A heated debate is unfolding in Europe, with a bold call to action from Prime Minister Keir Starmer. He urges fellow European leaders to take a stand and modernize the interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). But here's where it gets controversial: Starmer suggests curbing these joint human rights laws to tackle the rise of far-right populism and protect national borders.
In a powerful statement ahead of a critical European summit, Starmer emphasizes the need to go beyond the current interpretation of the ECHR. He believes this is crucial to prevent asylum seekers from using the convention to avoid deportation, a move that has sparked condemnation from human rights advocates and some within his own party.
Critics argue that such changes could lead to vulnerable people being abandoned by their countries. They question the prime minister's motives, suggesting he's pandering to the right-wing agenda.
On the eve of the Council of Europe summit, prominent figures like Michael Palin, Stephen Fry, and Joanna Lumley joined forces to urge Starmer to reconsider his plans. They argue that weakening human rights laws is a step in the wrong direction and instead advocate for a principled stance in support of torture victims.
The proposed changes, announced by the government, aim to restrict asylum seekers' ability to claim a right to family life under the ECHR. This has prompted calls from the Conservatives and Reform UK to withdraw from the convention entirely.
Starmer, in a joint article with Danish leader Mette Frederiksen, emphasizes the urgency of updating the convention to address the challenges posed by mass migration and far-right forces. He believes that progressive politics can offer a solution to these issues.
"Listening to legitimate concerns and taking action is the essence of our democracy," Starmer writes. "We must show that our societies can balance compassion with law and order, and fairness."
The two leaders call on European allies to unite in modernizing the ECHR to reflect the complexities of the 21st century. They warn that failing to act together will only empower the forces seeking to divide them.
The UK's hardline asylum model, inspired by Denmark, has seen a significant drop in the number of people granted asylum, with last year's figures being the lowest in four decades, excluding the Covid-19 pandemic year.
At the Strasbourg meeting, Justice Secretary David Lammy and Attorney General Richard Hermer will represent the UK government, which is considering various options to update the implementation of the ECHR.
The proposed political declaration from the summit could carry significant influence over how the European Court of Human Rights interprets and applies ECHR rights.
The government has already signaled its intention to clarify the interpretation of Article 8, the right to a private life, in domestic courts regarding immigration rules. Lammy is expected to argue for a reinterpretation of Article 3, which prohibits torture and degrading treatment, to limit the scope of these rights.
This could potentially involve setting higher thresholds for prison conditions or access to healthcare abroad, currently preventing extradition or deportation from the UK.
The deputy prime minister will reaffirm the UK's commitment to the ECHR, stating that withdrawal would be a "fake solution" that undermines international agreements on national and border security.
"We must strike a balance between individual rights and the public interest," Lammy is expected to say. "The definition of 'family life' should not prevent the removal of those with no right to remain. The threshold of 'inhuman and degrading treatment' must be limited to the most serious cases. States must have the ability to make proportionate decisions on the removal of foreign criminals, thus preserving the convention's democratic foundation."
These sweeping changes to the UK asylum system come at a time when Reform UK, led by Nigel Farage, is gaining support due to public concerns over unauthorized small boat crossings in the Channel and the use of hotels to accommodate asylum seekers.
Measures proposed include forcing refugees to return to their home countries if conditions improve, requiring illegal entrants to wait 20 years before applying for permanent settlement, and revoking the statutory duty to provide support to asylum seekers, including housing and weekly allowances.
Ministers argue that the government will introduce new safe and legal routes to the UK, capping the number of dangerous small boat journeys across the Channel.
However, some Labour MPs, charities, and legal experts warn of the potential consequences if countries like the UK weaken the application of Article 3. Professor Veronika Fikfak, an international law expert at University College London, emphasizes that changing the anti-torture provisions within the ECHR "touches the very core" of the convention.
"The prohibition of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment is an absolute right," she says. "It allows for no balancing or deference to states."
As Lammy meets ministers from 45 countries to discuss potential changes, the debate over the future of the ECHR and its impact on human rights rages on. With nine member states, including Italy and Denmark, already calling for a limited scope of the convention, the outcome of these discussions could have far-reaching implications for Europe and beyond.
What do you think? Should the ECHR be modernized to address the challenges of today, or is this an attempt to undermine fundamental human rights? Share your thoughts in the comments and let's spark a meaningful discussion.
