TWO deals with foreign countries were made to stop boats of migrants coming to our shores. But which was best? We compare and contrast the two.
Proximity
France: Just across the channel and where the boats are coming from, so physically in good position to affect them
Rwanda: 4,376 miles away and landlocked
Governance
France: Western democracy with strong history of keeping deals made with the UK, key ally in two World Wars
Rwanda: Corrupt one-party state with record of taking money from Western governments, not providing the promised service and keeping it regardless
Deterrent
France: A nation of lovers, gourmets, and artists that only occasionally indulges in police brutality against non-white residents. Maybe 15 major incidents a year, maximum
Rwanda: Scary to migrants entirely ignorant of Rwanda despite being from the same continent, who know of it only from the terrifying sponsorship on Arsenal’s sleeves
Cost
France: Not yet revealed but it will be too much
Rwanda: £700 million for four migrants, or £175m per migrant
Proposed by
France: A traitor who doesn’t love Brexit in cahoots with an EU technocrat
Rwanda: A prime minister with vision, sagacity and a statutory fine for breaking lockdown rules received the previous day which he was desperate to distract from
Chance of success
France: If allowed by the EU and expanded beyond a pilot scheme could vastly reduce the numbers of migrants coming illegally to the UK
Rwanda: None but that wasn’t the point. It provided a valuable fixed point of xenophobic cruelty for lefties to abhor and the right wing to rally around, which is more important
Chance of being reported as a success
France: Zero. The media is already furious that the boats weren’t stopped by a press conference about it and are committed to four years of stories about Reform’s momentum
Rwanda: An absolute and total success abandoned only because of whiners and traitors, like the poll tax. This was our finest hour
0 Comments