There is a long tradition of British ministers addressing their colleagues from across Europe, to appeal for help dealing with the consequences of European rules from which those on the continent don’t seem to suffer themselves. Britons might have thought that their departure from the EU in 2020 would have put an end to it. But yesterday, Justice Secretary David Lammy and Attorney General Richard Hermer reprised that role on a trip to Strasbourg.

This latest appeal concerns not a decree from the EU, but instead an essential component of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Britain is not the only country in Europe to be facing tectonic changes to its politics as a result of the perceived failure of its establishment to address mass immigration.

Britain’s delegation joined the Europeans in calling for human rights laws to be “constrained”, and for Article 8 of the Convention concerning the right to privacy and family life to be “adjusted” — the most troublesome aspect in terms of instigating deportations from the UK. They also called for a joint declaration reinterpreting the threshold of Article 3, concerning torture and inhumane treatment, confirming that it only applies to things which would typically be considered torture or inhumane treatment by a reasonable person. Also buried away were calls for support in building ECHR-compliant “return hubs” to hold migrants offshore who have no right to be in Europe.

These measures illustrate the nature of the problem, both in Britain and in Strasbourg, which is an activist judiciary steadily expanding the interpretations of definitions set out in the Convention. This is how we end up with the bizarre spectacle of a British tribunal blocking the deportation of an Albanian criminal because his son could not be expected to cope with foreign chicken nuggets.

Lammy and Hermer most likely found themselves pushing at an open door in Strasbourg. Not only are many European governments likely to be naturally supportive for their own purposes, but Starmer’s ministry appears far more sympathetic in the eyes of many EU member governments. It lacks the Eurosceptic baggage of the Tories, and it is battling against similar forces of populism to many of the key member states, especially France and Germany. Fundamentally, making concessions to Labour over the ECHR does not threaten the integrity of the European project or feel like “appeasement” in the way that caving in to David Cameron might have.

But this entire spectacle underlines the basic lack of integrity of this government in dealing with the issue of illegal migration and the deportation of foreign criminals. The most important pillar of the Government’s policy is the legislation it is proposing to clarify the limits of Article 8. The main difficulty is that most Labour backbenchers and half of the Cabinet think this is outrageous in principle. There is also the utter absurdity of calling for limitations to an activist judiciary in an international summit, and sending, of all people, Hermer as your representative.

The truth is that this government represents the high-water mark of human rights legalism in British politics. Prior to joining the Crown Prosecution Service, Starmer’s legal career was based around guiding controversial test cases through the courts, with the intention of establishing precedent that would result in a maximalist interpretation of human rights law. And Hermer had been at it right up until he joined the Cabinet.

European countries approach the entire problem differently, thinking about the courts as an extension of the political realm. In Britain, we have traditionally thought of our legal system as being firmly independent of politics, putting political criticism of the judiciary beyond the pale. We are now facing the consequences of a generation of cynical activists abusing this trust, just as they have reached the pinnacle of power.

---

Chris Bayliss is an independent consultant who works on energy infrastructure in the Middle East.

baylissbaghdad

---