Refugees from Syria huddle under a makeshift tent in Turkey. Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

The world is gripped by the biggest refugee crisis in its history. Britain must act

Britain has retreated from the world - and left the most vulnerable to fend for themselves.

Today marks World Refugee Day. This week, the UNHCR (the UN’s refugee agency) revealed that the number of refugees rose to 60 million at the end of 2014. One per cent of our entire planet have been ‘forcibly displaced’ from their homes and communities.

The tragedy unfolding in the Mediterranean Sea is the result of an unprecedented humanitarian crisis blighting parts of North Africa and the Middle East. But the refugee crisis we face is escalating at an alarming rate, with new axes of exclusion emerging across the globe. Each new tragic incident – the seizure of Yarmouk, the recent shipwreck off the coast of Lampedusa, and the desperate plight of the Rohingya – more horrific than the last. And each must spur political action.

The Prime Minister’s recent U-turn - acknowledging his mistake to pare back search and rescue operations - is welcome. But news that the future operation of HMS Bulwark – providing a vital lifeline to migrants stranded at sea - is under threat, is of deep concern. It is symbolic of the UK’s continued reluctance to engage.  

It is right that we have a debate on immigration, and about the state of affairs within our own borders. But we must also spark a broader discussion – one that examines the causes and responses by the world community with regard to mass migration. And this discussion must have clear principles.

Just as Tony Blair set out in his Chicago speech what should underpin liberal interventionism in the face of what he felt was the global challenge of his time, so we must begin to establish the values that should guide our response to a refugee crisis fuelled by climate change, political unrest and conflict. We must also acknowledge that, in some situations, these two debates are interlinked and that previous interventions - undertaken in our name - have undeniably fed the current turmoil. 

Today, on World Refugee Day, I want to challenge us to set out what these principles should be.

For me, it starts with global cooperation. With regard to the Syrian conflict, Britain should rejoin the United Nations official refugee programme for the most vulnerable refugees – recognising that many of these migrants will not even make it to a boat or get here on a plane; they will die in a camp.

Strict quotas such as those set out in the European Commission’s proposed ‘Agenda on Migration’ – due to be debated this week - are unworkable. But the lack of solidarity shown by this government is immoral. In such situations, ours should be generous response, but not a constrained one.

As Yvette Cooper has said, we should decouple asylum from migration targets. It skews the debate and frames an issue of decency in the context of political expedience. Refugees should be removed from net migration target.

News that the Department for International Development (DfID) has been excluded from a number of cross-Whitehall committees – including the National Security Council and the Immigration Taskforce – is emblematic of DfID’s further isolation and fading influence. Our aim should be an integrated development, defence, foreign and home policy that recognises the global challenges we face are interconnected.

Perhaps most importantly, we need an honest debate. The contention, propelled by the Prime Minister, that these immigrants are ‘economic migrants’, rather than desperate victims of human catastrophe is inaccurate and alarming. The British people, understandably concerned about levels of migration, are more anxious about human decency when confronted by the true facts.

We were once a nation that was proud to offer a place of sanctuary for people fleeing horrific rights abuses worldwide. But this government’s deliberate retreat from the world stage has put our reputation at risk.

The UK must stand up for the world’s least wanted people – but we must do so in a manner that is based on sound principles, and that requires consensus. It’s a debate whose urgency cannot be underestimated.

Gavin Shuker is MP for Luton South and chair of the All Party Group on Prostitution and the Global Sex Trade.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

No, the battle in Momentum isn't about young against old

Jon Lansman and his allies' narrative doesn't add up, argues Rida Vaquas.

If you examined the recent coverage around Momentum, you’d be forgiven for thinking that it was headed towards an acrimonious split, judging by the vitriol, paranoia and lurid accusations that have appeared online in the last couple days. You’d also be forgiven for thinking that this divide was between a Trotskyist old guard who can’t countenance new ways of working, and hip youngsters who are filled with idealism and better at memes. You might then be incredibly bemused as to how the Trotskyists Momentum was keen to deny existed over the summer have suddenly come to the brink of launching a ‘takeover bid’.

However these accounts, whatever intentions or frustrations that they are driven by, largely misrepresent the dispute within Momentum and what transpired at the now infamous National Committee meeting last Saturday.

In the first instance, ‘young people’ are by no means universally on the side of e-democracy as embodied by the MxV online platform, nor did all young people at the National Committee vote for Jon Lansman’s proposal which would make this platform the essential method of deciding Momentum policy.

Being on National Committee as the representative from Red Labour, I spoke in favour of a conference with delegates from local groups, believing this is the best way to ensure local groups are at the forefront of what we do as an organisation.

I was nineteen years old then. Unfortunately speaking and voting in favour of a delegates based conference has morphed me into a Trotskyist sectarian from the 1970s, aging me by over thirty years.

Moreover I was by no means the only young person in favour of this, Josie Runswick (LGBT+ representative) and the Scottish delegates Martyn Cook and Lauren Gilmour are all under thirty and all voted for a delegates based national conference. I say this to highlight that the caricature of an intergenerational war between the old and the new is precisely that: a caricature bearing little relation to a much more nuanced reality.

Furthermore, I believe that many people who voted for a delegates-based conference would be rather astounded to find themselves described as Trotskyists. I do not deny that there are Trotskyists on National Committee, nor do I deny that Trotskyists supported a delegates-based conference – that is an open position of theirs. What I do object is a characterisation of the 32 delegates who voted for a delegates-based conference as Trotskyists, or at best, gullible fools who’ve been taken in.  Many regional delegates were mandated by the people to whom they are accountable to support a national conference based on this democratic model, following broad and free political discussion within their regions. As thrilling as it might be to fantasise about a sinister plot driven by the shadow emperors of the hard Left against all that it is sensible and moderate in Momentum, the truth is rather more mundane. Jon Lansman and his supporters failed to convince people in local groups of the merits of his e-democracy proposal, and as a result lost the vote.

I do not think that Momentum is doomed to fail on account of the particular details of our internal structures, providing that there is democracy, accountability and grassroots participation embedded into it. I do not think Momentum is doomed to fail the moment Jon Lansman, however much respect I have for him, loses a vote. I do not even think Momentum is doomed to fail if Trotskyists are involved, or even win sometimes, if they make their case openly and convince others of their ideas in the structures available.

The existential threat that Momentum faces is none of these things, it is the propagation of a toxic and polarised political culture based on cliques and personal loyalties as opposed to genuine political discussion on how we can transform labour movement and transform society. It is a political culture in which those opposed to you in the organisation are treated as alien invaders hell-bent on destroying it, even when we’ve worked together to build it up, and we worked together before the Corbyn moment even happened. It is a political culture where members drag others through the mud, using the rhetoric of the Right that’s been used to attack all of us, on social and national media and lend their tacit support to witch hunts that saw thousands of Labour members and supporters barred from voting in the summer. It is ultimately a political culture in which our trust in each other and capacity to work together on is irreparably eroded.

We have a tremendous task facing us: to fight for a socialist alternative in a global context where far right populism is rapidly accruing victories; to fight for the Labour Party to win governmental power; to fight for a world in which working class people have the power to collectively change their lives and change the societies we live in. In short: there is an urgent need to get our act together. This will not be accomplished by sniping about ‘saboteurs’ but by debating the kind of politics we want clearly and openly, and then coming together to campaign from a grassroots level upwards.

Rida Vaquas is Red Labour Representative on Momentum National Committee.