Category: International Agreements

Will there be a deal on the Northern Irish Protocol? And what then?

14th February 2023

The negotiations for the final shape of Brexit continue, even though the United Kingdom departed the European Union three years ago.

Of course: it would have been more sensible to have concluded these negotiations before the United Kingdom departed (as some of us pointed out at the time), but both the United Kingdom and the European Union wanted to press on and get the formal departure over with as soon as possible.

But the price of that speed has been a lack of finality.

The current news reports indicate that a deal may be on the offing about the dispute over the Northern Irish Protocol.

You may recall that this dispute was once so urgent that the United Kingdom government, with a straight face if not a straight bat, maintained last year that its envisaged domestic legislation that would enable the United Kingdom to breach the protocol even met the test of “necessity” under international law.

That was balderdash, as anyone sensible at the time knew – and it is no surprise that the enabling legislation has been frozen.

The one sticking point appears to be something that is both fundamental and trivial: the role of the European Court of Justice.

Fundamental because, to the extent that the laws of the European Union apply in respect of Northern Ireland being inside the single market, the European Union understandably want those laws to be interpreted in accordance with the European Union treaties and consistently across the single market.

And the only entity that can ensure such authoritative and consistent interpretations is the European Court of Justice, for that is what that court does.

But for Brexiters this smacks of the European Court of Justice having jurisdiction in Northern Ireland, which it should not have, because of Brexit.

And it is also trivial, because few other than obsessives care and in practice it would not make much difference.

Given all this, there will be some fancy choreography and packaging.

What will probably happen is that the substance of European Union laws being applied in accordance with the European Court of Justice’s jurisprudence will be maintained, but it will somehow look as if this is not the case.

The reason for such a compromise is that Brexit and completely open trade borders on the island of Ireland are not ultimately compatible – they never have been, and never will be.

And this predicament of the Irish border – although obvious – was not thought through by those who clamoured for Brexit.

Other problems may be addressed – if not resolved – by the establishment of “lanes” and the use of technical “real time” data.

However, getting the two sides to a sort-of-agreement is one thing, getting the endorsement of the United Kingdom parliament is another.

And unless the deal can be framed as a great British victory (and Brexiters swallow this) then either the deal will not pass parliament or the passage of the deal relies on opposition support and thereby breaks (further) the governing party.

No wonder the Prime Minister’s circle are making noises about quitting the European Convention on Human Rights and persisting with its daft legislation on repealing retained European Union law.

The Prime Minister needs all the distractions he can muster, as getting this deal past his own backbenchers is not going to be easy.

And we may even end up – as with 2017 and 2019 – with the run-up to a general election being dominated by parliamentary splits and rebellions over the question of Brexit.

Brace brace.

****

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome, or if they risk derailing the discussion.

How the government won but also lost the court case on Rwanda removal policy

19th December 2022

Today the High Court handed down its judgment in respect of the many legal claims brought against the Rwanda removal policy.

On the face of it, the government of the United Kingdom appear to have won – and that is certainly how the judgment has been reported:

*

But.

In two ways the government has not won, and indeed this may not be a welcome judgment for the government.

Let me explain.

*

The wide legal challenge was to the policy.

In effect the policy is as follows: the Home Secretary can decide that asylum claims made in the United Kingdom should not be determined here, and that instead the persons who have made those claims should be removed to Rwanda to have their asylum claims determined there.

A legal challenge to any policy is always difficult – almost impossible.

This is partly because courts do not like intervening in matters of policy, as opposed to reviewing particular rules and individual decisions.

It is also partly because to say that a policy is unlawful means, in effect, that every possible rule made under that policy and every possible decision made under that policy will be unlawful.

And it is partly because policies can be adapted and modified so that the possibility of the policy itself always being unlawful can be avoided.

A policy is always the hardest target to hit in the administrative law courts.

It was therefore no great surprise that the High Court in this case – with a bench comprised of the two most experiences judges in administrative law matters – rejected the challenge to the policy as a whole.

And so, the government “won”.

*

The government, however, also lost.

In the eight individual cases under review, the High Court decided that the removal decisions be quashed and the Home Secretary take the decisions again with proper regard to individual circumstances.

Look at the final paragraph carefully:

That paragraph indicates that the government lost on nineteen particular decisions in this case.

Nineteen.

Each of those nineteen decisions was legally flawed: every single one.

The policy may well be lawful – but in not one case was the policy lawfully applied.

And so the the government lost all the individual cases.

*

Now we come to the real defeat for the government.

The import of the High Court decision is that in respect of each removal to Rwanda under the policy, the Home Office has to apply the policy in a robust and reasoned manner to the individual circumstances of each case in each of the decisions to be made.

Otherwise the removal will be successfully appealed or reviewed.

But for page after page of this judgment there is a catalogue of Home Office errors in respect of each of the cases.

The impression one forms reading the judgment as a whole is that, with the resources and administrative competence available, the Home Office simply is not capable of making all the individual decisions so that many removals to Rwanda are likely.

For the legal issue with decisions which need to be made on individual circumstances is that each decision can be appealed or otherwise legally challenged according to those circumstances.

Or to put it another way: the government has legally saved its Rwandan removal policy at the expense of making the lawful implementation of that policy extraordinarily resource-intensive and financially expensive.

*

Of course, this judgment may be appealed by the claimants – though it seems at first read a strong judgment by two highly regarded judges in this field, and I do not think an appeal would be likely to succeed.

And so perhaps the policy under challenge may actually be implemented – though it seems there are no current plans to send any asylum seekers to Rwanda.

But.

Even if this policy is one day lawfully implemented – if – it will be always be an administrative and financial drain of the highest order on the Home Office and thereby the taxpayer.

Many will say that the policy is immoral and should be dropped on that basis alone.

Being immoral, however, does not make a policy unlawful.

But a policy being lawful also does not make it practicable.

The government and its supporters may raise a cheer that the policy is itself has been held to be not unlawful.

But today’s judgment means that – like the chartered flights to Rwanda last summer – the lawful implementation of the policy may never really get off the ground.

 

***

Thank you for reading: posts like this take time and opportunity cost, and so for more law and policy posts like this – both for the benefit of you and for the benefit of others – please support through the Paypal box (above), or become a Patreon subscriber.

***

These law and policy posts are also crossposted on my new “law and lore” Substack.

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.

Today 71 Members of Parliament supported a Bill that would have allowed the government to break international law on asylum seekers

14th December 2022

Earlier today, 71 Members of Parliament supported a Bill that would allow the government to send asylum seekers back to the countries from where they had most immediately come from, regardless of international law.

The Asylum Seekers (Return to Safe Countries) Bill is here.

You will see in the Bill there is this clause one:

It is not a well-drafted Bill.

Look at that clause one again, and see if you can spot the term “asylum seeker”.

You will not find it in the substantive and operative text, but only in the title of the clause.

Nonetheless, clause four of the Bill defines “asylum seeker” as follows:

(This is therefore a shoddy bit of legislative drafting: defining a term and then not actually using it in the substantive and operative provision is a howler.)

But let us pretend that the drafter of the Bill had got it right and included the defined term in the substantive and operative provision, rather than just in a title of a clause.

*

As it stands, my understanding is that whether an asylum seeker has come from a “safe country” may affect the credibility of an asylum application:

This means it is a factor that goes to the exercise of the discretion of the decision maker on the asylum application.

But.

The Bill presented today goes beyond such issues of credibility, and requires that provisions be made for the asylum seeker’s immediate removal if they have arrived from a “safe country” – even if that is not where from where they are ultimately fleeing.

If you look at the scheduled list of “safe countries” you will see that it is unlikely for any asylum seeker to have arrived here – at least by boat – without coming from one of those listed:

Ireland, Spain, Portugal, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Norway, Iceland – and all other geographically close countries – are “safe countries”.

And so if today’s Bill was passed into law, then any asylum seeker – even if they were fleeing from Afghanistan, Iraq or elsewhere – would be returned to the “safe country” from which they had most immediately left to get to the United Kingdom, regardless of the United Kingdom’s obligations under the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.

The United Kingdom’s obligations under the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees apply regardless to the route by which the asylum seeker has reached our shores.

Even the current law sets out that a route here via “safe countries” only goes to credibility.

*

Some may want to dismiss today’s vote – perhaps even scoff at it.

But it is significant.

I remember back in October 2011 the scoffing at the 111 Members of Parliament who voted against the government for a referendum on the European Union.

We are not scoffing now.

Similarly, 71 is not a trivial number of Members of Parliament.

And despite the government not supporting today’s Bill, the 71 Members of Parliament voted so as to enable the government to break international law anyway.

*

There is something worrying with the readiness of Members of Parliament to support legislation that expressly enables the government to break its international legal obligations, whether it is the Northern Irish Protocol Bill or today’s Asylum Seekers (Removal to Safe Countries) Bill.

Yes, the Bill’s supporters lost – today.

But as in 2011, such a rebellion is perhaps a sign of things to come.

Today’s vote is not a good sign.

Brace, brace.

***

Thank you for reading: posts like this take time and opportunity cost, and so for more law and policy posts like this – both for the benefit of you and for the benefit of others – please support through the Paypal box (above), or become a Patreon subscriber.

***

These law and policy posts are also crossposted on my new “law and lore” Substack.

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.

How three Bills now before Parliament tell us the story of Brexit

7th December 2022

Here is a story about three Bills.

The Bills are not chaps called William, but legislative proposals placed before the Westminster parliament by the government of the United Kingdom.

Taken individually – and especially taken together – these three Bills tell a tale.

They tell the story of Brexit.

*

The first Bill is the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill.

This is a proposal that would enable the government of the United Kingdom to break the exit agreement it signed with the European Union.

This agreement was signed in a rush, so as to “get Brexit done”.

This was the agreement which, if you recall, was promoted by the-then prime minister Boris Johnson as an “oven-ready deal”.

And this was the agreement which sought to square the rushed Brexit with no commercial border in the island of Ireland.

(An alternative way of addressing the same problem, with the “backstop”, was rejected when Theresa May was prime minister.)

The current Bill is an attempt to somehow unwind this solemnly agreed position.

Many think this Bill has no good purpose – indeed, many regard the Bill as having no purpose other than to placate some government supporters.

And it certainly is a rum thing for any government to so openly proclaim its lack of good faith in entering international agreements.

The Bill, therefore, tells us about the lack of thought and preparation of the government of the United Kingdom in how it approached Brexit.

*

The second Bill is the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill.

The Bill shows us that the government of the United Kingdom, having got Brexit done, does not know what to do with it.

This is the proposed legislation promoted by Jacob Rees-Mogg which would automatically repeal all European Union law still in force.

It does not matter whether that law is useful – or even essential.

It does not matter if the law was negotiated by the United Kingdom and serves to protect certain public interests.

The retained law is going to be repealed automatically anyway.

There is no good reason for this silly Bill.

The only reason it exists is to show that the British government is doing something – anything – with the supposed “Brexit opportunities”.

And as no concrete, discrete opportunities have been identified, it is doing this daft and potentially dangerous thing instead.

This second Bill, therefore, tells us that not only did the government rush through Brexit without proper preparation, but it also has no idea what will follow Brexit.

(In this, this second Bill is akin to the rushed and disadvantageous “international trade agreements” which were also signed so as to show “Brexit opportunities”.)

*

The third Bill is the Bill of Rights Bill.

This legislation is not directly about the European Union, but it tells us everything about the need for there to be new “European” courts and laws for the government to attack.

Brexit was simply not enough, and so the next target is the European Convention of Human Rights.

This third Bill shows the need for Tories to have a perpetual war with “Europe” (even if not the European Union) that has been unsatisfied by Brexit.

The Bill itself is not a good piece of legislation, and it has been roasted by judges and Conservative politicians.

It seeks to repeal the Human Rights Act, and to make it as difficult as possible for anyone to rely in domestic courts on their rights under European Convention of Human Rights.

This third Bill, therefore, tells us that Brexit was not really about the European Union, but about trying to satisfy (but failing to satisfy) the endless demand of some government supporters for confrontation and retreat with something European.

*

If Brexit was worthwhile, then it would take only one good government Bill to show the benefits of Brexit: for the United Kingdom government to show what it could do with its new autonomy from the European Union.

But there is no such good Bill.

Instead there are these three misconceived and illiberal Bills, each trying to do something pointless or needless.

Each in their way, and when taken together, telling us all we need to know about Brexit: that the exit was rushed and botched, that the exit has provided no practical benefits, and that that the exit will never be enough for many of those who supported it.

***

Posts like this take time and opportunity cost, and so for more posts like this – both for the benefit of you and for the benefit of others – please support through the Paypal box (above), or become a Patreon subscriber.

***

These posts are also crossposted on my new “law and lore” substack – please subscribe there if you can.

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.

Getting any quick international trade deal is easy, if you give in to the other side

15th November 2022

There is one way to get a “quick win” international trade deal.

That way is to just give in to what the other side want, but without gaining anything of equal value in return.

It really is quite easy.

All you have to do is turn up to the negotiation, ask what the other side’s negotiators want, give it to them, and – Hey Peston! – the United Kingdom has a trade agreement.

It is as easy as falling off a eucalyptus tree.

*

This week in the House of Commons there was a debate on the Australian trade deal.

In that debate the former minister George Eustice said (and this should be read carefully):

“…the Australia trade deal is not actually a very good deal for the UK, which was not for lack of trying on my part.

“Indeed, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, there were things that we achieved, such as a special agricultural safeguard for years 10 to 15, staged liberalisation across the first decade and the protection of British sovereignty in sanitary and phytosanitary issues.

“It is no surprise that many of these areas were negotiated either exclusively or predominantly by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on behalf of the UK team, but it has to be said that, overall, the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”

*

It gets worse:

“…we should not set arbitrary timescales for concluding negotiations.

“The UK went into this negotiation holding the strongest hand—holding all the best cards—but at some point in early summer 2021 the then Trade Secretary my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) took a decision to set an arbitrary target to conclude heads of terms by the time of the G7 summit, and from that moment the UK was repeatedly on the back foot.

“In fact, at one point the then Trade Secretary asked her Australian opposite number what he would need in order to be able to conclude an agreement by the time of the G7.

“Of course, the Australian negotiator kindly set out the Australian terms, which eventually shaped the deal.”

Ooof.

*

*

As regular readers of this blog will note, this idiotic approach to negotiations was pretty much also that adopted by the government of the United Kingdom with the withdrawal and relationship agreements with the European Union.

Instead of taking negotiations seriously, there were artificial deadlines imposed for domestic and media political consumption, regardless of the quality of the agreement.

In essence: the government of the United Kingdom did not and does not take international agreements seriously.

*

Part of this lack of seriousness is down to faux-nostalgia.

The notion that because nearly two hundred years ago the United Kingdom could go around the world agreeing trade deals on its own terms.

The idea that, like some latter-day Richard Cobdens, we can pop across the channel and agree a free trade deal, and still be back for tea.

Indeed, the very phrase “international trade deals” is invoked and bandied about by supporters with Brexit with misty-eyed sentimentality.

Being able to enter into such agreements was, it was claimed, one of the advantages of Brexit.

*

But.

International trade agreements are not creatures of sentiment.

International trade negotiations are perhaps the most hard-headed, unsentimental things one can imagine in the commercial world.

Indeed, international trade law is commercial law for grown-ups.

Any real benefits gained from such a deal are hard-negotiated and will come at a cost elsewhere.

And a benefit, in any case, may only have an overall marginal economic effect.

For forty-five years, the United Kingdom benefitted from the experience and expertise of the European Commission in negotiating trade deals, with the commission being able to deploy the clout of the single market and twenty-eight member states.

In this way, the commission were able to negotiate deals with mattered and were worth having.

That has now been thrown away, with the United Kingdom leaving the European Union’s common commercial policy and internal market.

What we have now have instead are bravado and bluster, and Elizabeth Truss asking what the other side want so that we simply can give it to them.

And we also have the moral hazard of Boris Johnson and David Frost agreeing to the Northern Irish Protocol and then saying we will renege on it.

We could not be in a less impressive place on the world stage.

*

Yes, perhaps, Eustice should have resigned rather than go-along with what he knew to be a bad trade agreement with Australia.

Perhaps.

But it is a Good Thing that he has set out the real position now on the floor of the House of Commons.

The United Kingdom, in a post-Brexit world, is going to learn slowly and painfully that the superficial approach of Johnson and Truss to international agreements is disadvantageous.

Well, at least the limitations of this approach are becoming apparent.

***

Please subscribe to this blog – each post will then be delivered to you by email.

***

Please also support this blog if you can.

Posts like this take time and opportunity cost, and so for more posts like this – both for the benefit of you and for the benefit of others – please support through the Paypal box (above), or become a Patreon subscriber.

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.

 

What does it mean to “take (back) control” of a border?

14th November 2022

Brexit, we are told, was about “taking back control” – of our borders, our money, and our laws.

Yet, if you read the news, it would seem the United Kingdom is less in control of its borders than it was before we departed the European Union.

It would seem that simply declaring that we were “taking back control” was not enough for us to, well, take control.

A less-than-a-moment’s thought should explain why.

It is difficult, if not almost impossible, to have absolute control of a border from one side alone, if a significant amount of people want to cross that border.

In extreme situations, of course, resorting to coercion and lethal force can give the impression of control, at least in the immediate term.

But for there to be effective and sustainable control of a border usually requires those on both sides to cooperate.

As such, the simplistic unilateralism of “taking back control” will not work in practice.

And it is thereby not surprising that the current home secretary has had to agree with France a form of cooperation about the channel crossings.

Though, as Zoe Gardner points out on Twitter, this is not the first time such a thing has been announced:

*

Another misconception is that deterring those crossing the channel will work.

That one can remove the “demand”.

That by threatening people with flights to Rwanda or keeping people in horrible conditions the United Kingdom will somehow reduce the number of those seeking asylum here.

The demand seems, to further use economics jargon, “inelastic”.

All that appears to be happening is that, by using various hostile, inhumane and illiberal measures, is that the same number of people are still coming – but we are treating them less well.

The “push factor” does not seem to care about our unpleasant ways.

And there is little that the United Kingdom can do to directly address the “push factor”.

*

So what we have are high significant numbers of asylum seekers.

[Word ‘high’ replaced, as some commenters complained it was misleading.]

What should be done?

Well, as Gardner further says, the dealing with the actual claims themselves should be the priority:

*

What we can take control of is not our border – but our internal processes, and how well those processes are resourced.

That is what is within our control.

Anything else either requires sincere international cooperation or is outside of our or any other receiving country’s direct control.

And that is control we cannot take – either “back” or otherwise.

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.

The comments policy is here.

 

 

The European Political Community – then and now

5th October 2022

You would not think that that Europe wants more political organisations: there is the European Union and the Council of Europe and the European Free Trade Association and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe and so on.

But there is now to be a new one: the European Political Community, which is to meet in Prague later this month.

When I heard this name, it seemed familiar.

This is because there was once another proposal for a European Political Community at the same time as the European Coal and Steel Community (which preceded the European Economic Community) and the aborted European Defence Community (which was rejected by the French).

You will see the European Political Community of 1952 was a grand and ambitious federalist proposal, but it never got off the planning desk after the failure of the European Defence Community.

The ideas which were behind it however became part of the European Economic Community and then the European Union.

Seventy years later the same name is now being used for what appears to be a purely intergovernmental exercise, with no shared institutions.

This is a good thing: one forum for all European countries is a talking-shop which is well worth having, without courts and commissions and treaty obligations.

And, rather wonderfully, it is going to be covered by Eurovision – showing that entity has a role beyond song contests.

The European Union should never be equated with “Europe”.

They are not the same.

The European Union comprises 27 of (about) 50 European countries – just over half.

This new organisation is a boon for genuine Europeanism.

Let us hope that it is more successful than its 1952 incarnation.

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.

The comments policy is here.

That Chinese embassy tweet – on international obligations and moral hazard

4th July 2022

Here is a tweet from the Chinese Embassy in Ireland:

Well.

What did the government of the United Kingdom expect?

This is not to say there is equivalence between the two situations – and many may say that a false equivalence is being made.

And this is not to say that the government of China – with its often horrific record on human rights, including in respect of the Uyghurs – are somehow the ‘good guys’ for tweeting in this way.

Certainly not.

But.

Again: what did the government of the United Kingdom expect?

The government’s reckless determination to legislate so that it can unilaterally breach the Northern Irish protocol was always going to provoke responses like this.

A government that openly and expressly wants to breach international law – especially its own recently negotiated agreements – cannot credibly insist on other nations complying with their international agreements.

Similarly, the sustained attack on ‘European’ human rights law by this government also makes it difficult for the United Kingdom to insist on international human rights standards by others.

(This is a point I make today in more detail over at Al Jazeera – where I post regularly putting forward a liberal constitutionalist perspective.)

The United Kingdom now also appears to be considering breaking World Trade Organisation rules on steel subsidies.

The United Kingdom government is showing the same lack of respect to international rules-based regimes as it does to domestic rules.

But the more we denounce or deride or disregard international agreements and instruments, the more we are creating a needless moral hazard.

It is all so daft – and so dangerous.

*

In another universe, where the United Kingdom has also departed the European Union, a far more prudent government than the one we have currently would have spent the last few years building up its credibility as a party to international agreements and instruments.

After all, new international agreements are what the United Kingdom will need to rely on, now that it all alone on the world stage.

(Of course, such a prudent government may not have left the European Union in the first place.)

But instead of doing everything we can to build up our credibility as a potential partner to international agreements, we seem to have done everything we can to trash our international reputation as a serious party to international agreements.

And this was the worst possible time for us to convey such an insolent – almost infantile – attitude.

This is why we are now being trolled by the Chinese on social media.

And the United Kingdom government only has itself to blame.

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.

Why the current government may not have a mandate for repealing the Human Rights Act – and why this may matter

24th June 2022

In yesterday’s post on this blog, the successive manifesto commitments of the current governing party since 2010 on the Human Rights Act were set out.

These commitments were as follows :-

The 2010 Conservative manifesto (twelve years ago):

“To protect our freedoms from state encroachment and encourage greater social responsibility, we will replace the  Human Rights Act with a UK Bill of Rights.”

The 2015 Conservative manifesto (seven years ago):

“The next Conservative Government will scrap the Human Rights Act, and introduce a British Bill of Rights. This will break the formal link between British courts and the European Court of Human Rights, and make our own Supreme Court the ultimate arbiter of human rights matters in the UK.”

The 2017 Conservative manifesto (five years ago) placed a foot on the ball:

“We will not repeal or replace the Human Rights Act while the process of Brexit is underway but we will consider our human rights legal framework when the process of leaving the EU concludes.”

And then most recently, in the 2019 Conservative manifesto:

“We will update the Human Rights Act and administrative law to ensure that there is a proper balance between the rights of individuals, our vital national security and effective government.”

*

This post looks at what the implications of that last 2019 commitment may be – though, in doing so, it is accepted that manifesto commitments are not legally binding obligations, and so there is leeway in how they are to be interpreted.

The 2010 and 2015 manifesto commitments do not need much interpretation in respect of the Human Rights Act – they are as plain as any pikestaff.

The Human Rights Act was to go – replaced, scrapped.

The 2017 commitment is also not ambiguous – the Human Rights Act was to stay, for now.

But.

The 2019 commitment was not that the Act would be replaced or scrapped, or that it was to safe for now.

The 2019 commitment was only to ‘update‘ the Act.

The 2019 commitment could have been to ‘scrap’ or ‘replace’ the Act – but the governing party decided against making that commitment.

The governing party opted for ‘update’ instead.

*

The governing party thereby has an election mandate for ‘updating’ the Human Rights Act.

And so if this is what they do, then that cannot be gainsaid – at least not constitutionally,

But the government is not now proposing merely to update the Act – but to repeal it and replace it with another statute.

To do, in effect, what the 2010 and 2015 manifestos promised.

But do the governing party have a mandate for repealing the Human Rights Act outright?

In other words: is repeal within the scope of an ‘update’?

Again, it is important not to be legalistic about this – no legal claim can be brought for a government breaking its manifesto promises, and so no manifesto should read as it is a formal legal document.

But what is stated in a manifesto is not without constitutional consequences.

This is because of the so-called ‘Salisbury doctrine’ – a constitutional convention.

This doctrine provides – quite rightly – that it is not open to the House of Lords to block or delay legislation for which a government has obtained a mandate at a general election.

The question thereby becomes whether this proposed ‘Bill of Rights’  is protected by the Salisbury doctrine or not.

If it is protected by the Salisbury doctrine, then the House of Lords cannot and should not block or delay the bill – though, of course, it may seek to make amendments.

If the bill is not protected by the Salisbury doctrine, however, then there could be such delays – including forcing the government to resort to the Parliament Acts to force the law onto the statute book after a year without the support of the House of Lords.

As the new bill substantially reduces rights and freedoms of individuals, there may be those in the House of Lords that will want to amend the bill beyond what the current government would want to accept – and to insist on those amendments.

Their view may be that “updates” – whatever that means – may be fine, but not outright repeal –  because the government cannot point to any mandate for repeal.

*

If a bill is protected by the Salisbury doctrine, then the House of Lords will (usually) back down before the government has to invoke the Parliament Acts.

Of course, the only reason any of the above may be an issue is, no doubt, that the governing party did not want to say expressly in its manifesto that it would repeal the Human Rights Act outright, as that might have scared the voters, if not the horses.

A promise to ‘update’ was a lot less alarming to middle-ground voters.

*

One suspects the House of Lords will be wary about opposing the government in respect of such a populist piece of legislation.

And the government – and its media and political supporters – will clap and cheer at the prospect of a ‘peers vs people’ narrative.

But because of the mild wording of the 2019 manifesto commitment, the government cannot be certain of the House of Lords will back down on outright repeal.

And, what is more, this government in particular is not in any strong position to insist that other elements of our constitutional order comply with mere conventions.

**

Thank you for reading – posts like this take time and opportunity cost, so please support this free-to-read independent source of commentary.

For more posts like this – both for the benefit of you and for the benefit of others – please support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.

A first glance at the Bill of Rights Bill

22nd June 2022

The new Bill of Rights Bill 2022 has been published.

On the face of it, this is a very significant move.

The Bill even tells us that when enacted it will be known as the “Bill of Rights 2022”.

Note this means it will now be one of a small group of statutes which will not be known as Blah Blah Act Date.

No, this legislation demands comparison with the (actual) Bill of Rights of 1688.

Portentous stuff.

But.

In broad terms, this new legislation makes no real difference to the Human Rights Act 1998.

For example, schedule one to the Human Rights Act 1998 sets out the articles of the European Convention of Human Rights:

And Schedule 1 to the new legislation also sets out the articles of the European Convention of Human Rights:

The proposed Bill of Rights does not create any new ‘British’ rights instead of the European Convention.

The fundamental purpose of the 1998 Act and the new bill are the same: to provide a basis in domestic law for giving effect to the convention rights in the European Convention.

And the key operative provision is the same.

Here is section 6 of the 1998 Act:

And here is clause 12 of the proposed bill:

*

So.

Both the 1998 Act and the new legislation place the rights under the European Convention of Human Rights into English law by means of a schedule.

And the 1998 Act and the new legislation provide – in identical language – that public bodies must comply with those rights.

Even the defintion of “Convention rights” are the same.

The 1998 Act:

The new Bill:

*

You may wonder what is the point of an entirely new enactment that does, at the fundamental level, exactly the same as the legislation it is supposed to replace?

And the answer to that is there is no real point.

The new legislation does make a difference in respect of how the convention rights can be enforced in certain situations.

The overall effect – odd for legislation which will be called ‘The Bill of Rights”, if you think about it – is to make it harder practically for convention rights to be enforced.

But that is done by the means of various processes and other tinkering – but nothing which warrants such a legislative overhaul.

Those new provisions can be looked in detail at as the bill proceeds.

But in respect of the fundamentals this new bill gives effect to the same Convention rights with the same key obligation and with the same defintion of convention rights.

The rest is detail and symbolism.

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.