I watched Keir Starmer talking on a news bulletin last night and heard him say, in words that echo those of Rishi Sunak, that we “have to stop the boats“.
He was, of course, referring to the inflatable craft being used by those seeking asylum in the UK to cross the English Channel when no other route is available to them before they can make an application to live in this country.
Starmer's reasoning for this claim was that these boats are evidence that we have lost control of our borders. There was no hint of humanitarian concern. There was no suggestion in what was clipped as to how he would deal with the issue. There was no expression of interest in the broader issues that this crisis raises, whether for this country, for others, or for the future flows of migration that are inevitably going to increase as climate change becomes more severe. Instead, only the expression was that of a bureaucrat offended by action that upsets the routine that they desire, which is how it seems that he views this activity.
I am not naive. I am, of course, well aware that some of those who might cross the English Channel do so because they are being trafficked. However, in that case, they deserve protection from those abusing them.
I am equally aware that some of those who might be taking this perilous route do so simply because they are economically desperate, and not because they are at genuine risk in the countries from which they come. There is, in that case, obvious need for some mechanisms to sort those who are really refugees, from those who are seeking what is illegal entry.
However, what we do know is that a substantial majority of those who make this crossing do succeed with their asylum claim, despite the existence of a system which stacks the odds against them. In other words it would be wise to presume that those who have reached the English Channel have done so as a consequence of a state of genuine desperation. The willingness to go through the trauma of this process will, in a great many cases, be the clearest indication of that.
So, if Starmer is to provide an alternative, and this will no doubt become his responsibility, what should he do?
Firstly, there should be an assumption that those claiming refugee status probably have it. I am not suggesting that this means that they be given an automatic right of entry into the UK. Both politically and practically that is not plausible or viable. There must, in that case, be a filtering process to determine which applications succeed, and which fail, That necessary process must, however, be undertaken humanely, with a degree of sympathy for the likely refugees plight, and with the assistance provided so that those with a proper case can be identified, assisting in the process the identification of those acting inappropriately.
Secondly, as so many with expertise in this area have suggested, this process could take place in France. At the very least, initial vetting should be possible there, with mutual cooperation between the UK and France to make this possible. I am aware of all the inconvenience to France that those seeking entry to the UK creates, but given that they have no choice but face this issue, redirecting funds away from creating criminality towards assistance, speedy decision making, and facilitation of rapid transit if that is the right outcome, would be in everyone's best interests. It might also cost considerably less than current attempts to address this problem.
Thirdly, and most obviously, this then provide the opportunity to stop the boats. Those able to cross the Channel could then do so using safe routes , like ferries, with tickets provided, and buses to ensure their appropriate onward transport.
Fourthly, if despite this, there were then to still be small boat traffic the likelihood that it would involve those with a limited chance of a right entry is high. In that case a changed approach towards policing of that activity could take place on both sides of the Channel, whilst still requiring a continued open-mind on the need to protect those who might be trafficked.
I am not sure why it is so hard for Keir Starmer to explain such a potential policy. At the heart of any solution to this problem there has to be a method that differentiating those who are likely to have a legitimate claim of entry to the UK under international law from those who have not got that right. Until that happens, the prospect of successfully persuading France, or any other country, to treat what is happening as an illegal activity is low, which is why I understand their reluctance to overly deter this traffic. They know that legitimate refugees are those most commonly to be found amongst those on the beaches of Northern France. Do they have to stop them in that case? Until that changes - which it is only in our power to do - why should they?
Only when those in small boats are those most likely to not have a good claim for entry into the UK can successful action against this traffic begin. I would have thought Keir Starmer would understand that. I would have hoped that he would want to. I would equally hope that he will want to make sure that we act humanely and with sympathy to those in a desperate situation. But perhaps I am naive, after all, in believing that this is what he might think.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Someone is manufacturing, distributing and selling significant numbers of large inflatable craft (ones capable of holding 40, 50, 60 people) to the people trafficking gangs. These are not small dinghies but massive rafts.
What legitimate uses do such vessels have?
Perhaps we could try to ”stop the boats” – if that is the real aim, and not some performative fear mongering – by regulating that industry better? For example, requiring a verifiable supply chain with unique identifying numbers for each boat (in a place that is difficult to remove) between manufacturer to end user with swingeing penalties if the boat does not end up with a legitimate user.
Have we even tried something like that?
I doubt it
‘STOPPING THE BOATS’ by preventing people gaining access to BOATS is ignoring the issue.
Under international law an individual is entitled to claim asylum from whichever country they choose. UK law prevents anyone claiming asylum in the UK unless they are physically present in the UK when they make their claim. UK law prevents airlines or ferry companies from transporting people without an existing right to live in the UK. The UK is not physically linked to any other country. Someone wishing to claim asylum in the UK (which is their legal right to do under international law) can only do so by finding a way to enter the country.
If the UK succeeds in its appalling attempt to prevent any asylum seeker ever entering the country, or if they manage, against all odds, to do so, making it illegal for them to claim asylum, means that the UK will never, under any circumstances, ever, accept any refugees.
Not our problem. Let any other country deal with the issue, preferably those who are joined by a border to those countries from which people flee.
I am so sick of the failure of this country to have any moral obligation to anyone.
Thanks, Cyndy
Again, I am with you
A presumption that refugees will be eligible for that status will require a huge culture shift at The Home Office. It is my experience that they are trying to find a way to deny you a visa rather than granting you one. I think it comes all the way from the highest office in the land and made worse by deliberate under funding of the department and outsourcing of a range of core processes that cost a huge amount of money. For example you have to pay £200 for a photo and fingerprint to process a visa, even if these are already on file, and the whole process takes less than ten minutes.
But I do not think it is about stopping the boats. I think it is about stopping all immigration for those not like the white Anglo Saxon. Look at the track record with Windrush, and the recent spouse visa changes. If you are of Anglo Saxon descent and earn enough, your spouse is more than welcome. If not, try jumping through all these hoops.
You may well be right
I want that culture changed
Why is there such emphasis on refugees and illegal immigration, when legal immigration is at least an order of magnitude greater? It seems to me this is another attempt by the government to “other” mostly innocent refugees to disguise their failure to achieve a sustainable rate of immigration.
One part of a solution to illegal immigration is surely to allow applications from outside the country (and, as you say, provide tickets and legal entry if accepted). This would be easy to do online. Before accepting or rejecting applications the government could gather biometrics (including, e.g. finger prints) as other countries do. If applicants were refused entry then, at least, we would know who they were if they subsequently arrived illegally. Anyone arriving without having applied might reasonably be assumed not to have a good claim to asylum.
Well said.
A commenter reminded us yesterday about the less than wholehearted attitude to Jewish refugees fleeing the Nazis. It is another pernicious myth touted by politicians and much of the media that the UK is a welcoming safe haven from oppression and persecution. It is nothing of the kind. As numerous authors have pointed out the attitude of Whitehall is laced with racism and antisemitism, and more recently Islamophobia. Even those you would expect to have a humanitarian attitude, such as religious groups, would only accept those who would be “useful” and only on their terms. Unfortunately, many other countries are little different.
One further point, the vast majority or refugees are in countries neighbouring their homeland. According to the UNHCR there are around 3.6million refugees in Turkey, for example. Yet many of the problems are a result of historical and current policies and actions of countries like the UK or their proxies.
If I understand things correctly, the only way we can improve public services and make the investments necessary in failing infrastructure and services, is to find from somewhere the additional workforce we need to do the work. One tactic would be to increase taxation, put employers out of business thereby releasing workers (and by releasing I mean making them redundant), forcing them to take the new roles that are being created. Or little Rishi’s plan to demonise the long-term sick and force them back into employment (and very probably an early grave) by punitive new rules around who signs them off sick and for how long. And that might work, although such a workforce would be demotivated, unfit and rightly resentful and still, I suspect, not of the numbers we actually need if we want to be able to make the sort of investments needed to deliver a viable and sustainable future.
Alternatively, we could be honest and come clean to the nation that the only obstacle in our path is in fact a lack of workers, and, were we to be able to find sufficient labour, we could make the investment that the nation wants in public services and greening the economy. And would you believe it, it so happens that there is a whole raft of potential workers just waiting to come here and help us build that future. So we don’t have to trash existing jobs or drive down salaries to put employers out of business, forcing people to take employment that they may not be suited for and at a salary that leaves them considerably worse off. No, instead, we can welcome these new workers to our shores, and put them to work as meaningful and positive contributors and citizens. It’s a win-win.
Unless you’re a politician that is.
There was a recent report of a POC female who advised the civil servants tasked with this policy. She alleged they were all white and racist in their attitudes. When she challenged them, she was shut out of meetings. The Home Office Civil Service, I suspect, is no longer fit for purpose having been politically weeded since May’s time as Home Secretary.
A while ago I worked for the Home Office and was seconded, for a short period to the Border Force at my local airport.
In the staff room a permanent member of staff was describing, with admiration, the success of a project to stop boats crossing the Channel. I asked him what law they were breaking by getting into a boat in France and heading towards Britain. He did not know.
Hi Richard,
I have long said that our politicians care nothing for those in the boats. If they really cared, and wanted to stop them, then they could do it tomorrow, simply by offering, as you say, a safe alternative. Funnily enough, the market helps here doesn’t it – risk on a small dingy for a huge family debt, or a safe, free trip organised by HM Govt.
The reason they do not pursue this line is pure racism, as highlighted above, and also the desire to shrink the state (I think there has been a huge reduction in border staff in the recent years). Of course, once you have the staff to deal with claims, you can resolve them quite quickly, reducing the cost of housing refugees, and returning those who do not meet the criteria for asylum (unfortunately, Brexit ripped up UK-EU agreements on return of refugees – well done!).
So your in last paragraph – “I would equally hope that he will want to make sure that we act humanely and with sympathy to those in a desperate situation” you should understand that Starmer is devoid of humanity and empathy, unless it will furthers his ambitions, or those that put him where his is.
Regards
I was curious as to how many people we could not deport due to lefty lawyers and a foreign court thwarting the will of the British people.
If you scroll down the the link it gives the average over recent years.
https://ukandeu.ac.uk/explainers/the-uks-echr-record-how-common-are-rule-39-orders-and-how-often-is-the-uk-found-to-have-violated-rights/
Thank you
the answer is TWO per year since 2017
Indeed – I looked at the data
We live in the post truth World, so the very notion of left lawyers and the hated ECHR allowing ‘scores of illegals’ to stay in the UK was always going to be nonsense. What I find interesting these days is who tells the most lies, or refuses to question or put in context govt actions the most. A good example is that great creator of refugees, war. The UK govt has committed ‘to increase our spending on our military up to 2.5 of GDP by 2030’. In fairness to them, only the BBC mentioned that due to 90 billion worth of cuts to the military budget since 2010, this will not increase the size of the army, as it only equates to 75 billion. It will also be paid for by, yes, you’ve guessed it, more cuts. Among those cuts will be more public sector jobs, the very reason we have an issue with processing refugees and asylum seekers in the first place, the issue for which neither major party is offering anything more than right wing pleasing platitudes…
Anti immigrant ‘swamping’ ‘invasion’ has been a go-to far right and fascist trope over the decades or centuries – so as usual Starmer instinct will be to echo the narrative of Sunak/ Telegraph/Sun . But at least they are rubbishing the Rwanda stuff. It is so ironical that immigration seems to have trebled since the Brexit vote shambles and more of them are darker skinned rather than the more favoured white as from EU.
Slightly off point – a very interesting radio 4 discussion with Matthew Freud – ex son in law of Richard Murdoch and apparent mate of Osborne and Cameron, and supposedly one of the biggest names in PR.
He commented on the notorious Blair witch project when Blair flew round the world to see Murdoch and now Starmer echoing that by feeding sucking up to the Telegraph and Mail and Sun. He said it just gives more power to the school yard bullies that the media are.
In the discussion with David Yelland it was said that once you start worrying about how your policy might be presented by the media rather than the policy itself you are in trouble. Asked how the media should be handled – ‘just ignore them’.
Starmer not likely to take that advice.
I strongly suspect an speedier system based in France would be cheaper to run than the Rwanda flights, as well as being more compatible with a human rights focussed approach. The fact of the matter is that our politicians are more interested in using asylum seekers for a culture war than they are in resolving any issues with the asylum system.