Switzerland is ticking towards a tighter deal with the EU
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
15 minutes ago
- Spectator
What Suella Braverman's plan for quitting the ECHR gets right
This morning's paper on leaving the ECHR from Suella Braverman and the Prosperity Institute doesn't say much that hasn't been said somewhere before. It reiterates the fairly obvious political case for a UK ECHR exit. It talks about the erosion of sovereignty over immigration, policing and vast swathes of social policy; the baneful 'living instrument' doctrine that means we have now effectively given a blank cheque to a self-selecting and unaccountable bench to second-guess our democratic process in ever more intrusive ways; the Strasbourg court's arrogation of powers, such as the right to order interim measures never contemplated in 1950; and so on. The paper then goes in detail through the legal machinery of disentanglement, starting with the obvious point that the Convention itself provides for a right to leave on giving six months' notice, and then describing the legislative and administrative processes involved. But don't be fooled. This may not be exciting reading (Suella is, after all, a lawyer); but the appearance of this document at this time matters a lot. One very significant point is that the paper in one place meets head-on the arguments lazily trotted out as slam-dunk wins for the case against withdrawal. Does the UK's good reputation depend on ECHR membership? Doubtful. There are plenty of countries not members of regional agreements that are admirably free (think Canada and Australia), not to mention ECHR members that, shall we say, leave something to be desired (stand up, Azerbaijan). Reform the ECHR from within? We've tried that, and it's had no effect in the areas that matter. Tweak the Human Rights Act? It won't work with the Strasbourg court sitting in the background waiting to pounce. The right of the EU to withdraw police cooperation under the Withdrawal Agreement if we denounce the ECHR? Bring it on, and if need be, call their bluff. They have as much to lose as we have: it's a small risk, and one worth taking. What of the elephant in the room, the Good Friday Agreement? More awkward, but nothing insuperable here. For one thing, it doesn't actually bar the UK from withdrawing from the ECHR. Instead it talks much more vaguely of the incorporation of ECHR provisions in Ulster law and court remedies to enforce it. If necessary, there must be some political horse-trading here, and in the end, Westminster must be prepared to put its foot down and face down Irish nationalists if necessary in the interest of a common rights regime in the UK. To this extent, the Braverman document has continued the process of moving ECHR scepticism away from the fringe and placing it firmly in the range of the sayable and even politically plausible. More to the point, it also fills another void. So far, calls to ditch the ECHR have suffered from a similar difficulty to that which faced the Leave movement right up to the 2016 referendum and might well have tipped it into defeat: it has been heavy on criticism but light on practicalities. By laying down in some detail the measures to be taken to remove the ECHR from our law both in form and substance and opening these to debate, this may well reassure electors otherwise wavering. Looking more widely, today's events could just indicate a subtle shift in political tectonics. Doubts about the way the ECHR is chipping away at the institutions of this country are engaging electors who might previously have shrugged off human rights as something remote and unconcerning. Whenever they read of an undeserving visitor to this country allowed to stay, often at our expense as taxpayers, on the basis of family life here or possible beastliness abroad, they increasingly connect this with the ECHR; so too when, as a harassed commuter or housewife, they find they cannot go about their business because of some demonstration said to be protected by a European right to cause inconvenience to the public. Nor is it only electors. Teasingly, this morning's Telegraph said that Suella's proposals had cross-party backing not only from key figures on the Tory right (predictable: after all, even Kemi has said she is open to talk of abandoning the Strasbourg regime) and also from Reform, whose position has always been clear, but also from the DUP and even some from blue Labour (no names yet, but an educated guess might light on figures like Jonathan Brash, the free-thinking MP for Hartlepool). Whisper it quietly, but human rights scepticism is becoming the new mainstream. Defenders of the Strasbourg status quo are shrinking to an increasingly small caucus of senior Labour figures, Tory grandees and a motley collection of urban intellectuals and academics. It's quite possible that within a few years, ECHR enthusiasm will have declined to a niche interest in much the same way as, say, Euroscepticism did twenty years ago. Now that's a change worth contemplating.
The Independent
15 minutes ago
- The Independent
Israel depriving Gazans of ‘human dignity', says UK and 25 other countries in call to end war now
David Lammy has joined other foreign ministers in condemning the Israeli government for depriving Gazans "of human dignity" as they called for the war to "end now". The foreign secretary and counterparts from 24 other nations including Australia, Canada and France, plus the EU commissioner for equality, urged the Israeli government to "immediately lift restrictions on the flow of aid". They also described proposals to move 600,000 Palestinians to a so-called "humanitarian city" in Rafah as "completely unacceptable".
North Wales Chronicle
29 minutes ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Lammy and counterparts accuse Israel of depriving Gazans of ‘human dignity'
The Foreign Secretary and counterparts from 24 other nations including Australia, Canada and France, plus the EU commissioner for equality, urged the Israeli government to 'immediately lift restrictions on the flow of aid'. They also described proposals to move 600,000 Palestinians to a so-called 'humanitarian city' in Rafah as 'completely unacceptable'. In a statement shared on Monday afternoon, the politicians said: 'The suffering of civilians in Gaza has reached new depths. 'The Israeli government's aid delivery model is dangerous, fuels instability and deprives Gazans of human dignity. We condemn the drip feeding of aid and the inhumane killing of civilians, including children, seeking to meet their most basic needs of water and food.' The suffering of civilians in Gaza has reached new depths. Alongside 25 other partners, the UK message is clear: the war in Gaza must end now. We need an immediate ceasefire, release of all hostages and a full resumption of — David Lammy (@DavidLammy) July 21, 2025 They said it is 'horrifying' that hundreds of Palestinians 'have been killed while seeking aid' and that the 'Israeli government's denial of essential humanitarian assistance to the civilian population is unacceptable'. The foreign ministers reiterated calls for the remaining people being held hostage by Hamas to be released and asked for 'all parties to protect civilians and uphold the obligations of international humanitarian law'. Earlier this month Israeli defence minister Israel Katz laid out plans for the 'humanitarian city' in Rafah, Gaza's most southern city which has been heavily damaged through the war. He reportedly said that the military would initially move 600,000 Palestinians there, with the aim of eventually transferring the whole population to Rafah. 'Proposals to remove the Palestinian population into a 'humanitarian city' are completely unacceptable,' the foreign ministers said on Monday. 'Permanent forced displacement is a violation of international humanitarian law.' The signatories also pledged that they would be 'prepared to take further action to support an immediate ceasefire'. Gaza's Hamas-run health ministry have said dozens of people were killed trying to access food aid over the weekend.
