tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6406430766424642773.post1014043636078780113..comments2023-09-28T12:28:57.598+03:00Comments on Grahnlaw: Disgraceful opt-out: EU Charter of Fundamental RightsRalf Grahn http://www.blogger.com/profile/02156293782163802007noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6406430766424642773.post-26741754106619582512009-06-14T13:39:45.881+03:002009-06-14T13:39:45.881+03:00Fergus,
Sorry for the last sentence, about Brita...Fergus, <br /><br />Sorry for the last sentence, about Britain. Should read: Constructive EU engagement seems to have become a rare commodity, indeed.Ralf Grahn https://www.blogger.com/profile/02156293782163802007noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6406430766424642773.post-54944563724098103502009-06-14T13:24:16.086+03:002009-06-14T13:24:16.086+03:00Fergus,
As far as I understand, the British poli...Fergus, <br /><br />As far as I understand, the British political parties fear the inclusion of even oblique references to principles evoking rights for workers, social rights etc. for their own people. <br /><br />Since the EU Charter does not add new rights, its significance is largely symbolic. Thus rejection is mainly symbolic, too. <br /><br />The Charter presents the rights and principles in a modern and systematic manner, which makes them more accessible. <br /><br />As often, one can find hyped statements about various acts, like the EU Charter. Your observation is correct. <br /><br />I surmise that hyping the Charter has to do with the dearth of Lisbon Treaty reforms, which directly affect EU citizens. <br /><br />In addition to the Charter, there is the citizens' initiative. <br /><br />Most of the Lisbon Treaty has to do with institutional matters, which influence citizens indirectly, if the institutions work more properly and produce better outcomes.<br /><br />But improved parliamentary input in the legislative process (the widening use of the ordinary legislative procedure) is not easily 'sold' to citizens.<br /><br />The Polish voters had the good sense to throw the Kaczynski government out, but in the British political establishment the lack of constructive EU engagement seems to have become a rare commodity, indeed.Ralf Grahn https://www.blogger.com/profile/02156293782163802007noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6406430766424642773.post-10201308752314552732009-06-14T11:46:52.916+03:002009-06-14T11:46:52.916+03:00I am afraid that I cannot agree with you.
The opt...I am afraid that I cannot agree with you.<br /><br />The opt-out seems quite defensible to me and lacks the symbolism to which you allude.<br /><br />Now, I have to admit that I have not been following the developments in the rhetoric of the UK opposition in regard to these issues. I long ago decided that the Conservative Party, like the Cheney republicans in the U.S.,have abandoned sanity in regard to these matters.<br /><br />Notwithstanding this opt-out, the UK continues to subscribe to the ECHR and to honour decisions of the court, even if not always with good grace.<br /><br />It is not prepared to give the EU jurisdiction in this area, and the opt-out is directed to restricting the, constantly denied but apparently inexorable, competence-creep which is one of the reasons that citizens <i>throughout the Union</i> are with-holding their enthusiasm for "the project".<br /><br />You have analyzed the motives of those who obtained this opt-out in derogatory terms, which may or may not have a basis in reality. What of the motives of those on the other side of the argument ?<br /><br />In the Irish referendum, the inclusion of the Charter, despite its almost complete lack of any practical effect, is presented as some sort of giant break-through which will <i>ipso facto</i> make life hereafter a bowl of cherries with no injustice any more for anyone.<br /><br />I suggest that it was the prospect of such mis-use that motivated the inclusion of the Charter in the intergovernmental Treaty of Lisbon.Fergus O'Rourkehttp://www.irish-lawyer.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6406430766424642773.post-52422912685867498092009-06-03T07:17:02.686+03:002009-06-03T07:17:02.686+03:00Eurocantric,
You are quite right, it is very uns...Eurocantric, <br /><br />You are quite right, it is very unsettling. <br /><br />To lay it on a bit, there are two different models: <br /><br />1) The European Union has accepted the view that human rights are universal. <br /><br />The EU should be a model, including its member states, should have the best protection available.<br /><br />The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights is the most modern compilation available internationally, although the member states have strictly limited its application. <br /><br />The EU promotes human rights elsewhere in the world through its external action (on all fora, tying them to development aid and other international agreements, including enlargement processes and various partnerships).<br /><br />2) Cameron's thinking is nationalist, and if he takes power from judges, they can only end up in Parliament. <br /><br />Parliamentary sovereignty means parliamentary discretion, including arbitrariness, which translates into old Byzantium. <br /><br />It means dictatorship through an elected parliamentary majority. <br /><br />*** <br /><br />At a practical level, I wonder what the Conservatives are going to do. <br /><br />They can, of course, produce a British Bill of Rights, hailing it as suited to the British spirit and genious, but if they actually start dismantling the Human Rights Act (European Convention), which Cameron seems to imply, they place themselves outside the civilized and even not so civilized nations of the Council of Europe (established in London, by the way). <br /><br />So, are his promises dangerous or cynical bluff? <br /><br />I really wonder why there is so little visible discussion about the implications of the Conservatives' programmes and promises in Britain. <br /><br />Shouldn't there be some clarity before they have become the elective dictatorship they seem to promise, at the expense of people's rights?Ralf Grahn https://www.blogger.com/profile/02156293782163802007noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6406430766424642773.post-85897915811768185302009-06-03T04:36:26.071+03:002009-06-03T04:36:26.071+03:00"Cameron also wants a limited British Bill of..."Cameron also wants a limited British Bill of Rights, redistributing power from judges.<br /><br />This could only happen by extending the parliamentary discretion. It would not give power to the people, but potentially give them less legal protection. For this to happen, the coming government has to abolish or weaken the Human Rights Act and to revoke the European Human Rights Convention, taking Britain an additional step away from the community of civilized nations."<br /><br />This is the bit that I find most unsettling. There seems to be a worrying movement against the whole notion of codified Human Rights in the UK - in the media and in the Tory party. I wouldn't even say there's been a debate on a British Bill of Rights - it seems to just be a label/idea floated as an alternative to the Human Rights Act.<br /><br />The rhetoric is amazingly confused as well, in a way that is deeply worrying for anyone with an interest in rights and in constitutionalism. On one hand "ancient British/English liberties" are praised, while on the other, the power of judges damned. Now who, in a Common Law system, do they think came up with most of these rights (in an ad hoc fashion at times) anyway? Judges! Praising the legal system while dismantling key aspects of it.<br /><br />And as for constitutionalism - without a codified constitution, and significant change, disempowering the judiciary would only serve to further concentrate power in the hands of Parliament (with power only restricted from the executive's hands in practical terms by a number of flimsy "conventions", which are basically gentlemen's agreements not to act in a certain way - until it's inconvenient).<br /><br />The separation of powers, a judicial check on the tyranny of the majority when it comes to rights, and the effectiveness of Parliament seem to either mean nothing to Cameron, or he is seriously ignorant of the forms of constitutional governance. Either way not an encouraging prospect for a future government.Eurocentrichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09439536905456080079noreply@blogger.com