
How the Afghan crisis became Starmer's latest migrant headache
The announcement of a returns agreement with France, albeit one whose limited scope attracted criticism, was meant to be the moment the Government began to shift the narrative on small boats.
Yet, just over 12 hours later, Downing Street was scrambling to respond to a very different border crisis, as news filtered through that the lid was about to be lifted on a secret Afghan resettlement scheme.
Just over a mile away at the High Court, Mr Justice Chamberlain had ruled that a two-year gagging order, which banned the media from referring to the programme in any way, would finally be lifted the following Tuesday.
His judgment sparked a frantic 100-hour dash to activate contingency plans in Whitehall, as ministers braced for the public fallout.
Defence officials had avoided telling many of the nearly 20,000 people affected by the leak that they were on the list. They feared the news might spread and bring the data breach to the attention of the Taliban.
All of that changed last Friday morning when 'break glass' emergency plans were activated and officials started getting in touch with thousands of victims to warn them that the resettlement scheme was about to go public.
Mandarins at the Ministry of Defence (MoD) stayed through the night as they worked speedily to dole out security advice and open up lines of communication, while defence ministers held calls across Whitehall to co-ordinate the response.
John Healey, the Defence Secretary, and Luke Pollard, the Armed Forces Minister, were on the bureaucratic front line throughout the weekend, staying in the office until past midnight on Sunday as officials raced against time.
David Lammy's Foreign Office was also called in to help, setting up a 24/7 email and phone helpline for Afghans worried about their security.
As the clock ticked over into Monday, advisers suddenly realised that they faced another obstacle to their plans, this time in the form of Parliament's arcane rules.
Tuesday had been set aside in the Commons calendar for a Tory 'opposition day' – one of 20 such dates throughout the year when opposition parties get to take control of the order paper and dictate the subjects that MPs debate.
As a result there were no Government statements scheduled for that day, despite the fact that Mr Healey would need to update Parliament on the disclosure of the resettlement scheme once the super-injunction was lifted.
The unique impasse, which Whitehall sources said was unprecedented, meant that Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the Commons Speaker, and Kemi Badenoch, the Tory leader, had to be brought into the loop so that they could make time.
At midday, the gagging order formally ended and The Telegraph and other media organisations who had challenged the injunction were finally able to disclose the jaw-dropping details and scale of the scheme.
The Defence Secretary rose to his feet 40 minutes later to address a quietened Commons.
'Today I am announcing to the House a change in Government policy. I am closing that resettlement route, disclosing the data loss, and confirming that the court order was lifted at 12 noon today,' he solemnly declared.
'It has been deeply uncomfortable to be constrained from reporting to this House. No Government wishes to withhold information from the British public, parliamentarians or the press in this manner.'
Mr Healey had barely sat down before the political recriminations began in earnest, with both Labour and Reform laying the blame firmly at the Tories' door.
The revelations also set off a circular firing squad within the Conservative Party as ex-Cabinet ministers briefed that they had objected to the scheme, but were overruled after the MoD used 'emotional blackmail' to force the plan through.
Sir Ben Wallace, the former defence secretary who applied for the injunction, came out fighting in an article for The Telegraph in which he said he made 'no apology' for actions which had saved the lives of Afghans who served alongside British soldiers.
His successor, Sir Grant Shapps, who extended the gagging order just weeks before last year's general election, tried to shift the blame to Labour by insisting he was 'surprised' the new Government had kept it in place for 'quite so long'.
Downing Street was 'pretty gobsmacked' by the comments, according to sources, not least because after entering office Mr Healey had swiftly ordered a review of the scheme which ultimately led to the judge overturning the super-injunction.
Reform UK, meanwhile, leapt on the scandal to attack senior Tory Right-wingers, particularly Robert Jenrick, who represent the biggest threat to Nigel Farage's attempts to peel off further Right-wing voters.
Zia Yusuf, the former Reform chairman who now heads up its Doge unit, fired off a series of posts on X accusing Mr Jenrick of lying about his involvement in the scheme, and attacking Suella Braverman, who was home secretary at the time.
His outburst was notable as it was the first time that Mr Farage's party had openly attacked current leaders on the Tory Right, with whom it would probably need to form a coalition if it failed to secure a majority at the next election.
As the initial fury over the scandal turned to questions about what happened next, it was Labour which faced the trickiest dilemma as it tried to assuage public anger over a scandal that it inherited from the Conservatives.
The bad headlines continued at the weekend, including The Telegraph's revelations that Afghan migrants arriving under the resettlement programme had brought as many as 22 family members to the UK with them.
Those revelations will heap pressure on Sir Keir and Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, who have come under fire over a surge in small boat arrivals, which are up 50 per cent on last year.
At the same time, Downing Street is facing the prospect of a rebellion from Left-wing backbenchers over its attempts to bring down net migration by curbing the number of people who are arriving legally in Britain on work visas.
Parliament heads off for its summer recess on Tuesday and – with Labour MPs on the laxest, one-line whip for attendance next week – many have already returned to their constituencies to recharge their batteries.
By the time they return in September, there will be new crises and controversies.
But for an administration that will increasingly come to be defined by its record on immigration, the consequences of the Afghan scandal are profound.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Independent
13 minutes ago
- The Independent
Starmer must take a strong line with Trump to relieve the suffering in Gaza
The phrase 'walking a diplomatic tightrope' is overused by the media, but it is an accurate description of Sir Keir Starmer's task when he meets Donald Trump on Monday for talks at the US president's Turnberry golf course in Scotland. According to Downing Street sources, the prime minister will discuss what more can be done to secure a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, to 'bring an end to the unspeakable suffering and starvation in Gaza', and to hasten the release of the remaining Israeli hostages. Sir Keir is under growing pressure from Labour backbenchers, and several members of his cabinet, to go further by joining France's Emmanuel Macron in formally recognising Palestinian statehood. But if the prime minister did so, it would weaken his hand with Mr Trump, the only foreign leader with meaningful influence over Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister. So Gaza poses a big test for Sir Keir's quietly effective strategy of not challenging or criticising the US president in public. We have to take it on trust that he will argue strongly behind closed doors for the US to restart the peace talks it led in Qatar before it pulled out, blaming Hamas for the lack of progress. Indeed, President Trump should revive plans for a 60-day ceasefire, the release of some hostages, and – crucially – an increase in aid supplies, which are desperately needed to prevent more deaths from starvation. Such an approach by Sir Keir will not be enough for the 221 MPs, including a third of Labour backbenchers, who have signed a letter calling for the immediate recognition of Palestine. Or, indeed, for much of the British public. It is not surprising, given the harrowing pictures of emaciated children in TV news bulletins, that opinion in the UK is turning against Israel, which rightly enjoyed the goodwill of many after the horrific 7 October attacks. According to More in Common, 29 per cent of people now sympathise more with the Palestinians – up by 11 percentage points since November 2023 – while 27 per cent sympathise with neither side, 16 per cent with both sides equally, and 15 per cent with Israel. Some 48 per cent believe Israel's response to the conflict has been disproportionate, and only 28 per cent think it proportionate. Amid mounting outrage, Israel has announced a limited 'tactical pause' in its military operation in three areas of Gaza to allow in more humanitarian relief. The easing of restrictions is welcome, if long overdue, but it must be more than a cynical temporary move. It is no substitute for a ceasefire leading to negotiations on a long-term peace settlement. Nor will the airdrops planned by the UK and Jordan be more than a sticking plaster; they are ineffective compared with relief delivered by lorries, and sometimes even dangerous. Sir Keir's reluctance to recognise Palestine may prove to have been a holding line. If countries such as Germany, Canada and Australia change their minds and back France, he may shift. The SNP plans to force a vote on the issue when the Commons returns from its summer recess in September, which would expose Labour divisions. That month, the Labour conference will be problematic for its leader if he doesn't change tack, while the UN general assembly will discuss France's move. Yet for now, The Independent believes the prime minister is right to maximise his influence with President Trump, and to keep the recognition of Palestine as a card to play in talks on a permanent peace that must include a two-state solution to the Israel-Hamas conflict. Recognising Palestine now would not in itself change the terrible conditions on the ground in Gaza, as Bob Geldof, the Live Aid organiser, told Sky News on Sunday. He said it should have been done 'ages ago', but that the demands of Labour MPs amount to a distraction that 'is not going to make any material difference'. Sir Keir's quiet diplomacy is a better response to the crisis in Gaza than the tone-deafness of Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative leader. Interviewed on Sky, she backed calls for a ceasefire but said: 'What I see when I see Israel is a country that's trying to defend itself.' She declared that the pictures of starving children had not affected her support for Israel, insisting that it is allowing in relief supplies – a view that is hotly disputed by the United Nations and aid agencies. So far, Sir Keir has confounded critics who warned that he would not be able to have it both ways and maintain good relations with the US and the EU. He has secured trade deals with both. The emergency in Gaza now poses a big test for the prime minister's strong record on foreign affairs in the past year, which regrettably has not been matched on the domestic front. Sir Keir's understandable desire to hug Mr Trump close should not lead him to pull his punches over the gruesome tragedy unfolding in Gaza.


The Guardian
14 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Starmer faces task of persuading Trump to take different path on Gaza crisis
Moments after Air Force One touched down at Prestwick on Friday, for a trip in which politics will take as big a billing as golf, Donald Trump was asked about his relationship with Keir Starmer. 'I like your prime minister. He's slightly more liberal than I am, as you've probably heard. But he's a good man,' the US president told reporters. At a time when the UK wants Trump's ear on numerous weighty issues, his response to questions about the 'special relationship' will have given Downing Street some reassurance. But it has been hard won. Starmer has been clear since before Trump's re-election that he would work with him if it was in Britain's national interest. There have been uncomfortable moments, but so far his decision to align himself with the US president has broadly paid off. Most notable was the economic deal agreed by the two leaders which slashes some of Trump's tariffs on cars, aluminium and steel, and which – even though it is not yet fully implemented – the UK government hopes will be a first step towards a closer trading relationship. Starmer, along with other western allies, has also helped encourage Trump to shift his position on Ukraine. After initially siding with Vladimir Putin and appearing to blame Volodymyr Zelenskyy for the invasion, the US president now declares himself 'very unhappy' with his Russian counterpart. The prime minister now faces his toughest diplomatic task of all: trying to persuade Trump to take a different path on the humanitarian crisis in the Middle East. Even getting the issue on the agenda will not have been straightforward, with the White House not regarding Gaza as a priority. Trump is the only international leader whom the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, listens to – and even then, not all of the time – so getting the US president's ear at this precise moment is an opportunity not to be squandered. With international fury over the situation on the ground in Gaza growing, Starmer has also been under pressure domestically – from his cabinet, Labour MPs and increasingly the public – to take further action against Israel. Government advisers are defensive – citing what the UK has already done to hold Israel to account since Labour came to power – and promising further action will follow, even if it is not clear what that might constitute. They point to the UK restoring funding to the UN agency Unrwa, sanctioning far-right Israeli ministers and those who committed settler violence, breaking off trade negotiations with Israel, backing the legitimacy of the international criminal court and restricting arms licences to Israel (though not preventing them entirely). Sign up to Headlines UK Get the day's headlines and highlights emailed direct to you every morning after newsletter promotion The initial urgency is around humanitarian aid, with mass starvation spreading across Gaza, and Starmer will be hoping to persuade Trump that the situation on the ground will only worsen unless the Israelis fully lift their blockade of almost all aid into the territory. The longer-term prize, however, would be a ceasefire. Starmer will press Trump to revive ceasefire talks between Israel and Hamas, after the US and Israel withdrew their negotiation teams from Qatar last week. Getting them back round the table to agree a 60-day break from fighting is a prerequisite to a more permanent cessation of violence. The window of opportunity is narrow: the Israeli parliament is not sitting until October, which gives Netanyahu the cover he would need to agree a deal. But Starmer knows Trump is the only international figure who can put pressure on him to do so. Only at that point does Starmer feel the UK could follow France and formally recognise a Palestine state. No 10 insiders insist it is a 'matter of when, not if' and David Lammy, the foreign secretary, will be at a UN conference this week to establish a pathway to formal recognition. To the deep frustration of many in his party, the prime minister last week rejected a call to follow France in recognising Palestine amid concerns the move would be largely symbolic without a ceasefire in place, and that issue could overshadow the talks with Trump. But that means that even more rides on Monday's meeting with the US president. It will be a test of whether the energy put into maintaining a good relationship with Trump has been worth it. And it will also show how far Starmer really is prepared to push to help bring an end to the catastrophe in Gaza.


Reuters
14 minutes ago
- Reuters
Trump, EU's von der Leyen meet to clinch trade deal, rating chances 50-50
TURNBERRY, Scotland, July 27 (Reuters) - European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen met U.S. President Donald Trump on Sunday to clinch a trade deal that would likely result in a 15% tariff on most EU goods, but end months of uncertainty for European Union companies. U.S. and EU negotiators huddled in final talks on tariffs facing crucial sectors like cars, steel, aluminium and pharmaceuticals before the meeting began at Trump's golf course in Turnberry, western Scotland. Trump, who had earlier played a round with his son, told reporters as he met von der Leyen that he wanted to correct a trading arrangement he said was "very unfair to the United States" and repeated his comments from Friday that the chances of a U.S-EU deal were 50-50, a view echoed by von der Leyen. "We have three or four sticking points I'd rather not get into. The main sticking point is fairness," he said insisting the EU had to open up to American products. Von der Leyen acknowledged there was a need for "rebalancing" EU-U.S. trade. "We have a surplus, the United States has a deficit and we have to rebalance it... we will make it more sustainable," she said. U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, who flew to Scotland on Saturday, told "Fox News Sunday" that the EU needed to open its markets for more U.S. exports to convince Trump to reduce a threatened 30% tariff rate that is due to kick in on August 1. "The question is, do they offer President Trump a good enough deal that is worth it for him to step off of the 30% tariffs that he set," Lutnick said, adding that the EU clearly wanted - and needed - to reach an agreement. A separate U.S. administration official was upbeat that a deal was possible. "We're cautiously optimistic that there will be a deal reached," the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. "But it's not over till it's over." The EU deal would be a huge prize, given that the U.S. and EU are each other's largest trading partners by far and account for a third of global trade in goods and services. Ambassadors of EU governments, on a weekend trip to Greenland organised by the Danish presidency of the EU, held a teleconference with EU Commission officials on Sunday to agree on the amount of leeway von der Leyen would have. In case there is no deal and the U.S. imposes 30% tariffs from August 1, the EU has prepared counter-tariffs on 93 billion euros ($109 billion) of U.S. goods. EU diplomats have said a deal would likely include a broad 15% tariff on EU goods imported into the U.S., mirroring the U.S.-Japan trade deal, along with a 50% tariff on European steel and aluminium for which there could be export quotas. EU officials are hopeful that a 15% baseline tariff would also apply to cars, replacing the current 27.5% auto tariff. Some expect the 27-nation bloc may be able to secure exemptions from the 15% baseline tariff for its aerospace industry and for spirits, though probably not for wine. The EU could also pledge to buy more liquefied natural gas from the U.S., a long-standing offer, and boost investment in the United States. Trump told reporters there was "not a lot" of wiggle room on the 50% tariffs that the U.S. has on steel and aluminium imports, adding, "because if I do it for one, I have to do it for all." The U.S. president, in Scotland for a few days of golfing and bilateral meetings, said a deal with the EU should draw to a close discussions on tariffs, but also said pharmaceuticals, for which the United States is looking into new tariffs, would not be part of a deal. The EU now faces U.S. tariffs on more than 70% of its exports, with 50% on steel and aluminium, an extra 25% on cars and car parts on top of the existing 2.5% and a 10% levy on most other EU goods. EU officials have said a "no-deal" tariff rate of 30% would wipe out whole chunks of transatlantic commerce. A 15% tariff on most EU goods would remove uncertainty but would be seen by many in Europe as a poor outcome compared to the initial European ambition of a zero-for-zero tariff deal on all industrial goods. Seeking to learn from Japan, which secured a 15% baseline tariff with the U.S. in a deal almost a week ago, EU negotiators spoke to their Japanese counterparts in preparation for Sunday's meeting. For Trump, aiming to reorder the global economy and reduce decades-old U.S. trade deficits, a deal with the EU would be the biggest trade agreement, surpassing the $550 billion deal with Japan. So far, he has reeled in agreements with Britain, Japan, Indonesia and Vietnam, although his administration has failed to deliver on a promise of "90 deals in 90 days."