The significant warning from the chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission on Monday (22nd December 2025) couldn’t be more timely - leaving the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) would be a mistake with real consequences for millions of people.
For decades the ECHR has underpinned basic safeguards such as freedom from torture and inhuman treatment, the right to a fair trial, family life, and protection against discrimination. These are legal tools used by individuals every day to challenge injustices, whether it’s unlawful detention, police errors, or decisions that tear families apart. The ECHR is a cornerstone of legal protections in the UK.
Right‑wing voices in British politics, particularly from the Tories and Reform, have increasingly cast the ECHR as an obstacle to sovereign control of immigration and deportation policy. From the viewpoint of the Right and the millionaires funding them, international human rights law is seen as a brake on rapid removal of people whose claims the state disputes. But this framing is massively over-simplistic and dishonest. The ECHR’s protections extend far beyond migration law and are fundamental to the rule of law and citizens’ everyday rights.
Britain’s own ‘Bill of Rights’ proposals floated by some on the Right have emphasised removing or narrowing rights rather than expanding them, particularly when it comes to social and economic entitlements. Reform’s platform, focused on border controls, demonising migrants and reducing regulations for corporations, often sidelines basic human rights protections in favour of tough‑on‑immigration rhetoric and division.
A withdrawal from the ECHR would weaken independent checks on UK executive power, making it harder for individuals, especially the poorest and most marginalised, to challenge government decisions that harm them. This would be a shift toward a more discretionary and politicised rights environment, where protections vary depending on political priorities rather than being anchored in a stable, widely recognised legal framework. This is clearly the wrong approach for ordinary people and is driven by those who don’t want any limits or rights to push back against their plans for authoritarian laws and actions.
What we really need to do is embed rights more deeply and more broadly. Greens advocate for an updated set of shared rights that not only retains core civil and political rights but also enshrines economic, social, and environmental rights, such as access to housing, healthcare, clean air, and protection from poverty. These are protections that align with a vision of a just society where dignity isn’t conditional. Rather than weakening rights to facilitate state power, a Green approach uses rights as a shield for everyone - from discrimination, exploitation, and environmental harm.
Embracing human rights law can support more equitable outcomes across society, from challenging discriminatory employment practices to holding local authorities accountable for homelessness and ensuring community voices are heard in environmental planning.
The debate over the ECHR is really a debate about the kind of society the UK wants to be. Do we want this country to be one where rights are weakened for political convenience, or one where rights are strengthened to protect the most vulnerable and ensure fairness for all? I am certain about one thing - any politician who tells you that your rights must be eroded and can't tell you why (eg exactly which ECHR court cases have resulted in obvious injustice) is not on your side.