Profoundly Un‐Conservative? David Cameron and the UK Bill of Rights Debate

Abstract

This article considers David Cameron's proposal to repeal the Human Rights Act (HRA) and replace it with a British Bill of Rights. Cameron's proposal has been heavily criticised by a range of political, academic and non‐state actors and was described by a current senior Coalition Cabinet member as ‘xenophobic’ and ‘legal nonsense’. This article takes a slightly different direction to those lines of attack and critique that have been developed of the Conservative's proposals. The central proposition of the article is that Cameron's proposal is profoundly un‐Conservative at two levels. Firstly, at the level of Conservative approaches to constitutional reform and secondly, at the level of Conservative political philosophy.

One Nation Conservatism: a Gypsy, Roma and Traveller case study

“…28 A more laissez-faire legal culture could be viewed as outside of the vision of One Nation Conservatives who, marked by their experiences of the second world war, were happy at home and abroad to uphold ideals and conventions which deterred human rights violations.…”

“…The proposed repeal of the HRA is ‘unconservative’ not just for diluting Conservative post-war commitments to the ECHR as reflected by Winston Churchill (one of the initial architects of the Convention) but also for moving from a typically conservative, evolutionary approach to the radical idea of repeal. 28 A more laissez-faire legal culture could be viewed as outside of the vision of One Nation Conservatives who, marked by their experiences of the second world war, were happy at home and abroad to uphold ideals and conventions which deterred human rights violations.…”

The place of human rights in the foreign policy of Cameron’s conservatives: Sceptics or enthusiasts?

“…The Commission was, arguably, destined for stalemate from its inception as its composition, '… merely reflected the dividing lines within the coalition on the HRA with its membership equally divided between those who wanted to keep it and those who wanted to repeal it' (Munce, 2012). From the subsequent debate, it would appear that in transferring the issue to a Commission the Coalition partners were seeking to neutralise the issue and 'navigate a course of least resistance until both parties were at greater liberty to argue for their respective distinctive positions on the HRA and the protection of human rights in the UK' (Munce, 2012). The Commission issued its report in December 2012 stating that, 'on balance, there is a strong argument in favour of a UK Bill of Rights' (Commission on a Bill of Rights, 2012: 28).…”

“…Despite the Conservative Party’s role in proposing and writing the ECHR – the support given by Winston Churchill and the expert drafting by David Maxwell Fyfe – the party has had an uneasy relationship with the HRA and with the development of a new human rights culture in Britain (Munce, 2012). Their concern has centred around four main arguments.…”

“…The purpose of the Commission was to investigate, ‘… the creation of a British Bill of Rights that incorporates and builds on all our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights’ (HM Government, 2010b: 8). The Commission was, arguably, destined for stalemate from its inception as its composition, ‘… merely reflected the dividing lines within the coalition on the HRA with its membership equally divided between those who wanted to keep it and those who wanted to repeal it’ (Munce, 2012). From the subsequent debate, it would appear that in transferring the issue to a Commission the Coalition partners were seeking to neutralise the issue and ‘navigate a course of least resistance until both parties were at greater liberty to argue for their respective distinctive positions on the HRA and the protection of human rights in the UK’ (Munce, 2012).…”