The Lead Untangles: What has the ECHR ever done for us?

We unpick the possible consequences of leaving the European Convention on Human Rights, as Farage unveils his proposal to withdraw.

and

Aug 29, 2025

black and white labeled bottle — Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash

The Lead Untangles will be delivered via email each Friday by The Lead and focuses on a different complex, divisive issue with each edition. The entirety of The Lead Untangles will always be free for all subscribers.

At a glance facts

On Tuesday, speaking about his proposed Operation Restoring Justice, Nigel Farage said we “have to leave the ECHR [European Convention on Human Rights],” and that “we have to repeal the Human Rights Act.”

He promised the mass deportation of people arriving to the UK via irregular means, specifically those crossing the English Channel, describing their arrival as an “invasion” of young men illegally breaking into our country.

His party’s plan is to remove 600,000 asylum seekers under the first parliament of a Reform government, increase detention capacity for asylum seekers, ban anyone from seeking asylum who arrives by irregular means, and secure deals with countries to return migrants to their home countries.

It has claimed the plan would cost £10bn to implement and save £7bn currently spent on “illegal” migration during the first five years. However, initial analysis has shown these figures aren’t entirely accurate.

For his plan to have a shot at working, the UK would need to leave the ECHR and revoke the Human Rights Act.

Some researchers say withdrawing from the ECHR wouldn’t give the government power to “stop the boats,” but would lead to consequences for people in the UK and for the UK internationally.

Leaving the ECHR and repealing the Human Rights act might give Farage the ability to carry out his immigration plans, but the impacts are far wider.

There are concerns that abandoning both legal constructs would breach the Good Friday Agreement, the 1998 peace accord that ended decades of conflict in Northern Ireland, undermine the UK’s credibility in criticising human rights abuses internationally (like Ukraine or China), destabilise devolution settlements, collapse our security and trade deal with the EU, set a precedent for other countries to do the same (a backwards step for international human rights), and put people in the UK at risk of not getting justice if their rights have been abused.

Context

A record 28,076 people crossed the English Channel to Britain in small boats this year, a 46 per cent rise on the same period in 2024.

Although only a small percentage (around 16 per cent) of the UK’s overall immigration figures, the number of asylum seekers coming to the UK are a headline statistic that continues to be used as a tool by politicians and media to drive fear into the British public.

The previous Conservative government said they would deport everyone to Rwanda. It cost a fortune and didn’t work because legal challenges and human rights treaties prevented refoulement (the practice of sending asylum seekers or refugees back to a country where they face a real risk of serious harm.)

It was under the Conservative government that the ECHR made the news in the UK when its court grounded the first planned flight of refugees bound for Rwanda.

The current Labour government have made a new “one in, one out” pilot deal with France, and talked a big talk about “smashing” the criminal gangs who smuggle people into the UK. It’s unclear how their plans will play out, but the numbers show that small boat crossings have increased substantially during Labour’s time in office as compared to the previous year.

So in steps Farage, whose Reform UK party is leading in national opinion polls, with his bold plan to keep asylum seekers out of the Channel, providing examples of why we need to protect our borders from dangerous criminals who enter the country and are allowed to stay under the ECHR.

He’ll need to separate judiciary from the government to avoid legal challenges to achieve what he’s proposed (!!!).

The only proposal offered thus far to fill the gap is the British Bill of Rights, which isn’t new (it was talked about by Conservatives in 2016), but it would only apply to British citizens and those with a legal right to live in the UK.

Leaving or reforming the ECHR isn’t a new idea, and it isn’t unique to Farage.

Kemi Badenoch floated it in June. Farage has long support leaving the ECHR. Theresa May said in 2016 that the ECHR “can bind the hands of Parliament.” Other European countries have called for a conversation about how the ECHR handles migration.

However, a June 2024 YouGov poll of 4411 British adults found that a majority (54 per cent) of the public wants to remain a member of the ECHR.

Those who would propose leaving the ECHR would say, among many arguments, that Britain should have legislative freedom, and that freedoms in the UK long predates the ECHR.

If the UK were to leave the ECHR, it would be the first nation to voluntarily withdraw. The only other European nations not signed up the convention are Belarus and Russia (who were recently expelled). Greece left the ECHR in 1967 while under a military regime accused of mental and physical torture, but rejoined in 1974 once democracy was restored.

What is the ECHR and Human Rights Act?

During the middle of the Second World War, the idea of the ECHR was created to ensure governments would never again be allowed to dehumanise and abuse people’s rights. It was later drafted, and ratified (the UK was the first nation to ratify it) in March 1951. It is important to note that the ECHR isn’t the same as the European Union, but part of the Council of Europe, an international organisation of 46 member states.

It was intended to be a simple, flexible roundup of universal rights, whose meaning could grow and adapt to society’s changing needs over time. Not only were ordinary people to be protected from abuse by the state, but duties were to be placed on those states to protect individuals.

The European Court of Human Rights [ECtHR] was set up in 1959 as a forum for people who believe their rights have been denied, allowing their cases to be heard. Judgements of the Court legally bind countries to stand by its rulings.

Until 1998, the only way a UK citizen could make a challenge regarding their rights was to travel to Strasbourg, a lengthy and expensive feat.

With the passing of the Human Rights Act, 16 rights from the ECHR were brought into domestic UK law.

What has the ECHR ever done for us?

While it’s far more likely that you’ll hear about the negatives of the ECHR in modern political dialogue, it has had a key role to play in many of the rights and liberties we now take for granted in Britain.

This includes freedom of expression for the press, the decriminalisation of homosexual acts in Northern Ireland, overturning the ban on LGBT+ people serving in the armed forces and banning corporal punishment in schools.

The former Conservative government itself tried to rely on Article 8 (the right to respect for private and family life) to prevent the disclosure of Boris Johnson’s WhatsApps to the Covid inquiry.

What are people saying?

Conservatives

“The ECHR is now being used in ways never intended by its original authors. It should be a shield to protect, instead it’s become a sword. A sword used to attack democratic decisions and common sense. This use of litigation as a political weapon is what I am calling lawfare. It isn’t just damaging our security; it’s also damaging our prosperity.” Kemi Badenoch

"But the bottom line is other signatories to the ECHR are kicking out foreign criminals much more than we are. And other countries who are not signatories to the ECHR are also struggling so I'm not convinced the ECHR is, on its own, a silver bullet. Particularly if we don't do something about what I worry is a political activism in the legal system, which is trying to re-write British border immigration law policy through case law rather than through parliament." Sir James Cleverly

Labour

“We’re not planning to withdraw either permanently or temporarily from the ECHR because it underpins a number of absolutely vital agreements. That’s not to say that we don’t think the convention requires reform.” Housing Minister Mattew Pennycook

“What you’ve got to remember is most of the people crossing the Channel are young men, they have destroyed their papers before they get here, they’re coming from a completely civilised country in France. They’re paying international criminals to get here and the courts are saying they have a right to stay under the refugee convention, I assume, and possibly other conventions. That doesn’t seem reasonable to me.” Graham Stringer, Labour MP for Blackley and Middleton South

“Across Europe, public confidence in the rule of law is fraying. There is a growing perception – sometimes mistaken, sometimes grounded in reality – that human rights are no longer a shield for the vulnerable, but a tool for criminals to avoid responsibility. That the law too often protects those who break the rules, rather than those who follow them. This tension is not new. The Convention was written to protect individuals from the arbitrary power of the state. But in today’s world, the threats to justice and liberty are more complex. They can come from technology, transnational crime, uncontrolled migration, or legal systems that drift away from public consent.” Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, Shabana Mahmood

Reform

“Here’s what we have to do to make Operation Restoring Justice actually work. We have to leave the ECHR. No ifs, no buts. It may have been a good idea 80 years ago. Frankly, it isn’t today. We want to repeal the Human Rights Act of 1998. We will, for a five year period, disapply the Refugee Convention and any other barriers that can be used by lawyers in this country to prevent deportations.” Nigel Farage, Leader of Reform UK

Other people

“Reform offers nothing to working-class people. No solutions to insecure work, rip-off landlords or NHS waiting lists. They offer only scapegoats and division. The answer to the small boats crisis — a crisis of people risking their lives seeking sanctuary — is to open safe and legal routes, as the UK did for Ukrainians.” Fran Heathcote, general secretary of the Public and Commercial Services union, which represents Border Force officers

“This is not who we are as a country. People know that turning a blind eye is just not an option. Men, women and children are coming to the UK looking for safety. They are fleeing the unimaginable horrors of torture in places like Afghanistan, Sudan and Iran. And they desperately need our protection.” Kolbassia Haoussou, Freedom from Torture

“Nothing says ‘serious policy’ like a plan that’s illegal under international law and tears up centuries of UK legal tradition. Farage’s fantasy of deporting people to torture isn’t bold – it’s a headline grab that stinks of desperation.” Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants

“A lot of people see rights as something that’s for other people, not for them. But it’s only when maybe a family member of yours may have died in circumstances where you’re not aware exactly of how it happened and you want an inquest into that, that you realise actually your right to an inquest follows from and flows from your rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. If you’re a woman in the UK and you’re seeking to leave a situation of domestic violence, your right to seek protection is another right under the European Convention on Human Rights. There are a whole lot of rights which are very relevant for people’s everyday lives.” Yasmine Ahmed, Human Right Lawyer and UK Director of Human Rights Watch

What happens next?

Leaving the ECHR isn’t quick or easy.

At the international level, a state must give the Council of Europe six month’s notice of its intention to withdraw. Under international law, judgments issued by the ECtHR against the UK before its withdrawal would still have to be implemented.

And the domestic level, the government would have to get Parliament’s approval before notifying the Council of Europe of its intention to withdraw.

The fact of the matter is that our current Labour government has spoken in favour of retaining the ECHR and upholding international obligations and treaties. But Shabana Mahmood, the Justice Secretary has committed to pursuing reform of the ECHR, while the Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has said she would review how the courts were applying it to live cases here in the UK.

Whether or not the government can successfully reform the ECHR depends largely on cooperation from other signatories. What is certain is that – as long as irregular immigration continues to dominate the front pages – this debate will rumble on.