Great Britain is facing a crisis in the English Channel. Recently, the number of unpermitted migrants crossing from France to England in small boats hit the milestone of 30,000 in record time, including over a thousand on one day in September. That is more people than live in many English villages. The political response so far has been feeble. The Labour government has vowed to dismantle the people-smuggling networks that ferry migrants, but it is wishful thinking to believe that the problem can be resolved so easily when these networks span not only countries but whole continents. The last Conservative government made similar vows, but left office without delivering.
The impasse has allowed the insurgent Reform UK led by Nigel Farage, an ally of President Donald Trump, to tap into public anxieties over porous borders. Founded less than a decade ago, the party now consistently ranks first in surveys. Reform promises to deport 600,000 migrants over its parliamentary term, to withdraw Britain from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and to scrap the 1998 Human Rights Act (HRA) by replacing it with a “British Bill of Rights.” Critics have framed this proposal as a veiled fascist plan to take away the human rights of ordinary British citizens, pointing out that Russia and Belarus are the only non-signatories in Europe.
“The rights of citizens to security and social cohesion must take precedence.”
But the reality is that the current human-rights framework and asylum process are not fit for purpose, because they prioritize the individual rights of foreign nationals over the collective security of British citizens. The ECHR, a supranational international treaty which is incorporated into British law through the HRA, is described by critics as an obstacle to border security and public safety, both of which are the responsibility of the Home Office (the UK’s interior ministry). Against the backdrop of a worrying lack of public confidence in the judicial system, recent court rulings have revealed just how inadequate the ECHR framework is when it comes to protecting the interests of law-abiding British citizens. For instance, back in June 2022, the European Court of Human Rights grounded a flight which was deporting asylum seekers (in the eyes of many, illegal migrants) from Britain to Rwanda under a “migration partnership” between the two governments. This dramatic 11th-hour intervention seemed to vindicate those who believe the ECHR is meddling inappropriately in the political affairs of its signatories.
It was once the case that many of these concerns could be waved away with the mere accusation of “racism.” But Reform’s surging popularity should force a serious conversation about what a new human-rights framework might look like. While the details must be discussed at a societal level, there can be some clear guiding principles based on what is and is not working with the status quo. The current legal settlement tends to prioritize individual rights over public institutions having a fundamental duty to remove threats to the safety and well-being of the wider public. This means that judges often end up privileging the claims of foreign nationals, including those who have broken the law, over the collective security of law-abiding British citizens. A new framework would seek to restore balance.
There is also a strong case for a reformed legal arrangement of “national preference.” In other words, the rights of citizens to security and social cohesion must take precedence over the claims of non-citizens. This should include “protective” measures that would give public authorities not just the power but the duty to prevent crime and disorder linked to immigration and asylum. Finally, a British human rights framework would also offer the ability to adequately balance rights with responsibilities, whether it is the expectation that foreign nationals behave appropriately in the host country where they are seeking asylum, or the duty of public authorities to remove them as swiftly as possible if they fail to do so.
Leaving the ECHR comes with both political and legal risks. But doing so would make it easier for a future government to improve on a human-rights framework that is far too protective of the individual rights of foreign nationals, and does not adequately account for collective safety, social cohesion, and public order. There are no easy solutions when it comes to addressing the small-boats emergency. But politics will eventually force a radical reordering of our existing legal architecture. Internationalist governance will—and should—give way to the democratic desire for national preference.