The great Bill of Rights 'con': How Europhiles play leading role on panel set up to examine EU meddling in UK law
By Jason Groves, Daily Mail, Last updated at 11:41 PM on 18th March 2011
Barred: Secretary of State for Justice Ken Clarke announced that the commission's scope will be limitedA panel set up to challenge the erosion of British sovereignty by European courts was branded a ‘con’ last night.
It emerged that the commission investigating the creation of a British Bill of Rights would be barred from considering whether Britain should withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights.
Critics also claimed the commission was ‘dominated’ by Europhiles and human rights lawyers likely to be in favour of the supremacy of the European courts.
The supposedly independent commission was hurriedly set up by the Coalition in response to mounting public outrage at a European ruling ordering Britain to give prisoners the vote.
But Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke announced yesterday that the body will be barred from debating whether Britain should pull out of the European Convention of Human Rights – the basis for Labour’s controversial Human Rights Act.
It will instead have to ‘incorporate and build on all our obligations’ under the Convention.
The remit means that even if the commission eventually recommends a British Bill of Rights, it will have to embrace the principle that the European Convention on Human Rights should be enshrined in UK law.
The panel has been given until the end of next year to report.
This has led to warnings that the Coalition is kicking the issue into the long grass.
Mr Clarke also revealed that the commission will contain some of the UK’s leading human rights lawyers, including the Liberal Democrat peer Lord Lester – architect of the Human Rights Act.
Other well-known names from the Left include Baroness Helena Kennedy, who declared last year that human rights were ‘non-negotiable’, and Philippe Sands, an expert in human rights and international law.
The panel even includes a retired EU judge, Sir David Edward.
Government sources yesterday insisted that the panel was ‘balanced’, with the inclusion of a number of Eurosceptics, including Martin Howe and Jonathan Fisher, who both advised the Conservative Party on its pre-election plans to scrap the Human Rights Act.
The polarised make-up of the commission means it risks being deadlocked at the start of an inquiry that could last almost two years.
Tory MP Douglas Carswell described the commission as a ‘con’ which would do nothing to curb public concern about the growth of the human rights culture.
Mr Carswell said: ‘We have been stitched up like a kipper. This commission is nothing more than a decoy to fool the public into thinking the Government is doing something.
‘It appears to be dominated by people who confuse the rule of law with rule by human rights lawyers.
‘It will do nothing to stop the judicial interventionism that means almost every aspect of public policy is now adjudicated by politicians in wigs, sitting in courtrooms.
‘And it will do nothing to prevent human rights rules being used against common sense.’
Mr Carswell said the remit and membership of the commission represented a ‘victory’ for Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, whose Liberal Democrats oppose any dilution of human rights laws.
Critics claim the European Court of Human Rights is ‘out of control’. The court has been accused of giving human rights a bad name in recent years with a series of apparently perverse judgments, including ending the ban on prisoner voting, and barring the deportation of several foreign terror suspects and convicted criminals.
Stephen Booth, of the think tank Open Europe, said the commission appeared too hamstrung to make a major difference.
He added: ‘The priority of keeping the Coalition on course has taken precedence over tackling the ongoing and serious implications of outside interference in UK human rights law.’
But the launch of the commission was welcomed by the human rights group Liberty. Its director, Shami Chakrabarti, said: ‘Liberty hopes these fine minds will conclude that the Human Rights Act already provides a uniquely British Bill of Rights.’
Comment: I think the whole thing is a con job. And David Cameron is a conman. It is one thing for him to make a pre-election promise to scrap the Human Rights Act 1998, and quite another to carry it out once in office. As we know, the electorate did not trust him enough to give him full power. It was thought that his excesses needed to be curbed by sharing power in a Coalition government. This agreement upset some Tory backbenchers who, but for the power sharing, thought they should have frontbench seats in the Commons. So, part of the con job was to let these discontented Tory backbenchers set up a backbench business committee. The purpose being to let them sound off, but not to let them have any real power. They have made noises on two issues; the first was the demand that David Cameron curb the power of IPSA to allow them to continue to fiddle their expenses unchecked, and the second was the demand that David Cameron curb the jurisdiction of the ECtHR on the issue of prisoner voting. So, the real con job here is that this Commission is an appeasement to the Tory backbenchers.
The headline is dishonest as you would expect from the Daily Mail. Why didn't it say "How Europhiles and Europsceptics play leading role..."? It is only near the end of the article that the truth emerges that the Commission is balanced with 4 and 4.
Another part of the headline which is dishonest is this claim "panel set up to examine EU meddling in UK law". That is not the purpose of the Commission. Once again the big EU lie creeps in, when human rights in Europe is the responsibility of the Council of Europe. It is also disingenuous to refer to "meddling in UK law". The HRA 1998 provides for challenges against UK law if they are incompatible with the European Convention, and the UK has an obligation to abide by the Convention and ECtHR decisions.
We have gone from "a panel set up to examine EU meddling in UK law" to "A panel set up to challenge the erosion of British sovereignty by European courts". I don't know where the Daily Mail gets the idea that European courts are responsible for the erosion of British sovereignty...
Changes in British sovereignty
A list of former British colonies, dependencies and dates when they severed legal ties with Britain:
1 Gains in sovereignty
2 Losses in sovereignty or other jurisdiction
3 Termination of personal union or other connection with the United Kingdom's monarchy
4 Other changes
Gains in sovereignty
Rockall - annexed to the Crown on 18 September 1955.
Losses in sovereignty or other jurisdiction
Wei-hai-Wei - fully restored to Chinese sovereignty on 1 October 1930.
Sovereignty over Australia, Canada, the Irish Free State, New Zealand, Newfoundland, and the Union of South Africa is relinquished on 11 December 1931 in accordance with the Statute of Westminster
British India - partitioned on 15 August 1947 into the independent dominions of India and Pakistan.
Union of Burma - independence as a republic granted on 4 January 1948.
Dominion of Ceylon (Sri Lanka) - independence granted on 4 February 1948.
Newfoundland - incorporated as a province into Canada on 31 March 1949.
Gold Coast - independence granted (as Ghana) on 6 March 1957.
State of Malacca - joined Federation of Malaya on 31 August 1957.
State of Penang - joined Federation of Malaya on 31 August 1957.
Republic of Cyprus - independence granted on 16 August 1960.
Sierra Leone - independence granted on 27 April 1961.
Tanganyika - independence granted on 9 December 1961.
Jamaica - independence granted on 6 August 1962.
Trinidad and Tobago - independence granted on 31 August 1962.
Uganda - independence granted on 9 October 1962.
Nigeria - independence granted on 1 October 1963.
State of Sabah (North Borneo) - joined Malaysia on 16 September 1963.
State of Sarawak - joined Malaysia on 16 September 1963.
State of Singapore - joined Malaysia on 16 September 1963.
Kenya - independence granted on 12 December 1963.
Malawi (Nyasaland) - independence granted on 6 July 1964.
Malta - independence granted on 21 September 1964.
Republic of Zambia - independence granted on 24 October 1964.
The Gambia - independence granted on 18 February 1965.
Guyana (British Guiana) - independence granted on 26 May 1966.
Republic of Botswana (Bechuanaland Protectorate) - independence granted on 30 September 1966.
Kingdom of Lesotho (Basutoland) - independence granted on 4 October 1966.
Barbados - independence granted on 30 November 1966.
State of Aden - joined the People's Republic of South Yemen on 30 November 1967.
Mauritius - independence granted on 12 March 1968.
Kingdom of Swaziland - independence granted on 6 September 1968.
Fiji - independence granted on 10 October 1970.
The Bahamas - independence granted on 10 July 1973.
Republic of Seychelles - independence granted on 29 June 1976.
Tuvalu - independence granted on 1 October 1978.
Commonwealth of Dominica - independence as a republic granted on 3 November 1978.
Saint Lucia - independence granted on 22 February 1979.
Republic of Kiribati - independence granted on 12 July 1979.
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines - independence granted on 27 October 1979.
Zimbabwe (Southern Rhodesia) - independence as a republic granted on 17 April 1980.
Republic of Vanuatu (New Hebrides) - independence granted on 1 July 1980.
Antigua and Barbuda - independence granted on 1 November 1981.
Saint Christopher and Nevis - independence granted on 19 September 1983.
Hong Kong Special Administrative Region - returned to the People's Republic of China on 1 July 1997, as per the Sino-British Joint Declaration.
Termination of personal union or other connection with the United Kingdom's monarchy
Republic of India - ended dominion status by constitutional amendment on 26 January 1950.
Republic of Ireland - ended dominion status by unilateral legislative act on 18 April 1949.
Islamic Republic of Pakistan - dominion status ended with new constitution on 23 March 1956.
Republic of Ghana - dominion status ended by referendum on 1 July 1960.
Republic of South Africa - dominion status ended by referendum on 31 May 1961.
Republic of Tanganyika - dominion status ended on 9 December 1962.
Republic of Uganda - dominion status ended by constitutional amendment on 9 October 1963.
Republic of Kenya - dominion status ended with new constitution on 12 December 1964.
Federal Republic of Nigeria - dominion status ended by constitutional amendment on 24 May 1966.
Republic of Malawi - dominion status ended with new constitution on 6 July 1966.
Co-operative Republic of Guyana - end of dominion status by constitutional amendment effective on 17 March 1970.
Republic of The Gambia - dominion status ended by referendum on 14 April 1970.
Republic of Sierra Leone - dominion status ended on 19 April 1971.
Republic of Sri Lanka - dominion status ended on 22 May 1972.
Republic of Malta - dominion status ended on 13 December 1974.
Republic of Trinidad & Tobago - dominion status ended on 1 March 1976.
Republic of Fiji - post-coup end of dominion status accepted on 15 October 1987. Elizabeth II remains Paramount Chief.
Republic of Mauritius - dominion status ended on 12 March 1992.
Other changes
Canada (1982), Australia and New Zealand (1986) severed their legal ties with Britain, but retain Elizabeth II as their head of state.
(Source)
I have a job keeping up with the Daily Mail's changing role of the panel now it's "the commission investigating the creation of a British Bill of Rights"! Of course it should "be barred from considering whether Britain should withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights". Such a move would mean the UK having to leave the Council of Europe and the EU. As the list above shows we have gone from the days of the British Empire ruling over territories, to joining, in effect, the United States of Europe. From Master over many to being 1/47th of the Council of Europe and 1/27th of the European Union. It's the old adage "United we stand, divided we fall".
Obviously, the critics who claim that the Commission is dominated by Europhiles are mistaken or simply lying. If the issue is human rights, it makes sense to have human rights lawyers. On matters European and human rights then the ECtHR and ECJ have supremacy of domestic courts.
It is not true that the Commission was "hurriedly set up by the Coalition in response to mounting public outrage at a European ruling ordering Britain to give prisoners the vote". It was part of the Coalition agreement, and I have seen no public outrage over prisoners votes. The outrage is by the extreme right wing media and extreme right wing MPs.
(Too tired to carry on)
No comments:
Post a Comment