Pick and Choose: The UK’s Relationship with the European Union
Debate in the United Kingdom intensified this week as government officials and citizens considered one of the greatest questions of contemporary British politics: Should the United Kingdom reconsider being in the European Union? Leading the charge on this matter on the pro-secessionist side were Prime Minister David Cameron and his majority party, the Conservatives. The “Tories,” as the latter are known, made their case on the basis of two key issues which they claim are under fire by European technocratic legislation: human rights laws and immigration regulation.
The protection of human rights in the United Kingdom is a complicated issue, since they abide by both European Union law and British legislation. In 1949, the United Kingdom joined the European Union Court of Human Rights, a judicial element of the Council of Europe that is tasked with enforcing the European Convention on Human Rights. 47 nations are members of this agreement which outlines basic principles of human liberty such as prohibitions on torture, the death penalty, slavery, and terrorism.
At times, many of these international laws come into conflict with those outlined by the British Parliament, and such discrepancies have prompted the Conservative Party to consider withdrawing from the Court. Prime Minister Cameron had initially proposed that such action be voted upon in a 2017 referendum, but Secretary of State for Justice Chris Grayling set it ablaze this Friday, October 3rd when he called for an ultimatum to be delivered to the European Union Court of Human Rights requesting that the United Kingdom be allowed to disregard some of the Court’s judgments when desired, or else risk the former’s withdrawal from the legal jurisdiction of Brussels. Grayling cited how the Court has extended its reach to legal realms beyond its original goal outlined in 1950: that of combatting totalitarian rule. Tories view the 65,900 cases which have been filed against the Court in 2013 as indicative of this overstep. They are especially displeased with recent rulings on homeland security, primarily those laws which restrict the United Kingdom’s ability to extradite terrorists.
As previously mentioned, the second issue prompting the United Kingdom to consider withdrawal from the European Union is the question of immigration regulation, specifically in regards to the control of excessive migration into the Queen’s borders. Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith has recently described how increasing migration into the United Kingdom causes tensions between ethnic communities, leading to greater “civil unrest” and “resentment.” Moreover, Smith noted that immigrants tend to come from much poorer European countries. The resulting influx of workers offers minimal economic advantage to the United Kingdom and thus potentially jeopardizes economic growth and recovery, he argued.
The most recent economic reports by the Office for National Statistics show that 2nd quarter growth in the United Kingdom was 0.9%, for an annual growth rate of 3.7%. Such growth was primarily due to booms in the business investment, construction, and service sectors of the economy, yet recovery from the 2008 financial crisis is still not complete. Conservatives recognize that consumer price growth has exceeded wage growth, and an influx of poor immigrants, they believe, only perpetuates this cycle. Since immigrants can be paid at a lower wage, they often edge British nationals out of jobs and substantiate wage limitations nationally. As a result, Smith concludes, control over immigration throughout Europe “needs to be in the hands of individual nations.”
It is with these two issues in mind, immigration reform and human rights law, that certain political players in the United Kingdom are considering withdrawing from their commitment to pan-European legislation. It is crucial to highlight that states’ adherence to the European Convention on Human is a central tenet required for membership admittance into the United Nations, and more locally, the European Union itself. However, regardless of the issue’s rhetoric, would the United Kingdom’s exit from the ECHR even be considered as legal?
Secretary Grayling, a supporter of the move, adamantly stated that the United Kingdom has a “treaty right” to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights. Others disagree, as Kings College London lawyer Matt Qvortrup notes that “Leaving an international convention is pretty much impossible.” Indeed, Qvortrup may be correct, as a United Kingdom exit from the Convention would violate the 1998 Good Friday Agreement. This treaty, concerning peace in the once tumultuous Northern Ireland, was created with the promise of protecting human rights via the ECHR. Therefore, if the United Kingdom were to neglect the convention and withdraw from the European Union Court of Human Rights, it would be doing so illegally by being violation of the agreement.
Besides significantly jeopardizing the United Kingdom’s membership in the European Union at large, this secessionist action would have significant implications for other member states. A withdrawal would set a precedent for other nations to illegally violate already-ratified international agreements in Europe. This would then potentially encourage the dissolution of the Union given the rising momentum of Euroscepticism. In essence, while a United Kingdom withdrawal may seem advantageous for certain individuals, such action surely warrants a more responsible and sensible consideration on the part of the Conservative government and the British community as a whole.