Britain and the ECHR: Past Myths, Present Problems and Future Options

The myth that the European Convention on Human Rights was a British creation enthusiastically adopted by Churchill and Attlee is fundamentally false, according to explosive new research from the Centre for Policy Studies that reveals the true scale of Britain’s constitutional crisis.

The comprehensive analysis by Rt Hon Lord Peter Lilley, who served in Cabinet under both Thatcher and Major, shows how the ECHR was reluctantly ratified by Attlee only on condition that it had no jurisdiction in the UK – a position immediately upheld by Churchill and maintained until 1966.

‘Britain and the ECHR: Past myths, present problems and future options‘ reveals that the Strasbourg Court has found the UK in violation in 329 out of 567 cases, covering everything from national security and military operations to environmental policy and prisoner voting. The ‘living instrument’ doctrine enables the Court to create new laws in areas never envisaged by signatory states.

The constitutional impact is profound. The research shows how giving courts power to interpret vague Convention rights transfers law-making authority from elected representatives to unaccountable judges. This unavoidably politicises judicial decisions and undermines the rule of law, with both Labour and Conservative Prime Ministers – from Blair to Sunak – considering withdrawal.

The analysis demonstrates that meaningful reform would require unprecedented pan-European unanimity. Lord Lilley shows that withdrawal would not breach the Good Friday Agreement or our EU trade agreement, and would simply place Britain alongside other respected common law democracies like Australia, Canada and New Zealand.

The research concludes that unless Britain is prepared to withdraw until meaningful change is agreed, the only realistic options are ‘do nothing’ or accept the inexorable erosion of democratic accountability and respect for the rule of law itself.

CPS - Wednesday, 9th July, 2025