Grieve tucks into May
David Blackburn 9:13am
A fringe debate on the Human Rights Act hosted by the Tory Reform
Group might not have been a crowd puller. But yesterday’s feline foul-up and the presence of
Attorney General Dominic Grieve, a firm advocate of human rights, ensured the event was a sell-out.
If Grieve had been advised against deepening internal animosity on the 'cat flap' furore, he ignored the direction. The TRG’s Egremont blog quotes Grieve as saying:
"We need to have a rational debate. We must be more productive than just going for the ‘meow’ factor."
Then he added:
“The judicial interpretation and case workload of the European Court ought to be a concern for the UK and other European countries. If Britain wants a Bill of Rights we can have one, but we have to accept that the coalition circumscribes what we can do.”
Grieve’s comment about the interpretation and caseload of the ECHR illustrates that the supporters of the basic status quo are not unthinking. Few would argue that the ECHR works effectively and there is cause to check its growing activity. For example, the Court made just 837 judgments before it became a permanent establishment in 1998, and it has made more than 5,000 judgments since. But Grieve’s statement implies that it might be best to reform the court’s practices with the agreement of the Council of Europe rather than act unilaterally, especially when governing in coalition. Grieve and others will know the high price (in every sense of the term) that is attached to unilateral action. Perhaps this explains why the government wants to use its forthcoming chairmanship of the Council of Europe to drive reform. And officials are confident of some success; such is the alleged resentment for the court across Europe.
‘Cat flap’ has also provided an invaluable insight into Tory discipline. May’s backbench allies are aghast at Ken Clarke’s opportunism. “What’s he doing? What about collective responsibility?” One MP told Sky’s Sophy Ridge yesterday. While a Labour source describes it as “odd and unimpressive to have all this stuff playing out so messily during conference”. It’s hard to disagree. David Cameron will take to the stage this afternoon and promise to lead the country to a better future. The backdrop to that solemn vow will be a farce of May, moggies and no small amount of malice. It doesn't inspire confidence.
Previous
Iain Martin
October 5th, 2011 9:31am Report this commentSomewhat obscure? The TRG is one of the largest pressure groups by membership and is well represented within the parliamentary party.
David Blackburn
October 5th, 2011 9:39am Report this commentIain Martin,
I was being facetious, which never really works in print. Copy amended.
macduff7777
October 5th, 2011 9:40am Report this commentCameron will no doubt make a joke about cats and all the indiscipline will be forgotten. What is far more pressing is the economy on the brink. Telling us to clear our debts will not get the country back on its feet. Osborne's speech may have been dull and uninspiring, but if you listen to the content, I agreed with 99% of it. GO won't make a PM but he was spot on.
Maggie
October 5th, 2011 10:05am Report this commentI have presumed during the past 24hours that the media have made a meal out of the cat issue in order to block discussion about the Human Rights Act. Journalists, and BBC journalists in particular, will always plump for mindless trivia in preference to substance - and it gave them the opportunity to make a load of not very funny jokes and puns.
TrevorsDen
October 5th, 2011 10:12am Report this commentAgreement of the council of europe?? Are you kidding??
I am in favour of human rights, I would like to think we all are. Does that mean we cannot deport foreign nationals who are criminals?
The issue might not be so important if we did not allow so many immigrants in in the first place.
If you want to descend into your own well of ridicule by keeping the cat pot boiling you should at least remember the judge's own words which started this off.
In2minds
October 5th, 2011 10:30am Report this commentThe last sentence, "It doesn't inspire confidence", is a perfect summary. And who to blame here? It has to be Cameron.
It's all very well asking of Ken Clarke, "What’s he doing"? For the answer is what he has always done. Cameron should never have brought Clarke back into the cabinet.
David Cockerham
October 5th, 2011 10:41am Report this commentYour headline suggests Grieve was having a go at May, but his words as reported by you give no such impression; they sound to me like a helpful attempt to pour oil on troubled waters. I have long admired Ken Clarke, but I begin to fear he may be reaching that late Victor Meldrew stage and would be better off put out to grass.
Salopian
October 5th, 2011 11:06am Report this commentAbsolutely right Iain Martin. Been a TRGite since it was set up. Had it's ups and downs and spotty Oxbridge youths but there's some sold One Nation backbone there.
Maggie hated us - so that has to be a good thing !
Mr L
October 5th, 2011 11:13am Report this commentIn what sense is K Clarke a Conservative?
Dimoto
October 5th, 2011 11:15am Report this commentGrieve's analysis looks spot on to me.
There is no chance that, under the coalition, the UK could withdraw from the ECHR and draw up a reasonable replacement, and it would be a massive distraction and cause of disunity and controversy.
A hammer to crack a nut.
For the time being, working with other countries to limit the powers of interference and pursuing frivolous cases, of the court, would seem a better ploy.
Why is there so much "disunion" ?
How about, because the structure of the coalition, and Cameron's personal preference, is for no early reshuffle ?
Cameron and Clegg can't even shut-up the old Cable windbag !
Framer
October 5th, 2011 11:22am Report this commentGrieve is basically saying the commission on a bill of rights won't come up with anything that will take away the supremacy of the Strasbourg court, and that what would instead help is changes in the court's procedures (as the commission has already pointed out to Ken Clarke).
That is a fairly realistic position although a big review of the European Convention and other such treaties by the Tories would be merited as well as procedural fiddling. The results could then in time be pushed for if and when the LibDems leave government.
William Blakes Ghost
October 5th, 2011 11:48am Report this commentLawyers defend laws that fill the wallets of lawyers. Go figure!
Rational debate when the self-interest of the legal profession is in question? Not a chance....
May should get Grieve deported along with Clarke!
fergus pickering
October 5th, 2011 11:59am Report this commentAll the human rights that matter are negative. You have a right not to be interfered with by government or anyone else. Rights to family life, or to play space, or even to education, are meaningless. If a child is born in an African hell hole what is the use of a right to education. There aren't any schools. Most of these positive rights come down to happiness. Do we have a right to happiness? Of course we do not. How would you bring it about?
gillyw
October 5th, 2011 12:43pm Report this commentShould not judges who decide cases which apply to England be qualified in the Common Law, which is different from codified European Law systems, and if not, why not?
fat phil
October 5th, 2011 5:50pm Report this commentAll I know is I voted for David Cameron to get rid of the Human Rights Act and replace it with a sensible British Bill.
I understand the home secretary giving examples of the ludicrous folly of the act. She should however have given really serious examples like terrorist Abdullah Ali who wasn't deported because of the act. Journalists couldn't have trivialised that.
fat phil
October 5th, 2011 5:53pm Report this commentAll I know is I voted for David Cameron to get rid of the Human Rights Act and replace it with a sensible British Bill.
I understand the home secretary giving examples of the ludicrous folly of the act. She should however have given really serious examples like terrorist Abdullah Ali who wasn't deported because of the act. Journalists couldn't have trivialised that.
Back to top