Kemi Badenoch vows to withdraw UK from the ECHR, claiming it blocks border and veteran reforms
The Conservative Party will take the United Kingdom out of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) if it wins the next general election, party leader Kemi Badenoch has announced, marking one of the most dramatic policy shifts in modern Tory history.
Speaking ahead of the party’s annual conference in Manchester, Badenoch said leaving the ECHR was now “necessary to protect our borders, our veterans, and our citizens.” The announcement followed a detailed legal review commissioned by the Conservatives’ leadership earlier this year.
The decision, backed by advice from Lord Wolfson of Tredegar KC, the party’s lead lawyer, concluded that remaining within the ECHR placed “significant constraints” on key government priorities — including deporting foreign criminals, defending military veterans from prosecution, and enforcing stricter immigration controls.
Badenoch, who once described leaving the treaty as “not a silver bullet,” said her stance had hardened after months of legal consultation. “I have not come to this decision lightly,” she said. “But it is clear that withdrawal is the only way to secure control over Britain’s borders and restore fairness for those who serve our country.”
The shift cements the Conservatives’ position following years of bitter internal debate over whether to remain bound by the convention, which underpins much of Britain’s post-war human rights framework.
Embed from Getty Images
Critics, however, have warned that the move could carry grave diplomatic and legal consequences. Professor Catherine Barnard, an expert in EU law at the University of Cambridge, said quitting the treaty would “isolate the UK alongside Russia” and risk undermining the Good Friday Agreement and the UK-EU trade deal.
Nevertheless, Lord Wolfson’s 200-page review reportedly rejected that claim, concluding that “withdrawal would not breach the Belfast or Windsor Frameworks” and that any attempt to reform the ECHR from within would be “ineffective.”
The political fallout was immediate. Labour accused Badenoch of capitulating to pressure from Reform UK, the right-wing party that has long advocated ECHR withdrawal. A Labour spokesperson said: “This is a policy she once argued against, adopted only because she is too weak to stand up to her own party in the face of Reform.”
Badenoch’s allies insist the opposite — that the Conservatives are reclaiming control of an issue that has fuelled frustration among the party’s base. Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp said: “The ECHR has enabled foreign criminals and illegal immigrants to stay in the UK. Protecting our borders is non-negotiable.”
The move also exposes deep divisions within the party’s ranks. Moderate Conservatives, including Sir Robert Buckland and former deputy prime minister Damian Green, have previously described withdrawal as reckless and unnecessary. In 2023, Green warned that leaving the ECHR would cross a “red line” for the One Nation wing of the party.
By contrast, the decision is likely to be welcomed by right-leaning MPs who view human rights law as an obstacle to deportation policies — particularly in cases involving asylum seekers.
Pressure from Reform UK has intensified in recent months, with the party accusing the Conservatives of dithering on migration and national security. A Reform spokesman mocked Badenoch’s timing: “The Conservatives had 14 years in government to leave the ECHR. Now it’s taken them 14 months just to decide their position. The Conservative Party is finished.”
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, responding to Badenoch’s announcement, said his government would not “tear down” international law but would review how British courts interpret it, particularly in asylum cases.
For now, Badenoch’s gamble sets up one of the starkest dividing lines in the upcoming general election. The Conservative leader is betting that frustration over immigration and sovereignty will outweigh fears of Britain abandoning the human rights framework that has defined Europe for 70 years.
Whether that bet pays off could determine not only the election’s outcome, but Britain’s place in the world.