of Human Rights as a central plank and safeguard against public bodies (such as the police and army) acting oppressively. See assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/upl…
If you want to know more about the European Convention on Human Rights - and why it is so odd that Tory politicians (such as Theresa May herself) - have seemingly turned against it, see this thread
And here's more on how precarious the position of the European Convention on Human Rights really is in post-Brexit Britain - which shows how important this u-turn (or at least *new position*) is
1/ What are the implications? A quick thread.
Let's assume UK signs up to a post-Brexit deal with the EU which includes a guarantee that the UK will remain part of the ECHR.
That's binding in that it stands whilst the agreement does. That's the UK locked in, effectively.
Let's assume UK signs up to a post-Brexit deal with the EU which includes a guarantee that the UK will remain part of the ECHR.
That's binding in that it stands whilst the agreement does. That's the UK locked in, effectively.
2/ There is a ripple effect on any future attempt to change the Human Rights Act (HRA) and/or replace it with a UK Bill of Rights.
That's because of the dissonance that the Tory part of the Bill of Rights Commission encountered when trying to figure out how to change the HRA
That's because of the dissonance that the Tory part of the Bill of Rights Commission encountered when trying to figure out how to change the HRA
3/ The dissonance is this:
There is no mileage in changing the Human Rights Act to 'deal with' elements which bother some of its critics (Daily Mail, some Conservatives, Brexiteers), such as the bits which stop the UK deporting people to a real risk of torture.
There is no mileage in changing the Human Rights Act to 'deal with' elements which bother some of its critics (Daily Mail, some Conservatives, Brexiteers), such as the bits which stop the UK deporting people to a real risk of torture.
4/ The dissonance is caused by the fact that the ECHR acts as a safety net for those rights. If you change the HRA to remove (for example) the bit which stops us sending people back to a real risk of torture, then those people will just go to the European Court of Human Rights
5/ And since the UK has agreed to 'abide by' judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, we just go back to the pre-HRA situation where people were having to go to Strasbourg more regularly. And we would be in violation more often.
6/ So some critics of the HRA reached the conclusion that there wasn't any point in focussing on issues they have with the HRA because the real target should be removing the safety net (ECHR).
7/ That's why leaving the ECHR ('breaking the link") was put on the table by Chris Grayling in his 2014 paper, the last attempt the government made to propose actual changes to human rights laws - and a clear blueprint for illiberality.
But this would make all that impossible
But this would make all that impossible
8/ The reality is that the Human Rights Act is working well and helping 1,000s of people enforce their rights against public authorities every year. It is now an essential part of our constitutional structure and even more so post-Brexit when other safety nets will disappear
9/ The ECHR as a backstop/safety net is essential because (i) as the experience of the past few years have shown, it acts as an important disincentive to the weakening of domestic human rights laws, (ii) it allows us to key into an evolving set of international standards, and
10/ (iii) as is clear from the inclusion of the UK's commitment to the ECHR in the Government's Brexit White Paper, international human rights standards now have a hard international economic and security benefit as they build trust between states.
11/ Of course, there is no way of knowing that this provision will survive the eventual deal. But those who support the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act should now fight tooth and nail to ensure it is a red line which cannot be crossed.
12/ On that though - my suspicion is that Theresa May, who alone amongst senior Tories has said we should leave the ECHR, has had her hand forced by the realisation that we need ECHR membership to strike any deal at all with the EU. Good news indeed!
13/ Finally - so interesting that the UK (and perhaps more importantly, the EU) sees the European Convention on Human Rights as essential in maintaining shared safeguards in relation to future criminal justice cooperation
