The United Kingdom’s political landscape is once again gripped by fierce debate over its relationship with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), as the Conservative Party, led by Kemi Badenoch, has announced a bold new policy: if they win the next general election, the UK will withdraw from the treaty. The announcement, made on October 4, 2025, ahead of the Conservative Party’s annual conference, has reignited old arguments and cast a spotlight on the future of human rights protections in Britain.
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer’s recent remarks helped set the stage for this political drama. According to Sky News, Starmer stated that the government needs to reconsider how international laws, including the ECHR, are applied in UK courts, especially in cases involving asylum seekers facing deportation. He emphasized the growing public demand for change in response to mass migration over recent years. While Starmer stopped short of calling for the abolition of human rights laws, he did voice support for preventing unsuccessful asylum seekers from blocking their deportation by citing substandard local prisons or healthcare systems.
But it is Badenoch’s declaration that has truly shaken the political scene. As reported by Sky News, she announced, “The Conservative Party will leave a key human rights treaty if it wins the election.” This marks the first time the party has formally adopted such a stance, despite years of internal grumbling about the ECHR and its court’s influence on British policy. The policy shift comes in the wake of a comprehensive review led by shadow attorney general David Wolfson. Lord Wolfson’s nearly 200-page report detailed the ECHR’s impact on government policy, particularly its role in limiting the government’s ability to address immigration, climate change, and the prioritization of British citizens for social housing and public services.
Wolfson’s analysis, however, comes with a caveat. As he put it, leaving the ECHR would “not be a panacea to all the issues that have arisen in recent years.” In other words, while withdrawal might address certain policy frustrations, it would not magically resolve every challenge the UK faces regarding human rights and international law.
The ECHR itself is no ordinary treaty. Established in the 1950s, in the shadow of the Second World War and the Holocaust, it was championed by none other than Sir Winston Churchill. Its 18 sections guarantee fundamental rights, including the right to life, the prohibition of torture, the right to a fair trial, respect for private and family life, and freedom of expression. Since 1980, the ECHR has been used to halt the deportation of migrants in 13 out of 29 UK cases—a statistic frequently cited by those who argue the treaty hampers Britain’s ability to control its borders.
Within the Conservative Party, the proposal has exposed deep divisions. Chris Philp, the Conservative shadow Home Secretary, has been vocal in his criticism of the ECHR, arguing that it has allowed “foreign criminals and illegal immigrants to remain in the UK.” He added that securing Britain’s borders is essential, a sentiment that resonates with many party members and voters concerned about immigration.
Yet, not all Conservatives are on board. Moderate figures, including Damian Green and Sir Robert Buckland, have sounded the alarm. Green described leaving the ECHR as a “red line” for his group of One Nation Tories, while Buckland went so far as to call it “an act of folly.” Buckland, in particular, has advocated for reformation of the ECHR from within, rather than a dramatic exit. These concerns are not just about legal technicalities—they reflect a broader anxiety about Britain’s international standing and its historical commitment to human rights.
Legal experts have also weighed in, warning of serious political and legal ramifications if the UK were to withdraw. Catherine Barnard, a professor at the University of Cambridge, cautioned that such a move could politically isolate the UK, placing it in uncomfortable company with countries like Russia. She also highlighted the risk of violating the Good Friday Agreement—a cornerstone of peace in Northern Ireland—and potentially jeopardizing the Brexit trade deal with the European Union.
These warnings are echoed by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, which heard evidence suggesting that withdrawal from the ECHR would knowingly breach the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement. In a May 2024 letter to the Northern Ireland secretary, committee chair Sir Robert Buckland underscored the gravity of this risk, pointing out the potential for renewed tensions in Northern Ireland if the UK were to renege on its treaty commitments.
The debate extends beyond the Conservative Party. The Labour Party has criticized the government’s position, arguing that the decision to leave the ECHR was “forced upon Kemi Badenoch” and lacked thorough consideration. They have also expressed skepticism about Badenoch’s ability to negotiate meaningful changes to the treaty. Labour has recently been considering how specific provisions of the ECHR—such as Article 3, which prohibits torture, and Article 8, which protects the right to private and family life—are interpreted, particularly since these articles have been used to halt deportations.
The Liberal Democrats and Greens, meanwhile, remain staunch supporters of the ECHR, viewing it as a crucial safeguard against abuses of power and a testament to Britain’s postwar commitment to human rights. On the other side of the spectrum, the Reform Party has been even more strident than the Conservatives, declaring back in August 2025 that they too would pull the UK out of the ECHR if elected. According to Sky News, the Conservatives have been losing ground in the polls to Reform UK, adding a sense of urgency to Badenoch’s announcement.
Public trust, however, appears to be in short supply. A spokesperson for Reform UK expressed skepticism about the Conservatives’ intentions, noting that after 14 years in government, the party had failed to act decisively on the ECHR and had lost credibility with the electorate. This sentiment is echoed by many voters, who wonder whether the latest policy shift is a genuine commitment or simply an attempt to shore up support ahead of the next election, which is not expected until 2029.
As the UK stands at this crossroads, the debate over the ECHR is about far more than legal technicalities or party politics. It strikes at the heart of Britain’s identity—its values, its place in the world, and its willingness to balance national sovereignty with international commitments. Whether the country ultimately chooses to remain within the ECHR or chart a new course, the decision will have profound and lasting consequences for its legal system, its international relationships, and the everyday rights of its citizens.
For now, the argument rages on, with no clear end in sight. But one thing is certain: the UK’s relationship with the ECHR will remain a defining issue for years to come, shaping not only the next election but the very fabric of British democracy.
