Nigel Farage says he wants to replace the UK Human Rights Act with a so-called “British Bill of Rights.”
But let's be clear: this is not about protecting freedoms. It's about removing them.
The Human Rights Act brings into UK law the European Convention on Human Rights, a treaty drafted after the Second World War with strong UK backing, led by Winston Churchill, and based on the UN Declaration of Human Rights. It exists to stop governments abusing their citizens.
Farage's plan would:
-
Cut the link to international oversight in Strasbourg
-
Narrow rights, especially for migrants and asylum seekers, but also for anyone who might have the right to live in another country, however long they have lived here
-
Give Parliament, not independent courts, control over rights
-
Undermine the UK's peace agreements, the government of Northern Ireland, and international treaties
This is not about rights. It's about power — the power to control, divide, and expel. It risks taking Britain down a path towards authoritarianism.
Do you agree that the Human Rights Act must be defended? Join the discussion in the comments and in the poll below.
This is the audio version:
This is the transcript:
Nigel Farage wants to create a British Bill of Rights to replace the 1998 Human Rights Act that we have at present in the UK.
So why does he want to replace our existing law that protects us from the tyranny of government, which we know can happen? The answer tells us a lot about his politics and a lot about his contempt for human rights.
Let's remind ourselves what the UK Human Rights Act is. This law, which was passed in 1998, brings into UK law the European Convention on Human Rights. That was created in 1952. It was based upon an initiative by Winston Churchill, which most modern conservatives and right-wingers forget. It has nothing to do with the European Union. And it was, in fact, based upon the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, passed in 1948, again, heavily driven by the UK, which was intended to put in place the rights that everybody should have to protect them from the tyrannies of government, which had been witnessed so recently at that time in Europe and way beyond, when far-right fascist governments had abused their populations.
The aim of the Human Rights Act is to protect everyone in the UK from abuse. There are no exceptions.
The Act provides that UK courts do enforce our rights, but there is a right of appeal if we don't like what a UK court has decided. We can go to Strasbourg, as can people throughout Europe, but again, I stress this has nothing to do with the European Union. And in Strasbourg sits the European Court of Human Rights , and that has the ultimate right to decide what is and is not an abuse.
The bill does, therefore, hold governments and public bodies to account for their actions. And that is critical. And that is why a higher court is required, because it is impossible to pretend that UK courts are completely free of UK government influence, because judges are appointed by the government, and they therefore know to some extent where their loyalties must lie.
But our right to freedom requires that we are protected even from our courts, and that's why this Act is so important. It puts us at the centre of rights.
We have a right to life, to liberty, fair trial, free speech and assembly.
We are protected from torture, discrimination, surveillance, and abuse.
We have the right to meet with other people.
And those rights are extended to every citizen. Every person living here. Every person arriving here, even if they're on holiday. To migrants, and even to prisoners, because all of us are human.
The government remains sovereign, but its powers and its power to abuse is checked by the courts.
So what does Nigel Farage propose? He wants to get rid of this Act.
He wants to replace it with a UK-only 'British Bill of Rights'.
He wants to cut the link to Strasbourg, which he associates with the European Union, quite inappropriately.
He wants to end international oversight and make the UK government supreme, therefore, meaning that if he were Prime Minister, we would be utterly dependent upon his whim.
And he wants most particularly to narrow the range of people to whom rights will apply. He most especially wants to remove, at this moment, rights from migrants and asylum seekers. He wants to treat them in effect as 'non-human' beings.
Remember, this Act that he wants to replace is based upon the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That recognises that all people are born equal, every single one of us. What Nigel Farage wants to do is to say some of us are more human than others, or that some, in fact, aren't even humans at all.
And that is what fascism does. And let's not beat around the bush here. This is a fascist proposal.
He is saying some people are not worthy of rights because they are, in effect, not human. And that is why I so profoundly object to what he is saying.
He says he's got to do this to remove the obstacles to immigration control. In practice, we are in control of migration into the UK. Over 900,000 people arrived in the UK in 2024. Of those, under 50,000 came in small boats, so the vast majority were invited, had a visa, and had a legal entitlement the moment they stepped off a plane or a boat in the UK.
Of those who arrived in small boats, those that Nigel Farage would like to claim are illegal, every single one had a right to ask for asylum in this country. They weren't illegal. They just were of uncertain status with regard to their right to stay at the time of their arrival. And only around 30% of those people, or around 15,000 people, are likely to have had their asylum applications turned down.
In other words, the number of people who are really of concern with regard to immigration in this country are under 2% of the total, less than two in 100. And for that reason, he wants to take away all our rights.
What Farage wants is for parliament, and not courts, to decide what rights people get.
What he wants is to overturn universal rights and grant us conditional privileges, privileges that he would decide.
He wants to weaken the power of the courts to decide independently whether rights are complied with or not.
And he wants to remove all international comparisons from the UK, so that we can have a definition of rights which is quite unlike that Universal Declaration of Rights, which will exist elsewhere.
As it stands, we know that the Human Rights Act is universal and enforceable because we have the right to go to Strasbourg to have it enforced. What Farage wants is to create something which is selective, political, and defined by parliament, and therefore subject to a whim, and ultimately unenforceable.
What are the consequences if Farage succeeds? Quite fundamentally, rights would no longer be guaranteed for everyone in the UK.
Now you might think, well, so what? He's only talking about people who've arrived here illegally.
But that isn't true.
Let's be clear. Under rulings made by courts in recent years, as a consequence of legal actions brought by the UK Home Office, anybody who has an entitlement to a second passport in the UK can be expelled from this country, because there is another country to which they could be sent.
Now this arose with regard to one of the young women who went to Syria at the age of 15 and wishes to return, and she's been denied that right because she apparently has an entitlement to a Belgian passport.
But the point is that precedent would mean that anybody with a right to a second passport in the UK could, under the rules that Farage is proposing, be deemed to be a person who is not entitled to British human rights. And some people in Reform have talked about people until the third generation of migrants into the UK has been reached, not being allowed to even stand for public office in the UK because they have not shown their commitment to this country until that point in time.
This is really dangerous stuff. If you have a grandparent who was not born in the UK, this new British Bill of Rights will probably take away your right to protection. It's that serious. And what I mean as a consequence is that the government's power to consider whether you have an entitlement to live here is going to be massively expanded.
It isn't just migrants who are going to be impacted. Anybody who's considered to be part of a group that the government in the future does not like could lose their legal protection.
The UK is going to cut itself off from international norms.
This change will make the preservation of peace in Northern Ireland almost impossible, because that is based upon the UN Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights.
This change is going to make almost all our agreements with European countries on everything from defence onwards almost impossible to maintain because the European Convention on Human Rights is implicit in all those agreements.
We are going to see the power of the state to abuse growing in this country.
The British Bill of Rights is not about rights at all. It's about a plan to remove rights. It's about a plan to abuse. It's about a plan to control. It's about a plan to remove liberty. It's about a power to actually expel. And to expel vast numbers of people if the government so wishes. The reality is that this is a pathway to the divisions that fascism always wants to create.
We have to insist on the preservation of universal, enforceable human rights in the UK for everyone who is human, or everybody's rights will be eroded, and that probably includes you.
What do you think? Should we replace the UK Human Rights Act as we now have it with the type of British Bill of Rights that Nigel Farage is proposing? There's a poll down below. Let us know your views. This is really important because for a great many people, this could end every idea of freedom and security that they have, because vast numbers of people are going to be prejudiced by what Nigel Farage is proposing.
Poll
Should the UK replace the Human Rights Act with a British Bill of Rights?
- No — human rights must remain universal (92%, 418 Votes)
- It’s a dangerous distraction from real issues (4%, 19 Votes)
- Yes — a UK-only law is better (4%, 16 Votes)
- I’m unsure — I want more information (0%, 1 Votes)
Total Voters: 454
Loading ...Taking further action
If you want to write a letter to your MP on the issues raised in this blog post, there is a ChatGPT prompt to assist you in doing so, with full instructions, here.
One word of warning, though: please ensure you have the correct MP. ChatGPT can get it wrong.
Comments
When commenting, please take note of this blog's comment policy, which is available here. Contravening this policy will result in comments being deleted before or after initial publication at the editor's sole discretion and without explanation being required or offered.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
What makes me laugh about this is that even the recent attempt to get a ruling to stop the government placing immigrants/refugees in hotels in localities benefits for the current human rights laws as they are.
Again, too many people are just showing their innate racism. Fork – arse – lights on, but no one in etc., ’nuff said!
But also, it is indicative of the poor quality and funding of the way in which we run immigration and refugee services which has been a problem for some time. And that is a Westminster problem. They don’t do themselves – or us – any favours.
Thank you.
It Can’t Happen Here …
Q. Is Farage our Mosley? Discuss
Farage’s populism shares troubling similarities with Mosley’s – fear, division, and nationalism to erode democratic norms can quickly escalate if democratic values are not defended.
Mosley capitalised on economic hardship and rising nationalism, positioning himself as an anti-establishment figure who blamed elites and minorities for Britain’s problems, fascism as solution. Farage using populist anger around issues like immigration, sovereignty, and national identity. Through Brexit, he framed himself as a defender of Britain’s independence, rallying nationalist support as Mosley did, both seizing on national crises to push their agendas.
Mosley rejected parliamentary democracy and sought authoritarian rule, using Blackshirts to suppress opposition. Does Farage openly reject democracy? He undermines it by disregarding parliamentary sovereignty, attacking the judiciary, and using referendums to bypass traditional systems, echoing Mosley’s use of direct action to weaken democratic institutions.
Mosley’s rhetoric scapegoated Jews and minorities, blaming them for the nation’s struggles. Farage targets immigrants, framing them as a threat to British culture and jobs. Both have used vulnerable groups as convenient scapegoats to rally support and stoke nationalist sentiment.
Mosley built a cult of personality, presenting himself as the strongman who could restore order. Farage cultivates a ‘man of the people’ act. Mosley’s movement was violent, Farage’s rhetoric contributes to an atmosphere where far-right extremism thrives, emboldening hate groups and escalating xenophobic violence.
Sliding into authoritarianism, cloaked in nationalism, populism, and promises of national renewal. Soon to be even more aligned with USA where this is happening faster. All in plain sight. Oh, and by the way: Daily Express headline today: “Quisling Keir Starmer, leftie Lord Hermer and UK judges think YOUR rights don’t matter”. And we’re off …
That last is very scary.
And they use language around fascism….
To adapt a Margaret Thatcher saying, the Toxic Tory Tabloids are the real ‘enemy within’.
They seek to undermine any left wing position and people by scorn, innuendo, distortion and even lies. They hardly even give another point of view and promote the fallacy of the national economy being like the household one.
Once this is started then, those in power, will find another group to take rights away from then another then another and so on and so on until the only group with rights will be those in power.
I suspect that we will now see a massive campaign across social media, mainstream media etc. to portray the ECHR as the devil incarnate and attempt to soften up as many as is needed to vote to leave it.
Craig
Correct.
The Nazis began with trade unionists, church ministers and intellectuals. They were the first into Dachau. The Jews, travellers, homosexuals and others followed later.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Schneider_(pastor)
I’ve mentioned him before, he was first arrested in 1934 and martyred in 1939.
He saw the rot at an early stage, and refused to co-operate with it. In Germany the Church was much more closely linked with the state, so to stand up the way he did took a lot more courage than it would for a vicar here in the C/E.
If only the Labour Party had more MPs of this calibre, ready to call out fascism, authoritarianism and hypocrisy, including in their own government.
But most prefer to collaborate. After all, it could never happen here….
Courage is scarce
The current version started with those in receipt of benefits (strivers v skivers) back when the coalition government was first in power and has moved on to immigrants and the trans community with those in receipt of benefits still being targeted and vilified.
Apologies if I have missed out other groups currently in the crosshairs.
Craig
As soon as rights don’t apply to everyone equally, they are not rights at all, but privileges. It is much easier to chip away at the privileges of some groups than to remove rights belonging to us all.
Correct
Rowan Williams column in the Guardian today reflects alot of what I feel and think around this issue. He is also careful not to mention a certain notorious individual by name thereby starving him of the oxygen of publicity.
Doesn’t F****e himself have a second passport (German?). The thought of his being thrown out of the country gave me a second or two’s much-needed light relief from the real seriousness of the issue.
🙂
The problem is, he will be deciding who goes.
Charley Faulkner and Michael Gove on radio 4 this morning worrying about ReformUK on 34% – double Tory % – both agreed the government had to ‘solve’ the migrant/asylum /boats problem if there was to be any chance of reigning Reform in – saying Farage is ‘making the political weather’.
But they were reinforcing his definition of the weather – that all the country’s problems are due to migrants. Farage getting a free ride from BBC in that the Oxford University migration observatory says that Farage’s Brexit has made it more difficult to stop migrants trying to come to UK or to return them to EU.
The small boats migrants may be a problem – but its not THE problem.
As Richard says , the list of issues that many people are suffering from: cost of basics – food ,energy, transport, renting, mortgages – would still be there if the wasn’t a single boat crossing the channel.
But no – Starmer and Badenoch happy to fight on the ground that Farage decides.
Despair
We do nit need small boats. Do a pre-vet and then issue ferry tickets. Problem solved.
What I find appalling is how Reform have been given a platform from media outlets to spout their nasty anti-migrant rhetoric. The people backing them are often those who thrive on stirring up hate in this country. We must stand by the ECHR and resist authoritarian powers trying to strip away our rights and freedoms — we don’t want to end up like Russia.
sorry to post again. But I am waiting for Farage to say we should also leave the International Criminal Court.
It has indicted Netanyahu for war crimes. Trump and Rubio have actually sanctioned two judges of the ICC. because of that. Yesterday the US denied visas for Palestinian politicians to attend the meeting of the United Nations in New York next month.
If Reform and Farage support that, we can be sure of their intended destination.
Agreed
“What Farage wants is for parliament, and not courts, to decide what rights people get.”
We have control over parliament, via the democratic process. Parliament has control over the courts by making (though not administering) the laws. Therefore Farage is proposing moving these rights closer to our own collective control as citizens. I see this as a good thing, no?
Politely, you forget he is a fascist.
Look at Trump, his role model if you want to see where this goes.
With respect, you haven’t addressed my substantive point, namely is it a good thing for any politician, Farage or otherwise, to move these rights towards parliament, where they can be more directly controlled by the electorate?
You entirely ignore the point that he is no parliamentarian. Your question is, therefore, meaningless.
Do you believe that the Human Rights Act is being frequently abused by allowing bad people to escape the consequences of their actions? Do you believe that the Human Rights Act has proven to be utterly worthless in defending actual human rights such as the right to freedom of expression?
The answers to those two questions* will provide the answer to the first.
*In case anyone is struggling, yes and yes.
Your logic is ridiculous.
Are you saying laws against murder are utterly worthless because they gave not stopped murder? It would seem so, 8n which case to be very polite, I have exposed you as an idiot.
Fascists practicing sophistry are not welcome here.
@Andrew Whittaker
On the basis of published and verifiable research, NO and NO.
https://ukandeu.ac.uk/explainers/the-uks-echr-record-how-common-are-rule-39-orders-and-how-often-is-the-uk-found-to-have-violated-rights/
It is RARE for the UK to be over-ruled by a foreign court. The majority of challenges to UK decisions FAIL or do not qualify for consideration.
(Fa***e lies blatantly and shamelessly about this because he is a lying authoritarian fascist stoking hatred snd fear based on racism)
Please do your research.
Many thanks
I wonder what Reforms view on Scottish & Welsh Independence is?
I suspect that they might not be that concerned especially if they see no chance of support there.
So I can imagine given how complex most families heritage is a lot of Reform supporters being prodded over the border at Gretna Green/Shrewsbury/Derry following a criminal conviction or facing a Pound Shop Pierrepoint (Hangman) at 8am
Oh the Irony!
Reform does not have views.
It has expedient measures.
Farage’s proposal to revoke the Human Rights Act of 1988 (with its close connections with European Convention on Human Rights and the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights) will without doubt push the Overton Window of the devolved nations further towards secession and independence.
Richard highlights the impact of Farage’s proposed “British Bill of Rights” on N Ireland where the Belfast Agreement which ended the Troubles was steered by the USA and is protected by International Treaty. With Trump’s USA lurching into constitutional chaos it’s unclear how the US Gov’t would react to UK changing the basic rights of people in N Ireland, but given that NI has the benefit of being both in the UK and the EU and of having a defined route to secession from the UK, there’s little doubt that support for unification will increase.
In Wales’s case, it is bound by English Law and therefore has less wriggle-room, but in Scotland’s case Scots Law prevails (is Farage even aware that Scotland has its own laws?). However if he were in power at Westminster and pushed his proposal through, it would be yet another case where English Law is foisted on the Scots without consultation or indeed any say in the matter (the arithmetic of Westminster’s MPs guarantees this). At this stage all of this is conjecture dependent on Farage forming a government, but he’s deeply unpopular in Scotland. He came to Edinburgh in 2013 to canvas for UKIP in a Holyrood election; here’s how he got on: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/may/16/nigel-farage-edinburgh-protesters-van (the video tells all).
Reform’s best chance in Scottish elections will be to steal far-right votes from the Tories or Labour supporters who despair about the UK Government‘s performance. The outcome will be further fragmentation of the Pro-Union vote. Meanwhile polls show SNP still comfortably ahead of pro-Union parties after 2014-weighting correction. Likewise polling for Independence after 2014 weighting correction is comfortably ahead of remaining in the UK (c55% – 45%). If Reform were to become the UK Government, that lead would increase further – such is Scotland’s opinion of Farage. In addition current polls show Scots’ preference to rejoin the EU at 71.4% (it was 62% in 2016), but if Farage were to become UK PM that percentage will go up further and, as a corollary, so would support for Independence.
Much to agree with
Farage is on record saying that he doesn’t believe in the union. He wants to see this country break apart.
Where is the record?
A growing number of leaders with fascist leanings are driving hatred toward migrants/immigrants but very few want to look into the conditions that are driving global poverty and desperation. IMF loans are still a major contributer to poverty in non western countries. “Structural adjustment” policies include privatization of core government services, cutting incomes and core public services, the removal of subsidies, increased energy pricing, wage erosion and sweeping austerity. Reporting on Sri Lanka public health expenditures represent only 1.5% GDP; five times smaller than what is allocated to repaying the debt. This is true of many other countries in the “global south” where the UN now estimates that half the worlds population now live in countries that spend more on debt interest payments than on health and education. Their interest rates are routinely several times higher than charged in western nations draining money from their societies and contributing to the migration problems then experienced by western countries in favor of global investors. We need to look at our role in the increasing migrant problem.
I wholly agree.
Remember I started in all this – and tax justice – from a development perspective.
In error I have just voted for the wrong option! Given the context of these polls probably not important. However if it were relatively easy to implement a means of revising/retracting a vote it could be corrected.
I am afraid that would cost a lot….
I pay for affordable plug ins
I just read this while reeling from learning about the deportation of Russian asylum seekers from the US back to Russia on Wednesday. I do not want this for my country.https://www.youtube.com/shorts/_57890YlQ58