THE ASIAN INDEPENDENT UK
Bal Ram Sampla
Geopolitics
The Shamima Begum case represents one of the most politically dangerous situations facing Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s government. While the European Court of Human Rights has not yet made a final ruling, the mere possibility of an order for her return to the UK has created a trap from which Starmer may find no easy escape.
Shamima Begum left Britain as a teenager to join ISIS in Syria. In 2019, the UK government stripped her of British citizenship. She has been fighting this decision ever since. The European Court of Human Rights has now begun asking the UK government questions about whether it broke anti-trafficking laws when it removed her citizenship, given that she was only 15 when she was trafficked to Syria.
This is only the early stage of the case. Any final judgment is likely more than a year away. However, the political implications are already becoming clear.
The Public Opinion Problem
The British public has made its views crystal clear. Polling from 2019 showed that 78% of people opposed Begum’s return to the UK and supported removing her citizenship. This is not a close call – it represents overwhelming public sentiment across the political spectrum.
This level of opposition is rare in British politics. Most controversial issues divide the country roughly in half. But on Shamima Begum, there is near-consensus. Any government that allows her return would be going directly against the wishes of the vast majority of British voters.
Lord Hermer’s Commitment
This is where the trap closes. Lord Hermer, Starmer’s Attorney General, has made the most absolute commitment to the European Court of Human Rights that any British government official has ever made. He told the Council of Europe directly: “I’d like to be very clear, the new United Kingdom Government will never withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights or refuse to comply with judgment of the court.”
The word “never” leaves no room for maneuver. Hermer has not said “we will generally comply” or “we will carefully consider judgments.” He has said Labour will never refuse to comply with any ECHR judgment.
Labour’s Record on the ECHR
Unlike Conservative governments, which have sometimes threatened to ignore ECHR rulings, Labour has no history of defying the European Court. In fact, Labour has been the party most committed to human rights law:
– A Labour government in 1968 first allowed British citizens to take cases to the European Court
– Labour passed the Human Rights Act in 1998, bringing the ECHR directly into British law
– Labour has consistently positioned itself as the party that respects international law and human rights
This history makes it even harder for Starmer to break with an ECHR ruling. To do so would contradict decades of Labour Party principles.
The Impossible Choice
If the ECHR rules that Begum must be allowed to return to Britain, Starmer faces an impossible choice:
Option 1: Comply with the ruling.
This would mean allowing Begum back into the UK, going directly against the wishes of 78% of the British public. The political damage would be immediate and severe. Reform UK and the Conservatives would attack Labour as putting European judges ahead of British security and public opinion. Voters who already feel disconnected from Westminster would see this as the ultimate example of the political elite ignoring ordinary people.
Option 2: Refuse to comply.
This would mean breaking Lord Hermer’s categorical promise and abandoning Labour’s longstanding commitment to international law and human rights. Hermer would likely have to resign or be sacked. Labour would face accusations of hypocrisy, having spent years criticizing Conservative disregard for international law. The party’s progressive base would be furious.
Option 3: Find a middle way.
The government might try technical legal arguments or delays, but these are unlikely to satisfy either side. Critics would see through any attempt at fudging the issue.
Why This Could Be Fatal
The danger is not just about one case or one woman. The Shamima Begum situation touches on multiple issues where the British public already feels ignored:
(I)Immigration and border control
(II)National security and terrorism
(III)British sovereignty versus European institutions
(IV)Elite decision-making versus public opinion
If Starmer is forced to allow Begum’s return because of an ECHR ruling, it would confirm every suspicion that British voters have no real control over their own country’s borders and security. The political damage could be catastrophic.
Labour is already facing challenges on immigration and public services. Adding the Begum case on top could create a perfect storm. It would hand Reform UK and the Conservatives their best attack line: that Labour cares more about European courts and terrorists’ rights than about the British people.
Internal Labour Tensions
Even within the Labour government, there are already tensions. Reports suggest that senior ministers have privately questioned Hermer’s absolute commitment to the ECHR and some have even suggested he should be sacked. This shows that not everyone in Labour is comfortable with the position Hermer has staked out.
Historical Context
No Labour government has ever defied an ECHR ruling. The party has built its identity partly on respect for international law and human rights. Breaking with this tradition would be a fundamental shift in what Labour stands for.
But no Labour government has faced a situation quite like this either – where an ECHR ruling would so directly contradict overwhelming public opinion on a matter of national security.
Conclusion
The Shamima Begum case has all the ingredients of a political disaster for Keir Starmer. The European Court may rule that she must be allowed to return. Lord Hermer has promised Labour will never refuse to comply with ECHR judgments. The British public overwhelmingly opposes her return. Labour has no history of defying the ECHR.
Every path forward leads to serious political damage. Comply with the ruling and face public fury. Refuse to comply and face accusations of hypocrisy and the likely resignation of the Attorney General. Try to find a middle way and satisfy nobody.
Whether this proves “fatal” to Starmer’s premiership remains to be seen. But it represents exactly the kind of issue that can erode a government’s authority and credibility. It makes Starmer look weak – either too weak to stand up to European judges or too weak to uphold his own government’s promises.
The case is still in its early stages, but the political trap has already been set. When the ECHR finally makes its ruling, Keir Starmer may find himself facing a choice where every option leads to disaster.
References
1.https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2024/10/17/the-new-attorney-general-on-the-rule-of-law/
2.https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/shamima-begum-citizenship-bid-revived-european-judges-5HjdQ2P_2/
3.https://quillette.com/2025/10/27/the-liberal-case-against-human-rights-european-convention-echr/
4.https://www.smf.co.uk/commentary_podcasts/the-uk-and-the-echr-stick-twist-or-bust/
5. https://www.tuc.org.uk/blogs/conservatives-plan-leave-echr-attack-workers-rights
