The Prime Minister is very fond of talking about British values: but is he actually undermining them through his words and actions?
The Prime Minister is very fond of talking about British values: but is he actually undermining them through his words and actions?
Of course, British values are difficult to define. What exactly are they? Can we say that any values are particularly British? There is much debate and disagreement: but perhaps something many people would like to consider a core British value is respect for the law, and a general tendency to obey the rules. Rules matter, we are told, and we must respect them even when we don’t like them.
Indeed, we place so much importance on rules that we are world leaders in creating them, even when we are having fun, with the laws of cricket, football and rugby all developed in the UK and exported across the world. Failing to abide by the rules is ‘just not cricket’: that way chaos lies.
But recently our own Prime Minister has displayed disrespect, even disdain, for laws and rules that he personally disagrees with.
At the Conservative party conference Mr Cameron announced his wish to scrap the Human Rights Act, and said that if he deemed it necessary, the UK could withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights. The move seemed to have more to do with dog-whistle politics designed to counteract the threat of UKIP than any clearly thought-out set of principles.
Such rhetoric may go down well with Mr Cameron’s core vote, but it is also heard elsewhere, and may have unintended consequences. As Ian Dunt reported “just days after Chris Grayling published Tory plans to scrap the Human Rights Act, a foreign leader was already using them to defend himself against charges of crimes against humanity.”
Kenyan president Uhuru Kenyatta, accused of being responsible for a wave of violence in Kenya in which 1300 people were killed, was called to appear before the International Criminal Court. Basing his objections on a concern for Kenya’s national sovereignty, he said, “The push to defend sovereignty is not unique to Kenya or Africa. Very recently, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom committed to reasserting the sovereign primacy of his parliament over the decision of the European Human Rights Court. He has even threatened to quit that court.”
Now, the Prime Minister has angrily and publicly refused to pay a bill presented to the UK by the European Union. Whether or not this was a genuine surprise, or whether the bill is fair, surely Mr Cameron’s reaction was unwise? An objection expressed through official channels and announced in a calm and reasonable manner would have served the same purpose, if the purpose was to make sure that the UK paid only what was fair. But again, the real purpose seemed to be to look tough and appeal to voters straying to UKIP.
At a time when an international body like the World Health Organisation is struggling to raise the contributions it needs to tackle Ebola, and multinational companies go to great lengths to avoid paying tax, to suggest we can all refuse to pay bills we don’t like is not setting a good example.
It seems the more Mr. Cameron says he is standing up for Britain, the further he undermines values he would probably like to claim as being typically British: the values of fair play and respect for the rules.
—-
© Bernadette Meaden has written about political, religious and social issues for some years, and is strongly influenced by Christian Socialism, liberation theology and the Catholic Worker movement. She is an Ekklesia associate and regular contributor. You can follow her on Twitter: @BernaMeaden