I am hearing quite a lot about how some of the negative issues we are facing in our communities stem from our membership of the European Court of Human Rights. However, if the UK was to leave the European Convention on Human Rights, it would not simply be a symbolic exit from a European legal framework. It would remove a set of enforceable rights that currently sit above domestic law and allow you and me to challenge them in Brussels if the state overreaches. Remove that layer, and we are left with whatever protections Parliament chooses to maintain at any given time. Rights become less like bedrock and more like furniture that can be rearranged in ways that I have not seen mentioned in mainstream media.
Below is a my breakdown of the rights currently protected under the Convention, followed by a few examples of what their removal would mean in practical, everyday terms.
Our Rights and What They Would Mean Without the ECHR
Right to Life (Article 2)
Protects individuals from unlawful killing by the state and requires proper investigation into deaths involving state authorities.
Without it, there would be no external legal obligation to thoroughly investigate deaths in custody or involving police.
For the man in the street:
- If a family member dies in custody, there is a structured independent process that must examine what happened
- If someone is killed in a police incident, it cannot be quietly closed without scrutiny
- Public bodies must justify and document use of force
Prohibition of Torture (Article 3)
Absolutely bans torture and inhuman or degrading treatment. No exceptions.
Without it, domestic law still applies, but external enforcement disappears.
For the man in the street:
- Prison conditions can be challenged if inhumane
- Deportation can be challenged if serious harm is likely
- Limits remain on state treatment in security contexts
Prohibition of Slavery and Forced Labour (Article 4)
Protects against slavery and exploitation.
Without it, protections rely on UK law alone.
For the man in the street:
- Victims of trafficking can challenge state failures
- Employers cannot lawfully coerce forced labour
- Modern slavery enforcement relies more heavily on domestic systems
Right to Liberty and Security (Article 5)
Prevents arbitrary detention.
Without it, detention powers face fewer external checks.
For the man in the street:
- Police detention must be legally justified
- Immigration detention must be proportionate
- Unlawful detention can still be challenged domestically
Right to a Fair Trial (Article 6)
Guarantees fair and independent legal process.
Without it, no external enforcement layer exists.
For the man in the street:
- Trials must be impartial
- You must know the case against you
- Excessive delays can be challenged
No Punishment Without Law (Article 7)
Prevents retrospective criminal punishment.
For the man in the street:
- You cannot be prosecuted for something legal at the time
- Laws cannot normally be applied backwards
- Protects against retrospective political legislation
Right to Private and Family Life (Article 8)
Protects privacy, home, and family life.
For the man in the street:
- Surveillance can be challenged
- Family separation decisions can be contested
- State intrusion must be justified
Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion (Article 9)
Protects belief and religious practice.
For the man in the street:
- You cannot be forced to change beliefs
- Restrictions must be proportionate
- Religious expression has legal protection
Freedom of Expression (Article 10)
Protects speech and media.
For the man in the street:
- Government criticism is protected
- Journalistic freedom can be defended
- Speech restrictions must be justified
Freedom of Assembly and Association (Article 11)
Protects protest and unions.
For the man in the street:
- Peaceful protest is protected
- Union membership is lawful
- Restrictions must be proportionate
Right to Marry (Article 12)
Protects the right to marry.
For the man in the street:
- Adults can marry freely under law
- State barriers must be justified
- Family formation is protected
Right to an Effective Remedy (Article 13)
Ensures access to justice.
For the man in the street:
- You can challenge state breaches
- Courts must provide real remedies
- Legal recourse must exist
Prohibition of Discrimination (Article 14)
Prevents discriminatory application of rights.
For the man in the street:
- Unequal treatment can be challenged
- Public services must act fairly
- Rights must be applied consistently
Protection of Property (Protocol 1, Article 1)
Protects possessions.
For the man in the street:
- Property cannot be taken without justification
- Compensation is required
- Planning interference can be challenged
Right to Education (Protocol 1, Article 2)
Guarantees access to education.
For the man in the street:
- Children have right to schooling
- Access must be fair
- Education cannot be arbitrarily removed
Right to Free Elections (Protocol 1, Article 3)
Protects democratic voting.
For the man in the street:
- Elections must be fair
- Voting rights are protected
- Democracy cannot be undermined arbitrarily
The Bigger Picture: What Actually Changes
Leaving the European Convention on Human Rights does not mean a government can impose arbitrary measures without constraint. Any action such as compelled behaviour, medical intervention, or property acquisition still requires UK legal authority and justification. What changes is that challenges to such actions can no longer ultimately be taken to the European Court of Human Rights. The result is not unrestricted power, but fewer external checks in legally contested areas.
The broader change is structural. The UK would still have the Human Rights Act 1998, but it can be changed or repealed domestically and far quicker than we are accustomed to.
Three things shift in practice:
1. No external court of appeal
2. Parliament becomes final authority
3. Gradual weakening becomes easier.
Practical Impact
In practical terms, this is less about dramatic headline moments and more about quiet shifts. Protections become more dependent on domestic political decisions and less anchored to external legal standards. The biggest impact is in edge cases where state power is contested or stretched.
A useful recent parallel people often point to is the period around the Brexit referendum, where one of the most repeated claims in public debate was that leaving the EU would result in significantly more funding being available for the National Health Service, often summarised in headlines and campaign messaging as a promise of additional weekly investment.
The broader public expectation was that constitutional change would translate into visible, everyday improvements in services like healthcare. In reality, the relationship between political promises and delivery proved far more complex, and the outcome did not match the simplicity of the original claim. The point is not to relitigate that debate, but to underline a consistent pattern: large structural changes are often sold in terms of direct benefits, while the practical results depend on far more complicated systems than the slogans suggest.
Conclusion
For most people, most of the time, daily life would not change visibly. The shift is in how strongly rights are protected when they are tested. In simple terms, you go from having an independent referee to the system marking its own homework – an A* strategy for sure…
References
Council of Europe – European Convention on Human Rights
European Court of Human Rights – Judgments and case law
UK Parliament – Human Rights Act 1998
Equality and Human Rights Commission – Human rights guidance
House of Commons Library – ECHR briefings
Amnesty International UK – Analysis of protections
Liberty – Legal commentary
