Point 3 from Cameron's Blueprint for Britain was this:
"We will replace the Human Rights Act with a new British Bill of Rights to strengthen Britain's traditional liberties."
Agreed that the HRA should be scrapped, but there's no need to dream up something new, which is a crackpot idea that Labour have already touted. For a start they should dust down and re-read the Bill Of Rights 1688 aka Bill Of Rights 1689, which:
a) Is still in force - it's called a "Bill" rather than an "Act" because it did not require Royal Assent. The corresponding Bill in Scotland is slightly different, but they can sort that out for themselves.
b) Is not so much an exhaustive list of individuals' rights (i.e. if it's not on the list, you can't do it), but a list of restrictions on what "The Crown" (which in those days meant the King, but nowadays means "The Government") can and cannot do. Individual "rights" in the modern parlance are thus neither guaranteed nor restricted in any way.
c) Reminds you that many of the things that modern governments do are quite clearly "unconstitutional", for example
i) "That levying Money for or to the Use of the Crowne by pretence of Prerogative without Grant of Parlyament for longer time or in other manner then the same is or shall be granted is Illegall." Which would render all Statutory Instruments relating to taxation that are sneaked through without being approved by Parliament void.
ii) "That Election of Members of Parlyament ought to be free". Postal votes, need I say more?
iii) "That excessive Baile ought not to be required nor excessive Fines imposed..". Now, about those people who've had their vehicles confiscated for bringing over fags and booze from France...
iv) "That Jurors ought to be duely impannelled and returned..." OK, that bit appears to have been repealed, but ought to be reinstated forthwith, rather than further eroded.
And so on.
d) Needs to be updated a bit (the language is very old-fashioned; the sideswipes at Papists are probably otiose; and whether it should be the right of all Protestants to bear arms is something on which we'll have to have a public debate).
There. Job done.
Forbidden Bible Verses — Genesis 43:24-34
7 hours ago
8 comments:
Can they scrap the HRA anyway? Isn't it EU law?
I'll tell 'em that when I get there on Monday.
JuliaM, the Human Rights Act incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into British Law.
So yes, we can repeal the Act, but that won't change anything. We would also need to withdraw from the European Convention (which isn't anything to do with the European Union) (except insofar as it's another rotten, venal and corrupt international organisation given to telling us what to do for our own good).
Brian, follower of Deornoth
Brian, follower of Deornoth, would you like to be Minister For Tearing Up Treaties in my 'bloggers cabinet? It's only a temporary position, of course.
MW, bloody good so far! Might one suggest they be combined into one document?
Mark - don't take offence to this - but this post is pure conservatism. Hear, hear.
The HRA can be repealed at a stroke of the Monarch's pen.
The UK unwritten constitution is underpinned by Royal Prerogative, statute law and common law. Royal Prerogative gives the Crown (effectively the PM) the ability to say wage war. Statute law is signed into being by the monarch and common law fills the gaps.
That means that no parliament or government can bind its successor with some sort of enduring human rights laws. This means that no new meaningful 'charter' can be created. Unless of course the Royal family are abolished, which cannot legally be done by them or by statute.
Mark,
I'd be delighted. I'd need to get in training first, though. The Lisbon Treaty rather resembles the telephone directory in all it's languages.
Brian, follower of Deornoth
Post a Comment