Can you briefly outline what is going on around the flights to Rwanda?
“Three months ago it was reported that the British Home Office had reached an agreement with Rwanda to send people who enter the country alone or illegally pending their asylum procedure. This mainly concerns migrants who cross the Channel in boats and who are estimated to have little chance of asylum, for example because they come from countries that are considered safe enough to return to.
“That policy is controversial. Human rights groups consider it immoral to outsource migrant issues to other countries, and there are concerns about the situation in Rwanda. For example, the views differ about the extent to which it is a democracy.’
On Tuesday, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) prevented the first flight of migrants to Rwanda. Johnson’s government is now threatening to withdraw from the European human rights treaty. What would the consequences be?
‘The British government has had problems with rulings by the Court in Strasbourg for years, especially in the field of migration and the expulsion of terrorists. The previous Prime Minister, Theresa May, also spoke about leaving the Court. That discussion has flared up again. British judges had ruled that the planes were allowed to take off, and then the European Court decided late Tuesday evening that it is not allowed: that has caused a lot of anger.’
Britain could withdraw from the human rights treaty, but that would be a big step. The Court is not part of the EU, and it has only happened twice before that a country withdrew from the treaty. Greece did this under the colonel’s regime in the late 1960s, and Russia did this under Putin. That’s not a great list to get into. What would make it extra spicy is that the British themselves were co-founders of the ECHR after the Second World War. It seems more likely to me that they will not withdraw from the treaty, but a bill of rights with which they can disregard the Court’s rulings.’
‘A major problem is that it was agreed in the Brexit agreement that the United Kingdom would remain a member of the ECHR. If they leave or pass a law to ignore the rulings, there is a chance that the EU will impose sanctions. And that while things also go wrong in the Irish Sea. On Monday, the British said they want to get rid of part of the protocol on checking goods, after which the EU has threatened sanctions. A day later they talk about leaving the ECHR. So this is quite a tough week for the relationship between the EU and the United Kingdom. And it’s only Wednesday.’
Why is it so important for the Johnson administration to keep asylum seekers waiting in Rwanda? Apart from ethical objections, it seems a costly operation to send them to Rwanda each time.
‘The number of migrants crossing the Channel in boats has increased enormously over the past five years. The Conservative government thinks that’s a drama. The idea is that there is a deterrent effect, that migrants no longer want to pay hundreds of euros to people smugglers if they risk being taken to Rwanda. Whether this also works remains to be seen: on Tuesday another three hundred people arrived by boat.
Johnson’s position has been weakened in recent months by partygate and other issues. He is accused of being a weak prime minister, so a dossier where he can show that he is a tough guy would suit him. The government is therefore determined to continue organizing flights.
The fact that the European Court has blocked the flight is not entirely unfavorable for Johnson. He can now easily blame the whole debacle on the Court. It’s like: we’ve done everything we can, now those European busybodies are bothering again. I don’t expect this to be such a big disaster for its popularity.’
How popular is this harsh migrant policy among the British?
Polls show a small majority in favour, but there is a clear split in the country. That split runs entirely along party preferences: people who vote for the Conservative Party are often in favour, people who vote Labour, Liberal Democrat or Scottish Nationalist are often against. A polarizing subject. That fits in these times.’