Doubts are growing inside Britain’s Conservative Party about Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s plan to curb illegal immigration, according to Bloomberg. Several cabinet ministers and officials question whether the strategy can become a workable policy or if it risks remaining an impractical venture.
The plan features a deal with France aimed at strengthening protections along Britain’s northern shoreline to deter migrants from attempting to cross the English Channel. It also proposes legislation that would require the government to deport people who arrive illegally. Bloomberg notes concerns among conservatives that these measures could bring unintended consequences and fail to deliver the stated outcomes.
For the ruling Conservatives, the fate of their political project depends on the outcome of the next general election, now less than two years away. Polls show the party trailing Labour by more than twenty points, intensifying the pressure to demonstrate real results and reassure voters.
Sources within the agency stress that only a small group of ministers in the British cabinet believe the current law will effectively stop illegal crossings or meet the party’s commitments. There are ongoing worries that the government’s approach may raise legal challenges related to rights protections and the treatment of migrants, potentially inviting scrutiny from courts and human rights bodies.
The central uncertainty remains what steps Sunak will take if the law fails to achieve its aims. Some figures in Downing Street reportedly regard this as a possible final instrument before the next election, including the option of leaving the European Court of Human Rights. Critics argue that cutting ties with the ECHR could prove more troublesome than Brexit and might complicate relations with European partners. Others contend that such a move would be politically risky for a prime minister trying to maintain good rapport with European leaders while pursuing domestic immigration controls.
Earlier reporting indicated that Sunak had pledged to end illegal immigration across the English Channel, a vow that continues to shape debates about the policy’s feasibility, the legal landscape, and the government’s broader approach to border security. The discussions reflect a wider tension between domestic political goals and the evolving framework of international law, a dynamic that could influence how the policy is perceived by voters and allies alike.