Is the UK Ready to Say Goodbye to Human Rights? The Political Tug-of-War Over the ECHR

Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative Party leader, recently escalated the political discourse by declaring plans to withdraw the UK from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) if her party wins the next election. Her comments, made just before the Tory annual conference, reflect a growing faction within the party that is responding to pressure from Reform UK and its leader, Nigel Farage, who advocate pulling out from the ECHR and other treaties seen as barriers to immigration control. In stark contrast, Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey criticized Badenoch for aligning with Farage, suggesting that such a move would not solve the complex immigration issues faced by the nation.

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has taken a more moderate approach, indicating a desire for reform rather than outright withdrawal. Despite these polarizing views, the future implications of leaving the ECHR remain deeply complicated, as Badenoch herself recognized that such a decision would not single-handedly resolve immigration problems.

The roots of this debate trace back to 2011, during David Cameron’s premiership, particularly stemming from the John Hirst case, which challenged the UK’s policy banning prisoners from voting. This incident put the ECHR in the spotlight, challenging previous administrations to reckon with its jurisdiction. Cameron’s reaction to the Hirst ruling galvanized public sentiment against the ECHR, especially when Theresa May, then Home Secretary, shared an exaggerated story of a Bolivian man evading deportation due to his pet cat—a narrative that became emblematic of public frustrations with human rights laws.

Richard Ekins, a prominent legal scholar, argues that the ECHR’s expansion of its influence undermines UK sovereignty and democratic principles. He highlights controversial rulings, such as one involving climate change obligations, as overreaches that compel member states to broaden their domestic policies in ways that may conflict with the will of the populace.

Critics of the ECHR also assert that it causes complications within the UK’s migration system. However, statistical analyses reveal that only a small fraction of deportation appeals based on human rights claims succeed, complicating the assertion that the ECHR fundamentally disrupts immigration control.

While there is some consensus that the ECHR merits reform, the ramifications of leaving are complex. Former Supreme Court judge Lord Jonathan Sumption states that while leaving could marginally facilitate deportation efforts, it is unlikely to address all underlying immigration challenges. Experts like Harriet Wistrich warn that withdrawing from the ECHR could dismantle vital protections for victims of state abuses and threaten the stability of historic agreements such as the 1998 Belfast Agreement that rely on these rights.

In summary, as the debate intensifies, the implications of leaving the ECHR extend beyond legal frameworks to touch upon foundational issues of trust in governance and human rights protection within the UK and its broader implications for international relations.