THE average water temperature of the English Channel in November is around 13 degrees Celsius. Water is 24 times more thermally conductive than air, so the human body cools far more rapidly in water than on land.

At 13 degrees, even with a life jacket, death occurs in a matter of hours and can take as little as one hour, depending on factors such as clothing, body fat and size. Children die more quickly than adults.

We don’t yet know the full circumstances of the most recent deaths in the Channel, but we do know that 27 people lost their lives in a single incident on Wednesday, whether through drowning or hypothermia.

They include seven women, one of them pregnant, and three children.

We know that it was the worst tragedy in the Channel in recent times. We know that a calamity like this had been repeatedly predicted. And we know that there is no convincing plan to prevent further deaths.

In the hours since the story broke, there has been a cacophony of competing voices, pushing possible solutions and trying to attribute blame. The government has blamed the people smugglers and the French; the French government has pointed the finger at Britain.

There’s little for any politician to lose in attacking the smugglers, compassionless demons that they are.

But it’s up to governments to stop people smugglers, by intercepting their operations and reducing demand for crossings. What the last 48 hours have exposed is just how much the recriminatory relationship between Britain and France, coupled with the UK government’s antipathy to immigration in any form, is making it harder to frustrate the work of these gangs.

And if we can’t handle this crisis, then what about the future? In a world where natural disasters caused by climate change are likely to destroy whole communities and result in hundreds of millions more people fleeing their homes, is the British approach to asylum and immigration tenable? Can Fortress Britain simply pull up the drawbridge and insist its neighbours deal with the problem of mass migration on its behalf? The idea is absurd. A new and better way has to be found, not just for the coming weeks, but for the future of an unstable world.

For now, the question is over whether enough is being done to prevent further tragedies in the Channel.

Much of the initial focus has been on the French effort. The UK government has criticised France for not doing enough and French police have so far failed to explain themselves after pictures emerged of a French patrol car on a beach, apparently watching while migrants launch an inflatable boat.

READ MORE: Sturgeon is right over Cambo

Even so, the UK government has spoken of 20,000 attempted crossings being prevented so far this year. France highlights the difficulty of patrolling 200km of coastline and says UK funding to tackle this problem is minimal compared to what France spends.

Then again, France initially rejected an offer by the UK to mount joint patrols, on the grounds of sovereignty, adding pointedly that the UK must surely understand that.

And that has been the tone of it: tetchy. This is not a fruitful, constructive relationship. The UK government of course is largely to blame for that, exploiting disputes with the EU and France over Brexit and fishing to titillate its domestic audience. Britain’s choice to leave the EU has also inevitably meant less close cooperation on policing and intelligence.

But it’s way past time to put those differences to one side. The trading of barbs in the wake of these deaths, bring shame on both governments.

Even an almighty crackdown on boat launches will not eradicate the problem, though; that will only happen when demand dies away. And it’s very hard to see that happening so long as the UK government stands by its current immigration policy.

UK policy seems designed to create a Catch 22 for asylum seekers. The government has blocked all safe ways for refugees to come to Britain, except via UN-sanctioned resettlement schemes from third countries like Lebanon, which only help a tiny fraction of those in need.

And there is no way of applying for asylum in Britain from abroad; indeed, the UK government will not consider asylum applications unless they are made in Britain. It’s hard to conceive of a policy that could do more to encourage people to try and cross the Channel.

The UK government insists that those coming by small boat – what it erroneously calls “illegal means” – have little chance of being accepted for asylum. But if you have no other choice, and have already endured a perilous journey across continents, then of course you are likely to give it a try.

One answer would be to allow asylum applications in UK embassies or in northern France, but the UK government won’t accept that because it could encourage more asylum applications, which it opposes above all else.

You may think Britain has some headroom for compassion: after all, we process a quarter of the asylum applications that France does; handle fewer small boat crossings than Spain or Italy; and have seen numbers claiming asylum in Britain drop by four per cent. But the UK government has built its popularity on opposing immigration.

Just how far the UK government is prepared to go is highlighted by its move to put in place a policy allowing Border Force patrol boats to turn migrant boats back into French waters. Border force officials have been seen on practice runs using jet skis to nudge the flimsy boats backwards. Dangerous? Of course. France has warned the Channel could become “a theatre of human tragedies”, it’s opposed by a former chief of the naval staff, been called “morally reprehensible” by one of the main border staff unions, and is being challenged in court by charities, but the UK government is still defending it.

There are areas where everyone agrees action could usefully be taken, such as making it much quicker to process asylum applications so that failed applications are not preceded by long stays.

But Britain also has to change its increasingly hostile mentality towards migration. Managing migration is a shared challenge which requires shared solutions. We have a responsibility to those in need – and right now, we’re failing them badly.

Our columns are a platform for writers to express their opinions. They do not necessarily represent the views of The Herald.