"The Truth is incontrovertible. Panic may resent it. Ignorance may deride it, malice may distort it, but there it is."
Winston S. Churchill, The Truth is Incontrovertible, (International Churchill Society; https://winstonchrchill.org/resources/quotes/truth-is-incontrovertible/)
For many years before my retirement, I was a Senior Lecturer in International Business at a university in the Northwest of England. One of my areas of 'expertise' was Consumer Behaviour (CB). This is basically an analysis of what drives people to make certain choices, and in particular, what makes them chose one product/service offering over another. In this respect there are a number of factors (decision-making criteria) that people take into account when making a purchase decision. These criteria are generally divided into two groups, the positives (the 'pull' factors') that attract people to a certain product or service (or country). The others are the negatives (the 'push' factors, that deter people from certain products or services - or countries), and 'push' them to choose alternatives. Just as social scientists analyse the complex mix of factors involved in the purchase of a car, politicians must analyse the decision-making criteria that spurs people to break the law and illegally enter the UK.
Myth Versus Reality
To begin with, I think it necessary to destroy a few myths that have been cultivated by politicians to garner the impression that they are actually doing something about the increasing number of law-breakers landing on our shores.
Destroy The People-Smuggling Gangs to Solve The Problem
I presume that I am not alone in being fed up of hearing about 'smashing' the people smuggling gangs, this is the myth that annoys me most, and is one that is perpetuated by politicians who wish to be seen as compassionate – they talk of their 'horror' on hearing of people drowning in their attempts to cross the English Channel in small boats, and attempt to place the blame for these deaths squarely with gangs of 'people smugglers'. This allows them to avoid criticism for their inability to keep our shores safe from invasion, whilst at the same time, appearing compassionate and pro-active.
The 'tough talk' of smashing gangs is a red herring: for decades – since the 1950s, and probably earlier – the Customs and police (and even on occasion, the Royal Navy) have tried to stop the import of illegal drugs from abroad: but as soon as one drug ring is smashed another one simply takes its place, and it will continue along these lines for the foreseeable future. The key factor here is the level of demand which unfortunately in relation to illegal drugs appears high; the level of demand (motivation) to enter the UK illegally is also high, and therefore, the people-smuggling gangs see an opportunity to make a hefty profit satisfying this demand. However, rather than targeting these 'gangs' (which as, already suggested, is a never-ending task) politicians should address the level of demand that drives people to enter the UK illegally, as without this demand, the gangs would not have a market. As long as people wish to come to the UK illegally, no amount of 'smashing' people-smuggling gangs will deter them; talking tough about tackling gangs looks good, but is ultimately meaningless – for every gang that is put out of business, another will take its place. Even following his election victory, Starmer was still wittering on about 'smashing the gangs', except now he apparently wishes to do it in conjunction with Europol and EU institutions (Easton and Francis, 2024). In an article posted by the Reuters news agency, in May of this year, MacAskill and Piper (2024) pointed out that Starmer (then Leader of The Opposition) "… pledged on Friday to '…smash the gangs…' who bring asylum seekers to Britain in boats, saying a Labour government would hire hundreds of enforcement officials and use counterterrorism powers to target them." MacAskill and Piper explained that:
"Starmer… said his party would create a Border Security Command that would bring together staff from the police, the domestic intelligence agency and prosecutors to work with international agencies to stop people smuggling. Labour said the hundreds of new specialist investigators, intelligence agents and cross-border police officers in this new unit would have the powers to carry out searches and to secure warrants to seize assets before an offence has taken place."
There is a dubious legality underpinning such measures – and Starmer as ex-Director of Public Prosecutions must be aware of the dangerous precedent of acting against people BEFORE they have committed any offence. The extent to which life mirrors art is chilling, with echoes of the Pre-Crime unit in the film Minority Report (2002) in which individuals are apprehended BEFORE they have committed any offence. How much longer before we arrive at George Orwell's 'Thought Police' – the Thinkpol? Furthermore, if one analyses this quote, it is quite meaningless, and as with the Lour election manifesto, avoids giving detail so he cannot be held to account when it fails. It is classic Blairite 'New labour-speak', saying everything whilst at the same time saying nothing:
Creation of a Border Security Command. The last thing we need is another layer of management, which is likely to spend months assessing the situation, during which it is likely that 'co-ordination meetings' will take place between the various agencies involved. We already have the ability to stop the boats without creating a new body. This will prove to be an unnecessary waste of both time and resources, and will have little or no impact on the numbers arriving on our shores. If there is a fall in numbers, this will be exclusively due to an increase in bad weather – nothing more.
On a practical level, the creation of a 'Border Security Command' is merely kicking the problem into the long grass: indeed, Starmer's much vaunted strategy appears to be no more effective than that of the previous administration: statistics issued by the Government show that in the second week of August (9th – 15th), a total of 935 illegals landed on our shores (Gov.UK, 2024). One small detail is interesting: the Government website now classifies these people as 'irregular' rather than 'illegal' – a terminology that is both inaccurate and deliberately misleading- such people have deliberately broken UK law, and violated our sovereignty; to classify them as 'irregular' suggests that they have committed a minor offence – such as arriving here accidentally as a consequence of poor navigation, or at the mercy of tidal flows. Extrapolating from this small but significant terminological inexactitude, it is easy to see that a future stance by the current government might be that such 'irregularities' should not be punished, as those who have committed such 'errors of judgement' might not have even been aware of what they were doing. If Starmer were to then give amnesty to all such illegals, who were subsequently granted asylum and given British passports, their law-breaking would have been rewarded – unlike the (justified) penalties handed out to British citizens involved in the recent riots. If this were to be the case, then the Starmer government would be remembered for rewarding law-breaking; it is also highly likely that such a move would simply open the floodgates to yet more illegals. There is final consideration: every illegal that is granted British citizenship will be ultimately entitled to vote in Local and General Elections – and there is no prize for guessing to which party they would show their gratitude.
The RNLI
I cannot understand why our Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI) should be involved in helping illegals to land safely on our shores. The general excuse is that the volunteers who man the lifeboats are only interested in saving the lives of those that are in danger on the sea. As with medics in time of war, they claim that they help everyone and anyone, regardless. The problem is that these well-meaning people are abused by politicians who wish to avoid illegals drowning at sea; the issue is not really whether illegals should be helped or not, but why the RNLI is forced to act as a free taxi service for these people. Two years ago when the RNLI began to become heavily involved in these activities, Kent lifeboat crew described the pressure on them as '…unsustainable…" and pointed out that the "…rescue efforts are 'interfering' with the RNLI's normal work and training exercises…" (Holland, 2022). This misuse of an emergency service is putting in potential danger all those who rely on the sea for a living, and who do not break the law. Not only are these volunteers putting themselves in danger, but while they are 'rescuing' people who have deliberately chosen to endanger themselves by putting to sea in dangerous craft, there may be real emergencies that the RNLI are unable to deal with, as they are otherwise occupied. It is also worthwhile considering whether the RNLI can be held criminally responsible for aiding people to break the law and enter the UK illegally. I used to contribute regularly to the RNLI funds, putting money in their various collection boxes. No longer.
What Can Be Done?
1) Allowances
The first thing is to stop being so generous – in other words, make the UK a less attractive place for lawbreakers to enter. Currently, the UK offers a very generous package to 'migrants': statistics from the UK government website (https://www.gov.uk/asylum-support/) show the following, with my thought in italics:
"What you'll get
You can ask for somewhere to live, a cash allowance or both as an asylum seeker. [This is more than many homeless UK citizens are entitled to]
"Housing
You'll be given somewhere to live if you need it. This could be in a flat, house, hostel or bed and breakfast. You cannot choose where you live. It's unlikely you'll get to live in London or south-east England. [Is this geographic discrimination based on the cost of housing in the South and London, the pressure (availability) on housing, or the fact that if these people are forced to live in the Midlands and North, they are not as visible to the London elites?]
"Cash support
You'll usually get £49.18 for each person in your household. This will help you pay for things you need like food, clothing and toiletries. [As many of these people are undocumented, how can the authorities possibly be certain of the number of people per household?]
Your allowance will be loaded onto a debit card (ASPEN card) each week. You'll be able to use the card to get cash from a cash machine. [Once again, do our homeless receive this from their government? Especially ex-forces, who may have laid their lives on the line to protect this country?]
"If your accommodation provides your meals
You'll get £8.86 for each person in your household instead.
"If you've been refused asylum but you're still eligible for support
You'll be given:
- somewhere to live
- £49.18 per person on a payment card for food, clothing and toiletries (or £8.86 per person if your accommodation provides your meals)
[Surely people who have been refused asylum should be deported immediately? I cannot understand why anyone who has been refused asylum should be then entitled to 'support']
"Extra money for mothers and young children
You'll get extra money to buy healthy food if you're pregnant or a mother of a child aged 3 or under. The amount you get will depend on your situation. [Why are citizens of this country who are in economic difficulties, not also given money to buy 'healthy food'?]
The Government supply an easy to read table of extra benefits, based around the number of children people have.
| |||||||||
The danger behind this is that it has the potential to encourage people to have more children, safe in the knowledge that they will be financially supported by the UK taxpayer, and that the are less likely to be deported if they have very young children.
"Maternity payment
You can apply for a one-off £300 maternity payment if your baby is due in 11 weeks or less, or if your baby is under 6 months old. [Again, all this does is encourage people to have more children]
"Applying for the maternity grant
You apply for the maternity grant in the same way whether you're still an asylum seeker or you've been refused asylum. [Why should people who have been refused asylum be given a maternity grant? They should be deported]
"You'll [poor grammar – should be written as 'you will'] need to request form MAT B1 from your doctor to apply for the payment. You can apply for the maternity payment at the same time you apply for asylum support. [By implication they are entitled to register with a GP (thus increasing waiting lists) and free medical treatment representing extra cost to the taxpayer]
If you get pregnant after you've applied for asylum support, you can apply to Migrant Help. [!!!!!!! No comment necessary]
"Healthcare
You may get free National Health Service (NHS) healthcare, such as to see a doctor or get hospital treatment. You'll [see above] also get:
- free prescriptions for medicine
- free dental care for your teeth
- free eyesight tests
- help paying for glasses
[Most UK citizens have to pay for their medicines, dental care, eyesight tests, and glasses! This is outrageous!]
"Education
Your children must attend school if they are aged 5 to 17. All state schools are free and your children may be able to get free school meals. [What do they do if they do not speak English? Why should they get free school meals when most UK children do not?]
2) RNLI Taxis
Stop this misuse of our emergency services, and ensure that they are used only for real maritime emergencies.
3) The Rwanda Scheme
The Rwanda Scheme was a major deterrent to illegals coming to the UK. As with all new initiatives, it should have been given time to see how it worked, but Starmer decided that he did not like it – probably because it would have been effective and consequently taken away a major strand of his criticism of the last Conservative administration – and scrapped it as almost his first action in office. He had nothing with which to replace it, meaning that a deterrent to illegal immigration was lost. Since Labour assumed power, there have been more than 10,000 people who have crossed the channel (Walker, 2024): so much for his criticism of the Conservatives, and his promise to stop the boats! All he appears to have done is destroy the one effective means of dissuasion, and replace it with a long-term plan to accept another eight years of illegal crossings, suggesting that he never really had a plan in the first place (Calgie, 2024). The government has betrayed the voters yet again…is there nothing that was promised during the election that was not a lie?
4) The European Court of Human Rights
This organisation is no longer relevant, and by withdrawing the UK's membership we would be able to deal with illegals in the way UK courts saw fit. Furthermore, we would be able to decide which foreign criminals should be deported – by scrapping our membership of the ECHR we would be able to take back control of our borders and judicial systems – something that I for one thought we would achieve with Brexit!
…..and finally… in relation to Brexit, be prepared to have effectively re-entered the EU by the end of next year. Starmer will not admit it, but this is his long-term goal, and he is adopting a 'salami tactics' approach to achieving it. Little by little, he will 'align' us with EU legislation, until we are back in the EU in all but name. The first 'slice' will be freedom of movement for young people – a safe move, as nobody would really object to a scheme that allowed students to study abroad for a period of time. It is likely that an argument will be made that, logically, freedom of movement for young people is only a short step away from freedom of movement for undocumented illegals who are also mostly 'young people'. If students can come and go with impunity then, it will be argued, why should young people from other countries not be able to do the same. By this time, not just the thin end of the wedge will have been inserted, but most of the rest! What will come after this is anybody's guess, but my money is on greater/closer co-operation over science and industry projects, and after that, a 'rationalisation' of trade legislation and cross-EU unionisation. One thing is for certain, when the next General Election does come, there will be little point in reading the Labour Election Manifesto – it will say very little of substance, and whatever it will say will be lies; any pledges made will be broken.
References
Calgie, Christian (2024) "Starmer signs up for eight more years of migrant crossings with £521 million contract." Daily Express (13 October); https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/ 1961432/keir-starmer-migrants-contract-home-office
Easton, Mark and Sam Francis (2024) "Labour seeks new deal with Europe to stop small boats gangs." BBC News (23 September); https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66804798
Gov.UK (2024) "Small Boat Arrivals – last seven days" Small Boats data. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/migrants-detected-crossing-the-english-channel-in-small-boats
Holland, Lisa (2022) "Migrant crisis: 'Unsustainable' pressure on RNLI to rescue people crossing Channel." SKY News (22 October); https://news.sky.com/story/migrant-crisis-unsustainable-pressure-on-rnli-to-rescue-people-crossing-Channel
MacAskill, Andrew and Elizabeth Piper (2024) "UK Labour leader promises to 'smash the gangs' to tackle small boats crossings." Reuters (10 May); https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-opposition-leader-sets-out-plans-to-tackle-small-boats-crossings-2024-05-09
Walker, Amy (2024) "More than 25,000 migrants cross Channel in 2024." BBC News (23 September); https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles