twitter.com/RajivShah90/status/1567493045532213249
I was a spad in MOJ under Robert Buckland and, until yesterday, in the No 10 Policy Unit where I worked on constitutional issues for the past three years.
Thread on this important announcement [axing of the Bill of Rights]
TL;DR: This is great news but would be a mistake to see it from a left v right pov 1/
The ECHR and the Strasbourg Court create a number of difficulties for the UK, particularly in the field of immigration. But for better or for worse we are in the ECHR and subject to the jurisdiction of the Strasbourg Court and so we are bound by the judgments of that Court 2/
There is nothing that we can do on the domestic level to change the fact that we are bound by Strasbourg. The proposed Bill of Rights cannot do that. The only way to do so is to leave the ECHR
3/
Ultimately, the Bill of Rights sought to provide a domestic solution to a problem that only had an international solution. When you look at it, it has a number of provisions that look like red meat, but actually, it is a vegan steak 4/
Sadly, in this polarised political environment, many people have an interest in portraying things as being far more consequential than they are. So, lots of the activist groups and much of legal twitter talked about the Bill as if it was the worst possible thing 5/
This might have led the right to think that there was actually something consequential in the Bill. Reading the debates when the Bill was introduced that seemed to be the view of many tory MPs who thought that this would solve the small boats issue 6/
For example much has been made of cl 24 in light of the Rule 39 order stopping the Rwanda flight. But all this clause does is confirm that interim orders of the Strasbourg court are not automatically enforceable in domestic law. That's not new 7/
But - crucially - they remain binding in international law and that's why the UK complied with it and stopped the Rwanda flight. If cl 24 had been law none of that would have changed. So people who think that the Bill is necessary to deliver Rwanda would be disappointed 8/
Ultimately, this Bill would have been a political nightmare for the govt. It would have overpromised and underdelivered, the parliamentary passage would have been hell, and it would lead to very few gains for the government. 9/
Furthermore, it would mean that we would own it. When the deportation of a foreign national offender gets blocked it would no longer have because of 'Labour's Human Rights Act' but instead it would be because of the 'Tories Bill of Rights' 10/
So the issue is not whether you are a eurosceptic ERGer or a One Nationer, it is about whether you care about focusing the govt's limited political capital on effective reforms or whether something more cosmetic appeals 11/
To Liz Truss's credit, it looks like she wants to focus on effective reforms and so has wisely chosen to drop this Bill even if it might cause a backlash from the right of the party 12/
Make of that, what you will.