When the Prime Minister made the surprising decision last year to bring David, now Lord Cameron, back into politics by appointing him as foreign secretary, David Cameron's old chancellor and charm, George Osborne chimed in and claimed leaving the European Court of Human Rights was off the table as long as he was the new Foreign Secretary.
Well, last night, when the Foreign Secretary was interviewed following royal assent, the Safety of Rwanda Bill, David Cameron said this: "What I would say is we have to make sure we deal with illegal immigration. That comes first. I don't think it's necessary to leave the ECHR. I don't think that needs to happen to make this policy work.
"But I know what matters the most is being able to say to the British public, we've got a fair immigration system, we've got a strong immigration system, and we're not putting up with illegal migration. It must be for Britain to say who can come and who can't come, rather than anybody else."
But even if Lord Cameron's right, he really ought to have learned the lesson of Brexit by now.
Jacob Rees-Mogg said that David Cameron should have learned the lesson of Brexit by now
GB News
The British people do not like being told what to do by foreign, unelected bureaucrats, especially ones that have become increasingly politicised, as in the case of the European Commission, who are unelected bureaucrats and were unaccountable to the British people.
We have no way of getting rid of the people who issued the rule 39 order that blocked the original Rwanda deportation flight two years ago. The judges that sit on the European Court of Human Rights are political nominees in many cases.
This means that at one point prior to Russia's expulsion from the Council of Europe, one of the judges who sat on this court was nominated by none other than Vladimir Putin, and you had no means of ousting him.
While the EU and the ECHR are separate and distinct institutions. The principle remains the same.
Sovereignty in this country belongs to the British people, who delegate it to the King in Parliament for five years at a time. The laws passed by Parliament are the ultimate valid authority.
In the case of the EU, David Cameron promised to reduce immigration down from the hundreds to the tens of thousands.
The ECHR court
Getty ImagesThis was in the Tory Manifesto for 2010.
But because we were part of an institution that disregarded the democratic will of the British people, there was no means of controlling mass migration, and his promise was never and still has not been met.
The thing about the EU is that it is and always was an explicitly political project, whereas the ECH operates under the pretence that it is merely a body that interprets the European Convention on Human Rights.
But they've been going so much further.
Jacob Rees-Mogg shared his views on the ECHR
GB News
I've mentioned before the problem with its living instrument doctrine, the idea that it can invent new rights as it pleases, as long as the rights are in its definition of the spirit of the original convention.
However, the ramifications of this policy were on full display recently when it decided that Switzerland had breached the rights of its citizens by not pursuing a radical green agenda.
This brings the court directly into policy decisions, and other similar cases are now expected to be heard by the court. The court is now as politicised as the EU, and although the EU is bad for this country, at least there was a thin veil of democracy in the European Parliament.
The case of the ECHR does nothing you can do. There's nowhere voting to change the law, which is exactly why it's time to leave it, as the real safeguard of human rights has long been Parliament via your votes. And the sooner the noble Lord Cameron understands this, the better.