Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer called late Tuesday for a reform of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) as European nations move to get tougher on migration. “The current asylum framework was created for another era. In a world with mass mobility, yesterday’s answers do not work. We will always protect those fleeing war and terror — but the world has changed and asylum systems must change with it,” Frederiksen and Starmer wrote in a joint op-ed for The Guardian. “Today, millions are on the move not only because their lives are in danger, but because they want a better future. If we fail to take account of this, we would fail the needs of genuine refugees and the communities that for too long have been asked to absorb rapid change,” they added. Their appeal takes on added significance after the EU overhauled its migration rules on Monday, which made Denmark’s tough approach to migration a standard for the bloc. Establishment political groups across Europe are struggling to deal with the rise of anti-migration parties, which have used the issue as electoral rocket fuel in recent years. Europe’s justice and home affairs ministers signed off on new policies that let EU countries deport unsuccessful asylum applicants, establish offshore processing centers and create removal hubs beyond EU territory. The U.K. overhauled its asylum system in a similar direction last month. Representatives from around 40 of the 46 Council of Europe members are expected to attend a meeting Wednesday on migration in Strasbourg. The Council of Europe — the continent’s leading human rights organization — wants to counter the narrative that the ECHR is standing in the way of action on migration, including returns. In May, 9 countries signed a letter calling for the ECHR — which came into force in 1953 — to be reinterpreted to allow migrants who commit crimes to be expelled more easily. “This is our chance to bring that discussion where it belongs — within the walls of the Council of Europe — and to chart a way forward,” the organization’s boss Alain Berset told POLITICO’s Brussels Playbook. Zoya Sheftalovich contributed to this report.

BRUSSELS — After years of being treated as an outlier for its hardline stance on migration, Denmark says it has finally brought the rest of the EU on board with its tough approach. Europe’s justice and home affairs ministers on Monday approved new measures allowing EU countries to remove failed asylum seekers, set up processing centers overseas and create removal hubs outside their borders — measures Copenhagen has long advocated. The deal was “many years in the making,” said Rasmus Stoklund, Denmark’s center-left minister for integration who has driven migration negotiations during his country’s six-month presidency of the Council of the EU. Stoklund told POLITICO that when he first started working on the migration brief a decade ago in the Danish parliament, his fellow left-wingers around the bloc viewed his government’s position as so egregious that “other social democrats wouldn’t meet with me.” Over the last few years, “there’s been a huge change in perception,” Stoklund said. When the deal was done Monday, the “sigh of relief” from ministers and their aides was palpable, with people embracing one another and heaping praise on both the Danish brokers and Ursula von der Leyen’s European Commission that put forward the initial proposal, according to a diplomat who was in the room. Sweden’s Migration Minister Johan Forssell, a member of the conservative Moderate party, told POLITICO Monday’s deal was vital “to preserve, like, any public trust at all in the migration system today … we need to show that the system is working.” Stockholm, which has in the past prided itself on taking a liberal approach to migration, has recently undergone a Damascene conversion to the Danish model, implementing tough measures to limit family reunification, tightening rules around obtaining Swedish citizenship, and limiting social benefits for new arrivals. Forssell said the deal was important because “many people” around Europe criticize the EU over inaction on migration “because they cannot do themselves what [should be done] on the national basis.” The issue, he said, is a prime example of “why there must be a strong European Union.” SEALING THE DEAL Monday’s deal — whose impact will “hopefully be quite dramatic,” Stoklund said — comes two years after the EU signed off on a new law governing asylum and migration, which must be implemented by June. Voters have “made clear to governments all over the European Union, that they couldn’t accept that they weren’t able to control the access to their countries,” Stoklund said. “Governments have realized that if they didn’t take this question seriously, then [voters] would back more populist movements that would take it seriously — and use more drastic measures in order to find new solutions.” Stockholm has recently undergone a Damascene conversion to the Danish model, implementing tough measures to limit family reunification, tightening rules around obtaining Swedish citizenship, and limiting social benefits for new arrivals. | Henrick Montgomery/EPA Migration Commissioner Magnus Brunner, the Danish Council presidency and ministers were at pains to point out that Monday’s agreement showed the EU could get deals done. After the last EU election in 2024, the new Commission’s “first task” was to “bring our European house in order,” Brunner said. “Today we’re showing that Europe can actually deliver and we delivered quite a lot.” WHAT’S NEW The ministers backed new rules to detain and deport migrants, including measures that would allow the bloc and individual countries to cut deals to set up migration processing hubs in other nations, regardless of whether the people being moved there have a connection with those countries. Ministers supported changes that will allow capitals to reject applications if asylum seekers, prior to first entering the EU, could have received international protection in a non-EU country the bloc deems safe, and signed off on a common list of countries of origin considered safe. Bangladesh, Colombia, Egypt, India, Kosovo, Morocco and Tunisia are on that latter list, as are countries that are candidates to join the EU. But the deal also leaves room for exceptions — such as Ukraine, which is at war. Asylum seekers won’t automatically have the right to remain in the EU while they appeal a ruling that their refuge application was inadmissible. The next step for the measures will be negotiations with the European Parliament, once it has decided its position on the proposals. Max Griera contributed reporting.

BRUSSELS — EU countries on Monday signed off on sweeping new plans to reform how the bloc deals with migration. The measures, approved at a meeting of EU justice and home affairs ministers in Brussels, will give capitals the power to remove people who don’t have the right to live and work in the bloc, to set up asylum processing centers overseas and to create removals hubs outside their borders. It comes amid growing public unrest over migration, in a move designed to counter the far right and overhaul the way capitals deal with new arrivals. “We are at a turning point of the European migration and asylum reform,” European Commissioner for Migration Magnus Brunner told POLITICO’s Brussels Playbook. “These are all measures that will help process claims more effectively and reduce pressure on asylum systems. And they all send the same signal: Europe will not tolerate any abuse of its systems.” The draft legislation includes a new “solidarity pool” in which countries — apart from those already facing high levels of migratory pressure — will be asked to resettle migrants or pay for other countries to support them. In addition, a new list of “safe countries” has been drawn up, from which asylum applications will be rapidly rejected unless there are extenuating circumstances. Additional rules, still to be agreed by ministers on Monday, would mean countries are able to set up asylum processing centers in non-EU countries, as well as “return hubs” from where people whose claims are unsuccessful can be removed. The changes have been pushed by Denmark, which holds the six-month rotating presidency of the Council of the EU, with the country’s center-left government setting out a hard-nosed approach to irregular migration both at home and in Brussels. “We have a very high influx of irregular migrants, and our European countries are under pressure,” said Danish Minister for Immigration and Integration Rasmus Stoklund. “Thousands are drowning in the Mediterranean Sea or are abused along the migratory routes, while human smugglers earn fortunes.” “This shows that the current system creates unhealthy incentive structures and a strong pull-factor, which are hard to break.” There had been dissent from countries such as Spain, which worry the new rules go too far, and Slovakia, which claimed they don’t go far enough. Despite that, negotiators managed to strike a deal before the legislative agenda grinds to a halt during the winter break. “To get the migration challenge under control has been a key demand from European leaders for years. For many, this is perceived as paramount to keep the trust of European citizens,” said one European diplomat, granted anonymity to speak frankly. Migration is high on the list of public priorities and has been capitalized on by right-wing parties in elections from France to Poland in recent years. In her State of the Union address in September, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said tackling irregular migration was key to maintaining the perception “that democracy provides solutions to people’s legitimate concerns.” “The people of Europe have proven their willingness to help those fleeing war and persecution. However, frustration grows when they feel our rules are being disregarded,” von der Leyen said. The EU has also come under fire from U.S. President Donald Trump in recent days, whose administration claimed in an explosive new strategy document that Brussels’ migration policies “are transforming the continent and creating strife.”

LONDON — In February Britain’s cash-strapped Labour government cut international development spending — and barely anyone made a noise. The center-left party announced it would slice the country’s spending on aid down to only 0.3 percent of gross domestic income — from 0.5 percent — in order to fund a hike in defense spending. MPs, aid experts and officials have told POLITICO that the scale of the cuts is on a par with — or even exceeding — those of both the previous center-right Conservative government or the United States under Donald Trump. This leaves Britain’s development arm, once globally envied as a vehicle for poverty alleviation, a shadow of its former self. The move — prompted by U.S. demands to up its NATO spending, and mirroring the Trump administration’s move to gut its own USAID development budget — shocked Labour’s progressive MPs, supporters and backers in the aid sector. But unlike attempted cuts to British welfare spending, the real-world backlash was muted, with the resignation of Britain’s development minister prompting little further dissent or change in policy. There was no mutiny in parliament, and only limited domestic and international condemnation outside of an aid sector torn between making their voices heard — and keeping in Whitehall’s good books over slices of the shrinking pie. Some fear a return grab over the aid budget could still be on the cards — but that the government will find that there is little left to cut. Gideon Rabinowitz, director of policy and advocacy at Bond, the U.K. network for NGOs, warned that, instead of “reversing the cuts by the previous Conservative government, Labour has compounded them, and lives will be lost as a result.” “These cuts will further tarnish the U.K.’s reputation as it continues to be known as an unreliable global partner, breaking Labour’s manifesto commitment,” he warned. “The Conservatives started the fire, but instead of putting it out, this Labour government threw petrol on it.” ‘IT WAS THE PERFECT TIME TO DO IT’ When Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced the cut to international aid — a bid to save over £6 billion by 2027 — Labour MPs, including those who worked in the sector before being elected, were notably silent. The move followed a 2021 Conservative cut to aid spending — from 0.7 percent in the Tory brand-rebuilding David Cameron years down to 0.5 percent. At the time, Labour MPs had met that Tory cut with howls of outrage. This time it was different. Some were genuinely shocked, while others feared retribution from a Downing Street that had flexed its muscles at MPs who rebelled on what they saw as points of conscience. “No one was expecting it, so there was no opportunity to campaign around it,” said one Labour MP. “Literally none of us had any idea it was coming.” Remaining spending is largely mandatory contributions to organizations such as the World Bank. | Daniel Slim/AFP via Getty Images The same MP noted that there are around 50 Labour MPs from the new 2024 intake who had some form of development background before coming into parliament. Yet they were put “completely under the cosh” by Downing Street and government whips. “It was the perfect time to do it,” the MP said. A number of MPs who might have been vocal have since been made parliamentary private secretaries — the most junior government role. “They have basically gagged the people who would be most likely to be outspoken on it,” the MP above said. The department’s ministerial team is now more likely to be loyal to the Starmer project. “I just felt hurt, and wounded. We were stunned. None of us saw it coming,” said one MP from the 2024 cohort, adding: “They priced in that backlash wouldn’t come.” But they added: “If we were culpable so were NGOs, too inward-looking and focused on peripheral issues.” The lack of outcry from MPs would, however, seem to put them largely in step with the wider British public. Polling and focus groups from think tank More in Common suggest that despite the majority of voters thinking spending on international aid is the right thing to do in a variety of circumstances, only around 20 percent of the public think the budget was cut too much.  The second new-intake Labour MP quoted above said the policy was therefore an “easy thing to sell on the doorstep,” and “in my area, there’s not going to be shouting from the rooftops to spend more money on aid.” DIMINISHED AND DEMORALIZED The cuts to aid come at a time when Britain’s Foreign Office is undergoing a radical overhaul. While the department describes its plans as “more agile,” staff, programs and entire areas of focus are all ripe for cuts to save money. The department is looking to make redundancies for around 25 percent of staff based in the U.K. MPs have voiced concern that development staff will be among the first to make the jump due to the government’s shift away from aid. The department insists that no final decisions have been taken over the size and shape of the organization. Major cuts are expected across work on education, conflict, and WASH (Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene.) The government’s Integrated Security Fund — which funds key counter-terror programs abroad — is also looking to scale back work abroad which does not have a clear link to Britain’s national security. The British Council — a key soft-power organization viewed as helping combat Chinese and Russian reach across the world — told MPs it is in “real financial peril” and would be cutting its presence in 35 of the 97 countries it operates. The BBC’s World Service is seeing similar cuts to its global reach. The Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI), the watchdog for aid spending, is also not safe from the ax as the government continues its bonfire of regulators. The FCDO did not refute the expected pathway of cuts. Published breakdowns of spending allocations for the next three years are due to be published in the coming months, an official said. A review of Britain’s development and diplomacy policies conducted by economist Minouche Shafik — who has since been moved into Downing Street — sits discarded in the department. The government refuses to publish its findings. Aid spending was spared a repeat visit by Chancellor Rachel Reeves in her government-wide budget last month — but that hasn’t stopped MPs worrying about a second bite. | Pool Photo by Adrian Dennis via Getty Images The second 2024 intake MP quoted earlier in the piece said that following the U.S. decisions on aid and foreign policy “there was an expectation that the U.K., as a responsible international partner, as a leader on a lot of this stuff, would fill the gap to some extent, and then take more of a leadership role on it, and we’ve done the opposite.” NOTHING LEFT TO CUT Aid spending was spared a repeat visit by Chancellor Rachel Reeves in her government-wide budget last month — but that hasn’t stopped MPs worrying about a second bite. While few MPs or those in the aid sector feel Britain will ever return to the lofty heights of its 0.7 percent commitment, they predict there will be harder resistance if the government comes back for more. “I don’t think they’re going to try and do it again, as there’s no money left,” the second 2024 intake MP said. But they pointed out that a large portion of the remaining aid budget is spent on in-country costs such as accommodation for asylum seekers. Savings identified from the asylum budget would be sent back to the Treasury, rather than put back into the aid budget, they noted. Remaining spending is largely mandatory contributions to organizations such as the World Bank or the United Nations and would, they warned, involve “getting rid of international agreements and chopping up longstanding influence at big international institutions that we are one of the leading people in.” The United Nations is already facing its own funding crisis as it struggles to adjust to the global downturn in aid spending. British diplomat Tom Fletcher — who leads the UN’s humanitarian response — said earlier this year that the organization has been “forced into a triage of human survival,” adding: “The math is cruel, and the consequences are heartbreaking.” The government still has a commitment to returning to 0.7 percent of GNI “as soon as the fiscal circumstances allow.” The tests for this ramp back up were set out four years ago. Britain must not be borrowing for day-to-day spending and underlying debt must be falling. The last two budgets have forecast that the government will not meet these tests in this parliament. FARAGE CIRCLES In the meantime, Labour’s opponents feel emboldened to go further. Both the Conservatives and Reform UK have said that they would further cut the aid budget. The Tories have vowed to slice it down to 0.1 percent of GNI, while Nigel Farage’s Reform UK is eyeing fresh cuts of at least by £7-8 billion a year. A third 2024 Labour MP said that there was a degree of pressure among some colleagues to match the Conservatives’ 0.1 percent pledge. Though no country has gone as far as Uganda’s Idi Amin in setting up a “save Britain fund” for its “former colonial masters,” Britain’s departure on international aid gives space for other countries wanting to step up to further their own foreign policy aims. The space vacated by Britain and America has prompted warnings that China will step in, while countries newer to international development such as Gulf states could try and fill the void. Many of these nations are unlikely to ever fund the same projects as the U.K. and the U.S., forcing NGOs to look to alternate donors such as philanthropists to fund their work. “There’ll be a big, big gap, and it won’t be completely filled,” the second new intake MP said. An FCDO spokesperson said the department was undergoing “an unprecedented transformation,” and added: “We remain resolutely committed to international development and have been clear we must modernize our approach to development to reflect the changing global context. We will bring U.K. expertise and investment to where it is needed most, including global health solutions and humanitarian support.”

Wies De Graeve is the executive director of Amnesty International Belgium’s Flemish branch. Tomorrow, Seán Binder will stand trial before the Mytilene Court of Appeals in Lesvos, Greece for his work as a volunteer rescuer, helping those in distress and at risk of drowning at sea. Alongside 23 other defendants, he faces criminal charges including membership in a criminal organization, money laundering and smuggling, with the risk of up to 20 years in prison if convicted. I first met Seán in 2019. A bright, articulate Irish activist in his twenties, he was our guest at the Belgian launch of Amnesty International’s annual end-of-year campaign. And there, he shared his equally inspiring yet shocking story of blatant injustice, as he and others were being prosecuted for saving lives. Two years earlier, Seán had traveled to Lesvos as a volunteer, joining a local search-and-rescue NGO to patrol the coastline for small boats in distress and provide first aid to those crossing from Turkey to Greece. Since 2015, the war in Syria has forced countless individuals to flee their homes and seek safety in Europe via dangerous routes — including the perilous journey across the Aegean Sea. In 2017 alone, more than 3,000 people were reported dead or missing while attempting to cross the Mediterranean, and when authorities failed to step in, many volunteers from across Europe did so instead. Seán was one of them. He did what any of us would hope to do in his position: save lives and help people. Yet, in 2018, he was arrested by Greek authorities and held in pretrial detention for over 100 days before being charged with a range of crimes alongside other humanitarian workers. These charges aim to portray those who help people on the move as criminals. And it’s part of a trend sweeping across Europe that’s criminalizing solidarity. In Malta, three teenagers from West Africa stand accused of helping to bring more than 100 people rescued at sea to safety, and are facing charges that carry a lifelong sentence. In Italy, ships operated by search-and-rescue organizations are being impounded. And in France, mountain guides have faced prosecution for assisting people at the border with Italy. European governments are not only failing people seeking protection, they’re also punishing those who try to fill that dangerous gap. I met Seán again in 2021 and 2023, both times outside the courthouse in Mytilene on Lesvos. In 2023, the lesser misdemeanor charges against him and the other foreign defendants — forgery, espionage and the unlawful use of radio frequencies — were dropped. Then, in 2024, the rest of the defendants were acquitted of those same charges. While leaving the courthouse that day, still facing the more serious felony charges along with the other 23 aid workers, Seán said: “We want justice. Today, there has been less injustice, but no justice.” As Amnesty International, we’ve been consistently calling for these charges to be dropped. The U.N. and many human rights organizations have also expressed serious concerns about the case, while thousands across Europe and around the world have stood by Seán’s side in defense of solidarity with migrants and refugees, signing petitions and writing letters. This trial should set off alarms not only for Europe’s civil society but for any person’s ability to act according to their conscience. It isn’t just Seán who is on trial here, it’s solidarity itself. The criminalization of people showing compassion for those compelled to leave their homes because of war, violence or other hardships must stop. This trial should set off alarms not only for Europe’s civil society but for any person’s ability to act according to their conscience. | Manolis Lagoutaris/AFP via Getty Images Meanwhile, a full decade after Syrians fleeing war began arriving on Europe’s shores in search of safety and protection, Europe’s leaders need to reflect. They need to learn from people like Seán instead of prosecuting them. And instead of focusing on deterrence, they need to ensure the word “asylum,” from the Greek “asylon,” still means a place of refuge or sanctuary for those seeking safety in our region. People who save lives should be supported, not criminalized. This week, six years after our first encounter, Seán and I will once again meet in front of the Mytilene courthouse as his trial resumes. I will be there in solidarity, representing the thousands who have been demanding that these charges be dropped. I hope, with all my heart, to see him finally receive the justice he is entitled to. Humanity must win.

LONDON — Albania’s prime minister accused Britain’s interior minister of “ethnic stereotyping” after she singled out 700 Albanian families whose asylum claims had failed in a speech selling an immigration clampdown. Amid intense pressure on the incumbent Labour government over migration, Shabana Mahmood used a House of Commons statement Monday to argue that the U.K. is not currently removing family groups of asylum seekers “even when we know that their home country is perfectly safe.” She cited Albanian families currently living in taxpayer-funded accommodation. That sparked the ire of Albania’s Edi Rama — who has clashed with Britain’s right-wing Reform UK leader Nigel Farage in the past. Rama posted on X Wednesday: “Official policy should never be driven by ethnic stereotyping. That is the very least humanity expects from the great Great Britain.” The 700 Albanian families Mahmood had highlighted were, Rama argued “a statistical drop in the ocean of post-Brexit Britain’s challenges.” Singling out Albanian families was “not policy,” but “a troubling and indecent exercise in demagoguery,” he added. Britain’s last Conservative government signed a returns deal with Albania in 2022, and official data shows the U.K. has deported more than 13,000 people there since. “Albania is, and intends to remain, one of the U.K.’s most active allies in broader migration control across the Balkans,” Rama argued. “The U.K. should be seeking ways to deepen cooperation with Albania on all security issues – from defense to border protection — rather than repeatedly scapegoating Albanians and thereby exposing citizens of an allied nation to increased risks, including from extremist groups that thrive on such narratives,” he added. Asked about Rama’s characterization in an interview aired on Thursday morning Mahmood said: “I obviously disagree.” She insisted she was talking about people whose asylum claims in the U.K. had failed, rather than Albanians still deemed to be in need of protection. “We are not talking about people who are refugees,” she said.

ATHENS — Greece and Germany want to establish facilities in Africa to receive people deported from Europe, Greece’s Migration Minister Thanos Plevris said Wednesday. Speaking to Greece’s public broadcaster ERT, Plevris said: “discussions are underway with safe African countries that will accept illegal immigrants whom we cannot return to their homelands.” He added that the talks are not being pursued under the auspices of the European Union but as an enterprise led by individual countries. “Germany has taken a serious initiative and we have officially expressed our interest in participating in it. If these centers are located outside the European continent, they will act as a deterrent to migrants,” he said. An official from the German interior ministry told POLITICO: “During their meeting on November 4, the two ministers identified a shared interest in so-called ‘innovative solutions’ for reducing illegal migration and also discussed the possibility of implementing these in a group of member states. They are currently working together at the European level on the necessary legal basis for the return regulation.” Europe’s home affairs ministers convened in Luxembourg last month to hash out strict new rules on migration to the continent, including the creation of return hubs for failed applicants, but no agreements were reached. Greece has adopted a hard line on migration in recent years. Last summer it presented other EU governments with what it called its strictest plan yet to deter migrants, and it is currently pushing for “return hubs” located outside Europe. Plevris said that other countries beside Greece are also interested in the plan. The Netherlands, for example, struck an agreement in September with Uganda to cooperate on returning rejected asylum seekers via the East African nation as a transit point, but the scheme would only apply to people from countries near to Uganda itself. Greece’s current idea, as Plevris described it, is similar to Italy’s stalled project of intercepting and detaining asylum seekers and processing them in Albania. Since the inauguration of two centers in Albania last year, that project — which was promoted by right-wing Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni — has drawn accolades from European leaders, including European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, both of whom expressed interest in replicating the approach. However, the initiative remains in judicial limbo over whether processing migrants in third countries is in line with EU law. Plevris expressed certainty the legal issues will be sorted, but said an additional problem is that “Albania’s idea is not entirely a deterrent. If [the hubs were located] outside the European continent, it would be a firm deterrent. “Imagine taking an Egyptian and sending him to Uganda.” Hans von der Burchard contributed to this report.

LONDON — It’s a decade since Britain’s Labour Party caused uproar simply by printing “controls on immigration” on a mug. Ten years, it turns out, are a long time in politics. Shabana Mahmood, Labour’s new interior minister, unveiled hardline plans Monday to shake up Britain’s immigration system that make the 2015 mantra look positively tame. Under her proposed reforms, refugees in Britain who arrived on small boats will have to wait up to 20 years for permanent settlement and could be deported if the situation in their home country improves. Those with valuables will be forced to fund the cost of their own accommodation. The tribunal appeals system, which features judges prominently, will be replaced with a streamlined system staffed by “professionally trained adjudicators.” And ministers are promising to ramp up the forcible removal of entire families to their countries of origin, if they do not accept “financial support” to go voluntarily. The home secretary is “beginning to sound as though” she is applying to join Nigel Farage’s right-wing Reform UK, his gleeful deputy Richard Tice told a Westminster press conference Monday. With Mahmood clearly spoiling for a fight with her own ranks, some colleagues to her left flank are making the same comparison. Yet despite the backlash, many other Labour MPs now believe measures like this necessary to confront a rising public backlash over immigration in many European nations. Mahmood, said one official, is concerned that public anger is turning into hate. Labour aides also argue they could be running out of time, as opinion polls project a victory in 2029 for Reform — whose immigration plans would go far further. One government frontbencher (granted anonymity, like others in this piece, to speak frankly) argued the change had been driven by the “the visibility and tangibility of policy failures” on small boats, and the growing use of hotel accommodation for asylum seekers. They added: “We may be in a world where we have to deliver a system we’re not quite comfortable with — or surrender the right to deliver a system to people who don’t think the system should exist. That’s a really uncomfortable place to be.” ‘LIKE A DROWNING MAN’ None of this eliminates the very real anger from Labour’s left-wing MPs — who were already concerned about votes bleeding away to the Green Party — and the likely uproar from its left-leaning grassroots. “The Starmer administration is like a drowning man,” a discontented Labour MP said Monday. “It just doesn’t have the ability to be able to make the argument that it is doing this from a progressive perspective. Where they’ve landed themselves politically, it’s not a place where you can bring people with you.” “The party won’t wear this — not just MPs, the wider party,” a second MP on the party’s soft left said. “The rhetoric around these reforms encourages the same culture of divisiveness that sees racism and abuse growing in our communities,” backbench Labour MP Tony Vaughan, who was only elected in 2024, argued on X. On one highly emotive point, officials were forced to clarify Monday that the Home Office would not seize migrants’ sentimental jewelery. That came overnight news stories suggested such items could be taken to contribute to migrant accommodation costs. The clarification did not come before MPs took to social media to speak out. “Taking jewellery from refugees” is “akin to painting over murals for refugee children,” another backbench MP, Sarah Owen, said, referencing a controversial order under the Conservatives to cover up cartoons at an accommodation centre for unaccompanied child migrants. The first Labour MP quoted above said that while many of his colleagues were seeing voters switch to Reform UK, a “hell of a lot of people” are going to the center-left Liberal Democrats and the Greens. “The tone that we’ve taken on immigration and asylum will hurt us as well,” the MP added.  ‘MORAL DUTY’ Government figures strongly disagree with the criticism — and think they have the public in their corner on this one. They sought to highlight More in Common polling that suggested even Green voters would support some individual measures that are used in Denmark — such as only granting asylum seekers temporary residence (50 percent support, 25 percent oppose.) A third, supportive MP on the right of the party pointed out there were “no surprise names” among those who had broken ranks to criticize the government’s plans. Mahmood insisted Monday the government has a “moral duty” to fix Britain’s “broken” asylum system. “Unless we can persuade people we can control our borders, we’re not going to get a hearing on anything else,” former Minister Justin Madders told Times Radio. It is an “existential test of whether we deserve to govern this country,” a serving minister said. They warned that if Starmer fails, the outcome in policy terms could be “a whole lot more drastic.” Noah Keate contributed reporting

LONDON — The British government will impose visa bans on countries that refuse to take back migrants who enter the U.K. without authorization, as part of widespread reforms to the immigration system. Shabana Mahmood, Britain’s chief interior minister, will announce Monday afternoon sweeping changes to the asylum system, including making refugee status temporary and requiring claimants to wait 20 years before applying for permanent settlement. She will also bar the entry of people from Angola, Namibia, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo if their governments do not improve cooperation on removing people who are judged not to have a right to remain in the U.K. The three countries have collectively refused to take back more than 4,000 unauthorized immigrants and foreign criminals from Britain. They will have a month to start cooperating before a sliding scale of penalties is introduced. These would include the removal of fast-track visa services for diplomats and VIPs, and end with a ban on all citizens getting visas. Mahmood said: “In Britain, we play by the rules. When I said there would be penalties for countries that do not take back criminals and illegal immigrants, I meant it. “My message to foreign governments today is clear: Accept the return of your citizens or lose the privilege of entering our country.” The visa bans mirror similar measures introduced by U.S. President Donald Trump in his first term, when he imposed tough measures on some African and Asian nations. British Border Security Minister Alex Norris refused Monday to rule out India being subject to similar penalties despite the free-trade agreement struck between the two nations earlier this year. “We are looking at all of our agreements with every country,” Norris told Times Radio. “If we do not think we’re getting that right engagement, that right commitment, then of course, we reserve all opportunities to escalate that.”

LONDON — The U.K.’s political right wants to quit another European institution. Battle-scarred Remainers are leaving nothing to chance this time. With ministers struggling to stop undocumented migrants arriving on British shores, the poll-topping “Mr. Brexit” Nigel Farage has been pushing hard for another nuclear option: leaving the European Convention on Human Rights altogether.  The Conservative Party is jumping on the bandwagon too — and that’s putting Britain’s Labour government, haunted by the failed 2016 campaign to keep Britain in the EU, in fight-back mode.  Opponents argue ECHR departure is the only way to control asylum claims, which successive governments have struggled to reduce. The convention became part of U.K. domestic law in 1998, and allows people to appeal against government immigration decisions on human rights grounds. It means asylum-seekers can invoke Articles 8 — protecting a right to family life — and Article 3 — the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment. Supporters insist quitting the convention won’t actually solve the highly visible problem of small boats landing on British shores. They warn that walking away from the ECHR would weaken human rights protections for British citizens — and damage the country’s standing on the world stage.   “We need to get on the front foot and ensure there is a concerted campaign to make the case for the benefit of our membership of the ECHR to ordinary voters,” said a U.K. government official involved in discussions and granted anonymity to speak frankly about them. “We don’t want to wake up in three years’ time trying to play catch-up after years of campaigning by Conservatives and Reform.” REMAIN AND REFORM? While the shape of the nascent campaign is yet to settle, officials are already starting to think about how they can rapidly rebut noisy arguments made by the convention’s detractors. Brits are unlikely to get a referendum vote on Britain’s membership as they did over membership of the European Union in 2016. But both Reform UK and the Conservatives are pledging to stand at the next election, due in 2029, on an ECHR departure ticket.  Officials in government are acutely conscious of parallels with Brexit, where a Remain campaign faced an uphill battle against Farage after generations of politicians had briefed against the EU. Like David Cameron in the 2016 Brexit referendum, ministers in the ruling Labour Party are not planning to fight their battle to remain in the ECHR on the status quo. Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood will on Monday unveil plans for a new U.K. law reforming the way Article 8 — the right to family life — is interpreted, to “constrain” the way it is applied in immigration cases. Mahmood is also hoping to build alliances with members of the Council of Europe to address what she sees as the “over-expansive application” of Article 3, which prohibits torture. Supporters argue this needs to be done quickly so that ministers can start making a positive case for the convention.  A long-awaited Home Office review, probing how the U.K. implements the convention in domestic law, and weighing potential reforms, is expected to be unveiled by Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood in the coming days. | Adam Vaughan/EPA Prime Minister Keir Starmer said in October that the government needs “to look again at the interpretation” by U.K. courts of the convention and other international treaties in immigration cases. But Starmer, a barrister by profession, has long insisted he does not want to “tear down” human rights laws, and stressed that it remains the government’s policy to stay in the ECHR. OUTRIDER CAMPAIGNS While ministers mull reform, an outrider campaign has already begun, with other British progressives vowing to take on Farage and the Conservatives — and mount a noisy defense of the convention. “The Liberal Democrats have already been making it very clear that we’re campaigning to remain in the ECHR,” Max Wilkinson, the party’s home affairs spokesman said. “We think that this is a total red herring from the perspective of solving issues to do with immigration and asylum, because leaving the ECHR is going to make very little difference to our ability to deal with small boat arrivals,” he argued.  Keir Starmer, a barrister by profession, has long insisted he does not want to “tear down” human rights laws, and stressed that it remains the government’s policy to stay in the ECHR. | Pool photo by Tolga Akmen/EPA “If we thought that the chaos caused by leaving the European Union, and those years of painful debates about how Brexit was going to be done, were really difficult for the country, then leaving the ECHR is going to be another compounded impact on top of that.” “We’re already making the case,” Green Party Deputy Leader Mothin Ali said. “We’re already campaigning to make sure that the positives are talked about.” Earlier this month the human rights group Liberty coordinated a statement from almost 300 organizations — from homeless charities to veterans groups — calling for a “full-throated” defense of the ECHR and the Human Rights Act, and warning that the way the convention had been used as a political scapegoat over recent years had had “devastating real world consequences.” One of those signatories, Naomi Smith, chief executive of the Best for Britain campaign group, said the group plans to reconvene after Mahmood’s speech. Best for Britain was set up after Brexit and unsuccessfully campaigned for a second referendum. “We’re certainly not twiddling our thumbs,” Smith said, but she stressed the group is also “giving the government the space to land in the right place” on the issue. REVERSE MIDAS TOUCH  Allies of Starmer see Labour’s former human rights lawyer leader as one of their most authoritative voices when it comes to making the case for the ECHR. But other progressives fear a man whose party is streets behind Farage in the polls and beset by factionalism could be an encumbrance. “We’re already making the case,” Green Party Deputy Leader Mothin Ali said. “We’re already campaigning to make sure that the positives are talked about.” | Finnbarr Webster/Getty Images “If I’m totally honest, I think [Starmer] is a liability for any cause right now because of how poorly he’s performing, and how unpopular he is,” the Green’s Ali, whose party wants to challenge Labour from the left, said.  He’s pushing the Greens’ charismatic new leader Zack Polanski as a strong advocate, pointing out the success of the Brexit campaign’s willingness to get populist under both Farage and Boris Johnson.  “They were both very charismatic figures and both were very populist-style campaigns that were easily digestible,” Ali said.  “I think you always need a plurality of voices in any winning campaign,” Smith of Best for Britain said.