ONLY through shared institutions, mutual rules and a value-based approach to foreign affairs can states build and maintain the policy frameworks needed to promote democracy and human rights at home and abroad.

The international community often functions as its own conscience to police the common values we laud.

The horrors of war we now see from Russia’s failed invasion of Ukraine have brought home very clearly the consequences for shared security when that collective conscience begins to fray, through neglect, ignorance or malice.

Countries that violate democratic norms and international law pay in consequences – either militarily, economically or diplomatically; with hard and soft power alike.

Russia is now experiencing the might of heavy economic sanctions, diplomatic isolation and the vast array of donated military equipment to aid Ukraine in its existential fight.

A tried and tested method for maintaining peace and democracy across Europe is the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Admittedly, not exactly a name which rolls off the tongue, yet it is a body of text which guarantees many of our rights today – rights which the UK Government seems intent on rolling back further.

In yet another pointless broadside at the EU, we heard talk this week about the Prime Minister threatening to once again pull the UK out of the ECHR.

READ MORE: Experts put cost of Rishi Sunak's reshuffle as high as £100 million

Never mind the fact that it is the Council of Europe (a separate body to the EU) which is largely responsible for enforcing the convention – it’s once again the Tories playing to the far right of their party, instead of actually running the country.

But why does the convention matter? As the name suggests, it is an international convention which aims to protect human rights and political freedoms in Europe.

Drafted by the newly formed states of the Council of Europe in 1950, the convention entered into force on September 3, 1953.

The convention has several articles covering the right to life, prohibition of torture, a right to a fair trial, privacy, freedom of thought, conscience and religion and several other rights which we would now consider basic and universal.

A few years later, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) was set up to rule on individual or state applications, with judgements binding on the 46 Council of Europe member states who have ratified the convention.

Although it might be hard to believe, given the Brexiteers’ rhetoric, the UK actually played a key role in bringing together this international treaty.

As well as being one of the primary states which drafted the convention it was also one of the first to ratify it in 1951.

The UK gets a lot (and I mean, A LOT) of things wrong, but in bringing together this international treaty across a war-torn continent, the UK actually did something right for once.

Not that any of that matters now to the wailing Brexiteers.

In seeking the purest form of Brexit “sovereignty”, it is not enough to merely leave the EU but now they want to withdraw us from the convention even though – and I cannot stress this enough – the ECtHR is not the same thing as the EU.

Given that Putin’s Russia also withdrew from the convention last year, it’s hardly an example the UK should look to follow.

Yet it seems the UK Government will press on regardless. A pet project of the (as of the time of writing) Justice Minister and Deputy Prime Minister is the creation of a British Bill of Rights.

Quite what additional human rights you might gain remains staggeringly unclear; the rights you could potentially lose remain staggeringly frightening.

We should absolutely be wary of governments looking to minimise scrutiny of their international obligations – even more so when those promises include some of the most basic and fundamental rights we enjoy in our democracies.

The UK Government cannot and should not have carte blanche here – and if they were genuine about their desire to strengthen human rights, there is nothing in the ECHR which prevents the “floor” of standards from being improved upon.

READ MORE: SNP MP: De facto independence referendum plan 'deficient'

After all, withdrawing from the convention means that we will no longer be able to appeal to the ECHR. In the past year alone, this would have meant the UK would have succeeded in deporting migrants to Rwanda.

In my own situation, I am part of a cross-party and civic group which is taking forward a case about the UK’s failure to safeguard our elections and democracy by refusing to implement the recommendations of the UK’s Russia Report in full.

Concerns over our removal transcend party – many Conservative MPs have already voiced their uneasiness about the UK Government’s persistence on this matter.

For my part, I will continue to work with my SNP colleagues – and those across the House – to oppose this daft and dangerous course of action, which may end up costing us all dearly.