Let's consider this as more general point: why not sign up to stuff if you're going to do it anyway?
1/
1/
Essentially this is about politics
the calculation is that if you keep to standards in practice, 3rd parties will probably be satisfied, but you keep a clearer position of retaining your margin of manoeuvre
2/
the calculation is that if you keep to standards in practice, 3rd parties will probably be satisfied, but you keep a clearer position of retaining your margin of manoeuvre
2/
Consider the alternative: signing up.
Then you get 3rd party satisfaction more firmly, but you're now playing by formalised rules. Sure you can leave, but you have to defend being in to domestic audiences
3/
Then you get 3rd party satisfaction more firmly, but you're now playing by formalised rules. Sure you can leave, but you have to defend being in to domestic audiences
3/
In the case of the ECHR, that's a drag because its name is mud in many parts of the Tories (partly because of ECtHR rulings, partly because the latter's got the words "European" and "Court" in it)
4/
4/
This is the same reasoning you're seeing on LPF: we don't want to diverge, but we don't want to sign up to anything that looks like it's not just down to us to decide that
5/
5/
As a strategy it's not the worst, but it does very much rely on that assumption that practical compliance will suffice for 3rd parties
The past 3 yrs haven't really helped HMG on that
6/
The past 3 yrs haven't really helped HMG on that
6/
This comes back to questions of credibility and reliability
The perception that the UK's word isn't necessarily bond has come back to hurt it repeatedly (e.g. Irish protocol, sequencing, bundling of fisheries into FP talks)
7/
The perception that the UK's word isn't necessarily bond has come back to hurt it repeatedly (e.g. Irish protocol, sequencing, bundling of fisheries into FP talks)
7/
Importantly, that perception will not move quickly on the EU's part and almost certainly not until the UK has done a load of following-through on commitments, which (by definition) means it's not in play for this set of talks
8/
8/
For LPF, that's a major issue, since wording about equivalence will shade very close to formal commitments
For ECHR, I'm less sure: it's less central to areas of activity and it's not an EU body, but it does matter
9/
For ECHR, I'm less sure: it's less central to areas of activity and it's not an EU body, but it does matter
9/
(For those asking how it matters, it provides a benchmark of HR protections that speak to the EU's core principles and that it is bound to uphold, so more environmental than practical in importance)
10/
10/
Obviously, the 'following, not signing' approach works well for a No.10 that is framing all this as 'taking back control': it carries with it the implicit message that the UK are stand-up types, and don't need bits of paper to prove that
11/
11/
That sounds good, but again risks being undercut should non-compliance practically ensue
Quite apart from any bad intention, a lack of legal obligation risks those involving forgetting to check stuff (think Heathrow)
12/
Quite apart from any bad intention, a lack of legal obligation risks those involving forgetting to check stuff (think Heathrow)
12/
The last point to consider is that the domestic audience this plays to might realise at some point that the words might be be there, but the substantive effect is
13/
13/
At that point you either lose your audience's support (because they feel done over) or the tolerance of 3rd parties (esp those that asked to sign up to stuff in the 1st place)
14/
14/
But maybe that's too far in the future, and maybe you think you'll have worked out a new plan by then (or that it'll be someone else's problem)
Still not the most responsible bit of governance
15/
Still not the most responsible bit of governance
15/
In sum, a good faith approach requires all sides to believe in that good faith
/end
/end
