This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/25/uk-must-leave-european-convention-on-human-rights-theresa-may-eu-referendum

The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 3 Version 4
UK must leave European convention on human rights, says Theresa May UK must leave European convention on human rights, says Theresa May
(about 5 hours later)
Britain should withdraw from the European convention on human rights regardless of the EU referendum result, Theresa May has claimed in comments Labour has condemned as appalling. Britain should withdraw from the European convention on human rights regardless of the EU referendum result, Theresa May has said, in comments that contradict ministers within her own government.
The home secretary’s remarks on Monday triggered an immediate response from the shadow justice secretary, Charles Falconer, who described the intervention as “so ignorant, so illiberal, so misguided”. The shadow justice secretary, Charles Falconer, said he was appalled by the home secretary’s comments, which he described as “so ignorant, so illiberal, so misguided”, while the Tory MP and former attorney general Dominic Grieve said he was disappointed by the intervention.
Lord Falconer accused May of “sacrificing Britain’s 68-year-old commitment to human rights for her own miserable Tory leadership ambitions”. May used a speech in central London to argue that it was the convention, rather than the EU, that had caused the extradition of extremist Abu Hamza to be delayed for years and that had almost stopped the deportation of Abu Qatada.
Related: Theresa May shows Michael Gove to the other exit on the right
The home secretary said that it was the convention, rather than the EU, that had caused the extradition of extremist Abu Hamza to be delayed for years and that had almost stopped the deportation of Abu Qatada.
“The ECHR can bind the hands of parliament, adds nothing to our prosperity, makes us less secure by preventing the deportation of dangerous foreign nationals – and does nothing to change the attitudes of governments like Russia’s when it comes to human rights,” she said.“The ECHR can bind the hands of parliament, adds nothing to our prosperity, makes us less secure by preventing the deportation of dangerous foreign nationals – and does nothing to change the attitudes of governments like Russia’s when it comes to human rights,” she said.
Related: Theresa May shows Michael Gove to the other exit on the right
“So regardless of the EU referendum, my view is this: if we want to reform human rights laws in this country, it isn’t the EU we should leave but the ECHR and the jurisdiction of its court.”“So regardless of the EU referendum, my view is this: if we want to reform human rights laws in this country, it isn’t the EU we should leave but the ECHR and the jurisdiction of its court.”
Falconer told the Guardian: “That is so ignorant, so illiberal, so misguided. Ignorant because you have to be a member of the ECHR to be a member of the EU. The European Union itself agrees to abide by the ECHR. Illiberal because … there has to be a source external to a government determining what human rights are. And misguided because it will so damage the standing of the UK, a country that above all plays by the rules and that is going around the world saying we should comply as a world with human rights. This is so, so appalling.” The home secretary, who is seen as a potential future Tory leader, used the speech to express support for membership of the EU, but also to reach out to the Eurosceptic wing of the party.
May made the controversial comments in a speech supporting Britain’s EU membership. It was designed to strike a balanced and “optimistic” tone and will be seen as critical of the prime minister’s campaign to remain in the EU. But her comments place her on a collision course with cabinet colleagues, including the justice secretary, Michael Gove, who has put forward plans for a British bill of rights based on Britain staying inside the convention.
Downing Street conceded that the comments did highlight “differences” between May and David Cameron, although it warned against overstating them.
“The PM has made clear he wants to see reform of the ECHR and has ruled absolutely nothing out if we don’t achieve that,” his official spokeswoman said. But sources admitted that the government’s position did not currently require withdrawal from the ECHR.
Labour’s Falconer accused May of “sacrificing Britain’s 68-year-old commitment to human rights for her own miserable Tory leadership ambitions”.
“That is so ignorant, so illiberal, so misguided,” he said. “Ignorant because you have to be a member of the ECHR to be a member of the EU. The European Union itself agrees to abide by the ECHR. Illiberal because … there has to be a source external to a government determining what human rights are.
“And misguided because it will so damage the standing of the UK, a country that above all plays by the rules and that is going around the world saying we should comply as a world with human rights. This is so, so appalling.”
But it was not only Labour that reacted negatively to May’s speech. Grieve said he was “disappointed because it shows a lack of understanding of the positive impact the ECHR is for the EU”.
He accused May of underestimating the positive impact that the Abu Qatada case had on the Jordanian justice system and pointed out that both he and Abu Hamza were removed.
He said he was pleased that May was backing the EU, but warned: “Pulling out of the ECHR would be damaging to Britain’s international standing. It is a central pillar of foreign policy.”
May used the rest of her speech to attempt to strike a balanced and “optimistic” tone in favour of EU membership, with comments that will be interpreted as swipes at the prime minister, including a claim that the UK had forgotten how to lead in Europe.
The home secretary denied that the UK was too small to thrive alone, saying: “I do not want to stand here and insult people’s intelligence by claiming that everything about the EU is perfect, that membership of the EU is wholly good, nor do I believe those that say the sky will fall in if we vote to leave.”The home secretary denied that the UK was too small to thrive alone, saying: “I do not want to stand here and insult people’s intelligence by claiming that everything about the EU is perfect, that membership of the EU is wholly good, nor do I believe those that say the sky will fall in if we vote to leave.”
Her intervention follows claims that David Cameron has led an overly pessimistic and scaremongering campaign, and it comes from a home secretary who is seen as a potential future Tory leader. May appeared to concede that immigration from within the EU could not be controlled as long as Britain was a member, but she insisted that there was no “single bullet” to fix the immigration problem. She took a harder line than the government on the issue of new countries joining the EU, including Albania, Serbia and Turkey – in comments seized on by Vote Leave.
May appeared to concede that immigration from within the EU could not be controlled as long as Britain was a member, but she insisted that there was no “single bullet” to fix the immigration problem. She argued that leaving the EU could stop the development of the single market, lose investors, push Britain backwards on international trade and threaten the UK. “We have to ask ourselves, is it really right that the EU should just continue to expand, conferring upon all new member states all the rights of membership?” said May, who also argued that leaving the EU could stop the development of the single market, lose investors, push Britain backwards on international trade and threaten the UK.
“I do not want the European Union to cause the destruction of an older and much more precious union, the union between England and Scotland,” she said.“I do not want the European Union to cause the destruction of an older and much more precious union, the union between England and Scotland,” she said.
May argued that no country had ever been totally sovereign and added that international institutions always required compromises.May argued that no country had ever been totally sovereign and added that international institutions always required compromises.
In her first speech of the campaign, May said the UK had forgotten how to lead in Europe and had to remake the argument for driving reforms from within the group. David Davis, the Conservative former shadow home secretary, said itwas “extraordinarily inconsistent” to want to withdraw from the ECHRand stay within the EU.
She said membership made the UK more secure from crime and terrorism and allowed Britain to veto Turkey joining the EU. Her comment came after Michael Gove warned of an immigration “free-for-all” if the UK stayed in. “She seems not to have understood the power and forcefulness of the European court of justice,” he said. “If we pulled out of the ECHR, for which we would get much opprobrium, and stay in the EU, all that would happen is the the European court of justice will do exactly what the ECHR did before but with more force, because the charter of fundamental rights is the European convention plus, notminus. Logically, it does not stand up.”
The home secretary said it was important for the UK to continue fighting these battles inside the EU. “The states now negotiating to join the EU include Albania, Serbia and Turkey – countries with poor populations and serious problems with organised crime, corruption, and sometimes even terrorism,” she said. “We have to ask ourselves, is it really right that the EU should just continue to expand, conferring upon all new member states all the rights of membership?” He said it would be better to leave the EU and stick with the European Convention on Human Rights.
Her comments echoed an earlier suggestion from George Osborne but were at odds with the EU and Britain’s official support of eventual accession of Turkey. Gove also claimed that the UK was signed up to a clause preventing it from blocking other countries joining the group. “The ECHR did have an expansionist phase and that broadly came to an end after parliament’s decision on prisoner votes. Staying within the convention is sensible, having a British Bill of Rights is sensible, but staying within the EU you get all that and more,” he said.
Related: TTIP is a very bad excuse to vote for Brexit | Nick Dearden
May argued that membership of international institutions should be open to constant judgment if things change, opening the door to the possibility of another referendum whatever the outcome on 23 June.
On the ECHR, she added: “I can already hear certain people saying this means I’m against human rights. But human rights were not invented in 1950, when the convention was drafted, or in 1998, when it was incorporated into our law through the Human Rights Act. This is Great Britain – the country of Magna Carta, parliamentary democracy and the fairest courts in the world – and we can protect human rights ourselves in a way that doesn’t jeopardise national security or bind the hands of parliament. A true British bill of rights – decided by parliament and amended by parliament – would protect not only the rights set out in the convention but could include traditional British rights not protected by the ECHR, such as the right to trial by jury.”
However, critics hit out at the home secretary. Andy Slaughter, the shadow human rights minister, described the suggestion of a British bill of rights as ridiculous, claiming it had already been ruled out by Gove.
Bella Sankey, policy director for Liberty, said: “Desperate times call for desperate speeches. Presumably reeling from yesterday’s bad headlines, the home secretary is today playing fast and loose with Churchill’s legacy to bolster her tough credentials.
“It was only a matter of time before the ECHR got dragged into the EU referendum debate. But the convention doesn’t bind parliament and – despite Theresa May’s best efforts at mud-slinging and myth-spreading over the years – the case for remaining a signatory is unequivocal. Britain founded it, it is the most successful system for the enforcement of human rights in the history of the world, and every day it helps bring freedom, justice and the Rule of Law to 820 million people.”