Lord Hannan of Kingsclere was a Conservative MEP from 1999 to 2020, and is now President of the Institute for Free Trade.
In the end, it felt oddly flat. Tired peers shuffled into the chamber at 11.45pm on Monday night to witness the final passage of the Rwanda Bill. Proceedings were briefly delayed by a tirade from the Green Party’s Baroness Bennett. Then it was over.
Politically, it should have been an unequivocal victory for the Conservatives. Here, after all, was real-time proof of what they believe, namely that they are battling against a legal and political establishment that has no interest in securing our borders.
For months, ministers’ attempts to crack down on illegal immigration – the Rwanda scheme was only the most high-profile instance – have been frustrated by a coalition of lawyers, civil servants, foreign courts, Liberal Democrats, bishops and assorted grandees. But chief opposition came from Labour, without whose numbers the Rwanda legislation would have sailed through.
Optically, then, it should have been a good night for the Tories. They had pushed through a popular Bill against a Labour Party that says it will scrap the scheme on taking office, even if it is visibly having an effect and other European countries are rushing to copy it.
Yet that is not how the country perceives things. Instead of a Government bravely advancing a popular agenda against bien pensant elites, people see dither, delay and excuses. After 14 years in office, the Conservatives struggle to present themselves as insurgents. Most voters think of them as part of the “They” who stop things happening, as in “They secretly want mass immigration”.
Labour knows it is up against a government that has exhausted the benefit of the doubt. Its parliamentarians are thus in the happy position of being able to sabotage, knowing that the ensuing delay will be blamed largely on the Government.
On the two final amendments, the Government had a strong case. Everyone wants to welcome Afghans who served alongside our Armed Forces. But given that they have a legal route in, what are the odds of such people pitching up in Calais? There will, however, be many illegal immigrants who claim to have been Afghan interpreters in order to slow their deportation.
Home Office officials tell you, off the record, that this claim is the opening gambit of migrants too old to pass themselves off as minors. When an interpreter is eventually found, 90 seconds is usually enough to show that, not only is the claimant not a veteran but, more often than not, he is not an Afghan.
As for the amendment calling for a continuous monitoring of Rwanda’s safety, opponents of the scheme would jump on it to make the entire project unfeasible.
But, in the current atmosphere, few listen to these arguments. To the extent that anyone hears them, they come across, not as anti-Tory tactical manoeuvres, but as special pleading from “Them”.
Is there anything the Tories can do, or have they passed the point where people have stopped paying attention? My sense is that it will come down to whether the scheme actually works. In other words, whether significant numbers of false claimants are marched onto the runway at Kigali, and whether this sight has a deterrent effect in the camps in Calais.
There are two views on what happens next. Rishi Sunak is confident: “No ifs, no buts, these flights are going to Rwanda.” Nigel Farage is sceptical: “I promise you this, not a single person is going to Rwanda”.
The public leans heavily to Farage’s view. Although opinion polls show varying levels of support for the scheme, on one thing there is near-unanimity. Voters have never believed that the deportations will actually happen; “They” will never allow it.
But suppose, for a moment, that Sunak turns out to be right. After all, logistics are his strong suit, and he has had time to prepare. The caseworkers are standing by, the courtrooms are ready, the charter flights have been booked. What if, for the sake of argument, illicit entrants are removed in their hundreds, starting in early July?
Might that not cause at least some voters to say, in effect: “Blimey, I never thought Rishi had it in him, maybe I should look at what else he is doing”?
I have written previously for ConHome before about why I back the Bill, not from any great enthusiasm, but for lack of any workable alternative.
I recognise that there are arguments against it. The cost per removal is high (though the whole scheme is less than five days of EU membership fees). But, please, spare us the high moral tone. We are talking, by definition, about people who have made a decision to leave France.
Now I can think of all sorts of reasons to leave our old frenemy. The restaurants are closed on Sundays and Mondays. The wine lists are ultra-local, which is fine if you happen to be in Burgundy, but is rather a bore when you’re in Provence. But does anyone really think the French engage in systematic persecution?
If the Rwanda scheme succeeds, it will be a personal vindication for Sunak. But it will also show that Parliament works.
If, by contrast, it is once more frustrated by the courts, domestic or international, the Tories will get the blame. Though frankly, given what such a ruling would say about the failure of our democracy, that might be the least of our worries.
The post Daniel Hannan: Labour did its level best to scupper the Rwanda Bill, knowing the Tories would be blamed appeared first on Conservative Home.
Click this link for the original source of this article.
Author: Daniel Hannan
This content is courtesy of, and owned and copyrighted by, http://www.conservativehome.com and its author. This content is made available by use of the public RSS feed offered by the host site and is used for educational purposes only. If you are the author or represent the host site and would like this content removed now and in the future, please contact USSANews.com using the email address in the Contact page found in the website menu.