After the Rwanda ruling, what are the options for Britain’s immigration policy?

For months, the government has struggled, and failed, to align with the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights. Sean O’Grady examines the options for No 10

Suella Braverman tours a building site for migrant accommodation on the outskirts of Kigali in April (PA)

The recent Court of Appeal ruling on the Rwanda plan and the continuing parliamentary wrangle over the Illegal Migration Bill have highlighted once again how much the UK’s membership of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and its associated court affects policy towards refugees. For many months, the government has attempted to make its laws and policies consistent with ECHR provisions; to get the ECHR to turn a blind eye to minor British infringements and to pretend that the ECHR is compatible with the bill and the Rwanda refugee deportation scheme. All have failed.

Logically, for good or ill in the wider sense, the government could make its legal problems disappear simply by leaving the ECHR. Suella Braverman, as home secretary, has dropped heavy hints that she would like to do that, as have a range of right-wing Tory MPs. Most recently the former cabinet minister Simon Clark, seemingly an ally and outrider for both Liz Truss and Boris Johnson, has renewed his call for change: “We have to be able to control our borders. If the ECHR continues to forestall this, we have to revisit the question of our membership.” It seems set to be an issue up to and including the next general election campaign.

Could the UK actually opt out of the ECHR?