Yes voters backed withdrawal by a comfortable margin, yet the best-regarded arguments on both sides were warnings about power: No voters feared what a government might do without external constraints; Yes voters feared a court reaching beyond its proper remit.
The most-respected No case called the convention “a handy scapegoat for fascists”. Another warned, “One day you will get a government you neither like nor trust.” These arguments cast the fight over deportations not simply as a question of border control, but as a test of what protections should remain when political winds change.
The strongest Yes arguments paired sovereignty with replacement safeguards. One voter made the case conditionally: “Unless it is revised. We need to be entirely self governing,” but added that a British bill of rights “must be established to replace it”. Another argued that the court’s jurisprudence was “inconsistent and contradictory”, while insisting that leaving need not mean abandoning human rights.
The sides often talked past each other: for Yes voters, the central problem was who gets the final say; for No voters, it was what rights might be lost in taking that power back. The stakes reach beyond migration: the convention is tied to the Good Friday Agreement and European security arrangements, concerns No voters raised alongside domestic safeguards.
The vote settled the direction, not the design: even some of the strongest calls to leave came with a demand for something to stand in its place.
61 Opinions
The ECHR is a handy scapegoat for fascists.
The ECtHR has left the path of reason. Its jurisprudence is at sixes and sevens; inconsistent and contradictory. We should leave, and join the rest of the world as non-signatories. There is nothing to stop us upholding human rights while not chaining ourselves to the failed ECHR.
Yes. Unless it is revised. We need to be entirely self governing and able to make our own decisions. The ECHR is being abused and loopholes being used by far too many. Particularly immigration lawyers. I will heavily caveat this by saying that before we leave. a British bill of rights, encompassing much of what is contained within the ECHR must be established to replace it . Governments cannot be trusted not to abuse power without some form of protection in place.
Be very careful what you wish for. There are many rarely highlighted benefits to the human rights laws. Why would we want the government of the day deciding what such a protection contains? One day you will get a government you neither like nor trust.
ECHR was set up in different times. UK as an originator was not deficient in respecting Human Rights (unlike today) & was muscular in trying to bring law & order to a War torn Europe; however a Court where some of the judges are progressive activists not judges & the Court seeks to extend its jurisdiction into areas which are more the prerogative of Politicians there is a real problem. The bizarre issue is we might need this dysfunctional Court to protect us from Labour.
Other countries seem to manage their illegal immigration problems much better than us from within the EHCR. I don't think we should leave unless a replace bill of rights has been drafted and it's clear what would change and why. Removing the EHCR will remove rights from all of us - I would want to know what protections all of us will have instead.
We developed most human rights laws. Make newer laws for change of time. Old laws set in 1940s
Definitely we should too many foreign criminals hide behind ECHR and way too many leftie solicitors have got rich on it. We need rights but not at the expense of others. Victims must come first but saying something derogatory should not be criminal but the actions there in should.
It’s my understanding that human rights historically has roots within the UK , we can uphold our humanity without signing
Yes, but in reality it is the HRA 1998 that needs to be rescinded. The rights articulated in the ECHR existed in British Law before the ECHR and HRA and would still exist if we left. The real issues are the undermining of parliamentary sovereignty, and exposure to mission creep through extra-territorial judicial interpretations.