Is Andy Burnham really as thick as he appears to be or does he think the British people are? I suspect it’s the former which means some poor village somewhere is missing its idiot. Why else would he come out with nonsense this week saying: “Brexit is to blame for the small boats crisis” when it’s patently not.
Brexit has nothing whatsoever to do with the small boats crisis which started way before we left the EU and while we were still under EU rules. The Tory Government at the time declared the situation a “major incident”. More importantly he can’t blame the crisis on Brexit for the simple reason that historical data makes clear that the EU’s Migration Returns mechanisms brought MORE asylum seekers into the UK than it removed.
Take 2019 for instance – Britain transferred out 263 asylum seekers while 714 more were sent to us from Europe. Does that sound like a good system to you when you’re taking three times more people than you’re shipping out? And if we rejoined the EU we’d have to take as many migrants as they told us to take and it would be more than are coming here now.
Also does Burnham really expect us to believe what he claimed on Good Morning Britain this week that the reason migrants come here is because they know we can’t return them: “We have people knowing we can’t return them in the same way we used to.”
Which is rubbish, because it was every bit as hard to return them before Brexit as it is now. And Burnham knows full well that migrants come here for lots of reasons – the main ones being free hotels, free housing, free healthcare, a lifetime on benefits and free education. They don’t come here because of Brexit.
So why IS he coming out with this divisive tosh now – not least because his own Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood has said categorically that Brexit is NOT the reason for the small boats crisis: “There are lots of debates to be had about the rights and wrongs of Brexit, but is it responsible for the boats? I don’t think that is true.”
So why is our dopey PM saying the polar opposite to the woman who knows more about the small boats crisis than he ever will? I’ll tell you why – he’s using this phoney Brexit narrative in order to justify the fact he’s crawling back onto the arms of the EU. He desperately wants Britain back in the failing bloc because he doesn’t know how to run the country and he’s stupid enough to think they do. And if we’re back in the EU, he can blame Brussels for everything that goes wrong here.
But by making these fake Brexit pronouncements he also knows it will detract attention from the fact that our “talk-a-lot-but-do-nothing PM” is doing beggar-all about the problems crippling this country. In his first 100 days in office, he’s barely said a word about illegal immigration or how he’s going to resolve a situation that is costing taxpayers billions every year. He’s said nothing about how he’s going to pay down the £3trillion debt (which is costing us £110billion a year in interest). He refused to say how, or if he’s going to cut the gargantuan benefits bill. And he’s saying even less about the cyber war we’re told is going to hit in the near future which could see Britain plunged into darkness.
And what’s Burnham been doing while all these problems are piling up on his desk – he’s been on Gogglebox eating crisps with his mate, Liverpool Mayor Steve Rotheram, and making TikTok videos. This man is not a serious politician. He’s trivial and much of the stuff we’re being told is in the budget is also trivial and does nothing to sort out the big issues that could bring Britain crashing down.
But back to Brexit – he put his foot in his mouth yet again on Good Morning Britain saying he wasn’t averse to the idea of open borders. This from the man who in 2017 said free movement should never be revived because “it was defeated at the ballot box in 2016”. Now he’s changed his mind. What the hell’s wrong with him? Is he taking lessons on how to govern from Starmer? Or does he just change his beliefs and principles – like Starmer did – as often as he changes his underpants? Does he actually believe in anything or does he just say what suits him at the time – like Starmer did?
And what are we supposed to think of a politician who told the good people of Leave-voting Makerfield that he had no intention of unpicking Brexit. “Brexit is done,” he told them when he was pleading for their votes – the votes he desperately needed to catapult him into No 10. But now he’s there, he’s spitting on those people who put their trust in him, who believed he wasn’t going to interfere with this country’s biggest ever democratic vote. “We need to be honest with people about who we are,” he droned this week.
HONEST? Oh, pull the other one! Andy Burnham wouldn’t know honest if it smacked him in the face because he’s been anything but honest about Brexit. He also said this week that Britain is now gaining momentum – well if it is why the hell does he want to drag us back into the crisis-hit, failing EU where most of the major economies are in the toilet and in a way worse state than ours?
Do we think Burnham even knows that? Our Prime Minister – who has spent the first 100 days as PM playing man of the people and desperately trying to be liked rather than actually doing his job – is standing by watching this country crash and burn with a silly grin on his face and bag of Monster Munch in his hand. He really doesn’t know what he’s doing. And you have to wonder who’s more terrified about that – him or us?
The debate over immigration has once again become a major political issue in the United Kingdom after Prime Minister Andy Burnham suggested that Brexit had contributed to the country’s small boats crisis. His comments have provoked criticism from opponents who argue that Britain faces a much more complicated migration problem, involving international conflicts, economic opportunities, family connections, people-smuggling networks and weaknesses in border enforcement. The controversy has also reopened the wider debate about Britain’s relationship with the European Union, particularly whether closer cooperation with Brussels could help the government control immigration more effectively.
Burnham has argued that leaving the European Union weakened Britain’s ability to cooperate with neighbouring countries on immigration enforcement. Before Brexit, the UK participated in the Dublin Regulation, which provided a framework for determining which European country was responsible for examining an asylum application and allowed certain asylum seekers to be transferred between participating countries. According to the Prime Minister, losing access to this system made it more difficult for Britain to return some individuals who had previously travelled through other European countries. He believes that restoring practical cooperation with European partners could help address the problem of irregular Channel crossings.
However, critics argue that blaming Brexit for the arrival of migrants is an incomplete explanation. People do not usually risk their lives crossing dangerous seas simply because of changes to immigration agreements between governments. Many have experienced war, political persecution, violence, poverty or instability in their home countries. Others are seeking to reunite with relatives, find employment or build a more secure future. These reasons existed long before the 2016 Brexit referendum and continue to influence international migration today.
One of the most important factors behind migration is the situation in migrants’ countries of origin. Countries affected by armed conflict, political repression and humanitarian emergencies often produce large numbers of displaced people. Individuals who fear imprisonment, torture or violence may have little choice but to leave their homes. For example, prolonged conflicts in Syria, Afghanistan and Sudan have forced millions of people to seek protection in other countries. For these individuals, migration is not necessarily an attempt to obtain a more comfortable lifestyle but an effort to escape circumstances that threaten their safety and survival.
Economic conditions also influence migration decisions. People living in countries with high unemployment, low wages and limited opportunities may believe that moving abroad offers a better chance of improving their lives. Britain has traditionally been viewed as an attractive destination because of its relatively developed economy, established labour market and international connections. Nevertheless, it is important to distinguish between people migrating through legal employment routes and those seeking asylum. Economic migration and refugee protection involve different legal requirements, even though an individual’s motivations can sometimes overlap.
Another significant factor is the English language. Britain has a considerable advantage as an English-speaking country because many migrants have studied English or have previous experience with British culture. Knowing the language can make it easier to find employment, communicate with public authorities and integrate into local communities. Some people may also have historical or cultural connections with Britain because of colonial relationships or previous migration patterns. These links can influence where individuals decide to settle when they leave their countries of origin.
Family connections are equally important. Migrants who already have relatives or friends in Britain may prefer to travel there rather than establish themselves in an unfamiliar country. Family members can provide accommodation, practical assistance, emotional support and information about employment opportunities. For people who have experienced war or persecution, being reunited with relatives can be particularly important. Research by the University of Oxford’s Migration Observatory identifies family networks, language, historical connections and perceptions of safety as important factors influencing why some asylum seekers choose the UK.
Furthermore, the presence of established migrant communities can create additional incentives. When people know that members of their national or cultural community already live in Britain, they may feel more confident about rebuilding their lives there. These communities can provide advice about housing, education, employment and everyday life. Such connections often develop over many years and cannot simply be explained by recent changes in British immigration policy.
The role of criminal smuggling networks must also be considered. Many migrants attempting to cross the English Channel depend on organised criminal groups that promise to transport them into Britain. These organisations exploit vulnerable people by charging substantial sums of money for dangerous journeys. Some migrants are deceived about the risks, while others have limited alternatives because safe and legal routes are unavailable or difficult to access. The growth and professionalisation of smuggling networks have contributed to the development of small-boat crossings, making the issue considerably more complicated than a disagreement over Brexit.
Nevertheless, Brexit has had a genuine impact on Britain’s immigration arrangements, and dismissing this entirely would also be misleading. The UK lost access to the Dublin asylum transfer system after the end of the Brexit transition period. This reduced the number of formal mechanisms available for transferring certain asylum applicants to other European countries. The Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford acknowledges that losing access to these arrangements may have influenced some people’s decisions to seek asylum in Britain, particularly those who had previously been refused protection elsewhere in Europe.
However, the same research also highlights several other important developments. Increased enforcement on alternative migration routes, the professionalisation of smuggling organisations and changing international circumstances have all contributed to the growth of small-boat crossings. There is therefore insufficient evidence to claim that Brexit alone explains the crisis. Equally, it would be inaccurate to suggest that Brexit has had no influence whatsoever.
The timing of Burnham’s comments has also attracted political attention. His suggestion that Britain should reconsider aspects of its relationship with the European Union has raised concerns among politicians who believe that the government is attempting to reopen the Brexit debate. The Prime Minister has expressed interest in closer cooperation with Brussels and has suggested that Britain could potentially rejoin the EU during his lifetime. However, he has also stated that he will not introduce a return to freedom of movement without public support and has ruled out fundamental changes during the current parliamentary term.
Supporters of closer European cooperation argue that the UK needs stronger international partnerships to tackle organised crime and manage irregular migration. Cooperation could improve information sharing, strengthen border enforcement and make it easier to coordinate the return of individuals who do not qualify for international protection. Britain and France, for example, need to work together because the English Channel is a shared geographical challenge that cannot be managed effectively by either country acting independently.
On the other hand, opponents argue that restoring closer relations with the EU will not automatically solve the problem. Even before Brexit, Britain experienced irregular migration and difficulties returning asylum seekers. Parliamentary investigations have previously highlighted the limited number of transfers carried out under the Dublin system. This suggests that although international agreements can provide useful tools, their effectiveness depends on practical implementation, administrative capacity and cooperation between governments.
The government must also address weaknesses in its domestic asylum system. Long processing times, insufficient accommodation and delays in removing people whose claims have been rejected can create additional pressure on public resources. A more efficient system would allow genuine refugees to receive decisions more quickly while ensuring that individuals who do not qualify for protection are dealt with according to the law. At the same time, authorities must prevent vulnerable migrants from being exploited by criminal organisations.
Public confidence is another essential consideration. British citizens have legitimate concerns about border security, pressure on public services and the costs associated with irregular migration. These concerns should not be dismissed as prejudice or hostility towards foreigners. However, political leaders must also avoid presenting migrants as a single group with identical motivations. Refugees escaping persecution, international students, skilled workers and people arriving through family routes have different circumstances and legal rights.
The media also has a responsibility to present immigration issues accurately. Sensational headlines and politically charged statements may attract attention, but they do not necessarily help the public understand the underlying causes of migration. Responsible reporting should examine reliable statistics, explain the differences between asylum seekers and other migrants, and consider both the experiences of migrants and the concerns of local communities.
Ultimately, Britain needs an immigration strategy that combines effective border management with international cooperation and humanitarian responsibility. This means improving asylum processing, combating people-smuggling networks, strengthening cooperation with France and other European countries, and creating appropriate legal pathways for people who genuinely need protection. It also means addressing the economic and political conditions that force people to leave their homes.
In conclusion, the suggestion that Brexit is responsible for Britain’s migrant crisis is an oversimplification of a much wider international problem. Andy Burnham is right to raise questions about the consequences of losing European cooperation, particularly the previous asylum transfer arrangements. However, migrants come to Britain for many different reasons, including war, persecution, economic difficulties, family connections, language and the hope of finding a safer future. Brexit may have influenced some aspects of migration, but it cannot explain every Channel crossing or every asylum application. The real challenge for the British government is to recognise these different causes and develop policies that are practical, fair and effective. Rather than allowing immigration to become another endless political argument, Britain needs evidence-based solutions that protect national interests while respecting human dignity.