Sometimes one gets the strong sensation that one has entered the world of Jean Baudrillard, wherein reality has “died out”. A feature of this strange environment is that politicians no longer simply lie. Lying requires a belief that there are underlying facts and hence that statements can be true or false – it is in this sense, at least, a humane act. But political statements have become misleading in a deeper way, by being so frivolous with respect to matters of truth and falsehood that they almost actively create conditions of alienation and fantasy – bolstering the feeling amongst the population that they inhabit not so much a shared polity as a fragmented dreamscape.
This feeling has been driven home to me recently by Rishi Sunak’s recent vague hints about leaving the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) – whether because the U.K.’s status as a signatory to the Convention is preventing the resolution of the illegal immigration crisis, or because of what the recent ‘protection from climate change‘ rulings handed down by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) signify about its future conduct.
Sunak cannot be serious about this. (Picture me saying this in a John McEnroe accent.) He must know perfectly well that ‘leaving’ the ECHR is, at least for his Government, impossible. And he also must know that extricating the U.K. from the Council of Europe (the umbrella organisation for the ECHR) and unpicking the deep intertwining of U.K. and ECHR law that has happened since the 1990s would be the work of years of committed work, strategically planned and executed, in the face of tooth-and-nail opposition from almost every organ of the state. It would be Thatcher against the unions, but on steroids. And it would require, as a result, total commitment from a Government with a large electoral mandate, a unified party, and a heck of a lot of nous, not to mention a credible plan. So why even pretend that it is currently possible? It is not a lie, to repeat; it is something that is worse – an elevation of fantasy to a position superseding reality, in which reality is indeed sacrificed to bolster a mere narrative (Sunak versus the ‘deep state’) which is entirely fake.
Let me briefly explain, then, why it is that talk of ‘leaving’ the ECHR is at this point in time not a credible suggestion.
First, although 2017 is some time ago now, and while it is to some degree forgivable to wish to forget the interminable stuff-and-nonsense of the Brexit years, it is most certainly not forgivable to wish away legal and political realities. In the case of Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5, you may recall, the Supreme Court ruled that, since leaving the European Union would take away certain of the rights of U.K. citizens that derived from their additional status as EU citizens, the Government could not simply of its own accord ‘leave’ the EU treaties and stop being a member. Although technically the treaty-making (and hence treaty-leaving) power is a prerogative one which the Government exercises, a Government is not allowed to deprive the citizenry of its rights that way without being given permission to do so by Parliament. In short, there needs to be legislation enacted to allow the treaty-making prerogative power to be used in such a way as to affect the rights of U.K. citizens.
We can argue over the merits and flaws of the decision in ‘Miller One’, as it has become known, until we are blue in the face – but the fact remains that it is now part of our constitutional arrangements. It would therefore not be lawful for the Government to simply ‘leave’ the ECHR without legislation permitting it to. Given the current composition of the House of Commons this seems unlikely to say the least. Given that it would not consist of the implementation of a manifesto commitment, and that the House of Lords would therefore be within its constitutional rights to throw every hurdle in its arsenal in the way of such legislation, it seems impossible that this could be done before the next General Election (even leaving aside the inevitable spanner-in-works-throwing that would follow on the part of every Jolyon Maugham and Gina Miller in the land, not to mention their dogs). Fuggedaboudit.
Second, while English people sometimes have a habit of blithely forgetting this, Northern Ireland is part of the U.K., Northern Irish people are U.K. citizens, and Northern Irish people care about living in peace. Since a commitment to the ECHR was given by the U.K. Government at the time of the Good Friday Agreement, which brought peace to the province after the Troubles, and since it is written into that agreement that the rights contained in the ECHR will be incorporated into law in Northern Ireland (this being a major bone of contention for republicans at the time), we cannot leave the ECHR without tearing up that agreement and replacing it with something else which will garner consensus. That this can be achieved at all, let alone being achieved without great difficulty, is – let’s be charitable – not at the current moment very likely.
Third, Dominic Raab, an intelligent and sensible Minister with legal expertise, gave a decent shot at achieving a compromise position regarding human rights law in the U.K., wherein we would remain in the ECHR, but the way in which it would be applied in U.K. courts would be restricted to some degree and made more democratically palatable. This was an important project – not perfect, but a worthy attempt to chart a reasonable middle course between two irreconcilable positions (those who think that the only problem with the Human Rights Act (HRA) is that it does not go far enough, and those who think human rights law itself should be abolished on the grounds that it is a Trojan horse for “Lefty lawyers” to exert influence).
But Raab was resisted at every turn by the human rights lobby and by legal academia, and in the end he simply could not get buy-in from his civil servants; they indeed in the end connived (whether deliberately or not is difficult to ascertain) to get rid of him. And the person who oversaw his defenestration, rather than supporting him, or indeed even appointing a successor to finish the job, was our very own Rishi Sunak. The very same Rishi Sunak who now suggests his Government might have the wherewithal and gumption to decide to leave the ECHR entirely. You can probably join the dots there for yourself, and I am keen not to say anything too inflammatory; you get the drift.
Fourth, as a jurisprudential matter, leaving the ECHR is by no means the end – or even the proper beginning – of the story. This is because U.K. judges have not merely been loyally applying the provisions of the ECHR since the HRA was enacted in 1998. They have (rightly or wrongly) been engaged in a thoroughgoing project to embed and entrench a distinctive body of U.K. human rights jurisprudence into our constitutional arrangements for almost 30 years. There is even name word for this project: common law constitutionalism, or common law constitutional rights.
The body of precedent that has emerged is truly vast. Entire tomes have been written about each and every single right in the ECHR and how U.K. courts have interpreted them and given them effect. And that is not even to mention the fact that our ongoing presence within the Council of Europe framework has resulted in all manner of foreign concepts (the doctrine of ‘proportionality’ review being the most important) entering our legal system and becoming part of its furniture. Leaving to one side the merits of the concept in theory, then, the notion that the U.K. could simply ‘leave’ the ECHR and human rights law and its practical consequences would thereby go away is, I am afraid to say, therefore a fantasy.
I said that Sunak knows all this. And you should have no doubt about that. He knows all this because – as we have seen – he worked with Dominic Raab, and Dominic Raab clearly knew it. Moreover, the Tory Government elected in 2019 also clearly knew much the same set of things. This was why, as you may recall – although it was long ago and far away, now – people who were close to that Government, and who were clearly advising it, were talking in its early period about an entire package of reforms with respect to the judiciary, including limiting its powers of judicial review, changing the name of the Supreme Court to the Upper Court of Appeal and even forcing it to move north to Lancaster (the latter of these being an idea I actually had a lot of fondness for as a cosmetic but significant sop to the north of England). All of that was being done because the people advising the Government at that time knew perfectly well that squaring the circle of what we could call loosely the ‘judiciary and democracy problem’ was going to be a big and difficult task and needed to be thought through (irrespective of whether their ideas were good or not).
The lockdown era then began and all of that bold talk was conveniently abandoned. But to act as though the basic calculation has changed – and to pretend that ‘we might leave the ECHR’ in the near or even medium-term future – is simply not the behaviour of a politician with serious designs on formulating an honest relationship with the electorate. Whether leaving the ECHR is a good idea or not, making it happen would be serious business. We are in deep and profound trouble if we cannot even begin to describe the issues which confront us in clear and accurate terms – let alone to remedy them. But Rishi Sunak does not appear to even recognise doing so to be important. We are, then, I think it is safe to say, in deep and profound trouble indeed. And as a result it is becoming difficult not to agree with the public at large that Tory Government is not – at least in its current iteration – the means to seriously respond to our predicament.
Dr. David McGrogan is an Associate Professor of Law at Northumbria Law School. You can subscribe to his Substack – News From Uncibal – here.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
It only needs one,..leave!
Agree with the author and call cobblers on anything coming out of Sushi’s mouth. It’s insulting by now, it really is. It’s like he just says words for the sake of saying them. He’s not delivered on his promises to stop the boats so why on earth would any sane person believe he’d ever make good on this ”vague hint”. Complete tripe. What I always wonder about politicians that we know have young kids is how do they parent them when it comes to always telling the truth? How do they mirror good behaviour in this aspect, especially when the kids become old enough to watch telly and understand more that’s going on, including what people around them are saying about their dad? Could they be any more duplicitous or outright fraudulent, but then they go home and teach their kids how important it is to always tell the truth?
Meanwhile, this is the lovely Viktor Orban’s views on mixed societies. I think he just has to read the news of what’s happening across most of Europe and the U.S to feel vindicated every day, really. ( <2mins )
https://twitter.com/RMXnews/status/1781350239217009143
Nevertheless, when the ECHR is controlled by people inventing a human right to be protected from the consequences of climate change by forcing national governments to do whatever the UN wants them to do in this respect, despite this obviously won’t accomplish anything protective according to the very theory behind climate change itself, getting out of the jurisdiction of this court is the only sensible choice. At least if the UK is supposed to remain a souvereign nation and not become a mere province of UNistan.
Dr. McGrogan has carefully explained the mountain of legal arguments, shackles, chains and “impossible” Gordian Knots which prevent our ever leaving the European Convention on Human Rights.
But when Alexander the Great was presented with such an impossible task, did he struggle to disentangle it? No, he did not.
He cut the Gordian Knot.
Hacking a few civil servants in two with a sword would doubtlessly increase the motivation of the remaining ones to cooperate lot but I fear that’s not a practical proposition.
Bet your glad you aren’t in Scotland or Canada the chokey police would be after you, but no doubt coming to our country soon.
I don’t think civil servant is a protected characteristic 8-D and I was just pointing out that this is not a problem physical violence can profitably be applied to.
OTOH, I think the problem is really much simpler Dr McGrogan presents it. It’s not about cleanly purging everything which ever flew from the European convention of human rights from British law but just to prevent future interference by the ECHR as that has obviously turned into body aspiring to make political decisions¹ bypassing the respective constitutions of the member states of the council of Europe and that should be reasonably simple.
¹ In bad faith. The climate change protection justitifcation was based on people being unable to enjoy their human rights unless protected from climate change. And that’s humbug. If someone has a right to do something, no one may legally prevent him from doing so. But a government not doing something obviously cannot prevent anyone from anything.
But so desirable.
Yes. But where do you think we are going to find our own “Alexander the Great?”
We need another REFERENDUM on getting out of everything to do with the EU, including the ECHR, the ECJ, the Council of Europe and any Continental laws that have weaseled their way into the British system.
Let the British voters cut the Gordian Knot and finish the job that Brexit was meant to achieve if the thrice-damned politicians had not been so utterly useless and mendacious,
“Dominic Raab, an intelligent and sensible Minister”
Rofl. Covidian. Enemy.
If you look through just one perspective you’ll struggle to find any good, but if you take out the covid scam and look at who we lost during 2019-23, what they were trying to do and how they were hijacked and thoroughly degraded, you’ll see who was trying to help.
Regardless of the media poo storm, Raab, Cummings, Truss and others were rocking the boat in a way the electorate would have been supportive of (if the truth had been told) but threatened The Establishment.
Asking for perfection will always lead to disappointment, good enough is a far more realistic measure
All covidians, especially Cummings – big cheerleader for lockdowns and the “vaccine” project. Truss has sort of redeemed herself but the other two are arch enemies. Never forgive, never forget.
Where did I write that they needed to be perfect?
Thank you that was a very good read, not a happy one, but it does explain the tangled web we are in, if only politicians had the decency to come clean.
My one observation however; is that during the Covid years and Lockdown I didn’t see much evidence of the Human rights laws being followed then, which suggests that countries can and do pick and choose as to when they apply the conventions.
It isn’t about human rights. Leftists have taken over the judiciary which has now become a parallel legislature and one that is impervious to the will of the citizenry. Leftists became tired of losing elections and have acted to ensure they win regardless of how the citizenry vote.
Thank you for explaining the situation so clearly that Sunak is talking bollocks, knows he is talking bollocks, and so do we.
Even IF he wanted to leave the ECHR (and he doesn’t) he hasn’t got the support, guile, or skills to do it.
I’m not even sure whether Thatcher would have.
The Conservative Party is indeed deeply unserious about democracy, the rule of law, and conservatism. The destruction of the Conservative Party is a necessary condition for the restoration of democracy and the rule of law in England. Such a new constitutional settlement would require deep thought, concerted effort, and radical reform to put the judiciary, politicians, and bureaucrats back in their respective boxes and for the citizenry to become once again sovereign. Civil war is probably more likely.