Sorry, no, this doesn’t work

Britain could withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights under plans for a new Bill of Rights to give UK judges the ultimate authority over laws in this country, the Justice Secretary has said.

Chris Grayling said that a Conservative government after the general election will deliver an ultimatum to European judges to ensure that Strasbourg courts are in future little more than an “advisory body”.

The commitment will put a stop to the “farce” of foreign criminals and terrorists being allowed to fight deportation from Britain by invoking European human rights rulings.

It will “restore common sense and put Britain first” with new laws will ensure that the British Supreme Court is in future the “ultimate arbiter” on whether human rights are being respected, the Conservatives said.

Under plans for a new British Bill of Rights, MPs in the House of Commons will be able to veto any rulings by the European Court of Human Rights.

This isn’t EU either, this is European Council. And to do this you’ve got to withdraw from the EC. Which, in and of itself, means withdrawing from the EU (EC membership is a pre-condition of EU).

Now, I think leaving both would be a great idea. But it’s not possible to have this interim stage, of being in but not agreeing to abide by the rules.

11 comments on “Sorry, no, this doesn’t work

  1. “But it’s not possible to have this interim stage, of being in but not agreeing to abide by the rules.”

    What are they going to do? Its not like the EU has the balls to *actually* impose consequences on anyone. The worst they’ll do is fine you and then bail you out anyway.

    For the EU to ‘get tough’ would mean that all those member nations that are profiting from the money funneled from more profitable economies would just wander off looking for a hand-out elsewhere – beggars are not known for their loyalty when the alms dry up.

    And those profitable economies would be in danger of getting sufficiently pissed off that they’d leave.

    The EU is (or, if they have any self-awareness, should be) terrified that their members might realize that they offer no ‘service’ other than wealth distribution.

  2. As always with political posturing, and it does seem to be getting worse, the reality isn’t what they would have us believe:

    http://www.headoflegal.com

    “But the noise and drama of the policy isn’t backed up by its substance. If the acid test is whether the plan would prevent another Abu Qatada or prison votes row – then it fails.”

  3. Yes right. Because as we were all told, had Scotland left the UK, it wouldn’t have been in the EU, would have had to rejoin taking years, having to join the euro etc etc. When in reality a fix would have occurred, they’d have been let back in sharpish, due to having all that lovely oil and fish, and probably having been a net contributor, and the legal niceties would go hang, like they always do in the EU when they want to do something thats nominally against the ‘rules’.

    And if the UK left the EC there’s zero chance of us being kicked out of the EU as a result. Its the last thing they want, they don’t want to lose the shed loads of cash we shovel their way. The fix would come in and a deal would be done.

    There is no such thing as the rule of law when it comes to nations and large supra-national bodies, they just follow their own self interest, and only curb themselves when faced with someone with a bigger stick who can force them into line. The letter of the law has nothing to do with it, its just a fig leaf they use when it suits them, and ignore when it doesn’t.

  4. People love making the EU / ECHR distinction, but I’ve never felt that it’s ever helped make any situation clearer. I can’t say what the ins and outs are here: a good conservative would anyhow be conscious of ‘unintended consequences’ even if the path to change was clear.

    But let’s just take one step back and say, come on: the tories are moving in a direction that most of us are surely positive about, and your response is to start nickle and diming? And then on the other hand UKIP can say whatever bunch of crazy they like because they don’t have to actually deliver anything other than a protest vote (and, Ed Miliband).

  5. There is no such thing as the rule of law when it comes to nations and large supra-national bodies, they just follow their own self interest, and only curb themselves when faced with someone with a bigger stick who can force them into line.

    Anyone remember the Growth and Stability pact? Stern warnings issued to Portugal when found in breach, thrown in the bin when France did the same.

  6. No chance that withdrawal from ECHR would mean EU exit. It would however empower or embolden the Russias of this world to ignore or withdraw too.

    Generally in policy matters my default position is that any policy that upsets the bedwetters in the Liberal Democrats is likely to appeal to me

  7. BraveFart – “No chance that withdrawal from ECHR would mean EU exit. It would however empower or embolden the Russias of this world to ignore or withdraw too.”

    Because … why? Putin thinks we are a bunch of decadent effeminate nancy boys as it is – and he is not entirely wrong. Anything the Europeans do is more likely to be a warning to him and most Russians than a model.

  8. But it’s not possible to have this interim stage, of being in but not agreeing to abide by the rules.

    The question is whether Cameron is more stupid than he is cynical. If he is stupid, he probably didn’t realise. If he is cynical, he is probably simply doing what he is doing with an EU referendum – promising one but putting it off until after the election when he probably won’t have to hold it at all.

    I expect he is calculating having a slap up staged fight with the EU in the lead up to the election – throwing a Jim Hacker style fit over the British banger. But all the time telling them he does not mean it. Until he has safely won the election with the UKIP vote when he will regretfully admit that it is not possible.

    This sh!t needs to be introduced to the world of unemployment.

  9. I’d wholeheartedly agree with Jim there. In fact I’d extend it to the entire area of law & justice. You only get what you get under threat of force.
    Now look at the whole bloody system & tell me I’m wrong. The only thing keeps ’em in check is the fear we might lynch ’em.

  10. “No chance that withdrawal from ECHR would mean EU exit. It would however empower or embolden the Russias of this world to ignore or withdraw too.”

    Yes because Russia today is such a bastion of human rights that it leaving the ECHR would be a disaster.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.