David Cameron fired me over leaving the ECHR – here’s why he should have heeded my warnings

As the Conservative leadership race gets underway, candidates appear hidebound to promise to withdraw the UK from the body that guarantees fundamental human rights in law. To do so would be wildly irresponsible – and only help keep the Tories out of power, says former attorney general Dominic Grieve

Dominic Grieve: ‘Successive Conservative governments have been told that leaving the ECHR will do little or nothing to contribute to our better security’ (AFP/Getty)

It is just over 10 years ago, when I was attorney general, that I received a request to see David Cameron in the PM’s room at the Commons – which I knew indicated I was about to lose my job.

The ensuing meeting was both brief and courteous, and with the expected outcome. PMs do not have to explain these decisions, and I didn’t need to seek a reason.

Slightly more surprising was that, a day later, in response to press questions, No 10 confirmed that my departure was as a result of my disagreeing with him over the Conservatives pursuing a policy of scrapping the Human Rights Act (HRA) and replacing it with a “British Bill of Rights” – which, if it proved incompatible with our international legal obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), would lead to our leaving the Convention entirely.

Today, however, we still have the HRA and are still adherent to the ECHR. This is despite the first signs of Cameron’s views going back to 2006, when he first became leader of the opposition, and the threat being repeated subsequently by three of his successors. The policy has effectively gone nowhere.

It is not hard to see why. Like all human constructs, the ECHR may not be perfect. Its interpretation by the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg is sometimes challenging and – occasionally, arguably – mistaken. But the advantages of adherence massively outweigh those irritants.

As it is, the benchmark of the civilised conduct of states towards those over whom they exercise power, its creation and development are one of the great achievements of British soft power and have done much good both here and for our neighbours. Leaving the ECHR would jeopardise other treaties such as the Trade and Co-operation Agreement with the EU – and thus our economic wellbeing – and be incompatible with the Good Friday Agreement.

We would join Belarus and Russia as the only non-adherent European states. Successive Conservative governments will also have been told, correctly, by any respectable lawyer, that leaving will do little or nothing to contribute to our better security, ability to control immigration, deport convicted criminals or conduct military operations.

Scrapping the HRA while remaining in the ECHR makes no more sense. A series of commissions set up by the government to advise how a “British Bill of Rights” might replace the HRA have all led to clear recommendations to keep the status quo, as there is no advantage to us from doing so. It would just lead to many more challenges to the UK at the Strasbourg court.

It is a depressing curiosity, therefore, to see how in this Conservative leadership election, with the guarantee of several years out of office and of an inability to exercise any power at all, fresh promises of dealing in some way with the ECHR appear to be a requirement from candidates. Without them, they appear not to be able to appeal to the membership of the party, or make themselves acceptable to certain sections of the Conservative-supporting media. This does not bode well for the start of the party’s recovery.

The past obsession with the issue has helped create myths about the ECHR that have encouraged some voters to go to Reform, when promises of action have remained unfulfilled – and, in truth, unfulfillable – without wholly disproportionate political cost. Conversely, moderate centre-right supporters have abandoned the party in disgust at the pointless stridency and departure from pragmatic liberal values over the issue.

It perfectly explains why the party has just suffered its worst defeat in its history. As long as it remains in thrall to these fantasies, it will not deserve to be elected to government again.