The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)

There is a lot of talk at the moment about if the ECHR is fit for purpose.  Some say that without it, our entire evolution and understanding of human rights since WWII is lost, others say that the Court has evolved beyond its remit and is now infringing upon its members sovereignty, particularly in their abilities to prevent terrorism and other security threats.

This is certainly the current point of view of the UK Government, who have made it clear in recent days that they feel the Court needs to change.  The catalyst is of course that the UK currently holds the Chair of the Council of Europe, and has the political will and place to now effect change.  The other catalyst that has caused uproar is the recent judgement of the ECHR that the UK cannot deport the terrorist suspect Abu Qatada back to Jordan, after three UK trials determined that he is a risk and should be sent back.

David Cameron is right to seek change.  He is right to say that human rights laws are becoming distorted (see here) He is also right that the Court should be the last resort, and used where a national justice system is unable or unwilling to deal with or decide upon a case.

Europe agrees that there should be reform, although apparently doesn't much like the idea of deferring to national governments.  So, should the ECHR become supranational?  That's not what it is about; it is not the EU.  It is still based on intergovernmentalism, and David Cameron should perhaps consider the idea of withdrawing the UK from the Court if it continues to infringe on our sovereignty and put the country at risk.  These arguments are strong ones, and should not be disregarded on a whim.

Those who say that our voice would be lessened are thinking from a supranational perspective.  The UK is not about to abandon its commitment to, or respect for human rights.  Very likely the UK would remain in the Convention even if it were to withdraw from the Court.

It's true that where the court has helped UK human rights culture to evolve has to be acknowledged.  But we are now talking about putting our national security at risk, and the even more-worrying evolution of an institution that has gone beyond, and will continue to go beyond, its raison-d'etre, if not put in check.  Looking at the EU as the best example, I don't want to see this happen with the ECHR - that's where things may just get really dangerous.

Scotland, oh Scotland.....

-

It was rather impossible to miss the the explosive debate that began just last week when David Cameron threw down the gauntlet to Alex Salmond and demanded a referendum on the Scots leaving the United Kingdom. I'd like to offer my thoughts.

It is well-known, and I noted myself in my blog post on St. George's Day 2008, that the debate about Scottish secession has been looming for quite some time. What nobody really expected was the extent of the Scottish National Party's (SNP) victory in the Scottish Parliamentary elections in May 2011. Since this occurred, it is now politically possible for the SNP to table a referendum to the Scottish people.

Cameron started the official "war" over secession last week when he demanded that a referendum be held sooner rather than later. Rather surprisingly, this prompted Alex Salmond to reveal hitherto unknown information about when exactly he was planning his referendum - late 2014 to coincide with Scotland's greatest military victory (were there many others?) over England 700 years ago.

Now that we know the SNP's plans, the Government demanded that it be sooner, and has now given a list of conditions that the SNP must meet for the referendum to be legal under UK (and inherently Scottish) law.

My aim here is to simply draw a clear picture. Certain elements of the story are wholly misrepresented and/or plainly misunderstood by a large number of people.

First of all, this is not actually an "independence" vote at all. The word "independence" has connotations that usually imply that one party/country has been dominated by another, usually through conquering or colonisation. This is simply not the case. This is about Scotland choosing to leave the United Kingdom; a union that it agreed to in the first place. It is not for me to judge the circumstances under which Scotland joined the Union, but it is perfectly free to choose to leave should it so wish. The language of the debate really needs to be accurate, for the Scots are deciding whether to leave a union that it joined as a sovereign nation, and the people are simply now voting for the return of full sovereignty to Edinburgh as supposed to London. The consequence of course is that the English will regain full sovereignty from the Scots too, a point not often mentioned.

Secondly, I have read a wide range of comments and articles from those who feel that England should have a say in this. The logic goes that as the UK will be affected, everyone in the UK should decide if Scotland leaves. My view is that this is incorrect. If everyone was to decide if Scotland should leave, how would we ever know the true wishes of the Scottish people? It doesn't seem democratic to me to not allow the Scots to choose to restore sovereignty by themselves. It is on the other hand perfectly reasonable that if the Scots want to leave, they have the right to make the choice. True, there are consequences for all of us in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, but should the tables be turned and one of us wanted to cede from the UK, we wouldn't want the Scots to decide for us either.

Those supporting the idea of the entire UK having a say is making an argument akin to all EU members having a vote on whether the UK should leave the European Union. The UK is still in many ways (but dwindling I acknowledge) a sovereign nation, but even if we were a part of a United States of Europe we would not allow 26 other countries to prevent us from doing what we wanted to do. We can expect no less from the Scottish people. The problem is though in our relationship with the EU is that we have agreed to the fixed procedure for leaving, as written in the Lisbon Treaty, and we would need to determine our position with regards to the treaty.

Thirdly, I concur with the clear legal view that under the Scotland Act of 1998, Alex Salmond has no legal mandate to conduct the referendum - it is for Westminster to determine constitutional issues, and for Westminster to give Alex Salmond the necessary legal powers for the referendum vote to be considered legal. It really is stupid that the SNP are denying that Westminster has this right when it is plainly written in law - and worse for them to use Westminster's conditions as proof to their followers that "the English want to interfere." There is a major alarm bell going off in my head here. The law is the law, Mr Salmond - the UK will respect the rule of law, and you shall challenge it at your peril!

Fourthly, I've noted the interesting attitude reflected in the opinion polls - that more Englishmen and women are keen for the Scots to leave the UK than the Scots themselves. This reflects years of Alex Salmond antagonising the English, and thus attempting to link Scottish secession with English desires. He is playing with fire and might just get his wish. But he shall be to blame for the consequences, not the rest of us.

Finally, I am not prepared to debate in full the financial side of Scottish secession, however I side with the view that the Scots will be worse off. Some believe that the Scots should shoulder a proportional amount of UK debt based on their population, but I disagree. Population was not the measure used when the debt was generated and nor should it be if the debt has to be shared. A substantially large amount of UK Government debt was spent stopping the collapse of Scottish banks, therefore those Government liabilities should in due course become the liabilities of a fully-functional Scottish Government.

To close, there is much more to say when you hold this debate up in the mirror and compare it with the ongoing debate of the UK's changing relationship with the EU. It is quite amazing and hypocritical to see the UK Government saying things in relation to Scottish secession that they would never say in relation to the UK leaving the EU. The hypocrisy stinks when Cameron says that "the Scottish people must have a vote sooner rather than later" and yet denies a vote on EU membership when there is a clear public demand to do so. These issues are for another post, as well as Scotland's and the UK's overall place in the EU given the outcome of a yes or no vote in Scotland.

-

Lisbon Treaty SECOND Vote October 2009...

I am blogging rather late on the whole Lisbon Treaty issue.

Aside from being busy, I wanted to give myself some time to absorb various perspectives from the press, as well as decide for myself my position given the vast range of commentary available.

However, the blatant fact is that I haven't been able to blog because I feel truly sickened by what's going on. Previous posts on the Lisbon Treaty remain consistent with this one - I am essentially against anything that puts substantial powers into the hands of the unelected. I feel that given British history, and its pivotal moments such as 1649 and the absolutist-wannabe James II in 1688, and the civil war and subsequent Bill of Rights in 1689, that RIGHTS evolved for good reason.

I have felt proud of the notion and idea that a Brit instinctively knows his or her rights - although that does not always mean literally. We have been comfortable with the idea that we didn't need our rights written down, documented, and in our face - rather offensive was the idea for anyone to tell us our rights - we just "instinctively" knew.

And so the question of rights yet again becomes a pertinent one. The Lisbon Treaty, with respect to my limited knowledge and understanding, (because I am not a lawyer) does indeed appear to seriously threaten what we consider to be fundamental English/British freedoms. I am worried for the future of trial by jury and presumed innocence until proven guilty, especially when coupled with some of the dranconian measures now in place across our wonderful democratic "EU" - NOT to even mention the attack on our own civil liberties from this Labour government.

I see here my most passionate political issues delicately intertwined. For the EU with the kind of powers it will assume under Lisbon is an attack on the British understanding and culture of civil liberties. On the one hand, I do blame the EU establishment. Their increasing political and economic power over this country does certainly bear fruit. However, the blame must be apportioned on the British government/political establishment, and the vast swathes of Euro-cash in which they swim. To cash in traditions that were justly fought for, could, as one newspaper put it today (05/10/09) be the "ultimate betrayal in history." However, I would beg to differ, and cite the complete destruction of civilisations (such as the Aztecs by the Spanish) as far more of a disastrous event. However, with the impact of Lisbon still unknown, I may well change my mind in the near future to come.

Casting my mind to the Irish, I don't wholly blame them. They made the decision that they wanted to. What saddens me is how they were completely manipulated into doing so. Crisis, burned economically into their hearts, threats of EU money running dry, scare tactics and horror stories - and the biased-ness of the entire media and political establishments - all perfectly combined into one nasty cocktail of scaremongering and fear tactics. And it worked perfectly - after all, what better way to control a country if not through economics? Make a crisis, and reap the rewards, depending on where you sit in the power triangle.

To reiterate, it is incredibly sad how our Irish brothers and sisters (yes, brothers - for the hostility in my eyes that is so famously stereotyped appears to me to be one-way, aimed AT the English, and yes, English not British) have given into this fear. Did we all forget the scaremongering the last time? The exposure that the Irish Commissioner in Brussels hadn't even read Lisbon? What really makes me despair in the idea of how the choice to say yes to Europe would reinforce Ireland's position in the EU, and free it of the "influence" of others - a blantant reference to the United Kingdom if there ever was one. In actual fact I concur with the idea that Ireland will become MORE irrelevant in the Union, probably labelled as the land of the Celts.

Overall, I must respect the decision of the Irish people, and if it is really true that such hostility remains towards the English, as well as the Irish political establishment, (I take Daniel Hannan's view on this) that the undemocratic EU is the only way out, then so be it. It was their choice to make, and the No camp did their best under estremely biased circumstances, with a political and media machine that they did well to survive with, let alone try to convince.

From one sad story to the next. The focus after all must be the United Kingdom. It is not the fault of the Irish that we were not granted a referendum, and anyone blaming them for our woes are terribly misguided. Grant the Irish their wish, lament the clear impact on our country, but the blame for this lies squarely with Brown. Lament the sick nature in which he turned up late to sign away the sovereignty of Parliament. Lament the shame to stand with his fellow European leaders in a photocall, where he would be standing on the side so they can airbrush him out after May 2010 from the official photo. Betrayal yes, and unforgivable.

The question becomes what to do now. David Cameron is quite rightly under pressure, and must spell out his position. But I believe that despite this pressure his approach is rational, if not extremely difficult to maintain. This really is a day-by-day battle now. Heaven knows the pressure on the Polish and Czech Presidents to sign the treaty already ratified by their Parliaments. I don't want to say the word "inev.." but the turn of events will certainly come to be historically significant. I believe that the media has highlighted the dilemma well - what will Cameron do if Lisbon is ratified in all states? It truly will become a choice of whether we stay in the EU, if Cameron wants to force a referendum.

But I believe that at heart that David is Pro-European (I believe many Tories are) but the idea of the EU (Please note, not Europe) has always been an economic one for the British, and resistance to Political Union is not unusual! So to read today about a possible change to the European Communities Act is a step in the right direction - after all, this is no different to the German approach that would require their Parliament to decide to veto EU laws coming into Germany. The problem, however, lies in practice............with EU law already established as superior, how do you override that? With Lisbon creating the mechanism to make changes without the explicit consent of member states, how do you override that? With news of an EU Common Security Policy, how do you override that? (a.k.a ID cards through the back door) With news of France and Germany wanting greater cooperation in the EU, do you just withdraw altogether and let this club be what it wants to be? Or do you sacrifice British sovereignty to maintain influence over the club? Many burning questions.

Finally, we must consider the international ramifications of Britain and Lisbon. The US is already cavorting with Russia, China and Japan - and openly talking of a G4. China and Japan talking about beginning the road to some form of Union - really? Who would they talk to in Europe? The signs are discouraging - the UK would completely be absorbed and lose international prestige and influence at the hands of an unelected EU President. Is this really in our long-term interests? Many say we should just accept the reality, but no, we create our reality with our decisions everyday, and Lisbon without proper consultation, education and a referendum decision, is plainly wrong.

I haven't even mentioned the impact on UK politics, where being governed from the Continent will surely spell the end of the Union - the Scottish and Welsh Governments may be pleased, because in line with the EU's principle of subsidiarity, they would be seen as the recognised powers in their "region" - and the UK Government an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy through which to govern - however they will just end up like Ireland - giving away power in the name of distrust of London, and becoming insignificants in somethin much bigger and more powerful than they are. However if it means that the Scots can make new songs to celebrate Europe Day in their own language - surely it's worth it?

I will stop writing on Lisbon right now, as I must return to burning the midnight oil. However I close with one thought and one interesting idea written in a national newspaper. My personal thought is that the world is awash with a history of the rise and fall of Empires - I see another one coming - why do we feel the need to consolidate, supposedly based on the common good, (or in the past by sheer imperalism and domination) just to reach critical mass, become too big, and blow apart in spectacular fashion? A thought I must invest more time in.......

The interesting idea I mentioned is that of riding on a train. We are passengers, and we were always asking questions to the conductor. He/She would always tell us where we were going, how long it might take to get there - there was a good relationship. Now with Lisbon, the reply would be to where we are going, "that is no longer your business, but ours." Of course I have interpreted the story for myself, and must find the relevant link, but the idea is poignant and struck me. No longer the UK's business, but that of an unelected President and his best friend in the unelected Commission.

God save the Queen for as long as the monarchy survives, for as long as the Union survives, and for as long as our relationship with our Commonwealth friends survives.