See Emily play

One of my favourite politicians is Labour's Emily Thornberry, Shadow Attorney General for England and Wales and former Shadow Foreign Secretary. She is plain-speaking, down-to-earth and always has a mischievous twinkle. I imagine a few g&ts with her would be hugely entertaining.

On last evening's Channel 4 News she was interviewed by Ciaran Jenkins about Sir Keir Starmer and Yvette Cooper's controversial visit to The Hague to talk to Europol about possible cooperation in stopping people trafficking across the Channel should Labour come to power. The UK left Europol, the European crime-fighting organisation, at Brexit. The visit was an effort to explore potential ways to break the impasse created by the Tory goverment's reluctance to engage with the EU on the subject, despite recent tentative overtures by Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak.

It is unusual for the Leader of the Opposition to embark on a unilateral mission of this kind and it has attracted a lot of media attention and speculation. The right-wing press, led by the Daily Mail, accuses Labour of planning to take 100,000 migrants per annum from Europe in a quid pro quo arrangement with the EU over accepting a quota of refugees in exchange for agreeing to returns of illegal immigrants. These are the same people who promised seventy-six million Turks would come to the UK if we remained in the EU so such fear-mongering should be taken with a mountain of salt.

However, fear of mass migration remains active and Jenkins cut to the chase in his follow-up: "If they say 'no', your plan is kaput". There was a pause as Thornberry rolled her eyes, expelling her breath to ruffle her fringe while collecting her thoughts. It was a priceless live TV moment, a rare sighting of authenticity, where candour tussled with caution. Lord love her, you could see her mulling the answer "we're fucked" before delivering an anodyne response befitting a member of the Shadow Cabinet. Jenkins, whose interviewing style can resemble a terrier with a rat if he senses evasion, also alluded to the current environmental disaster in Libya and pressed Thornberry on whether Labour would allow Libyan refugees asylum in the UK. She seemed to accept that they would. 

This is an issue where Labour will really need to develop a robust response because sitting on the fence is no longer an option. One sympathises with Labour's dilemma in seeking to take the moral highground on a humanitarian issue where the government has signally and shamefully failed whilst not alienating the Red Wall voters who fear a migrant 'flood'. This is admittedly a difficult circle to square but mealy-mouthed equivocation and cowering behind a smokescreen of obfuscation will no longer cut it with the public, if it ever did. Starmer and his team will need to summon up the courage to tell it to the British people like it really is. And it's not good.

Recent tragic environmental disasters around the Mediterranean have killed thousands and disposessed and displaced potentially millions. Political upheaval in Syria and Libya are exacerbating the situation. North Africa and sub-Saharan Africa are in a vice-like grip of environmental catastrophe and political turmoil, with the one feeding off the other. As Libyans and Tunisians try to cross the Mediterranean directly to Europe, Senegalese climate and political refugees are making the Atlantic crossing from the south to the Spanish Canary Islands, seeking to gain access to the EU via the 'back door'. In an ongoing scenario rarely reported in the UK, in one day alone last week over one thousand Senagalese arrived in wooden fishing boats (cayucos) in the Canarian islands of Tenerife and El Hierro. Should neighbouring Morocco descend into political chaos after government mismanagement of the recent earthquakes the results are unthinkable.

In my opinion the honest and honourable thing (indeed the only thing) for Labour to do in these circumstances is to present the British people with a stark choice - accept managed migration or face an unstoppable flow of 'illegal' migration. Either we negotiate with the EU now to accept our fair share of legitimate migrants (something, frankly, we never did while in EU membership) in return for being able to send illegitimate migrants back or face being overwhelmed on these islands. 

The only choice now is between controlled and uncontrolled immigration. The British will have to choose - no ifs, no buts - this is the immutable reality of the 21st century. Right now there remains a narrow, and rapidly closing, window of opportunity to sort out via diplomacy a sensible response to this existential crisis.

Fail to grasp it and we really are fucked.


Popular posts from this blog

On old age

"The fact is that when I come to think it over, I find that there are four reasons for old age being thought unhappy: First, that it withdraws us from active employments; second, that it enfeebles the body; third, that it deprives us of nearly all physical pleasures; fourth, that it is the next step to death."  Writing his essay,  De Senectute (On Old Age), in 44 BCE, Marcus Tullius Cicero went on to refute these four supposed reasons in characteristically robust and forthright manner. Cicero wasn't one to sit about moping in his own old age; he remained actively engaged in the political life of the Republic whose survival, in the face of tyranny, he championed so fiercely.  Cicero was nine years younger than I am now when he met his untimely end yet he considered himself already an old man; or, rather, his society judged him to be so. His second point about age enfeebling is more germane. Physical decline had not yet impacted him but, six years on from my retirement, I
Read more

Born to rule

When, ten days ago, I posted my piece about the manipulated image of Catherine, Princess of Wales, and her children (see Snap Judgment) I didn't know of her cancer treatment. Had I known, I would have adopted a gentler, though I hope no less critical, tone. But I didn't know, and nor did any of us outside the immediate royal circle, which rather goes to strengthen the case against the monarchy. For Kate and her family the diagnosis of cancer (as yet unspecified) will have been a devastating blow, as will the chemotherapy she is currently undergoing. On a human level, of course I sympathise and extend my best wishes for a full recovery as, indeed, I did at the time of her father-in-law's diagnosis. It is particularly cruel, then, that on top of all this she has been obliged to record a video statement to reassure the public. As if she didn't have enough to contend with already. But such is the unpalatable obligation placed upon any royal personage - noblesse oblige. Whic
Read more

Working to rule

An avowed republican I may be but news of King Charles III's cancer diagnosis is nevertheless a cause of sadness - I might not want him, or anyone else, as my king but I wish the man no harm.  However, Jonathan Swift's opinion that "health is the greatest of all possessions; a pale cobbler is better than a sick king" serves as a timely reminder that ill-health in the monarch is not simply a personal matter, it has constitutional implications. To be blunt about it, Charles' death, in constitutional terms at least, would be no great problem; the king is dead, long live the king. The succession is assured and the crown would pass immediately to the Prince of Wales, who would be pronounced William V. The ship of state would sail on. A long-term or debilitating illness, on the other hand, could have far-reaching consequences for the institution of the monarchy at a sensitive time, coming so soon after the death of Britain's longest-reigning monarch, Charles' mo
Read more