Andy Burnham blames Brexit for failure to stop Channel migrant boats and blasts ‘un-British’ demos
Developing story first seen 3 hours ago
Andy Burnham has blamed Brexit for reducing Britain’s co-operation with European neighbours on migration, while insisting the government’s goal remains to stop all Channel crossings. He also condemned masked anti-migrant demonstrations as “un-British”, arguing that protests going beyond expressing concerns about immigration should be dealt with by police.
The comments followed 781 arrivals on Wednesday, the highest daily total this year, bringing arrivals since the general election to 83,279—more than the British Army’s stated strength of 83,000. Burnham’s view conflicts with Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood, who previously rejected Brexit as the cause, while Conservative and Reform politicians said former EU return arrangements had made little practical difference; meanwhile, activist Daniel Thomas denied charges linked to an alleged boat-slashing incident.
- Burnham says Brexit weakened migration co-operation with European neighbours.
- Wednesday saw 781 Channel arrivals, the year’s highest daily total.
- He condemns masked anti-migrant protests as “un-British”.
New here? Start with this
People attempting to cross the English Channel in small boats have become a major political issue in Britain. The government has made stopping these crossings a priority, but significant numbers of people continue to attempt the journey.
Andy Burnham has blamed Brexit for weakening Britain's co-operation with European countries on migration, suggesting closer international partnership would help prevent crossings. This view conflicts with Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood's previous position that Brexit is not the cause, and with other politicians who argue former EU arrangements made little practical difference.
Burnham has condemned masked anti-migration demonstrations, arguing that police should deal with protests that go beyond peaceful expression of concerns about immigration. The issue remains contentious, with significant political disagreement on both what causes the crossings and how best to address them.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Those blaming Brexit observe that the UK has lost institutional access to European cooperation mechanisms—Dublin agreements, shared border databases, coordinated deportation procedures—that allowed faster, coordinated returns to first-safe-country. These mechanisms were imperfect but functional; their loss means the UK now negotiates bilateral agreements piecemeal, with reduced leverage and with European nations under no obligation to cooperate. When institutional frameworks for returns become slower and less reliable, more migrants attempt the crossing, knowing the pathway to deportation is harder to execute.
The case against
Those sceptical that Brexit is the primary driver note that fundamental migration incentives—conflict, poverty, desperation, smuggling networks—remain largely unchanged and operate independently of UK institutional arrangements. The pre-Brexit Dublin system was itself slow and proved ineffective in practice; data does not show it dramatically suppressed crossings. Instead, the levers that measurably affect arrivals are policy choices within government control: detention capacity, processing speed, legal pathways, international aid. Attributing rising numbers primarily to Brexit may distract from decisions the current government can change immediately and does not require reversing course on constitutional matters.
More coverage