Prisoners of Strasbourg

• Text settings

  Text size

  • Small
  • Medium
  • Large

  Line Spacing

  • Compact
  • Normal
  • Spacious
• Comments
• Share

  Share

  The Spectator

  Prisoners of Strasbourg

  Copy link

  • Linkedin
  • Messenger
  • Email

Already a subscriber? Log in

This article is for subscribers only

Subscribe today to get 3 months' delivery of the magazine, as well as online and app access, for only £3.

• Weekly delivery of the magazine
• Unlimited access to our website and app
• Enjoy Spectator newsletters and podcasts
• Explore our online archive, going back to 1828

Most popular

Alexander Larman

What happened to the Rishi Sunak I knew at school?

It was not with this in mind that Britain signed up to the European Court of Human Rights in 1950. The purpose of the court was to challenge foul regimes in the making, not to suborn functioning democracies. It is trying to edge itself into the position of an American-style supreme court.

This issue goes far beyond whether to send ballot boxes to Belmarsh. It is about who governs Britain, and whether a prime minister and his foreign secretary have a duty to defend Britain’s democracy. One option is to obey Strasbourg, and decide — as so many politicians have decided before — that picking a fight would be more trouble than it is worth. Another is to declare that the steady erosion of sovereignty has gone far enough, and it is time to decide where power should lie.

Europe is a troublesome issue for the coalition, given that the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives hold directly opposing views. A paralysis on European policy might therefore suit the government. But it does not suit the country. The collision of European law with English law has led to a host of undesired consequences, and the ‘grin and bear it’ strategy has taken us to this unacceptable point. The time has come when parliament must stand to defend its own sovereignty — withdrawing us from the jurisdiction of the European Court if necessary — or watch itself be reduced to irrelevance.

One for the Gipper

‘Government is like a baby,’ said Ronald Reagan, who if he were still alive would be this Sunday celebrating his 100th birthday, ‘endless appetite at one end, and no responsibility at the other.’ British politicians tend not to make such jokes — and we are poorer for it. Reagan’s humour stemmed from his sense of clarity: he knew what he was doing, and he wanted Americans to know, too. His centenary presents us with a good moment to consider his lessons.

Politics should be simple. Yet the current British government has developed an unfortunate habit of making everything sound complicated. Andrew Lansley’s health reforms, for instance, are so obtuse that most Cabinet members privately admit they don’t understand them. This means that the reform is doomed. If ministers cannot comprehend what is to be done, how can middle managers be expected to have a clue?

David Cameron’s mission is no less radical or transformative than Reagan’s 30 years ago: to transfer power from the state to the people, to stop a government machine that was programmed to take ever more money and control. Reagan would tell his officials: ‘Don’t just do something. Stand there.’ He prided himself in avoiding hyperactivity. ‘It’s true hard work never killed anyone,’ he said. ‘But I figured: why take the chance?’

The Gipper spoke to Americans directly, in the same way that Thatcher spoke to Britain. Cameron has perched a portrait of the Iron Lady on his desk: a heartening sign. What he now needs is a Reagan phrasebook.