Government’s dealing with refugees hopeless in practice and dangerous in principle

FOR weeks, the newspapers have been full of stories about refugees crossing the English Channel in small boats. Most reports have condemned the refugees and the criminals who prey on them, not the government’s failure over many years to deal with the matter.

For example, weren’t the French were going to be paid to keep refugees away from the beaches on their side?

Weren’t there going to be joint patrols with British bobbies joining the French police.

Weren’t the Royal Navy going to turn the boats back halfway across?

The French government have in fact offered to open a processing centre on their side of the Channel.

But that might mean that legal refugees get through.

The Government prefers them all to be ‘illegal’ and open to being expelled.

In fact, the number thrown out is tiny because the UK’s hopeless decision-making system has only managed to examine a tiny minority of cases.

And of those, most are found to be genuine refugees.

For now, I won’t go into the detail of why people don’t just stop in Greece, Italy, Germany, Belgium, or France.

But international law does not compel people to stay in the first safe country they reach.

And it’s mostly to do with joining family here, with ties through the Commonwealth or the former British Empire and with the shared English language.

The obvious question though is, why are people risking their lives in small boats on one of the busiest sea lanes in the world? The answer is also obvious. All safe legal routes to apply for sanctuary in Britain have been closed.

The Government’s latest attempt is the Illegal Migration Bill passed by the House of Commons last week.

This allows deportation of all refugees who arrive ‘illegally.’

But of course, there are no legal routes - other than for special cases such as for people from Hong Kong or Ukraine.

The Bill also says on the very first page that it cannot guarantee that it does not break international law.

This is clearly a very dangerous step for a government which claims to uphold the rule of law.

And as for the opposition, Sir Keir Starmer was asked directly on Today Radio 4 (2/5/23 8.21 am) if the UK should now set up safe routes for people to escape from Sudan.

He answered, “I think that is an international discussion which needs to start sooner rather than later…”

I know that he is concentrating on the local elections in England.

But this is also a moral failure on his part.

***************************

You may remember the test emergency message sent to mobile phones two Sundays ago. The English message said, “keep yourselves and others safe.” The Welsh said, “cadw chi ac eraill yn vogel”. That means ‘keep yourselves and others vogel.’

The word ‘vogel’ is meaningless in Welsh (other than being the name of a Slovenian ski resort!)

The new Deputy Prime Minister dismissed this as just a spelling mistake.

To many people though it was more like a careless ticking of a box just to keep the restless natives quiet.

Or as government supporting newspapers might put it, ‘woke nonsense.’

Except this time the boot was on the other foot.

*****************************

Then again, we are being offered the chance to take the Coronation Oath in Welsh. I have not seen the Welsh text of the oath.

I hope that it is clear and correct so that people know exactly what they are swearing to do.

But the Government’s record is not reassuring.

The official Home Office text for the Pledge of Allegiance for new British Citizens starts with “I swear to almighty God that I will etc.”

In Welsh it is, “Byddaf i, (enw), yn rhegi i Dduw Omnipotent y byddaf yn ...” *

As most Herald readers will know, the term for swearing an oath in Welsh is, ‘tyngu llw.’

However, for the United Kingdom’s Home Office “swear” in Welsh is “rhegi”.

For those of us who do not speak Welsh, ‘rhegi’ means cursing, or more commonly, effing and blinding.

So new UK citizens who choose the Welsh version are expected to say ‘I (name) will curse Almighty God etc”!

Just another straightforward mistake then?

Well, if the British State in all its pomp and majesty cannot get this simple thing right, it is reasonable for us to doubt its sincerity.

*Thanks to Doctor Cymraeg on Twitter for this.