The proposal to leave both the ECHR and the UN Refugee Conventions carried the vote by 151 to 114, a decisive verdict on this platform but not a settled national consensus. The striking imbalance was rhetorical: Yes supplied the louder grievance, while No supplied the denser case.
Yes voters cast the conventions as obsolete restraints on border control. The most-respected Yes argument called them “made for a world so utterly unlike the one we live”, while others blamed lawyers and governments for failures, demanded a British bill of rights, and argued that withdrawal would return power to elected ministers. The harder-edged voices invoked foreigners, criminals, cultural change, judicial accountability and the end of taxpayer-funded legal aid.
No answered that the ECHR’s reach is much wider than asylum. One of the side’s strongest voices asked, “Which actual one of 14 the ECHR core rights has hurt rather than protected you?”, while another called it “the bedrock of human rights for the British citizen”. A more politically cautious voter still called departure “cutting off our nose to spite our face”; others pointed to fair trials, privacy, workers’ protection, democracy, trade and security agreements, and the practical difficulty of sending people to countries unwilling to accept them.
The two sides often argued past each other. Yes treated the ECHR as the mechanism obstructing border policy and diffusing ministerial responsibility; No treated that linkage as “a distraction tactic”, insisting that refugees, legal safeguards and everyday liberties were being bundled into a single immigration argument. The Refugee Convention itself received far less attention than the court, despite the question asking voters to abandon both.
That leaves a vote for withdrawal whose most respected debate was largely a defence of what would be lost. The room chose rupture; its best arguments were mostly about the price of restraint.
14 Opinions
We can see the carnage in other European countries which have been flooded with alien cultures. We could still act to draw a halt to this in our country but time is running out. The judiciary have to be called to account and leaving would help . As would ending the right to tax payer subsidised legal aid.
The powers that underlie the EHCR are enshrined in British law. Return it's powers to the government and away from lawyers.
No, even though tribunals are over reaching application of these laws beyond what they say and what other countries do eg Poland. No, even though they are an anachronistic virtue signal. Not yet. Wait till more countries say the same.
Linking the EHCR to immigration is a distraction tactic. The EHCR protects us all, stopping exploitation of workers, protecting our democracy, our rights to a fair trial, accountability of public services and much much more. The people who want to get rid of EHRC want a feudal system where only the rich have rights and the rest of work unsafe conditions for little money, can get sacked at will & our housing, food & other necessities decline in quality.
Echr is linked too closely with post brexit trade and security agreements withdrawing will do more harm to the economy. Once withdrawing we then still need agreements with countries we send people to withdrawing from echr means the countries are less inclined to actually agree.
The ECHR has been the biggest evil in my lifetime. It enforces right for foreigners and criminals to the total exclusion of our rights. We are quite capable of legislating for human rights that do not leave us with none.
Yes, to revoke politicians/governments possibility to blame somebody else for their failures. Similarly as it was with the EU.
I suspect if it didnt have 'European' in rhe title people would be quite so agitated about something WE helped found. Right to life, Freedom from torture/ inhuman/degrading treatment, to liberty & a fair trial, to privacy and family life, freedom of expression, religion and assembly. Who would want to give away their right to the above because of <checks notes> small boats?
Lots of relics left over from 2nd world war. Relevant at the time but decades out of date. Im sure we can have British bill of human rights, with this lot would probably be more rights than now !!
I am someone who wants tougher immigration rules and stronger borders, but the ECHR protects far more than refugees. It’d be cutting off our nose to spite our face to leave.