Jeremy #Corbyn & those pesky European Courts … Where does #Labour really stand on the European Convention on Human Rights? May we trust @JeremyCorbyn’s @UKLabour with our human rights when policies they’re formulating may breach ECHR?


Paul Bernal's Blog

Jeremy Corbyn caused some distress amongst legal commentators over the weekend when he said to Andrew Marr that the European Court of Human Rights was ‘only in part an EU institution’. That simply isn’t true: the European Court of Human Rights (‘ECtHR’) is not in any way an EU institution. It is a Council of Europe court – and the Council of Europe is an organisation both broader and older than the European Union. The ECtHR exists to enforce the European Convention on Human Rights (the ‘ECHR’ – yes, all these abbreviations are confusing), something that was created in the aftermath of the Second World War and the Holocaust, agreed in 1950 and entering into force in 1953. Brits played a key part in its creation – it is something that for the most part the British legal community are justifiably proud of. So no, the ECtHR is not in…

View original post 434 more words

2 thoughts on “Jeremy #Corbyn & those pesky European Courts … Where does #Labour really stand on the European Convention on Human Rights? May we trust @JeremyCorbyn’s @UKLabour with our human rights when policies they’re formulating may breach ECHR?

  1. Repeatedly, Jeremy Corbyn has been told that, despite what he believes, European Union State Aid rules would not be a barrier to enacting policies that Labour set out in its 2017 General Election.

    He continues steadfastly to take the opposite view.

    Ongoing membership of the European Union would, therefore, frustrate the will of Jeremy Corbyn (and Seumas Milne).

    Some are beginning to wonder if a Labour Government led by Jeremy Corbyn would actually go further with state intervention than publicly announced by the party thus contravening the State Aid rules of the EU, if not those of the World Trade Organisation.

    Moreover, Labour’s plans to take back into public hands, for example, the water industry do, on some days, involve paying the holders of shares in those companies less than their market value.

    Such a policy, if enacted, and that might not be an easy task, and then followed through would contravene both the spirit and the letter of the European Convention on Human Rights.

    The ECHR was very much drafted and agreed in the context of events in Nazi Germany.

    Jews and others seeking to leave Germany were, amongst other things, forced to sell goods and chattels to the Nazi Government at knock down prices before they were permitted to emigrate.

    Would Baroness Chakrabarti be wheeled out during the early days of a Corbyn led Government to explain why the temporary dis-application of parts of the ECHR was necessary to carry out the mandate of that government?

    In early 2018, Labour announced that its was considering plans to force landowners to give up sites for a fraction of their current price in an effort to slash the cost of building council houses.

    Under the legal change proposed by the then Labour Shadow Housing Secretary, John Healey, landowners would have to sell sites to the state at knock down prices.

    Jolyon Maugham QC in February 2018 said this policy was just like Blair and Brown’s planning gain supplement, except contrary to the ECHR.

    In Corbyn and Milne, we are dealing with people who do not always object to the arbitrary use of power.

    Quite often, their main objection seems to be more to the political sympathies of the user of said arbitrary power rather than to the resulting abuses.

    It is not an abuse of arbitrary power, if they or their political allies are doing it, see Venezuela, because they are the good guys and are doing it for the right reasons.

    These are people who would ride rough shod over law and convention to achieve their aims.

    You cannot, after all comrade, make an omelette without breaking eggs.

    And if it’s not your eggs that you expect, in fact plan, to be broken then …

    Seumas Milne said a year or so back that East Germany would have been fine without the Stasi, but even without the existence of that body, the German Democratic Republic would not have been eligible to sign up to the ECHR.

    And Andrew Murray, Len McCluskey’s representative at the Court of Jeremy Corbyn is a big fan of North Korea.

    I think we may safely say that Corbyn and his entourage are not the heirs of Attlee, Bevan and Bevin.

    Our human rights are not safe with them.


  2. As an aside, it was only in the late summer of 2017, during an appearance at the Edinburgh Fringe, that Jeremy Corbyn learnt that Scotland has a separate legal system from those of the other three countries that make up the United Kingdom.

    Imagine that?

    Someone who had been an MP for over 34 years did not know something as fundamental as that about the constitution of the UK.

    He had not only been in Parliament when matters peculiar to Scotland were being debated, but he had also been there when votes were being taken on laws for Scotland.

    Incidentally, he opposed Scottish devolution.

    I think it is fair to say that Jeremy Corbyn is not big on detail when it comes to constitutional and legal matters.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s