Thursday, May 28, 2009
Cameron drives last nail in the coffin of a separate Human Rights Bill
David Cameron has driven another nail in the coffin of a Northern Ireland Bill of Human Rights. The Newsletter has got a statement from him saying he would not enact any Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland as envisaged by the Human Rights Commission.
“It is important the rights of everyone in our society are protected,” he said. But Conservatives and Unionists do not want to take power away on issues such as social and economic policy from democratically-elected representatives and hand it over to unelected judges. That is not good for democracy. We are proposing that any Northern Ireland-specific issues are best dealt with in a sub-section of a UK-wide Bill of Rights and Responsibilities - protecting rights and respecting the role of democratically-elected representatives.”
The Conservative leader has always been clear he wants to limit the scope of rights legislation generally to the basic and the general and to rein in on any consequential extension of the power of judges. Locally though, his move is bound to be seen through the sectarian prism, as another tilt towards Unionism and a further sign that Cameron does not regard every section of the GFA as set in stone. This will worry nationalists, although I very much doubt if Cameron would alter the basic architecture. His next move, scaling back the expenses entitlement from the abstaining Sinn Fein MPs now seems likely as part of the general expenses reform. Note by the way, that Sir Christopher Kelly’s Committee on Standards in Public Life will take evidence in Belfast on Wednesday 1 July – their only out-of-London visit scheduled so far.
Cameron’s support for unionism in NI diverges from his offer of guarded engagement with the SNP government. Contrast his sparring relationship with Alex Salmond with his awkward alliance with the Ulster Unionists, after failing to achieve a federation in a proposed new ” Northern Ireland Conservative and Unionist party.” under his leadership.. This looks like an experiment rather than an election-winning strategy.
As Cameron says, any separate NI provisions would now be a footnote in his UK Bill of Rights. As the Secretary of State has shelved NIHRC’s recent Advice on a comprehensive and detailed NI Bill, how will Labour proceed?. There must be doubts now that any NI specific rights Bill will emerge at all. This would be consistent with the recanting views of the first NIHR Commissioner Brice Dickson in a recent memo to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, rejecting his successor’s advice.
All of Cameron’s moves in the devolution scene seem designed to create a stronger framework for the evolving relationship between the centre and nations and regions. If he makes any party gains out if it, so much the better, but he knows he starts from a very low base. Not everyone will see the wider horizon beyond the Copeland islands in Cameron’s approach. I doubt if they should have any real cause for concern though, and they should try to control their paranoia.
Brian Walker @ 11:22 AM
Locally though, his move is bound to be seen through the sectarian prism, as another tilt towards Unionism and a further sign that Cameron does not regard every section of the GFA as set in stone. This will worry nationalists, although I very much doubt if Cameron would alter the basic architecture.
It’s irrelevant. The desire to cherry pick bits of established and democratically endorsed agreements should be highly worrying to Nationalism, not least because it is very hard for them to hit back.
All of Cameron’s moves in the devolution scene seem designed to create a stronger framework for the evolving relationship between the centre and nations and regions. If he makes any party gains out if it, so much the better, but he knows he starts from a very low base. Not everyone will see the wider horizon beyond the Copeland islands in Cameron’s approach. I doubt if they should have any real cause for concern though, and they should try to control their paranoia.
It’s not paranoia if they are out to get you, and I think I will…. mmmmmmmm… pass on taking the Tories on trust. I don’t believe this is about “evolving relationship between the centre and regions”. No. It is about challenges to a future Tory governments power. Hopefully the various elements opposed are too smart to play along.
And since he’s alraady skewing dangerously towards Unionismso much for the wonderful “New Force”
Posted by on May 28, 2009 @ 01:23 PMCameron just seems to get higher in peoples opinions here in this part of the UK with every speech. More please, David.
Posted by on May 28, 2009 @ 01:24 PMIt is refreshing to see a politician take a ‘bull hook’ (for those of a country leaning) to all the rubbish that is going on in our multiplicity of Quangos and other unelected bodies.
When it has been cleared we can then start to look at REAL issues rather than manufacturered ones that most, outside the anoraks, don’t give two damns about.
So let’s get on with the economy, jobs, education, and health and when we have a solution underway for those we can move on to other areas.
Topping the poll, smash SF, and a UI are not what we need to be discussing today, they are the politics of the past not the future.
Posted by on May 28, 2009 @ 01:43 PMBrian,
re. “the sectarian prism”.
That is an inappropriate/pejorative term to use in relation to the view that might be taken of the Tory leader backtracking on the GFA - you dont need to have a sectarian prism/outlook to be disappointed/angry/outraged at a prospective National leader not honouring the committments of his predecessor.
Posted by on May 28, 2009 @ 01:43 PMThe desire to cherry pick bits of established and democratically endorsed agreements should be highly worrying to Nationalism, not least because it is very hard for them to hit back.
The relevant section of the agreement was already enacted. A NIHRC was set-up. It failed do deliver a report based on the remit which it was set.
Posted by on May 28, 2009 @ 01:44 PMLets hope he dismantles all those useless quangoes like the Equality Commission, Human Rights commission etc as well.
Posted by on May 28, 2009 @ 01:45 PMFD,
“Topping the poll, smash SF, and a UI ” are not needed - neither are PoshBoyDC’s tribal offering about his support for the Union - that is the politics of the past as well i.e. before the GFA.
Remember his collegaues in his party helped to secure the IRA ceasefire by saying they had no strategic interest in this part of Ireland - as long as the GFA stands so should that statement - if not we can rightly accuse the Tories of dishonesty or irresponsible backtracking - take your pick.
Posted by on May 28, 2009 @ 01:54 PM“It failed do deliver a report based on the remit which it was set.”
Chekov, that nonsense has already been nailed once today in the comments section of your blog.
Posted by on May 28, 2009 @ 01:54 PMthe Tory leader backtracking on the GFA
What the Agreement actually said was we’ll set up a NIHRC “to consult and to advise on the scope for defining, in Westminster legislation, rights supplementary to those in the European Convention on Human Rights, to reflect the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland.”
What Sammy read was, “to make inviolable whatever contentious stuff we can jam into a bill which then must be passed whatever parliament thinks of it”.
It’ll teach you to have a second glance, to read the words and consider what they mean when thus ordered.
Posted by on May 28, 2009 @ 01:56 PMChekov
The relevant section of the agreement was already enacted. A NIHRC was set-up. It failed do deliver a report based on the remit which it was set.
In which case you go again, tightening the remit. You don’t go “I’m get my own HRC with black jack, and hookers. Wait, forget the black jack. Forget the hookers. You know what, forget the whole damn thing”. The intention was not for a proces staht produced bugger all.
I have a lot of sympathy for not putting legislation in a constitutional document. But I do not like this. What else will he start cherry picking?
Posted by on May 28, 2009 @ 01:59 PMChekov, that nonsense has already been nailed once today in the comments section of your blog.
Yeah. Sure it was. Because you read the relevant section of the agreement and came back with a whole bunch of rights particular to Northern Ireland.
Wait.
No you didn’t!
Posted by on May 28, 2009 @ 01:59 PMIn which case you go again, tightening the remit.
No you don’t. You say - we’ve had 10 years of this. No-one has even mentioned a single right which is particular to people in Northern Ireland. If anyone thinks of one we’ll stick it in the UK act. The Agreement didn’t set this body up in perpetuity. Show me the provision which states otherwise.
We’ve had the forum, two chairmen and not one single specific right. Time’s up. Move on. The agreement has been truly satisfied.
Posted by on May 28, 2009 @ 02:05 PMGiven that Human Rights are generally considered to be universal, why did we waste all that money on yet another pointless quango? Can anyone point out what is allegedly missing from the HRA 1998? From what I heard the NIHRC issued a crazy report saying lots of social and economic policy issues which people vote for parties on should be reclassified as HR and fixed in stone.
On the more general point about quangos - seeing as the IMF says we need to cut public spending how about abolishing all public sector jobs which have “Commisioner” in the title, unless they can justify their continued existence.
Posted by on May 28, 2009 @ 02:13 PMNo you don’t. You say - we’ve had 10 years of this. No-one has even mentioned a single right which is particular to people in Northern Ireland. If anyone thinks of one we’ll stick it in the UK act. The Agreement didn’t set this body up in perpetuity. Show me the provision which states otherwise.
It didn’t set this body up with the intention to do nothing. Oneill managed to run a few suggestions on his blog and I doubt he was even trying. If the problem is truly the remit, then perhaps more focus would produce a more productive report.
But the problem isn’t the remit. The problem is that Unionism and even more so Conservatism hate the whole idea.
We’ve had the forum, two chairmen and not one single specific right. Time’s up. Move on. The agreement has been truly satisfied.Tories have spoken. What next will they decide that “The Agreement has been truly satisifed” and abolish?
Posted by on May 28, 2009 @ 02:13 PMperhaps more focus would produce a more productive report
The remit was provided in black and white in the 1998 Agreement. All the focus that was required was to stick to the remit.
Posted by on May 28, 2009 @ 02:19 PMkensei
“What next will they decide that “The Agreement has been truly satisifed” and abolish?”
Well, off the top of my head:
sectarian designation
mandatory coalition
d’Hondt
implimentation bodiesPosted by on May 28, 2009 @ 02:37 PMBonar
Well, off the top of my head:
sectarian designation
mandatory coalition
d’Hondt
implimentation bodiesWhich is any of that was even hinted at unilaterally would lead to major instability. I am almost sure that he wouldn’t be stupid enough to actually do it. I certainly worry he rattle the saber or nibble at the edges in a counter productive way.
Posted by on May 28, 2009 @ 02:42 PMJeez, David Cameron has spoken. All bow down, quick.
No need to actually hold a public consultation with the actual people who actually live in Northern Ireland, then…
Posted by on May 28, 2009 @ 02:44 PMWhich is any of that was even hinted at unilaterally would lead to major instability. I am almost sure that he wouldn’t be stupid enough to actually do it. I certainly worry he rattle the saber or nibble at the edges in a counter productive way.
Posted by kensei on May 28, 2009 @ 04:42 PM
IIRC Owen Patterson, Shadow Secretary of State, is on record as saying that such changes could not be unilaterally changed but would need to be looked at in the medium term. The Conservatives are well aware of the sensitivities and the need to proceed carefully.As the current system is a horrid sectarian mess, incapable of producing good government I imagine over time that all parties will be willing to look at fixing it. Well parhaps I’m being optimistic there, but certainly the general public will be pushing for change.
Posted by on May 28, 2009 @ 02:50 PMkensei
nothing is set in stone, after all the legislation enacting the Agreement has been significantly altered already. More ammendments are only to be expected, especially with a government of a different hue than that which was in power in 1998.
Posted by on May 28, 2009 @ 03:01 PMKensei,
I think Boner is only teasing - he may well be pining for the good old ways when the Tories - like his namesake - were as mad as brushes.
PoshBoyDC knows full well that he will have another Republican insurgency on his hands if he fecks about - he may well make a few Orangey noises - but after fecking up the UUP party right and proper and reducing them to zero MPs he will presumably have the good sense to think about things before making a complete pigs mickey out of them.
Posted by on May 28, 2009 @ 03:06 PMNo need to actually hold a public consultation with the actual people who actually live in Northern Ireland, then…
No. Why should he? The UK government is the state authority here. Come next May David Cameron will be the man who says what goes here.
If SF don’t like that they can go to hell. No big loss.
Posted by on May 28, 2009 @ 03:15 PM“Jeez, David Cameron has spoken. All bow down, quick.”
Alex,
Not only Cameron has spoken, Bruce Dickson, as mentioned in the post and also Professor Liam Kennedy have criticised the “advice” produced by the NIHRC:
Kennedy’s point is rather an obvious one, human rights are universal, not specific to Northern Ireland.
Sure there are certain human rights available in the rest of the most of the democracies of the world which are now sadly lacking in NI- full reproductive rights for women would be one. If the NIHRC had instead concentrated on those areas specific to NI, then they and you would have a much stronger argument. And those specific, or areas “particular” (as it was defined in the BA/GFA) to Northern Ireland were the areas the NIHRC was supposed to give its “advice” on.
Posted by on May 28, 2009 @ 03:15 PMIIRC Owen Patterson, Shadow Secretary of State, is on record as saying that such changes could not be unilaterally changed but would need to be looked at in the medium term. The Conservatives are well aware of the sensitivities and the need to proceed carefully.
I asked Paterson about this at his talk at Hammersmith Irish Centre last week, and he did say it would be done though the review mechanism in the Good Friday Agreement.
I also asked him how he would convince nationalists to support the abolition of mandatory coalitions and he had no real answer other than to suggest that it was a long term goal.
Most people I talked to there thought he gave a fairly conciliatory impression, but there was a lot of scepticism around. This kind of thing is not going to dispel that.
Posted by on May 28, 2009 @ 03:17 PMOh dear. Nice of Brian Walker to eliminate all reference to Diane Dodds comments and the Secretary of State on this article.
Did you used to be a professional journalist?
Posted by on May 28, 2009 @ 03:19 PM
