Jonathan Fryer

Writer, Lecturer, Broadcaster and Liberal Democrat Politician

Posts Tagged ‘ECJ’

Mrs May’s Rose-tinted Vision

Posted by jonathanfryer on Friday, 2nd March, 2018

Theresa MayThis lunchtime the Prime Minister delivered her long-awaited vision for Brexit Britain. The speech was beautifully crafted (congratulations to whoever actually wrote it), but my analysis of the content is less complimentary. As there have been conflicting statements about Brexit even among Cabinet Ministers — along a spectrum from Chancellor Philip Hammond to Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson — it was good to hear what Mrs May, supposedly speaking on behalf of the Government, actually envisages as the future relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union. Some basic principles were very clear, namely that the Government respects the result of the 2016 EU Referendum and therefore Britain is leaving the European Union. Similarly, it wishes to guarantee the integrity of the United Kingdom. But other things were not so clear-cut. However, in a nutshell, what Mrs May was calling for was a bespoke deal for Britain that would be quite different from any other trade arrangement the EU has — for example with Norway or Canada — but would seek to achieve the best possible results for both sides, while defending the security and prosperity of the UK. She said Britain would like to stay inside some EU agencies, such as the European Medicines Agency, and would therefore accept a degree of European Court of Justice jurisdiction, though only on a piecemeal basis. The City of London will be dismayed that the Prime Minister accepted that banks and financial institutions based in the UK will not enjoy passporting rights to the EU because it will leave the single market; one can almost hear the stampede out of London for Frankfurt, Paris and Dublin already as a result. Equally, Britain will not be part of the customs union (or even Jeremy Corbyn’s “a customs union”), but the Government would still hope there to be frictionless trade with the EU. This really is having cake and eating it territory and is likely to be met with a giant raspberry from Brussels. Then there is the thorny issue of the border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. Mrs May said the Government does not want to see the return of a hard border with border controls, asking rhetorically whether this is something Brussels would wish to impose. That is disingenuous, as clearly an external border of the EU cannot be completely open to the movement of goods, people and services so some sort of compromise solution will be necessary unless Northern Ireland has some separate customs arrangement from the rest of the UK — which is anathema to the Conservatives’ political bedfellows, the DUP. Despite the fact that the Government’s own studies showed that UK economic growth will be hit whichever Brexit route the country follows, Mrs May still sees the post-Brexit future through rose-tinted spectacles, in a world in which Britain will enjoy new freedoms and enhanced prestige while retaining what it wants from current arrangements. Cherry-picking, in a phrase. What she did not specify, however, is how her vision — which included a number of practical alternatives on trade — would benefit the country. But that’s not surprising, because it can’t.

Advertisements

Posted in Brexit, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Right to be Forgotten

Posted by jonathanfryer on Thursday, 1st March, 2018

Right to be ForgottenLast night I did a TV interview about the first British court case regarding the EU’s so-called Right to be Forgotten law, now being heard at the High Court. Actually, originally the broadcast was meant to be a debate with someone else, presumably from Google, which is contesting the claim against it, but there was a glitch with the skype link to him. Because the matter is sub judice, I don’t know the name of the plaintiff or the exact nature of the charge for which he was convicted years ago, other than it related to fraudulent accounting. The claimant is asking Google to remove links to articles about his case from their search engine, on the grounds that the 1974 UK Rehabilitation of Offenders Act means that some time after he had received the punishment for the crime the conviction then became “spent” and therefore should not hang around his head like a millstone, any time anyone does a Google search on his name. This is reminiscent of the case of a Spanish businessman years ago which led to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg bringing in the Right to be Forgotten in 2014, by which information provided through search engines that is incorrect, irrelevant or out-of-date can be removed. The Spaniard had hit financial difficulties and his property was sold off at auction, but he argued that as he tried to re-establish himself he should not be penalised by details of that situation being easily accessible. The ECJ judges were influenced by a concern that the privacy of EU citizens should be protected as much as is appropriate, which is, I imagine, why Hacked Off has got involved in the case now being discussed here in England. That is actually the first of its kind in this country, though another one is due soon. Google is arguing that it is in the public interest for the information about the plaintiff’s criminal record to be readily available. But it is interesting to note that of the approximately 2.4 million (sic) requests to Google to take down links made globally so far, 800,000 were successful. So something to watch!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »