What happens is this:
First, the Tory government lays out a plan to strip the citizens of the UK of a vital part of their nation’s infrastructure – in this case it is EU-supported human rights laws.
Then members of the Opposition and Tory backbenchers combine to threaten rebellion against the proposed legislation, claiming the change is unacceptable.
So the Tory government offers to “work with” the rebels, to “see how” the change can be smoothed over. In this case it would involve exploring how human rights could be kept.
In response, the rebels withdraw their amendment and the government gets its way.
Oh, and the work to “see how” the change can be ameliorated? Never happens.
Tories have been salivating at the prospect of ending your human rights for years. They were planning to replace the Human Rights Act with a ‘Bill of Rights’ that would have meant you could not do anything they didn’t want (think about that) until Brexit came along. They aren’t going to let this go.
The best way to “see how” EU human rights laws can be kept after Brexit is to transfer EU human rights laws to the UK in the EU Withdrawal Bill.
If that doesn’t happen, then you’d better get used to the fact that:
After March 29, 2019 – if Brexit happens – you will have NO rights.
Brexiters: Is that really what you wanted?
Ministers have sought to see off a potential rebellion by Conservative MPs that could have brought a first defeat over the EU withdrawal bill by partially backing down on the future status of EU human rights measures in UK law.
Following another day of debate about the bill, which seeks to transpose EU statute into UK law post-Brexit, the government faced possible defeat over amendments intended to maintain the scope of the EU charter on fundamental rights.
Several of the amendments were tabled by Dominic Grieve, the Tory former attorney general and a leading Brexit rebel, with speculation that enough of his fellow Tories would back some of these to inflict defeat.
However, the solicitor general, Robert Buckland, said the government was willing to work with Grieve to see how rights under the charter could be kept after Brexit, and would introduce its own amendment to this effect later in the bill’s passage.
Grieve said this was sufficient reassurance for him and that he would not press for a vote on his amendments.
The government also said it would publish by 5 December a review of the implications of removing the charter of fundamental rights from UK law. This was in response to an amendment by the Labour MP Chris Leslie, who said in response he would not push for a vote on this.
Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical
3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/
Join the Vox Political Facebook page.
4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at https://voxpoliticalonline.com
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.
The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:
Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:
The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here: