Cameron is right to demand Court reform
GovUK
Last week, Prime Minister David Cameron swapped the shouting matches and laughable exchanges constituting Prime Minister’s Questions for the much more sedate surroundings of the European Court in Strasbourg within but a few hours.
Here, he delivered a speech demanding reform of this great European Institution. Cameron said the entire concept of human rights laws was becoming “distorted” and “discredited” as a result of the court’s decisions.
Indeed, against the backdrop of the court’s baffling decision to block the deportation of radical Muslim cleric, Abu Qatada, this speech has added poignancy.
In anticipation of the content of Cameron’s speech, Nicolas Bratza, wrote that critics of Strasbourg were ignorant of the role and history of the court. However, in seeking to curb the authority of the court, the Prime Minister has history on his side.
When the UK joined the European Council in the 1950s, it was clear that the European Convention on Human Rights was to bring the freedoms that we had enjoyed for centuries to all the citizens of the continent and to avoid a descent into tyranny. The UK was not going to give up the primacy of its own law.
Furthermore, cabinet minutes at the time showed that our leaders were defiant that British common law was not to be made subject to review by an international court administering no defined system of law.
As the UK assumes its presidency of the European Council, Cameron has set out how he intends to improve the working nature of the Strasbourg court, slashing through the backlog of over 160,000 pending cases and giving our own courts more of a say in deciding on human rights cases by refocusing Strasbourg on more serious cases.
The process is not the crux of the problem, however; it is the often incomprehensible nature of some of the decisions. There has been a creation of novel rights that have nothing to do with basic freedoms, and the inflation of basic freedoms to that of vital rights that must be protected at all costs, even in foreign jurisdictions.
Very few of us reject the rights enshrined in the Convention, but these rights have to be sensibly interpreted. Notwithstanding the Qatada decision, we can point to Strasbourg demanding that the UK lift its ban on disenfranchising prisoners. It was ruled by the Law Lords that the right to vote was not palpably a human right.
In domestic cases where UK courts rule, Parliament remains sovereign and can change UK law, but if the judgement comes from Strasbourg, then Ministers are bound to comply.
Whilst some do exaggerate the impact of the court’s rulings and their overall importance, the fact that it has an impact at all is enough for some people to question the nature of the UK’s relationship with the entire EU.
The enfranchisement of prisoners and the Abu Qatada cases are two recent judgements which show that the post-war human rights settlement has deteriorated. These rulings erode public support for human rights, foster a litigious culture and throw judges into the political arena.
Pressure is sure to mount on the government from a generally Eurosceptic country to sever ties further with the EU, but Cameron must resist the public and his party’s desires. Retaining a solid, if not totally friendly, relationship with Europe is key to Britain’s future.
Nevertheless, the Prime Minister is right to press Europe on this issue.
Indeed, there needs to be a new settlement that has to be flexible, with a proper mechanism for national parliaments to be involved. The current scenario undermines our democracy, and human rights themselves.
Loading ...