Why are Union Jacks and the Cross of St George being flown on bridges and roundabouts? (Picture from this Saturday’s Guardian) Why do a majority of voters think foreign immigration is the single most important political issue?
Why do a majority of British voters think (wrongly) that illegal immigration is greater than the legal kind? Why do such diverse centrist politicians as David Blunkett, Jack Straw and Sir Malcolm Rifkind think it is now time to “decouple” British laws from the European Convention on Human Rights?
THE DISTORTION OF DEMOCRACY
Ask yourself what are the core differences between the left and the right in politics? Provision of high-level public services and the welfare state versus low taxes? Finding the right balance between the public and private sectors? Making society fairer versus individual liberty? Economic planning versus free markets?
Is it worth losing sight of what our democratic politics should be about – in order to uphold universal refugee rights from anywhere in the world? This is going to be a slightly shocking, illiberal article from a lifetime believer in human rights. Here goes:
HOW DID WE GET HERE?
The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (commonly known as the European Convention on Human Rights or ECHR) is an international treaty designed to protect political freedoms throughout Europe. It came into force in 1953.
The ECHR was directly inspired by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1948. Its main difference lies in the existence of an international court, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), whose judgments are legally binding on member states.
ASYLUM IN THE EU
Asylum as a fundamental right and an international obligation for countries, was recognised in the 1951 Geneva Convention on the protection of refugees. EU Member States have a shared responsibility to welcome asylum seekers in a dignified manner, ensuring that they are treated fairly and that their case is examined following uniform standards.
THE PROBLEM!
The Geneva Convention of 1951 forbids asylum seekers being sent back to a place “where they face serious threats to their life or freedom.” It was designed as a euro-centric safeguard against the background of the pre-War refugees from Hitler’s Germany and the post-War refugees from Stalin’s Soviet Union.
The context now is that there are many countries around the world with dictatorial regimes or civil wars raging – such as Sudan, Afghanistan, Myanmar, Iran, Congo, Gaza to name just a few. The likely impact of Global Warming is that many more refugees will be heading to Europe in future to escape starvation or violence.
As long as there is an incentive for these people to claim asylum in a wealthier, safer country, the people smuggling industry will grow. And the queues of people caught up in a lengthy, costly system of court hearings and appeals will provide indefinite tinder for the fires of right-wing, populist politics.
Our international pledge to provide hospitality and protection is not sustainable.
LEGACY OF EMPIRE
In 1962 the Conservative Government brought in the Commonwealth Immigrants Act. The Act severely restricted immigration rights and the Home Secretary R A Butler commented “a sizeable part of the entire population of the earth is at present legally entitled to come and stay in this already densely populated country.”
In 1968 the Labour government decided it should admit 50,000 dependents of existing Commonwealth immigrants. Entirely justified on humanitarian grounds but controversial.
From that point on, immigration remained a nagging political issue, with right wing Tories, including Margaret Thatcher, showing support for the white Apartheid regime in South Africa. The hidden message was that the historic supremacy of white European colonisers would be defended by the right wing. You could say it was an effective tool to divide the working class.
THE MEDIA
We cannot ignore the influence of a predominantly right-wing media. After the latest blast from Nigel Farage, pledging to deport hundreds of thousands of existing migrants, the Daily Mail front page was a flattering photo of Nigel and the words AT LAST A POLITICIAN WHO GETS IT. Unfortunately this is a primitive, gut issue: “Our land is being invaded”, “Our women are not safe!” and with sufficiently biased reporting and social media, it becomes impossible to hold a rational debate.2
Whether the number of boat crossings go up or down, the issue remains a vote winner for the far right. And once we get into flag-waving mode, a nationalist, military mindset can drive out common sense.
HOW DIFFERENT SOCIAL GROUPS RESPOND
If you are a professionally qualified, middle-class homeowner, living in a nice neighbourhood, you have no reason to be concerned about immigration. You realise that the illegal sector is a very small proportion of the annual total. Your status is not threatened by the new arrivals. If they are highly qualified, they are an asset in the workplace. If not, they staff our care homes and hospital wards, deliver our parcels and wash our cars, all on the cheap.
But if you are an unskilled worker in insecure, rented housing, maybe living in an area of industrial decline, you will be struggling desperately to make ends meet and looking for an outlet for your anger and anxiety. Immigrants willing to work harder than you for less reward may appear to be a direct threat to your livelihood. Maybe they qualify ahead of you for affordable, social housing. With the support of extended families and sheer, focused effort, they may overtake you in the social hierarchy. A bitter blow to your status. Immigrants look different, they talk different, they are an easy target to blame!
A SUGGESTED SOLUTION
The Labour government should outflank Reform by removing its commitment to ensure the safety of any illegal immigrant who can demonstrate a right to claim asylum.
This would remove the incentives for the boat crossings and the smuggling gangs. It would before long end the need to house migrants in hotels while awaiting the outcome of the long, legal process.
Some very complex arrangements would have to be negotiated for the return of illegal migrants of different ages to different countries. It would be preferable to do this on a Europe-wide basis, but this would take years – even though the EU is also moving in this direction, under exactly the same pressures.
There will be several legal and diplomatic problems with this approach, but they could be overcome. There may be short-term political penalties for doing this, but we need a long-term policy that makes sense.
HOW DO WE SALVE OUR LIBERAL CONSCIENCES?
We will put more money towards setting up safe refugee camps on the borders of countries suffering from extreme violence.
We will actively penalise and sanction countries who fund proxy wars in places like Sudan or Yemen.
We will strengthen the UN to take a more active role in ending conflicts which trigger mass movements of refugees.
We will have proper debates in Britain about which categories of refugees we will allow to migrate legally to Britain, such as those from Hong Kong and Ukraine. Or certain groups with close family ties, if that is the democratic decision.
Granting asylum in Britain will become a deliberate act of generosity rather than a passive, resentful response to illegal migration. Where there are proven atrocities or use of torture in a foreign country, we will have to make a positive decision to accept those refugees either in Parliament or at a British mission overseas.
No refugees arriving illegally would be allowed to stay to argue their case in Britain.
AS A RESULT, WE WILL HOPE TO RESCUE OUR DEMOCRATIC POLITICS FROM THE GROWING THREAT OF RIGHT-WING, RACIST POPULISM.
NB: This is a purely personal opinion by one co-editor of the JustBeauty blog platform. I put the health of British democracy above universal refugee rights. But feel free to (politely) disagree.
- YOUGOV POLL AUGUST 2025
54% OF VOTERS THINK IMMIGRATION is the most important issue facing the country
- https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/long-term-international-migration-flows-to-and-from-the-uk/ “The UK has experienced broadly similar levels of migration compared to other high-income countries, on average, over the past few decades.”
The issue of immigration has always been a source of political advantage for populists, racists, xenophobes and their financial supporters. It is particularly so at times when ordinary people are faced with difficult economic circumstances and are looking for solutions. Today is no exception.
Britain has faced upsurges of popular xenophobia, both major and minor, quite regularly. Oswald Mosely, Enoch Powell and Colin Jordan provide some examples of fascists and right-wing demagogues building a mass following based on the venal sensationalism of the press and of the gullibility of some of the population.
We should be aware, though, that Brexit was the source of much of the current political situation. Something that can clearly be laid at the door of Farage and his millionaire and billionaire backers. Not only did it switch the nature of immigration from European workers (which were often seasonal) to those from other nations, mainly India, Pakistan, Nigeria, and the Phillipines (which have been mostly permanent) but it also cancelled the return agreements we had with the EU. The result was an increase in immigration.
The actual *net* immigration data was variable from ca. 200-300,000 / year up to 2021 with a subsequent sharp rise to 600,000 until this year, when it is 400,000 up until this August.
So is net immigration a real issue? Maybe. It depends on whether we need that degree of immigration, given our declining birthrate and increasingly aging population.
All the subsequent figures are approximations and should be used with care and rechecked for relevance and appropriateness to the specific issue under discussion.
The situation of the UK is not typical of European countries, immigration is higher, even allowing for the influx of British citizens from Hong Kong (ca. 150,000 likely to rise) and the Ukranian refugee influx (also 180,000, and maybe risen to ca. 250,000).
The total number of people arriving via small boats (starting in 2018) is 185,000. The rate of arrival has been ca. 40,000/year since 2022. Allowing for the 35,000 repatriated that means your chance of meeting with a boat person is about once in 500 random meetings.
The UK is also not typical of other European countries because of the dreadful incompetence of the Conservative governments following the Brexit vote. Not only were the best and most sensible members of the Conservative Party removed by Boris Johnson, but the most incompetent ones were elevated to major roles. As a result no effective policies were implemented to deal with the small boats increase. The outcome of this gross incompetence was a huge backlog of asylum cases which still exists. (though the backlog of ca. 105,000 inherited by Labour has now been reduced to 70,000, under more competent management.
Moreover, this backlog meant that accommodation options were overwhelmed, leading to the stop-gap hotel ‘solution’. While other European countries had been building distributed housing (Germany) and others (e.g. France) had been opening reception centres with language education, the UK goverment did nothing but muse about sticking people onto barges.
Here is the UK hotel data. The number of such hotels under the Conservatives was 400. This has been reduced to 210 under a more competent Labour home secretary. Currently there are 32,000 people in hotel accommodation. This is also down from the 56,000 inherited by Labour.
What percentage of small boat migrants are ultimately given a right to stay anyway?
The answer is 71% and of those who appeal a further 60% win the appeal. So only ca. 10 -15 % are not considered truly in need of asylum and are liable to deportation. Taken in comparison with the vastly higher legal immigration numbers this is a (trivially) small number to have achieved such political prominence.
Given all the above it is clear that there is a net UK legal immigration issue which might need to be addressed, given the recent increase, but that the small boats issue is not the central one. Of course, if you think that asylum should not be granted to those fleeing war or repression, you are entitled to your opinion, but not to my respect.
So, do we need to rush towards changing legislation and conventions which are currently in operation and humane, merely because loathsome demagogues and xenophobes have the ear of the media and of gullible sections of the electorate? Maybe. It certainly is not an issue to be ignored. We have seen the US example, and right wing populism proved to be a Trump card there.
But should the Labour party run ahead of reform in the same despicable way in which the Jenrick and Badenoch are.
I think not.
First, in my opinion, we have a moral duty to do the right thing, even if it is presently unpopular. We should not be supporting reductions in human rights and then casting about for ways to salve our consciences.
Second, fascism and other right-wing ideologies are not stopped by acquiring their policies and thus strengthening their propaganda. They will be stopped in the same way they always have been, by exposing their hypocrisy and their billionaire backers, challenging their lies, and dealing with the real issues instead of spreading and condoning their division and hate. And if they resort to fascist thuggery, as they often do, they will be defeated, as in the past, by those who cherish democratic human values and who are willing to confront their intimidation on the streets.
I hope that will not prove necessary, and that progressive people of all parties will come together to oppose xenophobic propaganda, rather than running in front of such fascist/populist rabble-rousing, like frightened rabbits.
I agree with the spirit of the last comment – that it will be ethically heart-breaking to turn away refugees fleeing extreme violence. The problem is that with our first past the system, we have a real prospect of a Reform government next time (maybe aided by a backdoor deal with the Tories). This worked for Boris Johnson when he won a big majority, promising to “take back control” our national borders!
If there’s a far right majority in the next Parliament, high principles will count for nothing.
It may be that Keir Starmer calculates that competence will be enough to gain re-election, if the right wing continues to be split between its home counties middle class bedrock and the less educated Reform supporters from poorer areas. But what if the two wings of the Tories make an electoral pact?
I talked to some Libdem councillors the other day. (They now control Hertfordshire county council!) One of them said he agreed that the European Convention on Refugees needs amending. But he indicated that Libdems will never say that – because they stand to pick up more middle class voters as Keir Starmer starts to echo the language of Reform.
These are short term calculations. I think it’s maybe better for Labour to cut the Gordian knot, outflank Reform and take the media obsession with boat people off the agenda. It’s not going to go away.
Interesting article Simon. My impression is that the liberal left has a blind spot about culture, thinking that people from radically different cultures can come to the host country and that we will all get along fine as long as we are tolerant and kind. This is largely true when immigration is low. At that stage immigrants have to integrate. But the appearance of Union and St George flags in Bournemouth streets indicates that mass immigration is creating a sectarian society similar to northern Ireland. When subcultures get so large they can exist in silos with very different values and loyalties and identities then we have a growing challenge on our hands. What overarching identity and value system can bind us together? We need to slow immigration down to a trickle while we work out how to deal with the societal challenge that liberal politicians have created.
I don’t fully agree with David’s comment above. I don’t imagine that immigration to Britain has often been “just a trickle.” Culture is important but I think there is huge confusion in Britain now as to what our national culture is. We still have a folk memory of the massive expansion of the British Empire and the British economy, with wealth flooding in. We have memories of heroic action in two somewhat futile World Wars, as Britain lost its empire and its global trade domination – in favour of the USA.
We have stereotypes in our minds of white European colonialists ruling over people with less white skins, and justifying it because we were giving them the benefits of our Bible and “civilisation.” This undoubtedly makes it harder for some people to accept immigration by Afro-Caribbean and Asian people.
But we should also recognise that most immigration is legally permitted – because we need the migrants! And also that ever since Enoch Powell, highlighting immigration and grossly exaggerating the illegal element and boat crossings has been a staple of Conservative and right wing propaganda.
It has repeatedly been used to whip up racial prejudice and to stifle debate on how much we need to spend on public services – and how the resulting tax burden can be fairly shared.
And of course the key point is that unless we can see people as individuals, not just as part of a religious or racial group, we are in real trouble.