🔴 LABOUR’S RADICAL REFORMS ARE STRONG — BUT ECHR EXIT WOULD GIVE THEM TEETH

For the first time, a British government has openly declared that refugees and asylum seekers should no longer be treated, in law or in practice, as future permanent citizens.

The direction of travel is unmistakable: immigration is to become temporary, conditional, revocable, and deliberately less attractive than it has been for fifty years.

Gone is the assumption that anyone granted protection will, within five years, be on a conveyor belt to settlement, British passport in hand, full access to benefits, and the automatic right to bring over spouses and children. In its place come 30-month permits that can be cancelled the moment the Home Office decides the danger has passed. Family reunion becomes a rare privilege that must be earned through years of work and self-sufficiency. Housing and cash support shift from automatic entitlements to discretionary assistance. The clear signal: if your claim fails, you leave quickly, and the state will no longer subsidise a prolonged wait.

In short, Britain has finally adopted the core philosophy that the Danish Social Democrats have applied since 2019: refugees are guests, not future citizens, and the state’s duty is to protect them only for as long as protection is strictly necessary.

For anyone who has followed the issue for the last decade, the moment feels historic. This is the model that drove spontaneous asylum applications in Denmark down to their lowest level since the 1980s. And for the first time, a British Home Secretary is standing at the despatch box and saying, quite openly: “We want what they have.” Credit where it is due – Labour have moved a very long way, very fast.

And yet one name from the recent past keeps returning to the centre of the debate: Robert Jenrick.

Because long before Labour embraced Denmark, Jenrick was the lone candidate during the 2024 Conservative leadership contest who said the quiet part out loud: none of this will deliver Danish results while Britain remains fully bound by the European Convention on Human Rights as interpreted since the Human Rights Act.

He was dismissed as extreme. “Unnecessary.” “There are ways to make the ECHR work for us.” Even Kemi Badenoch, who went on to win that contest, kept her distance at the time. She is noticeably warmer now.

The reason is simple. The closer you look at Labour’s proposals, the clearer it becomes that Jenrick’s diagnosis was right all along.

Labour hopes to “rebalance” Article 8 – the right to family and private life – through tough new primary legislation. That will be a bruising fight, but it is probably achievable.

Article 3, however, is different. It is absolute. No balancing test, no public-interest override, no derogation. If a judge rules there is a “real risk” of torture or degrading treatment, removal becomes illegal. Full stop.

It is Article 3 that has made it practically impossible to deport more than a handful of the 11,000 foreign national offenders currently in prison or on licence.
It is Article 3 that killed the Rwanda scheme.
And unless something fundamental changes, it is Article 3 that will kill every future “return hub” or “safe third country” agreement.

Denmark can operate on the edge because it never incorporated the Convention into domestic law in the same rigid way. Danish parliaments can, and do, pass laws that contradict Strasbourg jurisprudence, and Danish courts will apply Danish law. Britain cannot. Tony Blair’s 1998 Act ensured that Strasbourg rulings override domestic legislation.

Labour’s own document quietly admits the problem. Buried in the text, it identifies the “expanded interpretation of Article 3” as the single biggest obstacle to higher removal rates, and promises to seek “international reform” with Nordic partners.

Translation: we have no domestic lever to pull.

Which means this week’s announcement does something unexpected. Rather than sidelining the ECHR question, Labour’s reforms bring it to the forefront. The policy destination is now broadly agreed across the political spectrum: fewer spontaneous arrivals, rapid processing, temporary protection, swift removals. The argument is no longer about what to do, but how to make it legally possible.

And that is where Jenrick’s argument becomes unavoidable.

As he has long maintained, without leaving – or fundamentally renegotiating – the ECHR framework, Britain cannot fully take back control of its borders. Labour’s plan is radical, serious and overdue, but it still stops short of the one step that makes the Danish model actually work.

So the conversation we should now be having is not “Will Labour’s plan work?”
It is: “How much longer are we prepared to let an unreformed 1950 treaty, incorporated in an unusually rigid way by Tony Blair, stop us doing what every voter has demanded for fifteen years?”

Everything else is noise.

Well, that’s all for now. But until our next article, please stay tuned, stay informed, but most of all stay safe, and I’ll see you then.