We know, now, the date of Britain's referendum on membership of the European Union – 23rd June. Soon, the campaigning will begin in ernest, as politicians attempt to convince us either to 'Remain' a member, or 'Leave' the EU.
Personally, I am undecided on how I will vote. I can see good arguments on both sides – and I can see wild hysteria and condescension on both sides too. However, it's my view that the burden of proof is on those who wish to 'Leave'.
The lawyer and legal commentator David Allen Green writes on his blog Jack Of Kent that he is 'neutral' about 'Brexit', observing that the referendum's outcome will make little difference to law and policy, on a practical level. Neutral, perhaps – but in reality this is a de facto argument to 'Remain'. If things will be basically the same either way, why would we go through all the hassle of leaving, and all the tremendous upheaval that will entail? Unless we can be fairly sure that getting out of the EU will tangibly improve life for most people in Britain, aren't we better off just staying as we are?
To my mind, 'Brexit' is not a matter of life-and-death. The UK will basically be fine, whatever happens. For all that the zealots on both sides of the argument would have us believe otherwise, neither result will truly be a catastrophe. Maybe I will lose some friends by saying that – but friendship shouldn't be contingent on sharing a particular viewpoint on the European Union, should it?
But as I say, the onus is on the 'Leave' camp to make their case – and unless they can convince me of some very real benefits of leaving the EU (and I am still open to being persuaded), I shall end up as 'Remain' by default.
Maybe this seems uncaring, or half-hearted; a rather uninspiring way to make a decision about the future of the country. But if it would be a touch unfair to say this is a vote about minutiae, it is at least a vote about something which few people really see as the crucial matter of our time.
For those of us who follow politics closely, it's a chance to spend a second year in a row geekishly obsessing over exit polls and sitting up all night eating takeaway food and watching David Dimbleby looking for something to say to fill in time – however, I think the wonks who inhabit the fringes of political society for whom Europe has always been a burning issue seriously overestimate the number of people who hold strong, passionate opinions about the EU.
To large amounts of people, the European Union matters vastly less than those who shout the loudest on either side of the debate could possibly comprehend. Plenty of people are, like me, quite happy muddling along as we are – unless the case emerges that 'Brexit' would leave us decidedly better off. Perhaps the initiative in this referendum campaign will ultimately be seized by whoever is the first to grasp this.
Showing posts with label jack of kent. Show all posts
Showing posts with label jack of kent. Show all posts
Sunday, 21 February 2016
Sunday, 17 May 2015
Human Rights Sacked
Michael Gove is an intelligent man. He's opinionated, bullish and stubborn – qualities which made him a lot of enemies during his tenure as Education Secretary in the last Parliament – and he has an unshakable faith in his own infallibility which can be quite off-putting. But he is clever, perceptive, and a formidable opponent.
It is baffling, therefore, that he is even considering touching the Conservatives' proposed repeal of the Human Rights Act (1998) with a bargepole. The problems surrounding such a repeal are many – and not easily overcome. The ramifications could be huge. Lawyer and legal writer David Allen Green (@JackOfKent on Twitter – well worth following, if you're interested in this area of policy) details the issues with his customary clarity on his Blog.
Interestingly, though, Green also touches on the common misconceptions surrounding the Tory party and human rights issues in his column in the Financial Times – pointing out that despite their reputation, the Conservatives historically have delivered constitutional reform and civil liberties legislation of a significant and lasting kind. It appears to be the Human Rights Act – not the concept of human rights itself – to which the Conservatives seem to object.
That is, in itself, not unreasonable. Personally, I don't have any great attachment to a particular piece of legislation; I think human rights, and enshrining those rights in law, are hugely important – but the Human Rights Act itself is just a vehicle for delivering that. Any other similar vehicle would be as good. The Conservatives' plans include replacing the Human Rights Act with something they are calling The British Bill Of Rights. Fine. If the British Bill Of Rights functions in the same way as the Human Rights Act, I've no objections to that – at least not in principle…
What I do object to is the needless constitutional turmoil which could end up endangering the United Kingdom. Replacing the Human Rights Act with a British Bill Of Rights is a task fraught with difficulty. As we've already seen, the consequences of meddling with the Human Rights Act could be huge; there would be a knock-on effect for devolution settlements in Scotland, and on the Good Friday Agreement (not just an Act of Parliament, but an international treaty) in Northern Ireland, and this controversial move would further strain the already fractious relationship between the national government in Westminster and the devolved legislatures affected.
All of which leads me to wonder: is it worth it?
The Tories' proposal is to remove the Human Rights Act and replace it with something which performs pretty much the same job, but under a different name. As I have said, I don't object to that in principle – what's good about the Human Rights Act is not its name, but the fundamental rights of citizens which it exists to uphold, and as long as something is fulfilling that duty I don't much mind what it is, or what it's called.
However, the corollary is that if the proposed British Bill Of Rights would do the same thing as the Human Rights Act, why not just leave the Human Rights Act in place? Risking a constitutional crisis for the sake of removing one piece of legislation and replacing it with another which does pretty much the same job seems, to me, to be utterly ludicrous.
Until we see a draft of it, we don't know what the British Bill Of Rights will hold. It may well be that the British Bill would enshrine our civil liberties in law just as well as the current Human Rights Act does. And that would, therefore, be fine. But even if the outcome would be fine, the process to get there seems incredibly perilous. Any negatives of the Human Rights Act can surely be addressed without a wholesale repeal, and all the brouhaha that will inevitably cause; that is the much safer, more sensible option for critics of the Act.
It is wrong, I believe, to say that the Conservatives are trying to "take away our human rights", or any such hyperbole as that. Conservative MPs such as Dominic Raab (a newly appointed junior minister at the Ministry Of Justice) have a keen interest in civil liberties, and genuinely believe that their approach to defending human rights is the best way. But I think it is correct to say that they are being needlessly, recklessly dogmatic, and putting the future of our country at risk for the sake of what is, essentially, an ideological vanity project designed to appeal to those hysterically populist tabloid newspapers who would otherwise be screaming about the indignities of Brussels-mandated banana curvature.
Replacing the Human Rights Act with a British Bill Of Rights might not be the worst thing in the world – but getting there is so risky and so labyrinthine that it simply isn't worth it. I seriously hope this government drops the stunt, stops pandering to whoever in the tabloid press can shout the loudest, and gets on with something meaningful and worthwhile before too much damage is done.
It is baffling, therefore, that he is even considering touching the Conservatives' proposed repeal of the Human Rights Act (1998) with a bargepole. The problems surrounding such a repeal are many – and not easily overcome. The ramifications could be huge. Lawyer and legal writer David Allen Green (@JackOfKent on Twitter – well worth following, if you're interested in this area of policy) details the issues with his customary clarity on his Blog.
Interestingly, though, Green also touches on the common misconceptions surrounding the Tory party and human rights issues in his column in the Financial Times – pointing out that despite their reputation, the Conservatives historically have delivered constitutional reform and civil liberties legislation of a significant and lasting kind. It appears to be the Human Rights Act – not the concept of human rights itself – to which the Conservatives seem to object.
That is, in itself, not unreasonable. Personally, I don't have any great attachment to a particular piece of legislation; I think human rights, and enshrining those rights in law, are hugely important – but the Human Rights Act itself is just a vehicle for delivering that. Any other similar vehicle would be as good. The Conservatives' plans include replacing the Human Rights Act with something they are calling The British Bill Of Rights. Fine. If the British Bill Of Rights functions in the same way as the Human Rights Act, I've no objections to that – at least not in principle…
What I do object to is the needless constitutional turmoil which could end up endangering the United Kingdom. Replacing the Human Rights Act with a British Bill Of Rights is a task fraught with difficulty. As we've already seen, the consequences of meddling with the Human Rights Act could be huge; there would be a knock-on effect for devolution settlements in Scotland, and on the Good Friday Agreement (not just an Act of Parliament, but an international treaty) in Northern Ireland, and this controversial move would further strain the already fractious relationship between the national government in Westminster and the devolved legislatures affected.
All of which leads me to wonder: is it worth it?
The Tories' proposal is to remove the Human Rights Act and replace it with something which performs pretty much the same job, but under a different name. As I have said, I don't object to that in principle – what's good about the Human Rights Act is not its name, but the fundamental rights of citizens which it exists to uphold, and as long as something is fulfilling that duty I don't much mind what it is, or what it's called.
However, the corollary is that if the proposed British Bill Of Rights would do the same thing as the Human Rights Act, why not just leave the Human Rights Act in place? Risking a constitutional crisis for the sake of removing one piece of legislation and replacing it with another which does pretty much the same job seems, to me, to be utterly ludicrous.
Until we see a draft of it, we don't know what the British Bill Of Rights will hold. It may well be that the British Bill would enshrine our civil liberties in law just as well as the current Human Rights Act does. And that would, therefore, be fine. But even if the outcome would be fine, the process to get there seems incredibly perilous. Any negatives of the Human Rights Act can surely be addressed without a wholesale repeal, and all the brouhaha that will inevitably cause; that is the much safer, more sensible option for critics of the Act.
It is wrong, I believe, to say that the Conservatives are trying to "take away our human rights", or any such hyperbole as that. Conservative MPs such as Dominic Raab (a newly appointed junior minister at the Ministry Of Justice) have a keen interest in civil liberties, and genuinely believe that their approach to defending human rights is the best way. But I think it is correct to say that they are being needlessly, recklessly dogmatic, and putting the future of our country at risk for the sake of what is, essentially, an ideological vanity project designed to appeal to those hysterically populist tabloid newspapers who would otherwise be screaming about the indignities of Brussels-mandated banana curvature.
Replacing the Human Rights Act with a British Bill Of Rights might not be the worst thing in the world – but getting there is so risky and so labyrinthine that it simply isn't worth it. I seriously hope this government drops the stunt, stops pandering to whoever in the tabloid press can shout the loudest, and gets on with something meaningful and worthwhile before too much damage is done.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)