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/uk-news/blog/2015/jun/15/pm-has-a-cheek-invoking-a-british-bill-of-rights-on-magna-carta-anniversary
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| PM has a cheek invoking a British bill of rights on Magna Carta anniversary | |
| (about 3 hours later) | |
| For an Oxford graduate with a first class honours degree David Cameron certainly has a cheek. He didn’t risk translating “Magna Carta” for an American TV chatshow audience. Yet at Runnymede today – so Patrick Wintour reports – heinvoked the Great Charter of 1215 (there, that wasn’t so difficult, was it, Dave?) to justify his own plans for “reforming” British rights in 2015. | For an Oxford graduate with a first class honours degree David Cameron certainly has a cheek. He didn’t risk translating “Magna Carta” for an American TV chatshow audience. Yet at Runnymede today – so Patrick Wintour reports – heinvoked the Great Charter of 1215 (there, that wasn’t so difficult, was it, Dave?) to justify his own plans for “reforming” British rights in 2015. |
| Cameron’s British bill of rights is a self-inflicted disaster in the making, as his sacked attorney general, the fastidious Dominic Grieve, never tires of explaining – here, here and here. | |
| It requires yet another special UK deal with the European court of human rights (ECHR) which will strain the fragile union with Scotland and put Downing Street on another collision course with the EU, for whom ECHR membership is a condition of membership. British prevarication will make life easier for modern King Johns like Russia’s King Vladimir to flout the human rights to which he signed up. It’s already happening. | It requires yet another special UK deal with the European court of human rights (ECHR) which will strain the fragile union with Scotland and put Downing Street on another collision course with the EU, for whom ECHR membership is a condition of membership. British prevarication will make life easier for modern King Johns like Russia’s King Vladimir to flout the human rights to which he signed up. It’s already happening. |
| Cameron knows all this. His critics, most of them, concede that both the ECHR in Strasbourg, set up at Britain’s instigation after the second world war, and the EU’s own European court of justice (ECJ) are engaged in mission creep (as is our own supreme court, it’s what courts do), much of it foolish. | Cameron knows all this. His critics, most of them, concede that both the ECHR in Strasbourg, set up at Britain’s instigation after the second world war, and the EU’s own European court of justice (ECJ) are engaged in mission creep (as is our own supreme court, it’s what courts do), much of it foolish. |
| So there is a case for trimming back their mandate, though I have heard a very senior British judge remark on the irony that the campaign is happening at the very moment when the habits of European courts are increasingly embracing the pragmatic attitudes of English common law in their judgments, not to mention the “margin of appreciation” doctrine that allows for national practice. | So there is a case for trimming back their mandate, though I have heard a very senior British judge remark on the irony that the campaign is happening at the very moment when the habits of European courts are increasingly embracing the pragmatic attitudes of English common law in their judgments, not to mention the “margin of appreciation” doctrine that allows for national practice. |
| Never mind. For all his own instinctive pragmatism, moderation even (it so annoys the Tory right), Cameron seems to think and act tactically under pressure from the right on a host of issues, economic as well as constitutional, which will return to bite him. | Never mind. For all his own instinctive pragmatism, moderation even (it so annoys the Tory right), Cameron seems to think and act tactically under pressure from the right on a host of issues, economic as well as constitutional, which will return to bite him. |
| All the same it’s worth noting that Cameron’s cavalier attitude towards Magna Carta puts him in some pretty good company down the ages. As the Observer’s Jamie Doward notes in a lively summary, King John persuaded the pope to annul his unkingly concessions to his barons within weeks of the sealing at the symbolic site of the old Anglo-Saxon and quasi-parliamentary Witenagemots near modern Staines. | All the same it’s worth noting that Cameron’s cavalier attitude towards Magna Carta puts him in some pretty good company down the ages. As the Observer’s Jamie Doward notes in a lively summary, King John persuaded the pope to annul his unkingly concessions to his barons within weeks of the sealing at the symbolic site of the old Anglo-Saxon and quasi-parliamentary Witenagemots near modern Staines. |
| Oliver Cromwell, though a New Labour progressive in so many ways, shared the contempt of many 17th-century lawyers for Sir Edward Coke’s gallant efforts to harness Magna Carter to parliament’s titanic battle with the autocracy of Charles I. When King Charles II’s lord chief justice John Kelynge repeated Cromwell’s dismissive joke about “Magna Carta, Magna Farta” he was summoned to parliament to apologise, not something MPs would dared have done to Cromwell. | Oliver Cromwell, though a New Labour progressive in so many ways, shared the contempt of many 17th-century lawyers for Sir Edward Coke’s gallant efforts to harness Magna Carter to parliament’s titanic battle with the autocracy of Charles I. When King Charles II’s lord chief justice John Kelynge repeated Cromwell’s dismissive joke about “Magna Carta, Magna Farta” he was summoned to parliament to apologise, not something MPs would dared have done to Cromwell. |
| And those who argued then or now that most of the original charter of 1215 is a hard-nosed carve-up of rights, mostly for barons and mostly parochial, also miss the point. It was repeatedly reissued in the long 13th-century reign (still our fourth longest) of John’s son, Henry III, and contributed to the calling of the first parliament in 1265. It protected free navigation of rivers, proper weights and measures, the embryonic banking system and much else as well as the epic protection against arbitrary imprisonment. | And those who argued then or now that most of the original charter of 1215 is a hard-nosed carve-up of rights, mostly for barons and mostly parochial, also miss the point. It was repeatedly reissued in the long 13th-century reign (still our fourth longest) of John’s son, Henry III, and contributed to the calling of the first parliament in 1265. It protected free navigation of rivers, proper weights and measures, the embryonic banking system and much else as well as the epic protection against arbitrary imprisonment. |
| It reeks of legal process in ways that have been transmitted to countries around the world – most conspicuously 18th-century America – but not to states like Russia, tsarist and commissarist alike, where the state usually prevails for reasons of security. | It reeks of legal process in ways that have been transmitted to countries around the world – most conspicuously 18th-century America – but not to states like Russia, tsarist and commissarist alike, where the state usually prevails for reasons of security. |
| But Magna Carta has always had its enemies, left and right, at home as well as in the Kremlin. As the scholarly Ferdinand Mount recently pointed out in the London Review of Books, centralisers and efficient men of government have chafed against its implicit division of powers in favour of Thomas Hobbes’s famous adhesion to the doctrine of undivided sovereignty – Leviathan. | But Magna Carta has always had its enemies, left and right, at home as well as in the Kremlin. As the scholarly Ferdinand Mount recently pointed out in the London Review of Books, centralisers and efficient men of government have chafed against its implicit division of powers in favour of Thomas Hobbes’s famous adhesion to the doctrine of undivided sovereignty – Leviathan. |
| English constitutional theory has long fudged that sensitive issue. It did so in the formula that sovereignty lies in “the Queen in parliament”. That is to say in a titular monarch whose executive, legislature and supreme court (until the 2005 Blair reforms) all existed within the two houses of parliament, which also embraced the medieval trinity of lords, bishops and commoners. | English constitutional theory has long fudged that sensitive issue. It did so in the formula that sovereignty lies in “the Queen in parliament”. That is to say in a titular monarch whose executive, legislature and supreme court (until the 2005 Blair reforms) all existed within the two houses of parliament, which also embraced the medieval trinity of lords, bishops and commoners. |
| Great constitutional luminaries like the Victorian Walter Bagehot deplored the weakness of the US division of powers – its weaknesses in an ideologically riven Tea Party system are very apparent in 2015 – and favoured Britain’s executive-heavy and centralised way of getting things done. Bill Clinton once remarked in the No 10 rose garden that he envied the powers of a British PM like his pal Tony Blair with a working Commons majority. | Great constitutional luminaries like the Victorian Walter Bagehot deplored the weakness of the US division of powers – its weaknesses in an ideologically riven Tea Party system are very apparent in 2015 – and favoured Britain’s executive-heavy and centralised way of getting things done. Bill Clinton once remarked in the No 10 rose garden that he envied the powers of a British PM like his pal Tony Blair with a working Commons majority. |
| Quite so. In the past half century or so there has been a reaction to the overcentralised habits of Whitehall even as those habits have continued via such actions as Norman Lamont’s centralisation of local government finance (not the first) and Eric Pickles’ comically named Localism Act. | Quite so. In the past half century or so there has been a reaction to the overcentralised habits of Whitehall even as those habits have continued via such actions as Norman Lamont’s centralisation of local government finance (not the first) and Eric Pickles’ comically named Localism Act. |
| We have had devolution to London and the Celtic regions, a few elected mayors. We have seen a deepening tide of judicial review of government decisions – much more by UK courts than EU ones. The courts get it wrong too, but they are mostly our own courts. | We have had devolution to London and the Celtic regions, a few elected mayors. We have seen a deepening tide of judicial review of government decisions – much more by UK courts than EU ones. The courts get it wrong too, but they are mostly our own courts. |
| We have seen the creation of once despised referendums and petitions, opinion polling and the rise of voter hostility to the concept of what Lord Hailsham called “elective dictatorship” (but only when Labour was in office). | We have seen the creation of once despised referendums and petitions, opinion polling and the rise of voter hostility to the concept of what Lord Hailsham called “elective dictatorship” (but only when Labour was in office). |
| In parliament itself we have seen since the reforms of 2009 a reassertion of backbench power against the 20th century’s great trend: the overmighty executive. Backbench committees summon and hector ministers as well as bankers, prime ministers even. As chair of the Treasury select committee, Andrew Tyrie, an independent-minded Tory, is more powerful than several cabinet ministers. | In parliament itself we have seen since the reforms of 2009 a reassertion of backbench power against the 20th century’s great trend: the overmighty executive. Backbench committees summon and hector ministers as well as bankers, prime ministers even. As chair of the Treasury select committee, Andrew Tyrie, an independent-minded Tory, is more powerful than several cabinet ministers. |
| Good. But it is clear that the problem is not confined to Britain and that the villain is not Europe, or not just Europe. Overcentralised government trying to do more than it should exists within Britain, within the EU and its institutions too. | Good. But it is clear that the problem is not confined to Britain and that the villain is not Europe, or not just Europe. Overcentralised government trying to do more than it should exists within Britain, within the EU and its institutions too. |
| Dare I add that devolved Scotland faces the same tensions too: over-centralised instincts towards police, emergency services, universities and local government by the high-minded centralising SNP regime. Socialists of the 1945 to 1979 generation would have applauded – until self-doubt and markets overwhelmed them. | Dare I add that devolved Scotland faces the same tensions too: over-centralised instincts towards police, emergency services, universities and local government by the high-minded centralising SNP regime. Socialists of the 1945 to 1979 generation would have applauded – until self-doubt and markets overwhelmed them. |
| Sharing some sovereignty with his barons, bishops, knights and freemen (widows too got the right to choose their own second husbands, as the Guardian’s editorial notes) was forced on King John in 1215 by military and financial weakness. He had just lost the Norman half of his inheritance to King Philippe Auguste of France at Bouvines outside Lille, sometimes called the most important British battle Britons have never heard of. | Sharing some sovereignty with his barons, bishops, knights and freemen (widows too got the right to choose their own second husbands, as the Guardian’s editorial notes) was forced on King John in 1215 by military and financial weakness. He had just lost the Norman half of his inheritance to King Philippe Auguste of France at Bouvines outside Lille, sometimes called the most important British battle Britons have never heard of. |
| As a result France went more autocratic, England more democratic, you might say – as Cameron is saying more or less explicitly. But France and Europe’s traditions of liberty, not all as old as Magna Carta, are worth acknowledging too. The EU doctrine of “subsidiarity” – that decisions should be taken at the lowest practical level of competent authority – is admirable, one a Tory government is as often in danger of forgetting as a Labour one. | As a result France went more autocratic, England more democratic, you might say – as Cameron is saying more or less explicitly. But France and Europe’s traditions of liberty, not all as old as Magna Carta, are worth acknowledging too. The EU doctrine of “subsidiarity” – that decisions should be taken at the lowest practical level of competent authority – is admirable, one a Tory government is as often in danger of forgetting as a Labour one. |
| It’s the same battle and, in dealing with over-mighty corporations – the barons of our own times – Europe’s courts and parliament can be allies. Why do we think the likes of Rupert Murdoch are so hostile to them? He likes to deal with nation states, they’re more bite-size. | It’s the same battle and, in dealing with over-mighty corporations – the barons of our own times – Europe’s courts and parliament can be allies. Why do we think the likes of Rupert Murdoch are so hostile to them? He likes to deal with nation states, they’re more bite-size. |
| So Cameron has a cheek, especially when on a day when Edward Snowden’s name is again in the headlines for battling against the security Leviathan that demands our collective obedience. Europe, which has suffered more from tyranny than us lucky offshore islanders, has a better record on that score too. It gets the point better. | So Cameron has a cheek, especially when on a day when Edward Snowden’s name is again in the headlines for battling against the security Leviathan that demands our collective obedience. Europe, which has suffered more from tyranny than us lucky offshore islanders, has a better record on that score too. It gets the point better. |
| So long live Magna Carta, even if Kipling’s Reeds at Runnymede was Margaret Thatcher’s favourite poem. She was never any good at irony. The clue is in the name, Dave: Magna Carta – it’s in Latin. | So long live Magna Carta, even if Kipling’s Reeds at Runnymede was Margaret Thatcher’s favourite poem. She was never any good at irony. The clue is in the name, Dave: Magna Carta – it’s in Latin. |