Does European Convention on Human Rights prevent UK Gov agreeing to “vassal” status? My thoughts on this thread 1/
In Matthews v UK, European Court of Human Rights ruled vs exclusion of Gibraltar from Euro Parl elections as breach of ECHR right to participate in elections hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-58910 / 2
UK Gov argued elections law was EU law, not law made by UK. But ECtHR noted UK chose to agree that law - it was part of EU Treaty, not a law made by EU (para 33) 3/
UK Gov argued EP didn’t count because EP is EU body. But ECtHR noted EU law “has precedence over domestic law” para 41 4/
UK Gov argued EP wasn’t important enough, because couldn’t make EU laws alone. ECtHR said EP’s powers to block laws & ask Comm to initiate made it part of “legislature” of Gib 54 /5
ECtHR ruled that complete denial of any opportunity to express opinion in choice of the members of EP breached Ms Matthews rights /6
EU treaty was amended & Gib residents got voting rights. Would Withdrawal Agreement be ECHR breach for same reasons? /7
Under WA, UK electors would have no say in EP membership, but EP would have same powers to make / block EU law. So that’s the same as Matthews /8
But Brexit is fundamentally different. UK will change from being an equal partner in an international democratic institution (EU) to a state getting benefits from a foreign institution & in return agreeing to apply its laws internally. /9
Instead of being citizens of a body governed by a legislature (which includes EP), Brits will be governed by Westminster, which has chosen to impose on Brits a set of “foreign” laws. /10
WA may be best seen as a voluntary, temporary transfer of sovereignty. Loss of UK voter say over EU legislature is consequence of larger change in state-state relations /11
Does ECHR allow this? IMO - probably. Channel Islanders are bound by laws made by a Westminster body they have no vote in, but they have their own local elected legislature which doesn’t object. /12
ECtHR can also see this as a state succession process. If Scotland became independent, couldn’t its popularly elected legislature cd agree a transition during which new UK laws would apply, even tho Scots lost Westminster voting rights? /12
Gib law was indefinite & partial. WA will be temporary & only in force if Parliament agrees. Loss of voting rights will apply to whole UK. ECtHR would have good reasons to not take same approach 13/
But - if there are *any* human rights arguments on WA, then Euro Parliament should ask CJEU for Opinion before it ratifies. And CJEU would have power to rule on this one IMO 14/14
PS. If WA were indefinite, ECtHR may take a different approach. An indefinite transfer of legislative power to an international body - in which citizens have no say -may be incompatible with idea of the democratic state...
