Sir Keir Starmer’s plans to review how human rights laws are applied to asylum seekers in Britain have sparked strong reactions, with many Independent readers accusing him of becoming “Reform-lite.”
Critics argued that the prime minister, historically a staunch defender of the European Convention on Human Rights, now risks weakening protections for those fleeing torture or seeking to stay with their families.
Many warned that even minor changes could set a dangerous precedent, potentially undermining rights that everyone in Britain depends on.
Others, however, viewed the review as a practical response to rising migration, particularly record Channel crossings, and suggested it could clarify how courts interpret Articles 3 and 8 – covering “cruel and inhumane treatment” in an asylum seeker’s home country and the “right to a family life” – without removing protections entirely.
A minority of readers supported the prime minister’s approach, arguing that balancing compassion for genuine asylum seekers with the pressures of migration is necessary.
While, some also noted that aspects of the laws are now outdated and we need a more “lean, adaptive and fast-moving” approach to deal with the pressures of modern immigration.
Here’s what you had to say:
The ECHR might have to adapt
Circumstances change and the ECHR might have to adapt, but suggesting that is a far cry from what Reform and the Tories want, which is for the UK to leave it altogether. It's interesting that Starmer is highlighting that many of our irregular migration problems stem from leaving the EU. If this heralds a media campaign to highlight the downsides of Brexit, and pin the blame squarely on Farage, that would be a good move. It's about time he took the blame for this, and the more people are aware of the damage, the more they might develop an enthusiasm for rejoining.
Tanaquil2
You can't create a two-tier human rights system
"It is absolutely necessary to change the law on these four items.”
No it's not and it's a concern that people believe this. If the health secretary doesn't understand international human rights law then she should get advice from experts.
There's something called customary law meaning that even if we come out of the ECHR, certain laws will still apply – it's why Rwanda was deemed illegal.
You can't create a two-tier human rights system where rights don't apply to foreigners. It's immoral and it's a slippery slope.
You have to question why these politicians want to take away your right to challenge the government – Hillsborough anyone?
JSM
Starmer cannot change international law
Not sure I understand. Starmer cannot change international law – that is not within his remit or authority. The ECHR laws arise from the Council of Europe (COE), and all member nations must transpose this into their own national laws. They are not binding but national law must follow the principles they cover.
To follow Russia and Belarus away from COE would be a huge own goal. It would abrogate most UK/EU and UK Pan-European agreements.
UK courts cannot be ordered to disobey or ignore international laws the UK has signed up to; but the Supreme Court can and does issue guidance on applying these. So I am not clear as to what he is suggesting.
Jonathan Mills
More confusion
More confusion. If there is "mass migration" then it's mostly "legal" i.e. some of the 1.2 million in '24 who entered on visas and may or may not overstayed. Clearly 1.2 million didn't arrive on small boats!
Too many? I would imagine so. But then paying your own people to do nothing, giving only lip service to vocational training, putting education beyond the common pocket and into private hands all seem daft to me. There again, successive governments have done all these.
ouleejit
Driving a coach and horses through the Modern Slavery Act
It is a very misleading statement as he can't do anything unilaterally. What seems to be the plan is driving coach and horses through the Modern Slavery Act, from that famous left-winger Theresa May. Good grief! May is "too woke" for Labour now.
Good luck with finding an agreement between 40-odd countries from the ECHR to roll back protection because you can't get a grip on the "small boats" and "illegals".
The EU has agreed a change in procedure when it comes to claiming asylum inside the EU. But you left in a huff. And asylum numbers have come down in the EU. And people are protective of their rights, by and large. Only in England is there the discussion of paring back rights.
Leftyandproud
Laws must reflect circumstances of the day
Laws must reflect the circumstances of the day and move fleetly to deal with issues on the ground. National and international law has shown itself to be sclerotic when faced with unprecedented immigration to the West.
We appear helpless to the threats of Russian and Chinese influence on our infrastructure and institutions. British judges and politicians as well as present-day laws appear stuck in the past and incapable of protecting our country from crime of all natures.
We need a lean, adaptive and fast-moving approach to cope with British crime or the one million that gathered in London recently will become five million.
roger
More tosh
Yet more tosh from the PM. Legal migration is down to the government of the day and deliberate decisions were made to increase the number of immigrants allowed to work here. Both the Tories and Labour are complicit in this.
Illegal migration via the small boats has increased as all other routes have been shut down. And Starmer, like Sunak before him, hasn't got the guts to do the necessary, which is to immediately send every boat arriving here from France back to France. The people smugglers’ business model would be destroyed within weeks.
Noverngit1
I’m sick of waiting for Labour to be left wing
I’m sick of waiting for Labour to be a tiny bit left wing. Labour is Starmer, Reeves, Cooper and Blair. There isn’t a war they haven’t liked the look of or a benefit they haven’t supported cutting. Or for that matter a multinational they haven't given sweeteners to in exchange for funding.
For decades members have supported PR but they fully supported the two-party system and still do. If you are not a fan of that brand of politics then forget them.
ficklepickle
Starmer is “Reform Lite”
Starmer rather fights Reform by being "Reform Lite" than by being "Labour heavy". I think it is because when somebody told him: "It's the ECONOMY " he had to answer: "Yes, but I haven't got a clue how to tackle that. So I cobble with token measures, just like the Tories did and Reform would do."
RebootedyetagainHans2
This proves Labour cannot solve immigration
This announcement just proves how impossible it is for Starmer and the Labour Party to actually solve the immigration issue. This isn't a bold new policy; it's a hesitant "review" that will be hamstrung by the very people in his own party.
He's trying to talk tough, but he's surrounded by Trotskyists, Stalinists, hardline unionists, and left-wing ideologues for whom open borders is a fundamental creed. His own Attorney General is already reported to be strongly opposed to any real change.
His job is like herding cats. He can't do what is required because his party will never allow it. While he's talking about reviewing interpretations, the British people are watching record numbers cross the Channel.
He will never go far enough to appease the public because he is a prisoner of his own coalition. This "dramatic U-turn" is just political theatre. The will of the people demands action, not more reviews destined to be watered down by the left-wing fringe that holds the real power in his party.
Thomas
