Europe Reconsiders the ECHR as Danish-Style Migration Measures Spread
When Denmark introduced a 2016 rule requiring asylum seekers to hand over jewellery to help pay for their housing, it triggered international condemnation. The UN refugee agency warned Copenhagen it would stoke "fear and xenophobia," and Human Rights Watch called the measure "despicable and vindictive."
Nearly a decade on, and amid a rise in right-wing populism across the continent, elements of Denmark's strict approach to migration are being adopted elsewhere in Europe. The UK government has unveiled measures described by some commentators as among the toughest since the Second World War, while other EU states have proposed or implemented similarly austere policies.
What the Danish model entails
Under Denmark's framework, asylum seekers may be required to use personal valuables to fund their stay; permanent residency can be reserved for those judged to have fully assimilated into Danish society; and authorities may take aggressive steps, such as ordering the demolition of housing estates deemed to have too many "non-Western" residents. These policies have helped Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen fend off populist rivals and have provided a template for other leaders.
Reform of the ECHR returns to the political agenda
At the same time, this diffusion of hardline migration thinking has revived debates about reforming the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Last month The Telegraph reported that Italy's prime minister, Giorgia Meloni, will lead the EU's first political debate on updating the convention so it can better address large-scale migration.
Critics argue the ECHR, which came into force in 1953, is outdated and does not reflect contemporary challenges such as organised people-smuggling or the alleged weaponisation of migration by hostile actors. In Britain, Conservative and Reform politicians say ECHR jurisprudence has been used to block deportations of people who arrived in small boats.
Nine EU member states — including Italy, Denmark, the Netherlands and Estonia — signed an open letter in May calling for the treaty to be "reinterpreted" for modern migration pressures and for reforms to make it easier to expel migrants who commit crimes. Germany did not sign that letter, though prominent German politicians have at times suggested reconsidering membership if meaningful reform proves impossible.
Legal and institutional proposals
Belgium circulated a memorandum in August, supported by legal advice from former Constitutional Court president Marc Bossuyt, outlining ways to limit the influence of the Strasbourg-based European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Bossuyt recommended considering more conservative judicial appointments to the court and re-examining Article 3 — the prohibition on torture and inhuman or degrading treatment — which some argue has been invoked to frustrate deportations.
In the UK, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has ruled out leaving the ECHR but has said he wants to restrict how UK courts interpret it in asylum cases. He has called for a review of domestic application of the convention where it affects deportation and immigration policy.
Notably, the political head of the Council of Europe — the non-EU body that oversees the ECHR — has signalled openness to discussing change. Secretary-general Alain Berset told the BBC that the convention, a postwar instrument, "may need to change or adapt" to modern realities.
Why attitudes have shifted
Part of the shift in European attitudes can be traced to the 2016 refugee influx after Germany opened its borders and roughly one million people entered Europe. In some countries, public anxiety was amplified by fatal attacks carried out by rejected asylum seekers, strengthening far-right parties and pushing mainstream parties to adopt tougher stances. In the Netherlands, for example, liberal centrist Rob Jetten moved his D66 party to the right on migration during a successful campaign against Geert Wilders.
Implications for Britain
For the UK, the political calculus is acute. Britain recorded a record 108,000 asylum claims in 2024, a 28% increase from 84,000 claims in 2023, and pressure is mounting on ministers to deliver sharper results. While many EU states point to falling asylum claims as evidence their measures work, the UK currently faces rising numbers and rising political temperature on migration.
The article sets out a clear trend: hardline migration policies that were once fringe are entering mainstream debate across Europe, and that trajectory is renewing contentious discussions about how the ECHR should apply in the age of large-scale migration.
