The Tribune

AS always, it was an impressive display of pomp and circumstance. In the grand surroundings of the House of Lords chamber in the Palace of Westminster in London, the State Opening of Parliament took place last week to mark the ceremonial start of the parliamentary year. The event takes place on the first day of a parliamentary session which is normally in May or June but can occur at any time of year depending on the timing of General Elections.

The Monarch formally opens Parliament and outlines the government’s proposed policies and legislation for the coming year. So the key part of the ceremony is The Queen’s Speech which provides the government of the day an opportunity to set out its agenda and highlight its priorities for the months ahead.

But there was a difference this year. On doctors’ orders -- because of what Buckingham Palace described as “episodic mobility” issues that were troubling her -- The Queen herself missed the ceremony. During her 70-year reign she has only done that twice, and both times because of pregnancy. Instead, this time her 73-year-old son, Prince Charles, stepped in and read out the speech on her behalf. According to royal commentators and body language experts, an emotional Charles was “reflective and nervous”, with slightly shaking hands betraying his nerves as he read the speech for the first time - a significant constitutional moment that some suggest is indicative of a “de facto semi-regency”.

A constitutional monarch in a parliamentary democracy is a hereditary symbolic head of state who mainly performs representative and civic duties but does not exercise executive or policymaking powers. While, on occasion, the monarch may set the pace unofficially or even indirectly assert a limited influence on particular issues, political power is, of course, in the hands of the elected government of the day.

Last week, The Queen’s Speech, written by Prime Minister Boris Johnson and his colleagues, described their proposed policies and new laws for the 2022-23 session. It was a bid by him to reset his premiership through a new legislative package mainly to benefit families and businesses across the country amid the cost of living crisis.

Anti-royalist critics maintain that the whole process of such a ceremonial opening, with the sovereign reading out a speech written by politicians and referring to “my government”, is an absurd fiction, since the key to the success of the monarchy is to stay out of politics. But others say that the nation’s constitutional arrangements are important symbolically as a sternly visible reminder to politicians that they serve under a constitutional monarch - and at the will of the people to whom, in a modern democracy, they are wholly accountable. There is a general belief that one effect of this is to help curb individual pretensions to excessive power and to discourage politicians from getting too big for their boots in their day-to-day activities. It thus serves to nip in the bud possible notions of authoritarianism.

Against this background – and despite having written about Her Majesty several times recently in this column – it is hard to refrain from mentioning today the most recent example of her continuing popularity amongst the British public generally.

In her first public appearance a few days after missing the state opening, The Queen was clapped and cheered with a standing ovation by the crowd at the Royal Windsor Horse Show which – reflecting her lifelong passion for horses - is said to be one of her favourite events of the year. Despite her mobility problems and having had to beat off a bout of COVID, she was back on her feet and looking in good health and spirits.

This horse show marked the start of her official Platinum Jubilee celebrations and - relaxed, smiling and laughing - she appeared to be as pleased as punch to be there. She also attended the closing event on Sunday evening of an equestrian extravaganza in the grounds of Windsor Castle and she was heartily applauded by the spectators. Unlike certain other members of the Royal Family, she remains extremely popular on a personal basis, and long may that continue. Many people will surely now be looking forward to her official birthday weekend celebrations at the beginning of June.

Interestingly, it was reported in the UK press that someone was overheard at the Windsor horse show saying “I’m not a fan of the Royals, but The Queen is a real class act” – and, although some have said she has become frail recently, the consensus is that she looks amazing for her age of ninety-six.

New moves in UK to protect free speech

Amidst the plethora of detail about new policies and legislation contained in The Queen’s Speech, one important aspect that has been little reported is the Conservative government’s plans for a major shake-up of the UK’s human rights laws. It seems that under landmark legislation – with a Bill to be published as early as next month – the former Labour government’s controversial Human Rights Act of 1998, which incorporates into UK domestic law the rights and liberties enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), could be ripped up and replaced with a British Bill of Rights.

The Justice Secretary in Boris Johnson’s cabinet, Dominic Raab, is quoted as saying that the parameters of free speech and democratic debate have been “whittled away by wokery and political correctness” and the new legislation will give overriding importance to the principles of free speech – in particular, protecting the ability of the press to expose corruption as well as allowing individuals to speak their minds. As he says, free speech will be made a “legal trump card” – and, since freedom of expression is a vital element of any democracy, this might have wider interest beyond Britain’s shores. The Bill will also contain measures to prevent foreign criminals from dodging deportation on the spurious grounds of a right to family life in the UK.

Another important element of the proposed new legislation is that, although the UK still ad-heres to its current commitments to human rights conventions like the ECHR, it will set out the way in which rulings by Britain’s top judges will take precedence over those from the European Court of Human Rights.

The ECHR is separate from the EU, but perhaps a move like scrapping the Human Rights Act should come as no surprise following Britain’s departure from the EU. It seems to be connected to the broader issue of the primacy of EU law over the domestic statutes of its member states and the extent to which they can be forced to follow EU law while still protecting their sovereignty and capacity for independent decision-making.

EU regulations and decisions have to be incorporated by EU member states into their domestic legislation and national authorities have to ensure they are correctly applied. So, following Britain’s departure from the EU, all this has to be reversed.

But the debate – not least now in Brussels’ dealings with Poland – seems to be becoming more fraught. In the case of human rights, the issue appears to boil down to control. Those opposed to change condemn repeal of the UK’s Human Rights Act as a “blatant, unashamed power grab” -- with Amnesty International saying it plays a vital role in ensuring stability, justice and protection of individuals and should not be replaced by a watered-down substitute. However, the government insists its proposals will strengthen Britain’s human rights such as freedom of expression while the country stays a party to the ECHR and that they will add a dose of common sense and restore Parliament’s proper role as the ultimate decision-maker on laws impacting the UK’s population. The government argues that a Bill of Rights is long overdue – and one can only hope all will become clearer with publication of the draft legislation that is now eagerly awaited.

Sweden and Finland into the NATO fold

Despite the all-embracing blanket international media coverage of the war in Ukraine, there seems to have been little reporting this side of the Atlantic of Britain’s initiative in negotiating bilateral military assistance agreements with Sweden and Finland. While NATO as an organisation has taken on a new lease of life in acting with considerable effect in its united response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February, Prime Minister Boris Johnson has also acted unilaterally in various ways, not least in his close working relationship with President Zelensky which included his brief visit to Kyiv.

Now, he has stepped forward again. Last week, he made quick visits to Stockholm and Helsinki where he signed security pacts with each country, promising to support them in any way they might need against potential Russian aggression. If either country faced an attack, they could call on Britain for help which could include military support. He would not be drawn on the specific nature of such military assistance, but both countries have also now separately applied to join NATO which Putin has called publicly a mistake and has warned of “far-reaching consequences”. Their membership needs unanimous approval and Turkey has already voiced misgivings about the sheltering of Kurdish militants. But their applications will apparently be fast tracked -- and many other countries have considered for some time that NATO membership for both countries was inevitable at some point.

In 1939, at the beginning of the Second World War, Finland was, of course, invaded by the then Soviet Union and, despite putting up strong resistance, it was forced to cede some territory. The country later assisted Germany in the latter’s invasion of the USSR.

According to historians, after the end of the war in 1945 most Finns thought that, given the vulnerability of its eastern 800-mile border with the Soviet Union, it was essential as a protection against Soviet aggression to maintain a balancing act between East and West and so it remained neutral during the Cold War. But the country joined the EU in 1995, though there was little public support for NATO membership at that time.

Until now, Finland judged that Russia had been taking calculated risks – for example, annexing Crimea in 2014 and testing the West’s reaction. However, the invasion of Ukraine had shown that henceforward there were no limitations to its aggression. So, with huge public support, it was time for Finland to take pre-emptive action to defend itself by joining NATO.

Meanwhile, at the Victory Day parade in Moscow on May 9 Putin did not repeat his threat to use nuclear weapons, but the danger remains as Russian forces suffer further setbacks militarily in Ukraine -- for example, being forced to withdraw from the country’s second city of Kharkiv. New evidence is also emerging of alleged war crimes.

Overall, some commentators are suggesting that Putin now needs a face-saving formula to end this war. That requires further analysis. But, with Sweden and Finland now on the brink of NATO membership, how supremely ironic it is that the expansion and military strengthening of NATO, which Putin has been railing against and been trying to prevent, has happened as a direct consequence of his unnecessary, misguided, barbaric and ill-fated invasion of Ukraine.

But, to end on a lighter and happier note, how good it is to record that the morale of all Ukrainians will surely have been boosted over the weekend by news that the country’s entry in the Eurovision Song Contest took first place in this famously popular competition in Europe -- and President Zelensky says maybe Ukraine can host the event next year.