LAST UPDATE | 13 Dec 2023
BRITAIN IS A country of immigrants. Not everyone likes this, or accepts that this is the case, but go back far enough and we all originate from somewhere else.
That’s what you get for being an island. Contrary to what we are taught, the sea doesn’t separate, it connects. It is easier to navigate and quicker to traverse than land, and because Britain is surrounded by it, it has been hyper-connected for millennia.
This is why Irish monks played a pivotal role in establishing Christianity in the north of England; why French Huguenots helped found the Bank of England; and why the English we speak today includes words taken from at least 300 other languages.
Ours has always been a land of many peoples, cultures, histories and opinions. We haven’t always got on with one another, but we have always, over time, come together to create something that is unique to us and which is refreshed and strengthened by each new wave of arrivals.
Despite this, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has staked his premiership on “stopping the boats”, shutting the door, pulling up the drawbridge and pushing back against the tide of British history.
This week, the Conservatives indulged in another round of intra-party parlour games as they argued over the best way to deliver an almost certainly unworkable scheme to stop migration by boat across the English Channel.
They plan to deport those who are successful to Rwanda, a country that the scheme’s proponents claim is a safe and prosperous democracy, whilst simultaneously arguing that the prospect of being sent there is so terrible it will deter anyone from ever crossing the Channel again.
The problem is that the Supreme Court found that the scheme is not compatible with UK law, or the UK’s international obligations. Why? Because the Court says Rwanda cannot be considered a safe country.
The government’s solution? Pass a UK law that declares that Rwanda is a safe country.
Putting aside the obvious peculiarity of one country passing a law to declare that another is safe (as though that will make any difference to the reality on the ground), is this really what the British public wants? Do voters, like Suella Braverman, dream of the day when a plane packed with migrants takes off for Rwanda?
No doubt some do. Immigration is a matter of concern for many voters and has been for a while. It was one of the drivers behind the vote to leave the European Union. However, it is hard to imagine that the majority of voters consider this to be the most important issue of the day.
Would voters really vote Conservative if a plane left for Rwanda? At a time when roads in Britain are riddled with potholes, schools are deteriorating, hospital waiting lists are stuck, wages are not getting any higher and the price of bread, water and heat is increasing at such a rate that we all feel poorer?
There are plenty of Conservative MPs who are convinced that they would. They seem to be blind to the cost-of-living crisis and singularly focused on “stopping the boats”, and since the tail wags the dog, this is what Rishi Sunak is prioritising as well.
It is no coincidence that many of these MPs are also the leading advocates for Brexit. Just as Nigel Farage quickly turned his mind to migrant boats crossing the Channel after the UK left the EU, the ERG (remember them) has done the same. This is partly because they believe that if the government is to “stop the boats” it will have to leave the European Convention on Human Rights. For the sovereignty absolutist, this is just the ticket.
Who is to say that Farage and his acolytes will not be successful in elevating the issue of migration to such a level as to make it the most important issue of the day? After all, they did this with Brexit. However, in this case, there is one critical difference. On Brexit, the Faragists got lucky. Cameron gave them a referendum. That was the only way they were ever going to win. When they stood at general elections, the public repeatedly told them that membership of the EU was not a matter of significant concern. It was always low on the list of voter priorities in the polls, and it is the reason Farage repeatedly failed to become an MP.
The latest YouGov polling shows that the economy and health remain far more important to voters than migration and asylum, although these do come in at number three. When taken together, this most likely shows that what the British public really wants is to live in a country that works properly – one that can process asylum claims quickly, effectively and humanely.
They want a country that can care for the vulnerable, the sick and the elderly; one that prepares its children to thrive in a future that will dominated by digital disruption; one that creates new opportunities for business and employment. This is what the public wants, not more hare-brained schemes like the Rwanda one.
A Britain that works would be a Britain that could comfortably ride upon the currents of its history, incorporating new arrivals who, like so many before them, will renew, revitalise and reinvigorate the British Union. Develop a plan to do this and Sunak, despite all evidence to the contrary, could be in with a shot. What is more likely, though, is that he will keep on trying to make Suella Braverman’s dreams come true, and the public will let him know in no uncertain terms just what they think about that.
Sydney Nash is a former civil servant and UK/EU negotiator, and a former advisor to the automotive sector on Brexit and international trade. He writes in a personal capacity.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
have your say