Why Leaving the ECHR is One Way to Stop the Lawfare Against Operation Banner Veterans

The law has been twisted into a weapon, turning the very concept of rights into a cudgel against those who upheld them. Strasbourg’s overreach is one of the engines of this injustice.

For more than half a century, Operation Banner defined the British Army’s longest continuous deployment. Soldiers were sent into Northern Ireland to hold the line in a conflict that pitted them against ruthless paramilitary groups while demanding they operate under the rule of law. Thousands paid with their lives or were scarred in body and mind. Yet decades later, those who served are being pursued again — not on the streets of Belfast or Londonderry, but in courtrooms.

This phenomenon has a name: lawfare. The steady weaponisation of the law against veterans has seen long-settled cases reopened, soldiers investigated again and again for incidents that occurred in the fog of the Troubles, and ageing men dragged from retirement to face prosecutions while the terrorist gunmen they fought against walk free under early-release schemes.

At the heart of this imbalance is the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), or more precisely, the ever-expanding reach of the Strasbourg Court. Article 2 of the Convention — the right to life — has been interpreted to mean repeated, intrusive investigations into historical deaths. What was intended as a guarantee against arbitrary killing has become the legal lever for dragging veterans through endless inquiries, long after domestic justice processes had run their course.

Against this backdrop, the question arises: could the UK’s withdrawal from the ECHR be one way of drawing a line under this injustice?

Straw v. Starmer

Last week brought a surprising twist. The Times (31/8/25) reported that Jack Straw, Labour’s home secretary when the Good Friday Agreement was signed in 1998, endorsed a Policy Exchange report that declared the claim linking ECHR membership to the Agreement “entirely groundless”.

Straw, no Brexiteer or right-wing firebrand, stated plainly that “nothing in the Belfast Agreement rules it out as a viable course of action.” While he is not himself calling for withdrawal, his intervention punctures the line taken by Keir Starmer, who insists the peace process depends on the Convention.

This matters. Starmer is fond of invoking 1998 to defend Strasbourg, but Straw was actually in the Cabinet room when the Agreement was struck. His testimony carries weight. If even the man who helped deliver the settlement believes ECHR membership is not a condition of peace, the prime minister’s argument begins to look threadbare.

Straw’s remarks also put him at odds with the government’s official position. Ministers repeat that the ECHR “underpins” the Agreement, while Reform UK pledges to leave the Convention within six months of taking office. Now, one of Labour’s own elder statesmen has made clear that withdrawal would not breach Britain’s obligations to Northern Ireland.

What the Agreement Actually Says

The Good Friday Agreement is not a single document but two interlocking accords. The first, the British-Irish Agreement, is a treaty between London and Dublin. The second, the Multi-Party Agreement, is a political pact between the governments and Northern Irish parties.

The treaty element is silent on the ECHR. It makes solemn commitments about Northern Ireland’s constitutional future and about respecting rights, but nowhere does it bind either the UK or Ireland to permanent Convention membership. Indeed, the treaty notes that both states were then partners in the European Union — yet no one argues that Brexit breached the Agreement.

The Multi-Party Agreement does refer to the ECHR, but only in a narrow way. The references relate to ensuring that Northern Ireland’s devolved Assembly and public bodies cannot abuse power. To that end, the UK incorporated the Convention into Northern Irish law via the Human Rights Act 1998. This was about safeguarding local governance, not binding Westminster forever to Strasbourg’s jurisdiction.

As the Policy Exchange report underlines, the UK’s obligations can be honoured by maintaining those domestic safeguards — whether through the existing Act or a Northern Ireland-specific Bill of Rights. Nothing requires the continued involvement of the Strasbourg Court.

Strasbourg’s Mission Creep

The real problem is not the text of the Convention but the Strasbourg Court’s expansive interpretation of it. What began as a post-war guarantee against state tyranny has evolved into a supranational judiciary that inserts itself into matters far removed from its founders’ intent.

In the Northern Ireland context, Strasbourg’s rulings have turned Article 2 into a perpetual mandate for historic investigations. Cases closed decades ago are prised open again and again, forcing soldiers to relive split-second decisions made under fire. The terrorists who set bombs and fired from behind civilian shields are rarely pursued with the same zeal. The asymmetry is glaring: the state is held to ever-higher standards, while those who waged war against it enjoy effective impunity.

This imbalance fuels resentment among veterans and the wider public. It corrodes faith in the justice system and distorts the moral ledger of the Troubles. Worse still, it risks rewriting history — portraying those who upheld law and order as villains while excusing or even legitimising the actions of the paramilitaries.

Why Withdrawal Would Help

Withdrawal from the ECHR would not abolish human rights in the UK. Rights are already protected in domestic law and could be preserved in Northern Ireland in line with the Good Friday Agreement’s spirit. What withdrawal would do is remove the Strasbourg Court from the equation. No longer would ageing veterans be dragged through endless cycles of inquiry at the Court’s behest.

Ending Strasbourg’s jurisdiction would allow Parliament and domestic courts to decide how to balance the demands of justice with the passage of time, the reliability of evidence, and the need for reconciliation. It would close down the legal merry-go-round that has made “lawfare” a permanent threat.

This is not the only way to address lawfare. Parliament could legislate for statutes of limitation, tailored amnesties, or other bespoke legacy mechanisms. But without leaving the ECHR, all such domestic measures remain vulnerable to challenge in Strasbourg. Withdrawal is therefore not the sole answer, but it is a necessary one if any solution is to stick.

Time to End the Lawfare

Operation Banner veterans did not seek this fight. They were sent by Parliament to serve in a conflict not of their making, asked to act with restraint against those who recognised no law. Decades later, they should not be hounded through the courts while the architects of terror enjoy liberty.

The law has been twisted into a weapon, turning the very concept of rights into a cudgel against those who upheld them. The ECHR, through Strasbourg’s overreach, is one of the engines of this injustice. Withdrawal from it is not an act of bad faith toward the Good Friday Agreement. It is one way — and perhaps the most decisive way — to restore balance, close the door on endless prosecutions, and honour the men and women who served.

It is time — past time — to end the lawfare.