Keir Starmer has repeatedly ruled out leaving the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), despite growing criticism that it undermines the UK’s ability to control its borders.
However, with Reform and the Conservatives pledging to withdraw from the convention, officials are doing their best to scare voters.
Alain Berset, the secretary general of the Council of Europe, which oversees the treaty, this week told the establishment Politico publication that withdrawing would result in “consequences.”
But what would it mean? It would create a new group of European countries not members of the Council of Europe and not implementing the Convention: Russia, Belarus, and the UK. That would be the consequence.
Equating a post-ECHR Britain with countries like Russia has become a standard tactic among establishment voices. But the Policy Exchange think tank on Wednesday dismissed this “cheap rhetoric” as “groundless” and “total nonsense.”
If the UK chooses to leave the ECHR, it will be because of well grounded and widely shared concerns about the Strasbourg Court’s abuse of its authority, not because the UK seeks to violate human rights.
If the UK chooses to leave the ECHR, it may well remain a member of the Council of Europe. But even if the UK ceases to be a full member, it will almost certainly enjoy observer status, like … the United States. Neither Russia nor Belarus enjoy this status. The secretary general really should know better and should stop spreading disinformation.
Sweden Democrats MEP Charlie Weimers also said on Tuesday that unless the ECHR is “fundamentally reformed … the Brits won’t be the only ones to leave.”
Michael Curzon is a news writer for europeanconservative.com based in England’s Midlands. He is also Editor of Bournbrook Magazine, which he founded in 2019, and previously wrote for London’s Express Online. His Twitter handle is @MichaelCurzon_.
