For lovers of hypocrisy and cynicism in politics, the past few days have been a treasure. I am thinking about the impact of the House of Lords’ belated approval of the Government’s plans to give people who enter the country illegally in “small boats” a one-way ticket to Rwanda.
French President Emmanuel Macron slammed the plan, calling it a “betrayal of our values.”
If by that he meant the values that the EU’s institutions embody, then a few days later, in the European People’s Party’s (EPP) manifesto for June’s European Parliament elections, he wrote: He must have been confused by such a request. This is a fundamental change in European asylum law. ”
Specifically, the EPP, the largest group in the European Parliament and of which President Ursula von der Leyen is a member, pledged that “we want to realize the concept of a safe third country.” Anyone who applies for asylum within the EU may also be transferred to a safe third country, where they may undergo asylum procedures. ”
It is true that the UK Supreme Court has ruled that Rwanda is not a “safe third country” because it has expelled asylum seekers it previously hosted. So the government signed a treaty with Rwanda, agreeing that the African country could only send back here those it had taken from Britain, but not to other countries.
Rishi Sunak and Rwandan President Paul Kagame met in Downing Street earlier this month
This revised form of the original Rwanda plan finally cleared all parliamentary hurdles a week ago.
On the same day, Chancellor Rishi Sunak said this would give the go-ahead for “a relentless, ongoing process of permanently relocating people to Rwanda, with multiple flights taking place regularly throughout the summer until the boats are grounded.” He said it would be given.
I have always thought that the deterrent effect that the Prime Minister claims would not exist until such flights actually began and were conducted on such a regular basis. But apparently I was wrong.
Last week, Irish Foreign Secretary Michael Martin complained that 80 per cent of asylum seekers currently arriving in Ireland come from the north, an alarming statistic that was the “Rwanda effect”.
Last week, Irish Foreign Secretary Michael Martin complained that 80 per cent of asylum seekers currently arriving in Ireland come from the north, an alarming statistic that was the “Rwanda effect”.
“They are leaving the UK and are seizing the opportunity to cross the border to Ireland and seek sanctuary here and within the European Union, as opposed to potentially being deported back to Rwanda. That would be the problem,” he said. The impact it (the Rwanda Plan) was designed to have.
Ah, the irony. As you know, there is no border between the North and the Republic that prohibits the movement of people. This is because the European Union has insisted on the existence of a border at the request of the Irish government during the difficult Brexit negotiations.
The reason is that, in the context of the Good Friday Agreement, they considered imposing such border checks, even with a single fixed camera, a risk to peace.
Prime Minister Theresa May agreed, despite concerns from Brexiteers that this would open a backdoor for immigration to the UK from within the EU. But now it is Dublin who are ruining that result.
Irish leader Simon Harris has therefore called on the justice minister to find a way to change the law to allow asylum seekers coming to Ireland from the UK to be deported. The problem is that the Irish High Court ruled last month that the UK itself is “not a safe country” to return migrants to, precisely because of the Rwanda scheme.
Migrants cross the English Channel on inflatable boats heading for Dover on England’s south coast.
As the great Irishman Oscar Wilde said meanly about Dickens’s description of Little Nell’s death, it would take a heart of stone not to laugh.
In reality, we don’t know how much of this problem in Dublin is really a result of the Rwanda plan. There is always a temptation for them to blame their policy problems on “Brexit” rather than on the EU.
But The Times interviewed Jordanian Mohammad Tibishat, who said he was “urged to flee” from Birmingham to Dublin via Belfast after hearing about plans to deport him to Rwanda. It’s going to be very bad,” he said.
The paper also spoke to a number of would-be ‘boat people’ in Calais, including an Iranian named Armin Rezai, who said: ‘We are looking for a better life and are looking for a place in the UK. That’s what I thought I would get.” But if they plan on sending us to Rwanda, I might stay in France. ”
This is a point that must always be made to those who consider the Rwanda project immoral. Illegal human trafficking journeys aimed at stopping these people are not only often deadly journeys (as demonstrated again last week with the deaths of five migrants in a Channel crossing attempt), but also the journeys that these people have already arrived in a safe country and their lives are not in danger: France.
Mr Sunak’s policies are certainly more humane than those set out by British Reform deputy leader Ben Habib.
Last week, after party leader Richard Tice denounced the Rwanda plan as futile, saying instead that the “boats” could simply “turn around” halfway through the Channel, I hereby point out that this was indeed the case in the first place. This was the Conservative Party’s plan. .
However, Boris Johnson’s government was at odds with the Royal Navy and the Royal National Lifeboat Society, both of which argued that the idea was not only impractical but also potentially deadly. The Rwanda plan was only designed after the idea of ”turning back” was rejected by the Navy.
In an interview with Talk TV, Mr Habib elaborated on his party’s “turn back” policy, saying that if one of the dinghies sank, the vessel it was on should not be picked up by a Royal Navy or Border Force vessel, but rather He argued that it should be provided in the form of Channel, in another dinghy.
Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, recently reiterated that if Labor were elected to government, no matter what, flights to Rwanda would be halted.
Interviewer Julia Hartley-Brewer asked what would happen if the replacement dinghy was scrapped. Should they be left drowning? Mr Habib replied: “If they choose to remove that dinghy, then yes, they will have to suffer the consequences of their actions.”
It would therefore be ill-considered for a reformed Britain to advocate a policy that would actually require the navy or border forces to drown people when they could be rescued.
But if, as expected, the flights go ahead on the scale outlined by Mr Sunak, Labor will be the party most likely to show opposition to the Rwanda plan.
Not only has Keir Starmer and his team argued that the policy will not act as any deterrent, but Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, has recently said that if Labor is elected to government no matter what, It reiterated that it would cancel such flights. Rwanda.
Instead, Labor says it will find a way to bring illegal immigrants back into the European Union.
Good luck. No, if the Rwanda plan really takes off (in every sense of the word), Labor will find its friends in the EU trying to emulate Rishi Sunak’s approach.
When it comes to British voters, the vast majority won’t believe it until they actually see a plane heading to Rwanda. But the political ground is already shifting.
