How Keir Starmer’s ECHR proposal could reshape asylum law

European justice ministers gathered in Strasbourg on December 10 and agreed to begin the process of modernising the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), responding to increasing concerns over irregular migration and the growing influence of far-right political parties across Europe. 

The UK, led by Prime Minister Keir Starmer, is at the forefront of this push, arguing that the ECHR is no longer fit for purpose in an era of mass migration. The aim is to modify the treaty to make it easier to deport undocumented migrants, though critics warn that weakening these protections could expose vulnerable people to serious harm, according to Al Jazeera.

Starmer’s stance represents a significant shift for the UK’s Labour Party, traditionally supportive of human rights protections, particularly for migrants and refugees. The British government’s position, as outlined by Starmer, seeks to address the increasing challenges of controlling borders and reducing irregular migration. 

According to Starmer, the ECHR’s current interpretation complicates efforts to remove individuals who arrive through unauthorised channels. In particular, Article 3, which protects individuals from torture or inhuman treatment, and Article 8, which guarantees the right to family life, are seen as barriers to deportation. Starmer’s proposal to modernise these provisions would likely involve carving out exceptions or altering legal interpretations, aiming to make it easier to return migrants without strong claims for asylum or family reunification.

The UK government is not alone in its calls for reform. Other European leaders, including Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, are concerned that the ECHR, under its current framework, restricts the removal of migrants and asylum seekers, particularly those whose presence is deemed illegal. Migration experts argue that over time, the ECHR’s definitions of human rights have expanded to the point where it has become difficult for governments to carry out deportations, even in cases where human rights concerns are not acute.

This development is politically charged, as Al Jazeera writes, driven in part by rising far-right movements within Europe. In the UK, far-right parties, notably Reform UK, have been vocal in calling for a complete withdrawal from the ECHR. 

Starmer’s approach seeks to counter this pressure by advocating for a more pragmatic revision of the treaty, hoping to prevent further erosion of support for mainstream political parties. 

As Starmer and Frederiksen wrote in a joint article for The Guardian, “The best way of fighting against the forces of hate and division, is to show that mainstream, progressive politics can fix this problem.”

The potential consequences for migrants and asylum seekers in the UK are significant. If the UK and its European allies succeed in tightening the ECHR’s interpretation, many vulnerable individuals could lose crucial legal protections. In particular, those relying on Article 3 (protection from torture) and Article 8 (family life) to challenge deportations would find it harder to make their case. This shift could increase the likelihood of removals, even in situations involving complex humanitarian or family circumstances.

However, experts like Susan Fratzke from the Migration Policy Institute (MPI) caution that the ECHR’s influence on deportation decisions has often been overstated. She argues that while human rights appeals under Articles 3 and 8 can delay deportations, “fewer than 5 percent of successful appeals against returns have been on human rights grounds.” 

In fact, the public perception that the ECHR is an insurmountable barrier to deportation is largely disproportionate to the actual impact of the treaty on government policy.

In the UK, Starmer’s proposals have been met with criticism from some within his own party. Labour MPs like Nadia Whittome have condemned the shift, describing it as “morally, politically and electorally” dangerous. Whittome specifically criticised the adoption of policies that echo the far-right’s approach to immigration, particularly referencing Denmark’s strict stance on family reunification, which has been criticised for its discriminatory nature. Others, such as Clive Lewis, warned that while Labour may need to win back voters from the right, it should not do so at the cost of alienating its progressive base.

Starmer’s position reflects broader trends across Europe, where center-left governments are toughening migration policies to counter the rise of far-right parties. While some, like Denmark’s Social Democrats, have succeeded in limiting the far-right’s influence through stricter immigration policies, others, such as in France and Italy, have found that such strategies only serve to normalise far-right ideologies. The European Council on Foreign Relations’ 2023 report suggests that these tactics may contribute to, rather than diminish, the power of far-right movements.

As European leaders continue to debate the future of the ECHR, the outcome will have profound implications for both the rights of migrants and the broader political landscape in Europe. 

For now, the question remains whether Starmer’s approach will be successful in balancing migration control with human rights protections or whether it will deepen divisions within his party and across Europe.

By Sabina Mammadli