Five posts on why we shouldn’t leave the European Convention on Human Rights

29 September 2013 by

Screen Shot 2013-09-29 at 22.20.54The Conservative Party Conference began today. As has been the case in past years, human rights policy will have a prominent role to play, but much of which is said will be bluster. The Prime Minister has already said that all options are on the table, including withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Expect more tomorrow when Lord Chancellor Chris Grayling and Home Secretary Theresa May step up to the podium from 2:30pm to 4pm.

Judging from the Prime Minister’s comments as well as Chris Grayling’s in the Spectator, it appears likely that this party conference will be similar to previous ones. Government ministers will promise that a majority Conservative government will replace “Labour’s” Human Rights Act with a Bill of Rights – a longstanding Tory policy which also featured in the party’s 2010 manifesto (at p.79). The promise was scuppered after the 2010 election due to demands from coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats. And, the Tories will continue to make vague threats that “people want to see the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom being in the United Kingdom and not in Strasbourg” (Grayling, a self-described “staunch Eurosceptic”) and that ECHR withdrawal “may be… where we end up” (Cameron).

Meanwhile, Labour will go into the election pledging to defend the Human Rights Act and ECHR. Shadow Justice Secretary Sadiq Khan is developing interesting line on this:

It tells you a lot about the modern Tory Party – on the side of the status quo, propping up powerful elites and siding with vested interests. It’s left to Labour to take on these vested interests on behalf of all our citizens.

Clearly, Labour have decided to present human rights law as a means of challenging the powerful, and now argue – with some force – that attempts by the powerful to limit those laws are self-serving and dangerous. I agree with that view, as you might have guessed from my articles on the issue over the past few years (see e.g. this).

But human rights are also unpopular in many quarters, blamed for perverse (so say the doubters) decisions on prisoner votes and terrorist deportations. Criticising human rights is therefore a potential vote winner. The big question for the Conservatives will be how anti-human rights their stance can be before raising suspicions that their policies are more about Euro-scepticism than national interest, or – worse – that they really are trying to shut down criticism at the expense of the poor and marginalised. Leaving the ECHR may not be as popular as scrapping the HRA, so it remains to be seen how far Tory policy will go.

It is also possible that Tory opponents will join the dots between other Coalition policies – such as limiting judicial review, legal aid and introducing secret courts – and do even more damage (despite the hypocrisy of that position given Labour’s support for many of those policies).

The debate leading up to 2015 is going to be interesting, and is likely to set the tone of the human rights debate for the next few years. But the key point now is that the realities of coalition government mean that nothing will change in relation to the ECHR or Human Rights Act until at least the next election in 2015.  Even then, the Conservatives would need to win an overall majority to carry through their plans.

Having said that, there is likely to be a debate over leaving the ECHR this week as the Tories continue to test the waters and more vague threats are made. So here are five posts which explain why leaving would be a tremendously bad idea:

  1. Why we would be mad to leave our European Convention on Human Rights (Adam Wagner)
  2. A Conservative Convention (Michael Scott)
  3. Why have a European Court of Human Rights? (Dr Ed Bates)
  4. Keep calm and apply the European Convention on Human Rights (Paul Harvey)
  5. What would happen if the UK withdrew from the European Court of Human Rights? (Adam Wagner)

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

1 comment;

  1. James Lawson says:

    Can it honestly be said that Human ‘rights’ are capable of an independent existence within a political system under which those against whom such rights operate may through malice or caprice undermine and destroy them at will? Is it not more accurate to suggest that what the United Kingdom actually possesses are not ‘rights’ properly so-called, but rather ‘mere permissions’ to be granted or withdrawn dependent upon the extent to which they advance or hinder government policy?

    If the government are able to take a mere Queen’s Council and elevate him overnight to the Status of a Supreme Court Judge, the equivalent of giving a Lance Corporal command of an Infantry Battalion, ignoring the career structure and promotion system of the established judiciary, then is it not the case that the Supreme Court will remain ‘supreme’ just as long as it delivers judgments the government want as long as it does not want the judges the government want?

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Harry Dunn Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: