The Guardian has issued a stark warning that mounting political hostility towards the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) could erode the independence of the judiciary and weaken democratic safeguards in the United Kingdom.
In a weekend editorial, the paper argued that recent rhetoric from prominent Conservative figures and right-wing commentators has sought to frame the ECHR as an unacceptable constraint on British sovereignty — a tactic it claims could have far-reaching consequences for the rule of law.
The ECHR, drafted in the aftermath of the Second World War, underpins legal protections ranging from the right to a fair trial to freedom from torture. It is enforced through the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, whose judgments are binding on the UK and all other signatories. While the Convention is not an EU instrument — and the UK’s membership was unaffected by Brexit — it has increasingly been cast as a target by those advocating for looser international obligations.
According to The Guardian, “The Convention exists precisely to place limits on the exercise of political power. It was designed as a shield for the individual against the state, not as an inconvenience for ministers who wish to bypass due process.”
In recent months, the British Government has repeatedly clashed with Strasbourg over rulings seen as obstructing immigration enforcement, particularly the stalled plan to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda. The Prime Minister has insisted that the policy will proceed “with or without Strasbourg’s approval”, while some Cabinet ministers have hinted that the UK could withdraw from the Convention entirely.
Former Home Secretary Suella Braverman, in a speech last week, described the ECHR as “a foreign court meddling in British affairs” and argued that withdrawal would be “a necessary step in reclaiming legislative sovereignty”. Her remarks drew applause from grassroots activists but prompted a flurry of concern from legal experts and human rights campaigners.
Baroness Hale, the former President of the Supreme Court, told BBC Radio 4 on Sunday: “If we start dismantling the frameworks that protect judicial independence, we weaken the checks that stop any government, of any political stripe, from overstepping its authority. That is not a question of left or right — it is a question of constitutional principle.”
The Guardian’s editorial contends that such political framing risks conditioning the public to view the judiciary not as an independent arbiter, but as a political actor to be challenged or overruled. “This is a dangerous shift,” the paper wrote. “Once respect for judicial decisions is eroded, the very balance of our democracy is put at risk.”
Critics of the ECHR, however, maintain that the Convention has been used to block legitimate democratic mandates. Sir Bill Cash MP, a long-standing Eurosceptic and chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, said: “Our laws should be made by Parliament, interpreted by our courts, and answerable only to the British people. When foreign judges tell us we cannot remove those with no right to be here, it undermines public confidence in the entire system.”
The Government has stopped short of committing to a referendum on ECHR membership, but ministers have indicated that all options remain “on the table” if legal challenges continue to frustrate flagship policies. Downing Street sources insist that any reforms would be carefully considered and subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
Legal scholars warn that leaving the ECHR could have serious diplomatic and trade implications. Dr Alice Donald, senior lecturer in human rights law at Middlesex University, explained: “Withdrawal would put the UK in the company of only one other European state — Russia — which left the Convention after being expelled in 2022 following its invasion of Ukraine. It would also strain relationships with allies who see adherence to the Convention as a mark of shared values.”
Public opinion remains divided. A YouGov poll last month found that 42 per cent of respondents supported remaining within the ECHR, 38 per cent favoured withdrawal, and 20 per cent were unsure. Support for leaving was strongest among Conservative voters, while Labour and Liberal Democrat supporters were overwhelmingly in favour of staying.
The Guardian concludes that the issue transcends the immediate disputes over immigration or foreign policy. “The ECHR is not a partisan creation. It is part of the post-war settlement that sought to ensure that never again would governments — even democratically elected ones — be free to trample on fundamental rights. To treat it as an enemy of sovereignty is to misunderstand the very nature of democracy.”
While the paper’s stance will resonate with its progressive readership, the debate over the Convention is likely to sharpen as the next general election approaches. With immigration set to remain a defining issue, the Government may see political advantage in drawing sharper lines between domestic authority and international obligations.
For now, the UK remains a signatory to the ECHR, and ministers insist there are “no immediate plans” for withdrawal. But the growing political chorus challenging its authority — and the willingness of some to undermine judicial decisions — ensures the question will not go away.
As Baroness Hale observed, “Constitutional erosion does not happen overnight. It happens step by step, often under the cover of political expediency. If we forget why these safeguards exist, we may only realise their value when it is too late.”
