Latest news with #SuellaBraverman
Telegraph
16 hours ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
Sunak lied about stopping the boats, says Braverman
Suella Braverman has attacked Rishi Sunak for breaking his promise to ' stop the boats ', saying he 'wasn't willing to do what's necessary' to bring down illegal immigration. Mrs Braverman, who was sacked by Mr Sunak as home secretary in November 2023, suggested the former prime minister had misled the electorate by repeating the slogan throughout his premiership. 'Stop the boats' was one of his five key pledges. Speaking to The Telegraph's Daily T podcast, Mrs Braverman said: 'By the time of the last general election, he'd already failed at stopping the boats. 'He'd had just over a year to stop the boats. He'd passed two laws to stop the boats, he had promised to stop the boats. He'd broken the promise by the time of the general election. I don't think anyone believed him.' Pushed on whether Mr Sunak was telling the truth, she replied: 'Deep down, I don't think he wanted to do what was necessary. I mean, you'd have to ask him what his intention was when he was saying those things. But ultimately, it's alright making a promise to stop the boats. But you've got to be willing to do what's necessary. It might be difficult, but it is necessary.' Her comments are likely to deepen the rift between the pair after Mr Sunak sacked Mrs Braverman after she wrote an article arguing there was 'a perception that senior police officers play favourites when it comes to protesters' and were tougher on Right-wing extremists than pro-Palestinian 'mobs'. This week, the Tory MP Fareham and Waterlooville unveiled her legal blueprint for how the UK could quit the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), rejecting 'apocalyptic' claims by the Left of the Tory party and centrist politicians that this would threaten peace in Northern Ireland. In a 56-page document, the former attorney general argues the UK should rewrite the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, stripping out ECHR references and replacing them with domestic UK and common law human rights principles. Writing for The Telegraph this week, she argued: 'This is not simply judicial activism; it is a form of judicial imperialism. The time for debating whether we should leave is over. The question now is how we leave.' Kemi Badenoch, the Tory leader, has appointed Lord Wolfson, the shadow attorney general, to head a review into whether the UK should leave the convention or not. On legal migration, Mrs Braverman said she supported Reform's net zero policy, saying: 'I think it's a good idea actually. I think that we need to commit to a cap but we need to actually be honest about what that cap is. And I think, 'as low as possible' or 'in the tens of thousands' is not credible. 'So I can see where Reform is coming from. They're trying to give a number and show seriousness about the commitment. Ultimately we need fewer people to come into this country.' She also advocated Donald Trump travel bans for some countries, and said: 'If you look at the data and at where the most illegal arrivals are coming from then I think there needs to be more robust action. If there are countries who are unwilling to take back their offenders, then we should have some kind of ban. 'That's the problem with this country, to a large degree. We don't follow through with robust consequences, whether it's our weak human rights laws or our pathetic policies towards countries who don't cooperate with us. That's why we're seen as a soft touch.'
Telegraph
17 hours ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
The Daily T: Suella Braverman — Sunak didn't want to stop the boats. We need net zero migration
The former home secretary, Suella Braverman, is the special guest on today's edition of The Daily T. The Conservative MP and ex-attorney general explains why she thinks it's time for the UK to leave the ECHR, how it's thwarted our ability to control our borders and undermines the sovereignty of Parliament. Braverman also talks through the frustration she experienced at being 'powerless' whilst running the Home Office amid a 'lack of political will' to get a grip on illegal migration. She also takes aim at former prime minister Rishi Sunak's 'broken promises' on stopping the boats, and outlines why there could be 'some truth' in Nigel Farage's belief that Britain is on the verge of societal collapse. The former home secretary also explains why she remains committed to the Conservatives despite there still being 'arrogance and complacency' within the party, as well as why she feels no sympathy for Rachel Reeves and her belief that Keir Starmer is 'incompetent' and 'a fool'.
The Independent
a day ago
- Politics
- The Independent
Kemi Badenoch brings back James Cleverly as Tory leader launches reshuffle
Kemi Badenoch has kicked off a reshuffle of her shadow cabinet, with Sir James Cleverly set to return to the Conservative Party front bench. The Tory leader is bringing her former leadership rival back to the frontline to build party unity and bolster the party's credibility. A senior Tory source said Sir James would help 'take the fight to this dreadful Labour government'. The source confirmed Ms Badenoch will make a series of changes to her top team on Tuesday, adding that they 'reflect the next stage of the party's policy renewal programme and underline the unity of the party under new leadership'. Ex-foreign secretary Sir James is the most high profile name preparing for a return to the front bench, with questions about whether other former ministers including Suella Braverman will be called up by Ms Badenoch. Elsewhere, it has been reported that shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick has been gunning for Sir Mel Stride 's job as shadow chancellor. The shadow cabinet reshuffle comes just eight months after Ms Badenoch was elected leader by Tory members and is an admission the party has been underperforming. Amid the continued rise of Nigel Farage's Reform UK, Ms Badenoch's party has been unable to grab the agenda and get a clear message across. Only a handful of her shadow cabinet ministers have been prominent in the public eye since joining the Tory top team, including Mr Jenrick, who has made a series of eye-catching videos to expose social problems in the UK.
Spectator
2 days ago
- Politics
- 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.
Telegraph
3 days ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
Suella Braverman reveals blueprint for leaving ECHR
Suella Braverman has unveiled her legal blueprint for how the UK could quit the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and accused Strasbourg of 'judicial imperialism.' In a 56-page document, the former home secretary and attorney general says the UK should rewrite the 1998 Belfast Good Friday Agreement, stripping out ECHR references and replacing them with domestic UK and common law human rights principles. Setting out the detailed legislative changes, she rejects 'apocalyptic' claims by the left of the Tory party and centrist politicians that this would threaten peace in Northern Ireland. Writing in The Telegraph, Mrs Braverman says there is barely a 'single sphere of national life' left untouched by the 'creeping remit' of Strasbourg, from blocking the deportation of foreign criminals because of their family life to enabling the 'relentless persecution' of veterans and 'shackling our soldiers abroad.' She adds: 'This is not simply judicial activism; it is a form of judicial imperialism. The time for debating whether we should leave is over. The question now is how we leave.' Mrs Braverman, who was the first Cabinet minister to publicly call for the UK to quit the ECHR in 2022, is understood to have secured cross-party backing for the proposals from key figures on the right of the Tory party, senior DUP and Reform politicians and some within blue Labour. It goes further than the Tories under Kemi Badenoch, who has said it is 'likely' she will seek to leave but has commissioned a review by shadow attorney general Lord Wolfson into the impact of any potential withdrawal. It aligns Mrs Braverman with Reform UK, which has promised to quit the ECHR. She has pledged to remain in the Tory party but has backed an electoral pact with Nigel Farage's party. Her husband, Rael, quit Reform last week after attacks by its former chair Zia Yusuf on her and Robert Jenrick, who also supports quitting the ECHR. Tory peer Lord Frost said: 'We all understand that leaving the ECHR is now essential. As Suella rightly argues, the real question is not 'whether' but 'how': how it can be done without disrupting our international relations or compromising the integrity of the United Kingdom. 'This bold, clear plan shows exactly how we can shake off the control of the ECHR's court and jurisprudence, and finally reclaim the sovereignty that Brexit promised.' Richard Tice, the Reform deputy leader, said: 'This is a valuable and welcome policy paper on the vital objective of leaving the ECHR. Until we leave the ECHR, we are unable to save the UK from inexorable decline in so many important areas' Former Northern Ireland first minister Baroness Foster said Mrs Braverman's proposals were a 'starting point for discussion and a pathway to restoring the primacy of our common law and the sovereignty of our Parliament whilst also securing the integrity of the UK.' In her legal document, Mrs Braverman admits the ECHR is more entwined with law in Northern Ireland than elsewhere. However, to leave it as part of the Good Friday Agreement would mean 'unacceptable further divergence' between Northern Ireland and the UK. She proposes amendments to the Northern Ireland Act to remove references to ECHR rights and replace them with new provisions ensuring continuity of rights in common law. She argues that the Agreement has already been modified five times since 2006 through supplementary deals. 'There is no obligation within the Belfast Agreement to remain a party to the ECHR, only to protect rights in Northern Ireland. This can be achieved through domestic mechanisms, including the common law,' she said. Mrs Braverman says the changes should be underpinned by four principles: legal uniformity between Northern Ireland and Britain; democratic accountability where Parliament and UK courts, not Strasbourg, determined human rights; consultation with Northern Irish communities; and honouring the spirit of the 1998 Agreement. To quit, the UK would invoke article 58 of the ECHR, setting in train a six month transition process during which the UK should engage 'respectfully but firmly' with the Irish Government and Northern Irish parties to update and renegotiate the Good Friday agreement. If some parties resist, it would be entirely within the UK Parliament's sovereign powers – as with the Windsor Framework – to proceed with domestic legislation amending the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to enact the changes,' she says. At the same time, the UK would repeal the Human Rights Act, which embedded the ECHR in UK law, and enshrine in UK law the principle that Strasbourg judgments no longer bind UK courts or public authorities. Mrs Braverman says: 'The ECHR's remit has become expansive, ideological, and hostile to the very idea of national democracy. It is time to acknowledge this. And act.' The debate is no longer whether, but how, we leave By Suella Braverman For some years now, the case for leaving the European Convention on Human Rights has ceased to be controversial – at least among those willing to see things as they are. That case has been rehearsed exhaustively, not least in these very pages. It is a case grounded not merely in law or policy, but in something deeper: the democratic instinct of a free people to govern themselves without supervision by unelected, unaccountable judges in Strasbourg. During my time as attorney general, I saw first-hand the way in which the European Court of Human Rights has contorted itself in pursuit of an ideology foreign to our constitutional tradition. The moment that court blocked our ability to remove illegal migrants to Rwanda – a sovereign policy decision by a sovereign nation – was, for me, the final straw. Enough. Let us be clear about what we are dealing with. A court that rules foreign criminals cannot be deported because of their family life. That shields terrorists from justice. That permits violent protestors to vandalise with impunity. Enables the relentless persecution of British veterans – men who risked life and limb to uphold the peace in Northern Ireland – while real threats go unchallenged. A court that shackles our soldiers abroad and unpicks our policies at home. From planning law to immigration control, from welfare reform to environmental regulation, there is barely a single sphere of national life left untouched by the creeping remit of Strasbourg. This is not simply judicial activism; it is a form of judicial imperialism. The time for debating whether we should leave is over. The question now is how we leave. My new paper with Guy Dampier at the Prosperity Institute offers a comprehensive roadmap to reclaiming our sovereignty and restoring constitutional self-respect. The main argument used to block any discussion of withdrawal is the supposed impossibility of doing so under the terms of the Belfast Good Friday Agreement. We are told, in increasingly apocalyptic tones, that departure from the ECHR would unravel the peace. This is legally wrong and politically hollow. The Agreement makes reference to the ECHR, but it does not require the UK to remain a party in perpetuity. Indeed, the Belfast Agreement – hailed at the time as the final word on peace – has already been torn up, amended, and repurposed more times than its authors might have imagined. The Northern Ireland Protocol, imposed in direct contradiction to the spirit of that Agreement, did not provoke collapse. As the late Lord Trimble warned, it amounted to a breach – and yet life carried on. There is room, therefore, for adaptation once again. We set out four principles to manage this transition. First, legal uniformity: there must not be a two tier human rights regime within the United Kingdom; Northern Ireland must not be left behind. Second, democratic accountability: our Parliament and courts, not Strasbourg, should determine the content and enforcement of those rights. Third, genuine consultation with all communities in Northern Ireland. And fourth, peace through fairness – honouring the spirit, if not always the letter of the 1998 Agreement. Once Article 58 of the Convention is invoked – a straightforward legal mechanism – the UK will enter a transition phase. During this period, the government should engage, respectfully but firmly, with the Irish government and Northern Irish parties to update and, where necessary, renegotiate the relevant portions of the Belfast Agreement. If some parties resist, it would be entirely within the UK Parliament's sovereign powers – as with the Windsor Framework – to proceed with domestic legislation amending the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to enact the changes. But this is not just about Northern Ireland. The restoration of sovereignty requires action across the UK's legal architecture. That means: repealing the Human Rights Act 1998; enshrining in law the principle that Strasbourg judgments no longer bind UK courts or public authorities; reforming judicial review to limit the reach of activist jurisprudence; amending the devolution statutes for Scotland and Wales to reflect the new constitutional settlement and renegotiating the references to the ECHR in the Trade and Cooperation Agreement with the EU. The essence of our liberty Would this mean the end of human rights in Britain? Only to those who have forgotten – or never understood – that this country did not discover liberty in 1950. Long before the ECHR was drafted, our freedoms were protected by a rich body of statute and common law. As Lord Hoffmann once put it, the Convention did not create rights; it reflected the common law. Our system was already protecting people from torture, arbitrary detention, and state overreach – not through foreign fiat, but through Parliament and centuries of common law evolution. Unlike the codified, bureaucratic, top-down systems of continental Europe, the British legal tradition begins with the individual. What is not prohibited is permitted. That is the essence of our liberty – and the foundation of our legal and political culture. To depart the ECHR is not to dismantle rights, but to place their guardianship back where it belongs: with our elected representatives and our own courts. If those representatives err, the people can remove them. If judges overstep, Parliament can correct them. That is not chaos. That is democracy. This will not be easy. We should not pretend otherwise. There will be resistance from vested interests: political, legal, and diplomatic. But sovereignty is not the path of least resistance. It is the path of self-respect. The ECHR, like so many post-war institutions, was born out of noble intentions. But intentions alone do not justify perpetuity. Its remit has become expansive, ideological, and hostile to the very idea of national democracy. It is time to acknowledge this. And act. We have laid out the roadmap to freedom. The path is there for those with the courage to walk it. The only question that remains is this: Who among us still believes that the British people are fit to govern themselves – and will act accordingly?
