The third of five Reith lectures this year by Lord Sumption is a corker. For any of you willing to invest half an hour this weekend I commend most strongly listening to the podcast - a transcript is also available. Both are slightly marred by the lightweight inanities of Anita Anand (who she?)
Rarely do we get the chance to hear from either non-politicians or non-social media polemicists on matters of urgent threat to democracy. Here we have one of Britains most senior judges setting out with impeccable reasoning the threat posed by judges to what we have understood hitherto to be the preserve of democratic processes and decisions.
He also exposes the most fundamental difference between the supranational globalists ever seeking to expand the powers of unelected authority and those of us stalwart in our defence of democratic rights;
For those who believe that fundamental rights should exist independently of democratic choice, dynamic treaties have an obvious attraction. They create a source of law which is independent of democratic political choices. The European Convention on Human Rights is a classic dynamic treaty.For a heavyweight case for the UK's withdrawal from the ECHR and the ECtHR - not Lord Sumption's first choice - here are all the arguments. Anand's irritating vacuous twittering is only a very minor impairment. Don't bother with the Q&A segment at the end.
The first two lectures are also well worth hearing - challenging tangentially the moral certainties behind both Remain and Leave - and not always comfortable. There are two more to come - the next with a US (Washington, I think) audience on the subject of written vs. unwritten constitutions .
I haven't paid the TV Tax since 2015, but here at least is some of my money back.
19 comments:
Thanks. So many great podcasts out there it’s getting difficult to keep up.
On a similar vein, as a quid pro quo, I recommend the Spectator’s Censored in The City.
Democracy isn't the most sacred of societal virtues - arguably civility and the rule of law are more important.
For instance, China, a non democracy, is a far more civilised and attractive place than DRC.
Any analysis of the benefits of arrangements such as ECHR must take account of such priorities.
Also "threat" is a relative term. Those posed by such treaties are petty, minor, trivial.
hardly negligible, Edward; as Sumption points out
"... he vast range of issues which the Strasbourg Court has held to be covered by Article 8. They include the legal status of illegitimate children, immigration and deportation, extradition, criminal sentencing, the recording of crime, abortion, artificial insemination, homosexuality and same sex unions, child abduction, the policing of public demonstrations, employment and social security rights, environmental and planning law, noise abatement, eviction for non-payment of rent and a great deal else besides..."
These are all matters that should (in my view) be settled by national Parliaments; none of them are 'fundamental' human rights. This is mission creep it its most malign.
The point is one must ask Tony Benn's Five Questions; it is simply unacceptable for our laws to be made by people we haven't appointed, over whom we have no control, who don't answer to us and of whom we can't get rid.
It's not enough to claim they are 'benign'. There is no guarantee that they will still be 'benign' next week.
Let's give a simple example. State-sanctioned murder and torture, the death penalty etc.
Civilised, enlightened people would never want these anyway, so a treaty forbidding them is trivial on that point.
Understand?
Signatories-in-common to a treaty represent a consensus of nations. It is good that this implies that a nation withdrawing would acquire pariah status among the rest. In the case of ECHR, forty-four European nations and Turkey at my last count.
Edward - those fundamental rights are all contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the UN in 1948 nd agreed by 48 members including the UK and which constitutes International Law that can be enforced through the United Kingdom courts.
The ECHR adds nothing of any fundamental significance to the UDHR - but allows mischievous interference by an unaccountable body as a 'dynamic' treaty that can be amended at will by judges alsone, without reference to national parliaments or democratic processes.
No, the ECHR must go. And the ECtHR.
The real target is none of the "abuses" that you list. It is the Right To Peaceful Enjoyment Of Possessions, which at present stops everything from people's company pension funds being used to defray creditors in bankruptcy cases, to spouses being thrown out of homes and these being possessed, to pay for care of the other.
There's about six trillion of equity in UK residential property. The Right want some - plenty - of that.
So they stir up phoney scare stories, about the UK's being unable to deport rapists and the like.
"which at present stops everything from people's company pension funds being used to defray creditors in bankruptcy cases, to spouses being thrown out of homes and these being possessed, to pay for care of the other"
libertyhumanrights.org.uk (first one that truned up on google)
"However, there will be no violation of this right if such interference, deprivation or control is carried out lawfully and in the public interest"
So all they have to do is change the law or decide that taking your pension fund (or bank account in Cyprus) is in "the public interest"
Very precise legal term that. General will anyone?
How else do you raise taxes Mark? You appear not to have heard of "precedent".
Raedwald doesn't seem to understand "jurisdiction".
PS, before the Human Rights Act 1998, which imported ECHR into the UK Courts' *jurisdictions*, people's pensions *were* used to defray creditors. Ask the privatised car workers and millions of others.
The ruse was simple. Buy the firm, pay yourself and your mates by the wheelbarrow load, and then when it folds let the workers' pensions pay the debts leaving them with nothing. Classic Tory practice.
That's your lot for today Edward
ECHR a charter of negative liberties unless the country in question had a reason not to follow it then whatever they say. Nice to know I have been granted the right to a private telephone conversation. HA ha! As if I would need the legal permission. I despair.
Thanks for the heads-up Raedwald. Listened to all 3 lectures currently available.
The lecture on the ECHR/judicial activism was particularly interesting in the light of the recent attempt to bring a private prosecution against Boris Johnson for allegedly lying during the EU Referendum campaign. The decision of the judge to allow the case to proceed really calls into question the impartiality and wisdom of the judiciary which Lord Sumption lauded.
Still - there was an admission that the revisable treaties we currently live under (including the Lisbon Treaty) are undemocratic.
Finding the time is the issue.
DeeDee, you do realise that the High Court has now set a precedent, that is is perfectly legal for any public office holder to lie to the nation?
The respondents are quite rightly looking to appeal this nonsense.
Johnson's words were not a "claim" as the HC judges said. He repeated them, more than once, on the record, after the national authority had corrected his earlier abuse.
Cheerful Edward, I regularly hear left wing politicians repeatedly claiming that the UK is the fifth richest economy in the world, usually as a pretext for spending more tax payer’s money, or money we don’t have, on something or other. Not by any measure is the UK the fifth richest economy in the world, should they be pursued through the courts too?
@Cheerful Edward
Wasn't this precedent set years ago with a ruling that political parties have no legal obligation to fulfil manifesto pledges?
2008 I believe, I think the case was over Ultimate liar Blair who promised a referendum on the EU "constitution". After being rejected in France and the Netherlands it become the Lisbon treaty and this being a different treaty (technical true, not sure what the actual differences were but in practice it was essentially the same).
Smarmy lawyer/politician standard operating procedure.
If it was the general purity of politics you are concerned about, why Boris and why this?
What has failed was a tawdry attempt to use the courts for political purposes. Is that a precedent you want to set?
@Cheerful Edward said...
DeeDee, you do realise that the High Court has now set a precedent, that is is perfectly legal for any public office holder to lie to the nation?
======================================
Um. There was already a precedent, and this case should never have come to court
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11541708/The-court-case-that-proves-you-cant-sue-politicians-for-breaking-their-election-promises.html
"Can politicians ever be forced to keep their promises?
Whether it’s Nick Clegg’s pledge on tuition fees, Gordon Brown’s “vow” of extra powers for Scotland, or David Cameron’s “cast-iron” oath to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, political promises often cause more problems than they solve.
This week we’ve seen dozens of them all at once as each party releases its general election manifesto.
But a legal case from 2008 shows why none of them have any legal obligation to fulfil these pledges – and why judges will never force them to do so.
Helpfully highlighted this week by legal blogger Jack of Kent, the case of R (Wheeler) v Office of the Prime Minister will cast those manifesto bungs in a slightly different light."
Sorry.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11541708/The-court-case-that-proves-you-cant-sue-politicians-for-breaking-their-election-promises.html
Can politicians ever be forced to keep their promises?
Whether it’s Nick Clegg’s pledge on tuition fees, Gordon Brown’s “vow” of extra powers for Scotland, or David Cameron’s “cast-iron” oath to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, political promises often cause more problems than they solve.
This week we’ve seen dozens of them all at once as each party releases its general election manifesto.
But a legal case from 2008 shows why none of them have any legal obligation to fulfil these pledges – and why judges will never force them to do so.
Helpfully highlighted this week by legal blogger Jack of Kent, the case of R (Wheeler) v Office of the Prime Minister will cast those manifesto bungs in a slightly different light.
Breaking a promise, ignoble as it often is, is not the same as lying.
The promisor can always claim that circumstances have changed. But facts cannot be changed retrospectively.
Post a Comment