On December 10, 2025, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer faced a pivotal moment at Prime Minister’s Questions as the debate over the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) reached a fever pitch. The issue at hand? Whether the ECHR, the backbone of Britain’s Human Rights Act, needs a modern overhaul to address the mounting challenge of illegal migration—a topic that has divided the nation’s political landscape and stirred passions across Europe.
Just hours before the House of Commons convened for the high-stakes session, European justice ministers, including UK Deputy Prime Minister and Justice Secretary David Lammy, gathered in Strasbourg, France. Their mission was clear: to discuss how the ECHR is interpreted in the courts, especially in cases involving the deportation of illegal migrants. According to BBC, the 46 member states of the Council of Europe agreed to negotiate a new approach to the ECHR, aiming to make it easier to remove those who have entered their countries unlawfully.
The summit in Strasbourg marked the start of a process that could lead to one of the most significant reforms in the 75-year history of the convention. Ministers are now working towards a political declaration to be adopted at a summit in May 2026—a declaration that could directly influence how the European Court of Human Rights interprets the treaty. As Alain Berset, head of the Council of Europe, put it, "It was the start of a process, on a consensus basis, because it is the only way to make some progress." He stressed that while countries are not currently calling for the treaty itself to be rewritten, past political declarations have paved the way for practical change on shared challenges.
The ECHR, established after World War II to protect basic rights and freedoms, has become a flashpoint in Britain’s immigration debate. Critics, especially from the Conservative and Reform UK parties, argue that the convention—particularly Article 8, which protects the right to family life—has become a legal barrier to deporting illegal migrants. Both parties have pledged that, if elected, they would pull the UK out of the treaty altogether. Kemi Badenoch, a prominent Conservative, has insisted that leaving the ECHR is "a necessary step to protect our borders, our veterans and our citizens."
However, Starmer’s Labour government has firmly rejected the idea of withdrawal. Instead, they advocate for "modernising" the ECHR and changing how it is interpreted by judges in British courts. Labour’s approach seeks to strike a balance between upholding individual rights and addressing public concerns about migration. As Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy told his European counterparts in Strasbourg, "We must strike a careful balance between individual rights and the public’s interest, otherwise, we risk a loss of confidence in the convention, and in human rights themselves."
Starmer’s government has already announced plans to restrict the ability of asylum seekers to use the "right to family life" as a shield against deportation. According to BBC, Labour intends to legislate domestically so that social, cultural, and family ties of foreign criminals are given "less weight" in removal decisions. The talks in Strasbourg also addressed Article 3 of the ECHR, which bans inhumane treatment. Twenty-seven ECHR countries, including the UK, now want the concept of inhumane treatment to be "constrained to the most serious issues"—a move designed to give states more leeway in deporting foreign criminals while maintaining basic human rights protections.
The push for reform has not come out of nowhere. In May 2025, nine Council of Europe members, led by Italy and Denmark, penned a letter calling for changes to the ECHR. While the UK did not sign the letter, it has been lobbying behind the scenes for talks on reform. The growing sense of urgency is fueled by the political fallout from rising migration, particularly the surge in small boat crossings of the English Channel. Labour’s poll ratings have taken a hit since the general election, with Nigel Farage’s Reform UK gaining ground by promising tougher action on immigration.
In a joint article published ahead of the Strasbourg meeting, Starmer and Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen warned that the ECHR’s current interpretation must change to allow governments to "get a grip" on migration and prevent voters from turning to "the forces that seek to divide us." Starmer echoed this sentiment in Parliament, arguing that "urgent changes" to the ECHR are needed to defeat "the forces of hate and division" across Europe.
But not everyone is on board with the proposed changes. Amnesty International UK has sharply criticized the UK’s push to lead ECHR reforms, describing it as a weakening of vital protections. Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey also opposes leaving or diluting the ECHR, insisting that the convention "upholds our freedom" and that changing or abandoning it "would do nothing to stop the boats or fix our broken immigration system." Supporters of the ECHR maintain that claims about its role in migration cases are often exaggerated, arguing that the real barriers to effective migration management lie elsewhere in the system.
The debate has exposed deep divisions not just between parties, but within the broader public. For some, the ECHR represents an outdated constraint that prevents the UK from responding robustly to modern migration challenges. For others, it is a vital safeguard against government overreach and a bulwark for human dignity.
Wednesday’s meeting in Strasbourg may not have produced immediate changes, but it set the stage for months of negotiations that could reshape the future of human rights law in Europe. As Alain Berset cautioned, "Let us start doing a good job, and then we will see what it means as a conclusion." The outcome of these talks—and the political declaration expected in May—will determine whether the ECHR can adapt to the pressures of a changing world without sacrificing the principles it was designed to protect.
For now, Starmer’s government remains committed to staying in the ECHR while seeking reforms to address migration concerns. The coming months will test whether consensus can be forged among Europe’s diverse political leaders—and whether the ECHR can remain both relevant and respected in an era of rapid change.
