Politicshuman rightsRefugees and Migration
How the European convention on human rights became a battleground between the centre and the right | Daniel Trilling
For two decades, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) has served as a foundational pillar of legal order across the continent, yet it now finds itself at the epicenter of a profound political schism, particularly within the United Kingdom. The convention, which marks its 75th anniversary this week, was conceived in the aftermath of World War II as a bulwark against tyranny, designed to enshrine fundamental freedoms and protect citizens from state overreach.Its incorporation into UK law via the 1998 Human Rights Act was initially seen as a progressive step, aligning British jurisprudence with a broader European commitment to human dignity. However, this legal instrument has been progressively reframed by populist factions as an impediment to national sovereignty, especially in the contentious arena of immigration policy.The rhetoric escalated dramatically in early October when Kemi Badenoch's Conservative faction explicitly advocated for withdrawal from the convention, framing it as a necessary measure to regain control over borders and halt unauthorized migration. This position was echoed, though symbolically defeated in a parliamentary vote, by Reform's Nigel Farage, who has astutely positioned the ECHR as the new Brexit—a potent wedge issue capable of mobilizing a base by appealing to nationalist sentiment and a desire for legislative autonomy.Farage's assertion in Parliament that 'We are not sovereign all the while we are part of the European convention on human rights' is a calculated political maneuver, drawing a direct line from the successful Brexit campaign to this new constitutional battle. This strategic pivot is not occurring in a vacuum; it reflects a wider, deeply ideological struggle between a centrist, internationalist worldview that views human rights as universal and inalienable, and a resurgent nationalist right that prioritizes parliamentary supremacy and border control.The tension is palpable in everyday applications of the convention, such as the scene depicted in the BBC drama *Blue Lights*, where a police officer in Belfast invokes Article 2—the right to life—to justify protecting a vulnerable individual. This mundane, life-affirming use of the ECHR stands in stark contrast to the high-political drama in Westminster, where the same legal framework is caricatured as a foreign imposition blocking effective governance.Historically, the UK was instrumental in drafting the ECHR, with figures like Winston Churchill championing a pan-European human rights system as a cornerstone of post-war stability. The current backlash, therefore, represents a significant historical reversal.Expert commentary from constitutional scholars suggests that withdrawal would carry severe consequences, potentially destabilizing the Good Friday Agreement, which relies on the ECHR as a key component of its human rights protections, and jeopardizing the UK's standing in international diplomatic and trade forums. The Council of Europe, which oversees the convention, would likely face a crisis of legitimacy if a founding member like the UK departed, potentially encouraging other member states with authoritarian leanings to follow suit.The political calculation for the right is clear: by framing the ECHR as an obstacle to popular will, they tap into a well of discontent over immigration and a perceived loss of control. However, this strategy risks undermining a system that has, for 75 years, provided a crucial check on state power and protected the rights of all individuals within its jurisdiction, setting the stage for a constitutional confrontation with profound implications for the future of British democracy and its role in the world.
#lead focus news
#European Convention on Human Rights
#UK immigration policy
#political debate
#sovereignty
#Human Rights Act
