Letter: Withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights is not a path to unity

This is not a scholarly exercise in constitutional interpretation. It’s a deliberate attempt to bend the law to suit a political agenda, and in doing so, it risks tearing at the very fabric of peace in Northern Ireland.

Let’s be clear: the ECHR is not a peripheral detail in the Belfast Agreement. It is a foundational pillar. The agreement commits the UK to the full incorporation of the ECHR into Northern Ireland law, including direct access to courts and remedies for breaches of convention rights.

This is not optional. It is a binding obligation, reflected in both the Human Rights Act and the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which explicitly prohibits the NI Assembly from legislating contrary to ECHR rights.

The Policy Exchange report tries to sidestep this by narrowly focusing on the treaty text of the British-Irish Agreement, ignoring the broader political and legal commitments that underpin the peace process.

This is legal cherry-picking. Constructing an argument not from the totality of the law, but from fragments that suit a preordained conclusion. It’s the kind of selective reading that would be laughed out of court if the stakes weren’t so high.

And the stakes are enormous. Undermining the ECHR’s role in Northern Ireland doesn’t just violate legal obligations, it destabilizes the delicate balance of trust that has kept the peace for over two decades.

The ECHR was never just about abstract rights; it was a guarantee to communities that abuses of power would be checked, that justice would be accessible, and that equality would be more than a slogan.

To suggest that these protections can be replaced by domestic law alone is dangerously naïve. The Human Rights Act and the Northern Ireland Act are not standalone safeguards. They are the vehicles through which the ECHR is made real in people’s lives. Strip away the convention, and you strip away the legal backbone of those protections.

This is not just a legal misstep, it’s a political provocation. Reform UK and others pushing this agenda are not engaged in thoughtful reform; they are playing with constitutional fire. Proposing to “renegotiate” the Belfast Agreement to suit immigration policy is not just irresponsible, it’s an insult to the generations who fought for peace.

And perhaps most galling of all, this entire debate is a distraction from the real issue: Northern Ireland needs more rights protections, not fewer. From legacy justice to social equality, the gaps in rights delivery are glaring. Instead of dismantling the framework that protects people, we should be expanding it.

Let us not forget: the ECHR is not some foreign imposition, it is a British creation.

Forged in the aftermath of World War II with Churchill’s backing, it has defended peace and stability across Europe for 75 years. And for over 25 years, since its incorporation into UK law through the Human Rights Act, driven by the Belfast Agreement, it has been the one consistent, unifying framework of rights protection across the UK.

To misdirect the public into believing that this cornerstone of peace and justice is somehow the problem is as misguided as it is dangerous. The ECHR is not a threat to sovereignty, it is a testament to it. It is not a burden on our democracy, it is a bulwark against its erosion.

Tearing up the ECHR is not a path to unity, it’s a path to disintegration of the UK’s shared legal foundations and our peace process.

Kevin Hanratty, Director, Human Rights Consortium