Tony Blair opened UK borders to east European migrants despite misgivings – newly released files show
Tony Blair’s Labour government pushed on with plans to open the UK’s borders to Eastern Europe despite mounting concerns from senior ministers, according to newly released official files.
The former prime minister relaxed immigration controls in 2004 after eight mainly former Soviet states, including Poland, Lithuania and Hungary, joined the EU.
Papers given to the National Archives in London show then deputy PM John Prescott and foreign secretary Jack Straw both urged delay to the policy, warning of a surge in immigration unless some restrictions were put in place.
But others – including then home secretary David Blunkett – argued that the economy needed the “flexibility and productivity of migrant labour” if it was to continue to prosper.
The records emerged as part of a yearly release of Cabinet Office files once they are 20 years old.
The papers also show:
- Ministers in Blair’s government were advised to use post-it notes for sensitive messages to avoid having to release them under new Freedom of Information laws, which they had passed.
- A senior US official warned the British ambassador to the US that George W Bush believed he was on a “mission from God” to crush Iraqi insurgents and had to be given a “dose of reality”.
- Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi felt like a “jilted lover” after being shut out of talks between Blair and the leaders of France and Germany.
- Former prime minister Sir John Major privately wrote to Blair urging him to order England’s cricket team not to compete in a “morally repugnant” tour in Zimbabwe amid concerns about its human rights record under Robert Mugabe.
Then foreign secretary Jack Straw had reservations about the plan
Calls for open borders re-think
The Blair government’s open borders policy is seen as having helped fuel anti-EU sentiment by the time of the Brexit referendum in 2016.
There was a major increase in immigration in the years that followed, with net migration rising to more than 200,000 a year and cheaper foreign labour blamed for undercutting local workers.
In 2013, Mr Straw admitted that the failure to put in place any transitional controls – as nearly all other EU nations had done – had been a “spectacular mistake” which had far-reaching consequences.
According to the Cabinet papers, the Home Office had predicted the impact of allowing unrestricted access to the UK jobs market for the new countries would be relatively limited – but within weeks the numbers arriving were far outstripping previous estimates.
Three months before the policy was due to be implemented, Mr Straw wrote to Mr Blair calling for a re-think, warning that other countries “who we thought would be joining us have begun to peel away”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Sir Tony Blair on leadership
“France, Germany, Spain, Austria, Belgium, Finland, Greece and Luxembourg are all imposing transition periods of at least two years. Portugal is likely to follow suit,” he wrote.
“Italy is undecided. Sweden, Netherlands and Denmark – who were with us – have all announced the introduction of work and/or residence permits for those wishing to avail themselves of the concession.”
He was backed by Mr Prescott who said he was “extremely concerned” about the pressures on social housing from a sudden influx of new migrants.
However Mr Blunkett, backed by work and pensions secretary Andrew Smith and the Treasury, insisted they should stick with the plan on “economic grounds”.
Then Home Secretary David Blunkett backed the policy
He said that they would be tightening the regulations to stop migrants travelling to the UK simply to claim benefits but rejected calls for a work permit scheme as “not only expensive and bureaucratic but I believe ineffective”.
Mr Blair appeared to also express doubts, questioning whether tougher benefit rules on their own would be enough.
“Are we sure this does the trick? I don’t want to have to return to it,” he said in a handwritten note.
Read More:
Labour would lose almost 200 seats if election held today, poll suggests
No 10 insists private school fees ‘out of reach for most people’
“I am not sure we shouldn’t have a work permits approach also. Why not? It gives us an extra string to our bow.”
Mr Blair also stressed the need to send out a deterrent “message” about benefits, writing in a note: “We must do the toughest package on benefits possible & announce this plus power to revoke visa plan and message to Romas.”
Bush ‘on mission from God’ in Iraq
Elsewhere in the Cabinet files, there was a record of frank conversations between Richard Armitage, the US deputy Secretary of State, and Britain’s ambassador to the US at the time, Sir David Manning, about the Iraq War.
In one meeting, Mr Armitage dismissed claims by the US commander in Iraq that he could put down a major uprising in the city of Fallujah within days as “bulls**t” and “politically crass”, and appealed for Mr Blair to use his influence with Mr Bush to persuade him there needed to be a wider “political process” if order was to be restored.
Tony Blair with George Bush
In another meeting, Mr Armitage spoke of President Bush being faced with a “dose of reality” about the conflict.
Sir David reported: “Rich summed it all up by saying that Bush still thought he was on some sort of a mission from God, but that recent events had made him ‘rather more sober’.”
Italian PM felt like ‘jilted lover’
Other papers described a fall-out with Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi after he was excluded from a trilateral summit of the UK, France and Germany.
He is said to have been “hurt” because unlike the other two nations he had backed Britain and the US over the invasion of Iraq, and threatened to challenge Britain’s EU rebate at every opportunity as a result.
In a report of a meeting between Britain’s ambassador to Rome, Sir Ivor Roberts, and Mr Berlusconi’s foreign affairs adviser, Giovanni Castellaneta, Sir Ivor wrote: “The gist of what he had to say was that Berlusconi was feeling badly let down by the prime minister.
Tony Blair with Silvio Berlusconi inside number 10 Downing Street.
“He actually used the image of a jilted lover (very Berlusconi) and added that there was something of the southern Italian about Berlusconi which made him quite vindictive when he thought his affections had been misplaced or betrayed.
“The word ‘tradito’ (betrayed) came up quite often.”
The row even came up during a video conference between Mr Blair and Mr Bush the following week, with the US president expressing “some concern in a jokey way, on Berlusconi’s behalf, over Italy’s exclusion”, according to a Downing Street note of the call.
In the face of such concerns, Mr Blair felt it necessary to travel to Rome to personally placate the unhappy premier and assure him of his continuing support.
John Major’s Zimbabwe intervention
The papers also revealed that former Conservative prime minister John Major – who preceded Mr Blair – privately wrote to his successor to urge him to “indemnify” English cricket for any financial losses if it was sanctioned for pulling out of a controversial tour of Zimbabwe.
Sir John, a noted cricket fan, said the tour was “morally repugnant” given Robert Mugabe’s human rights record, but pointed out that “draconian” rules by the world game’s governing body (ICC) imposed penalties on countries for cancelling – putting English cricket at risk of bankruptcy.
The letter came after Mr Blair had told MPs that in his “personal opinion” the tour should be abandoned, but it would “step over the proper line” for ministers to issue an instruction
Sir John Major
Mr Major said if the government “expresses a view” that the tour should not go ahead – or there was a vote in parliament to that effect – then it would be “very difficult” for the ICC to penalise England.
And in the “very unlikely circumstances” that it were to do so, he said the government should indemnify the ICC for any financial losses.
“I daresay the Treasury would hate this, but the blunt truth is that the government could not let English cricket go to the wall because of a refusal to intervene,” Mr Major wrote.
The tour ultimately went ahead.
Ministers urged to communicate in post-it notes
Meanwhile, other papers revealed that ministers in Blair’s government were advised to use post-it notes for sensitive messages to avoid having to release them under the new Freedom of Information (FoI) Act.
The Labour government had passed the bill in 2000, which requires public bodies to disclose information requested by the public, but as its full implementation date crept up in 2005 there was growing disquiet about its implications.
One No 10 adviser wrote to Mr Blair suggesting post-it notes – which could presumably then be thrown away once the message had been read – as a way of getting round the requirement to disclose official material in response to FoI requests.
UK
Prince Andrew insisted on ‘gag order’ to stop allegations spoiling Queen’s Platinum Jubilee, memoir claims
Prince Andrew insisted his accuser, Virginia Giuffre, sign a one-year gag order – to prevent details of her allegations tarnishing the late Queen’s platinum jubilee, her memoirs have claimed.
Andrew relinquished his Duke of York title and remaining honours on Friday evening.
It came after discussions with King Charles, in consultation with the Prince of Wales, both of whom wanted to bring an end to the long-lasting scandal.
But, according to The Telegraph, Ms Giuffre’s book, which is due out on Tuesday, is focusing further attention on the sexual assault allegations and the prince’s friendship with paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, which led to the royal’s downfall.
She tells how Andrew’s “disastrous” Newsnight interview with Emily Maitlis was like an “injection of jet fuel” for her legal team, and it raised the possibility of “subpoenaing” his ex-wife Sarah Ferguson, and daughters Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie and drawing them into the legal case.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Prince Andrew’s ’embarrassed’ Royals ‘for years’
The Telegraph also reports Ms Giuffre’s claims that she got “more out of” Andrew than a reported £12m payout and $2m (around £1.4m) donation to her charity because she had “an acknowledgement that I and many other women had been victimised and a tacit pledge to never deny it again”.
The former duke paid to settle a civil sexual assault case with Ms Giuffre in 2022, despite insisting he had never met her.
Ms Giuffre alleged she was forced to have sex with the prince when she was 17, after being trafficked by Epstein. Andrew continues to vehemently deny her allegations.
Read more:
Andrew giving up title is ‘Victory for Virginia’
Everything we know about Andrew losing titles
Prince Andrew: A timeline of events
Queen Elizabeth II was celebrating her platinum jubilee in 2022 – the first British monarch to reach the milestone – as the civil case against her son was gathering pace.
It was settled nine days after she reached the 70th anniversary of her accession.
According to the Telegraph, Ms Giuffre, who died in April, reveals in her book: “I agreed to a one-year gag order, which seemed important to the prince because it ensured that his mother’s platinum jubilee would not be tarnished any more than it already had been.”
Parades, processions, concerts and street parties were held across the UK in celebration of the Platinum Jubilee. Pic: PA
In January 2022, a US judge ruled the civil case against Andrew could go ahead, and the Queen went on to strip him of his honorary military roles, with the prince also giving up his HRH style.
‘Devastating’ interview
His 2019 Newsnight interview, which he hoped would clear his name, backfired when he said he “did not regret” his friendship with convicted paedophile Epstein, who trafficked Ms Giuffre.
Prince Andrew and Virginia Giuffre (then Roberts) in 2001 – a picture the prince claimed had been doctored. Pic: Shutterstock
Andrew also said he had “no recollection” of ever meeting Ms Giuffre and added he could not have had sex with her in March 2001 because he was at Pizza Express with his daughter Beatrice on the day in question.
Ms Giuffre, whose book is called Nobody’s Girl: A Memoir of Surviving Abuse and Fighting for Justice, wrote, according to The Telegraph: “As devastating as this interview was for Prince Andrew, for my legal team it was like an injection of jet fuel.
“Its contents would not only help us build an ironclad case against the prince but also open the door to potentially subpoenaing his ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson, and their daughters, Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie.”
‘Amazed he was stupid enough’
She also told how Andrew had “stonewalled” her legal team for months before settlement discussions began moving very quickly when his deposition was scheduled for March 2022.
Ms Giuffre also wrote she was “amazed” that a member of the royal family would be “stupid enough” to appear in public with the convicted paedophile, after a photo of the pair walking in New York emerged.
Andrew, who remains a prince and continues to live in the Crown Estate property Royal Lodge, said on Friday the “continued accusations about me distract from the work of His Majesty and the royal family”.
He insisted he was putting his “family and country first” and would stop using “my title or the honours which have been conferred upon me”.
It’s not the first seismic statement I’ve had to deal with from the Royal Family late into the evening.
But what I have learnt from past experience is that when they do come in this way, it’s because the decision has been made to act now and act fast.
Which inevitably has us all wondering, why now?
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Prince Andrew: ‘Too much of a distraction’
The latest stories about Prince Andrew and his email to Jeffrey Epstein were again a sign of just how close he’d been to the convicted paedophile, and an extract released from the late Virginia Giuffre’s book was heartbreaking and excruciatingly seedy.
And yes, the full book is released on Tuesday.
But in some ways, we have heard a lot of these lurid details before, albeit allegations that Prince Andrew denies.
Which is why it feels like this time, the family had just had enough.
It’s framed as a personal statement from Andrew, but the involvement of his relatives could not be any clearer: “In discussion with the King, and my immediate and wider family,” he writes, followed up by, “with His Majesty’s agreement, we feel I must now go a step further”.
It has always been hard to get a full picture of how much the King has engaged in the problems with his brother.
Prince Andrew speaks with King Charles as they leave Westminster Cathedral Pic: Reuters
Speak to those who know the family well and they’ll tell you our current monarch “doesn’t like confrontation”, just like Queen Elizabeth II.
And while there has always remained “a warm familial feeling between the two brothers” which we’ve seen through Andrew’s appearance at family events, it is “tempered by the King’s responsibilities as head of state to be entirely separate from the perceived, real or alleged activities of the Duke of York”.
In the end, as head of the institution, and not as his brother, the King would have had to lead the discussions about the Andrew problem, but I suspect with heavy involvement from his eldest son and wife.
William, only in recent weeks, has told us there will be change when he becomes monarch, his advisors stressing he isn’t afraid to question why the Royal Family continues to do things in a certain way.
His very visible unease at standing next to Prince Andrew at the Duchess of Kent’s funeral showed us how uncomfortable he felt about his uncle being there at such a public moment.
His involvement in those discussions behind the scenes and making sure the institution was seen to be taking action against Andrew is likely to have been considerable.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
A timeline of allegations against Andrew
I know that Queen Camilla is also a quiet but hugely powerful influence behind palace walls.
She is her husband’s listening ear, sounding board, but also not afraid to tell him when she believes there needs to be change.
Her own work to break taboos around sexual violence and encourage survivors to speak out must have made it even more difficult for her to read the stories about Andrew’s links to Epstein, and the sexual allegations against her brother-in-law, even though he has always vehemently denied them.
And then there are those closest to the Prince.
You have to have sympathy with his daughters, Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie. Did they tell their father that he needed to do something for their sake to try and shut down the noise?
His ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson, has also been burned in recent weeks by her association with Epstein – a spectre who, despite his death, has continued to haunt the royal family.
So what of Prince Andrew? How will this impact him?
Any sense he might have a chance at returning to some kind of public life has truly evaporated. We wait to see if, with time, he is again allowed to appear at least for family occasions.
I’ve always been told “he is robust and self-contained and always has been”.
Interpret that how you will – arrogance that he could ride it out, or a very strongly-held conviction that he has never done anything wrong?
Either way, he clearly believes he has been unfairly punished by the court of public opinion.
One thing a source did tell me is that there is a sense he’s never really needed the affirmation of his family.
Read more from Sky News:
Andrew named in Epstein files
Harry denies fight with Andrew
Author: Andrew has no public future
He may not need their emotional support, but in the end, we have again seen how no member of the family is bigger than the institution.
Protecting the reputation of “the firm” has to come first.
Prince Andrew may feel that he has done the right thing, even done his family a favour, by personally relinquishing the use of his titles and honours, but this, in the end, was not just his choice.
No longer to be known as HRH or the Duke of York, he is now Prince Andrew only – ultimately forced to fall on his sword by his own family.
Prince Andrew has announced he is giving up his royal titles, including the Duke of York.
The decision is understood to have been made in close consultation with King Charles and other members of the Royal Family.
Prince Andrew said continued accusations against him were distracting from the King’s work.
He had been accused by Virginia Giuffre, who died in April, of sexual assault. He denies this.
Which titles is he giving up?
Prince Andrew is giving up his Duke of York title. Sky News understands this will be immediate.
He will also give up his knighthood as a Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order (GCVO) and his Garter role as a Royal Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter.
He will retain the dukedom, which can only be removed by an Act of Parliament, but will not use it.
Prince Andrew will also remain a prince, as the son of Queen Elizabeth II.
Virginia Giuffre had accused Prince Andrew of sexually assaulting her before her death. Pic: AP
Why is this happening now?
Ms Giuffre, who was one of billionaire paedophile Jeffrey Epstein’s victims, alleged Prince Andrew sexually assaulted her on three occasions when she was 17, and sued him in 2021.
In her posthumous memoir Nobody’s Girl, due to be published on Tuesday, she alleged he was “entitled” and “believed having sex with me was his birthright”.
Prince Andrew has always denied the allegations.
He has also always claimed that a well-known image of them together was doctored. Before her death, which her family said was by suicide, the case was settled outside of court for a sum believed to have been around £12m.
Ms Giuffre’s posthumous memoir goes on sale a week after an email emerged showing Andrew told Epstein “we are in this together”.
The email was reportedly sent three months after he said he had stopped contact with the convicted sex offender.
Flight logs released by a US committee from Epstein’s estate name Prince Andrew. Pic: House Committee on Oversight and Government
On Friday evening, the US House Oversight Committee also released documents from Epstein’s estate showing “Prince Andrew” listed as a passenger on the financier’s private jet – the so-called Lolita Express – from Luton to Edinburgh in 2006, alongside Ghislaine Maxwell.
He was also listed on another flight to West Palm Beach, Florida, in 2000.
The flight logs have been reported on for years but the release may have added to pressure.
“The situation has become untenable and intolerable, and this week in particular, the tipping point had been reached,” said royal correspondent Laura Bundock.
It is understood that the changes will take effect immediately.
The Giuffre family has called for the King to go further and “remove the title of Prince”.
Prince Andrew’s decision to relinquish his titles also comes following increased pressure over his relationship with an alleged Chinese spy.
The move will not impact the Princesses, including Princess Beatrice, here.
Will this affect his ex-wife and daughters?
Sky News understands that Andrew will continue to live at the Windsor Estate at the Royal Lodge. His ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson, will also remain living at the Royal Lodge.
But for the second year running, he will not attend the Royal Family’s annual Christmas celebrations at Sandringham, it is understood.
Andrew’s ex-wife will also no longer use her Duchess of York title.
She was dropped by numerous charities last month after it emerged that she wrote to convicted sex offender Epstein, calling him a “supreme friend”, despite publicly disowning him in the media.
The decision over Andrew’s titles will not impact on the position of his daughters, Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie, it is understood.
Sky News royal correspondent Rhiannon Mills says the move may not stop the influx of negative stories about him.
She said: “This ends the questions on what more the monarch could do to show how the family felt about the accusations, the upset and the embarrassment caused.
“Will it stop the stories, the allegations and the interest in Prince Andrew? That is far less certain. But in what is the prince’s first public statement since that ill-fated Newsnight interview in 2019, it is striking that he signs it off by saying, ‘I vigorously deny the accusations against me’.”
Prince Andrew made the decision to give up his titles in close consultation with King Charles, it is understood. Pic: Reuters
What did Prince Andrew say in his statement?
In his statement, Prince Andrew said: “In discussion with The King, and my immediate and wider family, we have concluded the continued accusations about me distract from the work of His Majesty and the Royal Family.
“I have decided, as I always have, to put my duty to my family and country first. I stand by my decision five years ago to stand back from public life.
“With His Majesty’s agreement, we feel I must now go a step further. I will therefore no longer use my title or the honours which have been conferred upon me.
“As I have said previously, I vigorously deny the accusations against me.”
Anyone feeling emotionally distressed or suicidal can call Samaritans for help on 116 123 or email jo@samaritans.org in the UK. In the US, call the Samaritans branch in your area or 1 (800) 273-TALK.
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports2 years agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports3 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Sports3 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment1 year agoHere are the best electric bikes you can buy at every price level in October 2024