‘John Major condemned the Rwanda plan as ‘un-British’, but there is nothing un-British about deterrence’

John Major has now joined the ranks of those slamming the Rwanda plan, which he has condemned as ‘un-British’.

I continue to hold that future historians will judge his premiership very differently from current commentators and that he has been grossly underestimated as a prime minister. I like the man, but just as he is hopelessly wrong about Brexit, he is also wrong about Rwanda.

I have always had serious doubts that it would get off the ground and only a fool would not foresee the devastation that left-wing lawyers and an over-willingness to submit to the ECtHR would wreak.

Of course, we need to put that last bit behind us and shake the dust off our feet, but even as members we can always say that we regard the court’s judgment as advisory and not binding. That’s what many other countries do and what Sunak should have done from the start.

But then we would still have the problem of our own courts, which is why I have always maintained that the plan was going nowhere.

That doesn’t mean it was wrong or that it somehow offended British values. It was just difficult to implement. So is it un-British to send illegal immigrants to Albania, as Italy is planning and which Starmer seems to find acceptable?

Would John argue that Albania must be very civilised since it has applied to join the EU, while Rwanda is only a member of the Commonwealth?

What exactly is British about people dying in the Channel? How can it be un-British to want to stop the trade and what better way to do that than to stop people from making the journey in the first place?

What exactly is British about allowing the population to grow by the size of a city every year? What is British about allowing longer queues for housing and the NHS for Britons?

What is British about spending British taxpayers’ hard-earned money on hotels for illegal immigrants, at a rate of £6 million a day?

There is nothing un-British about the concept of deterrence, but it must be effective. The Rwandan plan was not.

Deterrence involves turning the boats around and, if a few do get through, immediately arresting the occupants.

Deterrence involves saying that no one who arrives in this way will ever be granted asylum. Reform UK seems to be the only one to recognise this and to develop policy accordingly.

LATEST MEMBERS’ OPINION:

Offshore processing is now rapidly gaining popularity in EU countries hardest hit by waves of illegal immigration. Ironically, Germany is said to have been looking at the facilities we paid for in Rwanda.

If John admires the EU so much, why does he find it so wrong that Britain wants the same? Starmer of course had no plan at all, other than to drop the admittedly precarious deterrent of Rwanda, so the boats are arriving daily and they will continue to do so.

Hotels will eventually run out of space and tensions will inevitably rise. Promising to crush the gangs is a utopia. You might as well promise to eliminate the mafia or the drug trade. Our prime minister makes King Canute look smart.

John Major, who condemned the Rwanda plan as un-British, offered no other solution either. In short, he and Starmer are simply surrendering to the current influx and what, I pray you, is British about surrender?