Boris Johnson will stop at nothing to deliver his Brexit vision – even if that means forfeiting your human rights

Rumblings from No 10 and the cabinet want you to believe that the ECHR is being ‘abused’ by European judges. The reality couldn’t be more different

Can it possibly be the case that the prime minister believes that people in our country, especially the vulnerable and those in minorities, are due less rights now than 70 years ago?

Recent reports that the prime minister refuses to maintain a commitment to the protections that we enjoy under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) should be a major concern to us all. When negotiating the future relationship with the EU, it is no surprise that they want minimum standards for all citizens, in accordance with guarantees that we agreed to be essential and to which we signed up in 1950, in the Council of Europe.

A little history – which no doubt Boris Johnson knows, as Winston Churchill’s biographer – doesn’t go amiss: the Council of Europe was founded after the Second World War to protect human rights and the rule of law and to promote democracy. The first task of the member states (of which the United Kingdom was one) was to draw up a treaty to secure basic rights for anyone within their borders, whether their own citizens or from elsewhere.

Originally proposed by Churchill and drafted mainly by British lawyers, the Convention was based on the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It was signed in Rome in 1950 and came into force in 1953 and is entirely separate from membership of the EU. All signatories agreed that fundamental freedoms were the foundation of justice and peace in the world, and that, as against the individual, it was vital to restrict and control the power given to the state and to describe the balancing of an individual’s rights in relation to those of others.

By becoming a party to the ECHR all member states expressed their will to be restricted in this manner. At the end of the last century, we formalised in domestic law our treaty obligations by enacting the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA). So, what has changed that these restrictions are no longer in the public interest?

There are many examples of our processes and decision-making being improved by the ECHR. Broadly, the right to be treated equally, regardless of gender or other protected characteristics, has had enormous effects on swathes of the population. Of course, there are numerous examples of positive repercussions affecting individual citizens too, such as elderly couples being reunited by the courts, having been separated in care; or the broadening of the Inquiry into the Hillsborough disaster to consider whether the victims’ deaths were unlawful.

So while rumblings from No 10 and the cabinet suggest that the ECHR is being “abused” by European judges, the reality is the Convention and the HRA play a crucial role in our daily lives. They ensure our essential rights are not just guaranteed on paper but are instilled into the way our children are taught, from school onwards. They help progress our society and add to our economic success.

Beyond these obvious and longstanding reasons for maintaining our commitment to the ECHR, there is a particular importance now, when we are working out our future relationship with the EU. The European Commission’s negotiating mandate is values-based: “The envisaged partnership should be based on shared values and commitments, which should be expressed in the five binding political clauses (which underpin all comprehensive relationships between the Union and third countries) regarding: human rights, democracy and rule of law; non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; the fight against terrorism; prosecution of those accused of the most serious crimes of concern to the international community; small arms and light weapons. The respect for and safeguarding of human rights and fundamental freedoms, democratic principles, the rule of law including the United Kingdom's continued commitment to respect the [ECHR] and support for non-proliferation should constitute essential elements for the cooperation envisaged in the partnership.”

One might have thought each of these values would be uncontroversial. Indeed, as stated, they underpin EU relations with all third countries. Are any of the other elements also at risk of being deflated in the future?

Even countries to whom we would not wish to be compared on human rights and democracy, are signed up to the convention and have that safety net. If the government genuinely intends to withdraw from the ECHR, it will send a negative message globally on the UK’s commitment to human rights, especially in the light of any executive challenges to the independence of the judiciary.

The possibility of replacing the Human Rights Act with a British Bill of Rights has resurfaced. To rename the ECHR to bring it more to life for citizens is one thing – though the election manifesto’s pledge to "update" the Human Rights Act to ensure "a proper balance between the rights of individuals, our vital national security and effective government" suggests a fundamental move against the rights of the individual. Presumably, the government intends that the final determinative court would not be the European Court of Human Rights. Would the Supreme Court replace it? If so, all the more reason that the politicians should not have an active hand in choosing the senior judiciary.

Unless a British Bill of Rights replicates or extends the rights and freedoms in the ECHR, we are at risk of regressing, particularly in the treatment of minorities and others who are more vulnerable. A crucial factor in an operating democracy is to allow those in the minority legal, enforceable protection from the views and acts of those in the majority who overstep the mark. Can it possibly be that the government intends a Bill of Rights to reduce protections for the British people?

If we are to go down the route of abandoning laws or conventions simply to be fully independent of European links, then the UK will be ignoring the vital role the ECHR and HRA play in our society and our international relations.

Amanda Pinto QC is chair of the Bar Council of England and Wales