On Fantasy Island: Britain, Europe, and Human Rights

by Conor Gearty

In the 2015 UK General Election, the Conservative party pledged to reset the UK's relations with Europe, holding an in-out referendum on membership of the European Union and repealing the Human Rights Act, to be replaced with a UK Bill of Rights. With the decision now taken to leave the EU, the future of the Human Rights Act and the UK's relations to the European Convention on Human Rights remains uncertain.Conor Gearty, one of the country's leading experts on human rights, here dissects the myths and fantasies that drive English exceptionalism over Europe, and shape the case for repealing the Human Rights Act. He presents a passionate case for keeping the existing legal framework for protecting human rights and our relationship with the European Convention. Analysing the reform agenda from the perspective of British law, history, politics, and culture, he lays bare the misunderstandings of thehuman rights system that have driven the debate so far.Structured in three parts, the book first exposes the myths that drive the anti-Human Rights Act argument. Second, Gearty outlines how the Act operates in practice and what its impact really is on the ground. Third, he looks to the future and the kind of Britain we want to live in, and how, for all its modesty, the survival or otherwise of the Human Rights Act will play a pivotal part in that future.

Genres: Law, Nonfiction

256 pages, Kindle Edition

Published October 27, 2016

Reviews

[David McGrogan · Rating 1 out of 5]

An absolutely dreadful book, sloppily written and riddled with errors. It reads as though it was written in a stream of consciousness over a few weeks, and was published without proper proofreading or editing. The argument is, meanwhile, terribly confused - Gearty can never make up his mind whether courts are neutral or political, whether legal reasoning is objective or ethical, whether it is better for judges or elected politician to make decisions, whether Britain is imperialistic or hopelessly inward looking, whether judges are fusty and out of touch or sensitive and progressive, whether the Human Rights Act protects the poor or the privileged, whether it has a big constitutional impact or small... In summary, a messy diatribe, poorly thought through.

[Harry · Rating 4 out of 5]

Convincing argument about necessity of the Humans Right Act and insightful points about common law cases to support his argument. Sometimes he might better appreciate the importance of the process of the decision making and not just the decisions themselves. Though, very thought-provoking.