Why is the Conservative Party so critical of the European Court of Human Rights? And why has leaving become a pet project for right-wing home secretaries, in particular?
These are questions I have been asking myself since Suella Braverman began railing against “the Strasbourg courts”, as she rather dismissively termed them, towards the end of her short-lived stint in the cabinet.
It certainly isn’t a compliance issue – the United Kingdom has the fewest number of referrals to the Strasbourg Court and has been on the receiving end of even fewer critical decisions.
Furthermore, under the Brighton Declaration, our domestic court’s judgements continue to hold supremacy over those of the ECtHR – UK courts will always prioritise and follow the UK Supreme Court’s decisions.
Undoubtedly, part of it is about immigration – a tried and trusted vote-winner for the more extreme wing of the party; however, I believe the real allure lies in the title – it is “European” and therefore, in the minds of many, a simulacrum for the EU.
In a world where Brexit has, by everyone’s account, failed to deliver any sort of tangible benefits, consecutive would-be Tory leaders have sought to reframe this failure, suggesting that Europe is still to blame, and it is “foreign judges” at the ECtHR who continue to hold Brexit back.
It is quite revealing that, in their haste to talk down ECtHR, the Jenricks and Bravermans of the party are apt to conveniently forget its history – not only did the UK help found the ECtHR, but it was also their great idol, Churchill, who spearheaded the project.
Conservative MP, David Maxwell-Fyfe, was another key contributor; indeed his involvement in the crafting of the European Convention on Human Rights – the piece of legislation which seems to draw the most ire in modern Conservative circles – was so great that he is often described as “the doctor who brought the child (ECHR) to birth”.
It pains me to see the Conservatives attempt to now renounce what should be considered one of their greatest achievements, as leaving is both unnecessary and potentially dangerous.
Since 2017, the UK has had the lowest number of cases per 100,000 inhabitants brought against it, by the ECtHR, and of the 284 cases that were lodged in 2020, we were only found in violation twice.
Additionally, with war in Europe, and an ever-expanding global refugee crisis, it is essential that we share strong legal frameworks which protect the rights of displaced people, prisoners of war and those forced to live under military occupation.
If we withdraw from the ECtHR there is a very real risk that we might embolden further violations from nations who have records of resisting compliance.
LATEST OPINION MEMBERSHIP:
- Labour has two targets to generate its money – business and the middle class – Kelvin Mackenzie
- Take a leaf out of America’s book – we don’t need a foreign court to protect our rights – Kevin Foster
- Peace in the Middle East needs active engagement of the Arab states – and tough love for Israel – Bill Rammell
Ultimately, it remains to be seen just how committed Mr Jenrick is to his anti-ECtHR crusade – many believe that his rhetoric is little more than posturing for the purposes of impressing the right-leaning membership – but the pervasiveness of Braverman’s original attack is worrying, nonetheless.
As long as the Conservatives remain wedded to the Brexit project this is unlikely to change. And this, in turn, seems inextricably linked to the debate around immigration, and the pernicious demonisation of asylum seekers as criminals who exploit the state, and steal jobs from natural born citizens.
The Conservatives seem to be well and truly locked into their positions, but a bold Labour government could conclusively win these arguments by proving immigration and Europe are both net benefits to our standard of living.
If we can do this, I predict all opposition to the ECtHR/ECHR will mysteriously fade away.