Sir Keir Starmer, the UK Prime Minister, has ignited a fierce debate on the issue of migration after proposing a new treaty with Germany aimed at addressing illegal migration. During his recent visit to Berlin, where he met with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, Starmer described the proposed agreement as a “once-in-a-generation opportunity” to “deliver for the working people.”
However, the Prime Minister’s approach has faced criticism, particularly for his use of the term “irregular” instead of “illegal” when discussing migration in recent months. This shift in language has been interpreted by some as an attempt to “change the optics” surrounding the sensitive issue.
Mark Littlewood, Director of the Popular Conservatives, expressed his disapproval during a discussion on GB News, accusing Starmer of “misusing the language” and downplaying the seriousness of illegal migration. “He’s suggesting that means it’s unusual. It’s not unusual, it’s common and illegal,” Littlewood argued. He further criticized the Prime Minister’s discussions with Chancellor Scholz, describing them as “a whole load of word salad” with no tangible results.
In contrast, Nina Myskow, also speaking on GB News, defended Starmer’s choice of words, arguing that the distinction between “irregular” and “illegal” migration is merely a matter of semantics. She also pointed out that the term “refugees” has largely fallen out of mainstream use, emphasizing that many migrants are seeking shelter as refugees, which is a right that should not be denied.
The debate became even more heated when commentator Adam Brooks labelled the Labour government as a “disgrace,” accusing MPs of ignoring the concerns of ordinary citizens. Brooks criticized the government’s handling of migration, particularly focusing on economic migrants and the perceived preferential treatment they receive. He claimed, “We’ve got pensioners that could starve or freeze to death this winter because they can’t afford to heat their homes or buy food, and you’ve got people that are simply economic migrants.
Myskow countered Brooks’ argument by noting that Labour has only been in power for six weeks, and the current situation should not solely be attributed to the new government. However, Brooks remained steadfast in his criticism, asserting that the public has “had enough” of the government’s approach to migration.
In a more measured response, Littlewood acknowledged that it is too early to expect significant results from the Labour government but expressed scepticism about their ability to effectively address the migration issue. “Over those two months, we can therefore only judge them on what they say. It doesn’t seem to me they’re going to get to grips with this problem,” he concluded.
The row over Starmer’s migration policies highlights the deep divisions within the UK on how to handle the ongoing challenge of illegal migration. As the government continues to navigate this contentious issue, public opinion remains sharply divided, with some demanding tougher measures while others call for a more compassionate approach.
