by Rajnish Singh
In the UK, we have a joke: you wait for ages for a bus, and then three arrive at once. It’s much the same with the trio of international agreements that Prime Minister Keir Starmer signed in rapid succession this May, following years of negotiation, with India, the US, and the EU. His hat-trick of international successes promises billions in economic gains, enhanced defence cooperation, and a partial uplift of Britain’s global image. Yet domestically, migration remains the thorny problem that refuses to loosen its grip, despite these diplomatic victories.
The question, then, is why migration remains the political boil that Starmer finds so hard to lance, despite his international successes. The answer lies in a potent mix of public opinion, political pressures, economic dependencies, and the lingering legacy of unresolved Brexit issues.
Firstly, there is the considerable pressure of public concern. While progressives argue that opinion polls show most people support migration in principle, it remains a deeply divisive issue — particularly since the 2016 Brexit referendum, when Brexiters famously promised to “take back control” of Britain’s borders.
Although net migration has declined, public anxiety persists, with many Britons feeling their communities are changing too rapidly or that migration is overburdening public services, driving up housing demand, and eroding social cohesion. Even Starmer has acknowledged these fears, warning that the UK risks becoming an “island of strangers” — a remark that drew sharp condemnation from progressives and left-wing members of his own Labour Party.
Secondly, migration has become a particularly potent weapon for Starmer’s right-wing critics, especially Nigel Farage and his hard-right Reform UK party. Reform made spectacular gains in the local elections this May by appealing to disillusioned Brexit voters and those convinced that Labour has betrayed its promises on immigration. Farage’s success has rattled the main parties, with growing calls inside Labour to withdraw some of its more unpopular measures.
Although Labour dropped the unpopular Rwanda deportation scheme, it has sought to demonstrate resolve with measures such as a new Border Security Command and stricter visa rules. Yet for many voters, the continued arrival of small boats across the English Channel remains a potent symbol of a government not in control.
Starmer’s international deals, though headline-grabbing, have done little to ease these domestic pressures. His agreement with the EU, while softening post-Brexit trade barriers and enhancing defence ties, notably failed to secure British access to the Schengen Information System — a crucial database for tackling illegal migration and cross-border crime. Meanwhile, proposals for a Youth Mobility Scheme, which would grant young EU citizens easier access to Britain (similar to arrangements with New Zealand and Australia), have triggered accusations of reintroducing “free movement by the back door” — reviving Brexit-era tensions.
Even the India-UK trade agreement, which promises to boost the British economy by £5 billion, has faced criticism for its migration provisions, particularly the exemption allowing Indian workers to opt out of National Insurance contributions for three years. Both the Conservatives and Reform UK have seized on this, denouncing the deal as unfair to British workers and accusing Starmer of prioritising foreign policy over domestic needs. However, these provisions are identical to those in other free trade agreements signed by the UK.
The US agreement, meanwhile, is aimed mainly at averting the fallout from Donald Trump’s tariff wars. While it has minimal direct impact on migration, it adds economic pressure by reinforcing business demands for access to foreign labour.
Making the situation even more complicated are the structural challenges within the British economy. The National Health Service, social care, and hospitality sectors are heavily reliant on migrant workers, most of whom come from non-EU countries. Starmer’s push to tighten visa requirements for low-wage industries risks triggering labour shortages and undermining his drive for economic growth — a key pillar of his government’s success — pitting political promises against economic realities. Business leaders warn that without overseas staff, the UK’s fragile recovery could easily stumble.
The prime minister’s more assertive stance on migration has also opened up divisions within his party. Left-wing MPs and members accuse him of echoing right-wing rhetoric, alienating progressive voters. Some critics have even — arguably unfairly — compared his recent “island of strangers” speech to Enoch Powell’s infamous “rivers of blood” address, in which Powell warned in the 1960s that migration would trigger societal upheaval and violence.
Finally, even five years after the UK left the EU, Brexit continues to cast a long shadow. For many voters, the persistently high post-Brexit migration figures feel like a betrayal of the promises made during the referendum. Starmer’s EU reset has raised fears that the country could drift back towards Europe, reigniting the very tensions Brexit was meant to settle.
In short, while Starmer’s foreign policy achievements have enhanced Britain’s global standing, they have done little to ease his domestic challenges. However, Labour is not the only social democratic party in Europe taking a more assertive stance on migration. Its sister party in Denmark, along with eight other EU countries, recently signed a letter urging a rethink of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), particularly regarding migration and the expulsion of criminal foreign nationals.
Migration remains a highly contentious, economically challenging, and politically sensitive issue. For Starmer — as for much of Europe’s left — it is not just a policy challenge; it is the political fault line that will define their survival.
By: N. Peter Kramer
