“One In, One Out” policy pleases no one, but will strengthen the hand of the Right says Don Flynn
The desperate drive for a quick win on the immigration policy front lies behind Starmer’s enthusiasm for a ‘one in, one out’ deal with President Macron.
The opportunity to remove up to 50 people a week during the initial pilot phase of the scheme will at least allow the British prime minister to boast of achieving more in the way of deporting asylum seekers than was achieved by his Tory predecessor. Starmer hopes that it will appease public sentiment to see something finally being done about small boat crossings.
But, as is often the case with this befuddled government, the proposal manages to come under fire from at least two directions, either of which is sufficient to damage its credibility before an already sceptical public.
From the Right, who are you kidding?
From the right, the charge is that the small number of returns, when set against actual small boat crossings – around 500-600 people a week since the good weather for Channel crossings began in mid-July – is insufficient to discourage asylum seekers from attempting the journey. Objections are also raised to the commitment to clear 50 for admission to the UK on the grounds of having connections that will facilitate their integration -this being the price exacted by the French for taking back the 50 boat crossers who went in the other direction.
It is also easy to anticipate other problems with the scheme. The people selected for return may well feel that they can challenge the decision to return them to France, and the civil courts will likely soon be choked with applications for judicial review. Those fortunate enough not to be placed in the group to be removed will meanwhile be admitted into the asylum application system, exactly where they have wanted to be all along.
… and from the Left…
Challengers from the opposite end of the political spectrum will probably agree with this range of criticisms but will add their own fundamental objection that the whole thing, in its most basic conception, continues to evade human rights obligations for people in need of refugee protection. If it is agreed that there are people currently stuck in limbo in France who are eligible for settlement in the UK on humanitarian grounds, then why do they have to wait for a group to attempt a dangerous route of entry before they can access their rights?
It is not difficult to see the many pratfalls which are strewn across the one in one out scheme, which will become evident if the scheme is ever put into practice. The news media will no doubt be invited to witness the day when the first batch of hapless individuals is paraded for their embarkation to France. They will hear the Home Secretary proclaiming it as a historic event which underscores the determination of the government to deliver on its “tough” immigration agenda. Expect this to be castigated and derided by the likes of Nigel Farage and the Tory challenger Robert Jenrick, who will make the most of the opportunity to attack the policy and argue for a total roll-back on any pretence of adherence to even minimal human rights standards.
Abject, unpopular policies, whether it is the betrayal of WASPI women, the two-child cap on welfare benefits, cancellation of winter fuel payments to pensioners, and cutbacks on levels of support provided to sick and disabled citizens, have been fuelling the rise of the right wing over the course of the last year. Public opinion polls are showing that it is the hypocrisy of this generation of Labour politicians which is provoking revulsion as much as the incompetence of the administration. As the weeks and months go by, we can be sure that they will be adding dismay over the lack of any principle underlying immigration policy to that list.