The European Court

Seminar asking ‘what’s at stake?’ with the threat to leave the European Court

May 2024

Following the last minute reprieve last year by the European Court for the asylum seekers on their way to be deported to Rwanda, many politicians and a large section of the media are campaigning for Britain to leave the jurisdiction of the Court and resign from the European Council. The MP for Devizes, Danny Kruger, is a prominent member of this group. It has become a political issue, one likely to crop up in the current election. This webinar by the European Movement UK discussed the history of the court and the institution and what some of the implications might be if we did leave.

The Court has been subject to much abuse and is generally and disparagingly referred to as a ‘foreign court’ and together with Strasbourg, has almost become a term of abuse. Although nothing to do with the EU which Britain has left, it is confused with that entity and it is possible that many people thought that when we left the EU we had left all things European including the Court.

The webinar started with some history including the key fact that it was Britain and in particular Winston Churchill, who were instrumental in getting the European Council established at the Treaty of London after the war. The UK was the first country to ratify the treaty. It is an irony that it was Conservatives who led the way in the post-war years yet it is members of the same party who are now keen to see us depart.

From the rhetoric and press reporting one might gain the impression that the Court is a regular thorn in the exercise of law in this country and frequently interfering in the exercise of justice. The reality is quite the opposite. The UK has the lowest number of applications and out of 38,000 applications from member states in 2023, only 176 relate to the UK. There have been 3 judgements and one violation. There are issues still outstanding concerning Northern Ireland however. The main point being made was that on the whole, the UK has a reasonable judicial system and most matters are resolved within the country without need to go to Strasbourg.

As far as being a ‘foreign court’, only France has more nationals working there and the British presence is strong and influential.

False promise

Another speaker referred to the main reason for the current desire to leave is the Rwanda issue. The promise of leaving the jurisdiction of the Court overlooks other conventions we have signed up to including the Refugee Convention. The consequences of us leaving were discussed and these included the negative effects on human rights in the UK if the ultimate backstop was removed. There will be consequences for the Good Friday agreement in Northern Ireland. It will undermine UK’s standing in the world as a country which stands by its international agreements. It will reduce our influence, which, as already mentioned, is considerable.

Dominic Grieve, the final speaker, said it ‘has been the best example of soft-power exercised by the UK since the second world war’. He repeated that the UK was hardly ever in violation. The Court had brought about positive change for example by overturning the decision by a local authority to house an elderly couple in separate care homes brought about by the family life provision in the Convention. He noted that the obsession by some politicians was not reflected by the public at large.

Success

The success of the Court in the post war world should be a matter of celebration rather than the subject of 15 years of denigration. Recent government legislation to inhibit demonstrations and the actions of judges in preventing protestors explaining why they were protesting are examples of how fragile our rights are. The combination of government laws, increased police powers, media disinformation around human rights and demonising protestors as ‘rioters’ and ‘eco-zealots,’ has cast a chilling effect over attempts to bring concerns to public attention via protests. It is forgotten that a huge range of social reforms have almost always resulted from protest. It will be interesting to see what appears in the parties’ election manifestos on this subject.