Sir Robert Buckland KC is Visiting Professor in Practice at LSE Law School.  He was Conservative MP for South Swindon from 2010 to 2024, Solicitor General from 2014-2019, Minister of State for Justice 2019, Lord Chancellor & Secretary of State for Justice 2019-21 and Secretary of State for Wales 2022.

From time to time, ideas resurface in British politics that are as dangerous as they are seductive. The latest is the Conservative Party’s proposal to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). As a former Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary, I have seen first-hand how deeply this issue touches our constitution, our Union, and our international standing. It would be a profound mistake to go down this path. 

The ECHR is not some foreign imposition that curtails our sovereignty. It was born of British leadership after the horrors of the Second World War, drafted with heavy British influence, and championed by Winston Churchill himself. For over seventy years, it has enshrined basic guarantees of liberty and dignity, and our courts have interpreted it through the prism of domestic law and parliamentary sovereignty. To tear ourselves away now would not only diminish our own protections but also place us in the company of Russia and Belarus, the only states outside the Convention system. Whether we like it or not, this is how others would see us, however much we might pretend otherwise. 

The risks are nowhere greater than in Northern Ireland. I have seen arguments that make the case that there is nothing in The 1998 Good Friday Belfast Agreement that would prevent us leaving. This argument is flawed, because it ignores the political reality, which is that both traditions, and particularly the Republican/Nationalist community, which did not have faith in the police, security forces or judicial system, agreed to share power only because their fundamental rights would be safeguarded through the Convention. A Border Poll that could endanger the Union with Northern Ireland, will be made much more likely by withdrawal. 

The devolved institutions in Belfast are explicitly bound to act compatibly with Convention rights.  Brexit has made things even more complex. As the law currently stands, Article 2 of the Northern Ireland EU Protocol, which means that there can be no diminution in existing rights, inevitably includes ECHR rights as well. Removing that guarantee would not be some minor legal tidying-up exercise; it would destabilise the delicate balance that has preserved peace for a generation. To imperil such a settlement would be reckless in the extreme. 

Article 3 of the Convention, prohibiting torture and inhuman or degrading treatment, is absolute. It is one of the bedrocks of modern rights protection. Its impact has been profound: shaping how we treat prisoners, asylum seekers and detainees, and preventing deportations to countries where torture is a real risk.  It is often this provision that prompts some to conclude that only a clean break with it will suffice. 

If we abandoned Article 3, the problem would not vanish. Litigants would simply turn to domestic principles of fairness and natural justice, and our courts would fill the vacuum. Far from “taking back control,” we would invite more uncertainty and litigation, weakening protections where they matter most. 

Much of the current political argument focuses on Article 8, which protects the right to private and family life. Yes, it has been used in deportation cases, sometimes controversially. But it is not absolute. It allows interference where necessary to protect the public, prevent crime, and secure our borders. It has been used to assert a number of positive measures that most people would agree were of benefit.   

Our courts have consistently applied a balanced approach, weighing individual rights against the wider public interest. This is not weakness; it is proportionality in action, ensuring that power is exercised responsibly. That balance is something Conservatives should prize. 

There are also hard-headed, practical consequences. Our post-Brexit Trade and Cooperation Agreement with the EU makes continued extradition cooperation contingent upon adherence to the ECHR. Withdraw, and that framework collapses. 

The result? Delays in surrendering suspects, refusals from European partners, and criminals slipping through the net. Having served as a Law Officer, I know how critical these tools are in tackling organised crime and terrorism. To jeopardise them would be to weaken the safety of our own citizens. 

Some colleagues argue that leaving the Convention is about restoring sovereignty. But Parliament is already sovereign. It can legislate as it sees fit, even contrary to Convention rights. What the ECHR does is ensure that individual claims are properly tested in court, giving us a structured and predictable body of jurisprudence. If we discarded it, our judges would still hear rights claims — but without Strasbourg’s guidance, they would develop expanded common law doctrines of their own. Ironically, this could produce outcomes even less palatable to those who now call for withdrawal. 

Conservatism at its best is cautious and constitutional. It reforms what needs reforming, but it does not dismantle institutions that work. The ECHR is not perfect, and the Strasbourg Court has at times overreached. But the remedy lies in reform, not retreat. Britain should continue to press for subsidiarity, ensuring that national courts remain the primary arbiters of rights in their own societies. 

Withdrawal from the ECHR would upset the delicate political balance in Northern Ireland, compromise our extradition and security arrangements, and damage our moral authority abroad. Above all, it would betray a tradition of liberty under the law that Britain itself helped to shape. 

Conservatism, unlike cheap populism, should be about constitutional stewardship:  leaving behind institutions stronger than we found them. Our international political and economic influence depends on us taking an active and leading part in international bodies. That is the Conservative way. On the ECHR, we should be standing firm, not seeking to walk away. 

The post Robert Buckland: Leaving the ECHR would be a grave mistake appeared first on Conservative Home.