Conservative home office minister James Brokenshire defended the Government’s decision to withdraw support – along with all other EU member states – for future search-and-rescue operations for migrants in the Mediterranean. The BBC reports:
James Brokenshire told MPs the change would “save lives rather than putting them in peril.” About 3,000 migrants have drowned in the Mediterranean so far this year. That is out of an estimated total of 150,000 to have made the trip by boat across to Europe. Mr Brokenshire said operations to rescue migrants encouraged more people to make the “perilous journey” across the Mediterranean in the hope of being granted asylum. He said the “despicable work” of human traffickers had made the problem much worse, and must be tackled. On the new approach, he added it was “inconceivable to suggest that if a boat were in peril, that support would not be provided”.
Italian officials have made clear they intend to scale down their government’s current operation, known as Mare Nostrum, as the EU introduces a new operation known as Triton. Triton will focus more on border control – tasks such as vetting asylum seekers once they are ashore, and coastal patrols – rather than search and rescue in international waters. Mr Brokenshire said that 28 EU member states had “unanimously agreed” to the new proposals, and criticised those attacking the policy for seeking to “politicise” the issue.
Lib Dem MP Sarah Teather was not impressed by the minister’s defence:
Sarah Teather (Brent Central) (LD): Claiming that rescuing people from drowning in the sea is somehow a pull factor for people who are fleeing war is an absurd and deeply unethical thing for the Government to do. Can the Government not see that more people are travelling because half of the middle east is burning? Has the Minister not seen the advice of his own Foreign Office? We cannot wash our hands of these people, Pontius Pilate-style. If we are to prevent people from boarding rickety boats and drowning at sea, we will have to work with our European colleagues and find safe routes of travel. Can the Minister not see that he has lost any sense of ethical reasoning here?
James Brokenshire: I entirely reject the analysis that my hon. Friend seeks to proffer in this regard. No one is turning a blind eye to humanitarian issues or needs. The purpose of the actions being taken is to put fewer lives at risk, and I am sorry that she is unable to accept the clear purpose of what we are undertaking. On the idea that boats in need of assistance would simply be ignored, I point her to the head of Frontex who said that if a boat in distress is spotted, rescue is the top priority. I am sure that that is precisely what will happen.
And neither was Paddy Ashdown, speaking in the House of Lords:
Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon (LD): My Lords, it pains me to say to my noble friends that this is a discreditable policy, whatever words are used to describe it. We do not find it difficult to disagree with the European Union on all sorts of other matters, but do we have to lay our hand to a European policy whose central proposition is that the best way to discourage people from seeking a better life is to leave them to drown in the Mediterranean? This is inhuman, it is discreditable and it may well be contrary to our duties under international law to do everything we can to save those in peril on the sea.
Lord Bates: The noble Lord comes to this with huge experience and understanding. However, those obligations which are there under the laws of the sea, maritime law and humanitarian law will remain as obligations on any vessels that actually come across people who are making this journey. The question is how we tackle this increasing trend effectively. This is not for the UK alone; this view was pored over on the basis of evidence, intelligence and information which came to the Justice and Home Affairs Council. All 28 member states agreed—which, as my noble friend suggested, is a pretty rare achievement—that, regrettably, this was having a counterproductive effect.
Nick Clegg’s line on Call Clegg was different, arguing this was primarily a decision for the Italian government:
… let’s be really clear, this was a decision taken by the Italian Government, it wasn’t taken unilaterally by the Home Office, it was the Italian Government who are quite literally on the kind of front line, if you like, there. They are the Mediterranean State concerned, they are having to address this challenge of large numbers of people risking life and limb crossing the Mediterranean often in makeshift boats, to get to Italy. And they decided that they didn’t want to continue with the search and rescue missions that went out there, ’cause their judgement was that it wasn’t helping to address the problems. So I mean, I know the Government has come under some criticism for accepting that Italian decision, in a European Union wide decision. I think it would have been quite curious for us to say, well hang on a minute, Italy, you can’t take that decision, and we’re somehow gonna kind of undercut you on that.
As for longer term solutions, Nick had this to say:
… we must play our part as a country to make sure that people want to stay put in their home country, and not illegally and very dangerously, try and move great distances to other countries. And that’s why, I know it’s controversial, but I think it is right for us as a country, to take an international lead and say, we are devoting 0.7 per cent of our national wealth to help countries develop their own economies, so that people have got a sense of optimism and hope in their own countries, and they don’t seek to flee elsewhere. The other thing we need to do, is we do need to work across the European Union, which is by the way, the context in which this decision was taken, to make sure that we know how to deal with people who seek asylum. We are, of course, not a Mediterranean country, and when people, individuals, see asylum, they do so, they lodge that appeal in the first country they arrive in. But I think there’s no, in the long run, there’s no surrogate, but to make sure there are the conditions in North Africa and elsewhere, which encourage people to stay put. But on this individual decision about search and rescue parties, I think it’s not for us to second guess the Italian government’s stance on that.
* Stephen was Editor (and Co-Editor) of Liberal Democrat Voice from 2007 to 2015, and writes at The Collected Stephen Tall.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Full slate of Lib Dems in council by-elections
Getting things done - West Port #dundeewestend
Payback time
The Joy of Six 1274
Gasping Local Government.
The Chagos Islands, Mauritius and the ICJ
Honouring the Real Thing and launching Black History Month in Liverpool
Peter Martin
Peter Davies
Dave Tate
David Evans
32 Comments
Another reminder of how comfortable Nick is toeing the career politicians’ line. Sadly, once in government he went native so fast we didn’t realise it until the damage had been done. However, he continues to plumb new depths both in his excuses and in the polls. The latter being driven by the former.
So if we break down Clegg’s words —
1. Blame it on the Italians
2. Blame it on the EU
3. Blame it on the people escaping war and certain death, for not wanting to “stay put in their home country”
4. Blame it on the Italians
Paddy Ashdown sums up this approach in two words — “inhuman” and “discreditable”.
Sarah Teather
“Can the Minister not see that he has lost any sense of ethical reasoning here?”
She could have said exactly the same about Nick Clegg. The Libdems really can’t afford to lose people like Sarah Teather, a MP with principles – what a rare breed.
Similar to the Laissez -Faire response of the Liberals to the potato famine. Let them drown otherwise they’ll just keep getting on boats.
Amazing. Let’s stop treating people with lung cancer. It only encourages them to smoke.
Nick Clegg’s reponse to people drowning as they attempt to escape from warzones, mostly created by America and its sycopantic European allies: “Let them eat cake”. Let the Italians deal with it. Not like there’s free movement of peopl….I mean migrants in Europe
Hmm : a first openly public crack in the previous thought to be close Clegg/Ashdown scenario?
I think we should continue the rescue operations, but I’m not outraged by it because people will still drown unless we start actively shuttling people over from outside the EU. We’ve got to have some sort of immigration and budgetary controls – we can’t just offer free tickets to anyone who wants to come over.
The rescue operations appear to be a middle way between doing nothing and sending out Mandelson style “search parties for immigrants”.
It seems to me that Clegg is simply factually incorrect. My understanding is that the Italian government had voluntarily taken steps to have a much larger search and rescue presence following the disaster last year.
Given the strain that that has placed on the Italians they have understandably now said they will no longer carry out those missions.
The EU has therefore put together a force to do this instead, but a number of countries including the UK have said we are not willing to help fund the programme. That is the contentious issue – not whether the Italians are right or not.
Either I am wrong, Clegg is misinformed or it is obfuscation of a fairly unpleasant variety.
>It seems to me that Clegg is simply factually incorrect
I get that feeling a lot.
He’s going with the whole “we like to have European things, but we don’t need to pay anything” vibe that Cameron’s got happening at the moment. I think we all know that’s not going to work out well for anyone but UKIP.
It looks to me that Clegg & The EU are wrong about this. Clegg is right that we should be looking for long-term solutions but thats not much help now.
Both are correct. It is inhuman and discreditable that people who could be saved are being left to drown for the convenience of the well-off in countries not only free from conflict, but actively involved in the conflicts tearing apart the source countries. We should be willing to live up to our much touted moral principles and act in this case.
But Clegg is right to say that the long term solution is in making sure that these people can remain where they are. The first priority is that it must be safe for people to stay put, because regardless of European policy, it is simply wrong that people should be forced out of their homes by war. Secondly, there must be a future for people in those countries, and it is to this party’s credit that on our watch the United Kingdom will continue to provide its 0.7% gdp in assistance funding that goes towards creating a world where people don’t have to risk death for a secure income and food to eat.
It would be ideal if people didn’t have to move across continents to get those things in the first place, but focussing on treating the symptom of people traffickers and deaths at sea can’t deal with the cause. While people are as desperate to escape poverty and persecution, there will be those who will exploit that. Tackle the poverty, stop the persecution, and we take away the desperation and have the ability to properly deal with those who can’t be helped at home and still need to escape.
One of the few, perfectly sensible things Clegg has said for a while, and of course he gets lambasted by his own party.
If he wasn’t who he is you would almost feel sorry for him. He can’t win whatever he says or does. But he is who he is, so he deserves everything that comes his way. 🙂
Interesting side note to the South Yorkshire PCC election. No Lib Dem candidate of course, but Labour got 64% of the vote in Sheffield Hallam.
A small turnout of course, and he has a 15K + majority. I wonder though if there will be a tactical vote to unseat him, what with him being SO personally unpopular, and of course with a large student electorate?? That would rather be the biter bit…
simon’s approval tells you all you need to know.
This news was shocking. Disgraceful that Clegg should in any way defend it. Whilst there is undoubtedly a problem with refugees in the Mediterranean region that needs addressing, letting them drown isn’t one if the options I ever thought to hear a British government support, let alone a Lib Dem leader defend. It is murder by omission.
I take it that since simon is in favour of an EU decision he will be forthwith have his UKIP credentials removed in some kind of secret defrocking ceremony.
A UKIP supporter agreeing with Nick Clegg! Will we be seeing a Tory/LibDem/UKIP coalition government in 2015? I have a feeling Cameron and Clegg would do anything to cling to power and who knows Farage might fancy being Foreign Secretary!
simon 31st Oct ’14 – 3:21pm
Aren’t you the same simon that last night predicted that UKIP would win in South Yorkshire?
What went wrong?
Did the very rich men with the very fat cheque books that bank roll your party not come up with the cash this time?
“I am a Liberal by temperament, by instinct and by upbringing.
My own family was marked, scattered, reunited by the tragic conflicts of the last century.
I was taught from an early age that Britain was a place of tolerance and pluralism, with a history steeped in democracy and the rule of law.
I believe that liberalism is the thread that holds together everything that this country stands for. Pull out that thread and the fabric of our nation unravels.
We are a people with a strong sense of fair play and social justice. An instinct to protect the environment for future generations. We are suspicious of arbitrary power, wary of government interference. We want to play an active, enlightened role in the wider world.”
What the hell happened?
Simon – also worth bearing in mind the Oakeshott poll showed a dead even split on the question of whether Nick was doing a good job as local MP (staggeringly bad by comparision to the other Oakeshott polls). All after local elections when LD vote share fell despite some wards not having Tory candidates (and the vote share was fractionally above Burnley’s)
He would IMO be incredibly vulnerable if the other 3 parties were all having a real go (I suspect he will be saved by their lack of organisation but that is a terrible thing to rely on). Certainly if I was his agent I would be wanting a seriously beefed up campaign.
A truly terrible inhumane decision . The increased numbers are due to the fact, as Sarah Teather rightly says, the Middle East is burning. How on earth are Syrians for example supposed to stay in their country, with millions now refugees and displaced? Turkey alone has taken in 1.5m Syrian refugees, 250k alone in one week – more than the EU has taken in four years. This is a shameful and reprehensible position, and we should never have signed up to this.
In defending this inhuman decision Nick Clegg has distanced himself from his own Party. The Party has tolerated incompetent leadership but isn’t this a step too far? Did the Tories really need his support and wouldn’t it have been better for him to refrain from commenting (it’s called political judgement)
Please gather as much support as possible -” the end of UK search and rescue in the Mediterranean is shameful.we must not allow such an inhumane action to continue. We call upon Her Majesty’s Government to immediately resume life-saving operations” Please send this to Prime Minister, Deputy PM, M.P.s, Peers, civic dignitaries, churches to read or sign a petition this Sunday, sports events etc. etc.
The comments by Liberal luminaries and the BTL comments from all wings of the party reinforce a point that has been made many times: Mr. Clegg has a tin ear for Liberal dog-whistles. He has repeatedly demonstrated this over the last 4 and a half years. Someone will patiently explain to him that Liberals are opposed to this sort of thing and he will get on-message, but his inability to intuit such things is disspiriting.
Simon,
“No Lib Dem candidate of course, but Labour got 64% of the vote in Sheffield Hallam.”
Certain claims need to be treated with extreme caution, especially where they are so manifestly counter-intuitive. Labour gets just over 50% of the vote throughout the whole of South Yorkshire, but a whopping 64% in Sheffield Hallam, which is the wealthiest constituency in the region by some long way. Shurely shome mistake, as the late Bill Deedesh might have said?
Sheffield Hallam was a Tory stronghold right up to 1997, when it became a Liberal Democrat stronghold with one of the biggest swings in the country. Labour, in its first landslide year, came nowhere close to winning it.
Given the history of the LIb Dems over the last 4 years, I don’t understand why anyone should be surprised at Clegg’s position on this humanitarian tragedy. The party staggers on from one day to the next revealing the true nature of this party’s new found philosophies. What I do still find staggering is the the total lack of reaction on the “Voice” to accusations of selective memory by a presidential candidate whilst under the malign influence of Cyril Smith. Nor do I understand how an advert for this candidate can be flashed across the top of the “Voice” whilst voting is taking place. Does this imply she has money to spend on advertising that the others do not or is the “Voice” giving unfair advantage to one candidate?
we seem to be forgetting that although it is said to be Italy’s decision, it is Italy that is bearing the brunt of boats heading for there. Surely it is our duty, as fellow Europeans, as well as our humanitarian duty, to work with Italy on how best to deal with the situation, in both safety of those at sea heading there, and resettlement when they do ?
given the mass scale of refugees from the Middle East should we not be looking again and Dublin 2, and how we share the responsiblity?
to say nothing of looking at safer land routes for those fleeing.
Have to agree with chris j smart about the advert at the top of the page for the presidential candidate. Not only is it very unfair to the other candidates it’s irritating to say the least.
“Does this imply she has money to spend on advertising that the others do not or is the “Voice” giving unfair advantage to one candidate?”
Bit of a known miscalculation I would say. Helped make up my mind now the papers arrived his morning. Daisy it is.
Paul In Wokingham 1st Nov ’14 – 11:25am
“………… comments from all wings of the party reinforce a point that has been made many times: Mr. Clegg has a tin ear for Liberal dog-whistles. He has repeatedly demonstrated this over the last 4 and a half years. ”
Yes, Paul but its not just the last 4 years. When he was still an MEP eleven years ago when the party came out against the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Clegg was reported as being determined to big up support for increased military intervention in Afghanistan so that the party was not seen as “anti war”.
Which provides a clue to his later enthusiasm for bombing Lybia and then for bombing Assad in Syria in 2013, and then his enthusiasm for bombing the enemies of Assad in Iraq in 2014.
After being so enthusiastic about bombing Afghanistan, Lybia, Syria and Iraq along comes Clegg this week to declare just how unreasonable it is that people will not ” stay put in their home countries”.
Does he for a moment connect the bombing of those countries and subsequent mayhem with the refugee problem?
Apparently not.
John –
“Does he for a moment connect the bombing of those countries and subsequent mayhem with the refugee problem?”
We haven’t bombed Syria and it is the gravest humanitarian crisis of this century with over 3 million refugees.
What is needed is to set up a number of EU funded refugee reception centres in EU southern and eastern border states (eg Greece, Italy, Poland) and in countries neighbouring the EU (eg Moroccp, Turkey, Tunisia). ALL Migrants who do not apply for visas in their country of origin including refugees would be OBLIGED to attend one of these centres (wherever they first arrive in the EU).
Indiividual countries within the EU would then be able to consider the case of each migrant. If an applicant is accepted as a refugee, that person would be offered residency in an EU country, not necessarily the country of the refugees choice and would be offered financial support out of EU funds if needed.
Thus , firstly, local authorities especially in areas with housing shortages would no longer have to fund housing for refugees, easing shortages for local people.
Secondly, there would be no point forming camps at Calais for example as ALL refugees would have to go to a reception centre to get admitted.
Nick Thornsby 1st Nov ’14 – 5:28pm
Nick
You are of course quite correct. My point was Clegg’s enthusiasm to bomb Syria along with the other three countries.
But I do not want to minimise the plight of Syrian refugees.
For the 3 million Syrians it is appalling. Also keep in mind those Palestinian refugees who had been well looked after in Syria having taken refuge from the Israeli occupation in 1967 and have now had to seek refugee in yet another country.