Salman Abedi was born in the UK – Ukip’s manifesto plan to close our borders wouldn’t have prevented the Manchester attack

As the names of Monday’s victims are made public, and a timeline established as to how such a heinous act came to pass, it’s clear that the timing of events in Manchester couldn't be better for those with a particular agenda to push: one which seeks to discredit multiculturalism, which wants an end to net immigration, and one that ensures Britain undergoes the hardest of all hard Brexits.

With spiteful relish premier rent-a-ghouls like Katie Hopkins and Tommy Robinson have sought to cast its meaning within the only narrative they can; one which frames Islam as inherently violent, our nation’s borders as too porous and our politicians as unduly weak. Manchester, they claim, is the clearest evidence yet as to why we should refuse the admission of refugees, specifically those from majority Muslim countries. In a moment of depraved candour Hopkins even tweeted a call for a ‘Final Solution’.

Today, as Ukip unveiled their party manifesto, such sentiments infused the General Election more formally, as they detailed their desire to reduce net migration to zero within five years. After the events of this week, that is a policy which could resurrect a party that seemed down for the count.

While no doubt alluring to many of the almost four million voters who backed them in 2015, not to mention many Conservative and even some Labour voters too, the truth is that Britain’s policies on migration and refugees bear no relationship to recent attacks. That is because those committing them aren’t newcomers, they were born and raised here.

Salman Abedi, like Khalid Masood, responsible for the Westminster attack in March, and indeed three of the four men involved in the 7/7 attacks in 2005, were born in Britain. While some will seek to highlight a common theme – that Abedi’s Libyan parents hailed from a primarily Muslim country, as did Hasib Hussain’s, Shehzad Tanweer's and Mohammad Sidique Khan’s, that did not hold true for Masood, whose background is seemingly West Indian, nor the fourth and final 7/7 attacker, Germaine Lindsay, born in Jamaica. It’s the same with Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale, who killed Fusilier Lee Rigby in 2013. While both came from Nigerian families, they were also both born in South-East England – not to mention being raised in Christian households.

And in this respect, of domestic nationals committing terrorist attacks, Britain is not the outlier, but the norm. Nearly every individual involved with the 'Brussels Isis terror cell', responsible not only for Paris’ Bataclan attacks in 2015 but bombings in Brussels the following Spring, were born in France, Sweden, the Netherlands and Belgium.

In the throes of an historic refugee crisis, one which has seen millions pass through Central and Southern Europe in recent years, it is all too easy to claim that those fleeing conflict in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan are intent on committing acts of violent terrorism in Europe. And yet that simply isn’t true, with those who commit such acts born in Europe and educated within its institutions feeling, it appears, entirely isolated from its civil society and culture.

Indeed of all the attacks which have taken place domestically in recent years, Abedi is the only individual whose family were granted political asylum, and that was from a Gadaffi regime which Britain helped removed several years ago.

Since the events of September 11th nearly 16 years ago, our politicians – not just in Britain but across Europe and North America – have talked tough on terrorism. They have insisted that it is a new foe with features configured by modernity itself. Yet they themselves have failed to adapt, maintaining the same alliances with despotisms, specifically Saudi Arabia, who are primary exporters of terrorism.

While it may be a comforting platitude to emphasise the importance of ‘moderate Muslims’ unveiling elements bent on fanaticism within their own communities, we know that Abedi’s friends had informed authorities, and that he had been expelled him from Didsbury Mosque after he took issue with a sermon that emphasised anti-extremism. Remarkably, it was even known that Abedi had recently travelled to both Syria and Libya – where some of his family now lives. Given all that, what precisely was the presumption from security services in regard to him attending an Ariana Grande concert?

Events like Manchester this week, London 12 years ago and Bataclan in 2015 may perhaps always be with us, but we can take steps to minimise their likelihood. That should include more closely integrating an intelligent domestic security policy with efforts abroad, particularly the Middle East and North Africa. Isis simply would not exist without the Second Gulf War in 2003 and Libya, similarly, would not be the haven for extremism it has now become without the toppling of Gadaffi, assisted by Nato, in 2011. It is clear that the United States, along with its allies in Europe, must completely re-think their alliances with the Muslim world and end a policy of intervention which has only resulted in failed states, turmoil and religious sectarianism.

At home, meanwhile, domestic security services must have greater focus and resources, with programs clearly stigmatising minority communities – like Britain’s Prevent – ended. That also means we live up to our highest values of tolerance, openness and multiculturalism, something completely at odds with closing borders and isolating Muslim communities.

Those fleeing wars and conflict are not responsible for these acts, and it is our duty to ensure their human rights are observed in guaranteeing their sanctuary in Europe. Meanwhile we must now seek to pursue political solutions in their home nations, as well as ensure that the appropriate resources are there to underpin economic development and strong civil societies.

Until that happens, and we make good for our mistakes in Libya and Iraq, nobody – from Baghdad to England's Midlands will be any safer.