There is a myth which is widely propagated by the Liberal-Left that the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is the pinnacle of human rights and is essential to protect us from such things as detention without trial and even torture.
Starmer’s self-righteousness, and refusal to explain why he sent Mandelson to Washington, have become intolerable.
It reflects British legal traditions more than foreign ones, and it stands as insurance against the very sort of authoritarian or socialist government Conservatives most fear.
Our current legal and political machinery lands the mother of a 13-year-old daughter in prison for over a year over some nasty words online yet pours its energies to rescuing a man who detests Britain.
As the King knows, Christians are better placed than rationalists to integrate Muslims into British society.
The whole point of the Convention is that it elevates certain rights above the political realm. There is an inherent tension between such an arrangement and democracy.
Leaving the ECHR would not simply be unwise, it would be reckless, irresponsible and ultimately unworkable; legally and politically.
Would-be reformers have thus far refused to countenance returning to the traditional constitutional position, long predating the ECHR and HRA, that Parliament can be trusted to protect human rights through ordinary statutes.
Will the crisis over illegal migrants precipitate the PM’s abandonment of his commitment to human rights?
Have ministers been properly warned of the huge risk of litigation if the Government tries to use secondary legislation to affirm that his detention was legally proper?
The PM laid claim to Tory “pragmatism” and became Meloni’s new best friend in the struggle against “irregular migration”.
Politicians are never slow to find reasons not to engage with difficult problems – but neither far-right disorder nor international law offers a good excuse for not addressing public concern.
If we want to change the political settlement we have now, we must first learn to challenge the language that sustains itt. Because words become principles. Principles become institutions. Institutions become precedents. And precedents, eventually, become political reality.