Mr Farage warned that the Tory wets are in the ascendency (Image: Getty)
NIGEL Farage has warned that Robert Jenrick’s departure from the Conservatives will lead to the resurgence of pro-EU Tory wets getting back into the driving seat of the party. Speaking backstage at Reform’s rally in Mr Jenrick’s constituency this week, Mr Farage insisted that Ms Badenoch’s pledge to quit the ECHR will also be “shifted to the back” of her to-do list following the departure of her shadow cabinet colleague.
Mr Jenrick was the biggest driving force in the Tories pushing to quit the human rights treaty, quitting Mr Sunak’s government over the issue and making it a key plank of his 2024 leadership campaign. Following his sacking and defection, a number of prominent centrist pro-EU Tories said they now have the opportunity to retake control of their party, and reject moves to the hard right. In an article, prominent commentator and former Tory MP Matthew Parris said Mr Jenrick’s departure should see her offer an “olive branch towards men like Kenneth Clarke, Michael Heseltine, David Gauke, Dominic Grieve”.
Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
Mr Jenrick slammed his former party (Image: Getty)
Theresa May’s former chief of staff Lord Barwell added: “As the populists on the right abandon ship for Reform, it becomes clearer by the day where the opportunity is for Kemi Badenoch – to lead a party of the moderate centre-right.”
Former Justice Secretary Robert Buckland told the Express that he believes there is now room for the Tories to shift their policy away from leaving the ECHR to reforming it.
Mr Farage has now warned those on the right of British politics that Mr Jenrick’s defection means the Reform is the only party that can be trusted to quit the ECHR.
He said: “The standard bearer of the right of the Conservative Party – the sole standard bearer on the right, the only one with energy, the only one that understands what social media is, the only on that gets up in the morning and does a day’s work, the one whose approval rating on Thursday morning with ConHome was +60 when Kemi’s was +38 – has left.
“And that means the Matthew Parris-es, the one nationers, very much going back in charge. Since that day Rozzer’s come… there will be others
Asked if he believes she will go back on her pledge to quit the ECHR, he said: “They were never going to do it anyway! Never going to do it anyway.
“She won’t go back on it, it’ll be shifted to the back of the list of priorities.”
Ms Badenoch has insisted she will not give into the wets (Image: Getty)
Mr Jenrick agreed, telling the Express that while there are “some good people” left in the Tory Party “they are massively outnumbered by those who don’t get it or are in denial”.
“Ultimately, only Reform, led by Nigel Farage, can bring about the real change our country needs.”
However Ms Badenoch has insisted that Tory wets have misread what Mr Jenrick’s departure represents, and said there will be no change in policy as a result.
In a letter to her colleagues on Monday, the Conservative leader said the Tory centrists were “misreading” the situation, and that Mr Jenrick’s sacking was solely about his character, and not policy differences or ideology.
“We are THE party of the right and must remain so,” She wrote.
“These comments are particularly unhelpful given they come from people who actively stood against the Conservative Party in the 2019 election and themselves worked to split the centre-right vote.
“The issue right now is not about right or left, but between those who are here for public service and those who put individual ambition above all else. That is the very culture we are now fixing.”
A Reform UK source hit back: “Nearly the whole shadow cabinet publicly disavowed leaving the ECHR, including Kemi.
“After appalling failure in Government, they somehow think the public will believe their sudden conversion. They’re only saying this because they’re petrified of Reform and trying to save their own skin.”
Nigel Farage Says Only Reform Can Be Trusted to Quit ECHR After Robert Jenrick’s Defection
Nigel Farage has used Robert Jenrick’s dramatic defection from the Conservative Party to reinforce one of Reform UK’s most controversial policy commitments: taking Britain out of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Reform UK leader has repeatedly argued that leaving the ECHR is necessary to give the British government greater control over immigration and deportation policy. Following Jenrick’s move to Reform, the party intensified its criticism of the Conservatives, arguing that previous Conservative governments had promised tougher immigration measures without withdrawing from the convention.
Reform UK says it would leave the ECHR if it formed a government. The party also proposes repealing the Human Rights Act and replacing the existing framework with what it describes as a British system of rights.
The issue has become particularly significant because Jenrick was previously one of the Conservative Party’s prominent advocates of tougher immigration policy.
His defection therefore gave Farage an opportunity to argue that the Conservatives’ position on human rights law and immigration had failed to produce the changes they had promised.
Robert Jenrick’s move changes the debate
Jenrick’s departure from the Conservatives was one of the most high-profile defections to Reform UK.
In January 2026, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch dismissed Jenrick from her shadow cabinet and removed the Conservative whip after saying she had received what she described as “clear, irrefutable evidence” that he was secretly planning to defect.
Jenrick subsequently joined Reform, becoming one of the most prominent former Conservative politicians in Farage’s party.
His political background made the move especially significant.
Jenrick had served as immigration minister under the Conservatives and had been a candidate in the Conservative leadership contest. He later became shadow justice secretary under Badenoch.
His decision to leave therefore provided Reform with a politician who had direct experience of government and immigration policy.
Farage presented the move as evidence that senior Conservatives were increasingly questioning whether their party could deliver the policies it had promised.
Jenrick himself argued that the Conservatives had failed to act decisively enough while they were in government.
The ECHR at the centre
The European Convention on Human Rights is a treaty designed to protect fundamental rights and freedoms across its signatory states.
The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg hears cases concerning alleged violations of the convention after domestic remedies have generally been exhausted.
Britain helped establish the convention after the Second World War and remains a party to it.
The Conservative and Reform debate is therefore not simply about immigration.
It concerns Britain’s relationship with an international human-rights framework and the extent to which Parliament and British courts should be able to determine questions currently covered by the convention.
Reform argues that withdrawing would give the UK greater freedom to establish its own immigration rules.
Critics of withdrawal argue that the convention provides important protections for individuals and that leaving could create legal and diplomatic consequences for Britain.
The disagreement is therefore fundamentally about how rights should be protected and who should have the final authority when those rights come into conflict with government policy.
Farage’s criticism of the Conservatives
Reform’s official position is blunt.
The party argues that Conservative governments had years in office to change Britain’s immigration system but did not leave the ECHR.
Reform says this is evidence that Conservative promises to take tougher action were not matched by sufficient political action.
In a statement published by the party, Reform argued that the Conservatives had left the ECHR untouched during their period in government and that the Human Rights Act incorporated convention rights into British law.
Farage has consequently positioned Reform as the party that would actually implement the policy rather than merely discuss it.
The distinction is important politically.
The Conservatives have also discussed withdrawing from the ECHR, meaning the disagreement is not simply about whether withdrawal is desirable. It is also about whether voters believe the Conservatives would actually carry it out.
Jenrick’s own explanation
Jenrick’s defection gave Farage additional political ammunition because Jenrick had previously been inside the Conservative government.
After joining Reform, Jenrick argued that Conservative politicians had sometimes supported policies publicly while privately recognising that those policies were unlikely to work.
He referred specifically to discussions about stopping small-boat crossings.
Reform subsequently used those comments to argue that the Conservative Party had lacked the political will to implement its immigration programme.
However, Jenrick’s account is his own political interpretation of his experience inside government.
It should therefore be distinguished from independently established evidence about the motives and private views of every Conservative politician.
What is established is that Jenrick left the Conservative Party and joined Reform, and that he subsequently became an advocate for Reform’s approach.
The Conservative position
The Conservatives under Badenoch have also supported leaving the ECHR, making the issue more complicated than a simple Reform-versus-Conservative divide.
That creates an important political question.
If both parties support withdrawal, what distinguishes their positions?
Reform’s answer is that its leaders are more committed to carrying out the policy.
The party points to its pledge to leave the ECHR as part of a wider programme involving immigration, deportation and national sovereignty.
The Conservatives, meanwhile, have argued that their approach to rebuilding the party involves developing their own programme rather than simply following Reform.
The debate is therefore partly about credibility and implementation.
Suella Braverman joins the argument
The ECHR debate became even more prominent after former Conservative home secretary Suella Braverman defected to Reform.
Braverman had previously argued for Britain to leave the convention while serving as a Conservative politician.
When she joined Reform in January 2026, she criticised the Conservatives for continuing to promise withdrawal without delivering it.
She said she had been “punished” for advocating departure from the ECHR while in government and described the Conservative promise as one that voters should no longer trust.
Farage welcomed Braverman and linked her decision to his argument that former Conservative politicians were increasingly recognising the limitations of their previous party.
Her move followed Jenrick’s and brought another former senior Conservative minister into Reform.
That gave Reform two politicians with direct experience of government and strong views on immigration and human-rights law.
Why the ECHR matters to immigration policy
The convention has become particularly controversial in Britain because of disputes involving deportation, asylum and family rights.
Article 8, which protects the right to respect for private and family life, has been an important part of legal arguments in immigration cases.
Supporters of withdrawal argue that such legal protections can make deportation of foreign criminals more difficult.
Opponents argue that human-rights protections are essential safeguards and that changing the legal framework would not automatically resolve the practical problems facing the immigration system.
Leaving the ECHR would therefore not simply be a technical legal change.
It could affect immigration cases, judicial procedures, Britain’s international relationships and the way human-rights protections operate in domestic law.
The wider Reform programme
The ECHR is also part of a much broader Reform UK agenda.
The party has linked withdrawal from the convention with its proposals for controlling illegal immigration, deporting foreign criminals and changing Britain’s approach to asylum.
Farage has repeatedly argued that immigration policy should ultimately be determined by elected politicians rather than international courts.
The Reform website states that the party would leave the ECHR, repeal the Human Rights Act and return greater authority over immigration decisions to elected government.
This is consistent with Farage’s wider argument about sovereignty following Brexit.
Reform presents ECHR withdrawal as part of the same political principle: decisions affecting Britain should be made within Britain’s own constitutional system.
What would leaving actually involve?
One of the biggest questions is how withdrawal would work in practice.
A government could announce its intention to leave, but the process would involve legislation, diplomatic notification and changes to domestic law.
The European Convention is an international treaty, while the Human Rights Act is a separate piece of UK legislation that gives effect to convention rights in domestic law.
Therefore, leaving the convention and repealing the Human Rights Act are related but distinct legal steps.
The government would also need to decide what protections would replace the existing framework.
Reform has proposed a British Bill of Rights, but the precise legal structure and relationship between Parliament, courts and government would be central to any future legislation.
The political significance of Jenrick’s defection
Jenrick’s defection has therefore given the ECHR debate a new political dimension.
He was not simply another Conservative MP changing parties.
He was a former government minister and former Conservative leadership candidate who had spent years discussing immigration policy from within the Conservative movement.
His decision allowed Farage to make a straightforward argument: if someone who previously worked inside the Conservative government now believes Reform is the better vehicle for implementing tougher immigration policies, then Reform can present itself as the more committed alternative.
That remains a political argument rather than proof that every voter or Conservative politician shares Jenrick’s view.
A continuing divide on Britain’s future
The debate over the ECHR reflects a much larger disagreement about Britain’s constitutional future.
Supporters of withdrawal emphasise sovereignty, parliamentary authority and immigration control.
Opponents emphasise international cooperation, legal protections and the importance of maintaining common human-rights standards.
Both sides recognise that leaving the convention would represent a significant constitutional change.
For Reform UK, the policy is central to its political identity.
For the Conservatives, it has become an issue on which they also advocate change, while attempting to distinguish their broader political programme from Reform’s.
And for Labour, the issue forms part of a wider debate over immigration policy, human rights and Britain’s relationship with European institutions.
Farage’s message after Jenrick
Farage’s message after Jenrick’s defection is therefore clear.
He wants voters to see Reform as the party most committed to withdrawing from the ECHR and changing Britain’s approach to immigration.
Jenrick’s move provides Farage with a prominent former Conservative voice who can explain why he believes the Conservatives failed to deliver the policies they once promised.
Braverman’s subsequent defection has added another former Conservative cabinet minister to the same argument.
But the question of whether Britain should leave the ECHR ultimately involves much more than party defections.
It concerns the balance between national sovereignty and international legal commitments, the protection of individual rights, Parliament’s authority and the practical operation of Britain’s immigration system.
Reform has made its position unmistakable: it would leave the convention if it entered government.
The Conservatives have also discussed withdrawal, although the parties differ over their wider programmes and political strategy.
Jenrick’s defection has therefore intensified an argument that was already underway.
The next stage would not simply be another political announcement. It would be the detailed question of what withdrawal would mean in law, how a replacement system would operate and how the government would balance immigration control with the protection of fundamental rights.
That is ultimately where the debate over the ECHR moves beyond political slogans and into the practical details of Britain’s constitutional future.