As the UK grapples with growing outrage over the number of asylum seekers housed in hotels and increasing migration concerns, calls for leaving the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) have become louder. But what exactly is the ECHR, and would quitting it really solve the problems surrounding immigration?
What is the ECHR?
The European Convention on Human Rights is an international treaty between 47 member states of the Council of Europe. Established after World War II, the ECHR ensures governments uphold certain human rights standards and safeguard freedoms. The treaty, which came into force in 1953, led to the creation of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), which legally binds countries to follow its rulings. It aims to prevent the abuse of power by governments, ensuring they treat people with dignity and respect.
Why Has It Been Criticized?
Critics of the ECHR argue that it hampers the UK’s sovereignty, particularly when it comes to controlling immigration and national security. For example, the ECHR played a key role in halting the UK’s Rwanda asylum plan by issuing injunctions that prevented deportation flights. High-profile figures like Nigel Farage and Jack Straw have called for the UK to quit the convention or decouple British law from it, citing instances where ECHR rulings conflicted with UK immigration policies.
Why Could Quitting the Convention Create More Problems Than It Solves?
While quitting the ECHR may seem like a quick solution, there are significant risks. First, it would require repealing the Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporates ECHR rights into UK law. This would also violate the Good Friday Agreement, a pivotal peace accord that ended the conflict in Northern Ireland. Moreover, leaving the ECHR could diminish the UK’s international standing, aligning it with countries like Russia and Belarus.
Legal experts, including former attorney general Dominic Grieve, warn that quitting the ECHR would lead to political instability. It could undermine the UK’s security and trade relationships with the EU, destabilize devolution in Scotland and Wales, and damage cooperation on policing and data sharing. Human rights lawyers argue that the rights protected by the ECHR are rooted in British common law, meaning leaving the convention might not even achieve the desired impact on immigration policy.
Public and Expert Reactions
Human rights advocates, including Kolbassia Haoussou from Freedom from Torture, warn that quitting the ECHR would embolden authoritarian regimes and abandon one of the most fundamental moral frameworks for human rights. Legal experts, such as Philippe Sands and Adam Wagner KC, argue that removing the ECHR from UK law would likely have little effect on immigration policy and would be a legally extreme move.
Meanwhile, some, like Sir Malcolm Rifkind, argue that leaving the ECHR would streamline the deportation process, as it would end the lengthy appeals process that is currently a barrier to government action on immigration. However, he was unable to point to specific instances where the ECHR has blocked UK legislation.
Official Statement or What Happens Next
The UK government is still weighing the pros and cons of leaving the ECHR. While Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has not made any definitive moves yet, the discussion surrounding the future of the convention and its role in UK law continues to stir debate.
The debate will likely intensify as the government prepares for the upcoming Autumn budget, and further statements and proposals may follow.
Closing line:
This story may be updated with more information as it becomes available.
The post Should the UK Quit the European Convention on Human Rights? first appeared on Trusted and Verified USA News.
