 Good afternoon, everybody. My name is Alex White. I'm Director General of the Institute of International European Affairs, and it's my great pleasure to welcome you. All those of you are in the room here in North Great Georgia Street to attend in person and those of you who are joining us remotely. Thank you for doing so. And we look forward to a most interesting event with a very distinguished and very welcome guest, Professor Connor Gearty. But with, if I may say so, and Connor won't mind, an equally distinguished chair for the afternoon, the Attorney General of Ireland, Rossa Fanning, Senior Council, and I will do no more than to invite Rossa to introduce the event. And thank you for being here, Attorney. Thank you very much, and Director General Alex White, my colleague at the Bar of Ireland who I know of old, it's wonderful to be here. My office, the Office of the Attorney General is a corporate member, and I'm delighted to be here at this event today. I was tempted to come by the distinction of the visiting speaker and Professor Connor Gearty, who is Professor of Human Rights Law, the London School of Economics. He's also a barrister at Matrix Chambers. He published on Fantasy Island, Britain, Europe and the human and human rights in 2016. And his next book, Homeland insecurity, the rise and rise of global anti terrorism law will be published by polity in spring of 2024. Professor Gearty is Vice President for Social Sciences at the British Academy. He's a member of the Royal Irish Academy. He's an honorary KC. He's a Bencher of Middle Temple and at the King's Inns. And he also demonstrated exceptional judgment when he was the external examiner on my LLM dissertation a quarter of a century ago, for which I was awarded first class honours and slightly less good judgment when he attended at my house a number of years ago following a dinner for former winners of the Irish Times Debate. He was part of the self-confessed golden generation of debaters that was approximately 15 years older than me and who I've come to know, some of whom became distinguished lawyers. In any event, Professor Gearty, who I will hand over to shortly will speak to you for approximately 20 or 25 minutes. And for the benefit of those here and those joining online, we will then go to a Q&A session. You'll be able to join the discussion using the Q&A function on Zoom, which you should see on your screen. And please feel free to send your questions in throughout the session as they occur to you and we'll come to them if we can when Professor Gearty has finished his presentation. Today's presentation and Q&A are on the record and will be available thereafter. And please feel free to join the discussion on Twitter also using the handle at IIEA. And I think we're also live streaming this morning's discussion. So a very warm welcome to anybody who's tuning in via YouTube. So without further ado, Professor Gearty is going to speak to us about the fascinating topic of human rights after Brexit. Thank you very much. I'm going to stand up just habits of a lifetime really, and I'm also going to take a tiny sip of water. And I'm going to ask Barry to let me know when we're about 20 minutes in so I can then stop. The book I wrote in 2016 or was published in 2016 was an idea that grew out of a single image in my mind. And so I got a book out of an image. So I had the cover before I had the title before I had the book and the cover was a beach with a little sandcastle. And then coming out of the little sandcastle was a little Union Jack, very small Union Jack. And so everything grew out of that. And in the questions are later. I might give you my my genuine assessment of the deep nature of the British problem is linked to that cover. But I won't get there directly because we want to know about Brexit and human rights. I'll put down my glass of water. Since we're on the record, I want to make absolutely clear that I have a very vivid memory of that very late night in the attorney's house. His suggestion, which I thought was implied, but nevertheless brutal, was that I had somehow rather forgotten every aspect of it. And having confirmed that it was indeed his house, I now have a very clear memory. It's a great night. And then the European Convention on human rights, what is going on is something you might say in Britain why I'm going to give you my spin on it. It's extremely well known that Brexit has been a public policy calamity. So we know that the manifestation of its calamitous nature lies in the absolute inability of the British authorities to find anything on which to diverge from the European Union. The only thing they came up with was let's pollute our rivers even more and destroy our habitat, which was not an easy sell. They mentioned something about building houses, but it's gone away. They can't find anything. They parade pint glasses as an achievement of empire, only to be reminded that there were pint glasses under the European Union's tyranny as well. So there is a total collapse of confidence and disintegration of the political culture for a reason. And the reason is because none of the main parties, including deterring an interest of my friend Kirsten, can actually tell the truth. It's the most extraordinary thing. And it behoves any of us to fall into this trap. They have to all pretend that Brexit is not even redeemable, but that it's not a bad idea. So there is an amazing gulf between what the public know and what both political parties at the top say. And it's on the record, but it's not unexpected. The Labour Party is very anxious about rejoining because they are terrified of galvanizing the mad people into a coalition of anger. So it is a huge risk for them to begin a discussion about return to the European Union because they'd immediately be asked about the sacred pound. And they'd be asked about the Charter of Rights and the various iconic claptrap that has accompanied British nationalism or English nationalism, or pharagism, which it probably is now better described as, would then roll into gear backed by the foreign-owned press. So it's a huge risk. I don't expect it anytime soon. The review, this is the end of my brief remarks on the EU as such. There is a review of the trade and cooperation, whatever it's called, agreement coming up. I think it's, is it 2026 or 2025? It's quite soon. It'll be under the control of the next government. Everybody expects that government to be headed by the Labour leader and it's thought then Prime Minister Keir Starmer. What will happen is that the Labour Party, if they are in power, will seek a broadening of the reviews terms to enable some covert linkages with the European Union. And I think the Europeans will be extremely mistrustful of that and will probably seek to narrow the terms of the agreement of the review to mere tweaking. So it'll be a paradoxical reversal of what we've been used to. The British will be trying to go for covert connections and the Europeans will say, look, you know, what's the point of this? Crucial is the election, not only who wins. It seems now to be widely expected, though nobody's yet voted that the Labour Party will win. What's going on at the moment in the United Kingdom, of which human rights, which are now turned plays a large part, is an effort by what is still called a Conservative Party, but is, is not a Conservative Party. It is a series of factions overseen by an ineffectual political player to limit the damage electorally. Those who know about the British political system know that the Conservative Party risks total and complete obliteration. If, because the first pass the post system, which you are familiar with, but don't live in this country is enormously punishing if you fall below a certain percentage in certain places. And they risk calamities in Wales and Scotland almost given possible calamity in what they call their heartlands, where the various people who are as inverted commerce kind of decent Tories choose the decent Tory option now, which is the Liberal Democrats. Whilst the people who used to vote Labour, who shifted because of Johnson's Liberal imperialism in 2019, shift back in the West Midlands, London's gone anyway, you end up with very few Conservative seats, very few. So what I think is going on at the moment is an effort to try and energize a swing set of votes in order to secure seats that might otherwise go to Labour. The risk is they lose their heartlands, but that's the risk they're taking. So they're obsessed by whether there's a toilet into which everybody can go. You're going to have a toilet czar at one point, but that's disappeared. They are obsessed with teachers calling some person who's transitioned by their original biological sex. You know, they're obsessed most recently, a major government initiative to try and stop hospital wards containing sorts of people that are designated woke creatures. It's astonishing the triviality of their commitments. But the purpose of it is to draw a wedge between themselves and Conservatives to remind the former Labour voters of their nostalgic, imperialist conservatism to try and keep them in the Conservative family. It might work. They won't win, but they'll get enough seats to have a run at the next election. That's what the game is. That's what the game is. They are backed by foreign-owned viciously right-wing press and they dominate the BBC and they have every chance of rebuilding themselves based on lies and myths if they don't fall to about 10 seats. And if you think I'm being too polemical, look at the applause which greets Liz Truss within a year of her destruction of the economy. So if you have power and money behind you, and if you are calling yourself a Conservative, it's amazing how quickly you can revive in the British culture, a culture renewed to conservatism that is an innate Conservative voting culture, at least so far as England is concerned. So the big game is how big is the Labour win. It has in Canada, where a Conservative Party practically disappeared and remains to be seen. That's what the game is. Human rights are part of that. You will have seen yesterday the Home Secretary, Suwala Breverman, called the Human Rights Act or the Convention as a Charter of Criminal Rights. Part of the positioning by both Mr Sunak and those jostling for the succession to his position involves a much-vaunted, destructive approach to human rights, much advertised. And the purpose of that is to energize this base. The sorts of people who don't think much, who think that it's all woke, the sorts of people who watch GB News avidly. They are potential voters for the Conservative Party on this basis alone, and that's what they're after. Now, how will it play onto the human rights dimension? Just as I don't think Britain will be rejoining the European Union any time soon and wouldn't be let in if they did, because the Europeans will not negotiate with Britain if the Conservatives look as though they're going to be the next government. They will need a complete cohesion on the part of the main political parties that if we joined the games up, we're not going to start withering away, calling for this, that and the other. And that won't happen if the Conservative Party come out at the next election with enough of a base to challenge properly in the election after. So that will finish any serious engagement with the European Union, by the European Union with Britain. But what will it mean for human rights? Well, I've just said I don't think there's going to be much change on the European Union. If Labour win, there'll be slight moves towards a better relationship with Europe. On human rights, here's my prediction that in five or 10 years, there will still be a Human Rights Act. There will still be membership of the Council of Europe. There will still be a Britain that subscribes to the European Convention on Human Rights. And here's the risky bit. That will be the case whether or not they win, even if the Conservatives win the next election. The human rights measures are here to stay. Now, I'll explain a little bit in a moment why. Well, I'll explain directly why. First of all, when it came to the European withdrawal agreement, the British... By the way, I think Theresa May mixed up the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights when she declared an extraordinary red line about a court nobody's ever heard of. And I think they're paying a price for that mistake. Mr Timothy is not a genius, the man who ran her and turned Britain into hard Brexit. But what they knew about was something called the EU Charter. John Major, whom with each passing year looks and looks at better, better Prime Minister. I'm not just saying that because his role in Ireland has been unbelievable. He made a big song and a dance about not signing up to the EU Charter because he knew, sensible fellow, the EU Charter of Rights meant not very much. So the British made a big song and a dance about not signing up. One of the benefits of withdrawal was no EU Charter. And sure enough, there's no EU Charter of Rights. That's changed. That's not going to change. That's there. That's gone. Not that it ever meant anything, but it's gone. Or very little. Very little. I should be careful. It meant something. What's in? Well, the trade and cooperation agreement, if that's what it's called, I think it is trade and cooperation. It has, it's laced through with rights guarantees. So the international commitments that Britain has made, the policy declaration, which it agreed in October 2019 are absolutely clear that the agreement is based upon a commitment to rule of law, democracy and respect for fundamental rights. So the edifice that is the EU withdrawal agreement is constructed on an assumption about three things, democracy, the rule of law and human rights. And in particular, drilling further down, some of the things that really matter in Britain, security matters, things to do with extradition, biometrics generally, they hinge on respect for human rights within the jurisdiction. They hinge on it. But if the British were to withdraw from the Council of Europe, and I'm sure this group, both watching and here, don't need the thing that all the students need and then forget that there's a difference in the EU and the Council of Europe. They, if they were to withdraw from the Council of Europe and join Belarus and Russia, they, there would be a legal basis. The Attorney will, I'm sure, know this more than me, but there's a legal basis and one of the articles of the thing, article I think made in order 692 for retaliation. So if they withdraw, and if they repeal the Human Rights Act, this is a clear and explicit breach of the trade and cooperation agreement, because they wouldn't be replacing it with any equivalence of fundamental rights protection and they would be vulnerable. It's not, there's another article which says they can, you can end the whole thing, but they'd be vulnerable on this alone. So that is a very big deal. That's a very big deal. And anybody who's engaged in this rationally knows the big deal. So it's a huge cost. If they decide to leave the Council of Europe and repeal the European Convention on Human Rights, but it also, and this is also obvious. It would have a huge immediate cost for Anglo-American relations. Now, we are in an exceptional stage when we have got a person who thinks he's Irish as President of the United States of America. It's fantastic. I'm a huge fan of Mr Biden, whom I've never met, sadly, but whom I hero worship, because he's like one of those creatures after the 1970s that I remember he's one of the great Irish American politicians. Is he like that? Because he is one of them. He's the last remaining one. I mean, all the others have died off. Tip O'Neill, Edward Kennedy, Hugh, what's his name, Kerry, yeah, but here he is. It's not only because of him. So obviously there's a huge concern about the collapse of democratic rule in the United States in November with the likely challenge to Biden of Trump. I think probably what happened yesterday has done for Trump, we'll see. The defeat of the House of Representatives leader demonstrates to the world a party that isn't a party, and they won't be able to elect anybody else. So the Democrats have played mischief by joining with eight mad people to get rid of their leader McCarthy. But he may win, Trump may win, but I don't think it'll affect things because the American system has more than the president. So there'll be Congressional people who have a strong commitment to Ireland. There'll be leaders of business who have strong commitment to Ireland. There'll be leaders of states who have strong commitments. I remember the Comptroller General of New York terrifying the British authorities by speaking at the British Arts Association about the power of the purse and how he could punish the British for unfair employment practices in Northern Ireland. So it's it's not going to be solved by a tweet or whatever his new thing is called from Trump saying good old Britain, get rid of the European dimension. So for reasons to do with the EU and reasons to do with the United States, the costs of withdrawal are so high that only a crazy government would do it. And what's happened is that the government of the United Kingdom at the moment is behaving as though it weren't the government. So, so this is an extraordinary play. And it's supported by the press and so on and so forth, of course, but it's ludicrous. But however, there you are, Mr Sunak, the Prime Minister agrees that he has to stop the bolts. I'm not even sure if he has private conversations where he understands that departure from the European Union meant departure from the Dublin agreement, which meant that there was no obligation on the countries that would have taken the persons who arrive in Britain to take them, and that it's acknowledged that once you get to Britain you're likely to stay because the other countries won't take it. I don't think that if he knows that he suits and politically pretend he doesn't know it. Or better still pretend he's not the Prime Minister. So he's calling for an end to the convention in order to free up the opportunity to expel the people who come by boat, the irregular migration. But where is he going to expel them to? And who's going to take them? Mr Kagami has seen a chance to make a bit of money out of the United Kingdom. I think you lot should volunteer. Rockall has a safe venue because there's money to be made by the British desperation to export their problem, but they won't solve it. So it's positioning, but it's put the human rights thing again in the frame. And Soella Bravaman yesterday, who is positioning herself to be the next leader of the Conservative Party, clearly the same. Why am I so confident that the Human Rights Act and the Council of Europe membership and the European Convention on Human Rights will survive? Well, either Labour win the election and it will be clear it will survive because Keir Starmer is a human rights lawyer and he has made absolutely crystal clear. This is what they now, I think, trendily called a red line for Keir Starmer. No end of temptations into a woke struggle will lead him to concede the Human Rights Act. And that's the most likely scenario. But if the Conservative Party won with the huge majority, I still think it would be safe because they have had the perfect circumstance for repeal of the Human Rights Act and they flunked it. And what was the perfect circumstance? They had a huge majority 2019. They had an enthusiastic hater of human rights, Mr. Rad, who alleges, I'm sorry to say, I taught him. I don't remember teaching, but he says I taught. And now look at none of this barracking from the floor. People at home, you're lucky not to have heard an allegedly senior figure in this organization attack me. I'll have you removed like that poor gentle conservative man who was removed yesterday. He was deputy Prime Minister. They had a majority of over 100. They had a manifesto commitment and they still couldn't remove the Human Rights Act. And that is an interesting point because real world congregated around them and they couldn't answer the following question. And it's a longish question. If you are going to repeal the Human Rights Act, and if you are going to replace it with something better, what is the something that they couldn't answer that question. And so you see, they want to get rid of the Human Rights Act because schedule one of the Human Rights Act is the European Convention on Human Rights and act to buy labor in 1998. But they didn't say we want to get rid of rights altogether. They didn't say that because they couldn't bear to say it. Although to be more honest position, it would get them in terrible trouble with everybody, the Americans and the Europeans and so on. They had to pretend they were coming up with something better. They couldn't find anything better, except something they hate for other reasons, which was the right to jury trial. So the Bill of Rights which Mr. Rad actually got published, and which was brought to the House of Commons, and which was a subject of much discussion included the following. Everybody shall have a right to a jury subject to subsection two. The right to a jury will be in accordance with law which may regulate any kind of jury service. So the right to a jury would have meant that a jury abolition act would have been compatible with the right to a jury. So it was nonsense. It was nonsense. But all they could find that wasn't in the convention was a right to a jury. The rest of it's just gobbledygook. It collapsed in its own, in the midst of its own illogic. I do not know how that couldn't happen again. Now, you know, the conservative body might decide to have no rights at all. But if they do that, they are literally finished because the Europeans will end the trade and cooperation agreement. The Americans, whichever bit is in American power will will deride it. And of course it'll be a massive humiliation for England. They're literally marooned even more. The signs are that the rational elements in the English administration are prioritizing the Council of Europe. They have nothing else. They're beefing up their presence in Strasbourg. They're keen on growing the Council of Europe participation because they've lost their main source of influence in continental Europe. So I think it's bound to collapse, frankly, because if they decide to replace it with something else, they'll have the something else. What is that problem? Which is what did for Mr. Rabb. Mr. Rabb would have been done for even if it hadn't turned out, it hadn't, it had turned out he wasn't a bully. You know, remember he was got rid of for various other reasons, but this would was never resolved. The hostility it was shown by all the remaining parts of civil and political society was huge. I'm winding down, but I want to wind down actually absolutely fitting with my timetable by reminding you of a person to whom I alluded, whom I like a little groupie forced my way through a crowd to shake the hand of John Major. This Eurosceptical thing in the Conservative Party is a part of English nationalism. And I mentioned I'd allude to this and question and answer. I'll allude to it now. It's all part of the inability of England, Scotland's done much better to come to terms with being a post-imperial power. They can't bear it. And John Major had this problem in the 90s. This is a very old problem. And the very old problem is how dear these foreign judges interfere with great us. F.A. Mann, a very distinguished professor, greeted one of the early cases in Strasbourg as early as 1974. How dare they? I've never even heard of these countries. How dare they? That's been a part of British English constitutional culture for years. Major handled it in the 90s in the following way. He sent the saintly Lord Mackay, who was the Lord Chancellor, to Strasbourg to complain about how awful Strasbourg was. So Lord Mackay went. He, of course, was too saintly to have a drink, but he had a very good lunch. He presumably issued a statement saying that the Europeans are slowly coming to their senses and then life carried on as normal. I remember at the time the European Court of Human Rights had the good sense to say that a pornographic and erotic movie about Jesus coming off the cross or was it Mary? The visions of ecstasy was not required to be watched by everybody on the base of the human rights thing. So that was one thing he did. He made lots of noise as did Mrs. Thatcher. Lots of noise. Noise is fine. And he also got that extraordinarily astute politician, Mr. Clark, who was the Lord Chancellor, Kenneth Clark. He produced, and older people here with nothing to do, may remember this, the Brighton Agreement. It was an astonishing breakthrough by Mr. Clark, under which the Council of Europe was finally coming to its senses, and it was finally agreeing all of the agenda requirements that Mr. Clark had demanded. So nobody remembers it from Adam. It's obviously just common sense, built one or two things into the preamble. But they took all this noise and they diverted it in harmless directions. And very last point, they left a country reasonably in good shape in 97. And they did not pretend they were opposition in the run up to the election, adopting absurd symbolic positions to try and maneuver Mr. Blair. They made fair capital with Mr. Blair, who, who was at the time leading a party opposed to terrorism laws that was fair. And they made fair capital with Mr. Blair by saying that they would freeze public spending, forcing him to freeze public spending. But they did not do what the current Conservative Party is doing in their desperate desire to be electable, if not next year, then in five years time. I think I'll end their attorney. Thank you very much. Thank you.