Many thanks for the analysis of the ECHR and the court. Much appreciated
What I find disengenuous about Sumption's argument is all legislation is a "living thing" subject to analysis and interpretation whether it defines human rights or the highway code.
Laws can be challenged, repealed, rewritten and overturned so seeking reform of the ECHR should be viewed as more of the same, albeit somewhat more complicated.
The easy way out for him and those who'd gladly destroy anything getting in the way of their simplistic but harmful snake oil cures, would be to leave altogether.
However they and he should keep in mind the number of occasions over many recent years, how the will of the Commons was stymied with good reason, not only by the ECtHR, but also the unelected House of Lords of which he's a member.
Really pleased to read your thoughts in Substack format 🙂. BlueSky and the other thingie that went fascist wore me out, but blogging can be more measured and less addictive to follow. I shall miss the curation of Torygraph headlines, but they were veering into self-parody, almost as if they were written with a view to being sh1tposted.
I strongly support the ECHR because it is one of the few remaining "checks and balances" that prevents what de Tocqueville called the "tyranny of the majority". The UK has very few checks and balances compared to other leading democracies. We have no written constitution. The House of Lords (which in any case is unelected) can delay legislation but can't block it completely. And the House of Commons is elected by the notoriously undemocratic first-past-the-post system, giving the current government 63% of the seats from 34% of the vote (and giving Reform less than 1% of the seats from 14% of the vote). Without these checks and balances, minorities have no protection at all, and basic human rights are also unprotected. If a government ran on a platform of - for example - outlawing homosexuality, or bringing back the death penalty - and got a majority of the seats (which - see above - does not require a majority of votes) - then there would be nothing to prevent the implementation of such policies. I would not consider such a country a free country, and would not want to live in such a country.
All very good points. I didn't get to the poor state of Britain's democratic system in all this, but it is also a strong argument for a semi-external check on power.
Agree with all of the above, but there is also Executive overreach and the erosion of parliamentary supervision of government, a problem since Blair at least.
The people who thought the EU so undemocratic we needed to leave it were not keen to give parliamentarians a say in the process, and it fell to the Supreme Court in the two Miller cases to intervene on their behalf. Back in John Major's day Parliament spent weeks on end debating the Maastricht Treaty and associated bills; I seem to remember Johnson's TCA was rammed through the Commons in a day and, surprise surprise, it's a very bad deal for the UK.
Sam Freedman in Failed State argues that 'judicial activism' has evolved in large part to fill the accountability gap left by a weakened parliament. The Strasbourg court gives another layer of accountability. I suppose you could argue it undermines the autonomy and integrity of the UK justice system(s), but that's not an argument I hear very often, if at all.
Many thanks for the analysis of the ECHR and the court. Much appreciated
What I find disengenuous about Sumption's argument is all legislation is a "living thing" subject to analysis and interpretation whether it defines human rights or the highway code.
Laws can be challenged, repealed, rewritten and overturned so seeking reform of the ECHR should be viewed as more of the same, albeit somewhat more complicated.
The easy way out for him and those who'd gladly destroy anything getting in the way of their simplistic but harmful snake oil cures, would be to leave altogether.
However they and he should keep in mind the number of occasions over many recent years, how the will of the Commons was stymied with good reason, not only by the ECtHR, but also the unelected House of Lords of which he's a member.
Really pleased to read your thoughts in Substack format 🙂. BlueSky and the other thingie that went fascist wore me out, but blogging can be more measured and less addictive to follow. I shall miss the curation of Torygraph headlines, but they were veering into self-parody, almost as if they were written with a view to being sh1tposted.
I strongly support the ECHR because it is one of the few remaining "checks and balances" that prevents what de Tocqueville called the "tyranny of the majority". The UK has very few checks and balances compared to other leading democracies. We have no written constitution. The House of Lords (which in any case is unelected) can delay legislation but can't block it completely. And the House of Commons is elected by the notoriously undemocratic first-past-the-post system, giving the current government 63% of the seats from 34% of the vote (and giving Reform less than 1% of the seats from 14% of the vote). Without these checks and balances, minorities have no protection at all, and basic human rights are also unprotected. If a government ran on a platform of - for example - outlawing homosexuality, or bringing back the death penalty - and got a majority of the seats (which - see above - does not require a majority of votes) - then there would be nothing to prevent the implementation of such policies. I would not consider such a country a free country, and would not want to live in such a country.
All very good points. I didn't get to the poor state of Britain's democratic system in all this, but it is also a strong argument for a semi-external check on power.
Agree with all of the above, but there is also Executive overreach and the erosion of parliamentary supervision of government, a problem since Blair at least.
The people who thought the EU so undemocratic we needed to leave it were not keen to give parliamentarians a say in the process, and it fell to the Supreme Court in the two Miller cases to intervene on their behalf. Back in John Major's day Parliament spent weeks on end debating the Maastricht Treaty and associated bills; I seem to remember Johnson's TCA was rammed through the Commons in a day and, surprise surprise, it's a very bad deal for the UK.
Sam Freedman in Failed State argues that 'judicial activism' has evolved in large part to fill the accountability gap left by a weakened parliament. The Strasbourg court gives another layer of accountability. I suppose you could argue it undermines the autonomy and integrity of the UK justice system(s), but that's not an argument I hear very often, if at all.