Former Justice Secretary Robert Buckland advises the Conservative party to move away from focusing on the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
- During a fringe event at the Conservative Party conference, Buckland described the ECHR as a distraction from more critical issues.
- Polling data indicates that immigration is a top concern among voters, yet ECHR debates overshadow this matter.
- Buckland emphasised the importance of addressing everyday concerns like the cost of living and education.
- He warned that the party risks losing public confidence if it does not address these priorities over ECHR discussions.
Former Justice Secretary Robert Buckland has called on the Conservative party to shift its focus away from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which he regards as a distraction from key voter issues. Addressing a fringe event organised by the thinktank More in Common at the Conservative Party conference, Buckland labelled the ECHR as the ‘reddest of red herrings’. According to him, discussions about the ECHR risk diverting attention from topics that the public truly cares about.
Polling data from More in Common underscores immigration as one of the top three issues concerning voters. However, debates centered around the ECHR seem to overshadow these pressing matters. Luke Tryl, UK director at More in Common, even referred to the European Court of Human Rights as a ‘proxy for how we get a grip on immigration’. The need to address immigration effectively without getting mired in ECHR disputes was a significant point of discussion.
Buckland further elaborated that sticking with the ECHR should not be considered merely a political dilemma. ‘The decision made about Rwanda was not about the interpretation of ECHR law’, he asserted, referencing domestic legal frameworks and international agreements like the 1951 Refugee Convention. He warned that continued focus on leaving the ECHR could make the party appear disconnected from the concerns of everyday citizens, such as the cost of living and educational safety.
To queries regarding whether lawyers were hindering public will, Buckland was firm in debunking the notion. He reiterated the party’s commitment to upholding the rule of law and strengthening traditional institutions. He clarified that most of the Strasbourg court’s judgments are not obligatory for the UK unless the UK is involved in the case. However, he acknowledged the need for vigilance against ‘court overreach’.
Buckland stressed that signing treaties entails certain sovereignty concessions, reminding the audience of international obligations. As he aptly put it, ‘Let’s just grow up and get over it.‘ His remarks were a reminder of the consequences of overly focusing on the ECHR to the detriment of addressing voter priorities like living conditions and neighbourhood pride.
In conclusion, Buckland’s statements urge the Conservative party to prioritise public concerns over debates about the ECHR to regain and maintain public trust.
