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?

EVERYONE EXCEPT ANDY BURNHAM KNOWS WHY MIGRANTS COME TO BRITAIN — AND IT ISN’T JUST ABOUT BREXIT

Britain’s immigration debate has once again raised difficult questions about why people come to the United Kingdom, what drives migration, and whether politicians are addressing the real causes of public concern. Andy Burnham, the Mayor of Greater Manchester and a prominent Labour figure, has become part of wider discussions about immigration, Brexit, public services, and the economic pressures facing communities across the country.

At the heart of the debate lies a fundamental question: can the UK’s immigration challenges really be explained by Brexit alone?

For many people, the answer is no. Migration is a complex international phenomenon shaped by employment opportunities, family connections, conflict, political instability, educational prospects, and the legal routes available to enter a country. Brexit changed the UK’s relationship with the European Union and its freedom-of-movement arrangements, but it did not eliminate the other reasons people choose to move to Britain.

Understanding these distinctions is essential if politicians want to develop immigration policies that work in practice rather than simply generate headlines.

Why Do People Choose Britain?

The United Kingdom has several characteristics that can attract migrants from around the world.

English is widely used in international business, education, and communications. British universities attract international students, while the country’s economy provides employment opportunities across industries ranging from healthcare and social care to construction, hospitality, technology, and finance.

Family connections are another important factor. People who already have relatives living in Britain may prefer to settle in the same country because they have access to established social networks, language support, and practical assistance.

For some migrants, the decision is primarily economic. They may believe they can earn more, improve their living conditions, or provide better opportunities for their children by moving to Britain.

Others arrive through family reunification, study programmes, or employment-based immigration routes. Some come seeking international protection because they fear persecution, conflict, or serious harm in their countries of origin.

These groups should not be treated as though they share the same motivations or legal circumstances.

A person arriving with a work visa has a different immigration status from someone applying for asylum. An international student is not automatically an asylum seeker, and a person who has applied for asylum has not necessarily been granted permission to remain permanently.

A serious immigration debate must distinguish between these categories before assessing the scale and consequences of migration.

Brexit Did Change the Immigration System

Although Brexit cannot explain every aspect of immigration to Britain, it did fundamentally change the country’s migration arrangements.

Before the end of the Brexit transition period, citizens of European Union member states generally benefited from freedom-of-movement rights that allowed them to live and work in the UK under EU rules.

Following the transition period, which ended on 31 December 2020, the UK introduced a new points-based immigration system for most new arrivals from both EU and non-EU countries.

This represented a significant change in the way the country managed labour migration.

However, the end of freedom of movement did not mean that immigration would necessarily fall in every category. The UK continued to permit migration through work, study, family, and humanitarian routes, subject to the relevant rules.

Consequently, changes in overall migration figures after Brexit cannot be attributed to a single factor without examining the available data.

The composition of migration changed as well. The importance of different nationalities, visa categories, and employment sectors shifted over time.

This matters because the political debate often combines several separate issues into a single argument. Brexit, work visas, international students, asylum applications, and irregular migration involve different policies and require different responses.

The Economic Forces Behind Migration

Employment opportunities remain a major driver of international migration.

Countries with demand for particular skills may attract workers from abroad, particularly when employers struggle to recruit sufficient numbers of domestic workers. Healthcare, social care, agriculture, construction, and other sectors have all featured in debates about overseas recruitment and labour shortages in Britain.

Employers may recruit internationally because they cannot find enough suitable workers locally, because overseas recruitment is part of their established business model, or because particular skills are in short supply.

At the same time, immigration policy can influence employers’ decisions. Changes to visa eligibility, salary thresholds, sponsorship requirements, and recruitment rules can affect how easily businesses recruit from abroad.

These arrangements create difficult questions for policymakers.

If an industry relies heavily on overseas workers, should the government expand domestic training and improve working conditions? Should employers be required to invest more in recruiting and retaining British workers? Or are there circumstances in which international recruitment is necessary to maintain essential services?

The answers vary by sector, and the evidence must be considered carefully.

It is also important to recognise that migration can have both benefits and costs. Migrants contribute to economic activity and public finances, but rapid population growth can also increase demand for housing, transport, schools, and healthcare in particular areas.

The overall impact depends on factors including employment, wages, age, skills, public spending, and the capacity of local infrastructure.

Asylum Is a Different Question

One of the most important distinctions in Britain’s immigration debate concerns asylum.

People seeking asylum generally claim that returning to their country would expose them to persecution or other serious dangers. Their claims must be assessed under the relevant domestic and international legal frameworks.

The reasons people seek protection can include armed conflict, political persecution, religious persecution, and threats based on other protected characteristics.

The decision to seek asylum may involve several stages of travel, difficult circumstances, and uncertainty about the outcome of an application.

The UK is not the only destination for people seeking protection. Many displaced people remain within their own countries or travel to neighbouring states. Others seek protection in European countries or elsewhere.

The factors influencing destination choices can include existing family networks, language, historical connections, perceived safety, access to legal routes, and information about the asylum process.

It would therefore be inaccurate to suggest that every asylum seeker comes to Britain for the same reason or that all migration is driven by economic incentives.

Likewise, it would be misleading to assume that Brexit alone explains asylum applications or irregular arrivals.

A government seeking to manage asylum effectively must ensure that claims are processed fairly and promptly, that protection is granted to those who qualify, and that decisions are implemented lawfully.

Why Immigration Has Become Such a Political Flashpoint

Public concern about immigration is rarely limited to the number of people arriving in the country.

For many communities, the debate is connected to wider pressures on public services, housing affordability, wages, employment opportunities, and confidence in government.

When people struggle to find an affordable home or face long waits for healthcare, they may question whether population growth is being managed effectively.

These concerns deserve serious attention. However, identifying the causes of a problem requires evidence rather than assumptions.

Housing shortages, for example, can be influenced by population growth, insufficient housebuilding, planning restrictions, investment patterns, and the availability of affordable homes. Immigration can contribute to housing demand, but it is not the only factor.

Similarly, pressure on healthcare can reflect population changes, workforce shortages, funding decisions, demographic ageing, and the organisation of services.

Politicians need to explain how these factors interact and identify policies capable of addressing the underlying problems.

Blaming one cause for every difficulty may produce a simple political message, but it does not necessarily provide an effective solution.

What Does This Mean for Andy Burnham?

As Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham has a prominent role in debates about regional economic development, public services, housing, and local government.

However, immigration policy is principally determined by the UK government and Parliament rather than by the mayor of Greater Manchester.

Burnham can comment on how national policies affect his region, advocate changes, and work with local institutions on issues involving housing, employment, and public services. He does not independently determine national visa rules or the UK’s asylum system.

Any claim about his position on Brexit and migration should therefore be assessed against his actual public statements rather than assumptions about what he believes.

The important question is whether politicians of all parties can explain the relationship between immigration policy and the pressures experienced by local communities.

That requires examining evidence on migration patterns, employment, housing, public-service capacity, and the effectiveness of existing rules.

It also requires recognising the limits of what any single politician or policy can achieve.

What Should Britain Do Next?

A constructive approach would begin by separating the different challenges that are often grouped together under the term immigration.

The government could improve the speed and accuracy of asylum decisions, strengthen enforcement against illegal employment, and ensure that immigration rules are applied consistently.

It could also examine whether work-visa arrangements match genuine labour-market needs while encouraging employers to invest in domestic training and workforce development.

Meanwhile, investment in housing, transport, healthcare, and local infrastructure would help communities manage population changes more effectively.

Reliable statistics should be central to this process. Net migration, gross immigration, asylum applications, visa grants, and irregular arrivals measure different things. They cannot be substituted for one another without risking a misleading picture.

Clearer reporting would allow the public to judge whether policies are achieving their stated objectives and whether changes are improving conditions for residents and newcomers alike.

Conclusion: Beyond Brexit, Britain Needs a Clearer Debate

The reasons people migrate to Britain cannot be reduced to Brexit, and they cannot be explained by one political argument alone.

Economic opportunity, family relationships, education, international instability, humanitarian protection, and immigration rules all influence migration. Brexit fundamentally changed the UK’s relationship with European freedom of movement, but the country continues to receive migrants through numerous other routes.

For Andy Burnham and other political figures, the challenge is to address public concerns without oversimplifying the evidence.

Britain needs an immigration system that is fair, enforceable, and responsive to economic needs. It also needs effective asylum procedures, sufficient housing, well-supported public services, and transparent information about the consequences of policy decisions.

The public deserves honest answers about who is arriving, why they are coming, what legal routes they use, and how migration affects different communities.

Ultimately, a serious national debate must move beyond slogans. Brexit is part of Britain’s immigration story, but it is not the whole story. Understanding the wider forces behind migration is the first step towards developing policies that protect public confidence, meet legal responsibilities, and serve the country’s long-term interests.