Compounding the confusion

Topics: Government & politics,Human rights

  • Print
  • Share
  • Comments (8)
  • Save

Related images

  • Joshua Rozenberg

Government proposals to reform human rights are a solution without a problem.

I have spent much of my career trying to persuade people that the European Convention on Human Rights has nothing to do with the EU. There are two European courts, I explain patiently: one in Strasbourg deciding human rights cases and one in Luxembourg dealing with EU law.

Gazette readers will know that it is a bit more complicated than that. But if you can keep human rights law and EU law apart in your mind, I tell people, there is a chance you will be able to make sense of what is going on. Now, though, I am not so sure. Human rights reform has been inextricably intertwined with renegotiating the UK’s membership of the EU. And it is all the government’s fault.


First, a brief recap. Although the Conservatives pledged as long ago as 2010 to ‘replace the Human Rights Act with a UK Bill of Rights’, the promised consultation paper has not yet appeared. We have known for some months that the government was not planning to withdraw from the human rights convention, which is an international treaty. But it wants to revisit the act of parliament that has made the convention enforceable in UK courts for more than 15 years.

One change under consideration is to amend section 2 of the Human Rights Act, which says that UK courts ‘must take into account’ decisions by the Strasbourg judges. The word ‘must’ could become ‘may’.

The act already requires courts to have ‘particular regard’ for freedom of expression. But Michael Gove told the Lords EU justice sub-committee  this month that it might be appropriate for parliament to ‘firm up and make clearer’ the importance of free speech.

Another change under consideration might exempt British troops from complying with the convention when engaged in armed conflict. For this to prove effective, however, the UK would need to persuade the human rights court that ‘derogation’ from the convention was strictly required by ‘war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation’.

The justice secretary could not say when his consultation paper would be published. It was for the prime minister to decide, he told peers. But it clearly falls far short of the bespoke British bill of rights that Jonathan Fisher QC sketched out in his recent paper for the thinktank Politeia. Last December, though, Gove told the Lords constitution committee that David Cameron had asked him ‘to think hard about whether we should use the British bill of rights in order to create a constitutional longstop similar to the German constitutional court and, if so, whether the [UK] Supreme Court should be that body’.

This is where we move from human rights law to EU law. Cameron apparently believes that a constitutional court in the UK would be able to restrict the power of the EU, perhaps by overruling decisions by its court of justice – although there are no cases in which the German constitutional court has actually done that.

Setting up a constitutional court in the UK from scratch is clearly a non-starter. Lord Neuberger, president of the Supreme Court, told The Times it was ‘just a recipe for complication, for cost and for unnecessary duplication’. Dismissing the idea as ‘half-baked’, Jeff King, a senior lecturer at UCL, pointed out that we have no reliable definition of ‘constitutional’ in the UK.

So if any court is going to take on the EU, it must be our existing Supreme Court. In the HS2 judgment in 2014, the court suggested in rather convoluted language that some ‘fundamental principles’ of law might not have been overridden by the European Communities Act 1972, which requires the courts to disapply domestic statutes if they cannot be interpreted consistently with EU law.

But judicial activism cannot be relied on by ministers. So Cameron told MPs he wanted ‘to put it beyond doubt that this House of Commons is sovereign’. Presumably, he meant parliament rather than just the Commons.

This is rather curious. The only way the government can put this beyond doubt is to ask parliament to pass legislation. That legislation would presumably proclaim that acts of parliament are sovereign. But if parliament is not already sovereign, saying so will not change anything. If parliament is already sovereign, what is to be achieved by declaring it?

Maybe the legislation would say that parliament or the courts can ignore decisions by the EU and rulings from its court of justice. But if that were to happen, the UK would be in breach of the EU treaties. And, as Dominic Grieve has explained with impeccable logic, the EU court would then override the legislation.

So this is a problem without a solution. And the government’s human rights reforms are a solution without a problem. Confusing the two is not going to solve anything.

Readers' comments (8)

  • This ignores the whole problem. It's the British people who are sovereign. Parliament and individuals in parliament committed treason by giving away our sovereignty to another state when signing all the EU treaties. You lawyers are living a lie. Reat The Lord Chancellor's letter to Edward Heath. He told Heath he would be committing treason by signing away our sovereignty

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I have to agree with Mr Drowssap. It really is hard to see how what the Heath government did in 1972 was not "treason", according to the legal definition of that offence. Perhaps some clever crimino-constitutional lawyer among Gazette readers can explain the difference?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • What hypocrites you two are. Of course it's the British people who are SUPPOSED to be sovereign, but politicians of all Parties have made sure, in their own interests, that this is a facade:
    "Although it is desirable that members of the public feel influential, the ordinary citizen cannot be permitted to have much actual influence." A.I.Abramovitz in The Civic Culture Revisited', Almond and Verba, Sage 1980, in line with many other academic advisors.
    Surely even a non-clever lawyer can see (possibly, of course, with approval) that we do not have government of the people by the people, nor even the nearest approach to it that I know of, the direct and referendary government the Swiss people enjoy, which keeps them out of the EU while enjoying most of its benefits, a status UK governments never seem to have thought worth aiming for even at the most propitious moments.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • "Hypocrite" is a strong word, Mr Martin. Hardly the language one expects even from a non-clever lawyer - and in this case a little illogical besides. Because you and Mr Abramovitz don't believe we have democracy (or sovereignty), therefore Mr Drowssap and I may not censure Mr Heath's deceit?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • It's a well written an thoghtful piece. But there is a problem; the problem is that we have no written constitution.

    The sovreign body here is the Queen (or King) in Parlaiment. That is how it has been since the Gloroius Revolution. The Queen, by convention in force since the time of Queen Anne, does not intervene. Parliament then, Lords and Commons, can do as it pleases.

    it has pleased Parlaiment to allow ministers sign treaties which, so long as we abide by them, limit what Parliament can do. But Parliamnet can walk away from any treaty it likes, including the EU treaty. and the ECHR. The conundrum Joshua Rozenberg exposes is that Parliament cannot both have a treaty and not have it at the same time..

    For my part I do not altogether trust Parlaiment, composed as it is. Absent a written constiution, I am happy to have in place the checks on what it can do which derive from EU law and the Human Rights Convention.

    Robert Morfee

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Mr Maloney,
    You certainly may censure any politician on what a life's experience suggests to me is their inveterate, seemingly innate, deceitfulness. That's why the word hypocrisy springs so readily to mind. Perhaps I should have written 'duplicity' because, like so many, you seem to use the word 'democracy', as politicians do, to conflate what we have with what Athens invented, a duplicity which few politicians are willing to decry, as A Eden did in the HoC in 1928: “We have not got democratic government in this country to-day; we never had it, and I venture to suggest that we shall never have it. What we have done ... is to broaden the basis of our oligarchy.”

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • "Duplicity" is no better than "hypocrisy", Mr Martin. Indeed, levelled at a lawyer, I should say it's probably the more defamatory word of the two. One lesson life's experience doesn't seem to have taught you is how to preserve the decencies of debate. But in that respect you have a lot in common with many pro-EUists.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • @Michael Martin18 February 2016 01:25 pm:

    Rather than reading 'A.I.Abramovitz in The Civic Culture Revisited', may I suggest that you start with JAG Griffhtis 'The Politics of the Judiciary' and Wade on Constitutional Law?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

  • Print
  • Share
  • Comments (8)
  • Save
Browse over 4,300 law jobs Get jobs by email


Sign up for email news alerts

Daily Update. Keep abreast of the latest developments that affect the profession

Legal Services

Browse the magazine

Current Issue

The Gazette offers you up-to-the-minute national and international news, opinion, features, in-depth articles plus a jobs and appointments section.

Please click the link below for a digital edition