Last week, I spoke at the Adam Smith Institute on a panel to discuss the paper I co-authored with David Cowan, “Selecting the Best” (okay, okay, at some point, I will stop milking this).

I presented with Madeleine Sumption, Director of the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford, which provides analysis of migration in the UK for public and policy audiences, who made an interesting point that she expects refugee flows into the UK to stabilise at a much lower level than they currently are. Migration Observatory future projections estimate that asylum claims will run at about 75,000 going forward, although they acknowledge in their projection that “Asylum-related migration is volatile and particularly difficult to forecast”.

There has been a presumption in British politics that migration will naturally come down as a result of policy changes instituted by Robert Jenrick (as Immigration Minister) and the natural conclusion of the Ukrainian, Afghan and Hong Kong visa schemes. Ceteris paribus, that might be true; but Britain’s ignorance of political developments on the continent may let us down once more.

Last week EU leaders met in Brussels, with migration the main issue on the agenda. This new-found drive is because, as Nick Timothy details in The Telegraph this week, “The EU is waking up to the same immigration catastrophe as Britain.”

The fact is that attitudes to migration across Europe are hardening. Last year, Guy Dampier observed that Britain was becoming a liberal outlier, and this trend has only become more pronounced. Recently, Poland’s Prime Minister Donald Tusk declared that Warsaw would suspend asylum rights for migrants entering the country via Belarus. The Polish government plans to temporarily halt the right of these new arrivals to seek asylum. Polish officials have accused Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko of “weaponizing” migration to destabilise the EU and aid Russia. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has also condemned this as a “cruel form of hybrid threat.”

For the past three years, Poland has faced a surge of migrants attempting to cross its dense, forested border with Belarus. These migrants, primarily from the Middle East and Africa, are reportedly encouraged to fly to Minsk by Belarusian authorities and then directed toward the borders of Poland and Lithuania. According to Tusk, at least 26,000 migrants crossed from Belarus into Poland this year alone. Many Polish soldiers have been injured and one was killed.

Following the Solingen incident — in which a knife-wielding Syrian man killed three people — German Chancellor Olaf Scholz introduced plans to accelerate deportations and cut benefits for certain asylum seekers. German authorities also deported 28 Afghan nationals convicted of crimes to Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, whilst also imposing border checks and effectively leading a large-scale, de facto suspension of the Schengen agreement.

In France, newly appointed Prime Minister Michel Barnier has called for a revision of EU deportation rules to expedite expulsions. The French government is also drafting domestic laws to increase oversight of undocumented residents, including extending the time individuals can be held in administrative detention while awaiting deportation.

In Italy, Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni recently praised the launch of new detention centres in Albania, which are part of a controversial plan to process asylum seekers outside the EU. This week, an Italian warship transported 16 migrants to Albania, activating the 2023 agreement under which Albania agreed to accept up to 36,000 male migrants from Italy. The Italian government says the deal aims to ease pressure on its domestic facilities and discourage further migration. Meloni described the agreement as “a new, courageous, and unprecedented path” that could be replicated with other non-EU nations.

Fifteen other EU countries have requested that the European Commission explore similar models. Under this scheme, migrants sent to Albania will have their asylum claims fast-tracked, with unsuccessful applicants facing deportation. Many are also looking to tighten external border controls, accelerate deportations, and enhance cooperation with transit countries.

All this puts Britain in an unenviable position; under Starmer, the strategy of “smash the gangs” is already in trouble. The newly-created Border Security Command has only just had a head appointed, the scrapping of the sole deterrent (Rwanda) means arrivals per boat have skyrocketed, whilst Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has already reversed a key manifesto commitment by re-opening 150 asylum hotels the Conservatives shut down last year — at a cost of £4m a day.

As Conservatives learned — to our well-deserved detriment — after 14 years, talking tough on immigration is not enough

Starmer’s softening up on immigration comes at the worst possible time. As Europe hardens, Britain may become an even weaker link than we currently are; a new study led by experts from Oxford University revealed that Britain has the highest number of illegal immigrants in Europe, with as many as 745,000 undocumented people living in the UK, accounting for more than 1 in every 100 residents. Between 23 per cent and 29 per cent of all illegal immigrants in Europe are currently residing in Britain. Just as the Rwanda scheme successfully diverted migrant flows to Ireland, better deterrents on the continent may cause an increased flow of migrants to Britain.

As Conservatives learned — to our well-deserved detriment — after 14 years, talking tough on immigration is not enough. The old adage of “you might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb” is worth remembering here; there will be a loud barrage of criticism for any policy or “rhetoric” about reducing migration. The vast majority of the populace, however, want to see migration reduced. The British people will back tough action, so long as it delivers results. But they will tolerate no more failure.

Perhaps, if Starmer wants to overcome his clear squeamishness on real migration action, he should look to his predecessor. In 2004, Tony Blair — along with other EU leaders — lifted the arms embargo on Colonel Gaddafi in exchange for his agreement to close Libya’s borders to the flow of migrants from sub-Saharan Africa. In effect, we armed a tyrant known for extrajudicial killings on British soil in return for his help in controlling migration. That looks a lot more morally dubious than deporting refugees to the perfectly safe country of Rwanda, where the UNHCR currently hosts 127,000 refugees. But given that the instability in Libya following his death means the country is now the gateway for the vast majority of immigration into Europe, Blair’s actions look increasingly far-sighted.

A fastidious contempt for the shameful means necessary to achieve his ends is the constant mark of the idealist. But we do not live in an ideal world, we live in the real one. And here, ever-rising migration is not inevitable. Dealing with it requires a man of affairs more than a man of principle, and someone who recognises that a border unenforced through weakness is the sign of a failed state, not a testament to toleration.