The UK’s Wobbly Dance with Human Rights: An ECHR Breakdown
Ah, the United Kingdom! A land where the tea is strong but the arguments about human rights are even stronger. It seems we are once again teetering on the edge of withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the Conservative Party has dug up a debate that, quite frankly, seems to be as fresh as the last season of a popular sitcom—very familiar yet utterly exhausting!
Who’s in Charge of This Human Rights Farce?
Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water, Tory hopeful Robert Jenrick has declared he plans to withdraw from the ECHR if he ever gets the keys to No. 10. It’s almost like a bad sequel where characters just won’t die—only this time, it’s about human rights! Jenrick claims that this legal framework is a pesky little thing stopping the UK from deporting migrants. You know, because let’s face it, nothing screams ‘I’m in control!’ like plucking a human rights safety net right from beneath your feet, am I right?
Kemi Badenoch, another contender in this game of political musical chairs, chimed in with a similar refrain. It’s like a concert where all the songs sound the same—just variations on a theme of “Get off our island!” But moderate Conservatives like to remind us that reality is a bit trickier than a soundbite on social media.
The Fine Print: ECHR and Deportation
Hold on to your hats, folks! Because while there’s some truth to the idea that the ECHR can prevent deportations, it’s not exactly a free pass for all. As Ilias Trispiotis, a professor of human rights, explains, the ECHR really only intervenes when it’s a case of a genuine risk of torture or, you know, being turned into a human piñata upon arrival in another country. If there’s no imminent risk of someone putting your head on a spike in your home country, the ECHR typically doesn’t step in. It’s like a VIP club for human rights violations—you have to show your trauma to get in!
And let’s talk about *non-refoulement*, a fancy legal term that just means you can’t send someone back to harm, no matter how much you might want to. It’s not just a quirky part of the ECHR; it’s written in international law like a big, bold “No Return Policy”. So even if the UK waves goodbye to the ECHR, it’s still bound by this principle thanks to various international agreements. So much for removing “dangerous foreign criminals” when your hands are tied by a bigger legal framework!
Brexit: The Forever Zombie
So, is this fight over the ECHR simply the latest manifestation of Brexit fever? Absolutely! Just like a zombie that keeps coming back, this narrative refuses to die. Primarily driven by a Eurosceptic agenda, it seems that some believe extricating ourselves completely from anything European is the way to go. But considering the vast majority of Europe is still playing in the Human Rights league (except forRussia and Belarus, who are the boys not invited to the party), you have to wonder: can we really afford to default on our commitments? Spoiler alert: No, we cannot!
Smart Choices Over Emotional Reactions
Experts across the board seem to agree that staying in the ECHR is a smarter choice for the UK. Leaving could tarnish our reputation like a bad stain on a white shirt. Let’s face it; we’ve already got enough negativity with Brexit without adding to the collection!
It’s worth noting that the ECHR doesn’t hinder the UK’s immigration policies. The reality is that the majority of migration is legal, and all this fuss is less about asylum seekers and more about political theatre. With references to WWII and Churchill in the backdrop, the UK has historically been a champion of human rights. So to jump ship now? It feels less like leadership and more like a temper tantrum.
To Be or Not to Be in ECHR?
If you ask me, the real question is: what’s next on the agenda? Will we start dissing the Geneva Conventions next, or is that too mainstream? Perhaps we’ll have a national referendum about it, followed by a series of increasingly absurd “What if?” scenarios—featuring unicorns, of course. But in all seriousness, withdrawing from the ECHR would set a dangerous precedent that could unravel the delicate fabric of human rights protections we’ve built over decades.
So, before sharpening those quills and signing on the dotted line to exit, let’s consider the bigger picture and remember that human rights are not just a minor inconvenience; they’re essential to our dignity as a nation.
In conclusion, navigating human rights is a bit like walking a tightrope while juggling flaming swords, but it’s certainly better than an unscripted series of unfortunate events that could leave us tripping up more than a few times! Let’s keep our sense of humor while chalking up the wins for human rights, shall we?
The United Kingdom is once again threatening to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights. The Conservative Party will soon elect a new leader there. Are a candidate’s claims that the convention prevents the deportation of migrants true?
ADVERTISING
Britain’s right-wing Conservative opposition party is about to elect its new leader, and a seemingly familiar argument has resurfaced: should the UK leave Europe or stay in Europe?
This time the debate has nothing to do with the EU. Instead, Tory hopeful Robert Jenrick has vowed to immediately withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) if he ever becomes prime minister.
According to Jenrick, the convention is an obstacle to immigration control because it allows migrants to go to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) to challenge their deportation from the UK.
“As long as we remain members of the ECHR, we cannot end illegal migration or remove dangerous foreign criminals from our country,” Jenrick wrote on X.
Kemi Badenoch, Jenrick’s rival in the party leadership race, has also said she would be willing to leave the ECHR if necessary to curb irregular immigration to Britain.
These comments have worried moderates in the Conservative Party. Would withdrawing from the ECHR and its parent organization, the Council of Europe, actually make a difference?
Other international agreements protect asylum seekers
There is some truth to the claim that the ECtHR is preventing the UK from deporting migrants. However, it is not entirely true for two reasons.
The first reason: The Court can only intervene in very specific circumstances. As a bulwark of human rights, the ECtHR can prevent deportations if the asylum seeker in question is at real risk of being tortured or degraded in the country to which he or she is to be deported, in breach of Article Three of the ECHR.
“The first reason is that the European Court of Human Rights can only block deportations in very specific circumstances, namely when someone is actually at risk of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment in a third country,” explained Ilias Trispiotis, professor of human rights at the University of Leeds, EuroVerify.
“The second and perhaps more important reason why this claim is false is that the legal principle of non-refoulement is not based only on the ECHR. It is a core principle of international law,” he added.
The principle of non-refoulement prohibits countries from deporting people based on their ethnicity, religion or nationality to a country where their life or freedom may be threatened. It is a key element of the ECHR and other international agreements such as the 1951 Geneva Convention on Refugees, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the UN Convention against Torture.
“Even if the UK decided to withdraw from the ECHR, state authorities would not be able to return migrants to third countries due to other international laws, treaties and obligations outside the ECHR,” Trispiotis said.
The same would apply if the UK decided to leave the ECHR and introduce a British Charter of Fundamental Rights, an idea championed by the previous Conservative government.
“On this particular point it wouldn’t have made much difference,” said Gavin Phillipson, professor of public law and human rights at the University of Bristol. “And whatever bill is presented, it only relates to one’s own situation.
“If you really wanted to have complete freedom internationally, you would have to withdraw not only from the ECHR, but also from the Geneva Refugee Convention and the UN Convention against Torture, which I cannot imagine,” said Phillipson.
ADVERTISING
It is also worth noting that the ECHR imposes only some restrictions on the treatment of refugees and asylum seekers. As Phillipson pointed out, the convention has no impact on how countries deal with legal migration. Because the majority of migration takes place legally.
“This is all happening on the basis of government policy regarding visas and work opportunities and has nothing whatsoever to do with the European Convention on Human Rights,” he explained.
Brexit in a new guise
The vast majority of European countries are members of the Council of Europe and therefore signatories to the ECHR. This means that it is not just the UK that is sometimes faced with ECtHR rulings on the deportation of people it would like to get rid of.
Russia and Belarus are the only countries that are not members of the Council of Europe. Russia was expelled from the Council of Europe in March over its invasion of Ukraine. Vatican City has observer status while Kosovo is in the final stages of the accession process.
ADVERTISING
Nevertheless, the issue of ECHR membership appears to be particularly sensitive in the UK, probably because Euroscepticism among Tories voters and politicians continues to persist eight years after the Brexit referendum, even as the Council of Europe and the ECtHR remain in power In a broader sense, have nothing to do with the EU. According to surveys, there is growing “Brexit regret” among British voters.
“This is a typical example of propaganda directed against the Court,” Dimitrios Giannopoulos, Professor in the Department of Law at Goldsmiths, University of London, told EuroVerify. “The demonization of the Court reflects the Eurosceptic movement. It is a glaring example that we are reliving the Brexit psychodrama.”
“We left the EU, but according to many who took part in the referendum, we should have left the European Court of Human Rights at the same time, because the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has long been attacked as the EU’s proxy,” Giannopoulos added added. “We left the EU and now the European Court of Human Rights is being attacked in a very direct way.”
ECHR is a major topic of conversation in the UK because of the collapse of the previous Conservative Tory government’s plans to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda. Apparently they were thwarted by the ECtHR. The new Labor government scrapped the Rwanda plan, calling it a “gimmick”.
ADVERTISING
Go or stay?
Experts agree that the benefits of remaining in the ECHR far outweigh the benefits of leaving. “It would be a devastating blow to the UK’s reputation in Europe and beyond as a country that accepts basic human rights,” Phillipson said. “It would also cause major difficulties with the EU over our Brexit agreement, which implicitly requires us to continue to comply with the ECHR.”
Phillipson added that this would cause problems with the Good Friday Agreement between the UK and Ireland, which ended most of the violence during the Troubles in Northern Ireland and whose text explicitly enshrines the ECHR.
Some experts recall that the United Kingdom is a founding member of the Council of Europe and has always been at the center of the ECHR, rather than seeing it as an adversarial foreign body that exercises its will over sovereign states.
“The United Kingdom has played a prominent role throughout history in the conception and subsequent shaping of the European Convention on Human Rights,” said Giannopoulos. “It all started with Churchill and the other European partners.”
ADVERTISING
The UK legal system works harmoniously with the ECtHR, not against it, Giannopoulos said. The British courts are in “constant dialogue” with Strasbourg, with the Supreme Court in particular “reputable and robust enough” to raise its voice and contradict European judgments that, in its eyes, make no sense.
“The right-wing narrative diverts attention from ensuring the smooth coexistence of the two,” Giannopoulos said. Ultimately, the ECtHR has had an extremely positive impact on human rights protection in the UK, Trispiotis added.
“Thanks to ECtHR rulings, police cannot stop and search people without justification; the state cannot keep innocent people’s DNA indefinitely; important press freedoms are protected; people can serve in the British Army regardless of their sexual orientation; corporal punishment in schools is unlawful,” Trispiotis said.
“These are just some of the many examples of how the ECHR strengthens the protection of human rights in the UK, particularly for some of the most vulnerable,” Trispiotis said, “withdrawing from the ECHR would be a historic mistake.”
ADVERTISING
