The UK Government’s Talks on Abolishing Human Rights Act

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. While care has been taken to provide accurate references, readers should seek independent legal counsel for specific issues. This article relates to UK law and international treaties; regulations may differ in other jurisdictions.

🔊 Listen to Post

The Growing Threat to Fundamental Freedoms

The UK government has increasingly signalled interest in reforming, or even abolishing, the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA), which incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into domestic law. Proposals to withdraw from or significantly dilute these protections raise serious constitutional, legal, and moral questions.

If the HRA were abolished without adequate safeguards, the British public could be left with limited, fragile, or no enforceable rights against state overreach.

Key Points in the Debate

• Abolishing the Human Rights Act: 
  Some political figures, such as Nigel Farage, have advocated for abolishing the HRA. The Human Rights Act brought the ECHR into UK law and is a key mechanism for protecting fundamental rights. 
• The Bill of Rights Bill (2022): 
  A proposed Bill of Rights aimed to replace the HRA, with the stated goal of applying human rights in a UK context. However, human rights organisations such as Amnesty UK and Liberty opposed this, arguing it would weaken protection by creating new barriers to enforcing rights.
• Failure to pass Parliament: 
  The Bill of Rights Bill did not progress through Parliament, meaning the UK continues to operate under the Human Rights Act. 
• UK remains in ECHR: 
  The UK’s government has clarified that proposals like the Bill of Rights would not involve leaving the ECHR, which itself was created after World War II to prevent the tyranny of government. 
• Concerns about weakening protections: 
  Critics argue that efforts to reform human rights law, such as the proposed Bill of Rights, could undermine the rule of law, make it harder for individuals to seek redress for rights breaches, and chip away at the universality of human rights. 

Current Situation

Ongoing commitment: The UK government has reiterated its commitment to democracy and human rights internationally, though there are critiques about the implementation of human rights within the UK. 

Legal and Constitutional Implications

The HRA 1998 is the primary mechanism by which individuals in the UK can enforce their rights domestically. Without it, citizens would no longer be able to bring claims in UK courts for breaches of the ECHR, forcing them to rely solely on the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Strasbourg, a costly and inaccessible route for many.

If the UK were to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), it wouldn’t technically “break” a law in the criminal sense, but it would trigger a cascade of legal, constitutional, and international consequences.

Here’s a breakdown of what that would mean:

• Human Rights Act 1998: This Act incorporates the ECHR into UK law. Leaving the ECHR would render the Act meaningless unless replaced or repealed. Doing so would strip UK courts of the ability to enforce ECHR rights domestically.
• Parliamentary Approval Required: The UK government cannot unilaterally withdraw from the ECHR. It would likely need an Act of Parliament to do so, following legal precedent from Brexit.
• Loss of Codified Rights: Without the ECHR, the UK would lack a binding international human rights framework. Any replacement (like a British Bill of Rights) would be entirely domestic and could be amended or repealed more easily.

International Consequences

• Council of Europe Membership: The ECHR is a condition of membership. Leaving it would likely mean exiting the Council of Europe altogether.
• Diplomatic Fallout: The UK would join only Belarus and Russia as European nations outside the ECHR, a move that could damage its international reputation and cooperation on issues like migration, trade, and security.
• Good Friday Agreement Risk: The ECHR underpins parts of the peace agreement in Northern Ireland. Withdrawal could destabilize this accord and breach international commitments.

Even after withdrawal, the UK would still be bound to implement judgments from the European Court of Human Rights issued before the exit date, under international law.

Would It Be Illegal?

Not in the criminal sense, but it could:

• Breach international treaties and political commitments
• Undermine constitutional principles like the rule of law and separation of powers
• Violate devolved agreements, especially in Northern Ireland

Withdrawal from the ECHR itself would go further, stripping the UK of a binding international human rights framework. This would not technically be a crime, but it would undermine constitutional principles such as the rule of law and separation of powers. It would also destabilise devolved settlements, particularly in Northern Ireland, where the ECHR underpins parts of the Good Friday Agreement.

The UK would join only Russia and Belarus as European nations outside the ECHR, risking its international reputation and signalling a retreat from global democratic leadership.

What Happens If the UK Leaves the ECHR?

If the UK formally leaves the ECHR, several consequences would immediately follow:

• Loss of Council of Europe Membership: The UK would have to exit Europe’s main human rights body.
• End of Strasbourg Oversight: Citizens would lose the right to petition the ECtHR when domestic remedies failed.
• Uncertain Domestic Protections: A “British Bill of Rights” could be repealed or amended at will.
• Risk to Peace Agreements: The Good Friday Agreement would be undermined, inflaming tensions in Northern Ireland.

Leaving the ECHR would therefore not only weaken domestic protections but also damage the UK’s credibility abroad.

Impact on Disabled, Low-Income, and Vulnerable Communities

The effects of abolishing the Human Rights Act would not be confined to immigration. Disabled, low-income, and vulnerable citizens, already facing difficulties with the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), Universal Credit (UC), and Personal Independence Payment (PIP), would be severely affected.

Without enforceable human rights protections:

• People challenging wrongful UC or PIP decisions would lose a vital safeguard against unfair or degrading treatment.
• Disabled and vulnerable claimants could be left at greater risk of poverty, discrimination, and exploitation.
• Those already living in financial instability would find it harder to secure justice against state failings.

This raises wider concerns that weakening rights could be part of a broader government strategy to consolidate power, restricting benefits, silencing dissent, and making it easier to control people, censor activists, and pressure journalists who hold power to account.

Public Perception and Criticism of Human Rights Lawyers

Human rights lawyers are often criticised for defending migrants and asylum seekers, with some accusing them of profiting from the system. Yet these lawyers fulfil a vital role: ensuring that every individual, whether citizen, refugee, or migrant, is treated with dignity and fairness under the law.

Abolishing the HRA or leaving the ECHR, lawyers would no longer be able to invoke ECHR jurisprudence in UK courts. Their arguments would be restricted to whatever rights Parliament allows domestically, significantly limiting their capacity to challenge abuses.

The Rights of Migrants and “Illegal” Immigrants

Illegal immigrants DO NOT have the same rights to liberty or residence as British citizens. They can be detained and deported. But under the ECHR, they retain basic rights to life, dignity, and humane treatment. Article 3 of the ECHR prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment without exception. Immigration status does not remove these protections.

Comparative Lessons: Other Nations That Left Human Rights Frameworks

Countries That Withdrew from Human Rights Treaties

History shows that countries leaving human rights treaties face severe consequences:

Country	Treaty Withdrawn From	Reason for Withdrawal	Consequences
Russia	European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)	Following its invasion of Ukraine in 2022	Expelled from Council of Europe; loss of ECtHR oversight
Turkey	Istanbul Convention (on violence against women)	Claimed it undermined traditional values	Sparked global protests and domestic legal uncertainty
Belarus	Never joined ECHR	Aligned with Russia; authoritarian governance	Suspended from Council of Europe relations
Burundi	International Criminal Court (ICC)	Accused ICC of bias against African nations	Criticised internationally; weakened accountability
USA	Multiple treaties (e.g. ICC, Paris Agreement, Iran Deal)	Political shifts under Trump administration	Undermined global trust; some treaties later rejoined
Greece	Temporarily left ECHR (1970–1974)	Military dictatorship	Rejoined after democracy was restored

Comparative Insights: Reform vs. Withdrawal

1. Reform Within Frameworks

• Germany & France have modernised domestic laws to align with ECHR rulings, especially on privacy and asylum.
• South Africa built its post-apartheid constitution around international human rights norms, showing how treaties can guide national healing.

2. Partial Disapplication

• Some countries (like Poland and Hungary) have challenged ECtHR rulings or delayed implementation, but remain within the ECHR, testing its limits without full withdrawal.

3. Domestic Replacements

• The USA relies heavily on its Constitution and Supreme Court for rights protection, but lacks a comprehensive federal human rights statute. This makes rights more vulnerable to political shifts.

⚖️ What Would a UK Withdrawal Signal?

Leaving the ECHR would place the UK alongside Russia and Belarus, countries associated with authoritarianism and international isolation. It would also:

• Undermine the Good Friday Agreement
• Weaken judicial independence and access to remedies
• Signal a retreat from global human rights leadership

Each example shows that withdrawal erodes protections, isolates nations, and damages trust in governance.

The Risk of Leaving Citizens Defenceless

For the general public, abolishing the HRA or leaving the ECHR would mean that rights such as privacy, free expression, and fair trial could no longer be guaranteed.

What begins as restricting migrant rights could quickly extend to limiting freedoms for journalists, protesters, and disabled individuals seeking justice.

As Amnesty International reminds us: “We don’t need fewer rights. We need stronger protections.”

International and Diplomatic Consequences

Exiting the ECHR would isolate the UK internationally. Membership of the Council of Europe requires adherence to the ECHR. Leaving would jeopardise cooperation on security, trade, and human rights.

It could also destabilise the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland, creating long-term constitutional risks.

Advocacy Brief: Defending Human Rights in the UK

“A Retreat from Rights? The Case Against Leaving the ECHR” Prepared for: Legal advocates, policymakers, civil society groups, and concerned citizens.

Purpose

To raise awareness of the legal, constitutional, and societal risks posed by the UK’s potential withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and to advocate for the preservation and strengthening of human rights protections within UK law.

Key Arguments

1. Legal Integrity and Rule of Law

• The ECHR underpins the Human Rights Act 1998, which allows UK courts to enforce rights domestically.
• Withdrawal would weaken judicial oversight and reduce access to remedies for individuals.
• It risks breaching international obligations, including the Good Friday Agreement.

2. Global Reputation and Democratic Values

• The UK would join Russia and Belarus as the only European nations outside the ECHR.
• This undermines the UK’s credibility as a global advocate for democracy, justice, and human rights.

3. Impact on Vulnerable Communities

• ECHR protections have historically safeguarded the rights of migrants, disabled people, LGBTQ+ individuals, and victims of abuse.
• Removing these safeguards could disproportionately harm those already facing systemic barriers.

4. Devolution and Constitutional Stability

• The ECHR is embedded in devolved settlements, especially in Northern Ireland and Scotland.
• Withdrawal could trigger constitutional crises and legal fragmentation across the UK.

Strategic Framing

• Poetic Justice: Frame human rights not just as legal entitlements, but as moral commitments to dignity, fairness, and healing.
• Historical Continuity: Remind audiences that the UK helped draft the ECHR after WWII to prevent future atrocities.
• Empowerment: Emphasize that rights are not privileges granted by governments—they are protections against abuse of power.

Suggested Messaging

• “Human rights are not foreign imports; they are the backbone of British justice.”
• “Leaving the ECHR is not reform. It’s a retreat.”
• “We don’t need fewer rights. We need stronger protections.”

Recommended Actions

• Public Education: Host webinars, write op-eds, and share accessible explainers on what the ECHR protects.
• Coalition Building: Partner with legal scholars, disability advocates, and youth groups to amplify diverse voices.
• Parliamentary Engagement: Submit evidence to select committees and meet with MPs to express concerns.
• Creative Advocacy: Use storytelling, speculative writing, and visual campaigns to humanize the issue.

Conclusion: Everyone’s Rights at Stake

Human rights are not privileges. They are protections against abuse of power.

If the UK abandons the HRA or the ECHR, it would align itself with authoritarian regimes, leaving citizens, migrants, and vulnerable groups with weaker protections. The question is whether the UK will continue to uphold the values it helped establish after World War II—or retreat from them.

References

• Human Rights Act 1998, https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/human-rights/human-rights-act
• European Convention on Human Rights, opened for signature 4 November 1950, 213 UNTS 221 (entered into force 3 September 1953) The Convention in 1950 – The European Convention on Human Rights
• Belfast/Good Friday Agreement 1998, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-belfast-agreement
• Liberty, The Human Rights Act Explained https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk
• Amnesty International UK, The Bill of Rights Bill: A Threat to Human Rights https://www.amnesty.org.uk
• Council of Europe, European Convention on Human Rights Overview https://www.echr.coe.int/
• Good Law Project, Why the Human Rights Act Matters https://goodlawproject.org

Further Reading

• Nigel Farage pledges to scrap Human Rights Act to prioritise British citizens | Politics | News | Express.co.uk
• Why UK approach to replacing the Human Rights Act is just as worrying as the replacement itself
• What is the ECHR? European Convention of Human Rights questioned by Farage | LBC
• Controversy around the Human Rights Act 1998
• UK: Abolishing the Human Rights Act will not protect freedom of speech – ARTICLE 19

STAND UP FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, GET INVOLVED TODAY!