We’re sunk if we don’t stop boats

PTHE SINGLE biggest issue the Government needs to resolve before the next general election is the illegal boat crossings from France.

Lawyers nearly choked on their caviar and Grand Cru at their dinner parties when the Government announced it may withdraw from the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) in order to help make it easier to deport people who arrive here illegally.

As someone who sat on the House of Commons Justice Select Committee and visited the European Court of Human Rights, I really have no idea why they are so exercised about this proposal.

The ECHR is a pale imitation of our courts with their judges – often political appointees rather than based on merit – sitting in judgment of countries such as the UK which has a much more robust process for the appointment of its judges.

Given that the ECHR has been incorporated into UK law via the Human Rights Act, there would clearly be no loss of rights by withdrawing from it – it would just mean proper UK judges would determine the law rather than these judges in Strasbourg. I would have hoped everyone could agree with that.

I would rather not be part of this European Court, but I am not sure there is any need for the Government to seek to withdraw from it given that it may not win a vote in the House of Commons to do so.

There is a much simpler solution. Decisions of the ECHR are not binding on member states – there is no enforcement mechanism – and so it would be much more politically expedient for the UK Government to do what the last Labour Government rightly did when the ECHR ridiculously ruled that UK prisoners should be handed the vote – and simply ignore their more questionable and bizarre rulings.

What we can’t have is a foreign court randomly overturning decisions made by the UK courts. Although the ECHR is nothing to do with the EU, that principle still applies and is what Brexit was all about.

The out-of-touch political and legal classes shouldn’t forget that.