by If any reminder was needed of the importance of stopping small migrant boats crossing the English Channel, a grim one was delivered this morning when it was reported that at least five migrants, including a child, had died while making the trip.
The question is whether the Government’s plan to send some asylum seekers to Rwanda, or the Labor Party’s alternative scheme to strengthen borders and seek “deemed” agreements with safe third countries, will be more effective in deterring people from entering in the country. illegally.
The important point to note is that neither of the main parties believe – at least when it comes to their rhetoric – that the backlog of asylum applications should be shortened by allowing more applicants to enter the country. The competition is on between the Conservatives and Labor to find a solution that will stop the boats and reduce the number of people who come here without authorization. That will certainly disappoint those on the Left who believe in open borders and that anyone willing to risk their life (and family) on a dangerous boat trip should be welcomed as a new citizen.
Labour’s proposed solution, as described by shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, is a stronger version of the solution frontbench MPs have been pushing for over the past few years – a combination of “more international collaboration”, claims that hotel. stop housing asylum seekers (but what?) and invest more in border security and intelligence to break up the trafficking networks.
But mainly, most of Labour’s efforts have been put into place to oppose the Rwandan scheme. It’s too expensive, says Cooper (correct) and more home secretaries than illegal migrants have been sent to Kigali in the last two years (also correct, and quite a funny observation). But – and forgive me if this is too obvious a point to make – isn’t the reason why the scheme could not be enacted because the enabling law was not there, until last night? And isn’t Labor the main obstacle to that legislation getting on the statute book?
Cooper argues that the Rwandan scheme is not “a serious plan for the government”, but “an exhausting election press release.”
Well, maybe. But there is more than a whiff of electoralism in Cooper’s words too. And why not? This is an election year after all. But it seems disingenuous to consistently vote against allowing ministers legal powers to enact the Rwanda scheme, while complaining that ministers have yet to send anyone to Rwanda.
If Labor were so determined that the scheme has no chance of working – and its aim is not to send planeloads of applicants to Kigali, but to convince those considering crossing the English Channel that it is not worth it the effort – then a more efficient and effective measure. perhaps the self-confident approach was to refrain from legislation and give the Government enough rope to hang itself. If the planes were successful, if all that money was spent, and the boats were still coming, Labor would be able – and with full justification – to say they were right.
The scheme would have failed. Public money would have been wasted and a lot of human misery caused unnecessarily because the arrogant ministers refused to heed the warning of the Opposition.
Instead, we have an argument based so far on hypothetical policies and impacts. We have no idea if the boats will stop or their numbers will be greatly reduced under the Rwandan scheme as it has not been tried yet, but many home secretaries have made the trip to Kigali.
Furthermore, Labor has allowed itself to fall into the Conservative trap. By repeatedly announcing their intention, once in government, to end the scheme, whether successful or not, the Government can plausibly claim that any failure of the number of -reduce crossing attempts due to immigrants knowing that the scheme will not last. over a general election expected later this year. They may think they can delay, through the usual legal channels, their departure for Rwanda knowing for certain that when Yvette Cooper takes over from James Cleverly, all prospects of to move to Africa.
Before the 1997 general election, Michael Heseltine sought a clear declaration from the Labor Party that he would continue to support the construction of the then Millennium Dome in east London. Those assurances were duly given; if not, the scheme would have been effectively canceled by the opposition party. We face a similar situation today. The Rwandan scheme may fail, although no one can be 100 percent certain either way. But even if he does, the Conservatives will, with some justification, be able to place at least some of the blame on Labor for fatally defeating the purpose of the scheme every time a shadow minister is invited to comment. on him.
Polls suggest that the public is less convinced of the likelihood of the Rwandan scheme succeeding than the Labor Party. But the opposition should be wary of accepting that their own visceral opposition will be fully reflected back by voters, especially if, against all odds, it begins to have an impact on the Sea crossings A valley where ministers are praying.
