We are at a moment of crisis in security and trust
We have lost control of our borders. Our justice system, in too many cases, is unfair. The British people have lost confidence in the police. Our national sovereignty has been eroded. And in towns and cities across the country, people are taking to the streets in anger.
Serious action is required. I was the first Conservative Cabinet Minister to say, openly and unequivocally, that the United Kingdom must leave the European Convention on Human Rights. It was not a statement made lightly.
It was shaped by years of experience: as Home Secretary grappling with the small boats crisis; as Attorney General advising the government on national security; and as a barrister, long before I entered politics, watching our human rights laws weaponised to frustrate the will of Parliament.
That is why I have set out a comprehensive plan on how to deliver it, co-authored with Guy Dampier from the Prosperity Institute and backed by Reform UK and Former First Minister of Northern Ireland, Baroness Arlene Foster.
Born in the aftermath of war, the Convention and the European Court of Human Rights carried moral weight and historical purpose. No one of good faith disputes the noble intent of its text: life, liberty, fair trial, family life.
But what began as a shield against tyranny has become a shackle on democracy. Through the “living instrument” doctrine, the Strasbourg Court has expanded its remit far beyond what its drafters envisaged- into immigration, national security, even social policy. In case after case, decisions of our Parliament have been struck down by unelected judges abroad.
The Human Rights Act of 1998 made matters worse, hard-wiring Strasbourg case law into our domestic courts. Parliament- once supreme- was subordinated.
That is why withdrawal is essential: to restore our sovereignty, protect our borders and to ensure that the laws of this land are made by those whom the British people elect- and by no one else.
Critics will say: “Withdrawal is impossible because of Northern Ireland.” They claim the Belfast Agreement binds us forever to the Convention. This is false. The Agreement refers to rights protections- but it does not enshrine perpetual ECHR membership. The Agreement itself has been amended repeatedly over the last twenty years, from St Andrews in 2006 to Stormont House in 2014. If it could adapt then, it can adapt now.
So how do we do it?
First, the legal mechanism. Article 58 of the Convention allows us to withdraw with six months’ notice. Parliament should enact an ECHR (Notification of Withdrawal) Act.
Second, diplomacy. During those six months, we renegotiate relevant agreements- the Belfast Agreement, the Trade and Cooperation Agreement- with clarity and confidence. And if other parties object, the UK proceeds regardless by virtue of the supremacy of our Parliament.
Third, the transition. We legislate to repeal the Human Rights Act, reform judicial review, and amend the Northern Ireland Act to reflect our new constitutional settlement. The ECHR will no longer bind us. Our courts will answer to Parliament, not Strasbourg.
And what next? We return to the foundation of our liberties: the common law.
The common law is not an antiquarian relic. It is the living, breathing framework of our constitution. It evolves with society. It is interpreted by our judges, enforced by our courts, accountable to our Parliament, and ultimately to our people. It embodies the principle that nothing is unlawful unless Parliament has expressly criminalised it.
The rights contained in the ECHR- life, liberty, fair trial- are already protected in domestic law. Murder and torture are outlawed. Fair trial rights are secured by statute and by centuries of jurisprudence. In other words, leaving the ECHR does not strip away rights. It restores them to where they belong: in British law, under British courts, answerable to the British people.
If judges err, Parliament can and must assert its supremacy through corrective legislation. Regular “correction bills” should become part of our constitutional culture. Judicial review should be reformed to curb activist overreach.
This is not rupture; it is renewal.
Leaving the ECHR is not to abandon Europe. It is not to spurn human rights. It is not to retreat from the world. It is to re-empower Parliament. It is to place rights back in the hands of the people who live under them, expressed through their elected representatives, rooted in their traditions, enforced by their courts.
So the question is no longer whether we leave or stay. It is whether we will rise to the occasion and restore Parliament’s supremacy. Whether we will ensure that the rights of the British people are guaranteed by the British people, for the British people.
