BY BEN KERRIGAN
Theresa May’s suggestion that we leave the ECHR, but remain in the EU is somewhat contradictory, with the sort of flaws that questions the coherence of her evaluation.
The Home Secretary’s suggestion was either designed to give her a safe position with both the stay and brexit campaign groups. However, her ideal is inherently impractical and represents a conflict of interest not possible to implement under the current political structure of the European Union. All members of the European Union are obliged to sign the ECHR, which is part of the treaties that bring the members together. The ECHR is an intrinsic part of the EU, and as such, we are all legally obliged to conform to the treaties that constitute the EU. We can’t have one leg in and one leg out. We are either in our we are out.
The brexit campaigners will continue to flag up immigration as their main weapon against remaining in the EU, though this view needs to be weighed up against the overall gains of staying in. Expert warnings of economic doom in the event of leaving the EU has been branded scare mongering by every brexit supporter, both in political and social circles. This, despite the fact there has not been any expert opinion suggesting Britain will be at least as prosperous outside of the EU than inside of it.
Indeed, immigration is a troublesome political issue that is the thorn in the government’s flesh. Empty promises to curb immigration has outraged as large section of the British public, and almost singlehandedly could be a determining factor as to whether we stay or leave. However, the need to weigh up the benefits of leaving the EU to the gains of staying in should be carefully considered in our evaluation when making this historical decision. Associated with the issue of immigration, is the protest that the independence of our judiciary is too often eroded by EU judges, thereby making deportation of unwanted subjects difficult. The nagging question then is why this problematic aspect has taking too long to negotiate with the EU?Terrorism is one of the evil realities of the modern times, and the security of our citizens truly must come first. However, with the sophisticated level of technology we have today, and the exceptional brilliant level of police surveillance that has successfully foiled over 7 terrorist attempts in the Uk this past year, we must question whether the threat facing us if we remain in the EU outweigh the economic gains of staying in.
Perharps Theresa May wants us to enjoy the benefits of free trade but lose the freedom of movement guaranteed under the treaty. Unfortunately we can’t have one without the other. Either we manage economically without the EU and form economic and trade alliances with other countries happy to do business with us, and suffer whatever disadvantages come with being out of the EU, or we stay in and accept the multiple conditions that come with that position without complaint.
May needs to decide firmly which camp she belongs to, since there is no room for fence sitting in this big debate. She seems to be floating between two opposing positions each of which has several ramifications for this country and our inter relationship with other countries too. Already, Obama has laid down his cards from the American political standpoint, stressing the impact a departure from the Eu will have on US-UK relations, at least in a relative sense. Yet, Obama has been slated by the likes of London Mayor, Boris Johnson, who is insistent that Obama is asking Britain to do something he would not do; namely, give up the sovereignty of his country to some other state. The EU decision we face is bigger than the issue of sovereignty and necessarily subsumes the question of which outcome will leave Britain better off in terms of both our economy and our safety. Our colleagues are split on the matter, with some favoring leaving and others favoring us staying. Public opinion is also divided, with many polls having the stay and leave groups neck and neck, though most indications suggest that there are currently more people wanting out than stay.
But as we draw nearer to referendum day, as the propaganda on both sides of the equation begins to hot up, the numbers may swing one way or the other. One certainty is that the Human Rights Act should not be disposed of completely in Britain, even if we leave, because that will be a big blow to any sense of true morality we may claim to have. If we leave, out of the window goes the freedom of movement and working rights of EU nationals, but not the freedom of expression, nor should any other unproblematic rights contained in HRA disappear.
