Bob's Rant : Who Guards Your Rights? The ECHR Withdrawal Debate

Hi, please let me know what you think. Many thanks! Bob M.

What happens when unelected foreign judges can overrule the will of Parliament? This provocative question sits at the heart of the debate surrounding the UK's membership in the European Convention on Human Rights.

The argument for withdrawal from the ECHR builds upon five key pillars: restoring parliamentary sovereignty, enhancing democratic accountability, addressing immigration challenges, increasing legislative flexibility, and creating a bespoke British human rights framework. The Strasbourg court's rulings have repeatedly challenged Parliament's authority to set policy, most notably in the 2005 Hirst case on prisoner voting rights, creating a democratic deficit where decisions affecting British citizens are made by judges with no accountability to UK voters.

Perhaps most controversial are the ECHR's impacts on deportation policy. The cases of Learco Chindamo, Philip Lawrence's murderer, and Aso Mohammed Ibrahim, who killed 12-year-old Amy Houston in a hit-and-run, demonstrate how Article 8 "right to family life" claims have prevented the removal of dangerous foreign criminals. These rulings have prioritized offenders' rights over public safety concerns, causing outrage among victims' families and undermining confidence in the immigration system.

Withdrawal wouldn't mean abandoning human rights protections – rather, it presents an opportunity to create a modern framework tailored to British values and legal traditions. Countries like Canada and Australia maintain robust rights protections without supranational oversight, showing that sovereignty and rights protection can coexist. With its centuries-old common law tradition, independent judiciary, and democratic institutions, the UK is well-equipped to safeguard fundamental liberties while ensuring policies reflect the will of its citizens.

What do you think? Should Parliament's sovereignty prevail, or does external oversight provide necessary protections? Listen to our detailed analysis and consider what approach would best serve both rights and democracy in modern Britain.