STEPHEN GLOVER: Spain’s border crisis is a wake-up call to Burnham who’s deep in the realms of delusion if he thinks his party’s stopping the boats
In this Daily Mail opinion column, Stephen Glover argues that a mass border crossing into the Spanish enclave of Ceuta last week, in which around 60,000 people entered from Morocco and 67 died, offers a warning about future migration pressures facing Europe, including Britain. He contends that most of those involved were young male economic migrants rather than refugees fleeing persecution, and warns that climate change and poor governance across Africa and the Middle East will intensify the pull towards wealthier nations in years to come. He criticises new Prime Minister Andy Burnham for largely ignoring immigration since succeeding Sir Keir Starmer and for claiming his government's "plan is working" on small boats.
Glover disputes Downing Street's claim of progress, noting that although Channel crossings in 2026 are down 45% on 2025 and 16% on 2024, more than 1,000 migrants arrived in the past week alone and over 2,000 since Burnham took office, with most likely to be granted asylum. He also criticises the value of the £662 million being paid to French authorities over three years to curb crossings, and references Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp's recent remarks on the issue.
- Columnist likens Ceuta migrant surge to Europe's future challenge
- Criticises PM Andy Burnham's claim boats "plan is working"
- Notes Channel crossings falling yet still exceeding 1,000 weekly
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters of Glover's argument contend that the Ceuta crossings expose a genuine and growing threat that British policymakers underplay at their peril: with most arrivals reportedly young men seeking economic opportunity rather than fleeing persecution, and with climate pressures and weak governance in Africa and the Middle East likely to intensify migratory flows for decades, they argue it is prudent rather than alarmist to demand robust deterrence now. They see continued Channel crossings, despite hundreds of millions spent on French cooperation, as evidence that current measures are not delivering value for money, and view ministers' upbeat rhetoric about 'the plan working' as complacent when over a thousand people arrived in a single week. For this camp, honest acknowledgement of scale and cost is a precondition for a fair, orderly and sustainable asylum system that retains public confidence.
The case against
Those more sympathetic to the government's position argue that judging policy by a single week's figures, or by one unrelated incident in Spain, obscures a genuine downward trend, with crossings reportedly down 45% on the previous year, and that dismantling smuggling networks and negotiating international cooperation is inherently gradual work that cannot be reversed overnight. They caution against characterising arrivals broadly as economic migrants when the majority are ultimately found, through due legal process, to have valid asylum claims, arguing that this reflects a functioning system rather than a failing one. They would also defend continued investment in French coordination as a necessary long-term commitment rather than a wasted one, and see measured, evidence-based communication from government as preferable to alarmist rhetoric that risks stoking public anxiety without improving outcomes.