How Britain's membership of the ECHR became a political hot potato

ECHR Membership: Britain's Uncomfortable Political Hot Potato

The question of Britain's membership in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) has long been a simmering issue, but in recent years, it has erupted into a full-blown political crisis. What was once a cornerstone of post-war international law is now a deeply divisive topic, with significant implications for immigration policy, national sovereignty, and the very identity of modern Britain. At the heart of the debate lies a fundamental disagreement: is the ECHR a vital safeguard of fundamental rights, or an obstacle to effective governance and border control?

The Shifting Sands of Public and Political Opinion

For decades, the ECHR, overseen by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Strasbourg, was largely accepted as a given. It was established in 1953, with the UK playing a pivotal role in its creation, as a means to prevent the atrocities of the Second World War from ever happening again. Its incorporation into UK law via the Human Rights Act 1998 was seen as a progressive step, enshrining a universal standard of human rights. However, in recent years, a potent narrative has emerged, particularly from certain segments of the political establishment, that the Convention is being exploited by foreign criminals and asylum seekers to thwart legitimate deportation efforts and undermine British sovereignty. This narrative has resonated with a significant portion of the electorate, making ECHR membership a potent political weapon.

The Conservative Party, in particular, has made challenging the influence of the ECtHR a central plank of its policy platform. Promises to "take back control" of our laws and borders have often been intertwined with vows to curb the power of Strasbourg. This has led to a series of proposed reforms and even outright threats to withdraw from the Convention altogether. The rhetoric, at times, paints a picture of a nation held hostage by an unelected foreign court, unable to enforce its own laws and protect its citizens.

Lord Sumption's Blunt Assessment: Exaggerated Impact on Immigration?

Amidst this heated political climate, the voice of Lord Sumption, a former Justice of the Supreme Court, stands out for its measured, yet damning, critique. In a recent intervention, he argued forcefully that the extent to which leaving the Convention would make a difference to immigration has been "greatly exaggerated." This is a crucial point, as the perceived impact on immigration is arguably the primary driver of the public and political clamour to leave the ECHR.

Sumption’s analysis suggests that the legal mechanisms and practicalities of immigration control are far more complex than simply severing ties with Strasbourg. He points to the fact that many of the grounds for challenging deportations, particularly those involving family life or human rights, are rooted in domestic legislation and common law, not solely in the ECHR itself. While the ECtHR’s rulings can influence how these domestic laws are interpreted, they are not the sole arbiter.

“The argument that leaving the ECHR will solve the problem of illegal immigration is, in my opinion, a fantasy,” Lord Sumption stated, according to the BBC. This is a bold assertion, directly challenging the prevailing narrative promoted by some of the most vocal proponents of leaving the Convention. It implies that the focus on the ECHR is, in part, a convenient scapegoat, deflecting attention from more fundamental issues within the immigration system itself. Could it be that the political will to implement tougher measures, within existing legal frameworks, is what's truly lacking?

The "Rwanda Plan" and the ECHR's Shadow

Nowhere has the tension surrounding the ECHR been more starkly illustrated than in the government's controversial plan to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda. The ECtHR's interim measures, which temporarily blocked the first planned flight, sent shockwaves through Westminster and intensified calls to break free from Strasbourg's jurisdiction. The government argued that these interventions were an unacceptable overreach, undermining parliamentary sovereignty and the will of the people.

However, critics of the Rwanda plan, and indeed of the government's approach to human rights, argue that the ECHR provides essential protections against inhumane treatment. They contend that the Court's intervention, in this instance, was a necessary check on a policy that risked violating fundamental rights, regardless of its legality under domestic law. The debate here is not just about legal interpretation, but about moral and ethical considerations. Are there lines that even a sovereign nation should not cross in its pursuit of border control?

Sovereignty vs. Universal Rights: A Perennial Dilemma

The ECHR debate is, at its core, a clash between the concept of national sovereignty and the universal application of human rights. Proponents of leaving the Convention argue that an independent Britain should be free to make its own laws and define its own rights without external interference. They see the ECtHR as an anachronistic relic of a bygone era, ill-suited to the modern realities of global migration and security concerns.

Conversely, supporters of the ECHR maintain that human rights are not a matter of national discretion but universal principles that transcend borders. They warn that any attempt to unilaterally redefine or discard these rights risks a race to the bottom, emboldening authoritarian regimes and undermining the very foundations of a just and equitable society. The UK’s historical role in championing human rights on the global stage adds a layer of complexity to this argument. Can Britain truly claim the moral high ground if it abandons the very framework it helped create?

The Future of Human Rights in the UK

The political pressure to reform or abandon the ECHR shows no sign of abating. The next government, regardless of its political leaning, will likely face continued demands to address this issue. Whether this leads to a renegotiation of the UK's relationship with the Convention, a complete withdrawal, or a reinforcement of its commitment, the debate promises to remain a defining feature of British politics for the foreseeable future. Lord Sumption's intervention, while providing a dose of much-needed realism regarding the practical impact on immigration, does little to quell the deeply held convictions on both sides of this increasingly fraught political divide. The ECHR has firmly cemented its position as Britain's uncomfortable, and highly charged, political hot potato.