Labour’s Plan to Stop Channel Migrant Boats—Can It Succeed While Clinging to the ECHR?

The UK’s Labour government, under Prime Minister Keir Starmer, has made tackling the Channel migrant crisis a cornerstone of its agenda, promising to “smash the criminal gangs” behind small boat crossings. As of June 18, 2025, the crisis shows no signs of abating, with over 16,545 crossings recorded this year—a 45% surge compared to 2024, and more than 40,000 since Labour took office in July 2024. Yet, Labour’s insistence on strict compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) raises serious questions about the feasibility of its strategy, especially when compared to France’s more pragmatic approach. While Labour’s commitment to human rights is principled, it risks undermining its ability to deliver on its promise to curb illegal migration, leaving the government vulnerable to both political backlash and operational failure.

Labour’s Plan: Smashing Gangs, But Missing the Mark?

Labour’s strategy hinges on disrupting the smuggling networks that facilitate Channel crossings. The government has bolstered the Border Security Command, increased funding for law enforcement, and pushed for stronger international cooperation, particularly with France. Starmer has also floated innovative measures, such as reducing visa allocations for countries that fail to accept returns of illegal migrants. These efforts have yielded some results—940 boats intercepted since July 2024, stopping nearly 28,000 migrants—but the overall trend is grim. Crossings continue to rise, driven by favorable weather, smuggler tactics like “taxi boats,” and an influx of migrants from conflict zones.

The government’s rhetoric is tough, but its actions are constrained by a steadfast commitment to the ECHR. Labour has rejected calls from the Conservatives and Reform UK to withdraw from the convention, instead proposing reforms to make deportations easier while remaining compliant. This stance reflects Labour’s ideological commitment to human rights but contrasts sharply with France’s approach, which prioritizes operational flexibility over strict adherence to ECHR interpretations.

France’s Pragmatism: A Contrast in Approach

France, while a signatory to the ECHR, has adopted a more assertive strategy to curb Channel crossings. Facing a 42% increase in crossings in 2025, French authorities are set to implement a new “maritime doctrine” by July, allowing police and gendarmes to intercept boats up to 300 meters from shore. This change targets smuggler tactics, such as using inflatable “taxi boats” to collect migrants in shallow waters, which French police were previously barred from intervening in due to legal restrictions. Recent images of French police using tear gas to deter migrants in Gravelines highlight this tougher stance, despite criticism from human rights groups.

France’s approach, while not immune to ECHR scrutiny, demonstrates a willingness to push legal boundaries to achieve results. The French interior ministry insists these actions comply with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, but its focus is on practical outcomes—reducing crossings—rather than rigid legalism. This contrasts with Labour’s cautious approach, which avoids measures that could be challenged in ECHR courts, such as mass deportations or offshore processing, due to potential violations of non-refoulement principles.

The ECHR Straitjacket: Labour’s Achilles’ Heel

Labour’s adherence to the ECHR imposes significant constraints. The convention’s protections, particularly around the right to asylum and prohibition of inhuman treatment, have been cited in court rulings blocking deportations to countries like Afghanistan, Iran, and Syria. A backlog of appeals further hampers efforts to close migrant hotels, as asylum seekers remain in taxpayer-funded accommodation while claims are processed. Reform UK and Conservative critics argue that leaving the ECHR would free the UK to implement tougher measures, such as immediate returns or deterrence policies, without fear of legal challenges.

Labour’s proposal to reform the ECHR, led by Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood, is a belated acknowledgment of these constraints. However, negotiating changes with the Council of Europe is a slow and uncertain process, unlikely to yield results before the next election. The government’s refusal to consider withdrawal, even as Reform UK gains traction with its anti-ECHR stance, risks alienating voters frustrated by the ongoing crisis. Recent polls show migration as one of Starmer’s weakest issues, with Reform UK capitalizing on public discontent.

France’s Edge and Labour’s Dilemma

France’s operational flexibility gives it an edge in disrupting crossings at the source. By intercepting boats closer to shore, France can prevent migrants from entering international waters, where UK jurisdiction begins. The UK, however, is limited to intercepting boats once they reach British waters, a reactive approach that does little to deter smugglers. Labour’s reliance on French cooperation—bolstered by a £476 million deal—has not delivered proportional results, with French police stopping fewer migrants than expected. Critics, including Defence Secretary John Healey, have accused France of failing to justify the UK’s investment.

Labour’s ECHR compliance also complicates returns. While Starmer’s visa reduction plan aims to pressure countries into accepting deportees, the ECHR’s protections make it difficult to deport migrants to unstable nations, a challenge France navigates with less hesitation. France’s willingness to use force, such as tear gas, and its planned naval expansion further highlight its proactive stance, which Labour cannot replicate without risking ECHR violations.

The Political and Practical Fallout

The political cost of Labour’s approach is mounting. The government’s admission that the crisis is “deteriorating” has fueled criticism from the Tories, Reform UK, and even Labour MPs, who fear electoral damage. Home Office data showing 73% of arrivals are adult men undermines Labour’s narrative, with ministers like Darren Jones facing ridicule for claiming most migrants are women and children. Public frustration is evident in posts on X, where users accuse Labour of lacking the resolve to stop the boats.

Practically, Labour’s strategy is unlikely to succeed without addressing the ECHR bottleneck. While “smashing the gangs” is a laudable goal, law enforcement alone cannot stem the tide, as smugglers adapt faster than authorities can respond. France’s new measures may reduce crossings, but without a corresponding UK policy shift—such as expedited deportations or deterrence mechanisms—the burden will remain on British shores. Labour’s refusal to consider military action, as suggested by Nigel Farage and Labour peer Lord Glasman, further limits its options.

Conclusion: A Plan Destined to Falter?

Labour’s plan to stop Channel migrant boats is ambitious but hobbled by its unwavering commitment to the ECHR. France’s pragmatic approach, which balances legal obligations with operational necessity, highlights the UK’s self-imposed constraints. While Labour’s focus on international cooperation and law enforcement is a step forward, it is insufficient without addressing the legal barriers that prevent swift deportations and deterrence. The government’s push for ECHR reform is a tacit admission of this, but it comes too late to stem the immediate crisis.

As crossings surge and public patience wanes, Labour risks repeating the failures of its predecessors. To succeed, it must either find a way to work within the ECHR’s confines—perhaps by streamlining asylum processes—or confront the politically fraught question of partial withdrawal. Until then, the boats will keep coming, and Labour’s promise to “stop the boats” will remain an elusive goal, drowned out by the waves of a crisis it cannot fully control.