If Robert Jenrick, the now former immigration minister, really cares about stopping illegal migration, then he is a fool to quit because the ‘Rwanda Plan’ is doomed.
For a start, it’s always been obvious that it would fail; since it was introduced by then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who pretended to care about immigration but actually wished Britons would “stop moaning about the dam burst,” the ‘plan’ has brought this nation nothing but humiliation.
But more importantly, Jenrick’s resignation is foolish because even if the scheme—which is supposed to see those arriving in Britain illegally flown to Rwanda for asylum processing—was up and running, it would make next to no difference to migration figures.
To understand why, it is important to overlook the rhetoric and focus on the details. It’s damning enough that, following negotiations with British officials and the handing over of millions and millions of pounds (more on this in a moment), Rwanda said it can currently take just 200 migrants a year. Two hundred! After 45,756 migrants came to the UK in small boats in 2022, and already almost 30,000 this year, what difference will 200 deportations make? The idea that the scheme would, if operational, deter migrants from crossing the Channel in the first place is laughable since migrants would know the chance of them being booted out was extraordinarily slim. 45,756/200—or, if we’re being slightly generous, 230/1—aren’t bad odds.
Then we come to perhaps the most ludicrous aspect of the ‘plan’; that, to quote the Rwanda Treaty itself:
The Parties shall make arrangements for the United Kingdom to resettle a portion of Rwanda’s most vulnerable refugees in the United Kingdom. (Emphasis added)
We don’t know how many migrants Rwanda would send to Britain, but however low the number is, it couldn’t be much lower than 200! Former aide to Boris Johnson Dominic Cummings joked that in the end, “Rwanda will send more people to [the] UK than we send there.”
Note, too, that Britain would be set to receive Rwanda’s “most vulnerable refugees,” while the same treaty highlights that the African nation could pick and choose which of Britain’s migrants it wanted to accept, since “all transfer requests by the United Kingdom shall require approval by Rwanda prior to any relocation.”
And bear in mind that the British taxpayer has had to cough up a pretty sum just to be laughed at on the world stage for this scheme’s endless mockery of British politics. They first sent the Rwandan government £140 million (€163 million) to get the ball rolling (or not, as it turned out), and, as was revealed on Friday, have since footed the bill of a further £100 million (€116.5 million). In case this wasn’t enough, another £50 million (€58 million—so that’s £290 million, or €338 million in total) will be required next year. For what, exactly? Your guess is as good as mine.
Perhaps now you can appreciate why, upon hearing of Jenrick’s resignation—because attempts to get Rwanda working don’t go “far enough”—my palm slapped onto my forehead. You’re telling me, sir, that you can’t remain in a government which won’t override its international legal commitments to make this shoddy scheme—that will, at best, make a negligible difference—work? You can’t get more foolish than that.
In fact, what further proof does the British voter need to show them the Conservative Party’s approach to immigration—both illegal and legal, though we’ll save the latter for another day—is all about optics, not action? That the ‘Rwanda Plan,’ like countless other gimmicks that have come before it, is a distraction from the fact this party doesn’t actually care about lowering immigration at all. Rishi Sunak’s goal, as The Times (print edition, December 7th) properly put it, “is simply to allow the first flight to Rwanda to take off, even if the policy is later ruled unlawful again.” He—the leader of the Conservative Party—doesn’t care one job about lowering numbers. He does care about appearing to do so. And given that the Tories themselves don’t think flights will take off before the next election, after which point it is all but guaranteed that Labour will be in office, it is most likely that they’re simply gearing themselves up to saying, “we were just about to get a proper grip on immigration, but now Labour is undoing our work. You must vote for us again so we can finish the job.” Even after 13 failed years of the Tories in power, I fear too many will fall for this spin once again.
Jenrick must have known the ‘Rwanda Plan’ would do diddly-squat, even if it was in full flow. But he must also have known, like the rest of us know, that the Tories are almost certainly about to suffer a major electoral blow.
For all his talk about “principle,” it seems to me that Jenrick, like Suella Braverman and many other Tories before him, has simply jumped off the ship so he doesn’t have to be there when it sinks.
The British ‘Rwanda Plan’ Is a Distraction
Robert Jenrick
Fred Duval / Shutterstock.com
If Robert Jenrick, the now former immigration minister, really cares about stopping illegal migration, then he is a fool to quit because the ‘Rwanda Plan’ is doomed.
For a start, it’s always been obvious that it would fail; since it was introduced by then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who pretended to care about immigration but actually wished Britons would “stop moaning about the dam burst,” the ‘plan’ has brought this nation nothing but humiliation.
But more importantly, Jenrick’s resignation is foolish because even if the scheme—which is supposed to see those arriving in Britain illegally flown to Rwanda for asylum processing—was up and running, it would make next to no difference to migration figures.
To understand why, it is important to overlook the rhetoric and focus on the details. It’s damning enough that, following negotiations with British officials and the handing over of millions and millions of pounds (more on this in a moment), Rwanda said it can currently take just 200 migrants a year. Two hundred! After 45,756 migrants came to the UK in small boats in 2022, and already almost 30,000 this year, what difference will 200 deportations make? The idea that the scheme would, if operational, deter migrants from crossing the Channel in the first place is laughable since migrants would know the chance of them being booted out was extraordinarily slim. 45,756/200—or, if we’re being slightly generous, 230/1—aren’t bad odds.
Then we come to perhaps the most ludicrous aspect of the ‘plan’; that, to quote the Rwanda Treaty itself:
We don’t know how many migrants Rwanda would send to Britain, but however low the number is, it couldn’t be much lower than 200! Former aide to Boris Johnson Dominic Cummings joked that in the end, “Rwanda will send more people to [the] UK than we send there.”
Note, too, that Britain would be set to receive Rwanda’s “most vulnerable refugees,” while the same treaty highlights that the African nation could pick and choose which of Britain’s migrants it wanted to accept, since “all transfer requests by the United Kingdom shall require approval by Rwanda prior to any relocation.”
And bear in mind that the British taxpayer has had to cough up a pretty sum just to be laughed at on the world stage for this scheme’s endless mockery of British politics. They first sent the Rwandan government £140 million (€163 million) to get the ball rolling (or not, as it turned out), and, as was revealed on Friday, have since footed the bill of a further £100 million (€116.5 million). In case this wasn’t enough, another £50 million (€58 million—so that’s £290 million, or €338 million in total) will be required next year. For what, exactly? Your guess is as good as mine.
Perhaps now you can appreciate why, upon hearing of Jenrick’s resignation—because attempts to get Rwanda working don’t go “far enough”—my palm slapped onto my forehead. You’re telling me, sir, that you can’t remain in a government which won’t override its international legal commitments to make this shoddy scheme—that will, at best, make a negligible difference—work? You can’t get more foolish than that.
In fact, what further proof does the British voter need to show them the Conservative Party’s approach to immigration—both illegal and legal, though we’ll save the latter for another day—is all about optics, not action? That the ‘Rwanda Plan,’ like countless other gimmicks that have come before it, is a distraction from the fact this party doesn’t actually care about lowering immigration at all. Rishi Sunak’s goal, as The Times (print edition, December 7th) properly put it, “is simply to allow the first flight to Rwanda to take off, even if the policy is later ruled unlawful again.” He—the leader of the Conservative Party—doesn’t care one job about lowering numbers. He does care about appearing to do so. And given that the Tories themselves don’t think flights will take off before the next election, after which point it is all but guaranteed that Labour will be in office, it is most likely that they’re simply gearing themselves up to saying, “we were just about to get a proper grip on immigration, but now Labour is undoing our work. You must vote for us again so we can finish the job.” Even after 13 failed years of the Tories in power, I fear too many will fall for this spin once again.
Jenrick must have known the ‘Rwanda Plan’ would do diddly-squat, even if it was in full flow. But he must also have known, like the rest of us know, that the Tories are almost certainly about to suffer a major electoral blow.
For all his talk about “principle,” it seems to me that Jenrick, like Suella Braverman and many other Tories before him, has simply jumped off the ship so he doesn’t have to be there when it sinks.
READ NEXT
Guarantee of Unhappiness
Are Net Zero’s Days Numbered?
Erdogan’s Hour of Triumph