A strong case for the UK to withdraw from the jurisdiction of ECHR
Proponents of UK withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the European Court of Human Rights make a strong case on several grounds.
The first and obvious gain is of Parliamentary sovereignty. The core argument is democratic legitimacy. Rulings from the Strasbourg court can override Acts of Parliament and decisions of UK courts, meaning unelected foreign judges can effectively make law for the UK. Withdrawal would restore the principle that Parliament is the supreme legal authority, and that laws made by elected representatives could no longer be struck down by an external body.
Control over immigration and deportation has been the most politically salient issue in recent years. ECHR Article 8 (right to family life) and Article 3 (prohibition of torture/inhuman treatment) have repeatedly been used to block deportations of foreign nationals, including convicted criminals, to countries deemed ‘unsafe.’ Proponents argue that withdrawal would allow the UK to deport foreign criminals without legal challenge from Strasbourg. It could implement stricter asylum and immigration policies (the Rwanda policy was largely blocked on ECHR grounds), and it could detain and remove people more swiftly
Some critics of the ECHR argue that it constrains intelligence services and counter-terrorism operations, for example, limiting surveillance powers, restricting the detention of terror suspects, and complicating extradition arrangements. Withdrawal could give security services greater operational latitude.
Withdrawal would end ‘mission creep.’ Critics argue the court has expanded far beyond its original post-WWII purpose of preventing state tyranny and now adjudicates on matters like prisoner voting rights, welfare policy, and housing allocation, areas of domestic social policy that should be decided democratically. Withdrawal would end this perceived judicial overreach.
Leaving ECHR would reduce litigation and legal costs. The ECHR creates an additional layer of litigation, allowing claimants to pursue cases in Strasbourg after exhausting UK courts. Withdrawal would reduce the volume and cost of human rights challenges, particularly those brought by foreign nationals against the state.
A British Bill of Rights would be more appropriate. Rather than a rights vacuum, some advocates propose replacing ECHR incorporation with a domestic British Bill of Rights, tailored to British legal traditions and common law principles. preserving core rights while removing what they see as Strasbourg's more activist interpretations.
ECHR withdrawal would be a symbolic reassertion of sovereignty. Following Brexit, remaining subject to a European court is seen by some as an anomaly. The UK left the EU partly to escape supranational jurisdiction; withdrawal from ECHR jurisdiction would complete that logic and represent a full reassertion of legal independence.
Madsen Pirie