Does the European Convention on Human Rights need reforming?

Your article on reforms to the European Convention on Human Rights inadequately addressed three considerations regarding the Chisinau political declaration that is currently being negotiated (“Heading off ECHRexit”, April 4th). First, the “freedom” that member states want to interpret as they see fit of Article 3 (protection from torture and degrading treatment) and Article 8 (the right to a private and family life) is a direct challenge to judicial independence. When political guidelines dictate the boundaries of protection from torture or the right to family life, the judiciary ceases to be an independent arbiter and becomes an instrument of policy.

Second, hierarchising rights holders by limiting protections for specific groups, starting with migrants, sends a chilling message to all Europeans that human rights are not inherent, but depend on politics. Third, it is an illusion that migration challenges can be solved by weakening legal protections. Such measures will do nothing to tackle the drivers of migration but are likely to weaken the European legal order.

As the discussions on the declaration proceed, states need to be evidence-based and wary of the unintended consequences of their actions.

Michael O’Flaherty
Commissioner for Human Rights
Council of Europe
Strasbourg

Your portrayal of post-Brexit farming policy bears little resemblance to the reality experienced by most farmers (“Into the promised land”, March 28th). Setting aside The Economist’s consistent Ricardian contention that food production is best offshored, the current situation in England is not a model: it is a warning.

The crucial shift is that under the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy, subsidies underpinned farm viability, accounting for around 60% of profits and buffering volatile markets. England’s new policy, of paying farmers only for income forgone in delivering environmental benefits, covers costs but not livelihoods, leaving a structural gap in most farm finances. Meanwhile, the true value of those “public goods” remains unpriced.

Worse, the support budget has been frozen since 2014 in real terms and was exhausted by March 2025, excluding around half of farms. Private investment in nature has been extremely limited despite government aspirations. The result is visible. In 2024-25 a record 6,365 farm businesses closed their gates.

At a time of geopolitical and climatic instability, neglecting the economic foundations of food and farming is a risky experiment. A resilient farming sector is not a luxury but a necessity, for food security, the rural economy and the environment.

Joe Stanley
Head of sustainable farming
Allerton Project
Loddington, Northamptonshire

You rightly applaud the government for slashing traditional farm subsidies in England and redirecting money to environmental activities. More important for British consumers are the wider international changes that are taking place.

History tells us what might happen if domestic food-production declines to the level experienced for 100 years before the second world war at a time when global geopolitics is proving to be unstable and protectionism is on the rise. Equally important are the growing wealth and attendant dietary changes in the Far East, where domestic production cannot meet demand. Patterns of trade are changing fast and traditional suppliers find Britain a less attractive market.

Without maintaining a reasonably high level of self-reliance, British supermarkets will struggle to attain the resilience the government wants without food inflation continuing to outstrip that of our neighbours.

Politicians will need to recognise that in a competitive world, cheap food supplies are considered by consumers to be as much of a public good as sorely needed environmental change and the rebuilding of biodiversity.

Nicholas Saphir
Former chair
Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board
Wadhurst, East Sussex

It is indeed true that England can take the lead in demonstrating how to support farming in a way that benefits growers, consumers and the environment. This opportunity is further strengthened by the ability to adopt technologies such as gene editing ahead of our continental neighbours, another rare Brexit dividend.

However, as much as I welcome your optimism, the premise that the farming industry is currently in a position of strength does not reflect reality. The recent Farming Profitability Review by Baroness Minette Batters found that only 8% of farms in England remained in the high‑performance band over a five‑year period. For a farming business to be economically sustainable, it must be able to support a family and allow reinvestment. For a typical farm of 140 hectares, the report indicates that profits of around £34,500 ($46,800) per year are required. It is sobering that around 50% of all farms fall below this level.

The opportunity to benefit from the new approach to farming support, and from the access to world‑class innovation, is real. But to seize it we must start with profitable farming businesses. Otherwise, we will have the right environmental schemes and the most advanced technologies, but nowhere to apply them.

Professor Mario Caccamo
Chief executive
National Institute of Agricultural Botany
Cambridge

Britain’s farming policies are far from what is needed. It is tragic to see a vast field of monoculture ryegrass with some bird-friendly planting on the edges. Or bare earth where winter rain washes scarce topsoil away, leaving cracked dirt by early spring. This is not resilient and climate change will treat it harshly.

The right goal would be based on the government’s signature at COP21 in 2015 to achieve “4 per 1,000”, a global carbon-sequestration rate that would negate the climate crisis. Its importance is highlighted by a Joint Intelligence Services’ report from earlier this year, which found that all key ecosystems are on pathways to collapse. The right solution is proper transition pathways, which thousands of climate-change scientists have recommended.

These need a minimum of eight to ten years commitment with milestone outcomes. While providing for farm diversity and farmer choices, these include transitioning to no-till, no fertilisers, no herbicides and no pesticides, while adding things such as a light cultivator, rich meadow leys, pasture-fed animals and compost teas. We have seen that this would transform farm economies, resilience and ecosystem outcomes while improving food. It must be partnered with a progressive but urgent change in food culture, and fair pricing for farmers.

The problem is political not technical, but crisis needs brave vision, not partial sight.

Angus Jenkinson
Councillor for regenerative agricultures and ecology
Cotswold District Council
Moreton-in-Marsh, Gloucestershire

Ovid’s influence extends beyond traditional artists (“Man of myth”, March 28th). The Roman poet’s enduring relevance continues into contemporary music. In “Why Bob Dylan Matters”, Richard Thomas, a professor of classics at Harvard who specialises in Greek and Roman literature, documents how the songwriter “long ago joined the company of these ancient poets. He is part of that classical stream whose spring starts out in Greece and Rome and flows on down through the years, remaining relevant today and incapable of being contained by time or place.”

Mr Harris includes references to Mr Dylan’s work that came directly from Ovid. For example, more than 30 lines of Ovid’s exile poems were woven into the songs in “Modern Times”. The book explains how Ovid in exile compared himself to Odysseus, and how Mr Dylan expressed his connection to Odysseus by concluding his Nobel lecture in 2017 with, “Sing in me, oh Muse, and through me tell the story.”

Lexington’s column on Donald Trump’s ballroom project was solid, sensible and infuriatingly accurate (April 11th). The president’s ultimate middle finger to the people of the United States in general and DC in particular is found in the dirt that has to be excavated. That dirt has to go somewhere and Mr Trump has chosen a golf course in East Potomac Park (or Hains Point) as a good place to dump it. The golf course belongs to the National Park Service, dates from 1921 and offers the lowest green fees in the region. It is not for the elite. It now includes a pile of dirt perhaps 30 feet high, 50 feet wide and 100 yards long. More collateral damage in Trump’s insatiable quest for personal glory.

Pat Fleming
Washington, DC

Bartleby’s guide to email opening lines (March 7th) took a dig at people who still refer to e-cards and e-commerce. I too am old enough to remember those terms. There was also “netizen”. Whatever happened to it? Maybe, when the internet was young it was appealing to adopt netizenship. We need a new term for being a responsible netizen. Good e-maritan? Law-abiding netigrant?