Civitas - Human rights laws should be decided democratically in Britain – the constitution needs rebalancing
The Human Rights Act should be abolished as Britain seeks to regain the ability to decide its own human rights laws within its own democratic public sphere, a new Civitas publication argues.
Civitas editorial director Jim McConalogue warns that the Human Rights Act has had a detrimental impact on the UK constitution, emboldening a judicial supremacy of rights, far removed and insulated from the electorate.
He sets out how:
- the glaring contradiction between the government withdrawing from an EU legal architecture while seeking to enhance a complementing European Convention rights-based system is currently mismatched and in the future will become unmanageable.
- The capacity to govern and protect the nation state must, in modern times, operate in the face of serious ambiguity because of the Act.
- Innumerable court cases continue to permit European Convention rights of often dangerous individuals – including detained terror offenders – to supersede the rights of all others in society in safeguarding their public safety and national security.
- Over almost 60 years, the UK has received a greater number of Strasbourg court judgements (547) than Albania (79), Denmark (51), Ireland (36), Norway (48), Spain (167), Montenegro (50) and Malta (89) put together.
Given the government’s commitment to set up a Constitution, Democracy & Rights Commission, the book argues that the Commission must necessarily review the commitments to European human rights laws – while recognising that the current system of judicial overreach must be stabilised to return the judiciary to its former independence.
The report emphasises how the reclaiming of ministerial responsibility would mean the fervent passing over of many rights questions to the judges under the Human Rights Act could be brought to an end.
The Conservative government’s commitment to ‘update’ the Human Rights Act provides it with a window of opportunity to finally repeal the Act and withdraw from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights. Britain would cease to be a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights and could then rekindle its own legitimate British rights moral code for the twenty-first century.
The deeply ingrained but flawed historical assumptions that the Act would enable parliament to decide on rights issues, in practice enabled only courts to decide – with only one ‘declaration’ resisted by parliament in the entire 22-year history of the Act. In contrast, legislating for rights by parliament would enjoy a greater sense of democratic legitimacy than decisions made by judicial review.
Jim McConalogue added:
‘My book makes clear that reclaiming democracy and deliberation as the foundation for future UK rights has become essential.
‘The opportunity to rebalance the constitution, to take back parliamentary democracy and to reverse the judicial overreach of the Strasbourg court is viable and achievable.
‘To have disregarded entire sections of society from rights questions under the Human Rights Act – by construing rights as a matter ‘not for them’ – is a judgement on which the overlooked majorities have taken great political offence.
‘Our judges view of European Convention case law has been famously interpreted as “Strasbourg has spoken, the case is closed.” Now Britain has indeed spoken, the case is wide open to explore a sensible and workable alternative to deciding rights questions.’
Rebalancing the British Constitution
Latest News from
IEA - Most workers confined to home unable to work productively, report reveals31/03/2020 11:35:00
No more than 15% of healthy workers confined to their homes will work productively, argues new research from the Institute of Economic Affairs.
Covid-19: Emergency support package needed to save ‘children of the pandemic’ from becoming its unseen victims - IPPR31/03/2020 10:35:00
Right to paid parental leave, extra family cash, help accessing online learning and priority use of parks ‘essential’ to protect children from widening poverty, education and health gaps
IEA - Steps to help self-employed “unlikely to be the last” Chancellor has to take27/03/2020 15:15:00
Julian Jessop, Economics Fellow at the Institute of Economic Affairs, commented on Chancellor Rishi Sunak’s plans to support the self-employed during the Covid-19 pandemic
JRF - Government must go further to protect people on low incomes from impact of coronavirus27/03/2020 13:15:00
New JRF briefing briefing urges the Government to go further to protect people on low incomes from the impact of coronavirus.
IPPR - Take a 30 per cent stake in virus-hit airlines, and hold shares in a new UK wealth fund, Chancellor urged26/03/2020 11:35:00
Price of ‘bailing out’ any companies should be equity which will generate long-term returns, say economists in IPPR discussion paper
IEA - Gender pay gap figures “never fit for purpose”26/03/2020 10:35:00
IEA responds to government decision to suspend enforcement of gender pay gap reporting in light of the Covid-19 pandemic
Lift restrictions on migrants’ rights to help limit the spread of Covid-19, says IPPR26/03/2020 09:35:00
New IPPR analysis reveals migrants are more vulnerable to economic and health fallout of the virus outbreak
IPPR - Think tanks call for bailout conditions for airlines to secure jobs and deliver climate justice24/03/2020 10:35:00
New analysis shows that two major airlines have paid out dividends in excess of £2.6 billion since 2014, while the sector is underpaying corporation tax