‘Humbug”, and “a half-baked scheme to be administered by an unknown court”. Nigel Farage or Robert Jenrick attacking the European convention on human rights (ECHR)? No – Herbert Morrison, leader of the Commons, and William Jowitt, lord chancellor in Clement Attlee’s postwar Labour government, respectively, both arguing that Britain should not accede to the convention.

Labour was suspicious, fearing that it would prevent nationalisation. It did not. Today, Conservatives and Reform UK fear that it will frustrate immigration control. It need not.

Denmark and Sweden have recently taken draconian measures to restrict immigration without falling foul of the ECHR. The Danish Social Democrats have reduced asylum claims to their lowest level for 40 years. In Sweden, a government of the right has seen a 23% fall in asylum applications between 2023 and 2024.

Admittedly, the ECHR as well as the UN’s 1951 refugee convention protect the rights of asylum seekers against deportation to countries where they might face ill-treatment. It would be inhumane to do otherwise. Would anyone wish to deport women to Afghanistan or dissidents to Iran?

Judicial interpretation of article 8 of the ECHR that requires respect for family life has made it difficult to repatriate criminals and illegal immigrants. But the government can tighten the immigration rules, providing principles intended to guide judicial interpretation, in particular that the public interest of immigration control overrides the private interest of an article 8 claimant, except in very exceptional circumstances. If European judges resist such guidance, that would incentivise EU leaders to press........

© The Guardian