Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

They're not leaving the ECHR

They just seem to make legislation to ignore it.

Not really. The UK was part of the ECHR before the Human Rights Act 1998.

It changes the way domestic courts deal with ECHR rulings - and it is fair to say there is a bt of gold-plating. The UK courts, for example, have taken are far broader interpretation of right to family life in deportation cases than required by Strasbourg or than other countries such as the Netherlands. But that's a domestic issue even if the source is the ECHR.

The other big shift the HRA made was that it allowed individuals to make claims based on their ECHR rights in domestic courts, rather than just going to Strasbourg. Both domestic cases and the right to go to Strasbourg stay.

I think that article is a bit wrong-way-round. The bits that change the technical operation of the ECHR rights in the UK (the courts "overruling" Strasbourg, or how they interpret legislation, or the extra stage they're adding) are pretty modest changes and not particularly significant. They're also the ones that are most fleshed out and have draft language already. The bits I'd worry about is the substantive changes which are largely open questions with options (and there is always one very alarming option) - so one of two options is a presumption that public authorities are acting lawfully which is crazy or the stuff around deportation that basically jsut withdraw rights from an entire class of individuals in a way that's really wrong.

[Sheilbh]

How is this different from the discussion we had on ECJ and German/Polish Constitutional Courts we had a while ago?

It's a totally different legal framework. I think it's a bit like the difference between a directive and a regulation in the EU.

The ECtHR issues a decision on the principles but then basically says its up to contracting states how they deliver that and they specifically acknowledge that there is a "margin of appreciation" for states doing that - which is basically wiggle room. Generally there is a narrow margin of appreciation for certain things especially right to a fair trial, the role of the judiciary or if there's broad consensus across all states on an issue. But there's a wide margin of appreciation around sensitive moral/ethical issues (like abortion), "protection of public morals" (like gay rights), issues around family life, if there's a balancing of competing rights (like free speech v privacy), if there's no consensus or if it's a national security issue (like mass surveillance). As you'll see from that list the areas where there's a broad amount of wiggle room for states is pretty huge.

That's not the way the CJEU or EU law works. Only European courts can rule on the meaning of European law which applies to all member states and if the courts of a member state are unsure, they refer it to the EU courts. There isn't really a margin of appreciation because they are the only courts with the power to interpret European law.

There's always been a strand of criticism at UK courts dealing with ECtHR rulings that because our legal system is common law and court decisions are binding precedent, that they take ECtHR judgements and apply as if they were a ruling by the Supreme Court rather than acknowledging the margin of appreciation. That's what they mean by just blindly following Strasbourg - that instead the courts should look more at the margin of appreciation and is UK human rights law or legislation basically within the margin of appreciation. I'm not sure how true or valid that criticism is in practice.

So this is saying UK courts should take more advantage of the priinciple acknowledged by the ECHR that states can protect/recognise human rights in different ways, while Germany and Poland's courts were basically saying contrary to 60 years of European law that they can overrule the CJEU and interpret EU law for themselves.

[Syt]

New European having a good run with their Johnson covers recently.

[Tamas]

Javid says all 11 countries on red list being removed because Omicron now so prevalent in UK
Javid says the regulations will not be kept in place "for a moment longer" than necessary.

He says the travel red list is less effective than it was because Omicron is spreading so much in the UK.

He says the testing rules for new arrivals will remain. But from 4am tomorrow all 11 countries on the red list will be removed from it.

That means arrivals from those countries will no longer have to go into hotel quarantine.

As Tyr said there's just way too much money in making me pay close to 50 pounds for the same PCR test I can get for free normally.

[Josquius]

Meanwhile in Wales.... Oh dear what a shame, however will we stop this happening elsewhere.

https://nation.cymru/news/owners-of-multiple-properties-have-no-choice-but-to-sell-because-of-welsh-gov-landlord-complains/

[Tamas]

Meanwhile in Wales.... Oh dear what a shame, however will we stop this happening elsewhere.

https://nation.cymru/news/owners-of-multiple-properties-have-no-choice-but-to-sell-because-of-welsh-gov-landlord-complains/

A landlord has complained that owners of multiple properties have "got no choice but to sell" because of Welsh Government legislation.

David Gould, co-owner of The Landlords Letting Company, has claimed that over the last five to 10 years he has seen first hand the "demise" of the rental industry in Wales.

[HVC]

doesn't really explain what the new legislation is and what's a  land transaction tax? is that a tax you pay on purchasing property, or like a yearly thing?

[Tamas]

So even assuming that Sheilbh's "this is fine" analysis is genuinely right on the government "anti-woking" the human rights act (and it's not the "this is fine" meme which I suspect it might be), I do feel like there are at the very least forces behind the government who advise them pushing the UK toward a Russia/Hungary style of fascist regime.

i think we are in a situation similar to Trump in America - the long-term planning sinister forces are stuck with a frontman guy who is utterly incapable of achieving anything other than grabbing people's attention, probably somebody less lazy and disorganised could achieve far more with their big majority and hold on the public.

But it does seem like fascists are managing to chip away at the corners of personal freedoms, and I don't see a decidedly bigger resistance to this then in Russia or Hungary. Things like making the law around protests more strict, the Human Rights Act thing and the godawful vocabulary around announcing it, or just the general stomach-turning policies and actions of the Home Office.

I am not saying it has reached the levels of say 2011's Hungary, nor that the UK reaching those levels is the likeliest route, but I am definitely getting the vibes I had to grow familiar with.

[Josquius]

By the same token though there's the if Hitler was sane he wouldn't be Hitler stance on things. Trump being an incompetent loud mouthed bafoon was pretty key to him getting where he did.

[Sheilbh]

So even assuming that Sheilbh's "this is fine" analysis is genuinely right on the government "anti-woking" the human rights act (and it's not the "this is fine" meme which I suspect it might be), I do feel like there are at the very least forces behind the government who advise them pushing the UK toward a Russia/Hungary style of fascist regime.

I'm not saying this is fine - I'm saying the technical reforms they're talking about around how the HRA works and how it interacts with parliament, the courts and the ECHR are relatively small and not particularly alarming.

The changes they're talking about to particular rights are alarming. With the exception of privacy v free speech which I'm very torn on now I've started working at media organisation and seen the extent to which rich and powerful people weaponise their right to a private life. There was libel/defamation reform in 2012 which made things more comfortable for the media on that isssue, but privacy is the soft underbelly and I don't think we've got the balance right.

It's a particular risk because the model is no longer just big institutional newsrooms with media lawyers who can fight - all media organisations rely on stories from free-lancers who are the weakest link in the chain and you definitely see threatening letters to them from Carter-Ruck or Schillings. As an aside it's a bit like Meghan winning v the Daily Mail which was right on the law as it is at the minute - but one of the things that stopped superinjunctions (where they got an injunction prohibiting publication of x story and an injunction prohibiting reporting on the existence of the injunction) was the principle that a claimant needed to have clean hands and be truthful with the court. I'm a little bit worried because the court found Meghan misled them, but they decided that didn't matter which I worry about a little. Though I'd like to see the details of what they're proposing on that.

I don't agree on the authoritarian drift either. I think we've had 11 years of unusually weak governments - first because it was a fractious coalition, then a majority of 6, then a minority government with the Brexit ructions. I think that got us used to a type of politics that is more fractious and in which the executive is quite weak, but that is not the norm (in fact it's what FPTP is meant to prevent). We are now back to a government with a strong majority doing the types of things a government with a strong majority does.

In particular - I can't remember if I posted it here, but I remember saying to people after the election - that in the time I can remember I've never seen a Tory government with a strong majority, because the last one was elected in 1987. I remember saying after the Cameron and May years that we'd not seen anything yet because now they'd be unleashed and ble to do everything they've wanted to do since 2010 (frankly since 97) unimpeded. I think that's what we're seeing as well and actually I think a lot of Tory frustration with Johnson is that they have a good majority for the first time in 30 years and they've pissed it away achieving nothing because they chose a leader who will help them win elections but isn't up to the job.

Also I've mentioned but I was reading the Light That Failed and the thing that struck me about their analysis of some trends in Eastern Europe was that it sounded like what the authoritarians wanted basically sounded like the British system: very strong majoritarianism, strong executive (an "elective dictatorship"/an absolute monarchy elected every 5 years), the effective fusion of the executive and legislature with limited judicial checks and balances, very few protections for minority political rights. Which especially describes what they would have seen in the late 80s as Communism was falling and Thatcher was in her pomp.

Separately - adding this to my list of reasons why we need to abolilsh the Treasury (as well, obviously, as the Home Office):

Sunak warns over multibillion cost of booster programme
Exclusive: Chancellor said to not have opposed jab regime but warned of spending cuts or tax rises to pay for it

This is the standard "we'd rather save one pound now even if it means we have to spend a grand next week" Treasury approach all through covid. Because what costs more than a booster programme is having to go into lockdown because there's a pandemic that's about to overwhelmn the NHS

[Tamas]

By the same token though there's the if Hitler was sane he wouldn't be Hitler stance on things. Trump being an incompetent loud mouthed bafoon was pretty key to him getting where he did.

Fair enough. What I wanted to contrast somebody like Trump or Johnson with somebody like Orban. He also have been applying to the basest instinct of the lowest classes of voters (in terms of human qualities not in terms of wealth), but he didn't squander the domination thus gained, in the background he has been running a very efficient plan to orchestrate a complete takeover of the state by him and his immediate vassals.

To be fair though, Orban was never the clown in his act. He always pushed others of his entourage forward to voice the most vile/extremist versions of the "views" he expressed in a more moderate manner. Perhaps that's a key difference.

[Sheilbh]

Another reason I'm glad we're post-Corbyn - he's come out against both the very limited vaccine passport the government's proposing as part of their plan B measures and against a vaccine mandate for NHS staff. Both of those points strike me as just about the bare minimum of what we could be doing especially compared with other European countries.

Instead the government will probably be able to pass them with Labour votes - but it looks like both parties will have rebellions. In Labour it's particularly around the NHS mandate. From what I understand this is largely because of union opposition and the union's concern is that it will lead to staff shortages in the NHS which will increase the work load of vaccinated staff and increase risks. I get that to a point, but I also think the risk of unvaccinated staff to patients probably outweighs it - but I'm not sure

Edit: There's a 1922 Committee meeting tonight which is basically the parliamentary Tory party and Johnson's going to speak to them:

John Stevens
@johnestevens
In the corridor outside 1922, one Tory MP calls the assembled journos "vultures"

"That would imply dead meat" snaps back a quick witted colleague

[Sheilbh]

Huge Tory revolt second only to the first Brexit revolt under May.

This is now the worst case because I think even if the we end up needing stricter measures Johnson won't do it because it'd probably basically end up as a no confidence vote

Also given the mood on the backbenches any successor will likely have to be perceived as anti-lockdown/restrictions (which as well as being bad for policy is politically weird because Tory voters are the most pro-restrictions group).

Edit: And on another issue entirely - The Mirror's got a (the first?) picture of a Tory party from the winter lockdown. Shaun Bailey's mayoral campaign having a party:

[Josquius]

What's the bets theres a large cross over between the anti covid passports brigade and those who say we absolutely need to have strong voter ID laws?

[Tamas]

What's the bets theres a large cross over between the anti covid passports brigade and those who say we absolutely need to have strong voter ID laws?

Maybe but that's just weird British politics. Trying to operate a modern state without a national ID system is just lame.