Jenrick Was Right: Europe Admits ECHR Fuels Immigration Chaos

During his 2024 campaign for leadership of the opposition, Robert Jenrick made a bold promise that set a challenge for anyone claiming to be serious about tackling uncontrolled immigration: he would pull the UK out of the European Convention on Human Rights.

At the time, its radical nature was downplayed by rivals. But they are slowly accepting the truths that Jenrick laid out and adopting his policies, with calls for change now echoing to the very top of the establishment — and the Council of Europe itself now admitting that European citizens deserve better.

What makes Jenrick stand out is that, for the past two decades, British politics has operated like a long-running farce: each new Prime Minister solemnly vowing to “take back control of immigration” while doing absolutely nothing of the sort. It has been a parade of leaders wielding policies as robust as flat-pack furniture held together with bubblegum — all posture, no pressure.

By contrast, Jenrick’s proposal had weight and consequence. His diagnosis was blunt but accurate: that the UK cannot regain full control of its immigration system while it remains bound by ECHR provisions that give foreign criminals and failed asylum seekers the right to remain — typically under Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman treatment) or Article 8 (right to a family life). The solution? Leave the convention, take back control, and stop outsourcing Britain’s borders to an ageing Strasbourg treaty.

But if his logic was clear, the climate wasn’t ready. Jenrick’s realism didn’t cut through. He was arguing in a political culture that had taught voters to expect betrayal and learned helplessness. On the one hand, those who had been burned too many times by the broken promises of May, Johnson and Sunak simply assumed: if there had ever been a fix, surely someone would have used it. On the other, there were millions more — especially those without legal training — who assumed politicians already do whatever they want. If immigration hadn’t been reduced, they figured, it could only be because no one ever really tried.

Voters with little interest in legal nuance judged Jenrick not by the implications of what he was proposing, but by the posture he projected — and, not seeing in him the outsider they craved, they saw no reason to linger over the substance. That work had already been done for them, by others with more to lose from a serious debate.

But now the dial is shifting — fast. Kemi Badenoch, current Conservative leader, has gone from cautious ambiguity to something approaching full alignment. “I have thought long and hard about this,” she declared this week, “and I am increasingly of the view that we will need to leave [the ECHR], because I am yet to see a clear and coherent route to change within our current legal structures.”

Badenoch has not merely echoed Jenrick’s words — she has signalled intent to act, reportedly launching a review into Britain’s position within the ECHR framework, and pledging to explore legal pathways out. Notably, her tone has shifted from the managerial to the moral. Blocking the deportation of criminals and failed asylum seekers, she now argues, is a dereliction of duty to the British people.

Even the Council of Europe, the guardian body of the ECHR, has begun to publicly concede ground. In a recent interview, Alain Berset, its secretary general, admitted that “we are witnessing a world where things are changing rapidly,” and that the convention must adapt in the face of “a growing political backlash against migration.” Crucially, he added, “there is no taboo” in rewriting its rules. This is the same Council that just a few years ago treated such suggestions as a threat to human civilisation.

The context for this new realism is unmistakable. Across Europe, pressure is mounting. Italy, Denmark, and several other states have jointly demanded greater sovereignty over deportations. And in Britain, even Labour’s leadership now openly acknowledges the ECHR is hampering enforcement. Yvette Cooper’s proposal to reform the use of Article 8 rights in immigration cases is a nod toward reality — though, tellingly, it stops short of tackling the broader block posed by Article 3, which still prevents deportations to countries deemed “unsafe” no matter the circumstances.

In other words, Labour has started walking — but only halfway across the minefield.

Which raises the original question: was Jenrick right all along?

In policy terms, he certainly was. His plan, once treated as politically radioactive, has become the blueprint for grown-up politics across the spectrum. The longer others keep borrowing from him while denying him credit, the more obvious that becomes.

But the real vindication isn’t rhetorical — it’s practical. If Britain is ever to regain meaningful control over its borders, Jenrick’s proposal to leave the ECHR — barring truly radical reforms — is not just one option. It may be the only one that works.

Well, that’s all for now. But until our next article, please stay tuned, stay informed, but most of all stay safe, and I’ll see you then.