Furious Migrant Row Erupts on GB News as Star Rages: ‘Come Off It!’
A heated immigration debate on GB News erupted into an extraordinary on-air confrontation after presenter Michelle Dewberry challenged Conservative MP David Reed over his explanation for the growing number of migrants attempting to cross the English Channel.
The discussion became increasingly tense when Reed suggested that climate change could be contributing to migration across Europe.
Dewberry appeared astonished by the argument and questioned whether people making dangerous journeys across the Channel were really doing so because temperatures were rising in their home countries.
Her response was immediate.
“You’re not telling me these guys are coming over the Channel because they’re a bit hot?” she challenged.
When Reed continued defending his argument, the presenter exclaimed: “Oh! Come off it!”
The exchange quickly became the most memorable moment of the discussion, highlighting the divisions surrounding Britain’s migration debate and the difficulty politicians face when attempting to explain a complicated international problem to a frustrated public.
But behind the dramatic television moment was a much bigger question.
How much responsibility should climate change carry for migration, and are British politicians giving voters a convincing explanation of why so many people are attempting to reach the United Kingdom?
The moment the GB News debate exploded
The confrontation took place during a discussion on Dewbs & Co., hosted by Michelle Dewberry.
Her guest was Conservative MP David Reed, who represents Exmouth and Exeter East.
The conversation initially focused on the Conservative Party’s approach to immigration and the continuing controversy surrounding small boat crossings.
Dewberry challenged the Conservatives over their record on immigration, suggesting that their time in government had contributed to what many people regarded as an open-borders situation.
Reed rejected the idea that the problem could be viewed exclusively as a British failure.
He argued that countries across Western Europe were experiencing similar pressures and that migration was an international challenge rather than something affecting the United Kingdom alone.
He then introduced climate change into the discussion.
Reed suggested that a warming planet, particularly rising temperatures in equatorial regions, could contribute to instability and migration.
His argument was that environmental pressures could worsen existing problems, including poverty, violence and political instability.
But Dewberry was unconvinced.
She questioned the suggestion that migrants crossing the Channel were being driven directly by hotter weather.
Her reaction made the disagreement impossible to miss.
Rather than allowing the discussion to pass without challenge, she demanded a clearer explanation of the connection between climate change and the journeys being undertaken by migrants.
Reed attempted to clarify that he was not claiming people were crossing the Channel simply because they felt too hot.
Instead, he described climate change as one contributing factor among several.
He also argued that a warming planet could intensify violence and instability, creating circumstances in which more people might be forced to leave their homes.
The distinction was important, but the exchange had already become heated. <Cite refs={[“turn634146search0”]}/>
Can climate change really drive migration?
The argument raised an important issue that cannot be dismissed simply because the explanation sounds controversial during a television debate.
Climate change can contribute to displacement.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has identified extreme weather events and changing climate conditions as direct and indirect drivers of involuntary migration.
Droughts, floods, storms and rising environmental pressures can destroy homes, damage agriculture and undermine the livelihoods of communities.
When people lose access to reliable food, water or employment, some may decide that remaining in their home region is no longer sustainable.
However, this does not mean that climate change automatically produces international migration.
The majority of climate-related displacement takes place within national borders, while international movement is more commonly between neighbouring countries.
The relationship between climate and migration is also complicated by conflict, poverty, political instability and access to resources.
In some circumstances, climate pressures can make existing conflicts worse.
In others, people may move because they can no longer earn enough money to support their families.
This means Reed’s broader argument has a basis in established climate research, even though Dewberry was right to question whether it adequately explained the specific circumstances of people crossing the English Channel.
There is a considerable difference between saying climate change can contribute to migration and claiming it is the main reason behind a particular Channel crossing.
The available evidence does not establish that the migrants arriving in small boats are generally making their journeys because of rising temperatures.
<Cite refs={[“turn365451search6″,”turn365451search10”]}/>
The reality behind Britain’s small boat crisis
The political debate is taking place against a background of significant numbers of people arriving in Britain through unauthorised routes.
According to the House of Commons Library, approximately 33,000 people arrived by small boat in the year ending June 2026.
That represented around 88 per cent of all detected unauthorised arrivals during that period.
The figures also show how dramatically the route has changed over recent years.
Small boat arrivals reached approximately 46,000 in 2022, fell in 2023 and subsequently increased again.
The latest figures demonstrate that the Channel route remains a major challenge for the British border system.
But the reasons people make the journey are not identical.
Some are fleeing conflict or persecution.
Others may be escaping political instability, economic hardship or dangerous conditions in their home countries.
There are also people whose decisions are influenced by family connections, language, cultural links and perceptions of opportunities in Britain.
Research by the University of Oxford’s Migration Observatory has highlighted the importance of these different factors.
Its analysis suggests that the presence of friends and relatives in the UK, established communities and negative experiences in other European countries can influence destination choices.
The expansion of organised smuggling networks has also played an important role.
These networks provide the boats, equipment and transport that make dangerous crossings possible.
The UK government’s Border Security Command has identified criminal organisations, international cooperation and the availability of small boat equipment as important elements of the problem.
This suggests that the migration debate cannot be reduced to one explanation.
Climate pressures may be part of the wider picture, but so are conflict, organised crime, border enforcement and the availability of safe legal routes. <Cite refs={[“turn365451search0″,”turn365451search1″,”turn365451search4″,”turn365451search2”]}/>
Reed turns the argument towards hostile states
The discussion then moved beyond climate change.
Reed argued that migration could also be exploited by hostile states seeking to create instability in Western countries.
He referred to Russia and suggested that hostile governments could use existing migration pressures as a means of creating political difficulties for Britain and its European neighbours.
His position was that the UK needed strong measures to deter people from making unauthorised journeys.
He also raised the European Convention on Human Rights, arguing that Britain would need to leave the treaty to have greater control over who entered the country and who could be deported.
That proposal immediately brought another major political issue into the discussion.
The ECHR has become one of the most controversial subjects in Britain’s immigration debate.
Supporters of leaving argue that the convention can restrict the government’s ability to remove certain people and implement its preferred immigration policies.
Opponents warn that withdrawal would have significant consequences for human rights protections, international cooperation and Britain’s legal obligations.
The question is therefore much bigger than a disagreement between a television presenter and a Conservative MP.
It concerns the balance between border control, national security, international law and individual rights.
Reed’s intervention demonstrated how quickly an argument about climate change could develop into a much broader discussion about Britain’s constitutional and political relationship with Europe.
Why the government continues to face pressure
Immigration remains one of the most difficult issues facing successive British governments.
Voters want to know whether the authorities can control the country’s borders, prevent dangerous crossings and ensure that asylum applications are processed efficiently.
They also want reassurance that people who do not qualify for protection will not be allowed to remain indefinitely.
At the same time, the asylum system must distinguish between people seeking international protection and those who are not entitled to remain.
That distinction is essential.
A person arriving through an irregular route does not automatically have an invalid asylum claim.
Equally, making an asylum application does not guarantee that protection will be granted.
The statistics show that the overwhelming majority of people arriving by small boat go on to claim asylum.
Their applications must therefore be assessed individually, according to the relevant legal framework.
The government also faces the challenge of disrupting the criminal gangs that profit from dangerous crossings.
The National Crime Agency has argued that enforcement against smuggling networks, restrictions on equipment supplies and cooperation with French authorities can help reduce the number of people transported across the Channel.
These measures are important because the criminal organisations involved can adapt quickly when enforcement arrangements change.
A debate that reflects Britain’s wider divisions
The exchange between Dewberry and Reed revealed something important about the political atmosphere surrounding immigration.
People increasingly expect politicians to provide direct explanations rather than rely on complicated arguments that appear disconnected from everyday concerns.
For someone watching the news and seeing another small boat arrival report, a discussion about global temperatures may seem like an attempt to avoid the immediate question of border control.
Yet ignoring climate change completely would also be misleading.
Environmental pressures can contribute to displacement, particularly when they interact with conflict, poverty and political instability.
The challenge for politicians is explaining those connections without suggesting that one factor explains every migration movement.
Dewberry’s reaction reflected the frustration of viewers who want clearer answers about the Channel crossings.
Reed’s response highlighted the international dimensions of migration and the possibility that environmental and geopolitical pressures could become increasingly important.
Both subjects deserve serious examination.
But neither can replace the need for effective immigration administration, international cooperation and action against organised criminal networks.
The questions Britain still needs answered
The GB News confrontation may have lasted only a few minutes, but it captured the difficult choices facing British politicians.
Can the government reduce dangerous small boat crossings?
Can it disrupt the smuggling gangs that organise them?
Can asylum claims be processed quickly and fairly?
And can Britain protect its borders while meeting its international legal responsibilities?
These are the questions that matter to voters.
The debate also demonstrates why political explanations must be precise.
Climate change can contribute to migration, but it is not a complete explanation for the people crossing the Channel.
Likewise, tougher border policies may influence migration routes, but they cannot by themselves resolve the conflicts and instability that force people to leave their homes.
For Michelle Dewberry, the phrase “Come off it!” became the defining moment of the exchange.
For David Reed, the discussion was an opportunity to argue that migration must be understood in a wider international context.
And for viewers, the confrontation exposed a continuing disagreement over how Britain should respond to one of its most divisive political challenges.
The real test for politicians will be whether they can move beyond dramatic television arguments and produce policies that are effective, lawful and supported by evidence.