My post yesterday was about Rwanda and the ECHR and partly about my friend who thinks the European Court of Human Rights is the same as the European Court of Justice. I know this erroneous belief that they are the same thing or both are puppets of the EU is one which a lot of ordinary people share but I learned yesterday to my surprise that many who should know better are also confused.
First up, Kelvin McKenzie, the highly opinionated former editor of The Sun, who tweeted this:
Absolutely shocking that the European Court of Human Rights has tonight blocked the UK's right to send the illegals to Rwanda. The whole point of Brexit was to escape the legal clutches of the ECHR. Time to cut the cord. Do it Boris and do it now.
— Kelvin MacKenzie (@kelvmackenzie) June 14, 2022
McKenzie claims "the whole point of Brexit was to escape the legal clutches of the ECHR" - note not just a side benefit but the whole point! He is exactly the same as my friend. One almost feels sorry for him. All that upheaval, disruption, damage and cost which will be ongoing for years was to achieve something that is completely unachievable by Brexit and probably not achievable at all.
Next up, Kevin O'Sullivan, a presenter on Talk radio and not someone I am familiar with but clearly thousand are, took to Twitter to demonstrate he has no idea what he is talking about:
Unless Britain quits the European Court of Human Rights there is no point in trying to fly migrants to Rwanda. Priti Patel's optimistic bid to get another flight off the ground has no chance whatsoever as long as the final decision is down to Europe. Didn't we leave the EU?
— Kevin O'Sullivan (@TVKev) June 15, 2022
He asks, didn't we leave the EU? Yes, we did but this has had zero impact on our membership of the ECHR. A lot of people tried to put him right but he responded with this:
Yawn.
— Kevin O'Sullivan (@TVKev) June 15, 2022
Thus showing that, like many Brexiteers, you simply can't tell him facts because he's not concerned about them at all.
The right wing historian Douglas Murray tweeted:
Many British voters will be wondering why any European court or convention still has any power over the UK. The answer is that this government has still only half Brexit-ed. Perhaps today will remind HMG to change that. Urgently. Otherwise it’s on them.
— Douglas Murray (@DouglasKMurray) June 14, 2022
I think he probably does know but implies that Brexit is only half done because there is still an impediment to his purist version of sovereignty.
Nigel Farage, a man who you might think better advised to retire from public life altogether given the huge damage Brexit is doing to British interests, keeps popping up and giving us the benefit of his view which is more or less the same as Murray's:
Left wing lawyers now dictate our immigration policy. Time to leave the ECHR and finally complete Brexit. https://t.co/JCZ5dC1Xce
— Nigel Farage (@Nigel_Farage) June 15, 2022
I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised by anything about Brexit but I honestly thought those who have been steeped in the campaign to leave the EU for years might actually understand the ECJ and the ECHR are completely separate.
And more than that, the ECHR predates the EEC and is essentially the court of the Council of Europe which oversees the European Convention on Human Rights which we will NEVER withdraw from.
While, none of these people mentioned a British Bill of Rights plenty of others have done. But it's hard to see how it would be different or very different to the European convention's declaration which was drafted partly by British lawyers anyway.
That of course is entirely the point - not just of calls to leave the ECHR but of Brexit itself. We want things to remain precisely as they are (the 'exact same' benefits, the 'common rule book') but ultimately giving Britain the right to opt out of anything which we don't like later on. We must have our very own version of everything, British exceptionalism pure and simple.
It is like having two versions of any contract or treaty, each of which is signed by one party alone and which only binds the other, leaving the signatory free to do whatever they want.
Lord Geidt
The prime minister's second ethics adviser Lord Geidt resigned unexpectedly last night with a short terse statement although there are reports that he sent a “strongly worded" to Johnson. This is after a humiliating appearance on Tuesday before a select committee of MPs earlier this week, during which he conceded it was “reasonable” to suggest Johnson may have broken the ministerial code.
The Guardian report
"It is understood the robust evidence session confirmed in Geidt’s mind that his position was no longer tenable. One person who had spoken to him said he was 'sick of being lied to', while another said Geidt was 'frustrated' at his portrayal as a 'patsy'."
There is growing pressure on the cabinet office to release Geidt's full letter but don't expect it anytime soon because it would be terminal for Johnson.
Nigel Adams
Finally, Nigel Adams is obviously getting nervous and apparently still thinks the Brexit he is forever tethered to is a vote winner:
No great surprise that if @UKLabour won power they would try and undo Brexit.— Nigel Adams 🇬🇧 (@nadams) June 15, 2022
If the Tories go into the next general election with a 'keep brexit done' message they are likely to be trounced. The Labour party need only to be ambiguous about it. The tide is turning on Brexit and as we head into recession, the pound sinks to parity with the dollar and the almost irreversible damage becomes ever-clearer, Adams may find his message is an unintended boost for Labour.
