Boris Johnson rages at the European Court of
Human Rights. But will he act?
A timely row with Strasbourg plays well with some
Conservative MPs — but others are urging caution.
BY ESTHER
WEBBER
June 16,
2022 4:01 am
LONDON —
“One of the great things we gave to Europe.” So said Boris Johnson, describing
the European Convention on Human Rights back in 2016.
Suddenly,
he doesn’t sound quite so keen.
The prime
minister leaned into talk of withdrawing from the European Court of Human
Rights (ECHR) and its founding treaty this week after judges intervened in a
controversial attempt by the U.K. to deport refugees to Rwanda.
Opinion
remains divided in Westminster on whether an embattled Johnson is merely
playing to the Conservative gallery, or if the U.K. really is squaring up for a
fight over the ECHR. What’s certain is that U.K. ministers are putting the
finishing touches to a major shake-up of domestic human rights laws, with one
eye carefully fixed upon the Strasbourg court.
The ECHR’s
intervention this week — which provoked deep anger among Conservative MPs –
scuppered what was meant to be a big moment for the U.K. government, after it
struck a deal with Rwanda to process and settle asylum seekers overseas.
Up to seven
people had been expected to be removed to the Central African country on the
inaugural flight Tuesday evening, but the journey was halted after the court
granted injunctions for three of those due to depart.
Johnson
made clear he could now act to revise the U.K.’s relationship with the ECHR.
“Will it be necessary to change some laws to help us as we go along?” he
pondered. “It may very well be, and all these options are under constant
review.”
A fight
worth having?
There’s
long a clear political rationale for Johnson to be seen as getting tough on the
removal of asylum seekers, despite human rights objections.
He has been
urged by MPs and advisers to return to “red meat” Conservative policy promises
in the wake of seemingly-endless bad headlines over the Partygate scandal, in
which Johnson was fined for breaching coronavirus lockdown rules.
“The
battleground of the next election is not going to be COVID,” said an adviser to
the Tory party. “It’s going to be the cost of living and immigration.”
The policy
of deporting migrants to Rwanda allows Johnson to demonstrate he is at least
seeking to “take back control” of the U.K.’s borders, as he promised during the
Brexit referendum.
In the
words of one long-serving Conservative MP: “Number 10 look at this as an
opportunity for us to demonstrate whose side we’re on, and that can’t be a bad
thing.”
Some observers
suggest it also suits Johnson’s government to walk into a confrontation with
the ECHR: ministers can say they are doing all they can to halt asylum claims,
but that their hands are being tied by pesky judges in Strasbourg.
A Tory MP
representing a Red Wall seat said: “The idea that a European court has blocked
the intention of the U.K. parliament will be a huge help to the government.”
A Whitehall
official agreed that this was part of the strategy, claiming the Johnson
government “feeds off division and drama — they’re messy bitches.”
Macron
hints at imminent Ukraine visit
Johnson’s
press secretary on Wednesday denied deportations were being used as a wedge
issue, insisting these were “hugely important” matters for the nation.
Yet taking
aim at the ECHR will undoubtedly go down well with a segment of Johnson’s party
faithful who have long pushed for the U.K. to sever ties with Strasbourg.
The idea
has long been discussed in Tory circles, and was most notably advocated for by
Theresa May during her stint as home secretary in 2016. Back then, she accused
judges of “binding the hands” of the British government.
Some MPs
regard such a move as a final step in separation from European political
processes — despite the court being completely separate from the European
Union.
“It’s time
we kicked these bastards into touch. For once I won’t apologize for my French,”
one Tory MP messaged colleagues on a WhatsApp group Tuesday night.
Past praise
While it
may suit Downing Street to set hares running on this issue, it remains unlikely
the U.K. is about to simply walk away from the ECHR anytime soon. Indeed,
Johnson himself has sentimental ties to the convention, which could undercut
any impulse he might feel to concede to MPs’ demands.
Britain
played a central role in drawing up the convention under Winston Churchill, one
of the current prime minister’s great heroes. Johnson’s maternal grandfather,
James Fawcett, was president of the now-defunct European Commission of Human
Rights from 1962 to 1984.
“We wrote
it and actually I am a supporter of it,” Johnson said during the 2016 Brexit
campaign. “I think it was one of the great things we gave to Europe. It was a
fine idea in the post-war environment.”
And
although withdrawal may sound appealing to some of Johnson’s more bloodthirsty
backbenchers, it would be deeply controversial with the softer wing of his
party.
Robert Buckland,
the U.K’s former justice secretary, said that while the ECHR’s decision was
“wrong,” those who advocated leaving it “are jumping the gun.”
Another
Tory MP — a supporter of the Rwanda policy — urged caution as the U.K. tries to
hold the moral high ground amid the conflict in Ukraine.
“If we want
to be critical of Russia,” the MP said, “then the Council of Europe and the
European Court of Human Rights are the mechanisms whereby we can do that.”
Participation
in the ECHR is also a supporting plank of the Good Friday Agreement, the
hard-won peace deal cementing the end of decades of conflict in Northern
Ireland. It’s an awkward fact for a British government locked in a post-Brexit
row with Brussels over claims existing trade rules are threatening Irish peace.
“It’s
really unhelpful for one department to be pushing that we are taking action to
support Northern Ireland and protect the Good Friday Agreement, and then for
another department to suggest we will be leaving the European Court that backs
up the Good Friday Agreement,” said the same Whitehall official quoted above.
British
Bill of Rights
Even if his
main intention was to rally Tory troops with his comments, Johnson’s
intervention on the ECHR undoubtedly fuels fresh expectations for the government’s
broader plans for a human rights law shake-up through a long-promised British
Bill of Rights.
The idea of
a new charter on rights has been floating around since David Cameron’s
premiership but it has never led to legislation — something Johnson promised to
change in this year’s Queen’s Speech.
While the
plans have not been finalized, the government says the new bill ought to
reinforce the supremacy of the U.K. Supreme Court. A consultation was launched
back in March, and specified that the government intends to include a provision
“that affirms parliamentary sovereignty in the exercise of the legislative
function, in the context of adverse Strasbourg rulings.”
A Whitehall
official suggested work on that bill had “ramped up” over the last month, with
aides suggesting the bill would now be published in the coming weeks.
In the
meantime, not everyone is convinced that the Rwanda row will help Johnson in
the end.
“If we say
we’re going to do something and we can’t do it, at some point people do start
to think you’re incompetent,” an ex-minister said.
Additional
reporting by Eleni Courea.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário