Some of Britain's judges make even David Lammy look sensible on immigration
One can rarely hope for more in politics. But what Voltaire neglected to mention is the darker irony; that someone may yet come along who is so jaw-droppingly awful that your enemies begin to look sane by comparison.
Nobody believes Labour is effective – or even especially dedicated – to solving Britain's ever-increasing immigration problems. According to YouGov, just 11 per cent of people believe Keir Starmer's party would be best at handling asylum and immigration – an all-time low. Reform, who have only recently been added to the survey, currently stand at 36 per cent.
But as untrusted as they are, Labour may yet prove to be a restraining force on the worst excesses of Britain's immigration system. Foreign Secretary David Lammy – who once told The Guardian that it was 'morally wrong to take the view that anyone making their way across the Channel is illegal' – is currently playing the part of immigration hardliner after deciding to block a family from Gaza from settling in the UK under the Ukrainian refugee scheme.
Earlier this year, in news broken by The Telegraph, Judge Hugo Norton-Taylor permitted a Palestinian family of six to settle in the UK under the Ukraine Family Scheme. In January last year, the family submitted their application using the Ukraine scheme's form, arguing that it best reflected their circumstances and that their case was so 'compelling and compassionate' it warranted approval outside the scheme's formal rules.
A lower-tier immigration tribunal initially rejected their claim, stating that it fell outside the scope of the Ukraine programme and that decisions about which countries qualify for resettlement schemes rest with Parliament. However, upper tribunal judge Hugo Norton-Taylor overturned that ruling, allowing the appeal and granting the family entry to the UK based on their Article 8 right to family life under the European Convention on Human Rights.
Since then, Lammy's Foreign Office has denied the family the consular support they need to leave Gaza and travel to a neighbouring country, where they could apply for UK visas at an application centre.
In a ruling on Monday, High Court Judge Mr. Justice Chamberlain sided with the family. He stated that the Foreign Office's June decision to withhold consular assistance was 'flawed' and 'irrational' and must be reconsidered, as the family had 'very little food and no effective sanitation' and remained 'at constant risk of injury or death'.
The rulings of judges such as Chamberlain and Norton-Taylor show how detached from the British public Britain's 'lanyard class' has become – the self-congratulatory bureaucrats and elites who inhabit a liberal bubble insulated from the practical consequences of their decisions. Labour, however, are not so lucky.
In such circumstances it's hard not to see the parallels with Voltaire's ridiculousness; the judiciary's positions have become so absurd that they have forced Labour to become the hardliners.
As dangerous and heart-rending as the situation in Gaza is, the answer is not – as it has never been, to any humanitarian crisis – to allow huge flows of refugees into Britain.
Yet the decisions of these judges seem to be setting a precedent for Palestinian refugees to enter the UK – despite there being clear and repeated indications from Government and politicians that this is not their intention.
As I wrote recently, our immigration rules are collapsing under a combination of legal activism
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
a minute ago
- The Guardian
Pension age debate threatens to splinter Germany's fragile coalition
The fact that ageing Germany's generous pension system is unsustainable is political Berlin's worst-kept secret, but a controversial call to save it by hiking the retirement age to 70 has sparked howls of protest and threatened to destabilise the fractious government. The chancellor, Friedrich Merz, has largely sidestepped the ticking timebomb of the greying population since taking office in May, preferring instead to announce sweeteners such as tax breaks for older Germans to continue working past the retirement age. However his economy minister, Katherina Reiche of the Christian Democrats (CDU), a former energy executive who grew up in the communist east, has stepped into the breach with repeated calls this summer to get real about old-age benefits. 'Demographic change and ever-increasing life expectancy make it unavoidable: the lifetime labour period must increase,' she told the daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung late last month. 'We have got to work more and longer.' She said a major economic thinktank, the DIW, had argued two decades ago that the minimum pension age should be 70 by 2025 but that instead most Germans were on track to spend 'only' two-thirds of their lives employed – a ratio she described as untenable. A displeased Merz reportedly told her, quietly, to stay in her lane and show consideration for the concerns of the twitchy Social Democrats (SPD), junior partners in the ruling coalition who are polling at a meagre 15%. But the outspoken Reiche doubled down, insisting that for many Germans, 'happiness is not about retiring as early as possible but being able to still bring their experience to bear'. The SPD did not wait long to pounce, with pension age threatening to become a wedge issue in the fragile centre-right coalition government that replaced the previous three-way administration that collapsed in November. The SPD general secretary, Tim Klüssendorf, said flatly: 'A hiking of the pension entrance age is out of the question for us.' He described any such move as in effect a pension deduction. He argued for increasing contributions to the system by making it more attractive for women to work full-time, including expanding childcare and fostering job flexibility. Many economists back such a move, saying integrating more people into the workforce, including immigrants, would make a lasting contribution toward keeping the state scheme in balance. Other analysts have suggested pegging the retirement age permanently to the average life expectancy, as practised in the Netherlands. The German labour minister, Bärbel Bas of the SPD, has suggested tax increases and a requirement of freelancers, civil servants and MPs to pay into the pension system – proposals the conservatives have rejected out of hand. The writing, however, is on the wall: in the mid-1990s there were four employees paying into the social welfare system for every pensioner. By 2020, it was only three, and projections indicate that by 2035 the figure will be 2.4. Germany already shows higher-than-average labour market participation among 65- to 69-year-olds, with 21.2% in that age bracket listed as employed versus 16% in the EU. The average German pension start age in 2024 was 64.7. Denmark's parliament in May put the country on course to having the highest retirement age in Europe by adopting a law raising it to 70 by 2040. The SPD in the 2000s, when Germany reported more than 5 million jobless, spearheaded the biggest structural changes in decades by overhauling the labour market with a stick-and-carrot approach to unemployment and gradually raising the retirement age to 67 by 2031. The CDU general secretary, Carsten Linnemann, has said that kind of 'courage' was needed again, hoping that Germany's similarly gloomy economic mood now with its 'back to the wall' would spur on painful, necessary overhauls. But with fears rampant that Germany's once vaunted work ethic will prove insufficient to sustain its social welfare system, Merz drew ire earlier this year with comments widely interpreted as a swipe at 'lazy Germans'. The chancellor, who will himself turn 70 in November, warned at a business conference in May: 'We won't be able to maintain the prosperity of this country with a four-day week and work-life balance.' He sought to fine-tune his message last month, explaining he was not saying 'all Germans need to work more' but rather that the national average needed to be lifted. His coalition has said it will ensure a pension level of 48% of average lifetime income until 2031, a pledge critics have said is unfair to future generations without a clear plan for sustaining the system.
BBC News
a minute ago
- BBC News
Donald Trump attacks 'woke' Jaguar as firm appoints new boss and rebrands
US President Donald Trump has attacked Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) shortly after it named its new chief executive and as it undergoes a divisive said on his Truth Social platform on Monday that JLR was in "absolute turmoil" after its boss resigned "in disgrace". The president also called the firm's recent marketing campaign "stupid" and "woke".Earlier, JLR said PB Balaji, the finance chief of its parent company Tata Motors, will take over as its chief executive in November. He will be JLR's first Indian Mardell, who announced his retirement last week, led the company's controversial moves to ditch Jaguar's iconic cat logo and focus on producing electric cars. On Monday, Trump compared Jaguar with US clothing brand American Eagle, another company making headlines for a viral marketing in American Eagle jumped after launching controversial advertisements for its jeans with actress Sydney Sweeney, best known for her role in TV series said the American Eagle campaign was the "'HOTTEST' ad out there" and praised Sweeney, after reports surfaced that she is a registered added: "On the other side of the ledger, Jaguar did a stupid, and seriously WOKE advertisement, THAT IS A TOTAL DISASTER!""Who wants to buy a Jaguar after looking at that disgraceful ad." Mr Balaji to Jaguar from his role managing the finances of India's largest car manufacturer and JLR's owner, Tata will oversee the launch of Jaguar's first all-electric range in part of its rebranding late last year, the luxury carmaker rolled out an advert showing brightly dressed models posing in a hot pink, desert-like terrain but without any cars or Jaguar's familiar logo being clip drew widespread criticism for signalling a shift away from Jaguar's usual style and target also unveiled its new electric concept car and, like the controversial teaser video, it divided on social media said the new Type 00 car was "exciting" and "absolutely stunning", while others called it "rubbish" and told Jaguar's designers to "go back to the drawing board".
The Guardian
a minute ago
- The Guardian
Poland is sliding back towards populism. Democrats elsewhere should heed our mistakes
We were travelling across Poland by train the day after the country's sensational parliamentary elections in autumn 2023. When news of the results came through, passengers in our compartment fell into each other's arms, rejoicing as though a great weight had been lifted from their shoulders. Hard as it was to believe after eight years, the national populists of the Law and Justice party had been ousted from power on a record turnout of 75% of voters. We felt the potential of democracy to change things for the better as a physical sensation. Less than two years have passed but this enthusiasm has disappeared without trace. The Law and Justice-backed candidate Karol Nawrocki won the presidential election run off in June with 50.89% of the vote, securing the admiration of Donald Trump in the process. Days before Nawrocki's swearing in on Wednesday [6 August] a new poll suggested that almost half of voters would like the prime minister, Donald Tusk out. The ruling coalition is wobbling. Tusk's liberal democratic government may turn out to be nothing more than an intermezzo, a pause between rightwing populist governments. After more than a decade of living, in a global sense, with the new wave of populism, we can see a pattern of missed opportunities of which Poland is just one example. In countries ruled by new populists, voters often come to feel disappointment and anger. In recent years, liberal candidates, carried by a tide of opposition, have ousted the populists: before Tusk managed it in Poland there was Joe Biden in the US, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in Brazil and Zuzana Čaputová in Slovakia. The victories of these politicians seemed briefly like beacons of hope for the post-cold war liberal democratic consensus. But rebuilding after populists vacate office can resemble a daily struggle in the political mud. A victorious election campaign is not the same as a definitive victory. The war against populists is a permanent one, and a global one, amplified by digital media. Post-populist rule is all the more difficult because populist governments leave behind a legal minefield. In Poland, countless legal decisions and acts in force were intended to undermine liberal democratic institutions. Dismantling them constitutionally and restoring the rule of law takes time and energy. It also requires looking back to the past rather than focusing on the future as the new government addresses its predecessors' mistakes. In Poland and Brazil, this has stifled any ambitions to offer an exciting roadmap for the years ahead. Inevitably, any initial euphoria is quickly followed by public frustration and the rise of another challenge from the rightwing populists. Since the anti-communist Solidarity movement in the 1980s, Poland has been a crucial laboratory in the battle for democracy. After returning to power in 2023, Tusk faced a dilemma: should he completely distance himself from his predecessors' agenda or flirt with their legacy? Tusk chose the second option. He maintained the populists' programme of direct financial support for families with children. He continued with the construction of a mega transport hub, a flagship project for the previous government that he had previously attacked as wasteful. It is especially striking that he has failed to liberalise Poland's abortion laws, which were tightened by the populists. Echoing the nationalists' rhetoric about migration and defence of national borders has led to Poland reimposing checks at its borders with EU neighbours Germany and Lithuania, despite all three countries being in the Schengen area. Letting the national populists set the political tone for him is driving Tusk's failure. The defeat of his presidential candidate, Rafał Trzaskowski was followed by a collapse of support in the polls. The absence of an inspiring vision, or even a sense of what Tusk stands for, is painful to witness. If parliamentary elections were held today, Poland's rightwing populists would be emphatically returned to power, probably with an even more radical nationalist programme. Abroad, Tusk may be admired as a staunch defender of democracy. At home, he has become one of the most unpopular politicians in the country. Call it the Gorbachev syndrome: beloved internationally, but reviled domestically. Tusk's ratings slump can be blamed on a whole set of unfulfilled promises, poor messaging and a poor presidential campaign. He is also affected by the global tendency to reject establishment politicians. To many Polish voters, especially younger ones, Tusk, who has been active in Polish politics for more than 25 years and was prime minister from 2007 to 2014, seems like part of a tired old elite whose time has come to step aside. Sign up to This is Europe The most pressing stories and debates for Europeans – from identity to economics to the environment after newsletter promotion Safeguarding democracy requires something liberal democrats have so far lacked: an imaginative conception of what the future should look like. Here, Tusk and Lula disappoint, just as Čaputová and Biden did before them. The message is lacking, but the medium is challenging too. So far, rightwing populists are winning on the battleground of new and social media. It is not the only example, but the Polish case clearly demonstrates the folly of fighting elections purely on the defensive. It is too little and too narrow. Liberal ambitions must extend further than preventing populists from coming to power or removing them from it. Elections have to be understood as a chance to rebuild democracy, and to do so in tune with the new media environment. Without a forward-thinking approach, the liberal intermezzo will remain just that: a brief interval between acts in a longer populist play. Democrats must learn this lesson – contending with populism means not only confronting the past, but also offering a compelling vision for the future. Karolina Wigura is a Polish historian and co-author of Post-Traumatic Sovereignty: An Essay (Why the Eastern European Mentality is Different). Jarosław Kuisz is editor-in-chief of the Polish weekly Kultura Liberalna and the author of The New Politics of Poland: A Case of Post-Traumatic Sovereignty
