Tom Tugendhat, launching his Conservative leadership bid, said on BBC Today that he would be open to taking Britain out of the European Court of Human Rights. He's not the only leadership candidate to back this – Kemi Badenoch made a case for leaving too. Tugendhat emphasised that institutions were there to serve us, not us to serve them; and we should be willing to abolish them if they no longer suited.
In that, I agree with him. Institutions, from monarchy to NHS or local government, should all pass that test. But anyone suggesting that we replace these – or the court – must assess what they are for, and how to replace whatever useful function they may have.
What is the ECHR’s point? It is more than just a question of being pro- or anti-human rights. Not many politicians openly declare themselves to be against human rights, even if in practice their enthusiasm can sometimes be hard to spot, or takes a peculiar turn. Kemi Badenoch (Image: free) The real point of the court, and the convention it interprets, is to be a safety net.
It provides a guarantee for rights in each member country, whatever the line being taken by national governments and parliaments at a given moment. Safeguarding human rights involves at least three pillars: • A clear, relatively durable, list of rights • An independent, relatively durable, set of interpreters • A means of ensuring respect for the rules and court findings If we replaced the ECHR, how would we keep these pillars? This is .