Would leaving the ECHR really 'stop the boats'?

14 hours ago Share Save Dominic Casciani Home and Legal Correspondent Share Save

BBC

Last week Kemi Badenoch announced that the Conservative Party would take the UK out of the European Convention of Human Rights if they won the next election. "I have not come to this decision lightly," the Tory leader said. "But it is clear that it is necessary to protect our borders, our veterans, and our citizens." Her words came on the eve of the party's annual conference, at a time when the Conservatives are under enormous pressure from Reform UK. Nigel Farage's party also wants out of the ECHR, as well as other international treaties that he thinks stand in the way of curbing illegal immigration. Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey, meanwhile, has been just as strident the other way. "Kemi Badenoch has chosen to back Nigel Farage and join Vladimir Putin," he declared - adding "this will do nothing to stop the boats or fix our broken immigration system".

EPA Kemi Badenoch pledged to pull out if the Conservatives win the election, but there are many unanswered questions about the consequences

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has weighed in, though he hovers somewhere in between. He told the BBC he does not want to "tear down" human rights laws, but backs changing how international law is interpreted to stop unsuccessful asylum seekers blocking their deportation. But while strongly-worded opinions over whether or not to pull out of the treaty make for easy headlines, the consequences are deeply complicated. Even Badenoch acknowledged last year that leaving would not be a "silver bullet" for tackling immigration. So how is it that such a nuanced issue has been reduced to a political hot potato?

Dodging political bullets

It was back in 2011 - not far into David Cameron's tenure as prime minister - that this issue came to the forefront of domestic politics. It centred around the case of John Hirst, a man convicted of manslaughter, who argued the UK's blanke