The Government continues to push on with Brexit, however I wonder if Remainers and Brexiteers have missed a trick.
There is no plan to secede from the Council of Europe so our supreme court will not see its supremacy restored. The government set this out specifically in their 'Legislating for Brexit' whitepaper. The European Court of Human Rights will therefore still trump our domestic courts.
So for all those demanding 'We want our sovereignty back' and 'We want the power to make and enforce our own laws' etc - the Government's Brexit plan will not deliver that as things stand. On that note, as part of the European Union (withdrawal) bill progressing through the house, you will see a statement from David Davis documented on the front, as the minister responsible.
David Davis has made the following statement under section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998:
Quote from David Davis:
In my view the provisions of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill are compatible with the Convention rights.
Hi did this because ministers have to make such a declaration, in accordance with the ECHR, as part of presenting a bill to parliament. Now on reading that, it got me thinking.... Is it really compatible....... Could Remainers work with this........
Protocol No. 4 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
ARTICLE 2 Freedom of movement
(2) Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.
Now that being the case couldn't you construct argument to say that by leaving the EU and abandoning 'free movement of people' , you are deliberately and knowingly making it harder for people who don't want to live in this county from being able move abroad. At the moment you can just go to other EU member states, so you have a very accessible 'out'. If freedom of movement ends for the UK's population, then they will only be able to leave if they have enough merit that another country wants to take them.
Couldn't you make a case to say, rather than being compatible with the ECHR, the withdrawal bill actually offends Protocol 4, Article 2. Is there enough here to give a Gina Miller Mark 2 , the opportunity to raise some money and take a legal challenge to the ECtHR in connection with the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. While It may or may not succeed, its not so black and white that some high priced lawyers wouldn't be able to at least construct an argument around this, and have the EU withdrawal bill become the subject of months of legal scrutiny at the hands of the ECtHR. That would surely put a rather large spanner in the works as far as delivering Brexit is concerned. Who knows, it might even require the government to seek to withdraw the Art 50 Notice while they deal with the legal wrangles, so they don't run out of time.....