The Tribune

IT is too soon to offer comment about the terrible events in Israel that unfolded yesterday – the deadliest day Israel as a country has ever known. I have therefore kept to my plan to write about immigration in Britain which seems to be permanently near the top of the news agenda. It will always be an emotive and contentious issue because it is all about people’s lives, and many believe that a country whose borders are not respected and controlled is not really a country at all.

Having written about the subject as recently as August, there is the danger of repetition. Nonetheless, a recent speech by the Home Secretary in the British government to a right-wing think tank in the US has set off further debate in the UK and it might be interesting to examine this.

The background to Suella Braverman’s address was the government’s difficulty in stopping illegal immigration to Britain through people crossing the English Channel in small boats and the UK’s most recent plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda to be processed. The latter is currently at a standstill while making its way through the courts, and the realistic threat of Britain even withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights is overshadowing all.

She stated that, while migration could be beneficial to the economy of the receiving country, as immigrants entered the workforce and could be of great social and economic benefit, there was a public perception that immigrants could also be responsible for crime and be a burden on social services. Any mass, uncontrolled movement of people put an unbearable strain on the receiving countries’ public institutions, finances, housing supply and welfare state and was therefore unacceptable – and, indeed, the need for Britain, as a relatively over populated island, to control immigrants coming via European Union countries was one of the reasons for withdrawing from the bloc in 2020.

Ms Braverman stressed that her primary motivation was to address “the epoch-defining challenge of illegal migration” that could contribute to reshaping the world as the option of moving from a poorer country to a richer one was no longer a dream for millions of people but “an entirely realistic project”. Countries must be able to protect their territorial integrity and way of life built up over many years by controlling immigration because the free movement of people simply could not work. But it was important to get the balance right by seeking to protect those genuinely facing persecution in their own countries and differentiate between them and purely economic migrants.

In suggesting this, the Home Secretary questioned whether the UN’s 1951 Refugee Convention continued to be “fit for our modern age”. She rebuked political leaders, who seemed to be afraid of being “smeared” as racist or illiberal, for failing to reform - in the age of jet travel, smartphones and the internet - the outdated global refugee system, that was creating what she called “huge incentives for illegal immigration”. However, the UN High Commission for Refugees continues to maintain that the Convention is the cornerstone of the international refugee protection regime and ensures that millions fleeing conflict and persecution can access safety and protection across borders.

Ms Braverman has been roundly criticised for even proposing to start a conversation around reforming the 1951 Convention which defines what a refugee is and what rights they have – and she is now being accused of taking an unacceptably tough stance on international rules and the need to rewrite these to reduce the numbers entitled to asylum unless they are fleeing a real risk of death, torture, oppression or violence. Moreover, she has said that refugees should not be allowed to travel through multiple safe countries and simply pick their preferred destination.

During last week’s Conservative Party annual conference, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak spoke in general terms about immigration, stressing the need for Britain to reduce its levels of net migration. He emphasized that this was a major priority for his government and he called for more coordinated European action to tackle the rising numbers of irregular migrants arriving at the continent’s borders. At a special summit of some 45 European leaders in Spain, he said that levels of illegal migration to mainland Europe are the highest in nearly a decade and that these issues transcended national borders and required creative Europe-wide solutions. The situation was “immoral and unsustainable”, he said, and it was essential to tackle people-smugglers and tighten borders.

To show he meant business, Mr Sunak signed a deal with Belgium, Serbia and Bulgaria to share intelligence and to cooperate at the operational level, since Serbia, in particular, is a key transit country for many migrants wanting to get to Europe. It remains to be seen whether European leaders will agree to collective action, though they have already agreed to reform internal asylum rules to make it easier for countries like Italy and Greece to receive help from other EU members as necessary when overwhelmed by a surge of migrants.

The idea of people crossing borders and settling in other countries can be traced back to the dissolution of the medieval structure of Europe and the beginning of the notion of autonomy of the nation-state after the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 brought an end to the Thirty Years War in Europe. Over the years, Britain has had a fine record in providing a safe haven for those genuinely facing persecution in their own countries; and this has included, most recently, refugees from Afghanistan as well as from Hong Kong after China’s security crackdown and those displaced by the war in Ukraine.

There are, of course, those who believe in open borders and the free movement of people. One has only to look at the crisis in the US in relation to its southern border with Mexico – and now the breathtaking hypocrisy of Biden’s decision to build a section of a new border wall. The 1951 Refugee Convention was drawn up after millions had been displaced by the Second World War and the Soviet Union had taken over many countries in eastern Europe. So the circumstances surrounding it were very different from modern times.

Nonetheless, to some people it remains sacrilege even to consider reforming the Convention. To others, however, conditions in the world have changed so radically that there is a need to bring it up to date. As it is said, today’s heresy is tomorrow’s orthodoxy – and many believe that at least the issue ought to be addressed before - in the provocative language chosen by Suella Braverman - a future “hurricane of immigration hits Britain” – and other countries in Europe as well.

Meanwhile, here in The Bahamas, successive governments take an appropriately strong line over immigration - and those at home will be comforted by that as the security situation in neighbouring Haiti continues to deteriorate and the pressure grows from increasing numbers of potential migrants seeking a safe haven in The Bahamas by escaping the worsening mayhem in their own country.

VISIT OF NEW UK TRADE MISSION

How satisfying and pleasant it is to be able to write today about the UK business mission which visited The Bahamas last week. Organised by the Caribbean Council in London, the mission was the first of its kind in over 20 years and had a full week of high level business and government meetings, including a programme in Grand Bahama.

It is the case that some years ago UK companies did not fully appreciate the importance of the local market in the richest country in the region and tended to underestimate its strength and variety. This visit was, therefore, a significant indication of the growing interest in both The Bahamas and the UK in reconnecting after the pandemic and exploring new business ventures of likely mutual benefit. It was also evidence of British companies wanting to explore new markets around the world post-Brexit.

The visit came in the wake of a series of investment events organized in London in May by the Caribbean Council at which the Prime Minster of The Bahamas was the keynote speaker. It was a direct response to an invitation issued by him during his visit and was organized in conjunction with, among others, the Grand Bahama Chamber of Commerce, the Bahamas Chamber of Commerce and Employers’ Confederation (BCCEC) and the British High Commission, and it was sponsored by the Bahamas Financial Services Board.

The Caribbean Council is a London-based membership organization working to build beneficial relationships and two-way trade and investment between international companies and their Caribbean and Central American partners. It has been connecting quality businesses in the region since 2000.

The council’s managing director, Chris Bennett, was quoted as saying in advance of the visit that the delegation “encompassed some of the most iconic UK business brands which are known around the world for their excellent quality and durability of service”. He stated that UK companies are world leaders at delivering complex, new infrastructure projects with private capital. The delegation brought together experienced airport and port developers, global leading law firms, engineering consultants and suppliers of quality energy and construction equipment

 For his part, British High Commissioner Thomas Hartley, who surely deserves much credit for making this trade mission happen, thanked the Prime Minister for his engagement with British companies at the Caribbean Council’s events in London in May. It was the Prime Minister himself who ‘provided the catalyst for so many companies to come’ and who – with the Deputy Prime Minister and the Trade Commission - had been a great partner in “bringing Britain and The Bahamas closer together through trade”.

 Meanwhile, the Hon Barry Griffin, vice president of the Senate and Deputy Chairman of the Bahamas Trade Commission, said that the UK trade mission “spoke to the strong relationship between the UK and The Bahamas”. He hoped that the mission would be productive and looked forward to the Trade Commission playing its part in building stronger trade and business relations with Britain.

 Everyone I have spoken to locally sees this trade mission as a positive and welcome development – and all concerned hope it heralds the beginning of increased bilateral trade and potential new investment in The Bahamas.

HOW RELIABLE IS PUBLIC OPINION?

Having concentrated this week on the important issues of immigration and trade, I also want to touch briefly on the less serious issue of what some consider the sometimes perfunctory nature of what is called public opinion. Of course, everyone accepts that it is the people themselves and what they think that is fundamental to democracy. But there are also too many instances of people who like to voice an opinion without - by their own admission – really understanding the issue under consideration or even being aware of the full facts.

It was reported over the weekend in the London Daily Mail that a row had broken out over plans to establish a memorial in Britain to the 800 sailors who perished in the sinking of HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse off Singapore in 1941 after a naval engagement against Japanese forces during the Second World War.

According to the report, the head of the National Museum of the Royal Navy feared that some UK government officials were blocking these plans for a memorial which could be visited by the loved ones of those who had perished. But the detail provided was limited.

This Daily Mail article attracted more than 300 varied comments in writing from members of the public who, it is safe to assume, could hardly have known the facts of the issue and yet felt able to pontificate about it despite being uninformed. Some say that that is one of the main points about freedom of expression. But it did make me pause to wonder about the limitations of free speech and what is claimed to be public opinion – depending, of course, on how that is measured!