Boris Johnson’s megaphone diplomacy doesn’t help the migration problem

Suddenly, there seemed grounds for alarm and despondency. Boris Johnson was making a speech with no jokes and a serious tone. For once, he sounded prime ministerial. He even looked prime ministerial… sort of. So was the second coming at hand? Not quite. There were two cases of a new Covid variant. Since then, the number has increased.

On the face of it, that is no reason for Boris to alter his sartorial habits or for the rest of us to panic. Then again, if the numbers do increase rapidly, flippancy would quickly jar. Even if it does turn out that the authorities have been unnecessarily alarmist, there is an argument for basing policy on a worst-case assessment. Were I a minister, I would rather be apologising in three weeks’ time for being unnecessarily restrictive than for standing idly by as the figures roared out of control.

It would help if there were a calm public debate about the strategies for coping with Covid, plus future Covids. It does seem likely that the disease will be with us indefinitely. Many of us will catch it. Some will die of it. But we will all have to learn to live with it.

That ought to be easier than it sounds, because the crisis has concentrated scientific minds, as crises often do. Inter alia, the last war brought us the jet engine, the ballistic missile and the atomic bomb. But it also accelerated the development of the computer and the use of penicillin.

During the battle against Covid, there has been a lot of work on epidemiology and inoculation strategies. New techniques have been rushed into service. Lessons have been learned, though more could have been done.

It seems likely that this outbreak started with a leak from a laboratory in Wuhan. If that were not the case, the Chinese would surely have exculpated themselves long before now. As it is, their blend of bluster and prevarication is close to an admission of guilt. No-one is suggesting that the leak was deliberate. We can all understand that an autocrat does not want to lose face. But if the Chinese would cooperate, they could help to prevent or at least mitigate future pandemics as well as trying to ensure that terrorists could not wage biological warfare. It would also be useful if the World Health Organisation were able to assert itself instead of sounding like a female tennis player trying to explain her absence from public view.

Yet we will also have to take a rational approach to risk. From birth onwards, life is a risky business; consider road traffic. Although we cannot all turn into actuaries, there has to be a sense of balance and an assessment of priorities.

That also applies in the English Channel. Sometimes, anecdotes and photographs can leap out of the statistics and move straight to the tear-ducts. A few days ago, a ten-year old Afghan girl refugee was asked what she would like to do when she grew up. The expectation was that she would reply as a little English girl might: to be a vet, a ballerina or some such. Instead, the Afghan child said: “To see my mother again.” Heart-rending.

In the last few days, there have been photographs of pretty children with lustrous, frightened eyes who look as if they need a hug and a hot meal. For once, an over-used word is appropriate. It is tragic.

But tragedies are so named for a good reason. They do not usually offer solutions – certainly not easy ones. In the case of the Channel refugees, we cannot take counsel from plucked heart-strings. The world is full of people who would love to live in Britain: who are prepared to spend all their savings and hazard their lives to do so. Most of them are admirable. Even so, even while saluting their bravery, we have to harden our hearts, otherwise these islands would be swamped.

Moreover, if we were to declare that no illegal immigrant would be allowed to settle in this country, we would not be in breach of any convention. The asylum rules are clear. Anyone seeking asylum must do so in the first safe country he reaches. So no refugee coming from France to England is entitled to claim asylum here.

That said, some of our judges might attempt to wriggle their way around the asylum rules’ clarity. It has proved hard to deport failed asylum seekers, even when they have been convicted of crimes. 

There are two ways to deal with this. The first is to derogate from the European Convention on Human Rights, a constant asset to wriggling judges. The second, to pass legislation making it clear to the most human-rights minded judge that no illegal immigrants are to be admitted.

There would still be the problem of removing those who do slip across the Channel. Although It would be tempting just to dump them back on the French coast, that would have consequences. There is indeed a case for trying to cooperate with the French and other EU nations. Refugees are a Europe-wide problem and Boris Johnson’s megaphone diplomacy is not always helpful.

No doubt there are those who would insist that a humanitarian emergency demands a humane response, and that this country is rich enough to absorb a large number of refugees. To that, there are three responses. First, what is a large number? If it became clear that the UK was ready to receive virtually anyone who could claim to be seeking asylum, the Channel would become a thoroughfare. That leads on to the second point. The people-traffickers would double and redouble their efforts, and quite a few of their clients would perish on the way: nothing humane about that.

Finally, the primary responsibility of any government is to protect its own citizens. This means taking back control of its own borders. This does not mean that we British are a heartless race. Over the centuries, we have made great efforts to help other peoples who were in need and we still do. But security begins at home.

For those who find this too hard-hearted, there is a simple solution. “Go and sell all thou hast, and give to the poor.”  Individuals are entitled to do that. Governments have a higher duty: to safeguard their own people in a fallen world.