by John O’Connell, chief executive and Rory McGregor, chairman
Over the course of this year it is clear there is one issue animating taxpayers as much as any: the issue of immigration. Critically the issue of how to deter, detain and deport the tens of thousands of small boat arrivals. But also how to ensure we rapidly remove any migrant who commits a crime on our shores. While there are many pieces to the puzzle, it is clear that the European Convention of Human Rights, and the European Court on Human Rights, is at the centre of many of the difficulties. It is time that the United Kingdom leaves it.
Much has been made of the role the UK played in the founding of the ECHR, and much is made of the importance of remaining true to one’s international commitments. These are not unreasonable points to make, but they do not provide an argument for remaining in the ECHR. Regardless of the UK’s (overstated) role in its founding, the operation of the convention and the court has little to no resemblance to its current state. As for the UK’s international commitments, the question should be asked: which international commitments? If it’s a commitment to maintaining the rule of law, freedom of the press, freedom of conscience, individual rights and liberty then these are principles enshrined within British legislative and constitutional norms. Membership of an international court is entirely unnecessary for these principles.
Critically, the UK’s membership of any international institution must benefit British citizens and British taxpayers. For democracy to survive it relies on the consent of the governed. And the impact of the ECHR on the British legal system means it now works in direct opposition to the interests of the governed in this country.
The key to this is, of course, the issue of immigration. As a result of the ECHR, particularly Article 3 - the prohibition of torture or degrading treatment or punishment - and Article 8 - which protects the right to respect for private and family life, it is increasingly difficult to deport those with no right to be in the UK, whether it be because they entered the country illegally, overstayed a visa, committed a crime or a combination.
This has led to absurdities like the ECHR ruling that a child’s distaste for foreign chicken nuggets means his family cannot be deported, despite his father being a criminal. Or the ECHR blocking a Nigerian migrant from deportation after they joined an organisation designated by the Nigerian government as a terrorist group. Or a Pakistani paedophile who couldn’t be deported because it would be “unduly harsh” on his children.
The result for taxpayers is devastating. One in 13 people on benefits in the UK is foreign born, the hotel and rented accommodation bill is running into the billions and the OBR has now acknowledged that low-skilled migrants have a net negative impact on the public finances as soon as they arrive. Until we fix our immigration system to ensure that only high-skilled, high-taxpaying migrants are allowed to enter the country, and those who are here illegally are forced to leave we will have no hope of fixing the fiscal situation, putting aside the challenge of how to maintain democratic legitimacy when there is a situation in which British taxpayers are paying to maintain the livelihoods of non-British immigrants.
Even more fundamentally, this comes down to a question of how the British legal system should be organised. It surely is not sustainable, on any matter of law, for a foreign court to take precedence over the UK court system.
The TaxPayers’ Alliance, more than just advocating for lower and simpler taxes, better government spending, and an end to waste, has always had democratic accountability at the core of its philosophy. There is no doubt that on all of these issues the UK has only one option: to leave the ECHR.