Andrew Tettenborn

You wouldn’t normally electrify the world with a press release detailing a formal UK legal demand for discussions and possible arbitration about non-admission to Horizon Europe, a EU-led scientific research programme which in all probability most people will never have heard of. But, as you may have gathered from recent news reports, there is more to this episode than meets the eye. It actually tells us a fair amount about the Brexit process, and perhaps more about the EU. Set up in 2021 by the EU with a budget of €95.5 billion to be spent over seven years, Horizon Europe is a kind of super Euro-research council: an institution dedicated to promoting and funding high-powered international scientific research with public money.

Is the EU about to shatter? There is increasing talk of it after the bloc’s well-publicised difficulties with Poland and Hungary in the last week or so. This is almost certainly premature: nevertheless, the events are significant, and even if they do not break the EU they could precipitate some profound changes. For some time, undeclared guerrilla war has subsisted between the EU and its two maverick eastern members. Both face multiple court complaints from Brussels about what it sees as rule of law issues and they see as their internal affairs. Hungary is facing allegations of infringement of media freedom and LGBT rights, Poland on stated threats to judicial independence and the supremacy of EU law.

There is an excellent religious case to be made for environmentalism. Roger Scruton ten years ago made the point that a ‘natural piety’ is inherent in most of us. Scruton argued this was a call to be responsible for the environment and urged us to love the earth and not to exploit it. This argument sweetly slips into theological terms. The earth is not there to satisfy as many of our crass secular desires as possible ,it is there to give us – and very importantly our descendants – the opportunity to be closer to God, be this moral, aesthetic or otherwise. Justin Welby, nominal head of the Anglican communion, is undoubtedly on board with environmentalism. He made this clear in a keynote speech on Sunday at the Lambeth Conference.

When a pressure group moves from promoting the rights of a minority to trying to micromanage the behaviour of the majority, we should be worried. When large numbers of organisations in both the public and private sectors dance to the tune of that body, we should be more so. Stonewall is a case in point, if the evidence given at an employment tribunal case decided yesterday involving commendably pugnacious lesbian activist Allison Bailey is anything to go by. Founded in 1989 as a gay equality campaign group, in recent years Stonewall has diversified into aggressively promoting trans activism. As an organisation, it has also become pretty rawly commercial.

Sex offences, violence and fraud have spiked, according to the latest crime figures. Meanwhile, the number of convictions remains staggeringly low: in England and Wales, more than 99 per cent of rapes reported to police do not end in a conviction. In short, there's plenty for the police to get on with. Yet worryingly, officers are sometimes kept busy investigating legitimate debate. Finally, though, there are signs that police chiefs are seeing sense. The College of Policing, the national standards body for police, has said that officers need to focus on cutting crime, take a common sense approach and 'not get involved in debates on Twitter'.

Yesterday Suella Braverman unequivocally stated that, as Prime Minister, she would work to withdraw Britain from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The reaction she encountered on social media was, of course, predictable. To say she was portrayed as a right-wing nut-job, a kind of amalgam of Cruella de Vil and Josiah Bounderby, Dickens’s heartless capitalist in Hard Times, is probably an understatement. As usual in politics, however, there is a bit more to this than meets the eye. To begin with, Suella has only said directly what other politicians have hinted at before: think Theresa May’s tentative suggestion about exiting the ECHR in 2017, briefly floated and hurriedly withdrawn as too hot to handle.

Last Thursday saw a wry twist to the Ukraine war. The European Court of Human Rights solemnly intoned that Russia should stop the execution of two Englishmen condemned to death in the Donetsk People's Republic for fighting for Ukraine. It knew perfectly well it was screaming into the void. Russia, though technically in the ECHR till September, had said it would ignore any of the court’s orders; and there is no doubt whatsoever that the People’s Republic will do exactly the same. This is not the first time the court has raised eyebrows by issuing peremptory declarations of this kind. Just under three weeks ago, a plane was about to take off carrying asylum seekers to Rwanda. The English courts had refused to grant any injunction.

As if the Church of England didn’t have enough to worry about with leaky roofs, empty churches and lack of money to pay priests, it now has the Archbishops’ Commission for Racial Justice, or ACRJ. Appointed a year ago, this group of twelve of the great and good, under ex-Labour Cabinet minister Paul Boateng, has just published its first report. This document is certainly full of good intentions. Whether it has much to offer the ordinary churchgoer, or for that matter the Church of England as a whole, is rather more doubtful. Go into any church this Sunday, and it’s a racing certainty that you won’t find much old-fashioned racism.

The EU will formally add Ukraine to its list of candidate countries this Friday. But if you look carefully beneath the pomp, you will see this is much less of a big deal than Brussels would have you believe. For one thing, the gesture is symbolic. The list of official EU candidates is a bit like the waiting list for a smart London club. Being on it may be flattering, but it does not guarantee a quick decision; nor does it rule out the possibility of one or more black balls if and when your name eventually comes up.  Albania, North Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey are all current candidates on the list. All are respectable nations, but don’t hold your breath as regards an early admission for any of them.

Last night’s abrupt order from the European Court of Human Rights that led to the grounding of the first Rwanda deportation flight delighted progressives everywhere. They will of course say – rather in the fashion of twentieth-century home secretaries calmly refusing to reprieve a condemned murderer – that the law is merely taking its course, and that we should be proud that the rule of law has been upheld. This sounds comforting. It is also wrong-headed. The Rwanda debacle in fact raises very serious questions about the legitimacy of the Strasbourg judges and their interference with national administrations. To remind you of the background, concerted lawfare in the English courts failed to block the flight.

Conservatives in Wales are jumpy. Seeing Boris’s name as poisonous on the doorstep, a number of them have suggested disaffiliating from the national party and forming their own Welsh Conservatives as the party of the right west of Offa’s Dyke. Some in the central party in London are, perhaps unsurprisingly, aghast: one unnamed Tory MP has referred apocalyptically to the Balkanisation of the Conservatives. At least one very vociferously unionist Senedd member, James Evans, is also furious. They should not be worried. Why? Because the break-up of the Tory party is actually rather a forward-looking idea, beneficial in the long term to Conservatism. CCHQ should welcome this plan with open arms. For one thing, the union issue is a red herring.

Boris Johnson insists that his victory in last night's confidence vote means he will be able to 'draw a line under issues our opponents want to talk about'. But what the result actually shows, as Boris undoubtedly knows, is that even some of those who backed him in the vote now want him gone. Why? Shortly after the debacle, Matthew Parris in the Times hit the nail on the head. One minister had, he wrote, let the cat out of the bag when he (or she) confided to him: 'He’s appalling: he’s got to go' before trooping in to vote against the no-confidence motion with gritted teeth.

Should MPs be allowed second jobs? In the wake of last year's Owen Paterson scandal, in which it was revealed the Tory MP had breached lobbying rules, there was a clamour to clamp down on Parliamentarians’ outside income. The Commons Standards Committee toyed with the idea of placing some restriction on the time MPs could spend on extra-Parliamentary employment, or on the amounts they earned from it. But now the Committee has decided against taking action. Voters will be unhappy, but this is a decision that should be welcomed. Why? Because outside work by politicians is not a distraction to be avoided, as some more puritanical MPs have it. More often it's something that usefully informs debate and Committee work.

Amnesty International and Stonewall are no strangers to criticising the government. This week they've been at it again: blasting Dominic Raab's plans to make adjustments to the Human Rights Act by replacing it with a British Bill of Rights. But they are wrong to attack an approach that most Brits will realise is perfectly sensible. Raab’s plan, which was set out in the Queen's Speech yesterday, is simple. Britain will remain in the European Convention on Human Rights when it comes to international matters, but when interpreting domestic laws, it will change its emphasis slightly.

Priti Patel’s reforms to the rights of asylum seekers have predictably scandalised the House of Lords. Befitting what is now effectively a club for patricians and liberals who hate Boris Johnson, it duly sent her Nationality and Borders Bill back badly mauled. The Commons excised these amendments in short order; today, the Lords will be asked to restore them. But will it do what it's supposed to? This is a dangerous moment for the government – not least because Shami Chakrabarti's proposed amendment could torpedo the whole project. This is because the most sweetly reasonable change her fix is trying to make is also the most potentially catastrophic.