Small boats used by migrants to cross the channel are stored at a Home Office facility in Dover. Photo by Dan Kitwood/Getty Images
Why are asylum claims rising in the UK while they are falling in EU nations? On Monday the Home Secretary blamed “the comparative generosity of our asylum offer when compared to many of our European neighbours”. Even if this were right, I believe that it is the wrong target. We know that Russia and other hostile states are manipulating population flows to destabilise Western democracies. Brexit meant we ripped up our returns agreement with the EU. That fact is the real push factor, and we must not let the public forget that Farage – the great admirer of Vladimir Putin – was behind it.
Due to Brexit, the UK is no longer held to the Dublin Regulation, the EU returns agreement. Field studies have noted that migrants have seen this as a positive, feeling that the UK would no longer deport them, even if they had applied for asylum in another European country. This perception is the real reason, I believe, why irregular crossings rose after the UK left the EU on 31 January 2020, when the UK saw a surge in asylum applications, which continue to rise. The current situation is a direct result of Brexit.
In September, the Prime Minister made this very point: linking the rise in small boat crossings to Brexit, describing the crossings as “Farage boats”. But, after Reform UK complained, the Government dropped this line of argument, and it played no role at all in this week’s asylum announcement. I believe that this is a strategic mistake.
First, our misdiagnosis means we have failed to identify the source of the problem. By moving our emphasis away from fighting organised criminal smuggling networks to effectively blaming the rights and entitlements framework – and asylum seekers and refugees themselves – we are compounding the demonisation of this group and diminishing our moral authority.
Second, locating the correct target means we can more easily explain that it falls to the Labour Government to repair what Farage’s Brexit broke. By concluding a new returns deal with France, this is the first time since Brexit that we have had anything resembling a returns deal with an EU state since the Dublin Regulation. We should absolutely commit to making this pilot project work, scale it up and expand it to agreements with other countries, especially Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands. This should be our priority. It is the measure with the greatest potential to stem dangerous crossings, yet it merited only a short paragraph in the Policy Statement.
A third reason why we must bring Brexit into the equation is that a strategy of building international co-operation to fix an international problem pushes back against the “Brexit 2.0” approach of the Conservatives and Reform. They claim that Labour is not going far enough because we are not leaving the ECHR. If dangerous crossings do not abate, they will say that leaving the ECHR is the only option left. Making the UK-France deal work would show that solving this issue requires co-operation with our EU partners. It would show why a second retreat from Europe would be as destructive as Brexit was. That is how we show we are Great Britain, not Little England.
Treat yourself or a friend this Christmas to a New Statesman subscription from £1 per month
What we must not do is waste time and resources on changes that will have no real impact on inflows or outflows, and which harm refugees and our society. A clear example of this is the proposal to make refugee residence permits temporary and reviewable every 30 months for up to 20 years until they become permanent. The Refugee Council has estimated that this would require the review of around 1.4 million cases over ten years. It is wrong that a person granted refugee status should be left in perpetual limbo with a view to removal, rather than being welcomed and integrated into society. But even if it were right, in Denmark the measure has not resulted in many removals of refugees anyway, since wars can rage for years and brutal dictators hang onto power.
There are certainly positive aspects to the proposals: such as a commitment to our international obligations and to safe and legal routes, and community sponsorship for refugees. There are also proposals I am deeply uncomfortable with – such as removing benefits, which will cause poverty and homelessness of both children and adults, and will not deter.
We must be laser focused on solutions that will affect the incentive structure causing small boats to arrive in our country – that is what is causing public frustration. The British public want to see asylum seekers using controlled ways of claiming asylum. We need to get to the point where, if someone wants to claim asylum, they can access a safe and legal route prior to arrival in the UK. This needs to be coupled with a returns arrangement for those arriving irregularly. A humanitarian hub or processing centre – possibly run by the UNHCR, EU or the UK Government – may be needed to make this work. There may be lessons to learn from how the Biden administration cut irregular crossings from Mexico by 81 per cent from December 2023 to December 2024 using upstream asylum processing and enforcement of failed claims. This is where our intellectual and political energies need to be channelled.
In the meantime, we must not allow the public to forget that these are Farage’s boats. We rightly didn’t let the Conservatives off the hook for our dire economic inheritance and we must not let Farage get away with the damage that Brexit has done to border control.
If we forget Brexit’s role in this problem, then we pave the way for Brexit 2.0: leaving the ECHR. We must show that Britain stands with and works with Europe; this is also what the Labour values of solidarity, community and internationalism demand. They are the opposite of Farage’s worldview, and his politics of disinformation and division. This is the correct political dividing line on border control – and Labour should embrace it.
[Further reading: Will the government seize jewellery at the border?]
Content from our partners