In which Martin Howe QC reveals why a U.K. Bill of rights won’t happen. Because our “priority as a nation” would be a right to free health care at the point of need. A priority that no Tory government would ever agree should have constitutional force. telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/10/0… 
NB too that “strengthening free speech” would of necessity include strengthening the right to speak in objection to others’ speech (and to refuse to hear their speech or urge boycotts of those who publish their speech).
Ultimately, a debate about what our constitutional rights should be is not a debate that today’s Tory party (or probably any Tory party) wants to see happen, when it pauses for a moment to think about the issues that it would raise.
And worth remembering that one reason why Jack Straw (not exactly a liberal) was comfortable about the HRA is precisely because, by limiting itself to incorporating the existing ECHR, it avoided any need to be grounded in a public debate about what our rights should be.
Which is why (unlike Alexander) I’m not depressed by this article. The fact that Howe has to accept that there should be some form of “bill of rights” shows that attackers of the HRA don’t feel that simple repeal without some replacement is doable.
https://twitter.com/alexanderhorne1/status/1446207606687768576
And since replacement inevitably opens up issues they really, really, don’t want to be opened up, a bit of chipping round the edges is likely to be the best they can do.
(By the way, I’m so far agreeing with Alexander’s thread, apart from his depression.)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
