Please help me with something I can’t understand. Did we actually have Brexit?
Don’t answer, I know we did. I’m just unsure why.
I thought the whole idea was to regain full sovereignty, to be governed by the laws passed by our own ancient parliament, not by some foreign body with no historical claim to legitimacy. Are you with me so far?
Then pray explain what on earth Justice Secretary Dominic Raab means by saying that he wants to overhaul the Human Rights Act, preventing our institutions from being “dictated to” by Strasbourg judges. You mean they can still do that, two years after Brexit ‘got done’?
Having made that audacious statement, Mr Raab hastened to settle the public’s jangling nerves. Don’t think for a second we’ll derogate from the European Convention on Human Rights, he quelled our fears. God forbid.
“You couldn’t overturn a Strasbourg ruling,” a ‘source’ explained, “but you could decide how we interpret it.” Though unsure of who exactly the ‘you’ and ‘we’ were, I read on.
“We decide how best to change the law based on UK traditions and laws. We would decide how to comply with Strasbourg case law.”
By all means, do decide. But I can’t decide whether some of the leeway Mr Raab is seeking was something we already had even before Brexit. Surely we had some free hand in deciding “how to comply with the Strasbourg case law”? Provided we did comply?
Even if Brexit made our hand marginally freer, that mass wasn’t really worth the candle. The whole point of Brexit, as I understand (misunderstand?) it, was that we wouldn’t have to comply with European laws at all because they simply wouldn’t apply within the UK — the same way US or Indonesian laws don’t apply.
One can understand, at a stretch, the importance of a human rights act in the EU, some of whose members have a rather spotty legal history. Which spots were by no means erased during half a century of communist rule.
But England? What do Finns, Belgians and Bulgarians know about human rights that the English haven’t learned during a millennium of just governance?
I know I’m offering few solutions but asking many questions. But the next question actually contains a solution. Why is it so unthinkable that we should derogate from the ECHR? Yes, when operating on the continent, we should respect the laws of the land, such as they are.
Other than that, what part of the English Common Law doesn’t Mr Raab understand? And what part of Brexit? Obviously the most important part, some will say the only one.
And while we are on the subject of the English Common Law, a Telegraph article caught my eye. A judge found former Tory MP, Andrew Griffiths, guilty of raping Kate Griffiths, his former wife and his successor in the parliamentary seat.
The paper that used to be conservative but no longer is refers to Mrs Griffiths as ‘Ms’ throughout. Again, being in a conciliatory mood, I can begin to understand the warped feminist thinking behind using this ugly coinage to describe a woman whose marital status is unclear.
But, though Kate divorced Andrew, she still kept his surname. That’s why anyone with any ear for language, and certainly a conservative, should call her Mrs, not Ms, Griffiths. But that’s beside the point.
The point is that the judge found Mr Griffiths guilty “on the balance of probabilities”. Since Mrs Griffiths hadn’t filed criminal charges, this was a civil case involving custody. And in the English Common Law this level of proof is sufficient – as opposed to criminal cases where guilt has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
So the letter of the law was kept intact. But what about the spirit?
We are told that rape, marital or otherwise, is the worst crime a woman can suffer. Worse than a severe beating, mutilation or even murder. If so, then why didn’t Mrs Griffiths file criminal charges? Surely she owed it to all those millions of rape victims who allegedly roam the streets of England while trying to cope with the lifelong trauma.
And if she didn’t file those charges, could it be that she… I don’t know how to say this without lightning smiting me from the sky… actually wasn’t raped? Even on the balance of probabilities?
After all, she was in bed with her ex-husband, which in my experience isn’t a normal practice among divorcees. Was she half-raped then, enough to tip the balance of probabilities, but not enough to call the cops?
I wonder what scales His Honour used to measure that balance. Probably not the scales of justice.
“The law is a ass,” said Dickens’s Mr Bumble. Presciently, I think.
1. “Did we actually have Brexit? Don’t answer, I know we did.” But Northern Ireland didn’t get Brexit. For NI if not for the rest of us, the “deal” combines the worst features of “no deal” with the worst features of “remain”.
2. Most people who voted to leave the EU probably thought they’d leave the ECHR at the same time. Even those of us who knew that the two monstrous evils were separate hoped that leaving one would lead to leaving the other. But now I don’t see how we can get out of the ECHR without a new UKIP, a new Farage and a new referendum, and it’s probably too late.
3. When Mr Bumble called the law an ass, Mr Bumble made himself ridiculous. But much has changed, and if Mr Griffiths called the law an ass, I’d be inclined to think that it was the law that was ridiculous.