Whenever a politician says they have been “very clear” about a topic these days, it’s often a telltale sign that they’ve been as clear as mud. Rishi Sunak used his favourite phrase again this week when asked whether he was prepared to pull the
UK out of the European Convention on
Human Rights (ECHR ) in order to get his deportation flights to Rwanda off the ground. In an interview with The Sun newspaper, the Prime Minister said “on this, I’ve been very clear”, before then coming up with a carefully worded answer that sounded like he was inching towards withdrawal without actually committing to it. “I believe that all our plans are compliant with all of our international obligations, including the ECHR,” he said. “But I do believe that border security, and making sure that we can control illegal migration, is more important than membership of a foreign court because it’s fundamental to our sovereignty as a country.” That vague formulation was very deliberate (he said it three times almost word for word) and obviously aimed at toughening his image on the issue of illegal migration across the English Channel. The subsequent headlines certainly sounded like he meant business. “Rishi: I’ll quit Euro court” was one example. Yet another rule of thumb of modern politics (and journalism) is that any news story that contains the words “could” or “if” suggests there’s less to it than meets the eye. Lo and behold, it was reported that Sunak “could” fight the
election on a promise to pull the UK out of the ECHR, adding that he “threatened” to sever ties with the court “if” it sinks the Rwanda plan. In the end, the slippery small print was more telling than the bluster. One problem for the PM is that such slipperiness doesn’t cut the mustard with those who feel most exercised about the issue. GB News viewers’ reactions ranged from “this is just PR for the election” to “he’s always talk but no action”. Another problem is that Sunak would almost certainly trigger a split within his own party if he actually put ECHR withdrawal in the Tory manifesto. Read Next The Red Wall is over - towns like Harlow and Peterborough will decide the election Many One Nation Conservatives fear their “Blue Wall” constituents are repulsed by the idea of the idea of making
Britain a pariah in international law. Even staunch Brexiteers like David Davis and Dominic Raab have warned that quitting the convention would jeopardise the Good Friday Agreement in Northern
Ireland, as well as undermine our post-Brexit trade deal with the EU. But although the EU and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) are two very different bodies, politicians like
Nigel Farage have long yoked them together as bogeymen acting against
British interests. Sunak has walked straight into that trap by repeatedly depicting the ECHR as “a foreign court” (or a “Euro court”, as The Sun put it). This is despite the fact that Tory MP and former Nuremberg prosecutor David Maxwell-Fyfe drove its creation in the 1950s, and that a British judge sits on it today. Moreover it was a British court, the
Supreme Court, that ruled the Rwanda plan unlawful last year (and crucially talked about its wider breaches of the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees, rather than just the ECHR). In a written Parliamentary question, Sunak was asked by an SNP MP why he kept referring to the European Court as a foreign court. His curt reply – “Because it is based in Strasbourg” – was greeted with glee by some on the Right, but in fact it was a crass answer unworthy of a Prime Minister. Citing the fact that an international court is based in another country as proof of it being “foreign” is as inane as saying that
NATO is a “foreign” organisation because its HQ is in
Brussels, that the UN is a “foreign” body because it is based in
New York – or that the International Criminal Court (of which the UK is a founding member) is “foreign” because it is based in the Hague. Sunak’s constant attacks on the “foreign court” may also prove hugely counterproductive for the simple reason that he is effectively telling millions of Leave voters – eight long years after the EU
referendum – that
Brexit is still not “done” because “foreigners” are still somehow ultimately in charge of our laws and borders. Speaking of borders, more evidence of a botched Brexit will become apparent on 30 April, when the Government finally imposes checks on animal and plant products coming from the EU. Having delayed it five times, this week ministers announced £145 fees per consignment, prompting trade groups to warn of extra costs for business and higher prices in the shops for consumers – just when inflation is supposed to be Sunak’s biggest enemy. The perception that Brexit has been both incomplete and incompetently handled by the Tories is, of course, ideal messaging for Farage’s Reform Party. Like his “stop the boats” failure, Sunak’s blather about the ECHR was a big birthday present for the former Brexit Party and Ukip leader, who marked his 60th this week . In fact, the most telling bit of Sunak’s interview this week came when a cab driver challenged him to “put the Navy in the Channel” to tow migrant dinghies back to
France. The cabbie said that would be better than “half a billion pounds going to Rwanda that could be in the health service or education service”. Sunak’s answer, that the Navy can’t practically push back small boats, was at least honest about how Reform’s apparently simple solutions won’t work in practice. It’s a shame he can’t be as honest about the Rwanda plan (that he as chancellor clearly thought wasn’t value for money) or withdrawal from the ECHR. But the exchange was also proof that Sunak can never out-Farage Farage. And that in trying to do so, the PM fuels the impression of both impotence and incompetence. In a general election year, that’s a politically fatal combination. Paul Waugh resigned as i ’s chief political commentator in January to stand as the
Labour candidate for Rochdale, a contest won by Azhar Ali